Record Non-typical: A whitetail buck taken in 2004 by Mike Crossland is the number one non-typical deer in the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation’s Cy Curtis Program Record Book.
The buck, which was harvested during the regular deer gun season, scored 248 and 6/8 Boone and Crockett (B&C) points. The deer was taken in Tillman County.
Click photo for full photo
Record Typical: The 16-point whitetail taken (above) in November, 1997 by bowhunter Larry Luman from Atoka is the number one typical deer in the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation’s Cy Curtis Program Record Book.
The white-tailed buck, which was harvested just prior to the regular deer gun season, scored 185 and 6/8 Boone and Crockett points and weighed 160-pounds. The buck grossed 208 B&C points but had almost 14 points of deductions because the antlers were not symmetrical.
The deer was taken in southern Oklahoma in Bryan County.
White-tailed deer populations in metropolitan areas of Texas are increasing significantly. The same thing is happening across the US. Deer populations have been increasing due to both conservation efforts and deer herd and habitat management, but in many areas a low mortality rates is the number one reason for rising population. To compound the issue,the human population of most cities in the United States is also rising.
In order to make room for the expanding human population, deer habitat is being destroyed as development of residential areas is increased. Each year these residential areas grow, spreading farther out into rural areas. Simply go for a drive in the “country” or rural, low-human population areas, on the edge of any metropolitan-urban setting and you will discover that the “country” getting further and further away!
The Adaptable Whitetail
The good news is that deer, especially whitetail, have a strong survival instinct as well as the ability to adapt to their changing environment. When their previously-forest or farmland habitat is cleared out and developed, they are pushed out temporarily. After homes are built-out and neighborhoods are completed, white-tailed deer will often return to live on the edges of these areas, in whatever suitable habitat they can find. Their previous food sources are replaced with new ones. Deer are also regularly fed by well-meaning humans.
Prior to the development of their habitat, deer would feed in the woods and fields and develop diets based on the natural foods found in their environment. After the development is complete, the whitetail will use new food sources including gardens, trees and other plants which have been planted in the new residential areas. Often, these deer stay out of sight, sleeping, eating and breeding until their population overtakes the “carrying capacity” of their new, reduced habitat.
Carrying Capacity in Suburban Areas
Carrying capacity is the quantity of animals that a given area can support, based on cover and food limitations. When the overall habitat available in an area is reduced, the carrying capacity of that area will also be reduced. It takes a very short time for an existing population of deer to exceed this carrying capacity within these new developments.
This causes problems due to the increased occurrence of deer-car accidents and other conflicts between the respective deer and human populations. These deer can become “nuisances” to the human population around them, due to limited space. That’s the time when the deer population control options start getting discussed. In these cases, cultural carrying capacity is more important than actual environmental carrying capacity.
Methods for Controlling Deer
There are several methods for controlling overabundant deer populations. Options which are considered, when deer population control becomes necessary are as follows: 1) Deer contraception, 2) Trapping and relocation of deer, 3) Removal of deer from the population by hiring sharp-shooters to shoot the deer, and 4) Removal of deer through bowhunting.
Contraception has never been shown to work in a free-ranging deer herd. It’s also expensive to try. Trapping and sharpshooting are also relatively expensive because the methods involve contractors for hire. In all the above situations, the costs of control is directly related to the amount of time ($/hour) someone has to spend carrying out the operation, plus the costs of supplies.
Trapping and relocation can be effective but is also high cost and very time consuming. Most metro city councils, parks departments and home owners associations have very small, if any, budgets for deer population control efforts. The use of sharp-shooters can be effective but, again, the cost will be high and the idea of high-powered firearms being used near residential areas is not popular with residents.
It has been shown through various studies that hunting is a cost-effective means for reducing suburban deer populations when compared with other tactics. In most cases, bowhunting is the method of choice for reducing the herd. The real cost savings come from not having to pay someone to remove or handle deer. Insteads hunting is merely allowed, promoted.
