Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

NR RE: TO DONT BE AN IDIOT........

Stump,

The ELS system has made life a lot easier to register harvests. As far as people "recycling" tags or mis representing the harvest. I don't konw how much of that you're going to get. If someone wants to break the law, they are going to do it anyway. Law abiding hunters are going to do the correct thing and register the deer properly. Like i said, if someone wants to not register their kill, a phone in system will have no effect on that in my opinion. I hate to do it and i don't want to start on the gun controll issue but a parallel could be drawn between the two issues. As we all know, gun control laws only control the law abiding citizens, not the criminal element, that's why gun control laws don't work. The same could be said for deer registration. Just my 2 cents.

Dave
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact is, our state for the most part has accepted the fact that keeping your doe numbers down and passing on the smaller bucks increases the health of your deer herd which leads to bigger deer, both in terms of size of rack and body size. </div></div>

Though I will agree that just flat out shooting deer will help the health of the herd simply because there are less of them, a deer doesn't have to travel any distance for food and quite possibly compete for it....That all boils down the the carrying capacity of the land/area. But I don't know why letting small bucks go increases the health of the herd. Someone mind explaining that one to me a bit? A buck at 1.5 is going to have the same genetics as when he's 6.5. He's just bigger at 6.5.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I read an article in North American Whitetail yesterday and it was about an area of Oklahoma that had a very poor deer herd, but a wealthy man bought the land and intensively managed it by only shooting does for several years. Last year a 200" giant was taken off the land, with many more bucks seen on the land with similar genetics. Oklahoma is not known for their large deer, but with just a decade of good management monsters were produced. </div></div>

Year round supplemental feeding programs do wonders!! LOL If you have enough cash, you can build any deer that you want.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bushman</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Stump,

The ELS system has made life a lot easier to register harvests. As far as people "recycling" tags or mis representing the harvest. I don't konw how much of that you're going to get. If someone wants to break the law, they are going to do it anyway. Law abiding hunters are going to do the correct thing and register the deer properly. Like i said, if someone wants to not register their kill, a phone in system will have no effect on that in my opinion. I hate to do it and i don't want to start on the gun controll issue but a parallel could be drawn between the two issues. As we all know, gun control laws only control the law abiding citizens, not the criminal element, that's why gun control laws don't work. The same could be said for deer registration. Just my 2 cents.

Dave </div></div>

Fair enough Dave. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

Pat
 
Pat,

I'll try and find the email i got from the DNR, but apparently a phone in/online system is in the works and should be online in a few years.

Dave
 
the idea of passing on the 1.5 year old, AND FILLING YOUR TAG WITH A DOE, instead, helps the herd, by taking that doe, and her offspring of that year out of the herd.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: jkratz</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I agree about the origin of both diseases, but my statement stems from the fact that high deer density areas are more prone to epidemic outbreaks, such as the case in WI. Not a coincidence that the biologist believe the best way to reduce the risk of CWD is to reduce the number of deer per square mile, as was the suggestion made to southern WI when the outbreak first occurred. The outside sources that need to be brought in for CWD already exist and with high density deer areas an outbreak could be catastrophic for that portion of the state. Although a worst case scenario and probably not all that likely to happen, it has happened in other areas of the country and I am sure they thought the same thing at one time.
</div></div>

I don't know...maybe this is nit-picking on my part, but I still don't see the relevance. Higher deer densities aren't "more" prone to either of those diseases to occur...especially blue tongue. Unless you can find some documentation to say otherwise as I'd be more than happy to read it. I will agree though that the chance CWD would spread faster is there with higher densities. But even so...if you have 3 deer per sq mile or 300, CWD would still exist and the DNR would want to eradicate all the deer. One scenario isn't any more catastrophic than the other.

I'm sure there are a million CWD resources out there, but one that I found( http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/diseases/cwd/ ) states that CWD has only been found in "CWD is known to infect free-ranging deer and elk in areas of Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Illinois, New York, West Virginia, and Saskatchewan." There are a lot of states with far higher deer densities than IA I would presume. GA, OK, etc...

