Sample Plan

Art,

I never tried option 2 or 3, but I've used the windy and wet days rule many times. Also, agree on timing. Most every stand is either better for morning or afternoons to begin with. As I age, I find myself going into more and more morning stands in grey light or after full light. Some morning setups, it's the only way to get in without blowing deer everywhere.

Another thing I'll do sometimes is a heal/toe walk, alter speeds and pause often. the crunch/crunch..crunch/crunch...............crunch/crunch.crunch/crunch.crunch/crunch....crunch/crunch...............crunch/crunch.crunch/crunch is more natural sounding than crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch crunch I think that can get you into some places, particularly during the rut, that you'd have blown deer out of. I always walk that way with an arrow nocked, though, as I've had a couple young bucks tear in to check me out...An old buddy used to do the same thing, only grunt as he walked. He killed a 3.5 doing that once.

Still, I'm not good enough to walk by deer within 50 yards no matter how I walk on anything short of gale force winds or very damp days. The point I was trying to make in the portion of the post you're referencing is just because you using the wind and have a screen so deer can't see you or smell you, doesn't mean you can walk a few yards from them and be fine.

Glad you brought it up, though, as you bring up some very good tactics/considerations.
 
This is a great resource for any hunter, I have been trying to decide how to tackle my property but keep getting different ideas. You have brought up a couple points that make me feel better about some of my choices
 
I killed my heaviest (and maybe oldest) buck my sounding like a squirrel while accessing a stand. I took a stick and dug at the oak leaves while taking a couple of steps. Then stop. Then scratch at the leaves. etc. It took a long time to go 100 yards, but he weighed 235 and had a gray face with a hump on his nose.
 
n-p-a,

Glad to hear it, particularly that this is making you feel better about your approach. Confidence in a plan is more important than one may think. In general, if you truly believe in what you're doing, you tend to work harder at it and stay the course to completion of the setup phase. Put in a food plot, make a hinge cut, those types of activities provide quick results. Actually having a property design really achieve the intended goals isn't as fast. I tell long term clients I need 5 years. At that point, you should have the deer, habitat, general flow and ease of hunting one is shooting for. Now, none of the tree plantings will be where I want them yet, but most properties can get there before that happens. The property I mentioned earlier in this thread that was a transitional property, lacking ample cover, that I messed up on trying to implement the buck management too fast took longer. Now, if I redid it today, I believe I could get there faster than I did back then, but transforming a mostly open property tends to take longer than one with a decent amount of cover.

Truth be told, I honestly believe I can get it done in 4. In a few cases, I get in all done in 3 (funny how one just keeps getting better results with age/experience, even after all these years...you never stop learning), but a droughts, disease, other issues outside of your control can and will set you back, if/when they occur. Saying 5 gives me a little bit of a buffer. Still, those setbacks reason why confidence is so important. If you truly believe in what you are doing, you push through them, instead of throwing in the towel.

That's part of the reason why I've been hammering the importance of putting serious time/effort into IDing goals and laying out a plan before doing any work. Obviously, a big part is that doing so is going to almost always generate better results than slapping a bunch of improvements out there. However, it also gives you confidence in what you're doing, and that's a big deal.

Art,

I envy your patients. I learned many years ago, I sucked at stalking/still hunting. I'm constantly fighting to slow down.
 
Steve-I only had success once!

But I guess patience comes when you can sit days and not see a deer.
 
There you go, Art. everything can be spun into positives if you want to bad enough :D

I guess we're even. I've only killed one buck I've walked up on that wasn't already wounded, myself. Where I get my practice is on poorly hit deer I'm stalking/blood trailing. I do pretty good on those, assuming I am smart enough to let them lay until they're stiff enough that they REALLY don't want to get up. they always spot me before I spot them, but the slow approach and stiffness generally makes them hold tight long enough to give me another bow shot.
 
cut/paste from other site...A couple of guys said their problem is confidence and constantly changing plans....My reply

Guys, don't feel alone. You just happen to be willing to admit it in public. The majority of my clients are VERY experienced and darn good managers. I'd put somewhere over half in the top 10% out there. Heck, one of the last on sites I did before "retiring" from that portion, I had to tell the guy flat out, don't ask me about fruit tree specifics. You know more than I ever will about them. I'll tell you where to put them, and I hope you listen to that portion, but you'd be making a mistake picking my brain for growing/grafting/pruning suggestions, as he knew more than I ever will...And I'm not an idiot when it comes to fruit trees. he was just that good.

