Deer Study.....

Age and Antler Size
Deer experts used to believe it took 4 1/2 years for a whitetail buck to develop a trophy rack. It is now believed that a whitetail doesn't achieve full body size until it is about 7 1/2 years old. Until then much of the food and mineral a buck takes in is used to develop bone and muscle mass. Once the buck is fully mature excess food and mineral can be used to develop antler mass, and many hunters equate antler mass with a high score. A close look at any scoring chart will reveal that it is the number and length of tines that makes up the majority of inches needed for the rack to score high enough to enter the record books. The difference between a massive rack and a thin rack might only add 10 inches, which is 1/14 of a 140 class buck, not enough to really matter.

Milo Hanson's world record whitetail has several tines with extremely long points and main beams, with a good spread, but it is not massive. The length of the tines is what made it the new world record. Game officials aged the buck at 4 1/2. Obviously it had superior genetics, and it lived until it was 4 1/2 years old. It is conceivable that a 3 1/2 year old buck could make the archery record book but most trophy bucks are over 4 1/2 years of age. In many areas bucks don't make it past their first year. The chances of a 2 1/2 year old buck making the record book are slim. If you want to see more trophy bucks you have to let the 1 1/2 to 3 1/2 year old bucks go, so they can grow. By letting the young bucks grow, and taking does, you not only keep the herd below carrying capacity, you increase the buck to doe ratio in favor of bucks. Eventually you will end up with more older bucks, which translates into more trophy deer.

Genetics
For a number of years deer experts believed spike yearling bucks possessed inferior genetics and would never produce respectable, or trophy racks. Because of this belief game managers and hunters alike promoted the idea of culling the spikes from the herd to improve overall genetics. The feeling now is that many spikes may be late born fawns that just don't have time to produce larger racks their first year. A buck's rack doesn't keep growing until it reaches a certain size and then stop. It grows until lengthening daylight hours increase hormone levels causing the rack to stop growing and harden. Because the rise in hormone level stops the growth of the rack at about the same time in most bucks, those that were born a month or so later have less rack growth their first year. During their second year late born bucks have the same growing time as other bucks, and usually produce normal sized racks.

In one study, when bucks were given supplemental feed and minerals, most of the bucks produced four to ten point racks their first year. There was also one buck in the study with a spike rack. With continued supplemental feeding and mineral all the bucks produced bigger racks each year, including the spike. In fact, during the fourth year the spike produced the largest rack of all. This proves that the only way to find out what kind of a rack the buck will produce is to let it grow until it is 4-7 years old.

In Sept 2010 issue of NAWT mag. Dr. Kroll wrote an article about antler growth. He cited a study he did that showed that bucks attained 95% of their antler size by 4.5 years. This came up in a discussion last summer and Dr. D. said he thought it was closer to 90-92%. Either way I take it to mean that if we want max antlers we should let them get 5.5-6.5 years. That buck is mature in every possibly way. Age ,antlers,and "smarts". Of course we all know getting them to 5.5+ free range in Alabama, is not easy. Lot of areas getting them to 3.5 is hard.

Conclusion: Deer "experts" have opinions.

Yep, and they "study" deer that are highly subsidized with feed and minerals and/or in pens and come up with the brilliant conclusions that deer can obtain antlers of massive proportions. Then they spew ad nauseum these "great studies" forth as gospel (of course this is taken hook, line and sinker by the worship at the alter of the antler crowd) and promote hunting regulations for free roaming deer that are not provided an endless supply of "supplemental feed and minerals".

Is this information from a single published study, or are you summarizing from your own reading?
Just curious.

Name the vocations and fields that the "experts" do not need opinions and all the pertinent facts are simply that - facts

I don't fault experts in scientific fields for their opinions....but I do think experts should be clear in presenting what is their opinion, what are scientific facts, and what are the scientific facts that support their opinions?

I think the blurring between facts and opinions is where we have run into trouble. For example, at one time biologists told us not to shoot any does (and there was a time that may have been appropriate). Then that changed to shoot every doe you see and that we could not shoot too many does by legal hunting methods. Now it seems the pendulum is swinging back toward the middle and "shoot does if you need to and don't shoot them if you don't need too" which made a whole lot more sense from the very start.

Moderation is always the right thing to do, some people just can't seem to grasp simple concepts.

I agree...very hard to "prove" anything regarding to deer behavior but at the same time don't most people understand that to begin with? I'm not aware of any biologist, "deer experts", QDMA, etc. that claim to have proven anything, unless it's been provable, which most things aren't.

Our deer numbers where I hunt have never warranted a doe slaughter so I can't speak from experience but from what I've seen and have been told biologist recommended that hunters in some areas of the state should kill just about any doe they saw. Based on the deer numbers at that time that was probably pretty good advice. What seems to be the problem is clubs continued to kill "every doe they saw" for years without reevaluating the situation from year to to year. If the biologist continued to recommend this without a proper survey then they shouldn't be in their profession. If they didn't get the opportunity to re-evaluate and the club just assumed they needed to continue to kill a bunch of does then the club has no one to blame but themselves. OR there is still the possibility that in some areas there are still way too many does and/or the buck to doe ratio is still out of whack but due to hunting pressure, lazy hunting greenfields, etc. the does are only nocturnal so everyone thinks they are gone. just my opinion for what it's worth.

One can not take a year to come to a conclusion, wildlife goes thru cycles, that is the part some are missing.

A deer herd is NOT like any exacting science, it is fluid and changes depending on numerous other variables. That is the nature of the beast.

Anomalies happen so how does one factor those in?

