qdma’s whitetailreport 2010 - quality deer management association€¦ · of white-tailed deer,...

WhitetailReportqdma’s

2010

An annual report on the status of white-tailed deer, the foundation of the hunting industry in North America.

Compiled and Written by:

Kip Adams, wildlife biologist, QDMA Director of Education and Outreach, Northern region

Joe Hamilton, wildlife biologist, QDMA Director of Education and Outreach, Southern region

Matt Ross, wildlife biologist and forester, Manager of QDMA Certification Programs, Vermont

SHOT Show Visual Presentation by:Brian Murphy, wildlife biologist, CEO of QDMA

Presented by

WhitetailReportqdma’s

2010

� • QDMA’s Whitetail Report

WhitetailReport

IntroductIon

table of contents

Part 1: Regional Rankings TopDeerManagementProgramsbyState....................4 White-tailedDeerHarvest.............................................8

Part 2: Current Issues & Trends LicenseSales..................................................................14 HunterEffort................................................................16 StateAgencyBudgets....................................................17 QDMCooperatives......................................................18 DeerPredators: Coyotes................................................................22 BlackBears...........................................................26 FeralHogs.....................................................................27 FawnRecruitmentRates..............................................31 DoeFawnBreedingRates............................................33 BuckFawnHarvestRates.............................................35 CouldGonaCon®ReplaceDeerHunting?..................37 DeerFarming................................................................40 TheCostofChronicWastingDisease.........................44 DeerPopulationGoalsbyState:AProgressReport...46 QDMA’sAgencyoftheYear.........................................49

Part 3: Deer Management Reference and Research AntleredBuckManagement........................................50 HowManyAntlerlessDeerShouldIHarvest?............53 DetectingtheRutPeak.................................................55 DidYouKnow?.............................................................58 DeerManagementStrategies.......................................60 WhatisCarryingCapacity...........................................62 MatureBucks:WhoNeeds’Em?.................................64 HabitatManagement...................................................67 IsCullingNecessary?....................................................70 AgingBucksontheHoof.............................................72 QDMA’sREACHprogram...........................................75 MediaResources...........................................................77

The QDMA Mission: QDMA is dedicated to ensuring the future of white-tailed deer, wildlife habitat and our hunting heritage.

QDMA National StaffceoBrian Murphy

dIrector of MarketIng & corporate relatIons

Randy Bowden

dIrectors of educatIon & outreach

Kip Adams (North)Joe Hamilton (South)

dIrector of coMMunIcatIons

Lindsay Thomas Jr.

National Board of DirectorsMark Thomas, Chairman (Ala.)Jerry Martin, Vice Chairman (Mo.)Chris Asplundh (Pa.)Louis Batson III (S.C.)Jimmy Bullock (Miss.) Craig Dougherty, Ph.D., (N.Y.)Dave Guynn, Ph.D. (S.C.)Robert Manning (S.C.)Fred Pape (Ky.)

National Headquarters170 Whitetail WayP.O. Box 160Bogart, GA 30622

(800) 209-3337

www.QDMA.com

Lastyear,QDMAlaunchedtheWhitetail Reportinanefforttosharewhatweknowaboutthethreats,concerns,successesandchallengesthatareshapingthefutureofwhite-taileddeer–thesinglemostimportantgamespeciesinNorthAmerica.Becausemorehunterspursuewhitetails,byfar,thananyothergamespecies,andspendmoremoneyondeerhunting,byfar,thananyothertypeofhunting,whitetailsarethefoundationoftheentirehuntingindustry.The2009Whitetail Reportwasreceivedenthusiasticallybymembersofthehuntingmediaandthecommercialhuntingindustryaswellasbydeermanagersandhunters.Ithasbeenquoted,cited,andusedasresearchandreferencematerialbynumerouspublicationsandcommunica-tors.Copieshavebeenacquiredbymanyorganizations,politicalleaders,professionalwildlifemanagersandeducators.Becauseofthisresponse,QDMAworkeddiligentlytofollowthroughonourgoalofmakingthisanannualeffort.We’dliketotakethisopportunitytothankstatewildlifeagencydeerbiologistsfromacrossthewhitetail’srangeforprovidingmuchofthedataincludedinthisreport.

Cover Photo By:Tes Randle Jolly


2010

KIP ADAMs, Knoxville, Pennsylvania•QDMADirectorofEducation&Outreach(North)•Certifiedwildlifebiologist•CertifiedtaxidermistBachelor’s:PennStateMaster’s:UniversityofNewHampshire

e-mail:[email protected]:(814)326-4023cell:(570)439-5696

Joe HAMIlTon, Walterboro, south Carolina•QDMADirectorofEducation&Outreach(South)•Certifiedwildlifebiologist•FounderofQDMA(1988)•CareerAchievementAward,TheWildlifeSocietyBachelor’s:UniversityofGeorgiaMaster’s:UniversityofGeorgia


MATT Ross, north Bennington, Vermont•QDMAManagerofCertificationPrograms•Certifiedwildlifebiologist•LicensedforesterBachelor’s:UniversityofMassachusettsMaster’s:UniversityofNewHampshire


InforMatIon & assIstance

MembersofthemediawhohavequestionsabouttheWhitetail Report,needadditionalinformation,orneedsourcesforstoriesonwhitetailbiologyormanagement,cancontactQDMA’sEducation&Outreachstaffatanytimeusingtheinformationbelow,orcontacttheNationalOfficeat(800)209-3337.Additionally,ifyouarenotalreadyreceivingQDMA’snewsreleasesbye-mail,contactPalmerPope([email protected])tohaveyournameaddedtothemailinglist.

Receive QDMA News Releases by E-mail To have your name and e-mail address added to QDMA’s press release list, contact Palmer Popeat [email protected]

2010


WhitetailReport

Part One:

Regional Rankings

top deer ManageMent prograMs by state

Weallenjoyalittlefriendlycompetition.It’sfuntoseehowwecomparetoothersinvolvedinsimilarhobbies,sports,orotherpastimes.Thesameistrueinthedeermanagementarena.Deermanagersroutinelycomparenotesinanefforttocontinuallyimprovetheprogramtheyareinchargeof;whetherthatbefor50acresoranentirestate.

Tocomparestatedeermanagementprogramsacrossthewhitetail’srangewesurveyedeachstateagencyinthecontinentalU.S.andcollectedantleredandantlerlessharvestdatafor2007and2008,agestructureoftheantleredharvestfor2007and2008,andpercentageofthestate’swild-lifemanagementunits(WMUs)currentlyatthedesireddeergoals.Wethendevelopedasystemtorankeachstate’sdatarelativetoQualityDeerManagement(QDM)principles.Asarefresher,QDMisaboutbalancingthedeerherdwiththehabitat,andbalancingtheadultagestructureandsexratio.Inanutshell,it’sabouthavingtherightnumberofdeerforwhatthehabitatcansupport,havingbucksanddoesinallageclasses,andhavingbalancednumbersofadultbucksanddoes.

Quality Deer Management is about having the right number of deer for what the habitat can support, having bucks and does in all age classes, and having balanced numbers of adult bucks and does.

photo by tes randle jolly


2010

Ourratingsystemismeanttocommendstatesthataredoingwell,ratherthanpointafingeratstatesrankinglower.It’salsoanarbitrarysystem,butonethataddressesQDMprinciples.Ourratingsystemusedfourvariables:

1)percentageofastate’sWMUsatthedesireddeergoals2)percentageof2008antleredbuckharvestthatwas1.5yearsold3)percentageof2008antleredbuckharvestthatwas3.5yearsorolder4)percentageof2008totalharvestthatwasantlerlessdeer

Number1aboveisanindextothepercentageofastate’sWMUswherethedeerherdisinbalancewiththehabitat.Higherpercentagesareobviouslypreferredoverlowernumbers.Numbers2and3areindicestohavingabalancedagestructureforbucks.TheQDMApromotesprotectingthema-jorityofyearlingbucks(1.5yearsold),sostateswithlowerpercentagesofyearlingsrankedhigherthanthosewithhigherpercentages.Conversely,stateswithhigherpercentagesof3.5yearsandolderbucksrankedabovethosewithlowernumbers.Number4isanindextohavingabalancedadultsexratio,andinmanycases,tobalancingthedeerherdwiththehabitat.Higherpercentagesforthisvariablearegenerallypreferredoverlowernumbers.

Manyenvironmental,social,andculturalvariablesimpactdeermanagementprograms,andthesecanvarywidelyacrossregions.Therefore,weonlycomparedstatestootherswithintheirregion.Wecollected(atleastsome)datafromall37statesintheMidwest,NortheastandSoutheastthatcomprisethevastmajorityofwhitetailhabitat(seemapofregionsonpage8).Wewereunabletoacquiresimilardataformostwesternstatessothisanalysisomitsthatregion.

Weselectedthetopfivestatesforeachofthefourvariablesandawardedpointsasfollows:5pointsforfirstplace,4pointsforsecondplace,3pointsforthirdplace,2pointsforfourthplace,and1pointforfifthplace.Aperfectscorewouldbe20points(4firstplacefinishesat5pointseach=20points).Wethentotaledthescoresandrankedthetop5statesforeachregion.IncaseofatiedscoreweusedthepercentageofWMUsatgoal(Number1above)asthetiebreakersinceQDMisfirstandforemostaboutbalancingthedeerherdwiththehabitat.

Drumrollplease.IntheMidwest,Kansasclaimedthetopspotwith15points,followedbyMissouri(10),Indiana(5.5),Nebraska(5)andWisconsin(5).Kansasfinishedfirstinthreeoffourcategories,andMissouriwasoneofonlytwostates,inanyregion,toplaceinthetopfiveforeverycategory.Indiscussionsaboutthe“I”states,IndianaoftentakesabackseattoneighboringIllinoisandIowa,buttheHoosierstateoutrankedtheminouranalysis.NebraskaandWisconsintiedwith5points,butNebraskawonthetiebreakerbyhaving39percentofWMUsatgoalwhileWisconsinhad33percent.Kansasiswellknownforitsbigbucks,andnowitcanalsoberecognizedasastatewithanoverallsuccessfuldeermanagementprogram.CongratulationstoLloydFox,BigGameProgramCo-ordinator,andhisteamattheKansasDepartmentofWildlifeandParks.Also,congratulationstodeerbiologistLonnieHansenandhiscolleaguesattheMissouriDepartmentofConservation.

IntheNortheast,Vermonttooktophonorswith9.5points,fol-lowedbyPennsylvania(7),RhodeIsland(7),Virginia(7),andDelaware(6.5).Pennsylvania’shighpercentageofWMUsatgoal(77percent)brokethetieandawardedtheKeystonestatesecondplace.Vermontenactedantlerrestrictionsin2005thatweredesignedtoprotecthalfoftheyearlingbucks.ThisregulationenabledtheGreenMountainstatetofinishfirstinharvestingthelowestpercentageof

Midwest1. Kansas2. Missouri3. Indiana4. Nebraska5. Wisconsin

Northeast1. Vermont2. Pennsylvania3. Rhode Island4. Virginia5. Delaware

Southeast1. Mississippi2. Arkansas3. Georgia4. South Carolina5. Louisiana

QDMA’s Top-Five sTATes in Deer

Management success by Region

Quotable QDMA:

“In the Midwest...Kansas finished first in three of four categories, and Missouri was one of only two states, in any region, to place in the top five for every category.”

Quotable QDMA:

“In discussions about the ‘I’ states, Indiana often takes a back seat to neighboring Illinois and Iowa, but the Hoosier state outranked them in our analysis.”


WhitetailReport

yearlingbucksintheNortheast(15percent)andtiedforthirdforharvestingthemost3.5yearsandolderbucks(26percentofantleredbuckharvest).Pennsylvaniahasimplementedmajorchangestoitsdeerprogramsince2002includingconcurrentbuckandantlerlessseasons,antlerpointrestrictions,anearlyantlerlessseason,adeermanagementassistanceprogram(DMAP),ayouthseason,andamentoredhuntingprogram.Huntersinbothstatesarenowreapingtherewardsofthesehighlysuccessfulprograms.KudostoShawnHaskell,DeerTeamChairforVermontFishandWildlifeDepartment,ChrisRosenberry,DeerandElkSectionsupervisorforPennsylvaniaGameCommission,andtheirteamsfortheirsuccesses.

IntheSoutheast,Mississippiclaimedtophonorswith13points,followedbyArkansas(9.3),Georgia(8),SouthCarolina(7),andLouisiana(6.3).MississippiwasfirstorsecondinthreeofthefourcategoriesandthisisyetanotherexamplehighlightingtheMississippiDepartmentofWildlife,FisheriesandParks’progressivedeermanagementprogram.CongratulationstoChadDacus,White-tailedDeerProgramCoordinator,andhistalenteddeerteam.Arkansasfinishedsecondbyplacinginthetopfiveforeverycategory.Onlyoneotherstateinthecountry(Mis-souri)accomplishedthisfeat.BradMiller,DeerProgramCoordinatorforArkansasGameandFishCommission,andhisdeerteamshouldbeproudoftheirefforts.

Asyoucanseefromthechartsbelowandonthefacingpage,manystatesmadethe“topfive”listforatleastonecategory.Thishighlightstheimportantworkstatesaredoingtocontinu-allyimprovetheirdeermanagementprogramsandthisisgoodforthefutureofdeerhunting.We’llreiteratethatouranalysisshouldonlybeusedtodrawattentiontothesuccessesstatesareachievingandplacewell-deservedcredittothebiologistsinchargeofthoseprograms.WeencourageallQDMAmemberstostaymotivatedandtocontinuepromotingtheQDMphiloso-phy,regardlessofwhereyourstaterankedthisyear.Withalittlehelp,yourstatecouldclaimthetoprankingin2011.

Region Points % Units at Goal % 1.5 Yrs % 3.5+ Yrs % Antlerless Rank State Total Pts.Midwest 5 KS KS KS WI 1 KS 15 4 MN NE KY MO 2 MO 10 3 MO IN/MO IN IA/OH 3 IN 5.5 2 IA IN/MO MO/OH IA/OH 4 NE 5 1 NE IL/KY MO/OH ND 5 WI 5 Northeast 5 PA VT RI DE 1 VT 9.5 4 CT VA/ME NH MD/NJ 2 PA 7 3 MA VA/ME VT/VA MD/NJ 3 RI 7 2 VT RI VT/VA PA 4 VA 7 1 DE MA MA/DE VA 5 DE 6.5 Southeast 5 SC/OK AR MS GA 1 MS 13 4 SC/OK MS TX MS 2 AR 9.3 3 GA LA LA NC/SC 3 GA 8 2 AR AL AR NC/SC 4 SC 7 1 TN TX/OK AL AR/LA/TX 5 LA 6.3

Quotable QDMA:

“Mississippi was first or second in three of the four categories and this is yet another example highlighting the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks’ progressive deer management program.”


2010

Region State % Units at Goal % bucks 1.5 yrs % bucks 3.5+ yrs % harvest that’s antlerlessMidwest Iowa 50 * * 64 Illinois 23 41 * 62 Indiana 8 40 20 61 Kansas 90 17 49 48 Kentucky 33 41 21 54 Michigan 15 61 14 49 Minnesota 60 67 10 57 Missouri 50 22 (58)** 24 (11)** 65 North Dakota 25 * * 63 Nebraska 39 34 * 47 Ohio 8 50 18 64 South Dakota * * * 48 Wisconsin 33 53 * 69 Northeast Connecticut 77 40 * 54 Delaware 61 53 19 73 Massachusetts 73 39 19 50 Maryland 9 62 * 65 Maine 29 37 15 36 New Hampshire 39 45 29 41 New Jersey 35 64 * 65 New York 21 62 12 53 Pennsylvania 77 52 13 64 Rhode Island 60 38 35 53 Virginia 27 37 26 56 Vermont 71 15 26 44 West Virginia * * * 47 Southeast Alabama * 25 40 * Arkansas 76 13 49 45 Florida * * * * Georgia 78 45 23 60 Louisiana * 22 50 45 Mississippi 50 17*** 58*** 53 North Carolina * 39*** 22*** 52 Oklahoma 80 27 26 44 South Carolina 80 59 18 52 Tennessee 70 44 16 32 Texas * 27 54 45 West Arizona 40 * * * California * * * * Colorado * * * * Idaho 43 * 25 31 Montana * * * * New Mexico * * * * Nevada * * * * Oregon * * * 7 Utah * * * * Washington * * * * Wyoming * * * 44 * data not available ** data from antler-point-restriction counties (non-antler-point-restriction counties)*** data from check stations and DMAP


WhitetailReport

The2009-10deerseasonisclosedornearingsoforstatesacrossthewhitetail’srange,andbiolo-gistswillbecrunchingdatainthecomingmonthstoassesstheoutcomeofthispastseason.Un-tilthatdataisavailable,wecomparedharvestdatafromthetwomostrecentseasons–2007-08and2008-09.Ofthe37statesintheMidwest,NortheastandSoutheast(seemap)thatcomprisethemajorityofwhitetailrange,weacquiredharvestdatafromall37for2007,but2008datawasnotavailableforFloridaandonly2008agestructuredatawasavailableforAlabama(nottotalharvestnumbers).Therefore,weomitted2007datafromthesetwostatesinthefollowinganaly-ses,butincludedtheiravailabledatainthechartsattheendofthisarticle.Thefollowingdataarefromeachstatewildlifeagency.Statesuseseveraldifferenttechniquestocollectthisdata,andsomestatescollectmoredatathanothers.Analysesbetweenstatesmaynotalwayscompare“apples-to-apples,”buteachstateprovidedtheirbestpossibledata.Also,analysesacrossyearsshouldberobusttodifferentialconfidencelevelsindatafromanyindividualstate.

Antlered Buck HarvestWithrespecttoantleredbuckharvest,2008wasagoodyearformoststatesintheNortheastandSoutheastbutatoughonefortheMidwest.Intotal,thesethreeregionstaggedover2.7millionantleredbuckseachyear.Thedifferenceinthetwoyear’sharvestwaslessthan0.2percent.Texasreportedthelargestharvestat340,159antleredbucks.Michiganwasnextwith248,350andGeorgiawasthirdwith159,567antleredbucks.

TheNortheastharvested526,193antleredbucksin2008,a4percentincreasefrom2007.Nineof13northeasternstates(69percent)shotmorebucksin2008thanin2007.Theaverageincreasewas7percentandrangedfrom1percentinNewYorkto12percentinPennsylvania.Numeri-cally,Pennsylvaniashot13,210additionalbucksin2008.AllfourNortheasternstatesthatshotfewerbucksin2008wereinNewEngland.NewHampshire’sharvestwasreduced17percent,Maine’swas16percentlower,Massachusetts’was4percentlower,andRhodeIsland’swas1per-centlower.NewEnglandiswellknownforitsseverewintersandtheircorrespondingimpactsondeerherdsandhunterharvests,andthisdeclinewasexpectedinsomeareas.

TheSoutheast(minusAlabamaandFlorida)harvested1,169,997antleredbucksin2008.Thisharvestwaswithina½percentofthe2007harvest.Sevenof9southeasternstates(78percent)shotmorebucksin2008.Theaverageincreasewas9percentandrangedfrom0.1percentinMississippito21percentinTennessee.Numerically,Texasshot51,932additionalbucks(+18percent)andGeorgiashot16,475additionalbucks(+12percent)in2008.Ofthe2statesthatshotfewerbucks,Arkansas’(-2percent)harvestwasnearlyequalto2007,whileLouisiana’swasconsiderablylessat23,650fewerbucks(-21percent).Interestingly,Louisianahuntersalsoshotexactly21percentfewerantlerlessdeerin2008than2007(71,190in2008vs.90,540in2007).AccordingtotheLouisianaDepartmentofWildlifeandFisheries,thisreductionislikelyaresult

ofacombinationoffactorsincludingimpactsofcoyotes,baiting,exurbia(lackofaccesstodeer),hurricanes(re-ducedvisibilityandaccess),andothers.

TheMidwestharvested1,047,153antleredbucksin2008,an8percentdeclinefrom2007.ManystatesintheMidwesthadatoughyearassevenof13(54percent)shotfewerantleredbucksin2008.Theaveragedecreasewas

WhIte-taIled deer harvest

NoRTHeAsT

soUTHeAsT

MiDWesT

Continued.

Quotable QDMA:

“With respect to antlered buck harvest, 2008 was a good year for most states in the Northeast and Southeast but a tough one for the Midwest.”


2010

Antlerless DeerAntlered Bucks 1.� Years and older

state �00� �00� �00� �00�Alabama 129,600 * 212,400 *Arizona 4,333 5,080 0 0Arkansas 94,834 93,375 59,827 74,963California * * * *Colorado * * * *Connecticut 5,312 5,892 5,750 6,790Delaware 3,501 3,771 10,139 10,105Florida 74,235 * 46,844 *Georgia 143,092 159,567 207,623 239,350Idaho 14,885 13,610 7,159 6,149Illinois 81,356 71,813 118,246 117,088Indiana 49,375 50,845 75,052 78,903Iowa 54,295 51,710 91,919 90,484Kansas 39,526 41,462 34,155 39,028Kentucky 49,984 54,936 63,451 65,674Louisiana 110,660 87,010 90,540 71,190Maine 16,103 13,564 12,781 7,497Maryland 32,221 34,725 59,987 65,712Massachusetts 5,826 5,582 5,713 5,620Michigan 267,429 248,350 216,555 241,573Minnesota 109,000 96,000 151,000 126,000Mississippi 131,970 132,167 143,647 148,687Missouri 120,524 99,957 180,391 182,162Montana * * * *Nebraska 34,585 36,235 22,537 32,397Nevada * * * *New Hampshire 7,667 6,390 5,892 4,526New Jersey 17,467 18,399 29,549 34,859New Mexico 162 137 0 0New York 104,451 105,747 114,690 117,232North Carolina 83,665 85,051 88,321 91,246North Dakota 36,445 33,963 61,673 57,577Ohio 87,648 89,962 145,206 162,055Oklahoma 58,059 59,449 37,832 45,820Oregon 1,086 815 73 63Pennsylvania 109,200 122,410 213,870 213,440Rhode Island 1,067 1,055 1,029 1,210South Carolina 112,522 119,346 126,671 129,432South Dakota 33,398 33,413 36,642 30,459Tennessee 77,604 93,873 86,907 70,540Texas 288,227 340,159 224,625 279,491Utah * * * *Vermont 8,955 9,539 5,516 7,452Virginia 109,718 112,207 133,074 144,175Washington * * * *West Virginia 83,033 86,914 62,904 76,689Wisconsin 170,142 138,507 347,431 313,378Wyoming 7,975 8,304 5,980 6,488

* data not available

estIMated deer harvest

10 • QDMA’s Whitetail Report

WhitetailReport

substantialat11percent,anditrangedfrom-5percentinIowato-19percentinWisconsin.Nu-merically,Wisconsinshot31,635fewerbucks,Missouritook20,567less(-17percent),Michigantallied19,079less(-7percent),Minnesotashot13,000fewer(-12percent),andevenIllinoisshot9,543fewerbucks(-12percent).Ontheplusside,Kentuckyshot4,952additionalbucks(+10percent),andOhiohuntersshot2,314morebucks(+3percent).SouthDakotashotnearlyequalnumbersin2007and2008,andIndiana,KansasandNebraskaallshot3to5percentmorebucksin2008.

Age StructureWealsoacquiredtheagestructureoftheaboveharvestdataformoststates.Thirty-twostatesreportedthepercentageoftheirantleredbuckharvestthatwas1.5yearsold,and26statesreportedthepercentagethatwas2.5and3.5yearsorolder.In2008,theaveragepercentageoftheantleredbuckharvestthatwas1.5yearswas41percent,downfrom43percentin2007.Arkansasaveragedthefewestyearlings(13percentofantleredbuckharvest)andMinnesotaaveragedthemost(67percentofantleredbuckharvest).OthernotablesincludedVermont(15percent),Kansas(17percent)andMississippi(17percent)allshotlowpercentagesofyearlings,whileMichigan(61percent),Maryland(62percent),NewYork(62percent)andNewJersey(64percent)allshothighpercentages.

Twentyof32states(63percent)shotalowerpercentageofyearlingbucksin2008than2007.Theaveragedeclinewas3percentandrangedfrom-1percentinseveralstatesto-12percentinMaineandOklahoma.OthernotablesincludeVermont,wherehuntersshot10percentfeweryearlings,andArkansasandRhodeIsland,wherehuntersshot9percentfewer.Huntersareclearlypassingmoreyearlingbucksandallowingthemtoreachatleastoneyearolder.

Theaveragepercentageoftheantleredbuckharvestthatwas2.5yearswas31percentinboth2007and2008.Thisstatisticrangedfrom19percentinTexasto59percentinVermont.IndianaandTennesseeaveraged40percent2.5-year-olds,andMissouriaveraged54percent2.5-year-oldsinthestate’sant-ler-point-restriction(APR)counties(Missouriaver-aged31percentinnon-APRcounties).Overall,14of26states(54percent)shotahigherpercentageof2.5-year-oldsin2008than2007.Theaverageincreasewas3percentandrangedfrom1percentinseveralstatesto9percentinVermont.Huntersareobviouslybenefitingfrompassingyearlingbucks.

Through progressive deer management programs and more knowledgeable hunters, today’s deer herds have a more balanced and natural sex ratio and buck age structure, and they’re providing tremendous hunting and viewing opportunities for sportsmen and women.

Continued.

Quotable QDMA:

“In 2008, the average percentage of the antlered buck harvest that was 1.5 years old was 41 percent, down from 43 percent in 2007. Arkansas averaged the fewest yearlings (13 percent) and Minnesota averaged the most (67 percent).”

11 • QDMA’s Whitetail Report

2010

state �00� �00� �00� �00� �00� �00�Alabama 28 25 31 35 41 40Arizona * * * * * *Arkansas 22 13 34 38 42 49California * * * * * *Colorado * * * * * *Connecticut 40 40 * * * *Delaware 59 53 28 29 13 19Florida * * * * * *Georgia 43 45 29 32 28 23Idaho * * * * * *Illinois 39 41 * * * *Indiana 44 40 39 40 17 20Iowa * * * * * *Kansas 19 17 46 34 36 49Kentucky 45 41 40 38 15 21Louisiana 24 22 19 20 49 50Maine 49 37 25 23 13 15Maryland 63 62 * * * *Massachusetts 40 39 22 24 21 19Michigan 62 61 24 25 14 14Minnesota 67 67 20 20 10 10Mississippi 16*** 17*** 21*** 21*** 59*** 58***Missouri 24(52)** 22(58)** 53(36)** 54(31)** 23(13)** 24(11)**Montana * * * * * *Nebraska 40 34 * * * *Nevada * * * * * *New Hampshire 45 45 32 26 23 29New Jersey 62 64 * * * *New Mexico * * * * * *New York 62 62 26 26 12 12North Carolina 41*** 39*** 38*** 39*** 20*** 22***North Dakota * * * * * *Ohio 50 50 32 32 18 18Oklahoma 39 27 34 32 17 26Oregon * * * * * *Pennsylvania 56 52 32 35 12 13Rhode Island 47 38 30 27 23 35South Carolina 59 59 23 23 18 18South Dakota * * * * * *Tennessee 49 44 36 40 15 16Texas 20 27 20 19 59 54Utah * * * * * *Vermont 25 15 50 59 25 26Virginia 38 37 36 37 26 26Washington * * * * * *West Virginia * * * * * *Wisconsin 56 53 * * * *Wyoming * * * * * *

* data not available** data from antler-point-restriction counties (non-antler-point-restriction counties)*** data from check stations and DMAP

�.� Years old1.� Years old �.� Years old

buck harvest by age class

1� • QDMA’s Whitetail Report

WhitetailReport

Theaveragepercentageoftheantleredbuckharvestthatwas3.5yearsandolderwas27percentin2008,upfrom25percentin2007.Thisstatisticrangedfrom10percentinMinnesotato58percentinMississippi.OthernotablesincludedArkansas(49percent),Kansas(49percent),Lou-isiana(50percent)andTexas(54percent).It’squiteanaccomplishmentthatthesestatesmovesuchhighnumbersofbucksintothe3.5yearsandolderageclasses.Overall,14of26states(54percent)shotahigherpercentageof3.5yearandolderbucksin2008than2007.Kansashadthelargestincreasefrom2007byshooting13percentmore3.5yearandolderbucks,followedbyRhodeIsland(+12percent)andOklahoma(+10percent).Ashorttimeagomosthunterscouldn’tfathompassingyearlingbucks.Today,thatrestraintisallowingsignificantnumbersofbuckstoreacholderageclasses.

Antlerless HarvestAntlerlessharvestsvarywidelyacrossstatesandyearsduetodifferencesindeerdensity,pro-ductivity,astate’sgoals(reducing,stabilizing,orincreasingthedeerpopulation),weatherandotherfactors.However,wecanlearnmuchaboutastate’smanagementprogrambycomparingtheantlerlessandantleredbuckharvests.ContinuingwiththeanalysisofstatesintheMidwest,NortheastandSoutheast,huntersfromtheseregionsharvested3,382,804antlerlessdeerin2008.Thiswasanincreaseof111,659deer(+3percent)from2007.Overall,Wisconsintoppedthelistwith313,378antlerlessdeer.Texasfollowedwith279,491andMichiganwasthirdwith241,573antlerlessdeer.

This doe was taken by QDMA member Ken Kozminski of Michigan. Ken’s home state was third in the nation for total harvest of antlerless deer in 2008, with 241,573.


