Buck Manager | Buck Manager

Wildlife Management Area Named After Justin Hurst

The 12,000-acre Peach Point Wildlife Management Area located west of Freeport will soon be known to hunters and other waterfowl enthusiasts as the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area. The Texas Legislature passed May 29, and Gov. Rick Perry signed June 2, House Bill 12, Section 53 of which makes the name change official.

Soon after Texas Game Warden Justin Hurst of El Campo was killed March 17 in a shoot-out near Lissie with a suspected poacher (which involved another game warden, Texas DPS and Wharton County Sheriff’s Department officers), word got out that the Texas Wildlife Commission would be asked to consider renaming Peach Point for Hurst since he had worked there as a wildlife biologist from 1995 through 2001.

Texas Parks & Wildlife Department officials said shortly after Hurst’s funeral March 21 that the renaming was all but a done deal. The late game warden’s wife, Amanda, said she thinks the renaming ceremony and dedication will be held in October, which is exactly when large numbers of Hurst’s beloved migrating waterfowl are arriving on the Texas coast. “Justin would think we are making way too big a deal out of this, but I think it’s awesome,” Mrs. Hurst said.

“I think it’s very much a fitting memory for him, and I think it’s good for the biologists that he worked with. It’s been their baby, and was something they wanted to do in remembrance of Justin.” Peach Point wasn’t just special to Hurst as a TPWD biologist, but to his wife as well. It was where her future husband took her on their first date on March 14, 1998.

They had met at a Wildlife Society meeting in Beaumont in 1997, and were married April 7, 2002. Both earned degrees in wildlife ecology from Texas A&M. They also hunted and fished together.

“We went down there and drove around. He showed me the different impoundments.It was spring, so we probably looked at a few teal and some mottled ducks, shore birds and stuff like that. He showed me the bunkhouse, the barn, the tractor and the airboat. I know it’s pretty exciting,” she said, laughing.

Mrs. Hurst said her husband’s duties as biologist were wide in scope. “He did everything from cutting grass around the bunkhouse to burning, shredding … he maintained the habitat there.” Justin also worked with waterfowl banding programs, youth hunts and regular hunts on the weekends.

Peach Point provided public hunting opportunities for more than 2,000 hunters this past season. Hurst was instrumental in helping to develop those public hunting opportunities. Hurst left the TPWD Wildlife Division at Peach Point in the fall of 2001 to join the Law Enforcement Division. He entered the TPWD Game Warden Academy in March 2002.

About Peach Point WMA

Peach Point WMA near Jones Creek has 10,311 acres which were purchased using waterfowl stamp funds from 1985 to 1987. In 1988, an additional 1,627 acres were acquired as mitigation from the Brazos River Harbor District. Peach Point WMA is a part of the Central Coast Wetlands Ecosystem Project (CCWEP). The CCWEP’s mission is to provide for sound biological conservation of all wildlife resources within the central coast of Texas for the public’s common benefit.

Peach Point WMA is located within a league of land deeded to Stephen F. Austin by the Mexican government in 1830. The tract was known as Peach Point Plantation. The plantation was established in 1832 by James F. Perry and his wife, Emily Austin Perry, Stephen F. Austin’s sister, who bought the property from Austin for $300. The land was operated as a slave plantation until 1863 with cotton and sugar cane the primary crops.

Perry died in 1853, after which Emily Perry gave William Joel Bryan (her son by previous marriage) 200 acres of the original plantation. Bryan and his wife, Lavinia Perry, made their home there and developed a thriving cotton and cattle business known as the Durazno Plantation. A portion of Durazno Plantation is contained within the present boundaries of Peach Point WMA.

The portion of Peach Point Plantation that contained Peach Point WMA was donated to Austin College by Lucy Harvey. The property was later sold to a consortium of six major petro-chemical corporations. Development plans included construction of an offshore pumping station for oil tankers. However, plans were canceled due to the decline in the oil-based economy. The Nature Conservancy eventually acquired the 8,580 acre tract, and it was from them that TPWD purchased the area using waterfowl stamp funds.

