That described our G&F dept perfectly. It is almost like they want the deer gone and the coyotes to thrive.
Fawn Survival Evidence
- Thread starter X-farmerdan
- Start date
That described our G&F dept perfectly. It is almost like they want the deer gone and the coyotes to thrive.
X-farmerdan
Well-Known Member
I would like to propose a reasonable response, but I think it would be wasted breath. I'll have at it anyhow. Deer Hunting. Deer Hunter Forum. Not religious zealotry or politics. Start a another thread or go to some other forum if you want to spew indignation. I don't know what number of deer you want, but I'd betcha the number of deer you have is a hell of a lot more than there were at my earliest memory. You want the government in. You want the government out. Or, do you just want to show you can write a sentence? From the perspective of a farmer I would like fewer deer. From the perspective of a forest owner I would like to see fewer deer. As a grandfather taking a grandson hunting I'd like to see more deer. After I drive my truck into a couple deer standing on the highway.....well you get it? Its not easy to find the balance. I'm sure you could do better, right? I know and work with lot of good people in public service - in fish and game department, forestry and conservation. Good people. You don't know them and I'm sure they are happy for it. Some of us might HAVE been hippies. Im sure you would judge me a heathen. Maybe you have some insight I don't, but this new age cult thing - really?
Good grief!
You are exactly right. If you have forty deer per square mile and they eat up everything you try grow and you see a deer or two every day you hunt - you probably dont care about predators or how liberal the season. If you spend $1,000,000 on recreation land, work your butt off managing it, and see a deer every three or four days you hunt - predators nor the DNR may be your friend. It is all in YOUR perspective.
I have two properties, eight miles apart, that have totally different deer management dynamics. I also know most of the DNR deer biologists and I was in Natural resource management with the Feds for 34 years. I see both sides of the picture.
I understand you cant set state regulations that support every corner of the state. I also understand that you cant set state regulations based on the best deer areas within the state. I understand other interrests like farmers, insurance agencies, and timber owners have to be placated. Yes, I get all that. But I would also say most DNR employees dont own $1,000,000 worth of property, nor understand the time, effort, or money a lot of private landowners out into their land and deer herd. In my area, if you are a private landowner with a decent deer herd - it is not because of the DNR - but in spite of it. I cant speak for any other state.
Mennoniteman
Well-Known Member
I was quoting someone else, and yes, it was written a little differently than I would have written it. My apologies if I offended you, since you started the discussion in a sense this thread is your domain. However, since you are a scientist, I encourage you to do a documented study on how the basic principles of fish and game management have changed to mismanagement in the past half century, and if you find any evidence of such, (I'll point you to an easy starting point for your study) then define a reason, or reasons why this is. Ever since the dawn of time game was primarily defined as wild animals that were good to eat, and managed accordingly, and eliminating poachers and predators were the top priorities for gamekeepers everywhere, from the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt to the Kings of Europe in the middle ages, and this philosophy continued in America in the early 1900's. However, things have changed. In England you would go to jail for poaching a rabbit, today in the US some of the heftiest fines are for killing predators, as in eagles, hawks, bears, bobcats, cougars, wolves etc. When wildlife agencies are stocking coyotes, have a pattern of not showing up when civilians call about poaching in progress, confiscate sportsmen's game animals when trace minerals are found in the soil, should they still be called the game commission or should we call them the predator commission? Things have really changed, and I doubt new age cult hippies are behind this major shift in management policy. I'd just like to know what is behind this? Is it that we as humans that have a degree in biology are just so much smarter?
I think wildlife management was much easier in the past because it wasnt as as political or emotional. By design, the primary beneficiaries of “game management” fifty years ago were hunters. Persecution of predators was accepted - almost required. Fifty years ago, there were no “game species” that were considered too numerous. Wildlife managers did not have to consider farmers, insurance agencies, or little old ladies with gardens. Life was easy.
