Hunting Does This Year?

[Jimmyjjj]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I was thinking along that lines as well Benzer. Just picking numbers out of the air here.........If there are 100 fawn in a certain area and hunters take 0 fawn, and, the mortality rate is 50% that would leave 50 fawn. However, if hunters take 50 fawn, leaving 50 fawn, and the mortality rate is still 50% there would only be 25 fawn left. HOWEVER.........

I googled "compensatory mortality" like sjemac said (http://books.google.ca/books?id=AJnp...20deer&f=false Chapter 8 - Mortality) and from what I understand given the same scenario above the mortality rate would decrease if hunters were to take 50 fawn and it would no longer be 50% because fewer would starve, coyotes, etc. So, if hunters take 50 fawn and the mortality rate decreases to, let's say, 20%, then only 10 of the 50 remaining fawn would die over the winter. Given this scenario there would be 15 more fawn than the first scenario.

Do I understand this correctly sjemac?

From my understanding its more like this (this is really rough, please just try to take the just of it):

100% of fawns at the start. (Winter kill will be 50% with no hunters taking any fawns)

Hunters take 10%. 90% left.

Because those 10% would have taken 10% of the resources, 10% that would have died now live. Winter kill now only takes 40%, end up with roughly the same number of animals in the spring.

I know I didnt take into account predators and such... just trying to get the just of it as I understand it.

[HunterDave]

Yup, I figure that I understand it now.......I think......lol. It does make sense but initially I had thought differently. I'm smarter today than I was yesterday.

It's kind of a non-issue to me now anyways. I just got off of the phone with my hunting buddy up in Cold Lake and he says that there are still TONS of deer hitting his field and we'd be hard pressed to put a dent into the population even if we took 3 does each. Given that scenerio maybe the doe population needs to be thinned out there......lol.

I guess the bottom line is that the deer on the quarter that I normally hunt down here get a break this year but the ones up in Cold Lake won't.

[dkalin]

The way I see it may be different then others , I care about are deer and ather wildlife , I will waite for a big buck and if i dont kill one this year I still will feel good , because I will helped the deer numbers grow again , I cant shoot a doe now, and I ant going to shoot a fawn even no it might not make it next year , but who knows maby it will and I would rather give it the fighting chance it needs because the 20-30 lbs of meat it would give me just ant worth taking it, if some areas the population is as bad as it seams , we dont need to hear it from a environmentalist to no they are in trouble, because sometimes by the time they tell us the population is in trouble, its to late and then we here whitetail deer are on draw, we need to just do whats right

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by dkalin

The way I see it may be different then others , I care about are deer and ather wildlife , I will waite for a big buck and if i dont kill one this year I still will feel good , because I will helped the deer numbers grow again , I cant shoot a doe now, and I ant going to shoot a fawn even no it might not make it next year , but who knows maby it will and I would rather give it the fighting chance it needs because the 20-30 lbs of meat it would give me just ant worth taking it, if some areas the population is as bad as it seams , we dont need to hear it from a environmentalist to no they are in trouble, because sometimes by the time they tell us the population is in trouble, its to late and then we here whitetail deer are on draw, we need to just do whats right

You may not realize this but many of the biologists actually know what they are talking about and are also hunters.
You make it sound like it's a bad thing to shoot a doe or a fawn, which it may be in your books but it isn't.
Cat

[dkalin]

sorry about making it sound bad to shot does and fawns, when there populations are good its all good , its just all the preditors along with last years bad winter ,i drive almost every day back and fourth to work ,i have game cams up and its bad , im just trying to help numbers get back ,i have nothing against shooting does or fawns,
me and the kids have done it for a while , but if it helps and i think it will i wont kill them this year , or till i see numbers come up

[jungleboy]

here is my question.. are the deer populations really in trouble or is this just an imagined.Alberta generally has had such high deer densities for a long time (possibly due to milder winters) and now we had a hard winter and it sort of normalized the population maybe?

I understand that numbers may not be what we are used to seeing but perhaps we have just gotten used to seeing an over abundance of them and forgot what normal is.

Nature has a way of keeping animal populations in check and a hard winter may be what was needed to strengthen the herd long term .Survival of the fittest. I usually take a doe at least every year where I hunt ,but I also usually see maybe 20 does to every mature buck.

Another point I have often wondered about too . We worry about taking a doe , and worry more about taking a doe capable of producing twins , but little concern is given to taking a trophy buck. Is that because we just really want those bragging rights where we can show off that great antlers we were skilled ( or lucky ) enough to get . What about the fact that the monster buck we just have to have ,might be the best genetic makup in that area to produce the healthiest deer populations in the future. I believe the buck may have a little to do with the production of twins / heathy fawns just like the strong doe does. If all that is left to breed the does are small weaker bucks, then that will eventually do more harm than taking a few does during the season

just a thought.

