Good post.

Folks also need to understand if you have a lot of deer , you better have a lot of food for them. Does all of these "under populated" areas have the habitat to support a big increase in numbers?

HUNTERS ARE SPOILED.

It's not gonna kill anyone to go on hunts and not see deer. In the early 70s in Jackson Co. the herd was only 10 years from being restocked. If you saw a dozen deer a year it was a good year. If you killed a spike it was a big deal. And when someone killed a 120" buck, we thought it was a state record! Now we have more than plenty, we can shoot 2 does a day up in these mountains and never kill them out, just too much terra with too much area to hide.

Over populated is also a term that can mean different things depending on your objectives. You can have “healthy” deer that are decimating the habitat. From a state perspective, biologists also have to look at the long-term effects on the forest. For example, when deer populations get too high then oak regeneration becomes nil. Long-term this type of browsing pressure changes the make-up of plant species diversity. This may not even cross the mind of someone who’s only goal for “management” is to have a lot of deer.

I hunt one such property just like Matt and NH are describing. I lease 1400 acres in in a high deer density area. The land belongs to a good friend of mine’s family. Previously to me leasing it as a club, the land was only hunted basically by my buddy. The land had very, very little hunting pressure and no significant amount of deer had been harvested off the property for years. After running cameras during late summer, we were shocked at how few mature bucks we photographed. I assumed it would be over flowing with mature bucks since it was virtually untouched land. The reality though was that you could count the number of mature “shooters” we had on camera on one hand. Things changed when the rut kicked in and new bucks showed up….but prior to the rut, you were basically hunting mature bucks that did not exist on our land in any significant numbers.

Here’s what I attribute that to. When you have plenty of deer and you let the does get old, then they become aggressive and territorial. They will claim the best bedding and feeding areas as theirs. Each year about this very time of the year…..young bucks leave their mamas and disperse to find a new home. Picture it like a bunch of ants randomly running around on the aerial photo of your land as well as all the surrounding land around you. So what determines where these little young bucks finally settle down and establish a core area? It depends on the amount of aggression they receive from doe groups and old matriarch does. The young bucks will find a feeding/bedding area and give it a try. If there is an abundance of old does that have already claimed these areas as theirs, then the young bucks will be kicked out and sent down the road to find another spot. Often times this is on the neighbors property who has been shooting does. Why? Because there are “vacancies” there to be filled.

If you are trying to “manage” for mature bucks then you want to recruit as many of these young bucks as possible during buck dispersal and then raise them up to the age class that you are managing for. This means taking out some of the old does in order to open up holes for the young bucks to move into and establish core areas in. Again though, we're talking about areas with plenty of deer.

This is the 3rd year of our hunting club, we’ve taken out 11 does the first season and 14 last year. The first doe I shot last year was estimated to be 7 years old plus looking at the jawbone. Our goal this year is approx 12 does. So far this year, the number of young buck sightings seems to be on the rise compared to the last two years. We’re also seeing lots of twins and one club member even saw a doe with triplets. That’s a really good sign of herd health. I shot a doe over the weekend with twins that had fat on her rump like an old buck. We’ll see how things play out over the next few years. I think by taking out some does each year will allow us to have more bucks with their core area on our property.

I can't answer that because I don't know. It is certainly site specific, property specific.

A few things.

People completely take what Bios say out of context. If managers partially put into place what is recommended, or apply a biological concept of deer management wrong it can have bad or unintended results. That happens a lot. Deer management is very easy. Keep deer below or at what the habitat can support. Kill whatever fits your management criteria. That's it. You can do ALL that and keep people happy. Problem is folks take biologists recommendations too far, or not far enough. I can't tell you how many site visits I make and never hear back from the folks. I have no idea if they applied what I said, went way overboard, not enough. They might think I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about. Fact is, biologists make recommendations based on scientifically proven results. If you want some dang fine hunting in AL, provide enough food for your deer by either increasing harvest to bring the herd down to a manageable level, or provide more food for the deer you have. Best thing to do is a combination of both. Monitor your results every year and make necessary changes. It's easy. If I suggests a landowner kills every doe he sees. That doesn't mean do it into eternity. That means take advantage of every opportunity to lower the deer population now, monitor, slack off if necessary, and monitor more. Deer management is very fluid. You're constantly tweaking harvest according to trends. Another issue is large areas of small land ownerships. That's a disaster waiting to happen with very liberal bag limits. That is what has happened over large areas of this state. Every 40 acre landowner can not continue to kill 5 deer per year and sustain a deer herd. Other areas in the state have large land ownerships, and not enough hunters to kill what is needed.