2010

Regionally,theMidwestshotvirtuallyidenticalnumberofantlerlessdeerin2007and2008(1,544,258in2007vs.1,536,778in2008).Theseharvestswereadifferenceof0.5percent.SouthDakota(30,459)andNebraska(32,397)shotthefewestantlerlessdeerintheregionwhileMichi-gan(241,573)andWisconsin(313,378)shotthemost.However,Nebraskashot9,860moreantler-lessdeer(+44percent)in2008thanin2007.Wisconsintoppedthelistin2008butshot34,053less(-10percent)antlerlessdeerthanin2007.Minnesotaalsoshot25,000fewer(-17percent)antler-lessdeerin2008.Illinois,Indiana,Iowa,KentuckyandMissourihadantlerlessharvestsin2008thatwerewithin5percentoftheir2007harvests.

Nineof13(69percent)Midwesternstatesshotmoreantlerlessdeerthanantleredbucksin2008.OnlyKansas,Michigan,NebraskaandSouthDakotashotmoreantleredbucksthanantlerlessdeer.Theaveragepercentageofantlerlessdeerinthetotaldeerharvestfor2008was59percent,anditrangedfrom47percentinNebraskato69percentinWisconsin.

TheNortheastshot695,307antlerlessdeerin2008.Thiswasanadditional34,413deer(+5per-cent)from2007.RhodeIsland(1,210)andNewHampshire(4,526)tookthefewestwhileVirginia(144,175)andPennsylvania(213,440)tookthemostantlerlessdeer.Virginiashot11,101(+8percent)moreantlerlessdeerandWestVirginiashot13,785more(+22percent)antlerlessdeerin2008.Percentage-wise,Vermontincreasedtheirharvestby35percentwhileMaine’santlerlessharvestdropped41percentin2008.

MatchingtheMidwest,9of13(69percent)northeasternstatesshotmoreantlerlessdeerthanantleredbucksin2008.Threeofthe4statesthattookmorebuckswereinNewEngland(Maine,NewHampshire,Vermont),whereseverewinterweatherandreducedproductivityallowforsuc-cessfuldeermanagementprogramswithlowerdoeharvests.Also,thefourthstate(WestVirginia)increaseditsantlerlessharvestby22percentin2008andharvestednearlyasmanyantlerlessdeerasantleredbucks.Theaveragepercentageofantlerlessdeerinthetotaldeerharvestfor2008was57percent,anditrangedfrom36percentinMaineto73percentinDelaware.

TheSoutheast(minusAlabamaandFlorida)shot1,150,719antlerlessdeerin2008.Thiswas84,726more(+8percent)thanin2007.Oklahoma(45,820)andTennessee(70,540)tookthefew-est,andGeorgia(239,350)andTexas(279,491)tookthemostantlerlessdeer.Texashadthelargestnumericalandpercentageincreasesfrom2007to2008byshooting54,866moreantlerlessdeer(+24percent)in2008.Georgiahuntersalsohadagoodyearbyshooting31,727more(+15per-cent)antlerlessdeerin2008.Arkansashadthelargestpercentageincreasebyshooting25percentmoreantlerlessdeerin2008.Louisianaexperiencedthelargestdeclinebyharvesting19,350fewer(-21percent)antlerlessdeerin2008thanin2007.

Contrarytotheothertworegions,5of9(56percent)southeasternstatesshotmoreantleredbucksthanantlerlessdeerin2008.OnlyGeorgia,Mississippi,NorthCarolinaandSouthCarolinatookmoreantlerlessdeerthanantleredbucks.Theaveragepercentageofantlerlessdeerinthetotaldeerharvestfor2008was49percent,anditrangedfrom43percentinTennesseeto60percentinGeor-gia.ThisaveragepercentagewasnoticeablylowerthanintheMidwestandNortheast.

SummaryThesexratioandagestructureofmodern-daydeerpopulationsandharvestsarefarbetterthanthoseofadecadeortwoago.Throughprogressivedeermanagementprogramsandmoreknowl-edgeablehunters,today’sdeerherdshaveamorebalancedandnaturalsexratioandbuckagestructure,andthey’reprovidingtremendoushuntingandviewingopportunitiesforsportsmenandwomen.Deerhuntersandmanagersshouldbeproudoftherolethey’replayinginbalancingdeerherdswiththeirhabitatsandreducingyearlingbuckharveststoallowmorebuckstoreachmaturity.Historywilldescribetoday’shuntersasmanagersandstewardsratherthanthemereconsumersofyesteryear.

Quotable QDMA:

“In the Southeast, Texas had the largest numerical and percentage increases from 2007 to 2008 by shooting 54,866 more antlerless deer (+24 percent) in 2008. Georgia hunters also had a good year by shooting 31,727 more (+15 percent) antlerless deer in 2008. ”


WhitetailReport

Part twO:

Current Issues& Trends

Inour2009WhitetailReport(downloadatwww.qdma.com)wediscussed“HunterNumbers,Demo-graphicsandTrends”onpages23to25.Inthearticlewestatedthatwhilehunternumbersareinasteadyde-cline,thenumberofbiggamehunt-erswasonlyslightlydecliningandwasevenincreasinginsomestates.AsFamilies Afieldandotherhunterrecruitmentinitiativescontinuetoattractandretainnewhunters,wewereinterestedinthemostrecentlicensesalesdataavailablefromstateagencies,sowesurveyedwildlifeagenciesinthecontinentalU.S.andaskedforthetotalnumberofhunt-inglicenses(numberofuniquehunt-ers)soldin2007and2008.

Wereceiveddatafrom38states(seemap),and26(68percent)reportedsellingmorelicensesin2008thanin2007!Onestatesoldapproximatelyequalnumbers,andonly11states(29percent)soldfewerlicensesin2008.Forstatessellingmorelicenses,theaverageincreasewas3.5percentandrangedfrom0.3percentinPennsylvaniaandTennesseeto22.6percentinIdaho.Numerically,Missouritalliedthelargestincreasebysellinganadditional28,521licenses(+4percent)in2008.Forstatessellingfewerlicenses,theaveragedecreasewas1.7percentandrangedfrom0.3percentinAlabamaandSouthCarolinato6.8percentinMississippi.Numerically,Mississippitalliedthelargestdecreasebyselling14,446fewerlicensesin2008.However,accordingtoaMississippiDepartmentofWildlife,FisheriesandParksdeerbiologist,thisdeclineismisleadingasHurricaneKatrinahadamajornegativeimpactonlicensesalesinMississippiin2005.Licensesalesreboundedslightly

lIcense sales

Quotable QDMA:

“We received data from 38 states, and 26 (68 percent) reported selling more hunting licenses in 2008 than in 2007!”

Numerous agencies and conservation organizations are working to promote youth involvement in hunting, including QDMA (this photo was taken at QDMA’s 2009 National Youth Hunt). The combined efforts are having an impact on hunting participation and license sales.


2010

in2006,andthenjumpedin2007.So,while2008licensesalesarelessthanin2007,thenumberislikelyareturntonormalcyforthestate.

NewEnglandstatesalsotookitonthechinasMaine,Massachusetts,NewHampshireandVer-montallsoldfewerlicensesin2008.Fortunatelyonly29percentofthesurveyrespondentssoldfewerlicensesin2008.Ofthese11states,9(82percent)had2008licensesaleswithin3percentoftheir2007values.Intotal,32ofthe38respondents(84percent)had2008licensesaleswithin+/-5percentoftheir2007numbers.

Regionally,9of11(82percent)Midwesternstateshadincreasedsalesin2008,3of4(75percent)Westernstateshadincreasedsales,and7of11(64percent)NortheasternandSoutheasternstateshadincreasedsalesin2008.IntheMidwest,Missourihadthelargestincreaseadding28,521licens-es(+4percent),whileKentuckyhadthelargestdeclineselling6,549fewerlicenses(-1.9percent).IntheNortheast,NewYorkadded26,330licenses(+4.5percent)whileMassachusettssold2,306fewer(-3.3percent).IntheSoutheast,Texassold19,691additionallicenses(+1.8percent)andMississippisold14,446fewerlicenses(-6.8percent).Finally,intheWest,Idahosold12,692morelicenses(+22.6percent)whileWyomingsold2,323fewerlicenses(-2.5percent).

Withadecliningtrendforhunternumbersandreducedwildlifeagencybudgets,itisencouragingforthemajorityofstatestoreportlicensesalesincreasesin2008.Let’shopewhenthe2009licensesalesbecomeavailabletheywillshowasimilarincrease.Wemayhaveturnedthecornerwithde-clininghunternumbers,andtodosoinatougheconomyisevenmoreencouraging.

States selling MORe hunting licenses in 2008 than in 2007*

States selling FeWeR hunting licenses in 2008 than in 2007

Data not available

Hunting License Sales, 2007 to 2008(Data from individual state wildlife agencies)

*Minnesota’s license sales were roughly equal in 2007 and 2008.

Quotable QDMA:

“For states selling more licenses, the average increase was 3.5 percent and ranged from 0.3 percent in Pennsylvania and Tennessee to 22.6 percent in Idaho.”


WhitetailReport

TheU.S.FishandWildlifeService(FWS)conductsanationalsurveyoffishing,hunting,andwildlife-associatedrecreationeveryfiveyears.Themostrecentsurveywaspublishedin2007andincludesdatafrom2006.Thisreportincludesthenumberofdaysafieldbytypeofhunting,andcategorizesthesedataforallhunting,biggame,smallgame,migratorybird,andotheranimals.AccordingtotheFWS,biggamehunterslogged164milliondaysinpursuitoftheirquarryin2006.Whilewhite-taileddeerhuntingconstitutesthebulkofthesedays,thereportdoesnotseparatebiggamehuntingbyspecies.

Togetameasureofthenumberofman-daysspentpursuingwhitetails,wesurveyedstateagen-ciesinthecontiguousU.S.andaskedforthenumberofman-daysexpendedforwhite-taileddeerin2007and2008.Wereceivedresponsesfrom41states(seemap);21statesreported2007huntereffortdataand16alsoreported2008data.Sincenearlyhalfofthestatesthatrespondedtothesurveydonotcollectman-daysofeffort,wewerenotabletoestimatewhatproportionofbiggameeffortintheFWSreportwaslikelyattributabletowhitetailhunters.However,wedidreceivesomeinterestinginformation.Forstatesthatcollect/estimatethisdata,white-tailedhuntereffortrangedfrom62,000man-daysinOregonto9.7millionman-daysinMichigan(seechart).

Giventhedecliningtrendinlicensesalesthatwehearsomuchabout,itisencouragingthatonly4ofthe16statesreportingdataforbothyearshadfewerman-daysin2008.Twoofthe4states(MichiganandPennsylvania)hadreductionsof0.2percent,andthisisessentiallyawashforstatesthattallied9.7and6.5millionman-daysin2008,respectively.Theotherstateswithreduc-tionswereWyoming(-1percent)andLouisiana(-3percent)--minutereductionsforsure.

Minnesotaestimatedequalnumbersofman-daysin2007and2008,andtheother11statesreportedincreasesrangingfrom1percentinMarylandto76percentinIdaho(note:datafromIdahoincludedman-daysformuledeerandincreasedfrom241,059to424,779).OthernotableincreasesincludedOregon(22percent),Connecticut(16percent),andMississippi(8percent).ExcludingthemonumentalpercentageincreaseinIdaho,theotherstates’averageincreasewas7percent.Thisisextremelyencourag-ingfordeermanagementprogramsandthefutureofdeerhunting.

hunter effort

Total Man-Days of effort by Deer Hunters During the

�00� (or �00�) season.(man-days given in millions)

State Man-DaysMichigan 9.7Texas 9.5Pennsylvania 6.5Alabama (4.4)Tennessee 3.9North Carolina (3.7)Indiana (3.6)Wisconsin 3.4Missouri 3.1Illinois (3.1)Louisiana 3.1Mississippi 2.9South Carolina 2.3Minnesota 2.0Maryland (0.8)New Hampshire 0.7Connecticut 0.4Idaho 0.4Massachusetts 0.3Wyoming 0.1Oregon 0.06

States responding with hunter-effort data

States that do not collect hunter-effort data

No survey response

Quotable QDMA:

“Given the declining trend in license sales that we hear so much about, it is encouraging that only four of the 16 states reporting data for both years had fewer man-days in 2008 than in 2007.”


2010

Thetougheconomyhashadanoverridinginfluenceonourdailylivesforoverayearnow.Thehuntingindustryhasbeennearlyimmunetopastrecessions,butthatwasnotthecasethistimearound.Manystatewildlifeagencies,conservationorganizations,andhuntersarecurrentlyfeelingtheimpacts.Wesurveyedstatewildlifeagenciestodeterminehowtheir2009budgetcomparedtotheir2008(ormostrecent)budget,andwhatimpactsithadontheirdailyroutines.Hereiswhatwelearned.(Themapsatthebottomofthepageillustratethedata).

Ofthe37statesintheMidwest,NortheastandSoutheastthatmakeupthemajorityofwhite-taileddeerrange,35completedoursurvey.Thefollowingdatawereprovidedbythosestates.•3states(9percent)hadlargerbudgetsin2009•11states(31percent)hadbudgetsequalto2008(ortheirmostrecentyear)•21states(60percent)hadreducedbudgetsin2009

Ofthosewithsmallerbudgets,15(71percent)werereduced1to10percent,5(24percent)werereduced11to20percent,and1(5percent)wasreducedmorethan20percent.

Regionally,theMidwestfairedthebestasonly5of12(42percent)stateswereimpactedbyreducedbudgets.TheNortheastandSoutheastwerehitsimilarlyhardas8of12(67percent)Northeasternstatesand8of11(73percent)Southeasternstatesreceivedbudgetcuts.Ofthe21(of35)stateswithreducedbudgets:

•18(86percent)hadtoreducetraveltoprofessionalmeetings•17(81percent)hadtoleavevacantpositionsunfilled•13(62percent)hadtoreducestaff•12(57percent)hadtoreduceprograms•9(43percent)hadtoreducetravelfornormalduties•9(43percent)hadtoreducedatacollectionprograms•9(43percent)hadtoreduceeducationalmaterialssuchasmagazinesandbrochures

Somestateswerealsounabletohirenewstafforfilltemporarypositions,whileotherswereunabletopurchaseequipmentandsupplies.

Budgetcutsarenevereasy,butwhentheyimpactmanagementofournaturalresourcesweallsuf-fer.Moststatesarefundedprimarilyorentirelybysportsmen’sdollars,andthisisaflawedsystemasallcitizenscanenjoythebeautyournaturalresourcesprovide.Hunters,anddeerhuntersinparticular,currentlyshouldertheload.Hopefully,ourstatewildlifeagenciescansomedayreceivefundingfromthebroaderaudiencetheycurrentlyserve.

state agency budgets

Budget increased from ’08 to ’09

Budget stayed the same from ’08 to ’09

Budget decreased from ’08 to ’09

No data available

’09 budget 0-10 percent below ’08

’09 budget 11-20 percent below ’08

’09 budget 20-plus percent below ’08

Quotable QDMA:

“Of the 37 states in the Midwest, Northeast and Southeast that make up the majority of white-tailed deer range, 60 percent had reduced budgets in 2009.”

Not iNcluded iN aNalysis


WhitetailReport

QualityDeerManagement(QDM)isaboutbalancingthedeerherdwiththehabitat,balancingtheadultsexratio,andbalancingtheagestructureforbucksanddoes.Sometimes,thisiseasiersaidthandone,especiallywhenmostdeermanagersownormanageacreagesfarsmallerthandeerhomeranges.ThisiswhereQDMCooperativescomeintoplay.AQDMCooperativeisagroupoflandownersandhuntersworkingtogethertoimprovethequalityofthedeerherdandhuntingexperiencesontheircollectiveacreage.QDMCooperativesarerapidlyspreadingacrossthewhitetail’srangeandMichiganisamongthenation’sleaderswithmorethan60formallyestablishedQDMCooperatives.

ArecentsurveyofQDMAmembersandQDMadvocatesshowedanastounding34percentofrespondentsareinvolvedinaQDMCooperative.Thatequatestotensofthousandsoflandown-ersandmillionsofacres,resultinginanenormousimpactondeerherdsandwildlifehabitatsacrossthecountry.SeetheinformationonthispageforalookatcurrentparticipationtrendsofQDMCooperatives.

Tohelphighlighttheneedforhuntercooperationacrossmultiplesmallproperties,let’slookatseveralrecentresearchprojectsregardingdeerbehavior.

Yearling Buck DispersalTherehavebeenseveralbuckdispersalstudiesduringthepasttwodecadesinavarietyofhabitattypes,includingstudiesatPennState,theUni-versityofGeorgia,theUniver-sityofIllinois,andChesa-peakeFarmsinMaryland.Ingeneral,thesestudieshaveshownapproximately50to70percentofbucksleavetheirbirthareawhenthey’re12to18monthsold;mostdisperseonetofivemiles,althoughsomehavegonemorethan30miles;ofthosethatdisperse,approximately25percentdosointhespringand75percentdosointhefall(note:arecentstudyatMichiganStateUniversityinahigh-densitydeerherdreportedhigherspringdispersalwhichlikelywascausedbythehighnumberofdoesinthestudyarea);someresearchsuggestsyearlingbuckswon’tdisperseiftheyareorphaned(usu-allyabuck’smotherinitiatesdispersalmovementsthroughaggression);andsomere-searchsuggestseventwo-laneroadscanstop,oralterthepathof,adispersingbuck.

QdM cooperatIves

34 %66 %

Are you involved in a QDM Cooperative?

YesNo

Less than 100 100 to 500

501 to 1,0001,001 to 2,5002, 501 to 5,000

Over 5,000

Less than 5 5 to 10

11 to 2526 to 50

51 to 100Over 100

I don’t trust my neighbors to follow QDM guidelinesMy neighbors aren’t interested in QDM

Don’t own any landI don’t have time to lead the effort

I don’t have the professional guidance to do it “right”I don’t know my neighbors or if they hunt

I don’t want neighbors to know what we are doingOther

If yes, how many acres are in your

Cooperative?

If yes, how many landowners are

involved?

If you aren’t interested in a QDM Cooperative, why not?

13 %25 %

19 %23 %

10 %10 %

76 %16 %

4 %2 %2 %

1 %

38 %26 %

23 %21 %

10 %4 %4 %

21 %

(More than one answer allowed, so percentages do not total 100)

In 2009, QDMA sent an electronic survey to members and non-members who are part of our e-mail database, asking a number of questions about various aspects of Quality Deer Management. Below are the results of questions about participation in QDM Cooperatives (Note: to have your e-mail address added to our database, call 800-209-3337).

ParticiPation in QDM cooPeratives

Quotable QDMA:

“A recent survey of QDMA members and QDM advocates showed an astounding 34 percent of respondents are involved in a QDM Cooperative. That equates to tens of thousands of landowners and millions of acres, resulting in an enormous impact on deer herds and wildlife habitats across the country.”


2010

ResearchbyDr.MarkConnerandhiscolleaguesonChesapeakeFarm’smanagementprogramshowedQDMcanreduceoveralldispersalbyupto20percent,decreaseaveragedispersaldistance,andincreasesurvivalofdispersingbucks.Thus,aQDMapproachatthelandscapelevelisthebestwaytominimizetheimpactsofyearlingdispersal.

Home Range SizeRecentadultbuckhomerangeandmovementstudieshavealsobeenconductedbyChesapeakeFarms,LouisianaStateUniversity,MississippiStateUniversity,SamuelRobertsNobleFounda-tionandTexasA&MUniversityatKingsville.TwostudiesofparticularinterestwereatTexasA&MUniversity–KingsvillebyDr.DaveHewittandhiscolleagues,andChesapeakeFarmsbyDr.MarkConnerandJamesTomberlin.Researchersinthesestudiesplacedglobalpositioningsystem(GPS)radio-collarsonbucks2½to7½yearsold(noyearlings)andmeasuredtheirannualhomerangesandmovementpatterns.TheaveragehomerangesizeintheSouthTexasstudywas2,271acresanditrangedfrom661to7,332acres!TheaveragehomerangesizeintheMarylandstudywas740acresanditrangedfrom346to1,448acres.TheMarylandhomerangesweresmallerbuttheystillaveragedmorethanasquaremile.

Kirk Nartker (right) of QDMA’s Clinton/Ionia Branch in Michigan gets an assist from Josh Nurenberg while putting up a sign for the East Olive QDM Cooperative. Though QDM Cooperatives are spreading in many states, Michigan is a national leader.

�0 • QDMA’s Whitetail Report

WhitetailReport

Biologistsoncebelievedthatabuck’shomerangeincreasedinsizeashematured.TheSouthTexasandMarylandstudiesshowedthisisnotnecessarilytrue.ThediagramonthispageclearlyshowsthatyoungerbucksintheSouthTexasstudyhadsmallandlargehomeranges,andfullymaturebucksalsohadsmallandlargehomeranges.Thus,QDMCooperativesprovidebenefitstobucksacrossallageclasses.

Age and Home-Range SizeBuck age and home-range size do not

appear to be related. This diagram from a Texas study shows relative size, shape and overlap of four home ranges, with the ages of each buck shown.

2½

7½6½

3½

from research at texas a&m-kingsville

Buck Daily MovementsThesametwostudiesalsoshowedbucksmovethemostjustbeforethepeakoftherut.TheMarylandresearchersfoundtheircollaredbucksmoved1.5to3milesperdayduringthepre-rutandrut,whiletheTexasresearchersfoundtheircollaredbucksmoved7to15milesperdayduringthesesametimeperiods!Theoreticallythisiswhentheyaremostvulnerabletoharvest,andthistimeperiodcorrespondstothehuntingseasoninmanystates.ThisisalsowhenyourneighborsareinthewoodsandhighlightsthebenefitsofbeinginvolvedinaCooperative.

Daily Movements and Home Range Summary Ultimately,theresearchersinbothstudiesconcludedthattherewasnoapparentcorrelation

betweendailymovements,homerangesizeorageofbucks.Somebuckswithsmallhomerangesmovedlittlewhileotherswithsmallhomerangesmovealot;theyjustdidsoin

asmallarea.Similarly,somebuckswithlargehomerangesmovedverylittlewhileothersspentalotoftimeontheirfeet.Thesameheldtrueacrossdifferentagesof

thestudyanimals;so,itappearsthatbucksaresimplyindividualswithdistinctmovementpatterns.Thistraitmeansabuck’sdailymovementsduringthe

breedingseasonlikelyaffecthischancesofsurvival.

Buck ExcursionsWiththeadventofGPSradio-collars,researchershavealso

identifiedabehaviorthatwecouldonlyspeculateaboutun-tilrecently,called“excursions.”Excursionsareshort-dura-

tion,long-rangemovementsoutofabuck’shomerangethatcoincidewiththebreedingseason.Theyarenotanextensionof

theirhomerange.Rather,theyaredistinctroundtripmovementsgenerallylastingonetothreedays,encompassing1to5milesoutof

theirhomerangeandbackagain.Of16collaredbucksintheSouthTexasstudy,38percentwentonanexcursionduringthepre-rut,100percenttook

anexcursionduringtherut,and41percentwentonanexcursionduringthepost-rut.Of15collaredbucksintheMarylandstudy40,58,and20percentwent

onexcursionsduringthepre-rut,rut,andpost-rutrespectively.Excursionslikelyex-plainhowsomehuntersshootabucktheyhaveneverseenbefore,evenwhentheyhave

hundredsofhoursofobservationdataandthousandsoftrailcameraphotos.Theymayalsoexplainhowahuntercanwatchabuckallfallonlytoseehimgetshottwoormoremiles

away.Excursionsalsolikelyexplainthesingletrailcameraphotoyougetofaspecificbuck.Hemaybecamerashy,butthere’salsothepossibilitythatitwastheonlytimehetraveledthroughyourproperty.

Quotable QDMA:

“The Maryland researchers found their collared bucks moved 1.5 to 3 miles per day during the pre-rut and rut, while the Texas researchers found their collared bucks moved 7 to 15 miles per day during these same time periods!”


2010

Doe ExcursionsExcursionsaren’tlimitedtobucks.PennStateresearchersDr.DuaneDiefenbach,MattKeenanandAndrewNortonstudiedmovementpatternsofadultdoes.Themapontherightshowsthehomerangeofastudyanimalandanex-cursionittookduringthepeakoftherut.Thedoe’shomerangewasapproximately640acres,andshemovednearlyfourmilesawayduringtheexcursion.Researchersidenti-fiedsimilarmovementsinfiveofeightGPS-collareddoesduringthestudy.ChesapeakeFarm’sresearchersreportedsimilarfindings.

Multiple PropertiesRecentworkbyMichiganStateUniversityresearchersDr.HenryCampaIIIandJordanBurroughsshowed92percentofdoehomerangeswere123to494acresintheirhigh-densitystudyarea.Theyfounddoesononestudysiteusedsevendifferentlandowner’sproperties.Theseweren’tquarter-acrelotseither,aspropertiesrangedfrom50to600acres.Doesonanotherstudysiteused16differentpropertieswhereacreagesrangedfromlessthan10to637acres.Weknowtheaveragedoehomerangeissmallerthantheaveragebuckhomerange.So,ifdoesintheMichiganstudyareawereusing7to16differentproperties,howmanypropertieswerebucksintheareausing?Itcouldhavebeenalotmorethan16.

ConclusionIfyou’reasmall-acreagelandowner,youshouldnowunderstandwhyitwillbedifficultforyou,actingalone,tobringbalanceintothedeerpopulation.ThebestwaytoensuretheyoungbucksinyourareaareprotectedistogetasmanyofyourneighborsaspossibleinvolvedinaQDMCooper-ative.Giventhedistancessomebucksmove,it’stoyourbenefittotalktoyourimmediateneigh-bors,thelandownerswhoborderyourneighbors,andeventhelandownerstwoormorepropertiesremovedfromyours.It’struethatnotallofthemwillbeinterestedinQDM,butmanywill.Begincommunicatingwiththosewhoareinterested,andchancesareyoursuccesswillgrowovertime.Thisdoesn’tmeanyoucan’thaveahigh-qualityQDMprogramwithoutaCooperative,butinmostcasesyoucanbefarmoresuccessfulbybeinginvolvedinone.

Even does make rut “excursions,” as this map reveals. This doe left its core area (black line) and traveled nearly 4 miles away before returning (the gold line shows the 4-day trip).

Members of the Butternut Creek QDM Cooperative in Montcalm County, Michigan gather to celebrate their success and take a group portrait. Now 11 years old, the Cooperative involves multiple small tracts totaling more than 2,000 acres.

�� • QDMA’s Whitetail Report

WhitetailReport

Inthenot-too-distantpastdeermanagerssouthofdeer-wolfregionspaidlittleattentiontofawnpredationrates.Today,thisissueismuchdifferent.Predatorexpansionandherdmanage-mentprogramsdesignedtoreducedeerpopulationshaverecentlycausedmanagerstotakeamuchcloserlookatfawnpredationbybobcats,bears,andespeciallybycoyotes.

Recent ResearchIn2000,PennStategraduatestudentJustinVreelandandhiscolleaguesDr.DuaneDiefenbachandBretWallingfordestimatedsurvivalratesandcause-specificmortalityforfawnsinPenn-sylvania.Withhelpfromnumerousvolunteerstheycapturedandradiocollared218fawns.ThePennsylvaniaresearchersdisplayedaHerculeanefforttoamasssuchalargesamplesizeaspriorfawnmortalitystudieswerebasedonfarfeweranimals.Justinandhiscolleaguesmoni-toredfawnsintwostudysites;onewasinaforestedlandscapeandtheotherinanagriculturallandscape.Theforestedsiteshowedevidenceofheavyoverbrowsingbydeer,andlowground(fawning)coverwaslacking.Conversely,theagriculturalsitecontainedahigherpercentageofqualityfawncover.Bynineweeksaftercapture(latesummer)72percentoffawnsintheagricul-turalsitewerealivewhileonly57percentwerealiveintheforestedsite.Predatorskilled49fawns(22percent)andthiswastheleadingcauseofmortality.Notably,41ofthosefawns(84percent)werekilledattheforestedsite,andofthe31deathsthatcouldbeattributedtoaspecificpreda-tor-bobcatskilled3,coyoteskilled13andblackbearskilled15fawns!Fawnpredationwasnothighattheagriculturalsitebutitwasmuchhigherintheforestedsite.Interestingly,bearsandcoyotestooknearlyequalnumbersoffawns.Whilecoyoteshavebeenblamedforfawnpreda-tionformanyyears,thiswasoneofthefirststudiesthatidentifiedahighpredationratebyblackbearsinaforestedenvironment.Blackbearpredationonwhite-taileddeerfawnsisdiscussedindetailinaseparatearticleonpage26inthisreport.

ThisresearchwasfollowedbyrecentstudiesinAlabama,Georgia,andSouthCarolina.Univer-sityofGeorgia(UGA)graduatestudentCoryVanGilderstudiedtheeffectsofintensivepredatorremovalonwhite-taileddeerrecruitmentinnortheastAlabama.CoryandDrs.GrantWoodsandKarlMillerinferredpredatorimpactsona2,000-acrestudysitebycomparingfawnrecruit-mentdatabeforeandafteranintensivepredatorremovalprogram.Thestudysitehadbeen

underaQDMprogramfor10yearsandhadreducedthedeerpopulationthroughaggres-siveantlerlessharvests.Thisrepeatedsub-stantialdoeharvestledtoadramaticnegativeimpactonfawnrecruitmentduetothehighratioofpredatorstodeer.Researcherscalcu-latedpre-andpost-removalrecruitmentratesusingcamerasurveys,hunterobservationdata,andremoteweb-basedcamerasmountedoverfoodplots.Theyalsomonitoredrelativepredatorpopulationsusingscatdepositionratesandscent-stationsurveys(seegraphsonthefacingpage).Theresearchersremoved22coyotesand10bobcatsduringtrappingeffortsfromFebruarythroughJuly2007.Thisremovalreducedthepredatorabundanceindicestonearlyzeroimmediatelypriortothefawningseason.Itworked!Theintensepredatorremovalpriortofawningdrasticallyincreasedfawnsurvivalby193to256percent!Thisstudyclearlyidentifiedthatmanagerscouldn’tdismisscoyotesandbobcatsashavinglittleimpactonthissite’sfawncrop.

deer predators: coyotes

Quotable QDMA:

“The intense predator removal prior to fawning drastically increased fawn survival by 193 to 256 percent!”



