2005-06 deer Report - Arkansas Game and Fish Commission

2005-06
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
Deer Season Summary
Tagging your take
This is the second year Arkansas big-game hunters will be required to tag their harvested
big-game animals. Proper tagging aids the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission with
accurate harvest totals used in management and in publications such as this report.
Before moving harvested big game in Arkansas, remove the appropriate tag from your
license, fill it out and attach it to the ear or antler of a deer or leg of a turkey. All tags
must be completed legibly in ink and must remain attached until final processing and
storage of harvested game.
This year’s Resident Sportsman’s License and Nonresident Annual All Game Hunting
License include eight game tags – four for the 2006-07 deer season, two for the fall 2006
turkey season and two for the spring 2007 turkey season. Other licenses include
an appropriate number of tags.
Hunters holding the 65 Plus License or the Disability License, hunters under 16 and
Mississippi license holders hunting under the Reciprocal Hunting License Agreement
must either use the example tags below or substitute a piece of paper displaying
information about each harvested deer or turkey. Tags will be mailed to holders of the
$1,000 Lifetime Sportsman’s License.
All Arkansas hunting licenses have an expiration date of June 30. This ensures accurate
records and allows consistent printing of new tags if regulations and bag limits change.
For more information on the new tagging system or to buy a license,
call (800) 364-4263 (during normal business hours) or visit
www.agfc.com.
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
2 Natural Resources Drive, Little Rock, AR 72205
GAME TAG INSTRUCTIONS
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
IMMEDIATELY after the kill and before moving the deer or turkey, the tag must be printed
legibly in ink and securely fastened to the antler or ear on a deer and to the leg on a
turkey.
The game must be checked at an official check station within 24 hours of kill.
Type of game: DD – Doe Deer; BB – Button Buck; BA – Antlered Deer; FT – Female Turkey;
MT – Male Turkey
Method: MG – Modern Gun; ML – Muzzle Loader; A- Archery; C – Crossbow
Check Station # (or online #) must be printed on the tag
The tag must remain on the deer or turkey until final processing and storage by the
hunter.
If born after 1968, you must carry proof of Hunter Education training.
GAME TAG – EXPIRES 6-30-07
Valid only for holders of the following hunting licences: 65+; Disabled or Resident and
Non-Resident Sportsmen under 16 years old to tag harvested deer and turkey.
THIS TAG IS NOT VALID FOR HOLDERS OF ANY OTHER LICENSE, UNLESS TAGGING A BEAR
NAME: ___________________________________________________________________
LICENSE # ________________________________________________________________
(NOT APPLICABLE FOR UNDER 16 SPORTSMEN)
TIME: ____________________________ DATE: _________________________________
WMA/ZONE: ________________ TYPE OF GAME: _______________________________
METHOD: __________________ CHECK STATION# _____________________________
Table of Contents
5 Executive Summary
Section One: Harvest Results
8 Harvest Results for 2005-06
9 Historic Deer Harvest 1938-2005
10 Statewide Harvest by Method
11 Statewide Harvest by Zone
12 Statewide Harvest by Opening Date
13 Statewide Harvest by Month
13 Statewide Harvest by County
14 Deer Management Units
14 Harvest Density by DMU
15 Harvest by WMA
Section Two: Herd Health Reports
18 Herd Health Data Collection
19 Average Kidney Fat Index by DMU
20 Average Date of Conception by DMU
21 Average Number of Fetuses per Doe by DMU
Section Three: Biological Data Reports
22 Biological Data Collection
23 Age Structure by Sex and DMU
24 Average Buck Dressed Weight by DMU
25 Average Antler Index by DMU
26 Average Doe Dressed Weight by DMU
27 Average Doe Lactation by DMU
www.agfc.com
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 2005-06 Deer Season Summary is also available on our
Web site in Portable Document Format (PDF) at www.agfc.com/deer.
Cover photo by Barbara Wood.
Table of Contents
Section Four: Bowhunter Observation Data
28 Observation Data Collection
28 Comparison of 2004-05 and 2005-06 Observations
Section Five: Focus on Deer – Fort Chaffee Wildlife
Management Area
29 Fort Chaffee WMA
Section Six: Deer Biology – Words From AGFC Biologists
33 What Does Harvest Tell Us About the Population?
34 An Infatuation with Antlers
36 Managing a Successful Deer Herd
38 Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
I
n 1999 the Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission approved the Strategic
Deer Management Plan. The major
purpose of this plan is to provide strategic,
long-term guidance and direction for the
Commission’s white-tailed deer program.
The Strategic Deer Management Plan divides
the state into six Deer Management Units (DMU)
based on Arkansas’ physiographic regions: Ozark
Mountains, Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas River
Valley, West Gulf Coastal Plain, Mississippi Alluvial
Plain (Delta) and Crowley’s Ridge. Statewide deer
zones are subdivisions of these DMUs. Zones
allow separate management strategies to address
differences in deer populations, harvests, habitats
and land use within DMUs.
The plan identifies four major goals with
objectives and strategies for each DMU. The four
major goals are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Population Management
Deer Recreation
Deer/Human Coexistence
Commercialization
The plan defines long-term deer biological and
population goals for each DMU. These goals are
identified on each index collected for this report.
Gathering the Data
All regions of Arkansas have white-tailed deer.
The West Gulf Coastal Plain boasts the highest
deer density and offers 50 percent of the annual
statewide harvest. Deer populations in the Ozark
Mountains, Ouachita Mountains and the Arkansas
River Valley are considered stable to increasing.
Despite the high degree of habitat fragmentation
through agricultural land use, the Delta supports
a moderate deer population because of high soil
fertility and high-quality food. Crowley’s Ridge
stands out from the Delta because of differing soil
types and habitat composition. The deer population
on Crowley’s Ridge is stable.
“
Hunters checked 132,415 deer
during the 2005-2006 deer
season. This is a 0.5 percent
increase from the 2004-2005
harvest of 131,639.
”
The deer database contains 68 years of harvest
data, 16 years of biological data (body weights,
lactation, age and antler measurements), five years
of herd health data (kidney fat indices, conception
dates, birth dates and fetal counts), and two years
of bowhunter observation data. Because deer
zone boundaries changed throughout the years,
evaluating trends by zone is difficult. The data is
best evaluated by DMU.
Harvest Data Summary
Hunters checked 132,415 deer during the 20052006 deer season. This is a 0.5 percent increase
from the 2004-2005 harvest of 131,639. The buck
harvest decreased 3 percent (70,480) from the
2004-2005 harvest of 72,486. The doe harvest also
remained stable with a 1 percent decrease (47,646
to 47,229).
The majority of bucks (38 percent) and does
(27 percent) harvested statewide last season were
2.5 years old. The large 2.5-year-old buck harvest
is primarily a result of the statewide antler-point
restriction defining a legal buck as having at least
three points on one side.
