For those with management programs

Hunterbuck got me to thinking about the intense management strategy he and his club had adopted and the effects it had on their rut. We all understand the premise that fewer does and more bucks result in more deer movement during the rut. And adopting that strategy could definitely produce those results.

But I wonder how many of ya'll possess the fortitude & sticktuitiveness to follow through with such a program?

And there are possible inherent dangers involved. It is my understanding, due to the nature of does being loyal to their birth range, that if you kill off (accidentally of course) all of the does in a certain area, it could be years before they repopulate that area.

And as someone else has already stated, what chance does the hunter of small tracts have unless everyone surrounding you is on the same page? You shoot your does down and the bucks simply move off onto your neighbors property where there are more does.

What about the folks relegated to hunting public lands, that have no choice in their management practices?

What is wrong with wanting to hunt the rut, as it naturally occurs?... rather than attempting to manipulate it with such an intense management program? And turning the joy of hunting into some sort of science project.

Not many.



I would venture to say that would be next to impossible using legal hunting methods.



It would be very difficult to manage a very small piece of property if those around you are not using at least the same standards as you are. Still, there are some things you can do within your power to keep deer on even a small piece of property...things like providing ample cover/bedding, provide ample food (not only amounts, but also what deer in the area want to eat), and keep the pressure to a minimum.



Public hunting land is what it is. I think most folks who hunt public land know that it is next to impossible to manage it for big bucks.



Absolutely nothing wrong with it, as long as you have the patience to depend on the state to do something they don't seem interested in doing, and have no good reason to do. "Making hunting 'funner' or more enjoyable" isn't a good reason for them, apparently. As already discussed, I have the belief that you already have the opportunity to hunt the rut as it naturally occurs, but you have to manage your herd to see that rut occur.



I realize you probably weren't looking for MY opinion here...but there it is.

really not difficult, we did it for over 10 years pulling jawbones and weighing each deer killed on the property, some hated it some loved it, it is work to a degree but the amount of knowledge gained from keeping records can tell the story of how healthy the deer herd is



seriously ? where did you get that info, simply not true nor reasonably

if the piece of property is desirable in any form or fashion deer will always make use of it



once again that is bad info and not true



since a biologist is over the WMA it should be a very well managed property to hunt




hunting the rut as it naturally occurs is the results of a balanced deer herd, buck to doe and age structures of both sexes

an intense management strategy is about trying to balance the deer herd as it would be in a natural setting

Alabama long history os killing a buck a day has skewed and disrupted the rut as it once was. Restocking of deer from many different areas of the state and Northern Midwest deer have also skewed the timing of the rut. Welcome to Alabama deer hunting, a menagerie of deer behaving badly.


You do not have to implement any program if you like, there is a choice and if you implement a program and wanna keep it simple kill at least 1 doe, preferably 2 or more does for every buck that is killed on the property.

Dr Grant Woods had a club in the Carolinas that was over 2k acres. For three years he had all members shoot every doe they saw.Result :over 60 killed per years,no drop in deer numbers.
Mature does went nocturnal. You can't kill them off by legal methods. Just because you don't see them dfoesn't mean there are none.

Can't point you in the direction of the source of that. Could be I read it in a deer hunting rag... or on QDMA website... or I used to read a lot of BSK's comments, which for some mysterious reason he no longer posts on this forum. You can find him on TNdeer though.

Just thought I'd throw that scenario in as a remote possibility


Hunterbuck...



On the contrary... I value your opinion as much as anyone else's

BSK did not say that I can assure you, his TN property shoots every doe that presents an opportunity. I have had many PM discussions with BSK from the QDMA website many years ago til he departed from the discussions on here.


Google the Sandhills project in WI where they attempted to kill off the entire deer herd and replace the herd with superior genetic deer. They couldn't do it by legal hunting means and was darn near impossible using helicopters and sharp shooters to finally accomplish their goal.

Average home range of does is around 500-800 acres with many doe groups overlapping, they do not set up subdivisions and have rules to abide by. Some radio collared does have traveled many many miles to birth their fawns only to return back to their core areas.

One other thing, a deer herd going unchecked grows exponentially fast, it doesn't take very long for a deer herd to repopulate quickly. You can not kill 'em off legally.