Times have changed - drastically. Now we have PETA. Guns are not accepted in today’s society. A lot of farmers, foresters, and gardeners would like to see fewer deer. A lot think predators are “neat, warm, fuzzy, and cute”. Land is posted. In many areas of the country - it is hard to go hunting if you dont own your own land. Everything has changed - I am glad I no longer do it to make a living.
I have a 75 year old neighbor who is a true gem - she grew up on some property I now own - back in the forties. She recently moved back here from Kansas City because she said crime was so bad. She said she wanted to plant a garden in her back yard. I told her to plant it close to the house so the critters didnt eat it up. She asked what critters might eat it. I told her the coons, possums, deer, and hogs might get it. She said when she was growing up, if they caught a coon or possum in the garden, they ate it that night - if they caught two, they canned the meat and ate it later. She said they relied on coon and possum pelts for spending money. There were no deer. And the only hogs were in their pen. Times have changed
shaman
Member
Random thoughts:
1) I was in the barber shop a while back. Some lady was in with her kid. We were talking coyote hunting. She blurts out that she's feeding hers out on the back porch. Yikes.
2) In 17 seasons the ace #1 deer management tool I've found is limiting access to the property. If you can manage that trick, the deer will fill whatever space you give them.
3) Deer don't seem to be bothered by anything outside of human predation. At my place in town, I've got all sorts of threats, including coyotes, and the deer thrive. I'm smack-dab in the middle of the 5th largest metropolis in the country and it's nothing to see herds of 10 individuals eating in the front yard or see a 12-pointer in someone's driveway. The only thing different is that in the 'burbs, hunting is prohibited.
4) I'd disagree that state game commissions are worshiping predators. They worship revenue. They want people buying licenses and tags. They do whatever it takes to keep the money flowing. I've heard every conspiracy theory out there up to and including rattlesnakes dropped from helicopters. Coyotes don't need any help.
5) Look up Zone 4 in Kentucky. Most of KY is crawling with deer. Zone 4 has paltry harvest numbers. However, that's just the one that are taken legally and reported to Telecheck. I visit McCreary County, KY on a regular basis. It's the #1 poorest County in the country right now. McCreary County has gobs of deer. They just don't have as many hunters that play by the rules down there. $15 will get your freezer filled with meat as long as you don't ask questions.
6) If you research the history of KY's efforts to reintroduce whitetails, you'll find that in most counties, all you had to do was drop in 20 deer, and within a few years, you had a herd. Some counties, not so. They kept blaming dogs and rough terrain, and dropping in more deer. It took quite a while for them to figure out those 20 deer were all ending up in somebody's larder.
1) I was in the barber shop a while back. Some lady was in with her kid. We were talking coyote hunting. She blurts out that she's feeding hers out on the back porch. Yikes.
2) In 17 seasons the ace #1 deer management tool I've found is limiting access to the property. If you can manage that trick, the deer will fill whatever space you give them.
3) Deer don't seem to be bothered by anything outside of human predation. At my place in town, I've got all sorts of threats, including coyotes, and the deer thrive. I'm smack-dab in the middle of the 5th largest metropolis in the country and it's nothing to see herds of 10 individuals eating in the front yard or see a 12-pointer in someone's driveway. The only thing different is that in the 'burbs, hunting is prohibited.
4) I'd disagree that state game commissions are worshiping predators. They worship revenue. They want people buying licenses and tags. They do whatever it takes to keep the money flowing. I've heard every conspiracy theory out there up to and including rattlesnakes dropped from helicopters. Coyotes don't need any help.
5) Look up Zone 4 in Kentucky. Most of KY is crawling with deer. Zone 4 has paltry harvest numbers. However, that's just the one that are taken legally and reported to Telecheck. I visit McCreary County, KY on a regular basis. It's the #1 poorest County in the country right now. McCreary County has gobs of deer. They just don't have as many hunters that play by the rules down there. $15 will get your freezer filled with meat as long as you don't ask questions.
