Kips Korner

Kip’s Korner is written by Kip P. Adams, a certified wildlife biologist and the Northeast regional director for the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA). The QDMA is a non-profit wildlife conservation organization dedicated to promoting sustainable, high-quality, white-tailed deer populations, wildlife habitats and ethical hunting experiences through education, research, and management in partnership with hunters, landowners, natural resource professionals, and the public. The QDMA can be reached at 1-800-209-DEER or www.QDMA.com.

Some areas within the whitetail’s range in the U.S. have low deer densities but many have abundant or overabundant herds. Overabundant herds cause hundreds of millions in damage each year to the forestry and agricultural industries and they damage homeowners’ shrubs, flowers, ornamentals and vegetable gardens. While these damages are costly, they don’t compare to the expense caused by deer-vehicle collisions (DVCs). According to Dr. Michael Conover, Director of the Berryman Institute at Utah State University, DVCs are responsible for an estimated 200 human fatalities, 29,000 injuries and over $1.1 billion in property damage each year.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates there are 1.5 million DVCs each year in the U.S. Given there are about 32 million whitetails in the U.S., this suggests one of every 21 deer will be involved in a DVC. These DVCs are a public safety concern and a waste of a natural resource, in addition to being a personal expense for motorists. DVCs occur most often at dawn and dusk and during spring (fawning) and autumn (breeding). Since the peak of the rut has just passed for many whitetail herds, this is a timely topic for hunters, managers and other whitetail enthusiasts.

Actual DVC data is difficult and time consuming to collect. Obtaining comparable data among states is even more difficult as some do not record this information while others rely on various state agencies or private contractors for their figures. Fortunately, State Farm Insurance Company compiles a state-by-state list of projected DVCs based on their insurance claim reports. This data may or may not be completely accurate for a given state, but it is the best data available to track annual DVCs within a state and compare DVCs among states. The following statistics are from State Farm.

My home state of Pennsylvania has led the nation four of the past five years in DVCs by averaging about 99,000 per year. Michigan led the nation once and has been second four of the past five years by averaging about 93,000 DVCs. Pennsylvania and Michigan more than double the average of the next top five states. At the other end of the spectrum, Hawaii averages less than 50 DVCs per year. In the continental U.S., the District of Columbia and Nevada average about 300 and 900 per year, respectively. The top 10 states for DVCs over the past five years are Pennsylvania, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Illinois, Virginia, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia and Texas.

Many factors impact the number of DVCs. Growing human and deer densities, urbanization, development, proximity of forested areas to roadways, and number of vehicles, road miles, and miles traveled are a few. Texas and California lead the nation in public road miles and vehicle miles traveled but rank 10 and 19 in DVCs. While Pennsylvania and Michigan lead the nation in DVCs, they are ranked 8 and 9 in the number of road miles and miles traveled. Pennsylvania also leads the nation in the average number of DVCs per mile of road. Pennsylvania motorists hit one deer for every 1.22 miles of public road. Similarly, Maryland drivers hit one deer for every 1.23 miles of public road. Conversely, Hawaii motorists hit a deer for every 100 road miles, and Nevada motorists hit one for every 33 miles.

You can also analyze DVCs by the number of vehicles in a state. West Virginia leads this list with a DVC for every 57 vehicle registrations. West Virginia drivers are 5,000 times more likely to hit a deer than get struck by lightning during the next 12 months. Michigan (1 in 86), Wisconsin (1 in 99), Pennsylvania (1 in 100) and Iowa (1 in 109) round out the top five, and the national likelihood of hitting a deer is 1 in 216. My chances of hitting a deer were much lower at my former residences in Florida (1 in 1,273) and New Hampshire (1 in 390), although the odds of hitting an alligator or moose were much higher.

An additional way to analyze this data is to compare the number of DVCs to the legal harvest by hunters. Ideally, DVCs would be equivalent to a small percentage of the legal harvest. Looking at the top 10 DVC states in 2006-07 reveals that DVCs averaged 20% of the 2006 legal harvest in those states, meaning that motorists hit a deer for every five taken by hunters. Texas and Wisconsin lead the list with DVCs equivalent to only 9% of their legal harvests. New York is at the bottom of the top 10 with DVCs equivalent to 34% of its 2006 legal harvest. Ohio and Pennsylvania are close behind with DVCs equivalent to 27% of their 2006 harvests.

How can you reduce DVCs? Various techniques from “deer whistles” to wildlife warning reflectors to signs and fences have been tried. Deer whistles emit high frequency sounds that supposedly scare deer from roadways. Research on the hearing ability of deer reveals they don’t hear well in the high frequency range, and there is no data to support that deer whistles deter deer from entering roadways or reduce DVCs. Wildlife warning reflectors supposedly deter deer from entering roadways by using light from oncoming vehicles to provide an “optical warning fence” to deer. Dr. Gino D’Angelo and his colleagues at the University of Georgia found the reflectors were ineffective in preventing DVCs. They also noted that reflectors using red and blue lenses actually increased the likelihood of a DVC. Road signs are used by many states to alert drivers to the possibility of deer entering the roadway. Signs in new locations may work temporarily, but drivers quickly acclimate to them and their effectiveness declines. Fences can successfully keep deer and other wildlife off roadways but they can also block travel corridors and alter movement patterns. Fences are also expensive to erect and recent research by the U.S.D.A. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service showed a minimum of 7- to 8-foot fences are necessary to keep the majority of deer from jumping over them. In their trials, 91% of deer jumped a 6-foot fence while only one deer jumped a 7-foot and no deer jumped an 8-foot fence.

In closing, let’s look at one final piece of DVC data. Of the top 10 DVC states, the average number of DVCs has increased over 9% from 2002-03 to 2006-07. North Carolina leads this list with a 31% increase. Only two of the top 10 states have fewer DVCs today than in 2002-03. New York has nearly 3% fewer, and Pennsylvania reduced the number of DVCs by nearly 12% from over 111,000 to just over 98,000. This reduction is over 20 percentage points above the average – kudos to the Keystone state! While this may still be a lot of DVCs, Pennsylvania implemented a progressive deer management program in 2002 and a large reduction in DVCs is just one of its many benefits. So, what’s the best technique for reducing DVCs? Balancing the deer herd with the available habitat.

For more information on DVCs and devices designed to minimize them visit www.forestry.uga.edu/h/research/wildlife/wildlife/devices. This University of Georgia website includes a comprehensive annotated bibliography on the Evaluation of Strategies Designed to Reduce Deer-Vehicle Collisions.

