# About genetics



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

Dear friends from "over the pond",

- All cervid species share the same basic needs : water, food, shelter, and the best man made management, finely adapted to our modern world. 
- The Internet gave me a precious opportunity to learn about deer management in many countries. 
- Four years less four months ago, I met this forum and started to post in it.
- Due to special circumstances (...), for quite a while I abstained to post, but never stopped to visit it.

- Since that time I have noticed what great progresses have been made in the mind of all those who post. I deeeply regret such a Forum does not exit in France : "our" deer herds (roe and red), basically suffer from the same basic problems as your's : due to trophymania, sex ratio females biased, densities frequently above carrying capacities, very poor male population structure by classes of age ... kindly believe me, the problem is world wide !

- According to many scientific publications, the only issue which has not improved is the one dealing with genetics :

- Half doe, half buck + carrying capacity / density + sex ratio + male structure of population by classes of age + fall rainfall + winter severity index (or drought) + average spring temperature + north or south facing slopes + lack of disturbances ... what a buck carries on his head is plurifactorial and is very far from resulting from genetics alone.
- Secondly, "Happy Hunter" is apparently right when he writes that the QDM presently proposed "AR" lead to the cull of the supoposed best yearling bucks and protect the weakest, however, he is wrong in view of what appears just above.

To end with, I know about the scientific research which took place in "Kerr Wildlife Management Area" : this Institution kindly sent me a CD about its research : "penned" deer certainly offer an interesting insight about genetics, however very different from what occurs in the Wild.

Hence the QDM paradigm is right : density well below biological carrying capacity, good sex ratio, good "pyramid" of ages of the male population, all to insure the ever lasting fine Conservation of the species.

Jack.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Jack, I`m glad you haven`t abandoned us altogether. 

Since you have been posting again, does that mean your wife kicked you out of the kitchen?


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

I value your opinion since you are so far removed from our problems ,you can afford to be totally objective. Therefore ,would you please explain what you think I am wrong about?

"Secondly, "Happy Hunter" is apparently right when he writes that the QDM presently proposed "AR" lead to the cull of the supoposed best yearling bucks and protect the weakest, however, he is wrong in view of what appears just above."

I agree that the herd should be managed at 50% of the max. carrying capacity and I agree that the B/D ratio should be around 1:2. I am not sure what the proper age structure of the herd should be ,because I never read a study that specified what the proper buck age structure should be. However , it is clear from the history of our herd in PA ,that harvesting 80% of our 1.5 buck has not adverserly effected the breeding potential or genetics of our herd.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

*No studies have shown a negative
impact harvesting a large segment of the yearling bucks.*

These words usually come from those who believe there is no need to deviate from the traditional deer management approach that has been followed for the past several decades. This management style allows almost all bucks to be legal and restricts doe harvest to maintain large herds and maximize yearling buck harvest. Without question, this approach was correct in the early days when deer populations were low because it allowed for rapid population growth and recovery. However, there is very little true traditional deer management practiced today, especially the restraint in harvesting anterless deer. On the contrary we have through out the deer world too many deer and taking the excess does is the answer to that problem. In simple terms, you do not need any more does than it takes to replace the bucks that are taken. So, what about the buck segment, why was there no change in the recent past when the doe segment harvest rules changed? For many, shooting bucks is the main reason that they hunt and regardless of how often you hear some proclaim, you cant eat the horns, I only hunt for the meat, times are rapidly changing and these hunters are getting fewer in number. In many states, wildlife agencies have yet to fully recognize the changing attitudes of hunters and adjust their management programs accordingly. This also applies to our MDNR officials who made an erroneous decision to not change any rules in taking bucks and their thinking then was that by having a large segment of the buck population available to shoot, it would keep the buck and meat hunters interested in the game.
The scientific argument by the Michigan DNR for not changing the buck harvesting rules is there are no studies that have shown a negative impact on the deer herd when targeting young bucks. At first glance there seems to be some logic to this argument. Since almost all classes of bucks are being targeted (mature and immature bucks whether they have good genes or not) the degradation of the deer herd, which I believe is happening is occurring very slowly and difficult to measure. The deer have been with us for over four million years with the natural selection process insuring the passing of better genes. The traditional system has only been in place for a few decades and has little affected the deer gene pool at this point in time, due to the fact that most of the yearling bucks are being targeted, which dilutes the degradation process. Proof of the potential degradation of the gene pool with a low-grade buckharvesting rule in place may be apparent in Mississippi.
The Mississippi legislature in 1995 through the constant complaints of hunters unsatisfied with the poor development of antlers on bucks taken, bypassed the Mississippi DNR and passed a law stating that all bucks taken through out the state of Mississippi must have a total of four points. This is not four points on one side minimum, this is four points total counting both antlers. Both the Mississippi DNR and the National Quality Deer Management Association, QDMA did not support this rule for the following reason.

