Interesting article on science/data versus "common sense" in deer mgmt.

[scn]

https://deerassociation.com/8-ways-...tter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=03-09-2023
Reminds me of some recent discussion involving "common sense" in coyote mgmt.

 

[TX300mag]

Great article, scn. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Popcorn]

https://deerassociation.com/8-ways-...tter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=03-09-2023
Reminds me of some recent discussion involving "common sense" in coyote mgmt.

Solid information although it's easy to see where a couple of those come from. There is always the exception to the rule.

 

[TNTreeman]

Very informative. Just when I think I'm starting to figure things out, I realize I'm not.

 

[DoubleRidge]

Interesting read...thanks for sharing.

 

[Snake]

Great article, scn. Thank you for sharing.

I concur thanks .

 

[Snake]

Solid information although it's easy to see where a couple of those come from. There is always the exception to the rule.

Exactly , always an exception to the rules. Some just baffle you

 

[BSK]

scn beat me to it. I was going to post a link to this article because of the section on restocked genetics. I don't know how many times I've heard from hunters or read on this site how deer in a specific part of the Southeast are different than other deer in the area because the location was restocked with "northern" deer. Yet those northern genetics got swamped right out of the population just a few decades after restocking, as native Southeast Whitetails spread outwards from remnant pockets. Our Southeast deer carry virtually no expressed northern traits. Northern deer are VERY poorly adapted to southern climates and diseases, hence Nature selects heavily against them.

I remember a research project where very high-performing deer from Michigan were transplanted down to a research facility in Louisiana (I believe LSU). Their first year living in a southern climate, the Michigan bucks declined dramatically in antler growth, actually underperforming local bucks. And within 2-3 years, all of the transplanted northern deer were dead. They had no natural immunity to local southern diseases and could not survive the southern climate.

Now this doesn't mean that local populations can't be genetically linked to original restocking efforts. But these DNA links will be in sections of DNA that do not code for expressed traits. In essence, they will be remnant DNA that "doesn't do anything." Just like many people of European or Asian descent still carry DNA markers showing their link back to Neanderthals. Yet these people express no Neanderthal physical traits.

 

[BSK]

The one section of this article I have a little disagreement with is the section on sex ratio. The article states: "So, stockpiling does will not draw bucks from afar, and even if it did, you'd be less likely to see them, because they don't have to move or compete to breed. As a hunter, you benefit from a balanced buck:doe ratio through greater competition and more searching by bucks."

Now I agree with this to a certain extent. Deer populations skewed heavily towards females often display a trickle rut, with breeding occurring a little bit over a long timeframe, which is undesirable from both a hunting and biological perspective. However, I have changed my opinion about where the best sex ratio numbers lie. Back when I was still heavily involved in the research world, I had the opportunity to analyze data from some very large unhunted properties. This gave us the opportunity to look at large deer populations that had not experienced population changes due to hunter selective pressures. In essence, these were "natural" deer herds. We found that a natural adult sex ratio is 1.2 adult does per adult buck (more does are present because bucks lead tougher lives and do not live as long as does). From that point forward, we attempted to push managed populations back towards that 1.2 does per buck or even lower, towards a true 1:1 ratio. We even had one project, that just for research purposes, we pushed to 2 bucks per doe. We found these more balanced or even buck heavy populations did have a much shorter and more visibly intense rut.

However, I do believe there is a difference between what we experienced in our research projects, managing huge properties (many thousands of acres) back in the late 90s and early 2000s (when no one was shooting does) and managing more typically sized hunting properties (200-500 acres) today (when most hunters are shooting does). After much experimentation and the ability to actually track true sex ratios via camera censuses, I've reached the conclusion that on most typically sized properties, visible rutting activity peaks with a sex ratio of around 1.5 to 2.0 does per buck. Pushing the sex ratio down to 1 or 1.2 does per buck on smaller properties often produces a decline in visible rutting behavior (for hunters) because the rut becomes so brief.

 

[DayDay]

Liked this statement regarding changing the gene pool:

"You just scooped a bucket of water from Lake Michigan and patted yourself on the back for lowering the lake level."

 

[Bwales95]

The part about shooting a doe for "bait" is an interesting concept. I typically hold off on does so i dont ruin a hunt during the rut, but they may not get a pass this season after reading this

 

[DayDay]

The part about shooting a doe for "bait" is an interesting concept. I typically hold off on does so i dont ruin a hunt during the rut, but they may not get a pass this season after reading this

I rode out with a guy to pick up his doe he had shot in an open area this past season. When we got close enough to see it, there was a buck standing right over the doe.

 

[TX300mag]

The part about shooting a doe for "bait" is an interesting concept. I typically hold off on does so i dont ruin a hunt during the rut, but they may not get a pass this season after reading this

My experiences validate this. It's a tactic I use and tech my kids. One of my sons killed his first TN buck last year standing over a freshly killed doe. It was the second or third buck to check her out.

