Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Serious Deer Talk Forum Charts and Graphs

Randolph and Shelby needs to be in the North half.

Well…..the delineations are really based more on groupings of “like” counties as it concerns the deer and land dynamics and not really so much about whether we want to cut hairs on it actually being “south Alabama”……For our purposes its in our southern zone.....and more specifically the western sub-group

They are......the red counties are the northern half

Speaking of that western subgroup…….

Something I find interesting is if you look at all of those counties on the last round of maps…..whether it’s the buck map or the doe map….. the majority of those counties are within 1-5% on both maps.....basically meaning “no change” just like they’ve been running for years now……However, there arrrrre a couple of those counties in the far north of that subgroup that are showing decreases of 10-12%......I know, I know…..there’s more deer there than I can ever imagine so maybe its nothing……but……. maybe those counties are seeing a little bit more change than just what the naked eye has yet to detect…..Lets not jump to any conclusions just yet on that one because those counties do show a little more annual variation than the others……but maybe we’ll stick it in our back pockets and revisit it at the end of the season …….Maybe its just acorns.

Yeah. Let's not jump to conclusions....

And here I thought this thread was going to show that 2 does a day was going to result in a lot more deer being killed.

Here’s the way it should break down…..The northern red zone probably wont know the full effects until next year when their back and forth annual fluctuations bounce to the “up year” for harvest…..For this season we’ll be watching for any differentiation that occurs between subset “C” and the “B’s” since C didn’t have a rule change

In the southern green zone what we’ll be watching for are the sub groups marked with “X” to see if there is any significant increase in doe harvest with those sub groups…..The “Y” subgroup should stay fairly constant but we’ll see how that turns out

Here's a thought. Lots of those green counties in SW bama have large unbroken acreage and a large chunk of it is timber company owned. With TC lease prices exploding over the past 3-5 yrs, could it be that the people leasing that property has changed. Used to be a ton of 1200-4000 acre clubs in those areas with 20-40 or more members, that hunted them hard and killed a bunch of deer, and had held those leases for 30 or 40 yrs. As prices increased, they turned loose the leases and they were picked up by big money groups that were more management and trophy management minded and where you did have 20-40 guys hunting and shooting "deer", you now have 4-10 guys hunting the same acreage and selectively shooting only "specific deer". Could also be why they numbers have not dropped off as much. The smaller groups on larger acreages are now acting as nurseries and annually restocking the smaller surrounding properties around them so it counter acts the corn, cameras, unlimited does, etc, at least to some extent.

In the last 6 years the number of licensed hunters has increased from 190,000 to 230,000……Where are those extra 40,000 hunters hunting at?? Could it be that they have been disproportionately squeezed into the “X” subgroups??

We are downsizing our group. As members move on for whatever reasons we just absorb them. We’d like to get down to our original 6 that’s has been hunting together since we were kids. I’m happy with the guys I hunt with now. Everyone is on the same page we really enjoy what we’ve worked so hard far and what our place has provided to us over the years

CNC can you explain what you believe all this info is saying? I think you are saying that for years we have had an increase of deer killings in Alabama, but this year we are going to be down because we done killed more than we should’ve?

Sorry I got to simplify things sometimes. I’m from Grand Bay.

Yes, please quickly summarize your theory. Thanks!

CNC ain't never gonna be able to explain this horseshit in a short post....

They aren’t moving into the blackbelt counties. They are following the jobs and industry. N bama, Huntsville, Bham, etc.

Something to ponder.... Can hunters overcome poor weather weekends regarding the total number of deer killed? Totally made up numbers here for illustration purposes. Hear me out....

Lets assume that a high percentage of all deer in Coosa Cty are killed on Fri, Sat, and Sun (weekend)... which probably isnt a terribly bad thought. And lets also say that the average number of deer killed in Coosa county per (decent) normal hunting pressure weekend of rifle season is 250. What happens if Coosa County experiences bad weather on 4 of those weekends (rain, wind, heat, extreme cold) .. anything that would keep the normal number of deer from being shot.

So instead of killing ~250 on those weekends, only 50 were killed. This example provides an 800 deer deficit for the year, which is a significant number. So if the other good weekends were around average kill numbers, there is no way that the hunters could "catch up" with the deficit the bad weather weekends produced. One might look at that shortfall and think about alot of other causes other than something as simple as the weather.

Just stuff that will make you think.... the numbers and percentages on Harold's charts and graphs show trends, but we are simply left guessing at the causes of those trends.

Point is, there are all sorts of variables that makes the numbers higher or lower each and every season. It can’t just be placed on “the sky is falling” campaign.

I think he's saying that for some of the sections but not all........I think.

OK, I'm following what you are saying with the red section.

Why are you saying subgroup "Y" will stay the same but "X" may increase? I'm guessing you are saying it's because of a decline in the population in the "Y" subgroup which results in less opportunities for harvest.

According to the numbers and graphs presented, I'm assuming that the North is struggling and the south is doing well ?

Isn't that polar opposite to what has been said previously, and also to what people have been saying on this board for a while now ? And do the harvest numbers not also conflict with your own reports about deer shortages in the southeast part of the state ?

For all I know, the trend you are hinting at may be true, or may not be true. But, the point I'm making is the report numbers are incomplete data, and there are a ton of other variables out there. So many that it's impossible to quantify a trend this early.

I understand getting ahead of the curve and seeing where we are right now. But I also think you have to admit that it's a just a guess made with incomplete data.