2010

AnotherUGAgraduatestudent,BrentHowzestudiedpredationandwhite-taileddeerrecruit-mentinsouthwesternGeorgia.BrentandDrs.RobertWarrenandKarlMillerfromUGAandMikeConnerfromtheJosephW.JonesEcologicalResearchCenterassessedwhetherpredationwascausingthelowfawnrecruitmentrateatthe29,000-acreresearchcenter.Deerdensityonthesitewasroughly10to15persquaremileandspotlightcountsandhunterobservationdataestimatedapproximately0.5fawnsperadultdoeinthefallpre-huntpopulation.Researchersselectedtwostudyblocks.One11,000-acreblockwasdesignatedasapredatorremovalzone,andresearchersremoved23coyotesand3bobcatsbetweenJanuaryandAugust2008.Mostwereremovedduringfawning(JuneandAugust).Another7,000-acreblockwasusedforacontrolareaandnopredatorswereremoved.Thetwoblockscontainedsimilarhabitatsandwere2.5milesapart.Researchersconductedremotecamerasurveystodeterminepre-huntfawnrecruitmentrates,andtheyestimated0.72fawnsperdoeinthepredatorremovalzoneandonly0.07fawnsperdoeinthenon-removalzone.Inotherwords,2fawnswererecruitedforevery3doesinthepredatorremovalzone,whileittookover28doestorecruitthesamenumberoffawnsinthezonewherepreda-torsweren’tremoved!ThisstudyhadasmallersamplesizethantheAlabamaorPennsylvaniastudies,butpredatorsclearlyhadalargeinfluenceonthenumberoffawnsthatsurvivedtothefallpre-huntpopulation.

Inarelatedstudy,Dr.JohnKilgoandhiscolleaguesfromtheUSDAForestServiceandCharlesRuthfromtheSouthCarolinaDepart-mentofNaturalResourcesstudiedtheimpactsofcoyotesonfawnsurvivalontheSavannahRiverSite(SRS)inwest-centralSouthCarolina.Theresearchersassessedthepotentialimpactofcoyotesbymonitoringthesurvivalandcausesofmortalityofradio-collaredfawns.TheSRShad8to15deerpersquaremile,abalancedadultsexratio,andtheestimatedfawn:doeratiowasnearlyidenticalontheSRSandsurroundingareas.During2006to2008researcherscapturedandmonitored60fawns.Forty-four(73percent)fawnsdiedpriortobeingrecruitedintothefallpopulation!Bobcatskilled6andcoyotespredatedatleast28fawns.Coyoteskilled47to62percentofallfawnsmonitored,andcoyotepredationaccountedfor64to84percentofallmortality!Most(66percent)deathsoccurredwithinthefirstthreeweeksoflifeandoverathird(36percent)oc-curredwithinthefirstweek.During2008,researchersalsocollectedandanalyzedresidualpredatorsalivafrom22carcassestoconfirmpredatorspeciesandindividualidentity.Fifteencoyote-killedfawnsprovidedsufficientsalivaandanalysesidentified13individualcoy-otes.Thisanalysisrevealedthat,atleastontheSRS,coyotepreda-

Scat

s/Ki

lom

eter

/Day

Oct

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0

Coyote Scat Counts(Recorded from October 2006 through September 2007 along four, 1.6-kilometer transects )

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept

Professional trapping begins

Faw

ns P

er D

oe

2001-02

1.81.61.41.21.00.80.60.40.2

0

Fawn:Doe Ratios(Based on hunter observations from SNI Farms, from 2001 to 2008)

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Professional trapping begins


WhitetailReport

tionisnotrestrictedtoalimitednumberofalphamales.InsummaryfortheSRSstudy,4of5monitoredfawnsdiedin2006,15of22diedin2007,and26of33diedin2008.Thisstudyagainemphasizedtheimportanceofcoyotepredationonfawnrecruitmentrates.

Collectively,thesestudiesdemonstratedthegamehasclearlychangedfordeermanagerswithrespecttofawnpredation.Geographicallyandnumericallyexpandingpredatorpopulations,incombinationwithmoreaggressiveantlerlessharvestrates,arealteringthedynamicsoftradi-tionalharvestmodels.Increasedfawnrecruitmentratesfrompresumablyhealthierdeerpopula-tionsarenotbeingrealizedinsomeareas.Theserecentstudieshighlightthesynergisticroleabundantpredatorpopulationscanplayonintentionally(orotherwise)reduceddeerpopula-tions.High-qualityfawningcoverandashortfawningperiodhelpreducefawnpredationrates,butinsomecasespredatorscanstillexactaheavytollonthenumberoffawnssurvivingtothefallpre-huntpopulation.Alldeermanagersareencouragedtotakeacloselookatthelong-termtrendinfawnrecruitmentrateforthepropertytheyhuntand/ormanagewhenestablishingannualtargetdoeharvests.(Seethefullarticleonfawnrecruitmentfoundonpage31inthiseditionoftheWhitetailReport).

Coyote Range Expansion Demonstrates AdaptabilityHistoricallylimitedtotheopengrasslands,plains,anddesertsoftheSouthwestthecoyotehasextendeditsrangeinalldirections–north,south,east,andwest.Asignificantamountofthisrangeextensionoccurredduringthe20thCentury,butthetrendcontinuesasareflectionoftheanimal’sabilitytoadapt,changesinthelandscape(includingforestryandagriculturalprac-tices),anincreaseinpreynumbersandavailability,relativesafetyinsuburbanandurbanareas,andhumanassistance.

Today,coyotesexistfromNovaScotiatoFloridaand,ofcourse,westwardtotheiroriginalsouthwesternrange.Theyareandwillcontinuetobeanintegralcoginthemechanismsofourdynamicecosystems.IsthisthesameanimalthatoriginatedintheSouthwest?Haveweknowntheeasterncoyotelongenoughtoenableasoundcomparisonwithitswesternpredecessors?Thewesterncoyote’sreputationasalivestockpredatorhasyettoberealizedtothesameextentintheEast,althoughreportsareontheincrease.Researchhasdocumentedthateasterncoyoteswillconsumenearlyanything,althoughthereareafewfoodsthatmakeupthebulkoftheirdietdependingonregionalavailability(smallmammals,birds,softmast,anddeer).

Coyotes,astoppredators,havebeenshowntohavedirectandindirectimpactsonspeciesdiversityofpreyandplants.Forexample,theremovalofredfoxescanalterthenumberoftheirfavoredpreyspecies,rodentsandrab-bits,thusultimatelyalteringplantcommunities.Relat-edly,researchersinNovaScotiafoundthatthenumberofdeereatenbycoyotesdeclinedwithincreasingsmallmammaldensity.Insomeregionsand/orduringsomeyears(e.g.,highversuslowrainfall)coyotepredationhaslimitedwhite-taileddeerpopulations.Inextremeorpersistentcasesofcoyotepredation,deerpopulationshavebeenregulated.Specificallywhencoupledwithcontinualnegativereproductiveconditions,suchasinareaswithinherentlylowdeerdensities,poorhabitats,orperpetuallysevereenvironments.

The Urban Coyote: An Artifact of Our Modern SocietyAcomprehensiveecologicalstudyofcoyotesbyStanleyD.

Quotable QDMA:

“High-quality fawning cover and a short fawning period help reduce fawn predation rates, but in some cases predators can still exact a heavy toll on the number of fawns surviving to the fall pre-hunt population.”

Frequency of food items in coyote diets,

Cook County, illinois

Diet Item OccurrenceSmall rodents 42%Fruit 23%White-tailed deer 22%Eastern cottontail 18%Bird species 13%Raccoon 8%Grass 6%Invertebrates 4%Human-associated 2%Muskrat 1%Domestic cat 1%Unknown 1%

(Based on the contents of 1,429 scats collected during 2000-2002. Some scats contained multiple items, therefore the

percentages exceed 100 percent.)


2010

Gehrt(SchoolofEnvironmentandNaturalResources,TheOhioStateUniversity)wasinitiatedin2000intheChicagometropolitanarea,specificallyCookCounty,Il-linois.ByFebruary2006,researchershadcaptured253coyotesandra-dio-collared175.Trackingindividualcoyotesdayandnightproducedover30,000locations,makingthisthemostextensiveurbanstudyofcoyoteseverconducted.

Gehrtandhiscolleaguesfoundthaturbancoyoteshaveahighlyorga-nizedsocialsystem,similartotheirruralcounterparts.Territoriesaredefendedbypacksorgroups;however,inprotectedareas(noshoot-ingortrapping)thegroupsizeistypicallyfivetosixadultsandthepupsbornthatyear.Bycontrast,inruralareastheactivitiesofhuntingandtrappingusuallyresultinamuchsmallergroupconsistingofanalphapairofcoyotesandtheirpups.Radio-trackingalsorevealedthatmembersofpacksorgroupsinthisstudyhadhomerangesaveragingthreesquaremiles,whereassolitarycoyoteshadmuchlargerhomerangesaveraging25squaremiles.Generally,thehomerangesofruralcoyotesthroughoutNorthAmericavaryasafunctionoffoodavailability,aremuchlarger,varyseasonally,anddifferaccordingtosexwithmalesoc-cupyinglargerareas.

TheCookCountystudyfoundthat,contrarytopopularbelief,urbancoyotedietsaresimilartothoseofruralcoyotes.Scatanalysesshowedthaturbancoyotessubsistprimarilyonadietofsmallrodents,fruit,deer(fawns),andrabbitsratherthangarbageandpets,primarilycats.

Ultimately,predationbyurbancoyotesmayserveanimportantecologicalfunctionbyprevent-inganincreaseindifficulttomanagewhite-taileddeerandCanadagoosepopulations.Althoughurbancoyotesdonottakeenoughadultdeerorgeesetoreducepopulations,theimpactonfawnsandgoosenests(eggs)mayabatepopulationgrowth.InconcertwiththeOhioStateUniversitystudy,colleaguesfromtheIllinoisNaturalHistorySurveyconductedafawnsurvivalstudyindif-ferentlocationswithintheChicagoareaandfoundthatcoyoteskilled20to80percentofthefawnsindifferentpopulations.

SummaryCoyoteshavesuccessfullyinvadedallareasofwhitetailrangeandthey’llbeanannualvariableindeermanagementprograms.WhetherruralorurbanandNorthorSouth,coyotesarenowpartofthedynamicrelationshipbetweendeerandtheenvironment.Coyotescanaffectdeerherdsposi-tivelyornegatively,sotheirpresencecan’tbesummedwithabroadgeneralization.Theiractualimpactswillneedtobemeasuredandmonitored,anddeerseasonsandbaglimitscanbeadjustedifnecessary.Theimportantthingistorealizetheyarenowaplayerinmanydeermanagementprograms,andasmanagers,weneedtoacknowledgethemassuch.

Quotable QDMA:

“Whether rural or urban and North or South, coyotes are now part of the dynamic relationship between deer and the environment.”

REFERENCES

Adams, K. 2009. Whitetail Wisdom: A closer look at predators. Quality Whitetails Magazine 16:3, pp. 10-12.

Gehrt, S. D. 2006. Urban coyote ecology and management: The Cook County, Illinois, Coyote Project. Ohio State Univ. Extension Bulletin No. 929.

Morey, P. S. 2004. Landscape use and diet of coyotes, Canis latrans, in the Chicago metropolitan area. M. S. Thesis, Utah St. Univ., Logan. 119 pp.

VanGilder, C. 2009. Fawn survival after predator control: A QDM case study. Quality Whitetails Magazine 16:3, pp. 20-24.

photo by gil lackey


WhitetailReport

Quotable QDMA:

“The results of a 2004 Pennsylvania study revealed that 46 percent of 106 fawn mortalities were related to predation. Black bears caused 33 percent of the 49 predation events and coyotes were responsible for 37 percent.”

REFERENCES

Ballard, W. B., H. A. Whitlow, S. J. Young, R. A. Jenkins, and G. J. Forbes. 1999. Predation and survival of white-tailed deer fawns in north-central New Brunswick. Journal of Wildlife Manage-ment 63:574-579.

Kunkel, K. E., and L. D. Mech. 1994. Wolf and bear predation on white-tailed deer fawns in Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:1557-1565.

Ozoga, J. J., and R. K. Clute. 1988. Mortality rates of marked and unmarked fawns. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:549-551

Vreeland, J. K., D. R. Diefenbach, and B. D. Wallingford. 2004. Survival rates, mortality causes, and habitats of Pennsylvania white-tailed deer fawns. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(2):542-553.

Oneoftheearliestpublishedaccountsofpredationonwhite-taileddeerfawnsbyblackbearsappearedin1967andinvolvedasingleincidentinCanada.AnecdotalinformationfromMichi-gan,NewYorkandtheCanadianprovincesofVancouverandAlbertasuggestingthatblackbearskillfawnswaspublishedduringtheearly1980s.

Moreintensivestudiesconductedwithinthepast25yearshavesubstantiatedthatblackbearshavetheirplaceinthelistofpredatorsofdeerfawns.Although,coyotepredationremainstheleadingcauseoffawnmortalityinsomeCanadianprovincesandthroughouttheUnitedStates,includingMaine,Massachusetts,Illinois,Iowa,Mississippi,Oklahoma,andTexas.

A1999publicationreportedpredator-relatedfawnmortalityof10percentbycoyotes,18percentbyblackbears,and4percentbybobcatsinNewBrunswick,Canada.Atwo-yearstudy(October–November)inMinnesotaduringtheearly1990srevealedthatwolvesandblackbearswereleadingcausesoffawnmortality.Fawnsurvivalthroughthestudyperiodaveraged49percent.Amongthepredator-relatedmortalities,49percentwereattributedtoblackbearsand51percenttowolves.

TheresultsofaPennsylvaniastudypublishedin2004revealedthat46percentof106fawnmor-talitiesthroughthefirst34weekswererelatedtopredation.Blackbearscaused33percentofthe49predationeventsandcoyoteswereresponsiblefor37percentofthepredator-relatedmortali-ties.Fawnsurvivalafter34weeksapproached53percentinagriculturalareasand38percentintheforestedlandscape.ResearchersdeterminedthatfawnsurvivalinPennsylvaniawascompa-rabletoreportedsurvivalinagriculturalandforestedregionsinthewhitetail’snorthernrange.Theyconcludedthattherewasnoevidenceoffawnsurvivalratespreventingwhite-taileddeerpopulationgrowth.

Blackbearnumbershavereachedanall-timehighthroughoutthewhitetail’srange,anditap-pearsthispredatorspeciesiscontinuingtoincrease,atleastincertainregions.Blackbearpopu-lationsarestabletoincreasinginmanynorthernstates(includingNewYorkandNewJersey),in

themountainandcoastalareasofNorthandSouthCarolina,centralGeorgia(adisjunctpopulationonandaroundtheOcmulgeeWildlifeManagementArea),andinportionsofLouisianaandArkansas.Additionalresearchisnecessarytodocumentandtracktheinfluenceofblackbearpredationonwhite-taileddeerpopulations,andtheirroleascompetitorsforfood(primarilyhardandsoftmast).

deer predators: black bears


2010

feral hogs

WhentheworldwasshiftingandformingnewcontinentsintheMioceneEpoch(morethan5millionyearsago),theswinefamilywasexcludedfromtheNewWorld.Earlyexplorersareresponsiblefortheintroductionofswineintothenewworld,nowtheUnitedStates.HernandodeSotobroughtthefirsttruepigstotheAtlanticCoastofFloridain1539.“PureRussian”wildboarswerereleasedintoa20,000-acreenclosureinSul-livanCounty,NewHampshire,in1890.

Originatingfromdomesticancestry,feralhogsarewildswineofthefamilySuidae.ThreetypesofwildhogsarenowfoundintheUnitedStates:feralhogs,Eurasianwildboar(Russian),andhybridsresultingfromacrossbetweentheferalhogandtheRussianwildboar.

InthecontinentalUnitedStates,California,Florida,andTexasrankatthetopinferalhognum-bers.TherearesubstantialferalhogpopulationsonsomeoftheHawaiianIslandsaswell.Asof2006,approximately4millionferalhogsexistedin39statesandfourCanadianprovinces.

Themapsonthenextpage,providedbytheSoutheasternCooperativeWildlifeDiseaseStudy(SC-WDS)attheUniversityofGeorgia,trackthespreadofferalswinepopulationsintheUnitedStatesfrom1982through2004,whichisthelatestavailablemap.However,currenttrackingshowferalhogexpansionintoseveraladditionalcountiesandstatesasthepopulationsexpandnorthward.

Feral hog populations have exploded in many areas, sometimes as a result of being trapped alive, transported and released in new areas by people. Photo courtesy of QDMA member Dennis Pawlowski of Florida.

Facts About Feral Hogs

• Life expectancy of a feral hog is 6 to 8 years

• The average size of a feral hog is 100 to 150 pounds, but weights exceeding 600 pounds have been reported

• Feral hogs are prolific breeders: Sows reach breeding age at 7 or 8 months, and they can produce 2 litters per year. The average litter size is 4-6, but sows may have as many as 10-13 piglets per litter.


WhitetailReport

Quotable QDMA:

“As of 2006, approximately 4 million feral hogs existed in 39 states and four Canadian provinces.”

Feralswinepopulationsarespreadingatanalarmingratedueprimarilytotheadaptivenatureoftheanimals,theirphenomenalreproductiverate,theirescapefromdomesticfacilitiesandwildboarhuntingoperations,andthroughhumanassistance–misguidedattemptstocreatesporthuntingopportunities.Therearestateandfederallawsprohibitingthemovementofferalswine,butmoreandstricterlawsarenecessary.

Predator/Prey RelationshipsThelistofpredatorsthatpreyuponferalswine,particularlythepiglets,includescoyotes,bobcats,feraldogs,mountainlions,blackbears,bobcats,andlargeraptors,evenowls.Coyotepopulationshavebeenobservedtoincreasewiththespreadandincreaseinferalswinepopula-tions.Thepredator/preyrelationshipisatwo-waypropositionforferalhogs.Asopportunisticomnivorestheyhavebeenreportedtodestroyquailandwildturkeynestsandprobablythoseofotherground-nestingbirds.Feralhogswillfeedonthecarcassesofotheranimals,includingnewbornfawns.

These maps, courtesy of the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study unit at the University of Georgia, show the documented spread of feral hogs from 1982 to 2004.

Feral Hog Range, 1��

Feral Hog Range, �00�


2010

Depredation and Economic ImpactThepresenceofferalhogsonanypropertyiscostly.Theycompromisestockoperationsthroughdepredation,anddestructionofman-madestructures,especiallyfences.Feralhogscauseprob-lemstofarmersbyrootingandwallowinginfieldsanddestroyingcrops.InTexas,forexample,theestimatedannualagriculturaldamagefromferalhogsis$52million.And,theannualexpenseincurredbyTexaslandownerstocontrolferalhogsis$7million.Theforestryindustryisnotimmunetoferalhogdamageeither.Feralhogscausesignificantdamageinnewly-plantedpineplantations.Also,inareaswithhighferalhogdensitiesthenumbersofautomobilecollisionsisontheincrease.PerhapsthegreatestthreattotheNation’smulti-billiondollarlivestockindustryisassociatedwiththecontrolofdiseasescarriedbyferalswine.

Diseases and ParasitesFeralswinecancarryatleast30importantviralandbacterialdiseasesand37parasitesthatcanaffecthumans,pets,andavarietyoflivestockandwildlife.Examplesoftheseimportantdiseasesarepseudorabies,swinebrucellosis,tuberculosis,anthrax,andtularemia.Mostimportantamongtheparasitesharboredbyferalswineisthemicroscopicwormthatcausestrichinosis.Thisdiseaseiscontractedbyhumansbyconsumingundercookedinfectedpork.Rubberglovesshouldbewornwhenhandlingordressingferalswine.Contactwithreproductiveorgansandbloodshouldbeavoidedandhandlersshouldwashthoroughlyafterprocessingferalswinecarcasses.

2010 International Wild Pig ConferenceTheBerrymanInstitutehasannouncedthe2010InternationalWildPigConferencetobeheldattheCrownePlazaGrandHotelinPensacola,FloridaonApril11-13.Thisinauguralconferenceistheonlyforumintheworldthatwillprovidefederal,state,andprivatestakeholdersavenuetodiscussthebiological,financial,andsocialimplicationsspecifictowildpigsubsistenceinoureco-systems.Visittheirwebsite(www.wildpigconference.com)tolearnmoreaboutthe2010Interna-tionalWildPigConference.

Rooting by feral hogs causes damage to agricultural crops and wildlife food plots, and it results in additional wear and tear on agricultural equipment.


WhitetailReport

QDMA encourages wildlife managers to control hog populations before they become well-established. A multi-pronged attack, including trapping (below) and sport-hunting (right) must be used. QDMA also strongly opposes the movement and release of live hogs into new areas.

ConclusionThecurrentrangeandimpendingspreadofferalswineinNorthAmericahascreatedanenigma.Feralhogsprovideexcellenttablefareandinsomeareastheyareaspopularaquarryofhuntersasthewhitetail.Yet,wheretheirrangesoverlapwithwhitetailsthereisacompetitionfactorwithregardtocertainfoods,particularlyhardandsoftmast.

Thereisadireneedforadditionalresearchandpracticalknowledgetoprovideabetterun-derstandingoftheferalhog’simpactonhumans,livestock,andgameandnon-gamewildlifespecies.Asferalhogpopulationsincreaseinnumbersandrange,theirpotentialdamagetotheenvironmentanditsdiverseecosystemsisexpectedtoincreaseaccordingly.

Controversywillalwaysbeassociatedwiththeferalhogsituationonasmallscaleandnationallyaslongastherearebiologists,farmers,ranchers,foresters,hunters,andevenmotorists.

Quotable QDMA:

“The presence of feral hogs on any property is costly. In Texas, for example, the estimated annual agricultural damage from feral hogs is $52 million.”

REFERENCES

Davidson, W. R., and V. R. Nettles. 1997. Field manual of wildlife diseases in the southeastern United States. Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study.University of Georgia. Athens, GA, USA.

Hutton, T., T. DeLiberto, S. Owen, and B. Morrison. 2006. Disease risks associated with increasing feral swine numbers and dis-tribution in the United States. MidwestAssociation of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Wildlife and Fish Health Committee. 15 pp.

Mayer, J. J., and I. L. Brisbin. 1991. Wild pigs in the United States: their history, comparative morphology, and current status. University of Georgia Press, Athens, USA.

Samuel, W. M., M. J. Pybus, and A. A. Kocan, editors. 2001. Parasitic diseases of wildmammals. Iowa State University Press, Ames, USA.

Stevens, R. 1996. The feral hog in Oklahoma. Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation. Ardmore, OK, USA.

Williams, E. S., and I. K. Barker, editors. Infectious diseases of wild animals. Iowa State University Press, Ames, USA.


2010

HerdmonitoringisanimportantbutoftenoverlookedQualityDeerManagement(QDM)Cor-nerstone.Somemanagersneglecttocollecttheappropriatedatabecausethey’renotsurehowtouseitformanagementpurposes.Withalittlehelpinanalysisandinterpretation,managerscanusethedatatheycollecttoassessthestatusoftheirmanagementprogramwithintheirrespectivestate,aswellascomparehowwelltheystackuptootherstatesand/orregions.Toprovideacomparisonamongstates,QDMAsurveyedstateagenciesandcollectedfawnrecruitmentrateinformationfrom1998and2008.Withrespecttooursurvey,allstatesdidn’tprovidetherequestedinforma-tion,butmostdidandthedataprovidedformeaningfulcomparisonsamongstatesandbetweenyears.

Fawnrecruitmentrateisameasureofthenumberoffawnsperadultdoe(1.5yearsandolder)aliveinthefallpre-huntpopulation.Basically,thisindexrecordsthenumberoffawnsthatsurvivetoapproximatelysixmonthsofageandexpressesthatnumberinrelationtothenumberofadultdoesinthepopulation.Thefawnrecruitmentrateislowerthanthenumberoffetusesperdoeandthenumberoffawnsborninthespring,sincenotallfetusessurvivetobecomefawnsandnotallfawnssurviveuntilfall.Thisrateisagoodmeasureofadeerherd’sproductivity,anditisanimportantfactorwhendeterminingthebiologicallyappropriatenumberofdoestoharvest.Monitoringthefawnrecruitmentratealsoprovidesinsightintoherdhealth,anditalertsmanag-erstopotentialproblemssuchashighfawnpredationrates.

Oursurveyrevealedseveralstatesdonotcalculatethisvaluableindex.Forthosethatdocalculateit,moststates’recruitmentratesremainedsimilarordeclinedslightlyfromanaverageof0.88fawnsperadultdoein1998to0.83in2008.Thismeanslessthanonefawnwasrecruitedforeveryadultdoeinbothyears,anditexplainswhytheoldadage,“Whenyoushootadoeyou’rereallykillingthreedeer”isamyth.Thefactthatactualrecruitmentratesarelowerthanmanyhuntersenvisioncanbeadifficultconcepttograspbecauseweknowhealthy,maturedoestendtohavetwins,andtheycanevenhavetripletsinhigh-qualityhabitats.However,somefawnswilldiebeforethey’rerecruitedintothefallpopulation.Theymaysuccumbtodisease,beabandonedbytheirmother,gethitbyacar,orbekilledbyapredator.

Also,thedefinitionoffawnrecruitmentrateisthenumberoffawnsperadultdoe(1.5yearsandolder).Yearlingdoesareincludedinthisfigure,butmanyyearlingsdonothaveanyfawns.Obviously,yearlingswithfawnswerebredasfawns.InareassuchasIowa,themajorityofdoefawnsbreedandcanhavefawnsasyearlings.SomefawnsinIowaevengivebirthtotwins!However,inotherareassuchasDelawareorSouthCarolina,lessthan10percentofthedoefawnsbreed.Thatmeansover90percentoftheyearlingdoesinDelawareandSouthCarolinahavezerofawns,andthatdramaticallyreducesthefawnrecruitmentrate.

faWn recruItMent rates

Quotable QDMA:

“For those that do calculate fawn recruitment, most states’ recruitment rates remained similar or declined slightly from an average of 0.88 fawns per adult doe in 1998 to 0.83 in 2008.”


WhitetailReport

Let’susethefollowinghypotheticaldataasanexample,startingwiththesamenumberofadultdoes:

Deer Herd A

No. Does Age (yr.) No. Fawns Recruited Fawns per Doe 5 1.5 1 0.2 fawns 10 2.5 and older 12 1.2 fawns 15 All does 13 0.87 fawns

Fawn Recruitment Rate = 13 fawns per 15 adult does or 0.87 fawns per adult doe

Deer Herd B

No. Does Age (yr.) No. Fawns Recruited Fawns per Doe 5 1.5 3 0.6 fawns 10 2.5 and older 12 1.2 fawns 15 All does 15 1.0 fawns

Fawn Recruitment Rate = 15 fawns per 15 adult does or 1.0 fawns per adult doe

Inthisrealisticexample,DeerHerdBhasahigherrecruitmentratesimplybecauseahigherpercentageofitsyearlingshadfawns.Noticethe2.5yearsandolderdoesrecruitedthesamenumberoffawnsinbothherds.Ifyouexpandthisrecruitmentratetolargerherds,thediffer-encebetween0.87and1.0fawnsperadultdoewillhavesignificantimplicationsintherateatwhichadeerherdwillgrowand/orforthenumberofdeerthatyoucanharvestannually.

Gettingbacktothesurvey;manystateshaveworkedtobalancedeerherdswiththeirhabitatandtoimprovehabitatqualityduringthepastdecade,soyouwouldexpectthe2008averagerecruit-mentratetobehigherthanitwasin1998.Sinceitwaslower,itbegsthequestion,“Whatimpactarepredatorshavingonfawnrecruitmentrates?”Insomeareaspredatorsmayhavelittleimpact,butrecentresearchinAlabama,GeorgiaandSouthCarolina,asdiscussedonpages22to24,confirmsthatbobcatsandcoyotescansignificantlyreducefawnrecruitmentrates.

Weaskedforstatewideaveragesinoursurvey,butitisimportanttoremembertheaveragerecruitmentratecanvarywidelywithinastate.Thisisespeciallytrueforlargestateswithdiversehabitats,deermanagementprograms,andsnoworrainfallrates.Oursurveyrevealedthereismuchvariationinrecruitmentratesacrossthewhitetail’srange.In2008,fawnrecruitmentratesvariedfromlessthan0.5inArizonaandOklahomato1.2fawnsperadultdoeinIllinoisandIowa.ThatmeanstheaveragedoeinIllinoisandIowarecruitsnearly2.5timesasmanyfawnsperyearastheaveragedoeinArizonaandOklahoma!Giventhisinformation,itisnotsurpris-ingtheproductiveMidwestgrowssomanybucksandrequiressuchhighantlerlessharvestratestokeepdeerherdsinbalancewiththeirhabitat.

