HuntingNet.com Forums

Its ok Jim, we both got a little fired up, thats all.:)
Hot topics will do that to a guy.

You know, for the most part I agree with everything you're saying. The states dont take into consideration the private land owners efforts to improve habitat. There is no doubt that your land can support more than two deer.

However, they have to base their figures on what they know. What they know is that the forests are severely depleted. Most public land areas probably are as low as 15 deer per sq mile of timber.

Ive always thought that they should try to go by each wildlife management area. As in, each piece of public hunting ground. Not so much by Units, or Zones. Each woodlot is different, and requires a different management plan. If they could send the biologists out to each WMA once every three years, they could get a better idea of what really needs to be done, specifically for THOSE woods. They could even offer to send biologists out to study the larger tracts of privately owned hunting lands. Offering suggestions on what needs to be done to better manage the herd.

Also, I dont believe we should be depleting our deer numbers as far as some states or areas do. Rather, we should improve the habitat to increase the carrying capacities.

Of course you still have to take into consideration the socially acceptable limit of deer. I mean we could easily improve the habitat beyond what the public could stand. Deer/vehicle collisions, and lawn and shrubbery loss would reach unacceptable levels.

Conversely, if we improve the habitat to sustain more deer, less deer will need to seek forage in yards, possibly counter-acting the said rise in deer/human conflicts. Thus allowing hunters the opportunity to see more game in the actual woods, and not in peoples yards. Keeping the numbers in check, at a reasonable level, would also show an improvement in the health and size of the deer.

The only problem with all these ideas is, it takes money, lots of it. Biologists wont visit all the hunting lands for free, and it would be time consuming. Along with planting crops, and other forms of habitat restoration, the cost would not be low.

But I would be willing to take a raise in hunting license costs, if they could provide hunters with more suitable habitat to hunt. Deer and other wildlife would thrive, and hunting would be much more enjoyable for ALL.

When it comes down to the nitty gritty, sure I want to shoot BIG bucks, but I also want to see deer. Im not willing to lower deer numbers to the point I sit most days hoping to see a deer. I think raising the amount of deer that the land can support, and then keeping it at, or just below that amount is the better choice.

I believe this habitat improvement would have more effect than AR or earn-a-buck ever could. Giving hunters the opportunity at more and healthier deer will most likely change their attitudes for the better, regarding doe harvests and passing younger bucks anyway.

Hopefully someday, we can work with our state divisions of wildlife and bring about these positive changes.

Have a good one---Matt:)