White tailed deer: Using trail cams to manage your herd

[umchorn2]

Trail cameras have become very important to serious hunters and game managers for a number of reasons. Cameras are used to capture a snapshot of the deer on the property and to determine the age and health of the herd. This information will be essential for the hunter to use when determining what animal to target for the upcoming hunting season.

Initially up to 8 cameras were placed in various areas on an 80 acre parcel of land in Central Saskatchewan. Then once it was determined which areas where the main travel corridors and hot spots, the number of cameras was reduced to 2 or 3. After thousands of pictures, mostly of the same 20-30 or so deer, half a dozen moose and elk, a couple bears and the odd coyote, I have attached some pictures of bucks ranging in age from yearling to 5 years old so one can see the body shape and antler characteristics that mark an animal as it matures. We also see what deer are living in the area and particularly what animals are in our population. This year I will be targeting mature white tailed deer in the 5 year old range or older.

Doe with fawns (what I usually get on the cameras. Important to see on any wildlife property, especially as the season progresses, those bucks will be seeking the does in mid November.)

Yearling (born last year and maybe 140 pounds)

2 year old (maybe 160 pounds). Not uncommon to see during daylight.

3 year old (180-200 or more pounds). Sometimes we see a 3 year old during daylight.

4 year old (more than 200 pounds, this deer might be 220-240 pounds). A deer this age will seldom be exposed during the day.

5 year old (estimated at 265 pounds or more for this buck). Feed and travel almost exclusively at night and maintain a small territory near food water and thick cover. A territory can be as small as 40 acres sometime smaller.

Another 5 year old buck in the 270-280 pound range for sure. An elusive animal during most of the year except the rut when he is exposed by his only weakness...chasing the girls.

You can see the size difference between the 3 year old maybe 200 pound deer and a fully mature 5 year old white tailed deer who might weigh 270-280 pounds.

Black bear late season

Coyote

Cow elk coming through

Calf bull moose passing through

Yearling bull moose

 

[jlovie]

Very nice pics! Always nice to know as much as possible about what's going on in your hunting area.

 

[hoytcanon]

It's baaaaaack!!! Eek, eek...

 

[jbmauser]

Great pics and info.

 

[WhelanLad]

Awesome post for awareness an education purpose!
cheers from au

 

[the spank]

18423070[/URL]]It's baaaaaack!!! Eek, eek...

My first thought was "oh here we go again"....

 

[trevj]

Awesome post for awareness an education purpose!
cheers from au

Not really.

You sorta have to know the OP's back story, and his past attempts to drag others along on his mission to farm the local wildlife.

 

[aprilfoolsme]

It's baaaaaack!!! Eek, eek...

+100

 

[m1008]

Stupid post “your herd”, go get a job at a zoo.

 

[Demonical]

I hunt public land and seem unable to make any solid changes to 'the local herd'...

 

[umchorn2]

I hunt public land and seem unable to make any solid changes to 'the local herd'...

I also hunt a lot of public land all over Saskatchewan in addition to my 80 acre parcel and my other 470 acre piece. Today I walked 16.7km and saw 15 mule deer which included 3 bucks, as well as 4 white tail (one was a decent 3 year old) and a cow moose with 2 calves and 2 sharp tailed grouse. I also saw a lot of truck hunters. I feel that I should have seen a lot more wildlife for the amount of back country hiking that I did. I was the only guy outside of his truck today.

Don’t think that just because you don’t own any land or you hunt public that what you shoot doesn’t matter.

There are a lot of hunters out there and if we all made a collective effort to improve the herd health by passing or not shooting does and fawns as well as younger bucks it would do a lot to increase animal populations in general, which would eventually allow a larger harvest by hunters.

The way I see it is every shot you take is a management decision. Or likewise not taking a shot at all. Of course the best way to help manage wildlife is to take ownership of some land and make it better for wildlife. When a hunter does this it makes them a conservationist. But there are many hunters who just donate to wildlife organizations, join hunt and fish clubs or use outfitters.

The most important thing to do is to get involved directly with a conservation organization like the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation for example, and get that cash to the organizations that will allocate the funds to buying land directly for conservation. These usually are hunting organizations but I’ve walked many Nature Conservancy lands and they have some beautiful properties set aside for wildlife. Even though you can’t hunt them it’s still a benefit to the wildlife and that’s a good thing given all the pressures and development that continues to reduce good habitat.

 

[tokguy]

Credit where credit is due... you are being proactive.
The more Urban members might take umbrage to your plan is my guess though.
The fact that you seem to have them all individually figured out... is kinda impressive mind you.

 

[Demonical]

I also hunt a lot of public land all over Saskatchewan in addition to my 80 acre parcel and my other 470 acre piece. Today I walked 16.7km and saw 15 mule deer which included 3 bucks, as well as 4 white tail (one was a decent 3 year old) and a cow moose with 2 calves and 2 sharp tailed grouse. I also saw a lot of truck hunters. I feel that I should have seen a lot more wildlife for the amount of back country hiking that I did. I was the only guy outside of his truck today.

Don’t think that just because you don’t own any land or you hunt public that what you shoot doesn’t matter.

There are a lot of hunters out there and if we all made a collective effort to improve the herd health by passing or not shooting does and fawns as well as younger bucks it would do a lot to increase animal populations in general, which would eventually allow a larger harvest by hunters.

The way I see it is every shot you take is a management decision. Or likewise not taking a shot at all. Of course the best way to help manage wildlife is to take ownership of some land and make it better for wildlife. When a hunter does this it makes them a conservationist. But there are many hunters who just donate to wildlife organizations, join hunt and fish clubs or use outfitters.

The most important thing to do is to get involved directly with a conservation organization like the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation for example, and get that cash to the organizations that will allocate the funds to buying land directly for conservation. These usually are hunting organizations but I’ve walked many Nature Conservancy lands and they have some beautiful properties set aside for wildlife. Even though you can’t hunt them it’s still a benefit to the wildlife and that’s a good thing given all the pressures and development that continues to reduce good habitat.

Umchorn I never shoot does, I think the guys that do are wrong(idiots).

I never shoot immature bucks either, I have 'eaten' more tag soup than venison.

 

[FishHog]

Umchorn I never shoot does, I think the guys that do are wrong(idiots).

That totally depends on your area and the makeup of your deer herd. Many areas have had so many years of your thinking that the ratio of bucks to does is way out of wack and is really not a good thing. In a natural environment, its much closer to 50:50.

Not shooting does is far from being idiotic, in an area that would greatly benefit from a reduction in the doe population.

In many areas it is the smartest thing to do for the health of the herd.

 

[tokguy]

That totally depends on your area and the makeup of your deer herd. Many areas have had so many years of your thinking that the ratio of bucks to does is way out of wack and is really not a good thing. In a natural environment, its much closer to 50:50.

Not shooting does is far from being idiotic, in an area that would greatly benefit from a reduction in the doe population.

In many areas it is the smartest thing to do for the health of the herd.

I'm guessing it is the 'Cattleman Side' of AB where they don't shoot the does... kinda reflects the 'My Herd' train of thought I suppose.
'The Buck to Doe ratio should be the same as the Bull to Cow ratio'...uh, I don't think that's how it works... but you be you.

 

[coyoteking]

Where I farm they could draw a thousand mule doe tags and it wouldn’t begin to make a dent in the population.

 

[canadian hunter312]

Umchorn I never shoot does, I think the guys that do are wrong(idiots).

I never shoot immature bucks either, I have 'eaten' more tag soup than venison.

Many areas require a significant number of does to be taken each season to either maintain or lower the population for a healthy herd.

Game managers use hunters as management tools to kill does. Are you suggesting you're more educated about herd management than the people whose job it is to manage game populations? I doubt you're a biologist or even work for a provincial wildlife management agency?

 

[timandkimandshea]

Many areas require a significant number of does to be taken each season to either maintain or lower the population for a healthy herd.

Game managers use hunters as management tools to kill does. Are you suggesting you're more educated about herd management than the people whose job it is to manage game populations? I doubt you're a biologist or even work for a provincial wildlife management agency?

If federally managed wildlife is the metric , you're not exactly shooting for the stars...

 

[umchorn2]

Many areas require a significant number of does to be taken each season to either maintain or lower the population for a healthy herd.

Game managers use hunters as management tools to kill does. Are you suggesting you're more educated about herd management than the people whose job it is to manage game populations? I doubt you're a biologist or even work for a provincial wildlife management agency?

A question for you Canadian hunter 312...do you really think there are that many areas in Canada that are overpopulated with deer and require management techniques such as specifically targeting does to reduce herd numbers? The average deer density in Canada is in general is no where near the carrying capacity, which of course varies across eco zones like west coast rainforest to prairie to boreal forest to farm land etc.

Just as an example to highlight my point, a 10,000 acre PFRA pasture in Saskatchewan’s aspen parkland region might run approximately 700 head of cattle. Yet that same pasture has no where near 700 deer. In the absence of the cattle what would the population of deer be?

In parts of the USA like Iowa and the midwest they can have anywhere from 40 to 70 deer per square mile. Meanwhile in Canada we would be lucky to have 15 or 20 under ideal conditions. Just because you hit a pocket of deer somewhere herded up together of maybe 20 animals does not mean that every piece of land has that density. You might have to travel several miles and cover a few thousand acres to find that many animals again.

If hunters on average shot 4 or 5 year old bucks or older then the population would more closely approximate the real population demographics of what a true deer population should look like. Now look at the two deer on my cam pics that I have posted that are 5 year olds and tell me you would not rather shoot those deer than the yearling buck near the top pic.

 

[tokguy]

A question for you Canadian hunter 312...do you really think there are that many areas in Canada that are overpopulated with deer and require management techniques such as specifically targeting does to reduce herd numbers? The average deer density in Canada is in general is no where near the carrying capacity, which of course varies across eco zones like west coast rainforest to prairie to boreal forest to farm land etc.

Just as an example to highlight my point, a 10,000 acre PFRA pasture in Saskatchewan’s aspen parkland region might run approximately 700 head of cattle. Yet that same pasture has no where near 700 deer. In the absence of the cattle what would the population of deer be?

In parts of the USA like Iowa and the midwest they can have anywhere from 40 to 70 deer per square mile. Meanwhile in Canada we would be lucky to have 15 or 20 under ideal conditions. Just because you hit a pocket of deer somewhere herded up together of maybe 20 animals does not mean that every piece of land has that density. You might have to travel several miles and cover a few thousand acres to find that many animals again.

If hunters on average shot 4 or 5 year old bucks or older then the population would more closely approximate the real population demographics of what a true deer population should look like. Now look at the two deer on my cam pics that I have posted that are 5 year olds and tell me you would not rather shoot those deer than the yearling buck near the top pic.

40 to 70 deer per sq mile in Iowa? Wow. that might explain how a third ( edit; not 'half' my bad) of them are carrying...well, you know. Article on it in this Saturday's Post.
I think our density and the viral load they are carrying is just fine... No amateur management req'd IMO. If 30% of WT in Iowa are infected... I'm not going to push for us to emulate their management in any way shape or form.