The argument/logic is that the northern counties have more fragmented land holdings.... i.e. there's a corn pile on every 5 acre plot with someone killing a doe.
Yeah, I’m guessing its also higher deer densities on average in the southeastern counties ……The negative impacts are being seen sooner in the lower deer density, more highly fragmented areas. ….Most of the southeastern counties have good deer populations and lots of large clubs/landowners for the small property folks to siphon off of. A lot of those northern counties didn’t really have any cream to be skimming off the top to begin with ……...
As a result, I think you’re seeing a little more prolonged climb to the harvest peak in the southeastern counties. The small property hunters there can keep going back to the well for longer without it running dry basically. It’ll eventually peak and decline but I’d bet the decline won’t be as dramatic as the counties in the north. You’ve still got the bigger properties in the south to prop up the populations which will help buffer the impact in comparison I would think
Look at what happened when we passed the 2 a day doe rule…..You had numerous years of doe harvest increases as populations were being killed off followed by a decline in harvest once we had the populations at lower levels and opportunities decreased. It’s the same trend occurring now, we’re just changing a different variable this time that’s getting more deer killed….. I don’t think just telling hunters “not to shoot does” is going to work the same this go round though. It’s hard to tell all of those small acreage properties to just not have an impact.
