Deer population

[Doc]

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

I guess I really don't know. It all depends on which unit was deemed to be overpopulated, or if either was deemed over-populated. It could be that neither had any permits issued if it were decided that they both herds needed rebuilding. That's kind of my point. Antlerless permits are not issued based on gender ratio. That's not part of the decision.

[Grizz1219]

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?

Go to Vegas.... It's odds.... If you take 35 fawns (1 per doe) being born all at once, the odds of more of them surviving are better than 35 fawns being born over 2 months... And I believe the study was done by D & DH.... I'll have to go back and find it though... not sure what web site I found it on.. But think of Sea turtles... They all hatch at once, predators are waiting for them but it is done that way in nature to give the majority of them the best chace to make it past them... Shotgun in it so to speak..

[mike rossi]

If not, then how do you think things are decided?

What if a unit is underpopulated? Wouldnt a high doe to buck ratio increase the population? Could that not be acheived by reducing doe harvest?

[Doc]

If not, then how do you think things are decided?

What if a unit is underpopulated? Wouldnt a high doe to buck ratio increase the population? Could that not be acheived by reducing doe harvest?

I can only keep repeating that antlerless permits are based completely on deer density and input from stakeholders and one might hope that habitat quality and availability is factored in too. Gender balance is not a consideration.

[nyantler]

I guess I really don't know. It all depends on which unit was deemed to be overpopulated, or if either was deemed over-populated. It could be that neither had any permits issued if it were decided that they both herds needed rebuilding. That's kind of my point. Antlerless permits are not issued based on gender ratio. That's not part of the decision.

I'm not sure thats true.. I would bet that the buck take for a given area is taken into consideration when antlerless permit amounts are decided.. that would be basing permits on gender ratio..

I wonder why the DEC hasn't changed to a doe tag for everyone and limited buck tags for WMU's.. If the original 3" rule with no doe tag was meant to increase doe populations (which it was) then why not try the plan in reverse to gain control of the doe population and increase buck age structure... I think we all know the reason... their would be very little hunter cooperation... if hunters couldn't get a buck tag.. most would not hunt... now here comes the posts saying " I would.. it's not about bucks for me" ... but i promise if the DEC even considered that idea.. hunters would be up in arms about possibly not getting a buck tag.. its always been about themselves and not the deer for most hunters.. and there seems to be no end in sight for that mentality preventing better deer management.

[Doc]

I'm not sure thats true.. I would bet that the buck take for a given area is taken into consideration when antlerless permit amounts are decided.. that would be basing permits on gender ratio..

I wonder why the DEC hasn't changed to a doe tag for everyone and limited buck tags for WMU's.. If the original 3" rule with no doe tag was meant to increase doe populations (which it was) then why not try the plan in reverse to gain control of the doe population and increase buck age structure... I think we all know the reason... their would be very little hunter cooperation... if hunters couldn't get a buck tag.. most would not hunt... now here comes the posts saying " I would.. it's not about bucks for me" ... but i promise if the DEC even considered that idea.. hunters would be up in arms about possibly not getting a buck tag.. its always been about themselves and not the deer for most hunters.. and there seems to be no end in sight for that mentality preventing better deer management.

As I understand it, it is the buck take that gives them a consistant guage of where the deer population is going because there is no interference of permit numbers. It is their yardstick for measuring harvest results. The doe take is not as relevant because it has the influence of changing numbers of permits. The buck take is a relative constant. That still has nothing to do with intentional gender balancing.

In answer to your question about "a doe tag for everyone and limited buck tags for WMU's", I am sure it is because as I have been saying, the antlerless permit system is for population control. You do not control populations with buck harvest. It is the protection or reduction of the does that is the population control of significance. It really has nothing to do with hunter cooperation, but is strictly a function of biology.

