# Our young bucks are growing too many points!



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

I witnessed something this year while hunting in our co-op in the NE Lower, that I've never witnessed before. Strangely, I *never* saw a spike horn buck (or 3 point) the whole hunting season! I saw a few forks, fives, sixes and a couple nice sevens and eight pointers, but not a single spike, *not one!*

I really do think I know why, and it's a combo of things.

1) The deer numbers are lower than at anytime I can remember. 

2) Many *fewer* late born fawns because of the lower deer densities. (I think this is probably the #1 reason)

3) Tons more natural browse available because of the lower numbers.

4) Food plots galore; with many more acres on the way.

I'm sure there are other variable, but these are the most noticable.  

The down side to this is; we're now shooting yearling 5 and 6 pointers because they meet the voluntary minimum AR. :sad: 

I definately think its time to start stressing a voluntary minimum antler spread rule.


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

Letmgro said:


> The down side to this is; we're now shooting yearling 5 and 6 pointers because they meet the voluntary minimum AR. :sad:
> 
> I definately think its time to start stressing a voluntary minimum antler spread rule.


It sounds like progress is being made. Enjoy the progress before getting into another death match (over the minimum antler spread).:lol:


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Lower deer numbers and more browse and the deer are getting healthier. Sounds like your management plan is working. 

You may have to recommend that at least some of the properties in the co-op voluntarily raise their standards.


----------



## U.P.Hunter (Oct 29, 2004)

See that's the problem. all these QDM groups out there keep wanting more and more. In my opinion it is ruining hunting. You can not eat the antlers!!! Some of us are out there for the sport of hunting and harvest deer to feed our families. Then all these "Rack Hunting" organizations are pushing for an all UP antler restriction. So all of us that want to go out and enjoy the sport as it was meant to be, are being FORCED to abide by these stupid rules. And if that isn't bad enough now you complain because bigger rack bucks are too young yet.

Some areas just won't grow big racks do to lack of minerals. Where I hunt you see more 4 and 5 points then anything else. I shot a 5 point that was 4 years old. If you see a 6 or an 8 your lucky. Why wouldn't you want to get the little bucks out of the gene pool and let them BIG healthy bucks do the breading ? Whats next ? Maybe don't shoot a buck unless it is a 10 or 12 point? I am not here looking for a big argument or nothing, but I just can't bite my tongue any longer. As far as I am concerned QDM is ruining hunting for those of us that are not trophy hunters. Why go out hunting if you have to sit and wait for a monster to walk out? Why not do away with Doe permits for a few years? Then you have a chance of getting more bucks by the Doe's having a chance at giving birth to a buck instead of getting shot.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

I was going to jump in and ask "what does antler spread have to do with the overall health of the herd, which is supposedly the mission of QDM?", but I see that UP Hunter beat me to it..... :help: First AR's, now AS's????? To quote a classic movie line, "looks like I picked the wrong time to quit drinkin" :evil:


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

just ducky said:


> I was going to jump in and ask "what does antler spread have to do with the overall health of the herd, which is supposedly the mission of QDM?", but I see that UP Hunter beat me to it..... :help: First AR's, now AS's????? To quote a classic movie line, "looks like I picked the wrong time to quit drinkin" :evil:


just ducky, you must remember that Antler restrictions (A/R's) are the easiest way to protect young bucks but it is not the best. Infact, many who practice QDM do not like A/R's but resign themselves to the fact that they are the easist and most accepted way to protect young bucks. But Antler Spread is a better way to protect youngsters. 

With good habitat it is quite easy to youngsters with 8 points. However, bucks typically do not get an inside antler spread beyond their ears until later in life so spreads typically do protect more bucks from yearlings up through 2.5. So while it is not really a progressive measure to implement a spread, it is a good idea in a voluntary cooperative such as the one Letmgro belongs too that is seeing good results.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

U.P.Hunter said:


> And if that isn't bad enough now you complain because bigger rack bucks are too young yet.
> 
> Some areas just won't grow big racks do to lack of minerals. Where I hunt you see more 4 and 5 points then anything else. I shot a 5 point that was 4 years old. If you see a 6 or an 8 your lucky. Why wouldn't you want to get the little bucks out of the gene pool and let them BIG healthy bucks do the breading ? .


