Did the NCWRC cornhole us?

nccatfisher · Nov 28, 2015

What is the difference in a fixed tag and an authorization #? If your in possession of the deer you HAVE to have that # from the WRC stating it has been checked in or a notched tag filled out in your possession or your in violation of the law. I worked during the time you had to have the fixed tags, there was so many loopholes back then it was was a farce.

woodmoose · Nov 28, 2015

nccatfisher said:
,,,, I worked during the time you had to have the fixed tags, there was so many loopholes back then it was was a farce.

that is a fact,,,,,,there is no tagging method that a cheat can't get around,,,,,just a fact of human nature,,,,,,

Deer Killington · Nov 28, 2015

So if animals destroy a farm crop, do farmers not get to claim that on insurance?

Sailor · Nov 28, 2015

Ldsoldier said:
How many hunters do you know that actually fill all of their tags?

and

7mm-08 said:
I know enough that fill all their tags and then buy bonus tags to believe that it's pretty widespread.

You might believe it is pretty widespread, but the WRC actually does try to collect data on this sort of thing.

Page 3 of http://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Hunting/Documents/2013-14-Hunter-Harvest-Survey-Report.pdf has some interesting numbers.

48.81% of licensed hunters surveyed killed ZERO deer.

Only 2% of licensed hunters surveyed killed 6 or more deer.

Also, the WRC has reports on the state of the "herd." The biologists state that so long as the doe harvest is less than 50% of the total harvest, the herd will grow. If it's close to 50%, say 40-60% (my number, not the biologists), the herd size will be 'stable.' It takes a pretty good doe harvest to really bring down total numbers.

From p 16 of the 2010 publication, http://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0...ion-of-Deer-Hunting-Seasons-and-Mgt-Units.pdf

"Biological Objective #4: Total harvest is comprised of at least 50% does.
Justification: The percent of does in the total harvest is a good indicator of the effects of the annual harvest on population trends (Hayne and Gwynn 1977). Achieving this objective will also result in more balanced sex ratios. However, in areas of low productivity where a population increase is desired, the percentage should remain well below 50%."

Which is followed by the following table:

Table 3. Sex Composition of Total Harvest (3-year average, 2007-2009).

Season Framework Percentage of Does in Total Harvest
Western 37
Northwestern 49
Central 49
Eastern 42

In Figure 2 (p 17), there were only 12 counties shown for the 2010 report with >50% doe harvest. I'd love to see an updated report.

Sorry 7mm-08, I'm not convinced the extra doe tags are (a) really being used all that much across the board (though you may have a pock3et of 'em near you) and (b) the tags themselves are being used to hammer the deer population all that hard.

Justin · Nov 28, 2015

Deer Killington said:
So if animals destroy a farm crop, do farmers not get to claim that on insurance?

Not sure where you're heading with this but if it's where I think, that'd be like leaving you're car out in a hail storm when you could park it in the garage, because you have insurance.

If not, disregard lol

Dan Apple · Nov 28, 2015

I feel the same way as the OP sometimes...... .it's a localized problem... My neighbors here around the home farm are young men, that are into the trendy "qdm" attitude and shoot literally every doe they see... I rarely see a doe in person or on trail cam... ratio all year long on camera is minimum 8 bucks to 1 doe... That's not an exaggeration.... sooner or later those guys will tire of cleaning that many every year, or they will move, or they'll run out of targets and move on to something else.... it does drive me nuts tho.... this time of year, my "good" bucks have relocated to areas that do hold does and are breeding... the ones that don't get shot may come back after the rut...

7mm-08 · Nov 28, 2015

Sailor said:
and

You might believe it is pretty widespread, but the WRC actually does try to collect data on this sort of thing.

Page 3 of http://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Hunting/Documents/2013-14-Hunter-Harvest-Survey-Report.pdf has some interesting numbers.

48.81% of licensed hunters surveyed killed ZERO deer.

Only 2% of licensed hunters surveyed killed 6 or more deer.

Also, the WRC has reports on the state of the "herd." The biologists state that so long as the doe harvest is less than 50% of the total harvest, the herd will grow. If it's close to 50%, say 40-60% (my number, not the biologists), the herd size will be 'stable.' It takes a pretty good doe harvest to really bring down total numbers.

From p 16 of the 2010 publication, http://www.ncwildlife.org/Portals/0...ion-of-Deer-Hunting-Seasons-and-Mgt-Units.pdf

"Biological Objective #4: Total harvest is comprised of at least 50% does.
Justification: The percent of does in the total harvest is a good indicator of the effects of the annual harvest on population trends (Hayne and Gwynn 1977). Achieving this objective will also result in more balanced sex ratios. However, in areas of low productivity where a population increase is desired, the percentage should remain well below 50%."

