deernut

Lots of cool stuff going on, but I'm packing for my deer hunt in the morning and don't want to be too tired to glass so I'll just provide these links and I think you'll find this stuff as interesting as I do. http://www.deernut.com/Documents/CouesWTGeneticresearchPopeYoung.pdf http://www.deernut.com/Documents/KeepTrophyRecordsHonest_2012.pdf Follow me on Twitter (@Gametrax) or Facebook (Jackrabbit Jim) for daily wildlife -- mostly game -- information. JIM

That's why I support the Right to Arm Bears. JIM

I agree with the comments so far. Black bears will kill fawns and will even try to find them, but they don't seem to be effective enough to affect the deer recruitment over a large area. Like everything in nature, there are exception and I have seen some cases where bears are able to kill a quite a few fawns in one local area, but again, based on what I have seen, they are not much of a factor in reducing fawn recruitment. The story below is about my bear hunt in the Chiricahuas in 1997 where I went back and killed a bear that I witnessed killing a fawn (don't mess with Deernut's fawns). It was published in the NRA's Hunter Magazine in their "Member Hunts" section. (FYI, I have started a new Deernut Blog that some of you may be interested in. Not sure I have time to keep up with it, but it may be interesting if I can www.deernut.wordpress.com) _______________________________________________________________ On a warm August afternoon I was hiking in the beautiful Chiricahua Mountains along the borders with Mexico and New Mexico. During this particular trip I was accompanied by retired wildlife researcher Jerry Day and we were looking for deer/vegetation research plots located back in the rugged canyons of this mountain range. Jerry had not visited these research plots in the 40 years since he completed his research on the relationships between high deer populations and important forage plants. After a few hours of trying to keep up with my 70-year-old companion, we located the most inaccessible study plot and sat to rest. Jerry remarked that the hills had become steeper in the intervening years - either by perception or recent geologic activity. Not long into our rest, we heard the bleating distress call of a Coues white-tailed deer fawn across the canyon. After a short search with binoculars, we located the fawn but only by the wild flapping wings of the hungry golden eagle which was attached, via sharp talons, to its back. The fawn was trying to seek cover in the scattered oak brush but the eagle's flapping wings slowed his progress. As we watched this remarkable scene, it was obvious the eagle would make quick work of the fawn and we would witness an event few people have the opportunity to see. Suddenly, the large bird of prey flew away and we wondered what would make this eagle abandon such a sure meal. We did not wonder long, for the eagle was almost immediately replaced by a young black bear who had come running to the sound of the fawn's distress. The fawn had hid amongst the brush and the bear simply waited for some direction. It soon came with a loud bleat from the nearly scrub oak. The bear charged immediately for the sound; there was no question what he was there for. After a few minutes of cat and mouse, or rather bear and fawn, the fawn succumbed to the inevitable and the bear slept well with a full stomach that night. A month later the bear season in that mountain range opened. I was confident because I knew there was a bear in that area that associated the sound of a fawn with a dinner bell. The opening weekend of bear season I went back into the same area where I saw the bear kill the fawn. After teaching a wildlife class at the University of Arizona, I left Tucson Friday evening and arrived at the end of the road in the Chiricahua Mountains at midnight. I parked my truck and strapped on my backpack already loaded with all the gear I thought I’d need to bring back a bear. I headed into the mountains by moonlight and set up a camp 1 mile from the nearest road, high on a ridge top. Saturday morning I left camp and hiked along the ridge, stopping at intervals to set up and call like a fawn in distress with a predator call. I was fully camouflaged and my fawn imitation was apparently right on the mark, because a few white-tailed does walked up to within 10 yards of me looking very agitated and making the soft buzzing noise they use to locate their fawns at close range. At noon, I sat under an oak tree at the end of the ridge to eat lunch and shortly after sitting down I saw a bear look at me from behind a clump of tall grass from a mere 6 yards away. I was stunned at this unexpected, although not uninvited, lunch guest. He immediately saw his error (or my rifle) and backed up quickly. I sat in disbelief for a second and tried to recount what I ate and if it could cause such hallucinations. I stood up with my rifle and the bear was still standing 10 yards away looking at me. I realized then that he was a very small yearling so I lowered my rifle and he scampered down the slope. Mid-afternoon that day, I was calling from the next high ridge overlooking a large canyon and saw a bear one-half mile down canyon swimming across a small pond. At that distance, I was not sure if he heard my calling or if I happened to spy him before he was within hearing range. He stopped on the near side of the pond and shook off. I screamed like a fawn with the call and he immediately broke into a run at full speed towards me! It took a while for him to cover all that ground so I kept calling to keep him on track. Bears really look much larger when you are on the ground and they are running full speed at you -- you start to wonder if even your high-powered rifle is enough for this sudden incarnation of Nature's wrath. As he approached I stopped calling because I didn’t care for him to know my exact location. When he closed the distance to 25 yards, I dropped him in his tracks (that's close enough, thank you). I quickly went to work skinning the beast where he lay. There were no trees of suitable size to hang him within the distance I could drag him alone. I first skinned back the hide on one side and boned all meat off that side, and then repeated the procedure on the other side. After the outside meat was boned, the animal was dressed to retrieve the tenderloins. Since it would take more than one trip to get meat, hide, and camp gear out to the truck, all meat was placed into cheesecloth meat bags and secured high in an oak tree 100 yards away. The head and hide were strapped to the daypack and brought back to my ridge top camp. The camp was hastily disassembled and repacked onto the pack frame and then the bear head and hide was added and tied down securely. I packed (staggered) the head/hide and camp gear out that night (1 mile of very rugged terrain), slept in my truck through a terrible storm. The next morning I left the truck at first light with an empty pack frame and full canteen, heading back to my secluded cache of meat hung high in the oak tree. The cool rain during the night kept the meat chilled. I was thankful for that rain but not the torrential downpour that hammered me when I was halfway out of the mountains with the meat on my back. I took one of those shortcuts that are never shorter, thinking I could cut right over the last ridge instead of contouring around. The backside of the ridge was almost too steep to negotiate with my meat-laden pack and consisted of a field of jumbled granite. I could hardly walk with the rain pelting me hard, but the sharp crackle of the lightning so close to my packframe helped quicken my pace off the ridge top. Besides a freezer full of meat and a beautiful rug, I also came home with chigger bites, sunburn, a twisted ankle, blisters on hands and feet, bruised knee, and aches in muscles I didn't even know I had. My fellow biologists said they had never seen a deer biologist go through so much trouble to avenge the loss of one fawn.

