First of all I will agree that based on the most recent annual report it doesn’t appear likely that adult doe breeding rates in some parts of the state are not increasing though I am not so sure a slight annual or even a few years of decline is anything of concern or at all unusual.

For one thing the statewide sample size is much lower during the past five or six years then it had ever been in the past. That alone can make a huge change the data simply because of the margin of error that comes with a smaller sample size. It presently takes three years of breeding rate data to keep a coefficient of variation of plus or minus 13%. For that reason alone a couple percentage of change in the annual adult doe breeding rates might very well be nothing more then a error or the annual sample.

Before I get into what this years report tell me about the various units I want to show everyone those adult doe breeding rates over a longer time period and in five year averages.

Time period………adult doe breeding rates
83-87.…………………91 %
88-92.…………………91 %
93-97.…………………90 %
98-02.…………………91 %
03-07.…………………91 %


If you do it in three year averages the results are pretty much the same.

Time period………adult doe breeding rates
81-83.…………………91 %
84-86.…………………91 %
87-89.…………………92 %
90-92.…………………91 %
93-95.…………………90 %
96-98.…………………90 %
99-01.…………………91 %
02-04.…………………92 %
05-07.…………………90 %

As you can see there have been variations of the adult doe breeding rates all through the past though they have also generally stayed pretty stable without major variance and that trend continues yet today. I don’t see a reason for concern though I do see a reason to keep a watchful eye on the rates in the future just as they have in the past.

Now for the part I find most interesting and perhaps most concerning. It is also the part you probably aren’t going to like.

Deer management objectives for every individual unit are based on two separate, yet somewhat connected, indicators of the ability or need for of the deer to exist in either higher or lower numbers then presently occur.

One of those indicators is the health of the deer herd. The deer in each of the units provides that answer with the adult doe reproductive rate. If that adult doe rate is over 1.50 then it is presumed the herd is within a tolerable limit with its habitat. Mind you that is not really great but within a range that is acceptable.

The other indicator used in determining the ability of the unit to sustain, increase or decrease the deer population comes from an evaluation of the habitat, which is really a measure of the year round deer food supply. That is done by scientifically measuring the amount of regeneration of various tree species that can be eaten by deer within habitat plots. There are five sets of plots in each unit and each set will get evaluated once every five years. If that habitat value drops below 50 % regeneration then that is an indication the habitat is not good and probably not able to support more deer and very likely can’t even sustain the present deer numbers long term. That is also when deer populations are likely to start reducing their own numbers with reduced fawn recruitment rates.

Now that we have explained the methods lets take a look at what those various wildlife management units have to say about their ability to support deer. To do that I took each unit and placed them in descending order based on the combined results of their herd and forest health indicators.

Rank………Unit……………Reproductive rate………………Habitat value
1.…………..4E……………….1.66.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..74 %
2.…………..5A……………….1.64.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..66
3.…………..2B……………….1.59.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..59
4.…………..2D……………….1.60.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..57
5.…………..4B……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..63
6.…………..5B……………….1.55.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58
7.…………..2E……………….1.58.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..54
8.…………..3A……………….1.50.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..61
9.…………..4A……………….1.52.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..58
10.…………4D……………….1.55.……… ……………………..53
11.…………3C……………….1.53.……… ……………………..53
12.…………1A……………….1.50.……… ……………………..53
13.…………2G……………….1.68.……… ……………………..42
14.…………1B……………….1.69.……… ……………………..35
15.…………4C……………….1.36.……… ……………………..60
16.…………3B……………….1.36.……… ……………………..59
17.…………2C……………….1.38.……… ……………………..56
18.…………5C……………….1.60.……… ……………………..23
19.…………3D……………….1.28.……… ……………………..54
20.…………2A……………….1.37.……… ……………………..46
21.…………2F………………..1.39.……†¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦â€¦..34

Unit 5D is not included since there isn’t enough habitat data available to place it in the results.

I think this sort of places the units in the order of concern for their ability to continue to sustain the present deer populations. The further down the list the more concern in general terms.

I think some of the units might be higher on the list then they really should be though. I think some units, like 2G and I am sure others, are probably higher then they should be because of their reproductive rate score actually being higher then it truly is. That higher reproductive score probably comes from the location of the highway samples. The majority of the deer being sampled are coming from highway kills and mostly around the most fertile soil and farm lands. The mountainous, poor soil and habitat areas also have very few roads so the sample in those worst of habitats is low to no existent. That of course results in an inflated reproductive score for some of the units.

So, based on the scientifically collected data, provided by the deer and their food supply, it appears unit 2A might very well need even more deer harvested before the habitat gets degraded to the point it simply can’t support the deer population it already has.

I know that isn’t what you wanted to hear of believe but you at least need to look at it objectively and see what the scientific data is telling the professionals. Though you don’t want to believe it, the wildlife management professionals really are doing what the evidence says is best for the each unit to be able to support good deer populations for not only today but for the long term future as well.

If you look at the past habitat surveys for unit 2A you will see that the habitat has been declining a bit more each year. In the past three years it has declined from 61% in 2005, to 58% in 2006 and now down to 46% in 2005. That is reason for concern. Then when you combine that with the fact that the deer health has been below that 1.50 satisfactory reproductive level two out of the past three years (1.45 in 2005, 1.53 in 2006 and now 1.37 in 2007) it isn’t looking good for the future in your unit unless the deer herd is brought into a closer balance with the existing year round food supplies.

Give it some serious though as to what happens when the deer herd damage their long term food supply and what it will mean to the future deer hunting in your area. It isn’t a good thing when that happens. I have seen the results of it right here in this part of the state. If you to see your future after carrying too many deer for too long, drive up here and look around and then decide if what slightly fewer deer then you have now or if you want more deer now and then what this part of the state has ten, twenty or thirty years from now.

Now see if you can come back and discuss those thoughts without just shouting or calling them lies. I am certainly willing to listen to what you have to say, and discuss your thoughts too as long as you can say it in an objective and respectful manner.

Oh, and I almost forgot to add. Yes, I did win my court case today and it was in deed a poacher.

Unfortunately, I only had enough evidence to convict him of one deer even though I am pretty sure there were several more then just one he was involved in. Besides the conviction I am also pleased to report that the Judge ordered him to pay the DNA lab fees I used to help convict him. I had him in possession of one set of antlers in closed season but when I finally did get him the dead bucks without heads stopped showing up in that area. I would love to know just how many of them he had killed.

R.S. Bodenhorn