BSK
Well-Known Member
Dumbluck,
Something you posted in another thread has had me thinking about an appropriate response for some time. You posted:
"One of the farms I have produces serious deer for woodland deer but I'm concerned about the future there. I have a couple "land managers" that think there is enough deer to "cull" premature bucks and they also think they should kill every doe they see. The carrying capacity is not even close to being touched by the population and the doe buck ratio is very good. I would in fact argue that we need to not shoot does for a couple years to raise the doe to buck ratio"
Although most hunters wouldn't believe it, the hardest part of highly successful private land deer management has nothing to do with managing the habitat or the buck population and age structure. Those two important factors are actually pretty easy to adjust. The hardest aspect of good management is doe management. And by that, I mean deciding how many does to harvest each year, and where the total deer density should be.
Most hunters would assume one of the difficult aspects of population density management is figuring out what the deer density actually is. But personally, I would disagree. I don't need to see the first census data to know if a property has too many deer. All I need to do is look at the habitat in winter. How much of the important food sources are eaten away in winter? THAT tells you whether you have too many deer or not. Census data just helps you determine how many deer need to be removed annually to bring the density down.
But even knowing the information above, the most difficult aspect of all when it comes to population density management is figuring out what the hunters on the property actually want instead of what they say they want. I don't think I've ever been contacted by a new client who didn't say the hunters want to see and kill bigger bucks. Who doesn't want that? And most will say they will do anything to grow bigger bucks. Well heck, I can design a plan that will do that! But it will entail keeping the deer density well below maximum capacity. "No problem!" the hunters will say. Until they experience that kind of hunting, and they are far less than satisfied. No matter what hunters say they will put up with to have bigger bucks, the vast majority of hunters really do gain enjoyment from the hunting experience if they are seeing deer regularly. And more often than not, a program that requires greatly lowering the deer density is going to produce a lot of hunts without seeing deer. Part of that is the fact there actually are less deer, and part of the problem is the intense harvest pressure required to keep the deer density low drives most of the deer nocturnal.
So, is taking actions that cut the deer sightings down by 50%, or maybe even 75%, worth the extra 5 inches of antler you see per buck age-class? To a very tiny subset of hunters, yes. To the vast majority of hunters, no. So, where do you set the density goals? The answer is property to property and hunter group to hunter group, and it is a constantly evolving number. And that is why I often say 90% of successful deer management is hunter management. It's probably not really that high, but it sure feels like it sometimes! Getting a feel for what a group of hunters REALLY want out of their hunting experience, and managing towards that goal takes constant adjustment. And to make matters worse, one particularly good or bad year - due to natural causes out of our control - can throw a real wrench in the plan. One great acorn year or total acorn failure can have the hunters screaming the plan isn't working. Trying to talk these hunters down off the "management cliff" can be quite a chore!
I realize this doesn't answer your question directly about trying to put the brakes on those who believe they need to be shooting every doe they see, but it points out that this topic is a very difficult one to address. When I'm trying to work up a harvest plan for a property, I'm going to look at a number of factors:
1) Is the local population too high for the habitat?
2) If it is not, at what percentage of capacity will hunters be happy? 80%? 50?% Each level will produce positives and negatives. Which negatives will make the hunters least happy?
3) What is the current adult sex ratio? That has a major impact on what hunters see and experience. A natural ratio is around 1.2 does per buck (because bucks have higher natural mortality). Yet maintaining a deer herd at that ratio can be difficult (require considerable doe harvests which drives deer nocturnal). Would the hunters still be happy at 1.5 does per buck? 1.8 does per buck?
4) And the most complicated of all - deciphering what the hunters really want instead of what they say they want. THIS is the toughest part of successful private land management.
Something you posted in another thread has had me thinking about an appropriate response for some time. You posted:
"One of the farms I have produces serious deer for woodland deer but I'm concerned about the future there. I have a couple "land managers" that think there is enough deer to "cull" premature bucks and they also think they should kill every doe they see. The carrying capacity is not even close to being touched by the population and the doe buck ratio is very good. I would in fact argue that we need to not shoot does for a couple years to raise the doe to buck ratio"
Although most hunters wouldn't believe it, the hardest part of highly successful private land deer management has nothing to do with managing the habitat or the buck population and age structure. Those two important factors are actually pretty easy to adjust. The hardest aspect of good management is doe management. And by that, I mean deciding how many does to harvest each year, and where the total deer density should be.
Most hunters would assume one of the difficult aspects of population density management is figuring out what the deer density actually is. But personally, I would disagree. I don't need to see the first census data to know if a property has too many deer. All I need to do is look at the habitat in winter. How much of the important food sources are eaten away in winter? THAT tells you whether you have too many deer or not. Census data just helps you determine how many deer need to be removed annually to bring the density down.
But even knowing the information above, the most difficult aspect of all when it comes to population density management is figuring out what the hunters on the property actually want instead of what they say they want. I don't think I've ever been contacted by a new client who didn't say the hunters want to see and kill bigger bucks. Who doesn't want that? And most will say they will do anything to grow bigger bucks. Well heck, I can design a plan that will do that! But it will entail keeping the deer density well below maximum capacity. "No problem!" the hunters will say. Until they experience that kind of hunting, and they are far less than satisfied. No matter what hunters say they will put up with to have bigger bucks, the vast majority of hunters really do gain enjoyment from the hunting experience if they are seeing deer regularly. And more often than not, a program that requires greatly lowering the deer density is going to produce a lot of hunts without seeing deer. Part of that is the fact there actually are less deer, and part of the problem is the intense harvest pressure required to keep the deer density low drives most of the deer nocturnal.
So, is taking actions that cut the deer sightings down by 50%, or maybe even 75%, worth the extra 5 inches of antler you see per buck age-class? To a very tiny subset of hunters, yes. To the vast majority of hunters, no. So, where do you set the density goals? The answer is property to property and hunter group to hunter group, and it is a constantly evolving number. And that is why I often say 90% of successful deer management is hunter management. It's probably not really that high, but it sure feels like it sometimes! Getting a feel for what a group of hunters REALLY want out of their hunting experience, and managing towards that goal takes constant adjustment. And to make matters worse, one particularly good or bad year - due to natural causes out of our control - can throw a real wrench in the plan. One great acorn year or total acorn failure can have the hunters screaming the plan isn't working. Trying to talk these hunters down off the "management cliff" can be quite a chore!
I realize this doesn't answer your question directly about trying to put the brakes on those who believe they need to be shooting every doe they see, but it points out that this topic is a very difficult one to address. When I'm trying to work up a harvest plan for a property, I'm going to look at a number of factors:
1) Is the local population too high for the habitat?
2) If it is not, at what percentage of capacity will hunters be happy? 80%? 50?% Each level will produce positives and negatives. Which negatives will make the hunters least happy?
3) What is the current adult sex ratio? That has a major impact on what hunters see and experience. A natural ratio is around 1.2 does per buck (because bucks have higher natural mortality). Yet maintaining a deer herd at that ratio can be difficult (require considerable doe harvests which drives deer nocturnal). Would the hunters still be happy at 1.5 does per buck? 1.8 does per buck?
4) And the most complicated of all - deciphering what the hunters really want instead of what they say they want. THIS is the toughest part of successful private land management.
