# Name Change



## scbass (Feb 1, 2008)

It needs to be official. A name change from BlackWater WMA to DoeWater UN-Managed Area. Doe to Buck ratio 45:1 Good Hunting

Since there is no one that works for the states that has a clue on how to manage a thing.

Normally the 1st 4 days of the qouta give me and the brother at least 3-4 bucks, however this year yielded the viewing of 23 does and 1-1" spike. that sucked.


----------



## Garbo (Oct 2, 2007)

Great Post. 

Last year I was in a tree in Blackwater (Soon to Be DoeWater) and had 17 Does within Bow Range of me at one time. 


.


----------



## scbass (Feb 1, 2008)

Yeh it is sick I didn't add the does I saw during my short archery season I had. Last year I didn't see a shoot able buck until after X-mas then I shot 8 of them.


----------



## archer-1 (Feb 4, 2009)

At least they plant the plots in Santa-Rosa, or used to. In my movement in the Un-Mgt area this year I have seen no plots planted yet....But yet I see more and more people hunting! So where does the money go? 
Wait....I know it pays the guy who wrote me the warning for blocking a road when I was parked under a "Road closed to Vehicular traffic" sign on a road that when it was passable (many years ago) was about 200 yds long!:whistling:


----------



## Stumpknocker (Oct 3, 2007)

Am I the only person who kinda likes it how it is? It's easy to kill several bucks a year out there...the OP himself said he killed 8 one year. I don't know what more you can ask for from a mangement area. And you can just clean house on does during archery. 

But I certainly wouldn't argue with some kind of forked horn rule.


----------



## drifterfisher (Oct 9, 2009)

I would be good if there was more gun/doe days,not just archery,I for one cant shoot a bow. Period,bought one,shot and shot,couldnt hit a block at 25 yds,much less group on it so after about 6 months of trying and failing and tearing up my arm I gave it away.And I think the doe/buck ratio is closer to 80/1 at-least around here it is.To many trail cams verify this. And has anyone else noticed that most does with yearlings this year have two.


----------



## chodges (Jan 30, 2011)

As a bow hunter, I love the way it is...You get to fill your freezers every year pretty quick...But once gun opens, I wish the ratio was different....I just wait untill late january hits then I start hunting harder and I start seeing more bucks. If they change the rules and does start being shot, you go from seeing lots of deer in your stands to seeing nothing...Just think if everyone who hunted blackwater killed does, there would be none left.


----------



## Travis12Allen (Jun 1, 2011)

They would still be there. You could still see plenty of deer. You just may not be able to sit 20 yards off the side of the road anymore. If they opened a season for 3 years, with a week of does with a gun, it may get it to 35-1. Still would be ridiculous.


----------



## chodges (Jan 30, 2011)

I don't believe that the deer numbers would stay anything close to what they are today? I would hate to see the state take that risk of opening a whole week for everyone to kill them. I could see have a quota drawing for them and give out limited amounts..I think Blackwater has better hunting than most private properties, I actually would rather hunt blackwater in bow season than the two private properties I hunt...If there was a doe week, I could kill at least 10 does that week, not saying I would, but others definetly would, the numbers would add up over the years and blackwater would be like most of the other public land in florida, not worth hunting.


----------



## Travis12Allen (Jun 1, 2011)

You missed the 3 years part I stated. That would be 3 weeks of doe days in 3 years. Wouldn't hardly touch them. All these deer reproduce every year. Bucks don't have to run around all that much with all the does. They don't have enough time to breed the ones that are there. Its why you rarely see deer fighting in BW unless they are just sparing. To many does, and no reason for it to happen.


----------



## Travis12Allen (Jun 1, 2011)

You won't find me in my stand with a gun either BTW. Id still have zero problem killing deer. This is just my 2cents.


----------



## Stumpknocker (Oct 3, 2007)

I'm with chodges, there's just too many people that hunt out there to allow killing does during gun. I think you'd see a huge decline in numbers within a couple years. A tag system might work, but that's assuming people were honest about it, and we all know that's asking for a lot.


----------



## skullmount1988 (Dec 13, 2010)

I think there should be a forkin horn rule or three on one side during gun and the state should sell doe tags for public land and only allow 2 or 3 per person and keep bow season how it is. This would help the buck to doe ratio a lot and let there be better and more bucks and it wouldn't hurt to put a limit on how many bucks kinda like Alabama does


----------



## Stumpknocker (Oct 3, 2007)

skullmount1988 said:


> I think there should be a forkin horn rule or three on one side during gun and the state should sell doe tags for public land and only allow 2 or 3 per person and keep bow season how it is. This would help the buck to doe ratio a lot and let there be better and more bucks and it wouldn't hurt to put a limit on how many bucks kinda like Alabama does


Yeah, it's funny, a lot of the people that complain about too many does are the same ones that kill 10-12 bucks a year.


----------



## mackdaddy06 (Nov 16, 2007)

I personally would love to see doe days in blackwater as well as a 4 point or better rule and maybe even 3 bucks a year like alabama. You would def see a Benefit in the size of the bucks in a few years


----------



## deersniper270 (Apr 29, 2009)

Where's a switch to make this all happen this season when you need it? (Buck/Doe ratio better, and bigger bucks) 

I personally am out of this world jealous of the hunts the hunters up near Illinois, Kansas, and Iowa get to experience during the rut. Man I'd probably have a heart attack from the adrenaline rush I'd get lol Never in my life seen a buck chase a doe around here much less fight another buck for a doe.


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

*deer management*

As a member of the state agency that does not have a clue on how to manage anything, please would someone explain to me how having less does would increase the number of bucks? I understand that having less does in an area would make bucks have to cover more land to find does to breed with but that does not increase the total number available to hunt only makes them easier to kill. So is this saying that some peoples hunting skills are lacking and they are not able to find bucks to kill?

On the subject of food plots, Blackwater is no where near carrying capacity for deer, in other words there is plenty of food for them to eat without food plots. Food plots on Blackwater provide nothing extra for them because there is not enough of them and they are not planted year round. For food plots to really make a difference you need 10% of your total area planted in them on Blackwater that would be around 21 thousand acreas, that would be an impossible thing. Most food plots on any area are only a gathering place or a killing area not a nutritional bonus.

To have larger racks on Blackwater deer they need to have more age on them not more food plots or less does thats just plan and simple. Put a antler restriction on say 3 points or better on one side and yes you will kill less deer for a couple of years but give it about three years and you would be able to go back to killing the preantler restriction quantity but the quality would be much better.


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

Also chodges is correct, the deer population would drop very low within a couple of years if doe days were given on Blackwater. I also think that someone who is killing 10 to 12 deer a year off of Blackwater should not be complaining. If you do the math and 200 hundred people do that, that is 2400 hundred deer, to me that is alot of deer and 200 hundred is just a fraction of the people who deer hunt Blackwater.


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

*deer management*

As a member of the state agency that does not have a clue on how to manage anything, please would someone explain to me how having less does would increase the number of bucks? I understand that having less does in an area would make bucks have to cover more land to find does to breed with but that does not increase the total number available to hunt only makes them easier to kill. So is this saying that some peoples hunting skills are lacking and they are not able to find bucks to kill?