Goals of Peach Point WMA

In prioritized order, the Central Coast Wetlands Ecosystem Project’s goals are:
n To develop and manage habitats for indigenous and migratory wildlife species with a special emphasis on waterfowl.

To formulate research and management activities on WMAs and private lands and disseminate research results and management information to scientists, land managers, resource agencies, and other interested groups and individuals.

To expand and improve WMA facilities to accommodate intensive research and management activities that will allow complete understanding of coastal ecosystems.

To provide optimal public outreach and recreational opportunity on state-owned lands compatible with the resource.

The wildlife management area where Justin Hurst worked as a wildlife biologist prior to becoming a game warden will be renamed as the Justin Hurst Wildlife Management Area and dedicated in October 2007.

Influencing Antler Development in Bucks

Believe it or not, big bucks are both born and made! The whitetail bucks on your property may be born with great genetics, but if they don’t get what they need, they may never show their true potential. On the flip side, some bucks will never meet your expectations simply because they are genetically doomed. It’s not their fault, but not all bucks are born with the same genetic code.

So how do you get maximum antler growth from your deer herd? Antler development (main beam length, antler spread, basal circumference, and number of points) is dependent upon three factors: nutrition (quantity and quality of food), age, and genetics.

Nutrition: Nutrition can be optimized by the methods discussed above: controlling the numbers of deer and exotic ungulates, utilizing a rotational system of domestic livestock grazing with moderate stocking rates, and controlling noxious vegetation. Supplemental feeding and supplemental plantings, in conjunction with the above practices, can be used to help meet the nutritional needs of deer.

Age: Maximum antler development of buck deer is attained at 5 to 6 years of age.Allowing bucks to reach older ages and grow more body mass through selective harvest will allow them to attain their maximum potential antler growth. Heavy, mature bucks typically produce the largest antlers.

Genetics: Spike antlered bucks are the result of inadequate nutrition, genetics, or a combination of these two factors. Research has shown that yearling (1 1/2 year old) bucks have the potential to produce 4 to 8 points as their first set of antlers if nutrition is adequate and they have the proper genetic background. Conversely, bucks may only produce spike antlers as yearlings if they have “spikes genes”, even with adequate nutrition. Although the subsequent sets of antlers of yearling spikes generally will not be spikes, their antlers tend to be inferior to those of bucks that were forked antlered as yearlings.

Consequently, the incidence of inferior antlered bucks in the population should be minimized by the combination of optimizing nutrition (habitat management) and including spike antlered bucks in the total deer harvest.

Better Deer Habitat Through Cedar Management

Ashe Juniper (Cedar) has invaded large areas of central Texas and it dominates many range sites with shallow limestone soils. The suppression of fire and long-term overgrazing by livestock has contributed to the spread and invasion of this evergreen woody species. If not managed, cedar will eventually form a closed canopy that prevents sunlight from reaching the ground.

This limitation of sunlight then suppressed the growth of grasses, valuable forbs, and desirable woody plants. The massive shallow root system of cedar allows it to successfully compete with more desirable plants for available soil moisture. The foliage of cedar intercepts rainfall and prevents moisture from reaching the ground. Soil erosion is enhanced under cedar stands due to the limited amounts of herbaceous plants.

Cedar has minimal food value to both livestock and wildlife. Its foliage is not preferred by browsing species. Deer only utilize it to a small extent, typically during the late winter when the availability of other foods is low. The fruit (berries) that it sporadically produces are eaten by some bird species and occasionally by deer, but they are not normally important components of wildlife diets.

The most common species of cedar in central Texas, ashe juniper or blueberry cedar, does not resprout from roots as do most other woody species, if all above-ground green material is removed or killed. Redberry juniper does occur in some areas, especially the more western portions of the region. Redberry juniper has the ability to resprout from roots and is therefore more difficult to control. A landowner should learn how to identify the species occurring on his land so the most appropriate control methods can be used.

