2014 Deer Hunting Info From the Wildlife Biologist

[DaveGray]

As requested, the following message is posted.

As most of you know, all of the bucks have been harvested on base for 2014, but we still have 66 does available for harvest. Although we understand that some hunters prefer to harvest bucks, doe harvest is also necessary to maintain a healthy mule deer herd. We believe we are on the right track, but continued rates of low doe harvest will have negative effects on our mule deer population. Our objectives follow:

Balance the sex ratio.

Distorted adult sex ratios are common under traditional management programs featuring heavy buck harvests and inadequate doe harvests. Fawns are born in approximately equal sex ratios, and our ability to maintain natural sex ratios is through our antlerless harvest. Bucks have higher natural mortality rates because risks associated fighting, post-rut stress, larger home ranges, and other factors, increase their probability of dying. As a result, sex ratios will eventually slightly favor does in unexploited populations. However, overharvest of bucks by hunters can disrupt naturally structured sex ratios. This was the case with mule deer on VAFB in which overharvest of bucks skewed the sex ratio to favor does 7:1 over bucks. Essentially, there are too many does for bucks to service and this lowers fawn recruitment. Our “target” is a ratio of about 1 buck to 3 does.

Make room for and improve the quality of young bucks. Increase reproductive success and fawn recruitment.

Bucks consume about 1½ times the forage of a same-age doe. We have non-reproductive does taking a food source from bucks. Non-reproductive does are also taking nutrition away from reproductive does; more food should result in higher fawn recruitment.

Reduce the harvest pressure on young bucks and provide additional hunting opportunities.

Harvesting a doe early in the season helps relieve the “pressure” on both the hunter and the young bucks in the area. Although we’re no longer “early in the season,” doe harvest in the next few weeks will still help.

Provide reproduction data.

Pregnant does provide valuable reproduction data. Such data typically includes evidence of lactation (“in milk”) and the presence of fetuses. Lactation data provides evidence that the doe produced one or more fawns from the previous year, while fetal information provides evidence of breeding during the year of harvest. Lactation data is especially useful on yearling does, because this provides evidence they bred as fawns — an indication of a healthy herd.

Reduce dispersal of young bucks.

Active doe harvests reduce the average home range of young bucks, and the percentage of yearling bucks that disperse from their birth areas. This will result in more bucks staying close to home instead of dispersing the typical one-five mile range found in most studies.

Thank you,

30 CES/CEI Installation Management Flight

 

[Phil80]

Any chance more tags will be sold if the doe harvest stays low into November?

 

[DAQ80]

I know they usually extend the season out longer, anyone know if that's the plan this year?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bubblehide]

Dave, I appreciate the information and see how it can be extrapolated to other herds. I also get how mature intended a ratio close to 50%. However, these statements are a bit incorrect: "However, overharvest of bucks by hunters can disrupt naturally structured sex ratios." and "Distorted adult sex ratios are common under traditional management programs featuring heavy buck harvests and inadequate doe harvests."

We as hunters do not set the quota; we simply abide by what is set for us. So in short, we are incapable of over harvest as stated. In the spirit of being fair, in most zones in the state, biologists such as yourself, do not set doe harvests, in most zones. The counties that practice veto of doe harvest are responsible for the imbalance of our herd ratios. As such, the blame should consistently fall where it belongs. Those traditional management programs have been doomed with county veto rights. The answer is simple, our wildlife management needs to be conducted in a responsible sustainable manner that leaves emotion, politics, and voters out of it's management.

It is good to see that work is being done on VAFB to restore the ratio to as close to what nature intended. A 1/3 ratio is a lofty but attainable goal, and with control over doe harvest, along with hunter participation, I am sure you will attain this goal.

"Bucks consume about 1½ times the forage of a same-age doe."
I presume that this is due to their larger home ranges and breeding activities, which translate into expending more energy, thus the need for more food?