On the subject of food plots, Blackwater is no where near carrying capacity for deer, in other words there is plenty of food for them to eat without food plots. Food plots on Blackwater provide nothing extra for them because there is not enough of them and they are not planted year round. For food plots to really make a difference you need 10% of your total area planted in them on Blackwater that would be around 21 thousand acreas, that would be an impossible thing. Most food plots on any area are only a gathering place or a killing area not a nutritional bonus.

To have larger racks on Blackwater deer they need to have more age on them not more food plots or less does thats just plan and simple. Put a antler restriction on say 3 points or better on one side and yes you will kill less deer for a couple of years but give it about three years and you would be able to go back to killing the preantler restriction quantity but the quality would be much better.


----------



## Travis12Allen (Jun 1, 2011)

I laugh at the thought that if you gave people 1 week a season to shoot does with a gun that you would decimate them..not everyone is going to harvest a deer when they go out. That's just the way it is. I would only do it until the herd is managed. Isn't that the point? Right now its out of control, if you don't agree, your not in the woods. I pay for a hunting license to have a chance at shooting some legal deer. Fortunately I bow hunt and have a chance to harvest these does. If you "manage" blackwater, Please feel free to chime in on what your managing? Are you helping manage all these "controlled" burns that always happen to be in open hunting areas during hunting season? I'm sure that's the forestry, but I would just like some answers to who actually does what up there, and what's actually being worked on. I just don't see anything?


----------



## deersniper270 (Apr 29, 2009)

a3cj said:


> As a member of the state agency that does not have a clue on how to manage anything, please would someone explain to me how having less does would increase the number of bucks? I understand that having less does in an area would make bucks have to cover more land to find does to breed with but that does not increase the total number available to hunt only makes them easier to kill. So is this saying that some peoples hunting skills are lacking and they are not able to find bucks to kill?
> 
> On the subject of food plots, Blackwater is no where near carrying capacity for deer, in other words there is plenty of food for them to eat without food plots. Food plots on Blackwater provide nothing extra for them because there is not enough of them and they are not planted year round. For food plots to really make a difference you need 10% of your total area planted in them on Blackwater that would be around 21 thousand acreas, that would be an impossible thing. Most food plots on any area are only a gathering place or a killing area not a nutritional bonus.
> 
> To have larger racks on Blackwater deer they need to have more age on them not more food plots or less does thats just plan and simple. Put a antler restriction on say 3 points or better on one side and yes you will kill less deer for a couple of years but give it about three years and you would be able to go back to killing the preantler restriction quantity but the quality would be much better.


Well put. I wouldn't mind the antler restriction. Except during archery maybe. Make it still where you can somewhat fill your freezer during archery. I haven't killed a 5 inch horned buck in BW yet. They have been over that. I'd just like to see bigger deer.

But hey we gotta have something to complain about. If they restrict to 3 on one side, a few years from now we'll complain for a 5 on one side or more lol


----------



## deersniper270 (Apr 29, 2009)

Travis12Allen said:


> I laugh at the thought that if you gave people 1 week a season to shoot does with a gun that you would decimate them..not everyone is going to harvest a deer when they go out. That's just the way it is. I would only do it until the herd is managed. Isn't that the point? Right now its out of control, if you don't agree, your not in the woods. I pay for a hunting license to have a chance at shooting some legal deer. Fortunately I bow hunt and have a chance to harvest these does. If you "manage" blackwater, Please feel free to chime in on what your managing? Are you helping manage all these "controlled" burns that always happen to be in open hunting areas during hunting season? I'm sure that's the forestry, but I would just like some answers to who actually does what up there, and what's actually being worked on. I just don't see anything?


Control burns in open areas during the season is killer. Maybe not so much in the dog areas cuz they run them out of the woods anyways. But it hurts us still hunters by limiting the spots we can hunt more than closed areas and competing with other hunters. 

I don't see why they don't burn over the summer when it rains a lot and nobody is out there hunting. Last year they burned a section next to me and my dad when we were in our trees and the smoke made it hard to breathe and I could barely make it to the truck in the smoke. What if the fire would've jumped to our section? It would've gotten out of control so fast and I would've been trapped in a grass fire 300 yards from a road with no cell service to call for help.


----------



## Travis12Allen (Jun 1, 2011)

The controlled burns in doghunting areas do not help whatsoever. They push deer alright, right into closed areas. Ever try to run dogs on a burn or near a burn? It don't happen, atleast not very well. I know some folks don't care for doghunting cause quite frankly a couple bad apples do ruin it for the bunch, but coming from someone who feeds dogs all year,pays for vaccinations, and spends money on vehicles,gas, and licenses to run they're hounds legally and with intelligence, going to BW and seeing the woods on fire in the little bit of open area we to run in isn't exactly going to make them happy. When a Buck to Doe ratio is that out of proportion,albeit better for archery and "seeing" deer, it is still out of wack and needs to be managed, which I fail to see being done. Id personally be fine with ANY kind of antlerless system. Just as long as there's an opportunity. Of course I fully understand things are easier said than done, but I don't see anything attempting to be done. Last I heard on the subject two years ago was that they didn't want to make any kind of doe system because they felt nighthunters were doing enough damage. This is all heresay, but if it was the case I guess they don't understand people that night hunt arent risking fines,they're guns, trucks, and lifelong bans for does....


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

Again I ask what does killing does have to do with increasing the number of bucks? I see for myself and I have read it on here this year that almost ever doe that has been seen has at least 2 yearlings with them, how are they getting breed if the ratio is so out of wack, are bucks from across the state line sneaking over and taken up the slack? The deer heard is being managed by being hunted, that is a proven form of management, can more be done of course. The one thing that would help more than anything is age on the bucks and again how can this be done, with a antler restriction! Most ever buck that I have ever looked at that was killed on Blackwater (and that has been alot over the years) has been 2 1/2 to 3 years old this is not good deer do not even start reaching thier prime until around 4 to 5 years old. Start talking and pushing for an antler restriction and see what people have to say if they are honest you might be surprised to hear it. The last few surveys we have done say most people would rather kill quantity rather than quality.


----------



## Travis12Allen (Jun 1, 2011)

You must not be reading my posts? I haven't said decreasing does increases bucks in any of my posts. Although it WILL increase bucks seen. To answer your question, yes deer are indeed coming across the line in bama to help breed these does. I watch it happen every morning of the year on the state line. Its your only shot to get a really good buck for the most part when an alabama deer slips into florida around daylight chasing a doe, and you catch him before he slips back. For you to make a new name on here and post what I feel isn't symbiotic of what I think someone who actually "manages" Blackwater to say, and not answer any of my questions, your honestly giving me the impression you don't in fact do what you say you do. All I have asked for is a few simple answers, yet the only thing you can bring up is killing does doesn't increase bucks? Well obviously having does at a almost 50:1 ratio doesn't either. Personally I think your a troll who doesn't like hunting and can care less what kind of hunting experience we all pay for. As long as you get your money, albeit, that is if you actually do work and do what you say you do.