Kip’s Korner is written by Kip Adams, a Certified Wildlife Biologist and Northern Director of Education and Outreach for the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA). The QDMA is an international nonprofit wildlife conservation organization dedicated to ethical hunting, sound deer management and preservation of the deer-hunting heritage. The QDMA can be reached at 1-800-209-DEER or www.QDMA.com.

Kip's Korner

Hemorrhagic Disease
September 2007

Kip Adams, QDMA Director of Education and Outreach, Northern Region

Deer had a relatively easy start to 2007 across most of their range. Some northern areas received abundant snowfall during February, but it was a relatively easy winter in most areas. Starting in April however, it's been a much different story. A late frost in April decimated hard mast crops across much of the Southeast. That was followed by drought conditions across portions of the Southeast,Midwest and Northeast. Late July and August rains helped immensely, but overall forage production will be far below the norm.

The latest kick to deer populations in 2007 was the outbreak of hemorrhagic disease. According to the Southeast Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study (SCWDS), hemorrhagic disease is an infectious, viral disease of deer and elk. It is a blood-borne disease transmitted to deer by biting midges or flies. Hemorrhagic disease is the most important infectious disease of white-tailed deer and outbreaks occur nearly every year in the Southeast. Hemorrhagic disease is caused by either of two closely related viruses, epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD) virus or bluetongue virus. Since the disease features produced by these viruses are indistinguishable, a general term, hemorrhagic disease often is used when the specific virus responsible is unknown. Since EHD and bluetongue viruses are transmitted by biting flies (gnats, no-see-ums) hemorrhagic disease is seasonal and occurs in late summer and early fall. It was first reported in the U.S. in 1955 in New Jersey and has been confirmed in over 30 states since. The Southeast is most affected but the disease ranges as far north as Pennsylvania and New Jersey in the Northeast, across the Midwest to Montana and southern Canada , and to Washington, Oregon and California on the west coast.

The severity of disease outbreaks is influenced by the number of deer exhibiting immunity to the disease, the virulence of the infecting virus, the number of livestock nearby (because they can carry the virus), and the abundance of midge vectors. Herd density may also play a role as high-density herds may have higher mortality rates, but the relationship between deer density to the severity of hemorrhagic disease is not clear-cut. The disease occurs annually but its distribution and severity are highly variable.

Regional deer herds are impacted differently. According to SCWDS records, in coastal regions of the Southeast, most adult deer have antibodies to the disease and disease outbreaks are rare. In piedmont regions many adult deer have antibodies but disease outbreaks occur every 5-10 years. In mountainous regions antibodies are rarely formed in deer and disease tends to occur in sporadic outbreaks, often with higher death losses. Besides being illegal, this is one reason why releasing "big northern bucks" to increase the body and antler size in southern deer herds does not work. Northern deer are poorly suited to deal with southern climates and disease vectors.

Initially, infected deer may appear normal or show mild signs of illness. Five to ten days following exposure animals may appear depressed; feverish; have a swollen head, neck, tongue or eyelids; have difficulty breathing or lose their appetite and fear of man. Deer may have ulcers on their tongue, an eroded dental pad, or interrupted hoof growth. Internally, deer may have fluid-filled lungs, cardiac hemorrhage, a congested rumen or scarred rumen lining depending on virulence of the virus and duration of infection. Deer not previously exposed to the disease often die within 5-10 days. Mule deer, bighorn sheep and pronghorn antelope are also susceptible to hemorrhagic disease. Even though chronic wasting disease (CWD) and hemorrhagic disease share many symptoms, the two aren't related. CWD is caused by abnormal prions and is neither viral nor bacterial, while hemorrhagic disease is caused by a virus.

There are three forms of hemorrhagic disease - peracute, acute and chronic. Depending on virulence of the viral strain, the peracute form can kill deer in 1-3 days. Acute is the classic form and deer may live for several days. The chronic form is typified by growth interruptions on the hooves and deer often survive this form. Deer that survive develop immunity to the disease and does may pass temporary immunity to their fawns through their milk. Most deer that die do so around water because they develop high fevers and seek water to cool their bodies.

Since the disease is spread by insects, there is little we can do to prevent it and outbreaks will end with the onset of cold weather. A good, hard frost will kill or drive the majority of insects responsible for the disease into winter inactivity.

In 2007, numerous states have reported hemorrhagic disease mortality including Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia. The Pennsylvania Game Commission suggests the outbreak is especially severe because of the heat and drought conditions and report that more than 1,000 deer have succumbed to hemorrhagic disease in southwestern Pennsylvania. The Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency reported they had received EHD reports from across the state and fears one of the state's worst outbreaks on record.

It's important to note that humans are not at risk by handling infected deer, eating venison from infected deer, or being bitten by infected midges. Our dogs and cats are not at risk either. For more information on hemorrhagic disease see an article by David Osborn, wildlife research coordinator for the University of Georgia on our website at http://www.qdma.com/articles/details.asp?id=111.

Reference: Most of the information in this article was taken from the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study's (SCWDS) website and publications. SCWDS is located at the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Georgia and can be found at http://www.uga.edu/scwds/.

Kip's Korner is written by Kip Adams, a certified wildlife biologist and Director of Education and Outreach for the Northern Region for the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA). The QDMA is a non-profit wildlife conservation organization dedicated to promoting sustainable, high-quality, white-tailed deer populations, wildlife habitats and ethical hunting experiences through education, research, and management in partnership with hunters, landowners, natural resource professionals, and the public. The QDMA can be reached at 1-800-209-DEER or www.QDMA.com.

Quality Deer Management Association
PO Box 160
170 Whitetail Way
Bogart GA 30622
Phone: 800-209-3337
www.qdma.com
kadams@qdma.com

In an effort to better communicate with QDMA Supporters the QDMA will be sending email alerts, special member only offers, updates and even management tips. We respect our members/supporters and under no circumstances will your email address ever be shared or sold. If you have suggestions or ideas that you would like to see included in these email transmissions Click Here and reply with Suggestion in the subject line. You do have the option to opt out of our email communication at any time. If you wish to have your email address removed from our database Click Here and respond with Remove in the subject line.
Thank you for supporting the QDMA!