Actually I'm not complaining, I'm making an observation, and it's the other way around; our young bucks are growing bigger racks. 

Our 3000 acre co-op is in the middle of the "big woods", with poor soil, yet our yearlings are producing healthy rack growth. Also, we've pretty much wiped out that myth regarding genetics in a free ranging deer herd. Our young bucks are healthy, and given the chance to age, most all produce adaquate rack sizes.

On more than one occasion; I've overheard "oldtimers" refer to our herd as "stunted", or having "bad genetics". Now look at our herd! 

10-15 years ago 1.5yo spikes made up half the harvest " my neighbor has a really good record of harvest data back then", and today we hardly produce a spike at all!

You'll never see landowners within our co-op ever going back to traditional deer management practices, and as for being "trophy hunters" pure bologna!

Lastly, the "big ones" are doing the breeding, just because there's more of them to accomplish the task now than ever before!

QDM Rules!


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

U.P.Hunter said:


> See that's the problem. all these QDM groups out there keep wanting more and more. In my opinion it is ruining hunting. You can not eat the antlers!!!


How do QDM groups keep wanting more and more? I do believe these gentlemen are discussing the "Operating Agreement" of a private co-op. Plus, QDM advocates letting the little guys go...even the ones with head gear.

Also, how do you know you can't eat the antlers? Have you tried boiling them? If not, try it and let me know how it goes. 



U.P.Hunter said:


> Some of us are out there for the sport of hunting and harvest deer to feed our families. Then all these "Rack Hunting" organizations are pushing for an all UP antler restriction. So all of us that want to go out and enjoy the sport as it was meant to be, are being FORCED to abide by these stupid rules. And if that isn't bad enough now you complain because bigger rack bucks are too young yet.


So if your simply shooting deer to feed your family, why can't you harvest a doe? Show me in any QDM literature where large racked bucks is the objective of QDM. QDM wants to protect the little guys...even the ones with the promiseing headgear. A young buck with 8 points is still a young buck and QDM promotes the passing of young bucks....very simple. 

As habitat is improved or the herd has been reduced to within the carrying capacity of the herd the instance of passing on young bucks with racks will become necessary in a more frequent manner. This is not additional "stupid rules", but the price one pays for progress. The reason young bucks do not sport headgear in Michigan is mainly due to lack of habitat and the slaughter of the young bucks. 




U.P.Hunter said:


> Some areas just won't grow big racks do to lack of minerals. Where I hunt you see more 4 and 5 points then anything else. I shot a 5 point that was 4 years old. If you see a 6 or an 8 your lucky.


Bucks with good habitat will get the minerals they need from their diet provided they have good habitat. So the habitat needs to be improved or the herd needs to be brought into the carrying capacity of the land. I prefer improveing the habitat as seeing deer is definately more rewarding than not.



U.P.Hunter said:


> Why wouldn't you want to get the little bucks out of the gene pool and let them BIG healthy bucks do the breading ?


"Little Racked Bucks" are usually a matter of poor nutrition. Michigan has one of the most genetically sound deer herds in the nation. We need to improve the habitat. If we do not then the herd will remain subpar.



U.P.Hunter said:


> Whats next ? Maybe don't shoot a buck unless it is a 10 or 12 point? I am not here looking for a big argument or nothing, but I just can't bite my tongue any longer.


Why are you so hung up on antler points? Just focus on improveing the nutrition of the deer herd and the age of the bucks and the antlers will follow. A relatively balanced sex ratio doesn't hurt either.



U.P.Hunter said:


> As far as I am concerned QDM is ruining hunting for those of us that are not trophy hunters. Why go out hunting if you have to sit and wait for a monster to walk out?