5
Executive Summary
Average dressed body weights for adult bucks
ranged from 108 pounds in the Ouachitas and
the West Gulf Coastal Plain to 125 pounds in the
Delta. Average adult doe dressed body weights
ranged from 86 pounds in the Delta to 74 pounds
in the Ouachita Mountains.
Statewide lactation rates in adult does were below
the 80 percent target set by the Strategic Deer
Management Plan. The highest lactation rate was 72
percent in the West Gulf Coastal Plain; the lowest
lactation rate was 55 percent in the Arkansas River
Valley.
Antler index measures the quality of racks in
harvested bucks. It is the sum of total number of
points, inside spread, left beam length and left beam
circumference. The highest average score was 42.7
on Crowley’s Ridge; the lowest was 39.0 in the West
Gulf Coastal Plain.
Herd Health Data Summary
Herd health data provides information on timing
of the rut and fawn production. Sample deer are
taken from the herd in late winter and early spring
to collect this data, which is vital to understand the
general health of deer in a given area.
For 2006, the average number of fetuses produced
was highest on Crowley’s Ridge (1.88) and the
lowest was in the West Gulf Coastal Plain (1.59).
Kidney fat deposits are used to evaluate physical
conditions of animals coming out of winter stress
entering spring green-up. Mast productions and
weather conditions determine fat deposits prior
to spring. The minimum desired average KFI
for March and April is 35 percent. Kidney Fat
Indices (KFI) ranged from 145 percent in the
Ozark Mountains to 55 percent in the Ouachita
Mountains.
The 2005 peak rut was slightly later than the
four-year average. The Ozark Mountains showed
the earliest peak rut of November 7. The latest peak
rut in Arkansas was in the Delta on November 27.
Deer in the Delta historically breed later than those
6
in other regions. Some biologists believe this late
rutting is the result of historic flooding. The later
rut would result in fawns being born later, after
floodwaters receded.
Bowhunter Observation Summary
The 2005-2006 archery season was the second
year bowhunters across the state collected
observation data. Hunter observations provide sex
ratios, deer density, fawn-to-doe ratio and buck
antler structure. This kind of data, along with
biological data from harvested deer, provides a
more detailed picture of the herd in each region.
More than 1,000 archery hunters participated in
the survey, collecting more than 12,000 hours of
observations. The information presented in this
report represents only two years of observation
data. Additional data will be needed to determine
trends and potential change related to management
strategies.
Chronic Wasting Disease Update
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is still a
major concern and threat to Arkansas’ native deer
populations. During the last three years biologists
have completed a random sampling of each
Arkansas county. Within each county a minimum
of 50 samples were collected from hunter harvested
deer and herd health deer sampled in late winter.
To date, 3,641 wild deer samples have been tested in
USDA-certified labs at the Arkansas Livestock and
Poultry Commission and the University of Georgia.
No evidence of CWD has been detected in any
sample.
Executive Summary
Future Management Plans:
The AGFC Deer Team and CWD Team are working on several projects concerning deer management and
data reporting. The following is a list of ongoing projects and the anticipated results:
1. Deer data reporting for clubs
participating in the Deer
Management Assistance Program.
With increasing participation in DMAP,
data reporting can be time-consuming.
Biologists are developing a data-reporting
program to reduce the time private lands
biologists invest in data analysis and
let hunting clubs view their data more
efficiently.
2. Wildlife
Management
Area permit hunt
reporting. Many
Wildlife Management
Area hunts are
administered through
permits. These permit
hunts give increased
management control.
This project will
evaluate the permit
administration process
and if management goals
are being achieved.
3. Revision of the Deer
Plan. The Strategic
Deer Management
Plan was approved in
1999 and was intended to be reviewed and
updated every five years. The Deer Team
is reviewing additional data to ensure the
revised deer plan incorporates the latest
research and data available.
4. Develop Arkansas’ CWD Sampling
and Response Plan. This plan will
provide guidance for future CWD sampling
in Arkansas and a response if a positive
sample is found. Response will be based on
location and deer population status in that
region.
5. Evaluation of the Three-point Rule.
In 1998, the Arkansas Game and Fish
Commission adopted antlerpoint restrictions statewide in
the form of the three-point
rule. The intent was to protect
yearling bucks and recruit more
bucks into older age classes. It
was assumed that deer would
have larger antlers as they
became older. The objectives of
this study are to quantify the
effects of the regulation on age
composition and antler size of
bucks harvested before and after
1998 within four physiographic
regions in Arkansas: the Gulf
Coastal Plain, Ozark Highlands,
Ouachita Mountains and
Mississippi Alluvial Plain.
7
Section One: Harvest Results
Harvest Results for 2005-06
Hunters checked 132,415 deer during the 20052006 deer season. This is a 0.5 percent increase
from the 2004-2005 harvest of 131,639.
The adult buck harvest decreased 3 percent
(70,480) from the 2004-05 harvest of 72,486. The
doe harvest also remained stable with a 1 percent
decrease (47,646 to 47,229).
Deer Harvest in Arkansas, 1990-2006
Figure 1
8
Section One: Harvest Results
Historic Deer Harvest
Table 1
Year
1938
Total
Harvest
203
1938-2005
Year
1955
Total
Harvest
6,856
Year
1972
Total
Harvest
32,087
Total
Year Harvest
1989 113,079
1939
540
1956
8,249
1973
33,794
1990
90,910
1940
408
1957
9,438
1974
33,763
1991 110,896
1941
433
1958
9,993
1975
33,322
1992 110,401
1942
1,000
1959
12,280
1976
27,790
1993 122,063
1943
1,723
1960
15,000
1977
29,109
1994 120,491
1944
1,606
1961
19,359
1978
43,452
1995 163,924
1945
1,687
1962
27,772
1979
36,074
1996 152,460
1946
1,661
1963
25,148
1980
45,202
1997 167,305
1947
2,016
1964
16,637
1981
44,591
1998 179,225
1948
2,779
1965
17,138
1982
42,873
1999 194,687
1949
3,075
1966
20,028
1983
60,248
2000 182,132
1950
4,122
1967
21,751
1984
66,039
2001 150,279
1951
4,600
1968
20,063
1985
60,076
2002 124,451
1952
6,090
1969
25,696
1986
79,880
2003 108,456
1953
6,245
1970
26,017
1987 106,392
2004 131,639
1954
7,343
1971
24,720
1988 110,207
2005 132,415
9
Section One: Harvest Results
Statewide Harvest by Method
Table 2A
2004-05
Method
Bucks
Button
Bucks
Does
Total
Bucks
Button
Bucks
Archery
3,136
623
4,961
8,720
2,974
Crossbow
1,430
501
2,443
4,374
Muzzleloader
9,823
1,498
6,927
Modern Gun
58,097
8,703
Entire Season
72,486
55%
Percent of Total Harvest
2005-06
Does
Total
528
4,291
7,793
1,258
394
1,998
3,650
18,248
7,432
1,118
5,361
13,911
33,315
100,115
58,816
9,246
35,579
103,641
11,325
47,646
131,457
70,480
11,286
47,229
128,995
9%
36%
55%
9%
36%
Statewide comparison by method of the 2004-2005 and 2005-06 deer harvests. Note: Totals by method may not match the statewide total
due to check sheets with an incorrectly recorded method.