Sportsmenandwomencanestimatethefawnrecruitmentrateonthepropertytheyhunt/man-agewithobservationdata,spotlightcounts,and/orscoutingcamerasurveys.Eachtechniquehasbiasesassociatedwithit,butit’smoreimportanttoestimatethisindexinthesamemannereachyearsoyoucanmonitortrendsinthedataovertime.Compareyourestimatetotherangereportedabove(0.5to1.2),andthencloselyexaminethedirectionyourtrendismoving.In-creasingfawnrecruitmentratessuggestherdhealthisimprovingandmaypermithigherharvestrates.Decreasingrecruitmentratessuggestherdhealthisdecliningand/orfawnmortalityisincreasing.Thesefigurescanhelpfinetuneyourannualtargetdoeharvestandhelpyouachievesuccessinyourmanagementprogram.

Quotable QDMA:

“In some areas predators may have little impact on fawns, but recent research in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina confirms that bobcats and coyotes can significantly reduce fawn recruitment rates.”


2010

Doefawnbreedingratesarethepercentageofdoefawnsthatconceiveduringtheirfirstyear(generallysixtoeightmonthsofage).Thisisgovernedbynutrition,anddoefawnsattainsexualmaturitywhentheyreachaspecificweightthreshold.Ingeneral,southernfawnsreachitatap-proximately70poundsandnorthernfawnsatapproximately80poundsliveweight.FawnshittingthisthresholdtendtodosoinDecemberandJanuary,andareonereasonforanapparent“second”rutinmanyareas.

Sincethepercentageofdoefawnsthatbreedisbasedonweight,notage,itisagoodindicatorofherdhealth,andyoucanmonitorthisindexbycheckingthelactationstatusofallyearlingdoesthatareharvested.Deerherdswithaccesstoabundanthigh-qualityforageandlighttomoderatewinterscanhavebreedinginover50percentoftheirdoefawns.Conversely,deerherdsexposedtopoorhabitatorseverewintersoftenhavelessthan5percentoftheirdoefawnsreachthethresholdweightandbreed.

Doefawnbreedingratesvarywidelyacrossstates.Lessthan10percentofdoefawnsbreedinDela-ware,IdahoandSouthCarolina,while70percentofthembreedinIowa.Thisistestamenttothemineral-richsoilsandvolumeofagricultureinIowathatprovidesabundanthigh-qualityforage,andallowsfawnstogrowrapidly.Amazingly,10percentofthedoefawnsthatbreedinIowagivebirthtotwins.Evenmoreamazingisthat21percentofthedoefawnsthatbreedinthefarmlandregionofOhiohavetwins!

Nationwide,26percentofdoefawnsbredin1998,andthataveragedroppedslightlyto23per-centin2008.However,sincethisindexissocloselytiedtoaregion’shabitatquality,itisdifficulttolumpthebreedingratesacrossaregionorevenastatetogether.Forexample,inPennsylvania

doe faWn breedIng rates

Quotable QDMA:

“Deer herds with access to abundant high-quality forage and light to moderate winters can have breeding in over 50 percent of their doe fawns. Conversely, deer herds exposed to poor habitat or severe winters often have less than 5 percent of their doe fawns reach the threshold weight and breed.”



WhitetailReport

anaverageof25percentofthedoefawnsbredin2008,butthatpercentagevariedfrom0to38percentacrossthestate’swildlifemanagementunits(WMU).SimilarrangesoccurredinAla-bama(0to33percent),NewHampshire(0to25percent),SouthDakota(0to58percent),andVirginia(3to49percent).TheserateslikelyvariedevenmoreacrossspecificpropertieswithinanyWMU.Thisisonereasonwhycollectingdatafromyourlocationandusingthattomakesite-specificharvestrecommendationscanbenefityourdeermanagementprogram.Also,youcancompareyourdatatoWMUorstateaveragesandassesshowyourmanagementprogrammeasuresup,andwhetheryouhaverealisticexpectationsforwhatyoucanaccomplish.

Thepercentageofdoefawnsthatbreedcanhaveamajorimpactonyourmanagementprogram,especiallyregardingthenumberofdeeryoucanharvestannually.Let’susethefollowinghypo-theticaldataasanexample:

Deer Herd A

No. Does Age (yr.) No. Fawns Recruited Deer eligible for Harvest 40 1.5 0 40 + 0 = 40 60 2.5 and older 60 60 + 60 = 120 100 All does 60 160 deer

Deer Herd A has no fawn breeding (0 fawns for 1.5 year-olds), and 2.5+ year-olds recruited 1 fawn each.

Deer Herd B

No. Does Age (yr.) No. Fawns Recruited Deer eligible for Harvest 40 1.5 10 40 + 10 = 50 60 2.5 and older 60 60 + 60 = 120 100 All does 70 170 deer

Deer Herd B has the same number of does as Herd A, but it is from an area where half of the fawns will breed and have fawns as yearlings (n=20 fawns). We’ll estimate that only

half of those newborn fawns will survive to be eligible for harvest (half of 20 is 10; the oth-er half will be lost to predation, vehicles, etc.). Notice the only difference between Herds A

and B is Herd B had some fawn breeding, and thus additional deer eligible for harvest.

Inthisrealisticexampleofonly100does,byhavinghalfofthefawnsbreedinDeerHerdB(andbeingconservativewiththenumberthatsurvived)weincreasedthenumberofdeeravailableforharvestby10individuals.Generallyspeaking,fawnsarebornatapproximatelya1:1buck:doeratio,sothispropertywouldhavefivemoredoefawnsandfivemorebuckfawnsontheground.Thosedoefawnsthatsurvivewouldbreedeithertheirfirstorsecondfall,andthebuckfawnsthatsurvivewouldhaveantlersnextyear.Thisdirectlyrelatestohowquicklyadeerherdcangrowandhowmanybucksanddoesareavailableforharvestormerelyforviewingeachyear.

Thisisasimpleexample,butitclearlyshowstheimpactthatdoefawnbreedingcanhaveonadeerpopulationanditscorrespondingmanagementprogram.Italsopartlyexplainswhyhighly-productivestateslikeIllinois,IowaandOhiocanhavesomanybucksintheirherds.Restrict-ingthebuckharvestclearlyplaysakeyrole,butthefactthatasizablepercentageofdoefawnscontributetheirownfawnsatoneyearofagecan’tbeoverlooked.

Quotable QDMA:

“The percentage of doe fawns that breed can have a major impact on your management program, especially regarding the number of deer you can harvest annually.”


2010

ThemostimportanttenetofQualityDeerManagement(QDM)istobalancethedeerherdwiththehabitat’sabilitytosupportit.Criticsoftenspeakoftrophybucksandantlersasthedrivingforce,buthuntersandmanagerswhotrulydelveintotheQDMphilosophyquicklylearnthecorrectnumberofdeerforthelandscapecomesfirst,followedbycompleteagestructuresandbal-ancedsexratios.Fortunately,youcanworkonthesethreeobjectivessimultaneouslybyharvestingthebiologicallyappropriatenumberofantlerlessdeerandpassingyoungbucks.

Manydeerherdsaremoreinbalancewiththehabitattodaythanthey’vebeenintherecentpast,andthisiscauseforcelebration.However,someareasstillhaveoverabundantdeerherdsresultingfromharvestingtoofewantlerlessdeer.Harvestingthepropernumberofantlerlessdeercanbedifficultforavarietyofreasonsincludinghunters’unwillingnesstoshootthem;alackofop-portunitywithregardtoaccess,seasonsand/orbaglimits;orsimplylowhunternumbersortheirinabilitytoshootenoughantlerlessdeer.Moststatescurrentlyhavemoreliberalantlerlessseasonsandbaglimitsthanthey’vehadinthepast,butsomelandownersandclubsstillhavedifficultyacquiringenoughantlerlesstagsorpermits.

Giventhathunternumbershavedeclined,theaveragehunterisnowaskedtotakemoreantlerlessanimalsinoverabundantdeersituations.Unfortunatelyresearchshowsthereisalimittothenum-berofdeeranindividualhunteriswillingtotakeannually.Thislimitisgenerallylessthanthreedeer,andgiventhatoneortwomaybebucks,thenumberofantlerlessdeerisfurtherreduced.Onestrategytoincreasetheimpactoftheantlerlessharvestistomaximizeharvestofadultdoes

buck faWn harvest rates

Quotable QDMA:

“The QDMA recommends buck fawns constitute less than 10 percent of your total antlerless harvest.”


WhitetailReport

andminimizeharvestoffawns.We’llclarifythereisnothingwrongwithharvestingfawns,andQDMAroutinelyprescribesfawnharvesttocollectbiologicaldatafromthisageclass.However,ifyou’restrugglingtobalancethedeerherdwiththehabitat,andyou’relimitedinthenumberofantlerlessdeeryoutakeduringthehuntingseason,focusingonadultdoesratherthanfawnscanhelpyoureachyourmanagementobjectivesmorequickly.

TheQDMArecommendsbuckfawnsconstitutelessthan10percentofyourtotalantlerlessharvest.Educatinghuntersondistinguishingfawnsfromadultdeerandevenseparatingbuckanddoefawnsinthefieldisarelativelysimplematter.Byobservingheadandbodyfeaturesandbehavior,mosthunterscanaccuratelydistinguishbetweenfawnsandadultsandbuckanddoefawnsmostofthetime.Westressthatlastpartbecausemistakeswillhappen.Specifically,focus-ingonadultdoesratherthanbuckfawnsprovidesmoremeatforthetable,helpsbalancetheherdmorequickly,andallowsadditionalbuckfawnstosurvive.Morebuckfawnsmeansmoreyearlingbucksthefollowingyear,whichisgoodforbalancingtheadultsexratioandforhuntersatisfaction.

Let’suseareal-worldexamplefromPennsylvania.BeforethePennsylvaniaGameCommissionimplementedtheDeerManagementAssistanceProgram(DMAP)in2003mostPennsylvaniahunterscouldonlygetoneortwoantlerlesstags.Ononeparticularfarm,itwasdifficultforthelandownerstoharvestenoughantlerlessdeerwiththisrestrictedbaglimit,evenwithanex-tremelyhighhunterdensityofnearlyonehunterper25acres.Duringthistime,whenahuntershotabuttonbuckhe/shehadtousetheironlyantlerlesstagonit(oroneoftwo),andthustheylosttheabilitytouseitonanadultdoe.FortunatelytheGameCommissionprovidesDMAPtomostlandownerstoday,andithasallowedmanytoachievetheproperantlerlessharvestforthepastseveralseasons.

Somecontendprotectionofbuckfawnsisunnecessary,butinsituationsliketheexampleabovewe’llarguethatlearningtodistinguishbetweenantlerlessdeerinthefieldandselectingagainstbuckfawnscandramaticallyhelpmanagersmeettheirdeerdensitygoals.Manystateagencybi-ologistsrecognizethisandprovideinformationtohuntersonhowtoidentifyantlerlessdeeronthehoof.Withescalatingantlerlessharvestsinmanystates,wewereinterestedinhowthebuckfawnharvesthaschangedoverthepastdecade.TocalculatethisQDMAsurveyedallstatewild-lifeagenciesandaskedwhatpercentageoftheirtotalantlerlessharvestwerebuckfawnsin1998and2008.Thedatashowedthepercentageofbuckfawnsintheantlerlessharvestdeclinedfromanaverageof19percentin1998to16percentin2008.Thissavingsmayappearsmall,butgiventheharvestofapproximately3.4millionantlerlessdeerin2008,a3percentsavingswouldhaveequatedto102,000buckfawns.Nationally,thepercentagerangedfrom3percentinMississippi(datacollectedonwildlifemanagementareasandDMAPproperties)to25percentinOhioandWisconsinin2008.ThepercentageinOhioandWisconsinisnotsurprisingasbothstateshavehighlyproductivedeerherds(i.e.,alotoffawnsenteringthepopulations)andaggressiveantler-lessharvestprograms.However,bothstatescouldbenefitifsomeofthosebuckfawnsharvestedwereadultdoesinstead.Notabledeclinesinbuckfawnharvestfrom1998to2008occurredinNewJersey(25to13percent),Georgia(26to18percent),NorthCarolina(17to12percent)andVirginia(22to17percent).

Manystateshaveprogressivedeermanagementprograms,andit’sshowinginthehealthandqualityoftheirherdsandhabitats,andespeciallyinthesatisfactionoftheirhunters.We’llreiter-atethatmanydeerherdsareinbalancewiththehabitattoday,andreduceddoeharvestsareneededintheseareas.Thefocusofthisarticlewasforareaswithtoomanydeerandhowtarget-ingadultdoesratherthanfawnscouldincreasehunters’effectivenessatbalancingtheherdwiththehabitat.Asfewerhuntersareaskedtoharvestadditionaldeer,moreeffectiveandefficientstrategiesbecomenecessary.Selectingadultdoesoverbuck(anddoe)fawnsmeetsthiscriterion,anditprovidesadditionalmeatforthetable.Soundslikeawin-winsituation.


2010

could gonacon® replace deer huntIng?

Increasingly,statewildlifeagenciesarefacingthedilemmaofwhattodoabouturbandeer.Ascitiesexpandandclaimadditionalacreageforshoppingmalls,parkinglotsandsuburbandwellings,tra-ditionaldeerhabitatisreplacedwithurbanandsuburbanlandscapes.Whitetailscanstillthriveintheselandscapes,so“deerhabitat”maynotbelost.Whatislost,oratleastseverelyhampered,istheabilitytomanagethosedeer.Gonearethehuntingclubsandthetraditionalhuntingopportunitiesthatarenolongerappropriateinthesuburbs.Yet,huntingopportunitiesstillexistinsmallpocketsofsuburbanwoodlands–especiallyforbowhunters.Thestageissetforauniquediscussionoftheroleofhuntersindeermanagement.

Huntersarguetheycanmanagesuburbandeerherdsifgivenaccesstoasufficientnumberofproperties.Anti-huntersclaimyoucanmanagethedeerherdswith“birthcontrol”andtrapsratherthanbulletsandarrows.HomeownersjustwanttobeabletogrowavegetableorflowergardenandallowtheirchildrentoplayintheyardwithoutthethreatofLymedisease.Giventhesethreeviews,it’seasytoseewhystateagenciesdevoteasubstantialamountoftimetothetopic.They’reabouttospendevenmoretimeandresourcesonitdealingwithanewlyregisteredcontraceptivecalledGonaCon®.GonaConisthefirstcontraceptivevaccineregisteredforuseinfree-rangingwhite-taileddeerpopulations.Thisnewsmaynotdirectlyaffectyou,yourQDMprogramorthecommunitywhereyouliveandhunt,butitisnewsthatcouldaffectthefutureofdeermanage-mentandhunting.

Birth Control for DeerBeforewelookcloselyatGonaCon,let’sreviewanabridgedversionofthebirthcontrolstrategyformanagingdeerpopulations.Thismanagementstrategyusesbirthcontrolratherthanhunterstolimitorpreventnewanimalsfrombeingbornintothepopulation.Thisapproachhasreceivedmuchpublicitybecauseitisnonlethalandhasthepotentialtoregulatedeerpopulationsinurbanandsuburbanareasclosedtohunting.“Immunocontraception”isabirthcontrolmethodthat

Anti-hunters see GonaCon®, a birth-control drug for deer, as a non-lethal option for controlling urban and suburban deer populations.

Quotable QDMA:

“GonaCon is the first contraceptive vaccine registered for use in free-ranging white-tailed deer populations.”


WhitetailReport

usesthedeer’sim-munesystemtopreventpregnancy.Thisisthemostcommonmethodofinducinginfertilityindeer,andmuchresearchhasbeenconductedoverthepastfourdecadestodevelopaneffectivecontraceptivethatcanbeusedonfree-rangingdeerherds.

Unfortunatelymuchconfusionsurroundsthestatusoffertilitycontrolagents.Thepublichasageneralmisunder-standingregardingtheavailabilityandpracticalityofimmuno-contraceptivevaccines.Despitemisperceptions,overabundantdeerherdscannotbecontrolledsolelywithimmuno-contraceptives.Successfulfertilitycontrolmaylimitpopulationgrowth,butitdoeslittletoreducetheexistingpopulation.Therearealsomisconceptionsaboutvaccineavailabilityandeffectiveness.Scientistsdevelopedcontraceptivesthatblockorendpregnancyyearsagobutonlyrecentlywereabletodeveloponethatiseffectiveandpracticalfornon-captivedeerherds.Untillate2009,allresearchonvaccineswasconductedunderinvestigativepermits,astherewerenovaccinesauthorizedforuseonfree-rangingdeerherds.Thathasnowchanged,asGonaConwasrecentlyregisteredforuseonfree-rangingdeerherdsbytheEnvironmentalProtectionAgency(EPA).

How Does GonaCon Work?GonaConisanimmunocontraceptivevaccineforbucksanddoesdevelopedbyscientistsattheU.S.DepartmentofAgriculture’s(USDA)WildlifeServices’NationalWildlifeResearchCenter.It’stoutedasasingle-shotmultiyearvaccinethat’seffectivefortwotofouryearsindeer.Inad-ditiontowhitetails,GonaConhasalsosuccessfullypreventedpregnancyinCaliforniagroundsquirrels,Norwayrats,feralcatsanddogs,domesticandferalswine,wildhorses,bisonandelk.Priorvaccinesrequiredadditionaltreatmentsand/orwerelesseffective.GonaCon’slabelstatesdeermustbetreatedbyhandinjectiononly.Thisprohibitsadministeringthevaccineviadartsandincreasesthecostandlabornecessarytotreatdeer.ItisaprecautionarymeasurebecauseGonaConwillalsocauseinfertilityinhumanfemales(andpossiblymales).Notallowingdeertobetreatedviadartsensuresnoonestumblesacrossafullyloadeddartthatmayhavemissedananimalandnotbeenrecoveredbytheshooter.Currentresearchistryingtodevelopanoralcontraceptivethatcouldtreatdeerbyplacingthevaccineoncornorotherfoodsources,butthistechnologyislikelyafewyearsaway.

Otherthanaccidentalinjection,theresupposedlyaren’tanyhumanhealthrisksassociatedwitheatingtreateddeerasourstomachsbreakthevaccinedowntoitsbasicproteins.However,theremaybeahealthriskfortreateddeer.OnesideeffectofGonaConisapea-sizedgranulomaattheinjectionsite,andsomeresearchanimalshavedevelopedsmalltobaseball-sizedabscessesunderneaththesegranulomas.

Dr. Tony DeNicola (left), a QDMA member, has been involved in scientific trials of GonaCon, which has not been shown to be effective at reducing deer numbers in free-ranging populations.

Quotable QDMA:

“The public has a general misunderstanding regarding the availability and practicality of immunocontraceptive vaccines. Despite misperceptions, overabundant deer herds cannot be controlled solely with immunocontraceptives.”


2010

Withearliervaccines,treateddoeswouldenterestrousbutnotconceive.Thesedoeswouldenterestrousapproximatelyevery28daysforseveralmonths,andbuckswouldexpendpreciousenergybreedingandre-breedingthesedoes.QDMA’sKipAdamswasinvolvedinsomeearlycontraceptiveresearchattheUniversityofNewHampshire’sdeerresearchfacility,andhewatchedsomeoftheircaptivebuckswasteatremendousamountofenergychasingandbreedingdoesfromNovemberthroughFebruary.ByFebruary,thesebucksweresoworndownthat,inafree-rangingsituation,it’sunlikelytheywouldhavesurvivedthewinter.Unliketheseearliervaccines,GonaConworksinthehypothalamusportionofthebraintocutoffthebody’sreproductiveprocesses.Thismeansdoesdonotcomeintoestrousandthuswon’tbebred.

InbuckstreatedwithGonaCon,suppressedtestosteroneproductionresultsinalackofruttingbehaviorandtheassociatedneckswellingandmusculargrowth.Treatedbucksresembledoeswithantlers.Thevaccinealsoaltersantlerdevelopment.InastudybyDr.GaryKillianandhiscol-leaguesatPennState’sdeerresearchfacility,buckseitherremainedinvelvetorshedtheirhardenedantlersfourtosixweeksearlierthannon-treatedbucks.Thesebodyandantlercharacteristicsdon’tmatchourexperiencesorexpectationsforthenoblewhite-tailedbuck.

Is GonaCon a Practical Solution?Fertilitycontrolindeerisarapidlyadvancingtechnology.However,evenwithcurrentadvance-mentstheimmunocontraceptiveapproachisexpensive,withestimatedcostsrangingfrom$500to$1,000perdeer(duemainlytodeercaptureandhandlingcosts).Becauseannualmortalityratesforsuburbandeerpopulationsarelow,anestimated70to90percentofthedoesinapopulationneedtobetreatedtolimitorstopherdgrowth.AccordingtoDr.TonyDeNicolaofWhiteBuf-faloIncorporatedinConnecticut,whohasbeeninvolvedwithmanyGonaConstudies,approxi-mately10percentofdeerdon’trespondtothevaccine.So,if70to90percentneedtobeeffectivelytreated,GonaConwillhavetobeadministeredto80to100percentofthedoesinapopulation–averydifficulttask.Thisonlyfreezespopulationgrowth.Itdoesnotreduceapopulation,soitmustbecombinedwitharemovaltechnique.Thisapproach’seffectivenessandpracticalityarelimitedtoenclosedorverylocalizedherdsratherthantrulyfree-rangingpopulations.It’sclearwestillhavemuchtolearnaboutantifertilitydrugsandtheireffectsondeerbehaviorandmanagementprograms.

Will GonaCon Replace Hunting?So,whatdoesGonaConmeantotheaveragedeerhunter?ItmeansyourstatewildlifeagencywillbedealingwiththerealitythatGonaConisnowregisteredwiththeEPAasausableproducttopreventpregnancyinfree-rangingwhite-taileddeerpopulations.Fortunately,itwillbeuptoeachstateonhowthey’llregulateitsuseasitwillberegisteredasa“RestrictedUse”productforusebystateorfederalwildlifeornaturalresourcemanagementpersonnelorpersonsworkingundertheirauthority.Unfortunately,itwillrelegatewhitetailsto“pest”statusasthevaccineislistedasapesticide.

WillGonaConreplacehunting?EvenWildlifeServices(developersofGonaCon)doesnotviewtheproductasareplacementforhuntingbutatoolthatcouldpotentiallybeusedafterapopulationhasalreadybeenreduced.Thisissuretobecomeahottopicin2010,andanti-hunterswillbesing-ingGonaCon’spraises.Ashunters,GonaConwon’treplaceus,butourvaluewillbeincreasinglyquestionedbynon-andanti-huntersinsuburbanlandscapes–whichareonlygoingtocontinueexpandingacrossthewhitetail’srange.Therefore,itisparamountthatwecontinueeducatingour-selvesondeerbiologyandmanagementanddemonstratethatweareethicalandresponsibledeerstewards.Ouractions,ratherthanGonaCon,willdictatehowandwherewehuntinurbanandsuburbanenvironments.

Quotable QDMA:

“If 70 to 90 percent of deer need to be effectively treated, GonaCon will have to be administered to 80 to 100 percent of the does in a population – a very difficult task. This only freezes population growth. It does not reduce a population.”


WhitetailReport

deer farMIng

Whatdoyouthinkofwhenyouhearthetermdeerbreeder?Howaboutthephrasehigh-fence?Areyouimaginingmotivatedentrepreneursthataresimplypracticingtheirrighttofreeenter-prise?Ordoyoupicturefree-rangingwhitetailsbeingreducedto“alternative”livestock,soldforprofittoaffluentshooters,forscentorluremanufacturers,meatandvelvetprocessors,orevenforphotoopportunitiesinthehuntingmedia?

Nomatterwhereyoustand–ortakecover–onthisculturalclash,thepracticeoffencinginwhite-taileddeerforaesthetic,financialorotherreasonsisoneofthemostdivisiveissuestodaywithinthedeermanagementand/ordeerhuntingindustries.Infact,you’reevensuretofindprofessionaldeerbiologistsoneitherendofthesupportspectrum.Butbecausedeerfarmsvaryfrom1-acrepenstofencedranchescoveringtensofthousandsofacres,itisdifficulttodiscernwheretheethicallineshouldbedrawn.

How Many?AccordingtotheNationalWildlifeFederation,onlysixstateshavenodeerfarmsorelkranches:Alaska,Massachusetts,Nevada,RhodeIsland,SouthCarolinaandUtah(Note:Duetovaryingstatutes,someofthesestatesmayhavecaptivedeerherdsthataren’trecognizedortrackedas“commercialdeerfarms”bytheindividualstates).Theother44statesarehometoroughly8,500captive-cervidopera-tions.OfCanada’s13provincesandterritories,onlythree(Labrador/Newfoundland,andtheNunavutandNorthwestterritories)havenodeerorelkoperations.Theothertenhaveabout2,600fencedfacilities.So,onethingisforsure-deerbreedersandtheirfarmsarelikelyheretostay,atleastfortheforeseeablefuture.

Money See, Money DoIntheUnitedStatesalonetheannualeconomicimpactofthecaptivecervidindustryisnearly$3billion,accordingtotheNorthAmericanDeerFarmersAssociation(NADEFA).However,that’slessthan3percentofwhatisgeneratedannuallythroughwildliferecreationintheUnitedStates,andtheindustryissupportedbyrelativelyfewindividuals.Still,asof2007,NADEFA’s2,000plusmembersreportedlyowned$111millionin“alternativelivestock.”

Aswithanycommercialproduct,supply,demandandperceivedvalueultimatelydecidewhatindividualsarewillingtopay.Privateandpublicauctionsforbreederbucks,breederdoes,andfrozen“straws”ofbucksemenusedforartificialinseminationmakeupsignificantrevenuestreams.Forexample,areviewofwhitetailauctionsitesrevealedthatsemenstrawsoftensellfor$200each,butsemenpricesfromhigh-qualitybuckswithsolidreputationssellforseveralhundredorthousandsmore.High-endorrecordbookbucksanddoesofimpeccablepedigreesellformuchhigherprices.

Threat of Disease Transmission – is it Valid?Althoughdouble-fencesareoftensuggestedbyregulatoryagenciestohamperthethreatofes-capesand/ordiseasetransmission,captivecervidfacilitiesusuallyresistbecauseoftheexcessivecost.However,escapesthroughfencesoropengatesareavalidconcern.AccordingtotheWis-consinDepartmentofAgriculture,TradeandConsumerProtectionfromMarch2004throughmid-October2007,Wisconsincaptivecervidfacilitiesreported437escapes,whichincluded261

Strongly SupportModerately Support

NeutralModerately Oppose

Strongly Oppose

How do you feel about privatization of the whitetail resource through enclosing native deer herds by use of a deer-proof fence?

3 %5 %

20 %22 %

50 %

This question was one of several asked in an April 2009 survey. The results presented here are based on responses from 750 active QDMA members.

Privatizing Whitetails


2010

whitetails,75elkand101exotics,in-cludingreddeer;obviouslyagreatcon-cernforastatethathasbothwildandcaptivewhitetailherdsconfirmedtocarrychronicwastingdisease(CWD).

In2004,anotherCWD-positivestate,Michigan,alsoreportedescapeprob-lems.Areviewof584ofthestate’s740registeredcaptivecervidfacilitiesfoundthat37percentweren’tcomplyingwithregulations.Thisincluded456previ-ouslyunreportedescapedorintention-allyreleasedanimals.Oneyearlater,Michiganwhitetailhuntersharvestedeightear-taggeddeer,andnotonehadbeenreportedmissing,asthelawrequires.

Impacts on Deer HuntingHuntersandconservationistsshouldbeconcernedwiththenegativeimpacttheprivatizationofdeerandotherwildgameanimalsmayhaveonhunting.Currently,publicattitudesurveysshowthegeneralpublicsupportsrecreationaldeerhuntingaslongasmeatconsump-tionispartoftheequation.However,thissupporterodesasthepublicperceivesaswingtowardtrophyhuntingorhuntingfarmeddeer.

Who’s in Charge?Thephilosophicalvoidonthissubjectisvast;butoneofthemostdestructiveconsequencesfromthisdivision,withregardtothefutureofdeerhuntingandtheoverallhealthofourdeerherds,istheconfusingmazeofregulatorycontrolofcaptivecervidfacilitiescurrentlyfoundacrossNorthAmerica.

AccordingtotheCWDAlliance,asofOctober2009,tenstatesandfourCanadianprovincesgrantjurisdictionovercaptivecervidstothestateorprovincialDepartmentofAgriculture(seethetableonthefollowingpages).Thestate/provincialwildlifeagencyhasauthorityinninestatesandfiveprovinces.Intheremaining31statesandoneprovince,captivecervidfarmsarejointlymanagedbybothagencies.

Inmostcasesthisregulatorymatrixisadirectresultoflobbiedandenactedlaw,swappingcontrolfromoneagencytoanother.Theproblemisthatinconsistencyacrossstateorprovincialboundar-iespossiblycreatesmissedopportunitiesforcommunicationbetweenagenciescontrollingandregulatingcaptivecervidfacilities,andcertainlylimitsmanagementefforts.Therearealsofunda-mentaldifferencesbetweenwildlifeandagriculturaldepartmentsregardingcaptivecervidissuesandfree-rangingwildlifepopulations.Giventhepotentialfordiseasetransmissionandthethreattoour$67billionhuntingindustry,theQDMAadvocatesforsoleregulatoryauthorityofcaptivecervidfacilitiestostate/provincialwildlifeagencies.Theseagencieshavemoreexperiencewithwildlifespecies,andmoreatstakewithwildlifediseaseissues,especiallywithregardtotransmis-siontofreerangingpopulations.

In 31 states and one Canadian province, authority to regulate deer farms is shared by the wildlife and agriculture agencies. QDMA recommends that wildlife agencies have sole responsibility.

Quotable QDMA:

“The QDMA advocates for sole regulatory authority resting with state/provincial wildlife agencies. These agencies have more experience with wildlife species, and more at stake with wildlife disease issues, especially with regard to transmission to free-ranging populations.”