Webster’s dictionary defines modern as “characteristic of recent times.” With respect to hunting, then what is a modern deer hunter? Is it a hunter who wears the most recent camouflage patterns? Is it a hunter who shoots the latest sporting arm or bow? Maybe, but modern hunters also have other attributes. They are more likely to wear scent-blocking clothing than hunters of one or two decades ago. Modern hunters also tend to have more gadgets and treestands than hunters of the past. Of all their characteristics however, the most important is that modern hunters are much more knowledgeable about deer biology and management than hunters at any point in our history. I’ll acknowledge that some of our forefathers had exceptional hunting skills, but as a group, today’s hunters are in the honor society with respect to deer knowledge.

Brian Murphy, QDMA’s executive director was the first biologist I heard use the term. Brian described the modern deer hunter as a passionate, knowledgeable and engaged deer enthusiast who views his/her role as more than just a deer hunter, but rather an enlightened deer manager and a necessary contributor to the future of wildlife management and conservation. As a hunter for more than 30 years, a biologist for nearly 20 years, and executive director of North America’s foremost whitetail educational organization Brian is well positioned to establish this definition. As a hunter and biologist for slightly fewer years than Brian, I agree with his assertion and add that this is good for wildlife populations and the future of hunting. Whether you’re a QDM advocate or not, all hunters should rejoice in the fact that we’re more knowledgeable in our deer hunting and managing endeavors. This fact is not surprising as public surveys indicate deer hunters have slightly higher average education and income levels than the general public. It is logical that this segment of our population is also more knowledgeable about their favorite pastime. This also shows the impression of “Bubba” and “slob” hunters that antihunters use to portray the average hunter is clearly not accurate.

Modern deer hunters attend deer seminars, habitat field days and workshops. They read books, magazines and journals for information on deer and habitat management. In the past, most hunting magazines offered mainly hunting stories. Today, you’d be hard pressed to find a hunting magazine that didn’t offer at least one management article. In fact, the Quality Whitetails Journal is dedicated solely to educating hunters and managers on all aspects of deer management and habitat improvement. Modern hunters share information on-line in chat rooms and on internet forums, and likely the most significant difference from our predecessors is they are interested in more than just pulling the trigger or releasing an arrow. Modern hunters are interested in being a part of the management process, and state agencies aren’t the only ones recognizing this.

Others in the hunting industry are talking and writing about modern deer hunters. Scott Bestul’s recent article in Deer and Deer Hunting titled “Equilibrium – can deer doctors and deer hunters find a state of balance?” did an excellent job explaining how the relationship between state wildlife agencies and their respective deer hunters must adapt to current deer management issues and account for hunter knowledge. In a nutshell, Scott stated there was a time when state agencies could dictate policy to hunters without being questioned. However, Scott contends those days are gone forever as more and more hunters understand the principles of deer biology and management and ask their state officials to explain or defend their management recommendations.

The modern deer hunter discussion even has a comparison in the wildlife profession. The Wildlife Society (TWS) is an educational and scientific organization that represents the wildlife profession and certifies individuals as professional wildlife biologists. In their recent Wildlifer publication, Michael Hutchins, TWS executive director/CEO wrote an article titled “Who is a ‘Wildlife Professional’?” In the article Michael described that traditional wildlife professionals included only those individuals with a degree in wildlife biology, ecology or management, and who were working in a job in which they: (1) conducted scientific studies of wildlife biology or ecology; or (2) actively monitored and managed wildlife populations and/or their habitats. Michael went on to state that the time has come for those of other disciplines to be considered wildlife professionals. His partial listing included individuals working with a wildlife focus in the fields of human dimensions, psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, urban planning, architecture, landscaping, education and public policy. Michael also included wildlife technicians and animal behaviorists. The point of listing these disciplines is not to debate whether they are wildlife professionals but to acknowledge that the profession and its constituents are expanding into new arenas.

As a biologist trained and certified in the traditional manner I understand the reluctance of some biologists to accept changes to our profession. As a former state agency biologist I also understand how unsolicited questioning from hunters can raise the hackles of a state deer biologist. However, open and respectful dialogue among all invested parties will prove most helpful to the resource. Regardless of which road brought you to the discussion, we’re all interested in productive wildlife populations, healthy habitats and quality hunting opportunities. Whether you’re from a state agency, conservation organization, hunting group or other discipline we need to acknowledge that hunters are the most important piece of the puzzle. They drive the industry by contributing more than $67 billion annually to the U.S. economy and supporting over 575,000 jobs. Deer hunters are leading this charge. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s 2007 Industry Reference Guide, three out of every four hunters are deer hunters and there are more than four times as many deer hunters as turkey hunters, the second most-hunted species.

Without hunters, and deer hunters in particular, wildlife conservation and management would cease to exist. We should embrace the fact that the “modern” deer hunter has arrived and thank him/her for their support, commitment and service to the resource.

Kip’s Korner is written by Kip Adams, a Certified Wildlife Biologist and Northern Director of Education and Outreach for the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA). The QDMA is an international nonprofit wildlife conservation organization dedicated to ethical hunting, sound deer management and preservation of the deer-hunting heritage. The QDMA can be reached at 1-800-209-DEER or www.QDMA.com.

Urban and suburban deer management are among the most pressing challenges for state wildlife agencies and local municipalities. Many states struggle to reduce and/or maintain deer populations at appropriate levels in rural areas even with the willing aid of hunters. Some deer populations are difficult to control even with property access, proficient hunters and favorable hunting seasons and bag limits. Add restricted property access, landowner unfamiliarity with hunting, safety zones and weapons discharge ordinances and you have made a difficult task even tougher.

Goals for managing deer in urban and suburban environments are similar to rural environments; balance the deer herd with the available habitat, balance the adult sex ratio, and have a complete age structure for bucks and does. However, there is generally a much higher emphasis on balancing the herd with the habitat to reduce deer-vehicle accidents and other deer-human conflicts. Unfortunately, controlling herd growth in these areas is often more difficult than in rural landscapes. Expanding deer herds in rural areas often increase until they degrade the habitat to the point where it can no longer provide enough food or cover to support the deer population. The quality of the habitat then declines and generally brings the size of the deer herd down with it. Many of these areas ultimately end up with poor quality habitat and low density deer herds. This is a no-win situation for the habitat, deer herd and other wildlife species. There are many examples of this scenario in the traditional “big” deer states like Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania.