 

[BSK]

My experiences validate this. It's a tactic I use and tech my kids. One of my sons killed his first TN buck last year standing over a freshly killed doe. It was the second or third buck to check her out.

Very cool! I remember how surprised we were when we analyzed the mentioned data.

 

[rifle02]

The part about shooting a doe for "bait" is an interesting concept. I typically hold off on does so i dont ruin a hunt during the rut, but they may not get a pass this season after reading this

That strategy has been around for a while. I distinctly remember as a boy in the deer hunting woods that if someone shot a doe early enough in the day where field dressing and dragging was not immediately required everyone seem to take up a stand around it and wait for a while. Once or twice it worked with bucks coming in following the does scent.

 

[WestTn Huntin man]

My experiences validate this. It's a tactic I use and tech my kids. One of my sons killed his first TN buck last year standing over a freshly killed doe. It was the second or third buck to check her out.

Same here. 1st time doe was down and a small buck came sniffing around her. He got a pass. Kept Hunting shot a second doe. The next Buck was a good 8 sniffing around both does and didn't get a pass. My 1st triple.Now I always keep hunting after a doe is down.

 

[BSK]

Same here. 1st time doe was down and a small buck came sniffing around her. He got a pass. Kept Hunting shot a second doe. The next Buck was a good 8 sniffing around both does and didn't get a pass. My 1st triple.Now I always keep hunting after a doe is down.

I once sot a 2 1/2 year-old 6-point but had to wait for the rest of my party to finish hunting, so stayed in my stand. About an hour later another 2 1/2 year-old buck came by, smell my dead buck, and then ran over and tried to fight with him while he was lying dead on the ground!

 

[TheLBLman]

I've have also killed bucks tending a doe, then had the doe come over later trying to figure out why her buck gave up the chase.

 

[Ski]

I've never experienced anything quite like that. The only response I've ever seen was opposite. I shot a nice 3yr old buck once and the doe he was with refused to leave his side, then minutes later several more bucks and does came out and circled him. The doe he was with nudged him a couple times but the others just stood back in what appeared to be confusion??? It was weird and a little sad. I'd never seen deer act like that before and haven't seen it since.

 

[Popcorn]

I shot a very hot doe a few years ago. It was early in the day and for 2 1/2 hours ther was a parade of bucks trying to get her up. A 2 year old became so frustrated he gored her and pushed her over the hill out of site. He can running back into the field with his antlers and head blood drenched as he tried to escape a larger older buck.
If the doe is near ready it certainly works

 

[megalomaniac]

The one section of this article I have a little disagreement with is the section on sex ratio. The article states: "So, stockpiling does will not draw bucks from afar, and even if it did, you'd be less likely to see them, because they don't have to move or compete to breed. As a hunter, you benefit from a balanced buck:doe ratio through greater competition and more searching by bucks."

Now I agree with this to a certain extent. Deer populations skewed heavily towards females often display a trickle rut, with breeding occurring a little bit over a long timeframe, which is undesirable from both a hunting and biological perspective. However, I have changed my opinion about where the best sex ratio numbers lie. Back when I was still heavily involved in the research world, I had the opportunity to analyze data from some very large unhunted properties. This gave us the opportunity to look at large deer populations that had not experienced population changes due to hunter selective pressures. In essence, these were "natural" deer herds. We found that a natural adult sex ratio is 1.2 adult does per adult buck (more does are present because bucks lead tougher lives and do not live as long as does). From that point forward, we attempted to push managed populations back towards that 1.2 does per buck or even lower, towards a true 1:1 ratio. We even had one project, that just for research purposes, we pushed to 2 bucks per doe. We found these more balanced or even buck heavy populations did have a much shorter and more visibly intense rut.

However, I do believe there is a difference between what we experienced in our research projects, managing huge properties (many thousands of acres) back in the late 90s and early 2000s (when no one was shooting does) and managing more typically sized hunting properties (200-500 acres) today (when most hunters are shooting does). After much experimentation and the ability to actually track true sex ratios via camera censuses, I've reached the conclusion that on most typically sized properties, visible rutting activity peaks with a sex ratio of around 1.5 to 2.0 does per buck. Pushing the sex ratio down to 1 or 1.2 does per buck on smaller properties often produces a decline in visible rutting behavior (for hunters) because the rut becomes so brief.

And the bucks just kill each other when the ratio drops below 1 buck for every doe. Dead bucks don't rut.

 

[BigAl]

My brother hunted a large, managed place down in Texas. He was told they tried to manage to a 1:1 ratio but there were too many bucks killed from fighting. so they went back to a 1.2 to1 ratio to reduce this.