How far do you think the WRC should go to manage for deer habitat and food on

CRC

Old Mossy Horns
mountain area game lands?

Deer harvest at SMGL was 1.6/mi2
in 2011, 1.4/mi2 in 2012, and 0.9/mi2
in 2013. The decrease in 2013 is likely due to a severe hard mast failure that year, with deer leaving the
mostly forested game land in favor of better food availability on private land
.

If even on WRC managed game lands in the mountains the deer are so mast dependent they have to leave the game lands to visit private land for food and bait, should deer food plots get priority over other game species?

Based on this seems to be planting more food plots and food sources would solve all the problems with public land deer herds in the mountains.

I mean everyone wants more cutting on the national forests but South Mountains is owned and managed by the WRC.

http://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Hunting/GameLand-Plans/JohnsRiver-SMtns-GLMP-DRAFT.pdf
 
Last edited:

CRC

Old Mossy Horns
Now that they are no longer doing the CURE project they should have some freed up cash to manage for deer.
 

Ldsoldier

Old Mossy Horns
That money’s better spent on good forest management than on novel food plots. The forest will feed the deer when properly managed. There’s no need to plant a bunch of African lettuce for that.
 

nchunter2

Eight Pointer
Here's a free idea? Allow selective timber harvest in the National Forests here. Loggers make money and the deer (and other creatures) take advantage of the increased cover, browse, etc, etc.

But, they know that already!
 

darkthirty

Old Mossy Horns
Now that they are no longer doing the CURE project they should have some freed up cash to manage for deer.

Not really how that works. A lot of monies can’t just go to something else because another project ended. Not saying I agree with it, just saying how it is.
 

woodmoose

Administrator
Staff member
Contributor
Not really how that works. A lot of monies can’t just go to something else because another project ended. Not saying I agree with it, just saying how it is.

I haven't dug into it but it is possible that the funding for CURE was a grant specific to that effort,,,,,,
 

oldest school

Old Mossy Horns
isnt the ncwrc awash with cash from reoberson pittman funds?

no clue on what they "should" spend money on but they arent struggling for funds are they?
 

CRC

Old Mossy Horns
Here's a free idea? Allow selective timber harvest in the National Forests here. Loggers make money and the deer (and other creatures) take advantage of the increased cover, browse, etc, etc.

But, they know that already!

South Mtns is not national forest
 

Weekender

Twelve Pointer
That money’s better spent on good forest management than on novel food plots. The forest will feed the deer when properly managed. There’s no need to plant a bunch of African lettuce for that.

Well said. Good post.

Also, some of the same factors that inhibit hard mast production will doom a food plot.
 

Homebrewale

Old Mossy Horns
Gotcha.

Didn't know that

Even if monies could be interchangeable about different projects, why do you think providing food plots in the South Mtns is better than providing more opportunities to hunters by purchasing new game land or expanding current game lands?
 

CRC

Old Mossy Horns
Even if monies could be interchangeable about different projects, why do you think providing food plots in the South Mtns is better than providing more opportunities to hunters by purchasing new game land or expanding current game lands?

If they wanted to use freed up funds to expand the game lands to include already good habitat that would work
 
Last edited:

jboi72

Eight Pointer
How bout they actually learn how to properly manage timber on ANY game land instead of this piss poor management programs they have now, how in the h*** is clearing every piece of hardwoods and replacing it with pines good management practices other then lining somebodies pockets????? I could go on for days about this topic, I get so fired up just thinking about it ask any of my hunting buddies they'll tell you lol....
 

Ldsoldier

Old Mossy Horns
Here's a free idea? Allow selective timber harvest in the National Forests here. Loggers make money and the deer (and other creatures) take advantage of the increased cover, browse, etc, etc.

But, they know that already!

WRC has no authority over timber harvest on National Forest. Gotta take that up with USFS.
 

QBD2

Old Mossy Horns
How bout they actually learn how to properly manage timber on ANY game land instead of this piss poor management programs they have now, how in the h*** is clearing every piece of hardwoods and replacing it with pines good management practices other then lining somebodies pockets????? I could go on for days about this topic, I get so fired up just thinking about it ask any of my hunting buddies they'll tell you lol....

You realize that a lot of gameland isn't owned by the state? It's leased or 'donated', and the owners manage their timber as they see fit.
 
Last edited:

Ldsoldier

Old Mossy Horns
It was mostly,if not all, focused on quail, grouse and songbirds.

The WRC would be better off increasing deer and squirrel.

I don't know of any gamelands that are primarily managed for songbirds. Do you really think managing for quail and grouse won't increase deer?
 

CRC

Old Mossy Horns
I don't know of any gamelands that are primarily managed for songbirds. Do you really think managing for quail and grouse won't increase deer?

14 years later and there are fewer deer now than before CURE.

I don't know what else to tell you.
 

Ldsoldier

Old Mossy Horns
14 years later and there are fewer deer now than before CURE.

I don't know what else to tell you.

Not every acre in the mountains is managed for CURE. The WRC owns relatively little property up there. You and I both know a few thousand acres isn't enough to carry an entire region.
 

CRC

Old Mossy Horns
Not every acre in the mountains is managed for CURE. The WRC owns relatively little property up there. You and I both know a few thousand acres isn't enough to carry an entire region.

Just pointing out the habitat work under CURE at this particular property has not worked to increase the deer herd that's all.

Hence my suggestion for more deer focused food plots.
 

Weekender

Twelve Pointer
It was mostly,if not all, focused on quail, grouse and songbirds.

The WRC would be better off increasing deer and squirrel.

I disagree. Balance is key in wildlife management. Habitat that helps songbirds and upland game birds ultimately HELPS the deer (understory tree development, ditch bank weeds and broomstraw, etc).
 

Weekender

Twelve Pointer
Just pointing out the habitat work under CURE at this particular property has not worked to increase the deer herd that's all.

Hence my suggestion for more deer focused food plots.

Every forest has a natural carrying capacity. Food plots do not (nor do corn piles) increase carrying capacity. Aging forests with tall canopy naturally have a lower carrying capacity due to less browse and cover. It's a natural thing. Deer leave for greener pastures.
 

CRC

Old Mossy Horns
Isn't the point of habitat management to increase populations of animals like deer and quail?

How do food plots fit into that or are they a waste of time and money?
 
Last edited:

25contender

Twelve Pointer
if they would manage the forest like they sould the carrying capacity would increase. Cut timber open some areas burn ETC.
 

CRC

Old Mossy Horns
Different parts of this area is burned every year

And I hope they keep doing that.
 

Weekender

Twelve Pointer
Isn't the point of habitat management to increase populations of animals like deer and quail?

How do food plots fit into that or are they a waste of time and money?

Food plots are a part of supplemental feeding, not habitat improvement. They supplement natural browse as well as hard and soft mast (and provide shot opportunities for hunters). For them to have any significant impact on deer nutrition, they have to amount to approximately 10 to 20% of the total acreage.

State and federal lands have to balance what hunters want (more animals) with making a profit on the timber. I'm no help in extrapolating the data of monies earned by the landowners on timber versus hunting leases, but I'm fairly sure the real money in timberland is in the timber and not leasing to hunters, even if it is leased to the state or fed for public hunters.

Whether they are a waste of time and money depends on what they are there for. Sometimes, yes, imo, they are a waste of time and money.
 

CRC

Old Mossy Horns
Thanks.

For them to have any significant impact on deer nutrition, they have to amount to approximately 10 to 20% of the total acreage.

Yeah I can't see that in the mountains.
 
Top