Apr's In Ns.....why Not? - Page 17 - Deer Hunting - Nova Scotia Hunting

Jump to content


Photo

Apr's In Ns.....why Not?


  • Please log in to reply
596 replies to this topic

#321 linnie

linnie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3842 posts
  • LocationTruro

Posted 14 March 2014 - 07:10 AM

Since when is having 30 % of your harvest 1.5 year old bucks a problem ? 


  • 0

Don't bite the hand that feeds you


#322 KPR

KPR

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8805 posts
  • LocationAnnapolis Valley

Posted 14 March 2014 - 07:20 AM

I'd say it's been a problem for a while now.

You have way less hunters,and less harvest than when it first started and herd numbers appear to be dropping or not growing as well as they could.

 

For years and years the NS mentality has been ...keep hunters hunting,recruit new hunters,gotta fill tags.

Hunter numbers are at an all time low,1 in 4 success rate SUCKS,herd numbers are nowhere near what they could be.

 

Should we keep doing what we have been doing?

Think anything will change on it's own?


  • 0

#323 LaHaves Salmon Flies

LaHaves Salmon Flies

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 710 posts
  • LocationMiddleton NS

Posted 14 March 2014 - 07:27 AM

Since when is having 30 % of your harvest 1.5 year old bucks a problem ? 

 

 

linne it a problem cause Kpr and his google wildlife biology degree says so ....you otta know that by now!!


  • 1

Bowtech Assassin

Husqvarna M38 6.5X55mm

Baikal double 16 ga


#324 Guy Incognito

Guy Incognito

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 666 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 08:23 AM



Since when is having 30 % of your harvest 1.5 year old bucks a problem ? 

 

 

It a problem because 50% of the buck harvest were yearling.

 

Do hunters have a problem with 50% of the buck population dying every year?

Think about that one for a few minutes.

 

Then look at the yearling does in the overall harvest...7.5%

Add in 30% of the overall harvest were yearling bucks

 

37.5% of the overall harvest is yearlings

Do hunter have a problem with 37.5% of the deer herd dying every year?

Think about that one for a few minutes

 

 

In NS only 25% of the buck population is mature, 3.5+ years old. If sex ratios are heavily skewed to say 4:1, then there is a pre-hunt ratio of 8 does for every 1 mature buck

 

 

Because there are so few mature bucks around to dominate the breeding, the yearlings are active participants in the rut. Yearlings need to keep nutrition high to grow and develop their body whereas a mature buck is already fully developed .

Having the more dominant yearlings competing for breeding rights doesn't allow them to develop their body, they are run out by the end of the rut. They are in the poorest health of any other deer heading into winter and will have very high mortality rates. A mature buck is fully developed and are best adapted to the rigors of the rut and contrary to popular belief , they actually have the lowest winter mortality rates

 

If a yearling is a dominant buck, he's still gonna be dominant at 5.5 years old....these are the bucks to protect

There are also some pretty stupid yearling bucks which need to be culled from the herd, APR's would allow the stupid one's to be breeding.

 

 

To stop the dominant yearlings from participating in the rut, you need more mature bucks

To get more mature bucks, you need more buck fawns, so that more yearlings can get past hunters and reach maturity

 

 

 

 

IMAG0018_zpsa530c0b7.jpg


  • 0

#325 KPR

KPR

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8805 posts
  • LocationAnnapolis Valley

Posted 14 March 2014 - 08:38 AM

 

 

It a problem because 50% of the buck harvest were yearling.

 

Do hunters have a problem with 50% of the buck population dying every year?

Think about that one for a few minutes.

 

Then look at the yearling does in the overall harvest...7.5%

Add in 30% of the overall harvest were yearling bucks

 

37.5% of the overall harvest is yearlings

Do hunter have a problem with 37.5% of the deer herd dying every year?

