Deer Population

[Haskell_Hunter]

High grading is a big issue, I was part of a management hunt for 14years, the APR was 6 or better, I've seen year old 10's come off there as aged by biologists, as well as some bruiser two year olds, by 2010, I was seeing 4,5and 6 year old Y bucks doing all the breeding and legal bucks where harder to come by. I started that hunt in '96 and ended in 2010.

 

 

 

^  This.

 

In Zone 3 I've seen the same Y buck for the past three years come to my spot.  Look directly at me, snort, and then feed on my bait.  It's really annoying when you have crappy genetics giving you the finger because they've read the regulations.  I have a good amount of spikes too.

 

That's not to say there aren't 6s and 8s around.  They're there, just in far fewer numbers.

 

QDM was put in place to get a better harvest and quality harvests.  Look at the numbers for zone 3 last year and zones 2 and 6 (bordering zones which do not have QDM regulations).  47 deer were harvested during 6-day.  More deer were harvested during the bow season in zones 2,6 and 36 than for zone 3 in its entirety.  So something is imbalanced in our zone, and QDM regulations could be contributing to it.  I'm not an expert, but I'll start there.

[Rusty]

 

Unfortunately, this is what happens in areas with APR.  A class of permanently protected, genetically inferior, bucks is created.  Over time this group of older sub-legal bucks gets bigger while the number of older legal bucks decreases. 

[NoEyeDeer]

Read this article... It is time for "US" to do something...

 

http://www.wideopenspaces.com/time-hunters-accept-blame-declining-deer-numbers-pics/

[DV1]

Two wrongs doesn't make a right.  You are correct, we have too many buck tags, one or two would be much better.  But using APR only makes the problem worse.  Where APR are implemented the illegal kill of sub-legal bucks sky rockets.  Young bucks are not saved, they are killed illegally.

 

Worse than the illegal kill is high grading.  Younger bucks with the best antler genetics are killed as yearlings while bucks with inferior genetics are protected.  Over time this has a huge impact on the buck population.  

Yeah but APR's aren't absolutely wrong so the cliche doesn't apply here. It depends on the goal. If the goal is to manage for trophy bucks, there are better ways than APR's. If the goal is just to try and save some bucks so that gluttonous deer seasons/bag limit structures don't completely destroy the resource, APR's are not wrong, and may be the only hope you have to at least save some of the anterled deer population. That is the situation we currently have, and APR's are not wrong for NJ at this time. Reduce buck tags, and I agree, get rid of APR's. But until you reduce the buck tags and season length, we need something to impose some sort of limitation or restriction. 

 

As for high grading...I used to agree with the opinions expressed here. However, after researching it, and reading from other sources, I don't believe high-grading to be the problem many people do. And many biologists say the same, which is how I came to that belief. Research and studies done on large ranches in Texas have shown it's very difficult to manage genetics in a large, free roaming deer herd. For one, true antler genetic potential cannot be realize until a buck is at least 3.5 yrs old. Some buck fawns born late may have great genetics but will not show good antler development until 2.5 at least, or maybe longer if the winter after their first set of antlers was harsh, a summer drought happened in their second year, or other stressors occurred. Late born buck fawns or stressed yearlings may take several years to catch up, and exhibit their true genetic potential.

 

Secondly, a buck is only 1/2 the equation. The doe is the other half. There is no way to manage genetics if you cannot selectively harvest bucks and does, and there is currently no way to tell the genetic potential of a doe in the wild. You can try to play the "cull" buck game all day long, but in a wild deer herd, it's like pissing in the ocean. 

 

Managing genetics in a wild deer herd is impossible. You could be killing a spike that is a potential B&C deer, yet passing on a yearling 6 point that came from a female with average, or less than impressive genes, and will never be more than a 6 point. Very few deer live to be more than 3.5 yrs old in NJ, and that is where the difference would begin to show. 