Cedar can be controlled with a variety of control methods including mechanical (dozing, chaining, grubbing, hydraulic shears), fire, herbicides, biological, and hand cutting. Selective, single-stem removal (hand cutting, grubbing, hydraulic shears) of cedar where it is growing in stands mixed with other desirable woody plants is preferred over broad-scale removal to prevent damage to the desirable species. When it is removed from these areas, care must be taken to avoid reducing the amount of cover in the stands below minimum levels needed for wildlife. Because of its evergreen growth form, cedar can add structural density to stands of deciduous woody plants during the winter months. Where it is growing in dense stands and broad-scale “mass removal” (dozing, chaining) is a viable option, care should be taken to minimize removing or damaging excessive amounts of preferred woody species.

Properly applied fire (prescribed burning) can be used to economically kill small blueberry cedars up to about 3-4 feet tall. Other control methods are necessary to initially remove larger cedars that are not effected by fire. Prescribed burns at no more than 5 to 6 year intervals can be used to maintain control of cedar seedlings that are continuously being established throughout central Texas from undigested seeds that are widely dispersed by birds and other animals. Fire will kill cedar saplings less than 1 1/2 inches in basal diameter if it is held for 6 or more seconds at the base of the tree. Fire will also kill all trees in which it removes all green growth.

The biological control of cedar with goats is not recommended because excessive browsing on other more preferred species of woody plants will precede utilization of the cedar, resulting in the degradation of wildlife habitat. Control of cedar with certain specific herbicides can be effective on low densities of cedars less than three feet tall.

Cedar does have some value as wildlife escape and thermal cover, especially in areas where other forms of woody cover are lacking or in short supply. The amount of cover on open “prairie” habitats of central Texas may be less than needed to provide a minimum amount of security for wildlife. Although some species of wildlife may prefer and utilize open habitats, others are hesitant to venture very far from escape cover. While it may not be the most desirable, cedar is one of an apparently limited number of woody species that can grow on certain soil types of central Texas. It is recommended that small stands and strips of cedar be retained and encouraged at 200-300 yard intervals in habitats lacking sufficient woody cover. These blocks and strips of cedar can provide structural diversity, travel lanes and security cover that is beneficial to many species. The distribution and density of cedar can be controlled over time to prevent it from forming dense stands.

Deer Surveys and Harvest Strategy

Long-term planning is feasible in deer management, but different years can call for slight to moderate changes in annual harvests based on habitat conditions, fawn survival, and estimated population numbers. Without conducting a deer population survey to get a good estimate of your overall deer numbers and density, you are literally shooting into the wind. Although deer surveys are simply "good estimates" when properly performed, they will keep you on the right track with regards to your long-term management.

Let's take a look at how annual changes in fawn survival can impact your annual harvests. For example, let’s assume you have a long-term goal of 100 deer on your property, the property is at carrying capacity (100 deer), and you have a 1:1 buck to doe ratio. If your late summer/early fall fawn crop is estimated at 50% (25 fawns from 50 does) then you need to remove 25 deer this fall.

However, if you have an 80% fawn crop next year, that is a total of 40 animals you have to remove from the deer herd to keep the population at carrying capacity. Although your long-term population goal stays the same, your annual harvests will fluctuate to some extent. This is an adaptive harvest strategy allows you to keep number in line with carrying capacity and stay on track. As you can see, getting annual estimates of the deer population as a whole, and particularly fawn survival, is important for the proper management of your deer herd.

Stocking Deer for Genetic Improvement

Stocking deer from another area into a deer population in an attempt to introduce new genes and improve quality is a controversial and much discussed subject. The genetic contribution of 1 individual buck is limited where it is introduced into a population where other bucks are already present and also breeding does.

There is no research available that indicates that introducing several bucks improves quality unless the pedigrees of the deer (bucks as well as does) stocked are known. Otherwise there is a good chance that undesirable, but not easily recognizable, characteristics are being introduced.

Continue reading “Stocking Deer for Genetic Improvement”