[HunterDave]

I know from reading what fellas are writing about other areas in the province that the deer in some areas got hit harder than others. In fact, the area that I initially mentioned in this thread, deer were hit hard and there are allot fewer deer there than.....usual (normal?). I talked to my buddy up in Cold lake tonight and in his field he saw 6 deer last night and +/- 20 deer this morning. Nothing much seems to have changed up there so it's not bad everywhere.

I agree that nature may have a way of controlling deer populations and a kill off can be good once in awhile. Nature doesn't factor in men with rifles shooting deer though and that will further reduce the deer population above what happens naturally. If we could figure out which deer probably won't make it through the winter and we only shot those ones then yes, it is survival of the fittest. But not knowing that then maybe we're shooting the fittest.

I might be imagining a harsher effect that last winter had from what I've seen and heard. I'll admit that it may not be very bad at all. If it was, the biologists would have adjusted the distribution of the sup doe tags for the areas most effected.......wouldn't they?

Genetics effecting antler size.....well, that's a whole different story.

[jungleboy]

Genetics effecting antler size.....well, that's a whole different story.


Actually ,I don't just mean antler size I mean a stronger healthier breed of deer in general. I have never been much of a bone hunter ,although I do like to see a nice rack as much as the next guy I never was one to pass up a chance at guaranteed meet for a wall ornament.

[mulecrazy]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

here is my question.. are the deer populations really in trouble or is this just an imagined.Alberta generally has had such high deer densities for a long time (possibly due to milder winters) and now we had a hard winter and it sort of normalized the population maybe?

I understand that numbers may not be what we are used to seeing but perhaps we have just gotten used to seeing an over abundance of them and forgot what normal is.

Nature has a way of keeping animal populations in check and a hard winter may be what was needed to strengthen the herd long term .Survival of the fittest. I usually take a doe at least every year where I hunt ,but I also usually see maybe 20 does to every mature buck.

Another point I have often wondered about too . We worry about taking a doe , and worry more about taking a doe capable of producing twins , but little concern is given to taking a trophy buck. Is that because we just really want those bragging rights where we can show off that great antlers we were skilled ( or lucky ) enough to get . What about the fact that the monster buck we just have to have ,might be the best genetic makup in that area to produce the healthiest deer populations in the future. I believe the buck may have a little to do with the production of twins / heathy fawns just like the strong doe does. If all that is left to breed the does are small weaker bucks, then that will eventually do more harm than taking a few does during the season

just a thought.

Depends on where you are. Around Rocky, numbers appear a bit lower, but not too bad. In the SE part of the province I was seeing about 30-40% of the deer numbers that we saw last fall. Tons of deer bones in the creek bottoms. The really sad part is that after the reign of Taggert MD populations were less than 1/2 that they were around the late 90's. And that is after several mild winters in a row. Areas once harbouring deer on a regular basis no longer have any roaming around.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

,,,,,although I do like to see a nice rack as much as the next guy

x2

[dkalin]

I also agree nature has it's ways of controling population but I also no man trys to play god lot and things don't work out as planed, where I am I have never seen the deer population and moose this low ever and they still allow 3 deer per person , nothing has bin really done to drop cougar population here or wolves that I no of so the deer really have nothing going for them, maby we have enough deer some people still think so , but when you have camaras out and spend slot of time in the bush and only to see a few it makes a guy wonder, cause for the last 15 year it hasent bin this bad unless I'm wrong , another bad winter followed by all preditors and I can see a zone or two coming close to draw , just my opinion

[duffy4]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

here is my question.. are the deer populations really in trouble or is this just an imagined.Alberta generally has had such high deer densities for a long time (possibly due to milder winters) and now we had a hard winter and it sort of normalized the population maybe?

I understand that numbers may not be what we are used to seeing but perhaps we have just gotten used to seeing an over abundance of them and forgot what normal is.

Nature has a way of keeping animal populations in check and a hard winter may be what was needed to strengthen the herd long term .Survival of the fittest. I usually take a doe at least every year where I hunt ,but I also usually see maybe 20 does to every mature buck.

Another point I have often wondered about too . We worry about taking a doe , and worry more about taking a doe capable of producing twins , but little concern is given to taking a trophy buck. Is that because we just really want those bragging rights where we can show off that great antlers we were skilled ( or lucky ) enough to get . What about the fact that the monster buck we just have to have ,might be the best genetic makup in that area to produce the healthiest deer populations in the future. I believe the buck may have a little to do with the production of twins / heathy fawns just like the strong doe does. If all that is left to breed the does are small weaker bucks, then that will eventually do more harm than taking a few does during the season

just a thought.

