# Why I believe preserving young bucks helps the herd.



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Thank you for the complement Hunt...Right back at you buddy!

We talked about the doe harvest thing before. I don't think that all those guys that are kicking a screaming about QDM are going to follow the plan to kill a doe, if they never have before.

I told this story before. The QDMer at work still after four years can't hardly pull the trigger on a doe and he went into it VOLUNTARILY. I believe for the most part people who kill doe's now are going to be the same ones that kill them if manditory QDM is implemented. Some don't think it is sporting, some don't care that much about the venison and some just plain are not going to do it for spite. IMHO

Jamie, 

Like Hunt said most likely the number lies somewhere in between. At this point mostly speculation, I think that I have the better speculating points though 

I strongly disaggree on the target size though. The target is going to be much bigger. They are going to be the only legal bucks in some woods where guys would normally take the first buck that comes along.

Beagle


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

i would really like to know how many 4 point to a side bucks are harvested with the unrestricted first buck tag? i would have to say a fraction, not only 1.5 year olds but more mature bucks as well. the second restricted buck tag probably makes up a just a fraction of the overall buck harvest, pretty ineffective.

i have to believe these bucks are as targetted as they ever will be. just because antler restrictions make them the only "percieved" game in town, does not make them easier to harvest, nor should it constitute them suffering "percieved" overharvest without it actually occurring.


the harvest numbers have remained and will remain constant. without age, many bucks cannot reach the required restrictions, under current quidelines the person who shoots the first immature buck to come along denies it's chance to mature. this does not mean during the first year of qdm that a 4 point to a side buck will take it's place on the buck pole, after a few seasons of restrictions that may be the case,but again there will be protected immature bucks that replentish the more mature resource for years to come, not to mention the hunter wary mature bucks who make it through season after season, drastically increasing the age structure in this state in a very short time.


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Hey Jamie,

"i would have to say a fraction, not only 1.5 year olds but more mature bucks as well. the second restricted buck tag probably makes up a just a fraction of the overall buck harvest, pretty ineffective." Jamie7117

I get to say my absolute favorite phrase, " Without data you are just another opinion." No disrespect intended, but its a fact. There is very little actual data. The DNR uses their analytical models to make deer kill numbers. 

This whole idea of QDM might be easier to swallow if more people believed the DNR's numbers. I think it is very important to know the actual numbers. Without all that information to compare to how do you ever know if you made any progress. You will have the QDMer's "percieving" an improvement and the Anti's "percieving" that it has made no difference.

I have heard the claim that the second licence has been real ineffective. With the combo licence how does anyone know? If there is some data, could someone point me to it? I hear rumors of DNR survey's. In my short 18 years of hunting I never have recieved a survey, nor has anyone that I know ever gotten one.

My perception is that the 4 pt on one side has been somewhat successful. I killed a four point with my bow. During gun season I had to pass on a 5 and a 7. That has never happened to me before. 

I was wondering, DMU 107 is in its third year of manditory QDM?

You guy's should be parading all the converts with their testimonials about how they were totally against QDM and now they really see the results. I am being serious here. I would really like to here from some of those people. The only thing that I have heard is a "Letter to the Editor" of the local paper from a guy from that area that basically said he was not real happy with it.

Also would be interested in seeing all the data for that DMU as well. 

Thanks,

Beagle


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

" Without data you are just another opinion." No disrespect intended", Beagle

Back at ya! 


i would be willing to bet the number of harvested bucks that meet the proposed antler restriction proposals has remained constant for years. i just do not see how a harvest of a particular age class buck or antler characteristic can be increased without first increasing their presence. population dispersal, differing hunting pressures, food sources, available habitat, etc. all play a role in the harvest of these bucks not just regulations and "percieved" existence.


but i agree, i would love to see the numbers. but a guess is a guess , be it the dnr or joe hunter.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Beagle, if a hunter ("QDMer at work still after four years can't hardly pull the trigger on a doe") is not aggressively harvesting does in a high deer density area, he or she is not a QDMer.


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Sorry, I did not mean to mislead anyone there. I think that they do harvest close to their target number of doe's. I think he said that they harvested 12 in the square mile and their target was 15. I think that they probably are true QDMer's.

He does pull the trigger, but it is difficult. Those are his words. Prior to four years ago he claims they killed all bucks and not a single doe and they got bored with that. He also tells me that there are ~80 deer in his square mile.

I can't claim it to be fact, but I wonder if the real bad ratio there isn't because of not killing doe's for so long. I asked Neal if he harvested doe's on his property before starting QDM for years ago, but he did not own the property before that. I wonder how prevalent that scenerio is?

I have been watching for sometime the area by my house. I live next to the Vassar State Game Area. I am spending a lot of time in the woods now because I am training a beagle pup. The deer that I regularly see now are an 8 pt. I can't age it, but definitely not a 1 1/2, a fork that I would say is a 1 1/2, a button, a yearling doe and 3 mature does. I pretty regularly get to most of a whole square mile.

Where I am going with this is I can't help to wonder if QDM is being practiced right where in needs to be. But in the area's like the VSGA where there are high hunter densities and lower deer densities maybe an approach of sustaining the herd would be better. For the record, I don't think that the current format is doing the best job at that. 

From what I can tell, I don't think it would be good to harvest more doe's here. Although in the areas with lower hunter densities (like my co-worker), higher deer density and practicing QDM, you need to kill more doe's so the population doesn't get too big and get a more balanced herd.

Through all my babbling, my point is that with the difference in deer and hunter densities in the Thumb, a one size fits all approach may not be best. 

Beagle


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Couple things. 

I just get confused when QDMers say we are presently killing off the 1.5 years old, and in another breath the say all the 1.5 years are running around breeding because there are not enough dominant bucks. What is it, do we have alot of 1.5 year olds breeding or are they dead?

It just seems to me that if they wanted the best genes pased on by the dominant bucks, they shoudn't be preaching about killing the bigger bucks. Soemtimes you QDMers talk like if we implemented this radical 8 point rule(state land) that the woods will be filled with bucks or all size and we could never over harvest all dominant bucks. Got news for ya, ever been up here on state land during the opener, if that many hunters are looking for 8 point or better(meaning they have to pass on anyhting lower) they will kill this age class just like they kill the 1.5 year old class. Then who is left to do the breeding? Problem is, the success ratio will fall, less interested hunters, less hunters.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

BeerandNuts,
"I just get confused when QDMers say we are presently killing off the 1.5 years old, and in another breath the say all the 1.5 years are running around breeding because there are not enough dominant bucks. What is it, do we have alot of 1.5 year olds breeding or are they dead?"

It was either Urbain or Ozoga that determined 50% of the total breeding in Michigan was completed by Nov. 15th.

