Hunting Does This Year?

[HunterDave]

The past winter that we had seems to have been pretty hard on our deer population in some areas and that got me wondering.........If you have a choice, Should we go easy on shooting does this year?

There's nothing scientific about my thinking but I've always figured that by shooting a doe you are taking 3 deer out of the bush......the doe and the two fawn that she'd have come spring. If you take a buck though, you are taking one deer and other bucks from outside his little harem will come along to service the does that he normally does.

This might be an Eastern way of thinking because in Ontario where I used to hunt F&W managed the deer populations by allowing Antlered WT to be hunted on a general tag and Antlerless WT are on a draw. This allows the powers to be to control how many does are taken every year.

I know that buck to doe ratios has allot to do with how healthy our herds are so there may be areas that have more does than can be breed by the number of bucks in the area. An area like that would be the exception to the rule, however IMO, given that bucks will travel quite a way to breed a doe in estrus, there would be far fewer areas like that than the other way around. Also, even if a doe isn't bred this year she'll still be around next year to bred.

Generally speaking, is my theory flawed and what do the biologists say about it?

[Bushmaster]

Dave, I know where you're coming from but any type of action like this just screws with the plans the biologists have in the first place.

Not that I agree with everything biologists do but.....

[H380]

Took my whitey doe this morning with an arrow and my muley soon as well .. no shortage of them here in the south , but I know what your concern is and you are smart enough to be concerned.. more than can be said for a lot of the" more educated Bio's.".

[HunterDave]

Congrats on your deer H380!

Regarding the SRD biologists........I wonder how far in depth their research goes as far as determining and managing the populations. If they predict a winter kill of X% of WT deer province wide do they break that down farther by X% in regions (like for fishing) or even farther by X% in WMU's. I'm thinking that they wouldn't have the time to get into it that greatly in depth but I could be wrong.

[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 !!!

[walking buffalo]

To me, taking a doe will depend on where I am.

I will not take part in the CWD hunts.

I will not take does or cows from wmu's where the purpose is to reduce ungulates in order to starve out wolves.

I will take a doe from several areas in the Southern foothills. The population is strong.


Another consideration hunters can contemplate. Shoot a fawn or calf instead of taking the doe or cow. The natural mortality on these young is high, hunter harvest is usually compensatory ( hunter killed instead of winter or predator killed) where adult harvest is more likely to be an additive mortality (hunter killed where survival was likely high otherwise).

[H380]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Congrats on your deer H380!

Regarding the SRD biologists........I wonder how far in depth their research goes as far as determining and managing the populations. If they predict a winter kill of X% of WT deer province wide do they break that down farther by X% in regions (like for fishing) or even farther by X% in WMU's. I'm thinking that they wouldn't have the time to get into it that greatly in depth but I could be wrong.

yes I'm sure they have their hands full withmanaging and determining populations lots of ground to cover with a very limited budget .. A big problem as I see it is the fact that there really is no fullscale registry of harvested animals like there is in alot of the states .. A compulsory registery of all kills made would at least give them an idea of success levels , just my opinion .

[mulecrazy]

I got drawn for mulie doe in the SE. After spending a week bowhunting for bucks and seeing very very few deer and extremely few does, I will not be buying that tag. The SE part of the province got absolutely hammered by 8 years of gross mismanagement and 1 really harsh winter. For anyone who thinks there are lots of deer left in 119,118, and 116, I question your sanity and experience. I am seeing about 25% of the deer that used to roam in the very early 2000's. How buck tags can go from 150 to 500+ is beyond words. Thank god Taggert is no longer the biologist in that area.

[sjemac]

I am shooting fawns. We have six tags to fill. We find a doe with a pair and take one of the pair. Not taking the proven breeders but the additional mouths to feed.

[whitecourtwolverine]

Originally Posted by sjemac

I am shooting fawns. We have six tags to fill. We find a doe with a pair and take one of the pair. Not taking the proven breeders but the additional mouths to feed.

Never heard of someone doing that before. I've always stayed away from a doe with fawn(s).

[catnthehat]

Originally Posted by sjemac

I am shooting fawns. We have six tags to fill. We find a doe with a pair and take one of the pair. Not taking the proven breeders but the additional mouths to feed.

This was recommended to me years ago on a antlerless tag by a biologist - the reason being that the cow will get through the winter a lot easier than a calf will.Made sense then and makes sense now.
Cat

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

Another consideration hunters can contemplate. Shoot a fawn or calf instead of taking the doe or cow. The natural mortality on these young is high, hunter harvest is usually compensatory ( hunter killed instead of winter or predator killed) where adult harvest is more likely to be an additive mortality (hunter killed where survival was likely high otherwise).

