Buck Manager | Buck Manager

Deer Hunting in Texas: Public Lands

The overwhelming majority of deer hunting and management that happens in Texas takes place on private lands. Although ranches and farms across the state produce the bulk of deer year-in and year-out, there is another option out there when it comes to deer hunting in Texas: draw hunts on public land. Sure, 97 percent of Texas is privately owned, but much of the other 3 percent offers some really good hunting too. This is especially true of the state owned properties that are operated by Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) as wildlife management areas. A wildlife management area (WMA) serves as a research and demonstration site for landowners and hunters that manage property in the same ecoregion of Texas.

Each of the 50 or so WMAs implement a variety of habitat management practices for both game and non-game species to show private landowners what they too can do on their own properties. The product of good habitat management is healthy wildlife populations and economical hunting opportunities for folks looking to bag white-tailed deer, turkey, dove and other species, including alligator. Hunters that enter the annual public draw hunts have a shot at hunting these properties. Of course, public hunting in Texas is not just limited to WMAs.

Other public lands found in the draw hunt lottery, which is administered by TPWD, includes state parks, state natural areas, state forest land, US Forest Service lands and property owned by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The application book for the 2013-14 hunting season was mailed out last week and is available online right now. My family, friends and I have entered these draw hunts for years even though we all have private lands or leases that we hunt. We enjoy the opportunity to meet up, camp and hunt different areas from time to time. And it’s real, open field deer hunting. Every hunt that we’ve gone on in the past 25 years has been great, memorable and we’ve almost always left with more in the coolers than we brought.

Texas Public Draw Hunt Applications – Do Not Mess Up!

TPWD: “A correctly completed application card must be received at the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department’s Austin Headquarters by 5:00 p.m. on the deadline day for the concerned hunt category in order to be entered in the drawing. Application deadlines may be found immediately below each Hunt Category title.

Only one application per person in a hunt category (example, Gun Deer Either Sex) will be allowed. In the event two or more applications are received for an individual within the same hunt category, all applicants on those application forms will be disqualified. It does not matter where your name appears on an application form, that is your application for that hunt category. Even if you apply for another area or on another persons application card for the SAME HUNT CATEGORY, EVERYONE on those cards WILL BE DISQUALIFIED.”

The term “public hunting” means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. All hunters have heard about the pitfalls of hunting public lands, but TPWD’s special draw hunts really offer a quality, controlled hunting experience for folks looking for a place to hunt. The book containing hunt dates and applications can be found online at Applications for Drawings on Public Hunting Lands. This booklet contains all of the program rules and regulations, hunt categories and schedules, procedures for applying, hunt area descriptions and application cards. TPWD will even mail you a printed copy if you request one by calling 1-800-792-1112.

Texas Deer Hunting: Holding Steady?

A Look at Deer Hunting in Texas

It’s never too early to start talking about the upcoming white-tailed deer hunting season in Texas, especially now that we are halfway through the annual antler growth cycle. All of that velvety growth is starting to take shape, giving hunters a glimpse what to expect even though there are still a couple of months left before “hard-horned” bucks start filling trail camera photos. I love this time of year! The last few months leading up to deer season are almost as much fun as hunting season itself. Almost.

Texas is well known as one of the best places for hunting deer. After all, the state is home to the largest whitetail population in the US with an estimated 4 million animals. That’s a whole lot of hooves on the ground, but really a testament to the good deer management that is taking place on properties all across the state.

Number of Hunters, Deer Harvested

According to Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), the 2012-13 deer hunting season saw over 636,000 deer hunters head into the field for about 5.6 million days of hunting. All that time in the stand produced an approximated harvest of just over 546,000 whitetail deer.

That is a lot of deer, but still less than 15 percent of Texas’ total whitetail population.

Source: “The big game harvest survey in its current format was first done after the 1972-73 hunting season. Immediately following the conclusion of the deer hunting season, a random sample of approximately 2.5% of all licensed hunters was selected and a big game harvest survey questionnaire was mailed to the selected hunters. After approximately 4 weeks, non-respondents were mailed a second questionnaire….

The survey asked if the recipient hunted the targeted species, county/counties hunted in, number of days spent hunting in each county, and sex and date of harvest of each individual harvested.”

