Deer Management Plans - cull figures and high numbers

[Tim.243]

Say you ground can handle x ( or the landowner wants it as x) you estimate you need to take off 300 to meet that, you need to cut some rides to increase access, get seats up etc plus learn the land. That takes you a couple of weeks as an example

You know the best way to impact is to cull the females so you target those (when in season) but your already halfway through the season.

You take as many as you can, move them (game dealer, butcher or do it yourself) you when get back out. Your unlikely to hit the cull as you don't have the man power /infrastructure to do so. (You apply for funding for these things which is the point of the thread)

That's year 1, year 2 you are better equipped, know the land better and Deer better and already have the majority of infrastructure sorted. You can still only move what you can move but the rest takes less time, so you get closer. You've also already reduced females and males by x I'm the first year. You have the full year to make more of an impact including on the natural increase from births this continues etc

The point I'm trying to make is that, if you have a cull target and you can't meet it for whatever reason you need to be honest with the landowner about that to set expectations, get help, get funding to support whatever it may be

Vs if you already have quads/access/help/large larder etc which would make things considerably easier

Saying and doing is a vast difference, reading and quoting from text is far different from having actual experience of it.
Myself I just get stuck in shooting what I can when I can with out quoiting from a reference or course.
Typing don't put deer in the chiller, having the rifle in the shoulder does.

These threads sound like the UN calling for a cease fire with the 2 main players not taking a blind bit of notice which will be the Fallow.

 

[T.eddie]

Saying and doing is a vast difference, reading and quoting from text is far different from having actual experience of it.
Myself I just get stuck in shooting what I can when I can with out quoiting from a reference or course.
Typing don't put deer in the chiller, having the rifle in the shoulder does.

These threads sound like the UN calling for a cease fire with the 2 main players not taking a blind bit of notice which will be the Fallow.

I think your missing the point of the thread Tim, they need to do the paperwork to try and get some form of funding. It's all well and good saying get out and shoot them but that doesn't help with what is trying to be achieved

 

[Tim.243]

I think your missing the point of the thread Tim, they need to do the paperwork to try and get some form of funding. It's all well and good saying get out and shoot them but that doesn't help with what is trying to be achieved.

It is just words Tom (and lots of them) every one wants their hand held with funding, when the funding dries up or the goal posts are moved further then what.
Action this day not sending emails

 

[T.eddie]

It is just words Tom (and lots of them) every one wants their hand held with funding, when the funding dries up or the goal posts are moved further then what.
Action this day not sending emails

That's well and good, but doesn't help yhe question
When the goalposts move and I'm sure they will people will have to review/work in line of them

 

[VSS]

Whilst that seems to make sense, if you do the calcs or a population model, with a large fallow herd with typically 4 times as many does as bucks, it doesn't really matter how many bucks you shoot, the numbers don't come down.

Where are you getting the idea that there would "typically" be 4 times as many does as bucks in a fallow herd? That's not natural.

 

[Hazlett]

Where are you getting the idea that there would "typically" be 4 times as many does as bucks in a fallow herd? That's not natural.

Last year's FC deer event at Worcester, Ben Harrower reported that sort of sex ratio was normal from a number of drone surveys of fallow herds around the country. Also from other drone surveys in the south/south-east. And reports of visual surveys. As for naturalness... well, none of them are really natural herds.

 

[VSS]

Last year's FC deer event at Worcester, Ben Harrower reported that sort of sex ratio was normal from a number of drone surveys of fallow herds around the country. Also from other drone surveys in the south/south-east. And reports of visual surveys. As for naturalness... well, none of them are really natural herds.

Would that be because the adult buck groups were living separately at the time that the surveys were carried out (which is natural, and they're still part of the overall "herd" for that area), or would it be that people have shot the bucks in preference to the does (which is not natural)?
Either way, birth rates are as near as damn it 50:50 male:female, and although the natural mortality rate of male fawns is slightly higher than that of females it's not enough to reduce the sex ratio to 1:4
1:4 is the sort of ratio you might aim to create if you want to encourage population expansion, but it's not natural (or desirable, given the current issues with overpopulation).