I'm in WI on vacation but Amanda alerted me to this post. These dark warts are definately papillomas (aka fibromas). I have a picture and explaination in my book, but they are basically warts caused by a virus and will usually go away by themselves. They do not affect the meat. The other large furry growth does look like a herniation of the abdominal wall. No way of knowing for sure, but it can be a hole in the muscular wall that has allowed the "guts" to bulge out or it could be a fur-covered fibroma or other large growth. I've seen things like this filled with infected tissue or fat. Jim

Antler development is a very complicated process and full of strange things. I have noticed this phenomena as you described and I have assumed the same thing. It really seems as though the nutrients get shunted over to the other side. Also if a mainbeam is or single tine is damaged early in velvet, it seems like the rest of the antler on that side grows bigger. I am not aware of anyone really having any real scientific data or explanation for this. I do talk about the contralateral effect in antler growth (injuries affecting antlers) in my Chapter 4 (Antlers) of Deer of the SW. JIM Jim Heffelfinger Author, Deer of the Southwest deernut.com

Quick Follow-up: I searched a few publications I have and found the following: John Russo in his book on the Kaibab says "twins are very common and occasionally triplets are seen." In "The Whitetailed deer in WI" they say that does can have 1, 2, or 3 and that quadruplets have not been reported in WI but they have elsewhere and they cite another general wildlife textbook (no specifics). Of 10 does found in WI dead (2-yrs-old) they reported 7 had single fawns, 2 with twins, and 1 with triplets. Another sample of 33 showed that 13 had singles, 19 had twins, and 1 had triplets (3%). A book called "Deer in Maine" reported on a sample of 65 pregnant does in which 74% had twins, 21% had singles, and 5% had triplets. in "The Oak Creek mule deer herd in Utah" they mention 2 cases they know of (in MT & CO) where a doe had quadruplets, but say that in 1,169 pregnant mule deer does they examined, none had more than 3 young. They observed a doe with 4 fawns following her but felt it was more probable that she had adopted other fawns, even though they say that is extremely rare until after nursing is over. They examined the reproductive tracts of 100 breeding-age mule deer does and found that 12% had no fawns, 35% had singles, 51% had twins, and 1.2% had triplets. Observing deer in late summer (3 months after fawning) they estimated that 0.3% of does had triplets (at least one died by then). So the up-shot is this is very rare. The triplet data for WI & ME (3-5%) are much higher than what we would have in our lower-nutrition Southwest habitat. Adoption of other fawns is a possibilty, but maybe even less common than a doe actually having 3 fawns. JIM

This was sent to me by a biologist in southern NM. I can't believe Deer of the Southwest doesn't have that! Twins are the norm and triplets are rare even in areas of the country with lots and lots of nutrition. For example in the agricultural areas of southern WI, whitetails still very rarely have triplets. Adoption is possible, but it would have to be a doe fawning at the same time in the same area and this would seem unlikely - my guess is it would be less likely than 3 embryos coming to full term. I'll check my literature for more on twinning rates and triplets and get back to you. JIM

