2010 QDMA DEER REPORT ----

Lots to read here---- I found much of it very interesting....

http://www.qdma.com/pdfs/whitetailreport2010.pdf

Here's some info on Pa's fawn survival study for those that have not see it before ---

 

White-tailed Deer Fawn Survival Studya Bret D. Wallingford, Pennsylvania Game Commission, Bureau of Wildlife Management, 2001 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17110-9797; and Justin Vreeland, Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 113 Merkle Building, University Park, PA 16802.
Justin Vreeland prepared a thesis titled Survival rates, cause-specific mortality, and habitat characteristics of white-tailed deer fawns in central Pennsylvania, as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science from The Pennsylvania State University (Vreeland 2002). His document represents the final report for this research project. A copy of this thesis will be placed in the Pennsylvania Game Commission (PGC) Bureau of Wildlife Management’s final research report file. The following abstract was published in his thesis.

Estimates of survival and cause-specific mortality of white-tailed deer fawns are important to population management, but are unknown for Pennsylvania. Sources of fawn mortality likely include predation, other natural causes excluding predation, legal harvest, poaching, collisions with vehicles and farm machinery, and accidents. However, in what proportions fawns die from these causes is unknown in Pennsylvania. Habitat type, extent, and arrangement can influence predator and prey communities and their interactions, and therefore also might influence fawn survival. However, influence of habitat characteristics on fawn survival has not been investigated. Therefore, I quantified cause-specific mortality, survival rates, and habitat characteristics related to survival of white-tailed deer fawns in a forested landscape (QWA) in northern central Pennsylvania with presumed poor habitat condition and greater predator density, and a separate, agricultural landscape (PV) in central Pennsylvania with presumed better habitat condition and lesser predator density. Using foot searches in PV and vehicles searches in QWA, I captured neonatal fawns in May and June 2000 and 2001. Fawns were fitted with expandable, releasable radiocollars designed to transmit for 9 months. I monitored fawns at least weekly from capture until death, transmitter or collar failure, or the end of the study. I developed 13 models of fawn survival and used Akaike’s Information Criteria (AIC) and the known fates procedure in computer program MARK to model survival through 9 weeks. I created circular buffer areas corresponding to the median areas of study-site- and year-specific 95% fixed-kernel home ranges for fawns at 9 weeks after capture and centered these buffer areas on the median location for each fawn. Using a geographic information system, I calculated edge density, road density, proportion of buffer area in annual and perennial herbaceous land cover, and habitat patch diversity within fawn buffer areas. I used logistic regression models and AIC to evaluate the relation between these 4 habitat characteristics and fawn survival. I captured 110 fawns in PV and 108 fawns in QWA. In the best (AIC = 0) logistic regression model, only study site and fawn mass at capture were related to fawn survival, with fawns in PV and heavier fawns more likely to survive. None of the 4 metrics of habitat composition and configuration was related to fawn survival. Of known-fate models, the best (AICc = 0, AICc weight = 95.0%) model suggested fawn survival differed between QWA and PV through time.
Survival at one week post-capture was 83% in PV (82.7%, 95% CI = 74.5–88.7%) and in QWA (83.3%, 95% CI = 75.1–89.2%). Survival at 9 weeks after capture was 72.4% (95% CI = 63.3–80.0%) in PV and 57.2% (95% CI = 47.5–66.3%) in QWA. Survival at 26 weeks after capture was 58.6% (95% CI = 48.8–67.7%) in PV and 45.6% (95% CI = 36.0–55.6%) in QWA. Thirty-four-week survival was 52.9% (95% CI = 42.7–62.8%) in PV and 37.9% (95% CI = 27.7%–49.3%) in QWA. Within 34 weeks of capture, 106 of 218 monitored fawns died and 21 were censored. Of 98 fawns radio-tagged in 2000, 51 died within 34 weeks of capture and 7 were censored. Of 120 fawns radio-tagged in 2001, 55 died within 34 weeks of capture and 14 were censored. For both study sites combined, predation was the greatest source of mortality, accounting for deaths of 22.5% (95% CI = 17.6–28.8) of captured fawns and 46.2% (95% CI = 37.6–56.7) of mortalities through 34 weeks. Natural causes, excluding predation, were the second leading cause of death, accounting for deaths of 13.3% (95% CI = 9.5–18.6) of captured fawns and 27.4% (95% CI = 20.1–37.3) of mortalities. Vehicle accidents accounted for deaths of 9 fawns. Hunting accounted for deaths of 7 monitored fawns. Predation rates were greater in QWA, where 83.7% of predation events occurred. Mortality rates from other sources of mortality did not differ between QWA and PV, but 62.1% of deaths by natural causes, excluding predation, occurred in PV. I attributed 32.7% and 36.7% of predation events to black bears and coyotes respectively. Bobcats and unidentified predators accounted for 6.1% and 24.5% of predation events, respectively. White-tailed deer fawn survival in a forested and an agricultural landscape in central Pennsylvania is comparable to fawn survival in other forested and agricultural regions in northern portions of the white-tailed deer’s range. Fawn survival may be greater in agricultural landscapes where habitat quality is presumed greater and predator densities may be less than in forested landscapes where habitat condition may be poorer and predators may be more abundant. However, the influence of landscape condition on fawn survival requires further study with replicate landscapes over larger geographic scales. Mortality from predation and other natural causes, excluding predation, are the dominant sources of mortality to fawns in Pennsylvania. In heavily forested regions in Pennsylvania where black bear densities are great, black bears may be at least as efficient predators of fawns as are coyotes. Collisions with vehicles and farm machinery, hunting and other legal means of take, poaching, and accidents play a comparatively minor role in fawn survival in Pennsylvania. I detected no relation between fawn survival and habitat characteristics at home-range scales. However, landscape ecology likely plays an important role in fawn survival both directly through habitat type and arrangement, and indirectly by influencing predator distribution and activity. Future studies of fawn survival should consider the landscape context through replicated studies of the effect of landscape composition and configuration on fawn survival.

