I live in Hickman county, have for almost a decade, and I cannot recall ever seeing a doe with two fawns at any time of the year. When I lived in Indiana I would say that at least 80% of does had two or even three fawns each year. What has your research/sightings shown? Am I just not seeing twins or is single fawns just the norm in TN?
@BSK…fawns per doe?
- Thread starter poorhunter
- Start date
Wrangler95
Well-Known Member
I live in Clay county and like you I mostly see single fawns each year!!Does this indicate of maybe a over population of deer in the area?
Great question! I've seen more single fawns over the past 10 years in my area. Even in my neighborhood, I see 1 set of twins a year, rest are single or no fawns. You watch Dr. Woods show, he never has a doe with twins on his cams. On my farm, I must have a spot that the best doe takes each year. From 2010-14, I would see one with twins in the same area all season. Then again 2016-21 same thing. I've not gotten any fawn pics yet, all my does were still waddling around last week.
BSK
Well-Known Member
Looking at fetal counts - in any location - adult females start out averaging 1.78 fetuses per doe. However, through fetal loss or reabsorption, fawns per doe are generally down to about 1.5 per adult doe at birth. How many of those fawns survive to 6 months of age is termed the "recruitment rate," and is measured as a percentage. 100% recruitment would mean that for every 10 does, there are 10 surviving fawns. I remember the days in TN when it was common to see recruitment rates of 100-120% (10 to 12 fawns per 10 adult does). However, since the 2000s, fawn recruitment rates across the Southeast have declined dramatically. No one knows why. Most blame coyotes, but to be honest, coyotes have been widespread across the Southeast since at least the late 1980s. Now, fawn recruitment rates of 35-60% are more common in the Southeast. Basically, half of what they used to be. This is a serious concern, as hunters - combined with all forms of mortality - can only take the number of adult deer that are replaced by the fawn crop and still keep the population stable. Take more adults than can be replaced by fawns being recruited into the adult population and total population declines.
BSK
Well-Known Member
And by the way, a doe's uterus is designed to always produce twins. Their uterus is bifurcated, meaning it has two pockets or sides.
Good info, thank you!
I also am in total agreement that the problem is not coyotes. Plenty of coyotes in Indiana for sure, maybe more than here. I always come to the conclusion that it has to do with food availability year round as the biggest factor.
BSK
Well-Known Member
Below is a graph of the Observed Fawn Recruitment Rate (fawn recruitment calculated by what hunters observe while hunting) for my personal property. Notice how observed fawn recruitment consistently ran 80-100% up until around 2003. Then fawn recruitment took a fairly dramatic turn downwards and has been holding in the 25-50% range since then. Fawn recruitment has been so bad since around 2007 that we stopped shooting does. We have only killed a couple since then.
Attachments
DoubleRidge
Well-Known Member
BSK.... any chance your last timber harvest project was in 2000 or 2007? The upward trend in those periods is interesting....and now following your recent timber project it looks like another upward trend is possibly beginning.
I know we are over two years past our TSI project and the fawning habitat is just tremendous and widespread.
Interesting data....thanks for sharing.
BSK
Well-Known Member
Great eye! Yes, you are correct on all counts. The early regrowth that follows directly after timber removal increases food resources and then cover habitat, both of which have a positive influence on fawn survival.
DoubleRidge
Well-Known Member
Was hoping you may say that because we are in the same boat with our doe harvest....it's been over 10 years since we've taken any.... absolutely nothing against taking does...just hadn't seen the need....hoping with the improvements to the habitat that we see a bump in the numbers....And you make an excellent point...in addition to the improved fawning ground the increase in food resources is amazing....sunlight to the forest floor pays off in so many ways.
BSK
Well-Known Member
And that's why I'm not freaking out over our failed summer plots. We have so much natural forage available right now that the deer don't really need the summer plots.
For the past 4 years in my neighborhood inside city limits, I have a consistent doe group of 6 that hang out in my yard. Last 2 years, this group has produced 1 fawn, both being bucks. As you drive through my neighborhood, you see similar things, low fawn recruitment 1-3 per do groups. I would expect in a low stress, almost 0 hunting that our numbers would be increasing more, but instead they have decreased. I think a lot of this decrease is due to predation. I have 2-4 yotes that come through, but the big thing is black bears. TWRA hauled off 5 last year and I still have 3 different bears that were in my yard last few weeks. On the flip side of this, I had 11 different 1.5-5.5+ age bucks in my yard from Aug-Jan.
JCDEERMAN
Well-Known Member
Ain't that the truth…..along with many other game species.
Also in Hickman. We typically only see 1 fawn per doe, but trail cameras in august show quite a few with 2 fawns. I haven't done any math, but the percentages most likely align with what's in this thread.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
I think there are several factors reducing fawn recruitment rates a bit since 2003 (in no particular order):
1) "Trophy Buck" & "QDM" type heavy doe harvests.
