Does need to be managed on a county level in my opinion….……Really if each county was divided up into four quadrants and you managed it at a ¼ county level that would be more optimal but we can make it work on a county level scale and it doesn’t even require the government to do anything…….Landowners could group together and do it on their own……Here’s the idea……

Many counties are only in the 400-500K acre range……Its basically like each county is its own Texas Ranch from a size perspective……And just like if we were going to manage that Texas ranch we would have a goal number of does to come off of that ranch each season for “population control” and we wouldn’t be too picky about taking them out perfectly evenly across the whole range……We would want to make sure that we take out 1500 or 2000 or whatever number keeps the deer herd at our goal level overall…….As long as the doe harvest is somewhat semi evenly spread out across the range then that would be plenty good enough……The same concept really applies to each county as well…..We need to take out “X” amount within each county and it doesn’t really matter so much that every individual 100 acre or 500 acre parcel is micro-managed…..

So if we look at each one of our 67 counties as if each one is its own “ranch” then we see that many of them are having issues with needing to kill 2000 does and instead their killing 2900……..or they’re needing to kill 1200 and they’re killing 1800 instead….etc…etc..……The point being that a lot of our counties are NOT having a problem with hunters killing too few does……….Many are having an issue controlling folks killing too many and keeping populations below what they should be……

Therefore an easy way to correct that issue is to start getting landowners to form cooperatives within each county where they “don’t shoot does” until the numbers go back down to the range where we want it for each county……The cooperative controls the harvest from the other end of the spectrum so to speak to prevent too many from being killed…..As long as other folks are shooting the “X” number that’s the goal for the county then the cooperative continues to not shoot any does……It would just about put “population control” for each county completely in the hands of the cooperative landowners and prevent overharvest from occurring….You could simply watch the state’s Game Check data each year along with local county level observations to make decisions for the group……I think this is basically what’s occurring in the plantation belt right now……

Ever considered golf?

I’ve played a few dozen times for fun over the years……I always had a slice off the tee but I learned to go with it and just aim left…….Well I met up with a bunch of family one year in Panama City and a cousin of mine who plays all the time wanted me another cousin to go play a round with him and his buddy…..who also plays a bunch……So the very first tee I’m thinking about my slice and I set up aiming left like always…….and BAAAMMMM!!!.....I absolutely crushed one!!....... straight as an arrow……right off into a bunch of condos down the left side……the ball just disappeared over a roof…….My cousin just looked at me…….WTF was that man!?!?… …Me: Ooops....I was playing the slice!


That tickles the chit out of me thinking back on it…….

That would be a much more effective management plan than the current one, but I can't imagine what it would cost to pull off and the red tape that it would generate.

Paraphrase

How so??......It would simply be someone forming a “cooperative” within the county just like Matt always promotes…..It would just be doing so with a little different idea in mind…… I mean it really wouldn’t have to be anything real sophisticated…..All your trying to do is get enough people on board with “not shooting” does to have a controlling impact……Someone knowledgeable could come up with a goal range for game check doe harvest levels and only have the cooperative shoot if harvest drops below said range with an accompanying observed population rise…etc…….If any adjustments needed to be made to address too many deer it would be made by the cooperative going from shooting none to “shooting a few” if needed……

I think you can look at what’s happened over the last 5 years and the corresponding numbers to form a good basis for where that range should be set for many counties…..For example I’d probably set Bullock Co initially with a goal range of 1900-2100 does for a starting point or something like that…..Things seemed ok when it was running in that range…..We know now that 2900 was probably way too many…….”Membership” to the don’t shoot any does club could be real informal…..

The deep end is but a distant memory, isn't it?

How are you going to get that many land owners and hunters to agree on anything?

If you sit back and give it some thought this actually works out well for a lot of hunters because now those guys out there who want to “fill the freezer” can fill away just as long as you have enough cooperative members to off set the totals and you still fall out around the harvest range goal for the county…..A win-win……

Educate them!

In all seriousness…..with the path we’ve gone down over the last couple of decades with the two a day doe slaying and now the recent increase in doe killing and drop off in populations in some areas, etc……I don’t think it would be too hard to convince some folks to roll with a new skrategy……..especially in a county like Bullock or Macon where it only takes the right 15 or 20 landowners to account for a lot of ground within the county…….You really probably wouldn’t have to have that many folks participating approaching it from this angle………

I like the part where the deer know not to cross the county lines, or the inner county lines.

Getting county / areas in counties specific data has never been tried as far as I know. If there was a way to do that ( again, expensive and mountains of red tape ) then you could actually know HOW to manage the deer. As far as cooperatives go I love the idea of it. But unless there's some sort of law or fine associated with any management profile, I don't see it being effective statewide.

Iowa does it. One county may allow 3000 does, the neighbor county may allow 1500 some 0 some 150. Allowed two bucks a season state wide

Interesting idea. I'm just not sure how killing does in Gardendale, Pinson, Leeds, and Hoover is going to help the herd management in Bessemer.

Ohio does it. Wisconsin does it and has for decades. It's a matter of what you grew up with, whether the hunting community (i.e., landowners-hunters-leasers) can agree or compromise, and then actually do it. It also invoves whether the majority of hunters want it or if only a few loud ones endlessly yammering about something want it and yammer at the right people.

Ohio does it in two-year cycles. I think maybe Wisconsin does the same. Other states do it, too. It's based on their mandatory deer check numbers and adjusting the season bag limits. The next two years in Smith County, Ohio, you might have a season limit of up to 4 does. "Up to" doesn't mean "have to." And then after review and such, the next two years may be the same. Or it may be three, or two or whatever. Not sure but I think maybe Arkansas does it with their 473 zones and sub-zones.

It's not difficult, even in states with a lot of counties, IF the data to be used is legitimate and scientifically trustworthy. It usually is in states where not tagging and reporting bucks and does carries a stiff penalty.

It should be matter of whether it's biologically necessary and answer the foremost question: "will this help or hurt the species?" But as we know, that usually takes a back seat in many states to politics, good ol' boy bullchit in the back rooms, and influence from "avid hunters" and specially invited friends of the department in secret meetings with state officials instead of the common man.