Cold fronts do affect deer movement..?

[lol]

...

It's not an exact science but it's pretty darn predictable. I've killed many a good target bucks from studying when they were on property the previous year(s). Don Higgins calls it the "same place same time" theory where if a buck is here today then odds are good he'll be here same day next year. That phenomenon is absolutely real and I am convinced it's because that buck knows when the ladies in that immediate area are ready to be bred. No reason to be there if they're not ready so he shows up on que when it's time.

I should test that theory

 

[Ski]

I think the disconnect between research findings and hunters is that they are looking at different things. For example, in the study on how bucks reacted to increased hunting pressure, GPS collar data showed bucks actually increased the average distance they travelled each day under increased hunting pressure. Why, and the reason for the disconnect, is that bucks increased the distance they travelled each day under heavier hunting pressure because they had to take a more circuitous route to get from Point A to Point B and stay within heavy cover to hide from hunters. The researcher looks at the raw data - miles travelled each day - and says, "See, bucks aren't reacting to hunting pressure like everyone thought they would." The hunters suddenly see less bucks because the bucks are winding through every little patch of cover during their daily travels to hide from hunters. The bucks are travelling more miles per day, yet hunters are seeing fewer of them. The researchers need to look at the sum-total of the data, not one little piece of the data.

In the research Bgoodman30 is referencing (and I haven't seen the study), I can guarantee you the problem is the researchers look at the raw data and find bucks don't increase the amount of time they are active during a cold snap. Yet they probably are not looking at where and when bucks are active during a cold snap. That is what hunters are interested in. If a buck sticks to thick cover and moves 6 hours a day in hot weather (much of it during cooler night-time hours), but suddenly starts moving in daylight in open hardwoods for those 6 hours after a cold front, that is night-and-day difference to a hunter, but meaningless to the researcher. The researcher sees 6 hours in warm weather and 6 hours in cool weather and proclaims, "See, no difference."

That's probably exactly correct. And it's a problem. The source of the information matters every bit as much as the information itself, maybe more. If the source cannot be trusted to give objective accuracy then it doesn't matter how much truth it spews because nobody will believe it. That is the point we're approaching with this GPS collar stuff. An otherwise reliable source claiming cold fronts don't spur movement makes that source less reliable, IMO.

 

[Ski]

I should test that theory

It's 100% accurate about 10% of the time

 

[BSK]

Until I owned my own ground and really began paying attention to things, I had no idea how exact a doe's estrus cycle can be. I mean to the day. If she pops hot November 3rd this year then she's very, very likely to pop hot November 3rd next year, and so on. Furthermore a doe's female offspring seem to cycle generally around the same time as their mother, so an entire family group of does can be bred within a few days making the days leading up to and right after November 3rd dynamite rut activity on that property. 50 miles away on another farm the local does may not cycle until November 10th so it seems dead while the first farm is hot, then flip flops a week later.

It's not an exact science but it's pretty darn predictable. I've killed many a good target bucks from studying when they were on property the previous year(s). Don Higgins calls it the "same place same time" theory where if a buck is here today then odds are good he'll be here same day next year. That phenomenon is absolutely real and I am convinced it's because that buck knows when the ladies in that immediate area are ready to be bred. No reason to be there if they're not ready so he shows up on que when it's time.

A doe social unit (all females travelling in a group) are genetically related on the female side. They are all grandmother, daughters, grand-daughters, cousins, aunts, etc. The genetic component of their estrus timing will be virtually the same for all of them. This is Nature's way of ensuring maximum genetic diversity (the evolutionary development that makes white-tailed deer so successful in so many different environmental conditions). Because all of the does in a social unit will come into heat about the same time (due to their common female lineage genetics), and each doe will require a buck to follow and tend her for 24-48 hours, this means each doe will most likely be bred by a different buck. The result is all of their offspring will have similar genetics from their mothers, they will all have different fathers, maximizing genetic diversity.

And as you mentioned Ski, different doe social groups will have slightly different genetic timings for estrus. My property is almost a perfect rectangle, one mile north-south by 3/4 mile east-west. Doe social units on the northern half have little if any interaction with does on the southern half. Year after year after year, given similar food resources (basically, an adequate acorn crop), the doe social units on the southern half of the property come into estrus 5-7 days earlier than the doe social units on the northern half. And again, given adequate acorns, I can predict to within +/- 2 days when the "crazy chasing" will occur in the north and the south. It's like clock-work year to year.

 

[Wrangler95]

What a crock,during the bitter cold nights I saw tons of deer

 

[BSK]

That's probably exactly correct. And it's a problem. The source of the information matters every bit as much as the information itself, maybe more. If the source cannot be trusted to give objective accuracy then it doesn't matter how much truth it spews because nobody will believe it. That is the point we're approaching with this GPS collar stuff. An otherwise reliable source claiming cold fronts don't spur movement makes that source less reliable, IMO.