Thanks for the idea, I hadn't thought about that. I had planned on wasting one of my sup doe tags but you now have me wondering. Instead of taking a doe on one tag and wasting the other, statistically speaking of course, would it be better to shoot two fawn from different does and use both tags.

Another thing that I'm thinking is......I usually only shoot a buck on my general tag if it's a bigger one and if I don't see one big enough then I'll shoot a doe and let the small bucks grow up. This year I think that I probably should take the small buck over a doe if I have the option (ie don't wait until the last minute to take a buck).

[Alberta Bigbore]

Seeing alot of does in my areas... I will probably harvest does this year for sure

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Alberta Bigbore

Seeing alot of does in my areas... I will probably harvest does this year for sure

Yeah, it seems to be different everywhere you go but I'm really concerned with my favourite spot......very few deer this year.

Those does that you saw, did they have two fawn with them?

[Alberta Bigbore]

majority had two.. is that good?

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by Alberta Bigbore

majority had two.. is that good?

YUP! Does normally have twins and I've been told that if they have a particularly hard winter, they'll abort one or both of their fetus. If they have two fawn then you're looking good!

[mulecrazy]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

YUP! Does normally have twins and I've been told that if they have a particularly hard winter, they'll abort one or both of their fetus. If they have two fawn then you're looking good!

I have heard that myself, but with what I have seen this fall with my own eyes, I question that science. The majority of the does in the SE part had twins and one whitetail doe had triplets. That area was hammered with the worst winter in decades and massive die offs occured. Why is it that all those does seemed to be doubling up? Natures way of rebuilding. A good friend in the area has also seen many of the surviving antelope does with twins. also, much more uncommon than singles.

I trust my eyes, and they are saying something different then what I understood in the past.

[HunterDave]

I'm not sure but they must have been getting nutrition from somewhere in order to make out so well. I think that it may have to do with not only the depth of the snow but also how much of a crust was on it. One area might have had hard crust and the other didn't, but I don't know.

Here's what I found with a google search:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=ni6H...borted&f=false

The Deer of North America By Leonard Lee Rue III, Leonard Lee Rue

"Under normal conditions an adult doe has twins. If there is a severe shortage of food, she will produce only one fawn, if two fawns have been conceived, one will die during gestation and be re-absorbed. An extended period of starvation will cause the second fawn to die. The fetus may simply be aborted or it may be absorbed back into the doe's body so that she can utilize the nutrients. At this stage nature is more concern with saving the life of the mother than the life of the young."

[mulecrazy]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

I'm not sure but they must have been getting nutrition from somewhere in order to make out so well. I think that it may have to do with not only the depth of the snow but also how much of a crust was on it. One area might have had hard crust and the other didn't, but I don't know.

Here's what I found with a google search:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=ni6H...borted&f=false

The Deer of North America By Leonard Lee Rue III, Leonard Lee Rue

"Under normal conditions an adult doe has twins. If there is a severe shortage of food, she will produce only one fawn, if two fawns have been conceived, one will die during gestation and be re-absorbed. An extended period of starvation will cause the second fawn to die. The fetus may simply be aborted or it may be absorbed back into the doe's body so that she can utilize the nutrients. At this stage nature is more concern with saving the life of the mother than the life of the young."

Not sure how one doe gets so much nutrition to have triplets when others around her are starving. This area I am talking about had very widespread killoff and in the middle of that area are mulie and whitetail does running around with twins while the creek bottoms are littered with bones. In fact, I seen more does running around with at least twins then I seen without a fawn at all. I am not a believer on the reabsorption theory after seeing what is out there this fall.

[dkalin]

I will not be taken any does this year or any year west of Drayton Valley I have bin here for 15 years, I have seen some of the best hunting here , and now I see we have a problem our deer population is in trouble thanks to poor management 2 does per hunter and bad winters, followed by a predator explosion, and they still allow 2 does per tag , I dont ever want to see whitetail deer on draw ,so I will play my part and help let numbers grow , and I will now make more of a efort on shooting wolves and cyotes, Maby I am over reacting but I drive every day back and forth to work through the back country west of Drayton and this is the worst I have seen it in 15 years

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by whitecourtwolverine

Never heard of someone doing that before. I've always stayed away from a doe with fawn(s).

From a biological perspective it is the hunt that will have the least impact on the health of the herd and the long term size. When a doe has more than one fawn, each fawn has a lower chance of survival than do single fawns with a doe. When you take out one of the two fawns, the remaining fawn has an increased chance of survival. The doe has proven that she can produce twins and survive the winter. She is valuable to the herd and should be left alone -- unless your goal is to decrease deer numbers long term.

[walking buffalo]

Originally Posted by HunterDave

Thanks for the idea, I hadn't thought about that. I had planned on wasting one of my sup doe tags but you now have me wondering. Instead of taking a doe on one tag and wasting the other, statistically speaking of course, would it be better to shoot two fawn from different does and use both tags.