Deer Harvest Highest in Edwards Plateau

TPWD estimates annual deer harvest in each of the 10 ecoregions that comprise the state. Once again, the top whitetail producer last season was the Edward’s Plateau, affectionately know as the Texas Hill Country by those that hunt there. Hunters decreased the deer herd found in the Edward’s Plateau by an estimated 177,000 whitetail last season. The second and third place finishers were South Texas with almost 103,000 deer harvested and the Post Oak region with just over 97,000 deer harvested, although the Pineywoods was not far behind.

The annual whitetail deer harvest for the 2012-13 season estimated well over a half-million deer, but the reported number is one of the lower statewide harvests in the last 13 years. In fact, the downward trend in total harvest is quite obvious over the past few years. This decline no doubt stems from the drought that has plagued all of Texas the last few years. Habitat conditions have decreased, herd recruitment has suffered and there have been fewer deer on the landscape in recent seasons.

From a deer management standpoint, fewer hooves on the ground is a good thing when environmental conditions are bad. This helps the standing population survive, allowing them to repopulate when habitat conditions improve. Let’s just hope that turn comes sooner rather than later. Deer harvest is about more than just shooting inferior bucks. Sometimes management means reducing deer herds to maintain the condition of wildlife habitat.

Deer Population Control: Management Options

Question: “I recently moved into an older, established gated golf community just outside of Trinity, Texas. There are so many deer here and they take over the yards, gardens and golf course. You can not have a garden unless you install and electric fence. There are a few people who do feed them and have received notices to stop feeding the deer. This spring you can see fawns all over the place with their mothers.

We had a POA meeting last night and was told there is nothing we can do about the deer overpopulation. I refuse to believe that. My sister was diagnosed with Lyme’s Disease a year ago and it is in the advanced stages. Too many deer are a danger in many ways. They have taken over this community and I am desperate to find help and deer management option. Please, if you can provide information I would greatly appreciate it. I contacted the Parks and Wildlife today and left a message for someone to call. Thank you.”

White-tailed Deer Management

Response: Most of the people typically interested in white-tailed deer management are hunters and farm and ranch owners with rural acreage. Their goals are improve habitat and manage deer populations, but typically to enhance body condition, antler quality and improve deer hunting. However, landowners (homeowners) in suburban areas where whitetail populations become overabundant also come to the realization that deer population management is also important on small acreage, very small acreage.

I’m talking in terms of lots — as in residential lots ranging from 1/4 acre up to a couple of acres. All those tiny lots add up to a substantial amount of acreage, often situated adjacent to greenbelts and other undeveloped areas that can potentially serve as deer habitat. It’s impractical to manage a deer population on an area the size of a lot, but property owner associations (POAs) and neighborhoods can work as management cooperatives to put deer in the crosshairs, so to speak. When it comes to urban deer management, there is something you can do.

Deer Population Control and Management in Urban Areas

Controlling a Deer Population

First off, it’s a good idea to contact Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), so you are headed in the right direction. They have wildlife biologist that can help explain the deer control methods that will work best in a given area. They will also need to be involved if your POA decides to get involved with active control practices, which most likely will require a permit of some sort.

The options available to manage a suburban deer population are limited, but one of the methods will work for your area if you and your neighbors are ready to do something. But like most things in life, managing deer is never easy, especially when in comes to suburban areas.

Have you ever noticed that the more people you get involved in making a decision the more difficult that decisions becomes? Well, there have been some high profile deer control examples that have made the news from Austin and San Antonio in recent years. It’s rare that a sizeable group of people agree on anything, but it seems that neighbors can get quite argumentative with one another when it comes to cute, Bambi-like, vegetation-eating deer.

Management of a deer population takes into account the good of the population, but debate over the issue of deer population control in residential areas heats up when the neighbors treat the deer as individuals. As you will find out, some do. Many of your neighbors likely have names for the various deer that frequent their yards. From what I know about suburban deer issues, determining how to proceed is much easier than having everyone agree on whether to proceed.