Statewide Harvest by Method
Table 2B
Method
% Difference
Bucks
% Difference
Button Bucks
% Difference
Does
% Difference
Total
Archery
-5%
-15%
-14%
-11%
Crossbow
-12%
-21%
-18%
-17%
Muzzleloader
-24%
-25%
-23%
-24%
Modern Gun
1%
6%
7%
4%
Entire Season
-3%
0%
-1%
-2%
10
Section One: Harvest Results
Statewide Harvest by Zone
Table 3
Zone
2004-05 2005-06
Bucks
Percent
Change
2004-05 2005-06
Does
Percent
Change
Button Bucks
Percent
2004-05 2005-06
Change
1
2,668
2,009
-25%
595
802
35%
91
103
13%
2
1,918
1,299
-32%
399
527
32%
85
92
8%
3
8,684
6,535
-25%
2,569
2,465
-4%
940
800
-15%
4
482
636
32%
341
632
85%
98
181
85%
04A
245
226
-8%
123
110
-11%
27
24
-11%
5
1,152
1,044
-9%
1,219
963
-21%
336
262
-22%
05A
187
185
-1%
84
76
-10%
26
19
-27%
6
4,796
3,513
-27%
907
1,455
60%
196
213
9%
7
1,524
1,101
-28%
252
416
65%
62
72
16%
8
3,213
2,322
-28%
846
1,238
46%
182
231
27%
9
4,347
4,193
-4%
3,544
2,723
-23%
689
494
-28%
10
1,009
752
-25%
452
430
-5%
85
67
-21%
11
2,323
3,808
64%
844
771
-9%
120
268
123%
12
26,420
29,323
11%
25,532
24,819
-3%
6,382
6,535
2%
13
3,818
5,232
37%
2,214
3,393
53%
589
852
45%
14
1,700
1,586
-7%
1,240
1,161
-6%
257
226
-12%
15
787
791
1%
650
559
-14%
137
118
-14%
16
570
634
11%
514
495
-4%
68
68
0%
16A
211
204
-3%
129
116
-10%
13
17
31%
17
1,157
1,277
10%
992
1,564
58%
70
94
34%
Total
67,365
66,529
-1%
43,731
44,469
2%
10,536
10,640
1%
Comparison by zone of the 2004-05 and 2005-06 deer harvests. Note: Zone totals may not match the statewide total because of check
sheets with incorrectly recorded zones.
11
Section One: Harvest Results
Statewide Harvest by Opening Date
The 2005-06 deer season was the third season
scannable checksheets were used. In addition to
ease of use, faster data processing and almost realtime data reporting, the scanning process enabled
the AGFC to analyze the deer harvest by date. This
information will allow the agency to chart opening-
day trends. It also will provide valuable details about
the effects of season structure on harvest. The most
noteworthy finding from the 2005-06 harvest by
date was 15 percent of the total harvest occurred on
the opening days of muzzleloader and modern gun
seasons.
Statewide Harvest by Opening Date
Table 4
Method
Opening Day
Harvest
Average
Temp. (F)
Average
Precipitation
Peak Wind
(MPH)
2003-04 Season
Archery/Crossbow
October 1, 2003
562
57
0
23
Muzzleloader
October 18, 2003
4,394
60
0
9
Modern Gun
November 8, 2003
18,222
49
0
17
2004-05 Season
Archery/Crossbow
October 1, 2004
989
70
0
17
Muzzleloader
October 16, 2004
5,754
60
0
20
Modern Gun
November 13, 2004
19,636
49
0.01
24
2005-06 Season
12
Archery/Crossbow
October 1, 2005
1,161
71
0
15
Muzzleloader
October 15, 2005
2,730
70
0
14
Modern Gun
November 12, 2005
16,724
59
0.14
28
Section One: Harvest Results
Statewide Harvest by Month
Table 5
2005-06
Month
Totals
% Total
Month
Totals
% Total
October
18,884
14.48%
January
1,156
.89%
November
85,133
65.27%
February
355
.27%
December
24,897
19.09%
Note: Monthly totals may not match the statewide total
because of check sheets with incorrectly recorded dates.
2005-06 Deer Harvest
Deer Harvested by County
Map 1
13
Section One: Harvest Results
Deer Management Units
The 1999 Strategic Deer Management Plan
defined Deer Management Units (DMU) based on
the following Arkansas physiographic regions: Ozark
Mountains, Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas River
Valley, West Gulf Coastal Plain, Mississippi Alluvial
Plain (Delta) and Crowley’s Ridge (see Map 2).
The Strategic Deer Management Plan established
long-term deer biological and population goals
for each DMU. The statewide deer zones are
subdivisions of the DMUs. Zones allow separate
management strategies to address differences in deer
populations, harvests, habitats and land use within
each DMU to maintain the established population
and biological goals.
Map 2
Deer Management Units
And the 2005-06 Deer Zones
Harvest Density
Using Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
technology, we were able to analyze the 20032006 deer harvest by total acreage for the DMUs.
2003-2006 Total Acres
Per Deer Harvest by DMU
14
Map 3
The West Gulf Coastal Plain DMU was the most
productive DMU with a three-year average of one
deer harvested for every 123 acres (see map 3).