[squirrel slayer]

generally your buck to doe ratio should be 2 doe to a single buck, but as i saw stated before these numbers can greatly vary for a number of reasons, if you have a single sq mile of land(640 acres) approx. you have to have the continued food and nutrients for the number of deer you wish to hold. Holding Capacity, this includes not only grasses and natural nuts, fruits, ect but if its your land and you can do so i would make some year round food plots. it will never hurt to more than enough food for the heard you want to keep, just my thought and opinion let me know if you want more info id be glad to help if i was any help to you.

[nyantler]

As I understand it, it is the buck take that gives them a consistant guage of where the deer population is going because there is no interference of permit numbers. It is their yardstick for measuring harvest results. The doe take is not as relevant because it has the influence of changing numbers of permits. The buck take is a relative constant. That still has nothing to do with intentional gender balancing.

In answer to your question about "a doe tag for everyone and limited buck tags for WMU's", I am sure it is because as I have been saying, the antlerless permit system is for population control. You do not control populations with buck harvest. It is the protection or reduction of the does that is the population control of significance. It really has nothing to do with hunter cooperation, but is strictly a function of biology.

It has little to do with biology and more to do with managing for more does back when the deer numbers in NY were non existent... their failure to understand deer biology in the past led to the boom in the doe population and the skew in the buck to doe ratio... the antlerless permits are a direct result of realizing their error and trying to correct the imbalance in the ratios due to the lack of doe harvest for so many years.. their one buck.. no doe policy for many years created the need to reduce doe population as availible habitats started to diminish.. but it was also used as a tool for the past 20-25 years to get ratios more in balance... especially after they started seeing 20:1 ratios pop up in parts of NY.. so in fact ratios were and still are a part of the antlerless permit program and the thought process behind it.

What most hunters don't know is that what some would consider deer biology in the past was merely anticdotal and had little to do with the actual study of the whitetail deer... it wasn't until the 80's that any real biological studies of whitetails were being done on a large scale and the 90's before that information started to get to the public... true deer biologists were virtually non existent before 1980.. in fact if you look at any books published on whitetails prior to that you will find much of the so called biological information has been proven to be incorrect.

[Doc]

It has little to do with biology and more to do with managing for more does back when the deer numbers in NY were non existent... their failure to understand deer biology in the past led to the boom in the doe population and the skew in the buck to doe ratio... the antlerless permits are a direct result of realizing their error and trying to correct the imbalance in the ratios due to the lack of doe harvest for so many years.. their one buck.. no doe policy for many years created the need to reduce doe population as availible habitats started to diminish.. but it was also used as a tool for the past 20-25 years to get ratios more in balance... especially after they started seeing 20:1 ratios pop up in parts of NY.. so in fact ratios were and still are a part of the antlerless permit program and the thought process behind it.

What most hunters don't know is that what some would consider deer biology in the past was merely anticdotal and had little to do with the actual study of the whitetail deer... it wasn't until the 80's that any real biological studies of whitetails were being done on a large scale and the 90's before that information started to get to the public... true deer biologists were virtually non existent before 1980.. in fact if you look at any books published on whitetails prior to that you will find much of the so called biological information has been proven to be incorrect.

Yes, and in the future, we will likely find that much of today's biological knowledge is also incorrect. So goes the progress of science. Nothing new there. And by the way , much of what we are learning today comes from times much earlier than the 80's. Everything we know today or think we know today comes from researchers such as Robinson (1965), Mirarchi (1977), Lambiase (1972), Whitehead & McEwan (1973), Long (1959), Ozoga (1969), Verme (1962), Mueller & Sadeir (1979), Cheatum & Severinghaus (1950), Robinette (1955), and on and on goes, but you get the idea. The list of researchers that built the foundation of whitetail biology many more years ago than the 1980's is basically endless. And there were many researchers before those cited here that also conducted valuable building blocks for today's knowledge of whitetail biology. And these people were not dealing in anectotal study and were indeed doing very sophisticated scientific studies. And even though we are convinced that we know everything there is to know about whitetails today, I will guarantee you that the learning will go on long after us. How we use all that research is likely to be a function of resources and if we choose to squander it, that too is a choice that we make as time goes on.

