Roe density per km2?

[Mungo]

I'm also quite prepared to believe that calf survival in many forestry populations of roe and sika will be very high indeed - at least until carrying capacity is reached.

This is where poor cull plans actually make things worse: if you just shoot males and calves, you reduce competition for food and IMPROVE survival for breeding females and the other juveniles.

 

[bogtrotter]

To keep a roe population stable cull 60% young 40% mature does.

 

[Mungo]

To keep a roe population stable cull 60% young 40% mature does.

That's within your overall doe cull.

But you need to work out what your total doe cull is going to be. You'll probably find that the ratio of young to old does is close to irrelevant. What is likely to be critical is the proportion of mature does on the ground that you shoot.

Or do you mean cull 40% OF your mature does?

 

[riverdog]

Thanks everybody; some really useful feedback there. Maybe I need to do a bit more fragmentation of the woodland types surveyed; I did sense I was cherry-picking the better ground for dung plots.Also, as mentioned, taking a bit of a liberal approach rather than scientific.

Just a clarification; a couple of people are talking about cull targets of 4 or 5 beasts per 100ha/km2. A cull ratio of 20% would put total population density at 20-25; which is even higher than my estimate! Am I right to assume that these targets are aiming to reduce populations and are maybe a much higher percentage of the total population density; more like 40 or 50%?

Thanks again.

 

[countrryboy]

No the population should be about 5 beasts per km2, well thats wot FC try to aim for.

Best way is just putting time on the ground watching, looking for signs/footprints and getting out with the lamp occasionally to count, eventually u'll get an idea of wot u have. Really the actual number is irrelevant but u get a feel if there is more/less deer than normal or in other places

The comment i'd make is despite all the great science etc its pretty much wasted in modern forestry/stalking. V
ery few safe shots will be left all about numbers sadly if brown down or red is dead are pretty much normal prectics now.
And even on syndicated ground very few safe shots will be left, if someone has travelled hours they won't leave that nice buck in velvet for fear the next rifle willl take it, plus need to fill the freezer to justify the journey.

Nothing wrong with either approach but sadly real deer manaement will almost be a thing of the past over most forestry ground nowadays

 

[bogtrotter]

First question is how many roe can your ground hold the actual number will depend on the type of ground good or poor the critical thing for roe is the amount of cover there are formulas for workings out the optimum number any type of ground can hold most places will be a mixture of types for example very good areas can sustain as many as 50 animals per square kilometre poorer areas as little 10 or even less per square kilometre.
Bare in mind these figures are what the ground can hold not what might be desirable,commercial forestry for example would demand much lower figure than that.

Now how many are actually on the ground that's the difficult part getting an accurate count of roe is not easy and whatever method you use you are almost bound to under estimate the numbers.
The best time to count roe is in March at this time of year they are more likely to be found in fields and open areas while again this will not give you exact numbers it will give some idea of the ratio of bucks to does it will also give an idea of how many young have survived the winter .
Also examinning browse lines will give an idea of pressure on food resources.

Once you have some idea of the population then you can make a cull plan it probably won't be that accurate but you have to start somewhere, I don't believe that you can get an accurate count in year one and need to count over a period of several years trends are more important than actual numbers, if the numbers you are counting each year are increasing then you need to increase your cull, decreasing then cut back a bit it not rocket science

Now let's presume that you have arrived at a figure that shows your population is about right for the acreage that you have then you need to cull a third of that population annually ( doing a count in March means that you are counting all ages including the previous years young
but those that would have died naturally are not included most natural mortality will have taken place before this time)

OK we have decided we need to cull a third of the population just to keep the population stable we need to cull slightly more does than bucks, in my case that's around 120 roe annually made up of 50 bucks and 70 does.

Cull a third of from the total number of each sex bucks cull 60% young 20% middle aged and 20% old
Does cull 60% young and 40% mature
There is no point in trying to age does other than young and mature
If you stick to this year on year then you will maintain a stable population but of courssits only as good as your count is that's why I say study the trends over a year or two .

If you need to reduce a population increase your cull of mature does.

 

[Lupus]

I don't deny the importance of does to population management. They are THE key, but I don't see the hang up with trying to shoot more does than bucks is all. I don't go with the figure that does make up significantly more of the population either. As I said, I don't struggle for bucks, but does I have to work for. I certainly don't get the impression when I'm out and about that does are any more abundant than bucks.

