If a man were so inclined, and could afford it......he should visit the sites where the founders, biologists and administrators of QDMA hunt and check the deer density compared to the area they hunt. Also, check and see if the property is leased, or privately owned.....and how much pressure exists......and how much leverage they have in manipulating the habitat compared to the average leaseholder in AL.

Apples to Apples!!!

I can say this: if you're willing to discredit a whitetail biologist's or biologists' views, then you yourself have to discredit you own views. You would have to agree that the views of biologists would "and should" hold more credibility than your own. I am assuming Hogwild, jlccoffee 49er do not hold whitetail biology degrees.

I do not hold a degree in whitetail biology but I do not need to... Biologists are willing to share their views with me via print media, web, in-person talks, etc... and so why would I not listen?

I don't have a degree in biology, but I chose biology courses to satisfy my natural science requirements in both high school and college because of my interest in it. Fifty years of hunting experience in the same area may not impress you, but I think I've learned a thing or two along the way about the deer here that you and a lot of those biologists you read about have not learned about them.

You know as little about me as you know about the deer I hunt. I've gained a lot of respect for jlcoffee's opinions and even some of Danny's by comparing them to what I've learned thru the years thru application of the biological principles I've been taught and observation of the results. Application and observation is a large part of the scientific method of learning. Until you've had the experience that some of us older hunters have, you may think those biologists you are listening to are not letting their personal biases influence what they are teaching you. It might not be good on your part to exclude differing opinions without examining them more carefully.

I don't think you will find any learned biologists who honestly believe it is feasible to properly manage any species of free-ranging wildlife with uniform statewide rules. Probably not even those who supported the buck limit/antler restriction we have in place if the whole truth were known. There are too many non-scientific factors and variables in the mix. You will learn a lot more about politics and it's effects on all phases of your life as you grow older.

I also doubt if you've ever hunted anywhere near the area of west Jefferson and northeast Tuscaloosa County that is my lifelong stomping grounds. I've spent the better part of the last two days analyzing twelve years of data that has been collected from our hunting lease in preparation for a consultation with one of those biologists with a degree that you have a lot of respect for. So why not leave me and those biologists that I consult with to take care of my business here and I'll do the same for you.

I don't think you will find any learned biologists who honestly believe it is feasible to properly manage any species of free-ranging wildlife with uniform statewide rules. Probably not even those who supported the buck limit/antler restriction we have in place if the whole truth were known. There are too many non-scientific factors and variables in the mix. You will learn a lot more about politics and it's effects on all phases of your life as you grow older.

[/quote]

I completely agree. Basic regulations so that each property's individual management plan can be fine tuned by the landowner or manager based on the specifics of that property. Which can be determined by a biologist or the land owner or manager, not the state.

Is there any peer reviewed proof of lower birth rates of younger does?


Habitat quality will probably have more of a bearing on that than age of the doe.

Consider this quote from one of the sources below:




There's plenty of info about female social groups in whitetail deer if you look for it. Here are a few sources I found in just a few minutes to use as examples.


FINE-SCALE GENETIC STRUCTURE AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION
IN FEMALE WHITE-TAILED DEER
CHRISTOPHER E. COMER,1 D. B.Warnell School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
JOHN C. KILGO, USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station, P.O. Box 700, New Ellenton, SC 29809, USA
GINO J. D�ANGELO, D. B.Warnell School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
TRAVIS C. GLENN, Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, Drawer E, Aiken, SC 29802, USA, and Department of Biological Sciences,
University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
KARL V. MILLER,2 D. B.Warnell School of Forest Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA
Abstract: Social behavior of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) can have important management implications.
The formation of matrilineal social groups among female deer has been documented and management strategies
have been proposed based on this well-developed social structure. Using radiocollared (n = 17) and hunter or vehicle-
killed (n = 21) does, we examined spatial and genetic structure in white-tailed deer on a 7,000-ha portion of the
Savannah River Site in the upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina, USA. We used 14 microsatellite DNA loci to calculate
pairwise relatedness among individual deer and to assign doe pairs to putative relationship categories. Linear
distance and genetic relatedness were weakly correlated (r = �0.08, P = 0.058). Relationship categories differed
in mean spatial distance, but only 60% of first-degree-related doe pairs (full sibling or mother�offspring pairs) and
38% of second-degree-related doe pairs (half sibling, grandmother�granddaughter pairs) were members of the
same social group based on spatial association. Heavy hunting pressure in this population has created a young age
structure among does, where the average age is <2.5 years, and <4% of does are >4.5 years old. This�combined
with potentially elevated dispersal among young does�could limit the formation of persistent, cohesive social
groups. Our results question the universal applicability of recently proposed models of spatial and genetic structuring
in white-tailed deer, particularly in areas with differing harvest histories.

http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/38535/1/IND44328217.pdf




SOCIOSPATIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND GENETIC STRUCTURE OF WHITE-TAILED
DEER IN THE CENTRAL APPALACHIANS OF WEST VIRGINIA
by
BENJAMIN ROBERT LASETER
(Under the Direction of Karl V. Miller)
ABSTRACT
Despite numerous investigations of deer sociobiology and genetic attributes, the effects
of social organization on the genetic structure of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
populations are not well understood. Furthermore, previous investigations of deer sociobiology
have typically focused on low-density and/or migratory populations. Given the considerable
behavioral plasticity documented in white-tailed deer in different demographic contexts,
sociobiological attributes among populations will vary accordingly. I compared sociospatial
characteristics and genetic structure of female white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)
inhabiting a forested environment in the central Appalachian Mountains. I utilized an extensive
telemetry dataset for 127 female white-tailed deer captured during the winters of 1999-2002 on
the MeadWestvaco Wildlife and Ecosystem Research Forest (MWWERF) in West Virginia. I
delineated spatial groups of female white-tailed deer and used genetic measures to evaluate
spatial and genetic relationships. I also evaluated a genetic marker panel in the context of a
group of closely related individuals, and used this genetic information to retrospectively assess
the relatedness of both the deer included in an experimental removal and those remaining. My
results demonstrate that female white-tailed deer do not distribute themselves randomly across
the landscape of my study area, but are clumped into groups of spatially tolerant individuals. My
data also suggest that while the patterns of inter-relatedness observed in our study are consistent
with matriarchal social structure reported in previous studies, higher population density may
affect the composition of deer groups removed in spatially-based localized management efforts.
Overall, the rose-petal model of white-tailed deer population expansion applies to my study
population, but high population density forces overlap among matriarchal groups and may limit
the effectiveness of localized management efforts.

http://athenaeum.libs.uga.edu/bitstream/....pdf?sequence=1



Social organization in deer: Implications for localized management
William F. Porter, Nancy E. Mathews, H. Brian Underwood, Richard W. Sage and Donald F. Behrend
Abstract
Populations of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) inhabiting many state and national parks and suburban areas have grown to the point that they conflict with human activities. Conflicts range from destruction of vegetation through browsing to public perception that diseases carried by deer pose threats to human health. Traditional modes of hunting to control populations are inappropriate in many of these areas because of intense human development and activity. This article explores an alternative approach for population reduction based on deer social organization. Female white-tailed deer are highly philopatric and female offspring remain near their dams for life. This suggests that a population expands slowly as a series of overlapping home ranges in a form analogous to the petals on a rose. Incorporating the rose petal concept into a model of population growth shows that removal of deer by family unit can potentially alleviate conflicts in localized areas for as many as 10�15 yr.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v423w653463mp670/



Not a study, but good info to help you do further research:

Information bulletin
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 1992
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE No. 59
The Rose Petal Theory: Implications for Localized Deer Management

http://www.global-scientific-inc.com/tcru/kc/pubs/mathews/m54rose/54rose.htm
[Caveat: Research Information Bulletins (RIBs) are internal Fish and Wildlife Service documents whose purpose is to provide information on research activities. Because RIBs are not subject to peer review, they may not be cited. Use of trade names does not imply U.S. Government endorsement of commercial products.]

no conclusions yet, general hypothesis, whitetail deer research is in it's infancy and social studies are very new to deer management

most of that research is done in pens your rose petal theory was in free ranging deer

I've known of the social studies for some time, mentioned it here a few years ago, it's one of the newer applications in a sound deer herd. It started out as how to increase antler size and the effects socialization had on the development of antlers.

Nothing new, the quest for bigger antlers have always brought on the research of whitetail deer. Just like smiling Bob sold millions of vitamins to men.

I'll use your argument against buck limits, are we now justifying PETA and other anti hunting groups?

What you posted seems too indicate we need to quit hunting deer and reintroduce the Red Wolf. Let them do the killing and keep the deer population in check.

I was addressing Danny's question:


If you haven't read enough to cause you to take notice of probable unwanted effects of killing does indiscriminately as many qdm advocates do, then I won't argue with you. We don't think alike, and arguing with you is not worth the effort.

I think Danny shares my concern that removing too many of the mature does in a given area may seriously disrupt natural social groups that benefit the entire deer population, both male and female. I also believe that targeting only the best of the bucks has detrimental effects.

If you take time to think about it, those younger bucks that are left to fill the places of the mature bucks targeted in qdm this season become the main targets at the beginning of the next season. If they are killed before or during the mating period, the result is younger bucks being left with the task of mating. That would occur year after year if only mature bucks are targeted for killing. Natural predation does not target only the fittest members of a species, male or female.

I've never read anything published by QDMA that promoted indiscriminately killing does. Everything I have read published by QDMA regarding killing does has addressed the importance of site specific rules as well as the down side of killing only mature does or only fawns. In fact pick up the Oct. issue and it specifically addresses this. I don't have a dog in the fight, but I read their magazines and what they say and what you say the say seem to usually be two different things.

You are probably correct about there being a down side to only targeting the best bucks/ high grading, but what are the down sides of targeting only mature bucks? Lord knows no one is going to kill a high percentage of them anyway so if you allow your bucks to get older you are also allowing most of them to escape being killed by a hunter and so there will always be a good percentage of 4+ year old deer on the property. You are implying that if you target mature deer in year 1 then in year 2 there will be minimal mature bucks left to breed, so in year 3 most does are bred by yearling bucks. That isn't the way it really works.

td,


I haven't read QDMA literature much since I pulled out back in '04 when they changed from their philosophy of voluntary restraint in the killing of bucks to pushing for statewide regulations. In the meetings I attended back then, Brian Murphy regularly stated that the best does to kill were the first ones to present a shot. That's the defintion of indiscriminate killing of does as I see it. If that has changed, it was a needed change IMO.