post edited by Dr. Trout - 2010/02/02 10:11:46

The original reason for the record books was to help determine overall deer health

Now that is priceless.....

I thought it was to make a list of big bucks that guys wanted to share and brag about ?????
 
I agree the boone & Crockett club does work for conservation and deer management plans as this from their website states.. but I do not agree that herd health was the main reason for the record book...
 

BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB AND CONSERVATION

To waste, to destroy our natural resources, to skin and exhaust the land instead of using it so as to increase it's usefulness, will result in undermining in the days of our children the very prosperity which we ought by right to hand down to them amplified and developed.
-----
Theodore Roosevelt
Message to Congress, December 1907

---

The history of the Boone and Crockett Club has a history of over 100 years of measured and thoughtful commitment to conservation. It is a commitment that balances human needs with wildlife needs; a commitment that sees deep value in preserving the hunting tradition, as well as in conserving wildlands and wildlife; a commitment that grows out of a powerful love of wildlife, but that is also shaped by a common-sense, business-like approach to managing natural resources.
The future of diverse and sustainable wildlife populations and of the wildland on which they depend are in jeopardy due to increasing competition for natural resources on public and private lands. Although some populations of wildlife species are at recent highs, the pressures on wildlife and wildlife habitat due to the development of private lands are growing.
Setting aside lands for conservation, a “cutting edge” practice in the 1800’s, served a critical role in securing a future for wildlife in this country.
The future for wildlife and natural resource conservation now rests with private citizens who own and work the land. By 2050, the human population of the United States alone, is projected to increase by 40 percent to 340 million. Thus, the threats to wildlife habitats we see today: increased human population, division of large ranches into “ranchettes” with no conservation considerations, intense demands on resources, the growing recreational demands of a society craving the “outdoor experience,” and government policies that at times appear to be in conflict, will cause our conservation system to “break down” unless action is taken.
It is critical to the viability of ecosystems, especially those in the West, that we:

• Develop technology, research, and incentives to understand and promote sound natural resource conservation practices;
  
• Educate all segments of society (from hunters to hikers) of their opportunities and responsibilities regarding natural resources;
  
• Demonstrate and practice sound and sustainable land management.

Today, the Club continues its 117 year-old commitment to hunters, conservation, and our natural wildlife resources. In August of 2000 the Club was instrumental in organizing an historical conservation summit that has already proven to have a profound effect on the future of wildlife. This landmark meeting resulted in the foundation of the American Wildlife Conservation Partners (AWCP) – a coalition of 35 wildlife organizations representing more than 4.5 million hunter/conservationists. The AWCP was formed for the purpose of building unity, identifying key wildlife issues, and developing a vision for wildlife in the 21st century and beyond. The Boone and Crockett Club was instrumental in the development of "Wildlife for the 21st Century." This document, which represents a general agreement of the American Wildlife Conservation Partners, was later presented to President George Bush.

