The decline of whitetails

[JDH]

In a lot of places I'm of the opinion that it's the loss of quantity/quality of habitat. Here in IN roughly 50K acres of open/farm land are lost to suburban/urban development per year. Grain prices made a lot of ditch banks and small woodlots disappear and lots of folks to no re-enroll for programs like CRP. Forestry practices in the non-farmed part of the state (yes it does exist!) don't lend themselves to many parcels, public or private, having much early successional phases which a whole lot of critters, including deer, really like. I'm guessing this is much the same in a large part of the Corn Belt.

As others above have said, I think some of the decline was needed for sustainability and better management. Likewise, a short sighted perspective of what is "good" is created by folks being spoiled by those over inflated numbers.

I'm not trying to bait or start and argument, just wondering you opinion. I think you know more about this than me. Do you think Indiana should lower the antlerless limit to make up for the habitat shortfall?

 

[1_pointer]

I'm not trying to bait or start and argument, just wondering you opinion. I think you know more about this than me. Do you think Indiana should lower the antlerless limit to make up for the habitat shortfall?

I'd say no on a statewide basis. The limits are set on a county basis as is, so I feel that is sufficient to deal with more localized population issues. In the counties I or folks I know hunt, I've yet to meet anyone that's filled a county's quota yet. The county I grew up in was 8 a few years ago, but was 4 last year. Still don't know anyone that kills 4 does a year, so I don't see that change having much of an impact. They could allow unlimited doe harvest in many places and lots of folks are still not going to shoot more than 1 or 2 does.

Then again, I'm not seeing a scarcity of deer where I hunt that some others are reporting. We saw 32 in 1.5 days of hunting and that was with a 6yo and a 9yo in tow! Doe quota issues are exacerbated by the small average parcel size folks in IN are hunting.

 

[IlliniFIre]

LOL, there is people who also believe that game agencies in the east intentionally stocked coyotes with the backing of the insurance companies to lower deer numbers

Coyote? Hell here in Illinois I have seen accusations of wolf restocking. As far as harvest here being down, I'd say the largest contributor would be the unseasonably warm weather that was around pretty much all the way through second firearms season (first weekend in December). Really hard to shoot a mature deer when they are only out at night right. To account for a multi year decline, there were some pretty heavy EHD kills about 3 years ago so that doesn't help either.

I will say that both the Farm Bureau and insurance companies are two of the strongest lobbies in this state, (they were the primary lobbies opposed to elk reintroduction in the 90's) but I don't think that they have really contributed to harvest changes. In fact, most counties I noted that available tags were down for this year. Fewer tags would tell me that DNR is trying to increase the herd numbers, with exceptions in the areas where CWD is located.

 

[TimeOnTarget]

Numbers in my area are down from a hard winter in 2010. The state has refused to decrease tag numbers until 2015, which they only decreased tags by a very small margin. In the last 10 years or so they've also added a January shoulder season for doe only.

 

[rogerthat]

Whitetail are "the carp" species of deer. I wouldn't spend much time worrying about them. They reproduce like rabbits and have the ability to come zooming back from low populations. In the west we worry about whitetails out competing mule deer in their native range so low populations of whitetails would be generally a good thing in habitat where the two species overlap.

 

[maxx]

That's because like 99 percent of Iowa is privite and only people who own land or have money get to hunt so ofcourse deer will skyrocket on population because most people are not able to hunt but look at other states that have high amounts of public land like the upper Midwest and northeast deer numbers are down by a lot because of coyotes and too many does being killed

Yes Iowa is terrible for the amount of public ground available to hunters but with that there is still tons and tons of ground available to hunters. I have lived here for 15 years I never had a problem killing a deer or 3 on public ground. Back when I hunted mostly public ground I didn't even deer hunt that hard I was more geared up for waterfowl but I still killed a few deer a year for the freezer. Honestly it is pretty darn easy and I live in the biggest city of the state where you would think we have the most competition.

Lots of factors in this and each state is probably different. I don't think yotes affect the deer herd that much I really don't think deer are a primary food source for them. They may pick a fawn off or eat a road kill one here or there.

Low deer numbers in Iowa can all be traced back to EHD. Weird thing it can destroy one farm and 2 miles away it has no affects.