Section One: Harvest Results
WMA Harvest
Table 6
WMA Name
2005-06
Total Acres
Harvest
Acres per Deer
Bald Knob NWR
15,000
26
577
Bayou Meto WMA
33,832
106
319
Beaver Lake WMA
5,827
23
253
Bell Slough WMA
2,040
7
291
302
1
302
7,020
6
1,170
280
6
47
Big Lake NWR
11,038
21
526
Big Lake WMA
12,320
8
1,540
Big Timber WMA
37,742
149
253
128
1
128
8,200
4
2,050
215
1
215
Buffalo National River WMA
95,730
37
2,587
Cache River NWR
54,000
197
274
Camp Robinson WDA
4,029
18
224
Camp Robinson WMA
26,675
239
112
Caney Creek WMA
85,000
48
1,771
Casey Jones WMA
83,832
212
395
Cedar Creek WMA
103
1
103
Cherokee Prairie Natural Area WMA
130
3
43
105,313
46
2,289
Choctaw Island WMA
7,676
129
60
Crossett Experimental Forest WMA
1,675
9
186
Cut-off Creek WMA
9,314
21
444
Cypress Bayou WMA
1,503
4
376
Dagmar WMA
9,720
38
256
Dardanelle WMA
42,500
20
2,125
Dave Donaldson Black River WMA
21,150
136
156
450
2
225
13,646
35
390
Earl Buss Bayou DeView WMA
4,435
16
277
Ed Gordon Point Remove WMA
8,694
114
76
Felsenthal NWR
65,000
390
167
Fort Chaffee WMA
66,000
480
138
Benson Creek Natural Area WMA
Beryl Anthony Lower Ouachita WMA
Big Creek WMA
Blevins WMA
Blue Mountain WMA
Brushy Creek WMA
Cherokee WMA
Departee Creek WMA
Dr. Lester Sitzes III Bois D’Arc WMA
Continued next page >>
15
Section One: Harvest Results
WMA Harvest
Table 6
WMA Name
Total Acres
Harvest
Acres per Deer
3,329
17
196
670
1
670
18,190
25
728
9,914
6
1652
Gulf Mountain WMA
11,683
85
137
Gum Flats WMA
15,661
24
653
Harold E. Alexander Spring River WMA
13,859
92
151
3,769
2
1,885
Henry Gray Hurricane Lake WMA
17,524
72
243
Hobbs SMA
11,744
72
163
Holla Bend NWR
7,000
33
212
Holland Bottoms WMA
6,190
24
258
Hope Upland WMA
2,115
10
212
26,000
108
241
4,000
27
148
971
5
194
Jim Kress WMA
14,527
14
1,038
Lafayette County WMA
16,739
54
310
Lake Greeson WMA
38,000
111
342
Lee County WMA
200
2
100
Little Bayou WMA
1,284
2
642
597
2
284
2,616
1
2,616
Madison County WMA
14,496
61
238
Mount Magazine WMA
120,000
95
1,263
Muddy Creek WMA
146,206
137
1,067
3,550
4
888
Norfork Lake WMA
10,000
12
833
Overflow NWR
13,000
4
3,250
580
1
580
678,878
206
3,296
Petit Jean River WMA
15,502
24
646
Pine Bluff Arsenal
14,944
55
272
180,000
82
2,195
17,604
55
320
Galla Creek WMA
Garrett Hollow WMA
Gene Rush WMA
Greers Ferry Lake WMA
Harris Brake WMA
Howard County WMA
J. Perry Mikles Blue Mountain WDA
Jamestown/Independence County WMA
Little River WMA
Loafer’s Glory WMA
Nimrod/Lloyd Millwood WMA
Ozan WMA
Ozark National Forest WMA
Piney Creeks WMA
Poison Springs WMA
16
2005-06
Continued next page >>
Section One: Harvest Results
WMA Harvest
Table 6
WMA Name
2005-06
Total Acres
Harvest
Acres per Deer
27,000
99
273
453
1
453
11,327
62
183
488
3
163
Rex Hancock Black Swamp WMA
7,221
23
314
Rick Evans Grandview Prairie WMA
4,895
8
612
Robert L. Hankins Mud Creek Upland WMA
1,023
11
93
Seven Devils WMA
5,032
10
503
Shirey Bay Rainey Brake WMA
10,711
44
243
St. Francis Forest WMA
21,201
31
684
St. Francis Sunken Lands WMA
27,361
22
1,244
Smoke Hole Natural Area WMA
455
1
455
4,000
1
4,000
16,520
84
197
150,000
137
1,095
77
5
15
8,173
87
94
11,850
50
237
W. E. Brewer Scatter Creek WMA
3,898
7
557
Wapanocca NWR
5,485
9
609
Wattensaw WMA
19,184
175
110
Wedington WMA
16,000
20
800
White River NWR
160,000
665
241
White Rock WMA
280,000
270
1,037
Winona WMA
160,000
232
690
Pond Creek NWR
Prairie Bayou WMA
Provo WMA
Rainey WMA
Stateline Sandponds Natural Area WMA
Sulphur River WMA
Sylamore WMA
Terre Noire Natural Area WMA
Trusten Holder WMA
U of A Pine Tree Experimental Station WDA
17
Section Two: Herd Health Reports
Herd Health Data Collection
H
erd health data provides
information on herd health
conditions, timing of the rut
and fawn production.
Sample deer are taken from the herd in late winter
and early spring to collect this data, which is vital to
understand the general health of the deer in a given
area.
The AGFC collects several hundred deer samples
each year in late winter/early spring to gauge herd
health conditions. Samples are collected from
all six DMUs in the state. This data provides
information on herd health, timing of the rut and
fawn production. Herd health checks have been
conducted for five years, with more than 1,300
samples collected. All usable meat was donated
to Farmers and Hunters Feeding the Hungry or
needy families within the
community.
Kidney Fat Index: Kidney
Fat Index (KFI) is used to
evaluate physical conditions
of deer coming out of winter
stress and entering spring
green-up. KFI is the weight
of fat deposits surrounding
the kidneys divided by the
weight of the kidneys, and is
expressed as a percentage. A
high KFI means healthy deer.
KFIs fluctuate throughout
the year, but the target is 35
percent for February.
Conception Date: Fetuses
are extracted and measured
using a JIM-GEM fetus
scale to determine days from
conception and remaining
18
days until birth. Conception data provides “peak
rut” dates, which assist making management
decisions such as setting deer seasons. Conception
dates vary from year to year and are dependent on
population density. Ideally, adult does should breed
during their first estrus cycle (November), which
results in fawns born during the early summer
(June). Fawns born in late summer (July and
August) have decreased survival rates because of
poor habitat conditions and extreme heat.
Fetal Counts: The number of fetuses per doe is
a measure of breeding success and the health of the
animal. The number of fetuses per yearling doe is
slightly lower than the adults, but this is common.
There is little variation for this measurement among
DMUs, indicating uniform breeding success across
the state. The target for fetal counts is 1.7 fetuses
per doe.
J.J. JOHNSON
Section Two: Herd Health Reports
2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 6 Deer
D e e r Herd
H e r d Health:
Healt h:
2002-2006
Av e r a g e Kidney
K i d n e y Fat
F a t Index
I n d e x by
b y DMU
DMU
Average
Five-year Average
for Adults (2.5+ years)
86%
Five-year Average
for Yearlings (1.5 years)
72%
79%
80%
118%
111%
83%
93%
63%
64%
61%
73%
2006 Adult Kidney Fat Indices Compared to Four-year Average by DMU
160
140
120
% KFI
100
2002-2005
80
2006
60
40
Target
35%
20
0
Ozarks
Ouachitas
ARV
WGCP
MAV
CR
DMU
19
Section Two: Herd Health Reports
2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 6 Deer
D e e r Herd
H e r d Health:
Healt h:
2002-2006
Av e r a g e Date
D a t e of
o f Conception
C o n c e p t i o n by
b y DMU
DMU
Average
Five-year Average
for Adults (2.5+ years)
November 11
Five-year Average
for Yearlings (1.5 years)
November 20
November 19
December 22
November 15
November 11
December 8
November 28
November 18
November 13
November 14
November 18
2005 Adult Average Date of Conception Compared to Four-year Average by DMU
30
25
November Date
20
2002-2005
15
2006
10
5
0
Ozarks
Ouachitas
ARV
WGCP
DMU
20
MAV
CR
Section Two: Herd Health Reports
2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 6 Deer
D e e r Herd
H e r d Health:
Healt h:
2002-2006
Av e r a g e Number
N u m b e r of
o f Fe
t u s e s by
p e rDMU
Doe by DMU
Average
Fetuses
Five-year Average
for Adults (2.5+ years)
1.8
Five-year Average
for Yearlings (1.5 years)
1.3
1.9
.8
1.4
1.8
.9
1.7
1.4
1.7
1.2
1.7
2006 Adult Average Number of Fetuses Compared to Four-year Average by DMU
1.9
2002-2005
2006
1.8
Target
1.7
# Fetuses
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.4
Ozarks
Ouachitas
ARV
WGCP
MAV
CR
DMU
21
Section Three: Biological Data Reports
Biological Data
Collection
T
he AGFC and
participating
deer clubs collect
a variety of data from
harvested deer.