In 2001 the Club helped form the CWD Alliance with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Mule Deer Foundation to address the growing concern over Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). As part of the Club’s commitment to communication, up-to-date information on CWD can be found on the CWD Alliance web site.

Most recently, the Club launched the "Boone and Crockett Conservationist" campaign, designed to continue the Club’s conservation legacy of defining, teaching and advocating the rules and policies of conservation, education, hunter and conservation ethics and big game records keeping and recognition. This tax-deductible program funds the Boone and Crockett Club endowed chair in wildlife conservation (Boone and Crockett Professor of Wildlife Conservation) at the University of Montana, its Grants In Aid program (research grants to university graduate students throughout the US and Canada) and the Club’s K-12 Conservation Education Program.
The Club’s remarkable history of quiet and effective activism uniquely qualifies it to address current and future challenges facing the next century of conservation. We are committed to an innovative, forward-thinking program of conservation research, education, and public service that embodies and continues to build on the Club’s unique heritage.

Bragging about big bucks has nothing to do with it. Big bucks can only happen in a healthy deer herd and the club was formed to help create a healthy deer/wildlife herd. Measuring antler growth is a recgonized way to determine a healthy herd( even by our own PGC)

2010 CALL FOR APPLICATIONS
studies ON WILDLIFE DISEASES AFFECTING THE CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF BIG GAME SPECIES

Supporting the development of new knowledge is an important element of the Boone and Crockett Club’s mission.

The Boone and Crockett’s Conservation Research Grants Program, supported by endowments honoring conservation leaders William I. Spencer and Tim Hixon, contributes to this goal by assisting research projects and graduate students who have chosen careers in the wildlife profession. The Club’s tradition of providing research grants dates back to 1948. The Boone and Crockett Club was founded by Theodore Roosevelt in 1887 for the primary purposes of halting the decline of North American big game populations and conserving their habitats.

Accordingly, proposed investigations must generally be concerned with native North American big game and/or their habitat relationships. In most recent years, the Club has selected a high-priority research theme and invited proposals from universities in the U.S. and Canada that have graduate programs in wildlife science or management.


The Club’s hunter conservation effort has expanded to include the concept of ecosystem health, of which a vital part is animal and human health. A research theme of wildlife health commences in 2010 to support investigations on wildlife diseases that adversely affect ecosystems, the hunting community, or the management of big game populations. Examples include chronic wasting disease, bovine tuberculosis, and bovine brucellosis, all which have health concerns for humans or domestic animals and pose significant challenges for the management of big game species.

Big bucks can only happen in a healthy deer herd and the club was formed to help create a healthy deer/wildlife herd

 
So you are now saying it does NOT have anything to do with ARs ??????
 
In the past on my message board you have always argued that the lack of big Pa record buck since 2002 meant that antler restrictions were not working....
 
now you post something that supports what I have been saying for 8 years... it's not all about antler restrictions.. it's about herd health ????????????????????  ----
 
see anyone can eventually see the "light "
 
 
to get record book buck you need 3 things   ---
 
#1... good habitat to support healthy bucks and a healthy herd in general
 
#2...  age.. older bucks have larger antlers.. this is where ARs help...
 
#3.. I'll add this for those that put alot of faith in genes  ... good gentics for antler growth..
 
 

Doc wrote--#2... age.. older bucks have larger antlers.. this is where ARs help...

Your twisting my words Doc=== What I have been saying right along is that HR/AR "IS NOT" creating the larger antlered deer that Alt claimed it would. The record books prove that since the two years of highest buck kill 2000/2001 (BEFORE AR/HR) also saw the highest number of record book bucks. Even your buddy Kip of the QDMA admits there is some concern over shooting off the better 1-1/2 year olds leading to smaller deer. The only reason it was introduced is it is easier to implement than the other alternatives. I guess since you admitedly don't care about shooting a buck you wouldn't be concerned about antler growth or trends, or the meaning of the record books but the majority of deer hunters do and follow these things very closely. To each his own I guess.

Since you brought it up here is EXACTLY what KIP thinks... and BTW ...I do have his permission to post this article here directly without a link....