Because their is more to hunting than the kill for some of us. I have found the sheds to a large fellow while scouting a couple years ago. I have hunted him for 1 archery season, 2 gun seasons and two muzzleloading seasons. I know nobody took him because he tore up a mock scrape I put in his area plus I am the only hunter in his area. I personally feel he is taunting me. There isn't much more challengeing in the deer hunting realm than taking a mature Whitetail Buck. 


U.P.Hunter said:


> Why not do away with Doe permits for a few years?


This may make sense for some areas but would be a recipe for an unhealthy herd for most of the state as the habitat cannot support deer in huge numbers in a healthy manner in many areas.  This poor habitat causes "German Shepard" Syndrome. You know, the ritual where the guys in camp harass another hunter for harvesting a German Shepard...not a deer. 



U.P.Hunter said:


> Then you have a chance of getting more bucks by the Doe's having a chance at giving birth to a buck instead of getting shot.


Actually, please look into the fawn recruitment argument. My typing it will not prove anything to you, you need to find out for yourself.

If you are truely open minded about the subject ask your questions in this thread,some of the guys who are well versed in QDM will help you. I am not a die hard QDMer, but QDM does have its merits, as I feel improveing habitat is a more politically feasible option than other methods, but to each is own. Hopefully you will get answers that will help you in your endeavors.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"2) Many fewer late born fawns because of the lower deer densities. (I think this is probably the #1 reason)"

High deer densities are not the primary cause of late breeding and late born fawns. In order for that to happen there would have to be a B/ D ratio worse than 1;10 . In fact , late born fawns are usually a sign of a very healthy herd beause the are produced by fawns that are bred in their first year after the adult doe are bred.

In PA the counties with the highest densities have fawn breeding rates of 50%. In the northern tier counties where the densities are much lowe and close to their goals , the breeding rate for fawns is only 10%. The better habitat and longer growing seasons in the southern tier ,allows more fawns to reach 80 lbs. so the have their first estrus and can be bred.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Well said Bwana.

I am NOT a fan of antler point restrictions. But, it has helped our co-op put more bucks into the older age classes. 

My argument is just as much against them, as it is for them. They work, but my point is, there's a better system using antler spread, and I think it's time to start educating the hunter regarding this method.

We would have never got the results (or support) from the landowners, if it weren't for APR's. 

Deer management isn't, and should never be a one-size-fits-all program. I think this is where QDM excels over TDM.


----------



## U.P.Hunter (Oct 29, 2004)

Well ok I can obviously see that you boys have your heads screwed on straight and actually make some sence. This is a very touchy topic for me and get high blood pressure really quick. 

First of all 


> Originally Posted by Bwana
> Also, how do you know you can't eat the antlers? Have you tried boiling them? If not, try it and let me know how it goes.


 LOL I will have to try that sometime and send you a sample :lol:.



> So if your simply shooting deer to feed your family, why can't you harvest a doe?


 Most areas up here do not allow doe permits and I don't feel I should have to spend the time and gas driving to an area that has a doe permit just so I can make sure I fill my tag.



> Show me in any QDM literature where large racked bucks is the objective of QDM.


 It does not say that nor may it be the goal but that is what it is forcing us to do is it not? Hence "Let 'Em Go Let 'Em Grow".



> Bucks with good habitat will get the minerals they need from their diet provided they have good habitat. So the habitat needs to be improved or the herd needs to be brought into the carrying capacity of the land. I prefer improveing the habitat as seeing deer is definately more rewarding than not.


 And bringing the heard into check can also be done with harvesting the smaller deer so this one does not float with me.



> "Little Racked Bucks" are usually a matter of poor nutrition. Michigan has one of the most genetically sound deer herds in the nation. We need to improve the habitat. If we do not then the herd will remain subpar.


 I agree with you here 100% but habitat has nothing to do with Antler restriction and forcing hunters to only shoot big bucks.



> Why are you so hung up on antler points? Just focus on improveing the nutrition of the deer herd and the age of the bucks and the antlers will follow. A relatively balanced sex ratio doesn't hurt either.


