A theory on the Deer shortages

[1coyotemaster]

  Many if not most of the members are Deer hunters and I would imagine more than a few have wondered what is going on with the Deer herds in the Midwest.  I was swallowing the Blue Tongue (no pun intended) excuse until I started some reading and research. The recent droughts were perhaps a contributing factor but 2 of the 3 deer I harvested this year only had 1 lobe on their Liver's. A biologist said perhaps it was an genetic defect or a mutation of some kind. He also hinted that the widespread use on herbicides couldn't be doing them any good, he didn't elaborate but seemed to know something I didn't.
  I did a little more reading and digging and learned that Glyphosate (Round Up) is a very strong chelator of soil minerals*--that's how it kills weeds. It turns out that Glyphosate depletes the plants grown on soil it's been applied to of Calcium, Magnesium, Iron,and Zinc.
 It stands to reason that if the herbicide weakens plants so they succumb to soil organisms it would also weaken the animals that feed on the grains grown on soils depleted of the necessary nutrients. A light bulb came on instantly when I realized that the dwindling of our Pheasants in Illinois has pretty much coincided with the use of RR plants. Pheasants need Calcium and Magnesium to have hard egg shells that won't break during incubation!
   This isn't in any way intending to step on any toes as I am sure there are many here that farm and I understand the dilemma of trying to have a profitable harvest yearly. It's just a presentation of some facts and my attempt to put them in context with the present circumstances.



*Ag Chemical and Crop Nutrient Interactions-- M.Huber  Emeritus Professor, Purdue University

[Deleted]

We were directly approached my the farm bureau years ago with a petition to sterilize one generation of deer. It was suppose to be a partnership with the state of ohio that would be a chemical treatment of watering holes. They were seeking a certain amount of landowners permission and it wasn't going well from what we gathered. My guess, they did whatever they wanted whether they got the signatures or not. There have been many widespread diseases that seem to flourish in the state public hunting areas, seems too convenient to me. Who know but the deer sure are down in numbers

[jims]

I have no idea but would like to know. On half my farm it has had no chemicals on it in nearly 30 years and the other half now that it is in CRP will likewise be free of chemicals. Actually three of the neighboring farms are in the CRP program so perhaps that has helped my numbers but that ground is only a fraction of the ground around me. Water is OK here, several springs and a river and creek but what runs in that water I do not know.
Sure would like to know for sure the causes.

[hawghunter]

A couple of factors have not been mentioned. Doe tags and poaching.

predators are at an all time high too.

[ET]

1coyotemaster

That is an interesting concept you have proposed.
I tried numerous websites that mentioned Glyphosate to get a better understanding of the chemical properties.

“Glyphosate's mode of action is to inhibit an enzyme involved in the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids: tyrosine, tryptophan, and phenylalanine. It is absorbed through foliage and translocated to growing points. Because of this mode of action, it is only effective on actively growing plants; it is not effective as a pre-emergence herbicide.”

The above mention along with further articles read suggests this chemical prevents utilization of certain minerals in the soil by blocking absorption to plants but no mention of attacking, changing or depleting certain minerals in the soil.
But with any addition of chemicals including prescriptions that we as human’s take there are always unwanted side effects that may eventually produce other unexpected problems down the road.

I do agree as a society we depend too much on chemicals for different usages and only afterwards do we see the long term negative results in some cases. Your concept may have some validity somewhere but the only available documentation or studies doesn’t fully agree with or support this concept at this point in time.

Ed

[deadeye]

state mismanagement/state needing $$$$ why are in our area we have been told for years- no cf's for deer due to lack woodline density then now the state is proposing cf's now. don't get me wrong I would like to hunt here w/ cf but what is it really about.

I have seen some local deer check-ins books with declining #'s & when they pulled some of the bonus doe tags deer trails appear getting used again in some counties.

our herd in my immediate areas was at its peak from 1996-98,then you could hear bucks fight,scrapes,rubs everywhere,sign everwhere,take a child out to see deer almost anytime.

not now.

note-our county has 5 highways running through it & I have been told by local law enforcement our deer/collisions are still up leading someone to believe our herd is still high. our county has 4 bonus doe permits in addition to other available tags.

truthfully we have a large part of our society in a hurray,texting,speeding,putting make up on while driving and not paying hardly any attention to driving which is supposed to be a privilege.