Protecting Yearling Bucks (February 2006)

By: Kip Adams
Many hunters unfamiliar with Quality Deer Management (QDM) incorrectly assume QDM is only about large-antlered bucks. Many also feel antler point restrictions (APRs) are synonymous with QDM. Pieces from both of these beliefs can be parts of QDM programs but QDM is about much more than just antlers or APRs.

In simplest terms QDM involves balancing the deer herd with the habitat and having deer - bucks and does - in multiple age classes. Determining and achieving the right number of deer for the habitat is a topic for another discussion and this article will focus on multiple age classes of deer. Most areas have a good age structure for the doe population as it is common for hunters to harvest does 1.5-6.5+yrs. This age structure exists because of traditional deer management practices where hunters focused much of their harvest pressure on bucks and allowed does to survive and fill multiple age classes.

Very few places have this same age structure for the buck population. Typical buck populations include a high percentage (60-80%) of yearlings, a small percentage (10-30%) of 2.5yr olds, an even smaller percentage (5-10%) of 3.5yr olds and almost no 4.5+yr olds. This young age structure is a direct result of harvest pressure by hunters. In the not-too-distant past most hunters focused intense pressure on yearling bucks and removed the majority of that age class. In historical Pennsylvania for example, hunters routinely removed over 80% of the yearling age class on an annual basis! With that removal rate, less than 1% of Pennsylvania’s bucks ever reached maturity.

Quality Deer Management helps correct this imbalance by protecting young bucks and allowing them to survive into the older age classes. Quality Deer Management isn’t about protecting bucks until they are 5.5yrs old - that’s trophy management. Quality Deer Management, in simplest terms is about protecting yearling bucks. Yearling bucks are the easiest adult deer to harvest, but if hunters pass them and allow them to reach 2.5yrs, they become a little smarter and some will avoid hunters and reach 3.5yrs. Some of those will then avoid hunters and reach 4.5yrs, etc. Pretty soon you end up with a deer population that has bucks in multiple age classes even while allowing bucks 2.5yrs and older to be harvested. A complete age structure is good for deer and great for hunters.

The big question then is what is the best way to protect yearling bucks?

There are several techniques to protect yearlings and they all have advantages and disadvantages. Antler point restrictions are a common technique and they involve establishing a minimum number of points a buck must possess to be eligible for harvest. This minimum number should be established with the aid of a biologist and with local harvest data. Advantages of APRs include they are simple and are easy for state agencies to enforce.

The disadvantage of APRs is the number of antler points is a poor predictor of animal age. Yearling bucks can have a rack ranging from short spikes to 10+ points. 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.



Managers may unintentionally focus harvest pressure on yearlings with larger racks or protect older age classes. However, because of APRs simplicity and enforceability, they are the most common buck harvest restriction discussed and implemented by state agencies.

Antler width restrictions are another technique and they involve establishing a minimum width of antler spread a buck possess have to be eligible for harvest. Again, this width should be established with the aid of a biologist and from local harvest data. The premise of a width restriction is few yearling bucks attain an outside antler spread of more than 15-16 inches. Hunters can estimate a buck’s antler spread by viewing where the antlers are in relation to an animal’s forward pointed ears. Ear tip to tip distance is approximately 15-16 inches for northern deer and slightly less for southern deer. Therefore, if a buck’s antlers are as wide as or wider than his ears, there is a good chance he is at least 2.5yrs. The advantage of a width restriction is it is a much better predictor of whether a buck is 1.5 or 2.5+yrs and therefore can do a better job protecting yearlings. Disadvantages of a width restriction include it is slightly more difficult to determine the legal status of a buck in the wild (vs. APR), it can be more difficult for state agencies to enforce, and some mature bucks can have tall, narrow racks that are less than 16 inches wide. A width restriction is more biologically sound than an APR and therefore is commonly used on private lands where managers have more control over the deer management program.

A third technique is age restrictions based on body characteristics. This technique involves establishing the age classes available for harvest (2.5+yrs for this discussion), and hunters then use body – not antler – characteristics to determine eligible bucks. Distinguishable body changes occur as deer progress through age classes and this technique requires hunters to be skilled in identifying those changes. The advantage of this technique is it is an excellent predictor of animal age and therefore you can either target or protect multiple age classes of bucks. The disadvantage of this technique is it requires time and practice for hunters to learn the body characteristics of each age class and be able to accurately estimate the age of live bucks in the wild. This technique is currently practiced on some of the most intensively managed properties throughout the country and is the future of deer management for many hunters. This technique is a lot of fun and is very rewarding for true whitetail enthusiasts. Age restrictions are by far the most biologically sound approach and are therefore used for the majority of intensive management programs. Due to the skill involved and practice required by hunters this approach is most commonly used by private land managers and unfortunately is rarely even discussed by state agencies.

