Which Deer Did You See

[Mike Belt]

Much of the talk of hunter perceived deer population decline centers around does being pressured and learning how to avoid the hunter. I would have to agree with that to a point. In the past, pressured bucks learned to do the same. Consequently, hunters would usually see more does than bucks while hunting. Once hunters began targeting does they became elusive as well. Now it's not uncommon to see more bucks than does on any given hunt. Bucks are still hunted and yet sometimes more visible than the does. I'd venture to guess that far more does are passed than bucks; bucks still being the primary target. On good acorn years both sexes may be harder to see netting the same results. Still more bucks may be seen even though these "hidden" food sources apply to both sexes. Is it because doe groups have been splintered into smaller groupings? Is it because hunter restraint on bucks has increased their numbers? Is it because there are in fact, fewer does in the population? Is the deer population really on the decline?

I understand that our deer kill stats have basically remained the same which points to no decrease in the population. Something that TWRA doesn't monitor in those numbers is man hours spent to take those deer and I don't suppose there's any feasible way to do that. It would seem to me that if the kill numbers remain the same but if it was taking more man hours to produce those numbers then something is amiss somewhere. Thoughts?

 

[TheLBLman]

Mike, you make some good observations & points above. One thing I would add is that rutting bucks are much more active than female deer, and this is why we often see more bucks than does. And not only that, rutting bucks, even mature ones, often make very careless, stupid mistakes that you will seldom see a mature doe make.

We've often heard that herd dynamics are very localized and location specific. I would change this a bit and say even "spot" specific, such as the 150-yard radius around a specific "spot" that has had a high number of deer killed over the past few seasons. The deer, PARTICULARLY THE FEMALE DEER, learn to avoid these spots! As hunters, we can often have a total shift in our observations simply by being a little more mobile, and not hunting so much in our former favorite "spots" (assuming there have been several deer killed from those spots over the prior few years).

My take is the bumper acorn crop had a "multiplier" effect on the deer avoiding those more heavily hunted "spots" of the prior and current year.

Mike, let me ask you something:
Did not you somewhat experience this yourself this past season? Some of your great "spots" were yielding few deer sightings, but what happened when you relocated?

Another thing: I've noticed several otherwise experienced hunters make a big mistake regarding trail cams. They get a pic of a large antlered buck from a specific "spot". Then they're "disturbing" that spot even more, such as checking the cam, putting out more "attractants", etc. And to top it off, they then hunt the same stand over-looking that spot many times more frequently than they would have, had they not got a pic of that large antlered buck from that spot.

Unfortunately, in many cases they are making that spot among the least likely places to kill that particular buck because of their over-hunting and over-disturbing that spot. Even more amusing, although likely unbeknown to that particular hunter, many other hunters have also got pics of that same buck, often miles away, and each of them are making the same mistakes, hunting the same buck, just sabotaging different spots. I can laugh at some of these antics, as I'm also laughing at myself, having made this same mistake many times in the past. As a hunting tool, use trail cam pics more to help you in your decisions regarding what to pass up, and less regarding the specific spot to hunt.

 

[Mike Belt]

Don't remind me Wes. I saw fewer deer this past season than in the previous several years. My "spots" were simply devoid of deer but my spots also were comprised of several hundred acres. Also none were hunted 2 days consecutively and none were hunted over 3 times from the beginning of the season. The deer just weren't there and several other hunters "favorite" areas were the same. Towards the end of the season I began branching out and discovered a couple of areas where there were deer. Ironically, these areas had been hunted hard all season and received much more pressure than where I had been hunting. Go figure...? I agree with the camera idea. Mine were run sparingly and still no deer. I seldom let a camera dictate stand location but they for sure may influence what I hunt.

No matter how much rationalizing we do, sometimes there just seems to be no explanation. I'm still scratching my head.

 

[BSK]

No matter how much rationalizing we do, sometimes there just seems to be no explanation. I'm still scratching my head.

