I don't disagree that in the 90's, early 2000's there were probably too many deer, but I think this QDMA hoodoo, and the rules, gave people that just really like to shoot or kill something, a reason to KILL. I can remember seeing 10 to 20 deer average, every day I hunted in the 90's to early 2000's no matter what county I was in. Now, not gonna happen in Chambers, Lee and especially Tallapoosa. You might see 1 to 4, 9 or 10 on an awesome day. From what we get on trail cameras, to get that magical QDMA 1:1 buck to do ratio, we would have to buy does and turn em loose on our land.

Are there really less deer, or because of years of hammering them anytime you saw them, they became harder to see? I've said it before and i'll say it again. Deer sightings are the least reliable proof of deer density. Deer density camera studies are the only reliable way to determine whether there are more or less deer.

He just hit the nail on the head. Unless you have a good many cameras out, you don't know how many deer you have. Our club really slows down after the December rut and the sightings go down dramatically. Add in the fact that one of our neighbors clearcut several hundred acres right up to our property line which reduced sightings even more. You'd think we hardly have any deer. But when we check the cameras on the plots, there are multiple deer (more does) on each field at night. Our harvest averages about 3 does for every buck killed and has for years. This is the first year in a long time that jawbones have been collected on this property so I'm anxious to see what the data tells us.

I run two cameras on my personal property which is just under 100 acres and I run twelve on my club which is 1500 acres. I run these cameras all year. I have hunted both these properties most of my life and yes there is LESS deer.

bigt I agree. I've hunted for 32 years, and I see fewer deer now than ever. I run alot of cameras 7 to 8 months of the year, and the deer numbers way are down based on my '' data ''. I do hunt a place with alot of pressure, but even in the off season, the quantity increase of deer changes very little.

that's crazy

My guess would be because most of them were dead.

I think a lot of folks could probably shoot less does than what they think they “need” to shoot. The health of the habitat will suffer before the health of the herd. Most everyone here probably have a deer herd that would be considered “healthy”. The impact the herd is having on the understory is probably what varies much more between us folks of similar habitats.

I’ve hunted several different counties and properties over the years. The land I hunt now in Barbour Co from a habitat standpoint is really not any different than the land I use to hunt in Tallapoosa Co. Both are just pine plantations with inter mingled hardwood drainages. However, the deer population on the property in Barbour Co is WAY higher than the Tallapoosa Co land. Looking back on it, even though there was a decent deer population on the Tallapoosa land…..from a herd health standpoint there probably wasn’t really a “need” to harvest any does during the time period I hunted it. The deer herd could have tolerated a higher density than it had and still been ok....as shown by the very similar Barbour Co property.

We commonly talk about measurements of individual deer health as why we shoot does and keep the population down but the deer on the higher density Barbour Co land are still very healthy. Deer are covered with fat, weights are good, and twinning rates excellent, etc. The biggest difference in the two properties is the effect the deer herd is having on the understory. The higher density herd is using up all of the understory growth (regeneration) to maintain herd health while the land with the lower density herd had much more regeneration able to be found.


So in the end, I think for the vast majority of us, the number of does we “need” to shoot will come down to the question of……. In what state do you want to maintain your habitat?….or in other words, how intensely are you going to graze your pasture? If you let it go to the point that deer health is suffering as a measurement of too many, then that means that the habitat has long since been toasted. I don’t think very many people are at that point where the deer are really suffering. We are just floating up and down a sliding scale on how much we “graze the pasture”. Hope that makes sense.

^^This^^. We didn't slow down on our own. I remember one season where I think I saw maybe 3-4 deer all season. This was on a piece of property where I once killed three deer by the morning of the second day of the season. We weren't a bunch of grass watchers either. We'd hunt the plots some but also hunted woods, cutover, gas line, etc... We had areas that were buck only to reduce the amount of shots. We also had designated parking areas where you had to park and walk to where you were going to hunt. Even deer tracks were scarce. I'll never be convinced the deer were still there but had gotten wise. We just killed them out, I truly believe, or at least killed them down to where their numbers were extremely low.

People talk about the deer destroying or limiting the regeneration of the natural habitat. Where I hunt that is not possible because there is no natural habitat. It has already been destroyed and replaced by the timber companies. There is nothing left to harm. It is a non native habitat full of pine trees and invasive species making up at least half the understory. The native forest is gone never to return. I am not complaint about the timber companies it is there land and they are just trying to make money off of it. But the deer can not hurt what does not exsist. Besides what they don't eat the timber companies will kill the next time they spray. If you are killing deer with normal weights there is no reason to kill any does. Not saying people shouldn't there is just no reason to other than you wanted to.

speaking of destroying habitat by timber companies planting all pines, well that is true and its getting worse. In a lot of states there is a law stopping timber companies from planting all pines or marketable trees. A portion of planting must be trees of value to wildlife. I wish some of our southern states would also do that.

I would just be happy if they would let us put in a 1 acre green field for every 100 acres of pines.

This is a big gripe in my ass. I we used to at least get 50yd wide smzs now your lucky if they are 20 feet. That is a load of bullshit that needs to change or what little bit of hardwood we have left will be gone. I own 40 acres and half of it is hardwood and a little less than half long leaf pines. I'm not saying that's ideal but as much as pines are needed I hate them three fold.