Thanks for eliminating that source for me
I was just thinking of some possible sources for that comment. It would be dang near impossible for me to remember the sources for everything I have digested on deer hunting over the past 10 years. But I can assure you I did not pull it out of thin air.

By the way... I believe the comment was made in reference to a matriarch doe and her immediate doe group... not the entire herd.

it does not go along with any form of knowledgeable sources I will bet, sounds more like an old wives tale

while it may be true that does tend to return to their birthing area as being within their core areas, killing does off in area will not taint the area form further use, if it is good habitat deer will make full use of the area

that makes a little more sense however it will not mess up that area

Baybuzzard,



My conclusion after sharing a lease for more than a decade that has been under a management program for fifteen years is that the sacrifices of such management are not always worth the results. In an area where the deer population density is already low, the coyote population is high and the terrain is unusually rough with plenty of cover, it is not necessary to implement the management principles you hear so much of on this forum.

Killing a small quota of does along with the predation has shown a noticeable decrease in the population in just a few years. The rough terrain protects the bucks from most of the hunters. I have seen no increase in body weights or antler configurations whatsoever.


Hunterbuck,



Your reasoning is wrong. The state has no duty or lawful authority to manage deer on your property for anything other than the protection of the species.

Manipulation of the species does not result in "natural" rutting activity as some in this thread would have you to believe. The hunting of deer by humans is a natural occurrence, and the species has adapted to that form of predation just as it has adapted to all other forms of predation.

If you want to see how nature works, quit trying to manipulate the habitat, quit targeting only the stronger and more mature members of the species, and act like the natural predator that you are instead of a "manager". Consider yourself a visitor in a world where the animals know much more about their world than you do. Enjoy the blessings of a successful hunt, and above all, practice moderation. You don't have to wait on the state to tell you to do any of that. Your Creator will guide you thru it all if you allow Him to.

That is almost the same results we have seen on our lease. We have the most abundant black bear population coupled with a very healthy coyote population. After years of doe harvests we finally come to the realization with our biologist that we did not need to shoot near as many does anymore. Our fawn mortality rate is extremely high. Now in areas with less predators we would definitely have to shoot more does but in our case we do not. One other thing killing more does do not make the bucks any bigger letting the bucks live longer is the key to that.

Why do the biologist that manage the WMA's in alabama not allow people to kill more does. Seems to me if these same biologist will tell you to kill every doe that presents a shot will result in a more healthy deer herd without drastic reductions the population , this should be practiced on all the WMA's so the people that hunt them can have a more enjoyable place to hunt.

Probably the same reason they don't open up the WMA's a lot more for hunting those hogs that are "destroying the land". But what that reason is, I don't have a clue.

Bryan doesn't post here anymore because every time someone posts valid, informed and verifiable information they get trampled by idiots with entrenched opinions.
We've lost a lot of valuable expertise to the recent explosion of Google experts.

Lot of good points and completely agree with Outback. It's a shame that BSK left, but I don't blame him. I just go to Tndeer if I have any questions.

I wanted to add that, if I remember correctly, BSK mentioned that the potential downside of shooing a lot of does while at the same time improving habitat (or already having good habitat) is that in many cases does from adjacent properties will move in, and in the end, the property is no better off than it was before shooting does. I, like others, have never heard that you can eliminate does from a particular property.

49er, the land in Alabama has been "manipulated" for 100+ years. Whether it was positive or negative, for wildlife or for non-wildlife purposes the bottom line is the land has been altered in some form or fashion. On my family's property we have been taking steps to improve the habitat (manipulating the habitat) for 12 years. The result is a healthier deer herd, a very healthy turkey population and even several wild coveys of quail. Had we done nothing we wouldn't have half the turkey population that we do now, I know we wouldn't have any quail and I'm also sure that we've improved the quality of our deer herd. Not to insinuate the deer were dropping over dead of starvation, but we now have a healthy buck to doe ratio, a more natural number of mature bucks which was achieved through manipulating or improving the habitat.

I would agree that if you could find 100,000 acres in Alabama that had never been farmed, or never had timber cut and never been hunted you could do exactly what you suggest and be fine. Problem is one, there isn't such property and two the key word, which you mentioned, is moderation. Allowing a lot of hunters to legally be able to kill a buck a day did not teach moderation. So now, due to liberal limits, greed and misuse of property we have no choice but to manipulate if you want to help the wildlife where you hunt.