Think about that one for a few minutes

 

 

 

 

 

To stop the dominant yearlings from participating in the rut, you need more mature bucks

To get more mature bucks, you need more does producing more buck fawns, so that more yearlings can get past hunters and reach maturity

 

 

 

Or you could stop killing the yearling bucks for a few years and allow them to get a bit smarter/older and be better at surviving.

Then they could breed with the does that are already there.....

Dead deer don't grow or breed.

Not having does at the moment doesn't seem to be an issue for most hunters...a lack of bucks is though.

 

 

LSF...here's a link provided by trueflight earlier......

Should probably read what it says about age structure,sex ratio etc

 

http://msucares.com/...tions/p2427.pdf


  • 0

#326 LaHaves Salmon Flies

LaHaves Salmon Flies

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 710 posts
  • LocationMiddleton NS

Posted 14 March 2014 - 08:38 AM

Simple solution ....if you want more deer shut the season (seasons) down for 5 years ...problem solved!!!


  • 0

Bowtech Assassin

Husqvarna M38 6.5X55mm

Baikal double 16 ga


#327 Guy Incognito

Guy Incognito

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 666 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 09:09 AM

Or you could stop killing the yearling bucks for a few years and allow them to get a bit smarter/older and be better at surviving.

Then they could breed with the does that are already there.....

Dead deer don't grow or breed.

Not having does at the moment doesn't seem to be an issue for most hunters...a lack of bucks is though.

 

 

LSF...here's a link provided by trueflight earlier......

Should probably read what it says about age structure,sex ratio etc

 

http://msucares.com/...tions/p2427.pdf

 

 

How will APR increase the 25% hunter success in Chignecto?


  • 0

#328 LaHaves Salmon Flies

LaHaves Salmon Flies

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 710 posts
  • LocationMiddleton NS

Posted 14 March 2014 - 09:16 AM

it won't !! 


  • 0

Bowtech Assassin

Husqvarna M38 6.5X55mm

Baikal double 16 ga


#329 Guy Incognito

Guy Incognito

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 666 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 09:39 AM

it won't !! 

 

 

What will?

 

Do you think KPR is concerned about the NS deer herd....or just the deer in his area?

 

 

Do you think KPR understands the concept of carrying capacity ?


  • 0

#330 KPR

KPR

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8805 posts
  • LocationAnnapolis Valley

Posted 14 March 2014 - 10:16 AM

How will APR increase the 25% hunter success in Chignecto?

 

Isn't Chignecto bow only?

If it is it stands to reason the success rate there would be much lower than the provincial average including rifle hunters.

 

If the herd grew overall deer would invariable migrate in there away from other more pressured areas.

Not going to happen overnight of course but..it would happen if numbers started rebounding enough.

 

NS is nowhere near it's carrying capacity.

If I didn't care about the province overall I might suggest closing seasons all together.

Then again if I did suggest that I'd probably get labelled an anti hunter again.


  • 0

#331 Guy Incognito

Guy Incognito

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 666 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 01:33 PM

If the herd grew overall deer would invariable migrate in there away from other more pressured areas.

Not going to happen overnight of course but..it would happen if numbers started rebounding enough.

 

 

I thought you wanted more bucks around to breed your does, now you want bucks so they can migrate to another area.

I'm confused

Why not just reduce doe tags and have the excess does migrate to other areas?

 

Once there are a few does migrating to other areas, maybe a few of the "city hunters" will start hunting closer to home rather than traveling to the Valley and putting extra pressure on Valley bucks and also making it a safer place to hunt

 

 

 

 

Isn't Chignecto bow only?

If it is it stands to reason the success rate there would be much lower than the provincial average including rifle hunters.

 

 

 

NS is nowhere near it's carrying capacity.

If I didn't care about the province overall I might suggest closing seasons all together.

Then again if I did suggest that I'd probably get labelled an anti hunter again.