Birth Control in Deer
Deer contraception is conducted by trapping female deer (most of the time), sedating them and placing a contraceptive implant under their skin. These deer won’t become pregnant for a fixed amount of time until the implant becomes ineffective. This tactic has been proven to be high-cost and low effect because the majority of the female deer in an area need to be trapped and the cost of the drugs and the cost of trapping the deer are both high.
Others have tried to sterilize male deer through castration. Whether males or females have been treated, no contraception or sterilization project has succeeded in reducing a free-ranging deer population. Due to the survival instincts of the deer, it is difficult to trap a large enough portion of the deer population to make brith control an effective population control tactic.
Controlling Deer and Mitigating Risk
Managing deer numbers means having a goal and mitigating risk. The potential for accidents is not a risk that most city councils and parks departments, not to mention the local residents, are willing to take, regardless of the chosen control method. Again, bowhunting has been proven to be a safe and effective way for the deer population to be reduced. Also, the cost to the city councils and parks departments is minimal.
The deer which are harvested are either taken home by the hunters themselves or donated to local food banks, providing much needed, inexpensive protein for those in need. The hunters involved in these highly organized hunts are volunteers who donate their time. The opportunity to be in the woods is payment enough for them.
Organization of such take of deer (hunting) becomes increasingly important as non-traditional deer habitat increases and deer-population control measures become necessary. Management of deer herds involves removing some of the deer from areas where deer numbers exceed the overall carrying capacity. This reduction increases the health of the remaining deer population and reduce the occurrence of deer herd disease and winter-kill. Hunting is the safest and most economical way to reduce the overall deer population in a given area, but it must first be accepted and then implemented wisely.
From the time he was a teenager guiding goose hunters on the Texas coastal prairies, probably even before then, Justin Hurst was subconsciously preparing himself to make a difference in natural resource conservation. Those who knew him say he seemed to approach life with that goal in mind. Although his journey was cut short when he lost his life in the line of duty on his 34th birthday, March 17, 2007, Hurst had already made his mark on the Texas landscape. And, the impacts he had on the state’s wildlife resources, as well as on his family, friends, coworkers, and even adversaries, serve as his legacy.
“Game Warden Justin Hurst personified all of what Texas Parks and Wildlife represents,” Col. Peter Flores, TPWD Law Enforcement Division Director, says. “He cared for wildlife, he was a pillar of his community, and he cared deeply for his family and was a faithful public servant. His death is a great loss to the people of Texas.”
Hurst started his career with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department as a biologist in August 1995 specializing in waterfowl management along the mid-coast. Fellow wildlife biologist Matt Nelson remembers joining TPWD at the same time as Hurst.
“He went to Peach Point (Wildlife Management Area) and I went to Mad Island (WMA), both of us worked on the central coast wetlands project,” Nelson recalls. “We had numerous research projects going on at the same time and spent most weeks together; fish sampling, working up alligators and mottled ducks. A lot of late nights together running around the marsh in air boats. Justin was very enthusiastic, dedicated towards the resource and approached everything full-bore.”
At Peach Point WMA, Hurst was able to submerse himself in his passion for waterfowl and the marsh habitat. For six years, he built a reputation as a wildlife biologist who understood the resource and conservation.
“He got it,” offers Dave Morrison, TPWD waterfowl program leader. “He understood the importance of resource management and conservation and could relate that to others. He was a heckuva biologist.”
That’s why it came as such a surprise when he announced plans to become a game warden.
“No one within the project saw that coming,” says Nelson. “He never mentioned anything to us, and then out of the blue he said he planned on going to the game warden academy. He’ll always be a biologist to us. The thing about Justin, whatever he put his mind to, he’d do it well. We lost a good biologist.”
