Not listed among the problems is the greedy states trying to capitalize on maximizing tag sales. Another one is the mistake of QDMA promoting poor sex ratio theory and dropping doe numbers too low. Some of it is also just hype, complaining about numbers being down. When numbers were super high, most were complaining about vehicular collisions and crop damage so management was geared towards population reduction...now that has been successful and some find that complain worthy. There will always be one section or another of society that finds something to complain about.
It's human nature to be greedy hence the reason for regulation. I blame this solely on each states DNR. I used to not be able to go more then a couple miles on the highway without seeing a deer dead along side the road. I believe I have seen two all year. Numbers are certainly down and our DNR recognizes it being they have cut the doe tags down from 5 to 2 in several units I hunt. That is solely on a honor system as nothing prevents hunters from purchasing 5+ tags. I've said for several years KS needed to cut the number of tags by half and double the out-of state prices to align us with other big buck states. The fact that a out of state hunter can pretty much draw a tag every single year sends up red flags. IMO...
Miss-Management of the localized doe herds is what has had the largest impact. I believe in harvesting does, but not at the rate at which many do...especially in states like mine (Indiana) where especially in my area you have lots of pieced up parcels with a lot of hunters. If say all the hunters think, harvesting does is a good thing but I'll just take one....40 different hunters in one area could decimate the localized herd...without realizing the damage they're doing. Unless populations are good this is why I try to wait to harvest my freezer fillers till late season when I can more properly gauge the hit the localized doe herd has felt...if ample I'll take, if not I'll tape :D Far too many guys (naive by choice or nature) have heard the line harvest does and grow big bucks.....when no further thought goes into it, it truly can have an impact...in a negative way. I also know it is tough to know who is telling the truth sometimes, and those unhappy are often times the loudest and drown out the ones happy or content EXAMPLE: -My one farm where I harvested both my buck and doe this year had the best sightings and numbers I've experienced EVER there in the last 4 years hunting it. Now part of that is the growth a hunter goes through on learning a place, but overall deer were everywhere it seemed........gun season came and we lose the place to a gun hunter and his illegal hunting sons (different tale for different post). This guy hunted every weekend and claims he saw ZERO deer. Now we have terrible neighbors at this place and I wouldn't put it past them to pepper the Southern border with articles of clothing along the bedding (been known to do it)...but yearlings and young deer still should have made an appearance, but yet he claims ZERO. Who do you believe? This guy could very well be one of them screaming bloody murder at the DNR and yet just days prior to him starting to hunt I saw more deer the night I shot my doe than I'd ever seen at that property....neither one of us is lying.
In area's where there are wolves 1 wolf will eat up to 20+ deer a year! I don't know about you but I don't know any 1 hunter to kill 20+ deer a year. Blaming over hunting for major reason in declining deer herd across the country is ridiculous. It might be the major factor in one area but not in not in another.
I definitely agree that miss management in doe herds causes major problems with the deer population. There are several counties here in Texas where you are not allowed to shoot does at all and it can really do damage to the buck/doe ratios.
Follow the money. Most of the DNR's are cash strapped and until push comes to shove the money trail is their only perspective.
The problem I notice is that some state DNRs go from one extreme to another for doe limits. Rather than doing a gradual shift they go full throttle on the change and it ends up creating an unhealthy herd.
The biggest single effect in my area recently (2 years ago) has not been reacting to EHD. EHD hit us hard in some areas and NOTHING was done to reduce permits. I think the whole permit process needs to be more fluid, they can do it with waterfowl, why not deer?
I've said all along the DNR in Indiana (my state) needs to state they can control the antlerless tag limits up until the start of Archery season...this would hopefully allow a more fluid year to year impact of things such as EHD.
I mostly blame hunters. Even if the DNR over issues permits, it is us hunters who choose whether to fill them or not. They issue permits not expecting them all to be filled. If we fill more than they expected is that their fault or ours?
THIS IS THE SAD FACT NO ONE CARES TO ADMIT. No law except for under issuing permits will build a herd to the healthy size in areas or decrease it to healthy sizes UNLESS hunters become better educated. Conservation minded hunters don't just harvest a doe simply because they're presented a shot, they do so because they know the herd is healthy and can sustain it...if not they don't. I would love to see the DNR do a push for better education amongst hunters and more ownership in their localized herd numbers. Even if you made it 1 buck and 1 doe in my state.....you could still have a localized herd getting blasted....
