J Pike

I would say probably about the same amount were sold to people that had no intention of hunting and couples etc. prior to herd reduction as after herd reduction so I dont understand your point?? Pike

Screamin Steel

Typical troll tactic, to make an asinine, ignorant comment, then run and hide when the angry mob descends. Prolly some punk a$$ kid who has always hunted Daddy's money stand on his private lease. Or he had a little luck the last two years he was old enough to hunt..bagged a spike and a forkie 'cause he's still a jr. license....Hey, those are some pretty baseless accusations to make about the fella, being as I don't know him from Adam....So I retract those statements...and propose that it's best to do some homework, before I start stereotyping and profiling individuals and groups of people. Eh, Jr.?

ayunk04

Definitly made me laugh lol !!!!!!!!!!

BTBowhunter

Good point Steel!

Taint fair for either side to generalize but unfortunately it is human nature

I firmly believe that there are some out there that were spoiled by deer numbers that were far too high and some of these guys never really had to hunt. Those guys are easy to find after 9 AM on opening day of gun season. They're sitting in the car, the bar or the camp and yes, they are pretty loud when they complain about no deer.

That being said, I also believe that stereotype only belongs to a very few here. The type above does make up the majority of complainers I've seen in person in traditional deer country. Again, there's only a very few like that here.

It's also a fact that the guys still having good success aren't all sitting on a food plot on some paid private land honey hole although that'd probably be the most noticable group among the successful that frustrated folks would notice and remember when out and about during the seasons especially at the restaurants, bars and sporting stores.

So lets take the extremes on both ends out of the arguement.

Obviously there are folks going out and finding plenty of deer in darn good numbers in places we all could go to. Doug does well, Livbucks does well on public ground in 2F and so does our gang. Many more here have posted similar results. I'd bet though, that every one of those here who is having success where hunting is open to all have had to make changes. Sometimes it means hunting harder, maybe it means hunting smarter, maybe it means changing locations, maybe it means new strategies. All of those are likely to involve stepping outside of a comfort zone.
Some would say, "why should I have to?" To that I would say, it depends on how important seeing more deer is to you personally. My first boss had a very appropriate saying that I think applies here. The key to success is usually a matter of doing what unsuccessful people cant or wont do. That doesnt necessarily mean the successful people were eager to do those extra things themselves.

Lanse couche couche

Topics like this always fascinate me. Overall numbers of deer, quality of the herd, and statewide and local conditions are all pretty dynamic through time. For example, in Illinois I have spoken with younger deer hunters who have no clue that there were virtually no deer in Illinois until restocking in the 1950s and that hunting them was very challenging until the 1980s. Of course, now deer numbers are at an alltime high to the point of becoming nuisance level in some areas, and it is not much of a challenge to get a doe or even a decent to outstanding buck. So, what constitutes good deer hunting conditions can vary widely. This can even vary across regions in a state, where for example, there were traditional hotspots that are no longer nearly as productive as well as new hotspots in areas where folks traditionally had low success. For younger folks and/or those who are more than a bit spoiled by 20 years of huge deer numbers, any reduction or drop off is going to be pretty disturbing. But for the people who came up 30 or 40 years ago, things would have to be very, very bad before we see deer hunting as ruined. Times change and so do wildlife populations and particular circumstances (that involve hunters and non-hunters alike) for encouraging their increase or reduction. Sometimes you can do something about it, and other times it is best to just adjust to new realities and enjoy your time in the woods instead of getting bitter.

Cornelius08

But none of that matters, since we cannot harvest more deer than we already are or the herd size will continue to shrink more and more. You fail to address that fact. Everyone can hunt harder, smarter...etc etc. Like us, but the success will only go lower than it already is, because the deer herd isnt limitless. We are already in stabilization mode (slower decline), and there is no room for increased harvest. If the herd doesnt grow, there never will be. Thats the reality of it.

Cornelius08

Always good to hear from your voice of reason JP.

bluebird2

If you take out the extremes you are left with the average middle aged hunter who hunts for recreation and doesn't want to turn it into another job. They hunt their favorite area which always had reasonable numbers of deer until the latest round of extreme HR. Those areas have the carrying capacity to support many more deer and the only reason there are less deer there is because the PGC issued enough tags to result in an over kill which is exactly what Alt wanted.

Furthermore , we could not all go to the areas with good numbers of deer and harvest the number of deer Doug harvests. If we did the herd in those areas would be decimated and the result would be much lower harvests in the future. You think you are providing a simple solution to the problems created by HR but in reality you not providing a rational solution since there is none for the average hunter.

Cornelius08

That sounds like a fine solution for dcnr & enviromentalists. They are the ones who'd like to see even fewer deer.

Take the deer herd lower by decimating the few remained areas of good numbers, then they could claim those areas too, had decreased not because of us, but were a victim of the habitat. lol.

Screamin Steel

Well spoken. I guess it's easy to assume that folks who complain about low deer numbers, are trying to kill more deer than are being killed currently. Hair-brained and false assumption. I for one, hope that next year brings a continued decline in harvest, and that a few more guys give up early, and don't see the need to fill all their bonus or DMAP tags. If we all took off two weeks for gun season, hunted our butts off with big gangs of guys, and located and hunted the pockets of remaining deer, we'd have just made a bad situation even worse. And the following year would be the worst yet. In fact..I'm comitted to reducing the harvest in my areas by deciding beforehand that the doe get a free pass for next year in 4D and even 5B. I'll buy the tags...and by so doing, save a couple deer. A shortsighted hunter would hunt harder to fill all his tags next year. A far-sighted hunter will excercise restraint when necessary, knowing that it will improve his hunting in the future. No different than passing on a small buck. I'm disappointed in the deer management, and the deer numbers overall......not the reflective harvest. Personally glad that this years' was down again.