Devastating Deer Disease?

[rdrader2002]

Northern Plains Hit Hard By Devastating Deer Disease

Just thought I'd share something that I found on our "local" TV station. I say local 'cause it's about 90 miles away and the closest city that carries a TV station.

RR

[tator]

that's too bad... keep that disease down there! Here in MO, they check just about every animal taken to a processor for CWD

[scribe]

Seems that Milk River area gets hit pretty often. I reckon it is tied to the drought. Concentrates the deer and the midges at the same waterholes.

[tomlightfield]

Here in Illinois about three years ago there was a severe outbreak of EHD in the south part of the state, the estimates were in the thousands. I would say that's still one of the biggest reasons (among others) for the general deer decline in the area I hunt.

[scribe]

For sure, population will decline. However, overall, in a few years, the hunting will be good and the deer that survive the disease will be immune to it. Every now and then, Ma Nature has to cleanse things.

I was hunting in South Dakota a few years ago following an EHD outbreak. I found four w.t. carcasses(sp) that I scored at over 130 and was shown two that would top 150. The landowner had no idea he had bucks like that on his ranch.

[rdrader2002]

Sad when deer like that get 1) un-noticed by the land owner and 2) that EHD can devastate whole herds so quickly.

For those that didn't open the URL, it's for the northern plain states - Montana, the Dakota's, etc. Although we've suffered through the worst drought in over a century, we're (Tx) not the state having the problem.

RR

[VolHunter]

EHD is not that large of a problem. It happens every year and many deer are thought to carry the disease but not be affected as long as the conditions (food/water/temp) don't get too bad. However, it hits the population extremely hard in severe drought times or if the population is getting over carrying capacity.

I am glad to hear that your DNR reported the actual numbers (90%) because down here in TN our reports said between 18-40% die off at most. However, the actual numbers and biologist that I know said closer to 90% in several areas but the state agency didn't want to take the chance on losing license sales. Also, they opened up a Unit L where you can kill 290+ deer a year (3 bucks) right after we had our worst wave of the EHD.....shows how RETARDED my state is in managing deer....one of my biggest pet peeves!!!!

Anyways, populations do rebound very well if you have the next few years without a bad drought. Also, many of the deer that do survive in the extreme problem years have a genetic resistance to the disease and it is thought that once these are passed on through a few generations, the deer won't get hit as hard again until that trait falls out of the herd. So after a hard hit year, it should be gone for a while. We had a kinda hard year, and extremely BAD year, then we haven't seen hardly any of it since then...been 6+ years

[scribe]

Originally Posted by VolHunter

EHD is not that large of a problem. It happens every year and many deer are thought to carry the disease but not be affected as long as the conditions (food/water/temp) don't get too bad. However, it hits the population extremely hard in severe drought times or if the population is getting over carrying capacity.

I am glad to hear that your DNR reported the actual numbers (90%) because down here in TN our reports said between 18-40% die off at most. However, the actual numbers and biologist that I know said closer to 90% in several areas but the state agency didn't want to take the chance on losing license sales. Also, they opened up a Unit L where you can kill 290+ deer a year (3 bucks) right after we had our worst wave of the EHD.....shows how RETARDED my state is in managing deer....one of my biggest pet peeves!!!!

nyways, populations do rebound very well if you have the next few years without a bad drought. Also, many of the deer that do survive in the extreme problem years have a genetic resistance to the disease and it is thought that once these are passed on through a few generations, the deer won't get hit as hard again until that trait falls out of the herd. So after a hard hit year, it should be gone for a while. We had a kinda hard year, and extremely BAD year, then we haven't seen hardly any of it since then...been 6+ years

Vol- Let's be fair and honest. To start with, our state ranks among the tops in the age strata of bucks killed and this year showed an increase of approx. 6,000 antlered bucks killed over last year with the total kill of all deer up 6K. That doesn't happen in a state with a poorly managed herd. Last year, total deer killed 160K. This 166K last year antlered bucks 79K. This year 85K. Now those are factual figures as of 2:56 p.m., Jan. 10. Now I'll deal with our EHD.

There were indeed pockets and areas where as much as 90% of the deer population was hit with EHD. AREAS, not the entire state where it may have been less far than 40% by number of the entire deer population. To say the impact was 90% would have been poor thinking by the TWRA. It would imply our deer herd overall was in serious trouble when in fact, it was not in any trouble at all.