Another variable that many don't think of is the effect of the rut on bucks. Even in a controlled enviornment with the best protein feed available, most bucks will lose around 30% of their body weight according to recent studies with high fence deer herds. This is an enviornment where the buck to doe ratio is very good and they bucks have access to plenty of supplemental feed. Can you imagine how much the effect is on free ranging bucks where the herd is out of balance? I buddy of mine who used to raise deer wouldn't let his dominant bucks breed more than 4 does per year. He said that if he tended more than 4 it would take so much out of him that his rack wouldn't reach it's potential the following year. What happens in the wild were many does don't get bred until the second cycle? In some areas of the SE bucks in the wild may be breeding twice that many. This is another reason why bucks in the mid-west have an advantage over our bucks, they have a shorter less stressful breeding season due to the ratio. Which allows them to recover quicker than they do here.

You have to agree that Alabama Deer regs will not enable a deer population to reach any where close to maturity or even 3 1/2 years of age.

What is it about the regulations that requires a person to kill a deer? From what I read in the regulations nothing mandates that a person pull the trigger. I do understand that some individuals have self control issues and think that mandation by governement is always the best policy.

I would imagine that there are some free ranging properties in the state that have attained a "mature" deer population without the State's mandate. What keeps others from doing the same?

^^^ well said. The great State of Alabama does not have a regulation that requires hunters to kill only a certain age class buck.

Judiciary. I know that has nothing to do with this, but I couldn't resist.

Don't the supreme court justices "render an opinion?"

Supposedly based on the facts. After the facts. They aren't supposed to have a predetermined opinion that effects their final opinion. Unfortunately they do. It was a sarcastic statement to begin with.

From Merriam-Webster:

not yet anyway

completely agree and think that due to the 3 buck limit and education Alabama will see an increase in percentage of mature buck kills over the next 5 years. I just wish the state would actually track it so we could see the progress as well as create a real tag system.

TD I wish and hope your correct but my opinion is that the current 3 buck limit is not going to have any measurable effect. The people that were killing more than 3 bucks are still killing more than 3 bucks because it is completely unenforceable without a real tag system. I know very few people that killed more than 3 bucks a year before the new system and the 3 buck limit has not had any effect on what they shoot quality/age wise. Until you get to the point where the deer has to have a validly issued tag on it before it is moved from the field, at the processor or in your truck, you're not going to see any benefit or any true enforcement. Same with baiting. If it is approved/legalized next year it is not going to change a thing. I'm against it but I'd say at least, if not more than, 50% of Alabamians hunt over it now and the game wardens dont enforce it for crap. Sure they'll go check it out if someone reports it but there is probably $1,000,000 worth of corn sold at the convenience stores up and down HWY 43 and HWY45 heading into the blackbelt each year. Every store has a pallet load sitting there just inside the door. I have yet to stop during the season to get gas when I didnt see at least one truck with someone in camo loading a couple bags into their truck. Heck, GW could just sit there, follow them to their gate and write them a ticket or just shut their property down entirely to hunting til its gone. They dont. It's a joke. The only enforcement action on baiting is when someone complains and if we are going to have a law, it should be actively enforced and applied to all. If we had a true traceable tag system, you could cut out all the leg work and the GW could just visit the local processors on Sat night, get a list of the tagged deer brought in with corn in their mouths, run the tag numbers and start writing tickets right there. You dont see this monkey business when you head into other states like IL, Iowa, Kansas. They are very serious about their enforcement. I'm not sure where the ticket revenue goes but the additional tickets written by actively enforcing the current baiting and limit rules in place could go to hire more game wardens throughout the state which would benefit us all in the long run.

Would a great tagging system work for the guy that grows corn on his property, kills a buck, takes it to the processor and the GW comes by sees a tag on a deer with "corn in his mouth" and writes that guy a ticket??

How about promoting quality land management (QDM falls under this broader title in case anybody is concerned about other species than the almighty deer), promoting trigger finger control and self policing of the hunting community by turning in the violators? I will assure you that this will get a heck of a lot better reception than the State mandating and enforcing submission to the State. If illegal shooters/poachers/game law violators knew they would get turned in by fellow hunters they would probably be more apt to change their ways than waiting for one of the Couny's 2 GWs to catch them.

Go here for ways to assist: http://www.outdooralabama.com/fishing/freshwater/GAMEWATCH%20poster.pdf

Reckon how that Processor that the GW decides to target would feel once word get out and people quit coming to visit his business.

Hell, they will ALL already tell you that 70% + of the deer that come in have corn in them!!

But, somehow........100% of the Aldeer members do not put any corn out!!!

LMAO

good post, wonder how many mature bucks die from the stresses of the rut, no way to figure it in a wild population but in poor mast production years I'd imagine it might be higher than many might think

In Alabama, there is no law against supplemental feeding. Supplemental feeding is
encouraged by some hunting organizations and biologists as beneficial for the deer herd.
Supplemental feeding is the use of artificially placed foods to wildlife to supplement their
diet. Baiting, on the other hand, is the use of artificially placed foods to lure game within
the range of the hunter for the purpose of harvesting that animal. Supplemental feeding in
Alabama is legal, whereas hunting by the aid of artificially placed foods is not. Relative
to hunting laws and regulations, the presence of the hunter is the determinant factor in
distinguishing between supplemental feeding and bait.

With that said its not illegal to sell or posses corn or even put it out just to hunt over it.

WestFlgator, you're correct. That's why it's important to have a sex balanced ratio where most all of the does are bred on their first cycle and the stress of the rut is shortened.

49er, with your opinion, I guess you're not going to the doctor or seek any professional medical help if you're sick, right? Medical research is based on studies too and medicine is an on-going discipline of evolved knowledge.