Man, this is a complicated topic. I have been following it ever since doing my graduate work in South Texas on trophy whitetails and then as Chief of Wildlife Operations on the Rio Paisano Ranch south of Corpus Christi. There seems to be 2 "camps" of researchers on this topic: one in Texas based on the work at the Kerr Wildlife Management Area and the other camp originally centered around Dr. Harry Jacobson at Mississippi State University. After leaving S.TX, I went to work for Dr. Jacobson at MSU so I had first-hand knowledge of working in both "Camps." You would think that would give me insight and clarity to explain to everyone what the real deal is. The truth is there is good research on both sides and that has lead to confusion and apparently conflicting results. The studies were designed a little differently and analyzed differently so some of the differences may just be due to the different ways they conducted the research. Still, more advanced studies (like the Kroll & Koerth study linked above) continue to add to the confusion. Better and better studies are coming up with still different results. I know almost all the people involved personnally and they are solid researchers and all right to some degree (and wrong to some degree). I'm currently 2/3rds of the way through writing a 3-part series on the Role of Genetics in Deer Management and can't post it all here before it is published. The series addresses this topic in more detail than I have seen elsewhere. I can include an excerpt from Part 1: Starting in 1973, Donnie Harmel, John Williams, William Armstrong, Jim Ott, and others began a series of progressively more complex experiments on the effects of genetics and nutrition on antler and body size in whitetails on the Kerr Wildlife Management Area. In the first experiment, 8 bucks that were spikes as yearlings and 1 buck that was a large 10-point at 3.5 years old were bred to does and the antler development of 10 generations of offspring were recorded. Researchers showed that antler size and body weight were genetically based and influenced by environmental factors like nutrition. Data collected from this captive population indicated a buck’s future antler size could be predicted by looking at his first set of antlers. On the average, bucks carrying spike antlers when they were yearlings did not grow antlers as big as those that were forked-antlered yearlings. Yearling spikes also went on to produce more spike-antlered offspring in their lifetime than bucks with forked antlers as yearlings. A more intensive analysis of the inheritance of antler characteristics was later conducted on these captive deer and most antler characters were considered to have high levels of heritability. The early studies from Kerr WMA set off the “spike wars.” If spikes were prone to producing and passing on inferior antler genes then removing spikes might be a way to cleanse the gene pool. The widespread slaughter of spikes commenced in the name of genetic purity. One of the reasons this “Gene-ocide” became so popular, so fast, was that it was fun. Finally, there was something we could actively do to improve the gene pool -- and it involved shooting deer! However, as more information became available, the idea of genetic improvement became more complex and managers were understandably confused. During this time I was completing my Master’s Degree at Texas A&M-Kingsville under Drs. Sam Beasom and Charlie DeYoung and then managing the Rio Paisano Ranch in Brooks County. This spike culling made all the sense in the world and we killed spikes on the ranch at every opportunity. I then started working for Dr. Harry Jacobson at Mississippi State University and Jacobson was giving talks and showing pictures from his captive deer herd that showed some spikes that became tremendous bucks at maturity! Some people started to point out that poor nutrition and late birth dates will also produce spike antlers in a yearling irrespective of what kind of genetics the buck has. Removing those deer would not improve genetics and may even be counterproductive. In some areas of the country with chronically poor nutrition, most yearling bucks are spikes and if culled intensively, deer managers could nearly wipe out the yearling age class. When it comes to gene pools you don’t want to drain it in order to clean it. There were criticisms that Jacobson’s anecdotal slides showing a spike-to-monster progression was not data, but simply pictures of the exceptions. So Jacobson teamed up with geneticist Steven Lukefahr to conduct an analysis of antler measurements and pedigrees of over 200 captive white-tailed deer housed at Mississippi State. Analysis of this herd from 1977 to 1993 indicated that the occurrence of spike antlers in yearling bucks was related more to environmental factors than genetics. Antler characteristics of yearlings are probably more dependent on nutrition and birth date (early or late born) because when their bodies are still growing and nutrients available for antler growth may be limited. The genetic influence of antler conformation was more detectable in older bucks (2+ years); as their bodies matured, antler size was related more to their genetic potential than their nutritional intake. The Mississippi data and the Texas data yielded what looks like contradictory results, which has led to decades of controversy. According to an independent review by Texas A&M animal geneticist Daniel Waldron, the different conclusions derived from these research efforts may simply be the result of the researchers asking slightly different questions and analyzing their data with different statistical methods. Dr. Waldron also pointed out that some Kerr WMA studies did not account for factors such as the birth date of yearling bucks, year, maternal influences, or the fact that many of the sires in the Kerr herd were related to one exceptional sire buck. The Mississippi captive herd consisted of deer from the Midwest and Southeast and this may be a problem when applying the conclusions to Texas deer. Waldron felt that neither the Texas nor the Mississippi analyses resolved this issue definitively. It seems logical that during a buck’s first year of growth, nutritional variation would have a lot to do with the size of his first set of antlers. And yet, the Kerr data showed clearly that the antler size at the yearling stage does hold some predictive value in what that animal’s antlers will look like at maturity. I cover this all in Chapter 4 of my book (Factors affecting antler size, Page 80-84). I also have a table on Page 82 that shows that 85% of spikes are yearlings and 35% of 2x2s are yearlings. This is over several years and would vary dramatically due to the amount of rain in any given year as a few of you mentioned above. So, there's a lot of information, but not a lot of answers. As I go on to write later in the series, none of this matters much because hunters can't exert enough influence on the gene pool of a free-ranging deer population to affect the gene pool so the idea of culling to improve the genes is bogus except under very very extreme culling in a captive or small and contained population. JIM

My son shot this on the morning of his 16th birthday in 6B. Anyone see a cow elk this big? My son is 160 lbs.

CochranJ- Rabies is possible but unlikely. The fact that we have CWD at White Sands Missle Base in SW NM is a concern, but we have not found CWD in AZ despite some aggressive sampling. Just about any disease will result in the deer not being scared of humans and drooling so there is not much to diagnose from the keyboard. I will e-mail the WMs over there (not sure if it was 28 or 29 from your message) and make sure they followup. Hopefully you gave them the catchment number or a Lat/Long. I would like them to shoot it and bring it in if they can. I'm headed out of town for a meeting until Sunday night so I won't be around to followup but I'll do what I can to get someone to check it out. JIM

I think the inconsistancy you see in the timing of rut in this thread (this year) is simply because of sample size. Spending a few days in the field glassing is not as good as whole research studies that look at the timing of rut very intensively and consistently for a couple years. JIM

OK, OK, Sheesh. Can't put nothing past you all. Here's the same elk without all the shenanigans the bear hunters use to take their pictures! You have to admit, that picture's hilarious! What is better than 3 generations of Heffelfingers spending a week together in the woods? How many non-hunters get the chance to do that? JIM

This was certainly the year of the velvet buck. We have seen this in at least one year in the last 15 that I remember. I have consulted with everyone who is anyone in the antler world and there is no easy answer. I had the world's leading antler researcher (George Bubenik) stay with me a few weeks ago and we discussed this. Collecting blood samples and running Testosterone levels and other hormones might result in an answer, but I don't know of anyone who has done that. To be this widespread, this can't be the result of a sickness, but has to be some widespread environmental influence. This sort of thing can be caused by a certain combination of rainfall (timing and amount) and temperature that causes certain plants to bloom in great number. Some plants contain "Phytoestrogens" which are plant compounds that act (in the buck's body) like regular estrogen and interfer with the circulation of "Manly" hormones. These kinds of things are very complex and hard to detect. So there's your typical biologist non-answer to a question. My website has a link to an article I wrote on Cactus Bucks. Click here for Cactus Bucks JIM

