White-tailed deer managers should focus on three concepts

[dgallow]

http://www.noble.org/ag/wildlife/deer-managers-should-focus-on-concepts/?email

The Noble Foundations studies deer on thousands of acres and they consult in a 100 mile radius in north TX and Ok. That is a lot of land and different habitat types to study and determine what really works.

 

[Baker]

AMEN!

Quality deer mgt. can be accomplished simply by focusing on the basics. Deer mgt. frequently is guided by snake oil salesmen, emotion and silver bullet fixes. The principles for growing an outstanding deer herd are simple...though not necessarily easy. Pay attention to nutrition and age. The genetics will take care of themselves

 

[BrianVT]

This can't be true, it's too basic and doesn't include any pictures of BIG DEER.

 

[Btaylor]

A lot to agree with in that piece.

 

[Jason Broom]

"Depending upon deer density, adult sex ratio and fawn crop, buck harvest rates for this goal are commonly only one buck per 400 to 1,000 acres."

That is a sobering thought to folks managing smaller properties, with plenty of other small properties/hunters around them. The logistics involved in growing bucks to older age classes is challenging enough on larger properties, but when you have 16 (or more) properties of 40 acres (or less) in a square mile, the guidance for only ONE mature buck to be harvested is a tough one to accept.

 

[Baker]

"Depending upon deer density, adult sex ratio and fawn crop, buck harvest rates for this goal are commonly only one buck per 400 to 1,000 acres."

That is a sobering thought to folks managing smaller properties, with plenty of other small properties/hunters around them. The logistics involved in growing bucks to older age classes is challenging enough on larger properties, but when you have 16 (or more) properties of 40 acres (or less) in a square mile, the guidance for only ONE mature buck to be harvested is a tough one to accept.

This is why I propose most folks should see themselves as managing habitat to encourage deer visitation vs, believing they are managing a deer herd. It takes big scale to effectively manage a deer herd . Recognizing that if you see a deer you like, take him if you can and not worry about effect on herd. Enjoy the process.

 

[dgallow]

"Depending upon deer density, adult sex ratio and fawn crop, buck harvest rates for this goal are commonly only one buck per 400 to 1,000 acres."

That is a sobering thought to folks managing smaller properties, with plenty of other small properties/hunters around them. The logistics involved in growing bucks to older age classes is challenging enough on larger properties, but when you have 16 (or more) properties of 40 acres (or less) in a square mile, the guidance for only ONE mature buck to be harvested is a tough one to accept.

That management reference is for BnC class antlers (very large)....what are the BnC odds in most buck populations? <3% That is the more sobering thought!

Baker is correct about scale, reality and happiness!

What if your whole county (or state) were to manage for improved habitat and a balanced herd?

How would that affect recreational land value? Happiness?

 

[Jason Broom]

That management reference is for BnC class antlers (very large)....what are the BnC odds in most buck populations? <3% That is the more sobering thought!

Baker is correct about scale, reality and happiness!

What if your whole county (or state) were to manage for improved habitat and a balanced herd?

How would that affect recreational land value? Happiness?

Good questions, Doug. These are things a lot of new landowners don't necessarily grasp. If they never do become educated about what it takes to see fully mature deer, they may not ever be happy with the recreational land they have. The fragmentation of land mass into smaller and smaller parcels makes it particularly challenging.

 

[dgallow]

Fragmentation (future) can be controlled through terms of wills and trusts specifying land division. I suspect a good deal of past fragmentation is due to parents leaving each heir a deeded and surveyed tract of the original whole farm. Each heir will vary in involvement with their parcel...some will use it and some will let it sit idle...so it's easy to have non-consensus of how the land is to be used with many small tracts. Terms of wills and trusts also seem to be area specific as neighbors ask one another for advice....for ex....if the neighborhood norm was to deed surveyed parts for each sib, then a sizeable area of land would be fragmented. For that reason, I like to see deeded land specified as an undivided interest (heirs own a percentage of the whole not a surveyed tract) so the whole land can be managed properly as a large unit by at least one sibling and those wanting no direct involvement can still own land but not allow it degrade. Most of the grazing conferences I attend now have at least one speaker talking about passing land and farm business enterprises from parent to sibling. Correct.....fragmentation affects many aspects of land use beyond recreation....just not much one can do about past fragmentation (small tracts usually command higher cost/ac purchased making ag enterprises less feasable). Ranch size varies tremendously in this area....the more remote then usually the larger the tract...the larger the tract the more the total cost of improvement.

The best you can hope for with fragmented land is a neighborhood cooperative....getting all to agree on each goal of management is a different story! Or....lease as much of it long term as you can!

 

[dgallow]

I like 'undivided interest' to be specified for future land ownership of heirs. Odds are at least one heir will want to continue management of the land which negates non-active heirs from letting land sit idle and degrade.

