|
 |
Quality Deer Management:
A Paradigm for the Future |
|
By: R. Larry Marchinton, R. Joseph Hamilton, Karl V. Miller
What are the white-tailed deer management paradigms of the past? First was the one we call the "Have your cake and eat it, too" approach. Basically it was a limited buck harvest and no doe harvest. This kind of management followed immediately after restocking deer back into their native range. It was a way of harvesting some deer without lowering the productivity of the population as it was becoming reestablished in the early growth phase. The second paradigm was the liberal buck harvest with a limited doe season approach. This is basically the management paradigm we are in now, but probably near the end of. This approach was instituted as populations began to grow and even in some cases approached carrying capacity. It became evident that killing some does was necessary to slow down growth and control the population. Both of these paradigms have a sacred cow, or should we say doe. Both of them offer complete or partial protection of the female segment of the population.
What is the Quality Management approach? The notion of quality management really all started with a book called, Producing Quality Whitetails by Al Brothers and Murphy Ray, written over 20 years ago. Founder of Quality Deer Management Association, Joe Hamilton has defined Quality Deer Management as follows: "In the most liberal sense of the definition, Quality Management is the use of restraint in harvesting (young) bucks, combined with an adequate harvest of antlerless deer to maintain a healthy population that is in balance with the existing habitat conditions. This level of deer management involves the production of quality deer - bucks, does, and fawns, quality habitat, quality deer hunting, and quality hunters."
On the idea of quality hunters, we would like to quote Dave Guynn,"Quality deer management is first and foremost an attitude, a means of self expression. The hunter views a deer, not as (just) a resource for recreation and food but as a part of nature to which he or she willingly belongs. A self-imposed restriction to take an antlerless deer while allowing young antlered-bucks to pass provides the hunter with opportunities to study deer, learn their behaviors, and sharpen hunting skills. Deer hunting is the experience of giving to as well as taking from the deer."
So why not a new sacred cow? The yearling buck is the most vulnerable segment of the population since the development of modern weapons. It is the overexploited part of the herd. With few bucks surviving their first year with antlers, there is no chance of many (if any) bucks reaching their prime. Bucks don't reach maturity until around 5.5 years. We believe the lack of adult bucks in the herd may result in sociobiological dysfunction. Perhaps of more importance, hunters in today's deer woods may never have the opportunity to walk on the same piece of land that an adult white-tailed buck is walking on. The opportunity to hunt mature bucks is one of the important parts of the Quality Management experience. The Quality Management movement is much more than the opportunity to hunt or kill large bucks, but it is not the solution to all problems, an indictment of traditional management, or the only kind of good management. It is, we believe, an idea that's time has come!
What does the future hold for deer management? What will the problems be? Are there any good crystal balls around? We haven't seen any lately. The senior author has lived long enough to have predicted the future wrong on many occasions and has made a personal commitment to try harder in the future. We think one can guess intelligently about the future by looking at some of the trends seen in the present.
For example, deer numbers have been increasing for the last 50 to 75 years and they still are. More and more deer populations are becoming unhuntable for various reasons. We believe this will continue, at least in parts of the whitetail's range.
Another trend that we see is decreasing numbers of deer hunters. Since 1975, there has been a steady decrease in the percent of the population that hunts. It has fallen from 8% down to about 6%. At the same time, the total number of hunters has decreased from 17% to slightly over 16%. This is a small decrease but it seems to be real and follows a fairly steady increase for many years in total number of hunters. Why is this occurring? There are several very good reasons. One is that the human population is becoming more urbanized. Children from rural environments are becoming a distinct minority and those children growing up in an urban environment are no longer likely to have fathers or mothers who are one generation from the country life. They are now two, three, and four generations away from it and after a couple of generations, their rural roots and the hunting tradition tend to erode completely away. Also, there is a much higher percentage of the children now that are growing up in single parent households. 50% of marriages are ending in divorce and a surprisingly high percentage of children are being born out of wedlock. Single parents are much less likely to have the time to be with and train their children in the skills of life in the outdoors. Single parents are more likely to be female and a smaller percentage of females hunt. In any case, the average child's idea of an outdoor experience today is more likely to be driving down an interstate to the nearest shopping mall.
So it looks like in the future we will often be faced with too many deer and fewer hunters. How does the Quality Management paradigm address these trends? It focuses the harvest on the does, i.e., the reproductive part of the population. The does are considered the staple as far as table fare by the Quality Management hunter. The bucks, particularly the young bucks, are looked on as animals to watch and learn from and someday, when they grow to maturity, possibly harvest. The hunter also is a rational, enlightened predator. In other words, he becomes a manager. He culls the part of this particular deer herd that needs to he harvested in order to bring it into proper balance or structure.
