Questions about deer management programs....UPDATED

[redneckd1]

Hey guys, need some solid info here, but opinions are always welcome!

My hunting lease is considering getting into a deer management program and will hold a sort of vote in a couple of weeks, I'll give some background on the lease and I have some questions:
The lease:
Approx. 2300 acres with 20 small (.25 acre) food plots. Located near Andalusia, Alabama. It has some creeks, hardwoods, a swampy area and lots of planted pines in various stages of growth, 10ft tall, up to 40ft tall. The food plots are planted in Sept with Wheat, Rye, Turnips, and clover, and the rest of the year corn is placed in troughs weekly, with mineral blocks beside them.
There are 20 members on the lease, rarely do all 20 members so up, but with family and guests there are usually 15-20 hunters on the weekends, most of which hunt the food plots from shooting house (most of them elevated) {I usually hunt in the woods}

The managements idea:
There is no deer management on the lease now, you can kill whatever you want to, which resulted in many very small deer killed this year. So the idea is to start a management program, maybe a 4 point or better rule the first year, then going to 6 pt or better, then maybe 6 pt outside the ears and so on as the game herd improves.

Possible Benefits:
The lease will have it's soil tested to improve the food plots
The deer herd will have a census, and the quantity and quality will be 'judged'
Possibly have larger food plots with better nutrients for growing big bucks provided at a discount
Some definite rules provided for what can and can not be taken

Possible cons:
A lack of opportunity to take deer (for meat) limited doe tags, smaller bucks (I only saw two bucks that were not spikes this year)
Not certain of the leases around us, whether managed or not (they may kill the bucks we are trying to produce)
Costs - the price may go up, not sure if or how much

I've never hunted a managed lease and would like to go to our "meeting/vote" armed with some good info, I've about deer management and it sounds good, but also a little painful the first few years, watching decent deer walk by, that you would normally kill for the freezer!
My questions go out to guys that have lived through this process:
How long did it take before quality bucks were abundant?
How did the management effect doe populations and ability to take does?
Did your expenses rise? How much?
Was it worth it?

I know this is a long post and I appreciate you reading it and any responses as well.

Thx,
R

[iiibbb]

Why does your club think management is needed... or I should say what do you hope to gain?  Deer populations are growing in most areas of the country.  The question really isn't about whether or not your club should have a plan... but what are your objectives (meat... trophies).  Has your club considered consulting a wildlife biologist through the state or something?

The problem I currently see is that you've got this proposal to limit the sizes killed... but are you sure that your stated benefits will actually materialize.

Only a professional wildlife biologist is going to be able to tell you that... and there may be ways to have your cake and eat it too as far as getting larger deer on your property.

[redneckd1]

I don't have much info on where this got started, first heard of it yesterday and only discussed it briefly with a couple of other members.
I do know that several very small deer were killed this year and some members were upset about that, also there are some other clubs in the area that are on management programs and are claiming great success after about 5 years of management (like 3, 8pt or better outside the ears bucks by a single hunter and 20 bucks seen in a day of hunting)

The management program includes a biologist coming to the property as part of developing a plan based on deer herd quality/quantity. They will give us suggestions and it is up to us to implement them or not.

We have seen a couple of deer that were full of corn, but killed on our lease. That means "our" deer are being pulled to other property by folk putting corn out (illegally), so the idea may be to make our property more attractive to keep deer on it and bring more to it.

The members seem to be just about evenly split between having a "sausage lease" and having a lease where your chances of taking a "trophy" are good. I think I am somewhere in the middle, I want to kill deer for food, with a trophy as a side benefit of that. Basically, I want to hunt, not shoot fish in a barrel and not be limited by too many restrictions.

Hope this helps,
R

[iiibbb]

In my opinion everyone should have goals and a plan... even if those goals requires a plan where not much is done.  I'm a forester, so my wildlife management skills are probably not tuned to what you all need.  If you're bringing a professional in, I'm sure you'll get a few options to choose from.