It was also the determination of the DNR that 80% of this years 1.5 year old bucks will get harvested. The majority of these being harvested in firearm season.

I do believe many 1.5 yr old bucks breed, I see many 1.5 yr old bucks chasin does every year.

I keep reading a ton of people advocating protecting the mature bucks as an alternative to QDM.

When dealing with whitetail preservation, we all need to remember the average lifespan of a whitetail is 2 years, and less than 2% will make it to 5 years. 
(I can source, but give me time to locate these figures in my personal text if you need me to. I find these #'s to be totally believeable when you account for high fawn mortality rates combined with a massive 1.5 yearold harvest).

Anyway, when you are dealing with an animal that has already beaten the odds by surviving to 2.5, any attempt at preserving him for another 2.5 years is probobly not going to work.

What I mean is, if you want to change the age and sex ratio of a population of animals that only survive a few years, you need to work with the youngest of the population.

If the average age of a whitetail was 15 years, the idea of protecting older animals would work.

But deer only live a few years, and protecting 2.5 year olds doesn't make much sense to me.

What will happen is that the natural death rate of protected animals will exceed the "new" protected buck entry rate in only a couple years. There will not be enough "new" bucks entering to make up for the ones dieing of natural causes.

And also, with the current harvest of 80% 1.5 yr old bucks, you are only going to get a small percentage of new "protected" bucks every year. Even at 20% entry rate, you are still talking about many years of antler restrictions to get the sex ratio equalized....and that is assuming every one of your protected bucks survive during this time of equalization.

It is hard to convey on this message board. I sat down with some lifespan graphs vs. population numbers and current sex ratios as published by the DNR (4:1 after harvest).
I really wanted to see if this idea could work. I reached the point of diminishing returns at approximately 2.5 years. And we maintained about a 30% increase of protected bucks until it stabilized with deaths equalling new entries.

I wish I could do better for you.

Not trying to dissuade you from your beliefs BeerandNuts, just expanding on your points.

At least we are all talkin deer during the off season!

Hunt


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Well that means 50% of does are breed after Nov. 15th and by who?? Going back to my original question. 

I also here alot of QDM poeple say does are being breed by 1.5 year olds, yup I believe that, BUT how many? Do we have any stats on that? Seems hard to believe how in the world we could ever come up with that, as most breeding takes place well after dark???

I think very few spikes/four points are the ones being the primary breeders especially before the 15th. I don't by the argument that 1.5 years olds are the ones runnig around doing the breeding. I think alot of hunters under-estimate how many large bucks survive every year and actually how many older bucks there actually are, I'm just saying this around my part of the state, just from what I see. Majority of hunter won't step 100 yards past their vehicle/roads and hunt, few venture into the deeper parts of the woods, and those that do most often see or shoot a nice buck and have stories of "a couple more in there". 
These big bucks come out at night and venture miles and miles in their breeding search. How many times have you heard hunters talking about big rubs, scrapes all over and never see or hear of a large buck being taken in the area for the entire hunting season?

Just yesterday I saw a very nice racked buck on a large section of fairly heavy hunted state land. I'm sure he did a fair share of the breeding.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

You might be right B&N.

I hate to say it again, but the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

If 80% of the 1.5 year olds DO get harvested, and another 5% die of other causes, there are only 15% that will make it to 2.5.

I think it may be safe to say that less than 20% of the buck population before harvest are mature bucks (2.5 or better).

That leaves 80% of the total breeding buck population at 1.5 years old.

And when you add in the 4 does for every buck....wow, the opportunities for these little guys to breed are enormous.

Nobody knows for certain how many 1.5 year olds breed in this state. 
In southern Michigan, I bet 1.5 year olds do far less breeding then they do in Gladwin.
I think the numbers will vary in every sq. mile we may check.

Huntnut


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

they all do their share of the breeding in this state. there is no such thing as a pecking order or hierarchy in the buck herd. it is a breeding free for all. you have very few mature bucks in a vast area. the 1.5 year old bucks make the majority of the buck herd and take advantage of the situation. with a more mature herd structure you will have more mature bucks to fill these areas that are normally patrolled by just a few mature bucks. these mature bucks will have more of an ability to patrol and control the breeding in his reduced range, suppressing the immature bucks from doing his job, also increasing the competition for breeding rights and range.


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Hi Hunt, Jamie, B&NHope you all had a good weekend.

It was also the determination of the DNR that 80% of this years 1.5 year old bucks will get harvested. The majority of these being harvested in firearm season.  Huntnut

I just have a hard time basing any decisions on numbers generated by the DNR, especially in the Thumb. It would sure be nice to have a mandatory check in of every deer to actually have the data before we move forward. You could in effect deputize meat cutters, buck polesetc to complete the check-in. Make it easy. A form where you fill in the dots so it can be read by a scanner and have the data easily analyzed. I can see it now, a map of Michigan with actual kill numbers in various locations (smaller DMUs than now). Top that off with studies of actual hunter and deer densities. OH, OH I just woke up from my dream. 

I am an engineer and we use analytical models to get to a starting point, in effect getting us closer to the real result than a guess. Dont get me wrong, analytical models can be very accurate once they have been tweaked in with mounds of empirical data. DATA, DATA, DATA I used this on Jamie the other day. My favorite saying, Without data you are just another opinion. I will say it before anyone else. I know I am just another opinion too. As far as I know mandatory check in is not part of the proposal in the Thumb. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

I read a paper by Ed Spinazzola. In it he says, The deer population is a dynamic one and it takes constant observation with never ending fine tuning to keep it at a high level of productivity. Record keeping helps you make informed decisions. 

If you are going to do it, you might as well do it right. I am not saying that I think mandatory QDM is right for the Thumb. It seems that other than protecting a portion of the 1 ½ olds. The proposal is a far cry from Mr. Spinazzolas explanation of QDM.

http://members.tripod.com/~mmbqdm Click on Links then Click on An Explanation of Quality deer management

When dealing with whitetail preservation, we all need to remember the average lifespan of a whitetail is 2 years, and less than 2% will make it to 5 years. Huntnut

You cant use that in this argument because it factors in hunting. These bucks would be protected thus hunting is out of the equation. 

Anyway, when you are dealing with an animal that has already beaten the odds by surviving to 2.5, any attempt at preserving him for another 2.5 years is probobly not going to work. Huntnut

HuhPlease explain. What predators other than man do these deer have? We have little to no winter kill here in the Thumb. If the some of the big guys were protected for breeding in each area, seems like that would be a good thing. If they are sickly and die you probably did not want them breeding anyway.

