White-tailed Deer Management & Hunting
The harvest of whitetail deer is serious business on a highly-managed piece of property. As a result, take time to document what’s happening each year to record where your deer management program is heading. Records should be kept to monitor the status of the deer herd and measure the success of management over time. As a minimum, record keeping should include:
Continue reading “Whitetail Deer Harvest and Records Management”
Managing the habitat for proper nutrition should be the primary management goal. Supplemental feeding and/or planting of food plots are not a substitute for good habitat management. These practices should only be considered as "supplements" to the native habitat, not as "cure-alls" for low quality and/or poorly managed habitats.
To be most beneficial, supplemental feeding in particular needs to be integrated into an overall deer population and habitat management program that maintains the range in good condition. Feeding programs which provide sufficient additional nutrients to be of value to deer are expensive and take a long term commitment.
Although corn is commonly used as a supplemental feed, it is one of the poorest types of deer feed available and it should not be used as the only source of supplemental feed. Its low protein level (7-10%) is not adequate for the development of bone and muscle, especially at times when the protein levels of native forages is also low. The preferred method is to use a 16% to 20% protein pelleted commercial feed, fed free choice, from feeders distributed at the rate of at least one feeder per 300 acres located within or adjacent to adequate escape cover. Continue reading “Supplemental Feeding of Whitetail Deer”
Range and habitat enhancment may be necessary on properties that have received high livestock grazing pressure in the past or have been degraded by other means. Many herbaceous broadleaf plants, known as forbs (but commonly referred to as weeds and wildflowers), are beneficial to wildlife for forage and/or seed production.
Commonly seen as unwanted plant species by farmers or cattle ranchers, the leaves of many forbs provide excellent forage and the seeds are highly sought by doves, quail, and turkey.
Encourage “weed” and wildflower species by the selective application of chemical, biological (eg. grazing management) and/or mechanical means. Native herbaceous plants (grasses and forbs) that provide food and cover for wildlife should be established where they are limited in the habitat. Plant species selected and methods for establishment should be applicable to the soil type and the area of the country your property is located. Non-native species are generally not recommended, but if required for a specific purpose, non-native species should not exceed approximately 25 percent of a seeding mix.
Seeding mixtures that provide maximum native plant diversity are highly recommended. The conversion of improved grass pastures (such as bermudagrass, kleingrass, buffelgrass), old fields, and croplands back to native vegetation is a desirable practice that will benefit wildlife in many ways. Increased nesting and fawning cover, in addition to increased food availability, will help wildlife on your property. Overseeding these areas with locally adapted legumes (eg. clovers, vetches, peas) may assist with the conversion process while increasing plant diversity and providing supplemental wildlife foods.
Periodic disturbance of the ground through shallow tillage (discing) encourages habitat diversity by stimulating the production of native grasses and forbs and can be used to create bare ground feeding habitat required by some species of wildlife. Discing in the fall will encourage cool season forbs while discing during mid-late spring will encourage more warm season forbs.
Remember, wildlife habitat is not about being a pretty, park-like stand of trees or a beautifully mowed lawn. You can manicure your lawn around your buildings, but wildlife like diversity and areas most people wouldn’t view as beautiful. But as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Click photo for full photo
Record Non-typical: A whitetail buck taken in 2004 by Mike Crossland is the number one non-typical deer in the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation’s Cy Curtis Program Record Book.
The buck, which was harvested during the regular deer gun season, scored 248 and 6/8 Boone and Crockett (B&C) points. The deer was taken in Tillman County.
Click photo for full photo
Record Typical: The 16-point whitetail taken (above) in November, 1997 by bowhunter Larry Luman from Atoka is the number one typical deer in the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation’s Cy Curtis Program Record Book.
The white-tailed buck, which was harvested just prior to the regular deer gun season, scored 185 and 6/8 Boone and Crockett points and weighed 160-pounds. The buck grossed 208 B&C points but had almost 14 points of deductions because the antlers were not symmetrical.
The deer was taken in southern Oklahoma in Bryan County.
White-tailed deer populations in metropolitan areas of Texas are increasing significantly. The same thing is happening across the US. Deer populations have been increasing due to both conservation efforts and deer herd and habitat management, but in many areas a low mortality rates is the number one reason for rising population. To compound the issue,the human population of most cities in the United States is also rising.