However, back to the subject of deer population, it is still a fact that deer populations are currently controlled through the regulation of does (today, via antlerless deer permits) and none of it has anything to do with any conscious effort to regulate buck to doe ratios. It all has to do with the current biological understanding that does are the ones that drop fawns (frequently at the rate of two or three). No one is worrying about any ratio of bucks to does in that decision. The concern is strictly cutting or increasing the population to bring it into balance with what the human population can tolerate. Perhaps there will come a day when we have the luxury of dealing in such things as buck/doe ratios and maybe even more meaningful or exotic management features. But the reality is that taxpayers of this state and most states have more pressing concerns and are not willing to shell out the resources to deal with the nitty-grittys of every aspect of whitetail management. So, our fascination with gender ratios is going to have to wait. And that wait may extend on forever.

[mike rossi]

I can only keep repeating that antlerless permits are based completely on deer density and input from stakeholders and one might hope that habitat quality and availability is factored in too. Gender balance is not a consideration.

OK, so the appropriate density at the DMU scale; is a balance between the social factors, such as input from stakeholders; and the biological factors, such as habitat. We have established that...

However, the sex structure of the population affects how the population will change (up or down) or whether it will not change much. Anterless permits can be a tool used to achieve and maintain that desired density. The number of anterless permits allocated is adjusted to increase, decrease, or maintain the population on a DMU scale.

You are adamant that the DEC does not follow this concept in its deer management program, and for all I know you might be 100% correct.

I'm not sure thats true.. I would bet that the buck take for a given area is taken into consideration when antlerless permit amounts are decided.. that would be basing permits on gender ratio..

I wonder why the DEC hasn't changed to a doe tag for everyone and limited buck tags for WMU's.. If the original 3" rule with no doe tag was meant to increase doe populations (which it was) then why not try the plan in reverse to gain control of the doe population and increase buck age structure... I think we all know the reason... their would be very little hunter cooperation... if hunters couldn't get a buck tag.. most would not hunt... now here comes the posts saying " I would.. it's not about bucks for me" ... but i promise if the DEC even considered that idea.. hunters would be up in arms about possibly not getting a buck tag.. its always been about themselves and not the deer for most hunters.. and there seems to be no end in sight for that mentality preventing better deer management.

In areas were the deer are cresting the SCC or the BCC that program would accomplish population reduction goals, but as far as I know, not because of the AR. If you have no preference harvesting a spike over a doe there is little to lose under this management regime, unless the only shot you get is at a spike... Off course that regime is not appropriate if the deer population in a unit is small or declining and needs conservation...

Edited October 9, 2012 by mike rossi

[mike rossi]

As I understand it, it is the buck take that gives them a consistant guage of where the deer population is going because there is no interference of permit numbers. It is their yardstick for measuring harvest results. The doe take is not as relevant because it has the influence of changing numbers of permits. The buck take is a relative constant. That still has nothing to do with intentional gender balancing.

In answer to your question about "a doe tag for everyone and limited buck tags for WMU's", I am sure it is because as I have been saying, the antlerless permit system is for population control. You do not control populations with buck harvest. It is the protection or reduction of the does that is the population control of significance. It really has nothing to do with hunter cooperation, but is strictly a function of biology.

The permits numbers change with the populations or with new population goals... Both buck and doe harvest data is usefull for population estimates. Those population estimates determine the allocations of anterless permits. The allocations are based on what population size the wildlife managers want in each unit...

[nyantler]

Yes, and in the future, we will likely find that much of today's biological knowledge is also incorrect. So goes the progress of science. Nothing new there. And by the way , much of what we are learning today comes from times much earlier than the 80's. Everything we know today or think we know today comes from researchers such as Robinson (1965), Mirarchi (1977), Lambiase (1972), Whitehead & McEwan (1973), Long (1959), Ozoga (1969), Verme (1962), Mueller & Sadeir (1979), Cheatum & Severinghaus (1950), Robinette (1955), and on and on goes, but you get the idea. The list of researchers that built the foundation of whitetail biology many more years ago than the 1980's is basically endless. And there were many researchers before those cited here that also conducted valuable building blocks for today's knowledge of whitetail biology. And these people were not dealing in anectotal study and were indeed doing very sophisticated scientific studies. And even though we are convinced that we know everything there is to know about whitetails today, I will guarantee you that the learning will go on long after us. How we use all that research is likely to be a function of resources and if we choose to squander it, that too is a choice that we make as time goes on.