In urban and suburban areas, as deer herds climb and degrade the habitat, you end up with poor quality habitat but you rarely get the corresponding drop in deer numbers. For example, look at Valley Forge National Historic Park in southeastern Pennsylvania. Despite severe habitat degradation, the deer herd has increased from approximately 155 to 240 deer per square mile over the past decade. In such instances the deer population continues increasing despite the loss of habitat because of two factors: 1) low mortality rates and 2) alternative food sources. Across their range, hunter harvest is the number one mortality source for deer. Other important sources include predation, deer-vehicle accidents and disease. In many urban/suburban deer herds, hunter harvest is low or nonexistent, as is mortality from predators. From a food perspective, urban/suburban environments offer abundant gardens, shrubbery and other landscaping, as well as supplemental feed from some homeowners. The point is that urban/suburban deer populations can remain high even in poor habitats, and the number one mortality source – and management tool - is not as easily applied as in rural areas.

To be able to use hunting as a management tool in urban/suburban areas we need to understand the barriers currently preventing or limiting its use. One major barrier is a property owner’s unwillingness to allow anyone - hunter or otherwise - access to his/her property. Recent court cases like Pennsylvania’s Burns vs. Haas where a landowner was held liable for a shooting accident that occurred on his property do little to increase property access for hunting. Fortunately, current legislation (PA HB13) is attempting to protect landowners from future liability suits. Additionally, as managers and hunters we need to demonstrate the utility of hunting to these property owners. “Bubba hunters” need not apply. We need to make these property owners feel safe and comfortable about having hunters in their woods. Look sharp and be polite when asking for permission.

Another barrier is urban/suburban residents’ views toward wildlife management. Many residents in urban/suburban municipalities receive inaccurate information on potential strategies for managing the “town’s” deer population. Some may want fewer deer but fear for their family’s safety if weapons are discharged in their neighborhoods. Others may feel the situation can easily be addressed by trapping deer and releasing them elsewhere. Still others have heard about contraceptive techniques that work well in horses on Maryland and Virginia’s Assateague Island. Not everyone will support hunting and hunting is not appropriate for every situation, but hunting can be used in far more areas and to a much greater degree than it is currently being used. The key to making this happen is education.

The best way to educate urban/suburban residents on deer management is to provide them with unbiased, scientific information on deer management strategies and let them decide which option(s) they prefer, or at least can live with. The two best published documents with this information are An Evaluation of Deer Management Options by Ellingwood and Caturano and Managing White-Tailed Deer in Suburban Environments: A Technical Guide by DeNicola, VerCauteren, Curtis and Hygnstrom.

An Evaluation of Deer Management Options is an excellent publication and is intended for distribution to the general public. Managing White-Tailed Deer in Suburban Environments is also an excellent publication and is intended for professional biologists and managers, community leaders, and others involved with suburban deer management. A new publication, the community version of QDMA’s Living with White-tailed Deer (LWWTD) educational program uses information from these documents to provide the most up-to-date scientific information available. The community version of LWWTD is written in laymen’s terms and specifically targets urban/suburban residents and community leaders. The community version includes a one-page information sheet on each of the seven most commonly used strategies, including advantages, disadvantages and associated costs for each. The document covers contraception, predation, allowing nature to take its course, fencing and repellents, trapping, hunting and sharpshooting. The document does not tell the reader which option is the best, rather it provides the facts and lets the reader make his/her own decision – based on factual information – about which management strategy(s) is appropriate for them. LWWTD removes the emotion and misinformation from the decision-making process and will help remove barriers to managing deer in urban/suburban environments.

Urban and suburban deer management have been emerging challenges for state wildlife agencies and local municipalities. Given our country’s rate of development and increasing human population, these deer management arenas will necessitate additional time and resources in the near future. The sooner we begin educating urban/suburban municipalities and other nontraditional hunting groups on the benefits of hunting, the sooner we’ll begin adequately managing urban/suburban deer populations.

DeNicola, A.J., K.C. VerCauteren, P.D. Curtis, and S.E. Hygnstrom. 2000. Managing white-tailed deer in suburban environments: a technical guide. A publication of the Cornell Cooperative Extension, the Wildlife Society-Wildlife Damage Management Working Group, and the Northeast Wildlife Damage Research and Outreach Cooperative. 52pp.

Ellingwood, M.R. and S.L. Caturano. 1988. An evaluation of deer management options. Publication Number DR-11, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Wildlife Division, Hartford, Conn. Revised and reformatted, NH Fish and Game Department, 1996.

Kip’s Korner is written by Kip Adams, a Certified Wildlife Biologist and Northern Director of Education and Outreach for the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA). The QDMA is an international nonprofit wildlife conservation organization dedicated to ethical hunting, sound deer management and preservation of the deer-hunting heritage. The QDMA can be reached at 1-800-209-DEER or www.QDMA.com.

Many hunters unfamiliar with Quality Deer Management (QDM) incorrectly assume QDM is only about large-racked bucks. Many also feel antler point restrictions (APRs) are synonymous with QDM. Pieces from both of these beliefs can be parts of QDM programs but QDM is about much more than just antlers or APRs.

In simplest terms QDM involves balancing the deer herd with the habitat and having deer - bucks and does - in multiple age classes. Determining and achieving the right number of deer for the habitat is a topic for another discussion and this article will focus on multiple age classes of deer. Most areas have a good age structure for the doe population as it is common for hunters to harvest does 1.5-6.5+yrs. This age structure exists because of traditional deer management practices where hunters focused much of their harvest pressure on bucks and allowed does to survive and fill multiple age classes.

Very few places have this same age structure for the buck population. Typical buck populations include a high percentage (60-80%) of yearlings, a small percentage (10-30%) of 2.5yr olds, an even smaller percentage (5-10%) of 3.5yr olds and almost no 4.5+yr olds. This young age structure is a direct result of harvest pressure by hunters. In the not-too-distant past most hunters focused intense pressure on yearling bucks and removed the majority of that age class. In historical Pennsylvania for example, hunters routinely removed over 80% of the yearling age class on an annual basis! With that removal rate, less than 1% of Pennsylvania’s bucks ever reached maturity.

Quality Deer Management helps correct this imbalance by protecting young bucks and allowing them to survive into the older age classes. Quality Deer Management isn’t about protecting bucks until they are 5.5yrs old - that’s trophy management. Quality Deer Management, in simplest terms is about protecting yearling bucks. Yearling bucks are the easiest adult deer to harvest, but if hunters pass them and allow them to reach 2.5yrs, they become a little smarter and some will avoid hunters and reach 3.5yrs. Some of those will then avoid hunters and reach 4.5yrs, etc. Pretty soon you end up with a deer population that has bucks in multiple age classes even while allowing bucks 2.5yrs and older to be harvested. A complete age structure is good for deer and great for hunters.