The data collected includes age,
body weight, antler measurements
and lactation rates. These indices
make it possible to analyze
differences in the biological
characteristics of Arkansas’ deer
over time and between DMUs.
Age Structure: Average age
structure is directly related to
harvest regimes. Buck ages depend
on harvest criteria such as the
three-point rule. Before the three-point rule was
implemented, yearlings constituted 80 percent
of total buck harvest. In does, the average age
harvested provides potential recruitment rates.
Dressed Body Weight: Average dressed
body weights vary depending on environmental
conditions such as soil fertility, weather and
available food. Bucks can lose extreme amounts
of weight during the breeding season because
they focus less on eating and more on establishing
territories and monitoring receptive does. Body
weights in does also fluctuate throughout the year
because of pregnancy, lactation and available food
nutrition. The target average weight for a fielddressed buck is 110 pounds, except in the Delta,
where it is 130 pounds. The target average dressed
weight for does is 80 pounds statewide and 90
pounds in the Delta.
22
Antler Index: Antler index is the sum of total
points, inside spread, left beam length and left
beam circumference. Antler indices vary by region
and within DMUs, depending on environmental
conditions such as nutrition, age and genetics.
Lactation: Lactation is an indicator of a
successfully bred doe. Lactation rates tend to be
much higher in adult deer (2.5+ years old) than
in yearling deer (1.5 years old). Lactation figures
represent lactation data collected only during
the months of October and November to ensure
accurate determinations. Target lactation is 80
percent wet for adults and 25 percent wet for
yearlings.
Section Three: Biological Data Reports
2 0 0 5 - 2 0 0Deer
6 D eBiological
e r B i o l o g i cData:
al Data:
2005-06
Ag e Structure
S t r u c t u r e by
b y Sex
Se x and
a n d DMU
DMU
Age
Average Adult Buck Age
3.0
Average Adult Doe Age
3.5
3.1
3.1
3.3
3.0
3.7
3.3
3.5
3.0
3.9
3.2
2005-2006 Statewide Age Structure
45%
40%
35%
Percentage of Total
30%
Bucks
Does
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Fawn
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5+
Age (Years)
23
Section Three: Biological Data Reports
2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 5 Deer
D e e r Biological
B i o l o g i c a l Data:
Data:
2000-2005
Av e r a g e Buck
B u c k Dressed
D r e s s e d Weight
We i g h t b
y D
MU
Average
by
DMU
Six-year Average
for Adults (2.5+ years)
109 lbs.
Six-year Average
for Yearlings (1.5 years)
86 lbs.
124 lbs.
95 lbs.
87 lbs.
109 lbs.
92 lbs.
130 lbs.
85 lbs.
108 lbs.
82 lbs.
109 lbs.
Adult (2.5+) Average Buck Dressed Weight by DMU
150
140
Target
130 lbs.
130
120
Target
110 lbs.
110
100
Weight(lbs.)
90
80
2000-2004
2005
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ozarks
Ouachitas
ARV
WGCP
DMU
24
MAV
CR
Section Three: Biological Data Reports
2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 5 Deer
D e e r Biological
B i o l o g i c a l Data:
Data:
2000-2005
Av e r a g e Antler
A n t l e r IIndex
n d e x bby
y D
MU
Average
DMU
Six-year Average
for Adults (2.5+ years)
40
Six-year Average
for Yearlings (1.5 years)
26
43
40
29
27
24
43
27
41
24
39
Adult Average Antler Index by DMU
44
43
42
Antler Index
41
40
2000-2004
2005
39
38
37
36
35
Ozarks
Ouachitas
ARV
WGCP
MAV
CR
DMU
25
Section Three: Biological Data Reports
2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 5 Deer
D e e r Biological
B i o l o g i c a l Data:
Data:
2000-2005
Av e r a g e Doe
D o e Dressed
D r e s s e d Weight
W e i g h t by
b y DMU
DMU
Average
Six-year Average
for Adults (2.5+ years)
81 lbs.
Six-year Average
for Yearlings (1.5 years)
70 lbs.
88 lbs.
73 lbs.
71 lbs.
80 lbs.
75 lbs.
88 lbs.
67 lbs.
76 lbs.
69 lbs.
80 lbs.
Adult (2.5+) Average Doe Dressed Weight by DMU
100
90
Target
90 lbs.
80
Target
80 lbs.
Weight (lbs.)
70
60
2000-2004
2005
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ozarks
Ouachitas
ARV
WGCP
DMU
26
MAV
CR
Section Three: Biological Data Reports
2 0 0 1 - 2 0 0 5 Deer
D e e r Biological
B i o l o g i c a l Data:
Data:
2001-2005
Av e r a g e Doe
D o e Lactation
L a c t a t i o n by
b y DMU
DMU
Average
Five-year Average
for Adults (2.5+ years)
66%
Five-year Average
for Yearlings (1.5 years)
17%
71%
23%
19%
64%
17%
61%
11%
64%
17%
67%
Adult Percent Lactation by DMU
100%
90%
Target
80%
80%
Percent Lactation
70%
60%
2001-2004
2005
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Ozarks
Ouachitas
ARV
WGCP
MAV
CR
DMU
27
Section Four: Bowhunter Observation Data
2005-06 Bowhunter Observation Data by DMU
T
he 2005-2006 archery season was
the second year bowhunters across
the state collected observation
data.
Hunter observations provide sex ratios, deer
density, fawn-to-doe ratio and buck antler structure.
This data, along with biological data from harvested
deer, provides a more detailed picture of the herd
in each region. More than 1,000 archery hunters
participated in the survey, collecting more than
12,000 hours of observations. The information
presented in this report represents only two years
of observation data. Additional data will be needed
to determine trends and potential change related to
management strategies.
If you would like to participate in the bowhunter
observation program, please contact the AGFC
at (501) 223-6430.