Too many folks make it way too hard.

Nighthunter, reckon we can count the contacts that read this thread in our tech guidance report?

You bet...

Maybe a few will listen.

Matt's point about land ownership patterns is spot on in my experience. I believe it is more important than a lot of people realize.

Sadly, I don’t think there are very many people who are actually hearing what you guys say. It’s crazy how stubborn we are as hunters. Folks act like you’re just making stuff up and pulling chit out of thin air. Either that or they don’t really comprehend what you’re trying to tell them and then they take what you said off into left field somewhere, completely bastardizing the message you tried to relay to them. People want to blame the state all the time on here and say that the state is mismanaging our deer herd. If there is any mismanagement going on, it’s being done by the individual hunters. Too many folks who won’t hear anything different than what they “believe”.

I'm glad it's not just me. I've hunted about 7 days in Alabama this season and seen 4 deer. 1 buck I killed. 3 on same day (1 doe and 2 small bucks) all got a pass. I hunted in Illinois this year for the first time. Actually expected to see deer there. Saw 30 in one day. Alabama needs to figure out what they do up there (7 gun days) and imitate it

Very much so.

Can not compare AL to the Midwest. They have more food up there than the deer can eat. They also have far less cover. You see deer in that habitat type because they have nowhere to hide. If a deer gets out of its bed you see it. Because there is far less available thick cover and a LOT of food, cutting deer off is as easy as putting on your pants.

Everyone one wants to kill does when it's not on their own property, and then when you tell them not to shoot does on your place you get the standard QDMA answer, that's why you don't see bucks, your sex ratio is off, that's why you don't see a rut.....nah it's beacuse y'all shoot everything that walks and just like to kill.

The more management and work I do on my properties the less I want to kill the deer.

Until the deer begin to die from starvation on my place I'm gonna limit doe harvest.

If you've never hunted a property that had very liberal doe harvests, a balanced sex ratio, and a 4 year old buck behind every tree then you're missing out. IT WORKS. And it's amazing to see the things you see on places like that. Can't knock it if you've not tried it.

We've harvested anywhere from 25+ does per year to 0 does a year on my place over the last 15 years. We haven't seen any difference in the number of bucks we kill per year or size of their antlers. We weren't seeing bucks like we wanted and did the standard state bio thing. Told us to kill 25/year. We took weights, collected jawbones... Sent them away and year after year the recommendations never changed. After 3 years of killing 25 a year not only were we still not killing bucks, but we weren't seeing deer at all. We've slowly decreased our doe harvest to where we now kill 6-8 a year. Only difference we have seen is an increase from about 75lb average weight of a doe in 2000 to about 95 now.

****** has not made one bit of difference in our buck hunting, or the size of our bucks********

Location, location, location you either got it or you don't.

You made a big jump, so I am going to jump with you...

When the deer are dying from starvation on your place, your grandchildren will not see the habitat back to a "normal" structure after the deer have degraded it to that point. It is all in you personal goals but if you want to allow deer to destroy your habitat, they absolutely will. Once they do, the damage takes years to reverse and some important indicator/historical species could be extirpated from the local fauna.

As has been stated over and over and over again, it varies by location and herd and habitat health will tell you how to manage your population. It has nothing to do with QDM.

healthy habitat = healthy deer --> you add trigger restraint and you have a well rounded management plan.

Those are great points, but I've hunted places in AL where I could see 150-200 yds through thinned or mature timber and still don't see many deer. Food definitely helps but we just don't have the numbers they do. You can't see tons of deer if you don't have them no matter what the landscape. My point was 2.5 months is a lot longer than 7 days and has a real, negative, and visible effect on the population.

It takes many years. If you started with too many deer that had already degraded the habitat, you are not going to see changes in buck size/antlers until you manipulate the habitat to a better state. You're also not going to see more bucks by killing does alone. It takes correcting the sex ratio, AND trigger control by not only you, but your neighbors. Bucks seek out the most productive habitats available, not the ones with the most women. They eat 12 months a year. They chase tail for a couple to a few weeks. It's all about resources. Food and cover is more important than women.

I see you live in Cullman. If that is the county you hunt then you have a low deer density, and some of the worst habitat in the state. Cullman will never have high numbers of deer. There are pockets of good habitat in that county, but most of it is marginal at best.

This is why the deer population where I live is very low and will remain to stay low. I have had a camera out for at least 7 years on a corn feeder and I have got one picture of one buck that I would consider a shooter.

A 4 year old buck behind every tree I have definitely been missing out.