Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Serious Deer Talk Forum What if…..

deer populations are not intended or designed to be as high and inflated as hunters expect them to be? The boom in restoration years brought great growth and repopulation of deer into areas they hadn’t been in decades. Seasons were set up to allow limited harvest and encourage growth. The boom happened and should level off to a sustainable level the habitat can support. I think so many hunters became accustomed to watching dozens of deer per hunt, that became the standard. What if it’s not? What if under good conditions a square mile should hold 40-60 deer rather than 130? I think ppl need to reevaluate their expectations and rethink what’s “normal”. I don’t think a reduction in overall deer numbers in some places is a bad thing. Actually, I know it’s not. It’s a great move in some places.

Natural vegetation in some places is in awful condition for the way the landscape is being managed.

I’m sure there are some decent estimates based on reports, diaries, etc, but does anyone know the estimate of the deer population back when Boone was first crossing the Cumberland Gap and pushing civilization westward? I know from a book I read about him, they didn’t have any problem finding game to hunt.


I’ve always wondered what the carrying capacity was prior to the late 1700’s.

If that is true, why would the state not choose to relocate some of the “excess” population to other parts of the state that are still well below carrying capacity? Heck I think one of your co-hosts talks about little to no population in his county.

I’m sure in its natural state it is was habitat dependent

We create our problems with feed and food plots in an artificial environment

I’d always heard mentioned overpopulation tends to bring in diseases to lower it back to where it should be. Hard to say since we’ve been linked many of the threats/predators from the landscape

Because there are already deer in every area of the state of AL. Relocations are not going to benefit anything. The reason Marshall county has few to no deer is people.

Is Bankhead at carrying capacity? Honest question.

I bet its close based on what they have to eat in the area. I dont think places like that can support a big population

Carrying capacity changes as habitat quality and available resources fluctuate. Its dynamic.. CC today likely will not be CC 10 years from now on the same dirt. A young loblolly plantation is a good example. First 5-7 years is great, then as the canopy closes and shades out lower vegetation, CC goes down.

Folks that hunt timber company leases ride the roller coaster example above all the time and may not even realize it. The trick is not to have ALL the acreage in 1 age class. Variety is the spice of life, and definitely matters in habitat mgmt.

Cost is one of the biggest reasons against relocate of critters. Where would the money come from?

This!! Our place is a pine plantation and like 17 different sections or blocks of different age timber. We have everything from fresh clear cut to select cut pines with several hardwood creeks running all through it. Also we have large tracts of mixed pine/hardwood next door on a couple sides. It’s Nutz the deer different blocks hold. Our place is ever changing. We love it that way.

Less usually means more food and bettr growth because of it i thought. I may need to make a chart 😀🤣

I’ve made mention before. If I recall correctly QDMA made mention in their magazine years ago. Oldercutiver sto young pins could hold 60 per square mile.
Managed pines or 5-10 yr old pines 40 per square mile
Open hardwoods 20 per square mile

No one I ask seem to recall this or any similar study. Makes sense in a way especially in the south.

I know that squirrels migrate to pines to eat cones when acorns are sparse. A hardwood tract is a desert when the acorns are gone in the dead of winter

In the Cumberland and Appalachian mountain chains , even though it was mature forest, Chestnuts were the predominant mast producing trees. Carrying capacity in 1700s mature forest then V now was way more.

For the type habitat that’s there I think it’s close.

There’s no doubt that understory quality drives deer health and carrying capacity. That’s kinda the point I’m getting at. Hunters expect deer numbers to be what they were years ago when timber markets were highly active and robust, deer populations expanding and reproducing without coyotes, etc. It’s not like that now.

Cost should be offset by the money raised from the baiting bill

Money.

As much corntrees there are around, they should be well available to maintain in excess; anywhere

matt ,,, you getting into some deep ass muddy water now .


but yeah , many expect to see more than they should .

Matt is right you know.

CNC, what's your opinion?