To many Does? You make the call!

[SADDADDY]

Die-off? Interesting. When was the last die-off from starvation of deer in the Southeast?

The Red Top herd had well exceeded the capacity of the land for over a decade. They didn't die-off. I would just be extremely cautious of tossing that out there as justification in the SE.

not to burst you DNR bubble
I’ve seen it happen more times than you will know through the years, I worked a 10,000 ac ranch down in Southern Osceola County, for years and have seen the deer population busting out of the seams, to almost non-existent numbers, we would find countless deer dead or near death in very poor health on our daily rounds, and mind you this ranch was not hunted but was turned in to a nature preserve and it was not uncommon to see over a 100 deer a day on different parts of the ranch.
This was not just limited to the deer, same for the hog and turkey population dwindled down to extremely low numbers in a matter of years, I am not talking about a mass die-off in a year or two time frame, this was slow and took anywhere from 8-10years to really notice the decline in the numbers.
Year end and year out we would see fewer and fewer animals, and less sign of any deer activity, fewer fawns / yearlings and mature bucks were few and far between. Now the deer, turkeys and hogs are making a good come back, from what I have been told.

I can’t say for sure if the food source is the main cause of the decline or disease, all I know is that it does happen, but not as some think what a die-off is, it takes time and over a few years the change is noticeable. As far as Red-top goes I have no clue (never been there or even know where it is) but I watched a program with the same situation as you have with red-top, that was in a town in Texas, the local DNR trapped out countless deer, and all the deer were so skinny and poor looking, a trapper picked up one adult deer with one hand and thru it over his shoulder to carry it to the trailer, but they were having the same problem with over population and not enough food, and they were finding dead rotting deer all over the place…

So I pose this question again, where or what happens to deer when their habitat is gone, or squeezed out by over development? Do they simply disappear into thin air or magically fly away to another patch of woods? Or does mother nature slow down the breeding process to keep the herd in check??

I seen good deer herds go from good to fair to poor to none where I live, once where I hunted as a boy through my teens into my early 20’s is now apartments, subdivisions, shopping mall, interstate, and trust me those deer had know where to go…

We could even through the human factor into this, look at Ethiopia back in the 80’s I don’t think they got healthy from eating dirt, they have a massive die-off from lack of food, and medicine but it wasn’t over night their pain lasted for decades.

I also seen the hay days of hunting in South Carolina and Georgia and yes the numbers are not as what they use to be, but just bee thankful your seeing any deer at all, cause with urban sprawl and over development those deer’s days are numbered, and there is no turning back….

 

[JBowers]

Good post Phillip!

Each one wants to shoot 2 bucks and a few does.

wants! We must understand that what we want may not be realistic or sustainable. What we need is to decide on a goal, recognize the limitations the habitat, soil, etc. place at on that goal, revise it if necessary, set a strategy to obtain that goal, and then wisely exercise the flexibility allowed by the law to achieve that goal.

We must also understand and recognize that indiviuals wants may not be in the best interest of overall deer health, other wildlife, or our ecological responsibility. Like Phillip said, there is a much bigger picture!

 

[JBowers]

I can’t say for sure if the food source is the main cause of the decline ...

I specifically conditioned my question on starvation. You answered it in your own words. No bubble to burst!

Let me define what I mean when I use "die-off" - complete eradication.

I have seen reductions from disease and am aware of numerous documented, localized reductions from disease annually.

First off, as deer approach that "limit", their production capabilities decrease resulting in less additions. Subsequently their health declines. Then a diverse array of mortality factors work to reduce the numbers (usually not fast enough). Meanwhile the habitat has been permanently damage and continues to be damaged as this process works becuase the remaining deer are still scavenging and eating everything in sight including cast leaves and forest debris (the future "carrying capacity" can be permanently (thinking one the scale of a human lifetime) reduced). Once the herd reaches the capacity of the habitat to once again support deer production then they start to increase and the cycle repeats. Each repitition results in further habitat damage and further reduction in carrying capacity. In order, to restore the habitat expeditously the entire deer herd would have to be removed by man because mother nature will not do it (on the scale of a human lifetime). The whole time this cycle is functioning every other species of wildlife needing that habitat is being impacted in the same manner. Not too mention forest regeneration.

Anyone ever assess the abundance or rarity of those plant species at the top of the deer preference list when scouting around properties. If you don't see them in abundance then that should provoke some deep thinking! Or what about honeysuckle only being visible in trees and shrubs above 3 feet?

The bigger picture is that of herd health and is a documented, recognized concern of the public that doesn't hunt. Set management goals for the deer, not yourself is my point.

 

[JBowers]

I also seen the hay days of hunting in South Carolina and Georgia and yes the numbers are not as what they use to be, but just bee thankful your seeing any deer at all, cause with urban sprawl and over development those deer’s days are numbered, and there is no turning back….

Maybe in those hay days of deer everywhere, the deer over most parts of the state exceeded the habitat capacity for several years and this inflicted permanent, ongoing habitat damage played a role in big deer not being as big as they used too!

 

[Junebug]

JB - I'm REALLY trying to understand you position.

You're saying that hunters must now make a decision to balance our "wants" with realistic and sustainable wildlife/ecological objectives. Because of changes like demographics, public perception, land use, and economics, those limitations may be much different than what we saw 30, 15, or even 5 years ago.

Serious question - Assuming this is the case, is this possibly one of the reasons why hunting is so rapidly losing popularity? A whole generation of hunters has learned to make an investment (lease/lisence dollars, time scouting, time in the stand, habitat improvement, etc) and expect a decent return...deer sightings and harvests.

What if over the years the exact same investments yielded fewer and fewer returns? Unless we adjusted what we felt was a "fair return" our perception of value changes. Is it possible to convince future hunters that reasonable "fair returns" should be 3 to 5 sightings per year and overall balanced ecological/habitat health? With the expense of outdoor pursuits continually on the rise...this may be a tough sell.

Junebug

 

[Son]

food for thought

Hunting video's on tv give many hunters the wrong impression of what hunting is about and how it's done. You can bet none of those video's could be made on the average Georgia private lease of 1500 acres or less. Hunters must realize those video's are made in select places where deer numbers are hunting friendly. Not to mention, the tv video's are aimed at selling products, many of which attract the hunter, not necessarily the game. I couldn't imagine being successful on my lease if a cameraman and guide accompanied me on each hunt. Triple the scent, noise and imagine how three guys look up a tree. It's rumored that insurance companies are pushing for deer number reduction, and that liberal harvest has taken a gradual three year toll. Our numbers are definitely down and I havn't seen evidence of a die off.

 

[Timberman]

Anyone ever assess the abundance or rarity of those plant species at the top of the deer preference list when scouting around properties. If you don't see them in abundance then that should provoke some deep thinking! Or what about honeysuckle only being visible in trees and shrubs above 3 feet?

I do. It is a much more reliable indicator of deer densities than simple sightings, which often are biased by hunter skill, weather etc. Bet many don't even know what the preferred species are.

I don't buy the doe day deal either. Over here in SC in the upstate the limit is 15, no more than 5 bucks. So 15 does if you want. In the low country, there is no buck limit and two doe/day. Effectively no limit. Been that way for years. I know many efficient hunters who shoot many deer each year, yet there are still lots of deer. :

I think folks got spoiled when there were way too many deer, the habitat was damaged during that time, and now that densities are getting more in line with the CC, which in some areas has been effectively lowered, they think all the deer are gone. Simply my opinion.