In the long term consulting area, back in the earlier years over half were outfitters. Several were as good as they come and taught me as much or more than I taught them.

There's an old saying that I've grown found of in recent years. One of the variations is, I'm not young enough to believe I can't make mistakes anymore. With experience comes the realization that mistakes can be made by anyone and that they can be quite costly. Hopefully this thread helps some people avoid some costly mistakes.

Also, to an extent, there's nothing wrong with making adjustments to plans over time. That's a good thing, so long as you aren't jumping at shadows. As I wrote, it typically takes around 4 years for everything to come together and it isn't hard to jump to faulty conclusions that something isn't working during that period, when it just hasn't had a chance to really take hold yet. Some improvements are near instantaneous. Others take time to mature.

The trick is IDing how the deer activities will be impacted by each as they hit their sweet spots and not getting OCD about changing everything all the time. The final trick, as I've hammered over and over, is set honest, realistic goals and actually plan each improvement in an effort to achieve those goals, while tying them in with the other improvements. Now, this is really covered in the "goals" portions, assuming killing deer is part of the goals, but make SURE they aren't just to improve the habitat. They also need to make killing deer easier instead of harder. That's where soooooooooo many stumble.
 
Steve I love that last sentence in bold. Sometimes the best decisions we make are the ones where we decide to do nothing.
 
I obviously couldn't agree more, bueller. Way too many try to do way too much on every inch of their ground. The end result is way too often a nightmare hunting scenario that actually works against them. it plain and simply does not matter how many deer you draw, if they're all over the place and you're blowing them out every time you even look at the woods. It won't take long on average sized properties to convince those deer they shouldn't moving on it, outside of after dark, almost regardless of how good it otherwise is. It may seem like I'm being over the top, but it's far too often closer to reality than an exaggeration.
 
I know overpopulation doesn't apply to a lot of you here, which is why I tackled the low deer numbers portion first. still, it no doubt does to some of you. So, here's how I try to manage the high deer numbers places.

My first step in managing an overpopulated piece of ground is focusing on does. As I’ve stated earlier, I want a lot of does on my properties. Because of the buck management end, I want a 1:2-2.5 ratio of bucks to does, and don’t even have a problem with 1:3, which is almost never exceeded in wild populations, anyway. So long as you have the food, more does generally mean healthier bucks, less broken racks and fewer bucks getting killed on neighbors.

At the same time, high doe numbers fighting over somewhat limited resources can create an advantageous situation. The different family groups compete over the most desirable food sources (desirability has as much to do with location as quality of food. For example, that isolated clover plot may not be as desired for food as the soybean field, but they want to hit that clover first, as they feel safe there). When the competition occurs, what tends to happen is that the most subordinate does not included in a group and the most subordinate family groups hit the food plots the earliest. That way they get a crack at the food.

Then, the next subordinate group hits, kicking the other group off. Then a more dominant group and the most dominant group shows up at a more normal time, each either kicking the other group off or pushing them off to a side somewhere.
Now, it sure doesn’t always follow that sequence of order exactly. There may be more or less family groups using a food source and a more dominant group could show up before a subordinate doe or group, but it tends to follow that pattern fairly well.

The end result are deer hitting food earlier, as long as they feel safe. So much so that I’ve had properties that if you weren’t in stand by 1 PM in early October you were running late and would be kicking deer off.

At the same time, the does are training the bucks that it’s fine to enter early, as well. In fact, if you want to truly dominate this plot and keep tabs on all the does, you better be here early and often. I can show you pic after pic after pic of mature rutting bucks checking food plots multiple times a day, many during daylight hours in situations like this. Obviously, they have to feel safe there for that to happen, but my point is that there are very significant advantages to having high doe numbers and skewed ratios.

The “so long as you have the food” portion of the original qualifying statement is absolutely key, though. You can’t allow your doe numbers to get to the point where they are destroying your habitat and are nutritionally stress.

By saying my first step is focusing on does, I really mean that I need to gauge if I have enough food and quality cover for the numbers I currently have. On overpopulated properties, that’s almost always no.

