Feeding Deer

[BSK]

Kevin.....NICE pic's!
I dont see the difference either, they are eating together whether at a feeder or in a corn field.
As dry as it is in Tennessee right now wouldnt this be the time for feeding? Everything else has burned up.

Deer eat at a feeder and feed in a field or on acorns in a different manner. In natural feeding situations, deer are not puting their mouths in the same places. Feeders spread disease--proven fact.

This drought has been a perfect example of why food plots aren't the answer for providing a local deer herd's nutritional intake. Food plots fail in droughts. Yet the natural habitat does not. Native plants are naturally drought tolerant. My food plots are all brown and dead, but the weeds growing right next to the plots are in fantastic shape and show little signs of drought effects. And the deer are pounding them, as they should. Feed your deer with the native habitat. Use food plots to provide higher-quality foods that what naturally exist. Never expect to "carry" a deer herd with food plots.

 

[BSK]

Dark Thirty II wrote:
If my state allows it, and there are continuously growing numbers of deer or stabilized herds, then they must know something.

State allow baiting/feeding because hunters demand it and/or politicians demand it (due to hunter pressure), not because it is good for the deer. And most states that allow baiting are rethinking that policy due to health concerns.


If I saw it as something detrimental to the herd, then I would rethink the situation,...

Are you sure about that? I can give you scientific proof it is detrimental, but I strongly suspect you would ignore that. We humans have a bad habitat of looking for the quick and easy route to whatever we want to acheive, and will ignore or refute anything that stands in our way.


...but as for right now we can simply agree to disagree.

I can live with that.

 

[BSK]

Good post Greg.

 

[BigGameGuy]

Good post Greg.

This buck was grown without kernal number one fed to him, so it must prove feeding doesn't work. Right?

Bottom line, there is a wealth of information that shows the negatives aspects of supplemental feeding in wild animals. Can anyone present any scientific evidence that shows it's a beneficial practice in a wild herd?

 

[wskp1]

Blah, Blah, Blah, I have a degree in this and that and know everything. Good thing your arms are long to pat yourself on the back all day! I have a house of 7 and a degree in "If it's brown it's down"! Feed'em , grow'em, clean'em and eat'em.

 

[Bob S]

Dark Thirty II wrote:
If my state allows it, and there are continuously growing numbers of deer or stabilized herds, then they must know something.

State allow baiting/feeding because hunters demand it and/or politicians demand it (due to hunter pressure), not because it is good for the deer.

BSK is right again. Michigan has a 2 gallon limit on bait piles. According to DNR big game specialist Rod Clute, the 2 gallon limit is a good compromise between those who want bait banned, and those who want to dump a pick-up load in the woods. Michigan does not have a 2 gallon limit because it is good for the deer. Michigan has a 2 gallon limit because that keeps the least number of hunters from complaining.

 

[wcsd462]

BSK
I do agree that natural habitat is an important factor in managing, holding and killing big deer, but if you dont have the right natural habitat I think it should be up to the land owner not the goverment to do what he thinks will work best for his land,whether it is re planting tree's that were logged or planting native brows or even puttng out feeder's. I only have about six oak tree's on my property due to logging,{This was done pryor to me buying it}. In the past couple of years the oaks I do have have not produced so the deer dont hang around becouse the neighbors do have oak's, so in order to compete I feed, I put in food plots,minerals stations I even did some burning to try to promote the groth of natural vegetation. If their was anything else to do I would do that to. The name of the game for me is to hold as many deer on my property as I can to keep the trigger happy neighbors from killing every thing that moves. Age is the first key in killing big deer, second is genetics,{cast do anything about that} third is nutrition, that is where I can help out and at the same time I may see more deer while I am hunting hell I may even help grow the buck of my lifetime.

 

[deerchaser007]

wcsd462,.. you need to plant some sawtooth oaks. Sawtooth's will produce acorns in 6 to 8 years. This will give you a jumpstart back to acorns for the deer.

 

[wcsd462]

Thanks deerchaser007
Way ahead of ya. planted a dozen three years ago.

 

[deerchaser007]

Off topic ,.. how is yours doing?? I planted 3 years ago also and have some looking good,.. some not grown much at all.

 

[wcsd462]

I dont know that much about them, but their about 4 1/2 feet tall now. 4 or 5 didnt make it, they ended up buck rub's, ironic I guess.

