gamespec

Peak antler growth occurs at 5-7 years on average for both mule deer and whitetails. JIM

It is difficult to know where to start with this post. -number of antler points is only related to age in a general way. There is some info in a book or 2 that clearly show what % of yearlings are spikes and forks, and 2 year olds and so forth. You can't look at age distributions and discuss how many were spikes and 2x2s -- you have to have antler pt data. -Deer are usually only spikes their first year. I have only seen a few 2-yr-old spikes in my life doing deer work across several states. I have never seen a spike older than 2. -The job of wildlife management agencies and sportsmen is not to cull out the sick and the weak. It is to support a robust system we call the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. We do that by having lots of hunters supporting wildlife conservation through donations at banquets, volunteering on projects, buying licenses, buying hunting and shooting equipt (which has a 10% tax that goes directly to wildlife), and rallying against things that will degrade wildlife habitat. Adopting an exclusive attitude that only a few of us lucky ones each year should be able to hunt without anyone bothering us and be able to have our choice of several record-book bucks actually runs directly contrary to our most successful system of wildlife conservation on the planet. If we managed so that everyone could kill a mature animal (most hunters don't really care as long as it fits in a tortilla), only a small fraction of current hunters could hunt each year wildlife conservation would suffer greatly. Most hunters just want to get out every year with their family members and friends and would not want to wait so they could kill an older deer (that may not taste as good). I'd love to hunt 33 or 36C in December with no one bothering me, but sometimes we have to look at the big picture. We do need to "make more deer." Check out www.muledeerworkinggroup.com and look at Mule Deer Habitat Guidelines for the Southwest Deserts. You can download it as a PDF and see what can be done with habitat to help deer. These guidelines will apply to whitetail also. JIM

When we only get 50% of the quesitonnaires back then the total number of deer reported harvested has to be doubled to represent all hunters (to include those who did not return the questionnaires). This is pretty boilerplate survey proceedures. AZGFD offers tags for different weapon-types and we have to try to satisfy hunters who have diverse interests. We could allow 90% of the harvest to be from archers -- if the same total number of deer get killed, who cares right? A dead deer is a dead deer from a management perspective. One problem is that there are general hunters who don't want archers to harvest 90% of the total deer harvested because as archery harvest increases the only way AZGFD can maintain total harvest within allowable limits is to decrease the general tags issued. General hunters usually don't think this is fair. We are in a position of trying to find a way to allocate the available resource fairly. JIM

The Mule Deer Working Group I referenced and linked to above also has some great information about elk/deer interactions. JIM

1. We are in a desert but any place has an average annual rainfall amount. When biologists say we had a dry year(s) they don't mean compared to Minnesota, they mean compared to average for that area. Desert dwelling animals adapt to the desert, but a series of drier-than-average years stresses them and usually causes declines in populations through increased mortality and decreased reproduction. We do know there are lions and coyotes. I'm not sure what you mean by "deer data' with no mention of predators. The Mule Deer Working Group that I chair has produced a lot of very good stuff on predation and its affects on deer populaiton dynamics. We wrote a book about all the mule deer issues in the West and devoted an entire chapter to predators. We then converted that into an easier to read document (the big blue book) that has a whole section on predation and its affects on deer. The North American Mule Deer Conservation Plan has a whole section on predators (including a great photo of a big lion I took in Aravaipa). We then wrote a scientific review paper for Wildlife Society Bulletin that reviews what we know about predator-mule deer relationships across North America. You can find a lot of predation research in the Deer/Elk Workshop Proceedings for that last few decades. All these are available at www.muledeerworkinggroup.com. When I talk about specific survey or harvest data, I usually don't mention predators. 2. I'm not sure I understand this question, but I think you are asking 2 things: 1) how did we make recommendations so fast w/o getting the harvest data back and why were permits increased? I think what you are refering to in the first case is the year we switched and added a 3rd draw (antelope and elk). During that transition, we had to make recommendations without the benefit of the harvest data because of the timing of it all. Normally we get elk post-hunt questionnaire cards with harvest data back in about Jan and then that info is available for our elk hunt recommendations that were made in February. That year we had to have the final recommendations to the commission for the December meeting so for that year only we had to make recommendations without the hunt data (those data are still important to look at long-term trends). We added this 3rd draw in response to hunters who wanted more time to prepare for antelope and elk hunts. I don't know how how else we could have transitioned to an earlier draw. As for why the permits went up, you would have to call Jon Hanna in Region 6 and ask him to answer that question using the data he has (as I have done with Region 5 issues). Permits are altered using standard guidelines so that all regions are doing things consistently and that management is consistent through time. Anytime anyone has a specific question like this we are only a phone call away -- we work for you. JIM