Individual deer ranges from 60-1600 acres... so I'm sure you've got them utilizing areas around your club's land.

I don't know if I'm being much help... I just figured to make sure you considered a professional.

Good luck.

[huntsman]

From what you've stated about the habitat you have and the deer quality you are currently harvesting, I'd say it's a pretty good bet you can only improve the size and quality of the bucks you hunt with ANY type of management plan. The absolute worst quality deer are had in places where there are any combination of high bag limits, high hunter densities, high deer populations, and/or no harvest restrictions.

Listen closely to what the biologist tells you about deer management. It is not a simple thing, and it needs to be done with the proper amount of research and some common sense if it stands to reap the most benefits. If the biologist is worth his salt, he will assess (or have you assess) your deer population and habitat, then start with some realistic goals as far as total deer numbers and improving age structure. All but the most intense management schemes can rarely go much further than that. However, getting your numbers right and improving age structure can have a dramatic impact on deer quality.

PLEASE don't let your lease fall into the antler-quality restriction trap, especially any system based on points or spread. It is the rage these days, but most of the good research in deer management currently doesn't support it. Any good population model will pull the ladder out from under such schemes in a hurry. Why on earth so many wildlife departments are implementing this technique is a mystery to me. Just goes to show that many aren't really concerned with science as much as politics.

There's no reason you can't have a good enough harvest to satisfy the meat hunter with one or two deer (both sexes) each year AND have decent quality bucks, too. That's assuming, of course, that the perimeter of your lease is not lined with day hunters or allowed high bag limits that can wipe out a whole age class of bucks in a single season. If that's the case, your efforts will be all but wasted in trying to manage the deer population structure.

[iiibbb]

Well articulated...

[redneckd1]

Thx guys, very good info to go into the meeting armed and ready. There will be a biologist take a look at habitat and herd quality, and I will pay particular attention to his recommendations. I can only hope that something along the lines of deer tags will be provided to each hunter (e.g. 2 does and 2 bucks) and the antler size limit will be based on hunter preference (meat or trophy). I think that will help the property/herd develop into a great place to hunt. I need to find out more about the land around us, I know some local clubs are under management, but do not know the proximity to our property. I would love to be in the middle of managed land, so that everyone's effort are shot up on the fringes! Thx again for the info.
R

[dukkillr]

without antler restrictions how does one assure that people aren't killing all the immature bucks in the area?  and could you cite a study or two that show that this is "bad biology"?  I'm a biologist, and it seems to make some sense to me that allowing young bucks to grow up is a good thing for trophy quality.  I've always discouraged the taking of immature bucks, if you want meat there are plenty of does, why not shoot them?  Of course if you have a very small herd that would make a difference.

[iiibbb]

Thx guys, very good info to go into the meeting armed and ready. There will be a biologist take a look at habitat and herd quality, and I will pay particular attention to his recommendations. I can only hope that something along the lines of deer tags will be provided to each hunter (e.g. 2 does and 2 bucks) and the antler size limit will be based on hunter preference (meat or trophy). I think that will help the property/herd develop into a great place to hunt. I need to find out more about the land around us, I know some local clubs are under management, but do not know the proximity to our property. I would love to be in the middle of managed land, so that everyone's effort are shot up on the fringes! Thx again for the info.
R

Red... I'd be interested in what the recommendations wind up being.  If you would be kind enough to post an update when you find out I would at least be interested.

[redneckd1]

iiibbb,
 We are having our end of season BBQ on the 12th and will discuss if the club as a whole wants to pursue this. If yes, I assume the ball will get rolling pretty quick so that everything can be done(bigger food plots etc...) before bow season starts in Oct. so I'll let you know as soon as I hear what the recommendations are.
Cheers,
R

[huntsman]

dukkillr:

There is a growing collection of documented evidence that antler size/point restrictions indeed have a negative overall impact on deer antler quality. I will attempt to post four links here that I found to support this.