The rule may be applicable to the uplands of Mississippi where the soil and forage is poor thus producing smaller antlered bucks, but not in the delta region where the rich soil and forage high in nutrients are producing yearling bucks (1 ½ year olds) with even and eight point racks. Taking the majority of the yearling bucks with high quality antlers (potentially the ones with better genes) and leaving the remaining poorer antlered ones to finish the breeding is called hygrading. This is exactly what traditional deer management is but not an advanced form of hygrading because most classes of bucks are being targeted except a very small percentage of bucks that have antlers less than 3 inches long. Protecting a small percentage of the poorest yearling bucks (the percentage not yet scientifically defined) to finish the breeding is an accelerated form of hygrading and can create genetic problems. Many researchers recommend a minimum of two thirds of the yearling bucks be protected when a mandatory antler restriction is in place. This protection rate should be viewed as a minimum and used as a learning curve with as close to 100% protection rate of yearling bucks being the ultimate goal.

For example a 90% protection of yearling bucks should protect up to 25% of the two and one half year old bucks, thus insuring a few 3 ½ year olds (the age at which a buck is determined to be mature) into the population. This is all that is necessary to create a more natural age structure in the buck population and help insure adequate competition among bucks for breeding. In February 2003 at the Southeast Deer
Study Group held at Chattanooga Tennessee, Mississippi State University professor, Dr. Stephen Demaris, outlined a research project that suggested a degradation of buck weight and antler size in just seven years in the
delta region. Dr, Gary Alt, of progressive Pennsylvania deer management fame, suggested that they change the minimum mandatory antler rules to fit the eco region habitat productivity and not abolish the rule altogether as some of the Mississippi DNR Wildlife Division personnel were suggesting. Cooler heads prevailed for sound and scientific deer management, with the Mississippi DNR Wildlife Division
officials recommending in their presentation at the recent QDMA national annual banquet held in July at Lafayette, Louisiana a regulation of four points on one side minimum or anantler spread of 16 inches for the entire delta region. If this regulation becomeslaw for the 2004 deer-hunting season, it
should protect over 90% of the yearling bucks in the delta region. It should be noted that we are suggesting a management style for a more natural deer population not trophy deer management, which by itself is no sin just a different management style. In a natural deer world many trophy type bucks appear and well that they do, for if they were not abundantly present it would not be a natural deer herd. Many years of targeting young bucks and not enough does has distorted the sex ratio, buck age structure and the deer density. It is the responsibility of the hunters and landowners, to work with the Michigan DNR to see that our deer are managed in a sustainable and biological balanced manner. So, if you voted for or believe in the concept of proposal G (sound and scientific deer management) dont shoot
a young buck.~Ed Spinazzola


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Happy Hunter said:


> I am not sure what the proper age structure of the herd should be ,because I never read a study that specified what the proper buck age structure should be.


Scientiific Insights for White-Tailed Deer Hunters

Article: October's Balance


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"For example a 90% protection of yearling bucks should protect up to 25% of the two and one half year old bucks, thus insuring a few 3 ½ year olds (the age at which a buck is determined to be mature) into the population. This is all that is necessary to create a more natural age structure in the buck population and help insure adequate competition among bucks for breeding. "


Here is a riddle for you. What percentage of 2.5 buck have to be saved in order to have 38% of the buck harvested comprised as 3.5+ buck , as in Miss?


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Please HH, dazzle us with your assumptions yet again.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

The answer to the riddle is that Miss. has to carry over at almost 50% of their 2.5 buck in order to have 38% ,3.5+ buck in their harvest. So you see that thew 4 pt. AR plan in Miss. exceeds all the criteria for a QDM AR plan.

BOB S

Is the proper age stucture of a herd a secret ? If not would you be so kind as to share it with us?


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Great post Belbriette.

Too often hunters are worried about genetics. First, there is little that can be done about genetics. They simply are not a "manageable characteristic" of a deer herd. Second, as long as herd structure is appropriate, Nature will take care of genetics through the Natural Selection process.


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

&#61656; Happy Hunter,

What I tried to say was :

- At any age, antler development is genetically based but also highly dependent upon physical condition , hence upon body weight and all the very numerous factors behind it. 
- So you are right when you write antler restrictions does not protect the best yearlings, fact which does not look as a good idea ... (EXCEPT if this is the only way to reach a better sex ratio, which is another story ).
- However Kerrs research as also shown that some bucks are « swing deer », they grow poor antler in stressful conditions one year and do much better in the opposite case, the following year. 
- So, ARs favour the cull of the best yearling bucks in a given year, but not necessarily the cull of ALL the yearlings with the best genetic potential.

This is why it is so important to manage populations rather than individual animals : if ARS are the only way to improve the sex ratio, despite their obvious but limited drawback, they probably are a good investment. 


You could be interested in the results of a very serious english research about antler development in a wild red deer herd (Isle of Rhum) : 
- 50,7 % depends of age, 
- 17,3 % of heritable genetic variation,
- 14,2 % of the year of growth,
- 1,4 % of the year of birth,
- 16,4 % are unexplained.
The authors add if a hunter cannot precisely age a stag, less than 20 % of the antler may be attributed to heredity.
Another research in Wapiti farms has shown that only 35 % of the antler weight variability depend upon genetics.