 

As for what APR's have done in NJ, the Division's own study proves they dramatically increased to number of 2.5 and 3.5 yr old bucks harvested in the zones they were implemented, and this happened at the same time the overall number of deer harvested was falling due to drastic herd reduction measures. So, by the numbers, before APR's when we had many, many more deer, we took fewer 2.5 and 3.5+ yr old bucks than we did 10 years after APR's were implemented, and we had basically cut the herd in half. There is no way to argue that the APR's in those zones was a failure, unless you were trying to produce B&C deer, and as I first stated, that's not the goal. The goal is to protect some bucks from being killed, and have them roaming the woods as 2.5 and 3.5+ bucks, and that's what they did. If hunters are killing more 2.5 and 3.5+ bucks, they must be seeing more of them. Remove APR's, and you are going to remove those bucks from the woods before they ever reach that point. Sure, the buck kill will go up at first when you remove APR's but is that what we want? Will that eventually produce a better hunting experience? I know the people at the Division and F&G Council don't care about your hunting experience, but do you?  

Edited August 24, 2016 by DV1

[Haskell_Hunter]

As for what APR's have done in NJ, the Division's own study proves they dramatically increased to number of 2.5 and 3.5 yr old bucks harvested in the zones they were implemented, and this happened at the same time the overall number of deer harvested was falling due to drastic herd reduction measures. So, by the numbers, before APR's when we had many, many more deer, we took fewer 2.5 and 3.5+ yr old bucks than we did 10 years after APR's were implemented, and we had basically cut the herd in half. There is no way to argue that the APR's in those zones was a failure, unless you were trying to produce B&C deer, and as I first stated, that's not the goal. The goal is to protect some bucks from being killed, and have them roaming the woods as 2.5 and 3.5+ bucks, and that's what they did. If hunters are killing more 2.5 and 3.5+ bucks, they must be seeing more of them. Remove APR's, and you are going to remove those bucks from the woods before they ever reach that point. Sure, the buck kill will go up at first when you remove APR's but is that what we want? Will that eventually produce a better hunting experience? I know the assholes at the Division and F&G Council don't care about your hunting experience, but do you?  

 

Is that data publicly available?  The only data I have is in the annual digest.  I know the division collects point counts during the harvest recording process, but I haven't found that data available on their site.  Maybe I'm not looking in the right places.

 

I'm skeptical because in Zone 3 there is considerable protected areas for deer especially with the zone bordering Sterling Forest.  And zones 2, 6, and 36 also border the area.  However, the harvest results are bleak.  Maybe it's due to too much pressure.  Maybe it's due to poor food and bedding areas.  Or maybe it's due to something completely different.  I don't know, but I am keen on gathering as much data as I can to try and figure it out.

 

So if there's more data available, I'd love to gain access to it.

[Rusty]

 the Division's own study proves they dramatically increased to number of 2.5 and 3.5 yr old bucks harvested in the zones they were implemented

 

That might be a bit of an exaggeration, here's what the Division says in their summary report about ARs. 

 

The average yearling harvest pre-APR was 1,325 bucks per year. The post-APR average yearling

harvest is 613 bucks per year.

 

The average 2.5 year old harvest pre-APR was 456 bucks per year; the post-APR average harvest

of 2.5 year olds is 486 bucks per year.

 

That means that 84% of the yearlings saved from harvest every year do not show up in the

harvest as older age class bucks. Another way of putting it is that for every 6.25 yearlings saved

from harvest, we get 1 older age class buck in the harvest.

[DV1]

That might be a bit of an exaggeration, here's what the Division says in their summary report about ARs. 

 

The average yearling harvest pre-APR was 1,325 bucks per year. The post-APR average yearling harvest is 613 bucks per year for all the south APR zones. The average 2.5 year old harvest pre-APR was 456 bucks per year; the post-APR average harvest of 2.5 year olds is 486 bucks per year.

 Come on Rusty, don't be like that. You selectively edited out the part that is pretty dramatic:

 

 

 

The average 3.5+ year old harvest pre-APR was 95 bucks per year. The post-APR average harvest is 179 bucks per year. 

 

Those raw numbers represent almost doubling the number of 3.5 yr old's killed. Doubling that number is, in my opinion, a dramatic increase, especially at a time the rest of the herd was cut in half, or better, in those zones. When you can double the number of 3.5 yr old bucks you're taking, at the same time you are cutting at least in half, the total number of bucks available, that's pretty dramatic. Why did you not include that? Oh that's right, you were trying to prove the increase was not significant and I was exaggerating. 

