Deer population

[G-Man]

The DEC takes in account hunter satisfaction, and insurance accident reporting in its management plan. To manage deer in this state to a true qdm level will not happen anttime soon. so numbers are moot point. Local numbers can vary from mile to mile and a management area is huge. so stop bashing the dec they do what they can with avaible funds and human resourses. If your not seeing a lot of deer in your area stop shooting does. want older bucks its a gamble.. let em pass, the neighbor might get them. Available habitat and cover differ as well will 600 acres of farmland and 40 acres of woods hold as many deer as 300 acres of field and 300 wood 40 of swamp? I guess what the point is , you yourself and your neighbors can be better managers of your own herd than the state can be.

[Single_shot]

The DEC takes in account hunter satisfaction, and insurance accident reporting in its management plan. To manage deer in this state to a true qdm level will not happen anttime soon. so numbers are moot point. Local numbers can vary from mile to mile and a management area is huge. so stop bashing the dec they do what they can with avaible funds and human resourses. If your not seeing a lot of deer in your area stop shooting does. want older bucks its a gamble.. let em pass, the neighbor might get them. Available habitat and cover differ as well will 600 acres of farmland and 40 acres of woods hold as many deer as 300 acres of field and 300 wood 40 of swamp? I guess what the point is , you yourself and your neighbors can be better managers of your own herd than the state can be.

I think I love you man! well said.

[Doc]

The DEC absolutely has the ability to do it.... but could they get hunters to cooperate is really the question... the DEC will not take drastic steps really to reduce over-all populations to the extent needed to balance the ratios because of the resistance they know they'll get from a good portion of the hunting communty... and I agree that under the current management program gender ratios are a non existent thought for the DEC.. so with all that... yes, I guess you're right that it is a day dream to believe that balanced gender ratios or true population control will ever really be achieved in NY. At least in our lifetime...

No, I don't think their decision not to get involved with deer gender ratios has anything to do with hunter cooperation. I believe that it simply is not part of their goals. And that I think is based on the practicality of resources. They like anybody have to apply priorities, and gender balance simply is not real high on anybody's priorities. Frankly I would rather see them do as good a job as possible on balancing the herd to the habitat and other necessary benchmarks rather than wasting time on gender balancing. And I guess that's how they look at it too.

[nyantler]

No, I don't think their decision not to get involved with deer gender ratios has anything to do with hunter cooperation. I believe that it simply is not part of their goals. And that I think is based on the practicality of resources. They like anybody have to apply priorities, and gender balance simply is not real high on anybody's priorities. Frankly I would rather see them do as good a job as possible on balancing the herd to the habitat and other necessary benchmarks rather than wasting time on gender balancing. And I guess that's how they look at it too.

I think every decision they make has to do with hunter cooperation... there is no reason that both gender ratios and populations can't be controlled at the same time... optimizing everything about the herd should be priority... the reality is that everything the DEC could do to achieve both objectives will get too much resistance from the hunting community so they back off

[Doc]

Occasionally it is good for us armchair game mangers to understand that not all things are possible. Well, yes I suppose all is possible as long as we are not the ones charged with the responsibility to do them.

And a word about hunter cooperation. It has to be acknowledged that without it, the DEC would be left without any population control at all. So if they bend over backwards to keep their population controller happy (and plentiful), it probably is not really a bad thing. We also might want to acknowledge the hunters financial role in keeping some cash in the DEC's pocket to handle all these fancy management schemes that there seems to be no shortage of.

Look, it is quite well known here that I am not a DEC apologist and have been known to criticize some of there policies and methods just like we all do from time to time. But I also understand the various massive raids that past and current governors and their willing accomplices, the DEC commissioners, have perpetrated on the agency over the past few years. So at this point, I am willing to cut them some slack and grant that they cannot be all things to every game management wannabe that pops up with an opinion. Also if they want to maintain alliances with their most valuable population control tool, I think that probably is a very prudent thing to do. And I have a hard time criticizing them for it.

[nyantler]

Occasionally it is good for us armchair game mangers to understand that not all things are possible. Well, yes I suppose all is possible as long as we are not the ones charged with the responsibility to do them.

And a word about hunter cooperation. It has to be acknowledged that without it, the DEC would be left without any population control at all. So if they bend over backwards to keep their population controller happy (and plentiful), it probably is not really a bad thing. We also might want to acknowledge the hunters financial role in keeping some cash in the DEC's pocket to handle all these fancy management schemes that there seems to be no shortage of.