 

 

I have no problem labeling you an anti hunter , because it looks to me like you want to close the season and you want to manage the NS deer herd based on what you see on your prime Valley habitat and anyone that doesn't hunt prime Valley habitat will have a lesser quality experience because of your management methods and the data you are collecting from your prime Valley habitat

 

You are the only one saying there are too many does. You are on the best habitat and you are supposed to have too many. I don't think hunters are asking for too many, just to have enough. That # needs to be determined from data of AVERAGE NS habitat, were most hunters do their hunting 

 

 

 

 

You have no clue where NS is with respect to CC......only your prime Valley habitat is well below CC

 

I don't believe Chignecto is at the carrying capacity...but its gotta be close, due to the fact that there is limited pressure coming from bow hunters and little to no poaching. There should be no other reason why deer #  wouldn't be growing...there should be chit tons of deer in there. At one point there probably was, they probably had adverse effects on the food thus reducing the overall CC of the area. The area has never received any maintenance so the CC has never recovered

 

 

Chignecto can only support a limited # of deer due to the lack of food...if you want more deer you need to increase CC... more food..... habitat improvements.

 

If I had my way....I guarantee a bowhunter success in Chignecto of around 50%. A true trophy hunting experience and without APR's

I guarantee a few Valley hunters will migrate to Chignecto....less pressure will be put on Valley bucks and you'll have more bucks to breed your Valley does and also making the Valley a safer place to hunt

 

 

 

 

It sounds to me like anti-KPR thinks there are too many hunters and doesn't want them harvesting any bucks or does...that doesn't sound like much fun for a youngster

I say get the youngsters into fixing up a bunch of these lesser habitat areas to give them a place to hunt


  • 0

#332 Camel

Camel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 862 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 04:38 PM

Guy wrote:

 

I don't believe Chignecto is at the carrying capacity...but its gotta be close, due to the fact that there is limited pressure coming from bow hunters and little to no poaching. There should be no other reason why deer #  wouldn't be growing...there should be chit tons of deer in there. At one point there probably was, they probably had adverse effects on the food thus reducing the overall CC of the area. The area has never received any maintenance so the CC has never recovered

 

 

Chignecto can only support a limited # of deer due to the lack of food...if you want more deer you need to increase CC... more food..... habitat improvements.

 

If I had my way....I guarantee a bowhunter success in Chignecto of around 50%. A true trophy hunting experience and without APR's

I guarantee a few Valley hunters will migrate to Chignecto....less pressure will be put on Valley bucks and you'll have more bucks to breed your Valley does and also making the Valley a safer place to hunt

 

 

IMO the Chignecto is no where near close to the CC.There are lots of different age class choppings throughout the sanctuary to provide lots of browse and cover.Could it be better yes but the available food is pretty good in there.And yes there should be a chit load of deer in there.BUT there isn't and I don't think food is the reason for the lack of deer in there.Alot of the forest surrounding the sanctuary,Harrision Settlement,Thunder Hill,Southampton and all down through Apple river has been cut extensively.Alot of wintering grounds have been lost to this cutting over the years.And is still being cut.The area on Thunder Hill where they used to yard up has been pretty well wiped out compared to what it once was.This is where a lot of the deer in the sanctuary headed during the winter.They still do but no where near the numbers that used to be there.

 

Now that the Chignecto is a wilderness area is all hope lost to habitat improvements?

 

There are some incredible deer roaming in there.Dying of old age,great age structure and probably a natural buck to doe ratio.Yet no where near the numbers that used to roam in there.


  • 0

#333 oaktree220

oaktree220

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 425 posts
  • LocationTantallon

Posted 14 March 2014 - 06:15 PM

All yearling bucks are the stupidest deer in the woods when the rut starts , that is why they get taken the most . Those mature bucks will run themself's ragged or to death if there is still hot does around.