I understand conservation & guess it getting curtailed to our society's behavior.

.02cts from a independent insurance agent.

[quillen52]

I recently heard of a study done in one of the New England states that had observed a decrease in moose numbers. This study pointed to higher than normal concentrations of ticks on the animals resulting in anemia and other maladies. The large increase in ticks was attributed to lower than normal snowfall and warmer than normal temperatures for the last few years. I have noticed a large number of ticks on my Illinois deer and also on my Tennessee deer. If,in fact, ticks are the culprit in the case of moose numbers perhaps they too are contributing to lower than normal deer numbers. I think there are probably several factors contributing to our lower deer numbers including predators, liberal doe permits and most certainly EHD. Unfortunately I am not sure that our game and fish officials will dramatically reduce doe permits since it would reduce revenue. I am not educated in preventive efforts for EHD but we can make an effort to reduce predators. Efforts to reduce the tick population would probably be the application of insecticides which throws another chemical into the mix. Wish I had a reasonably intelligent suggestion for solving the problem but looks like whacking coyotes is the most readily available approach, along with lobbying out G&F departments for fewer doe permits.

[10ga]

Hemoragic was the big killer around here this year here. I have seen it before but not so widespread. The big deer herd reducer here is the "depredation" permits. They are supposed to be for certain times of year and for antlerless deer only. The farmers treat them as 24-365 permits. When I complain to the DGIF officers about abuses of the permits I only get embarrassed walk aways. Typically the permits are for operating outside "DGIF regulations" but the permit holders violate county ordinances and state law with impunity. Typical violations are using rifles less than 23 caliber, using rimfire rifles, shooting from roadway, using rifles where prohibited by county ordinance, shooting antlered deer, shooters not listed on permit, shooting deer on property not listed on permit, et al....... Typically the permit holders use 17HMR or 22WMR and gut shoot the deer so they run out of the fields and die in the woods, then no vultures in the fields and they don't have to drag them out of the fields. Damage permit holders are not allowed to use any part of any deer killed under permit and that certainly is a criminal waste and makes it really easy on the permit holders. I can state absolutely that permit holders never have permits revoked for any reason, usually they don't even get a summons when caught violating the terms of the permits. In some areas the farmers have produced areas completely devoid of deer, none, a 0 population area and the habitat is very good. I never miss an opportunity to let the CPOs know what is going on, and I mean I give them specifics and quote the law, and how I feel about it and how I feel about their obvious bias in law/regulation enforcement. Every time I give information and complain about violations they are quite sheepish and there is never any action taken. I have even marked the location of evidence and given dates of violations and volunteered to give testimony and they never even follow up. It is a shameful situation and I let them know how people feel about it and the lack of respect they have due to the complete failure to enforce even very simple stuff. Now I'm wound up and could rant on but I'll sign off. 10 ga

PS: as usual regular hunters get treated like child molesting criminals.

[mrbuck]

This is a great thread with some top notch thinking and ideas . We had EHD in NJ several years ago and the township that I work in as an Animal Control Officer was was extremely hard hit . Even though there is really no hunting allowed in the town , the deer herd has never recovered . In areas of the state that
were also hard it it was " business as usual " with the sale of doe permits . Even the younger hunters
( the 30 somethings ) are seeing the decline in numbers over the past few years .
JMO but maybe the proposed use of rifles in shotgun only states is to help keep hunter interest up that
translates into more revenue from license and doe permit sales .
Maybe I'm "old school" , but all these deer herds in the MidWest and every where else were built up on
the " One Buck a Year ... No Shooting of Does " management method . However that was long before hunting
became " Big Business " !
Coyotes . Seems like nothing can reduce there numbers .
Chris

[1coyotemaster]

Jan 26, 2015 22:09:50 GMT -5 hawghunter said:

A couple of factors have not been mentioned. Doe tags and poaching.

predators are at an all time high too.

