Oklahoma Deer Herd Talk ( Okies Read )

[The_Kat]

Ok, I am going to take some heat for this post probably, but I want you guys to stop and think about what I am going to say for a second before you start defending the old saying " Hunters in the know take a doe".

Most of you already know that the total kill number for whitetails in Oklahoma is the smallest it has been in many years. Hughes County ( Where I live ) turned in a mere 468 deer when the usual total is close to 1000.

So I had a chat with my game warden today and I asked him why the numbers were so low and was horrified at his reply. He told me that we ( eastern ) oklahoma were simply killing the deer off. He said that killing does is not the answer to blancing the herd, because if there are less bucks now then the more doe you kill take away from the chances of making new fawns. Each doe taken on average takes away 2 fawns per season. Now when the doe kill total comes out this year take the total, multiply it by two and see what you get. Compare that total to the past two years and you all should see that it is dramtically higher this season. The "doe kill" message is out and is possibly outta control. Tom (game warden) said that in certain parts of Oklahoma such as Western Oklahoma and spots here in the east DO in fact need to thin some does but the areas that are showing lower kill numbers need to OPEN their eyes to the facts. Only DOES can have fawns. It just takes one buck to breed 20 does. You do the math there! I asked him what we could do about it, and he said spread the word. He told me I would take some serious heat for this view, but I stopped and thought it through and he is right! He said that if the doe kill isn't stopped, then the Oklahoma deer herd could become non-existent within two more seasons. I asked him how he could say that and be sure. He said look at the kill totals and they show a trend of losing 20,000 deer a year in the past two years and this season it will drop HALF of what it did last year. I mean we killed 100000+ 3 years ago and now we can barely hit 70000 is what they papers are saying. 30000 deer is a lot of deer folks. So I encourage all of you to have a chat with your game wardens and ask their opinions on the subject. Ask them about the doe count in your area. Like I said it isn't this way in all of Oklahoma, but in most places in the east....it is fact. Just look at the mathmatical totals. As for me and my house...we will no longer be harvesting more than ONE mature doe a year.

[huntinsonovagun]

Deer with no hunting pressure have a 1:1 ratio, or close to that. With hunting pressure we have WAY MORE does than we do bucks. The reason for the "Hunters in the know take a doe" is to increase the health of our deer herd. I am not convinced that our herd is declining. Most I have talked to have said they had a bad season this year. I think it was just 2004, not declining deer herds.

Also, I think there are too many deer. What is wrong with a few less??

I saw way more deer than I could legally harvest.....how do you explain that? Maybe people should get out and hunt harder. I had an AWESOME season, yet numbers are way down?? Maybe I hunted harder than the average guy, but that is what it takes.

I still feel we need to get the ratio closer to 1:1. Last time I checked, it takes bucks and does to have fawns.

Another benefit to less does, bucks are going to be more aggressive and easier to call in.

Last time I checked, buck harvests are MUCH higher than doe harvests.....how do you explain that?

No bringing heat on you, but your game warden obviously hasn't thought through what he is saying......

[The_Kat]

Ok Ryan...think on this. I too see more deer than I can legally harvest. Thats seeing 6 deer+ a year. I don't get your point there. Your right in saying that it takes bucks and does to make babies, but one buck is capable of breeding 20 does. Now I don't think it is fair to say one guys hunts harder then another blah blah blah and thats the reason he doesn't kill a deer. Roughly 500000 hunters take to the field in Oklahoma each season. So if the deer are out there they are going to be seen and killed, weekend warrior or day to day warrior, it's all the same. Lack of hunters has never been a problem in Oklahoma.

*Another benefit to less does, bucks are going to be more aggressive and easier to call in.*

I don't agree with this statement at all. Are you saying that you would rather have it "easier" to call in bucks versus harming the deer herd in Oklahoma? Now whose wanting to hunt hard??? I don't get your assumptions. Now I am not saying your wrong either here though. In your area the population may be ok. Thats why I said ASK your game warden about your populations. Was your kill numbers up or down this year?

As for 2004 being the only bad season...your very wrong there. 3 years ago we hit 100000+. The year after we barely hit 90000. This year they are saying 70000 if we are lucky. Thats not good my friend. That should tell you that something is very wrong because 30000 animals is enough to make this hunter raise an eyebrow........

