Buck Manager | Buck Manager

Supplemental Feeding Versus Baiting for Whitetail

Many landowners and hunters consider supplemental feeding an important factor in deer management and a source of nutrition when native forage is inadequate either in quantity or quality. Under certain conditions, a supplemental feeding program can help keep the deer herd in better condition and help meet some of your management objectives. However, most deer feeding programs which provide sufficient additional nutrients to be of value are quite expensive.

Are You Feeding or Just Baiting?

There is a distinct difference between feeding and baiting white-tailed deer. Maintaining deer feeders from October through December is a common practice on many properties to attract deer to hunting locations during the whitetail hunting season. Unfortunately, most of these baiting efforts cease just before additional the additional feed is really needed by the deer — in late winter.

Supplemental feeding is most-beneficial during stress periods. Stress periods for deer are usually encountered when the protein content of the forage is at a low level. This is almost always during winter and summer or as a result of prolonged period of drought.

'Supplemental

As mentioned, supplemental feeding of deer is expensive, and unless properly done it may be of little or no benefit to the deer. The most efficient means of insuring adequate nutrition is through a good habitat management program that provides sufficient cover and a variety of browse plants as well as forbs. This is done by reducing deer numbers and domestic livestock numbers to levels that allow the plant communities to recover and remain in good condition.

Before Supplementing Deer…

A common mistake made by many managers attempting to develop a habitat management plan is to disregard the number of animal units of deer present when calculating use of the range. If deer are present, they will also be using available forage and must be considered as part of the stocking rate. If large numbers of deer are desired, domestic livestock must be reduced to prevent damage to native plant communities.

This also holds true for farmlands. There is plenty to eat during the growing season, so the limiting factor for deer occurs when food sources are low following the hunting season in the winter.

Under good habitat conditions, white-tailed deer and cattle do not compete for food. However, deer, sheep and goats are in direct competition for the available food supply. When habitat is in poor condition, deer and cattle will compete for forb and browse plants.

True Supplemental Feeding Has Benefits

The supplemental feeding of deer may be beneficial if the herd is harvested adequately each year and the habitat is maintained in good condition or constantly improved through management practices. Only under managed conditions will supplemental feeding benefit the growth-rate of a deer’s body and a buck’s antlers.

The benefits of a supplemental feeding program may be more quickly realized when feeding is done within game-fenced areas that allow the manager to closely control the white-tailed deer population, but most of us are managing and hunting under free-range conditions. Feeding can work just about anywhere, but it takes proper implementation and a higher level of manager involvement to be effective.

Hackberry Provides Good Browse and Mast for Deer

Deer Plant: Hackberry / Sugarberry (Celtis spp.)

Class: browse; preferred

Description: Hackberry is a small to medium-sized tree with a spreading irregular crown found on moist soil in stream and river drainages, and a common invader along fence lines. Hackberry leaves are dark green above, pale with prominent raised veins below and are rather thick and stiff. The common name and variety name refer to the dense network of veins in the leaf.

Hackberry provides solid white-tailed deer browse food

The fruit is eaten by many species of birds and some mammals, including white-tailed deer. Deer seek out hackberry when the leaves are within reach, especially during the spring when protein content is highest. These leaves are highly digestible by deer.

The leaves and twigs are browsed by both deer and livestock, so property owners are encouraged to have a good handle of livestock stocking rates in areas where deer management and hunting is important.

Hackberry / Sugarberry Photos:

Conducting Aerial Surveys for White-tailed Deer

Aircraft, including both helicopter and airplanes, can be effectively used to obtain deer density, sex ratios, fawn survival, and deer distribution information in some portions of the US. Although more expensive to conduct than the spotlight and mobile deer surveys, the aerial survey does provide the necessary population data in a short time frame. This information can be utilized to provide harvest recommendations for the entire ranch, as well as individual pastures. So, does a helicopter survey make sense for your deer management program?