I know one must not jump from one specie to another , but I cannot see why at the herd level, % would differ markedly in white-tailed : this is why I feel genetics are much too frequently referred to in this Forum.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"So, ARs favour the cull of the best yearling bucks in a given year, but not necessarily the cull of ALL the yearlings with the best genetic potential."


I agree with that statement completely and I also agree with the results of the study you posted. However ,AR is not the only way to improve the B?D ratio and it is far from being the best way. Many states control the buck harvest by limiting the number of buck tags. Allocating more anterless tags and harvesting more anterless deer ,while keeping the buck harest constant ,also improves the B/D ratio.


I think we agree that on average, AR removes the best buck from each age class and protects buck of lesser quality. Whether we label them as inferior is irrelevant,what is important is that they are of lower quality than the buck that were harvested and it is likely that it will result in a long term decline in the gene pool.


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

To Happy Hunter :

I cannot leave your last message unanswered :

1. From the start, I have been stunned by the facts no well adapted buck quotas, nor well adapted micromanagements, were in effect : if I am not mistaken, I understood this was due to different economical concerns and to different lobbying actions.
Also, I for sure agree with you that AR is not the only way to improve B/D ratio : I just did not think I had to really stick my nose for good in MI internal affairs.

2. I cannot follow you when you write, "AR removes the the best buck of each age class and protects buck of lesser quality." : as I understood it, yearlings are the sole target.

3. I do not share the implications of your last sentence : 

- the quality concept related to bucks refers only to anthropocentric
hunters preoccupations to harvest "trophies", obviously even those of 
spikes ... which is ridiculous !!! (blind, meaningless trophymania). 
I was surprised you seem to share this attitude in the last sentence of
your post : 
- "Wether we label them as inferior is irrelevant, what is important is
that they are of lower qualitythan the buck that were 
harvested ..."
- "... it is likely that it will result in a long term decline in the gene
pool." : 
decline in the most ramified gene pool, perhaps, but absolutely
not in regard to a diversified, natural gene pool ...
What I am trying to say is : do hunters have the right to shape the 
genetic pool to fulfill their thirst for large trophies, or not ???
Thanks to Valerius GEIST who, with others, opened my mind to this
problem, my answer is NO : nobody know how the deer environment will
evolve in the future, my appraisal is that its quality will inexorably 
degrade itself more and more with time, hence the present small bodied,
small antlered bucks, could well become the best chance of survival of 
the species.

Of course, all people are driven to think in terms of various profits at the scale of a very short human life expectancy ... I am convinced this is not the right path to follow.

Jack.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

*What I am trying to say is : do hunters have the right to shape the 
genetic pool to fulfill their thirst for large trophies, or not ???
Thanks to Valerius GEIST who, with others, opened my mind to this
problem, my answer is NO : nobody know how the deer environment will
evolve in the future, my appraisal is that its quality will inexorably 
degrade itself more and more with time, hence the present small bodied,
small antlered bucks, could well become the best chance of survival of 
the species.*

Great stuff Belbriette. Absolutely great stuff. Thanks for posting it.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"2. I cannot follow you when you write, "AR removes the the best buck of each age class and protects buck of lesser quality." : as I understood it, yearlings are the sole target."

Yearling buck are the main target because they make up the highest percentage of the buck population and produce the smallest racks. However , AR protects all buck that do not meet the requirements whether they are 2.5 or 5.5 yrs. In PA , prior to AR, 18% of the 2.5+ buck did not meet the minimum AR requirements. With AR, IMHO, 20-25% of the 2.5 buck won't be AR legal. Most of the legal 2.5+ will be harvested , but those that aren't AR legal will survive to become the dominant 3.5+ buck and will definitely out number the superior bucks that escaped being harvested as 2.5 buck.

""Whether we label them as inferior is irrelevant, what is important is
that they are of lower qualitythan the buck that were 
harvested ..."

The goal of AR is to improve the gene pool based on the concept that superior dominant bucks with better genes will do most of the breeding. What I am saying is that AR is more likely to have the opposite effect. We humans have so disrupted the natural order of life that I really haven't formed an opinion regarding wheter we have the right to alter the gene pool to produce more trophy buck.

Right now, in PA the more important issue is that we are trying to manage the herd at much lower densities than the habitat can support. If the plan is successful we will loose a lot of our hunters and when that happens we will loose the ability to control the herd by hunting. At that point the anti-hunters will take control and that is my major concern at this point in time.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

_"The herd dynamics were very close to what QDM philosophies recommend, with a somewhat balanced sex ratio and 30% of the bucks being 3 1/2 or older. Yet even though only 30% of the buck population was 3 1/2 or older, these mature bucks sired 58% of the fawns each year. *This research backs up what QDM proponents have been saying for years* - that in a normal buck age structure, it is the older bucks that are doing the breeding. *This is very important for the long-term health of the deer herd.* It saves young bucks from rut stress, and it allows Natural Selection to work properly - only bucks that are old enough to express their genetic potential are breeding. This way, the "best" (most competitive and healthiest) mature bucks do the majority of breeding."_

Natural Selection


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Thanks alot . Based on that quote I presume you agree that Miss.'s Ar plan is a raging success, since 38% of the buck harvested are 3.5+ buck. 