Which is followed by the following table:

Table 3. Sex Composition of Total Harvest (3-year average, 2007-2009).

Season Framework Percentage of Does in Total Harvest
Western 37
Northwestern 49
Central 49
Eastern 42

In Figure 2 (p 17), there were only 12 counties shown for the 2010 report with >50% doe harvest. I'd love to see an updated report.

Sorry 7mm-08, I'm not convinced the extra doe tags are (a) really being used all that much across the board (though you may have a pock3et of 'em near you) and (b) the tags themselves are being used to hammer the deer population all that hard.

It's a combination of not reporting, bonus tags and being able to drive home with a deer in the bed and only notch the tag if you start to get pulled. For the most part on private land you could kill a deer and get it on your truck without seeing a warden. Once you get it home your probably safe to process it without being seen. Only during travel do you need to keep your tag out to rip a tag if you get stopped. It's harder to run around and place a fixed tag on a deer once you've begun to get pulled.
I agree there will always be a way but at least make it something you have to think about. It's almost like now they are saying just report the ones you want to take to a processor or taxidermist.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Deer Killington · Nov 28, 2015

Justin said:
Not sure where you're heading with this but if it's where I think, that'd be like leaving you're car out in a hail storm when you could park it in the garage, because you have insurance.

If not, disregard lol

I wasn't going anywhere? It was a question I don't know the answer to.

Deer Killington · Nov 28, 2015

I do realize if a farmer is killing 100+ deer a year in a field he has a serious problem. Why not net those deer and take them to the mountains or other low population areas?

7mm-08 · Nov 28, 2015

Deer Killington said:
I do realize if a farmer is killing 100+ deer a year in a field he has a serious problem. Why not net those deer and take them to the mountains or other low population areas?

That's not likely to happen. I don't think the numbers are so low that they feel the need to start an extensive program on that. There are fewer deer there because the habitat can't support them the same as here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nccatfisher · Nov 28, 2015

Dan Apple said:
I feel the same way as the OP sometimes...... .it's a localized problem... My neighbors here around the home farm are young men, that are into the trendy "qdm" attitude and shoot literally every doe they see... I rarely see a doe in person or on trail cam... ratio all year long on camera is minimum 8 bucks to 1 doe... That's not an exaggeration.... sooner or later those guys will tire of cleaning that many every year, or they will move, or they'll run out of targets and move on to something else.... it does drive me nuts tho.... this time of year, my "good" bucks have relocated to areas that do hold does and are breeding... the ones that don't get shot may come back after the rut...

Those are the type that have been totally taken in by "professional TV hunters". You have to wonder how they think those bucks are conceived? No doubt a little competition between bucks is great for hunting, and a proper buck to doe ratio is what everyone wants. But what you are describing is not conducive to any type of long term management.

Sailor · Nov 28, 2015

7mm-08 said:
It's a combination of not reporting, bonus tags and being able to drive home with a deer in the bed and only notch the tag if you start to get pulled.

Okay, but I was simply addressing the "bonus tags" part of your original post.

I believe in shooting does, but since the year after the introduction of the bonus antlerless tags I have seen a remarkable decline of deer, mostly does, in my areas. I hunt several different counties in the central and just into the eastern zones. I still see bucks, but not nearly the number of does. I know there are diseases but they come and go every few years from place to place and they always bounce back. Coyotes have been around here for over a decade at least. I'm also seeing less coyotes in general than in the past, which would make me think there is less food for them. The only new factor has been bonus tags. I just feel that they should be done away with and punch out tags should be replaced with tamper proof metal tags that must be attached to the animal.

You've moved the bar now from "Bonus Tags are causing the doe decline" to including people that don't tag deer.

That's why I quoted the data on harvest reporting and surveys. Those data do NOT show it was a legal shooting and tagging of deer causing a significant decline.

The harvest report data show the doe harvest, even including Bonus Tags, at a level to maintain a "stable" population of deer.

Poaching is just too easy with a tag that is on your person at all times.

I'm not clear on how this is the fault of the Bonus Tag program...if poaching is easy with a tag on your person, it does not matter if it's a Bonus Tag or a standard HRC tag.

It seems to me the problem being railed against is people killing deer and not legally tagging them. Whether they are "not tagging" with a standard tag or a Bonus tag seems superfluous to the point.