Get used to it. Every time I think I have deer figured out, I'll have a truly strange year. The data just doesn't (and may never) make sense. I know in my head it's just a statistical anomaly--an outlier. However, it's darn hard to let those anomalies go. You ponder and fret over them forever. The human mind doesn't like unanswered questions or the unknown.

 

[BSK]

Much of the talk of hunter perceived deer population decline centers around does being pressured and learning how to avoid the hunter. I would have to agree with that to a point. In the past, pressured bucks learned to do the same. Consequently, hunters would usually see more does than bucks while hunting. Once hunters began targeting does they became elusive as well. Now it's not uncommon to see more bucks than does on any given hunt. Bucks are still hunted and yet sometimes more visible than the does. I'd venture to guess that far more does are passed than bucks; bucks still being the primary target. On good acorn years both sexes may be harder to see netting the same results. Still more bucks may be seen even though these "hidden" food sources apply to both sexes. Is it because doe groups have been splintered into smaller groupings? Is it because hunter restraint on bucks has increased their numbers? Is it because there are in fact, fewer does in the population? Is the deer population really on the decline?

Mike,

I know it's not what you want to hear, but I tend to be very leery of hunter observation data. Far too often I've found it to be fairly meaningless when compared to more robust data sets such as trail-camera data. Hunters only "observe" during daylight hours; hunters are observing animals that do not want to be seen (and see hunters as their greatest threat--which is true); and hunters only observe for a limited number of hours during a limited number of months per year. Trail-cameras run 24 hours per day, and often their is nothing beyond an inert box strapped to a tree to warn deer away from being photographed.

Even when using statistical "smoothing" techniques that factor in the limited number of hours hunters observe per year, true trends in population data from hunter observations often display completely opposite data than what is actually occurring. For instance, hunter observed adult sex ratios may be trending in one direction while the actual sex ratio is trending in the other. Or hunter observation rates (deer seen per hunting hour) decline while actual deer population increases. I see this type of thing ALL THE TIME.

I understand that our deer kill stats have basically remained the same which points to no decrease in the population. Something that TWRA doesn't monitor in those numbers is man hours spent to take those deer and I don't suppose there's any feasible way to do that. It would seem to me that if the kill numbers remain the same but if it was taking more man hours to produce those numbers then something is amiss somewhere. Thoughts?

Over a very wide area (an entire region), declining harvests per hunting hour (results per effort) could indicate a declining deer population. It could also indicate changing hunter attitudes/desires.

 

[redblood]

I don't think I ever had a deer figured out. I don't think they have themselves figured out

 

[Mike Belt]

BSK...I understand hunter observation can be misleading. I post on here asking questions on things that I know have no definitive answers but it can be interesting/entertaining/comical to see what falls when you shake the tree. Sometimes I even learn a thing or two. I'm always looking for something just outside the box. Maybe that's why I missed seeing my deer, lol.

 

[WRbowhunter]

Its going to be interesting to see how this upcoming year shakes out. I'm with you in that I saw less deer this year. Seems everyone either had a below average year in deer sightings or the best year. My bet is the acorn crop had the most to do with deer sightings and we will rebound with a better year this year. Mike, I thought that Ames had members keep track of deer sightings. do they provide the results to the members. Would be interesting to know if the overall sightings were down for everyone.

 

[TX300mag]

When the place I hunt most often opened antlerless tags in Nov, I bought 10 total (didn't use them all). Around that same time, a neighbor began doing the same-I believe killing as many as 20 does (the group) in one year. In 2009 we went to Unit L and does were the primary target. Now I regularly see more bucks than does.

Looking back over 2013 notes, I went almost 30 hours straight without a deer sighting on five different properties in four different counties. This was during fairly good weather during MZ (second week). Had I based my conclusions on my observations I might have been worried, but I'm sure during that same period someone was having a very positive experience. Like a switch was flipped, things went back to normal. I don't even try to explain why.