Mr. Spinazzola says, A healthy deer is one that has access to nourishing food year long (not necessarily exclusive to but preferably living plants) water, plenty of cover and space (also known as social pressure). Healthy deer are productive deer which means a consistent and large fawn crop. Getting the deer population in line with the area does not necessarily mean having it at the maximum sustained yield (62.5% of the maximum carrying capacity). Many managers refer to it as the cultural carrying capacity, and this means you are addressing the local conditions such as agricultural practices, automobile traffic density, population centers etc.

No mention anywhere of balanced sex ratio. The only argument I have heard for that is the Mother Nature knows best argument. If we protect the big guys as breeders, seems to me that would be better than having them as the only legal targets in the woods

Best Regards, Beagle


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Howdy Beagle!

Did you get any bunnies this weekend? I did nothing but harvest dust bunnies around the house this weekend! 

A couple points here on your thoughts.

1- It is my belief that this state will never gather enough data to satisfy sportsmen in this state.

2- It is also my belief that any data they do publish will be discredited immediately by sportsmen.

3- This state will never supply the resources needed to both obtain all the data, and also convince sportsmen its valid.

4- And to do this year after year because the herd is so dynamic.

5- I believe we will never get satisfactory hard data.

6- Traditional harvest is being conducted without the "coveted" data now.

7- Everyone who demands valid data to support qdm, must be satisfied with todays valid data that supports todays management process.

So what now?

Ok, for the second part of you question.

Every whitetail herd NEEDS to be hunted by something. Some predator to keep the herd within carrying capacity.
Without hunters, the primary predator would be winter and disease. Anyway...thats niether here nor there.

What my point is, that even without hunting them, how many of the protected bucks will achieve age 6?

Not 100% of them.

What is your guess? Add in breeding (fight) deaths/maiming, deer car collisions, disease, poaching, winter die off, natural old age ailments, etc....

My guess, might be 20% will survive to be 6 years old. (i will research the George preserve herd figures)

Either way, it will take much longer than 6 years to:

1: balance the doe to buck ratio.

2: It will take longer then the QDM plan to acieve balance.

3. And with so few new bucks entering the "protected" slot (especially in northern areas where many 2.5 year olds will not sport 8 points, and go thru 2 harvest seasons) you will never achieve balance because of natural die off of old age.

I don't think you will ever get close, as well as promoting your antler restrictions for much longer then qdm wants.

Does this reasoning of mine make any sense?

I think it holds water, but I would like to hear what is wrong with it....

Hunt


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Hunt,

No kills this weekend, but I did not really try. I am training a pup (~ 8 ½ months) and want to protect my training population near the house. Spent the weekend working with her. Talk about something that is FUN!

1- It is my belief that this state will never gather enough data to satisfy sportsmen in this state. 

2- It is also my belief that any data they do publish will be discredited immediately by sportsmen.

Me thinks that you paint with a pretty wide brush here(I heard that somewhere beforeseems like a certain wildlife biologisthum). Any data collected in a valid manner would certainly go a long way with this sportsman. Sure, there are always going to be hardcore people on both sides that dont believe anything, but you get that. This is one of the things that is a recurring theme among the people that I talk about. Lack of credible data. 

3- This state will never supply the resources needed to both obtain all the data, and also convince sportsmen its valid. Huntnut

They just have to design the data collection method. People will be lined up to be deputized to collect the data for free. Think of all the extra customers these businesses will get.

6- Traditional harvest is being conducted without the "coveted" data now. 

7- Everyone who demands valid data to support qdm, must be satisfied with todays valid data that supports todays management process. Huntnut

I will quote myself from my very first post on this site, I agree that some management needs to occur, but not QDM. I have evolved a little since then, but have not jumped the fence.

As far as data goes, we have years of data. The herd is bigger and more viable than it has been in modern history. We must be doing something right. We are just not managing to maximize antler size.

Every whitetail herd NEEDS to be hunted by something. Some predator to keep the herd within carrying capacity. Without hunters, the primary predator would be winter and disease. Anyway...thats niether here nor there.

Without hunters (human that is) we would have the wolves, bears, mountain lionsetc. that would be the hunters. Mother Nature then determines when the winter and disease needs to kick in. My point was that, at least in the Thumb, there are NO other predators. Even winter and disease are a very small factor. I cannot argue about any other area of the statesorry.

I would not even pretend to know how many deer would reach age six. But why do they need to reach age six? If a certain percentage of those deer are protected, they will be present to do the breeding until they die or are killed (by whatever means). When that happens, the next big guy that is protected steps into his place.

Either way, it will take much longer than 6 years to: 

1: balance the doe to buck ratio. 

2: Achieve what we want by protecting young bucks. 

3. And with so few new bucks entering the "protected" slot (especially in northern areas where many 2.5 year olds will not sport 8 points, and go thru 2 harvest seasons) you will never achieve balance because of natural die off of old age. Huntnut

1: You did not answer my previous question. Why doesnt Mr. Spinazzola include ratio in his definition of a healthy deer? I understand your argument, I am just not sure it is so important.
2: What is it that we want?
3: With an adequate doe harvest, how many dominant bucks do you need in any given area? Again the argument about needing balance.

Does this reasoning of mine make any sense? Absolutely notyou never make any sense

Just kiddingIt is obvious that thought goes into all your posts. I just dont always agree.

Beagle


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Beagle,
"1: You did not answer my previous question. Why doesnt Mr. Spinazzola include ratio in his definition of a healthy deer? I understand your argument, I am just not sure it is so important."

Whenever I am cruising QDMA publications, I see the term "balanced ratios" all over the place.

Ed regularly posts on that other site, We should ask him if balanced ratios are better for the deer. It is my understanding that a better ratio would help everyone involved...deer and hunters.

2."What is it that we want?"

Balanced ratios, better health, more bucks, higher hunter satisfaction.

3. "With an adequate doe harvest, how many dominant bucks do you need in any given area?"

Depends on who you talk to. 

Are we saying dominant bucks or mature bucks? There will be only one dominant guy in any area, IMO we should raise the number of mature bucks.

Check out this graph:
http://muweb.millersville.edu/~biology/bio.241/q1.deer.population.xls

Figure 1 shows the survivorship curve for deer population only considering natural mortality.(no hunting influence) 
( I have seen and cited this curve many times in my studies, though this is the only place I can find it on the web)

You will notice that out of 1000 births, only 20% will survive to 2.5 years old.

And only about 10% will survive to age 5.

These figures represent an unhunted population, and only include natural mortality.

This is why I feel that ANY management technique needs to involve the harvesting/preservation of young animals.

Hunt


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Hunt,

I understand that it is in all the publications now, but in 1996 when it appears Mr. Spinazzola wrote that article he chose not to include ratio in the definition of a healthy deer. Why has it evolved since then?