 I am hung up on it because The D.N.R is proposing to turn the whole UP into antler restriction area and the QDMer's are backing it. I am not a bambi killer. I also like to get a big buck. I shot a 8 point with a 22" inside spread an dressed out at 200lbs and I won't for a second say I am not more proud of that deer then all my others. But when I buy a hunting license I want to be able to fill it. Some years I let little guys go for a couple days of season. But I want the option to take a smaller buck if it gets close to the end of season. If this passes they should reduce my hunting license to half price then. 



> Because their is more to hunting than the kill for some of us.


 I agree and applaud those that go out and wait for the big one and get him or get nothing. But that is not for me. They should let it be optional then.



> I am not a die hard QDMer, but QDM does have its merits, as I feel improveing habitat is a more politically feasible option than other methods, but to each is own.


 Good to hear and I agree with feeling on the habitat. I believe this is the avenue they should be taking and not harassing hunters



> Originally Posted By Letmgro
> Actually I'm not complaining, I'm making an observation, and it's the other way around; our young bucks are growing bigger racks.


 My apologies I misunderstood and this is what sparked my fire to begin with LOL :evil:



> I am NOT a fan of antler point restrictions. But, it has helped our co-op put more bucks into the older age classes.
> 
> My argument is just as much against them, as it is for them. They work, but my point is, there's a better system using antler spread, and I think it's time to start educating the hunter regarding this method.
> 
> ...


 Also very good to hear  And this I agree with Letmgro.

Like I said, after reading your replies to my post I can see that you guys that posted are not the QDMer's that I direct my anger and frustration at. You guys actually make sense and are going about right. The ones that P*** me off are the ones that are saying "Let 'em go, Let 'em grow" and don't even know why the hell they are saying it. You guys are for the habitat and nutrition of the deer. I have changed my mind on a few very good points you have made. And I thank you for that. But I still don't want to be forced to take only what DNR tells me I can. 

And the last thing. You guys are one of the only groups I have ever talked to about this without getting in an all out arguing match. And I thank you all for that. Oh and sorry this is so long LOL.

Take care.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

U.P.H.

I previously failed to welcome you to this forum, sorry about that.

Glad to have you here!

There's no doubt in my mind; as many of the QDMers on this board are friends of mine; that they all have thier heads "screwed on right".

Discussing APR's is a touchy subject with many hunters, but it's essential, and not because they may impact you personally, but rather because they contradict with tradition.

And it's the traditional management of our resourse, that has brought us to this point. 

"Like I said, after reading your replies to my post I can see that you guys that posted are not the QDMer's that I direct my anger and frustration at. You guys actually make sense and are going about right. The ones that P*** me off are the ones that are saying "Let 'em go, Let 'em grow" and don't even know why the hell they are saying it. You guys are for the habitat and nutrition of the deer. I have changed my mind on a few very good points you have made. And I thank you for that. But I still don't want to be forced to take only what DNR tells me I can" -U.P. Hunter

Actually, we are the guys that you are directing your anger at. Sorry. *If ONLY* education was all that we needed to get hunters to stop and think about the impact of "pulling the trigger" on that young buck, then this APR thing wouldn't even be a issue.

I encourage you U.P.H to stick around in this forum, and keep an open mind in the discussion of deer management. I seem to never quit learning.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

U.P.Hunter said:


> Well ok I can obviously see that you boys have your heads screwed on straight and actually make some sence. This is a very touchy topic for me and get high blood pressure really quick.
> 
> And the last thing. You guys are one of the only groups I have ever talked to about this without getting in an all out arguing match. And I thank you all for that. Oh and sorry this is so long LOL.
> 
> Take care.


UPH,
Trust me when I say that this forum has seen its share of urine spread in anger. We try to keep a lid on the immflamatory discussions that get out of hand in here. All we ask is that the comments and give and take between members be civil and respectful. One does not have to agree with a member's opinion/data/information, in order to have a meaningful dialog.

QDM or, and more to the point, mandatory antler restrictions (MARS) is not being jammed down anybody's throat. It requires a super majority of 66% of those that vote, a combination of landowners in the area and those who have applied for antlerless permits (do I have that correct guys???). Those that vote are chosen randomly and not every hunter votes on the proposal.