Deer Management within Suburban Areas

Source: “When addressing suburban deer problems, the advantages and disadvantages of all available deer management techniques must be evaluated. Differing circumstances among suburban communities will result in varied approaches to solving the problem. Furthermore, it is likely that a combination of management techniques will be necessary to achieve desired results. Involved stakeholders should be made aware that suburban deer management objectives are achievable, but they are often difficult and costly. Deer control measures require community input, as well as considerable long-term planning and commitment. The costs of suburban deer management should always be compared to potential benefits such as reduced deer/vehicle accidents, improved human safety, and decreased landscape/garden damage.

It is important for communities to develop measurable long-term goals and objectives as part of a comprehensive deer management plan before implementing deer control measures. Objectives based on deer abundance could be evaluated with standard deer survey techniques such as survey transects or time/area counts. Indicators such as frequency of deer/vehicle collisions, number of reported deer complaints, or predetermined reductions in landscape damage, could be used to measure cultural objectives. Stakeholders should understand that the total elimination of the problem (or the deer herd) is neither practical nor achievable in most cases. Rather, the goal should be related to the reduction of deer-human conflicts to an acceptable level.

Managing an overabundant deer population should be accomplished in two phases. First, the Initial reduction phase is implemented to remove large numbers of deer from an overabundant herd during a short period of time to achieve desired deer densities. Deer managers have learned that deer herd reduction measures that remove less than 50% of the estimated population typically do not provide significant relief from density-related problems. After completion of the initial phase, a maintenance phase includes long-term efforts to maintain deer densities at target levels. Many protected areas include deer-proof fencing projects in their long-term maintenance program in order to restrict the ingress of additional deer and gain more control over their deer herd. Most importantly, deer managers should have long-term deer management plans in place before initiating deer herd reduction operations.

Deer management costs can be highly variable depending on available labor, deer densities, management objectives, and other site-specific factors. Additionally, it has been shown that the cost of removing, treating, or otherwise managing deer increases as deer management programs progress. As deer numbers decrease, it takes increased effort and resources to affect the remaining population. The high costs associated with diminishing returns may prevent achieving population goals with some techniques.

Of course, deer managers must comply with applicable state wildlife regulations, city ordinances, and community policies while conducting deer control measures. Lethal control measures commonly require the approval of city government and special authorization from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.”

The control of a deer population within an organized subdivision will be limited to regulated hunting, sharpshooting, trap and remove, trap and kill, and fencing for improved deer management and population control within the POA. All of these techniques can work, but it will be up to your POA to decide which one/s will work best. Costs will vary by management practice and will likely be a deciding factor. Other control ideas that have been suggested in the past, such as “birth control” for does and predator reintroduction, have either not been effective or well received within communities. It is typically recommended that all deer feeding stop immediately.

Managing Deer Competition at Feeders

A big part of white-tailed deer management is food. Getting adequate nutrition to animals is the best way to ensure all deer live up to their potential, whether it be bucks growing exceptional antlers or does producing and raising fawns year after year. It takes food to make that happen. Habitat management helps promote the right plants for deer, but it still takes rain to make them grow. Spring is typically the best time of the year for deer because of the availability of high protein forbs. This year, although not stellar, is far from bad. I’ve seen only a few deer over the past month; they just don’t have to move because the good stuff is literally at their feet.

The foods that grow in good deer habitat are the very best for whitetail, but the problem is that they do not always grow. With the Summer season and its mercury-busting temperatures just around the corner, it’s safe to assume that those protein-rich forbs will be going bye-bye here shortly. It is during that time of year when bucks will still be actively growing antler and the energy demands of does will be high due to hungry, rapidly-growing fawns that will be in tow. When soils dry up, the supplemental feeding of deer can help fill the void on the landscape as well as in the bellies of the deer that live there.

Whitetail Hunting and Deer Management

Free-choice protein feeders are an efficient way to supplement the diets of deer, but have you ever noticed that most of the time you will get a lot more photos of bucks than does? Many hunters have been “misled” by buck use of feeders during the summer months only to realize come hunting season that they have many more does than they thought — and all those bucks that were “living” at the feeder are gone. What gives?

TAMUK: “It’s a proven fact that supplemental feed improves antler growth and body size. Numerous scientific research projects have shown this. However, one question that hasn’t been addressed extensively is feed site use. It’s commonly accepted that all deer are accessing these feeders. But, are they?