"Deer research" is no different than medical, nuclear, agricultural, engineering, architectural, biochemistry, etc... you name it!!! Every discipline of study has an evolving progression of knowledge and thank God that the drive to know more is what makes our lives better!

Thank God that professionals in each field of study does NOT kick a can and say, "All this research is getting us nowhere and we might as well just stop and do whatever we want to do!"

When the biologists (many many years ago) were saying that we don't need to shoot any does, they were right.... "at the time". However, they didn't sit on their ass and cross their arms and think they had it figured out... as environmental factors changed, variables were taken into consideration.

I don't think there is a biologist out there that would say either, "Shoot no does or shoot all the does you see". Now it's keep your deer herd in balance with your habitat's carrying capacity. However, the field of deer research has evolved and tools/methods have been developed to help the average individual to measure the health of a particular deer herd.

I'm not saying that any field of study is without flaws but it's all we've got and it's the best option available. Everything changes! Being able to change with it is your best choice.


Sometimes, we do what's best and not what we want to do. I LOVE burning powder and flinging arrows but I've found that if I do what's best for my deer herd, I get back 10 fold in enjoyment and satisfaction.

Ultimately, our nation's deer herd belongs to our nation's citizens and our nation's citizens will not sit back let hunters NOT do what's best for the deer herd. So between you 49er and our nation's biologists' general consensus, I KNOW which side they'll listen to.

I can assure you that I know all about the laws in the state of AL regarding supplemental feeding. Nobody that I am aware of has ever recommended supplemental feeding with corn. The nutritional value just is not there. I can assure you that 99.99% of the corn purchased at those stores I mentioned on 43 and 45 is being used as bait. My guess is that about 80% of the hunters in Alabama are resource "users/takers" with only 20% being resource "managers". That is where the disconnect is and the difference between AL and many other states. Getting people to buy into any program is the key. I'd love to see the state working toward getting everyone on board but I just dont see it happening in AL without regulations. You'd think that hunters would be smart enough to take does as needed on their properties but instead when the state made it easier for everyone to legally kill does and manage their herds. The majority went wild killing every doe that they saw. They continue to do it and complain that they arent seeing numbers of deer. That regulation will probably, at some point, have to be changed too to keep from damaging the resource.

abolt300, thumbs up!

A year or so ago, Great Day Outdoors published an article (the mag wasn't taking sides; it just published a Pro baiting article) that was Pro Baiting in Alabama and it gave several reasons why baiting should be allowed. I was amazed as well as disgusted that not one of the reasons involved "the betterment of the deer herd".

No consideration for the good of the deer herd... just the humans involved.

I agree,I guess what I was trying to say is unless the law is changed to keep corn from being sold for baiting purposes then it's gonna keep happening.

Bucktrot,


So quit acting like you're some kind of biological expert whose opinion needs to be accepted by everyone else as "fact". I could read articles in a medical journal etc., but that wouldn't make me any more of a medical doctor etc. than you are a biologist after you read articles about qdm.

Get over yourself. You're just a kid with qdm heroes. You're not the expert you would like us to believe you are.

Well, you can't keep corn from being sold... I am a republican. LOL! However, you can increase the fine for hunting over bait and the ability of the state to shut down a hunting club's right to hunt if baiting were to be found.

Are those bucks any deader than they would be if they died from 'lead-poisoning'????

ain't you got a kennel to finish????

troy

Oh 49er!! I chuckle when I read your posts reacting to my posts. I chuckle with respect for your opinion though. I know I get under your skin!

Here's where you're wrong 49er. It's not "my" opinions. It's the opinions of Dr. Grant Woods, Dr. Karl Miller, Dr. James Kroll, Dr. Larry Marchinton, Dr. Steve Ditchkoff, Dr. Mickey Hellickson, Chris Cook, Bill Gray, Brian Murphy, the Westervelt biologists, etc....

I have NEVER claimed to be a biologist and I state that often. I'm just a follower of QDM as directed and lead by whitetail biologists.

You don't have to be a certified carpenter to do home improvements nor do you have to be a certified mechanic to change out brake pads but I'd sure as heck listen to them when they speak.

Information if available to everyone 49er. You just have to be willing to accept the hard data even when it goes against your desire to blast all your immature bucks on your property.

49er!! This is a website designed for whitetail hunters to express views, opinions, statements, stories, experiences, etc... Debate is a great thing!

49er, it certainly appears to me that you think that you're 100% right to express your views/opinions but I'm 100% wrong to do the same! Why is that? Why dat be??

How many people on this forum feel that they are qualified to determine a property's Carrying Capacity??

Heck, how many people even know what that really IS????

What is Carrying Capacity?
QDMA Articles

By: By Kip Adams, QDMA Director of Education & Outreach, northern U.S.

“Carrying capacity” is an often-used concept in deer management discussions. Biologists, managers and hunters routinely refer to the “carrying capacity” of an area, or whether a deer herd is above or below this magical point. However, is the term being used the same by each? Actually, what does carrying capacity mean?

Carrying capacity is the maximum number of individuals or inhabitants that an environment can support without detrimental effects. With respect to wildlife populations, a population reaches carrying capacity when productivity is zero: No young are recruited into the population because the density is too high to allow for additional individuals without any “detrimental effects” to the population or habitat. In reality, populations can and do exceed the carrying capacity on a regular basis. In doing so, they sacrifice their own health as well as damage the vegetation and harm other wildlife species. One reason for the rise in popularity of Quality Deer Management was enough biologists, managers and hunters were fed up with deer herds exhibiting poor health because they were allowed to increase to levels approaching or surpassing an area’s carrying capacity. QDMA encourages all deer hunters to manage deer populations at densities lower than this so they are in balance with their habitats. Determining whether a population is below, at, or above carrying capacity, and how to achieve or maintain balance, can be easier said than done.

