Year 2 with fence

[Bullwinkle]

Left side is inside, right is outside

This 25 acres you could cover with one stand. Can’t see across the inside of the fence already

 

[Native Hunter]

Nice picture.

You have too many deer. That's unhealthy for the ecosystem. I suggest you kill some.

Good luck.

 

[Elkaddict]

Great pic Bull. It’s not unlike what’s happened as a result of 23 acres of hinge cuts, and ample winter eats (4 acres of corn/beans and 5 acres of brassicas). The place looks very different from what we bought 5 years ago.

 

[SwampCat]

Great pic - what do you estimate your deer density?

 

[Bullwinkle]

Between myself and my direct neighbor we own about a section -640 acres. We shot 39 deer last year. 3 bucks. Didn’t make a dent. We have about the same population from what we can tell right now

I think the deer move to the best habitat.

 

[MarkDarvin]

Bull, how tall is your fence? And have you had any issues with trees falling on it or deer jumping it? How big is that fenced area?

 

[JSE]

Bull in Waupaca cty you should be taking 5-7 per 40. 39 is not going to make a dent. Your total harvest for 640 acres should be between 80 - 112 deer.

 

[SwampCat]

Those numbers are unfathomable for all the hunters I know.

 

[dogghr]

It would be more interesting if their were a so-called normal population of deer feeding within that fence area. To have no browse at all is a bit deceiving I think. Pretty crazy but I've seen it done on just a 30x30 patch of woods years ago in a class I took so not the least bit surprised. Anyone can do the small test patch on their property and I think it would be quite an eye opener for most even those that think they have low deer numbers.

Those numbers are unfathomable for all the hunters I know.

In our deer explosion of the 90s, I personally knew guys that killed 100+/yr on crop damage permits alone. And it did eventually have its affect.

 

[rlb165]

Those numbers are unfathomable for all the hunters I know.

They sure are for me.
Generally speaking, KY manages for around 20 deer per square mile of habitat. If a county's herd is estimated to be over 30 DPSM, that county is designated as Zone 1, which means you can take an unlimited number of does. Years ago, our county went Zone 1. At that time we didn't have a lot of deer in my immediate area. It took a few years for the local herd to bounce back. Since then, I've been obsessed with learning anything and everything I can do to hold enough deer on our place to keep deer numbers from bottoming out again.
Given that, I can't comprehend how deer numbers can get to the levels in this thread.
I've always thought that an excess number of deer would eat themselves out of house and home, and then the numbers would crash. I know that sounds simplistic, but that's been my understanding. If the herd isn't crashing in the area where this picture was taken, at what point does it happen?

 

[Baker]

That habitat destruction would be totally unacceptable to me.

 

[Kabic]

We already know from the extensive history from this forum and prior ones that Bull is not willing to do what is needed for a healthy herd.

What is funny is that has to be hurting his true goal of shooting a 150 inch specimen. I think some of those bucks would get bigger if they didn't have to compete as much for the available nutrients.

 

[g squared 23]

We already know from the extensive history from this forum and prior ones that Bull is not willing to do what is needed for a healthy herd.

What is funny is that has to be hurting his true goal of shooting a 150 inch specimen. I think some of those bucks would get bigger if they didn't have to compete as much for the available nutrients.

Yep. Plant thousands of norways and shoot zero does and eventually 150s will be walking around everywhere. Deer densities are only high "in pockets".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[catscratch]

Looks like Bull needs a good disease to ravage his herd for a while and take numbers down. Having a good number of trophy class animals seem to be a product of rebuilding. Low numbers, generous amounts of resources, a natural and balanced buck to doe ratio, and high competition for sex rather than food is a recipe for large antlers on young deer (shootable deer for some). If hunters can't attain this situation then let nature do it.

 

[MarkDarvin]

Bull, how tall is your fence? And have you had any issues with trees falling on it or deer jumping it? How big is that fenced area?

Bump

 

[Buckly]

No need to worry about any deer numbers there, it's simply a high class problem.

 

[Bullwinkle]

8’ plastic fence. Yes trees fall on it. Kind of a pain. That’s where the plastic helps. Metal one would be destroyed by now. I normally fix it 3-4 times a year

Waupaca county has been like this for 30 years guys. One of the top producing antler quality too. The deer have all they need to thrive here. Land values are currently skyrocketing. Good deer land is going for $5000/acre right now!!!

Having a lot of deer is a high class problem guys - unless you want to grow trees/crops

 

[JSE]

Those numbers are unfathomable for all the hunters I know.

We have been doing it for years except for two years following earn a buck. Our neighbor with 80 acres has been also. Two hunters hunting hunting a 40 with a bow and gun can harvest 2 does each and a buck each. Problem is that to manage effectively you need two hunters per each 40. That does not normally happen when trophy hunting

I know bulls issues trying to grow trees. We put a small 50' x 50' enclosure 16 years ago. Inside vs outside is night and day. Growing trees with and incredible high deer count is useless. Can't have both unless you fence in large blocks. We are cutting this winter and will have to fence in the majority of our hardwoods to get any regrowth

 

[Kabic]

I will say this is the most interesting Bullwinkle thread in my opinion. Most of them are usually some silly question followed by lot of advice that does not really result in any learning.

This one has photos (which is rare for Bull) and shows the results of actually doing something. In general I get a lot more out of the type of threads that show the results of some activity, rather than just asking for advice.

 

[j-bird]

A picture is worth 1,000 words and the pic in the opening post says far more than that. It clearly shows what elevated deer numbers can do to a woods. So the question then is what...if anything....can realistically be done. I also agree that what we see in the pic is far too many deer vs essentially no deer. Having a third reference point of "balanced with the deer" would be interesting to see as I suspect it would not be the average of the 2 extremes we see. I think many of us may be surprised if we did the same on our own properties. However, if many state DNR's are going to continue to beat the "kill more deer" drum....things like the pic are going to be the only way to really get it to sink in. I think in some cases we have become conditioned so to speak as to what a woods with too many deer looks like as being "normal".