Rather than quality deer management
 

I'd like to see QUANTITY deer management. I could really care less about antlers or bagging a buck that scores a lot of B&C points. I just want venison in my freezer. I'd be just as happy to shoot a smallish doe (if it were legal) as I would a 200+ lb 14 point monster.

Does anyone else have a similar mentality, or am I alone in my meat hunting ways?

Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no problem with people who are after a nice rack. I would just prefer a high chance of getting any deer to a slight chance of getting a trophy deer.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

The 2 things are not mutually exclusive. MANY areas have lots of deer,as well asgood numbers of big bucks. The biggeest factor in determining the quantity of deer is habitat. Lots of deer need lots of food. Not all places can support that.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

We have plenty of carrying capacity left in Vermont. Of course the winters are probably a huge limiting factor.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

I understand what you mean. And QTY vs Quality is a personal choice.

But I don't know any deer hunter just as happy to shoot a smal doe as they would a 14 point buck ;)

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

Actually, the best tasting venison I've ever had was from a very small doe taken during bow season. It was like free range veal.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

I agree 100% that a small doe eats better than an old buck any day. I have taken my share of "vealison". I still would rather shoot a big buck, or better yet, one each. LOL

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

Then you don't have a huge carrying capacity.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

Unfortunatly, that is the case. VT managed its deer herd for quantity for decades and it did not work out well in the long run.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

Then why is it that places like Minnesota and the northern penisula of Michigan also have tough winters, but much better deer herds?

Apparently, it wasn't always this way in Vermont. My father, and most other old timers, tell me stories of seeing up to 20 deer in a day of hunting. I usually see a doe or two every other season. What happened to result in such a downward spiral?

I know Vermont will never have the seemingly limitless amount of deer that places like PA and TX seem to have, but we can certainly accomodate a lot more deer than we have now.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

I eat large amounts of deer meat, practicly live on the stuff so quantity is important to me. With that said I still try to shoot big bucks, I let most of the small bucks walk and shoot a lot of does. I usually take5+ does a year and 1 or 2 bucks. Living in MD we have plenty of quantity, quality you have to work for a little bit.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

QDM can provide both quality AND quantity if the habitat is suitable.

Pass the small bucks to let em grow up and shoot plenty of does

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

I would shoot does if it was legal here. The only time you can take them in Vermont is during bow season or during ML season if you're lucky enough to win an antlerless tag.

If it were legal to shoot does here, I would have a good half dozen deer under my belt instead of zero.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

My father hunted VT too during the "golden years" late 50's, and the 60's. He watched the hunting crash in the 1970's. First off,you have tounderstand that the habitat in VT was different back then. Many sheep and dairy farms had closed and their clearings started to grow into slash and sapling which offer prime deer habitat, and lots of winter browse to carry them through the winter. This allowed for better carrying capacity.This bagain in the 1940's and peaked about the mid 60's. The problem was, the deer (doe)populationswhere way too high, and the habitat started to decline rapidly. The late 60's had a huge herd die off, at least in my dads areas. Plus many of the remaining winterhabitat was decimated that did not allow for a hefty rebound in numbers, and the hunting declined. Now allot of that habitat has grown up substationally to mature forests. The same cover that could hold 25-30 deer per sq mile in 1960, may only be able to hold 4-5 deer PSM now. Its a completely different ballgame.

Deer can survive hefty winters if a quality food source is there. VT's mature forest these days cannot hold those numbers anymore. Places with cold winters like MN or even Saskatchewan can maintain high densities because the habitat is there to sustain it.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

Thats a bummer!! I dont know much (anything) about Vermonts deer herd, but am amazed that any state agency is trying to practice QDM without killing some does!!!

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

Most VT hunters demanded a reduction in doe permits mostlydue to a long tradition of buck only hunting.In many zones, (not all)I would agree that a reduction was required. VT's doe populations are fairly low. So its not a situation where there are tons of does and low quality bucks like PA a few years ago.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

I honestly thing that Vermont is still allowing each hunter to take too many deer in a calendar year. Currently, the limit is two deer across all seasons. This is the first year that the limit hasn't been 3 per year. I fel that's simply too many for our population. I would like to see the law allow one deer of either sex to be taken during a year. Whether you choose to take that deer in bow, rifle, or ML season is your choice.

I'm not certain, but I think that Maine is a one deer a year state, and I've heard them touted as having the best deer hunting in northern New England.