The big question then is what is the best way to protect yearling bucks? There are several techniques to protect yearlings and they all have advantages and disadvantages. Antler point restrictions are a common technique and they involve establishing a minimum number of points a buck must possess to be eligible for harvest. This minimum number should be established with the aid of a biologist and with local harvest data. Advantages of APRs include they are simple and are easy for state agencies to enforce. The disadvantage of APRs is the number of antler points is a poor predictor of animal age. Yearling bucks can have a rack ranging from short spikes to 10+ points. Therefore it can be difficult with APRs to protect the majority of the yearling age class while still making other age classes available for harvest. Managers may unintentionally focus harvest pressure on yearlings with larger racks or protect older age classes. However, because of APRs simplicity and enforceability, they are the most common buck harvest restriction discussed and implemented by state agencies.

Antler width restrictions are another technique and they involve establishing a minimum width of antler spread a buck possess have to be eligible for harvest. Again, this width should be established with the aid of a biologist and from local harvest data. The premise of a width restriction is few yearling bucks attain an outside antler spread of more than 15-16 inches. Hunters can estimate a buck’s antler spread by viewing where the antlers are in relation to an animal’s forward pointed ears. Ear tip to tip distance is approximately 15-16 inches for northern deer and slightly less for southern deer. Therefore, if a buck’s antlers are as wide as or wider than his ears, there is a good chance he is at least 2.5yrs. The advantage of a width restriction is it is a much better predictor of whether a buck is 1.5 or 2.5+yrs and therefore can do a better job protecting yearlings. The disadvantage of a width restriction is it is slightly more difficult to determine the legal status of a buck in the wild (vs. APR) and it can be more difficult for state agencies to enforce. A width restriction is more biologically sound than an APR and therefore is commonly used on private lands where managers have more control over the deer management program.

A third technique is age restrictions based on body characteristics. This technique involves establishing the age classes available for harvest (2.5+yrs for this discussion), and hunters then use body – not antler – characteristics to determine eligible bucks. Distinguishable body changes occur as deer progress through age classes and this technique requires hunters to be skilled in identifying those changes. The advantage of this technique is it is an excellent predictor of animal age and therefore you can either target or protect multiple age classes of bucks. The disadvantage of this technique is it requires time and practice for hunters to learn the body characteristics of each age class and be able to accurately estimate the age of live bucks in the wild. This technique is currently practiced on some of the most intensively managed properties throughout the country and is the future of deer management for many hunters. This technique is a lot of fun and is very rewarding for true whitetail enthusiasts. Age restrictions are by far the most biologically sound approach and are therefore used for the majority of intensive management programs. Due to the skill involved and practice required by hunters this approach is most commonly used by private land managers and unfortunately is rarely even discussed by state agencies.

Two final techniques are “earn-a-buck” programs and buck harvest quotas. Both of these programs restrict the number of bucks that get harvested rather than the age of bucks that get harvested. Earn-a-buck programs are typically used in areas of high deer density where managers must force hunters to remove additional antlerless deer. The premise of this technique is a hunter must harvest an antlerless deer to receive (or validate) his/her buck tag. A hunter that doesn’t help the management program by harvesting a doe is not permitted to shoot a buck. This technique protects some bucks because not all hunters will have the opportunity to harvest a buck after harvesting an antlerless deer. Buck harvest quotas are similar to what most states currently use to limit the antlerless harvest. With this technique, managers issue a limited number of buck tags and thus some bucks are protected because not all hunters receive a tag.

There are many ways to protect numbers or specific age classes of bucks. No technique is perfect but they all have advantages. The challenge is to educate hunters on the benefits and limitations of each and achieve broad-based support for the selected technique. Hunter support is crucial and it can take a management program to the next level or dump it in the gutter. In general, the most biologically sound techniques provide the most benefits but all of the techniques can improve a deer management program when applied correctly.

So, is QDM just about large-racked bucks and are APRs synonymous with QDM? The first answer is obviously “no”. Quality Deer Management is about balancing the deer herd with the habitat and having bucks and does in multiple age classes. You end up with larger bucks because they are a byproduct of good deer management. The second answer is also “no”; APRs are merely one technique to get bucks into multiple age classes. Antler point restrictions are not the most biologically sound approach, but as Pennsylvania and other states have shown, they can be effective when applied correctly.

Hunters pay many of the costs associated with wildlife management across the United States. This is not an egotistical statement made by a hunter (although I am an avid hunter) but a fact of the wildlife management system in our country. We could debate the advantages and short falls of this system but my intent is merely to establish the fact that hunters are critical to modern day wildlife management.

Unfortunately, we are losing hunters at an alarming rate. Less than 10% of the U.S. population hunts and the average hunter is nearly 50 years old. We are currently losing more hunters to old age than we are gaining from our youth. Why aren’t we recruiting more youth? A company from Harrisonburg, Virginia may have some answers.

Responsive Management (RM) is a nationally recognized public opinion and attitude survey research firm specializing in natural resource and outdoor recreation issues. In 2003, RM completed a survey titled Factors Related to Hunting and Fishing Participation Among the Nation’s Youth. The final report can be found at www.responsivemanagement.com. Responsive Management surveyed youths 8-18 years old from across the country and this article highlights some of the survey’s important findings.

-those who were very interested in going hunting were significantly more likely to have a family member who hunts.

-those who were very interested in going hunting were more likely to have been fishing in the previous year.

-those who were interested in going hunting were significantly more likely to live in a rural area or to have grown up in a rural area.

· 88% think it is okay for girls to hunt and 91% think it is okay for boys to hunt

· Very few youth see or hear information at school that helps them learn more about hunting or increases their interest in hunting

· 61% who hear about hunting at school say they hear good things about it (7% hear bad things about hunting)

The report also stated youth participation in hunting is positively related to being male, to having a family member who hunts, to having also been fishing, and to living in a rural area or spending time in rural areas. Youth hunters typically had a mentor who had a positive influence on their interest and/or participation in hunting. The top reason given that would encourage youth to go hunting or hunt more was being asked by another person such as his/her father, another family member or a friend.