"We have non-reproductive does taking a food source from bucks. Non-reproductive does are also taking nutrition away from reproductive does; more food should result in higher fawn recruitment."
I assume the suggestion here is that doe hunters attempt to harvest non-reproductive does. How do we as hunters identify non-reproductive does?

"Active doe harvests reduce the average home range of young bucks, and the percentage of yearling bucks that disperse from their birth areas. This will result in more bucks staying close to home instead of dispersing the typical one-five mile range found in most studies."
This is an interesting one to me. I would like to know much more about why. I presume that the decreased pressure on young bucks allows them to feel more at ease, more confident, in their smaller home territory. While increased pressure causes a need to find more isolated, secure places, thus increasing the size of their home range?

"Essentially, there are too many does for bucks to service and this lowers fawn recruitment."
How does this lower fawn recruitment?
I brought up a study done years ago on white tail, they concluded that a skewed ratio favoring does resulted in decreased breeding. I concluded that this studies results extrapolate to our herds here, correctly or not, I assume it does. I also conclude that having an over abundance of does reduces the typical aggressive breeding behaviors in our bucks. In short, when there are more does in estrus than a buck can handle, the buck has no need expend energies on those aggressive behaviors. From your experience and knowledge, what are your thoughts?

 

[DaveGray]

I will be forwarding all questions/comments to the Wildlife Biologit on Monday morning, 29 Sep. They cannot respond directly. So, it will take some time. I'm a go between.

 

[ltdann]

I imagine most of those statements are directed to the Vandenberg herd, specifically.

 

[RUGAME]

What was the average age of the bucks killed this year ? from what I saw I would say 2yr old little forks / fork spikes should of went to 3 point or better for the base

 

[Badger's HuntressC]

Thank you Dave for the post from 30 CES. Volumes can and have been written on game management and the tools that can be utilized for said management of deer herds. The only management tool utilized on Vandenberg in my humble estimation is us the hunters. We do not have intentional food plots or burns or guzzlers (really important during drought!) nor any other forms of management left other than manipulation of the hunters as to where we can and cannot hunt and how many deer we are allowed to harvest.

So at these most stressful of times in terms of overall herd strength and quality, we hunters were given the opportunity (or task) to harvest a finite number of does and bucks. The buck quota was met just recently but the doe harvest remains at about 60 left? the last time I checked. The biologists set the last day of season as October 4th (again, always check my statements with Conservation and CES) with no extension proposed at this time.

I know all the tags were sold , yet the doe part of the quota is at a virtual standstill in terms of hunters harvest. It seemed as though the hunting momentum was lost at the same time the last buck quota was met?! A very real possibility if I am reading the CES post properly is that there will be no buck quota next year and only a doe hunt proposed. If the ratio is so skewed and the doe numbers are way out of proportion to the bucks, then the thought appears to be that what does are not harvested this season will be a potential factor in a doe only quota next season? Not sure but I have a feeling....

Is that a bad thing? No, not when we are missing what appears to be generations of mature bucks covering the does during the rut. I shot a 4 1/2 year old fork on the 16th that was hanging with a 3x3 and 11 does. It was perfectly awesome that the larger mature 3x3 got away clean with the does and I shot the slow one because it means the 3x can hopefully spread his genetics undisturbed. What is troubling is that it is a rare sight to see any decent bucks covering a harem. It is more common to see young bucks chasing the does without the usual challenge from an older more mature buck. We are trying to spot as often as possible on north and south base to get a better idea of what is actually going on with the herd in general, but it is tough out there.

The CES post is very specific about the benefits of harvesting the does to attempt a 1:3 ratio of bucks to does. It would be great if we could pick out a dry (non productive) doe vs a good healthy breeding doe that lost her fawn or fawns to predation or other means.
Very hard to distinguish a dry doe vs a breeding doe. I do know the heaviest harvested deer was a 128 lb doe. In days gone by the heavier does were usually without fawns so they were not so thin like a momma with suckling fawns.

Can the quality of the herd ever be brought back to days gone by? I wish I knew. Will harvesting more does than bucks when the total number of deer base wide is down help? You tell me...

