Orangeburg Tag meeting

[buckpro]

Question for your healthy comment.

Any idea what caused the boom of deer in the late 80's-2000?

Massive timber harvest that resulted in fresh cut downs every where and for the most part herbicide was not used before replanting. For close to 10 years you had vast areas that could support huge deer numbers.

As the Timber matured it created a pine tree desert. This was and is the single biggest limiting factor on our heard. All the other problems stem back to a monoculture echo system based around pine trees. Everything from predidation to depredation to lack of browse.

Interestingly enough you say your processor say he has had the healthiest deer the past 2 years.

Any Idea what happened in January/February of 2014?

A huge massive ice storm.

This ice storm resulted in the premature cutting of pulp wood that would have other wise been lost to the destruction.

This once again caused a area perfect for growing deer and increasing the "health."

Unfortunately herbicide was used on many of these plots and this has a devastating effect on the vegetation suitable for deer. However anything is better than a shaded out pine forest!

Now understand it was on a much smaller scale than in the 80's after hugo, but it happened and this has to be taken into account when talking about over all size & health of deer.

Environments change. Managing the heard is not a static task it is fluid. We need to be able to adapt along with changing conditions. I like a annual plan that changes every year, but sticks to certain goals. I don't like giving DNR authority to switch the rules in the middle of a game or season.

I disagree for our area, the area population leveled out. I bet 60% of the area his deer come from had little to no ice storm influence. Healthier and bigger deer do not show up in a year or two of good conditions, it takes a generation.

Personally, i'd rather sandpaper a bobcats ass than give DNR the power to change plans every year.

Like I said, it may help some areas, but it's going to screw just as many up that have a working management plan in place.

For the record, I am neither for or against it, but some of the stuff I hear coming out of CR mouth back and fourth makes me think they haven't thought this out enough. I have seen nothing to convince me this will work long term with the resources and work DNR is willing to put into it.

[Silentweapon338]

I disagree that a current generation can not be effected by environmental factors.

I caveat this by saying yes I have seen research that in certain areas it can take generations to effected a selected study group.

Texas goes through periods of drought.

During these times they will limit paid hunts due to antlers being adversely effected.
This in its self shows 1 year can make or break antler size for a particular animal

[Swamp Rat]

You have two choices, really - let the biologists set the rules, or the General Assembly. Good, bad, indifferent, I'd put more money on the bio's getting it right than the elected officials.

We've complained on this site for years about DNR biologists being ignored while the GA sets the rules, and now that the bio's are putting forth a plan, we are bitching about that.

For what it's worth - the tag plan will not negatively impact me. The club I am in will adjust it's methods to fit.

And I like the idea of Telecheck.

[SC quacker2]

I do think by essentially forcing everyone into the DQP it will give DNR the ability to micro manage better on different ends of a county.

This assumption is badly wrong. This will force the smaller properties out of the quota program and further reduce DNR's data on the herd.

[PJ1012]

I would agree with you that sentiment as a whole the room was against it.

But the problem was half the crowd didn't want it because they wanted stricter antler restrictions. Which technically is more demanding than just numbers. One third was against it because they wanted less bucks harvested. The other 1/3 didn't want it because they wanted to kill endless bucks.

So really it wasn't that they were opposed to the bill because it so harsh and hard. It wasn't harsh enough so they didn't want it.

This crowd didn't seem nearly as interested in the bill its self as some of the other meetings I attended. They for the most part had their own theories and thoughts rather than debating or discussing the bill on the table.

Nothing wrong with this, I'm just pointing this out. If you will notice for those that attended CR was not engaged at all. This is unlike any other meeting I attended. From his facial expressions it wast from the fact there was not a reason to get engaged. It seemed like there were a few very respected individuals in the community that folks were wiling to listen to so CR gave them the floor, but what they spoke on or about really didn't have the first thing to do with the bill. CR was respectful and let them talk.

Mr. PJ I get the fact that if go more you will have more opportunities to harvest. To most that is common sense.

I applaud you for seeing so many bucks and being so selective.

As it currently stands doesn't sound like limiting you to 4 bucks is going to hurt you.

The bill was designed to limit the man who goes 3-4 times a week and thinks it is a bad week when he doesn't kill a buck.

So you mainly hunt in the Pee Dee and not in GZ3. You can not blanket a whole state will one bill. If you want it in other game zones where there are problems then that's fine. Leave the GZ3 and the lowcountry alone. There is nothing wrong here. Also I totally disagree with you that the people who were against the bill last night wanted more laws on antlers. They were against all limits period! This bill will affect me. I do not want a law that tells me I can't kill more than 4 bucks if I would like too. And yes I have in years past. Also Rep Ott is in the process of creating a username on here and will have all the answers you want tomorrow when he's allowed to post. (This site will not allow you to post until you are cleared) He is more than willing to talk to anyone on this topic.

[BigBrother]

What are other states doing?

They are issuing buck tags.

How are they doing it?

By actually doing deer herd surveys. You know, biology type stuff. The kind of stuff that, you know, SC isnt doing, like other states are.

It's already been stated the goal is uniformity, and this state is the furthest from being uniform...in geography, in habit, and in wildlife.

What will be done with the data from the issued tags, or are the tags intended just for Law Enforcement purposes?

[Southernduck]

I would agree with you that sentiment as a whole the room was against it.

But the problem was half the crowd didn't want it because they wanted stricter antler restrictions. Which technically is more demanding than just numbers. One third was against it because they wanted less bucks harvested. The other 1/3 didn't want it because they wanted to kill endless bucks.

So really it wasn't that they were opposed to the bill because it so harsh and hard. It wasn't harsh enough so they didn't want it.