Job one then becomes adding more food. I want to offer multiple food sources to segregate both the bucks and the family groups. On grounds close to or over populated, there’ll still be plenty of competition to achieve the positive results, only I can now hold more deer at a healthier level than before, while reducing the social stress they’re under.

At the same time, I’m creating more bedding cover for the does. I’m moving them closer to the food sources, yet far enough away so that I can work on the plots without spooking the does (I am NOT a fan of does bedding closer to food sources than that. I see it as not only placing undue human pressure on does, but also see having them bed right next to food as taking away hunting options and I HATE limiting myself). By striking that balance between close, but not too close, I help ensure that they will continue hitting the food early, but helps me keep pressure to a bare minimum (HUGE key) and keeps every hunting option on the table.

At the same time, I’m most often trying to balance all that with providing lower impact hunting options for during the rut. Within reason, I want to be able to have low impact, downwind bedding area stands for potential sits during the scrape and breeding phases and/or natural routes the bucks will take between doe bedding areas that allow for me to cut them off, again in a low impact manner.

Now, combine wanted to segregate the deer more, wanting the does to bed closer to the food, but not too close, wanting downwind stand setups and creating a flow for cruising bucks between the doe bedding areas that lends itself to low impact, high odds stand sites. That’s what I’m striving for. You can’t always get it all, but I’m going to do my best to strike the ideal balance between those factors.

So, now we have more food and more bedding, as well as a flow, but we still have too many does. I’m going to begin by hammering the snot out of those that bed on one side of the fence and feed on the other, from the lowest impact stands I can do that from. They are freeloaders in one way or another and offer the highest risk of leading bucks astray (you won’t stop bucks from leaving, but you can reduce their incentive and the number of times they do, as well as do your best to make more of these excursions after dark).

If that still isn’t enough, I’ll then target the food plots that just can’t keep up with the feeding pressure. On these, I do my best to kill does with nubbin bucks, as I want those nubbins to stay on their birth range, instead of relocating from yearling buck dispersal (when mom kicks them out before breeding season so they don’t breed sis or her, an aunt or so on). Even if I tried on a free range setting, I couldn’t do this to the point where genetics are adversely impacted.

Shifting to bucks, my very top priority is removing the mature, weak antlered bucks, assuming I have a surplus of mature bucks (that happens a lot in portions of SE MN, IA and IL). I need to create holes for the up and comers and am not worried about the stud mature bucks. It’s the weak antlered mature ones that I’m doing everything I reasonably can to get rid of, which means bringing in hunters to help me. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t kill Mr. Big. I’m saying doing that won’t help shape your standing crop of bucks, but getting rid of Mr. Big’s brother with the 110 rack will.

On the properties that don’t have a good age structure to the bucks, I’m taking the same approach as I explained when deer numbers are low. I’m going to focus on building up the bucks’ age class, while nipping at the 3.5+s that don’t have great potential, but I’m no where near as concerned about that aspect until I can see that we’re starting to get close to pushing the number of mature bucks the property can hold. Getting to that point is the important part, not so much which bucks you skim from the place while getting there, if that makes any sense.

Selecting on antler potential is only important once you are going to be losing bucks by the dominants driving them out. Every property has a cap on how many mature, dominant bucks they can hold. A 40 will be doing good if it holds 2 (meaning 2 have core areas on the property). You may be able to get 3 on a 120. On a 1500 acre property I managed up to a couple years ago, I could consistently keep 7-8 truly mature, dominant bucks, with others willing to assume a subordinate role (17 mature, 4.5+ year old bucks were the most I kept over one season there). The 1550 I’m currently managing, I believe I can do 1 better than that, and would have tested that this year, if EHD/BT hadn’t wiped me out. A 1700 acre piece did/does, and I like the layout of the 1550 better.

My point is that every property has a cap. Segregating, adding food, cover, limiting hunting pressure they feel and so on all impacts that cap number, but you’ll never maintain higher mature, dominant buck numbers than a property’s top end potential cap ceiling.
 
W
I know overpopulation doesn't apply to a lot of you here, which is why I tackled the low deer numbers portion first. still, it no doubt does to some of you. So, here's how I try to manage the high deer numbers places.

