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...