----------



## Cola Boy (Mar 26, 2011)

When I was a jitterbug, I would shoot anything moving. I didn't care if I was going to eat it or not. I just wanted to kill kill kill. But now, I only kill what I will eat, and that goes for everything from fish to deer. Now, I always have my camera with me, so if I don't intend on killing the animal, I can still prolong the memory of the experience with a picture. Our problem is with the sportsman who only kills for sport. If you/your family will eat 10-15 deer a year, then more power to you, but if you are the one who will shoot anything on site, then you are the problem. You got a problem with to few bucks, then pass on the little guys. Let them age, breed more, pass on those genes, and let the stock increase. Have your hunting buddies do the same, and lobby for larger antler restrictions, and tougher penalties for breaking said law, but leave archery season open for whatever. Shoot, between those of you killing 8-12 bucks off the same area in a season, and the yahoos who shoot anything moving, I am surprised there is a buck still within that area. I imagine the only reason they are there is for the does. 

In my opinion and experience, hunting is not a poor-mans sport, especially archery. So I am quite sure that the majority of the hunters are not hunting so that they can feed their family, they are hunting for fun. If you hunt for fun and kill 10-15 bucks a year, you are the reason why there aren't any big bucks. If you are hunting to put food on the table, then why would you be concerned about whether or not the animal has antlers. 

So with that said, quit acting like a spoiled hick and just enjoy the fact that you can afford to go out all camo-ed up and have the opportunity to exercise your privilege to hunt. Seriously, if you don't like how an area is managed, go hunt somewhere else. If all you want is big bucks, go pay money to kill you a trophy so you can brag about your hunting skills. Want to decrease the amount of does on the area, lobby for doe tags during gun season. Coming on here and saying that you only killed 12 bucks last season, on a thread about how the place is overrun by does, makes you look like an arse.

Truly, I love hunting, always have, but I don't like deer meat enough to take more than one or two a year. Hogs, on the other hand, bring them strait to the grill, can't kill enough.


----------



## FrankwT (Jul 25, 2010)

a3cj said:


> As a member of the state agency that does not have a clue on how to manage anything, please would someone explain to me how having less does would increase the number of bucks? I understand that having less does in an area would make bucks have to cover more land to find does to breed with but that does not increase the total number available to hunt only makes them easier to kill. So is this saying that some peoples hunting skills are lacking and they are not able to find bucks to kill?
> 
> On the subject of food plots, Blackwater is no where near carrying capacity for deer, in other words there is plenty of food for them to eat without food plots. Food plots on Blackwater provide nothing extra for them because there is not enough of them and they are not planted year round. For food plots to really make a difference you need 10% of your total area planted in them on Blackwater that would be around 21 thousand acreas, that would be an impossible thing. Most food plots on any area are only a gathering place or a killing area not a nutritional bonus.
> 
> To have larger racks on Blackwater deer they need to have more age on them not more food plots or less does thats just plan and simple. Put a antler restriction on say 3 points or better on one side and yes you will kill less deer for a couple of years but give it about three years and you would be able to go back to killing the preantler restriction quantity but the quality would be much better.


*FL has NO clue on deer Management, Period! That is Fact and that is the reason for the doe population out of whack and a big deer being a 120-150 rack! The Management areas are the worst managed of ALL. I am sure it is not the lowly workers but the management and decision makers...then the workers repeat the misinformation and are obligated to follow the rules set forth. Please read and study the successful states and see their plans...to them FL is a laughing stock of game management!*


----------



## Garbo (Oct 2, 2007)

FrankwT said:


> *FL has NO clue on deer Management, Period! That is Fact and that is the reason for the doe population out of whack and a big deer being a 120-150 rack! The Management areas are the worst managed of ALL. I am sure it is not the lowly workers but the management and decision makers...then the workers repeat the misinformation and are obligated to follow the rules set forth. Please read and study the successful states and see their plans...to them FL is a laughing stock of game management!*


 
Whoa..........a Minute. 

30 years ago there were not enough deer in the Florida Panhandle to manage, Now there is. Florida did good. 

The more Does the faster the population Grows. 
Florida has done a remarkable job increasing the population of Deer in the Panhandle. Florida is doing Good.

A 120 to 150 is a Big Buck Anywhere and even moreso in Florida. You lost me here. Anywhere would be proud to be known to have 120s and 150s as the big deer for the area, but I am not sure that Florida has gotten there yet. We disagree here....................

I don't know what your are trying to make point of, but I am sure you have an idea that is worth understanding, I just don't. 

In the Panhandle, Florida is rivaling Alabama for the number of deer in their herd, and has done an incredible job growing a whitetail deer population that could be managed, and done it from almost no population.


----------



## FrankwT (Jul 25, 2010)

Nope, Garbo not gonna do it again, you can follow me all over the forum disputing every word and allowing no questions to be asked, I will not play your game.

Merry Christmas, be careful after the 25th you could be My Valentine...LOL


----------



## Garbo (Oct 2, 2007)

FrankwT said:


> Nope, Garbo not gonna do it again, you can follow me all over the forum disputing every word and allowing no questions to be asked, I will not play your game.
> 
> Merry Christmas, be careful after the 25th you could be My Valentine...LOL


 

*Whoa............Again.*

*I don't know you, but facts are facts. For whatever reason you have turn a blind eye, but stand behind your statement....*

*For the record I have never followed you anywhere, I don't even know who you are...*

*To my knowledge I have never had any conversation with you in any form. *

*A 150 is a shooter in Milk River Montana, Pike County Illinois, Kansas, South Texas, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Iowa..and Oh yea... Milton Florida.......*



*.*


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

Travis12Allen said:


> You must not be reading my posts? I haven't said decreasing does increases bucks in any of my posts. Although it WILL increase bucks seen. To answer your question, yes deer are indeed coming across the line in bama to help breed these does. I watch it happen every morning of the year on the state line. Its your only shot to get a really good buck for the most part when an alabama deer slips into florida around daylight chasing a doe, and you catch him before he slips back. For you to make a new name on here and post what I feel isn't symbiotic of what I think someone who actually "manages" Blackwater to say, and not answer any of my questions, your honestly giving me the impression you don't in fact do what you say you do. All I have asked for is a few simple answers, yet the only thing you can bring up is killing does doesn't increase bucks? Well obviously having does at a almost 50:1 ratio doesn't either. Personally I think your a troll who doesn't like hunting and can care less what kind of hunting experience we all pay for. As long as you get your money, albeit, that is if you actually do work and do what you say you do.


Wow Travis take a breath and step back, none of my post have been directed at you just thrown out there for disscussion it is called a debate. For you not to even know me and want to jump on my character really shows your young age and even though I do not owe you anything I will tell you a little about myself so maybe the troll thing that doesn't like hunting will go away. I have lived all but 7 years of my 47 right here in Okaloosa County within walking distance of the WMA, I also have worked for the state for the last 24 of those years all again right here on Blackwater. I have also tried about ever type of hunting that is allowed including dog hunting for about 10 years, currently do not hunt deer but instead enjoy quail hunting almost every weekend and hoilday of the small game season. As for me creating a new name, yes I did just last night as for me being new to the forum no I am not I have posted on here on and off for the last couple of years as FWCBear, but my profile got messed up and I was not allowed to log in under that name or with my old password so hence the new name are we that afarid of new people and new or different ideas that we have to resort to name calling, please. Enough on that. During my time with the state I have been involved in ever type of deer survey that has been done on Blackwater, thus why I was asking about doe reduction and stating that it has nothing to do with buck size or numbers, but again you at your young age and limited time spent in the woods doing official surveys gives you more knowledge than me. I will state again what our bucks on Blackwater need is to become better is to be allowed to reach an older age than 2 1/2, the large majority of them need to be allowed to reach the age of 5 or 6, this can be done by implmenting an antler restriction. 