Another thing that I'm thinking is......I usually only shoot a buck on my general tag if it's a bigger one and if I don't see one big enough then I'll shoot a doe and let the small bucks grow up. This year I think that I probably should take the small buck over a doe if I have the option (ie don't wait until the last minute to take a buck).

Sjemac is posting some good info regarding shooting the kids instead of the adults.

When taking young of the year, there is a 50/50 chance it is a female. So you may end up taking two does with these tags. If your area is experiencing a very low population, then stay away from the doe and fawn harvest.

Population wise, you will have the least impact on the herd by taking a very old or very young buck. The old (> 5 years) are more susceptible to post rut mortality, and the young bucks (< 2 years) have a very high natural mortality, often greater than 50%. The most likely natural mortality survivors of the buck population are the 3-5 year olds.

HunterDave, since you are concerned with a low deer population in your hunting area, my advice to you is leave the does and young alone, hunt for an old or young buck.

[bezner]

i still think fawns should be on the same list as cubs...dont shoot them. if everyone shoots the babys their goes all the breeding stock

[gonefishin]

Originally Posted by bezner

i still think fawns should be on the same list as cubs...dont shoot them. if everyone shoots the babys their goes all the breeding stock

I disagree. The does give birth, not the fawns. Perhaps the fawn could grow into a buck with good genes or a healthy doe who gives birth to twins every year, but who knows. Winter mortality is much higher in fawns than it is in does, so if shoot the fawn, you have killed one deer; if you shoot the doe, you have killed her, possibly her fawn(s) in the upcoming winter and however many more fawns she would have produced over the years.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by bezner

i still think fawns should be on the same list as cubs...dont shoot them. if everyone shoots the babys their goes all the breeding stock

Unfortunately that premise is not supported by basic wildlife biology. Killing the young of the year in any population is preferable to killing the animals in the prime of their life. A larger percentage of the young of the year die during the winter than do the prime of life animals -- most hunting deaths on young of year are not additional to the winter kill as many of those animals die before reaching breeding age anyway.

Most cubs (bear and cougar) stay with the parents for a longer time period than fawns do. Because they are protected by parents that will vigorously defend them they have higher survivability -- not to mention bears and cougars take longer to reach sexual maturity, have much lower population densities and breed slower than deer do. In that case the cubs are more important to that species health than fawns are to ungulate populations.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by walking buffalo

HunterDave, since you are concerned with a low deer population in your hunting area, my advice to you is leave the does and young alone, hunt for an old or young buck.

Yup, that is exactly what I'm going to do. I have three favourite spots but the quarter that I watch all year long is the one that I'm most familiar with. All of the deer there are safe this year except for the one big bruiser buck that I've seen there the past three years, if I see him...lol. I suppose that he'd be classed an old buck anyway. It's private property that I am the only one hunting on so I will benefit from my own sound management practices. Although there were plenty of deer there last fall I only took one deer (doe) that was given to the landowner and I took two does from a different area.

I don't regularly visit the other two areas that I deer hunt so I don't know what is happening in them. It's not out of the ordinary to see +/- 30 deer in the field at one of the spots so I should be able to get a feel rather quickly as to how the deer population is doing up there.

I feel pretty lucky about hunting in Alberta and having this dilemma...lol. I'm also happy that since I'm retired and have more time to hunt, I can pick and choose what I'm going to shoot (to a certain extent). When I was serving I had a limited time frame to hunt (like most working fellas) and most of the time it came down to "if it's brown it's going down". Now that I can, I figure that I ought to do what I can when it comes to helping to manage our wildlife.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by bezner

i still think fawns should be on the same list as cubs...dont shoot them. if everyone shoots the babys their goes all the breeding stock

The way that I see it is that in areas that have reduced deer populations due to the hard winter last year shooting a fawn is the better option over shooting a doe. The doe has a better chance of surviving the winter than the fawn and she is already at the breeding age for next year. It'll take the fawn, if they survive the winter, awhile before they start producing more deer. The impact of a doe's death will be immediate and the death of a fawn may impact the balance somewhere down the road.

[bezner]

you have to think.. you are saying that a large population of fawns die over the winter, correct.. so if you harvest fawns that just takes the fawn population down further. leaving less chance for a good recovery of deer in the area

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by bezner

you have to think.. you are saying that a large population of fawns die over the winter, correct.. so if you harvest fawns that just takes the fawn population down further. leaving less chance for a good recovery of deer in the area

Look up "compensatory mortality". It explains why you are mostly wrong.

[HunterDave]

Originally Posted by bezner

you have to think.. you are saying that a large population of fawns die over the winter, correct.. so if you harvest fawns that just takes the fawn population down further. leaving less chance for a good recovery of deer in the area

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?