Two final techniques are “earn-a-buck” programs and buck harvest quotas. Both of these programs restrict the number of bucks that get harvested rather than the age of bucks that get harvested. Earn-a-buck programs are typically used in areas of high deer density where managers must force hunters to remove additional antlerless deer. The premise of this technique is a hunter must harvest an antlerless deer to receive (or validate) his/her buck tag. A hunter that doesn’t help the management program by harvesting a doe is not permitted to shoot a buck. This technique protects some bucks because not all hunters will have the opportunity to harvest a buck after harvesting an antlerless deer. Buck harvest quotas are similar to what most states currently use to limit the antlerless harvest. With this technique, managers issue a limited number of buck tags and thus some bucks are protected because not all hunters receive a tag.

There are many ways to protect numbers or specific age classes of bucks. No technique is perfect but they all have advantages. The challenge is to educate hunters on the benefits and limitations of each and achieve broad-based support for the selected technique. Hunter support is crucial and it can take a management program to the next level or dump it in the gutter. In general, the most biologically sound techniques provide the most benefits but all of the techniques can improve a deer management program when applied correctly.

So, is QDM just about large-antlered bucks and are APRs synonymous with QDM? The first answer is obviously “no”. Quality Deer Management is about balancing the deer herd with the habitat and having bucks and does in multiple age classes. You end up with larger bucks because they are a byproduct of good deer management. The second answer is also “no”; APRs are merely one technique to get bucks into multiple age classes. Antler point restrictions are not the most biologically sound approach, but as Pennsylvania and other states have shown, they can be effective when applied correctly.

NOW as to what S-10 wrote..

Even your buddy Kip of the QDMA admits there is some concern over shooting off the better 1-1/2 year olds leading to smaller deer

note how once again S-10 added something that was NOT in the article... it's something he "thought" was in there...

""shooting off the better 1-1/2 year olds leading to smaller deer""  that appears NOWHERE in that article and is not  Kip's feelings...

OKAY..

I'll play your game one more time....

I would not have psoted what I did if I did not know it to be true...


BUT ---------------------

E-mail sent ... get ready to be WRONG

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
 

Kip ----

meantime.. again.. I see nothing about leading to smaller deer ??????

point that sentence out to me PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE ??????????????

WF.. good question, here's an article that talks about age structure and some of what it is all about..

How about we discuss the importance of age structure amongst the population of bucks and the role the older bucks play in a deer population.


Does it all starts with the bucks?
 
Have you ever wondered what goes on in bachelor groups of bucks during the long summer months? While I do spend a fair amount of time watching them, I would love nothing more than to spend an entire summer or four day in day out watching one group of bucks interact, establish a dominance hierarchy among themselves, and learn new and undocumented behaviors; what a great summer job. A close friend and partner theorizes that during this time the younger bucks are learning form the older bucks how to be bucks. This might sound kind of silly but there is likely some truth to this theory. Much like the males in the human population there is a great deal of learning and maturing gleaned from the younger bucks observing older males. They learn what to eat, where to water, where to hide, how to act, how to treat the ladies and generally just how to be a buck. Without a doubt, these type of learned behaviors are crucial and key to the survival of the species.

So just what is a mature buck? How do we know they are there?

Some biologist may classify and tell you a mature buck is a 2 year old buck. This is mainly because this buck is sexually mature. All this really means is that its testicles have dropped and it can produce viable sperm. However, a buck really doesn’t become ‘mature’ until he’s somewhere around 5 years old. Not only are many physical characteristics of the buck fully developed but the buck has had time to grow and mature and knows how to be a buck. The question now is, are we losing some of these important learned behaviors because we don’t have the mature bucks we once had?


So what does all this mean?
 
The natural history of cervids dictates that the females will select and breed with the dominant mature male. Generally, this is determined by body and or antler size. This selection takes place during what we call ‘the rut’. The rut of deer, in most states peaks around the third/forth week in November. Mating with a mature buck should ensure a strong "’fit’ offspring and builds a healthy population. At least that’s the theory.
Unfortunately with the declines of deer , there aren’t too many places where you find ‘mature’ bucks doing the bulk of the breeding.