In most of Unit L, where I live and hunt, impact was light overall. In most of the area, it was negligible. That is fact based on census information, not hunter sightings. However, Unit L with a 3-doe limit was in place before the serios EHD outbreak here. But...there could have been no limit and there would not have been an impact. Here, let me prove it. I have been studying Unit L since its' inception and have been amazed at what a 3-doe per day limit does. Only one thing-it allows hunters to understand it is okay to shoot does. Good idea, I think. So let us examine actual, factual data. Of course, we have rebounded from the EHD outbreak but the figures are interesting.

As of this afternoon-Tuesday, Jan. 10, 166,481 deer were killed in TN this past season. A few tags still to be counted. The total number of hunters that killed one or more deer was 89,077 and of that number, only 9,274 hunters killed three or more deer of any sex-roughly 10%. I personaly killed seven, two bucks and five does. Guess how many hunters killed seven deer...of any sex? A grand total of 540. 314 hunters killed 8 and 182 killed nine. Really hammered them with that 3-doe a day limit, didn't we? You see, hunters just will not kill three does a day. It is too much work and then you have the meat to deal with. But they will understand the herd is healthy and it is okay to kill a doe or six. That is how you get a balanced sex ratio. This year, the kill was approaching 50:50 and that is fantastic.

Now let's talk about bucks. There were 85,115 bucks killed, just about 6,000 more than last year and the age strata was among the best if not the best of any any state. The number of successfull hunters was/is 64,221. And a staggering 2,766 killed three. That is right at 4%. Obviously, there is no benefit to lowering the buck limit to two or one. You improve nothing. The most beneficial thing we could do is count a button as a buck and require him to be tagged.

Yes, in some areas, EHD dang sure had an impact. It was temporary and it will most assuredly happen again when weather conditions get right. However, after looking at factual data and talking with Daryl, overall, the impact on a general basis was minimal and nowhere even close to 90%. The biologists you spoke with who gave that number were probably talking about their specific area and they were correct.

I have always found it helpfull when talking about deer management to have some accurate facts and figures to work from. Here in TN, the facts and figures indicate the exact opposite of a poorly managed deer herd. That we will never have bucks with antlers comparable to the midwest, no matter what is done...is factual. That will never happen. That our buck herd, in age, sex ratio and number to c.c. is among the top 5 in the country, is also factual.

I have lived and worked in the wildlife field in several states for over 30-years. I have known many of the big game managers. I can say without reservation, TN has one of the best I have ever known and I don't even like the Yankee sob.

Most hunters base their opinion of the deer management in their state on three things: 1-the number of deer they see. 2-the number of bucks they see.3-the number of large antlered bucks they see. The two words, "THEY SEE". is where the problem lies. Hunters seldom if ever see what is really out there.

[VolHunter]

I live and hunt in Unit L as well. I see plenty of deer and in the two years that we had the trouble with EHD there were less deer and they definitely weren't in the best of condition as a whole.

Now on to your data...

While I know the numbers look good. Many of my fellow classmates and friends are the ones who work check stations and we see very little to NO true age strata difference. Now when TWRA used to collect data season round (normally every weekend or every other weekend) and actually took weight, age, points, spread, and sex I would believe them. Now most if not all counties simply have a check station on the first weekend of the season (bow,gun,muzzleloader) and that is IT. I know because many of the classmates and people at other colleges that I know are "contracted out" to these check stations as "help" (actually part of our class). We see little to NO deer above three year old brought in and more than 80% are 2 1/2 year old deer. Also, many of us are stationed with people in fisheries, construction crews, or law enforcement. Some of the actual TWRA people I have worked with or met at these stations often say "I don't even know how to look at the teeth", "if it is over an 8pt it has to be at least a 4 1/2 year old deer right", "you ain't got to look at the teeth, you can always age by the rack"....

Now I know that just because you work in fisheries or something other than deer, you can still be informed on deer. However, when they obviously are purposefully ignorant (given all the materials needed to age) or they just don't care. Also, many hunters come in thinking they know the age of the deer and say he is at least 4yr old or more and the recorder takes it down on the record. I have seen this happen with my own eyes and I have had my closest friends say the same things have happened to them.

Also, these check stations that we work are the only ones that take the age, sex, spread, and longest point (sometimes weight is included). Now the rest of the year you go into a gas station, police station, or even online to input your data. There is no question of age. Just sex. If it's a buck then you get the "how many points" and "area of county killed". So my question is where is the actual age data coming from? Now if you go to a WMA or quota hunt you get all the data recorded before you leave. But let me ask this, if that is the only true place data is coming from, how do you get all these perfect graphs and great ratios? Seems like they might be expounding the data they get to fit their whole harvest data. Now if that is the case, do you think that the harvest that they have off areas like Oak Ridge, Holston Ammunition Plant, President's Island, Duck River WMA, or Fort Campbell match regular harvest of people hunting off TVA lands, federal refuge, or private lands?