My first step in managing an overpopulated piece of ground is focusing on does. As I’ve stated earlier, I want a lot of does on my properties. Because of the buck management end, I want a 1:2-2.5 ratio of bucks to does, and don’t even have a problem with 1:3, which is almost never exceeded in wild populations, anyway. So long as you have the food, more does generally mean healthier bucks, less broken racks and fewer bucks getting killed on neighbors.

At the same time, high doe numbers fighting over somewhat limited resources can create an advantageous situation. The different family groups compete over the most desirable food sources (desirability has as much to do with location as quality of food. For example, that isolated clover plot may not be as desired for food as the soybean field, but they want to hit that clover first, as they feel safe there). When the competition occurs, what tends to happen is that the most subordinate does not included in a group and the most subordinate family groups hit the food plots the earliest. That way they get a crack at the food.

Then, the next subordinate group hits, kicking the other group off. Then a more dominant group and the most dominant group shows up at a more normal time, each either kicking the other group off or pushing them off to a side somewhere.
Now, it sure doesn’t always follow that sequence of order exactly. There may be more or less family groups using a food source and a more dominant group could show up before a subordinate doe or group, but it tends to follow that pattern fairly well.

The end result are deer hitting food earlier, as long as they feel safe. So much so that I’ve had properties that if you weren’t in stand by 1 PM in early October you were running late and would be kicking deer off.

At the same time, the does are training the bucks that it’s fine to enter early, as well. In fact, if you want to truly dominate this plot and keep tabs on all the does, you better be here early and often. I can show you pic after pic after pic of mature rutting bucks checking food plots multiple times a day, many during daylight hours in situations like this. Obviously, they have to feel safe there for that to happen, but my point is that there are very significant advantages to having high doe numbers and skewed ratios.

The “so long as you have the food” portion of the original qualifying statement is absolutely key, though. You can’t allow your doe numbers to get to the point where they are destroying your habitat and are nutritionally stress.

By saying my first step is focusing on does, I really mean that I need to gauge if I have enough food and quality cover for the numbers I currently have. On overpopulated properties, that’s almost always no.

Job one then becomes adding more food. I want to offer multiple food sources to segregate both the bucks and the family groups. On grounds close to or over populated, there’ll still be plenty of competition to achieve the positive results, only I can now hold more deer at a healthier level than before, while reducing the social stress they’re under.

At the same time, I’m creating more bedding cover for the does. I’m moving them closer to the food sources, yet far enough away so that I can work on the plots without spooking the does (I am NOT a fan of does bedding closer to food sources than that. I see it as not only placing undue human pressure on does, but also see having them bed right next to food as taking away hunting options and I HATE limiting myself). By striking that balance between close, but not too close, I help ensure that they will continue hitting the food early, but helps me keep pressure to a bare minimum (HUGE key) and keeps every hunting option on the table.

At the same time, I’m most often trying to balance all that with providing lower impact hunting options for during the rut. Within reason, I want to be able to have low impact, downwind bedding area stands for potential sits during the scrape and breeding phases and/or natural routes the bucks will take between doe bedding areas that allow for me to cut them off, again in a low impact manner.

Now, combine wanted to segregate the deer more, wanting the does to bed closer to the food, but not too close, wanting downwind stand setups and creating a flow for cruising bucks between the doe bedding areas that lends itself to low impact, high odds stand sites. That’s what I’m striving for. You can’t always get it all, but I’m going to do my best to strike the ideal balance between those factors.

So, now we have more food and more bedding, as well as a flow, but we still have too many does. I’m going to begin by hammering the snot out of those that bed on one side of the fence and feed on the other, from the lowest impact stands I can do that from. They are freeloaders in one way or another and offer the highest risk of leading bucks astray (you won’t stop bucks from leaving, but you can reduce their incentive and the number of times they do, as well as do your best to make more of these excursions after dark).

If that still isn’t enough, I’ll then target the food plots that just can’t keep up with the feeding pressure. On these, I do my best to kill does with nubbin bucks, as I want those nubbins to stay on their birth range, instead of relocating from yearling buck dispersal (when mom kicks them out before breeding season so they don’t breed sis or her, an aunt or so on). Even if I tried on a free range setting, I couldn’t do this to the point where genetics are adversely impacted.