As a management tool (hunter) I still will go back to the days of old as my reference for what worked for many years on base. A short six week season (zone A) that ended before the rut really got going and you had the choice of two buck only tags or one buck and one doe tag (g11 was only ever for a doe hunt that started at the end of August and ended on the last day of the six week season). They only ever sold 200 doe tags and more often than not if the hunter did not always fill his buck tag he most likely filled the doe tag. The deer herd on Vandenberg was healthy and full of all ages of deer that managed to elude us on many days with the knowledge that the ones that got away would breed and continue the cycle. The herd fluctuated in numbers and quality but for the most part seemed to be stable in both ratio and over all health. It was not a precise way of managing the herd, but it sure worked for a lot of years.

A management plan is better than no plan at all, so lets hope an alleviation of over all hunting harvest and quotas will help. Wish the clock could be turned back five years but perhaps the efforts now will yield positive results.....

 

[Willies270]

I agree Badger's that since the last buck was taken the roads have been pretty quiet. We all know that these post are read by the conservation personnel, and hope they will be open minded to our suggestions. So I will give my suggestion for next season:

- Set your quota for Does and Bucks early, to allow people to decide if they will purchase tags for VAFB or draws elsewhere.

- Announce,MANDATORY that a DOE must be taken first before a buck can be taken.Conservation must keep strict record of take and compare when a animal is taken.If a hunter takes a buck before he has filled his doe tag then suspend his hunting privileges.

- Sell the set amount of G11 tags and make it doe only.

- Allow the A-zone tag for bucks.

-Only run the season for the A-zone dates.

Pretty much what you have been suggesting Monica except making it mandatory to fill the doe tags before chasing bucks. Allowing the A-zone hopefully keeps people from hoarding G11 tags that will never be used.

 

[Hikingwithguns]

I'm sure you could find plenty of general public volunteers who would gladly whack a doe... :wavin hello:

 

[Hikingwithguns]

"We have non-reproductive does taking a food source from bucks. Non-reproductive does are also taking nutrition away from reproductive does; more food should result in higher fawn recruitment."
I assume the suggestion here is that doe hunters attempt to harvest non-reproductive does. How do we as hunters identify non-reproductive does?

"Essentially, there are too many does for bucks to service and this lowers fawn recruitment."
How does this lower fawn recruitment?

I think the idea here is to lower the number of does so that all of them can be bred the next year. More of them are bred and since more food is available more of the fawns survive. I have also read that doe harvest reduces the overall age of does so that more of them are fertile. All of this can take a while to have positive effects on the herd.

Just some guesses based on random readings.

Edit: I will also note that guzzlers and burns (prescribed and accidental) are abundant at FHL. There is some doe harvest as well. The deer herd is doing fairly well there all things considered.

 

[DaveGray]

Attention!!!!!
The G11 season has been extended through 13 October 2014.

 

[RUGAME]

I think the best way is 2015 doe only let the bucks have a year

 

[RUGAME]

off sorry

 

[Hikingwithguns]

From another thread :thumbs up2:

I continuously hear the same two arguments regarding
anterless hunting: (1) You can’t tell how old a
doe is just by looking at her so how can you be sure
you’re removing the older ones?; and (2) If you harvest
does how can you expect to get more fawns? My standard
answers are as follows: (1) That’s true, you can’t
tell how old a doe is just by looking. However, since so
many of them are of an older age class it doesn’t really
matter. You will remove them from the population in the
proportion they occur; and (2) In the short run, you may
not get more fawns by killing does. In the long run, a
younger class of does means more productivity. Also,
fawn survival would likely be increased due to decreased
competition for resources. Since fawns are born at pretty
close to a 50:50 male to female ratio there is a 50 percent
chance of replacing that doe with a buck.

Craig Stowers is a Senior Wildlife Biologist
and statewide coordinator of the DFG’s
deer program.