Comparison of 2004-05 and 2005-06 Observation Data
Table 7
2004-05 Data
DMU
Hours of
Observation Spikes
Bucks - Total Number of Points
3-4
5-6
7-8
9+
Does
Ozark
4,585 | 3,022
217 | 187
213 | 102
198 | 139
198 | 79
69 | 12
Ouachita
2,201 | 1,415
129 | 50
76 | 25
63 | 36
100 | 56
15 | 63
704 | 273
Arkansas River Valley
2,282 | 1,048
66 | 45
54 | 30
56 | 12
75 | 27
14 | 17
809 | 324
West Gulf Costal Plain
6,266 | 3,681
436 | 383
196 | 127
Mississippi Alluvial Plain
4,827 | 2,806
206 | 197
107 | 61
98 | 67
416 | 182
14 | 4
13 | 12
15 | 4
Crowley’s Ridge
DMU
28
2005-06 Data
245 | 137 774 | 193 38 | 15
168 | 103 38 | 25
14 | 17
1|2
Relative Abundance =
Total Deer Observed Sex Ratio Fawn:Doe Percent
(Does:Bucks)
Ratio
of Spikes
/Total Hours
Total
Deer
Fawns Unknown
2,621 | 1,091 982 | 464
660 | 347
5,163 | 2,410
426 | 114
182 | 97
1,695 | 714
324 | 109
186 | 42
1,601 | 606
2,054 | 1,573 1,113 | 618
528 | 384
5,401 | 3,430
1,846 | 1,125 620 | 458
429 | 311
3,523 | 2,347
49 | 18
361 | 175
131 | 74
122 | 44
Bucks - Total Number of Points
% 3-4
% 5-6
% 7-8
% 9+
Ozark
1.13 | 0.80
2.2:1 | 1.8:1
0.37 | 0.43
24% | 36%
24% | 20%
22% | 27%
22% | 15%
8% | 2%
Ouachita
0.77 | 0.50
1.5:1 | 1.1:1
0.61 | 0.42
34% | 22%
20% | 11%
16% | 16%
26% | 24% 4% | 27%
Arkansas River Valley
0.70 | 0.58
2.3:1 | 2.0:1
0.40 | 0.34
25% | 34%
20% | 23%
21% | 9%
28% | 21% 5% | 13%
West Gulf Costal Plain
0.86 | 0.93
1.2:1 | 1.6:1
0.54 | 0.39
26% | 45%
12% | 15%
15% | 16%
46% | 23%
2% | 2%
Mississippi Alluvial Plain
0.73 | 0.84
2.3:1 | 2.0:1
0.34 | 0.41
33% | 43%
17% | 13%
16% | 15%
27% | 23%
6% | 6%
Crowley’s Ridge
0.87 | 0.96
1.6:1 | 1.6:1
0.93 | 0.59
25% | 10%
23% | 31%
26% | 10%
25% | 44%
2% | 5%
Section Five: Focus on Deer – Fort Chaffee WMA
Fort Chaffee WMA
F
ort Chaffee was designated a
wildlife management area in 1969.
The area is near Fort Smith in
Sebastian County in western Arkansas.
Fort Chaffee’s primary purpose is military
training. The Arkansas Army National Guard
(AANG) leased the installation from the U.S.
Department of Defense and is responsible for all
aspects of training on the post. Public access for
outdoor recreation is allowed on 46,000 acres of the
area. Everyone entering Fort Chaffee must attend a
sportsman’s orientation class and comply with post
regulations.
Management
The primary focus of management on Fort Chaffee
is upland habitat improvement. Activities such as
prescribed burning, fallow disking and planting of
spring and fall food plots are implemented to benefit
deer, quail, turkey and rabbits.
Deer Population Density Estimates
The AGFC’s Region 7 wildlife management
staff and AANG
Environmental
Branch personnel
conduct yearly
spotlight surveys in
late February and
mid-March. These
surveys are 25 miles
long and conducted
during an eightnight period. Data
collected from this
survey provides trend data related to deer density.
Figures are represented as average number of deer
observed per night.
In addition to the spotlight survey, thermalinfrared aerial surveys were conducted in 2004
and 2005. To conduct these surveys, personnel
developed a flight grid over portions of the area.
Each thermal-infrared aerial survey was flown either
prior to or shortly after the spotlight survey. The
detection rate was 84 percent because of various
habitat types.
During the 2004 aerial survey, 3,173 deer were
observed. In 2005, 3,429 deer were spotted through
aerial imaging.
Harvest Regimes
• Antler Point Restrictions
The Fort Chaffee buck harvest regime is the
same as the statewide three-point rule. The primary
purpose of the three-point rule is to improve buck
age structure. The three-point rule was implemented
on Fort Chaffee in 1998.
• Archery
Fort Chaffee has always been popular with archery
hunters in western Arkansas and leads WMAs in
archery harvest most years. These hunters log in
more hours than
hunters using
other harvest
methods. Hunting
pressure during
the first few days
and opening two
weekends rivals
modern gun
season pressure on
other local wildlife
management areas.
29
Section Five: Focus on Deer – Fort Chaffee WMA
Fort Chaffee Firearms Harvest Sex Ratio
Year
Bucks
Does
1990
1995
2000
2005
30
191 | 60%
118 | 44%
177 | 52%
168 | 56%
128 | 40%
150 | 56%
165 | 48%
134 | 44%
Antler Index
Antler Index is the sum of total number of points,
inside spread, left beam length and left beam
circumference. Using an antler index, biologists
can place a single value for each buck. The five-year
average antler index for adult bucks (2.5 years old
and older) in the Arkansas River Valley is 39. From
the data below, bucks harvested on Fort Chaffee
since 2000 have exceeded the average set by the
surrounding DMU.
��
���������������������������������������
��
��
���
����
��
��
�
����
����
����
����
����
����
����
����
��
����
����
����
����
��
����
����
����
����
Harvest Data
Harvest data below is taken every five years to
better demonstrate trends.
The harvest strategy used on Fort Chaffee has
resulted in a fairly balanced ratio of buck-to-doe
harvest. The 15-year average harvested sex ratio is
53 percent bucks and 47 percent does.
Biological Data
AGFC personnel have sampled a total of 35
adult doe during winter herd health checks since
2002. Antler index data was collected from 517
bucks killed during 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005.
Lactation data was taken from 90 yearling does and
334 adult does taken from 2001 to 2005.
������������
• Firearms
Firearms hunts are divided into two muzzleloader
permit hunts and two modern gun permit hunts.
For many years Fort Chaffee operated with a twobuck bag limit, until 2004-2006. During these two
seasons, a one-buck bag limit was implemented
to mimic the harvest regimes in surrounding deer
zones. The purpose of the one-buck bag limit was
to reduce buck harvest pressure. The 2006-2007
seasonal bag limit for Fort Chaffee is three deer,
with no more than two legal bucks. A hunter may
take no more than two legal bucks or up to two
does with archery tackle. The bag limit for the
muzzleloader and modern gun permit hunts are no
more than one legal buck or one doe.
The muzzleloader and modern gun permit hunts
are designed to provide hunters with a quality hunt
while providing an adequate harvest of deer for
management goals. The AGFC issues 650 permits
per day and 65 permits are issued per day by the
AANG. If all hunters participate, the hunter density
is one hunter per 65 acres. The total hunters during
the four-day period would be 2,860 if everyone
selected hunts.