I made a conscious decision before the season began that I was not going to take any antlerless deer, I have passed at least ten. Why? Because my cameras indicated there were far fewer doe groups for the past two years. My own observations during the season said there were fewer, and the harvest numbers on the piece of property that I hunt had fallen for two straight years. In addition, the DNR had also reduced antlerless permits this year for the county I hunt in. If all that is not enough to tell me that the herd is declining, then I must be blind. Unfortunately that will not keep some guys from killing every chance they get and ironically enough, they will be the first ones to complain about seeing fewer deer. I believe this trend began in 2012, the year of the drought. But it had been made worse by some hunter's attitudes. It has been the perfect storm of over harvest, coyote predation, and EHD. But I think the greatest factor has been over harvest. Hopefully hunters will educate themselves and adjust their habits proportionately. Blessings............Pastorjim
I think the biggest problem with most state's DNR is that they are completely re-active. Here in NW Missouri, our numbers are down quite a bit. They have been dwindling over the last 3 years due to hits from EHD and liberal tag policies. They have finally reacted and lowered the number of antlerless tags from unlimited to 1 per county in this area(Gun season only). They are contemplating changing the total number of Any deer tags from 3( 2 archery + 1 rifle) down to a total of 2 combined. The problem is this hits them in the pocket book and that's a big problem for everyone. Our DNR gets a large portion of their operating budget through our deer tags and I think they are afraid to lose revenue by lowering the tags or raising the prices. It's a bit of a catch 22 for them. If they do what is best for the deer herd, they lose out on operating budget.
I am sure you know a lot of hunters who get a gun tag that hunt maybe a weekend a year and don't give it any thought. They have no clue how many deer were there last year or the current year. Youth hunters? Newbees? Hunters that don't scout? Hunters that live in a different state all together and just come to hunt?, etc...
I would be all for them doubling the cost of tags if they needed to and reducing the amount they issue. I think I am spending 25.00 for 2 tags, charge me 50.00 next year I don't care.
We over hunted the place I hunt beginning about 6-7 years ago. They got liberal with the doe tags and people went crazy. The end result is we are averaging 40% less deer killed over the 50,000 acres I hunt. On the flip side, the size of the deer has increased a bit.
I think the first thing they need to do is bring the out of state tags price up to be in line with the states that border us. There's no reason out of stater's should be able to come to Missouri and hunt for 1/3 the price to hunt in our neighboring states. That's silly if you ask me. Sometimes I can't figure out what they are thinking. They are lowering the number of antlerless tags for rifle season, but leaving them unlimited for archery? I'm sure that will help some, but it doesn't look like it made much of a difference by the numbers from this rifle season. I guess we will see after the number come in for antlerless season. All while they are contemplating allowing crossbows for archery season. I'm not necessarily against the use of crossbows, but I believe they belong in the alternative methods season, not archery season. If their goals are to reduce the harvest, why on earth would they be considering that change right now? Makes no sense at all.
I'm still trying to gather an opinion on what I think works best in terms of restrictions and doe tag allotment. Is it better by county, by zone/WMU, what? I don't know, but I do know that in PA where I used to hunt, 3 out of every 4 resident hunters we talked to said they would buy up all the doe tags (which they got first dibs to buy over non-residents) and threw them directly in the trash. They were doing it to increase the population, but what ended up happening is they screwed the deer herd because there were 10+ does to every 1 buck. After a few healthy gun seasons where lots of bucks were being killed, it messed up the herd even more. The ratio was so unhealthy that it forced even more doe tags to be allotted and of course everyone decided to start shooting the does because they weren't seeing any bucks. Now there's truly a real population issue in that area. There's definitely hunters going against the DNR and the DNR not doing things gradually. It's really a mess when it comes to keeping things balanced. It's almost like a losing battle either way.
I hunt in SE Ohio mostly, now the population on the family farm has never been great but it was nothing to see a group of 10 in the field. Over the last few years it has been painful to hunt sometimes. Yes there are deer but not special. Even during the last 2 days of gun season. I think Ohio screwed up when they went to automated tagging system, I just don't think people are tagging what they kill. So they #'s are scewed.. They have slowly been bring down the amount of deer you can kill the last few years. Its only 2 per county where I hunt, few years ago it was six in the same county. Its still 6 statewide which I think is excessive because I don't think anybody could eat 6 deer in one year...