Probably are factors-- but poaching has been rampant here for years with no obvious effect on the herd, same for Wily Coyote. I will say that it is possible for the Coyotes in their ever increasing adaptability to have improved their ability to kill fawns and that would be devastating. Has anyone else noticed the decrease in the numbers of Does with twins or triplets? In the last decade I have seen more dry does and does with singles than ever before and that could hint at something inhibiting herd health.

[mrbuck]

Maybe the larger , older does are being shot leaving only young does that would only have one fawn in the Spring ?
As for coyotes . I have personally seen coyotes running deer at all times of the year . Full grown deer not
just fawns or young deer . Fawns don't stand a chance .
Chris

[rambler]

Jan 27, 2015 6:53:46 GMT -5 ET said:

1coyotemaster

That is an interesting concept you have proposed.
I tried numerous websites that mentioned Glyphosate to get a better understanding of the chemical properties.

“Glyphosate's mode of action is to inhibit an enzyme involved in the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids: tyrosine, tryptophan, and phenylalanine. It is absorbed through foliage and translocated to growing points. Because of this mode of action, it is only effective on actively growing plants; it is not effective as a pre-emergence herbicide.”

The above mention along with further articles read suggests this chemical prevents utilization of certain minerals in the soil by blocking absorption to plants but no mention of attacking, changing or depleting certain minerals in the soil.
But with any addition of chemicals including prescriptions that we as human’s take there are always unwanted side effects that may eventually produce other unexpected problems down the road.

I do agree as a society we depend too much on chemicals for different usages and only afterwards do we see the long term negative results in some cases. Your concept may have some validity somewhere but the only available documentation or studies doesn’t fully agree with or support this concept at this point in time.

Ed

The Horrific Truth about Roundup

[quillen52]

I think there are many factors affecting our shrinking deer herds. I was giving this item some additional thought and in addition to the items mentioned in my earlier post I would like to say that the reasons may not be the same in every area of the nation. Here in East Tennessee there is not nearly as much wide spread us of herbicides as we see in the Midwest. Farming here is largely small family farms raising a few head of cattle. We do see some crop production but not nearly as much as when I was a kid. One thing that is relatively new is larger numbers of predators, for us both coyotes and bears. When I was a kid we never had any coyotes here and bears were few in number. Now we have lots of "yotes" and bear have dramatically increased in number and range. In years past myself and several other volunteers assisted with whitetail hunts on a military reservation with relatively strict security. At one time it was the premier trophy whitetail hunt in the state. Now numbers are down as well as trophy quality. As far as I know herbicides are not used at this facility but explosive manufacturing does continue. The biologist at this facility feels predators are largely responsible. Fawns are produced each spring and subsequently tagged by volunteers but it has been documented that few reach their first birthday. I do not discount the possible effect of herbicides or insecticides for that matter and these may have a more dramatic effect in areas of broad application but two things we have in common are predators and liberal doe hunting. For whatever reason if we have a low fawn survival rate we need a large herd of does to produce enough fawns to maintain herd numbers. It is almost a "catch twenty two" situation. Large numbers of deer stress the habitat and provide the base for increased numbers of predators. Maybe it is a cop out but I fear there is no easy answer to the problem and the answer may vary somewhat with each region of the country. One thing is for certain deer numbers are down!

[1coyotemaster]

Jan 27, 2015 6:53:46 GMT -5 ET said:

1coyotemaster

That is an interesting concept you have proposed.
I tried numerous websites that mentioned Glyphosate to get a better understanding of the chemical properties.

“Glyphosate's mode of action is to inhibit an enzyme involved in the synthesis of the aromatic amino acids: tyrosine, tryptophan, and phenylalanine. It is absorbed through foliage and translocated to growing points. Because of this mode of action, it is only effective on actively growing plants; it is not effective as a pre-emergence herbicide.”

The above mention along with further articles read suggests this chemical prevents utilization of certain minerals in the soil by blocking absorption to plants but no mention of attacking, changing or depleting certain minerals in the soil.
But with any addition of chemicals including prescriptions that we as human’s take there are always unwanted side effects that may eventually produce other unexpected problems down the road.

I do agree as a society we depend too much on chemicals for different usages and only afterwards do we see the long term negative results in some cases. Your concept may have some validity somewhere but the only available documentation or studies doesn’t fully agree with or support this concept at this point in time.

