Another weird trend in data

fairchaser said:

Curious how you know? Observations?

Click to expand...

24 years of season-long camera censuses. Here's the buck age structure data since 2003 on a 3-Year Running Mean (which is used to take out the typical year-to-year fluctuations caused by smallish data sets). I have data back to 1999, but I tend not to compare it to the data 2003+ because the earlier censuses were run using film cameras, hence the settings on the cameras were very different due to worries about running out of film. From 2003 onwards I was using digital cameras and could "let 'er rip" with picture numbers.

BSK said:

24 years of season-long camera censuses. Here's the buck age structure data since 2003 on a 3-Year Running Mean (which is used to take out the typical year-to-year fluctuations caused by smallish data sets). I have data back to 1999, but I tend not to compare it to the data 2003+ because the earlier censuses were run using film cameras, hence the settings on the cameras were very different due to worries about running out of film. From 2003 onwards I was using digital cameras and could "let 'er rip" with picture numbers.

Click to expand...

Very interesting data set. I see what you mean! Have you ever tried to figure out what percentage of bucks totally avoid the camera? I would think most bucks have grown up with cameras now and are sort of used to them. I'm not sure if this would skew the results or change over time. The daylight pics are perplexing though. It could very well be the result of something outside the influence of man or hunters.

fairchaser said:

Have you ever tried to figure out what percentage of bucks totally avoid the camera?

Click to expand...

The only way I know of to estimate what percentage of bucks are not captured on film is to use a modified version of "Mark-Recapture" statistics. With Mark-Recapture studies, animals are captured, all are marked and then released. Later, animals are recaptured and the percent of the second capture that were marked from the first capture gives you an estimate of what percentage of the total population was captured the first time (generally, these later captures are run over and over to get a good estimate). So if 30% of the animals recaptured are marked, then that first capture caught about 30% of the total population.

I can use the bucks captured on film as the "first capture," and then bucks harvested as the recapture, and the number caught on film previous to harvest as the "marked" deer. Since 2003, of the 63 bucks harvested, all but 2 were "marked" (previously caught on film). So those bucks caught on film each year represent around 97% of the total buck population. That's a pretty good census.

BSK said:

The only way I know of to estimate what percentage of bucks are not captured on film is to use a modified version of "Mark-Recapture" statistics. With Mark-Recapture studies, animals are captured, all are marked and then released. Later, animals are recaptured and the percent of the second capture that were marked from the first capture gives you an estimate of what percentage of the total population was captured the first time (generally, these later captures are run over and over to get a good estimate). So if 30% of the animals recaptured are marked, then that first capture caught about 30% of the total population.

I can use the bucks captured on film as the "first capture," and then bucks harvested as the recapture, and the number caught on film previous to harvest as the "marked" deer. Since 2003, of the 63 bucks harvested, all but 2 were "marked" (previously caught on film). So those bucks caught on film each year represent around 97% of the total buck population. That's a pretty good census.

Click to expand...

I'm always surprised by bucks that get killed that no one had pics of and other bucks that get their pics taken all over the plantation. But by and large, they generally get their pics taken at least once. That's one big reason I don't believe in Bigfoot! Where are the pics?

fairchaser said:

I'm always surprised by bucks that get killed that no one had pics of and other bucks that get their pics taken all over the plantation. But by and large, they generally get their pics taken at least once. That's one big reason I don't believe in Bigfoot! Where are the pics?

Click to expand...

Yep and all the guides and hunters

fairchaser said:

I'm always surprised by bucks that get killed that no one had pics of and other bucks that get their pics taken all over the plantation.

Click to expand...

Now normally, we have a much higher success rate killing bucks that are photographed very frequently. But now and then we kill one that has been photographed just once. But the one's that really fry my brain are the bucks that are photographed over and over and over, yet no one ever sees them with their own eyes. It doesn't seem possible.

fairchaser said:

I'm always surprised by bucks that get killed that no one had pics of and other bucks that get their pics taken all over the plantation. But by and large, they generally get their pics taken at least once. That's one big reason I don't believe in Bigfoot! Where are the pics?

Click to expand...

I think those tend to be the drifters. I see it happen while hunting and on cam at least once per season. Bucks will move through the property once on a straight line, maybe stepping past a cam & maybe not. Then they're gone forever. I saw one in person this season like that and he never was on cam nor had I ever seen him before or after. Who knows where they come from, where they're going, or how far they travel? It's an enigma.

On the flip, I have bucks that are regulars but in varying intervals and timelines. Summer bucks aren't necessarily fall bucks and they're not necessarily winter bucks, but they show up often enough within their respective timeframes that I recognize and expect it. And at least one or two bucks at any given time seem to be permanent party residents. They're around any time of year. But all of them disappear for days or weeks at a time so I can only assume they are somebody else's enigma bucks.

The bucks I like to hunt are the homebodies. I get familiar enough with them to know their tendencies and for lack of better word they are "easier" to kill. There was a time I'd get excited about seeing a giant on cam, and I'd start making all kinds of plans on how I'd kill him. Mind you it might only be one pic at 3:30am and never again. Looking back I can see how ridiculously naive I was. Never once have I killed one of those bucks. These days I only get excited when I see a buck every part of the year and on every camera on the property every time of day because I know that means my property is his home, and when/if he reaches maturity I have a reasonable chance at killing him. I usually have one like that to hunt every year or every other year. He may not always be giant like the mysterious random drifters, but often enough for me he is.

I didnt see this so Ill ask, Are you seeing the same bucks more often or more bucks in all? The results could look the same for totally different reasons.

Popcorn said:

I didnt see this so Ill ask, Are you seeing the same bucks more often or more bucks in all? The results could look the same for totally different reasons.

Click to expand...

Our deer (and buck) population has varied over time and is closely linked to cover/browse habitat. Each time we cut timber, the population spikes a couple years later, as natural food production peaks. However, the doe and fawn population seem to be more influenced by this change in habitat than the bucks. This is probably due to the fact our bucks are very transitory. Few of the bucks we have using the property during the fall hunting season are actually residents. They show up in fall, and especially for the rut, and then vanish. Although we see considerable fidelity to the property each fall (same bucks coming back for the rut year after year).

Below are two graphs, the total census population and the buck census population. Notice how much more dramatic the total population is linked to timber-cutting than the buck population. The size of each population spike linked to timber removal is closely tied to the amount of timber cut. Cut a small percentage of the timber, you get a small bump in population. Cut a large section, you get a large bump.

2 buck limit?

TRIGGER said:

2 buck limit?

Click to expand...

In my county, we saw no result of the 2 buck limit, other than an increase in yearling buck kills.

Did something at that time change on any of the neighboring properties?

lafn96 said:

Did something at that time change on any of the neighboring properties?

Click to expand...

A very slow decrease in hunting pressure on neighboring properties. Luckily, over time, hunting pressure on neighboring private properties has dropped to near insignificance. But then, it was never high to begin with, except the decade of doe slaughter on the neighboring National Refuge. THAT had a major impact, and since they ended the doe kill, our population has increased significantly.

BSK said:

A very slow decrease in hunting pressure on neighboring properties. Luckily, over time, hunting pressure on neighboring private properties has dropped to near insignificance. But then, it was never high to begin with, except the decade of doe slaughter on the neighboring National Refuge. THAT had a major impact, and since they ended the doe kill, our population has increased significantly.

Click to expand...

Lucky you

lafn96 said:

Lucky you

Click to expand...

We are lucky. I remember the days of opening weekend of gun season sounding like a war zone. But now, locally, I'm surprised if I hear more than 3 or 4 gunshots the whole opening weekend of gun season.