 

[Jason Broom]

Irrespective of acreage, improving habitat and keeping the herd at, or slightly below, capacity, are goals that can still be attained. While doing so, it's vital to look beyond the borders of a small holding, hopefully working with one or more neighbors in the process. I have found that improvement of habitat is becoming more and more common, while sufficient harvesting of does can be a challenge and selective harvest of bucks almost impossible. This is why management of expectations is very important when helping a new landowner construct their first long-term plan.

When searching for recreational parcels to purchase, I have found it useful to have the property bordered by at least one large geographical boundary or "dead zone", or else a substantial amount of what Jeff Sturgis refers to as "depth of cover". One of the age-old bits of wisdom when purchasing hunting land has been for it to back up to state land or national forest. That can be thought of as depth of cover. A dead zone might be a property bordered by a large lake on one side or a sizable ag field. By taking these into consideration, and then creating the absolute best habitat you can in the core of the property you purchase, it's possible to create disproportionately good hunting opportunities for the amount of acreage purchased.

 

[dgallow]

Depth of cover is definitely important for older class deer. Neighbor on one side cleared practically all of the timber which bordered our ranch and cattle grazing is continuous. Have photographed 3 bucks total in the last 3 years of 4 week long August surveys each year in that area....all 3 used the central part of our ranch for the majority and made a short day trip to the other area. Before the clearing, you could count on seeing a minimum of 2 mature bucks on that side of ranch and numerous younger age class bucks.

Heavily used county roads separating a property of deep cover from your property can also reduce mature buck infiltration.

When you get new neighbors it is a good idea to get a feel for what they are planning....so you can plan or change plans accordingly. Have a new neighbor this year so we will see how that pans out!

 

[farmhunter]

Not sure I agree with one buck per 400-1000 acres either. Maybe without food plots, or in low deer density areas - but not where I am. We'd be over run with deer I think - Then again - my goal is maximizing 2.5 year old bucks for harvest -(and generally if we follow that, we get more into the next age class). we do not see much past 3.5 years old in the buck category. If the goal was 5 year old bucks - well maybe this works. In NY - we'd have to eliminate 2/3 of the registered hunters in the southern tier for that to happen I'm afraid about 2/3 of the registered hunters for that to happen.

 

[dgallow]

Sounds like your area is one where trophy management is not a widespread option. Trophy management is the gist of low buck harvest rate to promote all age classes including the rare 3% making BnC.

The declining number of hunters in general has a positive impact on age structure but a negative effect on herd density. I believe that is part of the reason on a national scale deer antler score progressively increases in some areas while in others they remain static or worsen. Once herd density reaches a critical level, the effect of over browsing and high quality forage loss takes a toll on antler growth and it takes a long time to reverse that trend due to various epigenetic factors controlling herd dynamics.

 

[OkieKubota]

I agree that large parcels busted into many smaller parcels are a huge problem but it seems to be the norm. Just look at the farm I grew up on. It was a small farm with acreage inside the fences of about 56 acres but was touted as being a 50 acre piece. Old ways of fencing caused the disparity but it is what it is now and adheres to the M/L rule. The land is now busted up between myself and my 2 siblings. My brother got the house and his 10 acres. My sister got 12 acres and the barns and cash and since when asked what I wanted I just said land so I ended up with the balance of the property which was all considered "the rough land" other than my original 10 acres. I like the "rough land" because it is also the "deer" land. I can do what I want on that land with no input from siblings and vise/versa.

My Fathers sister and her husband had 90 acres of land and in their will they left both of their sons 30 acres apiece of their own and then put the last 30 in "trust" to be used equally between them. 1 brother also got the house and is renting it out since he lives in the big city and has a large home there. Both brothers are still managing the property like a Co-op and doing everything everywhere on it but they have 1 problem - 1 brother thinks 90 acres is enough to bring all of his friends to for deer hunting and the other brother who lives on the property thinks like me and thinks only 2 and at the most 3 guys could hunt it. The brother who lives in town thought it would be great to have shooting houses on it so now they have 4 houses but he brings his city friends with him and the cousin who lives on it ends up either not going hunting or not getting to utilize the shooting houses that are on his own 30 acres because they are occupied. The guest kill a bunch of spikes and forky's and does all over the entire 90 acres. If both brothers had the same mind set on deer management it would be a sweet deal but they do not. 1 is "brown it's down" and the other is trying to establish some age...very frustrating situation...

I like my situation better because of that land over where I inherited nobody hunts the land we have. My sisters land is wide open pasture with the barns and there is no place to hunt so nobody hunts there and my brothers land although wooded is not hunted at all because he doesn't hunt and even if he did his property the way the place is laid out does not really affect ours. The land I ended my wife and I ended up with is the only place deer actually hang out and they can get to us from the neighbors on 3 sides...