WhitetailReport

Alabama ......................

Arizona .........................

Arkansas ......................

California ......................

Colorado .......................

Connecticut ..................

Delaware ......................

Florida ..........................

Georgia ........................

Idaho............................

Illinois ..........................

Indiana .........................

Iowa .............................

Kansas ..........................

Kentucky ......................

Louisiana ......................

Maine ...........................

Maryland .....................

Massachusetts ..............

Michigan ......................

Minnesota ....................

Mississippi ....................

Missouri .......................

Montana ......................

Nebraska ......................

Nevada .........................

New Hampshire ...........

New Jersey ...................

New Mexico .................

Department of Conservation & Natural Resources

Game and Fish Department

Department of Fish & Game regulates imports relating to wildlife, Livestock & Poultry regulates imports relating to livestock. A memorandum of understanding between the two agencies delegates final permitting authority to Fish & Game.

Department of Fish & Game (DFG) has authority over all captive cervids and issues the permits required for possession. Department of Food & Agriculture (DFA) becomes the lead over captive cervids only if a disease outbreak occurs which could impact livestock (TB and brucellosis).

Division of Wildlife (DOW) regulates wildlife imports and has authority over commercially raised mule deer and other commercially raised wildlife species. The Department of Agriculture (CDA) has authority over disease management for alternative livestock (fallow deer and elk). Authority over possession, importation, and movement of alter-native livestock (elk and fallow deer) is shared, and CWD management in alternative livestock facilities requires DOW approval of the herd plan. Moratorium on new licensing of cervid ranches by DOW; CDA is licensing new alternative livestock facilities.

Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Agriculture

Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over all exotic cervids, while the Division of Fish and Wildlife has jurisdiction over white-tailed deer.

Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) regulates possession of captive cervids, Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services (FDACS) oversees importation and health requirements.

The Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) and Department of Agriculture (GDA) have joint authority over deer farms. Farmed deer are restricted to fallow, sika, and red deer, elk, caribou and their hybrids. White-tailed deer are not included as farmed deer. The GDA administers the deer farming license and provisions relating to health requirements, humane treatment and slaughter. Also, the GDNR inspects facilities prior to Ag approval and issuance of deer farming license. Further, the GDNR has jurisdiction over escaped farmed deer. The GDNR has authority over wild animals, which include the cervid species that can be legally farmed in Georgia. Thus, anyone holding any cervid species is required to have a wild animal license to legally possess a cervid other than white-tailed deer.

Idaho State Department of Agriculture/Animal Industries has jurisdiction over domestic cervids - which includes elk, fallow deer and reindeer. Department of Fish and Game has jurisdiction over importation and possession of all other species of wildlife.

Department of Agriculture processes and administers import applications and oversees captive cervid CWD monitoring program. Department of Natural Resources adminis-ters Captive Game Breeder licensing program. Both have authority over importation and possession.

Department of Natural Resources and State Board of Animal Health

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship

Kansas Department of Animal Health has jurisdiction over captive cervids.

Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) regulates holding of cervids. Dept. of Agriculture is in charge of the health aspect of captive cervids & intrastate movement.

Department of Agriculture & Forestry regulates cervids kept for commercial purposes. Department of Wildlife & Fisheries regulates white-tailed deer kept for non-commer-cial purposes.

Department of Agriculture regulates cervids used for commercial purposes, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife regulates all other imports.

Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Agriculture

Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (F&W) regulates importation and possession, the F&W Board creates and modifies regulations and policies regarding captive cervid imports.

In April 2004, the responsibility for regulations and bio-security of captive cervid facilities was transferred from the Department of Agriculture (MDA) to the Department of Natural Resources. MDA continues to oversee disease testing of captive cervids.

MN Board of Animal Health regulates all captive deer, elk, and other cervids.

Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries & Parks (MDWFP) has jurisdiction over white-tailed deer, Department of Agriculture & the Board of Animal Health has jurisdic-tion over exotics. As of July 1, 2006, MDWFP has plenary power to regulate all commercial and noncommercial wild animal enclosures.

Department of Conservation regulates free-ranging elk, mule deer, and white-tailed and captive cervids in hunting preserves and breeding facilities. Department of Agricul-ture regulates elk meeting the “livestock” definition. Change to occur - March 1, 2010 the Missouri Department of Agriculture will assume the role of regulating all herds (elk, mule deer, and white-tailed deer) that are enrolled in the State’s CWD monitoring program.

Fish, Wildlife & Parks has jurisdiction over licensing, reports, record keeping, exterior fencing, classification, unlawful capture, inspection, and enforcement of those activities. Department of Livestock has authority over marking, inspection, transport, importation, quarantine, hold orders, interior facilities, health, and enforcement of those activities.

Nebraska Department of Agriculture

State veterinarian has regulatory authority over captive cervids.

NH Fish & Game Department and Department of Agriculture, Markets & Food

Division of Fish and Wildlife has possession permitting authority. The NJ Department of Agriculture (State Veterinarian) has condemnation authority and authority over health certification requirements for imports. The USDA-VS Area Veterinarian-in-Charge has authority to enforce federal importation regulations and provide indemnifica-tion for slaughtered deer herds.

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish

Who’s In charge? RegulatoRy JuRisdiction foR deeR faRms by state & PRovince


2010

NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets (NYSDAM) regulates deer and elk held under wire. NYS Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) issues licenses to possess captive-bred white-tailed deer.

The NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) holds authority over the possession and transportation of captive deer and elk in North Carolina. Specifically, the NCWRC requires a captivity license for the possession of cervids and transportation permits for their movement (importation, exportation, intrastate transportation, emergency vet, and slaughterhouse permits), regulates minimum facility standards, CWD testing, cervid tagging, record-keeping, sanitation and care, etc., and enforces those rules through conducting semiannual inspections of all cervid facilities in the state. The NC Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services also holds joint au-thority over the transportation of cervids in North Carolina (specifically importation and intrastate transportation), requires tuberculosis and brucellosis testing, assists with facility inspection and regulates the production of meat from fallow deer and elk. The State Veterinarian holds premise quarantine authority.

State Board of Animal Health

Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, issues permits for white-tailed deer in captivity and carcass regulations. Department of Agriculture oversees import requirements and permits.

Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon Department of Agriculture have joint jurisdiction.

Pennsylvania Game Commission and the PA Department of Agriculture

Department of Environmental Management

Department of Natural Resources has ultimate control over importation and possession of captive cervids. Clemson University Livestock and Poultry Health also provides permit if and only if the DNR has previously permitted importation of the cervid.

Animal Industry Board

TN Department of Agriculture

Texas Animal Health Commission and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources; and the Utah Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over captive elk facilities.

Department of Agriculture, Food & Markets is responsible for captive cervid importation, health certificate, facility standards.

Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) has the jurisdiction over captive cervids. If captive cervids are imported into VA, which is currently prohibited by Department regulation, then a VA Dept. of Ag and Consumer Services (VDACS) health certificate is required.

The Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) regulates the importation and possession of captive cervids. Both WDFW and the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) regulate the disease testing requirements for captive cervids.

WV Division of Natural Resources is responsible for native or once native to WV captive cervid species and WV Department of Agriculture regulates all other captive cervids.

Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection regulates importation of all cervids and registers farmed cervids.

WY Game & Fish Commission

Agriculture and Rural Development

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)- the Animal Industry Branch; Livestock Health, Management & Regulation - Food Safety & Quality Branch; BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands

Farmed Elk - Manitoba Department of Agriculture and Food; Other Cervids - Manitoba Conservation

Permit for captive wildlife issued by Minister of Natural Resources

Department of Environment and Natural Resources

Wildlife Division, Department of Natural Resources

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has jurisdiction over captive cervids in all provinces/territories regarding reportable diseases (CWD, Tb, Brucellosis, etc). Provin-cial jurisdiction over farmed cervids is with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs (OMAFRA). Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) has jurisdiction over non-captive wildlife except migratory birds.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has jurisdiction over captive cervids in all provinces/territories regarding reportable diseases. The Minister of Natural Resources and Wildlife (MRNF) is in charge of carrying out any regulatory control measures for captive or free-ranging cervids. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPAQ) is in charge of carrying out the Food Products Act and the Animal Health Protection Act over captive cervids.

Saskatchewan Agriculture

Yukon Department of Environment

New York ......................

North Carolina ..............

North Dakota ...............

Ohio .............................

Oklahoma ....................

Oregon .........................

Pennsylvania ................

Rhode Island ................

South Carolina ..............

South Dakota ...............

Tennessee ....................

Texas ............................

Utah .............................

Vermont .......................

Virginia ........................

Washington..................

West Virginia ................

Wisconsin .....................

Wyoming .....................

Alberta ........................

British Columbia ...........

Manitoba .....................

New Brunswick ............

Northwest territories ....

Nova Scotia ..................

Ontario .........................

Quebec .........................

Saskatchewan ..............

Yukon ...........................

Who’s In charge? RegulatoRy JuRisdiction foR deeR faRms by state & PRovince


WhitetailReport

Chronicwastingdisease(CWD)isanalwaysfatalneurologicaldiseasethataffectsdeer,elkandmoose.ThereisnovaccineorcureforCWD,andthiscontagiousdiseasecanbespreadviaurine,feces,saliva,blood,andpossiblyothervectors.Seepages17to19inQDMA’s2009WhitetailReport(downloadatwww.qdma.com)foradditionalinformationonthebiologyofthedisease.

ConfirmationofCWDinWisconsininFebruary2002hasbeenverycostlytostatewildlifeagencies;eventhosewhereCWDhasnotbeenidentified.Currently,CWDhasbeenconfirmedinwildcervidpopulationsin11statesandtwoprovinces(seemap)andincaptivepopulationsin10statesandtwoprovinces.Thediseasehasresultedinmillionsspentonresearchandtest-ing.Wisconsinalonehasspentnearly$41milliononresearch,monitoring,sharpshooting,andregistration/samplingstationsfrom2002to2009.Thisworkisanattempttoprotectthestate’sdeerherd,butit’salsoprotectingthestate’shuntingindustry;estimatedat$2.2billionannually!

RegardlessofwhetherCWDhasbeenidentifiedinyourstate,thediseaseisimpactingdeerandotherwildlifebydrawingfromyourstatewildlifeagency’sfinancialandpersonnelre-sources.Collectingtissuesamplesfromharvesteddeeristimeconsuming,andhavingthemtestedcostsstatesover$1millionannuallyincombinedexpenditure–valuablefundsthatcouldbeusedforotherwildlifeprojects.Thisisespeciallycostlyduringatimewhenatleast60percentofthestatewildlifeagenciesintheU.S.receivedbudgetcutsin2009(seethearticleonstateagencybudgetsonpage17ofthisreport).

QDMAsurveyedstatewildlifeagenciesintheconti-nentalU.S.todeterminethenumberofdeertheysampledforCWDandthecostpersample.Thirty-sevenstatesreportedtesting59,968samplesin2008(seechartonthefacingpage).OregonandTennesseetestedlessthan100deerwhileWisconsintestedover8,000.Theaveragecostpersamplewas$25buttheyrangedwidelyfrom$10persampleinDelawareandPennsylvaniato$90ormoreinSouthCarolinaandSouthDakota.Forthe26statesreportingcosts,only1spentlessthan$5,000ontestingin2008.Ninestatesspent$5,000to$15,000,fourstatesspent$15,000to$25,000,and12statesspentover$25,000;includingthreethatspent$140,000tonearly$210,000!Intotal,these26statesspentnearly$1.2millionfortestingin2008,andthisdoesn’tincludedatafromColorado,Kansas,Montana,Nebraska,NewMexicoorWestVirginia;allstateswhereCWDhadbeenconfirmedandsampleswouldhavebeentestedin2008.

Inadditiontoimpactsonthedeerherdandhuntingindustry,thecostsforCWDtestingaremuchhigherforstatesthathaveconfirmeditspresence.Forexample,intheNortheast,NewYorkhasconfirmedthediseaseinaninsolatedarea,andin2008theDepartmentofEnviron-mentalConservationtested7,450deerforacostofover$200,000.NoneofNewYork’sneigh-boringstateshaveidentifiedCWD,andNewJersey,Massachusetts,PennsylvaniaandVermont(datafromConnecticutwasnotavailable)combinedonlytested5,036deer;thesefourCWD-freestatestestedover2,000lessdeerforconsiderablylesscost.

EveryaspectofCWDiscostlytostatewildlifeagencies,whitetailpopulationsandthefutureof

the cost of chronIc WastIng dIsease (cWd)

source: chronic Wasting disease alliance (WWW.cWd-info.org)

Quotable QDMA:

“Collecting tissue samples from harvested deer is time consuming and having them tested costs states over $1 million annually – valuable funds that could be used for other wildlife projects.”


2010

hunting.WhilenotallfundsspentonCWDtestingcomefromstatewildlifeagencygeneraloper-atingbudgets,thesedollarscouldhavebeenspentonothermoreproductiveprojectsifnotforthepresenceofCWDinseveraldeerherds.Assportsmen,it’sclearlyinourbestinteresttoprotecttheherdswehuntfromthisdreadeddiseaseandtodoourparttocontrolitanywhereitisidentified.

2008 CWD Sampling Costsstate Deer sampled Cost/sample ($) Total expenditure ($)Alabama 625 25 15,625Arizona 2157 17 36,669Arkansas 888 20 17,760California * * *Colorado 228 * *Connecticut * * *Delaware 599 10 5,990Florida 551 * *Georgia 593 12 7,116Idaho 500+ * *Illinois 7758 12.50 96,975Indiana * * *Iowa 4232 13.50 57,132Kansas * * *Kentucky 2067 * *Louisiana 437 12 5,244Maine 848 15 12,720Maryland 1015 12 12,180Massachusetts 487 40 19,480Michigan 830+ * *Minnesota 200 25 5,000Mississippi 1215 12 14,580Missouri 1220 25 30,500Montana * * *Nebraska * * *Nevada * * *New Hampshire 405 21 8,505New Jersey 339 * *New Mexico * * *New York 7450 28 208,600North Carolina 1000 12 12,000North Dakota * * *Ohio 1469 51 74,919Oklahoma 986 25 24,650Oregon 31 17.50 542Pennsylvania 3810 10 38,100Rhode Island 192 * *South Carolina 528 90 47,520South Dakota 1465 95.56 140,000Tennessee 26 * *Texas 3963 20 79,260Utah * * *Vermont 400 * *Virginia 1200 * *Washington * * *West Virginia * * *Wisconsin 8507 18.50 157,379Wyoming 2247 15 33,705* data not available

Quotable QDMA:

“For the 26 states reporting costs, only one spent less than $5,000 on testing in 2008. Nine states spent $5,000 to $15,000, four states spent $15,000 to $25,000, and 12 states spent over $25,000; including three that spent $140,000 to nearly $210,000.”


WhitetailReport

Huntersroutinelydiscussantlerlessharvestsasbeingtoohighortoolow.Thesehunters’opinionsgenerallyrelatetotheantlerlessharvestinthearea(s)theyhunt.Manyhuntersfailtorealizetheirstatewildlifeagencymanagesdeer,andthereforeestablishestargetantlerlessharvestgoals,onawildlifemanagementunit(WMU)ordeermanagementunitlevel.Statescannotanddonotmanagedeerattheindividualprivatepropertylevel,andthusthetargetantlerlessharvesttheyestablishfortheunityouliveorhuntinmaybetoolow,justright,ortoohighforthepropertyyouhunt.ThisiswheretheQDMAcanhelpbyteachingyouhowtodeterminethebiologically-appropriateantlerlessharvestforyourarea(see“HowManyAntlerlessDeerShouldIHarvest?”onpage53).

Statewildlifeagenciestakealotofgriefforthenumberofantlerlessdeerharvestedeachyearbecausehunterswanttoseealotofdeer,whilefarmersandorchardistswanttoseeminimaldamagetotheircrops.Naturephotographerswanttoeasilyviewdeerwhileforestersdon’twanttoeasilyfinddeerdamageonnewseedlings,andmotoristsgenerallywantfewerdeerforsafetyreasons.Whitetailsaffectmanystakeholdersandeachhasadifferentdesireddeerdensity.Fortu-nately,mostwildlifeagenciesestablish,withassistancefromstakeholders,targetdeerdensitiesorgoalsfortheirWMUs.Thesegoalsmaybebasedonestimateddeernumbersordensities,herdorhabitathealthindices,deerdamagelevels,orothervariables.Differentstatesusedifferentindicesandsomearemorebiologicallymeasurablethanothers.Forexample,Pennsylvania’sgoalsarebasedonherdhealth,habitathealth,anddeer-humanconflicts.Pennsylvaniausesreproduction(i.e.,embryos/fetusesperadultfemale),forestregeneration(i.e.,percentforestedplotswithadequateregeneration),andcitizenadvisorycommitteestogaugeacceptablelevelsofdeer-humanconflictsineachWMU.Theseindicesaremeasurable,comparableacrossWMUs,andprovidedefendableantlerlessharvestgoals.Theyarealsolesscontroversialthandeerdensityestimatesandgoalsusedbymanystates.Bycomparingyourstateagency’sestimateforthecur-rentdeerherdtotheestablishedgoalfortheWMUyouliveorhuntin,youcangainabetterunderstandingoftheagency’sdeerseasons,baglimitsandtargetantlerlessharvest.

deer populatIon goals by state: a progress report

When setting deer population goals, state wildlife agencies must consider the viewpoints of many stakeholders, including hunters (who want to see more and better quality deer) and non-hunting citizens (who many want to see fewer deer in some situations, like in areas where deer/vehicle collisions are common).

Continued.

Quotable QDMA:

“States cannot and do not manage deer at the individual private property level, and thus the target antlerless harvest they establish for the unit you live or hunt in may be too low, just right, or too high for the property you hunt. This is where the QDMA can help by teaching you how to determine the biologically appropriate antlerless harvest for your area.”


2010

Deer Density vs. Goalsstate % WMUs at Goal % WMUs Above Goal % WMUs Below GoalAlabama * * *Arizona 40 20 40Arkansas 76 16 8California * * *Colorado * * *Connecticut 77 15 8Delaware 61 28 11Florida * * *Georgia 78 11 11Idaho 43 43 14Illinois 23 61 17Indiana 8 77 15Iowa 50 50 0Kansas 90 10 0Kentucky 33 33 34Louisiana * * *Maine 29 18 54Maryland 9 91 0Massachusetts 73 27 0Michigan 15 65 20Minnesota 60 30 10Mississippi 50 25 25Missouri 50 25 25Montana * * *Nebraska 39 55 6Nevada * * *New Hampshire 39 17 44New Jersey 35 39 26New Mexico * * *New York 21 29 50North Carolina * * *North Dakota 25 75 0Ohio 8 89 3Oklahoma 80 10 10Oregon * * *Pennsylvania 77 14 9Rhode Island 60 40 0South Carolina 80 15 5South Dakota * * *Tennessee 70 10 20Texas * * *Utah * * *Vermont 71 29 0Virginia 27 69 4Washington * * *West Virginia * * *Wisconsin 33 58 9Wyoming * * *

* data not available


WhitetailReport

WesurveyedstatewildlifeagenciesinthecontinentalU.S.andcollecteddataonthepercent-ageofastate’sWMUsthatwereunder,at,orabovetheestablishedgoals.Wedidnotaskwhatvariableswereusedtoestablishthosegoals,andwearenotcomparinggoalsbetweenoramongstatesinthisanalysis.OurgoalwassimplytoassesstherelativepercentageofWMUsbelow,at,andabovegoalforeachstate.Wereceivedcurrentandtargetdatafrom12of13Midwesternstates,12of13Northeasternstates,sixof11Southeasternstates,andtwoof13Westernstates.SinceweonlyreceiveddatafromtwoWesternstatesweomittedtheWestfromourregionalanalysis,butweincludedtheirdatainthechartonthepreviouspage.

Nationally,KansashadthehighestpercentageofWMUswiththedeerherdatgoal(90percent).OklahomaandSouthCarolinafollowedwith80percentofunitsatgoal,Georgiahad78percent,ConnecticutandPennsylvaniahad77percent,andArkansashad76percentofWMUsatgoal.Intotal,only7of32states(22percent)hadgreaterthan75percentoftheirunitsatgoal.Anotherninestateshadatleasthalfoftheirunitsatgoal:Iowa,MississippiandMissouri(50percent),MinnesotaandRhodeIsland(60percent),Delaware(61percent),Tennessee(70percent),Ver-mont(71percent),andMassachusetts(73percent).Thatleaves16of32states(50percent)withlessthanhalfoftheirWMUsattheestablishedgoals.

SomestateshavehighpercentagesofWMUsabovethedesiredgoalsuchasMaryland(91percent),Ohio(89percent),Indiana(77percent)andNorthDakota(75percent).OthershaverelativelyhighpercentagesbelowgoalsuchasMaine(54percent),NewYork(50percent),NewHampshire(44percent)andArizona(40percent).Twenty-fiveof32states(78percent)hadatleastoneWMUbelowgoal,andthishighlightsthefactthatnearlyallstatesaretryingtogrowthedeerherdinatleastaportionoftheirstate.Conversely,all32stateshadatleastoneWMUabovegoal,thusallwerealsotryingtoreducetheherdinatleastaportionoftheirstate.

Regionally,theSoutheastaveragedthehighestpercentageofWMUsatgoal(72percent).TheNortheastfollowedadistantsecondwithanaverageof48percentandtheMidwesthad36percentofWMUsatgoal.TheMidwestalsoaveragedthehighestpercentageofunitsabovegoal(52percent)andthelowestbelowgoal(12percent).Thisislikelyafactionofthisregion’sproductivesoils,habitatsanddeerherdscombinedwithlowerhunterdensitiesthantheNortheastorSoutheast.TheSoutheastalsohadthelowestpercentageofunitsabovegoal(13percent)andanequalpercentagebelowgoal.However,it’sunfortunatethatonly6of11(55percent)Southeast-ernstateshaveestablishedWMUgoalsfortheirdeerherds,becauseitprovidessportsmenandwomenwithabetterunderstandingofwherefuturepopulationreductionand/orprotectioneffortsneedtooccurwithintheirstate.

KnowingwheretheWMUyouliveorhuntinisrelativetothegoalforthatunitprovidesanunderstandingoftheunit’sspecifictargetantlerlessharvestprescribedbythestatewildlifeagency.ThisbasicunderstandingisfortheentireWMU,andsavvydeermanagerscanestablishanantlerlessharvesttailoredfortheirspecificlocation.Hopefullytheinformationinthisarticleandtheaccompanyingchartprovidesinsightintotheseasonandbaglimitsestablishedbyyourstatewildlifeagencies.

NoRTHeAsT

soUTHeAsT

MiDWesT

Quotable QDMA:

“Nationally, Kansas had the highest percentage of WMUs with the deer herd at goal (90 percent). Oklahoma and South Carolina followed with 80 percent of units at goal.”


2010

Eachyearatitsnationalconvention,theQualityDeerManagementAssociation(QDMA)rec-ognizesanagencyororganizationforitsdedicationtotheQualityDeerManagement(QDM)philosophywiththeAgencyoftheYearaward.Criteriaforthisawardinclude:

TherecipientmusthavearecordofsupportingthephilosophyofQDMandthemissionoftheQDMA.

Therecipientmustpracticeinnovativeandprogressivedeermanagementtechniques.

Therecipientmusthaveaffectedpositivechangeindeermanagementregulations(e.g.,seasonstructure,baglimits,etc.),huntereducation,hunterrecruitment,and/orinvolve-mentinyouthhunting.

Therecipient’squalitiesshouldbereflectedinhowitsprofessionalstaffservesitsconstitu-ents(hunters)andmanagesitsstate’snaturalresources,particularlythewhite-taileddeer.

Therecipientmusthaveengageditshuntersandotherkeystakeholders,includingQDMA,inthedeermanagementprocess.

In2009theOhioDepartmentofNaturalResources(ODNR)receivedthisprestigiousaward.TheODNRenactedseveralchangesintheirantlerlesspermitsystemtoincreasetheantlerlessharvestandmoveitearlierintheseason.Inanefforttobetterservethehuntersandthenaturalresources,theymadeareduced-costpermitavailableduringarcheryseason.Asaresult,moreantlerlessdeerwereharvested,theharvestoccurredearlierintheseason,andfewerbuckswereharvested.Thiswasawin-winsituationforthestate’sdeerherdandhunters.

TheODNRalsoofferednumerouscontrolleddeerandwaterfowlhunts,includinghuntsdesignatedforthemobilityimpaired,youth,andwomen.Theavail-abilityofthesehuntsofferedthosewhodonothaveaccesstohuntinglandtheopportunitytoharvestdeer.TheODNR’seffortsareworkingtoenhancethestate’sdeerherd,educatethepubliconstewardship,getyouthinvolvedinoutdooractivities,andservetheirconstituentsingeneral.

TwoadditionalpositivechangestheODNRhasimplementedincludeincreasedpenaltiesandfinesforpoachingwhitetailsandafarmer-hunter“match”program.Theincreasedfineswereimplementedpriorto2009,andthematchprogramtookaffectaftertheyreceivedthisaward,buttheyaretwomoreexamplesofinnovativeprogramsaimedatfurtherimprovingdeermanagementinOhio.Intotal,theymaketheODNRamost-deservingrecipientofQDMA’s2009AgencyoftheYearAward.

PastwinnersofthisawardincludetheMississippiDepartmentofWildlife,FisheriesandParks(2008),SoutheasternCooperativeWildlifeDiseaseStudyGroup(2007),MissouriDepartmentofConservation(2006),DelawareDepartmentofNaturalResourcesandEnvironmentalCon-trolandDelawareDepartmentofAgriculture(2005),KentuckyDepartmentofFishandWildlifeResources(2004),andthePennsylvaniaGameCommission(2003).

•

•

•

•

•

QdMa’s agency of the year

Mike Tonkovich, deer biologist for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, accepts QDMA’s 2009 Agency of the Year Award from QDMA Board member Craig Dougherty of New York. The award was presented at QDMA’s National Convention in Louisville, Kentucky.

NoRTHeAsT


WhitetailReport

ArecentthreadontheForumatQDMA.comfocusedonantlerrestrictions.Specifically,Forumuserswerediscussinghowmanystateshadthemandwhatrestrictionswereused.Thisthemewastimelyasantlerrestrictionsareahottopicamongdeerhunters.Whetheryouloveorhatethem,youcanbesureyourstatewildlifeagencyhasdiscussedthem.Infact,aswereportedinthe2009editionoftheWhitetailReport,atleast22stateshadsomeformofantlerrestrictionsimplement-edin2008,andanuntoldnumberofmanagersemployedantlerorotherbuckharvestrestric-tionsonprivateandleasedlands.Eightstates(Alabama,Arkansas,Delaware,Georgia,Michigan,Mississippi,PennsylvaniaandVermont)hadstatewiderestrictionsforatleastonebuckinthebaglimit,while14statesusedtheminsomewildlifemanagementareas,units,regions,and/ormilitarybases.It’simportanttorememberthatbuckharvestrestrictionsarenotsynonymouswithQualityDeerManagement(QDM).Rather,theyareastrategytoprotectaspecificageclass(generally1½-year-olds)orageclassesofbucks.

Antlereddeermanagementisimportantbecausehuntersliketoshootbucks,andinthepasthuntersroutinelyoverharvestedthebucksegmentofpopulations.Thisprovidedmuchoppor-tunitytoexperimentwithbuckharvestrestrictions,andtodayQDMpractitionerscanchoosefromamyriadofstrategiesandtailoronetofittheirsituation.Manyantlerrestrictionshavebeenusedincludingpoint,spreadandbeam-lengthrequirementsaswellasBoone&Crockett(B&C)score.Additionally,age/bodycharacteristics,buckquotas,earn-a-buckprograms,andcombinationapproacheshavebeenusedtoregulatebuckharvest.Allrestrictionshaveadvantag-esanddisadvantages.Thekeyistoimplementastrategydevisedfromlocaldata,andthengar-nersupportfromthelocalsportsmenandwomenaffectedbyit–whetherthatisahuntingclub,aQDMCooperative,oralargerareasuchasaWMAorcounty.Thisisoftenbestaccomplishedbyastrongeducationalcampaigninformingthemaboutthestrategy’scostsandbenefits.Let’stakeacloserlookatthevariousstrategiesformanagingantleredbucks.

Antler Point RestrictionsAntlerpointrestrictions(APRs)areacommonly-usedtechnique,andtheyinvolveestablishingaminimumnumberofpointsabuckmusthavetobeeligibleforharvest.Thisminimumnumbershouldbeestablishedwiththeaidofabiologistandwithlocalharvestdata.

AmongtheadvantagesofAPRs,theyaresimpleandeasytoenforce.ThedisadvantageofAPRsisthenumberofantlerpointsisapoorpredictorofdeerage.Yearlingbuckscanhaveracksrangingfromshortspikesto10ormorepoints.ThereforeitcanbedifficultwithAPRstoprotectthemajorityoftheyearlingageclasswhilestillmakingotherageclassesavailableforharvest.Managersmayunintentionallyfocusharvestpressureonyearlingswithlargerracksorprotectolderageclasseswithsmallerracks.However,becauseAPRsaresimpleforhunterstofollowandeasytoenforce,theyarethemostcommonbuckharvestrestrictiondiscussedandimplementedbystateagencies.Ofthe22statesthatemployedantlerrestrictionsin2008,16employedAPRs,anddependingonthestate,thenumbervariedfromonetofourpointsonasingleantler.

antlered buck ManageMent

Quotable QDMA:

“All types of buck-harvest restrictions have advantages and disadvantages. The key is to implement a strategy devised from local data, and then garner support from the local sportsmen and women affected by it.”