Here is an excerpt from Chapter 7 of my book. I am shamelessly plugging my book here, but I can't help it -- it is packed full of answers to so many quesitons I see coming up on this forum: "Photoperiod triggers physiological changes that lead up to the rut; however, there is a strong genetic factor that predetermines a certain breeding time for deer in a particular location. The peak of the whitetail rut is a little later, on average, than mule deer in the same areas. The necks of whitetail bucks begin to swell in November, but breeding doesn’t generally start until late December and may continue into late February (Table 14). The peak in rutting activity generally occurs during early to mid-January throughout most of Coues whitetail range, but rut may occur a little earlier in higher elevations of the Sierra Madres of Sonora and Chihuahua, Mexico. Some of the best information on breeding dates of Coues whitetails comes from Ockenfels et al. (1991), who monitored 36 radiocollared whitetails in the Santa Rita Mountains of southeastern Arizona. The earliest rutting behavior during that study occurred on November 7th and the latest on March 16th. Many of these extreme observations were likely inexperienced yearling bucks. The average peak of the rut was mid-January based on observations of rut behavior between 1988 and 1991. Bristow (1992) examined 20 pregnant does in this same region and found the average date of conception occurred during the first week of January. Disturbance of deer during breeding season is often raised as a factor of concern in affecting the reproductive potential of deer herds, yet many states hunt deer during the rut with no discernable negative effects. Bristow (1992) compared pregnancy rates, fawning dates, and reproductive performance of Coues whitetail does in an area where harassment during rut was intensive to another area where deer were not intensively disturbed. Researchers in this case intentionally harassed and fired rifle shots near whitetails they encountered in the disturbance area throughout December and January. Individual deer were followed until they left the study area or could no longer be located, with many deer being disturbed several times. The disturbance level in the treatment area was twice that of the undisturbed area and averaged 28 deer disturbed and 18 shots fired per day in less than six square miles. There was no difference between disturbed and undisturbed areas in pregnancy rate, number of fetuses per doe, or date of conception. There is no evidence limited and low-density hunts currently offered during the rut negatively affect reproduction." JIM

And you thought he was kidding............... Melanism is a rare abnormality in deer but it pops up once in a while. This buck circulated around the internet a few years ago. I have more about melanism and albinos in my book (which is free if you can get someone to buy it for you for Christmas). Sportsman's Warehouse has a black mountain lion (thanks to a little black dye) JIM

If you haven't heard about it yet, I have a new book out that I have spent 13 years working on. I cut no corners in putting it together so we'd all have something that was solidly based in science, but easy to read. Here's what others have said about the book: • “Jim Heffelfinger is fast becoming the authority on mule deer in the United States. His seminars on deer are routinely packed. If you are a deer hunter you NEED this book.” Todd J. Rathner, NRA Board of Directors and Chairman, NRA Hunting and Wildlife Conservation Committee. • “Jim Heffelfinger has crammed a tremendous amount of information into this book. I found the book outstanding because of the width of coverage and the readability.” Dr. Wendell Swank, former director of the Arizona Game and Fish Department, and author of: “The Mule Deer in Arizona Chaparral” (1958). • “…the ultimate source for understanding the history, management, and issues facing this resource. Jim Heffelfinger has solidified his reputation as the premier authority on deer in this region.” Barry Hale, Deer Program Manager, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. • “…a valuable firsthand tool for wildlife managers, professors, government agents, hunters, and every person interested in deer conservation and management on both sides of the border.” Carlos Hugo Alcalá-Galván, Wildlife Biologist for Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agricolas, y Pecuarias (INIFAP), Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico. • “Mr. Heffelfinger’s enthusiasm and dedication for natural resources has resulted in one of the most significant contributions to the field of deer biology and management in years. Presented in a clear and concise style, this book will prove to be an invaluable resource not only for the professional biologist, but the layman as well.” Clay Brewer; Mule Deer, Pronghorn, Bighorn Sheep Program Coordinator; Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. • “…the book is a great read, jammed with contemporary and historical information that’s presented in a readable, understandable manner that the average outdoor enthusiast can understand.” Arizona Republic (10/12/06). • "Deer of the Southwest has a special place on my bookshelf--the one I keep for the books I refer to most often." David E. Brown, author of many southwestern books such as, The Grizzly in the Southwest, Borderland Jaguars, Aldo Leopold’s Southwest, Arizona Game Birds, and The Wolf in the Southwest. • “Very well written, comprehensive in scope, beautifully illustrated, it will remain the standard deer reference for the region for many years.” Neil B. Carmony, author/editor of The Wilderness of the Southwest, Mexican Game Trails, Onza!, Tales from Tiburon, Man and Wildlife in Arizona & more. Check out my website for info on deer and other southwestern wildlife. You can order a book by printing an order form (PDF) or just use a credit card and order on-line. Thanks, JIM