 

[Hazlett]

Would that be because the adult buck groups were living separately at the time that the surveys were carried out (which is natural, and they're still part of the overall "herd" for that area), or would it be that people have shot the bucks in preference to the does (which is not natural)?
Either way, birth rates are as near as damn it 50:50 male:female, and although the natural mortality rate of male fawns is slightly higher than that of females it's not enough to reduce the sex ratio to 1:4
1:4 is the sort of ratio you might aim to create if you want to encourage population expansion, but it's not natural (or desirable, given the current issues with overpopulation).

Ha! Not surveying the buck groups would be a comical oversight. No, I don't think that is the case at all. The sex ratio is real.

In these large herds, I think that is the understatement of all time to say that a 1:4 ratio wouldn't be desirable! (Do we know what the sex ratio would have been for a totally wild herd?)

As for the reasons, I don't believe there is much certainty but my money is primarily on bucks being shot preferentially.

 

[VSS]

In these large herds, I think that is the understatement of all time to say that a 1:4 ratio wouldn't be desirable!

It's only desirable (from a management perspective) if an increase in numbers is required (which it's not).

(Do we know what the sex ratio would have been for a totally wild herd?)

The sex ratio in an unmanaged wild herd would be close to 50:50, with marginally more does than bucks. However, as you know, the herd will split into separate sex groups at certain times of year.

As for the reasons, I don't believe there is much certainty but my money is primarily on bucks being shot preferentially.

So you agree with me that a large fallow herd doesn't "typically" contain four times as many females as males, but it might end up with that ratio as a result of management or mismanagement?

 

[Hazlett]

I'm not sure that anyone can know where the sex ratio would have lain in a totally natural wild herd. As there aren't any today, we're in the dark. But I can't believe it would have been near 1:1 and I find as much as 4:1 also to be unlikely. Anyway this is all rather academic.

In the large herds of fallow in England today, the evidence is that the sex ratio is typically 4:1 does to bucks. As such, culling bucks contributes nothing to reducing numbers.

That gives landowners the opportunity to raise revenue in the buck-only season from antler & freezer-filler stalkers and use full-time/retired or contract stalkers during the doe season to shoot just does. That would suit the employed recreational stalker since in the doe season the only available daylight is at weekends.

 

[Tim.243]

I'm not sure that anyone can know where the sex ratio would have lain in a totally natural wild herd. As there aren't any today, we're in the dark. But I can't believe it would have been near 1:1 and I find as much as 4:1 also to be unlikely. Anyway this is all rather academic.

In the large herds of fallow in England today, the evidence is that the sex ratio is typically 4:1 does to bucks. As such, culling bucks contributes nothing to reducing numbers.

That gives landowners the opportunity to raise revenue in the buck-only season from antler & freezer-filler stalkers and use full-time/retired or contract stalkers during the doe season to shoot just does. That would suit the employed recreational stalker since in the doe season the only available daylight is at weekends.

My friend was spotting with me also using a new generation type thermal spotter compared to my xq38, they were around 40/50 yds, his whispered "all does"
2 mins later 4 "bucks" came through the hedge so I shot 2. No 1;1 there

 

[Klenchblaize]

This may be of interest. Opens with a breif peice about the challenges and cost of deer control:

Farming Today - 01/10/24 New kept-bird register, US certification scheme for regen ag, deer cull. - BBC Sounds

All kept birds must now be registered, to help stop bird flu.

www.bbc.co.uk

K

 

[Dorset Guy]

Thanks all for some great responses and DMs. 'Solving' the deer population problem feels like getting a peace deal in the Middle East or making politicians agree with one another.

People on the ground, communication between land owners and pulling the trigger at does (in season) seems like best practice atm!