This crowd didn't seem nearly as interested in the bill its self as some of the other meetings I attended. They for the most part had their own theories and thoughts rather than debating or discussing the bill on the table.

Nothing wrong with this, I'm just pointing this out. If you will notice for those that attended CR was not engaged at all. This is unlike any other meeting I attended. From his facial expressions it wast from the fact there was not a reason to get engaged. It seemed like there were a few very respected individuals in the community that folks were wiling to listen to so CR gave them the floor, but what they spoke on or about really didn't have the first thing to do with the bill. CR was respectful and let them talk.

Mr. PJ I get the fact that if go more you will have more opportunities to harvest. To most that is common sense.

I applaud you for seeing so many bucks and being so selective.

As it currently stands doesn't sound like limiting you to 4 bucks is going to hurt you.

The bill was designed to limit the man who goes 3-4 times a week and thinks it is a bad week when he doesn't kill a buck.

Did we go to the same meeting?

There were about 3 or 4 people that want big antlers. A bunch of us that watch does eat crops and realize that we need to kill more does and then you had the farmers are killing everything crowd and lastly the something is wrong with deer herd but I don't know what crowd.

CR picked anyone sitting towards the bottom. I sat towards the top and patiently waited with my hand up for 45 minutes while he skipped over me time and time again. It wasn't until his boss lady made him call on me at the very end that I was allowed to speak. Might have been because the company I was keeping.

He sure liked to tout AL's tag program but when you ask him about the doe harvest side of it he didn't know.bthat said at least he was respectful to those that got to talk.

[fro]

Well said. The best example I can give is talking with a local processor that without a doubt takes in more deer than anyone in the county. He said that this year followed by last, was the healthiest deer as a whole he'd ever seen in his years there.
They are trying to fix the out of wack areas and are going to hurt the well managed places in the end.

Hush, you would already be out of buck tags.... game hog....

[jwilliams]

I disagree for our area, the area population leveled out. I bet 60% of the area his deer come from had little to no ice storm influence. Healthier and bigger deer do not show up in a year or two of good conditions, it takes a generation.

Personally, i'd rather sandpaper a bobcats ass than give DNR the power to change plans every year.

Like I said, it may help some areas, but it's going to screw just as many up that have a working management plan in place.

For the record, I am neither for or against it, but some of the stuff I hear coming out of CR mouth back and fourth makes me think they haven't thought this out enough. I have seen nothing to convince me this will work long term with the resources and work DNR is willing to put into it.

I definitely disagree with you about external conditions (drought/ FLOOD etc) affecting health and size. A severe drought in which produces low plant growth means less food. Less food means they don't get as much or the right stuff to eat. Not eating enough and not getting enough of the right minerals and protein = less healthy deer.
Less healthy deer are smaller with less than healthy "antler growth".

I have seen bad conditions have an effect on antler growth many times. Absolutely no question.

[Bigtimber2]

So the Democrat counties and a Democrat Rep are opposed. Hmm.

[PJ1012]

So the Democrat counties and a Democrat Rep are opposed. Hmm.

What does that have to do with anything????? And yes I'm a strong right wing republican!

[Bigtimber2]

If you want to take more than 4 bucks aquire more land and enroll in the DQP. Or take the Democratic approach like the carpet baggers did, persuade government to give you more.

[PJ1012]

Where do you hunt big timber?

[buckpro]

I definitely disagree with you about external conditions (drought/ FLOOD etc) affecting health and size. A severe drought in which produces low plant growth means less food. Less food means they don't get as much or the right stuff to eat. Not eating enough and not getting enough of the right minerals and protein = less healthy deer.
Less healthy deer are smaller with less than healthy "antler growth".

I have seen bad conditions have an effect on antler growth many times. Absolutely no question.

I don't disagree with that, I meant the whole herd health from the processors standpoint, seeing a significant difference than years past. Balanced herd= more food= heathier deer.

Antler wise one/two good years isn't going to show significantly effect immediately, healthy yes, but no huge change. Not from what I've seen around here, a bad year will show though. No difference than having foodplots/minerals/protein, yes you will have healthy deer but a significant noticeable result isn't going to show up for several.

Edit; and no i'm no biologist nor claim to be, just give my opinion from what I've seen. What I do think "think I know" is this bill isn't going to do shit.

[BigBrother]

From what I was told, and the accounting is more of Southern Duck's version than SW338's...is that there are three camps. Buck tags at any cost. Buck tags if they are backed by something quantifiable....and then there are the "hell no, Bo's".

I will freely admit that I was not in attendance, and have no vested interest in buck tags or lack there of.

[Bigtimber2]

Where do you hunt big timber?

Mostly red counties and states.

[Highstrung]

The county above us is red because of the indians (dot indians) and clay.

[PJ1012]

If you want to take more than 4 bucks aquire more land and enroll in the DQP. Or take the Democratic approach like the carpet baggers did, persuade government to give you more.

So what you're telling me is hunting is only for the rich???? People like you are why I'm against this bill!! You are so scared the man next door are going to kill "your deer". This bill is not going to all of a sudden create 150" bucks in SC. If you want that take you money to South Texas or the Midwest. I'm a member of a 5300 acre on the Wateree (mostly for the turkeys) but most of my deer hunting is done on small tracts of land in Calhoun and Orangeburg county. Not everyone has your resources!!! And for the record as I've said in past post I to don not shoot small bucks but am highly against this bill.

[PJ1012]

Mostly red counties and states.

Exactly! So stay up there in your "red counties" and hunt your deer and leave GZ3 and the Lowcountry to us. Oh and if I remember correctly we had arguments over the turkeys to didn't we?

[jwilliams]

Not trying to get your goat pj, but you have a 5300 acre club on the wateree, land in oburg and calhoun,and you are talking about the rich? lol