In order to make room for the expanding human population, deer habitat is being destroyed as development of residential areas is increased. Each year these residential areas grow, spreading farther out into rural areas. Simply go for a drive in the “country” or rural, low-human population areas, on the edge of any metropolitan-urban setting and you will discover that the “country” getting further and further away!
The good news is that deer, especially whitetail, have a strong survival instinct as well as the ability to adapt to their changing environment. When their previously-forest or farmland habitat is cleared out and developed, they are pushed out temporarily. After homes are built-out and neighborhoods are completed, white-tailed deer will often return to live on the edges of these areas, in whatever suitable habitat they can find. Their previous food sources are replaced with new ones. Deer are also regularly fed by well-meaning humans.
Prior to the development of their habitat, deer would feed in the woods and fields and develop diets based on the natural foods found in their environment. After the development is complete, the whitetail will use new food sources including gardens, trees and other plants which have been planted in the new residential areas. Often, these deer stay out of sight, sleeping, eating and breeding until their population overtakes the “carrying capacity” of their new, reduced habitat.
Carrying capacity is the quantity of animals that a given area can support, based on cover and food limitations. When the overall habitat available in an area is reduced, the carrying capacity of that area will also be reduced. It takes a very short time for an existing population of deer to exceed this carrying capacity within these new developments.
This causes problems due to the increased occurrence of deer-car accidents and other conflicts between the respective deer and human populations. These deer can become “nuisances” to the human population around them, due to limited space. That’s the time when the deer population control options start getting discussed. In these cases, cultural carrying capacity is more important than actual environmental carrying capacity.
There are several methods for controlling overabundant deer populations. Options which are considered, when deer population control becomes necessary are as follows: 1) Deer contraception, 2) Trapping and relocation of deer, 3) Removal of deer from the population by hiring sharp-shooters to shoot the deer, and 4) Removal of deer through bowhunting.
Contraception has never been shown to work in a free-ranging deer herd. It’s also expensive to try. Trapping and sharpshooting are also relatively expensive because the methods involve contractors for hire. In all the above situations, the costs of control is directly related to the amount of time ($/hour) someone has to spend carrying out the operation, plus the costs of supplies.
Trapping and relocation can be effective but is also high cost and very time consuming. Most metro city councils, parks departments and home owners associations have very small, if any, budgets for deer population control efforts. The use of sharp-shooters can be effective but, again, the cost will be high and the idea of high-powered firearms being used near residential areas is not popular with residents.
It has been shown through various studies that hunting is a cost-effective means for reducing suburban deer populations when compared with other tactics. In most cases, bowhunting is the method of choice for reducing the herd. The real cost savings come from not having to pay someone to remove or handle deer. Insteads hunting is merely allowed, promoted.
Deer contraception is conducted by trapping female deer (most of the time), sedating them and placing a contraceptive implant under their skin. These deer won’t become pregnant for a fixed amount of time until the implant becomes ineffective. This tactic has been proven to be high-cost and low effect because the majority of the female deer in an area need to be trapped and the cost of the drugs and the cost of trapping the deer are both high.
Others have tried to sterilize male deer through castration. Whether males or females have been treated, no contraception or sterilization project has succeeded in reducing a free-ranging deer population. Due to the survival instincts of the deer, it is difficult to trap a large enough portion of the deer population to make brith control an effective population control tactic.
Managing deer numbers means having a goal and mitigating risk. The potential for accidents is not a risk that most city councils and parks departments, not to mention the local residents, are willing to take, regardless of the chosen control method. Again, bowhunting has been proven to be a safe and effective way for the deer population to be reduced. Also, the cost to the city councils and parks departments is minimal.
The deer which are harvested are either taken home by the hunters themselves or donated to local food banks, providing much needed, inexpensive protein for those in need. The hunters involved in these highly organized hunts are volunteers who donate their time. The opportunity to be in the woods is payment enough for them.
Organization of such take of deer (hunting) becomes increasingly important as non-traditional deer habitat increases and deer-population control measures become necessary. Management of deer herds involves removing some of the deer from areas where deer numbers exceed the overall carrying capacity. This reduction increases the health of the remaining deer population and reduce the occurrence of deer herd disease and winter-kill. Hunting is the safest and most economical way to reduce the overall deer population in a given area, but it must first be accepted and then implemented wisely.