Those statements are so unfounded they are pathetic.

Reports compiled by the DCNR dating back to 1963 show that the average number of deer killed per hunter never got over 2.3 (does and bucks) even with the bag limit set at two deer per day (220 deer per hunter). Does killed have been just below half to just above half of those 2.3 deer per hunter since the late nineties when several of our counties were still trying to increase their populations to huntable levels.

Your prejudiced ideas about the state of Alabama's deer species and your misguided notions about the role of our government are not swayed by either fact or reason.

What do you expect when our chief biologist makes misleading statements?
Didnt Mr. Cook say that "we dont believe it is biologically sound to allow an unlimited buck harvest" when he explained his support for moving the buck limit by insinuating that a buck aday limit was on the brink of decimating our deer herd? Never mind that every survey indicated that his "belief" was wrong.

Unfortunately most people who are educated in this field stay out of these discussions just because of what happened to Brian. Why do you think the Doc. doesn’t post much anymore? I assure you that Brian, Dr. D, Gobbler and to a much lesser extent myself stay clear of most of these subjects. I don't round up BC and tell him he is screwing up some Honda motor that I know enough to talk about but not engineer.

There is just something that tells folks they know more about deer biology than any of the biologists on here cause they read a google article or some 60 year old book.

Nothing anything a qualified state biologist says will not be good enough because he is a state biologist.

Why ask an educated/informed professional if you are just going to say they don't know what they are talking about or they’re in someone's pocket.

I agree to one point, the biologists should be making the decisions and not high profile professionals, even if they do understand deer biology.

Make no mistake, the state is run as a business. It has one goal, make money. For some reason, they just can't get that one right...

Nighthunter,



The decisions being made should remain within the limits of current law. That's what people like Dr. D, Brian, and goobler have a problem with, and that's why they catch flack in the Serious Hunting section of this forum.

Being a professional biologists is one thing. Pushing a political agenda that unlawfully restricts the right to hunt is another matter altogether. Make no mistake about that.

Which surveys were those, obviously multiples, hence the "every". Let me know where I can find them please?

Wow, that's kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. And by the way, don't think Brian left b/c of "catching flack", I think he just got sick of all the b.s. Anyway, thanks for the laugh...

Pot to Kettle,

The evidence I used to support my statements are the annual reports that are available on the DCNR website.
2009-2010 Survey Report

Where is the evidence you have to support your statement that "... now, due to liberal limits, greed and misuse of property we have no choice but to manipulate if you want to help the wildlife where you hunt."


Edit:

Further review of the DCNR surveys during the years that the number of bucks and does killed are reported separately show that the highest number of bucks killed per hunter from 1984 thru 2006 was 1.2 bucks per hunter.

That's a maximum of 1.2 bucks killed per hunter with a season bag limit of 110 per hunter. I call that moderation, Mr. Kettle.

Also: with a statewide deer population of around 1.7 million, there should be a third or more killed each year to maintain those numbers. In 2004 when the debates for a 98% reduction in bag limits heated up, the highest number of deer on record were killed in Alabama. That record number still fell short of the recommended numbers that are said to be needed to keep the deer population from growing.

The number of deer killed each season has been dropping steadily each year since 2004. We were 278,000 deer short of killing a third of 1.7 million deer at the end of the season in 2010 due to a lack of moderation in setting bag limits.

Now, where's your supporting source of information?

Exactly TD.

This is very true for properties that their neighbors don't practice sound doe management. I have that very problem. The more we kill, the more we have and our fawn production isn't out of this world by any means. I'd say it's average.

Now, if you shoot a bunch of does and your neighbors all shoot a bunch of does (like say a well ran QDM Coop) then it's possible to knock them back and keep them at a managable level......I guess. lol

Problem then arises with "pressure" on the does. If every doe within a 10,000 acre area is targeted, it won't take long before you can shoot more older bucks than you can shoot older does.

That's when (and I found out the hard way) you have to learn to hunt again. BSK was very instrumental in my hunting career in the fact that he preached years ago here and TNdeer that once you begin this type of management, you must throw everything you have ever learned about deer hunting out the window. Shooting older bucks and pressured does is not anywhere near the same as shooting 1.5yr old bucks. He was 110% right.

Hard to explain what I do differently but it's the small things from what I've gathered.