����������������������������������������������������������������������
���
Section Five: Focus on Deer – Fort Chaffee WMA
Lactation Rates
Target lactation rate for yearling does (1.5 years
old) is 25 percent and for adults (2.5 years old and
older) is 80 percent. Since 2001, yearling lactation
rates have fluctuated, but adults have remained
fairly stable with a low of 66 percent in 2003 and
a high of 80.5 percent in 2005. With this high
lactation rate, it is assumed that an acceptable
amount of fawns are being born.
����������������������������������������
���
������������������������������
���
���
���
���
���
Breeding Dates
Five years of herd health data indicates peak
breeding takes place between November 1 and
November 14. On average, 75 percent of breeding
has been completed prior to the firearms permit
hunts. As a result, adult bucks conduct the majority
of the breeding and there is the potential for greater
adult buck carryover.
Range of Breeding Dates
Year
Range
2002
Oct. 23-Nov. 17
2003
Oct. 31-Nov. 17
2004
Oct. 23-Nov. 17
2005
Oct. 28-Nov. 16
2006
Oct. 26-Nov. 26
Peak Breeding
November 1-14
November 1-14
November 1-14
November 1-14
November 1-14
��������������������
��� �������������
���
���
��
������������������������������������������������������������
�� � �
�����������������
Kidney Fat Index
The target for Kidney Fat Indices (KFI) is 35
percent. KFI on Fort Chaffee has exceeded this
minimum acceptable value since 2002 with a low
of 69 percent in 2002 and a high of 222 percent in
2003. This data suggests does entering the fawning
period are in excellent shape even during years of
poor habitat conditions.
���������������������������������������������
���
Fetal Sex Ratios
Fetal sex ratios tend to follow habitat conditions.
Biologists have noted when habitat conditions are
poor (poor hard mast or drought years) more male
fetuses have been evident. Conversely, more female
fetuses are observed when habitat conditions are
good.
Fetal Sex Ratio From Winter Herd Health Check
Year
Male
Female
Avg. Fetuses
2002
55%
45%
1.8
2003
66%
33%
2
2004
31%
69%
2
2005
36%
64%
2
2006
81%
19%
1.6
����
���
���
���
������
���
��
�
��������������������������������������������������������
�� � �
31
Section Five: Focus on Deer – Fort Chaffee WMA
Conclusion
Data collected from Fort Chaffee indicates the
harvest strategy being used during the permit
hunts is producing healthy animals with good
reproductive success and quality antler growth.
One key to maintaining this successful deer herd is
the balanced harvest regimes for the last 15 years.
Balanced sex ratios are critical when managing a
deer herd, whether for healthy herd management,
quality buck management or trophy buck
management. Deer herds with a very aggressive
buck harvest and little to no doe harvest will have
indicators of an unbalanced sex ratio. These signs
include low lactation rates, poor fetal counts,
suppressed antler development and low body
weights. When sex ratios are balanced a manager
can expect maximized fawn production, increased
antler development and overall healthy deer.
ELMER SPARKS
32
Section Six: Deer Biology – Words from AGFC Biologists
What Does Harvest Tell Us
About the Remaining Population?
By Donny Harris, regional wildlife supervisor, Ouachita Mountain DMU deer team member
O
ne of the most enjoyable aspects of being a
wildlife biologist for a public service agency is
the opportunity to interact with the public we serve
to manage the wildlife resources under their control.
This could be a small landowner with an acre or two
or a private club owning or leasing several thousand
acres.
In Arkansas, as well as the entire southeastern
United States, the public’s favorite game animal
is the white-tailed deer. Consequently, the
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission developed
a program focused on management options and
opportunities for this highly sought animal. The
Deer Management Assistance Program (DMAP) is
geared to match landowners and hunting clubs with
appropriate management incentives including faceto-face meetings with one of our biologists.
Invariably, people ask questions like “how many
deer do we have?” Not only is this question
virtually impossible to answer, it isn’t the most
important. A more significant question would be,
“Do we have enough deer or too few?” Once we get
to that point, the answer is, “It depends.”
Landowners and clubs need to clearly define their
goals relative to their deer herd. Do they want highquality deer or the maximum number of deer the
habitat will support? At that point, the biologist can
start to talk about management alternatives to move
toward their goal.
The starting point in the management course is
an assessment of the deer herd’s condition. This
assessment can be greatly aided by collecting data
from harvested animals. Things such as sex, body
weights, age-class distribution, antler development
and reproduction can be estimated by information
collected from harvested animals.
This begs the question, “What can we tell about
the population as a whole from the animals we
take from that population?” In other words, “Do
the deer we don’t harvest look like the ones we
are taking?” In order to answer “yes,” we need
data collected for several years. As more harvested
deer are used to collect biological data, that data
better mirrors the remaining herd. Biologists and
statisticians call this standard error. The larger
the sample size is, the lower your error will be
in drawing conclusions. Some clubs in Arkansas
have been collecting data for more than 20 years.
Certainly this level of data collection leads to better
conclusions than if there were only one or two years
to reference. With that volume of data, biologists
can actually reconstruct the population and get a
feel for population densities over time.
If we commit ourselves to collecting data, we
can feel pretty good about our ability to make
assumptions concerning the population as a whole.
But there is a fly in the ointment. Bias in harvest
influences conclusions about the population. For
example, we can’t accurately judge our year-anda-half-old bucks through harvest data because the
three-point rule protects many of them. But this
shouldn’t keep us from acting on the things we do
know.
We must accept the fact that wildlife management
is an art and not a pure science. While we use
scientific principles, management is not simply
applied mathematics where two plus two equals
four.
We start with a management strategy and monitor
the results, making adjustments when needed. If we
stay the course relative to data collection, over time,
our harvest will mimic the herd left for next year.
33
29
Section Six: Deer Biology – Words from AGFC Biologists
An Infatuation With Antlers
By Cory Gray, deer program coordinator
H
ave you ever noticed when you are telling
your best deer story, the size of the antlers is
always mentioned? Sometimes the size, shape and
coloration of the antlers in the story overshadow the
health of the animal or the enjoyment of the hunt.
Millions of dollars and countless
hours have been spent in the
pursuit of the biggest and best
racks on trophy deer. But with
all this interest, many questions
about antler development are still
unanswered.
Why are antlers
so special?
As long as deer have been on the
Earth, men have been fascinated
with their antlers. They’ve been
used for tribal rituals, weapons,
tools, medicines and even
aphrodisiacs. Hunters proudly
display them in their homes and
even use them in jewelry and
decorations.
Antlers are one of the fastest
growing tissues known to man.
The only tissues rivaling their
growth are from some forms
of cancer. Scientists study
antlers in hopes to discover a
link resulting in better cancer
treatments and possible cures to
the disease. Scientists also study
antlers for possible treatments to
osteoarthritis, which affects many
people. Antlers may even hold
information on cartilage repair.
