Deer trap and transfer poll

Do you think deer should be trapped and transferred to game lands with low deer herds


  • Total voters
    54

Frostcat

Twelve Pointer
I know you guys give crc a hard time, but if you havn't hunted in the far SW corner of our state you wouldn't know how bad the deer population is here on game lands, I also agree with you guys that if the habitat were to be improved, the deer numbers would naturally rebound, it's not that there are no deer, it's just that they have a high fawn mortality rate due to all open woods, also when there is a failed mast crop the deer tend to migrate out of a certain area because there is not much other choices for food if there are no acorns. We have a decent number of deer on private land that has old farms and timber cutting, but these lands have drum tight access, my county has only about 30% private owned land. CRC is just trying to raise awareness to the rest of the state of the fact that all of the wildlife management seems to take place in the eastern part of the state, I tend to agree with him. If the tables were turned you guys would agree with him also.

Habitat Habitat Habitat - There is very little wildlife management allowed on the national forests like food plots, controlled burns, or logging to create early successional habitat. The environmentalists have done a great job preserving the views but are starving the wildlife out. And they are pushing to lock up even more in to wilderness areas where no management will ever be allowed. I can remember when folks from down state had to come to the mountains to hunt deer. Someone also said there were no grouse down east- that's true, and they are getting quite rare in the national forests here too.
 

woodmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
,,,,,,,,, Someone also said there were no grouse down east- that's true, and they are getting quite rare in the national forests here too.

that be me,,,,,,,and if there is no transitional areas then yeap - grouse suffer,,,,,,,it's the ebb and flow of forests,,,,,manage for one thing and something else is bound to suffer,,,,,,,tough call all the way around,,,,,,,,,but my opinion is since there are (relatively) few areas where you can establish Wilderness areas,,,,,,and by that I mean roadless areas with limited impact from man,,,,,,,,then we need to have them where we can,,,,,,,,,,

just my personal opinion and of course others will differ,,,,,,
 

wturkey01

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
A few boring facts ---Out of 1.2M acres of USFS land in NC there are already about 104K acres of designated, protected wilderness. The NPS also has another 400K which is basically treated as wilderness.....especially the Great Smoky Mts NP.

The main wildlife species which benefit from wilderness areas are woodpeckers. They nest in the cavities of the dying trees and eat the bugs which infest them.

If the most basic definition of "wilderness area" was applied then there would be none east of the Rockies.......most anywhere you go you can find evidence of logging operations such as rotted stumps or old skid roads used by horses or mules to get the logs out. According to archeologists, even the famed "virgin timber" of Joyce Kilmer has been logged & burned by the Cherokee & early white settlers.

The Cherokee understood wildlife management quite well.........they cut trees and burned land to enhance the habitat for wildlife.

At the peak of timber harvest on USFS land back in the 60's-70's-80's, the hardwood timber stands were being managed on an 80-year rotation......this means that the most timber cut in any year equaled 1/80th of the estimated timber growth.

Even though it may not be actually designated as wilderness, nowadays even more of the land is being treated as such; meaning that very little timber harvest is happening, very little wildlife management is happening.

However lots of hikers, bikers, trail riders, horseback riders, tourists, motels, and pot farming are happening.
 

woodmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
well by your definition the entire world has been affected by man in some way,,,,,,,,,,,so why bother trying,,,,,,,,,manage for your "prefered" species and the rest can fend for themselves,,,,,,,,,since humans are "experts" at that sort of thing,,,,,,,,,
 

woodmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
for your reading pleasure,,,,,,,,,,

http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/

I agree on fire, etc,,,,,when lightening strikes let it burn,,,,,that's how it generally happened in the past,,,,,,but it is very possible that the high artificial populations of the mountain deer in the not so distant past contributed to the habitat issue through selective feeding,,,,,,,,,,

just a thought,,,,,,,,,,

how about just travel a short distance to where the deer are more abundant to an individuals taste? They will log those woods soon enough (on a relative time scale),,,,,,,
 

wturkey01

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
well by your definition the entire world has been affected by man in some way,,,,,,,,,,,so why bother trying,,,,,,,,,manage for your "prefered" species and the rest can fend for themselves,,,,,,,,,since humans are "experts" at that sort of thing,,,,,,,,,

A bit of over-reaction and reading what isn't there, don't you think?

Managing for wildlife as well as humans requires a balanced approach.......that's not what is happening now.

If humans are the preferred species and need wilderness.........well they already have about 20% of Federal lands locked up. The big difference between humans and wild animals is that the animals depend on proper habitat..........humans have the Winn-Dixie stores.
 
Last edited:

wturkey01

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
for your reading pleasure,,,,,,,,,,

http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/

I agree on fire, etc,,,,,when lightening strikes let it burn,,,,,that's how it generally happened in the past,,,,,,but it is very possible that the high artificial populations of the mountain deer in the not so distant past contributed to the habitat issue through selective feeding,,,,,,,,,,

just a thought,,,,,,,,,,

how about just travel a short distance to where the deer are more abundant to an individuals taste? They will log those woods soon enough (on a relative time scale),,,,,,,

The Nature Conservancy is not exactly an unbiased group of elitists!!