There are some things I've learned the last 5/6 years on our property.

1: You can't kill to many does, especially if your neighbors don't shoot any.

2: More does DOES NOT mean more bucks. The more does we shoot, the more older bucks show up. Literally! Our best years shooting does is always followed by more older bucks, many that were not there as 2.5 or 3.5yr olds. From what I understand through reading and talking to biologist, deer will always want to be in their natural enviroment. Thousands of years for the species has taught deer that 1:1-1:1.2 is natural so the more natural your herd can be, the more it attracts other deer.

Some bucks leave regardless of your doe numbers. Deer are weird. lol

3: Does, older does especially, are harder to kill now but....it will make you learn to hunt them which in turn seems to make you more likely to encounter older bucks. It seems old deer all think alike.

Alright Ill take the bait.....
You already know where to find them.
The ones that have been discussed on here are the surveys by the ALDCNR
and
the other is the one that YOU brought to the table, I beleive from the AWF, that indicated that hunters averaged 1.32 bucks to every 3 does. Thats 132000 bucks to every 300000 does.
and
the other is the one(source unknown) YOU again pointed out that indicated the average was 1 buck to ever 1.2 doe killed, which you quickly dismissed by saying it could have been the reverse of that. You see Gobbler someone is paying attention to what you say.

Now let me say that if these numbers would have been reversed, with hunters killing more bucks than does, than I could understand the need to cut back on the number of bucks killed, and probably would have supported it. But they didnt. So Gobbler, help me out, besides moving us to a qdm state and a failed attempt to rein in the 4% of hunters who killed more than 3 bucks a year, what in these numbers did you see that caused you to support a 3 buck limit?

And BTW I am closer to my midlife crisis than to my youth and I dont ever remember there being an unlimited buck harvest.

I can assure you that it isn't the state's goal to reign in the 4% of hunters that kill 3 or more bucks.

It's a mind game.

When TN went from 11 bucks to 2 bucks in 1998 (and back to 3 in 1999) it had nothing to do with forcing folks to kill less bucks. Very few people shot 3 bucks a year anyway.

It was a mind game. More folks bought in to letting more bucks walk and shooting more does, even though they could still basically kill more bucks than they did anyway.

12 years later, it has worked.

I do agree with your points here... But the law should be changed so professionals do make those decisions, not those with political agendas. That said, money will always run the system, if the folks behind the big money have an agenda on deer hunting, it will never change

In a perfect world the ones who know the most should make the call and not let the minority rule the majority IMHO.

In our imperfect world, I prefer our constitutional republic over an elitist system of government. We just need to hold our representatives more accountable for their actions, especially when they delegate the authority we gave them to others. Repealing § 41-22-3(9)g.6 would be a good start.

Here we go with trying to be like TN again.



Maybe it's like ol' Slick Willie said, "it depends on what the definition of is is". So let's look at TN again. Here are the defintions in TN's regulations:



Looks to me like TN allows killing 3 or 4 bucks a day in some areas if you use the AL definition.

Here's what I came up with:
3 bucks with antlers 3" or less per day
Season 2009-2010:
Unit L Season
Nov. 21-Dec. 6
Dec. 19-Jan. 10, 2010
97 days X 3 = 291 young bucks per season plus the other 3 = 294 bucks per season


I believe our old bag limit in AL of 110 bucks per season may have seemed a bit more reasonable than TN if we had looked closer at the facts.

Well, you can kill 2 bucks a day in Alabama if you want. Button bucks are of course...bucks you know.

Of course, one can look at the numbers and see the percentage of "antlerless bucks" is so small in the TN harvest that it doesn't mount to a hill of beans.

This year, about 10,700 button bucks and antlerless bucks (those with 3" or less) were killed in TN. Total harvest was almost 163,000 deer. Around 80,000 were bucks and 75,000 was does. If you take out the Zone B counties, the doe and buck harvest was skewed more towards the does. Zone B has very few doe hunt opportunities.

You do the math on the % of button and those with 3" or less.

TN kills more older bucks than KY, IL, Iowa, ect, ect, ect. No doubt the headgear isn't the same but 2.5yr olds in that state are normally as big or bigger than TN's 4.5yr old bucks.

20% of Tennessee's buck harvest is 3.5yrs +

How many do they kill, or do they just pick them like beans?