"Yet even though only 30% of the buck population was 3 1/2 or older, these mature bucks sired 58% of the fawns each year. "

The problem is that the vast majority of the 3.5 buck will be the inferior 2.5 buck that weren't AR legal and therefore survived to become the dominant 3.5 breeders.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

I am in favor of the Mississippi 4 total point rule in all areas where it protects a minimum of 80% of the 1 1/2 year old bucks. In all areas where the rate of 1 1/2 year old bucks being protected is below 80% I favor increasing the antler restriction.


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

> Happy Hunter

I did not have the knowledge AR also protected 2,5 and older bucks.
I understand your concern about hunters loosing the control of the herd.


> Bob S

Of course it is the older males that do much of the breeding.
In red deer, about 80% of the females are sired by stags 8-9 years old and older (up to 13-14). But even in this category of ages, reproductive success varies quite a lot : up to 24 fawns for the more dominant stags, down to 0 for the weakest, average 5 fawns per stag. Hence, for 100 spring females there should be more than 20 stags at the natural breeding ages.
A recent research has also shown that, always in red deer, antler length is more important than number of points.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

*In all areas where the rate of 1 1/2 year old bucks being protected is below 80% I favor increasing the antler restriction.*

Bob S,

The MS Fish and Game agrees with you. The problem is, those point restrictions were set by state law, not by the Fish & Game, so they have little recourse for adjusting them.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Belbriette,

The problem with whitetails is, in the known breeding status studies (DNA matching of offspring to parents), antler size was not a dertminant of breeding success. The most prolific breeders were not larger antlered males, even in herds with advanced male age structures and many older bucks in the breeding pool. It _appears_ that antler-size is not a selection criteria for breeder status, and other than age and possibly "aggressiveness," what characteristics are being selected for are not known. In fact, if I remember the data correctly, peak breeding success did not increase above the 4 1/2 year-old age-class. Of course part of that finding may be due to the studies being conducted in the South, using the _virginianus virginianus_ sub-species, which tends to peak in antler growth and body weight much earlier than the northern _virginianus borealis_ sub-species.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

I didn't know BB were considered to be trophies. Maybe I'll get the next one mounted .


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

For those interested - the study that I posted did compare 1.5 yr old spikes (2-3 points) with 1.5 yr old forks (4+ points). That includes 1.5 year old 6, 8 points. Again - the spikes developed into very nice deer, and the good dr. running the study cautioned against the average person culling spikes, because of the many reasons in which they could be spikes, and they were respectable racks.. And this shows us to be conservative with AR's. Even if the AR is 3 points one side, and we have proven in our area that PROTECTS 50% (total, not 50% more than traditional management) of the 1.5 yr old deer, there will be plenty of forks running around to do the breeding. A fork was defined by at least 4 points. Protect 4 points one side, and you'll protect 75% of the 1.5 yr. old deer in our area. protect 4 pt one side, width outside the ear, and you'll protect 85% of the 1.5 yr. old deer. These are facts, can't be disputed. 
The study looked at spikes and forks (ie-4 points +). you protect 4 points one side and you'll have plenty of great genes to do the breeding. The genetic argument against AR's simply will not hold water.

for those who argue traditional management, they should be estatic - they'll see far more bucks than they see now, and won't have to shoot the first one they see.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"or those who argue traditional management, they should be estatic - they'll see far more bucks than they see now, and won't have to shoot the first one they see."

There would be no reason for those that support traditional deer management to be estatic , since although there might be more total buck , there would be far fewer legal buck and hunters would still have to harvest the first legal buck they see because in many states it will be the only legal buck they see.

Futhermore, if the herd was stable or decreasing there would actually be fewer buck since the overwintering doe population would have to be reduced by the number of additional buck that were saved by the 4 pt. one side rule. If the restriction saved 100K additional buck, 100K additional doe would have to be harvested and that would reduce the BB production by over 50K, so there would be alot fewer 1.5 buck.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

yes, if there are more bucks, you'll have to take more doe. (you don't necessarily have to take 1 doe for every buck taken, but that's another story)And yes, you'll have less 1.5 year old bucks born if you take more doe. But your net number of bucks is going to stay relatively the same, or increase, cause there will be a balanced age structure - that's pretty simple.

where I hunt, there are a lot of TDM people. By far - the vast majority would be happier with their hunting experience if they saw more bucks, and HAD to pass on some, then only having the option of shooting the first buck that you see cause you might not see another. Don't have to be QDM to appreciate that. Of course, I'd be happier to see more bucks cause that's the natural way the herd should be. I don't have to kill a buck to have a successful or exciting hunting season.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"But your net number of bucks is going to stay relatively the same, or increase, cause there will be a balanced age structure - that's pretty simple."