Shifting to bucks, my very top priority is removing the mature, weak antlered bucks, assuming I have a surplus of mature bucks (that happens a lot in portions of SE MN, IA and IL). I need to create holes for the up and comers and am not worried about the stud mature bucks. It’s the weak antlered mature ones that I’m doing everything I reasonably can to get rid of, which means bringing in hunters to help me. I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t kill Mr. Big. I’m saying doing that won’t help shape your standing crop of bucks, but getting rid of Mr. Big’s brother with the 110 rack will.

On the properties that don’t have a good age structure to the bucks, I’m taking the same approach as I explained when deer numbers are low. I’m going to focus on building up the bucks’ age class, while nipping at the 3.5+s that don’t have great potential, but I’m no where near as concerned about that aspect until I can see that we’re starting to get close to pushing the number of mature bucks the property can hold. Getting to that point is the important part, not so much which bucks you skim from the place while getting there, if that makes any sense.

Selecting on antler potential is only important once you are going to be losing bucks by the dominants driving them out. Every property has a cap on how many mature, dominant bucks they can hold. A 40 will be doing good if it holds 2 (meaning 2 have core areas on the property). You may be able to get 3 on a 120. On a 1500 acre property I managed up to a couple years ago, I could consistently keep 7-8 truly mature, dominant bucks, with others willing to assume a subordinate role (17 mature, 4.5+ year old bucks were the most I kept over one season there). The 1550 I’m currently managing, I believe I can do 1 better than that, and would have tested that this year, if EHD/BT hadn’t wiped me out. A 1700 acre piece did/does, and I like the layout of the 1550 better.

My point is that every property has a cap. Segregating, adding food, cover, limiting hunting pressure they feel and so on all impacts that cap number, but you’ll never maintain higher mature, dominant buck numbers than a property’s top end potential cap ceiling.


What you describe above is not anything I have ever seen in central or northern Mn,

I somewhat feel I will never see it. Because of hunter traditions, state management, predators, the size of properties I hunt, and our winters. Might be wrong, but I doubt it.

After hunting 45 plus years in Mn., the best I have ever seen is a few years of decent deer numbers.

Still good information to read about. Thanks, Steve.
 
Are you saying you seldom see better than 1:3 on purely free range or that the ratio is seldom higher like say 1:6? Interesting point on does with nubbins.

What bio-data do you monitor and what are you looking for when you start on a new property?
 
Are you saying you seldom see better than 1:3 on purely free range or that the ratio is seldom higher like say 1:6? Interesting point on does with nubbins.

What bio-data do you monitor and what are you looking for when you start on a new property?


I remember seeming some calculations somewhere before where it showed how even if no does are not shot and the majority of bucks are shot, at the end of the hunting season the buck to doe ratio might be something like 1:12 (I don't remember the actual numbers) based on natural reproduction the ratio gets back to somewhere around 1:3 fairly quickly. I am sure Steve can shed some more light on that.
 
Yes, that must have been the one I read. I didn't remember that the ratio getting all of the way to 90:1 in the example :eek:.

I think the issue with the ratios is that most hunters are not able to observe anything that can get them close to what the accurate number would be for their area.

Also, reading that article again it says this in the 2nd paragraph:

The term "sex ratio" can be used to compare the number of bucks and does of all ages in a population, or it can be used to compare the number of antlered bucks and antlerless deer. It can also be used to compare the number of adult bucks and adult does, as well as others. Given the possible uses of the term, it’s important to clearly define what you’re referring to when discussing this subject. The definition I’ll use is the number of adult does for each adult buck in the population. The number includes deer 1½ years and older (all deer except fawns) and describes the population immediately preceding the hunting season. When comparing ratios, make sure you are referring to pre-hunt adult sex ratios. These are the ratios biologists most often refer to, and they should not be confused with observed ratios or post-hunt ratios as the latter are nearly always heavily skewed toward antlerless deer.

But then the chart that shows getting back to 3:1 from 90:1 includes all of the fawns, but based on the description they shouldn't be included?? Either way the example is simplified and not close to reality. I guess I'll just leave that stuff to the biologists.
 
In order to come up with a ratio, one must first define what a "buck" is and what is a "doe." I know that sounds silly, but more than a few hunters count all does of 1.5 years and older, plus all fawns as "does," but a "buck" must be 1.5 and have visible antlers to count as a "buck." If one uses that definition, ratios can get skewed horribly, as you're comparing ripe apples to all oranges + immature apples (if you follow me).