6) If you research the history of KY's efforts to reintroduce whitetails, you'll find that in most counties, all you had to do was drop in 20 deer, and within a few years, you had a herd. Some counties, not so. They kept blaming dogs and rough terrain, and dropping in more deer. It took quite a while for them to figure out those 20 deer were all ending up in somebody's larder.
X-farmerdan
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your kind and logical response. The debate about government involvement in wildlife and ecology management would make a great thread of it's own.
X-farmerdan
Well-Known Member
Thank you for your kind reply. I did think the quote was inflammatory and divisive. I didn't start this thread to dive into politics or religion. To each their own, but we will never have a reasonable debate about the serious issues we face, nor will we come to conclusions that solve those problems with the rhetoric we spew today. If you wan't to know, I'm a proponent for throwing all the bums out and starting over.
And, the intent of starting the thread was to provide some evidence of fawn recruitment rates. To me, its an important number, critical for self-managing and understanding whitetail deer dynamics. At the start I never made any reference to any government game management departments, their practices, or their character. I do like the idea of starting a thread to discuss all of that although I'm fearful of the snarling that might be involved.
Best wishes!
shaman
Member
I seem to remember from way, way back that there was a were enough fawns dropped to nearly double the herd, but that mortality before and during hunting season created an overall recruitment of about +10%. About 50-60 % of overall mortality was due to hunting and about 30-40% was due to fawn mortality (all reasons) before season.
I wish the article had referenced what the fawn:doe ratio actually was, and said something about the deer density. It is difficult to put their fawn mortality numbers in perpective when you dont know how they relate to the overall picture. Did the resulting mortality result in .8 fawns per doe - or .4 fawns per doe. Were there 60 deer per square mile in that area - or were their 20 deer per square mile. Those type of things could make a big difference in how the predation affected overall deer numbers.
Mennoniteman
Well-Known Member
I know the two areas somewhat where the studies were done and deer numbers per sq mile are on the sparse side there. Lots of state land.
Last edited:
Mennoniteman
Well-Known Member
According to your numbers from way back predation percentages went way up and harvest percentages way down...
Mennoniteman
Well-Known Member
It's a great idea to just talk deer, but it's difficult to discuss this topic without bringing in the entity that is charged with protecting, managing, and potentially has the power and authority to manipulate these fawn recruitment numbers. I understand that public perception is as fickle as the wind, and prone to change, and different groups have different agendas. The point I was trying to make, the part that baffles me, is in this state the game commission members themselves and most of their employees are hunters, they're being paid by hunting dollars, but on wildlife management it often feels like they are on the opposite side of hunters on many issues, and fawn population numbers seem to be at the bottom of their priorities? Sorry, I just brought the government back in, I'm actually very thankful for our government system as a whole, so I'll shut up and keep doing my own management thing for as long as it's still legal, just the same as most of the other PA hunting land owners I know (and many on this forum) Lots of food and cover, posted signs, no doe hunting, and suppress predators. Therefore it's a seesaw situation, with fawn recruitment numbers on public lands being managed the exact opposite of private lands, and the end result is a stalemate, the one side cancels the other side out.
Fawn survival and G&F agency decisions and regulations do go hand in hand. Fawn recruitment numbers have been dropping across most of the whitetail range - especially in the SE US - as is true in my home state. It is the responsibility of the G&F agency to monitor fawn recruitment numbers and adjust antlerless regulations accordingly. My own state has experienced a decline in fawn recruitment numbers - but there has been no corresponding reduction of antlerless harvest. The deer population has probably dropped by 50% in my area - but to be honest - our statewide harvest has remained very consistent. Time will tell. Deer harvest has dropped across most of the SE US along with a decrease in fawn recruitment numbers. But, that might be the design of the g&f agencies in those states.