Actually QDM and MARS have been intertwined by too many in the hunting community. QDM is a deer management program that entails much more than mere antler restrictions. It tends to be an all encompassing method of looking after the health and welfare of our deer herd. Whether or not an individual agrees with QDM needs to be based on education and getting to know what it's all about. Emotion and high blood pressure rhetoric only serves to muddle water that is already muddled simply because it isn't fully understood.

Before passing judgment on the value of anything new we need to find the facts, data, information, and base our acceptance or refusal on those principles rather than blind emotion.

We tend to fear what we don't understand.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"Sorry. If ONLY education was all that we needed to get hunters to stop and think about the impact of "pulling the trigger" on that young buck, then this APR thing wouldn't even be a issue."

If 1.5 spikes and Y's have the same genetic potential as a 1.5, 6 or 8 pt., just what is the negative impact of shooting young buck?

Can you cite a study that documents the negative impact of shooting young buck for the last 50 years in either PA or MI? Has it negatively impacted the genetics of either herd?


----------



## U.P.Hunter (Oct 29, 2004)

Happy Hunter said:


> If 1.5 spikes and Y's have the same genetic potential as a 1.5, 6 or 8 pt., just what is the negative impact of shooting young buck?


 Now see here it seems your goal is BIG racked bucks again and not health and numbers in the heards. I don't care what I shoot. As long as it looks like a large deer that I can get a good amount of meat off of then I am happy. 

No I don't believe that shooting young buck for the last 50 years in either PA or MI Has negatively impacted the genetics of either herd. But If I was forced to do it then it would impact my hunting enjoyment.


UPH


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

U.P.Hunter said:


> Now see here it seems your goal is BIG racked bucks again and not health and numbers in the heards.


Getting to know Happy in this forum, I believe your assesement of his comments/thoughts to be incorrect.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2005)

just ducky said:


> I was going to jump in and ask "what does antler spread have to do with the overall health of the herd, which is supposedly the mission of QDM?", but I see that UP Hunter beat me to it..... :help: First AR's, now AS's????? To quote a classic movie line, "looks like I picked the wrong time to quit drinkin" :evil:


One goal of QDM is to protect yearling bucks. If AR's are not accomplishing that goal then other methods need to be implemented (AS's).


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

U.P.Hunter said:


> Now see here it seems your goal is BIG racked bucks again and not health and numbers in the heards. I don't care what I shoot. As long as it looks like a large deer that I can get a good amount of meat off of then I am happy.
> 
> No I don't believe that shooting young buck for the last 50 years in either PA or MI Has negatively impacted the genetics of either herd. But If I was forced to do it then it would impact my hunting enjoyment.
> 
> ...



My goal is not big racked bucks and I do care aboutthe health of the herd.

My question is, has shooting 1.5 buck in the past negatively impacted the health of the herd in any way and is their any study to sipport that theory? The converse would be,is there any study that proved qunatatively that passing on small buck improved the health of the herd?


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

BuckBass said:


> One goal of QDM is to protect yearling bucks. If AR's are not accomplishing that goal then other methods need to be implemented (AS's).


I was being kind of sarcastic, but......I've said this before, so humor me. On our property, where we've never baited (and I'm talking gun season, not bow), it's hard enough to count points, but spread??? Darn near impossible. We use natural ground blinds on runways, field or opening edges, brushy clearings, etc. 99% of the deer we shoot are moving, if only just at a slow trot. And yes, I'm fairly well versed at judging spread compared with ears, etc. It's not an issue in the late summer/early fall when scouting because the deer are relaxed. But in gun season, we typically have split seconds to make a decision to shoot or not. We're fortunate enough to be in an area where the bucks grow quickly, and 6, 7, and 8 pts are common in young bucks. This past season I passed on two bucks the first morning simply because I knew there were bigger deer around. One was probably a wide 6...not real sure because I had about 2 seconds to judge him, but I waited just because. My point is, judging 3 or 4 points on a side is tough enough on moving deer during gun season, but minimum spread? On standing, relaxed deer, okay....you know, the Saturday morning TV show ranch deer. But in reality here in the Michigan gun season, unless you bait, it's just a very tough thing to do in my opinion.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2005)

I agree, it would be very difficult to estimate the exact spread of a buck-on-the-hoof. I'm all for protecting yearling bucks, but I'm just not sure how to do it easily for the average hunter. Counting points seems to me like the easiest option, but it sure scares the daylights out of some folks.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Cool graphs SG, but I thought this thread was more about a spread restriction vs. APR's, and you're letting others get you off track.