"Balanced ratios, better health, more bucks, higher hunter satisfaction." 

Other than TB what other health concerns are there? I am not even aware of a TB incedent in the Thumb.

It will take a while to digest your data. Thanks for providing it. I will let you know what I think.

Thanks, Beagle


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

When I use the term "better health", I mean-lets create a deer herd that is in the best physical shape possible.

Best body weight to survive winter.
Healthy and strong to keep immune systems effective.
Strong healthy does to nourish fawns.
Etc...

As for TB, nobody knows why it popped up in a wild deer herd.

I haven't ever used it in a "health" example....but....

Here we have an over population of deer within its carrying capacity, an out of whack ratio, and all while being regulated under current management.

I won't make the leap yet....but.....coincidence?

Who knows???? *shrug*

I won't use it as an arguement for better management.....yet. 

LOL,

Hunt


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Hunt

Just what I would expect from a QDMer. Adjust your argument as needed 

Was this a question on one of your biology tests?  

I cant argue. If this was a curve representing the population of the whitetail deer herd in the Thumb I would agree. You protect the youngest.

It seems that there would have to be several different factors in generating a curve such as this for any given area. What are those factors? BoyI cant believe the mortality rate would be that high in the Thumb. We have mild winters and tons of farmers to feed the deer.

How was the data generated to produce this curve and where? I noticed that the weight of the average 2 year old deer is only 80 lbs. Or is it all just hypothetical as stated in the question.

Beagle


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

White-tailed Deer Mortality

As deer hunters and managers, many of us have wondered what happened to young bucks that we have passed up over the years. What happens to those bucks as they grow up? Why is it that we do not see those older bucks through our scopes as often as we would like? This article will attempt to answer the first question. Perhaps only our hunting skills will explain the answer to the second.

A multi-year research project to look at the impact and importance of hunting and natural mortality factors on white-tailed bucks was initiated in 1990, conducted by Mississippi State University and Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, and led by Dr. Harry Jacobson. Over 408 deer (238 bucks) were captured using various techniques on 19 study areas across Mississippi. Bucks were fitted with radio telemetry collars and tagged with metal numbered and yellow numbered ear tags.

Collared bucks were monitored regularly using radio telemetry and locations were plotted on study area maps. Mortality sensors, a feature built into the collars that was activated when the deer stopped moving for a period of time, sent a signal to the researcher that was distinctly different from the normal locator signal. On receiving this signal, researchers immediately searched for the deer and if found determined cause of death. Necropsies (autopsies for deer) were conducted, when possible, by the MSU College of Veterinary Medicine. During the study, 185 mortalities were recorded, of which 107 (57 percent) were attributed to legal harvest (even though study area participants agreed to protect radio-collared bucks from harvest). Granted, some of the bucks left their study areas. Twelve bucks (6.5 percent) were linked to poaching, and others were suspected, but never proven to be lost to poaching. If these were added, the percentage of the mortality due to poaching would have been more than 13 percent. Wounding losses accounted for 4 percent of the mortality, harvest unknown (either legal or illegal but no way to tell which) accounted for 6.5 percent, natural mortality including disease, predation, and parasites accounted for 12.4 percent of the losses, and vehicles, capture and collar techniques, and unknown causes accounted for the remaining 13 percent.

One of the more important questions asked was whether young bucks less than 2.5 years old, if protected from harvest, would survive to older age classes and thus be available for future harvest. This study found that, if protected from harvest, more than 98 percent of 1.5 year old and more than 93 percent of 2.5 year old bucks would survive to the next hunting season.





MORTALITY AND SURVIVAL

Knowledge of age-specific, sex-specific, and temporal patterns of natural (non-hunting related) mortality in white-tailed deer are critical to understanding their population dynamics. Several studies have been completed examining natural mortality rates of deer in south Texas.

AGE-SPECIFIC MORTALITY 

Recent research (M. W. Hellickson, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, unpublished data) indicates age-specific changes in natural mortality rates for male white-tailed deer between the ages of 1.5 and 9.5 years old (Figure 1).



The study, completed on the Faith Ranch in the Western Rio Grande Plains of south Texas, involved radio-tracking 125 different-aged male white-tailed deer. Over the course of the 3-year study, 29 of the 125 males (23%) died of natural causes. Natural mortality rates were highest within the yearling age class (1.5 years old). Mortality rates then decreased through the middle age classes, increasing sharply when males reached an estimated 7.5 years old. Less is known about mortality rates of female deer. Kie and White (1985) reported that mortality rates were lowest for yearling females (13.3%) and that rates increased with each successive age class reaching highest mortality at age 9.5 years (54.7%). Fawn mortality rates are often much higher than adult mortality rates. Cook et al. (1971) reported that 72% of fawns on the Welder Wildlife Refuge died of natural causes before reaching 2 months of age. In other years on this same refuge, 66-70% of fawns died before reaching 6 months of age (Knowlton 1964, Kie and White 1985). Natural mortality rates of fawns from November-May varied from 25-67% (Sullivan et al. 1990). Combined, these studies indicate that very few fawns survive to become yearlings.

SEX-SPECIFIC MORTALITY 

It is difficult to compare sex-specific mortality rates in south Texas deer populations due to the lack of mortality research within the female segment. However, on a range-wide basis, mortality rates reported for females are almost always lower than rates for males. Kie and White (1985) suggested that increased natural mortality rates for males resulted in a skewed adult sex ratio for deer on the Welder Wildlife Refuge. They reported an average of 1 adult male per 2.57 adult females during 1961-71 despite the absence of differential removal of males by sport hunting. Annual mortality rates reported in south Texas for males have varied from 9.3% (Heffelfinger et al. 1990) to 35.7% (Kie and White 1985). DeYoung (1989) reported annual mortality rates varying from 25-29% for males in the Western Rio Grande Plains of south Texas. More recent research (C. A. DeYoung, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, unpublished data) combining telemetry data over a 10-year period, indicates a long-term average natural mortality rate of 20.8% for males in south Texas. The authors are unaware of any similar type data for the female segment of the deer population.

TEMPORAL MORTALITY 

Recent research (M. W. Hellickson, unpublished data) indicates strong seasonal trends in natural mortality rates for male white-tailed deer. Natural mortality rates were highest during January and March when 44% and 26% of mortalities occurred. Mortality rates never exceeded 7% during any other month. A combined 78% of males that died of natural causes died during the post-rut period of January-March. A second study (C. A. DeYoung, unpublished data) reported relatively high natural mortality rates during September, in addition to January-March.

