Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hill Country Deer vs. South Texas Deer?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Natural nutrition
    Larger land tracts
    Longer management
    I think there’s merit to the whole sub-species thing also.

    I love the hill county, what it lacks in size it makes up
    For in numbers and scenery. The density likely plays a factor in size also
    Last edited by SwampBuck; 12-24-2020, 12:52 PM.

    Comment


      #17
      The hill country is devoid of nutrition in comparison. Not only does South Texas have a huge variety of edible browse species, but almost everything is within reach of the deer.

      Comment


        #18
        AGE! nutrition and AGE. I hunted the hill county for many year. I can honesty say I have seen some really good ten point bucks but never one that was old. If you have a big enough ranch and you can let your deer age you will get some great deer in the hill country.
        Last edited by Johnson; 12-24-2020, 01:20 PM.

        Comment


          #19
          Nutrition and management. I hunted the hill country my whole life, now hunt in south Texas. All of our bucks are over 200#s, I think out of 12-14 bucks we only have one that is under 200. I love it.

          Comment


            #20
            Hill Country Deer vs. South Texas Deer?

            Density has a lot to do with it, but nutrition is much-much better in the brush country.


            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

            Comment


              #21
              That’s something that’s odd to me.
              If the nutrition is so much better in the south, why are the numbers not there like they are in the hill country? Surely if the nutrition was that off in the hill country the numbers should naturally be that much lower.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by SwampBuck View Post
                That’s something that’s odd to me.
                If the nutrition is so much better in the south, why are the numbers not there like they are in the hill country? Surely if the nutrition was that off in the hill country the numbers should naturally be that much lower.
                Herd management and predators. Lots of the hill country had been or are currently devoid of predators due to goat farming.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by SwampBuck View Post
                  That’s something that’s odd to me.
                  If the nutrition is so much better in the south, why are the numbers not there like they are in the hill country? Surely if the nutrition was that off in the hill country the numbers should naturally be that much lower.
                  IF population is in fact lower in South Texas, then my guesses are water is much more of a limiting factor in South Texas compared to the hill country. Predation may be higher in remote South Texas as well

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by JVasquez View Post
                    Everything that grows in South Texas is high in protein.
                    This is the correct answer.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by SwampBuck View Post
                      That’s something that’s odd to me.
                      If the nutrition is so much better in the south, why are the numbers not there like they are in the hill country? Surely if the nutrition was that off in the hill country the numbers should naturally be that much lower.
                      Lack of natural predators plays a major role. For example, in my county of Mills, we have few coyotes. This is because this is the meat goat capital of Texas and they get shot, trapped, poisoned, etc. Some areas of the hill country do have coyotes though. Another factor is the screw worm fly being eradicated in the 1960's and hill country herds have overpopulated since then.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by SwampBuck View Post
                        That’s something that’s odd to me.
                        If the nutrition is so much better in the south, why are the numbers not there like they are in the hill country? Surely if the nutrition was that off in the hill country the numbers should naturally be that much lower.
                        Higher Deer Numbers = Overbrowsing of Quality shrub/tree/forb species
                        Overbrowsing of Native Forage = less available high quality forage per animal

                        Deer density is the biggest issue in my opinion. If the hill country could get their numbers in check, then the quality would drastically improve. The biggest issue with that though is smaller parcels of land. If deer density was where it should be, then less deer per parcel, and most people would rather see a lot more deer than to have the opportunity to harvest a mature buck.

                        Also don’t forget the hunter density difference between hill country and south Texas. A lot more bucks shot at younger ages across the board, since there are so many hunters. Everyone has to get their “trophy” and their “cull” every season.

                        Lastly, predator numbers are a lot higher down south, so fawn survival suffers compared to the hill country. Predator numbers, along with drought, help keep deer density lower down south.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Like mentioned, it's the nutrition. While it grows them bigger they also dumber

                          Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Density leading to over grazing...McCulloch county is insane with density. Add in this year with drought and it’s worse. This year I’ve seen way more does with babies still in tote than ever before...leads me to believe not enough bucks around to breed does and run off the babies.
                            Trying to do my part with doe harvest.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              It can’t be nutrition alone. The deer in the golden triangle are just bigger skeletally. Their bones and skulls are larger. Deer in the Edwards plateau and Gulf coast are just smaller, skeletally.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Wouldn’t nutrition lead to skeletal structure?

                                Natural over grazing seems the most logical, it’s just funny to me that the herd doesn’t naturally keep itself in check if nutrients/forage are so scarce. Not to mention general bag limits are more generous.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X