I'm not trying to complain too much, but I've been skunked every year since I was 11. Granted, part of that is due to the fact that I'm not that good a hunter, but in 13 deer seasons, I figured at some point I'd be bound to get one at least by accident. Who knows, maybe even if the state was overflowing with deer, I'd still walk away empty handed. In any case, the armed hikes that are my deer hunts are still more fun than sitting in front of the TV all weekend.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

To make you feel better...Its been 15 seasons for me since taking my last deer in MA. I did pass ona few does, but many times was W/O permit. So you are not alone.

Butthe last line of your statement above saysit all. Just get out and enjoy all that is deer hunting, and thats muchmore than just deer shooting.

As far as the 2 or three deer limit. Didn't theystudy that and realize thatthe # ofguys getting three deer a season was very low??

ME has qualiaty deer, but only has high density in a few areas. Itsstill hard hunting with limited sightings. Its just that when you do see a buck,he can be a big bodied monster. ME also has allot of logged land that helps with browse/edgecover.

If you want quantity deer, head to central-western NY. Lotsand lots of deer and some quality too...

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

So it almost seems that if VT really wants to improve its deer herd, it may want to spend some time and $ improving habitat. Why not plant food plots on public land, or at least allow hunters to plant food plots on public land?

Of course, its always cheaper to try to solve problems by passing laws rather than actually doing something about it.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

That would be a huge part of it. I don't know the legality of hunters planting food plots on public land (call F & G). But VT F & G did encorage hunters to open up apple orchards on hunting areas.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

I too am a Vt hunter and have lived through the good and bad times. Logging andfarming are importantto provide deer with suitable habitat forsurvival. Unfortunately most of the recent logging in my area has been in softwoods and had depleted many of the winter yards. Huge stands of sterile hardwoods are now abundant and don't provide much food or cover for deer. Many of the working farms are now sold and have been developed into housing lots. Land posting has increased and habitat has declined.Some of the recent winters have been above normal in the severity index as published by the state. Bad winters, limited yarding areas andless habitat equates to a smaller deer herd. Everything runs in cycles and I hope to see the hunting return to the way I remembered it in the 60's.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

I grew up in Vermont and hunted there every year from 1990-1996. I then left the state and wasn't able to hunt it until last season. I hunted 120+ hours last season, and managed to see deer almost every day, but only 2x bucks, one of which I killed during rifle season. The hunting when I was a kid was better than it is today, but still cannot compare to what it is like in PA where I hunted for the last 10 years. The major difference as stated by others in this thread, it that the habitat cannot support many deer. To support more deer, more cropland needs to be grown, and more mature timber needs to be harvested. 90% of the woods in Vermont where I hunt is mature 75+ year old hardwoods that don't produce mast (i.e. maples). This doesn't produce any food for deer that is within reach of the deer. They need to cut a LOT of this timber to create new browsable growth in order to there to be more deer. The problem is all the liberal tree hugging hippies up there and how they cry when you cut trees down. They don't realize that the mature timber is killing the animals that inhabit the forest.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

Venison in the freezer and venison in my belly. Thats all i worry about. I won't let any deer pass if i have none in my freezer.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

It definitely sounds like you guys have a HUGE lack of habitat as your number one problem up there. Good luck convincing them to timber more.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

That would make things less pretty for the tourists. Besides, as was already mentioned, all the money is in softwoods right now.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

Not to this tourist. I'd love to see VT come back as a prime deer state.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

I disagree. VT manged it's deer herd for license sales and not the quantity. They continued with doe permits after a couple of really tough winters that decimated the herd and still allowed people to take up to three deer a year. The ironic thing is that the plan has back fired. Everyone knowsall aroundNew England that the herd is way down and they (and their money) are going else where.

RE: Rather than quality deer management
 

myself, i would rather have meat in the freezer regardless of the sex. who really cares about the difference in size of the racks? a deer is a trophy no matter what it is. unfortunately, we now have in power someone who worked with dr. alt( not a bad thing, really), and thinks that vermonters truly want what PA has. most of the people i know, don't. they are out for the meat, period. as far as the limit goes, perhaps they did need to cut back on permits in some areas, but there are still very few people according to the numbers that harvest more than one deer a year, let alone maxing out on three. i took a community college class a few years ago, an d the forester from washington county said pretty much what others have said :our trees are growing far faster than they are being harvested, resulting in a much more mature forest, 3 TIMES as fast as what they should be harvested at to ensure a healthy ecosystem. more mature woods equals less habitat for game such as deer. but it is doing wonders for the turkey population! also, the no-cutting law that limits people on the amount of land they can timber isn't helping, more cutting allows for more new growth, which equals more habitat. perhaps the dept could hook up with the energy suppliers, and replant powerlines, gas lines, etc. with food good for wildlife, the openings are already made, so why not invest some money into creating habitat, you know, put their money where their mouth is? and get ridof laroche.