Ed


Ed,
  I also read the Wikipedia definition on mode of action but largely disregarded it when I skimmed the references--Monsanto being one of them. The enzyme involved that you mention is facilitated by a lack of the essential trace mineral Magnenese and the result of the enzyme inhibition is a weakened plant. Glyphosate also promotes the growth of Fusarium,a fungus, that eventually kills the plant. I don't want this to evolve into a pedantic discussion of chemistry so I will give a few references for researchers that don't have a vested interest in Round-Up:

 Dr. Huber/ Glyphosate : Google many cited articles
Levesque and Rahe et al.  1984
  Levesque and Rahe et al   1992
  Johal and Huber 2009

  It is interesting to note that Huber was the Professor Emeritus at Purdue when he wrote the article I quoted initially but it was dropped from the archives of the magazine that it was originally printed for. Interesting --No? It wasn't the cant they wanted.
  I respectfully acknowledge your perspective and it may have some validity but I stick by my guns with the sentiment that Glyphosate is weakening our environment through trace mineral chelation causing an inability of animals to adapt to natural stressors Blue Tongue  being one . I don't see any change in the immediate future concerning it's application and it may well be something we look back on in twenty years and regret.

 Tim

 
 


 

[hawghunter]

Have you read this article about Wisconsin's herd?

www.outdoorchannel.com/article.aspx?id=28082&articletype=article&key=wisconsins-deer-management-war-part-1&refID=12715FB

[ET]

Rambler

I never supported the use of chemicals as being beneficial or ignore that they may have consequences from their use. And as stated even chemicals we take called medicine have side effects which in some cases can also be serious.

1coyotemaster

I’m not trying to change your mind or to influence your thinking to go in another direction.
I also agree what appears to be good at the start often bites us years later.
I also respect your perception on the topic noted.

In today’s world we have in ways become a chemical dependent society and have created a lot of our own problems. The irony is we’ll try to correct those problems with the introduction of new chemicals.


Ed

[rambler]

Jan 27, 2015 21:11:39 GMT -5 ET said:

Rambler

I never supported the use of chemicals as being beneficial or ignore that they may have consequences from their use. And as stated even chemicals we take called medicine have side effects which in some cases can also be serious.

1coyotemaster

I’m not trying to change your mind or to influence your thinking to go in another direction.
I also agree what appears to be good at the start often bites us years later.
I also respect your perception on the topic noted.

In today’s world we have in ways become a chemical dependent society and have created a lot of our own problems. The irony is we’ll try to correct those problems with the introduction of new chemicals.


Ed

I think the sad part is that bugs and weeds do not have a significant impact until a certain point.  Case in point, green beans can sustain a 60% loss of leaves from pests and still produce just as many beans.

One reason farmers use roundup in their soy bean fields isn't so much to keep weeds from choking and robbing the soil of nutrients as it is to keep a clean crop for harvesting.  I've personally operated soy bean combines and if the crop isn't weed free your gonna be hopping down frequently to unclog the thing.   That takes up valuable time especially for the mom and pop operations

I'm not a tree hugger but do I respect our resources and a happy median ground needs to be kept.

[ET]

"I'm not a tree hugger but do I respect our resources and a happy median ground needs to be kept."


Rambler

I definitely agree with that statement.

Even though my involvement with farming has been minimal I have seen many new developments occur since the 60’s. Since the introduction of new herbicides and pesticides there is no denying some changes are seen in wildlife. Then for some there appears to be no change say like wild geese. They feed off of farm crops and flourish like crazy to a point of being a nuisance. Since the wild turkeys were re-introduced which were absent for a century in my location they are now flourishing like crazy also feeding on farm crops.

The biggest change is habitat loss IMO that has greatly reduced wildlife numbers in given areas. Then add predation from humans and other wildlife that lower number is going to be kicked harder. At one time in my area you could limit out on pheasants in short order. Now you would be lucky to find a few birds and this is mainly because of the habitat loss that pheasants need to thrive in. Right now I don’t think I could have the heart to even shoot a pheasant in my location.