1) http://www.bcwf.bc.ca/s=256/bcw1099019685653/
2) http://www.remington.com/NR/exeres/000015bejfsiqiylhnpugxio/News+Article.asp?NRMODE=Published&NRORIGINALURL=%2fmagazine%2fcurrent%2f2004_0510%2easp&NRNODEGUID=%7bBB5F1B2C-BCE6-4B01-8F33-2075CAB15610%7d&NRQUERYTERMINATOR=1&cookie%5Ftest=1
3) http://www.wlf.state.la.us/apps/netgear/clientFiles/lawlf/files/DMAP82.pdf
4) http://www.mississippigameandfish.com/ms_aa122902a/


Your are making some correct assessments as well as overlooking one very important biological principle in your support of antler restrictions. Allowing young bucks to mature is a good goal, and one that usually makes an antler restriction program seem initially attractive to hunters. However, minimum antler restrictions, by definintion, put heavy negative selection pressure on GENETICALLY SUPERIOR BUCKS regardless of age class. Thus, the improved antler potential that is supposed to be the main goal of antler restrictions is actually suppressed. The best quality bucks are removed from the herd at the earliest time (often in year 1.5) because they meet the antler criteria at an early age, leaving the inferior bucks that do not (and often will not ever) meet the criteria to do most of the breeding. A few years of this trend starts to produce older bucks, but these bucks tend to decline dramatically in antler quality. This is precisely because their inferior genes HELPED PROTECT THEM when they were young (1.5-2.5) DUE TO ANTLER RESTRICTIONS.

The only real answer is to protect the best deer in the earlier age classes, but this is an unrealistic and unattainable goal by statewide public regulation. It can only be done by knowledgeable hunters or guides who can accurately assess the younger age classes in the field. Unfortunately, the criterion for this selection are much too subtle to ever put into a regulation, and therefore cannot be effectively made into a blanket restriction program.

My fellow hunters and I use our own private restriction which is merely a gentlemen's agreement on the land we hunt. It is almost the opposite of most minimum public antler restrictions. Rather it is a maximum antler restriction in the young age classes. It is rather simple: no deer with eight or more points may be killed unless it is assessed to be at least 3.5 years old or more. While not perfect, it has had a very real effect on our buck quality, as our harvest data firmly attests. Do we make mistakes in estimating age? Yes, but overall it puts a very positive selection pressure on the bucks in our herd.

[dukkillr]

The articles you cited are very informative, thank you... I agree with you that the true restriction should be on shooting young bucks, rather than bucks with a certain number of points.  The Remmington article talked about the system here in Kansas where I hunt, and I tend to agree with the system here.  Obviously any management plan needs to include population control, and Kansas does a good job of encouraging a doe harvest.  It also has allowed male deer to grow older by filling freezers with does that are already contributing to overpopulation.  

My biggest complaint of all deer hunters, particularly those where I hunt in Southern Missouri, is that they shoot young bucks.  What's the poing?  There simply is no good reason to do so, provided you're no longer in a buck-only area.  If everyone practiced good management on their own there would be no need for any type of state regulation.  I'll be the first to admit I don't know what state regulation is the best answer, but I applaud those who are trying.  The results Mississippi show antler restrictions can work, even if they're not perfect.  I'd love to hear what statewide restrictions others like.  Where I hunt in Kansas I control enough ground to protect and improve the herd.  In Missouri I hunt on only 180 acres.  On opening morning it sounds like a war zone.  At the check-in station you see a lot of 1.5 year old bucks... I'd like that to stop, but absent any state rules I don't think it will happen.

[huntsman]

DK,

I agree completely with your assessment and the idea that 1.5 bucks should be protected regardless of antler development or lack thereof. I think if there ever were a state-wide restriction based on age, it should be the protection of the 1.5s. This is by far the easiest age class for the average hunter to identify, and even if some were killed accidentally, the many that would be protected would improve the age structure of the deer herd immensely.

