• Help Support TNDeer:

National Deer Association says states gotta kill more does

In my personal/professional opinion, making large-scale recommendations (even condemnations of hunters as this article does) based SOLEY on harvest data is VERY bad policy and science. Harvests recommendations should be made from assessment of local conditions. I'm not saying the article is completely wrong. Maybe some areas do need more does harvested. But making that assumption/demand based only off harvest numbers is a mistake.

In fact, the article states this, which I agree with:

"Not every deer hunter needs to harvest does. It's a site-specific determination. Where deer herds are below the carrying capacity of the habitat, doe harvest should be minimized or avoided."

Sound advice. But the next sentence is ludicrous to the extreme:

"Nationally, very few deer hunters face that situation."

Really? "Few" hunters face the situation of deer herds below carrying capacity? Based on what data? Back in the late 90s and early 2000s, I saw widespread deer herds at and above carrying capacity all across the Southeast. I know exactly what that looks like because I documented and studied these herds in great detail. Now, I do not see overpopulated herds except in pockets. To unequivocally state "few hunters" face herds below carrying capacity is not only false on its face, but undeniably an uneducated statement made without any site-specific data.
 
What is being claimed is 20-30 years of liberal doe hunting regulations failed to do anything

Deer herds can never be reduced
 
mike243 said:
I reckon fuzzy math round
Click to expand...

Doskil said:
What is being claimed is 20-30 years of liberal doe hunting regulations failed to do anything

Deer herds can never be reduced
Click to expand...
During the Depression years many herds were pretty much wiped out. I think the mindset of saving does to restore the herd carried over during those years.Generations of Hunters taught not to shoot Does to build the herds.
 
BSK said:
In my personal/professional opinion, making large-scale recommendations (even condemnations of hunters as this article does) based SOLEY on harvest data is VERY bad policy and science. Harvests recommendations should be made from assessment of local conditions. I'm not saying the article is completely wrong. Maybe some areas do need more does harvested. But making that assumption/demand based only off harvest numbers is a mistake.

In fact, the article states this, which I agree with:

"Not every deer hunter needs to harvest does. It's a site-specific determination. Where deer herds are below the carrying capacity of the habitat, doe harvest should be minimized or avoided."

Sound advice. But the next sentence is ludicrous to the extreme:

"Nationally, very few deer hunters face that situation."

Really? "Few" hunters face the situation of deer herds below carrying capacity? Based on what data? Back in the late 90s and early 2000s, I saw widespread deer herds at and above carrying capacity all across the Southeast. I know exactly what that looks like because I documented and studied these herds in great detail. Now, I do not see overpopulated herds except in pockets. To unequivocally state "few hunters" face herds below carrying capacity is not only false on its face, but undeniably an uneducated statement made without any site-specific data.
Click to expand...
I've hunted the same public spots for years. Problem I see is that if you just started hunting these places you'd think it had plenty of doe's. The real problem is it's the same doe groups. They just cover lots of acreage daily. And I bet that go's on more than we think it does. It wouldn't take long to decimate a herd.
 
What a broad statement. Even in unit L with properties in 2 counties the deer density on different places is amazing. We have one farm we haven't shot a doe on in 4 year because we just don't have enough to justify it.
 
Last edited:
WestTn Huntin man said:
During the Depression years many herds were pretty much wiped out. I think the mindset of saving does to restore the herd carried over during those years.Generations of Hunters taught not to shoot Does to build the herds.
Click to expand...
Where I grew up in the 60s and 70s, hunters "taught" nothing about deer hunting. There weren't any or at least not enough to hunt. I grew up in a farming area. There were square miles of farmland, woods and river bottoms around me, and I was outside all the time. I don't remember even seeing a deer track growing up... or turkey or coyote.
 
Where CWD is present, you will see a reluctance to shoot does. Does are mostly for eating and with the possibility or likelihood of a doe being positive, the desire to kill one goes down. This is especially true when deer populations are being negatively impacted by CWD. Where I hunt, I may never kill another doe.
 
I may never kill another doe, heck may never kill another buck, loosing my lust for blood lol. that and 2 bad shoulders makes me blink just thinking about shooting a gun.
 
DeerCamp said:
I'm convinced that the lack of quality deer processors left is a huge factor in this. I process my own,, but a lot of people don't.
Click to expand...
I process my own but the costs and availability of processing has got to have something to do with the harvest drop. A lot of people in Benton Co were not able to take deer across the river to Humphreys Co last year due to CWD restrictions. Our harvest numbers were down too I believe
 
My take from the article is that more bucks are being killed than does, that to correct trajectory each hunter when appropriate should take a doe for every buck they take. Seeing as how nature produces bucks and does at very near equal ratio, it's logical that killing in the same equal ratio is a good place to start in keeping a balanced herd.

However, as much as CWD was mentioned in the article and as hard as the author was chastising hunters for not killing enough does, I got the feeling the article was a shill for the CWD kill everything solution. It even praised the states that were killing more does than bucks and attributing it to those states being big buck states. Doe population has nothing to do with Iowa and Ohio having big bucks. And no matter how many does TN kills we aren't going to produce booners en masse like those states.

So while I agree somewhat with the logic that kill ratios should generally be equal, I find the article overall to be an insult to my intelligence. If I want to be preached at I'll go to church. NDA missed the mark on this one for me.
 
Ski said:
My take from the article is that more bucks are being killed than does, that to correct trajectory each hunter when appropriate should take a doe for every buck they take. Seeing as how nature produces bucks and does at very near equal ratio, it's logical that killing in the same equal ratio is a good place to start in keeping a balanced herd.
Click to expand...
This is a fairly sound statement. However, everything is site specific.

Ski said:
However, as much as CWD was mentioned in the article and as hard as the author was chastising hunters for not killing enough does, I got the feeling the article was a shill for the CWD kill everything solution.
Click to expand...
Which, from what I have seen in the past, is accurate. The QDMA/NDA almost single-handedly created the "kill all the deer to save the deer" mantra. I HUGE mistake, in my opinion.

Ski said:
So while I agree somewhat with the logic that kill ratios should generally be equal, I find the article overall to be an insult to my intelligence. If I want to be preached at I'll go to church. NDA missed the mark on this one for me.
Click to expand...
THIS times 10.

I was a huge fan of the original QDMA. I authored or co-authored upwards of 30 articles for their magazine Quality Whitetails. However, they chased the money and went down the wrong path of trophyism. I quit the organization due to that. In my opinion, they're focus has continued to be off target.
 
The areas of Morgan and Scott Counties that I hunt were hammered hard by EHD in 2017. The herd is recovering but overall harvest numbers are still roughly 40% below what they once were. Therefore, at least parts of these counties need to kill very few or no does.
 
348Winchester said:
The areas of Morgan and Scott Counties that I hunt were hammered hard by EHD in 2017. The herd is recovering but overall harvest numbers are still roughly 40% below what they once were. Therefore, at least parts of these counties need to kill very few or no does.
Click to expand...

For very specific localized situations like this, it would be nice to see some localized regulation. I understand the TWRA already has a lot on their plate trying to set regulations for each unit so micro managing even further would serve nobody well. As such I think it would be worth rethinking the wildlife resource management agencies in a new way. Borrow a page from government. Our government model effectively works exactly the same at each level from federal all the way down to local. We even use the model in governing churches and corporations and other organizations. But when it comes to our wildlife resources we are managed in large by a dictatorship at the top with earls/enforcers placed for each locality, but those enforcers merely project decisions from the top. If each county had its own game commission voted on by its license holders then situations like you describe could be dealt with in a much more pointed and effective, personal way.

That's not to say we do not need state level management. We do. But we also need local level management and that is something we do not have. All other forms of government do. Wildlife resources do not. But it should IMO.
 
Ski said:
For very specific localized situations like this, it would be nice to see some localized regulation. I understand the TWRA already has a lot on their plate trying to set regulations for each unit so micro managing even further would serve nobody well. As such I think it would be worth rethinking the wildlife resource management agencies in a new way. Borrow a page from government. Our government model effectively works exactly the same at each level from federal all the way down to local. We even use the model in governing churches and corporations and other organizations. But when it comes to our wildlife resources we are managed in large by a dictatorship at the top with earls/enforcers placed for each locality, but those enforcers merely project decisions from the top. If each county had its own game commission voted on by its license holders then situations like you describe could be dealt with in a much more pointed and effective, personal way.

That's not to say we do not need state level management. We do. But we also need local level management and that is something we do not have. All other forms of government do. Wildlife resources do not. But it should IMO.
Click to expand...
I agree.
 
fairchaser said:
Where CWD is present, you will see a reluctance to shoot does. Does are mostly for eating and with the possibility or likelihood of a doe being positive, the desire to kill one goes down. This is especially true when deer populations are being negatively impacted by CWD. Where I hunt, I may never kill another doe.
Click to expand...
Unless someone is eating brain tissue or the spinal cord, they cannot get CWD from an infected deer. Given how long CWD has been around, and how many states it exists in, if humans were getting sick from eating deer or elk, we'd know about it by now. If I were a betting man, I'd bet that thousands of CWD deer and elk have unknowingly been consumed by humans and everything was fine.

I'd lay waste to some West TN does and eat every single scrap of the meat without hesitation.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Back
Top