 

[brier rabbit]

wcsd462
iagree withyou on planting for wildlife, i think it is very important. as i have stated before i have planted many types of plants. the sawtooth oaks need lots of sunlight or they will not produce acorns, also they must be planted close together so they will pollonate. other plants you may want to plant are burning bush it also is an asian plant thay is related to out hearts a busting bush, deer love to eat the hell out of it. autaum olives bushes are good brows and cover. mullberry bushes are also eaten by deer. by planting these typesof plants you wil provid year round food.

ps i have two swatooths that are over 13 feet tall, hoping maybe to have acorns nest year. oh and by the way, sawtooths start dropping acorns in mid sept.

 

[BSK]

Blah, Blah, Blah, I have a degree in this and that and know everything. Good thing your arms are long to pat yourself on the back all day! I have a house of 7 and a degree in "If it's brown it's down"! Feed'em , grow'em, clean'em and eat'em.

Then why are you posting in a QDM Forum? QDM is not about "If it's brown it's down." Please limit your posts to the appropriate forum.

 

[wcsd462]

If it's brown it's down..... That makes as much sense as,Shoot a fawn pick a spot.

 

[Anderson]

BSK,

I don't know why we torture ourselves with discussions on feeding deer, but here we are again!

I don't really agree with the comment from page 1 on salt in soil:

"The high salt content of the salt lick and salt saturated soil will kill any infectious organism (the salt ruptures their cell walls causing massive dehydration of the organism)."

Here's why I disagree. Each organism will have a threshold of salt that it can tolerate. Right under the salt pile (or Trophy Rock of course) the soil will be very high in salt and likely kill any organism there (though I don't know that for sure). Agreed. But as you move farther from the source, the concentration of salt will decrease. At some point of distance away from the salt, there will be a zone in which the salt content in the soil is not strong enough to kill a given 'germ' (TB or BlueTongue or brucellosis or whatever). And yet it may be just a few feet away, so deer are still concentrated there. At some point, there is still some risk. Maybe less risk than a feed pile. Some organisms, such as coccidia, go into a very tough cyst form that will endure all sorts of torture for long periods of time.
My two cents, anyway. I'm not condemning salt feeding, just thought I'd offer the comments for clarification or discussion.

 

[Mike Belt]

wcsd...In an ideal setup land management practices would incorporate both food sources and available cover. One without the other will certainly put meat on the table but they do directly benefit one another. I have hunted a sizeable property where food sources were outstanding and yet we didn't have much cover. Prior to deer season we "held" alot of deer. Even after season started the deer utilized our property heavily but increasingly into the season that usage was nocturnal. That could be expected simply because of hunting pressure but the deer sought out heavier cover thus moving them off our property during shooting hours. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't know that food sources alone is the best criteria for a hunting situation. Do you incorporate any sanctuaries?

 

[156p&y]

wcsd...In an ideal setup land management practices would incorporate both food sources and available cover. One without the other will certainly put meat on the table but they do directly benefit one another. I have hunted a sizeable property where food sources were outstanding and yet we didn't have much cover. Prior to deer season we "held" alot of deer. Even after season started the deer utilized our property heavily but increasingly into the season that usage was nocturnal. That could be expected simply because of hunting pressure but the deer sought out heavier cover thus moving them off our property during shooting hours. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that I don't know that food sources alone is the best criteria for a hunting situation.

The same thing I see every year. We have a tough time holding the deer but really can only do so much for cover since the owner doesn't want any trees taken down.

 

[102]

Feed wild animals.

Make them healthy.

Herd increases in size and carrying capacity of land is artificially increased...temporarily.

Stop feeding animals articicially...(i.e. supplemental feeding)

Animals die...

102

 

[wcsd462]

Mike
I have only 50 acres to play with, but I have set aside about a 5 acre track that is a cedar thicket that I stay away from.

 

[Greg .]

Age is the first key in killing big deer, second is genetics,{cast do anything about that} third is nutrition, that is where I can help out and at the same time I may see more deer while I am hunting hell I may even help grow the buck of my lifetime.

Age and nutrition are going to be more important than genetics for big/healthy deer. So are keeping the deer within the carrying capacity of the land and having good sex ratios and age structures.

 

[BSK]

As I mentioned previously, I hate discussing this topic.

People are going to do whatever they want to do, regardless of "the facts." Even when they understand that smoking absolutely shortens your life and gives you a 50/50 chance of developing smoking related cancer, they will still smoke.

It doesn't matter how clear it is that obesity shortens life-spans and is one of the leading causes of destructive maladies like heart disease and diabetes, people are still going to over-eat and get fat.