Your QDMA literature should help you understand the benefits of having mature bucks before and during the breeding season. The down side of targeting only those mature bucks is that you are removing them and upsetting their social hieracrchies at exactly the time they are said to be the most beneficial. That may help explain the more defined rutting activity that qdm claims it creates. But does that activity indicate that more stress has been created by the voids that are created in the social orders, thereby leading to higher rates of post-rut mortality in the mature bucks that are left to sort out the disorder that has been created by the hunters before and during the breeding period?

If a hunter chooses to shoot a "cull" buck, chances are less that such a buck held a very high position in the established male hierarchy. Less disorder is created than if a higher quality buck was chosen and the genes of the "cull" buck are going into the freezer instead of into the new fawn that is fathered by the higher quality buck.



All property regardless of hunting pressure and population density?

You know it's not wise to make such an assumption. Without carefully considering the specific conditions on the property, you may be leaving a void at the top of the male hierarchy that is needed for your goals to be reached.



Let's see how it works:

5000 acres (approx. 8 sq. miles)

Population density is 20 deer per sq. mile. (20x8 = 160 deer)

Sex ratio is 3:1 (40 bucks, 120 does)

Percent of mature bucks 3+ = .45 (18 bucks)

Let's call it like this on the bucks we have to start with:

2 bucks 6.5 yrs. old
6 bucks 5.5 yrs. old
5 bucks 4.5 yrs. old
5 bucks 3.5 yrs. old

Goal is 4+ yr. old or better.
Hunting pressure is 40 members plus family and guests.

We have 13 bucks that we call "mature bucks" for all the hunters to kill. That's every buck we have that is 4.5+.

If only 6 "mature bucks" are killed, that leaves us needing all of our 3.5 yr. old bucks to replace them next year, and we are still one short of what we had.

When next year arrives, we have this:

Last year:

Started: / Finished:
2 bucks 6.5 yrs. old / 1 bucks 6.5 (1 post-rut mortality)
6 bucks 5.5 yrs. old / 2 bucks 5.5 (2 killed, 2 post-rut mort.)
5 bucks 4.5 yrs. old / 1 bucks 4.5 (4 killed)
5 bucks 3.5 yrs. old / 5 bucks 3.5 (no mistakes or letting kids kill < 4.5+) Sure!!

Start this year:
1 buck 7.5 yrs. old
2 bucks 6.5 yrs. old
1 buck 5.5 yrs. old
5 bucks 4.5 yrs. old
? bucks 3.5 yrs. old (predators, recruitment, disprersal, disease, etc. etc.)

We now have 9 bucks that we call "mature bucks" for 40 members, family members and guests to hunt beginning well before and then during the breeding season.

If we kill all the bucks from those 9 "mature bucks", where will we be next year, and how will the buck hierarchy look at that point?

Change the variables around any way you want them and see how it fits.

there is no such thing as a club with 40 members, family, and guests that kill only 4.5 and older deer. Ever. Ain't happening. There aren't 40 hunters in Jefferson Co that can live age a 4.5 year old buck.

Yer flawed from the start.....

Did you read the last line?

I didn't read any of it, I don't read threads with multiple quote posts, they give me a headache......

Here's you an emoticon for future use :




Waiting on an appointment and got time to kill.

thanks Eddie...

troy

First off, there have been studies that have shown that antler size has little to do with breeding. Some bucks are more aggressive than others and according to this study antler size seemed to be irrelevant. I know that's what you would think by watching Bambi, but that's not the way it really works in nature Your logic would also negate the reason to shoot culls anyway. Cause if they are a cull their probably not breeding, right? Not that I believe in culling, but just saying.

Second, your numbers just aren't realistic. Too many hunters and too many mature bucks killed. You also assume no new bucks move on to the property which is a false assumption. I would take the "9 mature" bucks left from year 1 and add a couple of mature bucks that moved their home range to your property. That's as fair of an assumption as saying that 3 mature bucks died of post rut mortality. You can make up the numbers to prove your point on paper, but this is nature we are talking about and the numbers will never work out that way. What if in year 2 their was a bumper acorn crop and only 3 mature bucks were killed, then where would you be year 3? Fact is all you can do, outside a pen, is look at real life situations and ALL of the properties I know of that only target mature bucks seem to have plenty of mature bucks year after year. Sure everyone will have a down year from time to time but so does the stock market...

Ya'll makin' my head hurt!

If a few bucks moved in from neighboring properties, don't forget that a few more might have moved off.

Don't know if fawns from younger does have lower birthweights. That's why I asked the question.

I would guess that they might be.

Habitat quality might improve the birthweight of the fawns born to all does, but I would still guess the fawns born to first time does on that habitat would be smaller compared to those born to thier older cohorts, especially if you compare singles to singles and twins to twins.