It is my understanding, due to the nature of does being loyal to their birth range, that if you kill off (accidentally of course) all of the does in a certain area, it could be years before they repopulate that area.

William Porter and his students at state University of New York have conducted extensive studies exploring the behavioral characteristics and dynamics of hunted and unhunted deer herds in northern New York.

Based on long-term research, Porter has proposed that locally abundant whitetails can be effectively managed by removing entire family groups of deer. Since a group of related does controls and shares an ancestral range, he contends, eliminating such a group would result in low deer density in that area for 10 years or more. That is, because surrounding doe groups are also attached to their established ranges, overflow of deer from surrounding doe groups would be gradual.

Subsequent studies have confirmed such "localized" deer removal might reduce deer numbers in highly fragmented habitat as occurs in residential areas. Likewise, investigators believe such a "surgical approach" might be feasible in the central Adirondacks.

Logically, unintentional overharvesting of female deer might produce similar results and, due to social disruption, cause unfavorably low deer numbers in local areas for a relatively long time. Likewise, excessive natural deer mortality, for whatever reason, in any given area, could theoretically produce similar localized consequences.

in most of Alabamas deer habitat is is practically impossible to kill too many does on private property by legal sport hunting means.

in most of Alabamas deer habitat is is practically impossible to kill too many does on private property by legal sport hunting means.

I'll have to agree with that. Given all the deer that were shot at night with Permits, and they still continued to demolish the soybeans............................

Quote:
William Porter and his students at state University of New York have conducted extensive studies exploring the behavioral characteristics and dynamics of hunted and unhunted deer herds in northern New York.

Based on long-term research, Porter has proposed that locally abundant whitetails can be effectively managed by removing entire family groups of deer. Since a group of related does controls and shares an ancestral range, he contends, eliminating such a group would result in low deer density in that area for 10 years or more. That is, because surrounding doe groups are also attached to their established ranges, overflow of deer from surrounding doe groups would be gradual.

Subsequent studies have confirmed such "localized" deer removal might reduce deer numbers in highly fragmented habitat as occurs in residential areas. Likewise, investigators believe such a "surgical approach" might be feasible in the central Adirondacks.

Logically, unintentional overharvesting of female deer might produce similar results and, due to social disruption, cause unfavorably low deer numbers in local areas for a relatively long time. Likewise, excessive natural deer mortality, for whatever reason, in any given area, could theoretically produce similar localized consequences.


This is not where I got my comment from, but it is similar. And since I concede you guys know more about deer management than I will probably ever know, I will leave it to ya'll to hash it out.

If I find some more time, I will search some more try to find where I posted what I did. Til then, I have things to do.

The entire article:

Can not compare NY deer to AL deer. Two different habitats, different winters, and different deer.

Seems like the more we kill the more show up. Live weights have improved by a lot on our buck and doe segments over the last few years. If the habitat is good the deer are going to be there regardless of how many you kill in day light.

in most of Alabamas deer habitat is is practically impossible to kill too many does on private property by legal sport hunting means.

I you have 10 2.5 and older does with an average of 2 fawns per doe, which it does vary, (lower fawns averages usually are and Indicator of too many deer) you will have your 30 does back pretty quickly.

does won't average two fawns per doe to age three months. Three fawns off a doe is very rare, all three making it to three months is almost unheard of in the wild. Most does will have one fawn first time, at two years old. A lot of three year olds will have one. So ya can't AVERAGE two fawns/doe.

Given normal mortality rates among sub three month old fawns you'd have to have ALL yer does birth three fawns to average two per doe at three months, and older.

troy

1.7 fawns per doe. That's the number you should use. 2 year old does will have just over 1 fawn per doe, and 3 and older will have much closer to 2 fawns per doe...which normally averages very close to 1.7.

Carter...the fawns per doe that was more than 2.0 is wrong...it doesn't happen. You were either misinformed, or the data set was incomplete and was way too small.

Recruitment rates (fawns per doe at 6 months of age) used to be around 0.7 before this whole coyote thing. Those properties on which serious predation issues have been documented have recruitment rates of 0.2-0.3. You can see why in these cases, antlerless harvest probably needs to be decreased if it hasn't been already.

But, not every property has a coyote predation problem either. Somebody mentioned earlier that the details of management recommendations need to be site-specific...which is correct. The state gives a general framework, and then you need to be smart enough to tweak those recommendations based on your objectives and local site conditions. Those of you that have the predation problem should really reign in the antlerless harvest. Those that think you might have a problem probably don't...you're only justifiably paranoid.