I have said all that to say this, if you have questions for me ask them I will do my best to answer them in an calm and understanding way, just ask them in a way, one at the time that they can be answerd.

And oh no doubt that deer both bucks and does cross the state line they have no idea of where that line even exsists that was said in jest but to clarify there is no magic line the habitat along the state line adjacent to Blackwater is the same as Blackwater. You have to go several miles north before you start to see a real difference in soil type, which provides more and better minerals which lead to higher quaility foods which lead to higher quaility horns and bigger bucks. 

Sorry for being so long winded and also for making you so pissed off, just trying to open the lines of communication and debate.

AJ


----------



## Kingfish880 (Jun 6, 2011)

I agree that buck to doe ratios are horribly skewed in many management areas around the state. I'm currently finishing up school to become a wildlife biologist and was lucky enough to get an internship with FWC a few summers back. I can tell you first hand that they -are- managing deer, but I do believe that there's much more that can be done. 

From what I've seen and done with the state, current active management consists of deer spotlight counts, sampling fetuses to estimate when the rut(s) occur, and checking for chronic wasting disease. I've unfortunately not gotten to see what gets a WMA to the "3 points on one side" rule, or where/why food plots are placed. 

Though I worked down in Central Florida WMA's (Three Lakes, Prairie Lakes, Bull Creek, Ft. Drum, Triple N), I've grown up hunting Eglin, Blackwater, Bluewater Creek, and Escambia River. For the most part...They're all quite similar. It's easy to forget that FWC has to manage for a lot of other things aside from deer. They can only do so much. 

I imagine changing antler size restrictions could have quite an impact on the population. You'd certainly get to see more/bigger deer after a few years. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

FrankwT said:


> *FL has NO clue on deer Management, Period! That is Fact and that is the reason for the doe population out of whack and a big deer being a 120-150 rack! The Management areas are the worst managed of ALL. I am sure it is not the lowly workers but the management and decision makers...then the workers repeat the misinformation and are obligated to follow the rules set forth. Please read and study the successful states and see their plans...to them FL is a laughing stock of game management!*


Florida actually has one of the top wildlife agencys in the country, but there is always room for improvment as for a big deer in Florida being a 120 - 150 rack again has nothing to do with number of does it has everything to do with age and nutrition. As for us lowly workers repeating misinformation I promise you that is not happening at this time this is all my own knowledge and experience from years of being in and around deer in the real woods not some fancy high penned area were deer are treated like pets and feed some fancy diet. As for the rules they are mostly set up by you John Q Public, the problem is the idea of a few is not always the idea of the majority. You also have to remember we are not just managing for deer only with have beem madated by law to manage all animals and their habitats for their betterment.


----------



## Garbo (Oct 2, 2007)

FrankwT said:


> Nope, Garbo not gonna do it again, you can follow me all over the forum disputing every word and allowing no questions to be asked, I will not play your game.
> 
> Merry Christmas, be careful after the 25th you could be My Valentine...LOL


 

*Valentine?*


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

Kingfish880 said:


> I agree that buck to doe ratios are horribly skewed in many management areas around the state. I'm currently finishing up school to become a wildlife biologist and was lucky enough to get an internship with FWC a few summers back. I can tell you first hand that they -are- managing deer, but I do believe that there's much more that can be done.
> 
> From what I've seen and done with the state, current active management consists of deer spotlight counts, sampling fetuses to estimate when the rut(s) occur, and checking for chronic wasting disease. I've unfortunately not gotten to see what gets a WMA to the "3 points on one side" rule, or where/why food plots are placed.
> 
> ...


Correct on all points, good luck and welcome on your chosen field.:thumbup:


----------



## scbass (Feb 1, 2008)

Cola Boy said:


> When I was a jitterbug, I would shoot anything moving. I didn't care if I was going to eat it or not. I just wanted to kill kill kill. But now, I only kill what I will eat, and that goes for everything from fish to deer. Now, I always have my camera with me, so if I don't intend on killing the animal, I can still prolong the memory of the experience with a picture. Our problem is with the sportsman who only kills for sport. If you/your family will eat 10-15 deer a year, then more power to you, but if you are the one who will shoot anything on site, then you are the problem. You got a problem with to few bucks, then pass on the little guys. Let them age, breed more, pass on those genes, and let the stock increase. Have your hunting buddies do the same, and lobby for larger antler restrictions, and tougher penalties for breaking said law, but leave archery season open for whatever. Shoot, between those of you killing 8-12 bucks off the same area in a season, and the yahoos who shoot anything moving, I am surprised there is a buck still within that area. I imagine the only reason they are there is for the does.
> 
> In my opinion and experience, hunting is not a poor-mans sport, especially archery. So I am quite sure that the majority of the hunters are not hunting so that they can feed their family, they are hunting for fun. If you hunt for fun and kill 10-15 bucks a year, you are the reason why there aren't any big bucks. If you are hunting to put food on the table, then why would you be concerned about whether or not the animal has antlers.
> 
> ...




I for one kill deer to feed my family!!! So during the archery season I will shoot anything without a spot. But it is kinda hard to do that when they are not walking worth a damn even when you know their is a good number of deer in the area. If a good buck comes out I have just got lucky to see him, however let's look at a good BlackWater deer 90":001_huh: or you may find one alitalia bigger. As far as doing like Alabama does you need to have good Buck before you do that and that is something Florida doesn't have..

I have been lucky over the year as I can normally find the deer and I do kill a good number all over the management area and not out of just one spot. Myself and my family can eat everyone of them in said year. I did kill 13 last season and I only had 3 ham sections left by Sept. 

The state could give 2-3 doe tags out with each quota they give, I don't believe that would hurt the doe population that bad because not everyone is going to kill everyday (I don't).


----------



## FrankwT (Jul 25, 2010)

*my last post in the topic an FYI*

In a effort not to punish States with lesser programs they were left out, please note no mention of FL. I know you guys are the experts, but maybe you will listen to REAL experts in the field.

top deer ManageMent prograMs by state
We all enjoy a little friendly competition. It’s fun to see how we compare to others involved in 
similar hobbies, sports, or other pastimes. The same is true in the deer management arena. Deer 
managers routinely compare notes in an effort to continually improve the program they are in 
charge of; whether that be for 50 acres or an entire state.
To compare state deer management programs across the whitetail’s range we surveyed each state 
agency in the continental U.S. and collected antlered and antlerless harvest data for 2007 and 
2008, age structure of the antlered harvest for 2007 and 2008, and percentage of the state’s wild-
life management units (WMUs) currently at the desired deer goals. We then developed a system 
to rank each state’s data relative to Quality Deer Management (QDM) principles. As a refresher, 
QDM is about balancing the deer herd with the habitat, and balancing the adult age structure 
and sex ratio. In a nutshell, it’s about having the right number of deer for what the habitat can 
support, having bucks and does in all age classes, and having balanced numbers of adult bucks 
and does.