With our domestic animals they are currently being fed chemicals to stimulate their growth we then as humans also ingest some of these chemicals when we consume the meat. Even store bought canned goods are loaded with chemicals if you read the ingredients. Heck I probably can’t pronounce some of their names without getting tongue tied.

Yep we are a chemical society.


Ed

[cfarrell]

I think its a combination of several problems over the course of the last 10 years in wc illinois. The main problem i see is the over harvest of adult does and the lack of dnr not lowering the number of doe tags sold. I have now decided to not shoot any does and also tell anyone who will listen to do the same. Seems to me that we can all help to manage our own hunting areas if the dnr isn't going to help. Also agree about the number of predators being to high and lower fur prices isn't going to help. I got trail cam picture of bobcat and three small ones following behind about 8 years ago. Illinois you can't trap or hunt cats. Every time i check a trail cam i get several pictures of bobcats on my farm. I heard about a guy placing trail cam by a bobcat den in the spring. The story goes trail cam picked up pictures of 16 different fawns being brought back to the den. If this is true bobcats can't be good for deer numbers?

[deadeye]

Jan 28, 2015 19:46:06 GMT -5 cfarrell said:

I think its a combination of several problems over the course of the last 10 years in wc illinois. The main problem i see is the over harvest of adult does and the lack of dnr not lowering the number of doe tags sold. I have now decided to not shoot any does and also tell anyone who will listen to do the same. Seems to me that we can all help to manage our own hunting areas if the dnr isn't going to help. Also agree about the number of predators being to high and lower fur prices isn't going to help. I got trail cam picture of bobcat and three small ones following behind about 8 years ago. Illinois you can't trap or hunt cats. Every time i check a trail cam i get several pictures of bobcats on my farm. I heard about a guy placing trail cam by a bobcat den in the spring. The story goes trail cam picked up pictures of 16 different fawns being brought back to the den. If this is true bobcats can't be good for deer numbers?

I have heard many times from people around here the same w/ coyotes. they claim as many as 12 different fawn pics of the same den.

note- doe permits/state..... on my partners wooded farm which is approx. 350 acres pretty much landlocked in in western Indiana the deer #'s of does & decent bucks are thriving. so are the coyotes.

but he does not allow any doe kills & bucks have to be wide as ears & 8 pt minimum-his management system is working.

[mrbuck]

It sounds like you may have the answer ! Back to the " old school " management theory that built up the deer herds in United States . More " old school " thinking is to shoot all spikes to remove the small , inferior,
antler genes . This was the concept in " Trophy Deer Hunting " by John Wooters printed in 1977 . Worked very well on Texas ranches . JMO
Chris

[cfarrell]

Deadeye I think your friend with the 350 acres has the best answer to the lower deer numbers problem. Its really pretty simple and called trigger finger management. Just decide with friends and neighbors in your area to lower the doe harvest and that will hopefully increase deer numbers. When and if deer numbers rebound change back to a more liberal doe harvest. The dnr in area where i hunt isnt going to help with lower deer numbers. They kept the late season doe hunt going and every year several shed bucks are killed which in turn doesn't help with management of the buck herd.
It would also be nice to find a good trapper to try and thin coyote and bobcat numbers but the easiest of all options is to lay off the does. Yes it is back to old school thinking on doe harvest but if numbers rebound enough just go back to shooting more does.

[mrbuck]

cfarrell... And how many button bucks are killed in the late ( or early ) antlerless seasons . Antler restrictions ( 3 on one side ,etc ) don't mean a hoot if that buck that shed his horns is killed . In
NJ I have seen shed bucks as early as mid December . And they were good , healthy bucks from prime
farming habitat .
Chris

[jims]

I have no real idea on this. My situation is different it seems. We see probably in the range of 20 does for every buck. It is not unusual to see 10 to 20 does at one time or in a group. So what do we primarily shoot, generally all does. This has occurred for the last 10 to 15 years. Now we take some decent bucks on occasion, just do not see many.
So for us there is not much reason to stop shooting does, if we did not we might not get many deer and it certainly has not hurt our deer population, at least the does. I am not criticizing any one's plan if it works for them, it just seems I need a different plan than others.