 

[fairchaser]

Its going to be interesting to see how this upcoming year shakes out. I'm with you in that I saw less deer this year. Seems everyone either had a below average year in deer sightings or the best year. My bet is the acorn crop had the most to do with deer sightings and we will rebound with a better year this year. Mike, I thought that Ames had members keep track of deer sightings. do they provide the results to the members. Would be interesting to know if the overall sightings were down for everyone.

Still waiting for the management at Ames to publish the individual results but I believe the overall club results were about average regarding hours per kill and sightings.

 

[megalomaniac]

It's not just time on stand that produces kills, it's quality time on stand that kills deer. Let them go unpressured during unproductive times and then walk in right before the rut and you can slaughter them if you desire. It seems counterproductive, but you can kill far MORE deer (does, little bucks, mature bucks) by leaving your hunting grounds alone until they are most vulnerable, then walk right in and limit out in just a few minutes each day for 3 days in a row.

 

[BSK]

It's not just time on stand that produces kills, it's quality time on stand that kills deer. Let them go unpressured during unproductive times and then walk in right before the rut and you can slaughter them if you desire. It seems counterproductive, but you can kill far MORE deer (does, little bucks, mature bucks) by leaving your hunting grounds alone until they are most vulnerable, then walk right in and limit out in just a few minutes each day for 3 days in a row.

Ding, Ding, Ding! We have a winner!!!

Well said mega, especially the first sentence. "Quality time" is the key.

 

[beefydeer]

Most people cant pick and choose when they hunt. They have to go when work and life allows.

 

[landman]

No matter how much rationalizing we do, sometimes there just seems to be no explanation. I'm still scratching my head.

Get used to it. Every time I think I have deer figured out, I'll have a truly strange year. The data just doesn't (and may never) make sense. I know in my head it's just a statistical anomaly--an outlier. However, it's darn hard to let those anomalies go. You ponder and fret over them forever. The human mind doesn't like unanswered questions or the unknown.

BSK I'm thinking camera's are saving many more deer than they are killing myself, I only run one during rut on the primary hunting place and its 700 acres
I think the camera checking pressure is as just as bad a early bow season pressure on places

 

[TheLBLman]

BSK I'm thinking camera's are saving many more deer than they are killing myself, I only run one during rut on the primary hunting place and its 700 acres
I think the camera checking pressure is as just as bad a early bow season pressure on places

I think time of day checked, cam location, "how" you check, and how often checked has everything to do with whether there's much pressure from checking cams.

But I do think cams save a lot of bucks in two ways:

1) Getting pics of better bucks motivates hunters to pass up bucks they might otherwise shoot.

2) Many hunters start hunting in a bad spot to kill a particular buck for no other reason than a cam got that buck's pic near that spot. Even worse, they often tend to overhunt those spots, typically almost guaranteeing they will not kill that particular buck. Many hunters can only appreciate what I'm talking about after seeing a particular buck's pics come off several cams miles apart, and have made the same mistakes of hunting more where one of them got his pic rather than choosing the best spots to hunt in the much broader general area, an area that may encompass over a thousand acres.

 

[BSK]

BSK I'm thinking camera's are saving many more deer than they are killing myself, I only run one during rut on the primary hunting place and its 700 acres
I think the camera checking pressure is as just as bad a early bow season pressure on places

I think time of day checked, cam location, "how" you check, and how often checked has everything to do with whether there's much pressure from checking cams.

But I do think cams save a lot of bucks in two ways:

1) Getting pics of better bucks motivates hunters to pass up bucks they might otherwise shoot.

2) Many hunters start hunting in a bad spot to kill a particular buck for no other reason than a cam got that buck's pic near that spot. Even worse, they often tend to overhunt those spots, typically almost guaranteeing they will not kill that particular buck. Many hunters can only appreciate what I'm talking about after seeing a particular buck's pics come off several cams miles apart, and have made the same mistakes of hunting more where one of them got his pic rather than choosing the best spots to hunt in the much broader general area, an area that may encompass over a thousand acres.

I agree with both of you. Checking cams the wrong way can definitely pressure bucks. And I think Wes' two points are dead on the money.