34
What are antlers?
Antlers are exclusive to the deer family, Cervidae,
which includes elk, moose, whitetails and mule
deer. Antlers are not horns. Horns are permanent
and if lost through injury, will not grow back.
ELMER SPARKS
Section Six: Deer Biology – Words from AGFC Biologists
Antlers are lost and regrown every year.
The antler itself is a modified bone that sheds
and grows back every year. Dried antlers are
about 45 percent protein, 22 percent calcium, 11
percent phosphorus and one percent fat. Biologists
recommend planting legumes (clovers, peas and
soybeans) because of their high amounts of protein,
calcium and phosphorus. A protein content of
16 percent in the major forage base is considered
optimum for antler growth and development.
“Antlerogenesis” is a big term for the antler growth
cycle. Photoperiod (the amount of light in a day)
sets the stage for antlerogenesis. Many studies have
been performed concerning the effects of light on
antler development. In controlled lab settings, bucks
were capable of producing multiple sets of antlers
within a single year or retaining one set of antlers
for many years, just by alterations in the amount of
light the bucks experienced.
It happens every year
When days grow longer in the summer, bucks
produce high levels of testosterone, triggering antler
development. The antlers begin growing as cartilage
on bases called pedicles. A soft, fuzzy
skin, called velvet, covers growing
antlers and supplies them with
nutrients essential for growth. Velvet is
rich in blood vessels and is sensitive to
the touch.
As days shorten in late August and
early September, bucks experience
another increase in testosterone
that triggers developing antlers to
mineralize and harden. The buck
begins rubbing on vegetation to
remove the velvet and reveal the bony
antlers. Some biologists believe the
formation of a burr at the base of the
antlers shuts off the blood supply to
the velvet, while others believe the hardening of
the antlers cuts off the supply. The blood trapped
in the velvet stains the antlers, producing the tan
coloration. Additional staining may come from the
vegetation rubbed.
Bucks carry their hardened antlers throughout
winter. At the end of the breeding season, a buck’s
testosterone level decreases. This triggers the antlers
to release from their pedicles. Hunting for these
shed antlers has become a popular hobby with deer
hunters and other outdoors enthusiasts.
Odd antler facts
If a buck is castrated while its antlers are in velvet,
the antlers are permanently retained, but never
harden or lose their velvet. If the buck is castrated
after shedding its antlers, a permanent set will
regrow the next year, but never make it past the
velvet stage. If castration occurs after the velvet is
shed, the buck will loose its antlers within a week.
If a part of the pedicle is surgically grafted to
another part of the buck’s body, it will form antlers
there.
AMY THERIAC
35
Section Six: Deer Biology – Words from AGFC Biologists
Managing a Successful Deer Herd
By Nicole Peterson, AGFC wildlife biologist,Gulf Coastal Plain DMU deer team member
N
o game animal is more widely discussed
by Arkansas hunters than the white-tailed
deer. Fantastic deer tales are shared at coffee shops
across the state every October and November. The
excitement and anticipation of opening morning
is easily seen and heard above the clatter of coffee
cups.
But the secrets to trophy deer and great hunting
aren’t just an opening morning event. Those hunters
aren’t just lucky, they’ve stacked the deck in their
favor with good management strategies.
Before managing a deer herd, hunters should
determine their hunting goals. Different hunters,
landowners and hunting clubs have different ideas
of a high-quality hunting experience. Some may
want to see a deer each time they step into the
woods, while others want trophy bucks, even if it
means fewer total deer. In either case, goals must be
defined before we can start managing the herd.
After hunting goals have been established, the
first key to a successful deer herd is knowledge
of available habitat. If high-quality habitat is not
available, deer will be spending more time at the
neighbors’. Good-quality deer habitat requires food
(nutrition), cover, water and space.
High-quality food providing good nutrition is
key to the overall health of any wildlife population.
Animals in good physical condition will have higher
reproductive rates, produce healthier offspring, be
more resistant to disease and escape predators better.
Depending on the season and availability of food,
deer will feed on a variety of plants to fill nutrition
requirements.
Deer prefer habitat that offers cover for
concealment and protection. Cover provides
protection from hot and adverse weather,
concealment for loafing and resting, escape routes
36
from predators and camouflage for young during
the fawning period. Cover may take the form of
dense briar patches, young un-thinned forested
stands or dense cedar and shrub thickets. Areas
providing cover and food, such as honeysuckle and
greenbrier thickets, are preferred.
High-quality habitat must also provide a nearby
water source. Although water is usually abundant in
Arkansas, maintaining water quality is important to
the deer herd. Deer need clean, unpolluted water for
digestion, metabolic processes and reducing body
temperature. Most wildlife species can survive only
a few days without water.
Finally, deer need enough space providing them
with the rest of their habitat needs. Arkansas deer
have an average home-range size of 1,000 acres.
However, home ranges vary depending on the
quality of habitat. Better quality habitat usually
means a smaller home range.
The second key to managing a successful deer
herd is record keeping. Hunters, landowners
and hunting clubs must know the health and
characteristics of their deer herd before they develop
harvest strategies to meet management goals.
Specifically hunters should collect data on age
structure, sex ratio, health and physical condition
and density of their herd.
Hunter observations and spotlight counts can
reveal sex ratios and densities, while age structure
information can be obtained from harvest data.
Health and physical characteristics such as weight,
antler development, body condition and lactation
rates (milk in doe’s udders) is also collected from
harvest data.
The final key to managing a successful deer
population is implementing harvest strategies aimed
at hunter goals. Keep in mind that goals are not
Section Six: Deer Biology – Words from AGFC Biologists
achieved overnight. It may take several years for a
landowner or deer club to develop a high-quality
deer herd. And once goals are met, record keeping
must continue to ensure the population remains
consistent with hunter objectives.
If this information seems overwhelming, do not
fear. Help is just a phone call away. The AGFC has
private lands biologists on staff in every region.
These biologists are available and willing to
provide assistance. The AGFC’s Deer Management
Assistance Program (DMAP) allows landowners
and hunting clubs to work hand-in-hand with a
biologist, developing management goals and harvest
strategies through data collection and analysis.
For more information on DMAP and how you
can better manage your deer herd, contact your
local AGFC office or call 1-800-364-4263.
ELMER SPARKS
37
Acknowledgements
Doyle Shook
Chief, Wildlife Management Division
Cory Gray
Deer Program Coordinator
Hanna Ford
Spatial Data Support Technician
Jeff Williams
Editor
Randy Zellers
Editor
Angela Browner
Senior Designer
Commissioners
Sheffield Nelson, Chairman
Little Rock
Sonny Varnell, Vice Chairman
St. Paul
Freddie Black
Lake Village
Brett Morgan
Scott
John Benjamin
Glenwood
George Dunklin Jr.
DeWitt
Ron Pierce
Mountain Home
Kim Smith, Ph.D.
U of A
38
www.agfc.com
2 Natural Resources Drive
Little Rock, AR 72205
(800) 364-4263