Look, it is quite well known here that I am not a DEC apologist and have been known to criticize some of there policies and methods just like we all do from time to time. But I also understand the various massive raids that past and current governors and their willing accomplices, the DEC commissioners, have perpetrated on the agency over the past few years. So at this point, I am willing to cut them some slack and grant that they cannot be all things to every game management wannabe that pops up with an opinion. Also if they want to maintain alliances with their most valuable population control tool, I think that probably is a very prudent thing to do. And I have a hard time criticizing them for it.

Yeah I suppose you're right... they have a tight rope to walk sometimes trying to make hunters and politicians happy and still do their best for the conservation effort... I still think that population control could be done more effectively than just handing out doe tags that a hunter may or mayy not be willing or able to fill.. I realize that not all hunters can or will be successful, but there are many hunters that eat their doe tags because they are not willing to use them until their buck tag has been filled and some even end up eating all their tags because a buck opportunity doesn't arise.. I would like to see them issue a set amount of tags per WMU on a first come first serve basis to anyone who wants one, but you must use it first and report it before you can fill your buck tag.

[nyantler]

Occasionally it is good for us armchair game mangers to understand that not all things are possible. Well, yes I suppose all is possible as long as we are not the ones charged with the responsibility to do them.

And a word about hunter cooperation. It has to be acknowledged that without it, the DEC would be left without any population control at all. So if they bend over backwards to keep their population controller happy (and plentiful), it probably is not really a bad thing. We also might want to acknowledge the hunters financial role in keeping some cash in the DEC's pocket to handle all these fancy management schemes that there seems to be no shortage of.

Look, it is quite well known here that I am not a DEC apologist and have been known to criticize some of there policies and methods just like we all do from time to time. But I also understand the various massive raids that past and current governors and their willing accomplices, the DEC commissioners, have perpetrated on the agency over the past few years. So at this point, I am willing to cut them some slack and grant that they cannot be all things to every game management wannabe that pops up with an opinion. Also if they want to maintain alliances with their most valuable population control tool, I think that probably is a very prudent thing to do. And I have a hard time criticizing them for it.

Yeah I suppose you're right... they have a tight rope to walk sometimes trying to make hunters and politicians happy and still do their best for the conservation effort... I still think that population control could be done more effectively than just handing out doe tags that a hunter may or may not be willing or able to fill.. I realize that not all hunters can or will be successful, but there are many hunters that eat their doe tags because they are not willing to use them until their buck tag has been filled and some even end up eating all their tags because a buck opportunity doesn't arise.. I would like to see them issue a set amount of tags per WMU on a first come first serve basis to anyone who wants one, but you must use it first and report it before you can fill your buck tag.

[mike rossi]

I think every decision they make has to do with hunter cooperation... there is no reason that both gender ratios and populations can't be controlled at the same time... optimizing everything about the herd should be priority... the reality is that everything the DEC could do to achieve both objectives will get too much resistance from the hunting community so they back off

Gender ratios do determine popluation size.

Edited October 3, 2012 by mike rossi

[nyslowhand]

You better elaborate, because the above statement isn't always true.

[Doc]

Gender ratios do determine popluation size.

Probably not. I don't think there was anything unique about the gender ratios of the late 80's and early 90's when the NYS herd size exploded. And most likely there was nothing about the gender ratios that changed when the populatioins plummetted there-after. Population size really is a function of antlerless permit numbers and allocations and weather extremes.

[mike rossi]

What scenerio births more fawns?

Management Unit 1: 100 does and 5 bucks

MU2: 50 does and 50 bucks

[Grizz1219]

What scenerio births more fawns?

Management Unit 1: 100 does and 5 bucks

MU2: 50 does and 50 bucks

1 buck can breed about 5-6 does a year.... with them staying with a "hot" doe for up to 3 days.. in most cycles they will only catch maybe 3 does.. then wait 28 days for the next cycle.. fawns concieved after the second breeding cycle have a low survival rate... So anything over a 6:1 doe to buck ratio is no gain in deer populations...

[Doc]

What scenerio births more fawns?

Management Unit 1: 100 does and 5 bucks

MU2: 50 does and 50 bucks

Yes, if you reach unlikely extremes, you maybe able to detect some effect on populations. However, those minor impacts are countered with manipulation of antlerless permits. So if I had to look for significant reasons for population changes, I would be looking at hunter impacts, and gender ratios would probably not even be in the running. One nasty winter can negate anything that gender ratios effect. A little bit of normal natural occurring disease probably has more impact on populations than gender ratios. In fact in some areas, there may be predation that has more effect on populations. At any rate, I am unaware of any manipulation of gender ratios in the years when population extremes were most noteable. Chances are very good that the ratios were exactly the same as they have been any other year. And yet the populations did some signicant things.... Not reacting to changes in buck to doe ratios, but more to do with hunter impacts on the doe populations and weather extremes.