Part three:Reference & Research


2010

Antler SpreadAntlerspreadrestrictionsinvolveestablishingaminimumantler-spreadwidthabuckmusthavetobeeligibleforharvest.Again,thiswidthshouldbeestablishedwiththeaidofabiologistandfromlocalharvestdata.

Thepremiseofawidthrestrictionisfewyearlingbucksattainanoutsideantlerspreadofmorethan15to16inches.Hunterscanestimateabuck’sspreadbyviewingwheretheantlersareinrelationtothebuck’searswhenextended.Eartip-to-tipdistanceisapproximately15to16inchesfornortherndeerandslightlylessforsoutherndeer.Therefore,ifabuck’santlersareaswideasorwiderthanhisears,thereisagoodchanceheisatleast2½yearsold.Theadvantageofaspreadrestrictionisitisamuchbetterpredictorofwhetherabuckis1½or2½yearsoldorolderandthereforecandoabetterjobprotectingyearlings.DisadvantagesofaspreadrestrictionincludeitisslightlymoredifficulttodeterminethelegalstatusofabuckinthewildcomparedtoAPRs,itcanbemoredifficultforstateagenciestoenforce,andsomematurebuckscanhavetall,narrowracksthatarelessthan16incheswide.AspreadrestrictionismorebiologicallysoundthananAPRandthereforeiscommonlyusedonprivateandleasedlandswheremanagershavemorecontrolovertheprogram.In2008,fourstates(Delaware,Georgia,KentuckyandWestVirginia)usedantlerspreadrestrictions.Noneemployedthemstatewideforallbucks,buteachusedthemforatleastaportionoftheirbaglimitand/orinatleastoneareaofthestate,suchascountiesorwildlifeman-agementunits.

Boone & Crockett ScoreAthirdtechniqueisharvestingbasedonabuck’sB&Cscore.AnadvantageofthisisresearchshowsgrossB&Cscoreishighlycorrelatedwithrelativeageinmanyareas.Therefore,thistechniquecanbesuccessfullyusedtoseparateyearlingbucksfrom2½-year-oldandolderbucks.Disadvantagesincludeitrequirestimeandpracticetobecomeproficientatscoringalivebuckinthewild.Sincesomeyoungbuckshavehigh-scoringantlerswhilesomematurebuckshavelow-scoringantlers,thistechniqueislessusefulforseparating2½-year-oldsfrom3½-year-olds,or3½-year-oldsfrom4½-year-olds,astherecanbemuchoverlapinantlerscoresofmiddle-agedandmaturebucks.Thistechniqueiscommonlyusedaspartofacombinationapproachonprivateand/orleasedlands,butisnotemployedbyanystateagency.

Age Based on Body CharacteristicsAfourthtechniqueisharvestingbyagerestric-tionsbasedonbodycharacteristics.Thistechniqueinvolvesestablishingtheageclassesavailableforhar-vest,andhuntersthenusebodycharacteristics–notantlercharacteristics–todetermineeligiblebucks.Distinguishablebodychangesoccurasdeerprogressthroughageclasses,andthistechniquerequireshunterstobeskilledinidentifyingthosechanges.Estimatingtheageofbucksonthehoofisnotanexactscience,butwithpractice,hunterscaneasilyseparatebucksintothreegroups:yearlings,2½-year-olds,and3½-plus.Theadvantageofthistechniqueisyoucaneithertargetorprotectmultipleageclassesofbucks.Thedisadvan-tageofthistechniqueisitrequirestimeandpracticeforhunterstolearnthebodycharacteristicsofeachageclassspecifictotheirregionandhabitatandbeabletoaccuratelyestimatetheageoflocalbucks.Thistechniqueisalotoffunandisveryrewardingfortruewhitetailenthusiasts.Agerestrictionsarethemostbiologicallysoundapproachandareusedinthemajorityofintensivemanagementprograms.

There is a wide range of strategies for managing buck harvest, from spread restrictions to bag limits. No technique is perfect, but they all have advantages that should be considered.

Quotable QDMA:

“The disadvantage of antler-point restrictions is the number of antler points is a poor predictor of deer age. Therefore it can be difficult with APRs to protect the majority of the yearling age class while still making other age classes available for harvest.”


WhitetailReport

Buck Quotas and Earn-a-BuckTwoadditionaltechniquesarebuckharvestquotasand“earn-a-buck”programs.Bothoftheseprogramsrestrictthenumber–nottheageorantlersize–ofbucksthatcanbeharvested.Buckharvestquotasaresimilartowhatmoststatesusetolimittheantlerlessharvest.Withthistechnique,managersissuealimitednumberofbucktags,andthussomebucksareprotectedbe-causenotallhuntersreceiveatag.Buckquotascanbeestablishedonanareaorhunterbasis.Forexample,managerscanallotaspecificnumberofbucksforawildlifemanagementunit(WMU),county,property,etc.,orlimitthenumberofbucksanindividualhuntercanharvest.Anadvan-tageofthistechniqueisitcanpreventoverharvestofbucks.Disadvantagesareitcanresultinunhappyhuntersifthequotaismetearlyintheseason,anditcanstillallowanoverharvestofyearlingbucks,especiallyinareaswithhighhunternumbers.

Earn-a-buckprogramsaretypicallyusedinareasofhighdeerdensitywheremanagersmustforcehunterstoremoveadditionalantlerlessdeer.Thepremiseofthistechniqueisahuntermustharvestanantlerlessdeertoreceive(orvalidate)his/herbucktag.Ahunterthatdoesn’thelpthemanagementprogrambyharvestingadoeisnotpermittedtoshootabuck.Thistech-niqueprotectssomebucksbecausenotallhunterswillhavetheopportunitytoharvestabuckafterharvestinganantlerlessdeer.Disadvantagesaresimilartothoseinbuckquotaprograms.Thistechniquewasdevelopedasastrategyformeetingantlerlessharvestgoals.Itsimplyhasasecondarybenefitofprotectingbucks.

Combination ApproachesAsitsnameimplies,thistechniquecombinestwoormoreoftheabovestrategiestomanagethebuckharvest.Forexample,itcouldbeacombinationofaminimumnumberofantlerpointsandaminimumspread,oraminimumB&Cscoreandminimumage.Itcanalsobean“either/or”approachsuchasrequiringabucktohaveaminimumnumberofpointsoraminimumspread.Finally,somemanagersuseana la carteapproachwhereabuckmustmeetatleastoneharvestcriteria,suchas1)agrossscoreof120inches,2)beatleast3½yearsofage,or3)haveatleasta16-inchinsidespread.Combinationapproachesaregenerallymorebiologicallysound,flexibleandpreferredtosinglerestrictionstrategies.In2008,threestates(Mississippi,SouthCarolinaandTexas)usedacombinationofantlerpointsandspread,andMississippiusedacombinationofantlerpoints,spreadand/ormainbeamlengthtorestrictthebuckharvestinatleastaportionoftheirstate.

Which is Best?Fromabiologicalstandpoint,agerestrictionsaretypicallybestbecausetheyarethemostpreciseandflexiblewaytoachievemanagementgoals.Fromapracticalstandpoint,harvestingbyagemaynotbepossibleinitiallyduetovaryingskilllevelsamonghunters.However,harvestingbyageshouldbetheeventualgoalofnearlyallQDMprograms.Educationandexperiencearethekeystosuccess.

Attheproperty,WMU,orstateleveltherearemanywaystoprotectnumbersorspecificageclassesofbucks.Notechniqueisperfectbuttheyallhaveadvantages.

WhichstrategydoestheQDMAsupport?Weexamineeachbuckharvestrestrictiononacase-by-casebasisandapplyathree-parttest.First,istherestrictionbiologicallysound?Second,isitsupportedbyamajorityofaffectedhuntersandlandowners?Finally,willitbeobjectivelymonitoredtodeterminesuccessorfailure?Iftherestrictionmeetsthesecriteria,itstandsagoodchanceforsuccess.Thechallengeistoeducatehuntersonthebenefitsandlimitationsofeachrestrictionandachievebroad-basedsupportfortheselectedtechnique.Huntersupportiscrucial,anditcanleadamanagementprogramtosuccess,ordoomitforfailure.Ingeneral,themostbiologicallysoundtechniquesprovidethemostbenefits,butallofthemcanimproveadeermanagementprogramwhenappliedcorrectly.

Quotable QDMA:

“QDMA considers buck-harvest restrictions on a case-by-case basis and applies a three-part test. First, is the restriction biologically sound? Second, is it supported by a majority of affected hunters and landowners? Finally, will it be objectively monitored to determine success or failure?”


2010

HarvestingthecorrectnumberofantlerlessdeerisoneofthemostimportantaspectsofQDM.Harvesttoofewantlerlessdeerandtheherdwillnegativelyimpactthehabitat,thedeerthemselvesandotherwildlifespecies.Harvesttoomanyantlerlessdeerandtheherdwilldropbelowthecarry-ingcapacityofthehabitatwhileyouunnecessarilyremoveanimalsthatcouldprovideviewingandharvestingopportunities.

Atargetantlerlessharvestdependsonmanyvariables,includingdeerdensity,doeagestructure,habitatquality,propertysize,neighboringmanagementpractices,adultsexratio,fawnrecruitmentrate,seasonalconditionssuchasextremewinterweatherorsummerdrought,andyourdeerman-agementgoals.Thisisnotacompletelist,butitcoversthemajorfactors.Atfirstglanceitmayseemoverwhelming,buteachpieceofdataisobtainable.Eachitemisanalogoustoapieceofajigsawpuzzle–themorepiecesyouhave,theclearerthepicture.Inthiscasethepictureisadeerpopulation,andmorepiecesofinformationequatetobettermanagementdecisions,suchasdeterminingthepropertargetantlerlessharvest.

Theappropriateantlerlessharvestratevariesbyregion.Forexample,theaver-agepropertyinFloridacannotwith-standacomparableantlerlessharvesttotheaveragepropertyinIllinois.Theappropriateharvestratealsovarieswithinthestateandevenatthecountylevel.Forpropertieswithcomparabledeerdensitygoals,onewithlow-qualityhabitatwilllikelyhavealowertargetharvestthanapropertywithhigh-qualityhabitat,evenifthepropertiesareonlyafewmilesapart.Thispointisobvious,butwestateittoshowthereisnotan“exact”harvestratethatcanbeappliedtoaspecificlocationorregion.

Fortunately,wecancalculateatargetantlerlessharvest.Wecanalsouseballparkharvestratestoestablishaninitialtargetharvestintheabsenceofsurveydata.Then,thekeyistocollectenoughharvestand/orobservationdatatorefinethetargetantlerlessharvestinfutureyears.

Calculating a Target Doe HarvestPopulationmodelsusedbymanystatewildlifeagenciesacrossthewhitetail’srangesuggestahar-vestof20to30percentoftheadultdoesinagivenpopulationwillstabilizetheherd.Forclarity,thisincludesadultdoesonlyandnotfawns.Itisimportanttorecognizethatmanyofthesemodelswerecreatedoverthepastfewdecadesduringperiodsofrapidwhitetailpopulationgrowthandexpansion.Duringthisperiod,fawnrecruitmentwashighduetoabundanthabitatandlowpreda-tordensities.However,thereisagrowingbodyofevidencesuggestingthatanincreasingnumberofpredatorssuchascoyotes,bobcatsandblackbears,incombinationwithanincreasingnumberofdeer-vehicleaccidentsandageneraltrendtowardreducingdeerpopulations,isimpactingdeerpopulationsmorethanpreviouslybelieved.Therefore,moreconservativedoeharvestsmaybejustifiedinareaswithlowhabitatqualityandhighpredatordensities.

Ifyourgoalistoincreasethedeerherd,harvestfewerthan20to30percentofthedoes.Ifyourgoalistodecreasetheherd,harvestmorethanthispercentage.Youcaneasilycalculatethisnumber

hoW Many antlerless deer should I harvest?

A formal trail-camera survey is one of several tools that can help hunters make density and population estimates. These estimates can then guide the setting of antlerless harvest goals.

Quotable QDMA:

“Harvest too many antlerless deer and the herd will drop below the carrying capacity of the habitat while you unnecessarily remove animals that could provide viewing and harvesting opportunities.”


WhitetailReport

ifyouhaveanestimateofthenumberofdoesontheproperty.Manylandownersandmanag-ersconductannualscouting-camerasurveystoestimatethedeerdensity.Thesesurveysprovideestimatesofthenumberofadultbucks,adultdoesandfawnsonaproperty.Theyalsoprovideusefulestimatesoftheadultbuck:doeandfawn:doeratios.

Ifyoudonothaveadeer-densityestimate,therearesomegeneralharvestguidelinesthatcanhelpdetermineyourtargetantlerlessharvest.Itisimportanttorecognizetheseareballparkrates,andtheydonotreplaceaharvestratecalculatedfromsurveydata.However,theycanbeusedtosetaninitialtargetharvest.

Whetheryou’reinNewEngland,theSoutheastorsomewhereinbetween,poorhabitatsobvi-ouslycan’tfeedorsupportasmanydeerasgoodhabitats.Lower-densityherdsalsoprovidelowertargetlevelssincetherearefeweranimalsavailableforharvest.Withthatinmind,thechartbelowprovidessomeballparkfiguresselectedtoharvest20to30percentofthedoesinapopulationandstabilizethedeerherd.

Notsureabouttheproductivityofthehabitatinyourarea?Checkwithyourstatewildlifeagencyfordeerproductivitydata.YoucanalsocontactyourlocalCooperativeExtensionofficeorawildlifeconsultant.Yourownherdmonitoringeffortswillhelp;harvestdatasuchasaverage

weightbyageclassandlactationratesforyearlingdoesareusefulmeasuresofhabitatproductivity.Monitoringbrowsepressureonfoodplotsandnaturalforages,especiallywiththeuseofbrowseexclosures,cantellyoumuchaboutthesizeofadeerpopulationinrelationtoavailableforage.

Whatif,likemostfolks,youman-ageasmallproperty?ThisiswhereCooperativescanplayabigrole.QDMCooperativesprovidemanybenefitstolandownersincludingtheopportunitytoharvesttheappropriatenumberofantlerlessdeer.Bypoolinghabitat,deerdata,andharvestpressure,managersare

morelikelytoachievetheirtargetantlerlessharvest,andallCooperativemembersbenefitwhentherightnumberofdeerareharvested(readmoreaboutthebiologicalimportanceofQDMCooperativesonpage18ofthisreport).

Whatdoesthismeanforyourmanagementprogram?Calculateyourtargetdoeharvestimme-diatelypriortothehuntingseason.Ifyourgoalistostabilizethedeerpopulation,harvest20to30percentoftheadultdoes.Determinetheactualnumberbyconductingascouting-cameraoralternativesurveyandestimatingthetotalnumberofdoesonthepropertyorCooperative.Mul-tiplythatnumberby20to30percentandyouhaveyourtargetdoeharvest.Ifyoudon’thaveadensityestimate,harvestoneadultdoeforevery300to640-plusacresoflow-productivityhabitat,oneforevery100to300acresofmoderatelyproductivehabitat,andoneadultdoeforevery25to100acresofhighlyproductivehabitat.Becarefultonotharvestmorethanonebuckfawnforevery10does.ThebestwaytoachievethistargetharvestistoclearlycommunicatetheimportanceofreachingittoeveryonehuntingonthepropertyorCooperativeandtostartasearlyinthehuntingseasonaspossible.Goodluck,andbesuretocollectajawboneandharvestdatafromeveryantlerlessdeer!

Ballpark Doe HarvestUntil you determine the number of adult does on a property using a camera survey or other method, use these ballpark ranges to stabilize a deer popu-lation. Higher harvest rates will reduce a popula-tion. Lower rates will allow population growth.

poor or Low-Quality Habitats:

One adult doe for every 300 to 640-plus acres.

Moderate-Quality Habitats:

One adult doe for every 100 to 300 acres.

High-Quality Habitats:

One adult doe for every 25 to 100 acres.


2010

FetalagingsoundslikeatechniqueusedbyOb/Gyndoctorsandultrasoundtechnicians,butdeermanagerscanlearnalotaboutthepopulationthey’remanagingbytakingsomeannualfetalmeasurements.ThispracticeisnotneworlimitedtotheSouth,astheinitialstudiesonfetalde-velopmentinwhite-taileddeerbeganinthe1940sinNewYork.However,JoeHamilton,QDMA’sfounderandSouthernDirectorofEducationandOutreach,ledaresearchprojectfrom1979to1983thatultimatelydevelopedthefetal-agingcriteriaandscalethatdeermanagersthroughoutNorthAmericastillusetoday.

Thetechniquewasdevelopedusing“crown-to-rump”measurementsofknown-agedfetuses.Therefore,bymeasuringthelengthfromtheforehead(crown)tothejunctionofthetailandback(rump)ofafetusonthefetalscale,youcandeterminethefetus’sage.Then,youcanusethescaletobackdateanddeterminethedatethefetuswasconceived,andforedatetoestimatethedateitwouldhavebeenborn.Thisanalysisisthepreferredmethodfordeterminingthelengthofandespeciallythepeakoftherutacrossthewhitetail’srange,anditallowsmanagerstodetectchangesinbreedingdateswithrespecttoherdmanagementprograms.

Getting StartedExpensiveequipmentisn’tnecessary.Allyouneedisan$8fetusscale,availablefromQDMA,andalittleknowledgeaboutwheretofindthefetuses.Fetusesarelocatedinthereproductivetract,andthatlieslowandatthebackendoftheabdomen(justabovetheudder).Ifyouhangadoeforfielddressing,hangingbythehindlegsmakeslocatingthereproductivetractveryeasy.Itwillbehang-ingbelowbutclosetothebladderandabovetheintestines.Ifyoufielddressadoeontheground,itiseasiertolocatethereproductivetractbeforeyouremovetheentrails.Thatwaybloodand/orstomachcontents(forthosewhoaren’tcarefulwiththeirknife)don’tmakeidentificationmoredifficult.

Onceyoulocatethereproductivetractmakeoneincisionandcutitawayfromthebody.Thenplacethetractonaflatsurface.Thetractconsistsoftheuterus(orbirthcanal),whichbranchesintohalvesthateachcontainanovary.Theremaybeafetusineachhalfofthetract,onlyonehalf,ornofetuses.Cutintothetractandremoveanyfetus(es).Youcancuttheumbilicalcordflush

detectIng the rut peak

Weeks from conceptionDays from conception

Weeks to birth

Days to birth

end of rump

Forehead

Quotable QDMA:

“In general, as a deer population goes from unmanaged and unbalanced toward a balanced sex ratio, improved adult age structure and increased health, the span of time from first to last conception date will be shorter, and the rut peak will be stronger.”


WhitetailReport

withthebody.It’sthatsimple,andit’seveneasierthanpullingajawbone.However,makesureyoucollectafetusandnotacotyledon.Cotyledonsarepartoftheplacenta,haveacapsule-likeappearanceandmaylooksomewhatsimilartoveryyoungfetuses.However,aquickinspectionwilleasilydistinguishbetweenthetwo.Oncethefetusisinhand,youcanageitanddetermineconceptionandbirthdatesinlessthanfiveminutesatcamporonyourtailgateusingafetusscale.Ifyoudon’thaveascale,storethefetus(es)inthefreezerforanalysisatalaterdate.

For ExampleLet’ssayyouharvestedadoeonDecember15,andyoudeterminedtheageofthefetuswas51days.Refertotheeasy-to-useJuliandatechartonthebackofyourfetusscale.Juliandatesallowyoutocalculatethenumberofdaysbetweentwocalendardatesbysimplesubtraction.TheJu-liandateofDecember15is349(it’sthe349thdayoftheyear).Thisnumberminusthefetalageindays(51)is298,theJuliandateforOctober25.Thisisthedateofconception.Thenumberofdaystoparturition,orbirth,was147,asdeterminedonyourscale.Thisnumber,addedtotheJuliandateoftheharvest(349)is496.TheJuliandateof496occursonMay11,thedatethefawnwouldhavebeenborn.

Graphing the DataOnceyoudetermineconceptiondates,it’stimetographthedata.AccordingtoJoeHamilton,asimplebarchartworkswell,andyouplotthenumberofpregnantdoesinyourharvestdata(thesamplesize)ontheverticalaxis.Plottheconceptiondatesonthehorizontalaxisandgroupthemonaweeklybasis.Thischartwillrevealtherangeofbreedingdatesandthepeakoftherutforyourarea.

Inalldeerpopulations,therewillbedoesthatarebredearlierandlaterthanmost,andthisoccursforavarietyofreasons.Thus,theconceptiondatefromonepregnantdoeisnotareliableindicatoroftherutpeak.Withmoredoesinyourdataset,youwillgainamorecompletepictureoftherut.

Ingeneral,asadeerpopulationgoesfromunmanagedandunbalancedtowardabalancedsexratio,improvedadultagestructureandincreasedhealth,thespanoftimefromfirsttolastcon-ceptiondatewillbeshorter,andtherutpeakwillbestronger.

Fetal Aging For Everyone?Fetalagingisagreatwaytodeterminetherelativelengthandpeakoftherutinyourarea.Yousimplyneedafetalscaleandsomefetuses.Unfortunately,thatsecondrequirementcanbedif-ficulttocollectinsomelocales.Crown-to-rumpmeasurementsareanaccuratetechniqueforag-ingfetuses,butfetusesmustbeatleast35to40daysoldforthetechniquetowork(andabout60daysoldtodeterminesex).Thisisn’taprobleminareaswithlatedeerseasonsand/orearlyruts.However,manynorthernfirearmsseasonscoincidewithorimmediatelyfollowpeakbreeding.InsomeareasoftheSouth,therutpeakslaterintheyear,neartheendofhuntingseason.Thusmostharvesteddeer,evenifpregnant,havefetusesfaryoungerthan35to40days.Ifthisisthecaseinyourareayoucanstillcheckforfetusesassomedoesbreedearly.Forexample,inPenn-sylvaniapeakbreedinggenerallyoccursbetweenNovember10and20,butGameCommissionconceptiondatashowsbreedingroutinelyoccursinOctober.Thefetusesfromtheseearly-breddoeswouldbeold/largeenoughduringthefirearmsseasontodetermineconceptiondateusingthefetalscale.

Manystateshavelateantlerlessorprimitiveweaponsseasonswhereyoucouldcollectfetusesfromharvesteddoes.Awordofcaution,however:Don’twaituntiltheselateseasonstoachievethemajorityofyourantlerlessharvestsimplytocollectfetuses.Thebenefitsofearlyantlerless

OCT NOV DeC

Breeding data charted by week should resemble a bell-shaped curve like the one in this example, with some early

and some late breeding on either side of the main peak. The timing of the

peak will vary by region.


2010

harvestsfaroutweighthebenefitsofcollecting35-day-oldorolderfetuses.Athirdoptionistocollectfetusesfromroad-killeddoesduringwinterorspring.Thisop-tionisalittlemessier,anditisillegalinsomeareas,sobesuretocheckyourlocalregulations.Afinaloptionistocontactyourstateorprovincialwildlifeagencyandaskforconceptiondatesinyourarea.Thismaynotbeasrepresentativeasdatayoucancollectlocally,butit’sbetterthannothing.

Is It Flawless?ResearchersinMississippirecentlydeterminednew-bornfawnsfromtheLowerCoastalPlain(lower-qual-ityhabitat)werelighterandshorterthanfawnsfromtheThinLoessandDeltasoilregions(higher-qualityhabitats)inMississippi.Theresearchersalsofoundtwinswerelighterandshorterthansingletons,andmaleswereheavierthanfemales.Thisresearchmayhaveimplicationsfortheaccuracyofthefetalscale.However,since82percentoffetalgrowthoccursduringthefinaltrimesterofpregnancy,35-to135-day-oldfetuses(firstandsecondtrimesterfetuses)maynotex-hibitthedifferentialgrowthratesidentifiedinnewbornfawnsinMississippi’sdifferentsoilregions.Fortunatelythevastmajorityofharvesteddoeswillhavefetuseslessthan135daysold,andthetechniquedescribedaboveshouldbeaccurateformanagementpurposes.

Thetechniquemaynotbeperfect,butit’sbeensuc-cessfullyusedacrossthewhitetail’srangeformorethan20years.Thisisdueinparttorigoroustestingduringdevelopmentofthecriteriaandscale.Joeandhiscol-leaguescomparedmeasurementsbetweenmalesandfe-males,singletonsandtwins,freshandpreservedfetuses,andfetusesfrom1½-to3½-year-olddoes,andfoundnegligibledifferences.Theresearcherssuggestusingtheaveragelengthoftwinsortriplets,butotherwisethescaleisrobustwithrespecttosex,numberand“fresh-ness”offetusesandmother’sage(atleastthrough3½years).

Not a Make-or-Break PropositionAgingversusnotagingfetuseswon’tmakeorbreakyourmanagementprogram,butitisaquickandsimpletechniquetocollectvaluabledataaboutthedeerpopulationyou’remanaging.Thedatacanprovideinsighttowardtherelationshipbetweenthedeerpopulationandthehabitat’sabilitytosupportit,theadultsexratio,theadultagestructureandevenherdhealth.Moreimportantly,itprovidessoliddataonthebestdatestobefirmlypositionedinyourfavoritedeerstand.

How to Age a Whitetail Fetus

Place fetus on the fetal scale in a natural position with the forehead at the left edge and the back parallel to the top edge of the scale.

Locate the line closest to which the extreme end of the rump falls.

Use average length with twins or triplets of different sizes.

There are five sets of measurements on the fetal scale. These include a millimeter scale, days from conception, weeks from concep-tion, days to parturition (birth), and weeks to parturition.

Once you know the number of days from con-ception, flip over to the other side of the fetal scale to determine the date of conception.

Locate within a calendar the date the doe was harvested and convert that date to a Julian date (which runs from one to 365 days on one calendar and from 366-730 days on the calendar for the subsequent year). The fetal scale has a calendar that makes this conversion simple.

Subtract the age of the fetus in days (days from conception as measured on the scale) from the Julian date noted in No. 5.

On the calendar on the fetal scale, locate the date block with the Julian date found in No. 6. This is the date of conception.

The procedure for determining date of birth is similar, except days to birth (as measured on the scale) are added to the Julian date noted in No. 5. Two calendars are provided on the scale. Select the calendar that allows you to subtract the days from conception from the Julian date and also allows adding the days to parturition to the Julian date.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.


WhitetailReport

dId you knoW?White-taileddeerarethemost-studiedbiggameanimalinNorthAmerica.Therearevolumesofliteratureavailableonwhitetails,andhuntersaremoresavvythaneveroninformationper-tainingtotheirfavoritequarry.Withallofthisinformation,itmayseemthathuntersknowawhitetailinsideandout,andyetresearchcontinuallyaddstoourknowledgeorchangeswhatwepreviouslybelieved.Herearesomeinterestingfactsaboutwhitetailsestablishedbyresearch.Didyouknow:

Theaverageadultwhitetailconsumesonetonoffoodperyear.

Deersleepinshortbouts,alternatingbetweenadozeandfullalertness,andtheycansleepwiththeireyesopenorclosedandwiththeirheaduporinarestingposition.

Fawnsarenotscentless–theyhaveascent,asthat’showtheirmotherrecognizesthem,andfawnsmayevenrub-urinatewhenonlydaysold.

Orhowabout:Approximately20to25percentoftwinfawnshavedifferentfathers.

50to70percentofbucksdisperse1to5milesfromtheirbirthareawhentheyare12to18monthsofage.

Duringtheirlife,mostbuckssirefewerthanfivefawnsthatreach6monthsofage.

Regardingdoes,didyouknow:Youcandeterminethepeakoftherutinyourareabymeasuringfetusesfromharvesteddoes.

Doesalsousescrapesduringthebreedingseason,andtheymayusethemonaregularbasis.

82percentoffetalgrowthoccursduringthefinaltrimesterofpregnancy.Thistimeframecor-respondsperfectlywithspringgreen-upinnorthernherds.

Howareyouwithnumbers?Didyouknow:Fawnsaverageabout300whitespots.

Exceptfornursingtwotofourtimesaday,afawnspendsthefirstfourweeksoflifeinhiding,separatefromthedoe.

Healthyfawnsaverage4to8poundsatbirthandtheywilldoubletheirweightintwoweeksandtripleitwithinamonth.

Healthyfawnscanoutrunamanwhenonlyafewdaysoldbutitgenerallytakesthreetosixweeksbeforetheycaneludemostpredators.

You’remoreknowledgeableaboutbucks?Didyouknow:Pheromonesdepositedatsignposts(rubsandscrapes)bymaturebucksmayhavea“bio-stim-ulating”ortriggereffectonthebreedingseason.

Olderbucksmayalsoproduce“controlling”or“priming”pheromonesthatyearlingbucksarenotphysicallymatureenoughtoproduce.

Areaswithmaturebuckscanhave10timesasmanyrubsasareaswithoutthem,

Maturebucksmakeabout85percentmorescrapesand50percentmorerubsthanyearlingbucks.

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

These twin fawns, a doe and a buck, may not be actual “twins.” Research has shown that approximately 20 to 25 percent of twin sets have different fathers.

Quotable QDMA:

“Approximately 20 to 25 percent of twin fawns have different fathers.”


2010

Youngbuckscansireuptoathird(30percent)offawnseveninpopulationswherematurebuckscompriseover50percentofthebucks.

Regardingcommunication,didyouknow:Bucksofallagesusescrapes,andthesamescrapemaybeusedbymanyindividuals.

Scrapingactivitypeaksjustpriortopeakoftherut,butactivescrapesmaybefoundoverseveralmonths.

Mostscrapingactivity(85percent)occursatnight.