 

Something else to consider; the Division's spin on it is that since we didn't kill as many yearlings as before, or as many older bucks as we saved with APR's, the program was a failure. The fact is, we didn't kill as many 2.5 or 3.5 bucks as we saved 1.5 yr old means some of them are still out there, so hunters are seeing more, older bucks while hunting, at least in some places. 

 

The fact that we didn't kill all the 1.5's we saved, as 2.5 yr old's, just means many of them passed on to 3.5 yr old, and older, and that's why we killed more of that age class. Statistically speaking, if we only killed 1 more 2.5 yr old for every 6 not killed as a 1.5 yr old (Another way of putting it is that for every 6.25 yearlings saved from harvest, we get 1 older age class buck in the harvest) more of them passed on to 3.5+. Sure, some were hit by cars, some were probably killed and checked in as killed in other zones, but some did get older, and the fact we are killing almost double the number of 3.5 yr old proves that. 

 

Additionally, that statement from the Division that you quoted, and I bolded, is not true. To say for every 6.25 yearling saved, we only get one more older age class buck in the harvest as measured by the 2.5 yr old harvest number is false because it doesn't consider, or include, the deer that were saved as 1.5 yr olds and also survived at 2.5 to be killed at 3.5+. More older age class deer do show up in the harvest, just not as 2.5 yr old's, but older yet.  And just because we didn't kill every freaking buck we used to kill as a 1.5 yr old doesn't mean it was a failure, it actually means it was a success because the entire point of APR's is to NOT kill as many as you used to, to let more bucks get older. 

Edited August 24, 2016 by DV1

[DV1]

Again, I don't prefer to see APR's but...we have nothing else in place to help protect antlered deer here. 

 

As for the results of the APR's in southern zones, that information is on the Division's website, and they classify it as a failure. Let me personalize it for those who wonder what the real results were.

 

Imagine you are the deer herd manager for a hunting club on 100,000 acre ranch. The owners of the ranch want the deer herd drastically reduced, and implement measures to do just that: longer seasons, exceptionally generous tags allocations, EAB, etc. Some members of the club are worried about the excessive kill. I tell you there is a plan that will improve the age structure of the herd even during herd reduction. After the period of time in which the owners successfully cut the herd in half, and you have half as many bucks as you previously did, you are killing twice as many 3.5 yr olds as before, when you had twice as many bucks, and statistically you will also have, and likely kill, more 4.5+ bucks as well, even in the face of forced, drastic herd reduction. Would you call that result as success? 

 

That's exactly what happened in those southern zones, yet people from the Division responsible for deer management went around the State on their anti-APR tour and called those results a failure.

[BowhunterNJ]

DV1's point regarding the "unforeseen" potential of bucks certainly has merit.  There are conditions that could stunt their development, especially early on.  And without question, few deer make it to 3.5+ here in NJ (in legally huntable areas).  So APR in that respect does at least protect those bucks who are "stunted" by conditions but have potential to be bigger later down the road.  But APR high grading does kill off the "best" genetics and/or those bucks who haven't been stunted (and might otherwise have lesser genetics than those who are stunted).  I would argue there are probably more quality genetic/early developing bucks killed by high grading than quality genetic/late developing bucks are saved...but it is hard to tell given few even reach a "peak" age to support the claims either way.

 

So...that brings us to how we can better improve the age class of deer?  

APR is a means to help with that (per the increase in 2.5+ and 3.5+ year old bucks), but at least partially detracts from long term "best genetic" potential given the killing of younger bucks with APR qualifying criteria.

 

What are the alternatives though?

How else can a hunter accurately judge the age class of deer on the hoof?

 

Or does merely decreasing the buck tags available naturally lead to simply less bucks killed, and won't that too potentially lead to more of an APR style result (which is better but not ideal)?

[BowhunterNJ]

 After the period of time in which the owners successfully cut the herd in half, and you have half as many bucks as you previously did, you are killing twice as many 3.5 yr olds as before, when you had twice as many bucks, and statistically you will also have, and likely kill, more 4.5+ bucks as well, even in the face of forced, drastic herd reduction. Would you call that result as success? 

 

That's exactly what happened in those southern zones, yet people from the Division responsible for deer management went around the State on their anti-APR tour and called those results a failure.

 

I guess that depends on the goal.  The reality is, these liberal limits and success ratios of killing N deer in a given year can't continue forever.  There is a point of diminishing return (which we reached long ago in some areas).  So "success" can't be measured the same every year when you're completely shifted the conditions that impact the results.  