WI deer numbers being doing can date back to lots of factors. Wolfs and Bears are a big part. There are more Bears in WI than ever and they still don't let them kill that many. I believe Bears are terror on fawns from what I have read. WI also had some really liberal doe permits for year. Anytime you put 600k people deer hunting for 9 days with doe tags you can do a lot of damage fast. That damage takes years to recoup back.

With that the deer numbers are still great compared to what you hear my dad and uncles talk about in the late 70's and early 80's. I think guys got spoiled seeing 20-30 deer a day when the numbers were really high. I know I am a spoiled hunter here in Iowa as far as overall numbers go. It is still a challenge to put a big one down. Takes lots of hours for that.

 

[sbhooper]

Whitetail are "the carp" species of deer. I wouldn't spend much time worrying about them. They reproduce like rabbits and have the ability to come zooming back from low populations. In the west we worry about whitetails out competing mule deer in their native range so low populations of whitetails would be generally a good thing in habitat where the two species overlap.

Agreed. They do taste better than carp, though.

 

[Nemont]

The government is definitely in bed with insurance companies no doubt look at unlimited antler less harvest bag limits in many states nobody needs to kill 1000 does

Jake from State Farm says adjust the chin strap on your tinfoil hat.

https://newsroom.statefarm.com/state-farm-releases-2016-deer-collision-data#Z2A9t7a2QsL8mShh.97

 

[tjones]

Maybe Jake is planting coyotes.

 

[MTGomer]

I'm not much of a drinker, but I'm going to force feed myself a barrel of whiskey and read this thread again. :hump:

 

[brymoore]

Whitetail are "the carp" species of deer. I wouldn't spend much time worrying about them. They reproduce like rabbits and have the ability to come zooming back from low populations. In the west we worry about whitetails out competing mule deer in their native range so low populations of whitetails would be generally a good thing in habitat where the two species overlap.

I agree.

 

[buckbull]

Jake from State Farm says adjust the chin strap on your tinfoil hat.

https://newsroom.statefarm.com/state-farm-releases-2016-deer-collision-data#Z2A9t7a2QsL8mShh.97

I'm not sure why you guys think this is a conspiracy theory. The Illinois Joint Task Force for Deer Population control has members from the insurance and farm bureau lobby on that board along with 8 legislatures who receive campaign money from these lobbyist. Their majority on the board certainly hasn't been pro-conservation.

 

[JDH]

I'd say no on a statewide basis. The limits are set on a county basis as is, so I feel that is sufficient to deal with more localized population issues. In the counties I or folks I know hunt, I've yet to meet anyone that's filled a county's quota yet. The county I grew up in was 8 a few years ago, but was 4 last year. Still don't know anyone that kills 4 does a year, so I don't see that change having much of an impact. They could allow unlimited doe harvest in many places and lots of folks are still not going to shoot more than 1 or 2 does.

Then again, I'm not seeing a scarcity of deer where I hunt that some others are reporting. We saw 32 in 1.5 days of hunting and that was with a 6yo and a 9yo in tow! Doe quota issues are exacerbated by the small average parcel size folks in IN are hunting.

I've not heard of anyone taking advantage of the bonus limits but I have not been seeing near as many deer as I used to either. I believe that the population a few years ago was probably closer to the carrying capacity than it is now but I don't think that the population should be so low that sightings decrease as much as everyone is saying. I've not seen a deer that looked malnourished here.
Indiana uses harvest statistics to determine population levels. Does anyone on here know if that is an accurate way to measure population?

 

[Nemont]

I'm not sure why you guys think this is a conspiracy theory. The Illinois Joint Task Force for Deer Population control has members from the insurance and farm bureau lobby on that board along with 8 legislatures who receive campaign money from these lobbyist. Their majority on the board certainly hasn't been pro-conservation.

So now the lobbying and making campaign contributions in public is akin to being in a vast conspiracy between the "government" and Insurance companies.

The government is definitely in bed with insurance companies no doubt look at unlimited antler less harvest bag limits in many states nobody needs to kill 1000 does

What "government" is being described here? The Feds zero to say about the seasons and limits so it can't be them guys.

Let me ask you this: Is there a public interest in decreasing deer vehicle collisions? If Insurance companies work to reduce their claims and then by virtue of that they reduce rates isn't that good policies for the majority of drivers in the several states? Do you know how many injuries there are in Deer/Vehicle collisions? What about deaths?