Hurst became a part of the 48th Texas Game Warden Academy and graduated in August of 2002. While at the academy, Hurst shared his knowledge about waterfowl with fellow cadets and actually taught duck identification techniques. Some of his classmates referred to Hurst as the “Super Cadet” because of his diligence and drive.
After graduation, Hurst served about a year in Brazos County when a game warden slot became open in Wharton County. Hurst met with then TPWD Law Enforcement Division Director Col. James Stinebaugh personally to make his case for a transfer.
Stinebaugh says the decision to transfer Hurst was a no-brainer, but admits it did cause a rumbling in the ranks at the time.
“Typically, we required at least two years experience before letting a warden put in for a transfer, but it just made perfect sense to put Justin back down there because we needed someone who knew waterfowl in that position,” Stinebaugh says. “I took some heat for that move, but it was the right move.”
Hurst’s supervisor, Capt. Rex Mayes, says he knew well ahead of time he would eventually see Justin Hurst working in his district some day and is glad the colonel broke from tradition. “I remember meeting him for the first time when he was still in the academy,” Mayes recalls. “He said he wanted to come to my district because we had the bay that he loved so much. I remember when he left my office that first time; it was a rude awakening for me because I was seeing for the first time a new breed of game wardens, the whiz kids.”
Game wardens who worked in the field with Hurst remember him most for his preparedness, dedication and respect for others; even those individuals he issued citations to for game law violations.
Hurst is survived by his wife, Amanda, and son, Kyle Hunter, age 4 months, his parents, Allen and Pat Hurst of Bryan, a brother, Greg Hurst of Denver, Colorado, and in-laws, Larry and Jeanie Wilcox of Denton, Texas.
Memorial fund donations may be made to Operation Game Thief, c/o Justin Hurst Memorial Fund, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX, 78744. The Houston 100 Club is also accepting donations for the family at: 100 Club Survivor’s Fund 1233 West Loop South, Suite 1250, Houston, TX 77027-9107.
2 lb Pork meat, 30 % fat (Pork Butt works well)
1 1/2 lb Pork liver
2 teaspoons Salt
2 teaspoons Black pepper
1 large Onion, finely chopped
3 Green onions, chopped
12 cups Cooked rice
2 tablespoons Cajun spice
1 Lot sausage casing
Place meat in enough water to cover and season with salt and pepper. Cook until meat falls apart. Remove meat and reserve some of broth. Grind meat, onion, and green onions. Mix the ground meat mixture with the Cajun spice, rice and enough broth to make a moist mixture. Taste mixture and adjust seasoning. Using a sausage stuffer, stuff the mixture into sausage casing.
The buck to doe ratio over much of the United States is probably somewhere around 1 whitetail buck per 3 to 5 adult whitetail does. This ratio is considered satisfactory for good (annual) production and recruitment of white-tailed deer if one is interested in a quick turnover in the herd.
Essentially, a sex ratio in favor of does can increase the size of a whitetail herd quite quickly each year. As a result, many young bucks and does are often available for harvest each year. A ratio highly skewed towards females is good for maximum deer production, but it’s not necessarily beneficial for optimal quality production. A population skewed towards doe deer is hard on bucks.
Buck to Doe Ratio in Perspective
Thoughts on the ideal buck to doe ratio are quite varied and somewhat controversial in some cases. Depending upon the part of the country you are located, the experiences of the person you are talking with, and a person’s general management philosophies, you will most likely get different answers from every single person you discuss the topic with.
They may all be correct under certain circumstance. The fact is there is no single correct answer for every property out there. However, there are some rules of thumb that may help with the management of the local deer herd.
Deer Sex Ratio: An Example
If a manager wants to harvest a high number of white-tailed deer each year then maintaining many more does than bucks will definitely get you there. For example, let’s say your hunting property is 500 acres. Assuming the proper carrying capacity for this land is roughly 50 deer (1 deer/10 acres) then a buck to doe ratio of 1:4 would mean your deer herd is comprised of 10 bucks and 40 does.
If the annual fawn production, fawn crop is 50 percent then that equates to 20 fawns survive through the summer and into the fall. With this number in mind, the manager must now remove an excess of 20 deer on the property come fall hunting season to keep the overall deer population size in check with the carry capacity and available habitat.
In this example, hunters will have to harvest 10 bucks and 10 does each year to maintain a sex ratio of 1:4 and in order keep the deer population and the proper density. This sounds pretty good since a lot of bucks and does will need to be shot each year (opportunity!), but it will definitely limit the number of mature bucks in the population.
Tightening Up the Ratio
Now, let’s change the scenario. If a manager wants to maintain better quality bucks and have an improved buck age structure, then consider lowering the buck to doe ratio on the property to around to 1:2. This would maintain the herd on our hypothetical 500 acres at 17 bucks and 33 does.
Under these conditions, a fawn crop of 50 percent puts annual fawn production at only 16 animals. With continued herd management in mind, a 1:2 sex ratio can be maintained by harvesting roughly 8 bucks and 8 does each year. It also allows the manager to leave some bucks to grow on the property while also maintaining a proper deer density for the example area, 1 deer for every 10 acres.
1:1 Ratio?
The above examples illustrate how the number of both males and females plays into a whitetail management program. Under a managed situation with a deer herd at carrying capacity the hunter’s annual harvest equals the number of fawns produced by the herd that year.
So, can we take it a bit further? In this example let’s say we want to promote an even better age structure in the buck segment of the herd. Let’s consider shooting for a 1:1 sex ratio, so just 1 buck for every 1 doe.
Okay, back to the hypothetical ranch. The 50 deer on the ranch would now consist of 25 bucks and 25 does. A 50 percent fawn crop means only about 12 fawns. This number looks low compared to the numbers of fawns produced in the prior example, but keep this in mind.
To keep the deer population in check under a 1:1 ratio hunters only need to remove 12 deer, 6 bucks and 6 does. This makes the deer management program a bit easier with respect to total deer harvest because you don’t need to remove as many deer, but the real reward is the number of older age class bucks found within the herd.
Remember, with a ratio of 1:4 ratio we had to shoot all of the adult buck herd annually to maintain the proper number of deer on a ranch. This equates to shooting nothing but 1 1/2 year old (yearling) bucks every year.
A sex ratio closer to 1:1 means hunters need to harvest 6 of the 25 available bucks on the property to maintain the deer herd. So instead of shooting 10 yearling bucks under a 1:4 ratio, hunters are now able to shoot more mature bucks that are likely much better in quality.
Best Buck to Doe Ratio
The deer herd examples above are intended to illustrate how the number of bucks, does and fawns interact on an annual basis. A 50 percent annual fawn crop was chosen because that’s about what it averages in my part of the world. Some years are a better, some worse.
Fawn survival is something that should be considered when thinking about a deer management program. Maintaining the total deer population within the carrying capacity of the habitat will go a long ways towards keeping the whitetail using your property in good condition and will increase fawn survival.
What’s the best buck to doe ratio for your property? The answer depends on the goals of property owner and/or hunters and must take into account many other variables. First, does the size of the property lend itself to some level of deer population management? Other factors that should be considered on a property include:
The buck to doe ratio is a key parameter for the management of a white-tailed deer herd. Decide on a place to start using the above considerations and then manage the herd to get there. That may mean shooting deer or not shooting deer. Once there, evaluate the results of your management actions and adjust according. That’s what management is all about, adapting to the current situation to get to a desired situation.
Do not fall victim to believing that a 1:1 buck to doe ratio is best for your property. Maybe, maybe not. With the proper number of deer on a property and a sex ratio that is closer together the quality of bucks on a property will improve because of adequate food resources, lower energy expenditure during the breeding season, and improved age structure. Maintaining deer numbers will become achievable. The buck to doe ratio does make a difference.