The report is full of statistics and percentages but some of the key findings include:

The above four bullets are a great starting point for anyone reading this article to make a positive impact on youth hunter recruitment. Whether you’re a teacher, carpenter, truck driver, business owner or wildlife biologist you can embrace the fact that hunting is “cool” to youths. Youths have the rest of their lives to do their part for wildlife management; let them have fun doing a “cool” activity in the early years. We all have a day or two each year we can forego our own hunting and take a youth to the woods. Being a mentor for merely one day can pay dividends to the youth and you. We all know a teacher or someone who works in a school system. Ask them to mention to the students that it is hunting season or to ask the students how many of them or their parents hunt. A single question may start a productive dialogue about hunting. Lastly, take a child fishing. We all could take a child (or a truck load of kids) to a trout stream or a farm pond full of bluegills. You don’t have to own land to take a youth fishing and you don’t even have to have much money. A $10 spinning rod and $2 pack of night crawlers are all that are necessary.

As hunters we owe it to the resource to do everything we can to protect future wildlife populations and their habitats. One of the most important things we can do is ensure there will be future hunters. The QDMA is a proud supporter of youth programs and I hope you are too.

Modern day hunters are embracing the opportunity to harvest antlerless deer more than ever before. The average hunter in 2005 will likely harvest more antlerless deer than the average hunter in 2004, 2003 and most other years. This change in hunter attitude has resulted in healthier deer populations throughout the United States. Progress also brings additional questions and one that I’m often asked is, “Which doe should I shoot”? Many hunters feel you should not shoot the oldest does because they are the “teachers” in the deer world. Is this true?

It is true that does teach the younger animals, and they often maintain matrilineal groups of daughters and granddaughters and can therefore teach multiple generations. However, in free ranging populations it is nearly impossible to identify and remove the oldest does.

The QDMA promotes harvesting an adequate number of female deer to keep populations in balance with the existing habitat. We generally recommend shooting the largest doe or does in a group because they are most likely adults. Adult does are the most reproductive segment of a deer population and their removal helps balance a herd with its habitat in the shortest time frame. The only exception to this general guideline would be in areas with low deer populations. In these areas, the harvest of does under 2 ½ years of age would be recommended because of their lower reproductive rates compared to adult does. Selecting for the largest doe or does also minimizes the chance of harvesting a button buck and it provides the most meat for the table.

The largest does however aren’t necessarily the oldest. Like humans, female deer come in many shapes and sizes. I have seen 3½ year old does win “heavy” doe contests where entrants ranged from 1½-6½+ years old. These deer were harvested on properties in close proximity to each other with comparable habitats, so the weight differences weren’t a function of nutritional differences. Conversely, I have recorded 75 lb. (dressed wt.) 5½ year old does from northern ranges. These deer were healthy and they had abundant kidney and body fat (2 measures of nutritional fitness), they were just small in stature.

With a little training hunters can separate live antlerless deer by sex (female vs. buck fawn) and they can separate females into fawn, yearling, and 2½+ age classes. However, it is extremely difficult to accurately age live adult females to a specific year. For example, we can estimate a doe to be 2½+ years old based on body characteristics but it is difficult to identify whether she is actually 2½, 3½, 4½ or older. Fortunately, the oldest females aren’t necessarily the largest so when hunters select for the largest doe(s) they are automatically selecting across a range of ages. Harvesting deer from all age classes is good for the deer herd and it provides important data to use for establishing future antlerless harvest quotas.

Even if hunters could accurately identify the oldest does in a population it would be impossible to remove all of them. Research projects have shown mature does can be extremely difficult to harvest. In captive studies, a mature doe is often the last deer remaining when all deer within an enclosure are harvested.

Finally, removing some of the oldest does benefits hunters. Mature does that have lived under intense hunting pressure are master evaders and they teach their “tricks” to other deer in the group. This is one reason hunters see fewer does 1-2 years after initiating aggressive antlerless harvest programs. These populations probably contain fewer deer and the remaining does are much better at avoiding hunters. Thus it is good to remove some of these “masters” on a yearly basis.

The take home message is it is extremely difficult if not impossible to correctly identify the oldest does in a deer population. Then, even if hunters could identify them it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to harvest all of them. So, continue harvesting an adequate number of does and be confident you’re doing the right thing by selecting for the largest doe(s) in the group.

Quality Deer Management (QDM) practices gain acceptance and increase in popularity on a daily basis across much of the U.S. Today’s hunters are more knowledgeable than ever before on deer biology, management, habitat improvement and all around stewardship. Millions of acres of public and private land across the country are being managed under QDM guidelines. These changes are good for deer herds (and other wildlife), forest habitat, hunters and our hunting culture. However, are these changes good for rural economies? Using Pennsylvania as an example, let’s look at past and present day deer hunting and estimate their impacts on rural economies.

Historically, Pennsylvania was widely known for its high deer populations, vast expanse of public lands, and a short, high intensity deer season. The state has had an archery season since 1929 and a flintlock season since 1974 but the bulk of the deer harvest traditionally occurred during the two week buck season followed by a two or three day doe season.

The “big woods” of northern Pennsylvania were a popular hunting destination. Hunters from throughout Pennsylvania and neighboring states flooded into the northern region on Thanksgiving weekend in anticipation of opening day on the following Monday. Some hunters stayed and hunted the entire week but most hunted 1-2 days and returned to work. Many traveled back to the area to hunt the following Saturday, and some even returned to hunt the last day of buck season on the next Saturday and may have stayed to hunt doe on Monday and Tuesday (and Wednesday in some years).

High deer populations and a lot of hunters created an excitement in the air and local businesses capitalized on it. Hotels, restaurants, grocery stores, bars, sporting goods stores, gas stations, and others looked forward to buck season and the influx of sportsmen’s dollars.

Modern day Pennsylvania is a different picture. Buck and doe seasons run concurrently and during the two week gun season there aren’t as many hunters flocking to the “big woods”. Has the Pennsylvania Game Commission’s attempt to balance the deer herd with the habitat devastated local economies? Has a more QDM-based management approach killed rural businesses? At first glance it is easy to point a finger at the changes to the deer season and place blame for fewer hunters traveling to northern Pennsylvania, but a closer look may reveal an entirely different picture.

In the past, a lot of hunters traveled to rural areas an average of 1-3 times during the deer season (opening weekend, first Saturday, and second Saturday/doe season). These hunters put a lot of dollars in local economies during their visits, but their visits were few in number and short in duration. The change in today’s hunting regulations and culture towards QDM involves year-round participation by many. Today’s QDM practitioners often spend multiple days, weekends or weeks at their camp or hunting property enhancing habitat, collecting data on the deer herd, viewing deer and hunting. More and more of today’s hunters are seeing their role as hunter and manager and are embracing the concept. Today’s hunters spend money on lime, fertilizer, seed, fuel, equipment, equipment maintenance, consulting forester and biologist fees, groceries, lodging, etc. and that’s all prior to the hunting season.

