 |
|
| Home PMs Upload New Posts |
| Posted: 24 Apr 2005 8:06 AM Last Edited By: NJ_Bowhntr | ||
|
Registered User, Sponsor Currently Offline |
Posts: 2912 Monster Buck:  Join Date: Feb 2005 |
|
Quote:
30 to 40 deer per square mile isn't a realistic number. Brian, I have to disagree with you a little here. The habitat in much of south Jersey CAN support 30 deer per square mile without adverse effects. 40 may be on the edge, but I'm not talking over-wintering densities, I'm talking pre-hunt densities. The only state that tries to manage for really low deer densities (less than 10 DPSM), and does so because they say it's good for the trees, is Pa. You have to look at who has the big influence over there to see why they say that...it's enviromentalists who think a deer track harms the soil... and God forbid they see where a seedling has been browsed. Where I hunt in Ohio, we have 40+ deer per square mile, and moderate hunting pressure, with virtually no noticable damage (even to the trained forester's eye) to the habitat, very little agriculture, hunters are limited to one buck and one doe (actualy two antlerless deer this year and some people think that will wipe out the herd) and huge bucks. There is pretty good hunting there. Even with 40 DPSM, you still only see 6 or 8 on a good day of hunting. The problem with low densities that some people advocate for hunters is this...say you have 15 deer per square mile, with a 1 buck to 2 doe ratio, which is pretty good. In good habitat, each doe will have twins...4 adult does=8 fawns, and 2 bucks...there is your 15 DPSM. As you know, deer are not evenly dispersed across a square mile, therefore, 2/3 of that mile may contain NO deer. In New Jersey, it's tough to get permission anywhere, let alone for an entire square mile. Most guys are lucky to get 40 acres, or even 25. If a bunch of guys are hunting small pieces in that theoretcial square mile, and the deer are only inhabiting a small part of it, most of the hunters are not seeing any deer. So, at best, the hunter(s) who have access to the best part of the whitetails range may only see two different bucks the entire year, and the same four does with their fawns...and that is if they see every deer in the woods, which isn't likely to happen. The rest of the guys aren't seeing anything and think the State's management plans sucks (which for hunters it does). I've hunted an area where the deer pop is below 15 deer per square mile...didn't see a deer until my 24 hunt of the year (saw one wandering buck), and went another 2 weeks after that before I saw another deer at all. That is not a good way to inspire interest in hunting for newcomers. This was only a few years ago, so I wasn't a novice who didn't know how to hunt, I was doing the best I could on what ground I had access to...the deer just didn't live there. With more deer per square mile, doe groups will disperse to other areas of the habitat to form a home range, and other hunters will have access to deer for hunting. Of course, the easy answer is to find another private piece to hunt...which is like saying go find a house for under $100,000.00 in NJ. I did find better hunting though...I went north where the deer population is better and found decent hunting on the public lands up by you (Assunpink and Colliers Mills), but those babies are over an hour drive for me. I guess it's all a matter of perspective...if you live where the deer population is huntable (above 15 DPSM) you can entertain the theories of how it's beneficial to have lower deer numbers to elimitate any browsing evidence. However, once you actually have to hunt under such conditions...unless you are the hunter who has access to the part of the range the deer are using, it will probably change your tune. Just an FYI... for the two public area's I mentioned the deer herd is estimated at 30 to 45 deer per square mile. Is the habitat on those lands being damaged? Not in theory, in reality...are there browse lines, loss of tree and plant species, etc.. Do most biologists think there are too many deer on those WMA's?  __________________ Those who value unity among hunters, do not advance agendas that divide hunters. Logically, those who pursue divisive changes or agendas, despite the resulting division, care more for advancing their agenda than they do for unity among hunters.
