Fawn mortality where you hunt?

[Rusty]

2 minutes ago, Bonefreak said:

The hot topic habitat management practice of manipulating the landscape to provide more Pollinator Habitat is probably the angle to even get Tittle and any other granola crunchers to agree to. 

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/FactSheets/archived-fact-sheets/pollinator_habitat_initiative_jul2015.pdf

 

The Division needs to evaluate their Mission and Goals and choose a direction which way they want to go.

 
 

 

Fortunately these Forest Stewardship Plans are progressing up here.  They have been taking place on private, state, and county lands.  

[Bonefreak]

Just now, Rusty said:

Fortunately these Forest Stewardship Plans are progressing up here.  They have been taking place on private, state, and county lands.  

Outstanding!!

Great news!!

As you said....striking a balance is key

[Rusty]

8 hours ago, Roon said:

I hunt 7 and 8 most does have fawns but I have shot mature does early season that were dry.

However let's not call "the kettle black" on this one I'll bet dollars for doughnuts there are more registered hunters and automobiles on the road than bears and yotes combined.

Next September take a ride to your local butcher half the deer in there will be under 50lbs.

I agree, in certain parts of the state this is definitely a significant factor.  But up here in zone 3 it's not, we don't have EAB and roadkills are few and far between.  

[nickmarch]

5 hours ago, Rusty said:

It's not about deer numbers, it's about the lack of fawns in this area.  We all have coyotes but I doubt that you have the density of bears that we have in this area.  Penn State did a study that found that bears are a major predator of fawns in the spring.  

The Penn State study was in 2001 and showed an average of 50% mortality.  The Study done in Delaware had basically the same a 45% mortality rate with no predators. 

The Delaware study said...

Our findings suggest that predators may simply be removing the “doomed surplus” – the individuals that would have died regardless of predator intervention.

If there are so few deer then there are also few fawns.  If bears are eating from trash then they aren't going to leave a food source to look for fawns aka another food source.

 

 

[Russ 11]

I don’t believe bears kill many fawns in NJ . Does anyone have a trail cam pic of a NJ bear with a fawn ?  I know in other states they do prey on fawns but our bears have so many other things to eat including garbage . Yotes , fox and bobcats are the main culprits . JMO 

[Greybeard]

39 minutes ago, nickmarch said:

The Penn State study was in 2001 and showed an average of 50% mortality.  The Study done in Delaware had basically the same a 45% mortality rate with no predators. 

The Delaware study said...

Our findings suggest that predators may simply be removing the “doomed surplus” – the individuals that would have died regardless of predator intervention.

If there are so few deer then there are also few fawns.  If bears are eating from trash then they aren't going to leave a food source to look for fawns aka another food source.

 

 

That Delaware study makes no sense. First they say the same mortality rate with no predators, then state the predators just removed doomed surplus.   Either they have predators or they don't, and how would they know if a fawn was doomed not to survive if not eaten.  Bear are opportunists, they aren't going to pass up a new born fawn as a meal for a trash can.  I've seen them eating acorns, huckleberries, and seen plenty of overturned rocks and logs and bee hives dug up for honey or mice or whatever else.  Also seen bear, and coyotes, chasing full grown deer.  They don't just eat trash.  If they did they would be in my cans every night instead of once or twice a year.

[nickmarch]

12 minutes ago, Greybeard said:

That Delaware study makes no sense. First they say the same mortality rate with no predators, then state the predators just removed doomed surplus.   Either they have predators or they don't, and how would they know if a fawn was doomed not to survive if not eaten.  Bear are opportunists, they aren't going to pass up a new born fawn as a meal for a trash can.  I've seen them eating acorns, huckleberries, and seen plenty of overturned rocks and logs and bee hives dug up for honey or mice or whatever else.  Also seen bear, and coyotes, chasing full grown deer.  They don't just eat trash.  If they did they would be in my cans every night instead of once or twice a year.