I too have hunted in MO (NW corner) and agree that the wholesale slaughter that occurs during the short season makes any kind of management scheme useless on all but very large or high-fenced operations. I also think that in EVERY state there should be a limitation system that is based on acreage so that no more than the max harvest would be allowed per tract on all land.

I do agree that states that are trying to manage for better deer quality are in general better off than those that are not, but I feel many rushed to a "solution" with antler restrictions for political reasons before the jury was in, so to speak, on the scientific results of this practice. Unfortunately, many hunters will pay the price for years to come for the negative selection pressure put on the best bucks. The gene pool of deer populations under minimum antler restrictions for a number of years will likely not recover to its former quality for quite a few generations, if it ever does in some cases.

What just strikes me silly is that with all the well-educated biologists and game managers out there, no one thought to input the negative selection process into the genetic model as this "fad" took hold. It seemed like in most cases it was done simply because hunters liked it and it was based on a reasonable hypothesis, rather than because there were any strong results that supported the goal or eventual outcome. The whole scenario doesn't speak very well for our systems of public game management. We do good biology, for the most part, but public agencies can never seem to sort the good from the bad or use sound scientific principles in making public policy. Perhaps that is something you can influence as a biologist.

[redneckd1]

Thx for the articles Huntsman, I printed them and will make copies to pass out at our meeting. I would love to see the overall quality of the deer and habitat increase on our property. Maybe these will help us make the right decision.

DK, you are right on the money, I saw more .5 and 1.5 deer killed on this lease than anything else, it was my first year on the property and at first I thought it was just guys getting their first deer to put in the freezer and kids getting a first deer, but as the season went on I noticed that some guys kept killing young deer. A few discussions and it looks like we may move to a management program, now just to do it "right"!!!

Thx again,
R

[trophyhunter]

It seems to me that the food plots that are going out except for the corn are going out to late to help in quality deer the corn and mineral block are ok but you need some other plots out their that help out earlier in the year when the antlers are growing also if you all decide on the antler restriction i would suggest that you don't put a size limit such as points or width but in taking good mature deer.  And yes it will take 4 to 5 years to start seeing good buck sometimes just 3 years but if you let the small non mature ones go and get some beneficial food plots that are high in protein earlier in the year or year round.  then that would improve the herd. YOu could talk to other managment ares in your area to see how they do it im sure they would be glad to help.

[redneckd1]

Well, we had our club meeting to discuss adopting a management program and the Pres and VP had already established the 'rules'.

 They decided to go with a 4 point or better rule and no does killed after Dec 31 (still a month left of the season and the rut kicks in heavy about mid Jan). They also threw in a no yearling doe rule, since we had several killed by a handful of members this year, that rule should not have to be enforced, but some folks believe if it is brown, its down!
 I argued against a point rule and asked to establish an age rule, say 3.5 year old bucks or better. Understanding the difficulty is determining the age of a buck on the hoof, the group decided that the points rule is the 'easiest' route to take. OVERRULED
A fellow from the timber company had some data from an adjacent club that started the same program 5 years ago and they killed 5 bucks over 130 B&C this year on smaller acreage and a couple fewer members (we have 2300 acres and 20 members)
We are getting some protein pellets to mix in with corn that is provided from the end of turkey season until shortly before bow season starts, food plots are planted in Sept. I again argued that we should have year around food plots since the nutrition is need early in the antler growth, but they argued back that the protein pellets would take care of that. However, these pellets are going to be placed in troughs on each food plots were any animal can get them, not just the deer. So, we'll see what happens.
The next couple of years could be painful, I don't expect to see many 'shooter' bucks for a couple years. I do know where a wall hanger has been hanging out and apparently survived this season, so maybe I'll get a crack at him next year.
Thx for all the help and info!
Cheers,
R

[thayerqdma]

If you want to lead by example, try putting out a couple of 1/2 acre clover, chicory, cereal grain plots and show them the cost difference between the pellets vs the plots.  Show them the deer that you will bag due to a great year round food source.  I think you could open up some eyes very quickly on your club ground.