Amazing

[Bullwinkle]

I am shocked. We have not even cut at all inside the fence and there is a noticeable thickness difference from 1 year keeping the deer out

Fence is lined with orange ribbons. Inside the fence is past them

 

[cutman]

Why are you shocked? Isn't that what everyone expected to happen?

 

[Bullwinkle]

In 6 months? I didn't expect this

 

[OkieKubota]

When you have an overpopulation of deer these are the exact results you should expect. Deer harvest needs to increase on your place and the surrounding places...

 

[Terrific_tom]

Shouldn't be shocking. I have been telling you for years that you have to many deer causing over browsing. You can plant all the food plots you want but until you reduce your deer numbers you will have over browsing of native vegetation.

 

[catscratch]

Why are you shocked? Isn't that what everyone expected to happen?

Kind of what I thought the general consensus was on a previous thread: Over population of deer = over browsed habitat. Fence it off and have regen. Things grow quick in the spring...
I would guess this means deer are much more overpopulated than the OP originally thought (since he's suprised at the amount of re-growth).
The question is: what to do with this new data? Modify deer management plan?

 

[Blizzard Ridge]

Bull I have a solution. Just call me and I will help eradicate your deer herd for you

 

[Jason Broom]

The difference between the two pictures is not amazing, and it's not even particularly dramatic. It is to be expected and a documented outcome whenever habitat is protected in areas where an over-population of deer has existed for some time. This is no more surprising than a side-by-side field of soybeans with 1/2 acre protected/e-fenced and 1/2 acre left open. Maybe it "looks" dramatic to the OP, but it would only be noteworthy if this WAS NOT the outcome.

 

[Baker]

Explains a lot. Buy bullets. Lots of bullets. Perhaps intensifying year round food will help also. What does your biologist say about this???

 

[j-bird]

I think many folks would be surprised by such an experiment on their own properties. We tend to have some idea of an issue, but sometimes we don't know just how significant it really is. Just like many are surprised to see the impact an exclusion cage demonstrates on a plot. Information is the key, now Bull can devise or adjust his management plan depending on his goals. His experiment may also be of interest to his neighbors and others in his area......because it's hard to argue with what that is telling you, but not everyone's goals are the same either!

Thanks for sharing Bull. I think as time passes the impact is going to be even more dramatic.

 

[JDunham]

I have seen a couple fenced enclosures the PA Game Commision has on State Game lands. Pretty obvious how much the deer eat when looking at them and how it is affecting the habitat but people still think there aren't enough deer.

 

[j-bird]

I have seen a couple fenced enclosures the PA Game Commision has on State Game lands. Pretty obvious how much the deer eat when looking at them and how it is affecting the habitat but people still think there aren't enough deer.

That is another side of the coin.....your looking at what happens with NO deer. That is obviously isn't what anyone wants.....hopefully. But such a demonstration would certainly drive home the message to land managers as to what impact the deer herd level can have on the habitat and the need for some sort of balance between game populations and habitat health.

 

[Bullwinkle]

I am going to have the ultimate example of impact of deer in a few years - unfenced and fenced shelterwood on same property

4 years ago I did an unfemced 8 acre shelterwood. Still don't have regen. I thought it just took time.

Planted it in norways so it will be awesome thermal bedding in open hardwoods down the road but I don't think I will get much natural regen

We had a great regen of maple a few years ago. It will be interesting to watch these inside and outside the fence

I will keep posting progress

 

[cutman]

You have your head in the sand. Shoot more deer.

 

[Terrific_tom]

Bull as I recall you stated that the state DNR is cost sharing this project with you. This is wrong on so many levels that our State DNR is using money to help you keep inflated/stock piled numbers of deer on your property. I will be emailing the appropriate DNR personal and all the Natural Resource Board members to make them aware of this waste of money.

 

[cutman]

Bull as I recall you stated that the state DNR is cost sharing this project with you. This is wrong on so many levels that our State DNR is using money to help you keep inflated/stock piled numbers of deer on your property. I will be emailing the appropriate DNR personal and all the Natural Resource Board members to make them aware of this waste of money.

This seems a little dramatic. If WE already knew what to expect, I'm sure the DNR expected the same thing. Maybe they are using this as a case study to influence future decision making. Sometimes it helps to have tangible proof even if common sense is enough for most people.

 

[Terrific_tom]

This seems a little dramatic. If WE already knew what to expect, I'm sure the DNR expected the same thing. Maybe they are using this as a case study to influence future decision making. Sometimes it helps to have tangible proof even if common sense is enough for most people.

I would have no problem with it if the study was done on public land but doing it on private land where the owner chooses to not do any thing to remedy the problem is a waste of taxpayers money. The Wisconsin's DNR budget has been cut big time to the point that important programs are being dropped. If Bull would have put in his last post that he now knows that he has too many deer and plans to do some thing about it, that would be different. Instead he says how great this is going to be for him. Take the public cost share out of the picture, it isn't a problem. Just my opinion but I bet there are other Wisconsin residents besides my self that think DNR money could be spent in a better way.

 

[cutman]

But not doing anything might come back to bite Bull in the ass. If he lets his deer population remain too high and this study reveals the negative impact too many deer have on the native forests, the DNR might start mandating the removal of deer. If he doesn't shoot them, someone will. Wasn't there talk of sending in sharpshooters to cull the population in yalls area? I imagine it would be easier to justify something drastic like that if you can show visual proof of the negative impact deer have when allowed to exceed carrying capacity.

 

[j-bird]

Just my 2 cents worth here, but what Bull decides to do with his place is his business. Public or private land - makes little difference to me....the message and evidence is pretty clear so far and I would assume will continue to be. Sometimes the obvious to one person isn't so obvious to another.....I know I was guilty of it in my early stages of habitat management. What Bull does with this info is his business as well. He may decide to do nothing or he may decide to kill every deer he sees. To be honest it's still pretty early in the project, especially if this is being supported by the DNR.....they may have some sort of timeline and the like that they are following, just because he didn't share that info doesn't mean it isn't there. Let the man prove himself one way or the other......there are enough folks out in the world casting stones at us for far greater differences than this!

 

[Native Hunter]

I'm all for bull doing what he wants to. It's the American Way.

I'm just glad I don't have the same problem.