20% of the total antlered harvest was 3.5+. Unlike Alabama, this is not a guess. These are percentages aquired from actual check stations by actual TWRA employees.

Only 41% of all bucks shot in TN this year was 1.5 years old.

Go to Tndeer.com and see some of the bucks they kill compared to the bucks that show up on this site. Based on what I've seen and read (hunter opinions, etc.) being like Tn. wouldn't be such a bad idea.

TNSwamper,



I tried figuring out your math. It don't add up. Does TN have it's own math system or something?

80,000 + 75,000 don't equal 163,000. If you add 10,700 also, it still don't add up to 163,000.

I think I'll just keep hunting in Alabama.

TD,



Why should I? What happens in TN doesn't matter to me the least bit.

I'm happy to compare the bucks I kill to the bucks other hunters kill on the property we lease. Comparing them to bucks two or three counties away doesn't even interest me. If killing record bucks was my goal, I would have found a better place to hunt years ago instead of being happy with what we have close to home where I grew up. You can have my share of TN hunting.

I don't have anything against people in TN if that's what they want. My dad was born and raised in TN, and I have lot's of relatives that still live there. I was raised in Alabama, and I like to hunt at home.

Out of curiosity, If you want to kill deer like are in Tennessee, why don't you hunt in Tennessee? The same would go for Illinois, Missouti, Kansas, Ohio, Texas, etc. Or, at the very least set up management plans to meet YOUR EXPECTATIONS on the property that YOU CONTROL. Seems pretty simple to me.

The point I was trying to make was that Tennessee is a bordering state and as far as I know doesn't have anything that Alabama doesn't have (habitat wise) that would give them an advantage in producing more quality bucks (not record bucks). However, they have had check in stations, split seasons and relatively restrictive buck limits for years now and I think they have done a good job in educating their hunters on the advantages of being more selective in what they shoot. In my opinion this is evident by looking at the number of good bucks Tn. has produced lately and as Swamper was saying the growing percentage of 3.5 year old bucks and declining percentage of yearling bucks. Educating hunters is a bi-product of state imposed restrictions. Split seasons, buck limits, antler restrictions, tagging systems, check in stations and zones are all aspects of a system that creates more knowledge, awareness and responsibility. I know to some these are just a bunch of things that infringe on "their rights" but I see a lot of these as necessary measures to help manage, track and protect our wildlife. I also think it's ignorant to completely dismiss the success of a neighboring state just b/c it's "another state".

Well, I reckon it's because we don't hunt for the same reason that we don't see eye to eye on this highly educated mangement plan you've got. I started hunting when I didn't have to go to school.

I didn't go hunting to get more education. I went because I liked to hunt wild animals. I tried the highfalutin educated manager thingy, and I decided hunting was a lot more fun. That don't make me ignorant. It just means I don't think like you do.

"It just means I don't think like you do"

Well now there is something we can agree on.

I guess I'm the type that just likes to learn and try to do things better, regardless of what it is. Not sure where the highly educated mngt. plan thing came in to the conversation, but what ever. I do find it a little ironic that you insinuate that you are just a good ol boy that likes to hunt and cares nothing about learning/ education, knowledge,etc. when it comes to hunting regs, stats, etc, but yet you quote more stats, reports, meeting minutes and the such than anyone on this site. As a person that hates big govt I actually somewhat respect your point of view and understand that regardless of the cost some people just do not want more gov't intervention but just b/c I don't agree and just b/c I actually enjoy managing habitat and watching bucks get older before I shoot them doesn't mean that I'm highfalutin nor does it mean that you enjoy hunting anymore than I do, nor does it mean that I only care about shooting "record bucks". All that would be what you call assumptions with no back up. Anyway, I'm tired of arguing.

The problem with this idea is that in most cases the folks around you end up sitting on your property lines and reaping the rewards of your hard work. Been done for ages and will keep on happening. Just ask the guys with stands every quarter mile of our 7000 acres.

Has 49er said that you can't do all of the management that you want? If that's the way you want to hunt, by all means hunt that way.

So does that mean that in 7,000 acres you can't find somewhere that the fence sitters can't watch from their stands? Or, that you just want the State to dictate that the neighbors have to do what you want them to do even if they don't have the time or money or the amount of property that you have?