The helicopter survey is considered by some to be the most accurate census for determining populations on a given unit of land. However, the total number of deer recorded on helicopter surveys should not be considered a complete count of all deer. Studies indicate that accuracy of helicopter surveys in South Texas brushland is fairly consistent, but they can underestimate deer density by 60-70%!

As a result, the information gathered from this type of survey should be used only as population trend information and for the preparation of annual harvest recommendations with the understanding that the deer density figures are probably conservative.

Helicopter Surveys

For aerial surveys using a helicopter, surveys should start approximately 15 to 30 minutes after sunrise. On ranches with dense vegetation and/or hills, it is recommended to start at least an hour or more after sunrise due to shadows. Of course, the drawback to starting later is that deer movement is reduced — so you need to keep some of these factors in mind and make sure that survey techniques are consistent over time. Continue reading “Conducting Aerial Surveys for White-tailed Deer”

State of Texas to Pay for Deer-Auto Collisions?

Imagine if the Texas Legislature mandated Texas Parks and Wildlife Department write a $250 check to every person whose motor vehicle collides with a deer on a Texas public road.

We’d be talking about a lot of money. And because that money would almost certainly come from the fund holding revenue from sale of hunting and fishing license fees, the inevitable result would be crippling to TPWD’s ability to do fisheries and wildlife management and research. Those programs are almost exclusively funded from license revenue — no general tax revenue goes to Texas’ wildlife and fisheries programs.

Deer plus cars equals too many accidents

Neither state nor local governments compile figures on how many deer/vehicle collisions occur in Texas. But the insurance industry estimates, based on claims, about 40,000 such accidents in Texas each year.

Between uninsured drivers and insured drivers without comprehensive coverage or opting to not report the accident, the actual number of deer/vehicle collisions in Texas is much higher. Some estimates are that Texas annually sees 100,000 deer/vehicle collisions.

Have to Blame Someone

So let’s be real conservative and say 50,000 deer collisions a year. At $250 per collision, TPWD would be out $12.5 million a year. That’s almost as much as the annual salaries and operating budget for TPWD’s inland fisheries division.

Why should TPWD have to pay money to people who hit a deer? Well, they’re the state’s deer. The state is responsible for them. And TPWD is the state agency charged with managing the deer herd. If one of the state’s deer walks onto a highway, causes an accident and damages a private vehicle, the state should be liable, and, logically, the money should come out of TPWD’s budget.

This is madness, of course. Making the state pay for damages caused by colliding with a deer is like demanding the National Weather Service pay for damage to a car from a freak hailstorm.

Deer are wild animals, and short of exterminating them, the state has no way of preventing a deer or any other wild animal from wandering onto a roadway.

Well, maybe if the state bracketed every road in the state with deer-proof fences. But with cost of building a deer-proof fence running $15,000 or more a mile (that’s $30,000 or more to fence both sides of one mile stretch of highway), no government this side of Qatar can afford, much less justify the expense, to deer-proof even a few miles of road in the most deer-rich areas.

OK, you’re saying, this whole exercise is absurd. What’s the point? Texas has no such law and never will.

Say it Ain’t So

Turns out, some people believe it’s far from absurd. Apparently, a move is afoot to get state legislatures to pass laws making states (and state wildlife and fisheries agencies in particular) financially liable for damages in deer/vehicle collisions.

A couple of weeks ago, a bill was filed in the Missouri General Assembly that, if passed, would force that state’s Department of Conservation (Missouri’s equivalent of TPWD’s wildlife and fisheries divisions) to pay the owner of a vehicle involved in a collision with a deer the first $250 of the cost of repairing the vehicle.

Missouri annually sees at least 9,000 deer/vehicle collisions. So the state’s wildlife agency would be on the hook for about $2.25 million a year, with that money almost certainly coming straight from hunting and fishing license fees.

At first glance, the Missouri proposal might easily be brushed aside as just one of those outrageous pieces of legislation that gets filed because a legislator or an influential constituent has a personal grudge or agenda. Bills like that are filed to make a point, and even their sponsors don’t expect them to pass.