  • 0

#334 Guy Incognito

Guy Incognito

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 666 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 06:26 PM

IMO the Chignecto is no where near close to the CC.There are lots of different age class choppings throughout the sanctuary to provide lots of browse and cover.Could it be better yes but the available food is pretty good in there.And yes there should be a chit load of deer in there.BUT there isn't and I don't think food is the reason for the lack of deer in there

 

You say that food isn't an issue, but the only deer food you mentioned was browse. Browse is high in fiber, not very digestible and not very nutritious

 

Since most of the tree have been cut down, I assume there are no high protein acorns or beech nuts

 

I bet there isn't an unlimited supply of forbs and native plants

 

I guarantee there are no clover, alfalfa or soybean fields


  • 0

#335 Camel

Camel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 862 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 08:03 PM

I never said most of the trees were cut down except for outside the sanctuary.There are some acorn trees in the sanctuary,not many though.I know of a couple stands of oak and I'm sure there are beech as well.

 

Why wouldn't there be an unlimited supply of forbs and native plants?

 

no agriculture in the sanctuary but there is some outside the boundry in places where I'm sure a trip or two is made by deer.

 

The woods aren't much different in the sanctuary compared to any other woodlands around here where deer live.


  • 0

#336 Guy Incognito

Guy Incognito

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 666 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 08:50 PM

 

 

Why wouldn't there be an unlimited supply of forbs and native plants?

 

 

Here's all your answers in a nutshell...strap on your nuts, this is gonna be a good one


  • 0

#337 Guy Incognito

Guy Incognito

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 666 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 08:58 PM

dynamics4_zps47d01929.jpg

 

The fundamental property of density dependence is the relationship between deer population size and available food. Notice from the graph that as deer population size increases the amount of deer food decreases.

 

 This incremental, annual decline in food supply affects the body condition of deer which influences their reproductive rate and survival rate, and ultimately reduces the population growth rate. Thus, as deer populations near the habitat's carrying capacity the rate of growth begins to slow down. That is why deer population growth is often depicted with sigmoid or "S" shaped growth curve as in (Figure 2); in the beginning deer populations have exponential growth, but as food becomes limited the growth rate begins to decline and the annual change in population size decreases.

 

 

 

 

 

dynamics5_zpse5611fa9.jpg

 

 

 This figure shows the theoretical relationship between naturally occurring deer food and deer population size over time. When deer populations get too high they can actually damage the plant-food base that sustains them. This is because the deer eliminate the number of food producing plants, or they diminish the capacity of those plants to produce enough forage for the deer. This is similar to pruning a shrub or mowing the lawn. The right amount of plant removal will typically not damage the plant, or sometimes this even stimulates plant growth. But when too much of the plant is consumed it may become damaged and die, or not provide additional plant growth. Habitat damage and subsequent reduction of deer carrying capacity is depicted in (Figure 10) below.

 

dynamics6_zps325160d3.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 So you may ask "how can a deer population exceed the habitat's carrying capacity?" Shouldn't density dependence slow population growth enough to keep the population below carrying capacity? In some cases yes, in other cases no. Let's refer to (Figure 11) to review this question

 

dynamics7_zpsf32b9e32.jpg

 

Although we refer to carrying capacity as this maximum number the habitat can sustain, in actuality this number is always changing. Not only does carrying capacity fluctuate from year to year, it fluctuates from season to season. Because deer are herbivores, they depend on plants for food and plant growth is affected by precipitation and temperature. So annual changes in rainfall, for example, can influence carrying capacity by affecting the growth of deer food plants and their quality. Furthermore, the annual acorn crop can be highly variable.

 A significant proportion of the fall and winter diet of deer is comprised of acorns. So all of these "environmental" factors will affect the annual and seasonal carrying capacity for a deer population in a given area. A deer population that is growing, or is maintained at carrying capacity, can actually exceed carrying capacity the following year because carrying capacity was lowered by changes in the environment (like drought, for example). During the time the deer population is above the habitat's carrying capacity is when the most damage to the habitat can occur. This is also a time when deer are in very poor condition and death due to malnutrition or starvation can occur.