 

It's like me giving you a basket of 60 apples and 30 oranges to select from...that year you get more apples than oranges.  The next year there's 20 apples and 60 oranges and you get more oranges than apples and call that a failure because you didn't get more apples?

 

Does the division really measure success on the results "matching" year to year, despite the regulations completely shifting the herd's inherent balance?  I would imagine given APRs, the example you described sound like a realistic result...and with that (both from herd reduction and from increased age class of bucks) I would further anticipate overall hunter success ratios to go DOWN.  If that's a failure, it's a failure on the part of NJDFW in their "game plan" and not having the foresight to see what the impact of it would be.  The logic adds up, the logic didn't fail...if the results differ from what you wanted, then you (NJDFW) failed to understand the logic.

[outdoorslife]

Great discussion guys. Ill let the experts continue this but I would like to say this....

 

 

APR + 1 buck tag. You cant regulate illegal kills/poached deer no matter what you do so forget about that part. If your legal hunter is only allowed to selectively harvest ONE buck and you still maintain the 3 point APR you will be saving more bucks and letting the right genetics get passed on because simply, less bucks will be killed. At least your odds are much much higher now. You will no longer have that guy (it seems like nj is LOADED with them) where he is going to shoot a spike or 4 pointer, whos potential is still undecided, just because he didnt get a buck all year or something along those lines. Or that same guy who doesnt care and kills three or four four points every year, is now only shooting one.

[kuz]

zone 3 has been terrible the last few years. snow doesn't lie. there aren't tracks for miles in areas where i used to consistently see deer. 

APR's don't have anything to do with it. In my opinion, its the bears and coyote with fawn mortality, and quite honestly, the poaching. I used to love hunting that zone because of the available land, getting away from the noise, but tons of bears, yote, and criminals. I live in zone 36, with unlimited doe, and very limited land, and there are tons of deer. I just hate hunting with all the road noise and people. 

    I was a firm believer that the bears didn't have a negative impact in a significant way on the deer population. But i see it time and time again, the areas i hunt with a lot of bears, the deer herd has dropped out. areas i hunt (and live in) with low numbers of bears the deer herds are strong.  both areas have lots of yotes, but it doesn't seem to be decimating the deer like i thought it was. Affecting yes. 

[Rusty]

zone 3 has been terrible the last few years. snow doesn't lie. there aren't tracks for miles in areas where i used to consistently see deer. 

APR's don't have anything to do with it. In my opinion, its the bears and coyote with fawn mortality, and quite honestly, the poaching. I used to love hunting that zone because of the available land, getting away from the noise, but tons of bears, yote, and criminals. I live in zone 36, with unlimited doe, and very limited land, and there are tons of deer. I just hate hunting with all the road noise and people. 

    I was a firm believer that the bears didn't have a negative impact in a significant way on the deer population. But i see it time and time again, the areas i hunt with a lot of bears, the deer herd has dropped out. areas i hunt (and live in) with low numbers of bears the deer herds are strong.  both areas have lots of yotes, but it doesn't seem to be decimating the deer like i thought it was. Affecting yes. 

 

I've spent the last 50+ years in zone 3.  Back in the 70s and 80s it was loaded with deer, but like you said, there has been a significant decline in the past 10 years. 

 

If anything, the human factor is less significant now than it was in the past, both legal and illegal.  There were many more hunters (and poachers) here 30 years ago than there are now.  What has changed in the recent past is the state of the forest and the coyotes and bears.

 

Our forests have been allowed to mature into a single age stand with little or no age diversity and very little habitat down where deer and other critters need it.  A healthy forest can support as many as 50 deer / sq. mi, but an unhealthy forest can support as few as 5 / sq. mi.  

 

The coyote and bear populations have significantly increased over the past 20 years.  Research at Penn State shows that bears are just as big of a factor in fawn mortality as coyotes are. 

[MackofallTrades]

I have hunted Z13 the last few years and I have nothing but small racks on camera. Out of three 8 pointers, none of them were decent. I've seen bigger 4s out there. I have seen a few big guys, wide past their ears, but not for the last two years. Obvioulsy my reference is a microcosm of the entire zone and might not even be related to the APR discussion, but it's what I've been seeing.

 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk