Hunting burn zones

[CodeSeven]

Any input on the idea of hunting last years burn zones? A buddy pitched the idea that deer are likely to come graze on the new growth. Seems logical. Curious about others input

 

[ianpadron]

In the past decade every single deer, both muley and whitetail, that I've killed has been in/near a burn or recently logged area. Any sort of edge habitat with a nutrient recharge is going to be a deer magnet, I'd go all in on your buddy's idea.

 

[CodeSeven]

In the past decade every single deer, both muley and whitetail, that I've killed has been in/near a burn or recently logged area. Any sort of edge habitat with a nutrient recharge is going to be a deer magnet, I'd go all in on your buddy's idea.

If you’ve killed more than 1 deer in the last decade, I will accept this as statistically significant data. Lol

 

[ianpadron]

If you’ve killed more than 1 deer in the last decade, I will accept this as statistically significant data. Lol

Haha, usually 2 or 3 a season, it's good data

 

[Mad Line]

Edge habitat is an attractant for sure. It is also nice because you often can glass it better.

 

[Dave Thomas]

Find the trails entering the burn area and set up to hunt them, or just inside the woods a little off the burn area where a few trails meet.

 

[AZ_Hunter_2000]

Haha, usually 2 or 3 a season, it's good data

But is it only because deer are at the burn area and NOT anywhere else or is it just that you’ve predominantly hunted the burn area?

I can say hunting burn areas is a waste since I never killed one in a burn area. What is conveniently left out it is the key detail: not bothered to hunt them. Tiny detail there but makes a huge difference.

Back on track…
Wouldn’t bet the farm but it’s something to check out. Seen deer and bear cruising through overly fresh burn looking for food. Seen similar area be animal-free for a couple of years after. Maybe water issue? But have one small parcel that historically was a paradise; tons of food and game. But the area around it got burnt crisp. Two years later and there still plenty of food but there’s only a single sow and cub; still no deer nor javelina.

 

[ianpadron]

But is it only because deer are at the burn area and NOT anywhere else or is it just that you’ve predominantly hunted the burn area?

I can say hunting burn areas is a waste since I never killed one in a burn area. What is conveniently left out it is the key detail: not bothered to hunt them. Tiny detail there but makes a huge difference.

Back on track…
Wouldn’t bet the farm but it’s something to check out. Seen deer and bear cruising through overly fresh burn looking for food. Seen similar area be animal-free for a couple of years after. Maybe water issue? But have one small parcel that historically was a paradise; tons of food and game. But the area around it got burnt crisp. Two years later and there still plenty of food but there’s only a single sow and cub; still no deer nor javelina.

Put a game cam in the deep woods/timber.

Put one on the edge of a burn.

Don't have game cams? Go count tracks in a burn/cut, and then the woods.

Compare findings...report back.

Burns and clearcuts have nutrient dense food compared to elsewhere, that's why the deer are there. They're easier to shoot into/across than bedding areas, and easier to see.

 

[Macintosh]

I've seen burned or cut areas that, becasue they lost other nearby components of a year-round ecosystem that animals need for part of their requirements, dont hold game like they used to. Even if the food in the burn itself is better, it can become kind of an isolated island without a "connection" to the landscape around it, and the area no longer serves the animals year-round needs. Sometimes really hot, intense fires that result from decades of supressing the smaller natural fires can also burn down to mineral soil. So, yeah, I can see how it could be worse than it was before in specific cases. However, assuming the area around it is still largely intact, the burn itself adds nutrients to the soil, lets in sunlight, and before too long you get an explosion of nutrient-dense food that is at forage-height, thick stuff that makes good cover, etc, and it essentially becomes a fresh salad-bowl for critters of all sorts. It also can be easier to see into it than it was if it had been dark timber, so the animals there may be easier to pick out giving the impression there are even more of them.
Bottom line, maybe not EVERY burn is an animal magnet, but enough of them are that "hunting burns" is a legit tactic lots of people use.

 

[Long Cut]

Southeast here but same principle applies here. The fire creates diversity, puts nutrients back into the soil so the new growth has more nutrients for the animals, fires can promote more sunlight to the forest floor = more forage for animals.

We burn annually for all of the reasons above, and to prevent sweet gums from absolutely taking over.

 

[Sodak_Lewno]

Everglades biologist in a prior life, but I think burn data analysis from the South is applicable across north american Flora. Burning reduces old growth to the organic levels and allows for fresh regrowth. This regrowth is most importantly more palatable but also denser in readily released nutrients. Especially with birds like bob-white quail these burned areas are honey holes because they attract a bevy of fresh insects. I would think seeking out these areas when ever possible would be a smart beginning to scouting.

 

[R_Mac]

My local zone got absolutely torched last year and it was already hard hunting to begin with. This is encouraging info

 

[180ls1]

In the past decade every single deer, both muley and whitetail, that I've killed has been in/near a burn or recently logged area. Any sort of edge habitat with a nutrient recharge is going to be a deer magnet, I'd go all in on your buddy's idea.

How soon after are you hunting them? To quantify, I am more talking about an average fire, not a flash burn that skims the top nor a kiln that torches everything to nothing.