Biological Carrying Capacity
Rather than use a technical definition, let’s use a practical one to understand how carrying capacity should play into our management programs. Let’s start by separating the term into its most common uses. Biological carrying capacity (BCC) is what I defined above, and an area’s BCC is largely determined by the quality and quantity of available habitat. The BCC is the number of deer a given parcel can support in good physical condition over an extended period of time without adversely impacting the habitat. Unfortunately, deer reproductive rates allow populations to exceed BCC unless the number of fawns recruited is balanced by mortality. (Note: A fawn is “recruited” when it survives to about 6 months of age and enters the fall deer population).

Cultural Carrying Capacity
Cultural carrying capacity (CCC) is defined as the maximum number of deer that can coexist compatibly with local human populations. According to Mark Ellingwood, wildlife program supervisor for the New Hampshire Fish & Game Department who coined the term, an area’s CCC is determined by the values of the people living there. CCC is a function of the sensitivity of local human populations to the presence of deer. The CCC can be higher or lower than BCC since some people have high tolerances for deer and deer-related issues while others do not. The CCC becomes especially important in suburban deer management and in many agricultural regions.

Maximum Sustainable Yield
The chart above depicts the normal growth curve of a deer population. Starting with a low density, the population grows rapidly because there are sufficient resources for the herd, so fawn recruitment is high. This growth continues until the population reaches a density that is approximately half of BCC. This point is referred to as the maximum sustainable yield (MSY), and this is where fawn recruitment is maximized. Therefore, this is the point where the maximum number of bucks is brought into the population. Remember, approximately every other fawn born is a buck fawn, so the way to recruit the most bucks is by recruiting the maximum number of fawns. When the population grows above this density, resources are less abundant for each deer, so the number of fawns recruited into the population declines. This is why fewer, healthier does can produce and recruit more fawns (and thus more bucks). This is also why the old adages, “When you kill a doe you’re really killing three deer” or “When you kill a doe you’re killing next year’s buck” are rarely true. They are generally only true if the population is below MSY.

You can harvest more deer on a sustained basis when a population is at MSY than at any other density. You likely aren’t seeing as many deer as if the population was at BCC, but the population is much healthier and you’re able to harvest a far higher number year after year. For those of you, like me, who like to shoot deer, this is the preferred density to manage for, right? Actually it’s not. Populations are unstable at MSY, and even slight overharvests reduce the number of recruits and the population. It’s much wiser to be just to the right of MSY. In this part of the growth curve, populations are stable, and slight overharvests move the population to MSY (and actually increase fawn recruitment). This position also minimizes disturbance to vegetation, thus allowing for healthy, productive habitats.

Balance Zone
A main goal of Quality Deer Management is to balance a deer herd with its habitat. Where does this point occur on the chart? It’s actually not a single point. Rather, it is a zone, and it occurs just to the right of MSY.

Where is the deer herd that you hunt in relation to this zone on the figure? You determine this by collecting some habitat, observation and harvest data. Do you have a visible browse line? If so, you’re way past where you want to be. Take a walk in the woods and observe whether the understory is regenerating. Next, determine if there are preferred tree species in that understory versus non-preferred species (For help conducting a “browse survey,” see the December 2007 issue of Quality Whitetails and the article “Over the Limit?” by John Donoughe and Mike Wolf). These assessments help you gauge where you are on the figure. Can’t identify tree species? Get a tree field guide and start learning, or have a consulting forester or biologist visit the property. You can also contact your local QDMA Branch to find members who can identify local tree and plant species and help you get started.

Combine your habitat assessment with observation data collected from the archery and/or firearms seasons and harvest data collected from every deer harvested or found dead on the property. By recording the number of does and fawns observed, you can estimate whether the number of recruits is increasing or decreasing. Combine this with harvest data such as weight, lactation status, and kidney fat indices and you can determine whether the overall health of the herd is increasing or decreasing.

X Marks the Spot
The goal isn’t to find the exact spot on the figure where a deer herd lies. Rather, initially it is to estimate whether it is to the left or right of MSY. If it’s to the left, then I’d suggest allowing the herd to increase. If it’s to the right, then determine whether it’s between MSY and BCC or past BCC. If it’s past BCC, then I’d suggest reducing the herd. If it’s between MSY and BCC then you’re at a great starting point. Now, I would continue collecting data and fine tuning the location to suit your goals. If you like to see deer, shoot a lot, and don’t want to sacrifice herd or habitat health, then you should move the population toward the left side of the balance zone. If you like to see a lot of deer but not shoot as many, and are willing to sacrifice some herd and habitat health, then you can allow the population to move toward the right side of the balance zone. A word of caution if you choose the latter: Keep a close eye on habitat and herd health indicators. Once habitat damage becomes severe, recovery takes time and may only be possible if you reduce the deer population below MSY.

Can I Improve?
Many QDM practitioners are interested in increasing the quality of the habitat they hunt. This is a great way to also increase the carrying capacity of an area. In low-productivity habitats, a deer herd in the balance zone may be too low to provide acceptable hunting experiences. In these cases, the best alternative is to improve the habitat. Depending on habitat type this can be accomplished through timber harvesting, tree and shrub planting, prescribed burning, applying herbicides, disking, roller chopping, or fertilizing. Then the area can be supplemented with high-quality food plots. An area with increased food and cover can support more deer and is definitely more attractive to whitetails.