Another trend which is affecting not only deer management but that of all wild resources is the "naturalism" movement. We are told that "natural" forest communities are better. It is rarely clear what is meant by natural but generally it is thought to be the condition of plant and animal communities prior to the advent of white man on the North American continent. We are told that instead of planting food plots, we should reconstruct meadows. We are told that deer populations should be similar in attributes to those that were managed by wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, and native Americans. A 1:1.3 sex ratio, bucks:does, is probably "natural," based on populations that are controlled primarily by natural predators today. There aren't many of these kinds of populations around but there are enough upon which to make educated guesses about the past. What's the Quality Management's solution to this? Moving from the traditional buck-oriented harvest system allows sex and age structures more like those of pre-Columbian times when predators and primitive man controlled populations.
Another deer management trend we are faced with is increasing hunting-related accidents. We are not referring to hunters shooting each other. Although this form of hunting accident will remain a concern, it has decreased in recent years as a result of required hunter safety courses and blaze orange apparel. The problem of the future is the suburbs moving into the deer woods. This results in severe deer browsing on shrubbery and gardens. Hunting is the best solution but it is also a serious problem because of increased accidents where children or pets are being shot while playing in their yard or the woods behind their house. There was a case in Georgia where a teenage boy and girl were courting in the woods behind the house. The boy was killed and the girl injured by a high-powered rifle slug. Obviously, the hunter saw something that he didn't expect to see in the woods, something unusual. Somehow in his mind's eye he saw a deer. Houses are also taking hits from stray bullets. There was an incident in Georgia where a woman thawed a package of frozen black-eyed peas from her freezer and found a high-powered rifle bullet among the peas. She then discovered there was a hole in the side of her freezer.
This kind of accident is increasing as the suburbs move into the deer woods - and the problem will get much worse! The Quality Management solution is that the hunter must have great self control. He must study each animal carefully before the decision is made to take it. He may be deciding on a certain antler spread or, in the case of antlerless deer, even more subtle selection criteria. In other words, he must get to know the animal very personally before pulling the trigger. This should greatly decrease the chance of mistaken identity or hitting the wrong target. Would you not rather have experienced Quality Management hunters in the deer woods around your house?
Another deer management trend is the anti-hunting movement; it's going to increase. Hunters are being attacked today by animal rightists, animal welfare people and groups that just seem to enjoy hating hunters. They display hate literature and signs such as, "Hunters make great lovers; they shoot first and mount later." There is very little the hunter or wildlife professional can do to change these peoples' attitudes. But there is a large contingent of non-committed people out there whose minds can be changed by hunters' behavior. The Quality Management paradigm emphasizes hunter ethics and respect for the animal. The Quality Management hunter gives something back to the deer herd as well as taking from it. So, the Quality Management approach addresses some real deer management problems we almost certainly will be faced with, and could save hunting for future generations.
What about state regulation changes to facilitate Quality Management? Are states allowing more doe tags and/or days to promote flexibility in the taking of the antlerless segment of the harvest? Yes. Many states, particularly in the Southeast, are liberalizing regulations on does and this is having a very positive effect on the practice of Quality Management, particularly when combined with education to encourage voluntary restraint in buck harvest.
Could or should selective harvest of antlered bucks be mandated by law or regulation? Have we done this before? The answer is - of course! Various antler lengths or even number of points have been (or were) used in many states for years. Florida had a 4.5 inch minimum length for spike antlers. And in Texas, forked antlers were required at one time. Although just examples, these regulations were based on different paradigms or value systems, and sometimes inadequate knowledge of deer biology.
What about the Quality Management paradigm? Has there been a selective harvest system required by law which was based on Quality Management? In other words, has an antler size criterion, (e.g., outside spread,) been required by state regulations? The answer to this is yes, also. In Georgia, for example, several state wildlife management areas have selective harvest regulations allowing only certain minimum spreads and/or main beam lengths to be taken. But what about on a county-wide or regional basis? Have any states had regulations designed to protect yearling or larger bucks on a regional or statewide basis? The earlier regulations in states like Florida and Texas were designed to do this, but were based on incomplete biological knowledge. In 1992, the Georgia Game and Fish Division initiated an experiment in Dooly County, an area that is noted for producing very large bucks, has large land ownerships, and has good soils. It has landowners and hunters who, because of their experience in Quality Management, were more likely to be receptive to the notion of protecting yearling bucks. Remember, the 1.5-year-old males range over large areas and are extremely vulnerable. Protecting them over an entire county would greatly facilitate the practice of Quality Management. It would encourage landowners and clubs to voluntarily restrict harvest of immature bucks in the intermediate age classes older than 1.5 years.
The experiment followed several steps. First, the appropriate county was selected. Second, the DNR personnel sought the blessings of law enforcement, the judiciary and the politicians. Third, the DNR conducted public meetings to seek the blessing of the hunters and landowners.
Another step in the experiment was to determine an appropriate harvest prescription. In other words, what size antlers would be illegal in order to protect at least the better yearling bucks. This was done through analysis of data from previous years' harvests. The criterion selected was a 15 inch minimum outside antler spread.
Finally, the plan was implemented and evaluated over a 3-year period in terms of the biological results and the acceptance by the people.
|
|
|
Quality Deer
Management Association
PO Box 160
Bogart, GA 30622
1-800-209-DEER (3337)
|
|