In the Southeast, Mississippi claimed top honors with 13 points, followed by Arkansas (9.3), 
Georgia (8), South Carolina (7), and Louisiana (6.3). Mississippi was first or second in three of 
the four categories and this is yet another example highlighting the Mississippi Department of 
Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks’ progressive deer management program. Congratulations to Chad 
Dacus, White-tailed Deer Program Coordinator, and his talented deer team. Arkansas finished 
second by placing in the top five for every category. Only one other state in the country (Mis-
souri) accomplished this feat. Brad Miller, Deer Program Coordinator for Arkansas Game and 
Fish Commission, and his deer team should be proud of their efforts.

http://www.qdma.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/WhitetailReport2010.pdf


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

Garbo said:


> *Valentine?*


Oh come on how do we educate each other unless we talk and debate and i do mean each other, I can always learn more. So ask away I am not shying away from any questions.


----------



## JoeZ (Sep 30, 2007)

As someone who takes part in the burns that "ruin" your hunting, how about we go with one of two options. 
The one suggested was burn during the summer. 
Well, we burn 55-80 thousand acres a year. We'll do that in June, July and August for you this year. Good luck finding a live tree. You'd have 50-80 thousand acres of dead pines and zero oaks. 
Option two: We let it go. Stop burning. Good luck finding a deer in all that mess. 
Just for giggles, a third choice would be how it worked 1,000 years ago when wildfire dominated the landscape. One lightning strike would burn for months, running unchecked by roads and burn hundreds of thousands of acres. 
We'll get some extra help - FWC doesn't manage anything so they can't be too busy - and burn our entire 209,000 acres THIS winter. At once. 
Then what?
Seems everybody - except those that do it for a living - knows best.


----------



## Travis12Allen (Jun 1, 2011)

I haven't questioned your character at all my friend. You may be the most wonderful gentleman in the world. I've questioned managing skills and decisions by you and your division. I understand you, yourself can't change a thing. I COMPLETELY agree with you that if you want bigger bucks, there needs to be an antler restriction. Let the little ones grow, it would be fine with me. There are no arguements there, but the ratio needs to be managed, can you not agree there? I apologize for the troll comment, but its not once in a blue moon someone hides behind a new screen name. Especially antihunters.


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

FrankwT said:


> In a effort not to punish States with lesser programs they were left out, please note no mention of FL. I know you guys are the experts, but maybe you will listen to REAL experts in the field.
> 
> top deer ManageMent prograMs by state
> We all enjoy a little friendly competition. It’s fun to see how we compare to others involved in
> ...


Ok no argument there, But I would like to point out that all states mentioned above currently and have had for a long time antler restriction in place. This allows them to have that balanced age ratio in place. We do not have this on Blackwater, an old buck on Blackwater is 3 years old, no balanced ratio there. We need antler restriction to allow deer to reach their prime age or at least get closer to it.


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

Travis12Allen said:


> I haven't questioned your character at all my friend. You may be the most wonderful gentleman in the world. I've questioned managing skills and decisions by you and your division. I understand you, yourself can't change a thing. I COMPLETELY agree with you that if you want bigger bucks, there needs to be an antler restriction. Let the little ones grow, it would be fine with me. There are no arguements there, but the ratio needs to be managed, can you not agree there? I apologize for the troll comment, but its not once in a blue moon someone hides behind a new screen name. Especially antihunters.


I asure you my friend I am no antihunter, they only thing that limits me being in the woods hunting is lack of money and work. I am lucky enough to be one of the few that gets to work in the great outdoors so no complaints there. I still beleive that you have to have does to have bucks and even though there is no boligical reason for any addition take of does outside of the current times and do think that a very control and limited additional take for hunter satisfaction would be ok, but again it would have to be very limited and controled. What most people do not understand is that once we get a rule on the books it takes several years sometimes up to 3 to get a rule off the books, in that time beleive it or not everything could go to heck in a hand basket. What would you think then?


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

JoeZ said:


> As someone who takes part in the burns that "ruin" your hunting, how about we go with one of two options.
> The one suggested was burn during the summer.
> Well, we burn 55-80 thousand acres a year. We'll do that in June, July and August for you this year. Good luck finding a live tree. You'd have 50-80 thousand acres of dead pines and zero oaks.
> Option two: We let it go. Stop burning. Good luck finding a deer in all that mess.
> ...


Amen brother, thanks for chiming in. I would also like to add that by burning everything that is all acreage in the summer you are taking the chance that you could decimate entire populations of wildlife. To my knowledge alot of wildlife either are having or do have young during this time of year which would be unable to escape a large acrea fire, not to metion the loss of food supplies. Some summer burning is good but burning everything any one time of the year could lead to disaster.


----------



## Travis12Allen (Jun 1, 2011)

Wouldnt you look at past records and previous management techniques? See what's working and what hasn't worked? I think antler restrictions would be a good thing for people chasing bigger horns, but for management reasons I don't think a doe tag or two wouldnt be hurting anything, even if you had to purchase them. Turn more money for the woods. Like some have said, what do I know, I just hunt them...


----------



## Travis12Allen (Jun 1, 2011)

On a side note about burning sections. Again no problem at all with burning the sections. I believe it would help out tremendously to have something on the WMA map every year that hunters can see dates on that can tell us when and what sections will be burnt. Would keep some of us from wasting a lot of money on licenses and gas.


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

Travis12Allen said:


> On a side note about burning sections. Again no problem at all with burning the sections. I believe it would help out tremendously to have something on the WMA map every year that hunters can see dates on that can tell us when and what sections will be burnt. Would keep some of us from wasting a lot of money on licenses and gas.


Great idea in theory, but not something that would work. To many variables involved to be able to pen down a certain area to a certain week must less a certain day. Also there is already way to much stuff on the small brochure map add anything else and it would be unreadable, and do not even think about a bigger and better map being included in the wma brochure aint going to happen to expensive. 

Also FWC has nothing to do with the burns on the State Forest that is all FFS we do assist at times, but they pick all areas based on past number of years since last burn and time of year of last burn. Again alot of variables involved it is not as easy as just striking a match there is actually a sicence to all the madness.


----------



## JoeZ (Sep 30, 2007)

Travis12Allen said:


> On a side note about burning sections. Again no problem at all with burning the sections. I believe it would help out tremendously to have something on the WMA map every year that hunters can see dates on that can tell us when and what sections will be burnt. Would keep some of us from wasting a lot of money on licenses and gas.



We would love to be able to do that. Seriously, that'd be ideal. 
Undortunately, weather is such a factor in our rangers' work that not only the number of acres to be burned changes but also the location can move by miles. 
Wind, rain, all that fun stuff dictates when and where we burn as much as any management plan. 
There's no perfect solution to burning or deer management, We will. Ever please everyone - be that the external custom (us as hunters) or internal (Tallahassee).


----------



## Travis12Allen (Jun 1, 2011)

Thank you fellas for your time and effort. Its much appreciated as much as your answers. Once again, I apologize for the troll comment FWCbear... no ill intentions toward you or your character. Hope you guys have a wonderful Christmas.


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

Travis12Allen said:


> Thank you fellas for your time and effort. Its much appreciated as much as your answers. Once again, I apologize for the troll comment FWCbear... no ill intentions toward you or your character. Hope you guys have a wonderful Christmas.


None taken, Same to you and yours.


----------



## JoeZ (Sep 30, 2007)

And to all a good night.