Structure your cull as you like, as long as you are culling enough breeding females to meet your objectives then all should be fine. However, it's still worth remembering, bucks still eat things many would rather they didn't, and if damage reduction is the main objective then thinning out the number of mouths also has a place.

As for ratios of age classes in a cull, forget it. Shoot on sight and you'll find you end up there or there abouts anyway. Often, by the time you figure out which narrow category the deer stood in front of you is in, it'll have walked behind the bush.

Cull setting for damage limitation is not rocket science. Set a figure, try and achieve it. If you get it with ease, shoot some more. If you struggle or fail, lower it. And, ultimately, is your cull achieving your objectives. If damage is still too high, your cull is to low. If your damage is acceptable then shoot to maintain the situation.

Wolfie

 

[North Stalker]

No the population should be about 5 beasts per km2, well thats wot FC try to aim for.

They'll be happy on my bit then, about 1 deer per 5Km2 with just under 40 to get before March 31st.

 

[slider]

I

However, it's still worth remembering, bucks still eat things many would rather they didn't, and if damage reduction is the main objective then thinning out the number of mouths also has a place.

Wolfie

No denying bucks cause browsing damage but at its most basic the point is a population of 1 doe and 4 buck - total 5 - will result in a total population next year of 7 (assuming no cull and twins survive).

A population of 4 does and 1 buck with result in a population of 13 on the same assumptions

 

[jubnut]

Cull setting for damage limitation is not rocket science. Set a figure, try and achieve it. If you get it with ease, shoot some more. If you struggle or fail, lower it. And, ultimately, is your cull achieving your objectives. If damage is still too high, your cull is to low. If your damage is acceptable then shoot to maintain the situation.

Wolfie

What he said.

If some.of you boys spent as long out stalking as you did counting poo and thinking about cull plans you might get a few more deer shot.

 

[riverdog]

The FC area I mentioned earlier is looking for an annual cull of 130 does and 60 bucks in an area of 50 km2. That's a cull of 4 (3.8) per km2.

 

[Siggy]

thanks Riverdog for starting an interesting thread.

Siggy

 

[slider]

Most commercial forestry look for about 5 deer per kmsq. And i think 5% damage over the 1st 5 years to get the grant money paid

We had a reputable company come in and do a deer dung count there estimate/guestimate was +/- 30%, and that was not back of fag packet study, in fact about 30 odd pages of bumf.

FC deer densities are not a set figure - while 5 per KM2 may be a rough yardstick they are set on a block by block basis based on the level of damage and the age of the stand. Aim is to keep damage to leader shoots to below 10%. Consequently is it is all more mature forestry and natural regeneration does not feature in the plans than higher deer numbers are not a major problem.

 

[caorach]

The FC area I mentioned earlier is looking for an annual cull of 130 does and 60 bucks in an area of 50 km2. That's a cull of 4 (3.8) per km2.

Again I'm talking about sika here and don't know if you can extrapolate but we need a figure of around 30 - 40 off 12 square km and until recently this was almost all mature Sitka spruce with very few clear areas and no lawns etc. for the deer. This figure has proven possible and sustainable but I should highlight that some limited areas are very productive while other, often large, areas appear devoid of deer. Snow, especially if it has been on the ground for days or weeks, can prove interesting. In recent years clear felling and replanting has begun but as yet the newly replanted areas are not holding many, or any, deer and I can't say we have seen any significant increase in population but science and common sense tells us this is yet to come.

So, I'd say the figure you have looks in keeping with the one I work to for sika but I've no idea if that helps you or just confuses the matter further.

 

[Lupus]

Did I not say does were 'THE' key to population control?

I just don't accept that bucks make up a significantly smaller group within the population.

Aim for a 50/50 cull and shoot on sight. Job done.

Wolfie

 

[bogtrotter]

Did I not say does were 'THE' key to population control?

I just don't accept that bucks make up a significantly smaller group within the population.

Aim for a 50/50 cull and shoot on sight. Job done.

