Careful what you ask for..

binellishtr

See more quality bucks, or less deer? I think some people are mislead of the consequences..U decide

http://www.deerfriendly.com/decline-of-deer-populations

Walker Dog

Lots of factors effect deer populations as demonstrated by the many reasons cited in the various articles. Painting with a broad brush is a good way to end up wrong more often than right. As recently as 10 years ago the big worry was too many deer in many areas of the country. It's not realistic to think that numbers can only be continually increased or be held at high numbers indefinitely. Nature has a way of balancing predator and prey numbers with what the environment can support. That balance is continually shifting. Density is important but it's still only one factor in managing a population.

binellishtr

why u so defensive... if we left nature to nature we would probably be just fine. But, management decisions,and political projects have altered that natural balance.

RexLan

binellishtr wrote: »

why u so defensive... if we left nature to nature we would probably be just fine. But, management decisions,and political projects have altered that natural balance.

Do you think hunting has as well?

gottheitch22

binellishtr wrote: »

why u so defensive... if we left nature to nature we would probably be just fine. But, management decisions,and political projects have altered that natural balance.

SURE LEAVE NATURE THE WAY IT IS BUT THEN TAKE HUNTING AND CAR KILLS OUT TO

Walker Dog

Not meaning to come across as defensive. Just putting it out there that its natural to see things ebb and flow and the issues of today are often different from those of yesterday or tomorrow. That and the idea that managing for a single factor is as bad as managing for a single species.

mindyabiness

Walker Dog wrote: »

Not meaning to come across as defensive. Just putting it out there that its natural to see things ebb and flow and the issues of today are often different from those of yesterday or tomorrow. That and the idea that managing for a single factor is as bad as managing for a single species.

Good point
I think it's also noteworthy that the whitetail population had nowhere to go but down.
Considering the margin for error in this census, and all the factors that have come into play over the last 15 years, this data is not alarming even if it is accurate.

binellishtr

what's alarming is some areas of our country once thriving w a healthy herd of deer are becoming boneyards. BTW< did you talk to the commissioner ?

james 14

I like the graph that shows each state and the suspected cause for decline. For FL it said the Cypress populations were declining and the cause...PYTHONS :huh

At least they got the first letter right.

Skunk Ape

Did nobody read this? http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/the-deer-paradox/309104/ This country has more deer now than any other time.

N. Cook

Actually, there is no such thing as "nature" today as it was in the past in most of the land mass of the country and you cannot "just let nature" play out when it comes to wildlife. Some isolated areas, but very few. Where "man" always played a full time role in "nature" as a predator in the days of subsistence living, today's urbanized and developed landscapes with islands of "natural" habitat make very specific and negative demands on wildlife survival and require "hands on" management by the fish and wildlife agencies. Automobiles alone kill millions of animals, and modern hunting densities strain the game animals' populations if not regulated. The biologists looked at a pretty dismal landscape in the 1950's in most of the country when it came to numbers of important wild species....deer were rare, turkey almost non existent in the east of the US. The work of the fish and wildlife agencies to bring many species back to numbers not seen since the settlement of N. America has to be recognized and applauded. Florida was one of those places in the 50's that was largely undeveloped and had a lot of the "natural" landscape remaining....and, with large ranches limiting access. Game was more plentiful (and naturally distributed) than in most of the eastern US. However, that idyllic situation soon was gone with an explosion of development and today we find ourselves battling to save as much natural habitat as possible for the wild species and writing rules that allow hunting within the limits of the available resource. There will never be the vast "natural" landscapes of the past again....nor the luxury of just "letting nature take it's course".

mindyabiness

binellishtr wrote: »

BTW< did you talk to the commissioner ?

No
Just email.

binellishtr

good, she is a valued commissioner. I hope we can engage her a lot more in the future.