But what if a cold front DOESN'T spur movement but just changes where and when it occurs? Neither side is incorrect. The researchers see no difference in how much bucks move based on temperature. Correct. The hunters see much more daylight movement. Correct. Both are correct. However, both are not seeing the forest for the trees.

 

[deerhunter10]

In the research Bgoodman30 is referencing (and I haven't seen the study), I can guarantee you the problem is the researchers look at the raw data and find bucks don't increase the amount of time they are active during a cold snap. Yet they probably are not looking at where and when bucks are active during a cold snap. That is what hunters are interested in. If a buck sticks to thick cover and moves 6 hours a day in hot weather (much of it during cooler night-time hours), but suddenly starts moving in daylight in open hardwoods for those 6 hours after a cold front, that is night-and-day difference to a hunter, but meaningless to the researcher. The researcher sees 6 hours in warm weather and 6 hours in cool weather and proclaims, "See, no difference."

I have seen this to on studies. But just throwing that out there is just them getting engagement on social media instead of breaking it down. There's several "experts" some are some aren't out there looking for engagement rather then actually breaking down the facts.

Honestly that's why when you do post your data I like it because it is broke down, and not only that answer and discuss what you have found and ideas around what you've found. A lot of these organizations don't do that any more or not much of it. It's like a grip and grin photo but about outlandish data with a gotcha headline.

 

[lol]

But what if a cold front DOESN'T spur movement but just changes where and when it occurs? Neither side is incorrect. The researchers see no difference in how much bucks move based on temperature. Correct. The hunters see much more daylight movement. Correct. Both are correct. However, both are not seeing the forest for the trees.

I think that's kinda the point they're getting at. It's not the data that's wrong, it's the interpretation/conclusions that are suspect. Anyone reading research would be good to distinguish between data and conclusions and reason on their own.

 

[BSK]

I have seen this to on studies. But just throwing that out there is just them getting engagement on social media instead of breaking it down. There's several "experts" some are some aren't out there looking for engagement rather then actually breaking down the facts.

Honestly that's why when you do post your data I like it because it is broke down, and not only that answer and discuss what you have found and ideas around what you've found. A lot of these organizations don't do that any more or not much of it. It's like a grip and grin photo but about outlandish data with a gotcha headline.

There is some truth to that, especially in today's social media world. Then there is also the tunnel vision of some researchers. All they can see is the raw numbers. They can't conceptualize how differences in timing and location make all the difference to a hunter.

 

[Ski]

My property is almost a perfect rectangle, one mile north-south by 3/4 mile east-west. Doe social units on the northern half have little if any interaction with does on the southern half. Year after year after year, given similar food resources (basically, an adequate acorn crop), the doe social units on the southern half of the property come into estrus 5-7 days earlier than the doe social units on the northern half.

That's a very fortunate quirk of the property! You get to hunt two ruts back to back without having to travel, plus it likely retains "traveler" bucks for longer than most of us get to. What do you presume make the difference? Two different hollows?

 

[BSK]

I think that's kinda the point they're getting at. It's not the data that's wrong, it's the interpretation/conclusions that are suspect. Anyone reading research would be good to distinguish between data and conclusions and reason on their own.

You said a mouthful there!

 

[BSK]

That's a very fortunate quirk of the property! You get to hunt two ruts back to back without having to travel, plus it likely retains "traveler" bucks for longer than most of us get to.

Nailed it!

What do you presume make the difference? Two different hollows?

A quirk of geography. A major ridge-line runs east to west splitting the property in two. Doe social units in the north don't travel south of that ridge. Doe social units in the south never even touch that ridge.

 

[knightrider]

Until I owned my own ground and really began paying attention to things, I had no idea how exact a doe's estrus cycle can be. I mean to the day. If she pops hot November 3rd this year then she's very, very likely to pop hot November 3rd next year, and so on. Furthermore a doe's female offspring seem to cycle generally around the same time as their mother, so an entire family group of does can be bred within a few days making the days leading up to and right after November 3rd dynamite rut activity on that property. 50 miles away on another farm the local does may not cycle until November 10th so it seems dead while the first farm is hot, then flip flops a week later.

It's not an exact science but it's pretty darn predictable. I've killed many a good target bucks from studying when they were on property the previous year(s). Don Higgins calls it the "same place same time" theory where if a buck is here today then odds are good he'll be here same day next year. That phenomenon is absolutely real and I am convinced it's because that buck knows when the ladies in that immediate area are ready to be bred. No reason to be there if they're not ready so he shows up on que when it's time.