However, back to the subject of deer population, it is still a fact that deer populations are currently controlled through the regulation of does (today, via antlerless deer permits) and none of it has anything to do with any conscious effort to regulate buck to doe ratios. It all has to do with the current biological understanding that does are the ones that drop fawns (frequently at the rate of two or three). No one is worrying about any ratio of bucks to does in that decision. The concern is strictly cutting or increasing the population to bring it into balance with what the human population can tolerate. Perhaps there will come a day when we have the luxury of dealing in such things as buck/doe ratios and maybe even more meaningful or exotic management features. But the reality is that taxpayers of this state and most states have more pressing concerns and are not willing to shell out the resources to deal with the nitty-grittys of every aspect of whitetail management. So, our fascination with gender ratios is going to have to wait. And that wait may extend on forever.

If you had actually read any of the studies that you quote... they were simple anatomical biological informations... not related to any studies of herd health, population control vs ratios, buck age structures relationship to fawn mortality, deer body weights, I can keep going.. these are the things related to hunting and utilizing hunting as a conservation tool to achieve optimum herd stabilty.. none of these types of studies were done prior to the 1980's.... You can find a million books telling you how antlers grow, what type of glands deer have, how to age by tooth wear, gestation time, so on and so forth... fun facts yes... but not related to how deer actually function as a herd or how how age structure affects herd stabilty... stuff that really matters as related to hunting and conservation... it didn't exsist except in anticdotal form from hunter observations which turned out to be entirely wrong.

I have some of the books by the biologists you have cited and they are currently being used as kindling for my fireplace. Yes they were good as a foundation maybe for modern studies of how deer actually tick... but by the 80's we already knew how antlers grow and that deer had an orbital gland... what we didn't know was the stuff that affected how to move foward with responsible conservation... hence the need for population control because of the lack of anyone knowing that you couldn't manage a deer herd without proper doe management.. that took some 80 years for anyone to figure out... especially here in NY.. NY messed up the ratios and age structure so badly from their lack of knowledge that 100 years later it's still messed up... the acceptance of AR's and doe population control whether the DEC admits it or not is proof of an attempt to correct what they know to be a problem here in NY in the deer herds.

Edited October 10, 2012 by nyantler

[mike rossi]

If you had actually read any of the studies that you quote... they were simple anatomical biological informations... not related to any studies of herd health, population control vs ratios, buck age structures relationship to fawn mortality, deer body weights, I can keep going.. these are the things related to hunting and utilizing hunting as a conservation tool to achieve optimum herd stabilty.. none of these types of studies were done prior to the 1980's.... You can find a million books telling you how antlers grow, what type of glands deer have, how to age by tooth wear, gestation time, so on and so forth... fun facts yes... but not related to how deer actually function as a herd or how how age structure affects herd stabilty... stuff that really matters as related to hunting and conservation... it didn't exsist except in anticdotal form from hunter observations which turned out to be entirely wrong.

I have some of the books by the biologists you have cited and they are currently being used as kindling for my fireplace. Yes they were good as a foundation maybe for modern studies of how deer actually tick... but by the 80's we already knew how antlers grow and that deer had an orbital gland... what we didn't know was the stuff that affected how to move foward with responsible conservation... hence the need for population control because of the lack of anyone knowing that you couldn't manage a deer herd without proper doe management.. that took some 80 years for anyone to figure out... especially here in NY.. NY messed up the ratios and age structure so badly from their lack of knowledge that 100 years later it's still messed up... the acceptance of AR's and doe population control whether the DEC admits it or not is proof of an attempt to correct what they know to be a problem here in NY in the deer herds.