Now on to your claim that many hunters don't kill more than 1-2 deer a day. I believe that you are a good bit right. However, your reason to say that it is too much work is crazy. You are right that taking deer and dressing/boneing out takes a lot of time but there have been several "piles" at a few dump sites that I know where whole deer are getting dropped with just the backstraps, neck roast, or other things cut out and the rest of the deer is simply left. I would register to bet that many of these deer are never tagged. Simply shot, put in truck, cut out meat, drive to dumpsite and throw em out. Even if they are checking these deer in, it is still promoting waste of these animals. Instead of having a limited number of does that can be killed (which makes you use all that you can), you can kill basically an infinite amount of does (which means you can simply get out what you want because you have an unlimited supply). In Unit L there was seriously a problem with overpopulation. I understand it's need but I think that the 3 deer a day is too excessive. Also, when the numbers drop, how hard will it be to take a privilege like that away from the public? I do agree though that it did put the right idea in peoples' minds (FINALLY) that it is ok to shoot does.

On to your buck topic, I agree that the agency should count button bucks toward your state limit. However I disagree that lowering the number of bucks wouldn't help because it would have no doubt an impact on the age structure and can help (as a byproduct) to create bigger bucks. Also, in working the check stations (and being around them my whole life) hunters always seem to shoot at least 1 if not 2 young bucks cause "I haven't seen any big ones yet". This hurts the ACTUAL age structure of our bucks and can keep the size down. I have good buds in west Kentucky not 40 miles from where I hunt and they have on average more 150" class bucks then we do. It cannot be and isn't (at least solely) a "soils" advantage. Food plots are about the same, climate is the same, hunting pressure about the same, yet we have several hunters willing to shoot anything with antlers because they "can shoot a few". The main "up" they got on us is that they give the bucks there enough chance to TRULY reach a 4 1/2+ age structure because each guy who pull the trigger knows "I only get one". Also, in states like Illinois I know out of state hunters can only get 1 deer ( or it was when I hunted it) and you couldn't hunt with high powered rifles...now tell me how many deer/big bucks lives that saves? I've seen monsters cross at 250+ yards in a corn field and only have a slug gun that could hit MAYBE to a 125yrds. But if I had my 7mag, I could've taken the buck...how many times does this happen?

I have family in TWRA and I have talked with many friends there. I have even approached Greg Walthen (sp?) and asked to see the complete raw data pulled from each check station and got denied. Two friends and I approached him after a meeting and even began talking to him about figures and data possibly being skewed and he went quiet. He said he didn't know enough to talk with us. I have watched TWRA skew data left and right all my life, I have also watched them hire to many "friends" with little to no knowledge just to keep up the ol' buddy system. They even did a duck count on the National Wildlife Refuge at 3:30am by recording the quacks...they then estimated that there were 500,000 ducks counted off the tape. Somehow though, the next day (opening day) there was less than 40,000 when counted the next afternoon and hunters were complaining of no ducks....so those ducks all came in and left in the same 3-4 hour period?

I agree that by sheer harvest our state is doing well. But I truly believe that we are a quantity over quality state. Honestly, that is truly fine because it does allow for more license sales. However, when people aren't buying licenses here to hunt because they can go just across state borders to kill larger bucks, it is a problem. That is why I want more "quality" because if we don't get more hunters in the woods, and especially more hunters coming from out of state, then our licenses are going to once again increase. They already have been denied at least 1 more 15-25% increase in the last 2 years and predict they will need a pretty huge % increase to get the budget back in place.

And as for your comment about hunters never really seeing what all is out there, I completely agree. We try to harvest 20 or more does off our property each year because we see up to 60 in one sitting. Therefore we believe that there are at least 40-60 more that we aren't seeing. Same goes for our bucks, we see a good bit of 130 class deer and a few 140. We know there are monsters out there, but just can't catch em screwing up (they even shy away from cameras). However, I would like to see a a drop in buck limit just to give us more big deer running around that might "screw up" at the wrong time.

To end though, I know there are a lot of people in TWRA that do a great job and are serious about their work. However, I also know that many of the high ups skew data to make themselves look good. That goes for fisheries, deer management, etc...I know this for a FACT.

[scribe]

I'm sure you are right. BTW- Did you know the archery non-typical trecord was broken twice in three weeks this year by Unit L bucks?