No matter how often you point out that feeding wildlife has been proven to cause devastating disease outbreaks that destroy local economies (see the cattle industry of MI due to the spread of bovine tuberculosis by artificial feeding of deer), and cause inumerable other wildlife and habitat related damage, they are still going to feed deer.

People are always going to take what they believe to be the easy route to accomplish what they want, even if the "easy route" is dangerous and when much safer yet more long-term alternatives exist. We want want we want, and we want it now, future be damned.

 

[brier rabbit]

89montero

what kind protein pellets are you feeding. i have tried a few but the deer did not seem to like it, just rotted.

 

[Greg .]

Well said, Bryan.

I was going to type something along the lines of you can lead a horse to water, but can't make him drink. Thanks for all the good info.

But that's the way folks are. I reckon it stems from some sort of survival mechanism -- expend the least amount of energy and get things NOW, for there may not be a tomorrow. Maybe that's why some folks' finances are in such a mess, too. ;)

 

[BSK]

Absolutely Greg. Our ability to always find the quickest route to the desired result/goal is what has made us such a successful species. As far as we know, we are the only animal capable of reasoning through a problem before we act. All other animals learn by trial and error.

 

[BSK]

BSK
I do agree that natural habitat is an important factor in managing, holding and killing big deer, but if you dont have the right natural habitat I think it should be up to the land owner not the goverment to do what he thinks will work best for his land,whether it is re planting tree's that were logged or planting native brows or even puttng out feeder's. I only have about six oak tree's on my property due to logging,{This was done pryor to me buying it}. In the past couple of years the oaks I do have have not produced so the deer dont hang around becouse the neighbors do have oak's, so in order to compete I feed, I put in food plots,minerals stations I even did some burning to try to promote the groth of natural vegetation. If their was anything else to do I would do that to. The name of the game for me is to hold as many deer on my property as I can to keep the trigger happy neighbors from killing every thing that moves. Age is the first key in killing big deer, second is genetics,{cast do anything about that} third is nutrition, that is where I can help out and at the same time I may see more deer while I am hunting hell I may even help grow the buck of my lifetime.

wcsd462,

I somewhat agree with you. Landowners and hunters should do all they can to improve the necessary resources for wildlife on their properties. However, that should be done in the safest manner possible. Now even improving the habitat has its risks, potentially producing over-population problems that carry their own unique risks. But the artificial feeding of wildlife out of trough or feeders is pushing the risk too far. The Southeast Wildlife Disease Study Group lists artificial feeding as one of the two greatest threats to wildlife in America today. Artificial feeding has been PROVEN to produce devistating disease outbreaks. Studies done in NC found that half of all bait/feeder sites tested showed levels of aflatoxin contamination high enough to cause significant poisoning of wildlife. The Southeast Wildlife Disease Study Group is finding new and unknown diseases appearing in areas where feeding/baiting is legal, but those diseases are not being seen where feeding/baiting is illegal.

The artificial feeding of deer from troughs/feeders is simply a very, very bad idea biologically. Now I'm not saying that improving the habitat doesn't have it's risks too, as it does. Increased deer densities that often result from improved habitat does increase the risk of spreading contagious diseases, as there are more deer inhabitating the same area. But the close contact that occurs at feeders and bait sites is unlike what occurs in natural feeding situations, hence GREATLY increases the risk of disease transmission.

 

[TheLBLman]

BSK, truer words never spoken.

As I mentioned previously, I hate discussing this topic.

People are going to do whatever they want to do, regardless of "the facts." Even when they understand that smoking absolutely shortens your life and gives you a 50/50 chance of developing smoking related cancer, they will still smoke.

No matter how often you point out that feeding wildlife has been proven to cause devastating disease outbreaks that destroy local economies (see the cattle industry of MI due to the spread of bovine tuberculosis by artificial feeding of deer), and cause inumerable other wildlife and habitat related damage, they are still going to feed deer.

People are always going to take what they believe to be the easy route to accomplish what they want, even if the "easy route" is dangerous and when much safer yet more long-term alternatives exist. We want want we want, and we want it now, future be damned.

I have previously stayed out of this, and on one hand I wish I had time to address some of this in more detail. But on the other hand, "What's the point"? If you guys are unwilling to listen to experts in the field like BSK and BigGameGuy, then you surely could care less what I know about this subject.

But I will add a small two cents.
I have attended some Southeast Deer Study Group meetings where the facts on supplemental feeding were simply shocking to me. And they were the facts, not what people "want" to believe.