The stuff you refer to as "fun facts" are known as "vital rates" (hence the term biology) and as you said are the foundation of today's knowledge, but it is misleading to say that it isnt related to conservation or harvest management (hunting). Biologists still need to know that stuff... As you indicated wildlife studies have evolved from "descriptive research" to "experimental research" - but keep in mind those vital rates are pertinent to wildlife studies.

[mike rossi]

Yes, and in the future, we will likely find that much of today's biological knowledge is also incorrect. So goes the progress of science. Nothing new there. And by the way , much of what we are learning today comes from times much earlier than the 80's. Everything we know today or think we know today comes from researchers such as Robinson (1965), Mirarchi (1977), Lambiase (1972), Whitehead & McEwan (1973), Long (1959), Ozoga (1969), Verme (1962), Mueller & Sadeir (1979), Cheatum & Severinghaus (1950), Robinette (1955), and on and on goes, but you get the idea. The list of researchers that built the foundation of whitetail biology many more years ago than the 1980's is basically endless. And there were many researchers before those cited here that also conducted valuable building blocks for today's knowledge of whitetail biology. And these people were not dealing in anectotal study and were indeed doing very sophisticated scientific studies. And even though we are convinced that we know everything there is to know about whitetails today, I will guarantee you that the learning will go on long after us. How we use all that research is likely to be a function of resources and if we choose to squander it, that too is a choice that we make as time goes on.

However, back to the subject of deer population, it is still a fact that deer populations are currently controlled through the regulation of does (today, via antlerless deer permits) and none of it has anything to do with any conscious effort to regulate buck to doe ratios. It all has to do with the current biological understanding that does are the ones that drop fawns (frequently at the rate of two or three). No one is worrying about any ratio of bucks to does in that decision. The concern is strictly cutting or increasing the population to bring it into balance with what the human population can tolerate. Perhaps there will come a day when we have the luxury of dealing in such things as buck/doe ratios and maybe even more meaningful or exotic management features. But the reality is that taxpayers of this state and most states have more pressing concerns and are not willing to shell out the resources to deal with the nitty-grittys of every aspect of whitetail management. So, our fascination with gender ratios is going to have to wait. And that wait may extend on forever.

Doc,

I got a few comments on what you said here...

What Joe is talking about is that at some point wildlife field studies began to be conducted like laboratory experiments: variables reduced by comparing a control population to an experimental population. This accelerated knowledge and made conclusions more reliable. Some of the info derived from those early descriptive studies is still valid, but just like in any form of science some is outdated. Much of it is the legs which todays research stands on - one example is vital rates, there are other examples. They did a lot of good work in those days!

I want to refer you to the 2012 2013 NY Hunting & Trapping Official Guide to Laws and Regulations; Page 18, second paragraph, second sentence. Why does Jeremy Hurst even reference doe to buck ratios? I have a few guesses, but I really do not know why. I dont even hunt deer. I think some of you hardcore deer hunters should contact Hurst and ask him about the significance of this.

Another thing, I have said time and time again, that the public majority does NOT pay for wildlife research - including non game wildlife research. Yes the public majority does pay into the DEC, however the scope of the DEC is much wider than just hunting or even wildlife. The sources of research funds are varied and some research is done by conservation organizations. FYI: The NYSCC is NOT a conservation organization. Examples of conservation organizations are: The Audobon Society; The Nature Conservancy: The National Wildlife Federation and hundreds more...

There is a lot of research going on right now and lots of grants availble for research, habitat and the related. I know this sounds foriegn, I challenge you to ask those you respect why this is not well known... Ask the outdoor writers, the NRA, the USSA, the SCI, the NYSCC, the NY Fish and Wildlife Board, the NY Conservation Fund Advisory Board... You know - the "common sense" crowd...

[nyantler]

The stuff you refer to as "fun facts" are known as "vital rates" (hence the term biology) and as you said are the foundation of today's knowledge, but it is misleading to say that it isnt related to conservation or harvest management (hunting). Biologists still need to know that stuff... As you indicated wildlife studies have evolved from "descriptive research" to "experimental research" - but keep in mind those vital rates are pertinent to wildlife studies.