Buck harvests will always be higher then doe harvests. Horns are why alot of people hunt you know that. What relevance does that have to the question at hand.

The deer herd in spots is to large and in other is declining. This deals with the spots of delcining deer herds!

[RyanH]

I can agree with you Kyle! Up north and off to the east I can Agree! But anywhere else i disagree! I have seen so many deer this year! Its just been crazy! The reason i think the kill numbers are down is cause of the crazy weather we have had! I really really think the weather had a big effect on it!

Where I hunt In konawa its nothing to go all season and see 5 bucks! If that! Now this year was WAY different! I saw a buck just about everytime i went!

But To sum this up! I agree in parts of the state and disagree in other parts of the state!

[huntinsonovagun]

[ QUOTE ]
I too see more deer than I can legally harvest. Thats seeing 6 deer+ a year. I don't get your point there.

[/ QUOTE ] Just because people aren't killing deer doesn't mean they are not there.

[ QUOTE ]
Your right in saying that it takes bucks and does to make babies, but one buck is capable of breeding 20 does.

[/ QUOTE ] In unhunted herds, bucks don't breed 20 does. Rather, only mature bucks do majority of breeding, and then they don't do near as much breeding. I am actually surprized at how many does don't have fawns.....maybe the bucks can't get the job done with all the does running around.


[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with this statement at all. Are you saying that you would rather have it "easier" to call in bucks versus harming the deer herd in Oklahoma?

[/ QUOTE ] Ok, right now, the deer herd is being harmed because there is not an accurate ratio of bucks to does. Really, that statement of mine didn't have much to do with the topic, other than a hunter's perspective.

[ QUOTE ]
Buck harvests will always be higher then doe harvests. Horns are why alot of people hunt you know that.


[/ QUOTE ] Think about what you're saying......why do you think they are pushing the "Hunters in the know take a doe"?!?!? I feel the ratio needs to be brought down to a 1:1, or 2:1....shoot, even a 3:1 would be better than our ratio now!

In fact, I have no problem with people only shooting one doe a year, I just would hate to see everyone shoot 3 bucks and only 1 doe. If every buck bred 20 does and you killed one doe and 3 bucks, how could the 4th buck breed the other 3's 60 combined deer?????? Puts a lot of stress on them. Oklahoma has a pretty long drawn-out rut compared to say Iowa or Kansas, because we have too many does. With a closer ratio, the bucks would breed their 1 or 2 does and then be done, with less stress on the herd.

Harvest total for
1999- 82,724
2000- 102,100
2001- 101,635
2002- 98,581
2003- 100,602
Looks pretty steady to me, considering there is no way to predict how deer react to weather and human pressure. Look at 1999 compared to 2000. Those numbers are drastic!!!

I still feel the ratio should be closer to 1:1.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

The reason you balance a deer herd at 1:1 or as close as you can get to it, is to help with the quality of the hunting (re: more bucks!). So you've got to ask yourself, "Do I want quality, or do I want quantity?" Do you want to go hunting and see lots of does, young bucks and an occasional mature buck, or do you want to go and see fewer deer but more mature bucks?

[The_Kat]

I guess you'll see what I am talking about in the kill total when it comes out. By the way the 2003 harvest is incorrect. Call OWD and ask for the REAL total. It's barely 90000.

What I am saying is that we need to take a deeper look into taking does before we shoot them. If your population is stable then take em as you please. IF it is faltering like much of eastern oklahoma, then I suggest you slow down or simply put your going to run out of deer.

[okiehunter]

I have to agree with huntin'sonovagun on this one. There are going to be deer in 2, 3, or 20 years from now taking alot of does won't change that. If that was the case we wouldn't have any deer for all the bucks that people take. I also think if you want to blame the lower number of deer taken blame it on the weather. Living in southern Ok and what I remember seeing in alot of Ok during early archery, black powder, and rifle season was rain and most people won't hunt when its raining good. Now with these fair weather hunters not hunting on most of their only days off (the weekend) due to rain. If I was a betting man I would bet that if you went back and compare the number of deer with what the weather was for each day of the season that you would see a drastic drop in deer taken on the weekends when it was raining. I don't believe this was the only reason for the drop but I do believe it would explain a huge drop in numbers for this year. One other thing about the numbers not being accurate for 03 and being only 90,000 and not 100,000. Why would they inflate numbers like that when they have logs to show all deer reported to the check stations? I don't by that one at all.