 

[weekender21]

And how to prevent the mass killing of button bucks....hmmmm

 

[DAQ80]

I heard the biologist left. Something to do with her not being able to make the changes she wanted to due to "politics" on VAFB.

Anyone else hear anything about it? Wonder what this will mean for the deer season next year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hikingwithguns]

And how to prevent the mass killing of button bucks....hmmmm

No offense, but sometimes hunters seem to be willfully ignorant. One of the biggest groups that opposes doe hunts are hunters. Its like shooting ourselves in the foot, and we seem to do that repeatedly. Plenty of papers out there on why antlerless hunts work.

 

[weekender21]

No offense, but sometimes hunters seem to be willfully ignorant. One of the biggest groups that opposes doe hunts are hunters. Its like shooting ourselves in the foot, and we seem to do that repeatedly. Plenty of papers out there on why antlerless hunts work.

No offense taken, but only because I don't oppose doe hunts and am therefore not willfully ignorant. I've taken part in the VAFB antler-less hunt for years and have taken several with my bow.

However, in your attempt to offend you didn't answer my perfectly legitimate question...Do you have an answer? If not, no offense.

For starters, the overwhelming majority of antler-less harvest studies (papers) have been conducted on Whitetail deer herds. It's possible that in certain circumstances with over populated mule deer herds the same management tools could be implemented. I'm not a biologist and do not pretend to be but I've observed a rapidly declining herd at VAFB since about 2008. In my humble opinion, the herd was quite healthy with not great but good buck to doe ratios until that time.

Now back to my initial question. How would you stop the mass killing of button bucks on VAFB???

The majority of hunters on base are commuting from other parts of the state. They (we) come a LONG way to fill their freezers. The dynamics of the hunters on base is very diverse. Some (Badger's HuntressC comes to mind) that spend hours and hours glassing deer before pulling the trigger and others that don't. I've seen WAY too many hunters jump out of trucks and unload every weapon at deer 600 yards away. The first time I heard the term "If it's brown it's down" was on VAFB.
Doe harvest's on base could possible make a difference but please keep in mind that in the state of CA we don't have doe hunts, we have antler-less hunts. Button bucks and spikes (under 3") WILL BE KILLED accidentally and on purpose (because it's legal).

 

[Hikingwithguns]

No offense taken, but only because I don't oppose doe hunts and am therefore not willfully ignorant. I've taken part in the VAFB antler-less hunt for years and have taken several with my bow.

However, in your attempt to offend you didn't answer my perfectly legitimate question...Do you have an answer? If not, no offense.

For starters, the overwhelming majority of antler-less harvest studies (papers) have been conducted on Whitetail deer herds. It's possible that in certain circumstances with over populated mule deer herds the same management tools could be implemented. I'm not a biologist and do not pretend to be but I've observed a rapidly declining herd at VAFB since about 2008. In my humble opinion, the herd was quite healthy with not great but good buck to doe ratios until that time.

Now back to my initial question. How would you stop the mass killing of button bucks on VAFB???

The majority of hunters on base are commuting from other parts of the state. They (we) come a LONG way to fill their freezers. The dynamics of the hunters on base is very diverse. Some (Badger's HuntressC comes to mind) that spend hours and hours glassing deer before pulling the trigger and others that don't. I've seen WAY too many hunters jump out of trucks and unload every weapon at deer 600 yards away. The first time I heard the term "If it's brown it's down" was on VAFB.
Doe harvest's on base could possible make a difference but please keep in mind that in the state of CA we don't have doe hunts, we have antler-less hunts. Button bucks and spikes (under 3") WILL BE KILLED accidentally and on purpose (because it's legal).

Understandable. As far as button bucks, implement a rule to say that button bucks and spikes under 3" will result in revocation of VAFB privileges for 5 years. Yes they would get to keep the deer but I think it might help...

I would love to see more mule/blacktail studies. I think the grasslands population of deer in central cali would make for some great studies, and I think there may be some efforts underway there already.

Any truth to the rumor of the biologist leaving?