That may be pretty simple but it is not correct. The age structure does not necessarily determine the the number of bucks in the herd. What controls the number of buck in the herd is the number of BB that survive to become 1.5 buck,since they will always make up the largest percentage of preseason buck herd. If Ar saves an additional 100K buck, than in order to keep the herd stable you have to harvest 100K additional doe or the overwintering herd will increase. Therefore , there will be 50K fewer BB and that decrease will be carried through in future years. However, if the goal is to decrease the size of the OW herd the number of BB will be reduced even further and there will be a point where you have fewer total buck with AR than you had before AR. A 20% reduction in the OW herd combined with results of AR will produce fewer total buck even with AR and a better age structure.

Remember, due to normal adult mortality , the more bucks that are saved , the more bucks that are lost to mortality. If AR protects 100K buck 15-20% (15K-20K) will be lost to mortality which will further contribute the decline in the total number of buck.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Oh, the hypothetical. 

Harvest data from our own DMU 118 shows that male fawns made up an average of 12% of the antlerless harvest versus the statewide average of 22%.

http://members.tripod.com/~mmbqdm/DMU118_5yr_analysis.pdf

Nature always seeks balance, it's the humans who try and screw it up.

Your worried about a pie in the sky 50% BB mortality rate but totally unconcerned about a very real 80% mortality rate on 1.5 year olds.:idea: 



"Historically, two-thirds of our antlerless deer harvest has occurred on the first day of the antlerless deer season (in just ten hours), and 23 percent of those antlerless deer have been button bucks."~http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/PGC/deer/mtg02.htm


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Everyone ready for the hypothetical hour?

100,000 does are removed from the herd how many are left? Hypothetically speaking we'll say 100,000. Out of the 100,000, 89,000 of them drop fawns. 31,150 single fawns, 55,180 twins and 2,670 triplets on average. We'll end up with 89,000 fawns (It's crazy how that happens). 50:50 ratio at birth and that is 44,500 buck fawns. 34,265 buck fawns after hunter related mortality factored in. Just for kicks add in an additon 10% mortality and you still end up with 30,838 buck fawns.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"Your worried about a pie in the sky 50% BB mortality rate but totally unconcerned about a very real 80% mortality rate on 1.5 year olds. "

No ,I am not worried about a 48% fawn mortality rate for BB and I am not worried about BB comprising 23 % of the anterless harvest. Only rack hunters would be worried about that. Nor am I worried about the harvest of 80% of our 1.5 buck , since there has been no documented negative effects in the last 50 years.

BTW , I can now document that you were wrong when you said the preseason goal for PA was 21 DPSM. As you can see for yourself it is stated quite clearly that the OWDD goal for PA was 21 DPSM or 557K OW deer compared to 1.1 M OW deer in Jan . 2003.. How would you like it if they cut your herd by 50%?

Here is a quote from the 1999 annual report.
"After the 1999-2000 hunting season, about 1,035,000 deer remained (39 deer per square mile of forested land), up from 902,000 in 1998 (34 deer per square mile), and 478,000 deer more than our statewide goal of 557,000 (21 deer per square mile). The 2000 preseason population of approximately 1,523,000 was 8.6 percent higher than the 1,402,000 projected for preseason 1999 and included 1.26 million antlerless deer."


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

that math doesn't work . Come on, i'm not going to type it all in, but take some real numbers with real ratios, eliminate the natural mortality rate for either sex (to make the example easy) and run some harvest numbers- you'll easily see that the number of bucks goes way up, even with increased harvest of doe. If you can't see that, then the point is lost on you, and we might as well leave it at that. you keep going back to this example of "if you protect 50K 1.5 year old bucks, you have to harvest 50K additional doe, and that's 50K button bucks you lose, therefore your buck numbers will decline." Until we get the sex ratios back to normal, AR's will only increase our buck population. our doe:buck ratio is way out of wack - in our area, its at least 3-4:1. so you need to reduce that many doe to keep the herd from growing too big.

AR's are not a long term goal of QDM, in fact, their usage is discouraged by QDM. But until hunters can identify the age of a deer in the field, then that's the best way.

On another note. This board was very interesting to read. There were differing viewpoints - anti-QDM, and pro-QDM, but things stayed pretty civil, and in that atmosphere, people are willing to consider other viewpoints, no matter what side of the fence they were on. Now it seems as though there is no learning going on. (why the change?) Each post is an attempt to diffuse the validity of the last, without consideration of the content. That's unfortunate. This thread was about genetics, and there was some good discussion on it, briefly. Then the thread gets hijacked for other purposes. I'm afraid this is going to drive people away from this board, and that's sad.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

rzdrmh said:


> This thread was about genetics, and there was some good discussion on it, briefly. Then the thread gets hijacked for other purposes. I'm afraid this is going to drive people away from this board, and that's sad.


This not the only thread that has been hijacked with this very same argument, and if you look back you can see the common thread in all of the hijackings :yikes: 

ferg....