Are all age classes and both genders of deer getting ample opportunity to access this high-powered feed? Chase Currie, a Ph.D. candidate at Texas A&M University-Kingsville, has been working for two years on a research project that, in part, addresses that very question. What he’s found are some interesting and significant patterns relative to white-tailed deer use of feed sites.

Specifically, Currie assessed feed site visitation between sexes and among age classes seasonally. Seasons were categorized according to the physiology of deer in South Texas. For example, spring was designated as the recovery period following the rut; summer, the production period when males were growing antlers and females were nearing parturition and entering lactation; autumn, the recovery period for females following lactation and the pre-rut period for males when they were bulking up; and winter, the rut.

In March, September and November of 2010 and February, March and April of 2011, 240 deer were captured in South Texas using the helicopter net gun method. Each captured deer was tagged with two uniquely colored and numbered ear tags, one in each ear.

To assess feed site visitation, motion-triggered cameras were strategically located to survey feed sites. Cameras were set with a one minute delay and deployed at each feed site for one week each month throughout the two years. Over the course of the study, Currie accumulated 8,000 camera nights and just over 90,000 photos.

During the first year of the study, feed site density was 1/130 acres, and in the second year, feeder density was nearly doubled to 1/75 acres. Also, during the first week of the first year, it became immediately evident that feed sites needed to be fenced due to the excessive use by non-target species such as feral hogs. Thus, from the second week forward, data collected was from fenced feed sites.

To assess feed site visitation, Currie looked at the proportion of the male, female and fawn population that visited feed sites. Furthermore, he assessed intensity of feed site use for those deer that visited a feed site at least once during the sampling period (one-week). He did so by assessing the number of photos per individually marked deer on a weekly basis, the number of nights per week individually marked deer visited feed sites, and he also looked at the number of feed sites individually marked deer visited per night during the week.

Results indicated that bucks visited the feed sites more often and at a higher intensity than does. Furthermore, buck visitation was highest during spring and autumn. Only about 20 percent of marked does visited feed sites each month.

Fawn visitation was low across the board, so much so, that Currie was only able to assess the proportion of fawns that visited feed sites and not their intensity of feeder use. Photo evidence indicated one reason fawn visitation was low was that fawns had difficulty accessing the feeders. Recall that all feeders were fenced during the second week of the first year of the study, and doing so apparently excluded the fawns.

Despite doubling feed site density in the second year of the study, there was no difference in feed site visitation between bucks and does between the two years. Thus, in presenting the feed site visitation data, he averaged data across the years by season. The data revealed that feed site visitation for bucks was highest during spring and summer and lowest in winter, particularly in December, most likely because of the rut. Does, however, visited the feed sites most intensively during the winter from about November to December, with the highest visitation occurring in December. Researchers attributed this to the fact that buck visitation dropped off during this time period, thus, the does had an easier time accessing feeders.

Looking at the number of nights per week deer visited feed sites, data showed that in spring and autumn, bucks were visiting feed sites roughly four nights per week, and in summer, it dropped down to around three nights per week. However, again when winter came around, the number of nights per week that bucks visited feed sites dropped off significantly. Also during the winter, there was very little difference in the number of nights per week does and bucks visited feed sites. However, during December, the number of nights per week does visited feed sites exceeded that of bucks, which again implies that does were taking advantage of the time that the bucks were not utilizing feed sites.

In terms of the number of feeders per night deer visited during the week, in 2010, only 5 percent of the males visited more than one feed site per night, whereas in 2011, only 9 percent visited more than one feed site per night. For the most part, females only visited one feed site per night.

As is often the case in South Texas, 2010 and 2011 were totally different years in terms of precipitation. In 2010, plentiful rains made for really good range conditions, but 2011 was one for the record books. It was the driest one-year period in over 100 years in most parts of the state, and South Texas was no exception. Given this, one might assume that visitation rates at feed sites would be higher in 2011, compared to 2010, when range conditions were much better. However, that was not the case. Furthermore, in 2011 when feeder density was doubled to 1/75 acres, an excessive amount by most standards, and with the drought raging, feed site visitation did not increase. In fact, there was no difference in feed site visitation or intensity of feed site use between the two study years. In particular, a very low proportion of females and fawns visited feed sites, irrespective of range conditions and feeder density.