 The best management strategy to ensure a healthy deer herd is to keep the population below the average carrying capacity for a property. Remember, all properties have a different carrying capacity that depends on habitat quality. Areas with superior habitat quality will enable populations to grow very quickly towards the habitat's carrying capacity, while populations that occur on poor habitat will grow much more slowly.


  • 0

#338 Guy Incognito

Guy Incognito

    Advanced Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 666 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 09:08 PM

dynamics8_zps22d4c6f2.jpg

 

 Now let's get into some of the nitty-gritty of density-dependent population growth. As a reminder, density dependence simply means that the deer population growth rate is influenced by deer density. Refer to How does the population growth rate change with deer population size? for a diagram showing the relationship, or feedback system, between deer population growth and population density.

 As population density increases the amount of deer food in the area declines; this decline in food affects deer body condition. Body condition serves as a physiological indicator to the reproductive system, so when body condition is good, reproduction is high; when body condition is poor, reproduction is low. Reproduction also influences body condition (note the 2-way arrow between body condition and reproduction in Figure 13).

 

This is because producing and nursing fawns is very physiologically demanding to a female. Additionally, bucks can lose up to 25% of their body weight during the breeding season. If the deer population is close to carrying capacity, which causes habitat quality to be low, the effects of reproduction can be much more pronounced at high deer densities versus low deer densities.

 Lastly, and most intuitively, the reproductive rate (or fawns produced per adult doe) will be lower when deer densities are greatest. This deer density-body condition-reproduction feedback loop is the heart of the density dependence system in white-tailed deer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What does this mean in terms of numbers — how does the population growth rate change with deer population size?

 

dynamics9_zps1f772416.jpg

 

Notice from Figure 14 that deer population growth rate declines with increasing deer numbers. This is because deer select the most palatable and nutritious forages (they taste good, are very digestible, and are packed with nutrients) first and then select less palatable and less digestible forages next. Think of how we select food at the buffet — we go for the tastiest foods first, but when those foods become unavailable (because everyone else is choosing those foods too) we then select the next favorite food. A similar pattern occurs with deer. Unfortunately, the best forages for deer are typically found in the least amount, so those foods are selected and consumed very quickly.

 A good example in the southeastern U.S. is strawberry bush (Euonymus americana), this perennial shrub is commonly absent from most forests because it is so desirable to deer, and can serve as a good indicator of deer density. That is, if strawberry bush is frequently found on the property you hunt or manage, the deer density is likely below 50% of the habitat's carrying capacity.

 So deer have 1st choice plants, 2nd choice plants, 3rd choice plants and so on. Deer biologists commonly use the presence/absence of these plants, or the extent of browsing on these plants, as indicators of deer density on a property. As deer populations move through the ordered progression of these plants they get less and less protein and energy in return. Less nutrition is manifested in decreased body condition, and as we learned earlier, decreased body condition lowers reproductive output (less fawns produced per adult doe). So referring back to Figure 14 we see that as population size increases, the population growth rate decreases.

 Biologists commonly use the relationship depicted in Figure 14 as the underlying theoretical relationship between deer density and population growth rate. This is called a linear (straight line) relationship because as population density increases by one unit the population growth rate declines by one unit. There was evidence for this relationship at the George Reserve when Dr. Dale McCullough applied these mathematical relationships to that deer herd. Furthermore, using a linear relationship makes the mathematics easier ("easier mathematics" is relative term!).

 

 

 

 

 

Many biologists believe the underlying relationship is not linear, but is curvilinear. That is, the relationship follows a curve rather than a straight line (Figure 15). What this means is that deer density can increase for some period of time and deer population growth rate will not decline, but this all depends on habitat quality.

 

dynamics10_zpsd8e5ce3b.jpg

 

 

When you consider habitat quality, different relationships are possible for poor habitat quality (Figure 16), moderate habitat quality (Figure 17) and superior habitat quality (Figure 18).