Are you saying there is more poaching since the Bonus Tag went into effect? If someone is poaching, why would they bother buying Bonus Tags?

Dan Apple · Nov 28, 2015

^^^^
I know for a fact that the bonus deer thing has caused some people not to tag does... they slaughter them around here and the general attitude now is that it doesn't matter... by making the tags unlimited, they have given the impression that does are not important and that it's ok to shoot as many as you want...just like small game really... kill all the tree rats you want... doesn't matter... there is an endless supply...

Ldsoldier · Nov 28, 2015

7mm-08 said:
Id still like to see fixed tags again. Id rather them use someone else's tags than no tags at all. At least some documentation can be kept off that and it would make a small percentage of poachers stop taking so many.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You do realize that those tags were often used multiple times, right? At least now you actually register the deer and can only use that number once. The only advantage physical tags have are in field when the game warden wants to know who killed the deer.

Dan Apple said:
I feel the same way as the OP sometimes...... .it's a localized problem... My neighbors here around the home farm are young men, that are into the trendy "qdm" attitude and shoot literally every doe they see... I rarely see a doe in person or on trail cam... ratio all year long on camera is minimum 8 bucks to 1 doe... That's not an exaggeration.... sooner or later those guys will tire of cleaning that many every year, or they will move, or they'll run out of targets and move on to something else.... it does drive me nuts tho.... this time of year, my "good" bucks have relocated to areas that do hold does and are breeding... the ones that don't get shot may come back after the rut...

They don't understand QDM if they're whacking every doe they see with no plan.

Deer Killington said:
I do realize if a farmer is killing 100+ deer a year in a field he has a serious problem. Why not net those deer and take them to the mountains or other low population areas?

Because they'll just starve to death, as the Cherokee nation is finding out. There's a reason that the deer population in those areas is so low. It's a little thing we call "carrying capacity". If you have more critters than you do food, some of the critters are going to die. It's pretty simple math, really.

7mm-08 · Nov 28, 2015

Sailor said:
Okay, but I was simply addressing the "bonus tags" part of your original post.

You've moved the bar now from "Bonus Tags are causing the doe decline" to including people that don't tag deer.

That's why I quoted the data on harvest reporting and surveys. Those data do NOT show it was a legal shooting and tagging of deer causing a significant decline.

The harvest report data show the doe harvest, even including Bonus Tags, at a level to maintain a "stable" population of deer.

I'm not clear on how this is the fault of the Bonus Tag program...if poaching is easy with a tag on your person, it does not matter if it's a Bonus Tag or a standard HRC tag.

It seems to me the problem being railed against is people killing deer and not legally tagging them. Whether they are "not tagging" with a standard tag or a Bonus tag seems superfluous to the point.

Are you saying there is more poaching since the Bonus Tag went into effect? If someone is poaching, why would they bother buying Bonus Tags?

It is a combination of all of the above.
Some people are QDMA to a fault as Dan and I have stated. That would be the bonus tag issue.
Some thrill killers are legal hunters and that also is a bonus tag issue.
A responsible meat hunter that obeys the laws probably doesn't really need more than six tags. I'm not saying the number should be six. Just using it as the reference since that's what it has been for years. After all there are plenty that want to give their deer away to them or the needy anyway.
As for poaching, if you are not reporting them it does not matter how many tags are available to be issued or purchased additionally.
Other poachers feel justified if they use a legally issued tag since it is being reported and that person wasn't using their tag. It just looks strange when a six month old starts reporting harvests on their infant lifetime license. It's probably easier to buy your wife a license and use her tags.
There will be ways to cheat the system but it could somehow be made more difficult than what it is now. Some people won't care either way. Many new and/or younger hunters will lose interest since they never learned how to actually hunt a deer and they will abandon hunting for more satisfactory things.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

7mm-08 · Nov 28, 2015

Why am I getting quoted as saying things other people have said in this thread?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

7mm-08 · Nov 28, 2015

Ldsoldier said:
You do realize that those tags were often used multiple times, right? At least now you actually register the deer and can only use that number once. The only advantage physical tags have are in field when the game warden wants to know who killed the deer.

They don't understand QDM if they're whacking every doe they see with no plan.

Because they'll just starve to death, as the Cherokee nation is finding out. There's a reason that the deer population in those areas is so low. It's a little thing we call "carrying capacity". If you have more critters than you do food, some of the critters are going to die. It's pretty simple math, really.

