I attended a seminar a while back at which a biologist said that deer hunters didn’t care about deer management unless it led to an 8-pointer standing within easy range of their stand every season.
But hunters are realizing they can manage and affect the quality of their local herd, and the most-effective way might be selective harvest — limiting the number of bucks killed in hopes of having a few more live long enough to grow a more impressive antlers.
That has put Charles Routh of the S.C. Department of Natural Resources on a bit of a hot seat. The state’s deer-project leader, Routh knows that deer management is as much about statistics as anything. And he can predict, with unerring accuracy, how certain regulation changes will affect the harvest. He also knows that a sizable majority of the state’s hunters wants the DNR to do something, namely reduce the buck harvest through tighter bag limits.
That isn’t as easy as it sounds, in part because regulation changes have to flow through the General Assembly, and in part because small pockets of loud resistance are likely to emerge.
On Routh’s wish list is a strategy that deer managers in other states have used: instituting tighter harvest regulations for antlered bucks in a small area or hunt unit. He feels like the results — a lower buck harvest, better overall quality of deer and a few more wall-hangers — might compel many hunters who want no change to change their minds. He knows that such evidence presented in other states has helped hunters accept stricter bag limits.
Several years ago, for instance, biologists in North Carolina proposed cutting the season limit on antlered bucks from four to two in roughly the western half of the state. They predicted a decrease in the antlered-buck harvest of between 10 and 12 percent. It wound up being 11 percent. Hunters in the affected areas started harvesting better bucks, and it wasn’t long before the winners of the Dixie Deer Classic’s annual big-buck contest reflected a marked shift westward into counties that had rarely been heard from before.
“I think if we had a stricter limit on bucks in one area, and people could see how it worked, that would help sway some of the nay-sayers,” Routh said. “But there will always be some who believe it’s their prerogative to shoot every buck. They want to manage the deer on their land as they see fit, and that’s the way it’s been all along — you take care of your own deer.”
But the overwhelming support for bigger bucks and a reduced harvest is there. Routh said surveys have indicated that 70 percent of South Carolina deer hunters want some kind of change.
He has also run a few numbers.
“Let’s say the starting point is a 5-buck statewide limit,” he said. “A lot of people in the Piedmont want something less than five, but you’ve got to start somewhere.
“From looking at our harvests over the past 10 years, we know only 4.8 percent of all hunters take more than five bucks. That’s a small percentage, but that group harvested 20 percent of the bucks in the state. So there is an inherent savings at five bucks — about 12 percent a year. You can play the game with a 4- and 3-buck limit, and the ‘savings’ increases at every step.”
It’s rare for biologists to please all user groups. And when you throw in the factor of state legislators who might tend to listen carefully to big donors who like the status quo, it’s not difficult to place Routh in a game that will be tough to win. He might hold a few aces, but the rest of the deck may be stacked against him.
Be the first to comment