*FOCUS!*


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

Couple of good posts SG.

One thing I believe that is lost in the AR debate is the necessity to get some older bucks out there to establish that breeding hierarchy.

Given a higher percentage of older bucks in a population, and the little guys may not even exhibit rutting or chasing behavior, making them less vulnerable for harvest too. I believe Ozaga had an article in the October Woods & Water news on the subject of normal buck breeding behavior / dominance. If I recall, his comment regarding the current Michigan situation was somewhere along the line of a chaotic free for all. Ill see if I cant dig up the reference.

Of course, this has never been proven in MI (or PA?) on a wide scale, because an adequate percentage of older bucks have never existed to establish that kind of hierarchy (Ive never seen those rutting/breeding behaviors in my lifetime and hunting areas??). 

Interesting stuff to consider though.

Sorry Ferg...perhaps this should go to a new thread...

Oops...Sorry too Rob..trying to stay on track


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"But there is tons of evidence showing that an improved buck age structure has tons of positive effects on the entire herd. It's a little thing called "NATURAL SELECTION"


Natural selection can not occur when the best of the 1.5 buck are harvested before they mature. Natural selection occurs when the inferior bucks are removed by predation or are suppressed by dominant buck selected by nature . With AR man is selectively harvesting the best buck in each age class and protecting inferior buck. That is the exact opposite of natural selection.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

FOCUS Benelli!


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Yeah Rob, I know. 


One thing you can't deny, your hunting is better because you chose to do something about it instead of complaining about it.

Can I site a study stating the negative effects of harvesting 1.5 year old bucks? Probably, but if there weren't any negatives associated with it, why do bucks live longer than 1.5 yrs.? If it wasn't in the deer herd's best interest for bucks to live longer than 1.5 years, they would die right after they breed, just like a salmon. IMO:evil:


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Happy Hunter said:


> Natural selection can not occur when the best of the 1.5 buck are harvested before they mature. Natural selection occurs when the inferior bucks are removed by predation or are suppressed by dominant buck selected by nature . With AR man is selectively harvesting the best buck in each age class and protecting inferior buck. That is the exact opposite of natural selection.


How about when 70-80% of your 1.5 year olds are taken out? That* is* the exact opposite of natural selection. No one seems to worry about the consequences of that practice.
Do antler points determine which bucks are "better"? Lost me on that one.:yikes:


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

*Below you will find a copy/paste of Letmgro's initial post in this thread. I'm putting it here as a gentle reminder to stay on topic.*

_Our young bucks are growing too many points! _
_I witnessed something this year while hunting in our co-op in the NE Lower, that I've never witnessed before. Strangely, I never saw a spike horn buck (or 3 point) the whole hunting season! I saw a few forks, fives, sixes and a couple nice sevens and eight pointers, but not a single spike, not one!

I really do think I know why, and it's a combo of things.

1) The deer numbers are lower than at anytime I can remember. 

2) Many fewer late born fawns because of the lower deer densities. (I think this is probably the #1 reason)

3) Tons more natural browse available because of the lower numbers.

4) Food plots galore; with many more acres on the way.

I'm sure there are other variable, but these are the most noticable.  

The down side to this is; we're now shooting yearling 5 and 6 pointers because they meet the voluntary minimum AR. :sad: 

I definately think its time to start stressing a voluntary minimum antler spread rule. _
___________________
_


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Exactly Whit, it goes to show you that management practices have to be constantly "*tweeked*" in order to achieve you desired goal.

A one size fits all approach to deer management, isn't what's best for the herd. I wonder why MI hunters put up with this sort management year in and year out?