Jackrabbits and kids were made for each other. These things are the least appreciated critter in the state. Take your kids out October-March and have some fun. We cook them up in stew with dumplings, shredded as green chili, carnitas with tomatos/onions/cilantro, etc. SMALL GAME FOR SMALL HUNTERS "Babes do not tremble when they are shown a golf ball, but I should not like to own the boy whose hair does not lift his hat when he sees his first deer." - Aldo Leopold Written in the 1930s, this timeless statement embodies the natural wonder youngsters have for wildlife and all things natural. To nurture this interest and encourage active participation in Arizona's outdoors, Game and Fish established "juniors-only" deer and javelina hunts in 1992. These hunts are open only to 10-14 year olds who have completed a Department hunter education course and are accompanied by an adult in the field. This encourages the adult to devote undivided attention to teaching these young people about the habits of the wild critters they pursue as well as hunter ethics, safe and responsible firearms handling, and respect for private property. These juniors-only hunts have been a huge success since their inception and seem to become more popular each year. In 1994, a juniors-only elk hunt was added to give kids an opportunity to take part in that unique type of hunt. A wise person once said "parents who take their children hunting, seldom have to hunt for their children in later life." It has been our observation over the years of working with wildlife and the public that this statement is true. Juniors-only big game hunts provide a fantastic opportunity for the state's youths and their parents; however, they take place during only 1 or 2 weeks in the fall; and then only if the young hunter is lucky enough to be issued a permit-tag in the lottery-style drawing. With our recent emphasis on big game hunts for young hunters, many parents forget about the extensive opportunity that small game hunting provides. Starting young hunters out on small game offers many advantages over diving directly into chasing larger animals. Regardless of where in the state you live, you can probably be small game hunting within 30 minutes of your house. Whether it's cottontail rabbits, tree squirrels, or quail; you generally won't have to drive 2-3 hours to get to a good area. Cottontail rabbit season is open year round in most areas and they're very tasty. Since no permit-tag is needed for small game, you do not have to go to a particular Game Management Unit to hunt. A trip to the nearest sporting goods or department store for a hunting license, a box of .22 shells, and a copy of the hunting laws, and you're off to the nearest patch of public or state trust lands. In most areas of Arizona, this will easily be accomplished in an afternoon hunt, allowing youngsters to sleep late in the morning or to attend to other activities. Small game seasons are relatively long, giving ample opportunity to arrange for multiple hunting trips. These long seasons also allow for much more interaction between young adults and parents or older mentors while afield. This results in greater communication from the mentor to the student: safe firearms handling, wildlife management, wildlife food habits, care of game meat, and more. Spending hours in the field together gives parents and kids a chance to talk about a lot of things; some related to wildlife and some not, but certainly an opportunity for communication, which is in short supply these days for most folks. Not only are small game seasons longer but with small mammals naturally more plentiful than deer, there is more action. Rather than spending a week trying to get within range of a single big game animal, the young hunters will be encountering many small game animals in a outing. This keeps the interest level up for kids who sometimes get stuck in an infinite loop, continually surfing through 99 channels of cable. Kids have shorter attention spans than when you actually had to get up and walk across the room to change the TV channel. Today kids need action that gets their attention and keeps their interest level high. If your son or daughter has not been able to stalk within range of a deer after 4 days of exhaustive hunting, they'll be looking for the remote control. They've had about all of that channel they can stand. At least don't look so surprised when the GAMEBOY comes out of the backpack while you're glassing a distant hillside. The firearms generally used for small game are better suited for smaller hunters. Squirrel and rabbit hunting is best accomplished with a .22 rimfire rifle. A single-shot .22 rifle makes an inexpensive, lightweight, and small gun ideal for any youth. Also, a single-shot firearm teaches young hunters the value of marksmanship, ethics, and making each shot count. Such a firearm will not damage excessive tasty small game meat as well. The recoil from a firearm of this caliber also will not punish the budding sportsman or woman with each shot. A sure-fire way to make your child never want to go hunting again is to give them a .300 Winchester Magnum with a muzzlebreak and no ear plugs. Small game is also easier for small hunters to physically handle. You won't find yourself packing your daughter's elk quarters out of Nasty Canyon while she sits in the truck and eats sunflower seeds with the heater on. Taking an active part in field dressing game also helps young people learn about organs necessary to keep animals (humans too) alive and assures that not all members of the next generation will think meat is manufactured in factories and prior to being packed under cellophane. Last winter was characterized by abundant and well-timed rainfall. This equates to an abundance and diversity of weeds and grasses which make for fat and happy rabbits and quail. Animals with abundant fat stores reproduce at a much higher rate than animals in poor condition. In good years such as this, small game populations have the capacity to increase tremendously. This will be the year to dust off that .22 rimfire and tune in your youngsters to the excitement of small game hunting. Many people grew up hunting small game. Once older and with busy jobs (and the ability to afford to pay someone else to raise food) these folks forgot about how much fun rabbit, squirrel, and quail hunting was. Let's not allow this fun to slip by the next generation without letting them try their hand at it.

Another good topic! I wrote a magazine article on this topic last year for the Mule Deer Foundation magazine that is posted as a pdf on my website. http://www.deernut.com/Documents/where_the...are_mdf2005.pdf This article addresses the question "why am I seeing 20 does for every buck?" I won't repeat that information here. I can tell who has a copy of my book by the postings - my chapter 7 (Reproduction) talks about the effects of wide buck:doe ratios on reproduction and herd "health." Chapter 9 (Management) goes through all the SW states one by one and describes exactly what survey, harvest, and misc information each state collects and how -- specifically -- they use that information to make hunt recommendations. Amanda posted the hunt guidelines the AZGFD uses to adjust permits in each GMU each year. These guidelines are not all they use and they are just guidelines (there may be other circumstances that come in to play (such as hunter access to deer habitat, crowding, etc.). Scout'm: let me know what GMU we are all talking about and I'll provide some detailed information from the "Hunt Arizona 2006" book that is available to everyone from their local AZGFD office. I assume we are discussing whitetails, but I had to ask - it will make a difference in the data I provide. The average of all GMUs in SE AZ is 26 whitetail bucks:100 does. This is almost a 1:5 Buck:Doe ratio (26/126) which is phenomenal considering this is wide-open public lands hunting in the West. You would be very hard pressed to find ratios that good anywhere in the West. Which brings up one comment made earlier - please do not look to South Texas trophy whitetail population characteristics as a benchmark or think we should manage AZ deer populations that way. I am a writer for TX Trophy Hunters Magazine and I did my Master Degree work on whitetails in South Texas so I have quite a bit of experience in that realm. If we managed AZ deer herds that way we would have about 50 deer tags in each GMU. About a third of the white-tailed deer aged in the field by Wildlife Managers are 3 years old or older. On the average (which fluctuates wildly year to year) only about 40% are yearlings - I think that is amazing for public land hunting. If more people in AZ want to go deer hunting each year, the AZGFD could let them them with absolutely no biological detriment to the whitetail populaitons (there are some social issues that would crop up, like "Hey, where'd the December whitetail hunts go?"). You will not be able to find any reputable research that shows a buck:doe ratio of 1:10 is harmful or limiting to the health of the herd in a meaningful way. As 'elkhunter' said all the does still get pregnant (let me know when you need a job). Colorado has done more research in this area than anyone because in the recent past they hunted their mule deer herds pretty heavily. Dr. Gary White at CSU analyzed 20 years of mule deer survey data and found that increasing the sex ratio from 10 to 40 bucks per 100 does only results in 7.4 additional fawns per 100 does/ That is a dramatic difference in buck:doe ratios and would require huge changes (=restrictions) in how you managed the deer population. Although there was a relationship between buck:doe ratios and fawn production, the effects were relatively minor and did not account for the long-term decline in recruitment CO experienced. Interestingly, no lower threshold in buck:doe ratios was detected below which recruitment dropped off rapidly. This also fails to support the theory that fewer bucks per doe dampens recruitment to any meaningful degree. Annual fluctuations in fawn recruitment due to rainfall and habitat conditions would totally swamp other minor affects. As for our survey methodology, AZGFD has refined how they collect deer survey data over the last 20 years and currently about half of the deer observed during the survey period are from a helicopter which is a very effective way to survey rugged and remote deer habitat. They survey every unit every year the same way so they can monitor trends (a sample of the unit, not the whole thing). If it is too windy or rainy for good observations, the flight is postponed to the next open survey day at the end of the schedule. The helicopter doesn't go home until all units are surveyed in decent weather. The other half of the deer observations come from the local wildlife manager getting out there and glassing for deer every morning he/she can during the December 15 - February 15 survey period (when bucks are with does more). The 26 bucks:100 does mentioned above for all GMUs in SE AZ is based on 2,458 deer seen in 1,175 groups. Also, remember the surveys occur right after the hunts (few WT are surveyed until Jan) so the ratios used in management are minimums at their lowest point of the year. Hope that helps. JIM