Today’s hunting seasons are more numerous with liberalized bag limits and many hunters take advantage of these by making multiple trips to their hunting destinations. Today there are fewer hunters traveling on the weekend before opening day in Pennsylvania, but those hunters travel many times during the year.

QDM critics are quick to respond that the extra travel associated with habitat and food plot work may help rural economies surrounded by private land, but not areas dominated by public land because sportsmen have few opportunities to improve public habitat. I disagree; the QDMA and many other conservation organizations assist with habitat improvement projects and food plots on public lands in cooperation with state and federal agencies. There are nearly always projects to get involved with for interested sportsmen.

There is also the value associated with a well managed deer herd. Deer herds in balance with their habitats are typically healthier than over abundant herds. In general, healthier deer have higher body weights, increased reproduction and improved antler growth. Combine this with a better age structure for the buck population and you have older bucks with larger antlers available for harvest. Most rural economies aren’t going to suffer from an increased number of older, larger antlered bucks. Very few hunters – even meat only hunters – will ever pass on the opportunity to harvest a large antlered buck.

There are many examples of local economies benefiting from well managed deer herds. The Midwest is among the top whitetail destinations in the world. Ask those rural businesses if they’d prefer to have over abundant deer herds that are unable to express their body or antler growth potential? Hunters aren’t traveling to Illinois, Iowa or Wisconsin to shoot undersized does and yearling bucks.

Today’s deer hunting and hunting culture is different from 10, 20, or 30 years ago. Today’s average hunter is far more involved in year-round deer management programs and spends more time prior to and during the hunting season(s) in the woods or on the property he/she hunts. Rural businesses may not get a big lump sum of money in deer season, but I’ll argue they get a larger sum of money spread throughout the year.

How many times did you get asked this hunting season, “How many deer did you see?” Your answer is often followed immediately by, “Yeah the deer herd is up (or down) in my area too.” As deer density increases do we always see more deer, and do we always see fewer deer as it decreases? The answers to those questions are obviously “no” but let’s look at how density and sightability are related. Density is defined as an amount per unit measure – such as deer per square mile. Sightability is defined as the ability to view an object of interest – such as deer during hunting season. Are density and sightability directly related? Are they partially related? Using deer as an example, let’s look at the factors affecting each and determine how density influences the number of deer hunters see.

Deer density is regulated by reproduction, recruitment and survival. In the deer world, habitat quality governs these parameters and plays a large role in the number of deer an area can support. Healthy habitats provide adequate nutrition and permit increased reproduction, recruitment and survival. Survival requires adequate food, cover and protection from predators. Forested cover can provide protection from four-legged predators and restrictions on the number, sex or age of animals available for harvest can provide protection from two-legged predators (hunters). In a nutshell, high quality habitats can support higher numbers of healthy deer while poor and/or degraded habitats support fewer, less healthy animals.

Deer sightability is regulated by habitat type, food sources and their availability, hunting techniques (stand/still hunting vs. driving), deer behavior, weather (temperature and precipitation) and deer density. Sightability in open habitats can be deceiving; even though you can see farther and should theoretically be able to see more deer, deer spend less time in open environments, particularly after being exposed to human pressure. Food sources affect deer movements and therefore directly influence sightability. Deer need to eat and are very good at finding the most palatable and nutritious food sources in their home range. Therefore, areas with little or low quality food typically have low sightabilities (even if the deer density in the area is high). Areas with abundant food often have higher sightabilities until human pressure causes deer to become less active during daylight hours (even low density herds can have high sightabilities in feeding areas).

Hunting techniques play a far larger role in deer sightability than many realize. Other than rutting activity, deer during autumn are content with a daily cycle of bedding – feeding – bedding – feeding, etc. This maximizes their weight gain for the upcoming winter and minimizes their exposure to predators. Unless hunters physically move deer (e.g., traditional deer drives), deer waste little time roaming aimlessly around or in areas with low quality food. Adult deer are masters at evading predators and they immediately alter their behavior and change their movement patterns at the sight, sound or smell of a predator. They are adept at hiding in cover and are well known for their nocturnal tendencies. Think about how easy it is to view a deer a week before deer season and how that changes after the season starts. Deer hunting for many hunters in Pennsylvania traditionally meant “deer drives” and it is easier to observe deer when you have several hunters working together. The majority of modern day hunters however, hunt from ground or tree stands and attempt to become “invisible” in the woods. Some hunters still “drive deer” but the technique is quickly vanishing. The difference on deer movement (and sightability) between these techniques is profound. Today’s woods have fewer hunters and those hunters move less. These add up to fewer deer being moved around and lower sightability. For example, take two areas of equal size with equal deer densities. Have 10 hunters “drive” one area and have eight hunters sit in a tree stand on the other. Even though both areas have the same number of deer, the deer on the area with more hunters who are “driving” will be more observable.

Weather affects sightability by influencing deer and hunter movements. During autumn, northern deer move more when it is cold and less as temperatures rise. On average, northern deer hunters follow the same pattern. Snow also affects sightability as it is far easier to view a brown object against a white background than a brown object against a similarly-colored background. Snow also helps hunters find areas of deer concentrations as they can follow their tracks. This statement is not belittling hunters, but is a fact that only a small percentage of hunters can successfully track deer on a regular basis without the aid of snow.

The final variable is deer density, and high densities can have low (or high) sightabilities just as low densities can have high (or low) sightabilities. Density is merely one factor that influences sightability. This is commonly misunderstood and many incorrectly assume sightability is directly proportional to density. That is, as density increases so does sightability and sightability decreases at lower densities. In reality, what hunters see during the season is a result of the combination of factors discussed above. Deer density is only one of those factors and is rarely the most important. Deer sightability is typically influenced more by food availability, weather patterns and human pressure.

Sidebar: Pennsylvania’s 2004-05 deer season caused quite a stir from some hunters. Many voiced their opinions regarding low deer sightings and blamed the recent increased antlerless harvests. Their accusations may or may not be accurate, but it is noteworthy that nearly all northeastern and some midwestern states had similar stories. Hunters from WV, PA, NJ, NY, VT, NH, Quebec, MI and WI reported fewer deer sightings during the recent deer season – not all hunters but enough to get the attention of their respective wildlife or natural resource agencies. This information is not intended to dismiss hunters’ claims or suggest there are not areas with few deer, but to show the regional trend in hunter sightings and re-emphasize that deer density is only one variable influencing deer sightability.