[nyantler]

Probably not. I don't think there was anything unique about the gender ratios of the late 80's and early 90's when the NYS herd size exploded. And most likely there was nothing about the gender ratios that changed when the populatioins plummetted there-after. Population size really is a function of antlerless permit numbers and allocations and weather extremes.

I have never heard of an explosion or plummetting of the deer population in NY in the last 30 years... to my knowledge neither has occured.. poplulation control, especially in the last 30 years has had everything to do with loss of habitat and displacement of deer... and really little to do with any statewide population explosions or plummetting. The NY herd has actually grown in the last 20 years.. not exploded, just grown.. so I'm not sure were you got the plummetting idea after the 90's.

[mike rossi]

1 buck can breed about 5-6 does a year.... with them staying with a "hot" doe for up to 3 days.. in most cycles they will only catch maybe 3 does.. then wait 28 days for the next cycle.. fawns concieved after the second breeding cycle have a low survival rate... So anything over a 6:1 doe to buck ratio is no gain in deer populations...

I never heard about the 6:1 model - but it is irrelevent because the same question using your 6:1 scenerio doesnt change the answer... Here I will rewrite it using the 6:1 model....

MU1 has a total of 70 deer with this sex structure : 60 does : 10 buck

MU2 also has a total of 70 deer with this sex structure : 35 does : 35 bucks

Which unit will produce more fawns?

[Doc]

I have never heard of an explosion or plummetting of the deer population in NY in the last 30 years... to my knowledge neither has occured.. poplulation control, especially in the last 30 years has had everything to do with loss of habitat and displacement of deer... and really little to do with any statewide population explosions or plummetting. The NY herd has actually grown in the last 20 years.. not exploded, just grown.. so I'm not sure were you got the plummetting idea after the 90's.

I guess I have never heard anyone deny the rise in deer numbers during the late 80's and 1990's. "Explosion" may be a bit of a strong way of putting it, but I guess that all depends on whether you witnessed the outcomes first hand or not. The vision I have in mind is the huge yard at the south end of Honeoye lake where hundreds of deer starved (a scene that has not even come close to being repeated since). And perhaps you missed the necessity for the DEC to dramatically cut antlerless permits after the drop in populations in many parts of the state. I also remember all the arguing later on over whether the population decline was related to winter weather or an over-shot in permit allocations. The one argument I never heard was that the gender ratio was all wrong ....lol. So while you may have missed it, deer populations have undergone cycles of excess and decline. And not to be sidetracked from the original topic that I was addressing, none of these changes had anything to do with deer gender ratios.

[mike rossi]

I have never heard of an explosion or plummetting of the deer population in NY in the last 30 years... to my knowledge neither has occured.. poplulation control, especially in the last 30 years has had everything to do with loss of habitat and displacement of deer... and really little to do with any statewide population explosions or plummetting. The NY herd has actually grown in the last 20 years.. not exploded, just grown.. so I'm not sure were you got the plummetting idea after the 90's.

If the DEC has population indices for the 30 years in question it would include corresponding data about the sex ratios. If someone wanted to prove a point they could ask the DEC for that info...

[mike rossi]

Probably not. I don't think there was anything unique about the gender ratios of the late 80's and early 90's when the NYS herd size exploded. And most likely there was nothing about the gender ratios that changed when the populatioins plummetted there-after. Population size really is a function of antlerless permit numbers and allocations and weather extremes.

Doc - see what part of your own writing I blew up? How do you think wildlife managers manipulate gender ratios by sex change operations? Are you serious or are you busting baseballs?

[nyantler]

I guess I have never heard anyone deny the rise in deer numbers during the late 80's and 1990's. "Explosion" may be a bit of a strong way of putting it, but I guess that all depends on whether you witnessed the outcomes first hand or not. The vision I have in mind is the huge yard at the south end of Honeoye lake where hundreds of deer starved (a scene that has not even come close to being repeated since). And perhaps you missed the necessity for the DEC to dramatically cut antlerless permits after the drop in populations in many parts of the state. I also remember all the arguing later on over whether the population decline was related to winter weather or an over-shot in permit allocations. The one argument I never heard was that the gender ratio was all wrong ....lol. So while you may have missed it, deer populations have undergone cycles of excess and decline. And not to be sidetracked from the original topic that I was addressing, none of these changes had anything to do with deer gender ratios.