No doubt, it happens every year within a couple days , its really amazing how consistent a doe is

 

[DeerCamp]

But what if a cold front DOESN'T spur movement but just changes where and when it occurs? Neither side is incorrect. The researchers see no difference in how much bucks move based on temperature. Correct. The hunters see much more daylight movement. Correct. Both are correct. However, both are not seeing the forest for the trees.

In the PSU studies, they excluded November data and just looked at October because the rut makes it too erratic.

Well, October cold fronts are very different than November cold fronts, as is deer behavior, and most hunters are hunting in November.

It's like driving on I-40 to guess how a car will handle on a dirt road.

 

[Bgoodman30]

In the PSU studies, they excluded November data and just looked at October because the rut makes it too erratic.

Well, October cold fronts are very different than November cold fronts, and most hunters are hunting in November.

It's like driving on I-40 to guess how a car will handle on a dirt road.

I guess when they analyze the spike from the first cold front to the ones following it all zeroes out...

 

[BSK]

In the PSU studies, they excluded November data and just looked at October because the rut makes it too erratic.

Well, October cold fronts are very different than November cold fronts, and most hunters are hunting in November.

It's like driving on I-40 to guess how a car will handle on a dirt road.

Well then, this is for you DeerCamp. The below graph is hunter-collected buck observation rates, ONLY for morning hunts, ONLY based on the low temperature for that morning, and ONLY for the month of November!

Looking at the data, it's clear some warm mornings have been good, some bad. In colder temps some cold mornings good, some bad. But when looking at the statistical trend (black line), the warmer the morning low, the lower the buck sighting rates. The difference isn't huge, but buck sighting rates about double on the coldest mornings versus the warmest mornings. Each individual day/temperature is a bit of a cap-shoot. But on average, colder mornings are better for buck sightings than warm morning.

 

[Ski]

Looking at the data, it's clear some warm mornings have been good, some bad. In colder temps some cold mornings good, some bad. But when looking at the statistical trend (black line), the warmer the morning low, the lower the buck sighting rates. The difference isn't huge, but buck sighting rates about double on the coldest mornings versus the warmest mornings. Each individual day/temperature is a bit of a cap-shoot. But on average, colder mornings are better for buck sightings than warm morning.

That chart makes perfect sense and if I could overlay it with my own personal experience I'd guess it fits perfect.

Below is the article I believe the OP referenced. The author cites GPS collar studies to debunk cold fronts spurring movement. Of course it also refutes your chart. That's my gripe. It's conjecture at best wrapped in friendly toned condescension. And it's not the only article of its type they've published. They've been citing the GPS studies to mythicize many long held hunter beliefs ad nauseum.

Cold Fronts May Get Hunters On Their Feet, But Bucks Answer a Different Call | National Deer Association

deerassociation.com

 

[lol]

That chart makes perfect sense and if I could overlay it with my own personal experience I'd guess it fits perfect.

Below is the article I believe the OP referenced. The author cites GPS collar studies to debunk cold fronts spurring movement. Of course it also refutes your chart. That's my gripe. It's conjecture at best wrapped in friendly toned condescension. And it's not the only article of its type they've published. They've been citing the GPS studies to mythicize many long held hunter beliefs ad nauseum.

Cold Fronts May Get Hunters On Their Feet, But Bucks Answer a Different Call | National Deer Association

deerassociation.com

They go even further to refute any correlation between movement and weather in general. Apparently, deer are robots oblivious to their surroundings who, like a trolley car, just follow their tracks day after day, regardless of what's happened. I can't think of an animal in the world that doesn't alter is movement "pattern" based on weather. Watch a cow in a field on a rainy day, or a bird, or any other animal. I think these researchers may have outrun their common sense and outsmarted themselves. As BSK mentioned earlier, it may not be as much about the movement in regard to distance traveled, as much as the where that movement occurs, and I don't see any mention of that. Maybe the question should be does the weather, cold fronts, rain, whatever phenomenon you choose, does it affect movement in areas favored by hunters? Does it take them out of the thickets? Does it take them into the fields? Does it drive them beneath the thick canopy of pines? Does this weather increase the odds that the movement "that was going to occur anyways" creates an increased chance that that animal will be visible to a hunter. And maybe these guys need to do some research on movement patters of hunters so they have a data set for comparison. But my conclusion, is that their thesis that there's no scientific support for "increased movement" is somewhat self-fulfilling when none of the studies seems to be designed to actually answer the real question, which is will a certain type of weather condition increase hunter encounters.

 

[beefydeer]

The number 1 thing that makes a deer move is hunger. They have to eat no matter the weather or the moon.

 

[deerhunter10]

The number 1 thing that makes a deer move is hunger. They have to eat no matter the weather or the moon.

Yes but weather for sure moon maybe affects if it daytime or nighttime way more times then not. Especially for mature deer. There's a reason in the trail cameras forum there's a pile of night time pictures until rut and weather fronts. Cameras will show the same thing if you pat attention to them.