Researchers hypothesized that something else must be going on. Thus, to investigate further, researchers assessed movements of whitetails relative to feed sites. To do so, during both of the study years, 45 of the 240 deer captured were also equipped with a GPS collar. Collars were designed to pinpoint a location of individual deer every 30 minutes from March through January the following year, which resulted in 15,000 to 16,000 locations per deer over the course of the year.

What they discovered was that though the does had ample opportunity to access feeders, there were only a few actual locations pinpointed around the feeders. In fact, 13 females were collared in 2010, and eight of those 13 females didn’t have a single location within 55 yards of a feed site.’It was almost as if there was a buffer around these feed sites,’ remarks Currie. The collared bucks, however, during the same time, had clusters of locations pinpointed all around the feed sites.

Currie and others involved in the research hypothesize that social interactions, perhaps a form of social dominance or social hierarchy, are keeping does from regularly accessing feed sites. Thus, fellow graduate student Robin Donohue further investigated the role of aggressive behavior at feeder sites.

Specifically, Donohue investigated whether population density or season affected aggressive interactions between genders and among age groups of white-tailed deer. Also, he was interested in determining the severity of interactions at feed sites. Support for this project was provided by T. Dan Friedkin, the Comanche Ranch, the Stedman West Foundation, and the Faith Ranch.

This project was conducted in the northwestern portion of South Texas in Dimmit and Maverick counties in 6,200-acre enclosures on the Faith and Comanche Ranches. Again, trail cameras, set to take one photo every second for 10 seconds, were used during a two-week period in March, August, October and December.

Donohue established a scoring system to evaluate the severity of interactions among deer. At the bottom of that scoring system, defined as ‘less severe,’ included actions like non-aggressive dominance, ear drop, hard look, the head low threat or the head high threat, and then the sidle, whereby a deer turns to the side and then walks toward the opponent. Some of the more severe interactions including strike, chase, or the antler threat, the rear – where the animal rears up on its hind legs – then the flail, in which the deer flails its front legs in a peddling motion towards the opponent, or the rush.

Not surprising, researchers found again that bucks two years of age and older were dominant over yearling bucks, does and fawns in over 95 percent of the interactions, with one exception. During summer, does won about half of the interactions with bucks in low density pastures, whereas, in high-density pastures, does only won 5 percent of interactions. Low density, in this case, was a deer for every 20 acres; high density was a deer to every five acres.

When bucks were not present, does dominated fawns 100 percent of the time. Breaking it down further, Donohue found that during the summer, does actually dominated yearling bucks roughly 60 percent of the time. However, as the year progressed and those same yearling bucks approached the 2-year-old cohort, they begin to act more like mature bucks, dominating does roughly 80 percent of the time.

The rate of interactions is a measure of how likely two deer are to have an aggressive interaction when at least two deer are present at a feed site. The rate of aggressive interactions increased as deer density increased, suggesting increased tensions at feed sites at higher deer density. Although deer were more likely to interact at feed sites with increasing deer density, the severity of interactions did not increase. About 10 percent of interactions were severe (that is involved physical contact) at all deer densities.

The data suggests there is some form of sexual segregation occurring at these supplemental feed sites. Researchers point out that those feeders may not be the only areas where these kinds of social dominant interactions are occurring. It’s possible that whitetails may exhibit similar patterns at water sites and in areas where palatable nativevegetation is most abundant.

In general, though, with respect to feed sites, bucks dominate, irrespective of season; the social relationship between does and yearling bucks is affected by season, and fawns are typically subordinate, regardless of age and season. Also, as population increases, the rate of aggressive interaction increases, and the degree to which does avoid bucks decreases.

The take home message is that all deer are clearly not accessing feeders. In fact, based on Currie’s research, only 20 percent of the doe population visited feed sites, with the fawn population exhibiting even lower visitation rates. There are some obvious management implications. Exclusive of the social interaction issue, managers may be able to increase fawn visitation by improving accessibility to feeders. Fencing out non-target animals is essential, particularly in areas where feral hogs and javelinas are a problem, but doing so often excludes the fawns, as well. Thus, managers may want to make the fences more fawn friendly by raising or reducing the height of the fence.