With all due respect i think you are mixing up total deer populations with displacement population issues created in areas because of the housing boom that ate up tens of thousands of acres of deer habitat in the 80's and 90's... there were still the same number of deer now confined to less and less habitat... causing the DEC to have to issue more permits to help balance populations with available habitat. Total numbers in NY have remained relatively stable with very small increases or decreases. Yet deer densities may have exploded or plummetted in certain areas depending on that areas habitat vs. deer situation

Just because the DEC has made a decision not to incorporate gender ratios into population control doesn't meet that it can't be done... the same population of deer could be easily balanced between bucks and does.. through simple changes in harvesting practices... whether or not hunters would buy into those changes is another topic.

[Doc]

Well, we certainly are getting into a circular pattern here aren't we? I can't think of anything to add to this discussion that I haven't already said, and there is nothing new that you are offering. So I guess, as they say, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[mike rossi]

Although the topic is titled: "Deer Population" - the opening post was about how population age structure relates to ARs to get the optimum results. The thread got off topic when at some point in the thread someone incorrectly said sex structure (referred to as gender ratio) does not influencing pop. size (Doc is correct that it wont influence the biological carrying capacity - but it will influence reproduction and whether the herd grows, declines, or stays about the same). I attempted to explain that and then someone else tried to dispute my example with what is known as fecundity rates... The topic starter - Orion wants to discuss the above bold type...

Edited October 4, 2012 by mike rossi

[Grizz1219]

I never heard about the 6:1 model - but it is irrelevent because the same question using your 6:1 scenerio doesnt change the answer... Here I will rewrite it using the 6:1 model....

MU1 has a total of 70 deer with this sex structure : 60 does : 10 buck

MU2 also has a total of 70 deer with this sex structure : 35 does : 35 bucks

Which unit will produce more fawns?

Not that simple...

Depends on the health of the herd... Does in good shape would have multiple births.. but I'll use what you gave...

MU2 would have more fawns survive to get to the following hunting season.. MU1 runs the risk of fawns being born to late in the spring to do well and are subject to more predations... MU2, fawns would all be born within days and coyotes/bears etc would be hard pressed to do as much damage as they could with fawns being spread out over a 2 -3 month period.

[mike rossi]

Not that simple...

Depends on the health of the herd... Does in good shape would have multiple births.. but I'll use what you gave...

MU2 would have more fawns survive to get to the following hunting season.. MU1 runs the risk of fawns being born to late in the spring to do well and are subject to more predations... MU2, fawns would all be born within days and coyotes/bears etc would be hard pressed to do as much damage as they could with fawns being spread out over a 2 -3 month period.

In your second paragraph you are saying that a 1:1 sex ratio produces a better survival rate up to hunting season for fawns because they are less susceptable to predators. Is this a prediction or is it a published study? The only way that can be considered "scientifically proven" is if a radio telemetry study was completed and if it was the results would be published in a wildlife science journal. Do you know where this study has been published or who did the study?

[Doc]

Doc - see what part of your own writing I blew up? How do you think wildlife managers manipulate gender ratios by sex change operations? Are you serious or are you busting baseballs?

Obviously, what I was saying is that the purpose of antlerless permits is a direct cut of the doe population (To impact over-all reproduction) and does not have as it's purpose anything to do with trying to achieve any kind of balancing of buck/doe ratios. As a matter of fact, the reduction in does causes future population reductions that are not gender specific and results in buck and doe future reductions.

Gender ratio manipulation as a goal would have to be a whole lot more complex and would have to utilize some form of buck protection in conjunction with doe removal, and it would have to be done on a much grander scale than anything that is done in the name of over-all population reduction. Do you follow what I am saying? Population reduction as it is currently practiced is simply the removal of a quantity of the reproducing part of the population. If it were as simple as issuing gobs of antlerless permits, it already would have been accomplished wouldn't it? And it wouldn't even be a topic of discussion because that is exactly what we have been doing for decades. I think your visualization of gender balancing ignores at least half of the required solution if you are serious about making significant changes. Anything there that you disagree with?

[mike rossi]

Doc,

I want you to refer to my hypothetical example below, assume this is post hunting season data, and tell me which management unit probably had more doe tags issued?

MU1 has a total of 70 deer with this sex structure : 60 does : 10 buck

MU2 also has a total of 70 deer with this sex structure : 35 does : 35 bucks