By Mike Marsh

No modern-day hunter should doubt the success of North Carolina's deer herd restoration. A dearth of deer in the 1950s and '60s brought short seasons to the western mountains and eastern swamps of the state. Most of the Piedmont section of the state had no deer season at all.

Thanks to a resounding rebound due to astute wildlife management, the state's deer population has grown to an estimated herd of 1,035,000 today. While the deer population appears to be peaking at that number, the numbers of deer harvested by hunters are also stabilizing.

"Our 2003 deer harvest was 134,507 and it was the second-highest deer harvest on record," said Evin Stanford, the North Carolina Wildlife Commission's Deer Project biologist. "Our highest deer harvest took place during 2001. A total of 142,887 deer was harvested that year."

The commission keeps track of deer harvested by hunters to give an overview of the size of the population and the statewide hunter success rates.

"In 2003, District 1 and District 2 had a deer harvest virtually unchanged from 2001," Stanford said. "The reasons the numbers in those districts are still down could be from a hurricane that kept hunters out of the woods during the hunting season, or it could have been caused by hemorrhagic disease. Hurricane Isabel did a lot of destruction in 2003. That would have made the forests tough to hunt. People in areas struck by the hurricane would have been busy with other things besides hunting."

Indeed, hunters who normally plant food plots and put finishing touches on deer stands and hunting camps were likely to be busy just cleaning out access roads after Hurricane Isabel. Planting food plots that increase deer hunter success was out of the question because of saturated ground and limited access. While hemorrhagic disease occurred statewide during 2002, it also was documented to have persisted in districts 1 and 2 into 2003.

Photo by Dan Kibler

"There was a little more hemorrhagic disease in the Coastal Plain than we expected during 2003, but it was not anything to be concerned about," Stanford said. "Looking at the statewide numbers, we had a peak harvest in 2001. Then a drought and hemorrhagic disease occurred in 2002. But the harvest shot right back up again during 2003. I was actually surprised at how quickly it shot right back up after the occurrence of hemorrhagic disease. I don't see any reason why the 2004 harvest will show anything other than a typical deer season."

Dead deer found in the woods as a result of hemorrhagic disease brought about hunter concerns of an outbreak of chronic wasting disease, otherwise known as CWD. While the disease has not been found in wild deer in North Carolina, the commission took the step of prohibiting importation of captive cervids that might bring in the disease, which has infected herds in other parts of the nation.

"Aside from districts 1 and 2, hunters in the rest of the state did very well," Stanford said. "There was a poor mast crop in the Piedmont and mountains that made deer move around more. Baiting is legal on private lands. Therefore, hunter success increases when there is a poor mast year."

A rundown shows that the 2003 deer harvest was down 1.1 percent from 2002 in District 1. In District 2, the harvest was up 1.7 percent. These numbers are within normal variance range of the survey and the changes are therefore not statistically significant. Time will tell whether these harvest numbers are actually increasing, decreasing or staying the same for the coastline region. For now, they can be considered flat.

In District 3, the harvest was up 18.4 percent from 2002. In District 4, the harvest was up 12.3 percent. In District 5, the harvest was up 30.7 percent. In District 6, the harvest was up 19.6 percent. In District 7, the harvest was up 20.5 percent. In District 8, the harvest was up 8.2 percent. In District 9, the harvest was up 19.3 percent. Statistics show the total statewide harvest was up 13 percent over 2002.

"District 7 had a season extension of five days for the Northwestern Region deer season," Stanford said. "That could have added to the harvest numbers for that district. In 2000, we implemented the two-buck rule for that season. Following that, the antlered deer harvest decreased. However, with the five-day extension, the antlered buck harvest is back to the same as it was before the two-buck rule was implemented. We will have to take a look at that if hunters want to reduce their buck harvest in the Northwestern Region."

The hunter success rate is good, with 50 percent of licensed hunters taking at least one deer. But that also means half of licensed hunters do not take a deer during the hunting season. The number of hunters who take two or more deer is a much smaller percentage and the number of hunters who fill all their tags is less than 1 percent.

When wildlife managers decided to try to stabilize the deer population, they began by liberalizing either-sex seasons. Stabilization of the harvest numbers shows that the either-sex seasons are having the desired affect. The number of hunters is remaining stable. Therefore, the only way to further increase harvest is by encouraging each hunter to take at least one deer and if they are successful, to take at least one more.

Deer population densities in the different districts vary because of differences in habitat. Harvest statistics are compiled on a county-by-county basis. Hunters check in their harvested deer by Internet, telephone call, or in person at hunter check stations located throughout the state. Biologists use this information to determine the total number of deer taken by hunters. Also, the number of does, button bucks and antlered bucks taken is determined. Statistics that are the source of confusion among hunters are the deer harvested per square mile and antlered bucks harvested per square mile.

"We use available habitat to determine the harvest per square mile," Stanford said. "The number is based on forested and agricultural land that deer can utilize in each county. It does not include urbanized areas. Urbanized areas can have some impressive deer densities and deer are in fact causing some problems in several urban areas across the state. But deer are not hunted in those areas, so those regions are not included in the harvest per square mile figures."

In District 1, which covers the northern coastal counties, the Roanoke River watershed has a fair number of deer. The river floodplain prevents expansion of urban areas, along with several large tracts that are protected from development.

"In the western portion of District 1, the Roanoke River area produces lots of deer," Stanford said. "That is probably related to agricultural operations and fertile soils. There's a lot of habitat in that area. Some good game lands include the Roanoke River Wetlands and Roanoke River National Wildlife Refuge in Bertie and Martin counties. Lantern Acres and Van Swamp game lands are also places where hunters will find an abundance of deer."

The top two counties for District 1 in deer harvested per square mile were Currituck (7.24) and Bertie (5.46). The same counties led District 1 during 2002.

District 2 has quite a bit of habitat in Croatan National Forest located in Beaufort, Carteret, Craven and Jones counties. Agricultural operations and private forestlands, along with timber company lands, create plenty of good deer habitat in District 2. Vast areas of wetlands are off-limits to housing and offer good deer hunting. Holly Shelter Game Land has a high deer density. In Duplin County, agricultural lands and timber company lands offer plenty of deer hunting opportunities.

The top two counties for District 2 in deer harvested per square mile were Pender (4.91) and Duplin (4.21). During 2002, Pender and Jones were the top counties.

District 3 has some of the highest deer harvest numbers in the state. Along the Virginia border in the upper inland Coastal Plain, several counties consistently produce high hunter success.

"Northampton and Halifax counties have good habitat along the Roanoke River and Fisher Creek," Stanford said. "There is good public hunting at Butner, Falls of the Neuse and Jordan Lake game lands. In Johnston County, the Neuse River holds many deer. There are lots of forestlands and agricultural lands in that district."

In District 3, Northampton (9.9.74) and Halifax (8.69) led the deer per square mile harvest numbers. They were also the leading counties during 2002.

District 4 in the lower inland Coastal Plain has many timberlands that are leased to hunting clubs. There are also an abundance of private forestlands and small farms that create excellent deer habitat. Suggs Mill Pond Game Land, Green Swamp Game Land, Bladen Lakes State Forest and several small game lands are good choices for hunters who want to find high deer densities on public lands.

"Robeson County has a relatively low deer density," Stanford said. "People in that county are not as likely to manage their properties to produce deer. The best bets are farms in Columbus County and game lands in Brunswick and Bladen counties. Suggs Mill Pond is a permit-only area, but it has lots of deer."

The top two counties for District 4 in deer harvested per square mile were Bladen (4.02) and Columbus (3.80). During 2002, the leading counties were Bladen and Brunswick.

District 5, located in the upper Piedmont, has some of the best deer habitat in the state with Caswell, Orange, Alamance and Person counties consistently producing high hunter harvests. Butner Game Land in Durham and Chatham counties holds many deer. Jordan and Harris game lands also have high deer densities.