CWD may currently exist in IA, but as long as the elk/deer farms are closely regulated, those elk/deer farmers make sure that their pets don't get loose and guys hunting out of state don't bring CWD positive animals in(law in MN)....all will be well.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Though I will agree that just flat out shooting deer will help the health of the herd simply because there are less of them, a deer doesn't have to travel any distance for food and quite possibly compete for it....That all boils down the the carrying capacity of the land/area. But I don't know why letting small bucks go increases the health of the herd. Someone mind explaining that one to me a bit? A buck at 1.5 is going to have the same genetics as when he's 6.5. He's just bigger at 6.5.</div></div>

It's called age structure. More mature male animals in competetion for fewer does. Which, goes back to buck to doe ratio.
 
Here, this a little better explaination:

An increase in the number of older dominant bucks also has a direct suppressing effect on the testosterone levels of younger bucks, which reduces their aggressiveness and competition for breeding privileges. Since a low position in the breeding hierarchy results in less reproductive behavior and lower weight loss, those young bucks that do not breed grow to greater body size before they become dominant. This results in an overall increase in the number of older dominant bucks which leads to earlier fawning dates and heavier body sizes of yearling bucks, and this leads to higher survival rates and eventually to increased buck numbers.
 
YES! Well said!

Genetics is a red herring in wild-deer management. We have virtually zero control over it. But harvest strategies can make some difference. Since the presence of mature bucks helps suppress breeding urges in 1-1/2 year olds, some research suggests that young bucks are also not prone to disperse as far (assuming habitat is in good shape, etc.)So, theoretically, it would be easier to save a few more and bring them into the next age class.

As for the DNR wanting to eradicate deer in the event of a CWD outbreak, this is not likely to happen after the Wisconsin experience.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ghost</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Here, this a little better explaination:

An increase in the number of older dominant bucks also has a direct suppressing effect on the testosterone levels of younger bucks, which reduces their aggressiveness and competition for breeding privileges. Since a low position in the breeding hierarchy results in less reproductive behavior and lower weight loss, those young bucks that do not breed grow to greater body size before they become dominant. This results in an overall increase in the number of older dominant bucks which leads to earlier fawning dates and heavier body sizes of yearling bucks, and this leads to higher survival rates and eventually to increased buck numbers. </div></div>

Might you have you a link to this information that I could read up on? I've read multiple readings on this in the past some saying younger bucks testosterone is suppressed as you say and others calling that a myth. That was a long time ago and I can't remember what they were anymore.

Thanks!
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grasshopper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">YES! Well said!

Genetics is a red herring in wild-deer management. We have virtually zero control over it. But harvest strategies can make some difference. Since the presence of mature bucks helps suppress breeding urges in 1-1/2 year olds, some research suggests that young bucks are also not prone to disperse as far (assuming habitat is in good shape, etc.)So, theoretically, it would be easier to save a few more and bring them into the next age class.
</div></div>

Buck dispersal isn't a result of the rut and the % of mature/older bucks. Momma takes care of that by kicking those young ones out far before the rut.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stump Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Grasshopper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">YES! Well said!

Genetics is a red herring in wild-deer management. We /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif have virtually zero control over it. But harvest strategies can make some difference. Since the presence of mature bucks helps suppress breeding urges in 1-1/2 year olds, some research suggests that young bucks are also not prone to disperse as far (assuming habitat is in good shape, etc.)So, theoretically, it would be easier to save a few more and bring them into the next age class.
</div></div>

Buck dispersal isn't a result of the rut and the % of mature/older bucks. Momma takes care of that by kicking those young ones out far before the rut. </div></div>

Here is a link to an article about buck dispersal you may find interesting...DISPERSAL

/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ghost</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Here is a link to a really well written book about deer management.

Deer Management 101

Fact of the matter is, passing young bucks is directly related to herd health in many ways.

</div></div>

Thanks for the link! Looks like I have some reading to do. ha, ha

I guess until I read otherwise, my opinion is that the main focus of having or obtaining a specific age structure among free ranging deer is no more than an attempt to tip the scales in the favor of a hunter seeking to shoot a specific type of animal. It's really only common sense that if you want to shoot a 5.5yr old, then you do the best you can to "farm" the herd in your area to create that scenario. Keep passing on younger bucks and the likelihood of you seeing that 5.5 increases after every passing year. We all attempt to be deer farmers even though we hunt free ranging animals. Some just farm differently than others. :)

To me....the health of a deer herd comes down to one thing and that's food--in essence the carrying capacity of the land. If you have the food(year round), deer in the grand scheme of things will remain healthy.
 