The only fair way I see to compare bucks:does is one of two ways. Either no fawns count at all or buck fawns count as bucks and doe fawns count as does.

Next, you must decide when you will consistently determine the ratio. You can't do a ratio on Sept 1st, 2013 and then do it on Dec 1st, 2104 and have a valid comparison. One is prehunting season the other is after the majority of hunting has concluded for the year. If you hammered does to reduce the population, the ratio will be skewed in that direction. If you hammered bucks, it will be skewed towards more does.

I personally use deer of 1.5 and older, ignoring the fawns. I also per hunt ratios, not post hunt. Taking that route, it's virtually impossible to have more that a 1:3 buck:doe ratio over a large area.

The flawed, yet still valuable exercise WB is likely referring to goes as follows:

Pretend you have a 500 acre high fence (size doesn't matter) and 0 natural mortality. all death occurs from hunting and hunting alone. Also assume that every doe has twins each year and they're split 50/50 between bucks and does. You start your operation with 10 pregnant does. By your second season, even if you kill every buck on the place every year, your pre hunt sex ratio will be no worse that 1:2 (works out to be tighter if you include buck fawns as bucks and doe fawns as does). All fawns also breed their first year and have twins the following, as well (again, flawed...In this case, it would actually favor bucks in the ratio, as fawns breeding tend to have a higher % of buck fawns)

Year 1: 10 adult does w 10 doe fawns and 10 buck fawns (10:20, simplified down to 1:2 using all deer, 0:10 using 1.5+), no deer killed
Year 2: 20 adult does w 20 doe fawns, 20 buck fawns and 10 1.5 bucks (last year's buck fawns) (20:40/1:2 all deer, 10:20/1:2 1.5+s), Before season ends, all bucks killed by end of season
Year 3: 40 adult does w 40 doe fawns, 40 buck fawns and 20 1.5 bucks (60:80/1:1.33 all deer, 20:40/1:2 1.5+s) all bucks killed
Year 4: 80 adult does w 80 doe fawns, 80 buck fawns and 40 1.5 bucks (120:160/1:1.33 all deer, 40:80/1:2 1.5+s) all bucks killed
Year 5: 160 adult does w 160 doe fawns, 160 buck fawn and 80 1.5 bucks (240:320/1:1.33 all deer. 80:160/1:2 1.5+s

It doesn't matter how many years you run the numbers for. In our fictitious, admittedly flawed example, it's going to keep coming back at 1:1.33 and 1:2. As stated, there are many flaws in this. for one, you aren't going to kill all the free range bucks every year. Your fawns aren't normally going to have twins, no matter where you are some won't breed and the mortality rate for their fawns and the 1.5 yr old does will be fairly high. Natural mortality is higher for bucks than does. The list of flaws goes on and on.

I know many won't want to hear this and more than a few won't believe me, but the real point to all this is that, unless you do your ratios towards the end of or after season has closed 1:6+ type ratios are impossible to achieve in a decent sized area (you can have that on a micro scale, but that indicates that the bucks just don't want to be on that property, for whatever reason). To be honest, they're extremely difficult to achieve even after season and they'll reset back to being much tighter before the next season begins.

1:3 is about ad bad as it ever gets pre hunt, and it takes extreme circumstances to hit that (EHD/BT wiping out a disproportionate % of bucks, for example).

Really, what I should have said in that post above that would have been less confusing is that I don't worry about trying to achieve a tighter sex ratio. Nature will take care of naturally getting me in the range I want to be in.
 
Are you saying you seldom see better than 1:3 on purely free range or that the ratio is seldom higher like say 1:6? Interesting point on does with nubbins.

What bio-data do you monitor and what are you looking for when you start on a new property?

hopefully I answered the first part already (though if I'd seen kabic's post it'd saved me a lot of writing...both the article he links and my example are both very flawed, but they both make essentially the same point).

I used to monitor "bio-data" on deer a lot more than I do anymore, but I've found that monitoring the habitat health is a better indicator, for me at least. Browse levels, what deer are eating, what they aren't and how much food is available during the beginning, middle and end of spring, summer, fall and particularly winter really tells you everything you need to know about the health of the deer numbers.