That's why I said tamper proof metal tag. Ohio has them that clip on a deer. Once they have been snapped together you can't unsnap it without destroying it or it being evident that you messed with it. Even if you cut the deer out from inside the circle you couldn't properly attach the tag to another deer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ldsoldier · Nov 28, 2015

7mm-08 said:
It is a combination of all of the above.
Some people are QDMA to a fault as Dan and I have stated. That would be the bonus tag issue.
Some thrill killers are legal hunters and that also is a bonus tag issue.
A responsible meat hunter that obeys the laws probably doesn't really need more than six tags. I'm not saying the number should be six. Just using it as the reference since that's what it has been for years. After all there are plenty that want to give their deer away to them or the needy anyway.
As for poaching, if you are not reporting them it does not matter how many tags are available to be issued or purchased additionally.
Other poachers feel justified if they use a legally issued tag since it is being reported and that person wasn't using their tag. It just looks strange when a six month old starts reporting harvests on their infant lifetime license. It's probably easier to buy your wife a license and use her tags.
There will be ways to cheat the system but it could somehow be made more difficult than what it is now. Some people won't care either way. Many new and/or younger hunters will lose interest since they never learned how to actually hunt a deer and they will abandon hunting for more satisfactory things.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some people are QDMA to a fault as Dan and I have stated. That would be the bonus tag issue.
Again, if they're just shooting every doe they see just for the sake of shooting does then they don't understand QDM. It's that simple.

A responsible meat hunter that obeys the laws probably doesn't really need more than six tags. I'm not saying the number should be six. Just using it as the reference since that's what it has been for years. After all there are plenty that want to give their deer away to them or the needy anyway.
I know plenty of folks that fill their freezers, then their kids' freezers, poor families at church, etc... I'm not about to tell somebody I don't know how many deer they "need". That's not really your place, either.

There will be ways to cheat the system but it could somehow be made more difficult than what it is now.
When you make it more difficult you also increase the workload of already overworked people within the WRC. The NCWRC abandoned physical tags because they cost to much (think a couple of hundred thousand dollars/year or more), plain and simple. Between the actual cost of the tags, mailing, etc.... it just doesn't provide the benefit that you think it does. The system we have is as effective and efficient as any. The quest for a cheat proof system is a pipe dream. I'd rather the NCWRC spend their time and money on things that can actually be achieved and matter.

Ldsoldier · Nov 28, 2015

7mm-08 said:
That's why I said tamper proof metal tag. Ohio has them that clip on a deer. Once they have been snapped together you can't unsnap it without destroying it or it being evident that you messed with it. Even if you cut the deer out from inside the circle you couldn't properly attach the tag to another deer.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You could use the plastic tags if you want to go that route. How would you like to pay for them? You do realize those things cost money, right?

7mm-08 · Nov 28, 2015

Ldsoldier said:
You could use the plastic tags if you want to go that route. How would you like to pay for them? You do realize those things cost money, right?

I don't care what it's made out of. Just using them as an example for people who don't understand that a paper tag is a joke as far as it's efficiency in deterring the fair weather poacher.
I don't claim to have all the answers, I just thought if it was discussed some ideas could be spitballed. Money is a concern, but my point isn't to have more wardens looking for metal tags as much as the fear of getting caught without it properly affixed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sailor · Nov 28, 2015

Dan Apple said:
^^^^

I know for a fact that the bonus deer thing has caused some people not to tag does... they slaughter them around here and the general attitude now is that it doesn't matter... by making the tags unlimited, they have given the impression that does are not important and that it's ok to shoot as many as you want...just like small game really... kill all the tree rats you want... doesn't matter... there is an endless supply...

Interesting logic they are using...wonder why they don't apply the same logic to the six tags on the regular HRC then? I mean, well, if I can buy a license with 6 tags, there must be plenty of deer. Right? What's really the difference?

Not ragging on you for bringing this up, but rather questioning the (non-)thinking of anyone that could make such an argument with a straight face.

Still though, the issue revolves around not tagging deer. Of those legally reporting harvests, the number of those filling the HRC tags, purchasing bonus tags AND filling at least some of those is quite small.

I'm not specifically arguing in favor of the bonus tags...I've never bought one. So, if the program went away, it would not hurt my feelings at all. But, I do wonder if the issue of not tagging does would disappear with it.

7mm-08 · Nov 28, 2015

Ldsoldier said:
Some people are QDMA to a fault as Dan and I have stated. That would be the bonus tag issue.
Again, if they're just shooting every doe they see just for the sake of shooting does then they don't understand QDM. It's that simple.