----------



## deersniper270 (Apr 29, 2009)

JoeZ said:


> As someone who takes part in the burns that "ruin" your hunting, how about we go with one of two options.
> The one suggested was burn during the summer.
> Well, we burn 55-80 thousand acres a year. We'll do that in June, July and August for you this year. Good luck finding a live tree. You'd have 50-80 thousand acres of dead pines and zero oaks.
> Option two: We let it go. Stop burning. Good luck finding a deer in all that mess.
> ...


I'm not saying burning is bad and I'm not mad or upset at anyone. I just had a bad experience with burning. I appreciate all the hard work yall do managing the forest I hunt and keeping it where I can walk through it and it not be a jungle lol. 

Just a question and not meaning it anymore than for it to be educational to me and anyone else that may be wondering because I do not know: Why would burning in June, July and August kill all the trees? You said we'd have 50-80 thousand acres of dead pines and zero oaks. Why? I would hate that lol


----------



## deersniper270 (Apr 29, 2009)

Travis12Allen said:


> The controlled burns in doghunting areas do not help whatsoever. They push deer alright, right into closed areas. Ever try to run dogs on a burn or near a burn? It don't happen, atleast not very well. I know some folks don't care for doghunting cause quite frankly a couple bad apples do ruin it for the bunch, but coming from someone who feeds dogs all year,pays for vaccinations, and spends money on vehicles,gas, and licenses to run they're hounds legally and with intelligence, going to BW and seeing the woods on fire in the little bit of open area we to run in isn't exactly going to make them happy.


I guess I didn't really think about it pushing them to the closed sections. I like dog hunting too.


----------



## Travis12Allen (Jun 1, 2011)

Where I run dogs around the Bracken road, when those woods catch on fire, they run north across the line to alabama, west into the closed area, and east across beaver creek highway which is stalking area only. Might aswell be closed area to a dog hunter. The only place they can go and we still run them is south. You can only go so far south to green road though.


----------



## scootman (Oct 6, 2007)

I don't have a dog in this fight because I've never hunted public land and I can't speak from experience about the quality, quantity nor deer ratios.

However I do have an opinion I'd like to toss out there. I've read many posts over the years from young guys who appear to be passionate about hunting, deer management and how WMA's are managed. In other forum areas, I read folk's opinions about the fisheries and snapper restrictions and so forth. Great topics for debate and a lot of strong opinions tossed around daily. 

My hope is some of these guys will merge their passion for the outdoors with their advanced education and/or career path. Meaning, I hope these guys consider a college education in subjects like forestry or marine biology and so forth. Travis and many others are young, smart guys and they have a bright future ahead of them. Even if college isn't their desire, they still have an opportunity to select a career which they will love, enjoy and benefits nature along with the public. Wouldn't it be awesome if we all had jobs we loved and those jobs benefitted wildlife and the public for generations to come?

Scoots


----------



## JoeZ (Sep 30, 2007)

deersniper270 said:


> Why would burning in June, July and August kill all the trees? You said we'd have 50-80 thousand acres of dead pines and zero oaks. Why? I would hate that lol



That's a pretty good question. Simple answer is that it would boil them from the inside out.

Longer but still simple answer: It's cold in the winter and hot in the summer. Burning when it's hot out means the tree's core temp is already going to be elevated. A Rx burn obviously creates more heat and increases that core temp even more. Usually to a point in excess of what the tree can survive.

Burn when it's cold and the core temp is lower, the fire also will not be as hot and you'll have a greater survival rate. Even some of our burns in the winter can kill a few of the smaller trees.

From the outside it seems to be "Pick a spot and start a fire" but we have people who track the burns from years past, plot them out in a computer, track when they need to be burned again and establish a plan for burning that includes many management objectives, one of which is wildlife.

This year, we're aiming for 76,238 acres. If it stays dry like it's forecast to be, that won't happen but we'll give it our best shot.


Side note: If you find a place we burned, remember that spot. Wait for rain and go back in two or three weeks. Deer love all the new shoots and growth that pop up incredibly fast after a burn. Maybe black camo for those areas?


----------



## Q2arrowhunter (Mar 17, 2008)

Just my two cents - Opening a doe season with guns will not decimate the population - It seems that the previous posts assume that everyone who hunts the WMA will be off and hunting the WMA for that week (or whatever length of time) and killing every doe they see. A two week does season means actually 2 to 4 days for someone to hunt (I may be wrongly assuming that everyone must have other activities they must take part in and therefore cannot hunt the WMA during legal shooting hours/7 days a week - I mean I cannot be the only person who works full-time and has a family). 

Less does does not equal more bucks. Less does equal a more balanced buck to doe ratio. The perfect ratio? - I do not know. Less does equal more bucks MOVING to find breading does so you may see more.

Antler restrictions will produce better quality bucks because the bucks can live long enough to develop larger racks (assuming good nutrition and genetics). It drives me crazy to hear these WMA hunter come out bragging about shooting a small buck or a goofy horned buck and make the comment it is a great Blackwater Buck or a cull buck. It is a great Blackwater buck because you shoot every dang tiny buck you see and they cannot grow. Also just because the rack may be goofy looking this year does not mean that next year it will also. Injury has a lot to do with antler development.

I will not get into dog hunting - some like it, I do not, but I will not ever try to take that away from those who do. Hunters should stick together and not fight each other - save the fighting for PETA and others.


----------



## deersniper270 (Apr 29, 2009)

JoeZ

I get it now! Makes a lot of sense to burn when its cold now. It sucks to have to burn but we need it. 

Thanks for the explanation!


----------



## JoeZ (Sep 30, 2007)

No problem. 

I'm telling you though, if they burnt there last week, hunt it hard in January. They're in there feeding. It's like it's own little 1,000 acre food plot.


----------



## bowfisher91 (Feb 19, 2008)

I personally have no problem with the way the state is managing WMAs. To change the management practices and laws for these areas is not a simple matter. The effects of a simple change can really hurt the hunting. I must say I agree with *ac3j**.* Killing does can decrease the overall population drastically in time if not done properly. Each buck on public land may breed several does during the rut, therefore more overall deer -- including bucks. As my dad grew up (here in the panhandle), deer hunting was not really an option as there was no real population of deer. I’d say they have made quite a comeback the past 30 years.
 Also, having public land that is accessible and has a good deer population may help keep the younger generations of hunters interested in the sport. It sure makes hunting more enjoyable when a youngin’ sees a few deer. 

….and 120” to 150” deer are big anywhere! I am a little shocked someone would complain about that. Deer that reach this level or larger often do so in areas with way more agriculture than in Florida…….. This also leads to another point: you should be more concerned about what is a trophy to you as a hunter, not what is a big deer in another state or other circumstance. This can be tough when it seems quite a few people are heading north to hunt these bruiser bucks and having great success. Keep in mind it may take twice the skill to kill a 90” -100” deer in Florida as it would to kill a 130” deer in a different state or area. I have killed a few bucks on my dad’s lease in Alabama, but the day I finally connect on a pencil horned 65” buck with my bow on a WMA, I will feel on top of the world. 

That being said, I am not opposed to an antler restriction. A few areas here around Tallahassee have switched to 3 or more points on one side and I believe it has really helped.


----------



## TailRazor (Apr 25, 2011)

I think a antler restriction would help also. You shot 8 bucks in one season out of blackwater? May be a clue as to why your not seeing many anymore.