None Yet to Pass

But dig a little deeper, and you find the Missouri bill is not an aberration. A cursory search on the Web turned up four other states — South Dakota, Virginia, Iowa and Indiana — where similar legislation has been filed over the past few years.

The South Dakota bill, which contains language very much like the Missouri proposal, was filed earlier this year, and its fate has yet to be decided. The other bills died a deserved death.

The Indiana bill concerning state liability for deer/vehicle collisions was the most sobering of the lot. That bill, filed in 2002,. would have made the state of Indiana “strictly liable for actual damage to a vehicle and medical expenses caused by the collision of a deer and a vehicle on the highway.”

Conservative estimates put Indiana’s annual deer/vehicle collision at about 11,000. Insurance industry figures say the number is more like 36,000. The average cost of repairs to a vehicle involved in a deer collision, according to the insurance industry, runs about $2,900.

At the low-end estimate of 11,000 deer/vehicle collisions, Indiana would have faced having to pay an estimated $32 million a year just in vehicle repair claims. Indiana officials didn’t even try estimating likely medical costs. The bill didn’t pass.

The moves to try making states pay for damage resulting from drivers plowing into a deer are, if you apply a bit of twisted logic, somewhat understandable in light of today’s someone-has-to-pay mindset.

Accidents are Big Problem

Deer/vehicle collisions are a very real problem. Estimates are that about 1.5 million such collisions happen on U.S. roads each year, resulting in approximately 150 human fatalities. Texas almost annually leads the nation in those fatalities, averaging 15-20 a year.

White-tailed deer populations continue booming. Texas has about 4 million deer, or approximately one deer for every six Texans. And it’s a good bet a very high percentage of the more than 17 million motor vehicles registered in Texas have had close calls with deer and other wildlife.

But blaming the state for those collisions, making the hunting and fishing licence-buying public shoulder the cost while gutting funding for managing natural resources for all residents, is as impractical as it is unfair.

Could Texas ever see an attempt to stick the state with the financial liability of deer/vehicle collisions? Can’t count anything out when the Texas Legislature’s involved.

But considering this is a state where privately owned trucks hauling gravel over public roads are not held liable for the tens of thousands of vehicle windshields they destroy, you’d think Texas legislators wouldn’t even consider trying to stick the state’s hunters and anglers with costs of repairing every car that hits a deer.

Still, it’s obvious someone out there wants to.

____________________
By Shannon Tompkins
Reprinted from the Houston Chronicle

What is a Cull Buck?

Cull Bucks

You’ve heard the term before, but what exactly is a cull buck? Sure, white-tailed deer managers and hunters often talk about “cull” bucks. The topic always spurs lively debate among a group of hunters, but which bucks are cull bucks and which ones are not? There is an important factor to keep in mind: A cull to one person is not a cull to another, whether it be related to whitetail bucks or something else.

A cull, by definition, is something that is considered inferior or inadequate — not as good as the rest. As such, the topic of cull bucks comes about when property managers and hunters want to make a determination on which bucks should be culled or removed in an attempt to improve the quality of the local deer herd. After all, deer antlers are highly heritable. Otherwise, no one would ever be able to select for antler quality through buck harvest.

A possible cull buck?

Cull Buck: A Relative Term

Cull bucks are bucks that are deemed genetically inferior in antler quality to other bucks in the area. With that said, a cull buck on one property may not be a cull buck on another property based on measurable or non-measurable attributes. Culling is best described as shooting older bucks with less impressive antlers first rather than younger-aged bucks with more impressive antlers. A buck could also be culled because of an injury.

So, what is a cull buck on your hunting property? Cull bucks are deer that are removed for management reasons. Some refer to them as management bucks. So which bucks get culled, or managed, this season? The answer depends on several factors — and those factors vary by property as well as on past management objectives and future management goals.

If you don’t have a management plan for the property you are hunting then arbitrarily shooting bucks that you don’t consider “trophies” is not really going to get you anywhere. Whenever a cull buck is removed from a herd, it should be based on some predefined management parameters, which often includes a combination of age and antler quality.