I hunt on 250 acres and spend a considerable amount of time "managing" the property (keeping road passable, keeping the jungle beat back, bushhogging, planting, spreading lime, fertilizer, scouting, locating possible stand sites, putting out trail cameras, etc) most of the work is done with plain old hardwork with hand tools or tillers (except for the bushhogging, I have to rent the equipment). So when I locate a buck that I want to hunt, that is what I hunt, but if one of the other adjacent landowners kills the deer, then that the way it goes. On the other hand if a deer wanders off their property onto my property and I kill that deer, then that's the way it goes too.

So it seems to boil down to if you have 7,000 acres and you are worried that your neighbors are going to shoot all of your deer, you may need to rethink your priorities. If you can't get over your neighbors killing deer then you can alway high fence your 7,000 acres just to make sure they don't kill any of your deer and you don't kill any of theirs.

that's not what he was saying at all, read truedoubles post and you have your answer

That's exactly how the research used to support qdm is done... in enclosures. That's the only way to control experiments... i.e. control the variables. If you want to get your qdm right, then do it like the researchers do it, get you a fence and quit worrying about what your neighbor is doing.

td,



That comes from your qdm typical response that what I'm saying is ignorance.



Those are your words, not mine.

If you read my comments and tried to comprehend them you would know that I've tried the qdm route and made an educated decision to go back to hunting instead. I was there when qdm first started. My first contact with qdm advocates was at the University of Alabama at a wildlife seminar in the early nineties. QDMA drafted me as a member because I used to attend their seminars.

When the QDMA first indicated in public at a meeting I attended that they were going to push for mandatory government restrictions on deer hunting, I left and haven't been back since. I was offended that they used their total membership, including mine, to support their proposed restrictions when I opposed them. I continued to receive the literature that they send to their members for several months after I told them I was no longer a part of their group.

As for my knowledge of the laws and regulations, I grew up with most of them too. After fifty years of trying to avoid a hunting or fishing violation, you learn a few things if you are paying attention. These days, I find it necessary to keep up with what is going on at the DCNR because that is where the most serious threats to my hunting rights have come from in recent years. I'm watching closely what happens there now.

But its my corn-hunting, night hunting, smoking in the stand, dog hunting, anti-qdm, if its brown its down, neighbor hunting on his side of the line (unbelievable) and killing more than 3 bucks a year not a season, that is keeping me from choosing which 140" deer I want to harvest on any given hunt. Besides its cheaper for me to pistol whip them into seeing things my way, with more rules and regulations.

To answer that.......that's exactly where I hunt.

49er, I rounded numbers....if you want the real numbers I'll be more than happy to send you the link. What the heck:

Bucks (3" or more)- 79,851
Does 72,201
Button 8296
antlerless (>3") 2441

Total 162,789

WMA harvest

Bucks 2696
Does 2438
Button 455
Antlerless 77

Total 5666

Total Harvest

Bucks 82,547
Does 74,639
Button 8,751
Antlerless 2518

Total 168,455

20% of TN bucks are 3.5 years old or older. The TWRA physically checked and aged 3469 bucks last year at check stations all over the state. Rotated around every year to keep the data honest. 20% of those bucks were 3.5 years or older.

So, the results of the TN restrictions are typical. An overwhelming majority (80%) of bucks killed are still equal to or less than 2.5 years of age.


Obvious facts:

Many hunters go hunting to kill deer. Many enjoy killing bucks more than they do killing does. Mature bucks are harder to kill. Many hunters are happy to kill a 2.5 year old buck.

Deer herds have flourished in most southeastern states with a majority of the bucks killed being equal to or less than 2.5 years old. So, what's the harm to the resource if deer are flourishing and hunters are having fun?

If most hunters wanted to restrict themselves to killing older bucks, the option is there if they are willing to do the work and pay the price, and the data should reveal that preference. Obviously, most had rather settle for killing younger deer. The state should look at the data and respect the preferences of the overwhelming majority of it's hunters if there is no obvious harm to the perpetuation of the resource. I doubt if killing 2.5 year old bucks or less is decimating TN's deer herd since the antlerless limits are as liberal as they are.

I will say it again, all the states have buck limits, ours now is more in line with other southern states.

Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, and now Alabama has similar buck limits.

Why were we so special by having a buck a day?

It wasn't cause of sound whitetail management.