----------



## Travis12Allen (Jun 1, 2011)

There are to many does. If you do any kind of research you will see. If our buck to doe ratio is honestly 45:1 it is out of hand. I'm still going to stand behind what is fact, and what science says. Looking at it as a hunter with QDM in mind(not chasing just chasing big horns), you would want to do something about this ratio. Which means harvesting more does.They talk like 8:1 is something bad, they have obviously not been to this area. The old mature bucks are around, they just don't have to go anywhere.


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

Travis12Allen said:


> There are to many does. If you do any kind of research you will see. If our buck to doe ratio is honestly 45:1 it is out of hand. I'm still going to stand behind what is fact, and what science says. Looking at it as a hunter with QDM in mind(not chasing just chasing big horns), you would want to do something about this ratio. Which means harvesting more does.They talk like 8:1 is something bad, they have obviously not been to this area. The old mature bucks are around, they just don't have to go anywhere.


I understand and respect peoples thought process, I also understand people read magazines and they get on web sites and all that, but that does not make it science in all places. If you just want to kill does ok, but if you think that by killing them you are going to increase the total number of bucks out there (not that you see) you are misunderstanding the information. Also there is no known scientificly proven ratio for Blackwater and I should know because I would take part in the survey. Also Blackwater is not at carrying capacity so no real reason other than hunter satisfaction to increase the take of does. I will also say again that any increase should be tightly limited and controlled because it could effect the population more than most people understand in a very short period of time. Then people would be saying they are not seeing any deer instead of oh my goodness does are everywhere.


----------



## ABailey (May 25, 2010)

Ok, I read enough and have a few questions for the professionals. First off I think Travis is spot on with his thinking. Decreasing the doe population will not make more bucks, but it will cause more bucks to be seen. Now for the question. Why would just having a doe week be bad? It's done on private land, and it doesn't seem to do anything to the herd population. We still get great numbers the following years. Just wondering how its not the same on the wma. As far as getting better bucks, I do agree that a forked rule needs to go in effect sometime soon.


----------



## archer-1 (Feb 4, 2009)

I know a3cj, know that he is dedicated to wildlife management and spends more time in the woods than probably any group of 10 of us put together....thats just counting his time at work.
I understand your statement about food plot total acreage needed to benefit the whole heard but at least planting what we have established now would benefit some of the heard and expand on that a little along. And opening the Archery opportunity on the doe heard to the whole season would be tightly limited and controlled as not many would lay down their rifle to continue to bowhunt.


----------



## bowfisher91 (Feb 19, 2008)

I think the TV shows and magazine/internet articles (aka "research") are really skewing people's concept of what is practical and applicable to public land in Florida.


----------



## JoeZ (Sep 30, 2007)

bowfisher91 said:


> I think the TV shows and magazine/internet articles (aka "research") are really skewing people's concept of what is practical and applicable to public land in Florida.


This is the smartest thing I've heard all week. 
There is actually a theory that our deer - not just Florida but the most southern portion of Alabama, Ga, Mississippi as well - are a slightly different species or subspecies of whitetail. 

They're smaller bodied - no need for winter weight because they can browse year round. They have smaller racks - what little nutrition they do get must go to the body to sustain life not antlers. They even breed different - our deer have the opportunity to breed all year. Our winters are not harsh enough to force a fall breeding season because there's enough food available for does and fawns all the time.

That being said, I'd love to skip a forked horn rule and go straight to a 3 on one side rule or better. Would it suck for a few years, sure. Would it be an incredible improvement after just five years of practice, hell yeah!


----------



## archer-1 (Feb 4, 2009)

I think a 3 on 1 would be very benefical in the long run.
Everyone thought Alabama was on track with their Deer a day rule but now you can begain to see tha faults in that with the 3 Buck limit coming back and many clubs have had to put their own doe limit in place to re-establish their numbers.


----------



## Travis12Allen (Jun 1, 2011)

Looks like Alabama does fine and they have an open season on does all year long. Two per day if I'm not mistaken. I don't see they're deer herd dwindling. Whatever the ratio may be in BW, the bucks have no chance to breed all the does there. There are just does that don't get bred. I see them every year. There is just excess does. Scientists that have done research in the field for years say that a 1:1 ratio would be ideal, but is realistically unachievable and anything around 5 does to 1 buck is more achievable. We are a long way off from this, which is what they say makes for a good and healthy herd. 3 on one side would be nice and all, for people chasing big horns, not necessarily for a healthy deer herd. I don't see how people don't think we have an excess amount of deer as it is? Around my house, my farm is being overrun by them and there are houses all around my neighborhood. They have taken over Tanglewood in Milton and I'm sure some know where that's at. I'm just not seeing where there's any reason to worry about a deer shortage anytime soon. Another thing, when these bucks are stressing themselves out to attempt to breed all these does, they are breeding them at different times. Its why I still see spotted fawns right now. This makes the babies more suspect to predators when born and less actually make it, where as more are inclined to make it when they are all hitting the ground around the same time and are less likely to be singled out. I spend a lot of time in the woods, looking at and hunting deer. I have shined deer at night, and the number of does you see, to the number of bucks is unreal. One night I seen 60 something does before I ever saw the first horn. I'm just not seeing where a doe tag system or any kind of system is going to decimate these deer. Its just my two cents, and I'm just calling what I see. Its nice to have people on the forums that can tell us hunters what is going on. We appreciate what you do. At the same time, I feel we can help you.

On a side note: Alabamas doe rules are way out of hand now, but it took awhile, and FL should never have something that extreme.


----------



## archer-1 (Feb 4, 2009)

Travis if you get into the middle park of Alabama you can see the difference. Our club has limited does to two per member and only on 1/2 of the club for gun season. But our ratio is good also with plenty of young 6 and 8 points being seen.
Your over population vs. predidation of fawns born late statement seems to contridict unless your saying more male offspring get killed early on....


----------



## Snap (Nov 28, 2007)

*Herd versus land balance*

I manage a club with the same thought that without does you don't get more deer of either sex. What are the telling indicators that you are approaching herd capacity before you get too close to the line? The obvious would be on the lookout for a browse line but what else should I look for.
Thanks for the reply -- Snap


----------



## deersniper270 (Apr 29, 2009)

I've also noticed a huge increase around Tanglewood in the past 2 years. 

Do yall think that if we had a 3 on 1 side rule, which would increase the amount of bucks not being killed, combined with a smaller population of does would present more bucks after a while? By bringing the doe population down and the buck population up.

Or,

Would having a 3 on 1 side rule and not managing the does any different than we do now still increase the amount of bucks seen after a while? Like if the normal 5 inch or forked buck that would get killed had the chance to survive and breed. Would the amount of bucks increase to more match the doe ratio we have now? 

IDK if this makes any sense to anyone. I know what I'm trying to say its just hard to type it lol


----------



## Travis12Allen (Jun 1, 2011)

Deersniper, there would still be an overabundance of does, just more bigger bucks. Which hasn't done anything for the ratio, just satisfies people looking for more antler.