My personal thoughts are that bio-data is easier to monitor for those just beginning, but can be very misleading. For example, the weights, fat levels, numbers of fawns and so on for an Alpha doe will almost always be much better than that for a doe from a subordinate family group, way down on the dominance ladder. The buck that doesn't participate in the dominance system will typically yield data saying he's much healthier than one that ruts hard. This can play out on very unhealthy habitat/deer numbers properties, painting the picture that everything is in great shape, when things are really falling apart. Habitat use doesn't lie. Bio-data can and does more often than one would think.

The catch is that monitoring the habitat is an equal part science and art. So, it's a challenge to describe how to know what it is telling you. The simplest way I can describe it is that I want at least 10% of the area's easily accessible, prime food sources for each season left at all times. At the same time, I don't want its low point to be higher than around 20%. If lower than 10% at the low point, I need to add food &/or drop deer numbers. If higher than 20% s left over, I need to increase deer numbers or cut back on the food I'm offering.

Now, when talking %s, I'm not talking one particular food source. I'm combining all the "prime" food sources and looking at what's left, in the areas offering reasonable access for deer. So, all the non-wormy acorns and 4 acres of corn may be gone, but there is enough prime browse, soybeans and cereal rye left over, fairly evenly spread out over the property to hit 18% prime food left, telling me I'm in the sweet spot I'm aiming for. Having 20 acres of standing corn on the other side of the 4 lane highway or a lush pocket of browse on top of the shear cliff doesn't count.

Hopefully, that all makes some sense

P.S. I should add that I'm NOT going out there and trying to calculate every drop of food. I'm doing overviews and approximating.
 
Last edited:
We have been watching body weights, lactation pct and recording kills by age after we get our annual report back from the agfc biologist. We also are tracking buck doe ratio based on observation data but that is another analysis with plenty of flaws. Mostly just have been watching that to have some frame of reference for how many bucks we are seeing compared to does as well as how many of those bucks we feel are at least 3.5 yo. In other words as a reference to how we are coming along in rebuilding the age structure.

We also are monitoring food usage, native and planted. That is much more difficult for me personally to put into context. We need to do some sampling across food types and send them in for tissue analysis. No question usage is high but I feel like the bigger hole in the bucket is food quality because of the soil rather than food volume even though it probably needs to be increased as well.
 
copy/paste ? on if/when one does maintenance to hinge cut work

In one way or another, annually is generally the case. Assuming one makes all the "sidewalks" and doe bedding areas in late winter, the easy walking portion of the "sidewalk" often starts growing in with weeds, briars and saplings during the summer. Late summer is a good time to both spray them with gly and cut the trail portion for easy walking.

The doe bedding areas could use a quick inspection to be sure they haven't become an impenetrable jungle. Normally, they're good for a year or two at worst, but they can explode with new growth to the point of being too thick before that, on occasion. If so, a couple trails should be cut through them, as well as making anywhere from 1 to a handful of about 10 yard in diameter openings inside (depending on size...less than 1/2 acre and one works. 1/2 acre-1 acre 2-4).

Assuming a lot of new woody growth occurs in the doe bedding areas and along the "sidewalks" one will eventually need to hinge that growth. The elapsed time will depend on growth rates. You generally don't have to for 5 or more years, though. I want trees to be about the size of my forearm before I hinge the hinge cut areas again. That's what I've found works best.

On hinge cut screens/blockades, I'm up keeping them annually, sometimes a couple times a year. Unless you're going to go nuts and hinge a 50 yard swat or something, you almost never stop all deer from crossing these hinge cut blockade/screens. So, once or twice a year during the off season, I'll "plug" the holes they are using, most often by trying to hinge another tree over the blockade to make it harder to cross there.

In all of this, you never get to the point where plans like these are done and no longer require any more work. Each year, I reevaluate my plans, making any tweaks I feel are beneficial. Each year there is some form of upkeep to be done on at least some of the "improvements" I've made. Just like starting new food plots, the first year or two is the most, but the work is never completely done.
 
Bryant,
Add scores of the bucks and you pretty much nailed the bio-data I continue to collect. I do annual pre and post season cam census on most properties, as well. I've just learned to trust what the habitat is telling me more than what the bio-data does.
 
Top