Killing Does

SpinninYote · Dec 10, 2011

LAST EDITED ON Dec-10-11 AT 11:36PM (MST)[p]
Now I have read these forums a long time, don't post much, and I don't claim to know the solution to Utah's deer problems, but I do know that statistics don't lie. I have read the posts about killing does and the "one doe" thread and I was curious about the effect of killing does when speaking about the whole herd, not just one deer. So out of curiosity I built a spreadsheet, obviously I had to make some rather big assumptions so take it for what its worth. I found the results interesting.

I don't know how to post a spreadsheet or a pdf file to the site so if anyone can help out the I would gladly send them the file.

Here is a try at uploading the spreadsheet as a jpeg

If you don't want to take the time to look over the spreadsheet here is what is basically entails:

It gives the population differences of two deer herds starting at 1000 does. It assumes that all surviving does breed and have an average of 1.5 fawns per year (50% being male and 50% being female). One is calculated over 15 years assuming only death by fawn mortality percentages that are provided by the DWR(40%). The other herd has a 40% fawn mortality rate as well as a 1% death of mature does. I used 1% for ease and because in most areas if a few guys kill does then it is not hard to believe that close to 1% of mature does are killed. Of course the spreadsheet is not so sophisticated to take into account for old age and other causes of death. This is the reason for why I only had it range for 15 years. The summary is that if you do not take 1% of mature does out of the herd each year, then in 15 years over 10,000 more bucks have a chance to try to survive than if that 1% of does are killed each year. Take a look if you'd like and see what you think. It is interesting at the least. I am not saying that someone who would like to kill a doe can't, or should be stoned. I'm just pointing out that the effect of such a killing is quite visible as many MMers have voiced.

Again, we wouldn't even be having this conversation if the state of our herds were more healthy.

Thanks,

P.S. I enjoy reading almost all posts on this site, even the heated threads. When people have a passion about something and have opinions that differ things are bound to get a little heated right?

ShowThemToMe · Dec 10, 2011

Thanks for the Post/Thread!

It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to figure this chit out!

We are gonna play fill in the blank game!

"If you over Hunt/Kill the Female_______________ of any Species or Herd or Flock your Future animal numbers will be way below what they should be"!

There's even a Bunch of Arm Chair/MM biologists got this figured out but the people managing Our Game Herds seem to be having trouble with it,WTH?

I'll get jumped on this one again!

I know lots of Guys around the West that Manage Herds as their Livelyhoods!

They take Damn good care of their Breeding Stock!

Without a good population of the Female Species they'd only be screwing theirselves!

"OK,I just enhanced my Odds again with the DWR of drawing that LE Tag"

Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can

BCBOY · Dec 11, 2011

LAST EDITED ON Dec-11-11 AT 08:51AM (MST)[p]I normally draw a LE doe tag every year and try to do my part for management by filling the tag and putting some very delicious meat in the freezer. My kids do the same. Up here we have limited winter range and with the warm winters we've had over the last decade or so, our herds could definately get out of control if we didn't manage the female populations. Currently province wide they have opened up a GOS on whitetail does in an effort to curb their vastly expanding numbers. Doe harvest can be a good thing if done in a proper way. The one thing you need to look at is the current carrying capacity of your winter range. I've seen the mulitude of threads over the years regarding the lack of mule deer since the haydays of the 50's and 60's blah blah blah. The question I have is do you really think your winter range is in good enough shape to support those high numbers of the past. Heck, I betcha a bunch of the past winter range ain't even there anymore due to human encorchment. Sooo, if the powers at be didn't control doe numbers, do ya think that a booming population of deer are going to survive a major winter on that poor condition shrunken winter range? Withour managing the numbers, it becomes a boom and bust situation. High numbers and then mass dieoffs. Keep the numbers lower and you won't be seeing mass swings. Just some of my thoughts.

Christian · Dec 11, 2011

Good work. However, your model doesn't account for buck mortality, low buck:doe ratios and the effect that has on fawn weights/survival.

I asked this question in the other thread but it kinda got buried.

Most hunters think Colorado is doing a good job managing deer?

How can they offer doe hunts in most units W of I-25 with far different results than Utah?

My opinion: They manage buck hunters and that makes a bigger difference than hunting a few does like Utah is currently.

The Christian

ShowThemToMe · Dec 11, 2011

Best pay attention to Colorado's Herd!

I'll place money you see Colorado G&F make some major cuts or have their Herd look like Utah's in the near future!