I think many people have noticed this and it is certainly true. The Altar Valley (GMU 36ABC) is the best example of this. I don't have an explanation and don't know of anyone who has any more than a theory. My theory is that because mule deer populations are at least half what they were in the mid-1980s, that has left deer habitat vacant or nearly so around the foothills and in the flats. This lower density desert mule deer population allowed whitetails to use that space. Whitetails occupy snowy forested areas all over the country but they can't out-compete mule deer in northern AZ for some reason so I don't think whitetail can dominate and out-compete mule deer as a rule. Whitetails are able to weather these droughts better and so their populations have not declined like mule deer. I predict that when we get a series of wet winters and our mule deer populations start rebounding you will see whitetails using these lower elevation areas less. As I note in my book, whitetail can be more aggressive as a species, but their smaller size (relative to mule deer) in the Southwest probably neutralizes their dominance (although their rutting behavior is certainly more aggressive). No one keeps track of hybridization systematically, but most occurrences make their way to me and I, purely anecdotally, think there has been an increase in the occurrence of hybrids in recent years because of this phenomenon of whitetail moving to lower elevations. Ultramag is correct that there are some boomer whitetail that are relatively safe from uninformed hunters in the flats and out on malpai hills. I have a lot of information about the relationships of these deer and hybridization in my new book "Deer of the Southwest" - check out my brand new website for more info. My website also has a selection of downloadable (free) PDF magazine articles and scientific papers on lots of Southwestern wildlife.

These are indeed papillomas (also called fibropapillomas). These are simply black warts or tumors on the skin caused by a virus. If they are not too extensive they can dissappear by themselves. These usually cause concern when encountered on deer in the field (and have the capacity to gross whole families out), but they pose no health hazard to those handling the deer. These tumors are usually attached only to the skin and do not affect the underlying tissue or preclude the consumption of the meat (not that I would get within 10 feet of this one!). I have a picture of one of these in my book in the disease section. I focused on these things that you may encounter in the field and say "What the....?" Check out http://www.deernut.com if you are interested in learning more. JIM