Scrapesonlyafewhundredyardsapartmaybeusedbycompletelydifferentgroupsofbucks,whichbringsintoquestiontheideaofa“scrapeline.”

•

•

•

•

•

Howisyourantlerknowledge?Didyouknow:Deerantlerscangrowaninchormoreperday,makingthemthefastestnormalgrowingtissueknowntoman.

Inphotoperiod-controlledexperiments,deercangrowuptothreesetsofantlersperyearorretaintheirantlersformorethanoneyear.

Transplantingmaterialfromabuck’spedicletootherskeletalregionsresultsingrowthofantlertissueinthetransplantedarea(suchasontheforeheadofmiceorthelegofadeer).

Bucks“steal”mineralsfromtheirskeletontohardentheirantlersinlatesummer–thustheyexperienceayearlyformofosteoporosis.

Howdidyoudo?Didyouknowalloftheaboveinforma-tion?Ifnot,don’tfeelbadasit’snearlyimpossibletostayabreastofalltheliteratureandresearchinvolvingwhitetailsinNorthAmerica.Fortunately,QDMArecognizesthat,andit’sonereasonweprovidethisservicetoourmembers.EachissueofQuality Whitetailsmagazinecontainsthelatestinformationondeerbiology,ecology,andmanagement,aswellasnativehabitatandfoodplotmanagement.

•

•

•

•

Researchers monitoring scrapes

have found that bucks of all ages

and even does use scrapes. They’ve also found that 85 percent of scrape

use occurs at night.

Quotable QDMA:

“Scrapes only a few hundred yards apart may be used by completely different groups of bucks, which brings into question the idea of a “scrape line.”

“Deer antlers can grow an inch or more per day, making them the fastest normal growing tissue known to man.”


WhitetailReport

QualityDeerManagement(QDM)isahouseholdnametomoderndaydeerhunters.Youcan’tpickupahuntingmagazine,watchoutdoortelevision,ortalktotheguysatcampwithoutsee-ingorhearingthelettersQDM.TheriseinpopularityofQDMisagoodthingfordeer,otherwildlifespecies,habitatsandhunters.Whiletoday’shuntersaremoreeducatedthaneverbefore,therearestillmanywhodon’tfullyunderstandhowQDMdiffersfromtraditionalortrophydeermanagement.Thefollowinginformationcomparesandcontraststhethreemanagementstrategiesusingsevenmeasurablevariables.

Traditional Deer ManagementUndertraditionaldeermanagement,anyantleredbuckisharvested,regardlessofageorantlerquality,andfewdoesareharvested.DeerresearcherDr.GrantWoodsreferstotraditionaldeermanagementas“MaximumBuckHarvestManagement.”Thisisthestrategythateverystateinthecountryusedandsomecontinuetousetoday.Thisstrategymayworkwhenthedeerherdisbelowthehabitat’scarryingcapacitybutfailswhentheherdequalsorex-ceedsthecarryingcapacity.

Quality Deer ManagementQualityDeerManagementistheapproachwhereyoungbucksareprotectedfromharvest,combinedwithanad-equateharvestoffemaledeertoproducehealthydeerherdsinbalancewithexistinghabi-tatconditions.QDMisfirstandforemostabouthavingthebiologicallyappropriatenum-berofdeerforthehabitat.Ifahabitatwillsupport20deerpersquaremile,QDMsaysput20deerpersquaremileonit.Ifahabitatwillsupport30deerpersquaremile,put30deerpersquaremileonit,butdon’tput30deeronhabitatthatcanonlysupport20.QDMalsoimprovesagestructuresbyallowingbuckstoreachallageclasses–notjust1½and2½years.QDMac-complishesthisbynotshootingthemajorityofyearlingbuckseachyear.

Trophy Deer ManagementTrophyDeerManagement(TDM)istheapproachwhereonlyfullymaturebucks,5½to7½yearsold,withhighscoringantlersareharvested(withtheexceptionofcullbucks)anddoesareaggressivelyharvestedtomaintainlowdeerdensityandoptimumnutritionfortheremaininganimals.TDMisnotpracticalinmuchoftheUnitedStates,andthestrategyisnegativelyviewedbymuchofthehuntingandnon-huntingpublic.

AcreageRequirements•Nonefortraditionaldeermanagement•VaryingacreagerequirementsforQDM•5,000-plusacresforTDM

deer ManageMent strategIes

Quotable QDMA:

“Quality Deer Management is as different from Trophy Deer Management as it is from traditional strategies, even though many hunters and non-hunters incorrectly consider QDM and TDM to be one in the same.”

Protecting yearling bucks and increasing the number of 2½- and 3½-year-old bucks available for harvest is a realistic and achievable goal for the vast majority of deer hunters. This is one reason QDM is within reach of far more hunters than Trophy Deer Management.


2010

BuckHarvest•Shootmostlyyoungbucksintraditionaldeermanagement•Shootmainly2½-to4½-year-oldbucksinQDM•Shootfullymature(5½to7½yearsold)inTDM

DoeHarvest•Shootfewifanyintraditionaldeermanagement•ShootanadequatenumberinQDM•ShoothighnumberinTDM

AdultSexRatio•Generallyheavilyskewedtowarddoesundertraditionaldeermanagement•MorebalancedratiosinQDM,thoughstillfavoringdoes•NearlyequalratiosinTDM

Deervs.Habitat•Deerherdoftengreaterthanhabitat’scarryingcapacityintraditionalmanagement•Deerherdinbalancewithhabitat’scarryingcapacityinQDM•Deerherdoftenlessthanhabitat’scarryingcapacityinTDM

InfluenceonHabitat•Moderatetoseverehabitatdamageintraditionaldeermanagement•MinimalhabitatimpactinQDM•MinimalhabitatimpactinTDM

Deer-HumanConflicts•highdeer-humanconflictsintraditionaldeermanagement•reduceddeer-humanconflictsinQDM•lowdeer-humanconflictsinTDM

Thesevenitemsaboveshowhowthedifferentmanagementstrategiesaffectourdeerherdsandhabitats.Eachstrategyisuniqueandshouldn’tbeconfusedwiththeothers.Forexample,QDMisasdifferentfromTDMasitisfromtraditionalstrategies,eventhoughmanyhuntersandnon-huntersincorrectlyconsiderQDMandTDMtobeoneinthesame.Eachstrategyhasitsplaceindeermanagement,butevaluationofthedeerherdandhabitatisnecessarytocorrectlychoosethestrategythatwillbemosteffectiveatproducingahealthydeerherdandhealthyhabitat.Traditionaldeermanagementworkswhenthedeerpopula-tionisbelowthehabitat’scarryingcapacity,andthegoalistoincreasethedeerherdandproviderecreationalhunting.TDMworksbestwhenthegoalistoproducemature,trophy-classbuckswithhighscoringantlers.QDMworksbestwhenthedeerpopulationisatorexceedingthehabitat’scarryingcapacityandthegoalistoimprovethehealthofthedeerherdandbalanceitwithavail-ablehabitat.Fortunately,QDMalsoprovidestremendoushuntingopportunities,andunlikeTDM,isarealisticgoalformosthunters.

Most hunters know that QDM involves passing young bucks. However, fewer know that any

successful QDM program is built on four “Cornerstones,” with buck management being

only one small piece of the puzzle.

The Four Cornerstones of QDM

Quotable QDMA:

“QDM works best when the deer population is at or exceeding the habitat’s carrying capacity, and the goal is to improve the health of the deer herd and balance it with available habitat.”


WhitetailReport

“Carryingcapacity”isanoften-usedconceptindeermanagementdiscussions.Biologists,man-agersandhuntersroutinelyrefertothe“carryingcapacity”ofanarea,orwhetheradeerherdisaboveorbelowthismagicalpoint.Actually,whatdoescarryingcapacitymean?

Carryingcapacityisthemaximumnumberofindividualsorinhabitantsthatanenvironmentcansupportwithoutdetrimentaleffects.Deerpopulationscananddoexceedthecarryingcapacityonaregularbasis.Indoingso,theysacrificetheirownhealthaswellasdamagethevegetationandharmotherwildlifespecies.OnereasonfortheriseinpopularityofQualityDeerManagementwasenoughbiologists,managersandhunterswerefedupwithdeerherdsexhibitingpoorhealthbecausetheywereallowedtoincreasetolevelsapproachingorsurpassinganarea’scarryingcapacity.QDMAencouragesalldeerhunterstomanagedeerpopulationsatdensitieslowerthanthissotheyareinbalancewiththeirhabitats.Determiningwhetherapopu-lationisbelow,at,orabovecarryingcapacity,andhowtoachieveormaintainbalance,canbeeasiersaidthandone.

Biological Carrying CapacityTounderstandhowcarryingcapacityshouldplayintoaQDMprogram,let’sstartbyseparatingthetermintoitsmostcommonuses.Biologicalcarryingcapacity(BCC)islargelydeterminedbythequalityandquantityofavailablehabitat.TheBCCisthenumberofdeeragivenparcelcansupportingoodphysicalconditionoveranextendedperiodoftimewithoutadverselyimpactingthehabitat.Unfortunately,deerreproductiveratesallowpopulationstoexceedBCCunlessthenumberoffawnsrecruitedisbalancedbymortality.(Note:Afawnis“recruited”whenitsurvivestoabout6monthsofageandentersthefalldeerpopulation).

Cultural Carrying CapacityCulturalcarryingcapacity(CCC)isdefinedasthemaximumnumberofdeerthatcancoexistcompatiblywithlocalhumanpopulations.AccordingtoMarkEllingwood,wildlifeprogramsupervisorfortheNewHampshireFish&GameDepartmentwhocoinedtheterm,anarea’sCCCisdeterminedbythevaluesofthepeoplelivingthere.TheCCCcanbehigherorlowerthanBCCsincesomepeoplehavehightolerancesfordeeranddeer-relatedissueswhileothersdonot.TheCCCbecomesespeciallyimportantinsuburbandeermanagementandinmanyagriculturalregions.

Maximum Sustainable YieldThechartonthispagedepictsthenormalgrowthcurveofadeerpopulation.Startingwithalowdensity,thepopulationgrowsrapidlybecausetherearesufficientresourcesfortheherd,sofawnrecruitmentishigh.ThisgrowthcontinuesuntilthepopulationreachesadensitythatisapproximatelyhalfofBCC.Thispointisreferredtoasthemaximumsustainableyield(MSY),andthisiswherefawnrecruitmentismaximized.Therefore,thisisthepointwherethemaximumnumberofbucksisbroughtintothepopulation.Whenthepopulationgrows

What Is carryIng capacIty?

Population Size

Num

ber o

f Rec

ruits

*

*A “recruit” is defined as a fawn that survives to 6 months of age and becomes part of the fall deer population.

Biological Carrying Capacity

(BCC)

Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

0

Balance Zone

Quotable QDMA:

“Carrying capacity is a measure of the number of deer an area can support, both biologically and culturally, and its value changes annually, seasonally and across properties.”


2010

abovethisdensity,resourcesarelessabundantforeachdeer,sothenumberoffawnsrecruitedintothepopulationdeclines.Thisiswhyfewer,healthierdoescanproduceandrecruitmorefawns(andthusmorebucks).Thisisalsowhytheoldadages,“Whenyoukilladoeyou’rereallykillingthreedeer”or“Whenyoukilladoeyou’rekillingnextyear’sbuck”arerarelytrue.

YoucanharvestmoredeeronasustainedbasiswhenapopulationisatMSYthanatanyotherdensity.Youlikelyaren’tseeingasmanydeerasifthepopulationwasatBCC,butthepopulationismuchhealthierandyou’reabletoharvestafarhighernumberyearafteryear.However,popu-lationsareunstableatMSY,andevenslightoverharvestsreducethenumberofrecruitsandthepopulation.It’smuchwisertobejusttotherightofMSY.Inthispartofthegrowthcurve,popula-tionsarestable,andslightoverharvestsactuallyincreasefawnrecruitment.

Balance ZoneAmaingoalofQDMistobalanceadeerherdwithitshabitat.Wheredoesthispointoccuronthechart?It’sactuallynotasinglepoint.Rather,itisazone,anditoccursjusttotherightofMSY.

Whereisthedeerherdthatyouhuntinrelationtothiszoneonthefigure?Youdeterminethisbycollectingsomehabitat,observationandharvestdata.Doyouhaveavisiblebrowseline?Ifso,you’rewaypastwhereyouwanttobe.Takeawalkinthewoodsandobservewhethertheunder-storyisregenerating.Next,determineiftherearepreferredtreespeciesinthatunderstoryversusnon-preferredspecies.Theseassessmentshelpyougaugewhereyouareonthefigure.

Combineyourhabitatassessmentwithobservationdatacollectedfromthearcheryand/orfirearmsseasonsandharvestdatacollectedfromeverydeerharvestedorfounddeadontheproperty.Byre-cordingthenumberofdoesandfawnsobserved,youcanestimatewhetherthenumberofrecruitsisincreasingordecreasing.Combinethiswithharvestdatasuchasweightandlactationstatusandyoucandeterminewhethertheoverallhealthoftheherdisincreasingordecreasing.

Thegoalisn’ttofindtheexactspotonthefigurewhereadeerherdlies.Rather,initiallyitistoestimatewhetheritistotheleftorrightofMSY.Ifyouliketoseedeer,shootalot,anddon’twanttosacrificeherdorhabitathealth,thenyoushouldmovethepopulationtowardtheleftsideofthebalancezone.Ifyouliketoseealotofdeerbutnotshootasmany,andarewillingtosacrificesomeherdandhabitathealth,thenyoucanallowthepopulationtomovetowardtherightsideofthebalancezone.Awordofcautionifyouchoosethelatter:Keepacloseeyeonhabitatandherdhealthindicators.Oncehabitatdamagebecomessevere,recoverytakestimeandmayonlybepos-sibleifyoureducethedeerpopulationbelowMSY.

ManyQDMpractitionersareinterestedinincreasingthequalityofthehabitattheyhunt.Thisisagreatwaytoalsoincreasethecarryingcapacityofanarea.Inlow-productivityhabitats,adeerherdinthebalancezonemaybetoolowtoprovideacceptablehuntingexperiences.Inthesecases,thebestalternativeistoimprovethehabitat.Dependingonhabitattypethiscanbeaccomplishedthroughtimberharvesting,treeandshrubplanting,prescribedburning,disking,rollerchopping,orfertilizing.Thentheareacanbesupplementedwithhigh-qualityfoodplots.Anareawithin-creasedfoodandcovercansupportmoredeerandisdefinitelymoreattractivetowhitetails.

The Take-Home MessageCarryingcapacityisameasureofthenumberofdeeranareacansupport,bothbiologicallyandculturally,anditsvaluechangesannually,seasonallyandacrossproperties.Thisisonereasonsomehuntersobservemanydeerwhileothersamileorsoawaycanseefewornone.Ratherthantry-ingtodeterminetheexactcarryingcapacityofthelandyouhunt,it’smuchsimplertomanageadeerherdtobeinbalancewiththehabitat.Youdosobymonitoringthehealthoftheherdanditshabitat,anddeterminingwherethatspecificherdisinrelationtothebalancezone.Thisisasimpleprocedurethatrequiresafewyearsofhabitat,observationandharvestdata.Thecostsarecertainlyworththebenefits,asaherdmanagedatthislevelprovideshealthydeer,healthyhabitatsandtre-mendoushuntingopportunities.


WhitetailReport

Quotable QDMA:

“When a balanced buck age structure is achieved, it ensures the behavioral and biological mechanisms that shape deer populations are allowed to function.”

Fordecadesinthelate1900sstatessuchasAlabama,Michigan,Pennsyl-vaniaandothersmanageddeerherdsinsuchamannerthatthemajorityofbucksharvestedwere1½yearsoldandveryfewbuckseverreachedmaturity.InPennsylvania,lessthan1percentofbucksreachedmaturitypriortoimplementationofantlerrestrictionsin2002.Evenintheab-senceofmaturebucks,doeswillstillbreedandmostnortherndoeswillevenbreedduringtheirfirstestrouscycle.Doesthismeanthereisnobiologicalbenefittohavingmaturebucksinaherd?Doesitmeanthereisnobiologicalharminnothavingthem?

Theimportanceofmaturebucksextendsfarbeyondbeingthemostsought-aftertargetsduringhuntingseason.Tounderstandwhy,let’sfirstdefinematurityandthenlookattherolematurebucksplayinadeerherd.

Whitetailbucksgenerallyreachskel-etalmaturityfrom4½to6½yearsandgrowtheirlargestsetofantlersfrom5½to7½years.Mostbiologistsrefertobucks1½to2½asyoungorimmature,3½to4½asmiddle-aged,and5½orolderasmature.Forthisarticle,let’scombinemiddle-agedandmaturebucksandconsider3½yearsoldorolderasmature.

Maturebucksareawesomecreatures.Evendyed-in-the-woolmeathuntersrelishtheoppor-tunitytoshootamaturewhitetail.Andwhynot?Maturebucksarerareinmanyareasandit’sdifficulttomakethemavailabletohunters.Producingthemrequiresknowledge,skillandtime,andharvestingthemisusuallymoredifficult.Justasbigfishandbigtreesindicatesuccessfulfisheryandforestryprograms,thepresenceofmaturebucksisapositivesignforadeermanage-mentprogram.

Priming the RutWhitetailsaresocialanimals,andscentistheirprimarycommunicationmethod.Duringthebreedingseasonsignpostssuchasrubsandscrapesprovidethelocationforscentmarkingandinformationsharing.Agrowingbodyofresearchsuggestspheromones(chemicalssecretedfromananimal’sbodythataffectotheranimals)aredepositedatthesesignpostsbymaturebucks,andthesepheromonesmayhavea“bio-stimulating”ortriggereffectonthebreedingseason.

Researchalsosuggeststhatolderbucksproduce“controlling”or“priming”pheromonesthatyearlingbucksarenotphysicallymatureenoughtoproduce.Somestudiesevensuggestabuck

Mature bucks: Who needs ‘eM?

Pheromones left by mature bucks at rubs and scrapes may play a “priming” role in the timing and length of the rut. More mature bucks means more rubs and scrapes in the woods, which also increases hunting enjoyment.

te

s r

an

dle

joll

y


2010

reachingdominantstatusproducegreateramountsofpheromonesthanlessdominantbucksofthesameage,andincreasedstimulationofdoesbymaturebucksthroughsignpostsmaycauseear-lierandmoresynchronizedbreeding.Whilethereisn’tdefinitiveproofthatprimingpheromonesexistinwhitetails,retiredresearcherLouisVermeandhiscolleaguesfoundthatdoespennedwithbucksexperiencedestrousearlierthanthosethatwerenot.

Asmosthuntersknow,rubsandscrapesplaycentralrolesindeersociallifeimmediatelybeforeandduringtherut.Therelativeabundanceofrubsandscrapesonagivenareaisdirectlyrelatedtothedensityofmaturebucks,andareaswithmaturebuckscanhave10timesasmanyrubsasareaswithoutthem.NotedresearchersJohnOzogaandLouisVermefoundyearlingbuckslackedthescent-markingbehaviorscharacteristicofmaturebucks.Intheirstudy,maturebucksbeganmak-ingscrapestwomonthsbeforeanydoebred,whereasyearlingbucksmadeonly15percentasmanyscrapesandnoneuntiloneweekbeforethefirstdoebred.Theyalsonotedyearlingbucksmadeonly50percentasmanyrubsasmaturebucksduringthebreedingseason.

Signpostbehaviorsareimportanttothewhitetail’sbreedingecology,andthereforethe“priming”effectthatmaturebucksmayhaveonthelengthand/ortimingoftherutisreducedorabsentwhenmaturebucksarescarce.

Young Buck Health and FitnessTheprimingeffectfromsignpostslikelyhasastrongereffectinsouthernlatitudesasnorthernstudiesshowthemajorityofdoesarebredduringtheirfirstcycleevenintheabsenceofmaturebucks.However,thisdoesn’tdiscountthebenefitofmaturebuckstonorthernherds.Researchshowsyoungbucksengageinbreedingandmaysirenearlyathird(30percent)offawnseveninpopulationswherematurebuckscompriseover50percentofthebucks.Ofcourseyoungbuckssireahigherpercentageoffawnsinpopulationswithfewermaturebucks.However,thisisunfor-tunatebecauseitisadvantageousforyearlingbuckstospendlesstimechasingand/orbreedingdoesandadditionaltimefeedingandstoringfatfortheupcomingwinter.Yearlingbucksthatenterwinterinbetterphysicalconditionhavehigherwintersurvivalratesandareabletocontributemorespringforagetobodygrowthandlesstorecoveringtheadditionalbodyweightlostduringwinter.Youngbuckscanhandlethebreedingrequirementsofaherdbuttheydosoattheirownnutritionalexpense.Therefore,thepresenceofmaturebuckssuppressesthebreedingactivitiesofyoungbucks.Thisisgoodforthefuturehealthandgrowthoftheseyoungbucksandthehealthoftheentiredeerpopulation.

When mature bucks are absent, young bucks participate more strenuously in rut activities. This drains resources that could have been invested in reaching physical maturity more quickly.

ha

rd

y ja

ck

son

Quotable QDMA:

“More mature bucks equals more rubs and scrapes for hunters to find. Hunters witness behaviors like sparring and chasing more often, and hunters are more likely to hear vocalizations like grunting. Success rates with rattling and calling are higher. Even hunting for shed antlers in the off-season is more productive.”


WhitetailReport

Breeding Dates and Timing of the Fawn DropAbundantresearchshowsskewedadultsexratioscombinedwithyoungbuckagestructuresof-tenresultindoesnotbeingbreduntiltheirsecondorthirdestrouscycles.Secondandthird-cy-clefawnsarebornonetotwomonthslaterthanfawnsfromdoesbredontime,andthesefawnsbeginlifeatadistinctdisadvantage.Habitatqualityisreducedbythetimethey’reborn,theyhavelesstimetogrowbeforetheonsetofwinter,andpredationratesareoftenhigherbecauseyoulosethe“saturationeffect”ofhavingabundantpreyonthegroundatthesametime.

Innorthernpopulationsyoungbucksbreedthemajorityofdoesduringtheirfirstcycle,butsouthernpopulationsaren’tasfortunate.Havingmaturebucksinthepopulationhelpsensurethevastmajorityofsoutherndoesarebredduringtheirfirstestrouscycle,bringingaboutthebenefitsofanearlier,shorterfawningperiod.

“Natural” Deer PopulationsMaturebucksarepartofa“natural”deerherd.Archaeologistsdeterminedhistoricdeerpopula-tionshadanadvancedagestructure.WeassumethatNativeAmericanhunter-gatherershar-vestedthefirstdeeravailable,regardlessofitsageorsex,andthustheirharvestwasarelativelyrandomsampleofthepopulation.ExaminationsofdeerremainsinNativeAmericanmiddens(trashpiles)suggestsmanydeersurvivedtoolderages(20to26percentofpopulationswere5yearsorolder).Interestingly,datafrommodern-dayunhuntedherdsshowsimilaragestruc-tures.Unfortunately,mostmodern-dayhuntedherdshavethisagestructurefordoesbutfewdoforbucks,aresultofharvestsmadeuplargelyofyearlingbucks.However,accordingtoDr.DaveGuynnfromClemsonUniversity,whenabalancedagestructureisachieveditensuresthebehavioralandbiologicalmechanismsthatshapedeerpopulationsareallowedtofunction.Davecontinuesthatthedensity,sexratioandagestructureofadeerherdshouldmimicapopula-tionregulatedbynaturalpredatorsandhuntingbyNativeAmericans.Thisnaturalconditionprovidesforanutritionallyandsociallyhealthyherd,anditisonlyachievedwhenmaturebucksarepresent.

Priming Hunter EnthusiasmInadditiontothebiologicalbenefits,maturebucksalsoprovideadditionalrecreationaloppor-tunitiesforhunters.Sightingsortrail-cameraphotosofamaturebuckcanhelpmotivatemorehuntersandkeepthemafieldlonger.Whenyouaretryingtoachievedoeharvestgoals,recruithelpforhabitatmanagementefforts,orsimplygatherattentiveclubmembersforaneducationalprogramonQDMtopics,increasedinterestworksinyourfavor.

Finally,theenjoymentlevelofhuntingisoftendirectlyproportionaltomaturebucknumbers.Morematurebucksequalsmorerubsandscrapesforhunterstofind.Hunterswitnessbehav-iorslikesparringandchasingmoreoften,andhuntersaremorelikelytohearvocalizationslikegrunting.Successrateswithrattlingandcallingarehigher.Evenhuntingforshedantlersintheoff-seasonismoreproductive.Allofthesefactorsincreaseenthusiasmforhuntingandyear-roundQDMefforts.

So,candeerherdsexistwithoutmaturebucks?Suretheycan,butremember:•Whitetailpopulationsevolvedwithmaturebucks.•Theirsocialorderworksbestwithmaturebucks.•Youngbucks’fitnesscanbeenhancedbythepresenceofmaturebucks.•Huntinginterestincreaseswhenmaturebucksarepresent.

Allofthesepointsaregoodforthedeerherd,fordeermanagementandforthefutureofhunt-ing.Thenexttimeyoupassayoungbuck,knowthatyoudidyourparttoimprovethehealthofthedeerherdaswellasincreaseyourchanceoftakingamaturebuckinthefuture.


2010

habItat ManageMent

Quotable QDMA:

“Given the average deer eats 2,000 pounds of vegetation annually, it’s easy to see a tremendous amount of forage is necessary to support even a low-density deer herd.”

Ashuntersdevelopamorecom-pleteunderstandingofQDM,theimportanceofhabitatqualitytakesalargerrole.OfQDM’sfourCornerstones,herdmanagementisoftenthefirstthathuntersgravitateto,buthabitatmanagementquicklygrabstheattentionofmanyQDMpractitionersandisoftenoneofthemostsatisfyingaspectsofadeermanagementprogram.

Qualityhabitatisimportantforbucksanddoesinallageclasses.Doesneednutritiousforagetoraisehealthyfawns,bucksneeditforlargebodiesandantlers,andbothsexesrequireadequatecovertoescapepredation.Giventheaveragedeereats2,000poundsofvegetationannually,it’seasytoseeatremendousamountofforageisnecessarytosupportevenalow-densitydeerherd.Largerherdsandherdsmanagedtomaximizebodyandantlergrowthandreproductivecapacityrequireevenmorehigh-qualityfoods.

Thisinformationseparateshabitatmanagementintothreegeneralcat-egories–forests,oldfieldsandfoodplots.Forestsincludeareasdomi-natedbywoodyvegetationandin-cludescrubandshrubhabitats.Oldfieldsincludeareasdominatedbygrasses,legumesandforbs.Theseareasareinearlysuccessionalstagesandcanincludesomesmallwoodyspecies.Foodplotsareareasinagricultural-typeplantings.Naturalvegetationmanagementincludesforestsandoldfields,andshouldbethefocusofyourhabitatmanagementefforts.Foodplotsshouldbeusedtosupplementthenaturalvegetation.

Forest ManagementForestsdominatethelandscapeinmuchofthewhitetail’srange.Thesewoodedhabitatsprovidefoodandcoverandshouldincludeadiversityofstandtypesandageclassesinterspersedacrossthelandscape.Thisdiversityofstandstructurehelpsprovideyear-roundforageandcoverandisespeciallyimportantatthegeographiclimitsofthewhitetail’srange.Forexample,insufficientwintercoverfromspruce/fir/hemlockstandsinnorthernNewEnglandcanprecludedeerherdgrowthevenifadequatespring,summerandfallhabitatsexist.Youngstandsareimportantfromaforageandcoverperspective.Matureforestsareimportantforthermalcoverandmastproduction,buttheyonlyproduceanaverageof50to100poundsofbrowseperacre.Earlysuccessionalstandsmayproduce1,000to2,000poundsofbrowseperacre,andtheyalsoprovidethelowgroundcovernecessarytoprotectfawnsfrompredationandprovideadultswithsecurebeddingsites.Forthesereasons,amixofageclassesisimportant.Properforestmanagementmaybeachievedbytechniquesrangingfromtimberharvestingto

Early successional stands may produce 1,000 to 2,000 pounds of browse per acre, and they also provide the low ground cover necessary to protect fawns from predation and provide adults with secure bedding sites. For these reasons, a mix of forest age classes is important.


WhitetailReport

prescribedburningtoqualityvegetationmanagement(QVM).QVMisapopularsouthernfor-estrytechniquethatinvolvessprayinganherbicidetocontrolundesirablehardwoodbrush,andconductingacontrolledburntoremovedeadvegetationandencouragenewgrowth.ResearchhasdemonstratedQVMcandramaticallyimprovehabitatqualityforwhitetails.

Structurewithintheforestisalsoimportant.Topsfromfelledtreesandbrushpilesprovidesecurityforwhitetails,nestanddenlocationsforotheranimals,andtheycanalsoprotectseedlingsfrombeingbrowsed.Openpark-likeunderstoriesmaylook“clean,”buttheyofferlittlefordeerandotherwildlifespecies.Ifyoucansee50to100yardsinthewoods,orifthewoodsareeasytowalkthrough,thentheunderstorylayeristooopenanddeerwouldbenefitfromad-ditionallow-lyingstructure.

Old Fields“Oldfields”providefoodandcoverandshouldrepresentaminimumof1to5percentofaproperty.SomeareasintheMidwestandPlainsstatesaredominatedbyoldfields,butmanyareasinthewhitetail’srangelackanadequateamountofthishabitattype.Propermanagementofoldfieldsensuresabundantfoodfromlegumesandforbs,andnativewarm-seasongrasses(NWSG)provideexcellentescape,bedding,thermalandfawningcover.NWSGhavebeenpopu-larintheMidwestformanyyearsandarebeingusedatanincreasingrateintheNortheastandotherregions.