Archer1, yearling bucks are abandoned by there mothers at a much younger age than yearling does. Thus leaving them more vulnerable to predators. Combine that with shooting every legal deer with an antler of only five inches in length on one side, and you have a small population of bucks. Plus nighthunting takes its toll. Leaving an ever increasing doe figure because we have no season on them other than early archery. I'm not saying wipe these does out like a lot of alabama has done, but just something simple and subtle like maybe being able to purchase a doe tag or two for a WMA or even a youth hunt weekend? I can't see where this will decimate our herd.


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

Snap said:


> I manage a club with the same thought that without does you don't get more deer of either sex. What are the telling indicators that you are approaching herd capacity before you get too close to the line? The obvious would be on the lookout for a browse line but what else should I look for.
> Thanks for the reply -- Snap


You are correct the obvious would be a browse line and not a browse line in a food plot but in the woods on natural foods. Also deer brazenly feeding in open areas without fleeing, places like in peoples yards in the middle of the day. Also over population and over crowding leads to sickness and general poor health. There is nothing really magical about it mainly when we as humans try to fix things in nature we usually wind up screwing it up, so just use common sense.


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

deersniper270 said:


> I've also noticed a huge increase around Tanglewood in the past 2 years.
> 
> Do yall think that if we had a 3 on 1 side rule, which would increase the amount of bucks not being killed, combined with a smaller population of does would present more bucks after a while? By bringing the doe population down and the buck population up.
> 
> ...


It would in the first couple of years but after that you should go back to killing the same number of bucks total per year that you do now, only they would be all 6's or better instead of spikes and 4 points

I still am not understanding why everybody has a probplem with the buck to doe ratio. Like I have already said if it is just a function of hunter satisfaction on being able to kill something, then a very limited and controlled doe take would be alright, but it would serve no biological purpose either in increasing bucks or increasing size.


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

ABailey said:


> Ok, I read enough and have a few questions for the professionals. First off I think Travis is spot on with his thinking. Decreasing the doe population will not make more bucks, but it will cause more bucks to be seen. Now for the question. Why would just having a doe week be bad? It's done on private land, and it doesn't seem to do anything to the herd population. We still get great numbers the following years. Just wondering how its not the same on the wma. As far as getting better bucks, I do agree that a forked rule needs to go in effect sometime soon.


It is alot easier to control what goes on on your private land than it is on Blackwater. Unfourtantly the state is in the business of selling hunting license and if it was just an open week of doe days then the kill numbers could and probably would be very high. Also once we get a rule on the books it is very hard to get it off without several years of data to back it up, by that time some major damage could already be done and it would take several years for it to bright itself. Also Blackwater is peppered with private property throughout its total area, if you start thinking about doe days, archery season, poaching, inmoral hunters and deer dep permits there is a awful lot of does already being killed in and around Blackwater. If you had that number and the number of legal bucks killed the number would surprise everybody including my people and the question would be asked how is the population at the point that it is right now and how can it substain itself.


----------



## TailRazor (Apr 25, 2011)

Up north we applied for a limited number of doe tags after the antlered season which would be cool but like a few have said, a doe slaughter fest will not achieve anything? If there's food to support the herd then let em run, i'd rather see a doe then nothing when i'm sitting in my stand.


----------



## Snap (Nov 28, 2007)

The state changed the tag to acreage ratio last year from 1 tag per 100 acres to 1 tag per 150 acres so they obviously are trying to increase the herd in the overall area. It doesn't sit well with me that the farmer next door is harvesting animials with predation permits just before dark during bow season while at the same time reducing the amount of tags we are allowed during gun season. Not that we ever used all the tags we were issued but this is two different lines of thought working against one another. :whistling: Just thinking out loud to generate conversation.


----------



## seabass (May 7, 2009)

hey brother I let a small buck walk sat. morning just wanted to let you know that garbo has smokepole barrel and foreend for 200.00 I didn't hunt this morning but i'm headed to the al. line this afternoon talk to ya later


----------



## bigbulls (Mar 12, 2008)

It really isn't all that hard to figure out how to bring the buck to doe ratio back to a healthy ratio. IT seems to me that the state concentrates their efforts on habitat rehabilitation and maintenance, which they do a damn good job, but neglects the actual deer heard management.

A buck needs two things to grow to potential, provided we are talking about wild deer. Food, and age. BW has plenty of food thanks to controlled burns constantly burning off the undergrowth that can choke out much of the beneficial food sources for deer and other game and a large number of private agriculture scattered throughout the management area. BW does not have a good age structure in their bucks and this is what needs to be worked on. A buck will never be a 120" 10 point if he gets shot when he is a yearling spike.

First thing is limit the number and size of the bucks taken off of BW. There isn't any damn reason one hunter needs to take 15 bucks (or deer for that matter) a year and there isn't any reason 50% or more of those bucks taken need to be yearling spikes. Limit the number of bucks taken per hunter to about 6 and enforce a 6 point rule.

Second is allow the taking of more does. If you want to get the ratio back to healthy numbers does must be shot. Period. Continue to allow does to be shot during archery season like it is now. During gun season, allow those that pull one of the 1800 quote permits to take a certain number of does with their rifles, 5 or 6, based on a tag system. Have them check or call in the tags when a doe is killed. IF the state can not afford a system of call or check in, then at a minimum use a tag system. If this is too much to ask then allow a short two week doe season of up to two does per day per hunter but do it either during the first two weeks or last two weeks when hunting in BW is limited to those holding quota permits. 

There are a number of good private clubs in the area that follow this practice and they regularly kill bucks that score 120 - 130 inches every year and I have seen some that score in the 160's. All on free ranging clubs that manage the heard properly.


I realize that BW, being public land, will never be managed for deer as well as a private hunting club but it can certainly be managed better. I also realize that this will do nothing to curb those that are out there poaching and nothing ever will.


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

Snap said:


> The state changed the tag to acreage ratio last year from 1 tag per 100 acres to 1 tag per 150 acres so they obviously are trying to increase the herd in the overall area. It doesn't sit well with me that the farmer next door is harvesting animials with predation permits just before dark during bow season while at the same time reducing the amount of tags we are allowed during gun season. Not that we ever used all the tags we were issued but this is two different lines of thought working against one another. :whistling: Just thinking out loud to generate conversation.


Have you ever thought that they increased the acreage to compansate for the over killing of does on dep permits. Just something to ponder not saying or even impliing that is what happened just another one of those thinking out loud things to generate conversation. Which is all that I have wanted to have going on in the first place. The more we talk the more ideas get passed around and out of all of them the good ones will rise to the top.


----------



## Snap (Nov 28, 2007)

You got it, that's exactly what I think. Similar to the TAC -- the commercial guy got more and the recreational guy got less.  Although I do appreciate the farmer feeding the herd year round but still think with the changing farmer position on deer hunting from a nuisance animal hunter to pursueing nice bucks the same as us that the field should be leveled out some. Can't image how the dep permit will be fair if florida goes to a buck tag system limiting the total buck harvest.
Snap


----------



## a3cj (Dec 1, 2011)

Some would say that the current dep permit system is already unfair and flawed, but i promise you it is being looked out to try and level the playing field or at least take the supposedly ilegal stuff out or the opportunity for ilegal stuff out. It is an uphill battle big business and poltics are hard to beat when you are on the opposite side from them. Let me point out that I am not saying that everyone or anyone is abusing the system, their are still some very great people out there that work very hard to follow the rules, but we all know that it only takes a few to spoil it for everyone.


----------