CAUSES OF NATURAL MORTALITY 

Numerous studies have been completed in south Texas examining deer mortality causes. Cook et al. (1971) concluded that coyotes (Canus latrans) caused the mortality of at least 29 of the 58 fawns (50%) that died in their study. They suspected that coyotes were responsible for 17 additional fawn (29%) mortalities, while the remaining mortalities were caused by bobcats (Lynx rufus; 3%), starvation (9%), disease (7%) and accidents (2%). An experimental 2-year study on the King Ranch, examining the effects of intensive coyote removal on fawn survival (Beasom 1974) resulted in fall ratios of 0.47 and 0.82 fawns/adult female in the coyote-removal area versus ratios of only 0.12 and 0.32 fawns/adult female in the control area. Beasom (1974) estimated that the lack of an intensive predator removal program in the control area resulted in 74% and 61% higher fawn losses during 1971-72. Kie et al. (1979) conducted a similar predator removal study on the Welder Wildlife Refuge. They intensively removed coyotes from within a coyote-proof exclosure-fenced area and monitored effects of this removal on the enclosed deer population versus a control population outside the exclosure. During 1973-78, fall ratios inside the exclosure averaged 0.62 fawns/female versus 0.42 fawns/female on the control area. However, these researchers reported several detrimental aspects of the coyote removal to the enclosed deer population. They found that deer densities quickly increased within the enclosure to levels over twice as high as densities outside. Natural mortality rates increased for fawns 3-12 month old and for adult females within the exclosure. Increased mortality of adult females was attributed to the increased lactation resulting from higher survival of fawns 0-3 months old. Decreased adult female survival resulted in adult sex ratios of 0.37 males/female inside the exclosure versus 0.24 males/female outside. They also reported lowered reproductive rates after 1976, as well as decreased body mass and increased internal parasite loads. Lastly, they suggested that increased densities resulted in delayed velvet and antler shedding in males. Fawn survival is also influenced by seasonal rainfall amounts. Carroll and Brown (1977) reported fawn mortality varied from 10 to 90% during 1971-73. Highest mortality occurred in 1971 and was attributed to a severe drought that reduced fawn security cover. A more recent fawn mortality study, examining the impacts of red imported fire ants (RIFA; Allen et al. 1997) concluded that in areas with high RIFA densities, fawn survival was significantly lower than survival on areas where RIFA infestations were reduced. Natural mortality in adult males has been attributed primarily to malnutrition as a result of depleted fat reserves after the breeding season. Kidney fat, body mass, and femur marrow fat all reach their lows in males during January-March (Kie 1977). Forage production (Box 1960) and nutritional quality (Varner et al. 1977) also reach lows at this time of the year. Additional causes of mortality have been attributed to coyotes (Heffelfinger et al. 1990), mountain lions (Felis concolor; DeYoung 1989), disease (Davidson et al. 1990), and accidents. Causes of mortality in adult females are largely unknown; however, adult females are most stressed nutritionally during summer (Hellickson and DeYoung 1996) due to pregnancy and lactation.


a couple mortality studies for all to digest


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Wow....egads Jamie......thanx....I think 

Beagle,
In school, I did these types of problems for all sorts of critters.(too many times)

The entire philosophy of population dynamics is all math....ack.

As for the specifics of this graph, I have no idea. Most population mortality graphs look very very similiar for mammals in the wild.

The slope of the curve may fluctuate slightly, but the curve itself is pretty standard.

Starting with high fawn mortality, and sloping down to the oldest aged in the group.

The slope is a constant though, I have seen that model for mammals so many times I can't count 'em. 

I wish I could be more specific for you, I wish someone would publish a data oriented slope for every county in Michigan....It would help my premise even though I think they would look almost identical to the one I posted.

For now, until those studies are completed, this is the best I can do....it involves whitetails, but is not area specific.
(which is why I haven't used it much.)

But I hope it helps others see where I am coming from.

Hunt


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)




----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

This is the most interesting dialogue I have ever read on this Forum for the last two years !!!
Some were rightly asking for data, I presume they got all they wished from Jamie !!!
As if by magic, the global significance of all these data fit with everything I have ever sent about deer management on the basis of my red deer experience ! (Except the impact of coyotes ... none here, just foxes and some lynx recently re-introduced who may well become a serious problem in the years to come)
Nevertheless, from what I suppose I know ... Missisipi, Texas and Western Rio Grande are very different habitats as compared to Michigan, as well as MI "up" and "south" are also very different.
This is why, as some have already said, it is obvious to think it would be a very serious mistake to implement a similar QDM management all over MI. 

As a complement, I dare to invite those which did not do it to read and USE the thread I introduce under "Genotype / Phenotype" : To start with I first thought to introduce this post in this thread, but I thought it was better to open a separate one : I think now it was an error ! Hence this post.
Yours very friendly,
Jack.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

i realize that winter-kill should be taken in to account for the northern reaches of this vast and varied state, but in all honesty southern michigan and two-thirds of the northern lower probably have similar winter-kill numbers to mississippi and texas, an absolute non-factor in overall herd reduction. the vast majority of herd reduction is hunter related and the majority of the reduction takes aim at the 1.5 year old buck population.

look at the mortality figures for more mature portion of the herd, 
*it's not even close!*


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Beagle,

I just reread the entire thread.

You asked a question I didn't answer.

I stated: Without hunters the largest predator would be winter and disease.

You mentioned winter was not a factor in the thumb.

What I mean is this:
Removing hunters from the equation, there will be no other predators to replace them.
The population will expand exponentially until the first winter does not supply enough nutrition for this expanded herd, and a massive die off occurs. Disease will also raise it's ugly head in this malnourished herd.

Hence, winter and disease become the largest limiting factor.

Should have been clearer.....my mistake!

Hunt


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

"mortality including disease, predation, and parasites accounted for 12.4 percent of the losses" - Multi year study

"This study found that, if protected from harvest, more than 98 percent of 1.5 year old and more than 93 percent of 2.5 year old bucks would survive to the next hunting season. "

"Natural mortality rates were highest within the yearling age class (1.5 years old). Mortality rates then decreased through the middle age classes, increasing sharply when males reached an estimated 7.5 years old. "

Thanks for the supporting data Jamie...I knew that I would get someone to jump ship sooner or later. I just did not figure it would be you 

Supports exactly my point in our discussion. Remove hunting and predators from the equation and natural mortality is very low. If a deer is prone to be weak, it dies early on. You protect some of the biggest/strongest deer to be the breeders and they live for a long time and sustain the population. Throw in manditory protection of buttons and I think we have a plan.