Culls Vs. Keepers

When considering annual harvest, whitetail bucks can be judged relative to other bucks of the same age that are using the property. This is how culls, keepers and “good shooters” are ultimately sorted out for potential harvest. After all, there is no guarantee those deer will be shot or even seen.

Ideally, all bucks should be evaluated on an apples to apples basis. For example, if most of the bucks at 3 1/2 years of age on a property have 8+ antler points, then a 3 1/2 year old buck with 6 or fewer antler points would probably be considered a cull buck.

Cull buck or management buck?

However, a 2 1/2 year old buck with 7 points may not be considered a cull because he has not had the benefit of an additional year of skeletal and antler development. Other bucks commonly considered for culling are those with very short or missing brow tines or very short tine-length overall. These traits are genetically based and can be observed in a particular buck year after year as it ages.

In short, a deer that is considered a cull varies by property/area, and most importantly by who is calling the shots regarding buck harvest, whether that be a manager or deer hunter. In the absence of competent direction culling is not recommended.

Maintaining Perspective on “Culls”

A property that has been under intensive herd management for years may consider a 5 1/2 year old buck with a 130-inch Boone & Crockett score as a cull, regardless of the number of antler points. On the flip side, this may be the best buck ever seen on another property, especially those at the early stages of deer management.

Culling “inferior” bucks is not a viable management strategy for many properties. The action does not make sense on smaller properties because not enough area can be “treated” to make a difference. A hunter can not expect the removal of an (undesirable) buck a year to make a significant change in the local deer herd.

Culling Whitetail Bucks

It would benefit a hunter to shoot a old, gnarly 6 point buck over an up-and-coming 10 point buck that would likely be significantly better in another year or two. The result is the same whether you call this culling, management or just deer hunting.

Looking at it from the other direction, it’s also difficult to implement selective harvest (which is what culling is) on extremely large properties; it’s just too labor intensive because not enough hunters can be deployed to remove enough undesirable bucks to make a difference. Besides, if you own/control enough property (very few of us) there will always be good, mature bucks available for harvest.

As you can see, the culling whitetail bucks is discussed much more often than it is successfully implemented in the field.

When to Cull? Management in Action

Culling typically takes place around 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 years of age, although the earlier the better in more intensive management situations. Some of the hunters reading this are probably like, “Dang, I’d love to SEE a 4 1/2 year old buck.” If this is you, then culling is not something that you need to address other than possibly switching your focus from harvesting a good, younger deer to maybe an less desirable same-age or older deer.

We can’t discuss cull bucks an not talk about spike bucks. On intensively managed properties with robust deer populations, it’s not uncommon for some managers recommend the culling of spike bucks at 1 1/2 years of age. Whether someone does this or not depends on property goals:

Have a lot of deer, including bucks, and need to remove deer at all age classes to maintain proper deer carrying capacity? Consider shooting spikes.
Have a low number of bucks, a high number of does and just want to have the opportunity to shoot a mature buck? Do not shoot any yearling bucks!

Besides, spikes do not remain spikes. Research has suggested that spikes generally do not develop as large of antlers later in life as the multi-point yearlings within their cohort, but that’s not important if there are very few mature bucks in your area. You need those bucks to grow older. And at maturity, a spike-antlered yearling will be a nice buck.

Culling: Selective Hunting, Management

Since a cull buck in an area is relative to other bucks at the same age class, accurately aging bucks on the hoof becomes of great importance. Typically, the manager and hunters that are most comfortable with aging bucks and selecting culls are those that have experience and knowledge about individual bucks over multiple years. You have to put in the time to become proficient at sizing up a buck.

Culling is simply selective harvest, and all hunters are selective of the bucks that they harvest in some manner. The practice of culling from a manager’s standpoint can best be thought of as delayed gratification, where less-desirable bucks, often older, are harvested so that younger bucks with more potential have the ability to age and develop into really impressive deer.