To say the insurance industry is the one driving annual deer harvest quotas is not only stupid, it is an out right fabrication because every state employs biologists and has either a commission or board that decides these things independent from the legislature. Can you find me any state that sets in deer harvest quota by the state legislature?

Nemont

 

[IlliniFIre]

Let me ask you this: Is there a public interest in decreasing deer vehicle collisions? If Insurance companies work to reduce their claims and then by virtue of that they reduce rates isn't that good policies for the majority of drivers in the several states? Do you know how many injuries there are in Deer/Vehicle collisions? What about deaths?

To say the insurance industry is the one driving annual deer harvest quotas is not only stupid, it is an out right fabrication because every state employs biologists and has either a commission or board that decides these things independent from the legislature. Can you find me any state that sets in deer harvest quota by the state legislature?

Nemont

While your sentiment is admirable, it is truly laughable here. To think that a state that measures deer population by deer collision data doesn't take insurance companies into account is blind.

 

[Nemont]

While your sentiment is admirable, it is truly laughable here. To think that a state that measures deer population by deer collision data doesn't take insurance companies into account is blind.

What state uses deer/vehicle collision data to measure population? So clear it up for me, what "government" is in bed with the Insurance industry to kill off all the deer? Just saying it is so, doesn't make it so, you gotta have some evidence.

Can you find me a state that uses deer/vehicle collision data to set their quotas? Please post it up?

Nemont

 

[tjones]

Estimating deer populations by car/deer collisions makes no sense. As traffic increases you could actually have less deer yet more collisions. I know here if we had two whitetails left and they tried to cross HWy
93 one of them would get hit by a millinum headed to the U.

 

[IlliniFIre]

I can only speak to my state. For proof I will provide this link.

https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/conservation/wildlife/Documents/JTF Information Sheet 2-2-09.pdf

Not saying I agree with process, just pointing it out.

 

[rogerthat]

Estimating deer populations by car/deer collisions makes no sense. As traffic increases you could actually have less deer yet more collisions. I know here if we had two whitetails left and they tried to cross HWy
93 one of them would get hit by a millinum headed to the U.

Haha! This whole thread is hilarious. Maybe the highway maintenance guys could set the seasons and quotas as they would have all the "data". Than we could fire all the wildlife biologists and save money! Best idea ever! Your welcome

 

[James Riley]

I can only speak to my state. For proof I will provide this link.

https://www.dnr.illinois.gov/conservation/wildlife/Documents/JTF Information Sheet 2-2-09.pdf

Not saying I agree with process, just pointing it out.

Interesting. You got called out and came through, it seems from a cursory reading anyway.

Biologists use harvest data all the time so I don't know why road kill stats could not be used, especially east of the Mississippi where you can't walk more than a few inches without crossing a road.

But I will never believe that insurance companies would use their vast power to influence government. We all know they would never do that. Besides, they simply care about human life lost to deer accidents and could not care less about payouts. It's not a money thing. It's the humanity!

It wouldn't help in the vast roadless areas out west though.

"Why use deer/vehicle collision data to assess Illinois’ deer herd?
The JTF recommended using the rate of deer/vehicle accidents for a number of reasons.
Biologists throughout the Midwest have routinely utilized accident rate information as an index
to deer, and other wildlife populations, for many years. Note that this is the RATE of accidents,
not the raw number of accidents, so it takes into account that counties with a lot of traffic can
have a lot of accidents without having a significant number of deer. It also accounts for changes
in the amount of traffic over time (from year to year). As a result, this accident rate serves as an
index to deer population size, functioning in a manner similar to spotlight counts and many other
commonly used population indices. That is why there is such a difference between the top 10
counties on a list of the total number of annual deer/vehicle accidents versus a list of the rate of
accidents – many Illinois counties that have a high number of accidents simply have a
tremendous amount of vehicular traffic. Since deer/vehicle accidents and the amount of traffic
are tracked every year by the Illinois Department of Transportation, this was an index that was
already available statewide at no additional cost; it is straightforward and easy to understand;
and it is data that is collected by a neutral party with no stake in deer management. Most people
have difficulty visualizing what 20 or 40 deer/mi2
(or 10,000 deer in a county) is like, or whether
those numbers would be problematic for farmers or motorists, so the JTF recommended using
the risk of deer collisions as a more meaningful objective. "