"This is why, as some have already said, it is obvious to think it would be a very serious mistake to implement a similar QDM management all over MI." Belbriette

Belbriette, I believe you are saying that QDM needs to be area specific. This is what I believe in the Thumb of Michigan. The deer and hunter densities are so widely varied (just here in the Thumb)that the "one size fits all" approach that is being proposed seems inappropriate. If I misinterperated your post please correct me. I will most certainly read more of your other thread.

Thanks for the clarification on the winter theory Hunt. 

The shape of the curves may be simalar, but the scale and the slope would change the overall survival rate significantly. When I get some time I will play with Jamie's (thanks again Jamie) data and see how it affects your curve.

Hey Hunt...You supply the data...I will crunch the numbers...Math...ya gotta love it!

Beagle

P.S. Regardless of "which side" we are on. It is good to see the effort put forth in discussing the future of our deer herd.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

"If a deer is prone to be weak, it dies early on. ",Beagle


"In other years on this same refuge, 66-70% of fawns died before reaching 6 months of age (Knowlton 1964, Kie and White 1985). Natural mortality rates of fawns from November-May varied from 25-67% (Sullivan et al. 1990). Combined, these studies indicate that very few fawns survive to become yearlings."

"Fawn mortality rates are often much higher than adult mortality rates."


fawns and bucks are a different story


"You protect some of the biggest/strongest deer to be the breeders and they live for a long time", Beagle


these are the deer who need no protection, they suffer very little mortality and have a couple years of experience. meanwhile the inexperienced, immature portion of the buck herd is led to the slaughter. degrading the herd over time, fewer and fewer bucks surviving past age 1.5


"Mortality rates then decreased through the middle age classes"


weak deer are taken out of the equation well before hunting season, harvesting the majority of 1.5 year old bucks is all around a bad practice. mature deer have one thing immature deer don't have: experience, without it they are sitting ducks.


protect the immature, inexperienced bucks and you will increase middle age classes, increase the buck population, balance ratios, establish a breeding hierarchy, etc.


immature animals are not weak or dumb, they are inexperienced, they have survived being fawns, they are truly the best animals that years fawn crop has produced, by removing them early on in the scheme of things, you are denying them the oppurtunity to gain this crucial experience, you are denying them the chance to compete for dominance and ultimately degrading herd health. the dominate bucks of today, may not be that dominate under qdm.


a mature bucks best protection is his own experience and survival instincts, he needs nothing more. 


Beagle, your plan is flawed and removes the very thing we love: hunting


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

To Beagle : 
QDM does need to be area specific :
Even if the concept of maximum biological carrying capacity (a shame for any herd in this awful situation) is MUCH more complex than generally thought off, it seems obvious QDM specifications cannot be the same all over MI.

Generally speaking about QDM :

- From the general knowledge I acquired, here and there, about your deer, and from the one I acquired about MI in this great Forum, as I have been encouraged to do so by some of you, I will dare to give you my "diagnosis" about your deer herd problems hence about YOUR problems as deer single "managers" of this Wildlife to end with.
- I FEEL you are dangerously close to AVERAGE maximum biological carrying capacity almost everywhere, (except the "UP" ?), there are way too many spikes.
- I FEEL your sex ratio and your male structure of population by classes of age are both awry.
- I FEEL this is so for several reasons : 
- You do not take enough does.
- People are generally too much after bucks, after ANY buck : except a novice "buck fever" for his first one, there is absolutely no excuse to kill a spike in such circumstances !!!
- Your "antlerless" permit is a shame because it includes buttons bucks (I FEEL it must be rather easy to differentiate him from a female fawn, if one just takes the time to do it before shooting).
- The references to the antler characteristics you advise for the shooting of bucks opposes your goal : the few best yearlings are most likely to pay the price, and you generally have not too many...
- I FEEL it is a shame that it is not mandatory to report all deer shot with an age estimate : if you do not know what is shot it is clearly impossible to manage.
- In my opinion, you shall not reach your noble goal as long as you will abstain to promote and obtain specific tags for fawns, older male and older females, to limit your harvest impact on the sex ratio (hence also on density) and on the base of the pyramid of ages which obviously conditions what follows.
This does not oppose what I wrote above about the shame of an antlerless category : IF fawn sex is almost impossible to define, ONCE a good sex-ratio is reached, if, for each individual population, the tags are delivered 1/3 fawns, 1/3 bucks, 1/3 does, statistically, this will be in favour of a good sex ratio, and also of a good density, IF the number of tags delivered is what it should.
- To reach a good sex ratio I cannot see any otherway than to reduce seriously the number of bucks permits while increasing the does permits for the needed time ("quality" meat hunters should be able to agree with this ..., if they are sincere).
- I FEEL you will not reach a QDM goal as long as you do not DECIDE, by appropriate Educationnal means, to promote the largest AND most complete knowledge of what is at stake and why (this goes beyond this Forum to include ALL citizens - wildlife is THEIR patrimony, isn't it ?). I am convinced a vast majority of your compatriots would then gladly praise and support your action : even selfish and irresponsible hunters would just have to follow. 
If you do so (which is not an easy task, I know too much about that here ... I am struggling almost alone) the "right" majority will prevail and your deer herdS will fare much better for ever.
I remember being a passionate novice hunter : as they are very important because they represent the future, I FEEL novice hunters could deserve some indulgence for their first deer, why not a special liberal tag for them ?
Yours friendly,
 Jack.


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Hi Hunt,

I took a few minutes to lay Jamies data over your original curve. I cant figure out how to post the actual chart. Maybe someone could give me a hint. I see Jamie did it and Has. did it on another thread

Some points:

Jamies studies indicated 60-70% fawn mortality. Your data showed 54% so I left the fawn mortality the same as yours. It really is not pertinent to this discussion because the proposal in the Thumb does not include protection of fawns so really only look at 1.5-4.5 years.

I only included up to 4.5 years old because that is all that Jamies data covered. Although one conclusion of the study was that Mortality rate decreased through the middle age classes.

To generate Jamies curve I used the following from his study. Study 1 showed a 12.4 natural mortality and 13% (vehicles, capture and collar techniques, and unknown causes). Just say 25 % not hunting or predator related. Study 2 showed a 23% natural mortality. So just for this purpose I used a 25% natural mortality rate over the three year study period. With the following distribution derived from the conclusion in Study 1 that 98% of 1 ½ year olds survive and 93% of 2.5 year olds survive. The balance of the mortality would then fall in the third year. The exact distribution I used was year 1  3 % ; year 2  10 %; year 3  12% for a total of 25% mortality of a 1.5 year old class by the age of 4.5. 

The two studies are a little contradictory if the fact that Study 2 says that the highest mortality rate is at age 1 ½ and study 1 doesnt quite support that.