A responsible meat hunter that obeys the laws probably doesn't really need more than six tags. I'm not saying the number should be six. Just using it as the reference since that's what it has been for years. After all there are plenty that want to give their deer away to them or the needy anyway.
I know plenty of folks that fill their freezers, then their kids' freezers, poor families at church, etc... I'm not about to tell somebody I don't know how many deer they "need". That's not really your place, either.

There will be ways to cheat the system but it could somehow be made more difficult than what it is now.
When you make it more difficult you also increase the workload of already overworked people within the WRC. The NCWRC abandoned physical tags because they cost to much (think a couple of hundred thousand dollars/year or more), plain and simple. Between the actual cost of the tags, mailing, etc.... it just doesn't provide the benefit that you think it does. The system we have is as effective and efficient as any. The quest for a cheat proof system is a pipe dream. I'd rather the NCWRC spend their time and money on things that can actually be achieved and matter.

I already said it doesn't have to be six tags. But those guys you know that are feeding everyone they know are fixing a short term problem and possibly causing longer term detriment to the future of hunting and the herd.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

7mm-08 · Nov 28, 2015

I also realize the irony in calling yourself QDM and killing every doe you see. That just doesn't add up. But they feel that's what they are doing and the state gave them the green light.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Banjo · Nov 28, 2015

It is funny how the same old arguments keep getting recycled.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

7mm-08 · Nov 28, 2015

Banjo said:
It is funny how the same old arguments keep getting recycled.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's the funny thing about management of an ever evolving environment where there are no constants. Management will always need to be discussed to adapt to the things that neither people or a government can control.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ldsoldier · Nov 28, 2015

7mm-08 said:
I don't care what it's made out of. Just using them as an example for people who don't understand that a paper tag is a joke as far as it's efficiency in deterring the fair weather poacher.
I don't claim to have all the answers, I just thought if it was discussed some ideas could be spitballed. Money is a concern, but my point isn't to have more wardens looking for metal tags as much as the fear of getting caught without it properly affixed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You assume this hasn't been discussed within the NCWRC at nauseating length, when it actually has. Fact is the physical tags provide no benefit other than a "feel good" response. They had no effect on reducing poaching. All they are is money down the drain. Kind of like the fox tags, which we're stuck with via statute.

Ldsoldier · Nov 28, 2015

7mm-08 said:
I already said it doesn't have to be six tags. But those guys you know that are feeding everyone they know are fixing a short term problem and possibly causing longer term detriment to the future of hunting and the herd.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If there was a large number of folks doing it, then you might be right. Data says there isn't (reference Sailor's post, #41 I think).

Doc · Nov 28, 2015

7mm-08 said:
That's not likely to happen. I don't think the numbers are so low that they feel the need to start an extensive program on that. There are fewer deer there because the habitat can't support them the same as here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which is why we need NO MORE wilderness mandated on pisgah and nantahala national forests. Send emails in demanding no more wilderness...But that's a whole different topic haha.

7mm-08 · Nov 28, 2015

Ldsoldier said:
If there was a large number of folks doing it, then you might be right. Data says there isn't (reference Sailor's post, #41 I think).

Only shows reported kills.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

shaggy · Nov 28, 2015

nccatfisher said:
it isn't just a few farmers, and many aren't getting permits. Remember as long as they are in fields damaging their crops they don't have to have permits as long as they don't want to possess the deer. They just gut shoot them with small caliber rifles so they don't fall in the fields and damage the crops more. It is a very distasteful situation but very real, I have seen the results. Hunting the winter after it went on during the summer and see skeletons laying everywhere. Around the woodsline and a few yards in the woods.

Last year I walked a path along the fields on my club. There is a pretty high berm there and I saw at least 6-10 carcasses laying on the berm where they couldn't get over it. I bet if they did away with dep tags and controlled the farmers shooting them then the deer would bounce right back. As it stands theres a fine line between protecting someones livelihood and allowing too many deer to be shot.

Did the NCWRC cornhole us?

Old Mossy Horns

Administrator

Ten Pointer

Sailor

Guest

Old Mossy Horns

Old Mossy Horns

Twelve Pointer

Ten Pointer

Ten Pointer

Twelve Pointer

Old Mossy Horns

Sailor

Guest

Old Mossy Horns

Old Mossy Horns

Twelve Pointer

Twelve Pointer

Twelve Pointer

Old Mossy Horns

Old Mossy Horns

Twelve Pointer

Sailor

Guest

Twelve Pointer

Twelve Pointer

Old Mossy Horns

Twelve Pointer

Old Mossy Horns

Old Mossy Horns

Twelve Pointer

Twelve Pointer

Old Mossy Horns