Go back and read the study.  The Delaware study was referring to the Penn study.  The Delaware study says...

we found was somewhat surprising: even in the absence of predators, many fawns were still dying. In fact, our survival estimate after 90 days was 45 percent. Another mid-Atlantic study from Pennsylvania State University conducted by Justin Vreeland and colleagues found similar survival rates, but nearly 50 percent of the mortalities observed in their study came from predators. The 45 percent survival rate that we observed was toward the lower end of the range of estimates from studies over the past 15 years, all of which listed predation as the leading cause of mortality.

More important was the discovery that all of our fawn deaths were linked to natural causes such as emaciation, disease, or birth defects. What this showed us was that natural sources of mortality can cause low fawn survival similar to estimates seen in areas with predators. With so much natural mortality occurring in the absence of predators, it leads us to question the importance of predation as a driver of deer numbers. Our findings suggest that predators may simply be removing the “doomed surplus” – the individuals that would have died regardless of predator intervention. For example, if a predator kills a fawn that is dying of pneumonia, the event is recorded as predation because we have no way of knowing the animal was sick before it was eaten. This scenario might explain why many studies have found predation to be the most important cause of mortality, as well as why some predator management efforts have been largely unsuccessful.

18 minutes ago, Greybeard said:

Bear are opportunists, they aren't going to pass up a new born fawn as a meal for a trash can.  

The claim was that there are very few deer per square mile.  It's not like there are fawns laying all over the place. Few deer = few fawns over a vast area.  If they stumble upon one sure thst are going to try to kill and eat it but they aren't going to waste lots of energy seeking out fawns that are few and far between.  

[buckhound]

interesting I myself feel in my are coyotes are the problem but I think  every area has its own problems ..below is another interesting article.

 

https://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/content/blogs/dan-schmidt-deer-blog-whitetail-wisdom/coyotes-affect-deer-fawning-season

Edited February 12, 2021 by buckhound

[JFC1]

I hunt three areas of mostly mature woodland. All have low bear density, no bobcats, and very high coyote and fox populations as well as surrounding farms and some McMansion type developments with extensive lawns.  In the wooded area close to fields and with many foxes I see plenty of fawns and does and lottsa litters with twins. Most make it out of spots and into juvenile status. In the heavily wooded area farthest from farm fields I see the lowest numbers of does with fawns. But I watched a doe raise her fawn there on a high bench that she shared with multiple coyotes this year.  In the third area, with no soy or corn fields and only hay nearby, there is excellent, unbroken acreage with  high quality woody browse and mast. There I saw lots of 2 and a few 3 fawn litters this year. There are many turkeys, too, and way too many coyotes. All this suggests that the key issue is nutrition and overall health, rather than coyotes. I can't opine on bobcats or bears. But the nutrition argument squares with studies that show that habitat destruction or alteration, and not hunting, is usually the real villain in declines in most mammals and birds.  The aging of secondary growth forests and the replacement of native woody browse by invasives probably also plays a significant role in deer populations in NJ. 

I watched a presentation on Wednesday by a field biologist studying coyotes in downtown Chicago, its suburbs, and then IL rural regions. He trapped and then attached cameras to hundreds of 'yotes and video shows that they love to eat nightcrawlers. I see evidence of this in NJ too. He also argued that foxes and coyotes tend not to overlap, and high skunk populations seem also to drive out the coyotes. The separations of foxes and coyotes is supported by one of my areas hunted, which is filled with coyotes when you get over 1000 yards from the houses, but chock full of foxes and almost no coyotes around the houses. It suggests foxes move closer to people there, to stay away from coyotes. While he made no claims about coyote influence on fawn mortality, he did mention that in all regions but downtown Chicago the coyotes regularly take deer. 

[nickmarch]

Coyote numbers have been increasing for years and will continue to increase.  

This past year something close to 7,000 more deer were harvested.  Coyote and bear can't be having a significant impact on deer numbers. They surely kill less than hunter kill.

Harvesting larger does who give birth to larger fawns will also result in fewer fawns surviving being that birth weight is shown to be a significant factor in fawn survival.