It was enough for me to just back out and close the door.....


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

rzdrmh said:


> I'm afraid this is going to drive people away from this board, and that's sad.


This is the most "emotional" outdoor board that I've ever visited, but I agree that in general, there is a lot of good discussion. It reminds me of my college days and a debate class where we debated things like politics, abortion, pro wrestling (of all things). Back in those days, we also bordered on being rude at times, at which point our professor would get us back on track, just like the moderators do at times here. Clearly, there are two sides to this issue, and each has very sound arguments. Yes, I admit I'm very firmly on the fence about this whole issue, but I have changed my thinking in a lot of ways versus what I thought two years ago. I can only say that I've learned a lot about genetics, herd health, age classifications, etc., from you all, and for that I thank you. Do we get over emotional and borderline rude at times, you bet.....myself included. I've been poking fun at a few of you lately to calm down a bit, and that's simply because you remind me of myself in some of these arguments, and I'm trying to get you all to lighten up.  But most people here seem to recognize when they're about to lose it, and can calm down. Overall, this is interesting reading.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Just Ducky, Ferg -
You're right - most people know when things have gotten too heated, and back off a little. But sometimes there are those that just keep coming at you with the "you're wrong, i'm right, if you can't see that, that's your problem" mentality. No one can learn when their counterpart is unrelenting. Looking forward to when I can make a post about biology, etc. that won't be assailed. I know I'm wrong sometimes, that's why I enjoy reading a forum. But I'm not wrong all the time.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"that math doesn't work . Come on, i'm not going to type it all in, but take some real numbers with real ratios, eliminate the natural mortality rate for either sex (to make the example easy) and run some harvest numbers- you'll easily see that the number of bucks goes way up, even with increased harvest of doe."

You are absolutely right that initially the total number of buck will increase dramatically. But, I am looking at the long term ,not the short term. If shooting more doe means reducing the OW herd by 20% there will be less total buck even with AR. One can't replace doe with buck to change the B/D ratio and then further reduce the doe population to obtain herd reduction, without decreasing the number of total buck.

"AR's are not a long term goal of QDM, in fact, their usage is discouraged by QDM. But until hunters can identify the age of a deer in the field, then that's the best way."

If that were true why were the QDM supporters upset about discontinuing AR after five years in WMU 118. Most biologists agree that AR 's are not the best way to improve the age structure. Limiting the number of buck hunters is best way to do it.

When you posted the article on the relative rack sizes of spikes verses forkhorns,nobody wanted to talk about genetics because the report conflicted with their beliefs. Others simply dismissed the article, " Spikes are Not Inferior ,or Are They ?" and didn't want to discuss the long term potential genetic impact of protecting the smalles buck in each age class and harvesting the best.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Ferg said:


> This not the only thread that has been hijacked with this very same argument, and if you look back you can see the common thread in all of the hijackings


Not only do you see a common thread. You see the same person doing all of the hijacking.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Bob S said:


> Not only do you see a common thread. You see the same person doing all of the hijacking.


That WAS my point  

ferg....
:lol: :yikes:


----------



## Guest (May 4, 2004)

Let's start out by saying deer are dynamic and adaptable. Belbreitte and BSK did an excellant job of defning deer biology and noted that conjecture or using a single point of deer biology may be OK for some conditions but not all. You need to use scientific research to accuratly define changes

Florida, with its poor soil comes to mind, protecting yearling bucks there along with lowering the deer density will generally not improve their overall condition without supplemental feeding and or heavy fertilization. In almost all other cases lowering the deer population will improve the fawn production per adult doe, body weight, antler size and health due to more nutritious forage being available. 

The UP of Michigan has unique invironmental forces. Can anyone south of the 45 parallel imagine three feet of snow piled up by mid February that results in 50% of all fawns being lost in an average year, with over 90% lost in a harsh year. 

How about Texas in a drought, in addition to their fire ants and coyotes taking its toll. Dr. Mickey Hellickson, Manager of the King ranch in Texas notes an adult doe to fawn ratio during a severe drought as low as one adult doe per .3 fawns. Compare that to a midwest state like Illinois in Pike County having an adult doe to fawn ratio that can reach one adult doe per 2 fawns. Simple math shows a 6.7 fold increase in fawn production. That is mind boggleing and shows the adapability of deer, not to mention the obvious influence of local conditions. We need an adult doe to fawn ratio of around one doe to .5-.7 fawns just to maintain the existing deer population and that's without any hunting.

Some rich in habitat and mild in weather areas have a very low nonhunting deer mortality rate. Dr. Harry Jacobson of Mississippi state showed a mortality rate of less than 2% for yearlings that were protected. That means 98% plus of the protected yearlings reached their second birthday. Yes, the average yearly morataliy from causes other than hunting is around 15%, but that takes in the UP, Texas, illionois etc. 