I have to agree with much of this.

It is hard to put a "normal" figure on the deer population because their numbers or so effected by man and his effect on the habitat. A few "abnormal" winters can cause big gains in the population and we get used to seeing huge numbers of deer. Then a harsh winter knocks the numbers back (possibly because they were too high) and we think they are in trouble.

I like eating venison and I like hunting for a big buck. So I normally take a doe or two. I have my Supplemental tags and I have two undersubscribed tags for south east. If I go to the south east and see a few deer I may take one. If I don't see hardley any I may not shoot a doe there.

Around Rocky I have been seeing some agricultural fields with larger numbers of does in them. This is where I will try to take a supplemental doe.

I probably will not take a doe in the forested areas where I have been seeing less deer.

[Deer Hunter]

I dont find hunting does that challenging and I'm not into a seven deer meal a week diet so I leave them alone. Or maybe just take a picture.

[NBFK]

Originally Posted by bb356

I have been drawn for MULEY DOE'S in 359 for 5 years ................ BOUGHT and tossed in the firepit !!! It's not much but I hope to help the MULEDEER return to their former numbers in my part of the PROVINCE !!!

x2

I think in 5 years between four of us we harvested 3 does and tossed the rest of the tags. When it was still 3 tags after the 2006 winter it was a little ridiculous!

[trigger7mm]

I will not be shooting any does and I hope others do the same to an extent, one maybe if you like the meat or are a beginning hunter, but with the gross miss management of giving out way too many tags (we're doing the cwd work for the province) our populations need help in many areas.

[ishootbambi]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

If all that is left to breed the does are small weaker bucks, then that will eventually do more harm than taking a few does during the season

just a thought.

a thought that fails to take into account that a bucks dna is identical when he is 18 months old as when when hes 8 years old. age is the number one factor in determining antler size, and that big trophy buck passed along his genetics lots over the years. those small weak bucks you see today are the hogs of the future......and if his genetic makeup is poor, then he likely wont live very long and wont pass along his inferior genes.

[mark-edmonton]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

a thought that fails to take into account that a bucks dna is identical when he is 18 months old as when when hes 8 years old. age is the number one factor in determining antler size, and that big trophy buck passed along his genetics lots over the years. those small weak bucks you see today are the hogs of the future......and if his genetic makeup is poor, then he likely wont live very long and wont pass along his inferior genes.

Bingo

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by ishootbambi

a thought that fails to take into account that a bucks dna is identical when he is 18 months old as when when hes 8 years old. age is the number one factor in determining antler size, and that big trophy buck passed along his genetics lots over the years. those small weak bucks you see today are the hogs of the future......and if his genetic makeup is poor, then he likely wont live very long and wont pass along his inferior genes.

You missed my point I think. I understand that a young buck can still have good genes but ,leaving the proven breeder that has been able to survive a number of seasons vs taking the smaller younger buck is a better assurance than hoping that younger guy caries the good bloodlines.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by jungleboy

You missed my point I think. I understand that a young buck can still have good genes but ,leaving the proven breeder that has been able to survive a number of seasons vs taking the smaller younger buck is a better assurance than hoping that younger guy caries the good bloodlines.

Until the old buck reaches a certain point where a younger, stronger buck comes along and takes his place. It's kinda like a wave on a graph where there is a steady rise to the point when a deer it at it's strongest and then it goes into a decline. Wouldn't it make sense that a big buck would be near the highest point or on the decline as opposed to a younger buck that is nearing his highest point?

I hope that we're comparing 5x5s to 4x4s and not 5x5s to 3x3s though.

[Ovo]

If you wanna talk genetics - the more does the better. Each mating event is a roll of the dice. The more does you have the more genetic code rolls of the dice you get. 1 buck x 20 does = 20. 1 buck x 10 does = 10 rolls.

Deer polpulation is controllled mainly by doe culls. Maybe one day - if we let enough does live and enough time elaspes we would get a 4 antlered deer who works part time as an accountant/welder.

[jungleboy]

Originally Posted by Ovo

If you wanna talk genetics - the more does the better. Each mating event is a roll of the dice. The more does you have the more genetic code rolls of the dice you get. 1 buck x 20 does = 20. 1 buck x 10 does = 10 rolls.

Deer polpulation is controllled mainly by doe culls. Maybe one day - if we let enough does live and enough time elaspes we would get a 4 antlered deer who works part time as an accountant/welder.

Nobody likes a smart azz stop making fun of us welders weer smrt to

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by Ovo

If you wanna talk genetics - the more does the better. Each mating event is a roll of the dice. The more does you have the more genetic code rolls of the dice you get. 1 buck x 20 does = 20. 1 buck x 10 does = 10 rolls.