The Take-Home Message
Carrying capacity is a measure of the number of deer an area can support, both biologically and culturally, and its value changes annually, seasonally and across properties. This is one reason some hunters observe many deer while others a mile or so away can see few or none. Rather than trying to determine the exact carrying capacity of the land you hunt, it’s much simpler to manage a deer herd to be in balance with the habitat. You do so by monitoring the health of the herd and its habitat, and determining where that specific herd is in relation to the balance zone. This is a simple procedure that requires a few years of habitat, observation and harvest data. The costs are certainly worth the benefits, as a herd managed at this level provides healthy deer, healthy habitats and tremendous hunting opportunities.

This article was taken directly from a previous issue of Quality Whitetails, the bi-monthly journal of the QDMA. The $30 annual membership to QDMA includes a subscription to this acclaimed publication. For information on joining QDMA, click here.

Whew!!! Deer mgmt!!!!!!! It can be so complicated and time consuming to understand.

The tool or methods of measuring a deer herd's health is plural! Not just one point of data is going to point to an answer.

In a dead deer, pulling jawbones, checking for milk, weighing the animal and if ya really want to get technical, checking the liver for parasites/flukes, check hooves for irregularities or deformation (Hemorrhagic Disease), general overall health of the animal.

In observation data, sex ratio observations, number of fawns seen with does, (prevalence of three fawns with does is a sign of health), spotted fawns and when do they stop being observed?... number of does without fawns (predation?), this goes back to checking for milk and what it means by percentage of "dry does", and more.

I don't have the expertise to analyze such detailed data but biologists do.

When I or someone in my family is sick, I do consult the medical research. I don't just ask the Doctor his opinion but I look things up for myself someplace like Medline on line whenever it is appliable.

49'er has only asked you to show him the research that supports some of your positions. So far you haven't shown him any. You keep saying there is an evolving progression of knowledge but won't show it. If you want to win him to your side, why will you not show him the research he is asking for?

Your post about carring capacity for instance. I didn't read it all but noticed right off the bat that it has no references and therefore is not valid from the standpoint of science. That is "popular press"....not science.

Popular press is not useless...but it's not science.

Kip Adams holds a B.S. in Wildlife and Fisheries Science from Penn State University and an M.S. in Wildlife from the University of New Hampshire. Kip is a Certified Wildlife Biologist and was a wildlife biologist for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Kip was also the deer and bear project leader for the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. He is an avid deer hunter and loves to pursue whitetails with a bow, muzzleloader and rifle.


jlccoffee, now what's your bio?


OK, jlccoffee and 49er... so what specifically would you like for me to site studies? Be specific please. I will do the best I can.

I didn't say that he is not a biologist...I said that what you posted is not research.

I think the problem here is that you do not understand what research is. You keep posting articles from the popular press and will not post any research to support it.

It's been so long I can't even remember what 49er was asking about now. Why not just post any study you can find to start with so we can see that you know what one looks like. 49er can ask you for what he would like to see when his 10 minutes is up!

Yeah, I know... how dare Kip Adams have or form opinions from "his" research and thousands of others who've researched whitetail deer before him which has encompassed his many years of formal education on the biology of the whitetail deer and its habitat.

OK, let's do this: "Bucktrot states:_______________________" jlccoffee/49er say: Site me some studies to back that up!

Fill in the blank.

Noone said he wasn't entitled to his opinion. Just said his opinion is just that.

49er simply asked for some research. Research is held to a higher standard than opinion and is of course more valuable than an opinion. Any scientist knows that.

A certified diesel mechanic was trying to explain to me the other day why diesels of today outperform diesels of yesteryear.

How dare him?!?!?!? That SOB!!! Just because he is "certified" on diesel engines and took part in formal education and has spent several years working on and breaking down and putting back together diesel engines gives him NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to tell me about diesel engines!!

I mean, for heaven's sakes, I'm a marketing major and by God I know as much as that diesel mechanic about diesel engines!!! After all, I drive one!!!

That sounds about as ridiculous as you discrediting Kip Adams!

I didn't discredit him. I asked for research.

.

Why do you keep posting opinions and trying to say they are scientific facts just because of who stated them?

Why not just post the research?

I asked for any study you could find and haven't even gotten that yet as a starting point.

Specifically, again jlccoffee.... what do you want to see studies about? You brought it up so what do you want to see studies on? Name it!

Finding out information is not hard these days.

LOL!! What have I stated that you disagree with? Ya want help?

Let's see.... sex ratios of whitetail deer as it relates to herd health? Don't wait on 49er.

I never said you stated anything I disagree with...I simply asked you to give 49er some research.

How about some research on buck to doe ratio. Anything.

OK... I will do my best to site you some studies. Sigh!! This is comical and why should I even G a S what you think. Please know that my demeanor is not one of disrespect or anger as the written word is hard to decipher. I'm chuckling here.... let me get to work.

I bet there are people sitting on the sidelines (and eating popcorn) that could site some studies. Dr. Woods, please help! Wishful thinking!

Don't wait up! I'm getting sleepy myself!

Just one or two for tonight...got to get up and check my traps before work tomorrow.

The Effects of Adult Sex Ratio on Reproduction in White-tailed Deer
David C. Guynn, Jr.
Department of Forestry, Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina
Robert J. Hamilton
South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources Department
Walterboro, South Carolina

Conclusions
In addition to being a primary factor affecting the
quality of hunting experiences, the adult sex ratio may
have important biological implications for the white-tailed
deer. It appears that adult sex ratio affects breeding season
length and the mean conception date in adult deer. With a
balanced sex ratio, estrus does have less difficulty finding
a buck during their 24-hour period of breeding receptivity,
and fewer does recycle and conceive during subsequent
estrus periods. This situation favors a relatively short
breeding season and an early mean conception date.
Fawns conceived in herds with a balanced buck:doe ratio
will be born at the optimal time for their survival and
growth. Early-born fawns should exhibit increased body
size, antler development, resistance to disease and
parasites and reproductive potential.
Fetal sex ratio is affected by nutritional conditions and
perhaps by the adult sex ratio. Mean and range of
conception dates and fetal sex ratios should be explored as
indicators of herd condition and balance of age and sex
structure.