I will attempt to convey my results. Natural mortality rates

Hunts data: Yr 0  1000 deer; Yr 1.5- 497; Yr 2.5  333; Yr 3.5  223; Yr 4.5 - 150

Jamies data: Yr 0  1000 deer; Yr 1.5- 497; Yr 2.5  482; Yr 3.5  434; Yr 4.5 - 382

Using Jamies numbers there is quite a difference. By age 4.5, only ~30% of Hunts 1 ½ year old deer survived and ~75% of Jamies 1 ½ year old deer survived.

Do I think that this is representative of the situation in the Thumbno. My only point is that it seems dangerous to use this type of info from one study area to use in another. Especially in controlled environments such as the Texas study. Belbriette warns us of that in his Genotype / Phenotype thread. This is true in the thumb because of the very wide distribution of hunter density, deer density and habitat.

I have learned much. I need to take a break to get some work done here before I get fired. I think that I will collect all of my thoughts and start another thread to discuss.

Beagle


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

Buck Movements and Mortality

By: Bronson Strickland and Dr. Stephen Demarais 


Quality Deer Management (QDM) is an increasingly popular management strategy with today's landowners and hunters. QDM typically involves protection of young bucks coupled with an adequate harvest of antlerless deer to produce the desired herd size, age structure, and sex ratio. However, some landowners and hunters become frustrated with QDM after several seasons because they have not seen or harvested significantly older bucks than under previous management. In many cases, expectations exceed the ability of the management area to produce the desired number of older bucks. Additionally, many landowners and hunters do not understand how buck movements and mortality factors can limit the number of young bucks they are passing as yearlings from reaching the older age classes. In this article we will review how buck mortality, dispersal, and home range size may impact the success of your QDM program.


Mortality

The annual mortality rate for a deer herd is simply the percentage of the population that dies in a given year. Mortality can be attributed to hunting, poaching, predators, weather, disease, malnutrition, vehicle collisions, etc. Mortality rates vary by sex and age of deer and by season and region of the United States (Table 1). Understanding the most common sources of mortality in your area and the percentage of bucks lost to these sources will help you refine your management strategies.











Legal harvest is a significant source of mortality in most areas, and is controlled with regulations and hunter selectivity. Illegal harvest, on the other hand, is not easily controlled and has not been quantified, but is assumed to be substantial. In most of the Southeast, legal and illegal harvest account for most of the annual buck mortality.

Populations near the northern and southern boundaries of the whitetail's range have the highest reported nonhunting mortality. In these regions, up to 25 percent of all bucks may be killed annually by predators. Coyotes, wolves, and black bears have been reported predators of whitetails in the North, whereas, coyotes and mountain lions are the prominent predators in the Southwest.


The Southeast no longer has viable populations of large predators such as wolves and mountain lions that are capable of killing adult deer. Coyotes and bobcats are about the only significant predators of whitetails in the Southeast, and they mostly take fawns and adults that are sick or injured.


Most healthrelated mortality in the Southeast can be attributed to two causeshemorrhagic disease and malnutritionparasitism syndrome. Hemorrhagic disease (also known as bluetongue) viruses can kill up to 50 percent of a deer herd, although mortality rates are typically less than 15 percent. Deer populations in the South are confronted with these viruses much more frequently than their northern counterparts and have developed some immunity. Deer populations in northern latitudes may only encounter the disease every 510 years and suffer much higher mortality rates.


Malnutritionparasitism syndrome is generally associated with highdensity deer populations where the habitat has been chronically overbrowsed or where populations occur on very poor quality habitats. Nutritional stress makes deer much more vulnerable to both internal and external parasite infestations. Primary internal parasites include the large stomach worm and lungworm. Major external parasites include ticks and keds (deer lice). High deer densities can increase the transmission of these parasites to other deer. Actual mortality rates vary by parasite species and age and health of deer.

Legal and illegal hunting are usually the most important mortality factors in the Southeast. In comparison, legal hunting, weather, and predation are probably the most important in the North and Southwest. Table 1 details numerous whitetail mortality studies throughout North America.


Dispersal

Dispersal is the process of an animal moving from its point of origin to where it reproduces. Most animals exhibit some form of dispersal to ensure exchange of individuals over time. Dispersal of bucks to and from your property can significantly impact the success of your management plan.


Reported dispersal rates vary from 40 percent in Virginia to 70 percent of bucks 818 months old in Maryland. Researchers in Maryland found that the number of yearling bucks dispersing onto their property was much lower than the number of yearling bucks dispersing from their property. This resulted in an annual net loss of yearling bucks. They suspected the reason for unequal dispersal was the intense harvest pressure from neighboring properties.


Legal harvest is typically the most significant factor limiting the success of QDM programs. Research in Mississippi demonstrated that the most significant cause of buck mortality was legal harvest. Clearly, control of legal harvest is required for a successful QDM program. Properties less than several thousand acres also must rely on cooperation from neighboring hunters.


Home Range Size

Home range is simply the area that an animal travels during its normal activities and is estimated during specific time periods (e.g., breeding or annual home range). Whitetail home range size varies by sex, age, and habitat type. Home range sizes of bucks throughout the United States are listed in Table 2. The average annual home range size for females is around 300600 acres. The average annual home range for bucks is probably 24 times larger (6002400 acres), and older bucks generally have larger home ranges than younger bucks.












Management Implications

We will use some hypothetical examples to illustrate how movement and mortality factors can affect the number of bucks on your property and, thus, the success of your QDM program. Suppose you are managing a 5,000acre property with a deer density of 1 deer per 16 acres. If the adult buck to adult doe ratio is 1:2 and the annual fawn survival is 80 percent, you should have around 83 buck fawns alive at the beginning of the hunting season. Now we will evaluate the effects of natural mortality and harvest on these 83 buck fawns, and calculate how many would survive to maturity.











(Figure 1) Line 1 represents the effect that a 10 percent annual natural mortality rate would have on this group, with only 73 percent (61 of 83) surviving to 3.5 years old and 60 percent (50 of 83) surviving to 5.5 years old. Line 2 represents the effect of a 10 percent annual natural mortality rate and a 30 percent annual legal harvest. Only 25 percent (21 of 83) would survive to 3.5 years old and only 10 percent (8 of 83) would survive to 5.5 years of age with this combination. Line 3 represents the effect of a 10 percent annual natural mortality rate, a 30 percent annual legal harvest, and a 10 percent annual illegal harvest. Only 13 percent (10 of 83) would survive to 3.5 years while only 4 percent (3 of 83) survive to 5.5 with this scenario. Now imagine how these figures would change if you included unequal dispersal rates off and onto your property.