|
||
| Posted: 24 Apr 2005 9:05 AM | ||
|
Warden, Sponsor |
Posts: 2600 Monster Buck: Join Date: Feb 2005 |
|
NJ Bowhntr
I agree with you with the way deer can be spread out on the "Square Mile" and this can have a great effect on deer sightings and huntability. That said, I participate in the UBNJ's Princeton TWP hunt. The park I hunt has no disernable browse, everything is gone up to about 5'. The Park (69 acres) had an over-wintering population of 32 deer, yet when hunting started the deer disappeared. I took a doe on the opening day of the hunt and saw 10 other deer in 2 hrs. The second time I hunted the property I saw 3 deer, none in shooting distance. The third time I saw 1 deer, a spike, and passed on taking him. I saw him again on the fourth day of hunting. After that no more deer. The deer had eaten all of the acorns that had dropped and had moved on to properties that we (UBNJ) were unable to hunt. As I'm sure you know, Princeton brought White Buffalo in again this year. They shot 119 deer in a week on properties that were not availble to us. So, I agree with your statement that it would be disheartening for a young hunter to experience this, but I also know that my Grandfather never saw a deer in the wild and that just finding a track was big news when he hunted. So somewhere in all of this mess is a happy medium, we just need to find it. __________________ SEMPER FIDELIS
(\ (\ (=' x')----<<< (,('')('') Dead Rabbit |
||
| Posted: 24 Apr 2005 9:37 AM Last Edited By: NJ_Bowhntr | ||
|
|
Registered User, Sponsor Currently Offline |
Posts: 2912 Monster Buck: Join Date: Feb 2005 |
|
Quote:
That said, I participate in the UBNJ's Princeton TWP hunt. The park I hunt has no disernable browse, everything is gone up to about 5'. The Park (69 acres) had an over-wintering population of 32 deer, yet when hunting started the deer disappeared. Wow! I don't think that 98 acres I referrenced earlier has 32 deer TRACKS on it.  32 deer on 69 acres is way out of control. Now those 32 deer spread out over 640 acres would be just fine.
32 deer for over-wintering means probably 60 deer next fall. You'd better get busy. 
By the way Brian, my point in all that rambling was that the deer densities on Assunpink and Colliers are about what I was saying in my first post, that you called unrealistic. I don't think anyone, either state biologists or hunters, think the deer population on those public lands is unrealistic to maintain. Just a guess though, there might be someone out there who thinks those public hunting lands have too many deer. I had no idea how good Assunpink was till the UBNJ Jamboree last summer. Thanks for having it there. __________________ Those who value unity among hunters, do not advance agendas that divide hunters. Logically, those who pursue divisive changes or agendas, despite the resulting division, care more for advancing their agenda than they do for unity among hunters.
|
||
| Posted: 24 Apr 2005 9:49 AM Last Edited By: Bacs | ||
|
|
Warden, Sponsor |
Posts: 2600 Monster Buck: Join Date: Feb 2005 |
|
Quote:
By the way Brian, my point in all that rambling was that the deer densities on Assunpink and Colliers are about what I was saying in my first post, that you called unrealistic. I should have prefaced that by saying, "I would love to see deer #'s like that again, but...biologists advocate deer density numbers of 20 to 25 per square mile" and that that number was unreallistic to what the biologists advocate. It was not meant as a slight to you in any way. __________________ SEMPER FIDELIS
(\ (\ (=' x')----<<< (,('')('') Dead Rabbit |
||
| Posted: 24 Apr 2005 9:59 AM | ||
|
|
Registered User, Sponsor Currently Offline |
Posts: 2912 Monster Buck: Join Date: Feb 2005 |
|
Quote:
It was not meant as a slight to you in any way. I didn't take it offensively, and 25 would be a big improvement (but not Nirvana  ).__________________ Those who value unity among hunters, do not advance agendas that divide hunters. Logically, those who pursue divisive changes or agendas, despite the resulting division, care more for advancing their agenda than they do for unity among hunters.
|
||
| Posted: 04 Dec 2005 2:32 AM | ||
|
Registered User Currently Offline |
Posts: 1133 Non Typical:  Join Date: Feb 2005 |
|
|
Quote: This is not true! Join QDMA and read there Nov/Dec 2005 issue. This is simply not the case.
The extended seasons have got to go,it's not only the hunting that hurts the deer,it's all the driving(pushes) that gun hunters do during tough winter times,you can't make the deer run all over the place day after day, week after week,when they(the deer) are trying to stay idle so that they don't burn off all of their stored fat. The more they run the more fat they burn,the weaker the deer become. |
||
| Posted: 04 Dec 2005 6:14 AM | ||
|
Registered User, Sponsor |
Posts: 5291 Addicted to NJH:  Join Date: Feb 2005 |
|
I agree with Jim. Limit the deer harvest, not the deer deason. __________________ The 4 seasons - Almost Summer, Summer, Still Summer and Hunting Season
jerseyhunter@NewJerseyHunter.com |
||
RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0