I have to scoot to a school function and my son has an MRI on his dislocated shoulder tomorrow so I'll return but it may be a day. Everyone take a deep breath. I don't mind trying to answer questions - you all deserve answers, but it is sometimes hard to spend so much time here with all the other things I have deadlines for. JIM

Sorry for being gone from here a day, I had an MRI done on my neck (probably from stooping over this computer!). As we said in our article, there are 30K more applicants than there are tags. Some (couple hundred?) could have drawn a tag if they played the odds, but there is no getting away from the fact that about 30K people want to go deer hunting and can't. That's what drives the current direction, not us schemeing on how we can get some more nonresident money flowing into the state. I think you will be dissappointed in not putting in for the 33 Dec hunt when you see the bucks that come out and see the hunt success again. I wish I could figure out how to post an assemblage of pictures of the whitetail bucks coming out of 36C these days and coming through my Three Points check station in the early hunts. We are harvesting some great deer out of there and it will continue this year. Last year (2007) I checked 18 WT bucks out of 36C and 11 of the 18 (61%) were 3.5 years old or older. The idea that we are ruining our buck age structure in the quest to allow more people to hunt is just not true when you look at the data. In the last 5 years (2003-07) at my check station, I have aged 490 WT bucks out of GMUs 36ABC and in each of those years 40-56% of the bucks were 3.5 years old or older. I'm pretty proud of that. JIM

You rarely hear the word "Recruitment" without the word "Retention" quickly following. You are right, they are 2 sides to the same coin. AZGFD is working hard on both. Retention involves making sure we don't have people quit hunting. The class of hunters we are most apt to lose are those that aren't all that serious about it. They don't come to commission meetings, they don't join Wildlife Conservation Organizations (WCOs), they don't e-mail/meet with Game Branch, and they don't visit these websites (believe it or not, many don't have e-mail accounts). They may not hunt every year. We need to make sure we reach these people when we are getting input on how to structure our seasons -- this is no easy task. To reach all hunters, the surveys have to be structured in such a way so that everyone who purchased a hunting license or applied for a deer tag (for example) has an equal chance of providing input. I know how the website-based surveys have caused so much discontent, but anyone involved in surveying public input (in any field) will talk about the importance of sampling the entire population of interest (all hunters) so that everyone has an equal chance of providing input. Management decisions based on data obtained that way should support the interests of the entire hunting population. The company that AZGFD contracts with to conduct these surveys also writes similar surveys for lots and lots of state wildlife agencies all over the country. These surveys are just like the ones you have seen from AZGFD, with some modifications for local management questions each state has. That company does nothing but these surveys full time and the way the questions are written is subject to professional scrutiny and the publication/review process over and over and they are deemed on solid grounds in terms of valid ways to obtain representative opinions. I have had good friends that say the Department is forsaking their most active (from a volunteer and financial standpoint) supporters by not doing what these more active and vocal hunters want done. These particular constiuents are extremely vital to our success, but when structuring hunts AZGFD has to listen to the desires of all hunters not just those that are the most active in organizations or on the internet. From my perspective I see the Department being very responsive to some long-time sportsmen and women and the WCOs - they all still carry tremendous clout in many dealings with the agency. However, when the Department is asking for input on big management issues, they do so with the most scientifically-accepted human dimensions survey techniques to sample the entire popualtion of hunters. I think that's fair. When someone tells me the commission never listens to them, I get flash-backs of a lot of things that were changed based on public input (Kaibab doe tags, misc season dates, falconry quail seasons, archery crane seasons, Mearns' quail bag limit). In the last 16 years, I have seen the Commission respond a lot to the public - sometimes even just an individual who makes a logical suggestion. It is not uncommon for the biologists to have to get together during a break or at lunch at a commission meeting to see if we can work something out that was suggested by the public. JIM

Declines in hunter participation in general is widely recognized by those that track such things. Wildlife agencies all over the country are trying to take aggressive steps to preserve our hunting heritage. Here's a quote from the abstract of a paper published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin (Vol. 28, No. 4 Winter, 2000, pp. 817-824) by Jody W. Enck, Daniel J. Decker and Tommy L. Brown. The paper is called "Status of Hunter Recruitment and Retention in the United States." "Participation indicators of hunter recruitment and retention in the United States (U.S.) point to decreasing trends, although some regions of the country are experiencing slight increases in hunter-education graduates and license buyers. If the overall declining trends persist, they could have serious implications for continuation of some wildlife agency programs that depend on hunters for political, financial, or harvest-related support. Superficially, these trends also might be interpreted to indicate lessening need for programs aimed at providing hunting recreation or maintaining cultural benefits relating to hunting." Wow, did you read that? In otherwords if decreasing trends in hunting continue, and agencies have to get funding elsewhere, hunters are going to have less and less say in how state wildlife agencies manage wildlife. That's scary. The AZGFD's Hunting Heritage Working Group has come up with a lot of inovative things to help us show the average soccermom how important hunting is for this fantastic system of wildlife conservation. We have radio spots coming on, highway billboards, & all sorts of programs. Next week I am doing my annual talk at the UofA on the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation to senior-level wildlife management students. You would be depressed to see how many of them are hearing our great conservation success story for the first time. I do that every year so our wildlife students coming out of the wildlife program there hear it at least once from me. Wait, what was the question. ...? Oh yeah,... AZ has had a fairly stable number of first choice applicants for deer (to use as an example) for the last last decade, but the number of permits have decreased dramatically (we have half the permits we had in 1986). We have similar demand and half the supply and the result is that it is harder and harder to get a tag. This brings us full circle to the purpose of these changing seasons. JIM