X-farmerdan
Well-Known Member
Ok Ok Ok. I like to talk politics as much as the next guy. I'll talk what I know about Virginia generally. It might apply elsewhere ... or not. In Virginia there are the professional knowledgeable game and ecology mangers. Then, there are the appointed Directors who decide what policies, rules, and regulations get implemented. The pros are often frustrated by the appointees. Not too long ago (at my age nothing seems that long ago) the two arms worked in unison. The pros were hunters or at least got their early wildlife management educations as kids tagging along with older brothers, dads, and granddads. Even the directors came from the same rural communities. Everybody was close to the land. Maybe one generation removed from farming. So too were the politicians.
Here's the key, I think - the rural population elected the state representatives and senators. We can go back and prove the districts were heavily rural influenced.
Rural economies were strong. Here in Virginia we had textile and furniture manufacturing. Railroads and mining provided good jobs. The tobacco quota , whatever you think about it, provided a lot of income dispersed throughout all of Virginia. And then there were peanuts. Growing, processing all quota based.
Now it's all gone. Rural economies are in tatters. That pushes people into urban/suburban areas where generations become far removed from what the Golden age looked like.
And with it came a change in political view (forget one party or the other). Now the public or lobbying pressure is totally removed from the consideration of hunters. Agricultural interests, foresters, insurers, the non-hunting nature loving public have figured out how to control the narrative. As hunters, what have we done to tell the story? Our story? Do we think we are entitled? And do we have the right story? Can we counter balance the other interest groups? I contend you cannot sit idly by and complain about decisions.
There's another forum dedicated to Virginia Hunting, I won't mention it by name. I lobby the participants to make their voices heard, to go to the meeting and properly express their views. No. Nobody listens to us, they say! Well, keep trying! Are hunters going to get everything they want? Nope. Those days are gone...forever, at least here in the east.
But look, the pro mangers are mostly singing our tunes and they appreciate comments from those of you extremely savvy hunters and land managers. You tend to confirm their positions, but if the Directors don't hear you, it gets discouraging. Keep talking, or find someone who will.
Side story. Like most states Virginia has a Deer Management plan. I had some questions and my inquiry went to a regional biology manager who was ASTOUNDED to find that someone actually read the plan. I know there are others who do, and, somehow we need to break thru whatever barriers exist to assure the pros we do understand the complexities and do support (or not) their positions. They need the hope they have the ammunition to get the attentions of all the directors.
But, here's the other thing. The goals of the plan are noble and right. My regional biologist admitted they never hit their goals. It seems there is land that is hunted and over hunted and then there is land that hunters cannot get on. A few deer here, an over-abundance there.
I'm sure the insurance industry would have us kill every deer in Virginia, but the only way to get any balance (averages being what they are) is to over harvest some areas to compensate for areas where deer just don't get hunted. What's the answer?
Another time I will share the story of one Virginia county where, truth be known, there were too many deer and we were happy killing hell out of the herd. Then, disease and years of necessary (you might call it over) harvest made the hunting rather unspectacular. And we complained. Now, really, the deer population is probably what it should be and what it was 20-years ago- but we forget and long for the days when we "piled 'em up!"
Here's the key, I think - the rural population elected the state representatives and senators. We can go back and prove the districts were heavily rural influenced.
Rural economies were strong. Here in Virginia we had textile and furniture manufacturing. Railroads and mining provided good jobs. The tobacco quota , whatever you think about it, provided a lot of income dispersed throughout all of Virginia. And then there were peanuts. Growing, processing all quota based.
Now it's all gone. Rural economies are in tatters. That pushes people into urban/suburban areas where generations become far removed from what the Golden age looked like.
And with it came a change in political view (forget one party or the other). Now the public or lobbying pressure is totally removed from the consideration of hunters. Agricultural interests, foresters, insurers, the non-hunting nature loving public have figured out how to control the narrative. As hunters, what have we done to tell the story? Our story? Do we think we are entitled? And do we have the right story? Can we counter balance the other interest groups? I contend you cannot sit idly by and complain about decisions.