It is beneficial for does to have access to supplemental feed in order to produce healthy fawns, but at this point, there are not good options for increasing doe use of feed sites.”

Rice Bran for Attracting, Hunting Deer

Rice Bran for Deer

Question: “What’s the deal with rice bran? I hunt on 40 acres in Northeast Texas with heavy deer hunting pressure on all sides and I usually just throw corn on the ground to attract deer. I am very low budget and cannot afford the feeding of minerals and protein pellets. I have tried salt blocks, livestock blocks and wildlife blocks. The deer in my area seem to like flavored rice bran like apple or peanut butter but it is hard to find.

Does rice bran have any nutritional value to deer? Any suggestions and recommendations on how to attract deer in this situation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.”

Response: Stabilized rice bran is a common ingredient used in many commercial feeds for whitetail deer. Many of the products that contain rice bran in high percentage are better described as deer baits or attractants. For example, it is the main ingredient in the commercial deer attractant “Buck Bran” which is produced by Wildgame Innovations and “Buck Grub” that is sold by Evolved Habitats.

Rice bran can also found in lower quantities in truly supplemental feeds (protein pellets). In short, rice bran is a good source of easily digested vegetable fat, but that is about it.

Rice Bran: A Great Attractant

If you just want something to use as an attractant for deer hunting then don’t turn up your nose at it. The deer will not. Whitetail deer absolutely love rice bran and it can be used to attract and pattern deer before and during the deer hunting season. Bucks readily respond to additional foods in the areas where they live, and they especially take a liking to rice bran.

It can be purchased in the smaller prepared bags or some feed stores carry straight rice bran in 50 pound bags. Costs will vary based on location and it is cheaper in the Southern US. If bought in bulk it will not be “enhanced” with things that make it smell good. Deer will still eat it, but they may not take to rice bran right away. Bulk bran can be mixed with the commercial attractants or with something like molasses to add some smell and sweetness.

Comparing Rice Bran

Remember, rice bran is not the best stand-alone supplement for deer. The thing to keep in mind is that rice bran offers a high fat content, about 20 percent, and little else in terms of macro- or micro-nutrients. It can also be used somewhat like cottonseed, for increasing body condition in post-rut deer during the late fall and winter.

Cottonseed, however, offers high protein and phosphorus levels in addition to high fat content. Neither will work by themselves, but when provided free-choice on properties providing good deer habitat these supplements can whip run-down-deer back into shape rather quickly. The good thing about high fat foods is that deer can increase energy intake without having to increasing total feed consumption.

Rice Bran for Deer Hunting

A friend of mine hunts a property located in the Post Oak Savannah region of Texas and he swears that rice bran is the best whitetail deer attractant he has ever seen. He has found that if he switches from rice bran to corn the deer visits to his feed stations will decline. Will it work this great for everyone?

Can’t say for sure because a lot depends on what is already available on your property for white-tailed deer to eat. A lot depends on available habitat as well as overall habitat conditions. Most of the calories in corn are carbohydrates whereas most of the calories in rice bran are fat. Deer, like people, like fat. We like our carbs too.

With regard to hunting on 40 acres, there is no doubt that deer can be successfully attracted to and harvested on small acreage. Deer management options are admittedly more limited in terms of size, but the plant communities on the property can still be managed to offer good natural habitat, quality deer foods.

In fact, landowners can pay more attention to the details of habitat enhancement on small properties because of the smaller scale of projects. You can afford to use higher quality seeds when planting plots and better foods (such as rice bran) when feeding because less is needed. It’s expensive to do high quality projects at large scale. Micro-management can be very attractive, and deadly, to deer.

Deer hunting a small tract of land takes more restraint than anything else. The urge to shoot middle-aged bucks only because you think your neighbors will do so should be avoided, if you goal is to harvest older and bigger bucks. Let them go so they can grow.

The best advice for deer hunting on smaller properties is to keep it quiet and offer something that deer can not find within other parts of their home range. That could be refuge, water or other supplements and attractants such as rice bran. Rice bran is a good choice for attracting and holding deer. It has some good nutritional elements and it’s uncommon on the landscape, which means once deer get a taste for it they should seek it out.