Now let us use the information on home range size to see how it could impact harvest levels on your property. If you have a 100acre tract of land, no deer will be totally protected given the average home range size of over 600 acres. Let us look at another example, with a 5,000acre tract (Figure 2). The box represents a property boundary and the circles represent the home ranges of deer. You can see that most of the deer could be vulnerable to harvest on surrounding properties. As the size of the management unit increases, the number of bucks that can be protected within the management unit also increases. Property size and harvest intensity on peripheral properties can have a big impact on the success of your management plan.


Another source of frustration for hunters can come from differences in the susceptibility of bucks to harvest. The absence of older aged bucks in the harvest can lead hunters to believe that these animals are not present in the herd. Often older bucks do not expose themselves to hunters during daylight hours with about the only harvest opportunities occurring during the rut. Therefore, it is possible these older aged bucks are present but are not being harvested.


Conclusions

We hope the information provided in this article will assist you in understanding some of the factors that can affect the success of your QDM program. Local harvest rates, natural mortality rates, dispersal rates, and home range size all can play an important role in the success or failure of a plan. Landowners and hunters must have goals and expectations that are reasonable given these limitations. The degree to which a QDM program works is dependent on these and many other factors. Consultation with a biologist from your specific region about these considerations can help you finetune your management program and increase your chances of success.


Bronson Strickland is a Research Associate in wildlife biology at Mississippi State University. Dr. Stephen Demarais is an Associate Professor of Wildlife Management at Mississippi State University


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Howdy Beagle!!!

I too need to get some work done....couple points real quick to get us on the same page-

"Using Jamies numbers there is quite a difference. By age 4.5, only ~30% of Hunts 1 ½ year old deer survived and ~75% of Jamies 1 ½ year old deer survived. 

Is this correct?

I read as follows-
Hunts data at 4.5= 150 survive out of 1000= 15% survival to 4.5

Jamies data at 4.5=382 survive out of 1000= 38% survival to 4.5.

But you state "and ~75% of Jamies 1 ½ year old deer survived."

I calculate 38%.....what am I missing??

PROTECTING MATURE BUCKS

Also, if we were to knock buck survival to 20% for the 1.5 year old population (hunting removing 80% of the 1.5 herd),

We are starting with a 20% survival rate into your "protected" class (if all survivors were 8 pts. and therefore protected) 

Also using your data of 93% survival rate in 2.5 year old deer,( "93% of 2.5 year olds survive." no hunting!) means it will be 7% less then 20% which equals 13% survival rate to 2.5 years old. 

A 13% survival rate to reach protection will not yield very many new protected bucks.

Won't you still hit the point of diminishing returns?

Also, The natural mortality for bucks is much higher than it is for does. McCollough 96. (I can cite this from many researches, though no hard numbers are given, just the statement.)

Maybe I am just confused....its eraly and I haven't finished my coffee yet 

Hunt


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Good morning Sir,

I took the fawn mortality out of the equation and only looked at the 1 1/2 year old number. The pop then is 497. Recalcutate you should get my number.

I took fawns out because they are not proposed to be protected at all and it appears from the data the ~ 50% are going to die before 1 1/2 anyways

I gotta get some work done too!

I did not really digest the rest of your post sorry.

Beagle


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Thanks Jamie,

Now I am absolutely cross eyed.

Your graph does show however the effects of hunting of 1.5 year olds, and how it relates to overall survival.

Good thread!

Hunt


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Hunt,

Boy you do need another cup of coffee(big grin!!)

Use your 1000 number. 20% 1 ½ year olds survive to be in the protected class. That leaves 200 deer. Then 98% survival rate to 2.5 years that leaves 194 deer. Then 93% survival rate to 3.5 years that leaves 180 deer.

So out of 200 1 ½ year olds that achieved protected status 180 remain at 3.5 yrs. old. Thus 18% of the 1000 1 ½ olds gain protected status. But every year more deer become protected. And these are truly the best of the best.

Maybe you dont totally restrict harvest. Do it on a lottery basis or something. And if they draw they dont get the any buck license. Just a thoughtwithout much thought!

Belbriette, Very nice post. Your interest in our problem is much appreciated. I know a little about your situation over there. I have a friend that I used to work with. He comes from France on business often. He hunts a lot here and has kept my brother the taxidermist very busy with the wide variety of trophies (not just deer) to take back to France.

Jamieplease explainI dont understand,  Beagle, your plan is flawed and removes the very thing we love: hunting

Beagle


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

OK, Beagle....now we're gettin somewhere!

"Thus 18% of the 1000 1 ½ olds gain protected status."

I agree with this.....IF all of your 2.5 year old "newly protected" deer carry 8 pts.

But they won't, not all of them, so really you are gaining less then 18% protection.

Which still means diminishing returns is in the near future. 
You will max out on protected bucks when some of your protected guys begin to die of old age.

Also, with Jamies bar graph. I can't tell if you configured correctly.

In the first year, we lose 65% of our fawns leaving 350 individuals out of 1000. The next bar shows 45% mortality OUT OF the total 350 we have now. (158 surviving and so on)
If it didn't work that way, the bar graph shows 110% mortality in the first year! 

Finally,
"Maybe you dont totally restrict harvest. Do it on a lottery basis or something. And if they draw they dont get the any buck license."

I can tell you are starting to jump the fence Beagle! You are wanting to restrict the harvest of young deer for certain hunters!

LOL, get back over there, you are the most enjoyable person to debate qdm with that I have ever met.

Hunt


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Boy you are just not going to let me get back to work are you? 

"I can tell you are starting to jump the fence Beagle! You are wanting to restrict the harvest of young deer! "

Oh...don't flatter yourself...I haven't even lifted my foot yet Don't worry I am firmly on this side 

Your *Anti- QDM* Friend,

Beagle


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

"Remove hunting and predators from the equation and natural mortality is very low.", Beagle

your plan, at some point, will experience no return

continued harvest of the immature bucks will continue until fewer and fewer reach "protected staus", greatly reducing and/or ending the replentishment of supply

protecting immature bucks ensures the supply will meet or exceed demand for an infinite amount of time, it also ensures survival of more mature bucks, over time, greatly increasing age structure, but very quickly increasing the buck population. 


your plan leaves us with relativily low number of bucks and in the same situation we are in now. the bucks you talk about need no protection, they are wary, mature and experienced. they make up a small portion of the harvest, they protect themselves. immature bucks are their own worst enemy, some say," curiousity killed the cat", i say, " inexperience kills the immature".


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Beagle,

You my man, are a gem!

Thankyou so much for these discussions.

If anything, I hope you do see that we care about our deer. 
(and none of the above posts even mention the word "trophy"!)

I can see that you care about our deer as well.

Thankyou for the sound civil discussion.

Hunt


----------