Habitat fragmentation, highways and roads and urban sprawl have isolated and fragmented traditional winter ranges and breeding grounds. With these groups of does scattered hinder and yawn, it’s next to impossible for one or two mature bucks to breed 30 does let alone 100 or more. What is more typical in many of our herds is the two and three year old deer or even yearlings are doing the majority of the breeding.
Are they capable of doing so? They are.
The genes are still there, it can’t be bad for the population, right? Well, it might be and here’s why.
 
Could it all start with the Does?
 
A doe likely won’t breed with a scrawny pencil neck buck during her first estrus cycle. However, if she is still ‘fit’ she will come into estrus again 3-4 weeks later. Now, she may just decide that pencil neck is better than nothing if Goliath is still absent. This really isn’t helping our deer herds.

The gestation period of a doe is 200 days give or take a week or so. Given that, lets do some math I know it hurts but it’s simple.

Lets say doe ‘A’ is bred on November 18th, given a 200 day gestation, the fawn should hit the ground right around the 30th of May. Doe ‘B’ is bred on December 23rd (her second cycle) given the same gestation period, the fawn hits the ground on Independence day. Does anyone see what is happening here? Fawns born in May/June are likely to weigh more, be more ‘fit’, and better to withstand predation and make it through a bad winter than those born in July/August.

These fawns go into the winter being less ‘fit’, weighing less, making them more susceptible to disease, predation, and extremes in weather. Which can lead to higher fawn mortality, less recruitment into the population and lower doe to fawn ratios?

Ask yourself when the last time you saw a fawn with its spots still in late August/September. This really shouldn’t be happening if all the does were bred in late November early December, but I see it with more and more frequency.
 
Could we a part of the problem, does it start with us?
 
This is a tough question. It’s a biological, social, and economic issue. What are we to do? For starters, we just can’t continue to manage for quantity during these times of famine. Maximum sustained yield goes out the door with extremes in weather. One solution might be to manage for quality rather than quantity; another might be to simply reduce the number of tags sold and reduce harvest. Obviously this presents a few problems. Who is going to be the first to give up their tag for a year or three? . Ask your state agencies how much money they can live without.
 
In summary, I don’t think we can continue to allow our immature bucks to do most of the breeding. We need those mature males in the population. We need ‘fit’ healthy fawns to make it through the dry summers and the cold wet winters. We can’t be harvesting 70-80% of our yearling bucks during these harsh times and expect things to recover over night or from year to year. We must manage for an even age distribution of bucks in the population through restrictions and reductions. It’s important for us to realize this. We as hunters just can’t continue to kill anything that has antlers and expect our deer population to increase. I’m not saying we all need to be trophy hunters either. But just maybe we don’t have to kill a deer every year to be a real hunter
 
 
 
 

QUOTE-These fawns go into the winter being less ‘fit’, weighing less, making them more susceptible to disease, predation, and extremes in weather. Which can lead to higher fawn mortality, less recruitment into the population and lower doe to fawn ratios? END QUOTE


And yet knowing this the PGC and Alt told us to target the mature does and leave the younger does alone assuring that more of them would be available to breed later in the year which causes all the above to happen. Go figure.

And yet knowing this the PGC and Alt told us to target the mature does and leave the younger does alone assuring that more of them would be available to breed later in the year

I was with ya on this until the last part.... 

I do not remember him saying anything about breeding fawns later in the year.. ?????

I seem to rememebr the "target mature does" used to show how two weeks to pick and choose may save more BUTTON BUCKS .. not female fawns...
 

Dec 15, 2003 ... "In areas where deer populations need to be reduced, we need to shoot adult does and lay off the button bucks," Alt stressed. "Be selective. ...

ORIGINAL: Dr. Trout

I seem to rememebr the "target mature does" used to show how two weeks to pick and choose may save more BUTTON BUCKS .. not female fawns...

Target mature does = kill 3 deer with one shot.

Can't hide/excuse that line of reasoning with HR no matter how hard you try.

Also I don't think the does ask for age I.D. of the buck chasing them. A 2.5 year old buck can be mighty impressive.And in my neck of the woods, most does are sluts, come one come all .....WF

Is anyone starting to think that perhaps Alt was just "winging" the biology part of this whole deer thing?  There seems to be so many inconsistencies.
 
Bears eat fawns?
 
 
Really?