**************************************************

The aforementioned is not my conclusion... it's that of the investigators based on their findings.

ya'll are giving me a headache......

Thank you...I think we finally have a breakthrough.

Here is a link to the study.

http://cnrit.tamu.edu/cgrm/IRR2/1986/The...White-Taile.pdf

I read that one before but it has been a while.

So the next time 49er asks for research to back something up, instead of calling him names just send him something like that.

BamaFred, me too.

Jlccoffee, I will take your advice. Thanks.

Regarding the study... I want my bucks breeding or rutting for as short a period as possible. Well, I love hunting the rut so I say that with an appreciation of the hunting success of the rut. So, I guess I mean I want a natural rutting time frame as you'd have with a balanced sex ratio. Anyway, the shorter the rut, the faster the bucks get back to eating and surviving. A long period of rutting for a mature buck will take its toll on him.

I want my fawns born as early as possible before the fall stress period and winter months so they can put on more weight. Also, and I can't prove this and it may not be true but I guess it would be called a prey-dumping where many fawns will be born about the same time and fawns would overwhelm predators. It's kinda like being able to hit one baseball at a time over a period of time rather than attempting to hit several baseballs thrown all at once.

As the summer moves along, and of course years vary depending on weather, protein content of browse decreases and begins to burn up which makes rearing of fawns more difficult for doe and fawns.

With the shorter rut, bucks enter the spring in better shape and have less "catching up to do" which makes for better health and antlers. I can't prove this (better antlers) but just kinda using basic reasoning here.

Brian Murphy, a whitetail biologist says:

While unrelated to fawn sex ratios, a study by Holzenbein and Marchinton in Virginia concluded that harvesting a doe with a buck fawn at her side can significantly decrease the odds the fawn will disperse when it reaches 12-18 months of age. They compared 34 buck fawns divided into two groups – 19 that were left with their mothers (non-orphans) and 15 whose mothers were harvested or removed (orphans). The results were surprising. By 30 months of age, 87 percent of the non-orphans had dispersed from their birth areas, but only nine percent of the orphans had left theirs. In other words, dispersal was greatly reduced if the young buck’s mother was removed prior to dispersal. So, harvesting a buck fawn’s mother before she forces it to leave is another potential strategy to increase the number of bucks on your property.

As the hot, hazy days of summer begin to give way to the promise of autumn and opening day of archery season, take advantage of this Whitetail Science and devise a doe harvest strategy that best meets your objectives. Who knows, you might just be able to increase the number of bucks on your favorite hunting area. At the least, I hope you have gained a new appreciation for the fascinating and complex world of the whitetail.

Brian Murphy is a wildlife biologist and CEO of the Quality Deer Management Association (www.QDMA.com). He also has been an avid bowhunter for the past 30 years.

The deer study you cited above stated that killing does may increase the number of female fawns that are born and decrease the number of male fawns born. That was one of the changes that was observed during the study.

Why would you manage for fewer buck fawns if your goal is to have more bucks?

Looks like the study concludes that killing does not only decreases the number of buck fawns being born due to fewer does remaining in the population to give birth, but in addition it reduces the ratio of buck fawns being born to the does that are left.


Also: I'm color blind, but it looks to me like the population in the study was reduced from 106 deer per sq. mile to 35 deer per sq. mile which is the typical population level in most of Alabama according to the QDMA deer density map (if I'm seeing the colors right). Why is there a claim of overpopulation in Alabama if 35 deer per sq. mile is a good deer density? Would a continued reduction further reduce the number of male fawns being born compared to female fawns being born in Alabama as it was in the S.C. project?

If we continue to reduce the deer populations in Alabama, where is the point of beginning for the "predator pit" mentioned in Angela Jackson's study at Ft. Rucker?



Angela's study - link


Buck to doe ratios and male age structure should not be given more attention than the conservation of the species. It is the conservation of the species that is the goal of our game and fish laws, not wildlife management.

Who is in a better position to know the specifics of how the deer species is faring in a given area; the people who pay the bills and do the work on that property and actually observe what is happening there or a group of the governor's buddies sitting in a room in Montgomery giving advice and writing rules and have never set foot on the property?

1 49er. What you quoted does NOT say anything about manipulating what sex a fawn will be when it's born!!!! What's it's saying is this: Because of mother nature's encoded behavior for gene dispersal, a doe will run her young buck fawns away from her doe group. The young buck will be forced to find another home range. I don't know if you've noticed or not but lone deer usually are young bucks trying to find their way.

What Brian pointed out was that the study suggested that orphaned buck fawns (where its mother was killed and he's not talking about "spotted fawns"!) seemed to stay closer to the area they were born and did not disperse like the young bucks did whose mother was not killed.

I never read where the "sex of the fawn" could be manipulated!!!

2 You're going to have to cut and paste where it states that in the study.

3 Please show me where you're getting this crazy idea. Again, cut and paste this specific paragraph where I and the readers can see it!!! I've never heard the QDMA quote a study that suggested you could manipulate the sex of a fawn before it's born!!

4 You sound like James Carvel or Rev Al Sharpton. Brian's point is that if you need to harvest some does, shoot the does with fawns and he DOESN'T mean spotted fawns!!! Don't start attacking that by reading into it something that's not there! BTW, Brian has quoted research that suggested that an orphaned fawn's chances of surviving is high if the fawn is in the post-spotted stage.

5 You're polluting the QDMA's position. In most of North America, deer populations have exploded. In some areas, this has been reversed; in other areas, it's about right... it varies. Just as you'd rather kill sows in a feral hog population to have an impact on recruitment/populations, you'd want to kill the "recruiters", which would be does.

AGAIN, the QDMA's stance is "managed your deer herd and habitat" and it gives hunters several tools or methods of doing so. If you need to kill does, kill them. If not, then DON'T!!! It's that simple.

Also, Mother Nature has a plan to overcome a low deer density where healthy adult does will start having triplets. Also, it's nature's way of cycles. Where there's available food for coyotes, they flourish! When the food's not there, they'll decline in numbers.

Can a deer population be over-harvested!! YES!!!!!!! Can it be difficult for the deer herd to overcome this problems? YES!!!!!

I have no doubt about the Ft. Rucker study or any other area in the state where deer numbers are down.

I also know that deer sightings were down this year as warm weather and available food was apparent. I saw acorns on the ground in January. We didn't get enough rain in Dallas County to sour the acorns on the ground.

Stop saying that the QDMA promotes the unrestrained killing of does!!! The QDMA supports making an "educated decision" by harvest and observation data and not an off-the-cuff decision from the local diner coffee table or shooting house.

It is my belief that you simply don't like buck restrictions 49er and that's your main beef with the QDMA so you attempt to discredit this organization as much as you can.

You have a HUGE battle if this is the case as most all states (it may be all) have some sort of buck restrictions, and for good reason.

Great post, Bucktrot ^^^^, I got a headache too.

Quoting from above: "Antlerless harvest programs that do not account for deer density...."

There ya go 49er. The QDMA has some detailed methods for accounting for deer density!!! Obviously, someone was not monitoring the deer harvest strategy at Ft. Rucker. If it's brown it's down mentally finally caught up with the hunters over there!!

You know 49er, a government can NOT "legislate" the protection and well-being of its citizens. It should be up to the citizens to educate themselves and develop the autonomy and common sense to (seek out information; to educate oneself) make good decisions and not blame others when they make a stupid decision. I.E. Those little silica-gel packages that sometimes come in foods and electronics? The ones that say "Do Not Eat?" I'm glad it says to not eat them but I wouldn't eat it anyway when I get to the bottom of my beef jerky!

Doctors tell you to get "some" sun for vitamin D but they do NOT mean to lay down in the sun all day!!!! You have to pull some common sense from somewhere!!!! Oh, here's some information about vitamin D just in case you were to ask me where I got my data about Vit D. http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/vitamind.asp

To protect our natural resources, sometimes professionals in that specific field have to mandate government sponsored protection. Ft. Rucker's deer herd looks like it needed government protection well before something was done!!!

Imagine this 49er.... if you were hunting Ft. Rucker property, you might have been screaming for "the dreaded" government regulations!!! Gasp!!

It's human nature to think that everybody going faster than you (in a vehicle) is an idiot and everybody going slower than you is a slow-poke!!!!

I'm guilty of that myself!

trot,


Did you read the study from S.C. that you referred me to and jlcoffee posted a link to? Note especially the section "Fetal sex ratio" begining on page 237:






I ain't worried about what Brian's opinion is. His opinion is worth about the same as Al Sharpton's or James Carvill's to me, and they are about as politically motivated as well.



The QDMA needs to stay out of my business. It doesn't give me anything I don't already have. It's that simple.



The study you refered me to but failed to read yourself shows that one of Mother Nature's effects when manipulation of deer density to a lower level takes place is the increase of females in the fetal sex ratio. The study called that increase significant.

Combine that with lack of dispersal of young bucks, and the benefits you refer to may very well be minimal or negated altogether. The net result may very well be fewer young bucks to replace those you are killing.



Brian Murphy and Mark Thomas repeatedly and enthusiastically stressed killing every doe that presented a shot in the meetings I attended. What they say now may be different, but that's what they were saying at the time they started to become involved in decisions affecting Alabama's bag limits.



The QDMA has, indeed, involved itself in wildlife politics across our nation and in Alabama in order to restrict our freedom to hunt. I consider hunting to be a God-given right that I will continue to defend. Wildlife management is only a choice that happens to be related to hunting in some cases, but not all.

Yes, in a high deer density area, the best doe to shoot is the one you see.

I have no doubt that mean-ass Mother Nature (you have to admit, she's cruel but smart) will attempt to correct any over "or" under carrying capacity. OK, I yield to that concept!

Thanks for pointing that out to me 49er. That's a good read. But you have to take all studies into account and not cherry-pick data that suits you.

I wouldn't have thought that the sex ratio of fawn recruitment could be "significantly" manipulated by harvest conditions but I put a lot of weight in biologists studies as they know more than I do!!

I have heard Brian state that in a natural recruitment, bucks make up 51% and does 49% of births but Mother Nature knows that in a "balanced herd", mortality rate on bucks is higher.

But you're looking exclusively at the data for an "under carrying capacity" model. The QDMA promotes balance! It even promotes habitat enhancement so the hunter can INCREASE the carrying capacity of the habitat. Hey, that' what I like! I really do. I want more targets, more deer... more enjoyment in hunting a fully utilized carrying capacity!!!

Mark Thomas is probably the most aggressive habitat enhancement promoter out there. His philosophy promotes prescribed burning, chemical manipulation, etc... to FULLY enhance habitat for a healthy deer herd to maximize hunting enjoyment. When you practice such aggressive habitat enhancement, deer populations tend to explode.