Another case in point is the five year bio harvest data from DMU 118 in mid Michigan. The antler restriction of three points on one side minimum based on historic MDNR harvest data protects 49.4% of the 1 1/2 year old bucks. The average yearling harvest rate for a three year base (1996-1998) of the total buck harvest was 78%, pretty much the average throughout Mi.

The first year, 1999, this dropped to 68%, about what one would expect, not having many older bucks in the pipe line. The large increase in the total harvest is due to an added DNR employee working full time gathering bio harvest data, This was due to TB being found and there was a push to increase the bio data. the next year, 2000, this gal became pregnant and her workload was added to a gal in the next county. The last three years were normal efforts to gather bio harvest data. We need to take this blip in bio data for the first two years for what it is, a blip. For accuracy in comparison look at the last three years 2001-2003 and compare that to the three year base. 

The first thing that hits you is an actual increase in not only the total deer harvest but a 24% increase in the buck harvest. How is it possible to harvest more bucks and at the same time pound on the does (84% harvest increase) and protect 505 of the yearlings. Lets not forget a much lower deer herd as evidenced by my farmer neighbors electing to not buy permits to take any does for last year and most say this coming season also. Yet four of us farmers in 1998 took a total of 135 deer in two square miles. We are not complaining about the crop damage now

The answer my friends lies in the much increased fawn productivity per doe. I keep good records and have since 1991, when the adult doe to fawn ratio was around 1:1.1. The last rwo years it reached 1:1.8. Yes the deer are dynamic and adjust to their invironment and that fact is missing in some of the arguements presented here by an uninformed poster.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

thanks Ed for the comments - and thanks for reminding us of an often overlooked factor in deer densities.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Thanks for bringing the *"FACTS"* back into this thread Ed.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

First let me say you have a very unique and creative way of analyzing data. Never before have I seen someone blatantly dismiss data that doesn't agree with his position and selectively use data from the same study that supports their position.

"The first year, 1999, this dropped to 68%, about what one would expect, not having many older bucks in the pipe line."

You say that the data collected in 1999 and 2000 is inaccurate but in the above quote you say the 68% harvest rate is what was to be expected. The data cited for 1999 actually shows there were a lot more older buck in the pipeline than indicated by the baseline data. But, what is most interesting about the 1999 data is that the harvest of 1.5 buck increased by 35% over the baseline ,indicating no buck were saved by AR in 1999.



"The first thing that hits you is an actual increase in not only the total deer harvest but a 24% increase in the buck harvest. How is it possible to harvest more bucks and at the same time pound on the does (84% harvest increase) and protect 505 of the yearlings"

A 24 % increase in the buck harvest is nothing to brag about since the harvest increased by 55% in 1999 ,before any bucks were saved by AR. Furthermore , in the third year of AR, the buck harvest declined by 11% below the baseline. The data shows that buck harvests were lower in years 3 thru 5 than they were in the first two years.



"I keep good records and have since 1991, when the adult doe to fawn ratio was around 1:1.1. The last rwo years it reached 1:1.8. Yes the deer are dynamic and adjust to their invironment and that fact is missing in some of the arguements presented here by an uninformed poster."

In order to have 1 :1,8 fawns/adult doe you would need to have a 100% breeding rate and almost zero fawn mortality from malnutrition , disease , predation, roadkills , and other causes of fawn mortality. Studies in PA show approx. 48% fawn mortality which yields a productivity rate of 1.1 fawns/doe.

Furthermore, if you are Ed Spinazzola ,who produced the Generalized Sustained Yield Tables For Free Ranging Deer", you appear to be contradicting what you presented in that report.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

"BTW , I can now document that you were wrong when you said the preseason goal for PA was 21 DPSM."

"478,000 deer more than our statewide goal of 557,000 (21 deer per square mile)"

Thanks for clearing that up. LMFAO!


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

HH, I love how you go out of your way to "quote" "facts", yet you never seem to be able to provide links or at the very least the source.

Only a true "rack hunter" would be concerned about "high grading", "genetics" and a difference of 10-12" of antler measurement.

I wonder how many hunters in the NLP have seen a buck with over a 100" of antler? Not many.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

""478,000 deer more than our statewide goal of 557,000 (21 deer per square mile)"

Thanks for clearing that up. LMFAO!

You can stop laughing now ,because the goal of 21 DPFSM is the overwintering goal for PA ,not the preseason goal as you claimed . We had 1.5 M PS deer in 2000, not 1.035M ( 478K+ 557K=1.035M ). The new overwintering goal is 13 DPSM .


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Now I am laughing even harder. What happened to your claim of 13 DPSm? We'll Just add it to the enormous pile of erroneous "facts" you have provided.




Happy Hunter said:


> PA is still in the dark ages of deer management. There are using density goals developed from reseasrch in the 1970's when they thought deer only lived in the forests. For this reason the over population problem is grossly exaggerated . no modern deer manager would manage the herd at 13 DPSm ,which is the goal in PA.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

You can stop laughing now! If you will note that data was from 1999-2000 . The new deer density goals weren't released until Feb. of this year and the statewide average OWDD is now 13 DPSM.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

NO, I really can't. You continue to live up to your reputation of gleaning "facts" from all sorts of sources, from every year you can come up with and combining them to form "the truth according to Happy Hunter".