Wolfie

Do you truly believe that your population is evenly balanced between the sexes ie 1 to 1 if so you are either doing something exceedingly well or you are mistaken, the ideal ratio is 1to 1 but this is all but impossible to achieve , don't take my word for it its backed up by all the leading authority's on roe mangement,who are far more knowledgeable than I am

If your population is truly evenly split 1 to 1 then well done I take my hat of to you , you are in a pretty unique position .

What this thread has shown and this is not aimed at you is that there a few who's basic knowledge on roe management is a little lacking
Plenty has been written on the subject and some might find a little reading on the subject to their advantage.

 

[Lupus]

A distinguished deer manager with many years experience, alongside none other than the late, great Ronnie Rose, once told me deer management is management with a very small 'm'. In forestry, where damage prevention is the main objective, if you are seeing deer about there are too many. Of all the advice, reading, and education I have had in the 20 some years since these have been the truest words I've heard.

You can take ratios, age spilts, density, whatever you like, but if you think you can talk with ANY confidence on any of these things and tinker with them regarding a wild forest population then you are deluding yourself. How can you make such precise determinations when you don't even know the population size, let alone its structure.

Too much BS talked about deer management. If you have too many deer, shoot more. If you don't have enough deer, shoot less. And what is 'too many' or 'too few' will depend on your objectives.

As for the 50/50 split, in all honesty I have no idea what the structure is. All I do know is I don't see significantly more does than bucks.

Keep it real fellas, and don't trip yourselves up on the details you can never have any more than a best guess at (park, farm, and open hill deer excepted).

Wolfie

 

[countrryboy]

There is no doubt a lot of hot air talked about stalking and the difference between deer managent.

Don't really agree of if u see deer u have to many, and i know ronnie didn't have that view either, i spent a lot of time up there as a boy and done plenty of cutting/forestry work in latter years and u seen plenty of deer about.
When ronnie went to plant/plan eskdalemuir forest he was probably the first forester to think about deer managemnet and control, They were probably the 1st forest to leave big open spaces for the deer and would nt plant certain soil types as that was the deer favourite. At that time in mid 70's forestry planting was all about planting as many trees per acre as u possibly could.
They also done wot i mentioned earlier went out in spring and done vegetation abundance studies to try and access deer popuation impact and compare that to there estimated population and cull returns.
I'd say back in the day the EFG were managing with a 'M' as would most forestry companies when they had plenty of man power.

U'll never truely know how many deer u have but by comparing as many things as u can together with cull returns u can make a better guesstimate.
Really a dung count is just an indice, and should give u a figure but u really need to go back in a few years and do same counts noting any differences and comparing that to the cull returns.

The big difference is on that area of woodland used to be 4/6 stalkers, now its pretty much done by 1 man. The neighbouring FC land had 2/3 men now 1 man and he has a lot of extra woodland to 'manage' too.

All the science, theories and everything else are pretty worthless when the stalkers are under the pressure they now are.
Back in the day rangers would leave decent beasts and know theiir beats very well, now they are just too busy chasing cull returns.


For the OP sounds more like a commercial tender cull, and the FC have stated wot they want in the larder, if u don't put that throu u will have some explaining to do

 

[countrryboy]

FC deer densities are not a set figure - while 5 per KM2 may be a rough yardstick they are set on a block by block basis based on the level of damage and the age of the stand. Aim is to keep damage to leader shoots to below 10%. Consequently is it is all more mature forestry and natural regeneration does not feature in the plans than higher deer numbers are not a major problem.

I totally agree with u, but that figure is often banded around as the 'magic' figure.

Also i would of thought that figure should vary for different deer species as will have different impacts on a crop, but it does seem the figure to aim for no matter wot the situation is.
I know 1 big survey where were quoting that figure for fallow in a lowland mixed farmland woodland environment. Esp as fallow will cuause very little damage to a tree crop esp if plenty of decent farmland around

 

[slider]

I totally agree with u, but that figure is often banded around as the 'magic' figure.

Also i would of thought that figure should vary for different deer species as will have different impacts on a crop, but it does seem the figure to aim for no matter wot the situation is.
I know 1 big survey where were quoting that figure for fallow in a lowland mixed farmland woodland environment. Esp as fallow will cuause very little damage to a tree crop esp if plenty of decent farmland around

FCS have just commissioned a big study on browsing damage levels and the cost implications, will include browsing from goats and sheep (both feral and illegally grazed)