[huntinsonovagun]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way the 2003 harvest is incorrect. Call OWD and ask for the REAL total. It's barely 90000.


[/ QUOTE ]

I copy and pasted that total straight from OWD's web site.....so now they don't have their facts straight

[hutchies]

The problem in my area is people killing spikes. We have a good buck and doe population but for some reason people will not pass on a spike.

[The_Kat]

If you doubt what I am telling you about the kill total for 2003, then do as I said and simply call the OWD and ask them. I know it is printed in the regulations and is on the website. That is what I told my game warden also.

And to counter you guys and your weather points......During rifle season the weather was fine and yet the count was still down dramtically. Explain that. I encourage you guys to call this game warden and listen to what he has to say. His name is Tom Cartwright. He is listed in the regulations under Hughes County. He is a biologist as well, so I figure he knows a bit more than the average guy when it comes to the deer herd at least in Hughes county. Now once again I ask you to stay out of this topic if you deer population and kill totals for this season were normal. Obviously it wouldn't pertain to you-such as western oklahoma-some spots in eastern oklahoma.

To tell you the truth, I hope I am as wrong as I can be here...but all the evidence I see points to declining deer numbers.

[maddhunter]

Not to argue but the deer herd in my area of hunting has fallen off alot in the last 2 years. I'm going by what I have seen and recorded with my game camera all year long. I was used to seeing 10--15 doe in a herd before the rut and this year only 6 all combined. I have seen and recorded 6 bucks with my camera and seen 3 of them myself.
I think the herd in my hunting area is about right, as far as the ratio goes, with 3 of those bucks being muture bucks over 3 yrs old.
I still would like to see more deer as a total. You know a doe has a 50/50 chance of haveing a buck fawn.
In my opinion the "Hunters In The Know" was influinced by the insurance companies, due to all the money they pay out for cars hitting deer every year.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem in my area is people killing spikes. We have a good buck and doe population but for some reason people will not pass on a spike.

[/ QUOTE ]

Granted that letting spikes (or any young buck) walk will get you more bucks later, but letting the spikes go will ultimately hurt the quality of antlers in that area. Its a scientifically verified fact (40 year study on captive deer by TPWD) that yearling spikes will never produce large antlered bucks when they mature. I personally shoot every spike that I legally can and let the young 6 and 8 pointers go. If everyone did that, you would be absolutely amazed at the improvement in the antlers in your deer herd.

(OK - I know I'll catch some poopy over this, but being a scientist makes me tend to believe the results of sound scientific work)

[1olhunter]

I started hunting deer in Oklahoma while in high school in the mid 1970s. I remember the state setting a record harvest of 15,000 deer. I find the number of deer we currently have in the state remarkable. In the 70s and early 80s much of the state was nearly void of deer and just seeing a deer was something special. From 1975 through 2000 there was a new harvest record set every year until we reached a harvest of 100, 000 animals. It can not continue to grow forever, there is only a limited (and shrinking) amount of habitat. I would be surprised if the total harvest drops to 70,000 this year, but if it does I am sure the good folks at the OWD will make the necessary changes in the regulations to turn things around again. I have a lot of confidence in OWD due to the good job they have done in the past. As for my year I have added 4 to the harvest totals I have taken 2 does with bow, 1 buck each with ML and rifle. I saw slightly fewer deer this year, but I would suggest the hot weather during ML season and warm rifle season did not help the hunting. My only suggestion to OWD is that I would like to see a 3 point or better on one side antler point restriction.

[The_Kat]

olhunter,
I totally agree with your on the 3 to a side restriction on all sides except one. I hate to tell a kid he can't shoot the first buck that walks out rather it be a spike, fork horn etc. My first buck was a spike and I was never more proud. But other than that small fault, I agree to the restriction. I have always said the earn a buck tag to kill at least one doe would be another great thing. This would ensure a balanced kill for bucks and does, but I don't see it happening. I PRAY I am wrong here guys. I am not saying that deer will become non-existent. I am just saying the 100000+ kill total may dissappear for some time.