Deer polpulation is controllled mainly by doe culls. Maybe one day - if we let enough does live and enough time elaspes we would get a 4 antlered deer who works part time as an accountant/welder.

It doesn't work that way.
Too many does and the bucks will not rut to make sure only the best breed most of the does.
the result is a deer population with genetic problems wrought with disease, and then a decline.
best ration is about 4:1, does to bucks, IIRC....
Cat
Cat

[buckman]

Should make it the same as Moose or Elk,one animal only per species.

On a lease that I hunt the does have been hammerd by hunters and cougars,

they need a chance to recover but I am sure most of the remaining few will get taken this season.

With only a few does left it will probably mean fewer Bucks visiting the area.

Deer numbers are localized and some areas can sustain a cull more than others.

As for the meat hunters as far as I am concerned wild game should not be your main source of supply,the resource simply cant handle the pressure by hunters taking two or three deer.

Most hunters would rather take a Buck given the choice of one or the other thus leaving the does to breed.

If the harvest continues unabated the deer numbers may reach a critical level and begin to tumble.This could reduce our generous season lenths and put even more areas on a severly restricted draw.

[HunterDave]

Lot's of talk about shooting/not shooting does this year so I thought that I'd resurrect this thread.

For an area that has seen significant deer mortality over the past year and that is the only place that you have to hunt, what is the bottom line for what is the best option to make the least impact?

With your general tag would this list, by priority, be the best choice to make the least impact?

1. Don't shoot any deer there (Obviously would have the least impact).

2. Shoot a fawn.

3. Shoot a old buck.

4. Shoot a young buck.

5. Shoot any buck.

6. Shoot a doe with no fawn.

7. Shoot any doe.

[MountainTi]

Originally Posted by catnthehat

It doesn't work that way.
Too many does and the bucks will not rut to make sure only the best breed most of the does.
the result is a deer population with genetic problems wrought with disease, and then a decline.
best ration is about 4:1, does to bucks, IIRC....
Cat
Cat

That is another problem with shooting all these does. I see it out my window every morning at daylight. At home here there are 2 supplemental tags available. Bucks are generally tougher to get for a lot of people, so as a result they take does. Now I seem to have the problem around here that the bucks are outnumbering the does. Poor ratio.

[mulecrazy]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Lot's of talk about shooting/not shooting does this year so I thought that I'd resurrect this thread.

For an area that has seen significant deer mortality over the past year and that is the only place that you have to hunt, what is the bottom line for what is the best option to make the least impact?

With your general tag would this list, by priority, be the best choice to make the least impact?

1. Don't shoot any deer there (Obviously would have the least impact).

2. Shoot a fawn.

3. Shoot a old buck.

4. Shoot a young buck.

5. Shoot any buck.

6. Shoot a doe with no fawn.

7. Shoot any doe.

Other than shooting nothing. Shooting a fawn will undoubtedly have the least impact on future populations. Or if it is a broken down old buck that you know won't make it. My buck last year was only about a 4.5 year old buck that grossed 151. He had a nasty limp so I figured he wouldn't make the winter anyways so I pulled the trigger.

Originally Posted by catnthehat

It doesn't work that way.
Too many does and the bucks will not rut to make sure only the best breed most of the does.
the result is a deer population with genetic problems wrought with disease, and then a decline.
best ration is about 4:1, does to bucks, IIRC....
Cat
Cat

Buck to doe ratio will never be an issue in Alberta. Lots of places are 20 or 30 does per buck. Our climate takes care of that. As you point out, hunters help out by bringing the doe number down in line with the bucks but we'll never get close to the ratios in warmer climes.

[Zuludog]

I won't be shooting any does this year. It seems, I may be wrong, but large numbers are seen in fields and farmers want them gone and everyone would like to keep them off of highways. So the government decides it is a good idea to let us shoot up to 3 does. Problem solved less deers in fields and on roads.

The problem is getting permission to hunt these farm lands where these large herds of deer mostly reside. Farmers want them gone but don't want hunters on their land in lots of cases, so people go to crown land and take 3 deer. These areas get lots of pressure, are filled with lots of predators and the numbers decline sharply. Farmers aren't happy, deer are still winding up as road kill all over and the populations in lots of WMU's are dropping.

I don't see taking does as a viable solution in lots of areas. In some areas/regions it may be and if you are fortunate enough to have access to farm land that holds big herds it probably isn't an issue. Where I hunt the does won't be in danger from me. I'm hoping a cute litle doe can help lure out a big buck for me another good reason to not shoot them.