I can say one thing, at least your consistent.:tsk:


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

> The new deer density goals weren't released until Feb. of this year


Please post a link, I am sure the PGC would have it on thier website.

The only report available is one dated 11-17-03:
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/lib/pgc/reports/2003_wildlife/21001-02z.pdf

One other thing to note, just because a herd goal is set, doesn't mean it will ever be attained. 

Every WMU in PA is double or triple their OWDD as of post hunt 2003.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Why should I post the link when you already posted the link to the report that was released in Feb. and showed that the statewide goal is 13 DPSM.

"Every WMU in PA is double or triple their OWDD as of post hunt 2003."

Instead of just posting the report ,you should actually try reading it, in order to avoid posting incorrect information. Table 2 clearly shows that the goal for 2 G is 15 DPSM and the OW herd in Jan. 2003 was at 12 DPSM, which makes your above statement factually untrue.Also, please note that since the figures is for Jan 2003 , it is after the 2002 hunting season ,not the 2003 season as you claim.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

:help: :help:


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Well looky here, picking out one WMU to make your case. LOL!

1A has a goal of OWDD 9 and had a PHDD (post hunt deer density) of 26 Jan. 2003
1B OWDD 12 PHDD 25
2A OWDD 13 PHDD 36
2B OWDD 10 PHDD 30
2C OWDD 15 PHDD 31

*
*
*
5A OWDD 8 PHDD 21
5B OWDD 5 PHDD 17
5C OWDD 5 PHDD 19


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

HH, are you only reading things you want to see?


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

""Every WMU in PA is double or triple their OWDD as of post hunt 2003."


That was your original claim and you were wrong. You also said that the goal of 21 DPFSM was the preseason goal and you were wrong about that. You also ignored 2F that has a goal of 17 DPSM and was at 24 DPSM , which was not double its goal.

BTW, I posted the link to that data for all to see and I didn't discount data from any WMU. like ED Spin discounted with the data from the first two years of the WMU118 trial...


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Happy Hunter said:


> "Every WMU in PA is double or triple their OWDD as of post hunt 2003."


Oh, sorry about that, I guess I pulled a "Happy Hunter".

Care to average each WMU out for us? Average of 122% over goal.

1 of the 21 WMU's wasn't double it was 70% over goal and another was under.

"_You also said that the goal of 21 DPFSM was the preseason goal and you were wrong about that."_

Prove it.

Still waiting for the proof of you getting Dr. Alt to admit he was wrong.

My hip boots are on for this one.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"13 DPSm for a winter deer density goal statewide average is a possibility but add in a 1.10 embryos/doe average and your looking at a very conservative figure of 20.15 DPSm pre-season statewide. Pretty darn close to the PGC clearly stated pre-season goal of 21 DPSm as a statewide average."

That quote is from your 4/29/04 post on the thread . " PA Ups Anterless permits"

"Still waiting for the proof of you getting Dr. Alt to admit he was wrong."

The proof is in the very report for which you posted the link. No rational person would claim that a WMU like 2 G , which is mostly contiguous forests , would have a density goal that is 3 times higher that 5B which is mixed woodlots and farmland.

The report you posted also shows the average OWDD is 25 DPSM, which is not 122% over the goal as you claim. so we can put another one in the wrong column for your side.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

IS NOT!!!

IS SO!!!

IS NOT!!!'

IS SO!!!

I WIN 

NO, I WIN

I WIN

NOT!!!
 

 

YIKES!!!!!!


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

ESOX said:


> IS NOT!!!
> 
> IS SO!!!
> 
> ...



 

I'm with you 

ferg....


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2004)

To all who have suffered the pain of witnessing ignorance versus facts:

I, hereby by the power vested in me by virtue of common sense, declare Swamp Ghost winner by a knockout in round 46.

FL, what was that saying that Dr. James F. Kroll is fond of when he quotes facts versus wishful thinking?

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## Archer212 (Mar 15, 2004)

Happy Hunter:

I'm from PA too but please give it a break! I started monitoring this message board because their QDM and Habitat forums *are not * filled with numbers, equations and BS as were our forums on huntingpa.com. These forums seem to be filled with information from hunters like me, who want to improve their hunting area through habitat improvement or other methods.

Here I'm going to everyone a favor. Here is the address to another site www.huntamerica.com They have a QDM forum that has a gentlemen who loves to talk about PA. You guys would get along just fine.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

The moderator of the Huntamerica QDM forum, Laturkeyhtr, is a member here. He just doesn`t get over here to post much.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

There are lots of topics in the QDM forum where I haven't posted. Now look at how many relpies those threads generated compared to the ones where I supported my position with factual data. Maybe you can't stand looking at the facts,but apparently other people are interested in hearing both sides of the issues.


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2004)

There, you have it gentlemen. This guy just wants attention, verified with his own words in his last post. Let him die from inattention.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------