There's another forum dedicated to Virginia Hunting, I won't mention it by name. I lobby the participants to make their voices heard, to go to the meeting and properly express their views. No. Nobody listens to us, they say! Well, keep trying! Are hunters going to get everything they want? Nope. Those days are gone...forever, at least here in the east.
But look, the pro mangers are mostly singing our tunes and they appreciate comments from those of you extremely savvy hunters and land managers. You tend to confirm their positions, but if the Directors don't hear you, it gets discouraging. Keep talking, or find someone who will.
Side story. Like most states Virginia has a Deer Management plan. I had some questions and my inquiry went to a regional biology manager who was ASTOUNDED to find that someone actually read the plan. I know there are others who do, and, somehow we need to break thru whatever barriers exist to assure the pros we do understand the complexities and do support (or not) their positions. They need the hope they have the ammunition to get the attentions of all the directors.
But, here's the other thing. The goals of the plan are noble and right. My regional biologist admitted they never hit their goals. It seems there is land that is hunted and over hunted and then there is land that hunters cannot get on. A few deer here, an over-abundance there.
I'm sure the insurance industry would have us kill every deer in Virginia, but the only way to get any balance (averages being what they are) is to over harvest some areas to compensate for areas where deer just don't get hunted. What's the answer?
Another time I will share the story of one Virginia county where, truth be known, there were too many deer and we were happy killing hell out of the herd. Then, disease and years of necessary (you might call it over) harvest made the hunting rather unspectacular. And we complained. Now, really, the deer population is probably what it should be and what it was 20-years ago- but we forget and long for the days when we "piled 'em up!"
Your state is much like my home state of Arkansas. Biologists who recommend to the Commissioners - who are rich folks, appointed by the Gov for supporting his election compaign. Our G&F is also a partial recipient of a statewide general 1/8 of a cent sales tax - which means everyone in the state has money going into g&f coffers - not just sportsmen. Not sure that is a good thing.
Mennoniteman
Well-Known Member
It's not all negative, there are some positives happening in PA as far as fawn recruitment numbers, and if there's one really exciting new trend it's this one; as I travel through the state constructing postframe buildings I meet a lot of people and I see a huge movement towards a lot of sportsmen buying up hunting land as it becomes available, fed up with poor hunting on public land, they buy their own hunting grounds and manage it in some version of QDM. Hunters are willing to pay more per acre for open space land and woodland than it is worth to anyone else, so just about all land suitable for wildlife habitat that gets sold goes into private "gamelands" or "private wildlife management areas" if you will. Hunters might do poorly in getting their voice heard, but they are doing very well in taking over the most valuable resource that they have; land suitable for wildlife habitat. Sportsmen as a group for the most part agree very well on the concepts of wildlife management, so every acre of land that they buy increases fawn recruitment numbers and sidelines the kook agencies that promote ideas like wildlife contraceptives etc. Once hunters own enough of land the wildlife agencies will need to stop ignoring them or admit that they are becoming irrelevant.
Last edited:
X-farmerdan
Well-Known Member
Well put! My view is our Virginia department probably recognizes its coming irrelevance for anything other than setting the number of days we can shoot either sex and where. I don't know. Maybe that's enough. Or, admittedly, I might be totally wrong. I don't have the science!
My fear about the move to buying recreational land for hunting purposes (nearly achieved here in Virginia) is the loss of hunters voices in the conversation, whatever impact it may have. Does hunting (or has it already) become an elitist sport where only a select few get to participate? I guess I'm OK with it, but I'm not sure I understand the impacts.
This is exactly why I say - in our state, and probably many other states - if you have good deer numbers, it is not because of G&F - but in spite of G&F. Yes, I agree they brought the deer back many years ago - but that is past history. In our state, almost all G&F management areas have restictions much less liberal than statewide restrictions in an effort to provide a quality hunting experience. A very few of our deer hunters attempt to take the legal limit of deer. On my 300 acres, the four of us who hunt there could legally take four does apiece. If we did that - within a few years, a deer sighting would be a rare thing. We have killed one doe in the past five years