The reason this has slightly reduced fawn recruitment (per average female) is because in our being very careful NOT to shoot a "button" buck, we tend to mainly target the oldest females for harvest. But these older females also tend to be more experienced "mothers" and individually have higher fawn survival than do the younger females.
2) More ticks & fire ants sucking the life out of the newborn fawns
3) Formerly larger contiguous habitat tracts becoming more fragmented with human homes, "mini" farms, and housing developments. This leads to more roaming dogs, which in many areas kill more fawns than coyotes.
4) Predator evolution --- believe both the dogs & coyotes have "evolved" to become just a tad more "efficient" at finding & killing fawns.
5) Maybe in most "statewide" areas, the habitat HAD become relatively more "mature" with less good fawn security cover. This has been changing dramatically over the past 18 months, with much of the mature timber being clear-cut, leading to excellent fawning cover for the next several years.
GOING FORWARD, for the next few years, I'm expecting fawn recruitment to trend at least marginally better. This belief is mainly due to heavier timber harvests statewide along with hunters backing off on the doe harvests (composition of female deer will be a tad "older").
1) "Trophy Buck" & "QDM" type heavy doe harvests.
The reason this has slightly reduced fawn recruitment (per average female) is because in our being very careful NOT to shoot a "button" buck, we tend to mainly target the oldest females for harvest. But these older females also tend to be more experienced "mothers" and individually have higher fawn survival than do the younger females.
2) More ticks & fire ants sucking the life out of the newborn fawns
3) Formerly larger contiguous habitat tracts becoming more fragmented with human homes, "mini" farms, and housing developments. This leads to more roaming dogs, which in many areas kill more fawns than coyotes.
4) Predator evolution --- believe both the dogs & coyotes have "evolved" to become just a tad more "efficient" at finding & killing fawns.
5) Maybe in most "statewide" areas, the habitat HAD become relatively more "mature" with less good fawn security cover. This has been changing dramatically over the past 18 months, with much of the mature timber being clear-cut, leading to excellent fawning cover for the next several years.
GOING FORWARD, for the next few years, I'm expecting fawn recruitment to trend at least marginally better. This belief is mainly due to heavier timber harvests statewide along with hunters backing off on the doe harvests (composition of female deer will be a tad "older").
BSK
Well-Known Member
I'm hoping this is the case. More timber is being cut right now because it is so valuable. In the harvest data, I'm also seeing a reduction in doe harvests in my region.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
Keep in mind I'm referring to the "average" doe experiencing slightly higher fawn recruitment, as on a per doe basis. This does not necessarily translate into a higher deer population, as we can have EHD, CWD, along with hunters killing more bucks, all working together in reducing the deer population even with higher fawn survival per doe.
In some areas we will also see progressively higher deer deaths from automobile collisions.
And not just from new roads & more traffic,
but via more people driving electric cars, deer can't hear them coming.
(There will also be an increase in human deaths from pedestrians being struck by electric cars.)
In some areas we will also see progressively higher deer deaths from automobile collisions.
And not just from new roads & more traffic,
but via more people driving electric cars, deer can't hear them coming.
(There will also be an increase in human deaths from pedestrians being struck by electric cars.)
always see twin fawns around my place. coyotes must be on vacation around here. seeing groundhogs now and always have rabbits. the deer are about to over run the place seems like.
huntncoach
Well-Known Member
Wish we had that problem! LOL
Winchester
Well-Known Member
I would love to really know what has happened to the fawn recruitment rate in most of the Southeast? Lots of guesses but none that I personally believe would have had that much of an actual, immediate, and ongoing impact for so many years now??? Not that its detrimental or anything but its a fact! Turkey populations come to mind over exact same timeframe???
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
My guess is because in most locales, it hasn't been any one thing, but more a little of everything at the same time being more detrimental.
In certain areas, there have been certain single factors that have been documented as more significant. For example, in some areas it has been bear predation as the #1 factor, but bears are not in Western Middle & West TN. But, even that bear predation in those areas may have been augmented by mature forests lacking adequate fawning cover.
I'm just "guessing", too, but I believe in much of TN there has been significant increase in fawn predation by dogs (yes, household pets). This is mainly the result of more houses popping up in places previously void, and many of these people have dogs they let run loose at least some of the time. I've observed people letting their big dogs out @ 10pm, then getting trail cam pics of those dogs 1/2 mile away less than 10 minutes later.
As a "for example", at some point in the past, homes may have averaged 1/2 mile apart on the county roads. Maybe today that distance is 1/4 mile. Just saying, a lot more houses where there were none a decade or two ago. And a ton more roaming dogs from those houses.
Yep. Many the same factors that can harm fawn recruitment also harm poult recruitment.
But much worse, the turkeys have a lot more going against them,
in particular raptor predation, its evolution in targeting turkeys more, and a ton more raptors than in times past.