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

*OKAY* Letmgro, didnt see the focus message until after I previously posted, my bad :lol: 

Back to the original topic.

Larger antlered 1.5 year old bucksWhat a concept! I believe that is a good indication of overall herd health.

Another herd health indicator to consider is the percentage of doe that are lactating, or even with fawns at age 1.5. HappyHunter did indicate in a previous post that one reason for late born fawns was doe being born on time, and reaching estrous late in the first year, therefore late bred and fawning the following year.

So far, our coop only documented 1 of 4 - 1.5 y.o. doe lactating and with a fawn in tow, but I have a lot of data to wade through still.

Something other to consider than antlers, but if you have healthy yearling doe in the area that are dropping late fawns in their first year, seems to me that is another good reason to pass on the little bucks next fall just to give them a chance??


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"So far, our coop only documented 1 of 4 - 1.5 y.o. doe lactating and with a fawn in tow, but I have a lot of data to wade through still."

That is the avergae breeding rate for fawns in PA. In areas with good habitat, 50% are bred and in areas with poor habitat only 10% are bred.

Passing on 1.5 buck just to give them a chance is a personal preference and has no basis in scintific deer management.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

*EFFECTS OF ADULT SEX RATIO AND BUCK AGE STRUCTURE​*Research literature on the effects of adult sex ratio and buck age structure on deer populations is extensive. Among biologists, it is commonly accepted that both of these population factors have significant influences with regard to reproductive considerations, such as timing and duration of the breeding season.* For the deer manager,**manipulating these population characteristics through selective harvest **management is of great importance.*​​When coupled with balanced adult sex ratios, the effects of proper buck age structures also are manifested in the form of increased natural breeding behaviors.​​http://www.outdooralabama.com/hunting/game/deer/deerbook.pdf​​


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Swamp Ghost said:


> *EFFECTS OF ADULT SEX RATIO AND BUCK AGE STRUCTURE​*Research literature on the effects of adult sex ratio and buck age structure on deer populations is extensive. Among biologists, it is commonly accepted that both of these population factors have significant influences with regard to reproductive considerations, such as timing and duration of the breeding season.* For the deer manager,**manipulating these population characteristics through selective harvest **management is of great importance.*​​When coupled with balanced adult sex ratios, the effects of proper buck age structures also are manifested in the form of increased natural breeding behaviors.​​http://www.outdooralabama.com/hunting/game/deer/deerbook.pdf​​


\
That's all very nice. Now how did that effect the health of the herd? Did breeding rates increase ,did fawn recruitment increase ,were the 2,5 + bucks bigger than before/


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

> Now how did that effect the health of the herd? Did breeding rates increase ,did fawn recruitment increase ,were the 2,5 + bucks bigger than before


In our own DMU 118 fawn recruitment did increase. 

Many more does are now being harvested than the 70 average shown in the base data. This is also indicated in the doe to buck harvest ratio column, where the five-year average ratio is one doe to 1.3 bucks. Coupling this close new harvest ratio with a 50% protection of the yearling bucks has produced a one-buck to two doe ratio in DMU 118. ​​*Not only is the buck to doe ratio corrected to a more natural condition, but also there are now much fewer deer as evidenced by the new growth of plants in their habitat and yet we are harvesting more deer.* Of course this is due to the much-increased fawn productivity per doe.​​http://members.tripod.com/~mmbqdm/DMU118_5yr_analysis.pdf​


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

As impossible as it may seem, external anti-antler point restriction (APR) persons, are continuously trying to move any debate regarding deer management towards they're distain of said management tool.

This was, and hopefully still is; a discussion concerning graduating to a SPREAD restriction, from an APR, and something that usually doesn't get much discussion because it always turns into an arguement over APR's.

The harder we try to keep discussions on track, the easier it will be for the moderators to exclude those with an agenda merely to vent thier bias.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Letmgro said:


> The harder we try to keep discussions on track, the easier it will be for the moderators to exclude those with an agenda merely to vent thier bias.


That's exactly one of the points we are trying to make. This thread is now closed.


----------