LittleBear, I'd be interested in the details of that buck you posted. Looks like a possible antlered doe. Any details on what the genitals looked like? Seems to have had a decided lack of Testosterone based on what I see in the picture. Hope I'm not out of line posting this article I wrote on the subject. It appeared in the August 2005 issue of Texas Trophy Hunters Magazine. I devoted a whole chapter (#4) to antlers in "Deer of the Southwest" for anyone who shares my fascination as a fellow 'Bone Head.' Cactus Bucks in Cactus Country By Jim Heffelfinger “What science cannot tell us, mankind cannot know.” Philosopher Bertrand Russell must have been thinking of the many mysteries of antler development when he penned those words. There are so many aspects of antler growth that have not been fully explained despite decades of intensive research. As the tips of the antlers grow, how do they know when to split into a tine, how does a buck’s antlers grow the same general shape each year, and where is all this information stored, in the tip or some other central place? Growing tip is literally the leading edge of antler growth. Antlers grow as mostly a protein-rich cartilage which is then mineralized, or changed to bone. This growth and mineralization is directed by a complicated hormonal system whereby different hormones and compounds rise and fall at various time throughout the annual cycle. Most of these fluctuations occur because of changes in the relative length of day and night cycles. Like everything in nature, things occasionally go wrong and in some cases they go very wrong. One of the most remarkable antler aberrations is that of animals with antlers still in velvet in the fall and sometimes badly deformed. The worse ones have a multitude of small burrs or projections sticking out in all directions along the length of the antler beam and tines. These bucks have traditionally been referred to as “Cactus Bucks” because the grossly malformed ones look like they have a cactus on top of their head. This condition has been reported for centuries in many different deer species. Except for a few exceptions, it is uncommon, showing up here and there in individual deer in nearly everyplace deer occur. Cactus Buck Clusters In the late 1950s and early 1960s, biologists in the Central Mineral Region of Texas discovered an incredibly high number of cactus bucks. During that time about 3-9% of the deer were affected. These cactus bucks all suffered from deformed genitalia and “hypogonadism,” a condition characterized by very small testicles (there’s a word I’m sure you can find a use for next year in deer camp). Because of the condition of other associated reproductive tissues, it appears the testes developed normally and subsequently regressed to 1/4 - 1/6 normal size. The bucks were sterile, at least at the time of harvest which was during a period they should have been in reproductive condition. These cactus bucks were also observed to be at the lowest point in the pecking order. Even does dominated them with aggressive behavior. These concentrations of cactus bucks offer an opportunity to find an underlying cause. Biologists Jack Ward Thomas, Mick Robinson, and Rodney Marburger investigated every potential cause they could think of, but the reason for this cluster of cactus bucks eluded them. They ruled out exposure to the most common diseases and since there was no inflammation of any tissues it did not appear to be disease caused. The locals had observed this condition in previous years, but felt the incidence had increased following years of drought. This hinted that it was related to the deer being in poor condition, but examination of the fat reserves of these cactus bucks revealed they were in much better physical condition than their fully endowed brethren. It was apparently not simply due to a dietary deficiency. One curious relationship was that almost all the cactus bucks were harvested on one soil type: Granite-Gravel. This points, in a vague way, to possibly some plant that may have grown on that soil type after several dry years. More recently, a related situation has surfaced far away in black-tailed deer on Kodiak Island, Alaska. Some of the same symptoms have presented themselves and the same questions remained. This time local deer enthusiast and hunting guide, Jake Jacobson, took investigations a step further by teaming up with leading antler researcher Dr. George Bubenik and others. Starting in the 1990s Jacobson noticed an increasing trend in abnormal antlers on one part of Kodiak Island. These deer showed and incomplete growth of points, retention of velvet, malformed antlers, incomplete mineralization, and some antlers were dropping off above the normal antler base. When they examined some of the bucks more closely, they discovered that the bucks with abnormal antlers had testicles that were still located inside the body cavity rather than in a scrotum. They collected samples of blood, muscle tissue and testes from these bucks and catalogued detailed sets of photographs of each. Analysis of the blood showed that testosterone levels were an average of 10 times higher in normal bucks than in the cactus bucks. They were not able to determine the cause of the abnormalities, but the high incidence of cactus bucks continues, as does their research. Remarkably, we still know very little about the causes of this abnormality. One thing is clear is that it is mostly associated with conditions that cause an interruption of the hormone cycle or possibly the ability of antlers to detect the hormones (hormone receptors). There are several factors potentially related to the growth of perpetual velvet antlers: hormone levels and cycles, endocrine disruptors, genetics, age, injury, disease, and antlered does. One or several of these acting in concert can cause the occurrence of what we call cactus bucks. Hormones Abnormal or improperly-timed fluctuations of hormones can cause irregular antler cycles or abnormal antler conditions. Young fawns that are castrated before three to four months do not develop pedicles (bases) because they never produce the necessary testosterone levels required for this first step in antler development. Late injections of testosterone will initiate the production of a bony pedicle. A buck that is castrated while in velvet will never lose the velvet from his antlers because he lacks the rapid rise in testosterone that occurs prior to rut. Without the subsequent decrease in testosterone after rut, a castrated buck does not drop his velvet antlers. The buck then continues to grow more antler material in the next antler cycle, never shedding his antlers until he finally carries a grotesque mass of often stunted velvet antlers. Antler growth is still possible because high levels of testosterone are not needed. Low levels of male hormones (androgens) are produced by other structures besides the epididymis of the testicles (such as the adrenal cortex). These low levels may be enough to grow antler material, but not enough to stimulate the closure of blood vessels to the antler, which completes velvet drying and antler shedding. These latter two processes require a sharp increase and then decrease in the testosterone level. Bucks that are castrated while in the hardened antler stage will drop their antlers within a few weeks because of the sharply falling testosterone level. Bucks castrated after they drop their hardened antlers, will grow new antlers the next year, but they will never be polished or shed because of the lack of sufficient testosterone levels. In the 1840s, naturalist John J. Audubon (1989) described two castrated whitetail bucks he observed: “Their horns continued to grow for several years; the antlers were of enormous length and very irregularly branched, but the velvet was retained on them....they had become very large and when first seen at a distance we supposed them to be elks.” Genetics Many odd points and abnormalities are the result of the animal’s genotype, or genetic blueprint. Antler characteristics are inherited from the buck's parents. A nontypical buck will frequently produce a disproportionate number of offspring with nontypical points. Genetically programmed antler abnormalities can be seen year after year in each new set of antlers an individual grows. Palmated antlers, which are “webbed” like a moose, are a good example of a characteristic that is usually genetically inherited in whitetails. Researchers in Utah observed 14 mule deer bucks in the 1950s that were missing one or both antlers. They felt that this was a genetic abnormality because all bucks came from one localized area. Although many abnormal antler conditions are genetically-based, the grotesque antlers of cactus bucks are probably not genetic in most cases. The exception to this may be cases where a genetic mutation affects the production, transport, or reception (in the velvet antlers) of a hormone. This facet of the cactus buck mystery has not been investigated. Age Age is a contributing factor in the production of cactus bucks only as it relates to the maintenance of adequate hormone levels. When a buck becomes very old, the complicated orchestra of hormones sometimes begins to break down. Antlers will not grow normally without some hormones at correct levels. With the loss of an adequate spike in pre-rut testosterone, the antlers will stay in velvet and not be shed. This is obviously a hormone issue, but precipitated by the advanced age of the buck. Injury Obviously castration in the wild is an injury that would clearly produce a cactus buck. Many times people explain cactus bucks by saying they must have been castrated while jumping over a barbed wire fence. This may seem like an obvious explanation (especially for those of us who cross barbed wire fences!), but I have to believe that bucks are more careful than that. Physical injury or trauma to the velvet antlers or a major skeletal structure can result in antler abnormalities. Nicks and cuts in the velvet antlers can produce points and oddities. Injury to a large skeletal structure such as a broken leg bone often causes a misshapen antler the next year. Injury to the pedicle (base) itself nearly always causes abnormalities. Extensive trauma to the pedicle before growth begins or soon after is the source for many large freakish racks. However, these bucks will lose their velvet as rut approaches, differentiating them from cactus buck. Endocrine Disruptors There are many different compounds called “endocrine disruptors” that can interrupt the hormone cycle either by reducing the production of hormones or by interfering with the binding of those hormones at receptor sites in the velvet antlers. These can produce symptoms that mimic castration. Endocrine disruptors can come from naturally occurring plants, herbicides, pesticides, and other chemicals. One class of hormone-like compounds that have received a lot of attention (for obvious reasons) are phytoestrogens. These are naturally occurring compounds found in many kinds of plants that are very similar to estrogen. They are a defense mechanism produced by the plant to reduce predation by large herbivores like deer. Unfortunately we do not know enough about what natural deer foods have high concentrations or under what conditions phytoestrogen levels are higher than normal. It is interesting that cases of cactus bucks frequently occur in association with certain soils, or after fires or unusual weather patterns. This is all consistent with the idea that this phenomenon is associated with certain plants. This type of endocrine disruptor is probably the cause for incidents where many cactus bucks are reported in an area the same year. Other types of endocrine disruptors are those compounds such as Zearalenone which are produced by mold. This is a naturally-occurring compound with estrogenic activity that has been shown to reduce testicle size and interfere with hormones. Problems with Zearalenone are probably most common with supplemental feeding programs, where storage of feed creates an environment for mold growth. Hermaphrodites These are deer that possess both male and female sex organs. The usually have an ovary on one side and an internal testicle on the other (lateral hermaphrodites). These animals are not capable of reproducing and, because of the presence of testosterone, usually carry out a normal antler cycle. Although hermaphrodites usually have polished antlers during the fall, the presence of the ovary may result in enough estrogen to offset the effects of the testosterone and cause the velvet to be retained. True antlered does Some deer that are called antlered “does” are actually bucks with their male genitalia deformed and situated inside their body so they appear as females externally. Most true antlered does have fully functional female reproductive tracts. These does can breed, become pregnant, and successfully raise fawns. These antlered does remain in velvet and are subsequently reported as cactus bucks. What actually initiates the antler development in these does is still somewhat of a mystery. It is known that the testicles are not the only source of testosterone to initiate the growth of pedicles; the adrenal gland in both sexes can also produce this male hormone. Castrated males have been shown to have adequate levels of testosterone in their blood stream to initiate antler development, but it is not known if this is the initiating influence in antlered does. Because of the lack of increasing testosterone levels at the end of summer, true antlered does in the wild do not have polished antlers. They never lose their velvet and the antlers are often deformed, lacking basal burrs, and permanent (not shed). Disease Tumors can affect the hormonal environment and thereby produce antler abnormalities such as antlered does or cactus bucks. There are cases of antlered females that are found to have a cyst or tumor on an ovary or their adrenal gland. Tumors such as these can disrupt the normal balance of hormones and may provide enough male-type hormones (androgens) to initiate antler growth. Besides disease-caused hormonal imbalances, viruses can cause antler abnormalities by directly affecting growing antlers. Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease (EHD) can cause hemorrhaging in the testicles or cause other effects which disrupt the proper production and circulation of male hormones. EHD can also result in incomplete hardening of the antler tips because of damage to the velvet’s blood vessels before antler growth is complete. This disease commonly strikes deer in late July-August, which corresponds to the last stages of antler growth. Mystery Unsolved It is somewhat unsatisfying that we know so much about the antler cycle and still are not able to solve the mystery of the wild cactus buck. The most promising area of research will be on environmental toxins, both natural compounds and those of human origin. A different assemblage of annual plants appears each year depending on the variation of spring temperature and rainfall. Even the same plants grown under different conditions will contain different levels of various compounds. Herein lies the difficulty of diagnosing a dietary cause of cactus bucks. The key, I believe, will be to mobilize an immediate sampling of common deer food items for phytoestrogens and other endocrine disruptors in an area where the incidence of cactus bucks suddenly increases. Even this will be difficult as the plants available to deer during the fall may not be the same as those causing the condition earlier in the spring. As interested deer enthusiasts we may, in the end, have to begrudgingly admit that Bertrand Russell was right. JIM http://WWW.DEERNUT.COM