In most places, traditional deer hunting placed too much emphasis on antlers and not enough on the harvest of does.

You think hunting is a God-given right? Well, I tend to agree with you 49er but hunting is not protected in our constitution, and we live in a country where, for the most part, the majority rules.

The non-hunting but "tolerant of hunting" public makes up a HUGE majority of people here in the USA. Tolerant of hunting as long as hunting is practiced in a responsible way SUPPORTED by responsible biologists as that's who the general non-hunting public is going to listen to when making decisions on hunting.

There is a small but negatively impactful population of humans that will consume a resource to extinction and this small population of humans must be regulated. That's why we have limits on ducks, fish, etc... Ft. Rucker is a great example of uncontrolled harvest.

You want no regulations or at least that's what I think I hear you saying. Unfortunately, there are those out there that will take advantage of no regs and ruin it for all!

So the answers greatly depends on the questions. Have biologists over-stated the need for doe harvest? Maybe not ten or more years ago! Have too many does been shot in some locations? Possibly! It would "not" be hard to convince me of that.

However, I hunt managed property and we try to educated ourselves on deer mgmt and do the right thing. And, we have adopted the philosophy that the mass killing of an immature bucks or pre-mature antlers is not worth cutting off and throwing in the back of a truck bed as we feel that our deer herd and our hunting club members are better served with more mature bucks.

This is not to say that the harvest of immature bucks means you're going to hell. Harvest what the resource can absorb and in general, harvest what's best for the deer herd. But you have to seek out education and be willing to change your attitude and not put "me" before all else.

Again, based on harvest and observation data, kill or not kill does.

History has dictated that a limited natural resource must be protected or else it will be destroyed by a minority.

You might try reading our constitution before you try to teach me what it says or doesn't say:

Constitution of Alabama 1901


... and before you start again, our constitution also says that only our legislature can write laws. (see Section 42 and Section 43)

The laws written by our legislature allow the DCNR to regulate hunting to protect, conserve and increase wildlife, and to close seasons...

Wildlife management, by law, is a choice that can be practiced by the commissioner on properly designated wildlife management areas. Our game and fish laws do not authorize the DCNR to set seasons or bag limits in order to implement qdm statewide.

Our constitution and our game and fish laws represent the will of a majority of the people in our state. Bag limits are being set by a commissioner in Montgomery who was appointed by the governor for whoever knows what reason and has been left to do as he pleases lately.

Here's a study for everyone. If we don't get our head out of our rear ends in this country and fix the really important things going on right now we are all going to become meat hunters. No management program in our nation could control a herd if we as a nation had to survive off of mother nature.

What's your suggestion?

Kick the liberals out who want the government to dictate every decision to us in every part of our lives?

I think that's a part of what I'm trying to do here.

49er, I was talking about our Federal Constitution and not states' rights however, you're right. (and hunting) is there.

I still believe in regulated game and fish laws.

OK. Here ya go:


Constitution of the United States
Bill of Rights





Do you believe DCNR regulations should be limited to the purposes stated in our game and fish laws, or do you believe the DCNR should be able to write any regulations it wants to?

Constitution of Alabama 1901
(emphasis added

I yield to the man named 49er regarding the rights to hunt.

I stand however, that hunting and fishing regulations must prevail and be flexible as environment and variables change.

If you are stating that DCNR rules or regulations must prevail over our constitutions and/or our game and fish laws, then you are not yielding to what I have stated.

I believe the very opposite is true.

EXACTLY!!!

just because the deer you kill has corn in it sure as hell dosen't mean that YOU put the corn out or that the corn was on your land. I've killed deer with corn in them that I KNOW had to of travelled over a mile to get it.....way off where I killed it at.

no law agains killing deer with corn in their mouths or gut.

I will not post again on this subject, but I believe that laws have to be changed, updated, etc. as time changes and people change. Unfortunately morality, ethics and self responsibility are not a consideration for a lot of people now days. As people's morals and ethics go down the dumps new laws will have to be inforced. With that being said I believe our govt is way too big, but common sense laws are needed. A 3 buck limit is a common sense law, IMO. A buck a day "limit", or allowing hunters do do what ever they want is preposterous. I don't care who makes these rules, but these rules as well as season limits and other bag limits are needed. Carry on...

Living down here near Fort Rucker I have heard the story about what happened over there many times. They way I understand it, the post biologist recommended the aggressive doe harvest. In fact, there are people on this site that participated in it so you might ask them about it(LIOJeff for one).

That could be a good lesson for you on what might happen if you blindly follow the opinion of an "expert".

A limit of 1 buck per day per individual hunter protects the bucks on any given piece of property just as much as a 3 bucks per season with 1 antler restriction does.

Example:
1000 acres has 12 bucks that "need" to be protected for qdm. One man kills those 12 bucks during the season legally with a 1 buck per day limit.

1000 acres has 12 bucks that "need" to be protected for qdm. Three men can kill those 12 bucks legally with the 3 buck individual limit depending on the antler configurations. If more are needed due to the antler restriction, more can come in and kill the rest of the bucks legally... tags or no tags.

Result in both cases: 12 dead bucks that "needed" to be protected.

Second case is just more government crap because somebody over yonder somewhere likes to practice qdm and likes rules that they thought would make somebody else do it too, but it don't work so they need more rules to try to get it to work.

Ding, ding, ding we have a winner!!

For the record, my "EXACTLY" comment was regarding how the processor would feel if the GW were to target his business. I myself have killed a deer that had corn in its stomach which certainly didn't come from my property. Corn in the mouth/stomach doesn't prove baiting; but even if it did, the idea that a GW should camp out at a taxidermist, processor, or any other business trying to catch people hunting over corn is a horrible idea.