"In the northern part of Alamance County, there is a lot of forestland," Stanford said. "Caswell Game Land is one of our best producers and has some big deer."

In District 5, the top two counties in deer harvested per square mile were Orange (7.28) and Caswell (7.65). During 2002, Caswell and Alamance counties led the district.

District 6 is located along the South Carolina border in the central part of the state. In Richmond County, Sandhills Game Land has loads of deer and has a large area of forestland. The top deer harvest counties in the district are Stanly and Anson. Uwharrie National Forest extends through Stanly, Montgomery and Davidson counties and has a high deer density. Union County is becoming increasingly urbanized. But there are still quite a few good hunting areas consisting of private farms and forestlands in the county.

The top two counties in District 6 in deer harvest per square mile were Anson (7.16) and Stanly (5.93). During 2002, Stanly and Montgomery were the top counties.

District 7 has the most top counties of any district in the deer harvested per square mile category. Ashe Alleghany, Wilkes, Yadkin and Davie counties are all among the top 10 counties statewide, according to harvest reports.

"In District 7, we have the foothills where there are extensive agriculture and forest lands," Stanford said. "It consistently produces big deer. I saw a 160-pound doe in Wilkes County that had been taken by a hunter.

"The Yadkin River corridors create a lot of habitat. There are extensive hardwood and cropland areas. In Wilkes County, the 6,276-acre Thurmond Chatham Game Land is a good bet for harvesting a deer."

Other game lands in District 7 are not as large as Thurmond Chatham. Nevertheless, the 327-acre Cherokee and the 2,800-acre Three Top Mountain game lands are good places to find high deer populations. Another good choice is Elk Knob Game Land, which has less than 1,000 acres in Watauga County.

The top two counties in District 7 in deer per square mile were Alleghany County (16.16 - a figure which led the state) and Yadkin County (7.97). During 2002, the leading counties were Alleghany and Ashe.

District 8 has some rugged mountain habitats and includes the 20,665-acre South Mountains Game Land that extends across Burke, Cleveland, McDowell and Rutherford counties. New management regulations have been put in place for some of the game land that will probably cause a harvest decrease. The either-sex season has been shortened to the introductory season to help curtail what biologists see as a declining population. It will also make a uniform season for the game land, which lies in several counties. Differences in either-sex season lengths among those counties applied to various parts of the game land in the past.

Plenty of land in District 8 is included in Pisgah and Nantahala National forests. At the lower elevations, clearcuts and planted openings create excellent deer habitat. Many hardwoods diversify the habitat, as do managed plantations of softwoods. There are a few agricultural areas in the valleys that have prime deer-hunting opportunities.

The leading counties in District 8 in deer harvested per square mile were Lincoln (3.81) and Rutherford (3.79). During 2002, the leading counties were Rutherford and Mitchell.

District 9, located at the far western tip of the state, includes some of the most rugged deer-hunting terrain. Nantahala National Forest offers plenty of hunting opportunities.

"District 9 has very low deer densities compared to the rest of the state," Stanford said. "But there is plenty of hunting territory in Pisgah and Nantahala national forests. The either-sex deer season has been extended in Polk County, which is one of the counties in District 9 with the highest harvest. The gun season will be extended from the introductory to the conservative season. The muzzleloader season was extended in 2002 from the first day only of the muzzleloader season to any day of the muzzleloader season. The harvest should increase in Polk County with these regulations."

The far western counties likely have never had a high deer population. Thin soils and extensive mature forests with few openings and a declining number of clearcuts provide poor deer habitat.

"District 9 probably had better deer habitat when there was more aggressive timber management in the past," Stanford said. "Hunters who want high deer densities should probably look farther east."

The top two counties in District 9 in deer harvested per square mile were Polk (4.81) and Madison (1.20). The same two counties led the district in 2002.