[sw]

Fortunately here in NE AR, there appears to be no reduction in deer. Just my personal observation. I've heard none of my friends mention seeing less deer. I'm sorry that others are experiencing less deer sightings.

[smokepolehall]

I live in Howell county Mo. Its one of the leading deer kill counties in the state every yr. No agriculture here around for 10 miles, only woods. We got hit 2 yrs back to back on EHD. I saw 16 deerfor the season i hunted an easy 50 days or more. Some of those 16 were repeats i had seen before. The MOC stopped issue of the unlimited permits this yr. That was a blessing, we have poachers lots of them. I hear what sounds like a battle going on on opening day of Bow season. I guess they are trying out their new Boom Bows!

[sw]

Jan 28, 2015 17:23:27 GMT -5 ET said:

"I'm not a tree hugger but do I respect our resources and a happy median ground needs to be kept."


Rambler

I definitely agree with that statement.

Even though my involvement with farming has been minimal I have seen many new developments occur since the 60’s. Since the introduction of new herbicides and pesticides there is no denying some changes are seen in wildlife. Then for some there appears to be no change say like wild geese. They feed off of farm crops and flourish like crazy to a point of being a nuisance. Since the wild turkeys were re-introduced which were absent for a century in my location they are now flourishing like crazy also feeding on farm crops.

The biggest change is habitat loss IMO that has greatly reduced wildlife numbers in given areas. Then add predation from humans and other wildlife that lower number is going to be kicked harder. At one time in my area you could limit out on pheasants in short order. Now you would be lucky to find a few birds and this is mainly because of the habitat loss that pheasants need to thrive in. Right now I don’t think I could have the heart to even shoot a pheasant in my location.

With our domestic animals they are currently being fed chemicals to stimulate their growth we then as humans also ingest some of these chemicals when we consume the meat. Even store bought canned goods are loaded with chemicals if you read the ingredients. Heck I probably can’t pronounce some of their names without getting tongue tied.

Yep we are a chemical society.


Ed

Ed, I agree completely. My degree is in chemistry. Worked as a chemist for 2 years, drafted but went into the USAF (1970-1979) and have flown and flight instructed ever since, dentist from 1983 - current. I taught my son to fly 8 years ago (pvt & comm) . He has been an AG pilot for 5 years now. I love flying Ag also. Would like to get out of the mouth and just do Ag flying except for 1 thing. I want no part in furthering our "chemical" society. Many of my patients are on 10+ prescription meds. Most med conditions are lifestyle caused. I read that 83-87% of all medicines dispensed are for preventable conditions. This doesn't take into account the over the counter meds. Then there are the various crop chemicals that get into the food chain as well as the hormones and antibiotics in livestock(puberty now 2 years earlier than 40 years ago). Growth hormones used in poultry/livestock - maybe helps fuel our overweight society. The other chemicals adding to our sick society in addition to the weight problem.
Due to this, I just couldn't become a 4 month a year Ag pilot(working where my son works) and making more than I make working 12 months a year. Now, if I could just seed and fertilize: that'd be a different story!

[edge]

Ticks!

Where I hunt in NJ we used to have so many ticks that you were guaranteed to have them on you the moment you got out of your car.
We had tons of raccoons too, they would all but climb into your stand in the morning

Then about 15 years ago a rabies epidemic came through and all but wiped out the coons and probably most of the hosts for the ticks. I have not had a tick on me from that same hunting property in at least a dozen years.

Deer numbers are WAY down where I hunt too but that is because fish and game basically has a bounty on Does!
NJ used to allow very minimal shooting of Does but now it is all but unlimited!
Where you used to be able to shoot only Bucks, sometimes you have to shoot a Doe before you can shoot a Buck... and often you have to pay an extra fee to shoot a Buck.

I went from seeing 30 or more deer a day to seeing less than 3...THANKS FISH AND GAME!

edge.

PS the neighbor is allowed to bring in nighttime snipers to kill deer that we have to pay the State for the opportunity!

[mrbuck]

edge ,
Thank you for " telling it like it is " here in NJ ... and most likely in other states . It's called killing
the goose that lays the golden egg . Coons have come back well in the last 3 to 4 years up here in Morris County and so have the ticks .
Chris