I understand all that.. my point is that those descriptive research studies were not being use, especially here in NY for any management efforts.. and although they are biology and may be the foundation of todays research.. they were not related to management and were just as you said descriptive.. important yes if you were looking to know about deer anatomy and characteristics... but had nothing to do with managing herds for ratio or populations.. etc.... that kind of research didn't exist until about the 1980's.. which was my point. About the 1980's is when ratios and population problems started to really be addressed.. the initials dmps were issued as a means to reduce doe populations to bring highly skewed ratios closer together which inherently would bring total populations down... I will agree that there were no attempts to increase buck age structure, but dmps started as a mean to reduce the near 20:1 ratios that were being seen in many parts of the state.

[Doc]

If you had actually read any of the studies that you quote... they were simple anatomical biological informations... not related to any studies of herd health, population control vs ratios, buck age structures relationship to fawn mortality, deer body weights, I can keep going.. these are the things related to hunting and utilizing hunting as a conservation tool to achieve optimum herd stabilty.. none of these types of studies were done prior to the 1980's.... You can find a million books telling you how antlers grow, what type of glands deer have, how to age by tooth wear, gestation time, so on and so forth... fun facts yes... but not related to how deer actually function as a herd or how how age structure affects herd stabilty... stuff that really matters as related to hunting and conservation... it didn't exsist except in anticdotal form from hunter observations which turned out to be entirely wrong.

I have some of the books by the biologists you have cited and they are currently being used as kindling for my fireplace. Yes they were good as a foundation maybe for modern studies of how deer actually tick... but by the 80's we already knew how antlers grow and that deer had an orbital gland... what we didn't know was the stuff that affected how to move foward with responsible conservation... hence the need for population control because of the lack of anyone knowing that you couldn't manage a deer herd without proper doe management.. that took some 80 years for anyone to figure out... especially here in NY.. NY messed up the ratios and age structure so badly from their lack of knowledge that 100 years later it's still messed up... the acceptance of AR's and doe population control whether the DEC admits it or not is proof of an attempt to correct what they know to be a problem here in NY in the deer herds.

Lol .... perhaps you should have used those books for something besides kindling. Seriously, I do wish you had read a few of those books and studies and you would have found that they performed a lot of herd management research and studies on controlled deer herds that involved reproduction and dispersment features and habitat effects/management and on and on. And by the way, hunter observations never played into any of these researcher's studies that I have read. No, herd management did not originate with the concept of ARs (lol), and no the idea of controlling populations with doe harvests did not originate in 1980. And yes there was a steady growth of herd management research as time went on, and is not finished yet. That's no surprise. But to contend that nothing of import was conceived prior to 1980, is simply not true.

Of course the state and content of early research is not to be confused with the DEC's interpretation and implementation of that research. But in their defense, I have to point out that for most of NYS's history, it never was about "controlling" the herd. For a lot of those years it was all about growing or at least maintaining the herd. Hence there was no real thought about burgeoning deer populations or the need for doe harvests. And that was why there was the buck only laws for so many years. Actually a very smart policy given the state of the herd at the time. That could explain why it wasn't until the 50's that anyone even considered a need for taking does. Even though the size of the state herd was still relatively small, signs of growth had them thinking in terms of needing methods to control population growth. And by the way, with a few false starts as to how to proceed, they eventually came up with the way to handle that too. First the "doe day", and then the party permit system and finally the antlerless permit system. And guess what ..... returning the discussion to the original topic ..... none of that then or now ever had anything to do with ssome notion of the perfect gender ratio. It was all about population size and only population size. And any resultant gender ratio alteration was simply an accidental by-product and not an intent.

[nyantler]

Nobody said anything about perfect gender ratios... just better ratios and better buck age structure... I assure you that both are taken into consideration by the DEC.. although I'll concede not to the extent of overall population control... especially with a diminishing habitat problem and the reduction in hunter numbers.