 

dynamics11_zpsa08f1549.jpg

 

dynamics12_zps9f10d853.jpg

 

dynamics13_zps820ce395.jpg

 

 These are all based on the abundance of "1st choice" plants. In poor habitat, 1st choice foods are rare and are consumed at low deer densities which causes body condition and population growth rate to decline. Conversely, in superior habitat 1st choice foods are abundant and the population can grow to great numbers before those foods are completely consumed.

 There is one really important point to keep in mind — although the population growth rate declines when these 1st choice foods are depleted, the population can still increase. Figure 19 shows this concept, but how does this work?

 

 

dynamics14_zps173b9a50.jpg

 

If growth rate is declining, wouldn't population size decline as well? Not exactly. Remember that population growth rate is just that — a rate. So even though the average reproductive rate for does is declining, there are more adult does on the property giving birth to fawns, which causes the population size to increase. For example, if you had 10 does on a property each producing 2 fawns you would have 30 deer the following winter (10 does plus the 20 fawns). On the other hand, if you had 30 does and each produced only 1 fawn you would have 40 deer the following winter (30 does plus 10 fawns).

 So the population can continue to grow even with a decreasing growth rate. Only when the adult survival rate declines along with a low reproductive rate do you see the actual population size decline. Or stated another way, when the number of outputs (deer deaths) exceeds the inputs (deer births) do you see a population decline. This is what happens when a harvest rate is applied to a deer herd with the goal of lowering the population size — the number of deaths exceeds the number of births (assuming immigration and emigration are equal).

 This concept is very important to understand if you are managing a property for the maximum number of deer to harvest annually. Biologists call this "maximum sustained yield" (Figure 20)

 

dynamics15_zps9ed476cb.jpg


  • 0

#339 Trueflight

Trueflight

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 144 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 09:28 PM

This is almost hilarious....if it were not so serious

 

1. I thought you had little to poor data in NS but we're back making all kinds of predictions and suggestions without any more  useful data.

2. Your buck age class structure is NOT in poor shape if 25% is over 3.5 years old

3.  Guy - the charts and graphs are not helping anything......I thought when I showed you the Penn state example (a deerherd WAY over CC yet producing just as well as if it were not) would prove that while some of these concepts look good in text books, many times in reality things simply are not this simple nor do they follow these curves as we'd like

4. KPR - I know you are far more intelligent than to suggest APR's are the answer or needed to grow a deer herd.  I'm unsure your ulterior motives behind this, but to cling to APR's as any kind of solution to growing a deer herd is almost absurd.  Penn state wanted APR's for exactly the OPPOSITE reason - to keep yearlings from breeding the does.

 

Lastly, a 25% harvest rate is quite astonishing ....especially if your herd is so dismal.   Either it is not quite as dismal as you suggest (which I doubt) or your hunter pressure is not as low as you suggest (and based on minor fluctuations in the last 10 years, this "fact" I don't think is accurate).  It is quite normal.

 

Simply cut back on doe tags, and with a few good winters we won't be talking about low deer numbers.   


  • 4

#340 Camel

Camel

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 862 posts

Posted 14 March 2014 - 09:38 PM

That just simply isn't the case,especially in the Chignecto.No where near enough deer there to diminish the food available.Especially after spring green up through to winter.The deer there are still large bodied and some really impressive bucks in there.

 

Now all the info you pasted can definitely be applied in a place like Anticosti island.Small deer and small racks.Over populated and over browsed food sources.

 

I know how CC works and roughly where it should be from reading articles as well.

 

Its been over 25 years since there have been great numbers of deer in the Chignecto.Not since the 80s.There is more than enough food available to sustain the deer there and they grow big.Winter is a different story though.

 

Low hunter harvest in the sanctuary for years and years.Now there are deer in there but you would think with the land mass and low harvest over the years that there would be more deer running around in there.It does seem to be getting better according to some of the hunters there and the pics they have been getting.

 

Also there is heavy hunting around the outskirts of the sanctuary which probably gets a few roamers outside the boundry.

 

Food isn't an issue during the warm seasons but shrinking wintering grounds are and issue,IMO 


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users