Knowing what I know, I would simply be scared to death now to do any supplemental feeding of corn in Tennessee. It is simply not worth the risks. (I'm talking from a feeder, not growing it in a field, as I see little risk in growing it and leaving it for wildlife. There is also little risk in feeding corn in Texas, but different story in Tennessee.)

Although I didn't realize what was happening at the time, I am now convinced I wiped out the turkey population in a large area of Stewart County by legally feeding some corn during the summer months. My best estimate is I killed about 80 adult turkeys, and no telling how many young poults. All it takes is one kernel of bad corn to kill a full-grown old gobbler. What I lost in turkeys far negated any additional deer pics I might have obtained by feeding corn. And I have no way of knowing how many young deer were killed by that same corn --- young deer are the most susceptible ---- and there will be absolutely no evidence to show they died ---- no bones, no nothing.

But aside from killing turkeys and young deer by "bad" corn, the next most relavant damage many hunters should fear is stunting antler growth ---- feeding corn in the summer will stunt antler growth. This doesn't mean the otherwise healthy deer will not grow nice antlers ---- it just means they would have been yet larger had you not been feeding them corn. Deer that are being supplementally fed corn during the antler-growing period will consequently eat less other stuff that's more important for growing larger antlers ---- protein --- the protein found in naturally growing native forbs (broadleaf weeds like ragweed) and clovers.

Think about it.
If you fill up on candy right before dinner, will you be inclined to eat less of the healthy food available for dinner?
That's what happens when you supplementally feed deer corn during the summer: They eat more carbs, and less protein.

 

[Winchester]

---- and there will be absolutely no evidence to show they died ---- no bones, no nothing.

Wes, I agree feeding is not a good idea, but would you explain your above statement. I have yet to ever see something die and then vanish in to thin air! Does the deer fairy suck these aflotoxin deer up at death and take care of the carcass??? LOL

 

[wcsd462]

BSK/Wes
Ok... Since I dont know everything, and I like to keep an open mind on things tell me, what causes these problems? Are these diseases caused by what Wes called "bad corn" or are they something that deer just get and then spread when the infected animal comes in contact with another deer. What is bad corn or bad feed? I do know It doesnt need to lay on the groung and rot.

 

[Greg .]

Winchester,

The point Wes is making is to head off the "if I don't find deer carcasses, they're not dying" argument. We KNOW deer die out in the woods all year long, but how many deer skeletons do we find? The answer is hardly any.

I'm still amazed at how many of those horses refuse to drink.

 

[BSK]

---- and there will be absolutely no evidence to show they died ---- no bones, no nothing.

Wes, I agree feeding is not a good idea, but would you explain your above statement. I have yet to ever see something die and then vanish in to thin air! Does the deer fairy suck these aflotoxin deer up at death and take care of the carcass??? LOL

Winchester,

When it comes to young deer, especially fawns, they can die in extraordinary numbers, yet their bodies are so small and the skeletons so under-developed that they rot away and are consumed so completely be scavengers that rarely will anyone find a dead fawn carcass.

Think about this: fawn mortality studies across the Southeast will come up with a wide range of numbers, but the average between all these studies is around 50%. That means that half of all fawns born die before hunting season every year. In all your years of hunting/scouting how many dead fawns have you found? At 30 deer per square mile, 7-10 fawns die per square mile every summer every year. If you have been hunting for 20 years, that's almost 200 dead fawns per square mile over that time-frame, yet how many of those have you found dead? I work in the woods 3-4 days per week all year round and have done so for almost 10 years, but I can count on one hand the number of dead fawns I've found.

We had a project in westcentral GA where the deer were extremely over-populated and the herd was very unhealthy. Fawn survival was extremely low. Fetal counts from harvested does showed the average doe late in preganancy was carrying on average 1.3 fetuses. That means, for every 10 does, 13 fawns were being born. Yet fawn recruitment was only 10% (by hunting season there was only 1 surviving fawn per every 10 does). 12 of every 13 fawns born each year would die before October, yet you could walk around this park-like property (the browse-line was so severe you could see 200 yards through the woods in summertime) and never find a dead fawn. That is until we did some controlled burning. Once all the leaf litter had been burned away, they ground was absolutely covered in little bits and pieces of fawn bones.

In West Virgian a few years ago, a couple of locations experienced an HD die-off that killed 30% of the entire deer herd (and those parts of West Virginia have fairly high deer densities). Yet not a single person called to report a dead deer. Not a single person noticed this major die-off other than some field biologists.

Deer can die in amazing numbers and no one will notice. Scavengers are amazingly effecient at cleaning up Nature's excess.