Not sure how we turned this post into a deer management topic, but what the heck, lets run with it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To me....the health of a deer herd comes down to one thing and that's food--in essence the carrying capacity of the land. If you have the food(year round), deer in the grand scheme of things will remain healthy.</div></div>

I do agree that proper nutrition is very important to a deers health. But I think it is much more complex than just having enough food.

One example,... you have an area that has 100 does, all age classes, and you have 6 bucks that are 1.5 to 3.5 years of age during the November rut. There is an unlimited supply of food for all these deer year round.

Without getting real specific about how this buck to doe ratio will effect the health of the herd, would you consider this deer herd healthy?
 
No. Just for starters, the low buck numbers will make for an extended "trickle rut" as bucks are unable to breed does during the normal peak breeding season. So,unbred does continue to come into heat in the months ahead, resulting in a fawn-drop that is staggered over weeks and months the next spring. In northern areas (where winter survival is a concern) you could get a big die off in a harsh winter.

And that's just one factor:)

As for food being the only concern in a healthy deer herd, this can be sticky business too. Habitat quality is critical too, and not just for whitetails. IMO, deer are just part of the landscape and when their numbers start impacting habitat for other species, some skin heads need to be shot!
 
Stump Shooter,
If you can find some articles about this topic by John Ozaga in Deer & Deer Hunting you will have a much better understanding of how age structure & buck/doe ratio affect overall deer herd health. His writing style is fairly dry but it's full of facts backed by research all over the US. Good luck.
Maggs
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Ghost</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not sure how we turned this post into a deer management topic, but what the heck, lets run with it.



I do agree that proper nutrition is very important to a deers health. But I think it is much more complex than just having enough food.

One example,... you have an area that has 100 does, all age classes, and you have 6 bucks that are 1.5 to 3.5 years of age during the November rut. There is an unlimited supply of food for all these deer year round.

Without getting real specific about how this buck to doe ratio will effect the health of the herd, would you consider this deer herd healthy?

</div></div>

Good, civilly discussed threads morph into different topics. I'll start another thread if you want to stay on track to the originators point of view.


I can see where your going with your 16.66 doe per buck ratio scenario. LOL Ya...Ya, I know and understand trickle ruts and late fawn drop mortality rates. But that's nature's way of thinning out deer if indeed it comes down to that. So to answer your question in a general sense, as long as the average body weight of those deer is in check and no inbreading is going on....I'd say they are healthy.

Let me ask you another in general question though....

Have times changed so much today than we'll say 20+ years ago that we must have our hand in creating a deer herd that we have a bigger influence over it than good old nature? Sometimes I wonder how deer even survived back in the day when no one cared about horns and just shot deer to eat them. Nature took care of herd imbalances, peaks and valleys...not a guy sitting up in a tree with camo on. :)
 
Ghost, I think I may have hijacked the thread when I said that we as a state have been managing our deer herd well for the last ten years which has resulted in more people wanting to hunt our state since we have bigger deer. I feel if other states put in the same effort they would get similar results.
 
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stump Shooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have times changed so much today than we'll say 20+ years ago that we must have our hand in creating a deer herd that we have a bigger influence over it than good old nature? Sometimes I wonder how deer even survived back in the day when no one cared about horns and just shot deer to eat them. Nature took care of herd imbalances, peaks and valleys...not a guy sitting up in a tree with camo on. :) </div></div>

well, this is how it went....

deer lived here man did not.....

man moved in, killed TONS of deer to feed his family

deer almost disappeared....

man realized this and rebuilt the population

man over did it, and now there are more deer than many chunks of land can support....

so to answer your question, man created the current deer herd and it is in need of man's involvment to maintain healthly population levels.....


deer needs man to survive, man needs to kill deer to survive.....
/forum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

ironic isn't it?


(this is tongue in cheek, but not far from reality)

having a healthy population is much more dependant on factors than simply diet alone!

diet is essential, but only one piece of what deer need to remain healthy.

we are no different! food is necessary for us to survive, shelter is imparitive for our survival, if our shelter is crappy, we are more seseptible to disease and sickness. no one knows where the disease or whateve originates, but things as small as bacteria can cause life threatening illnesses....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom