Post by ridge on Jul 21, 2017 20:35:57 GMT -5
According to Dr. Rudolph's report 50% of the bucks turned in to check stations during 2016 in non-MAPR counties across the state were yearlings and approximately 20% were older bucks. If that is correct, then 30% were fawn bucks. (These are averages based on his graph.)
1) These are buck turned in and not percentages of the living bucks because that is unknown so there is no way to project what percentage of yearling bucks are protected.
2) The population of deer varies across the state and so does the ratio of bucks to doe.
3) The mortality of deer is not based on hunting alone.
4) Spikes below 3" are not protected where antlerless permits are allotted.
5) Subjectively as I have seen, a great many of the deer dead on the side of the road in my area are young deer.
6) Deer grow more slowly in the north due to more sandy, low nutritional areas, to more severe weather, and to slightly longer winter weather (depending
on the latitude).
7) In our area, the greater the number of young deer the greater the coyote kill is; and the greater the predation of young deer by coyotes, the greater the population of coyotes. (Granted the diet of coyotes is not deer alone, but their highest nutritional value is gained from deer.)
8) Yearlings are third in line behind mature bucks and doe for winter browse and thus are more susceptible to winter die off than adults.
9) Yearling bucks disperse and thus are more susceptible to road kill.
10) The idea that MAPRs will protect 50% of the yearlings in the herd cannot be proven.
11) It is just as likely that a greater percentage of yearlings will die by other forms of mortality than prior to MAPRs and thus are wasted.
12) The population of yearlings will always be cyclical based on all the forms of mortality therefore no theory of MARs can ever predict survivability especially in northern climates.
13) I would also suggest that basing age on any antler description is a poor metric because antler growth is not a given nor is it consistent in the north.
14) MAPRs are guesswork that is based on the personal wish or hope that more trophies will exist and that they will be thus easier to hunt.
1) These are buck turned in and not percentages of the living bucks because that is unknown so there is no way to project what percentage of yearling bucks are protected.
2) The population of deer varies across the state and so does the ratio of bucks to doe.
3) The mortality of deer is not based on hunting alone.
4) Spikes below 3" are not protected where antlerless permits are allotted.
5) Subjectively as I have seen, a great many of the deer dead on the side of the road in my area are young deer.
6) Deer grow more slowly in the north due to more sandy, low nutritional areas, to more severe weather, and to slightly longer winter weather (depending
on the latitude).
7) In our area, the greater the number of young deer the greater the coyote kill is; and the greater the predation of young deer by coyotes, the greater the population of coyotes. (Granted the diet of coyotes is not deer alone, but their highest nutritional value is gained from deer.)
8) Yearlings are third in line behind mature bucks and doe for winter browse and thus are more susceptible to winter die off than adults.
9) Yearling bucks disperse and thus are more susceptible to road kill.
10) The idea that MAPRs will protect 50% of the yearlings in the herd cannot be proven.
11) It is just as likely that a greater percentage of yearlings will die by other forms of mortality than prior to MAPRs and thus are wasted.
12) The population of yearlings will always be cyclical based on all the forms of mortality therefore no theory of MARs can ever predict survivability especially in northern climates.
13) I would also suggest that basing age on any antler description is a poor metric because antler growth is not a given nor is it consistent in the north.
14) MAPRs are guesswork that is based on the personal wish or hope that more trophies will exist and that they will be thus easier to hunt.