Woodmoose, I'm definitely not saying that "one size fits all" when it comes to managing resources for the benefits of humans & wildlife. There are areas in the WNC mountains which are devoid of any understory plant life in the forests.......not due to over browsing but due to sunlight not reaching the ground.

There is also an increasing incidence of mast failures due to oak & dogwood diseases. Late frosts have probably killed a lot of acorn production this spring just like the last couple.

Management should be by local conditions. I think we both agree that there aren't many wilderness opportunities in the Piedmont. There are several in the Coastal Plain but most of the wilderness areas will be limited to the mountains.
 
Last edited:

woodmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
A bit of over-reaction and reading what isn't there, don't you think?

Managing for wildlife as well as humans requires a balanced approach.......that's not what is happening now.

If humans are the preferred species and need wilderness.........well they already have about 20% of Federal lands locked up. The big difference between humans and wild animals is that the animals depend on proper habitat..........humans have the Winn-Dixie stores.

again,,,,misrepresenting here,,,,,humans are not "the preferred species" in anything I have posted or linked,,,,,,and I like the Nature Conservancy,,,,they do a lot worldwide,,,but a lot right here in NC as well,,,,,,a lot.

but again I will back out,,,,,you all have the answer so good luck with it,,,,, and all in all this is a minor issue,,,,until we plan for the growing global population in a few decades its all urban bow hunting!!!!
 
Last edited:

cklem

Guest
Habitat Habitat Habitat - There is very little wildlife management allowed on the national forests like food plots, controlled burns, or logging to create early successional habitat. The environmentalists have done a great job preserving the views but are starving the wildlife out. And they are pushing to lock up even more in to wilderness areas where no management will ever be allowed. I can remember when folks from down state had to come to the mountains to hunt deer. Someone also said there were no grouse down east- that's true, and they are getting quite rare in the national forests here too.

Agreed, we always seem to be on the same page. I too remember when folks from Ga. came here to hunt, the newer generation just laugh at me when I tell them this. I wish my boy could experience some good meat hunting, not just hoping to see one legal deer during the season on pubic land. We all know where to go to get some deer meat. It would be great to have the oportunity to have some of those pack in the mtns. week long trips like my dad and grandpa did, they would kill several deer each then pack it all out with a mule. Good times. and good memories, I caught the tail end of the hay day best deer hunting here when I was very young, population went south in a hurry.
 

cklem

Guest
A few boring facts ---Out of 1.2M acres of USFS land in NC there are already about 104K acres of designated, protected wilderness. The NPS also has another 400K which is basically treated as wilderness.....especially the Great Smoky Mts NP.

The main wildlife species which benefit from wilderness areas are woodpeckers. They nest in the cavities of the dying trees and eat the bugs which infest them.

If the most basic definition of "wilderness area" was applied then there would be none east of the Rockies.......most anywhere you go you can find evidence of logging operations such as rotted stumps or old skid roads used by horses or mules to get the logs out. According to archeologists, even the famed "virgin timber" of Joyce Kilmer has been logged & burned by the Cherokee & early white settlers.

The Cherokee understood wildlife management quite well.........they cut trees and burned land to enhance the habitat for wildlife.

At the peak of timber harvest on USFS land back in the 60's-70's-80's, the hardwood timber stands were being managed on an 80-year rotation......this means that the most timber cut in any year equaled 1/80th of the estimated timber growth.

Even though it may not be actually designated as wilderness, nowadays even more of the land is being treated as such; meaning that very little timber harvest is happening, very little wildlife management is happening.

However lots of hikers, bikers, trail riders, horseback riders, tourists, motels, and pot farming are happening.

Not boring facts to the ones who see this everyday, It would be easy to say this is what's good for your area since I don't live there. I agree with your points on this matter, I think it's a good idea to keep these places as pristine as possible, but not to the extent of having unhealthy forests. You see this is the whole problem with this discussion, We have unhealthy forests, like you say folks that were here long before us understood this. It amazes me how some city slicker refuses to see the truth. They just want what's good for them and that is nothing more than a nice view. To them who cares if the forest is unhealthy as long as it makes a good picture. It's like the city folks that move here because their intrigued by our local culture, just as long as the culture is what they want it to be, or what some realestate agent told them it was. When they encounter true local culture they are appauled.
 

Frostcat

Twelve Pointer
Not boring facts to the ones who see this everyday, It would be easy to say this is what's good for your area since I don't live there. I agree with your points on this matter, I think it's a good idea to keep these places as pristine as possible, but not to the extent of having unhealthy forests. You see this is the whole problem with this discussion, We have unhealthy forests, like you say folks that were here long before us understood this. It amazes me how some city slicker refuses to see the truth. They just want what's good for them and that is nothing more than a nice view. To them who cares if the forest is unhealthy as long as it makes a good picture. It's like the city folks that move here because their intrigued by our local culture, just as long as the culture is what they want it to be, or what some realestate agent told them it was. When they encounter true local culture they are appauled.

I am with you Cklem. I am surrounded by the Pisgah National Forest(USFS) and the Cold Mountain Gamelands which is managed by the NCWRC so I see the difference every day.
 

CJF

Old Mossy Horns
Contributor
Chances are if deer numbers are down in certain areas it is more likely a habitat issue. Stocking more deer in poor habitat would just increase the stress on the herd. If the habitat is improved the population of the deer should increase on it's on.


DING DING DING We have a winner!
 
Top