Hot Dog,Hot Damn,I love this Ameri-can

booner76 · Dec 11, 2011

Question about BCBOY's comment, So are you saying that the more the human population grows, the more houses we build, winter range cannot sustain the herds, so to prevent mass die offs we should control the herds so to fit the ever shrinking winter range??thus having fewer and fewer mule deer to hunt every year, decade whenever they take the census on the deer herd according to winter range available to sustain a herd?
Sounds like a clear path to eventual extinction if you ask me....but I think I agree with you that this is the way the G&f dept's are handling this.

booner.

SpinninYote · Dec 11, 2011

Christian,

I know that the model doesn't account for the deaths of bucks. I stated that in the original post. I also stated that the model strictly looks at fawn mortality in the first herd and fawn mortality + 1% mature doe death in the second herd. This model was only to show the principle of what harvesting does can do to a herd. Also, I agree that the fawn mortality would fluctuate due to many factors, but for the purpose of this post it is much simpler to use the DWR's 40% fatality rate. It is not 100% accurate, but it still paints the same picture.

It would be possible to create a model that would take into account predators, vehicles, hunter harvest, critically wounded animals, and other natural causes, disease, old age etc. In order to create a model like this one would have to make some assumptions based on research, and past events. These assumptions are where the spreadsheet would start to lose accuracy. For example, we can look at the published numbers of deer killed (and found) on Utah highways, but these numbers likely don't reflect the actual number of deer that die because of collisions (some stumble off and die away from the road). The spreadsheet I created is not nearly that sophisticated.

Doe hunting is a part of management, but it is the part that is employed when herds are at or near capacity. That is not the case for Utah's herds. As BC said, our current winter ranges don't have the capacity capable of holding our historic deer numbers, but, without a doubt, they do have the capacity capable of holding more deer than what we currently have. This in itself says our herds probably aren't in need of a doe harvest.

TheElitehornhunter · Dec 11, 2011

Michigan experimented with whitetail deer and mule deer are just as productive. In a large enclosure they placed two bucks and four does. Five years later there were 160 deer.

Do the math.

BCBOY · Dec 11, 2011

>Question about BCBOY's comment, So are
>you saying that the more
>the human population grows, the
>more houses we build, winter
>range cannot sustain the herds,
>so to prevent mass die
>offs we should control the
>herds so to fit the
>ever shrinking winter range??thus having
>fewer and fewer mule deer
>to hunt every year, decade
>whenever they take the census
>on the deer herd according
>to winter range available to
>sustain a herd?
>Sounds like a clear path to
>eventual extinction if you ask
>me....but I think I agree
>with you that this is
>the way the G&f dept's
>are handling this.
>
>
>booner.

If the winter range continues to shrink till the point there ain't nothing left, then yep, you will be looking at an eventual extinction. Healthy populations require healthy winter range. Thank God we have both up here.

progono · Dec 12, 2011

I'm not supper educated on all the math of this but every one keeps talking about the exponential loss of fawns due to killing one doe. I am not for killing does really but not totally against it but the way I look at it is maybe we should think about how many fawns one buck has the potential of producing in a year and the effect having low buck to doe ratios has on the health of the bucks. Maybe having to many bucks would create to much competition and worn out buck come winter but maybe not having enough leaves to many available does unbread. Again I think we need to look at the whole picture not just one side. I am not a biologist but maybe killing a few does out of a herd will help the total health of the heard to maximize reproduction and provide for a healthier heard.

sageadvice · Dec 12, 2011

I agree with everything Progono wrote except, ...but maybe killing a few does out of a herd will help the total health of the heard to maximize reproduction and provide for a healthier heard."

Only concern; Not if the herd is in serious trouble, hardly any deer using the available winter range, numbers way low of objective, or being hit really hard with predators and weak fawn survival numbers, i don't see how taking of ANY of the surviving or pregnant Does would help that struggling herd regardless of buck to doe ratio. I'm talking Mule Deer.

IMO, With a healthy thriving herd, playing with the numbers, like buck to doe ratios, is a nice luxury.

Joey

"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"

brutus · Dec 12, 2011

>Michigan experimented with whitetail deer and
>mule deer are just as
>productive. In a large enclosure
>they placed two bucks and
>four does. Five years later
>there were 160 deer.
>
>Do the math.

so your sayin we need 50/100 buck doe ratio and mule deer will have whitetail like numbers?

progono · Dec 13, 2011

I agree Sage. If a heard is struggling and nowhere near capacity then for sure there should be no doe permits given for that area and I see no problem reducing or as the new utah plan proposes closing the area entirely until numbers rebound. I am only saying I think the small number of hunters who actually hunt does probably creates a smaller impact on herd numbers than so many of the other factors. I don't think more of us should hunt does just maybe we shouldn't be so judgmental and harsh on those who choose to do it. unless I was starving I don't think I could bring my self to shoot a doe. but thats just me.