Population management is all about doe and fawn numbers on trail camera census, and doe ages/ weights/ lactation percentage on does older than 2.5 on does killed during the season. Observation data makes for more enjoyable hunts, but are NOT an accurate indicator of what is actually out there.
In a perfect world, doe:fawn recruitment would run around 80% (doe fawns from the prior year will not likely have fawns in tow this year). One can assume ALL does are fertilized (there may be the very, very rare exception of a barren doe that does not reproduce, but they are in the VAST minority). Not all fertilized adult does will produce a fawn or two (extreme stresses can definitely cause does (and other mammals) to abort mid-gestation), but losses prior to birth are not common. So why would properties have fawn recruitment rates less than 80%?... Predators, predators, predators. Fawns have become one of the primary spring/ early summer food sources for coyotes since their population explosion in the late '80's. When I first started running trail cameras, I would routinely have between 60-80% fawn recruitment ratios. I also struggled with state doe limits to kill enough does annually to keep the population in check... with a reasonably populated herd, it is almost impossible to kill enough does when every adult doe has a fawn or two in tow. However, over the next few years, the fawn recruitment rates on my farms declined gradually to around 20-25% (where it has been over the last 4 or 5 years). And this was despite a significant improvement in carrying capacity through reduced cattle grazing, increased summer/ winter crops, and increased forage opportunities on all the neighboring properties. Deer weights increased (an indirect indicator of herd health), but fawn recruitment continued to decline. The only thing I can figure out was that we were losing the majority of our fawn crop shortly after drop, but prior to camera census. Observationally, we started seeing and killing more coyotes during hunting season (I've personally shot an average of 5 over the past 3 years just deer hunting, not actually targeting them). And most importantly, I've also had to completely restrict doe harvest altogether to adults (I still allow children to shoot 1 doe each). If and when we can improve our fawn recruitment rates, I will liberally increase doe harvests. But not until then.
Lactation rates are also vital... Again, assuming 80% fawn recruitment, one would assume nearly 100% of does aged 2.5 or older would be wet during fall hunting seasons. Keeping track of lactation rates just confirms what you already know based on trail camera census... Just another way to confirm.
Doe weights are also important. Increasing doe weights over time are a general indicator of overall improvement in herd health (assuming age data is not increasing as well). Conversely, declining weights certainly make one suspect a decline in herd health (again, assuming age data is not decreasing).
Doe age is also important to track... a sign of overharvest of the female segment of the population may manifest itself as an overall age average of less than 3.5 years. Conversely, an indirect measure of underharvesting does may be an average doe age of those killed being older than 3.5.
We as hunters want to manage our lands to maximize the carrying capacity... more deer= more deer available for us to kill. But unfortunately, for many others, the carrying capacity of the land far exceeds what they are willing to tolerate... hence the 'social carrying capacity'. This is what you are facing on Ames... the deer hunting income is secondary to the owners primary source of income- crop production. What the biologists at Ames are missing is the fact that annual doe harvests should not be a static number... they must be adjusted annually based on crop damage, trail camera census, age data of does, lactation rates of does, etc.