I would certainly buy the idea that Coues on the rim are 1-2" bigger from brisket to backline. Bergman's Rule states that body size tends to increase as you go north or south from the equator. Val Geist wrote a paper saying that wasn't always true, but it is 90% of the time and is a good general rule. The larger size may have something to do with body surface to mass ratio and the importance of that in keeping warm Round people stay warmer than skinny people because they have thicker body cores to retain heat (and more fat tissue insulation under the skin layer, but the body shape also is important). Our rim Coues are bigger but I don't know of any good data documenting that. Regarding age - yes it would differ between yearlings (1.5yrs old) and older deer. I don't think you'd see enough difference between 2.5yr-olds and 3+yr-olds to worry about separating them. I do have ages associated with those measurements, but they are in another database that I would have to link them and resummarize it that way and I don't have time before Christmas to do that. Those measurements I gave are for all ages combined and using that average to calibrate your eye through the scope is probably good enough for most people. I always made my own paper targets and trimmed them so they were 12" top to bottom. I could then look through the scope set for 12x at 100, 200, & 300yds and see how big a Coues would appear compared to the duplex crosshairs at those distances. I could then look at a Coues at the same magnification (12x) and estimate how far it was. JIM http://WWWDEERNUT.COM

From 1997 to 2002 I measured this in Coues and desert mule deer in the hope that someday, someone, somewhere would ask me that question. In that time I actually only measured 25 Coues deer from GMUs 36ABC (Fortunately most people skinned their deer to save the meat and so I couldn't get that measurement with fur on). The average of those 25 deer was 12-3/8" from the top of the back line to the bottom of the brisket (what you would see through a scope). See, biologists sometimes measure cool stuff. I collected this scientific data to help me judge distance though my scope : ) The range of those 25 deer was 11"-15", but most are right about at 12". For anyone interested, I also wanted some scientific data to allow me to judge antler size in the field so I measured single ear length along the back of the ear from the base at the skull to the tip. I also measured ear spread from tip to tip with the ears pulled tight straight out to make a straight line across the top of the head. When field judging antler size you have to visually "pull" the ears down straight for this to be useful. Single ear length of 81 Coues bucks averaged 7-1/8" Tip to tip straight ear spread of 81 Coues bucks averaged 18" (Also, desert mule deer chests are 14-3/4", a single ear is 8-3/4" and the tip to tip ear spread (straight out) is 22"). All data from GMU 36ABC south of Tucson. Thanks for asking! JIM

Mid January is definately the peak of the WT rut in Arizona (about 2-3 weeks later than the desert mule deer). There is some variation throughout the Southwest which I list in a table in my book. http://www.deernut.com

Some research has been done on the Metatarsal Gland (MT) but the bottomline is we don't really know what it does. There have been researchers who support the "Alarm" theory and some that don't. Others have mentioned that the MT glands are positioned in such a way that it they would leave scent in the deer's bed when it lays or also that it might rub scent off on vegetation as it walked through. These are all just theories. My book discusses this in some more detail with citations of all the scientific work I am aware of on MT glands. Don't forget the interdigital glands between the hooves - they might leave a strong spot of scent when a deer bolts and runs. JIM http://www.deernut.com