Oldfieldscanbemaintainedbyprescribedburning,disking,mowing,crushingwitharollerchopperorbulldozer,fertilizing,applyingherbicides,and/oracombinationofthesetechniques.Thepreferredtechnique(s)willbedictatedbyyourlocation.Forexample,prescribedburningisavaluabletoolusedthroughouttheSoutheastbutusedinfrequentlyintheNortheastduetoforestcomposition,liabilityandsmokemanagementconcerns.

Food PlotsFoodplotsprovidefood,andspeciessuchascornalsoprovideexcellentcover.Researchhasdemonstratedmeasurableimprovementsinbodyweightandotherphysicalparameterswhen1percentofanareaisplantedinhigh-qualityfoodplots.TheQDMArecommendsplanting3to5percentofanareatoensureabundantforageandguardagainstpoorweather,insectsorother

In regions where it is practical, prescribed burning can be an extremely cost-efficent method for quickly improving the quality of deer habitat and maintaining early successional areas. Always check with your state forestry agency for guidelines, permits, and free assistance.

Quotable QDMA:

“Open park-like understories may look ‘clean,’ but they offer little for deer and other wildlife species. If you can see 50 to 100 yards in the woods, then the understory layer is too open and deer would benefit from additional low-lying structure.”


2010

losses.Thegoalforafoodplotprogramshouldbetoprovideyear-roundnutri-tion.Therearemanyplantingoptions,butagoodruleofthumbistoplant60percentofyourfoodplotacreageincool-seasonperennials(clovermixes),20percentincool-seasonannuals(bras-sicas),and20percentinwarm-seasonannuals(corn,soybeans,etc.).Youcanalterthesepercentagesasnecessarybasedonyourlocation.Forexample,Southernmanagersgenerallyplantalittleheavierpercentageofwarm-seasonannualsthaninotherregions.Ifyourunshortonsummerfood,plantadditionalwarm-seasonannuals.Ifyouneedmorewinterforage,plantmorebrassicasand/orcorn.

Regardlessofplanttype,youshoulddistributefoodplotsacrosstheland-scape.Plotstypicallyrangefrom¼to5acres,andlongirregularly-shapedplotsmaximizetheamountofedgehabitat.Ifyouhavecool-seasonplotslargerthan5acres,dividethemintomultipleplotsandselectplantspeciestomaximizeseasonalusebydeer.Warm-seasonplotstendtobelargerasitiscommonfordeertodestroysmallcorn,soybeanorcowpeaplotsbeforetheybecomeestab-lished.Agriculturalfields,abandonedfields,loglandingsandloggingroadscanallbeproductivefoodplotsites.Youmayevenchooseto“carve”foodplotsintopreviouslyforestedareas.Suchworkcanbeexpensiveandlaborintensive,butexactlocationanddesigncanbespecifiedtohavetheplotdoubleasastrategichuntinglocation.Thiscanbeespe-ciallyimportantwhentryingtoharvestmaturebucks.Onceyou’vechosenyoursites,preparedandamendedthesoil,selectedseedvarietiesandplantedtheplots,whatdoyoudonext?Prayforrain!Youcandoeverythingrightandyourplotscanfailiftheydon’treceiveadequatemoisture.Thisreiteratestheimportanceoffocusingonnaturalvegetationmanagementandusingfoodplotstosupplement–notreplace–thathabitatwork.

Habitatmanagementonprivatelandsisacceleratingatanincrediblepace.QDMAmembersownandmanageover13millionacresintheU.S.Combinethatwithlandbeingmanagedbyotherconservationorganizationmembersandtheacreageisastounding.Properhabitatmanagementfordeerprovidesyear-roundcoverfromhardwoodandsoftwoodtreespecies,oldfieldsandNWSG.Properhabitatmanagementalsoprovidesyear-roundfoodfromhardandsoftmast,forbs,vinesandshrubs,hardwoodandsoftwoodbrowse,andfoodplots.Adiversityofspecies,standtypesandageclassesisnecessarytoprovidethisarrayofforagesandcover.The“carrot”formanydeerhunt-ers’habitatworkisbetterdeerhunting,butgooddeerhabitatbenefitsmanyotherspeciesaswell.

QDMA constantly receives questions and requests for guidance concerning food plots. To answer the demand, QDMA produced a 324-page book, “Quality Food Plots,” which was written by multiple food plot experts and covers every region in North America.


WhitetailReport

Todaymanyhuntersareimplementingdeerman-agementprogramsaimedatincreasingtheaverageageofbucksandthenutritionallevelforthedeerherd.Astheybeginseeingmore2½-year-oldandolderbucks,manymanagersbecomeinterestedinimprovingthethirdpieceoftheantlerformula–genetics.Fordecades,biologistshavedebatedthepracticeofimprovingantlergeneticpotentialbycullingorremovingspecificbuckswithundesirableantlertraits.Theideaisbyremovingtheseundesirablebucksyoucanimproveoverallantlerqualitywithinthedeerherd.Thisideaworkswellincaptivitybecauseyoucanmatespecificbuckstospecificdoes,butiscullinganeffectivestrategyforimprov-ingtheantlerqualityoffree-rangingherds?

First,whatisculling?Somemanagersdefinecullingasremovinginferioryearlingbuckswithfewantlerpoints(spikesorthree-pointers)ormissingpointssuchasbrowtines.Othersdefinecullingasremovingolderbuckswithalownumberofantlerpoints(8pointsorless)orotherundesir-abletraitssuchasanarrowspread.Forthisdiscussion,we’lldefinecullingasselectivelyremovingbuckswithanyundesirableantlertraitsfromanyageclass.

Muchresearchhasbeenconductedonthissubject,oftenwithseeminglyconflictingresults.ResearchfromtheKerrWildlifeManagementAreainTexassuggestedantlerqualitycouldbeimprovedbyremovingspike-antleredyearlingbucks.ResearchfromMississippiStateUniversitysuggestedthatyearlingbucks’antlersweremoreareflectionoflatebirthdateandpoornutritionratherthangenetics.MorecurrentresearchonstatehuntinglandsinMississippisuggeststhatprotectionofpoor-antleredyearlingbucks(thosewith3orfewerpoints)underthestate’sfour-total-pointrulehasresultedinhigh-grading,andhasproducedsmallerantlersinolderbucks.CurrentresearchontheKingRanchinTexassuggeststhatevenaggressivecullingonafree-rangingdeerherdatthe10,000-acrescalehasnoimpactonantlerquality.Confused?

Alloftheseresearchprojectsfollowedstrictmethodologiesandhadstatisticallysignificantresults.However,therearenumerousvariablesinvolvedwithadeerherdanditshabitatthataredifficulttocontrol.Forexample,differentdeerherdshavedifferentpopulationdensities,agestructures,sexratiosandnutritionallevels(lowvs.high).Therearedifferencesinsoils,supple-mentalfeedingprograms,precipitationlevelsandcountlessotherfactorsthatplayaroleinabuck’santlers.Therefore,thestudiesaren’talwayscomparing“applestoapples.”

Beforeyoudecidewhichstudyismostapplicabletoyourspecificlocation,let’slookatthebreedingecologyofwhitetails.Forcullingtoimprovethegeneticpotentialofadeerherd’s

The hunter who killed this buck said he did so to prevent it from breeding, since it clearly had small, non-symmetrical antlers. Actually, this buck was just a typical yearling (1½ years old), and killing it was counterproductive to the QDM program. But this example reveals the widespread confusion among hunters, and mis-information in the media, regarding “culling” and “management bucks.”

Quotable QDMA:

“It is impossible to control or even predict which bucks breed which does in the wild. Thus, it is difficult to control the genetic traits you select for (or against) by selectively harvesting bucks based on antler characteristics.”

Is cullIng necessary?


2010

Is cullIng necessary? antlers,bucksthatareprotectedmustbeabletopasstheir“superior”antlergenestomanyoff-spring.Thus,thesebuckswouldhavetobreedmanydoesandsiremanyfawns.Thesebucks’maleoffspringwouldrequireaccesstohighqualitynutritiontofullyexpresstheirantlerpotential,andtheywouldhavetoremainintheareaforthemanagertobenefitfromhis/herefforts.

Butdobucksbreedmanydoes?Ithadbeenwidelyassumedthatasmallnumberofdominant,large-antleredbuckssiredmostofthefawns.However,currentresearchshowsmaturebucksdon’tmonopolizebreedingrites.Eveninpopulationswithgoodagestructure,yearlingsand2½-year-oldssired15-30percentofthefawnsinnorthernandsouthernstudies.Interestingly,somelargebucksdon’tappeartosireanyfawns.InDr.RandyDeYoung’slong-termstudy(over11years)bucksaveragedlessthanthreefawnsperyear(thisisthenumberoffawnsthatsurvivedtosixmonthsofageandwererecruitedintothepopulation).Thereisalsotheincidenceofmultiplepaternity.Twostudiesidentifiedmultiplepaternityin22-24percentofmultiplelitters.Thatmeansoneofeveryfourtofivesetsoftwins/tripletshadmultiplefathers.So,dominantbucksdon’tbreedallofthedoesandtheydon’tevensireallofthefawnsfromthedoestheybreed.

Sincemanybuckseachdoasmallamountofthebreeding,andsincedoesmaybreedwithmultiplebucks,itisimpossibletocontrolorevenpredictwhichbucksbreedwhichdoesinthewild.Thus,itisdifficulttocontrolthegenetictraitsyouselectfor(oragainst)byselectivelyharvestingbucksbasedonantlercharacteristics.And,itisdifficulttoimprove(ordegrade)thegenetictraitswithinadeerherdbyselectivelyharvestingbucksbasedonantlercharacteristics.

Thegoodnewsisthatwecanimproveantlersizethroughourharvestingefforts.However,I’mnotreferringtoremovingspecificbucks.Rather,I’mtalkingaboutpassingyoungbuckssotheycangrowolderandhavetheopportunitytoexpressmoreoftheirantlergrowthpotential.Thisimprovesthe“age”factoroftheantlerformulaanditisextremelyeasytodo.Wecanalsoharvestanappropriatenumberofdoessobuckshavemoreavailableforage.This,incombinationwithhabitatmanagement,improvesthe“nutrition”factoroftheantlerformula.Again,thisiseasytodo.

It’simportanttorememberthatmanydeerherdshaveskewedsexratios,youngbuckagestruc-turesandtheyexceedtheirhabitat’scarryingcapacity.Inthesesituations,spikesandsmallantlersaregenerallycausedbypoornutritionand/orlatebirthdate.Theseparametersdonotallowbuckstoexpresstheirfullgeneticpotential.WealsoneedtorememberthatmostabnormalantlersareNOTgeneticallybased.Mostresultfrominjuriestotheskull,pedicle,antlerorbody,andthuscull-ingwouldhavenoeffectontheantlergeneticsoftheherd.

Let’srevisittheresearchprojects.TheresultsfromDr.MickeyHellickson’srecentcullingstudyinSouthTexasarelikelythemostapplicabletotheaveragedeermanagerbecauseoftheintensityofthecullingeffortsandthesizeofthestudyarea.Mickeyandhiscolleaguesintensivelyculledthesmallestantleredbucksinallageclassesforeightstraightyearson10,000acresontheKingRanchinTexas.Whenthestudywasover,theaverageantlerqualityperageclasswasslightlysmallerthanwhentheystarted.Whilefactorssuchasyearlingbuckdispersaloffthestudyareacouldpartiallyaccountforlackofimpact,itclearlysuggeststhatevenintensivecullingonthisscaleisunlikelytoimpactgenetics.

So,shouldwebeculling“inferior”bucks?Iftheyareyoungbucks,theansweris“No”formostofthewhitetail’srangebecausetheymayhavebeenbornlateorhavebeennutritionallydeprived.Iftheyareolderbucks,theanswerdepends.Ifyouhaveasurplusofbucksandyoureallydislikeacertainbuck–regardlessofage–thengoaheadandharvesthim.However,don’texpectittomakeabigdifferenceinwhatyouseeforantlersinthefuture.He’slikelynotsiringalotoffawnsandoftheoneshesires,thedoecontributeshalftotheiroffspring’santlerquality.Also,about50-75per-centofyearlingbucksdisperseonetofivemilesfromwheretheywereborn,soanaverageof½to¾ofhismaleoffspringwillleavetheareaanyway.Unlessyou’reinvolvedinatrophymanagementprogramwithabalancedbuck-to-doeratio,goodbuckagestructureandoptimumnutrition,lethimgo.


WhitetailReport

Harvestingwhite-tailedbucksbasedonageisbecominganincreasinglycommonmanagementstrategy.Toimplementthispractice,huntersmusthavetheabilitytoaccuratelyagebucksonthehoofbasedontheirbodycharacteristics,anabilitythatmosthuntersconsideredimpossibleadecadeago.Todayhowever,huntersacrossthewhitetail’srangeareestimatingtheageofbucksinthefieldtoachievemanagementgoalsandincreaseenjoyment.

Likehumans,whitetailspossessdistinctbodycharacteristicsbyageclass,andwithalittleprac-ticehuntersandnon-huntersalikecanbecomeproficientatestimatingtheageofbucksonthehoof.Therearemanygoodreferencebooks,videosandDVDsavailableforin-depthinstruc-tionandpracticeonagingbucks,andthisarticleservestointroducethetopicandhighlightthedifferencesforeachageclassfromfawnstopost-matureanimals.Thesebodycharacteristicsaresubjecttodifferinginterpretationbydifferentviewers,butthecharacteristicsarerelativetooth-ersinyourareaorregion.Bodycharacteristicsalsochangebyseason.Thebreedingseasonisthebesttimeofyeartoagebucksbecauseofpronouncedneckswellingandtarsalstaining.Youcanestimatetheirageatothertimesoftheyear,butmanycharacteristicsareviewedrelativetowhattheywill(ordid)looklikeduringtherut.

FawnsFawnsareeasilydistinguishedfromotherageclassesofbucksbutarecommonlymisidentifiedasfemaledeer.Buckfawnshavesmallsquarebodies,smallshortheadsandrelativelylargeears.Theirheadsareflatterbetweentheearsratherthanroundedlikethatofadoe.Thedistancefromtheireartoeyeisalsoapproximatelythesameasthedistancefromtheireyetonose.Incontrast,thedistancefromanadultdoe’seartoeyeismuchshorterthanfromitseyetonose.Fawnsalsohaveshortnecks,flatterbelliesandbacks,andlessmuscledefinitionthanadultdoes.QDMAhasproducedaneducationalposter,“IdentifyingAntlerlessDeer,”thatusesclose-upphotographyoflivedeertohelpyoulearntosortfawnsfromadultdoesandbuckfawnsfromdoefawnsusingthesecharacteristics.Thismakesagreatvisualtoolforteachinghunting-clubmembersorguestshowtoavoidharvestingbuckfawns.

1½ YearsFormostQDMprograms,especiallythoseinbeginningstages,learningtoidentifyyearlingbucksisthemostimportantagingskill.Yearlingbuckshavelonglegs,athinneck,aslimbodyandanoveralllankyappear-ance.Theirlegsappeartoolongfortheirbodiesbecausetheirtorsos(stomach,chestandneck)arenotfullydeveloped.Theirantlerspreadisnearlyalwayslessthanthewidthoftheirearswhentheirearsareinanalertposition.Theyhaveadistinctlineofseparationbetweentheirneckandshouldersandlittlemuscledefinition.Theyhaveathinwaist,andtheymayhaveslightstainingintheirtarsalglandsduringtherut.Overall,ayearlingbuckcanbesaidtolooklikeadoewithantlers.Inwell-managedpopulationsonhigh-quality-habitat,yearlingbuckscanhavelargebodiesandeven10ormoreantlerpoints,buttheabovecharacteristicswillbepresentandcanbeusedtoseparatethemfrom2½-year-olds.Thisiswhyitisimportanttostudybodycharacteristicsbeforeconsideringantlersizewhenattemptingtoageabuckinthefield.

agIng WhIte-taIled bucks on the hoof

Quotable QDMA:

“Like humans, whitetails possess distinct body characteristics by age class, and with a little practice hunters and non-hunters alike can become proficient at estimating the age of bucks on the hoof.”

Note: The trail-camera photos in this section of the Whitetail Report were submitted by QDMA members to the “Age This!” department of Quality Whitetails magazine. A panel of five biologists reviewed each shot to arrive at a consensus age for the deer in the photo.


2010

agIng WhIte-taIled bucks on the hoof 2½ yearsTwo-year-oldshavelegsthatstillappeartoolongfortheirbodies,andtheystillhaveanoverallsleekappearance.Theyhavedevelopedsomemusclingintheirshouldersandslightswellingintheirneckduringtherut,buttheirwaistisstillthin.Givenadequatenutrition,theirantlerspreadcanbeequaltoorwiderthantheirears.Finally,theycanhavemoderatestain-ingintheirtarsalglandsduringtherut,especiallyiffewmaturebucksareinthepopulation.

3½ yearsThree-year-oldshavelegsthatappeartobetherightlengthfortheirbodiesbecausetheirtorsosarenowmorefullydeveloped.Theyhavemuscledshouldersandahighlyswelledneckduringtherut,buttheirwaistisstilllean.Ilikenthree-year-oldstomid-dlelinebackersastheyarebigandstrongbutthey’realsoleanandfast.Adeepchestandleanwaistgivethema“racehorse”ap-pearance.Theirantlerspreadcanbeevenwithorwiderthantheirears.Researchshowsthatatthisage,mostbuckshaveachieved50to75percentoftheirantler-growthpotential.Theyalsohavealotoftarsalstainingduringtherut.

Beyond3½yearsofage,determiningtheexactageofabuckbecomesmoredifficultbecauseofincreasedvariationamongindividualbucks.However,formostQDMprograms,harvestgoalscanbeachievedifhuntersareabletoconfidentlyseparatebucksintooneofthreegroups:A)Yearlings,B)2½-year-olds,andC)3½orolder.Hunterswhowanttosortandselectbucksbasedonagesolderthan3½canstilldoso,butmoretimespentstudyingeachbuckmayberequired.Inadditiontoviewinginthefield,usetrail-cameraphotosandhome-videofootagetorefineyourestimates.Also,onceabuckhasbeenharvested,checkyourownfieldestimatesagainstageestimatesbasedontoothwearand/orcementumannuliagesfromareputablelab.Thiswillhelpyouhoneyourskillsatagingthedeerinyourregionorhabitattype.

4½ yearsBecausetheirstomachs,chestsandnecksarenowfullydeveloped,mostfour-year-oldshavelegsthatappeartooshortfortheirbody.Theyhavefully-muscledshoulders,heavyswellingintheirneckduringtherut,andtheirwaisthasdroppeddowntobe-comeevenwiththeirchest.Givenadequatenutritionthey’llbecomestructurallymatureandcanreach75to90percentoftheirant-lergrowthpotential.Theyalsohavealotoftarsalstainingandduringtherutthestainmayextendbelowthetarsalgland.Four-year-oldshaveanentirelydifferentappear-ancethanone-tothree-year-oldbucks.


WhitetailReport

5½ to 7½ yearsOtherthaninselectplaces,fewfree-rangingbucksexceedfiveyearsofagesoI’llcombinefive-toseven-year-olds.Bucksinthiscategoryhavelegsthatappeartooshortfortheirbody.Theyalsohaveseveralothercharacteristicsoffouryearoldsincludingfully-muscledshoulders,heavyswellingintheirneckduringtherut,andawaistthat’sevenwiththeirchest.However,theyalsomayhaveapotbellyandasaggingback.Theirincreasedbodymassgivesthemamoreroundedappearance,andtheyoftenlooklikeasmallcow.Theywillhaveachieved90to100percentoftheirantlergrowthpotential,andtheycanhavehighlystainedtarsalglandsduringtherut,withthestainextendingwellbelowthetarsalgland.

8½ and olderAfewfree-rangingbucksmakeittothepost-matureagecategory.Thesebuckshavepassedtheirprimeandregressinbothbodyandantlersize.Theygenerallyhavelooseskinontheirface,neckandshoulders–usuallyvisibleasa“chinflap”–andtheymayhavepointedshoulderandhipbones.Theirantlerscanshowage-relatedabnormalitiessuchasabnormalpointsorwavyorcurvytines,andtheyhaveanoverall“weathered”appearance.

Asyoustudyage-specificbodycharacteristicsyou’llnoticetherearen’tage-specificantlerchar-acteristics(otherthantherangeofantlerpotentialthatmaybereachedateachageclass,andthispercentagecan’tbeaccuratelyestimatedbyviewingtheantlers).Therefore,theQDMAsug-gestsyoudon’trelysolelyonantlersizewhenagingbucks.Largeantlersonayoungerdeerandsmallantlersonanolderdeercannegativelyinfluenceyourestimatedage.Wesuggestestimatingagebasedsolelyonbodycharacter-isticswithrespecttolocationandtimeofyearandthenuseantlersizeto“check”theestimateortobreakatieifyoucan’tdecidebetweentwoages.

Formoreassistance,werecommendthebook“Observ-ingandEvaluatingWhitetails”byDaveRichardsandAlBrothers,aswellasthepocketfieldguidetoagingbucksproducedasacompaniontothisbook.Also,QDMAhasproducedaneducationalposter,“EstimatingBuckAge,”thatusesphotosoflivebucksofknownagestoillustratevariationsinbodycharacteristicsbyageclass.Again,thismakesagreatvisualaidforeducatinghunters.Alloftheseitemsareavailableatwww.QDMA.com.

Agingbucksonthehoofisalotoffunsowhetheryouhuntthemwithabow,sportingarmorcamera,thisin-formationcanmakeyouamoreknowledgeablewhitetailenthusiast.

QDMA offers a number of educational items to assist hunters in learning to age bucks in the field, including this poster showing body characteristics by age class.


2010

Inearly2006,theQualityDeerManagementAssociationunveiledtheirexcitingnewREACHpro-gram.REACHisanaggressivenationaleducationandoutreachprogramthatwillbenefithunters,landownersanddeermanagersinseveralways.REACHistheacronymforResearch,Educate,Ad-vocate,CertifyandHunt.TheprogramspecificallyaddressesallofQDMA’scoremissionelementsandwasdevelopedwithinputfromQDMAmembers,stateagencypersonnel,conservationleadersandQDMANationalBoardmembers.QDMA’sgoalsfortheprogramareambitious,andtheywilldirectlybenefitallQDMAmembers.HereisabriefsynopsisofeachelementofREACH.

research–QDMAexpandeditsroleindesigning,influencing,conductingandfundingresearchonpracticalprojectsimpact-ingwhite-taileddeerbiology,ecology,managementandhunting.QDMA’sstanceondeermanagementissuesisbasedongoodscience,andgoodsciencecomesfromresearch.ThefirstmajoraccomplishmentwiththiselementofREACHoccurredinMay2006whenQDMAannouncedtheyhadsecureda$50,000grantforacooperativeprojectbetweenthePennsylvaniaCooperativeFishandWildlifeResearchUnitatPennStateUniversityandthePennsylvaniaGameCommission.Sincethen,QDMAhassecuredover$200,000tosupportworthwhileresearchprojectsinmultiplestates.

educate–QDMAexpandededucationalopportunitiesandactivitiesondeermanagementandhabitatimprovementforQDMAmembers,naturalresourceprofessionalsandthegeneralpublic.QDMAcontinuedconductingseminars,workshopsandshortcoursesandalsoprovidedweb-basedinformation,newbooks,charts,DVDs,postersandanationallytelevisedshow,Quality Whitetails.

Threeexcitingnewedu-cationalitemsincludedQDMA’slandmarkfoodplotbook,Quality Food Plots: Your Guide to Better Deer and Better Deer Hunting.Thisbookisover300pagesandisa“musthave”forfoodplotenthusiasts.Theseconditemisaneducationalpack-agetitledLiving with White-Tailed Deer.Thispackageincludestwoversions,oneforhighschoolsandoneforcommunities.Thehighschoolversionisintendedforgrades7-12andisdesignedtoteachstudentstheprocessurbanandsuburbancom-munitiesdealwithwhentheyhaveadeerproblem.ThisisanexcellentteachingtoolthatcorrelatestoNationalEducationStandardsandhasreceivedTheWildlifeSociety’sConservationEducationAward.Thecommunityversionisintendedforurbanandsuburbancommunitiesexperiencingproblemswithoverabundantdeer.Itexplainsanddiscussestheoptionsavailabletosolvetheirproblems.Thispackageeducatesstakeholdersontherealitiesofurbanandsuburbandeerman-agementandwillhelpcommunitiesexperiencingproblemsandstateagencieswhendealingwithurbanandsuburbandeerissues.

ThethirditemisCyberDeer.CyberDeerisacomputer-generatedprogramthatismostadvanceddeeranatomyandshotplacementtoolavailable.Itwascreatedtotrainnewandexperiencedhuntersonorganandskeletonlocationsandpropershotanglesfordeer.Userscansimulatebothgroundandtreestandhuntingscenariosbyselectingdifferentdistancesandheightsfromthe

QdMa’s reach prograM

Texas A&M-Kingsville deer research, funded in part through QDMA’s REACH program.

One of more than 150 educational events QDMA holds annually for hunters, landowners, school groups and others.


WhitetailReport

deer.UserscanalsoselectrifleorbowasCyberDeertakesproperaccountofhuntingequip-mentused.Userscanrotatethedeerandreceiveinstantfeedbackonshotangles.Userscanthen“shoot”thedeerandreceivefeedbackonshotattemptandshotplacement.Theuseralsore-ceivesfeedbackonwhattheirshothit(heart,lungs,liver,diaphragm,stomach,and/orskeleton),andtheshotremainsonthescreentoassessitandtoprovidetrainingopportunities.CyberDeerwillhelpnewandexperiencedhuntersmakemoreknowledgeableandethicalshotplacementdecisions,andmoreknowledgeablehuntersarebetterstewardsofournaturalresourcesandbet-terambassadorsforhunting.

advOcate–QDMAincreaseditsinvolvementinwhitetailhuntingandmanagementissuesatthestateandfederallevels.EducationandOutreachDirectorsserveasliaisonsbetweenQDMAmem-bers/Branchesandtheirrespectivestateandfederalagencies.Thisstrength-enedQDMA’stieswithitsmembers,stateandfederalagencies,conservationorganizationsandotherstakeholders.Since2006,QDMAengagedinover200legislativeandmanagementissues.

certify–QDMAcreatedanindividualcertificationprogramthatincludesthreelevelsofpo-tentialachievement,andeachmustbecompletedinsequence.DeerStewardIprovidesstudentswithacomprehensiveunderstandingofthekeyprinciplesofdeerandhabitatbiology,ecologyandmanagement.DeerStewardIIteachesstu-dentshowtoapplytheprincipleslearnedinLevelIthroughhands-onandfieldexperience.Finally,DeerStewardIII,themostprestigious,mustbeearnedthroughanindividual’slong-termservicetowhite-taileddeerand/ortheQDMA.QDMAisalsocreatingalandcertificationprogram.Thegoalofthesepro-gramsistocreatemoreknowledgeablehunt-ersandmanagersandtohaveimproveddeerherdsandhabitats.

hunt–QDMAlaunchedanationalmentoredyouthhuntingprogram.Theprogramprovidedaframeworktounitementorsandyouthandisdesignedtocreatenewlong-termhunters.Theprogramincorporatesmultiplerecreationalpursuitsandissuperiorto“onetime”eventsdesignedtoexpose(vs.mentor)newcomerstothesport.ThisprogramistheofficialQDMAMentoredHuntingProgramandisstronglyrecommendedforadoptionbyQDMABranches,QDMAmembersandanyindividualorgroupinterestedinrecruitingnewhunters.Itempha-sizesthedevelopmentofwoodsskills,wildlifeknowledge,huntersafetyandshootingskills.Smallgameandwhite-taileddeerhuntingarebothintegralpartsoftheprogram.Skillsarelearnedanddiscussedthroughoutthecalendaryearandmaybereinforcedinsubsequentyears.Thisisanexcellentprogramthathelpscombatthedecliningyouthrecruitmentratesacrossthecountry.

FormoreinformationoneventsandprogramsthatarepartofREACH,visitwww.QDMA.com.

Since 2006, QDMA has engaged in more than 200 legislative and management issues at the state and federal level.

QDMA’s Deer Steward certification courses, launched in 2007, are a growing success.


2010

ThereareanumberofwaysforoutdoorcommunicatorstolearnmorefromQDMAandgainac-cesstoourresources,andQDMAoffersspecialopportunitiestohelp.BesuretoalsocheckouttheMediaResourcespageatwww.QDMA.com.

The QDMA national ConventionMembersoftheoutdoormediaattendtheQDMANationalConventionfreeofcharge.Youcoveryourtravelandlodging,andwecovertherest,includingmealsatofficialConventionevents.Formoreinformationonthisopportunity,contactLindsayThomasJr.at(800)209-3337.

Deer steward CertificationEachyear,QDMAoffersalimitednumberoffreeseatsatDeerStewardCertificationcoursesforoutdoorcommunicators.TofindouttheDeerStewardcoursescheduleandmoreinformationaboutattending,contactMattRossat(603)978-7427.

e-mail news and Press ReleasesReceiveupdatesonQDMAinitiatives,resources,merchandiseandeventsthroughourspecialmediae-mailnewslist.Tojointhemailinglist,[email protected].

Qualified, expert sourcesCallonQDMA’sstaffexpertsanytimeyouneedquotesorinformationforastoryinvolvingwhitetailbiology,managementorhunting.Refertopage3ofthisreportforcontactinformationofspecificstaffmembers,orcall(800)209-3337.

MedIa resources

qdma’s whitetailreport 2010 - quality deer management association€¦ · of white-tailed deer,...

Documents