Quality deer management (QDM) is a household name to modern day deer hunters. You can’t pick up a hunting magazine, watch the Outdoor Channel, or talk to the guys at camp without seeing or hearing the letters QDM. The rise in popularity of QDM is a good thing for deer, other wildlife species, habitats and hunters. While today’s hunters are more educated than ever before, there are still too many that don’t fully understand how QDM differs from traditional or trophy deer management. This article will compare and contrast the three management strategies using seven measurable variables.

I’ll begin by defining the three strategies and will then compare each to the variables in bullet point fashion. Traditional deer management (TraDM) is the approach where any antlered buck, regardless of age or antler quality is harvested and few, if any does are harvested. This is the management strategy that every state in the country used and most continue to use today. This strategy may work when the deer herd is far below the habitat’s carrying capacity but fails when the herd equals or exceeds the carrying capacity.

QDM is the approach where young bucks are protected from harvest, combined with an adequate harvest of female deer to produce healthy deer herds in balance with existing habitat conditions. QDM is first and foremost about putting the right number of deer on the landscape. If a habitat will support 20 deer per square mile, QDM says put 20 deer per square mile on it. If a habitat will support 30 deer per square mile – put 30 deer per square mile on it, but don’t put 30 deer on habitat that can only support 20. QDM also improves age structures by allowing bucks to reach all age classes – not just 1 and 2 years. QDM accomplishes this by not shooting yearlings.

Trophy deer management (TroDM) is the approach where only fully mature bucks, 5-7 yrs old, with high scoring antlers (with the exception of cull bucks) are harvested and does are aggressively harvested to maintain low deer density and optimum nutrition for the remaining animals. TroDM is not practical in much of the United States and the strategy is negatively viewed by much of the hunting and non-hunting public.

Deer vs. Habitat · deer herd greater than habitat’s carrying capacity in TraDM

The seven items above show how the different management strategies affect our deer herds and habitats. Each strategy is unique and shouldn’t be confused with the others. For example, QDM is as different from TroDM as it is from TraDM, even though many hunters and non-hunters incorrectly consider QDM and TroDM to be one in the same. Each strategy has its place in deer management, but evaluation of the deer herd and habitat is necessary to correctly choose the strategy that will be most effective at producing a healthy deer herd and healthy habitat. TraDM works when the deer population is far below the habitat’s carrying capacity and the goal is to increase the deer herd and provide recreational hunting. TroDM works best when the goal is to produce mature, trophy-class bucks with high scoring antlers. QDM works best when the deer population is at or exceeding the habitat’s carrying capacity and the goal is to improve the health of the deer herd and balance it with available habitat. Fortunately, QDM also provides tremendous hunting opportunities.

In the last Kip’s Korner I discussed the basics of antler growth and the factors contributing to antler size. In this article I’ll discuss the causes of antler abnormalities and describe the effects each has on antlers. Abnormalities can be caused or influenced by an antler injury, a body injury, genetics or the animal’s age.

Antler Injuries – antlers can sustain injuries to the pedicle (base), main beam or tines (points). Pedicle injuries are often the result of a blow to the head and will affect the entire antler. Pedicle injuries cause the base and most or all of the antler to look deformed, while the opposite antler grows normally and shows no sign of an injury. Severe pedicle injuries may even stop antler growth completely. Main beam injuries occur during the growing season (obviously) and the degree of abnormality is determined by timing and location of the injury. Antlers with normal bases but deformed growth patterns/shapes and tines are caused by injuries during early growth. Injuries occurring later in growth affect less of the antler’s “normal” shape unless the injury is low on the main beam. Injuries to main beams and tines are expressed only during the current year. The buck’s next set of antlers typically don’t show signs of the injury.

Body Injuries – body injuries caused by disease, vehicles, bullets, arrows, snakebite, and other unfortunate events can cause abnormal antler growth. Injuries to a front limb (foot, leg, shoulder) may affect the antler on the injured side, opposite side or both sides, but the antler on the injured side is typically most affected. Hind limb injuries usually affect the opposite antler. Body injuries can affect antler growth on both sides and may cause the antlers to stop growing entirely. Depending on location and severity of the injury, the abnormality may occur on just the current set of antlers or it may be carried throughout life. For example, a buck that sustains minor injuries to his right rear leg from a vehicle collision may have an abnormal left antler for one season. Another buck that loses his right rear foot to a bullet may have an abnormal left antler for the rest of his life.

Genetics & Age - genetics and animal age can also be responsible for abnormalities. We have all seen pictures of bucks with palmated antlers and points going in every direction. Within the past year, pictures of Goliath (a captive buck from PA) have been distributed via e-mail to millions of computers around the world. His abnormal antlers are caused by genetics and age, not by an injury. A buck’s age plays a large role in the expression of non injury deformities. Bucks that are not nutritionally limited (and bucks from over populated herds often are) should increase the size of their antlers yearly until they reach maturity at 5-7 years of age. This is why drop tines and sticker points are much more common on older bucks.

Many abnormalities we see in the field are temporary in nature. An abnormal antler(s) should not be an excuse to harvest a young buck, particularly if the abnormality is injury related. If given the chance to grow another set of antlers, most bucks revert to their pre-injured form and grow a larger set in response to their advanced age. I know of one 3 ½ year old buck that injured his antlers early in growth and ended with 6 points on 2 deformed antlers. He scored far less than 100 Boone & Crockett points (probably closer to 50 B&C). The next year he was a symmetrical 10 point with a 21 inch inside spread and scored 145 B&C. It’s amazing the difference a year can make.

QDMA Articles :
Deer-Vehicle Collisions (December 2007)

QDMA Articles :
The "Modern" Deer Hunter (June 2007)

QDMA Articles :
Suburban QDM (March 2007)

QDMA Articles : Deer-Vehicle Collisions (December 2007)

QDMA Articles : The "Modern" Deer Hunter (June 2007)

QDMA Articles : Suburban QDM (March 2007)

QDMA Articles :
Deer-Vehicle Collisions (December 2007)

QDMA Articles :
The "Modern" Deer Hunter (June 2007)

QDMA Articles :
Suburban QDM (March 2007)