Since I only wrote half the article I enlisted my coathor's help in responding. re: DEER questionnaires: Mandatory reporting is required for archery deer hunters if they harvest a deer. We know that compliance is increasing over time, but it is not consistent among years and indications are that not everyone has gotten the word that they need to report. Even if it were 100%, we are asking for data in a different way than we do when we send out the voluntary questionnaire to all hunters. We wanted to collect the data and analyze it in a way that minimized any potential biases. By using the voluntary questionnaire for both archers and general season hunters, we have a consistent data set with consistent biases. Using this approach, we can get the most realistic comparison of harvest, hunt success, and participation. It seemed the best way to make this comparison. The agency is currently evaluating how we conduct all hunter questionnaires. As we move forward with innovations, we hope to be able to find the best way to get this necessary management data with the least burden on the hunter. Better data generally comes at a greater cost, either through finances or requirements on hunters. We want to do this in the least painful way possible to everyone involved. Mandatory reporting would be a better management tool. In fact, requiring all hunters statewide to physically check out their harvested deer at a checkstation or AZGFD office would yield even better management data. We try to balance collecting useful data for management with reasonable requirements for hunters. re: ELK Relatively speaking, two-three years ago it was a new idea. Maybe we should have written "relatively new idea." We are genuinely looking for a way to get more people in the field. You are correct, we did not factor these 400 permits into the allocation formula when parsing tags to the various weapon types. The archers received 400 extra tags that were not included in the allocation. The overall harvest was factored into the wildlife manager’s hunt recommendations when estimating the expected harvest and managing for bull:cow ratios. From that perspective, we could maintain these extra 400 permits indefinitely if the Commission chose to, but it would be giving archers more than their fair share. The hunt guidelines will be re-examined this spring and summer (Commission will see them again in August 2009), and consideration will have to be given to how to handle those seasons at that time. We will definitely be taking a lot of public input and adjusting our recommendations in consideration. Abe Lincoln was right about trying to please all the people all the time, but we do want to hear about the best alternatives anyone can come up with to get more people afield. re: Javelina I remember Tice Supplee remarking once that we permitted the javelina hunts because the units near the metro areas were being over-harvested (true) and now we are spending A LOT of time and money dealing with problem javelina around the metro areas! She wasn't involved in this change of seasons but it does seem silly that hunters have a limited chance to pursue javelina close to the city and meanwhile the department is running all over darting, trapping, and moving javelina further away from the city. This won't wipe out the herds in the metro units, but it may reduce the distracting time the department spends dealing with rogue javelina. Hope that helps! JIM

I have heard this argument before, but it doesn't make me feel any better. Just because we have some left over tags that someone could have claimed if they did their homework doesn't mean that anyone who wants to hunt can do so just by putting in for those units. Tens of thousands of deer applicants can't all have those few leftover tags. Either way you slice it, we have thousands of people who want to deer hunt bad enough to navigate our complicated applications system (on paper with money up front!) and still can not deer hunt. Levi shot an absolutley beautiful WT buck in 36A this year (My dad and I were skunked). It only had 2 points but that didn't take away from the beauty. He was proud to have shot it with no help from me . I had only a few hours sleep the night before and was snoring next to him on the hillside (my tripod could no longer hold my full weight so I laid down). I guess his training phase is over! He shot a javelina, WT, and elk last year -- he has shared the meat with the village elders so I don't feel bad. I'll be in Iowa until Monday. JIM

We do commonly see an inverse relationship between increasing permits and decreasing hunt success, but its hard to tell if that is what is going on here since the increase in permits is relatively small (in terms of hunters/square mile). The guidelines work the opposite of what you are thinking, when hunt success is trending upward for a couple years it indicates we have more bucks available and we can increase tags. So we decrease tags when the hunt success is trending downward. What you are thinking about is when we shift tags from one hunt to the other we increase or decrease the tag numbers depending on the difference in hunt success during those hunts. Less cover might increase hunt success even if the deer population is stable but I would only expect that effect to work for a year or 2. If the deer population was not increasing and there were no more bucks available, you'd see hunt success decline dramatically and B:D ratios widen fairly quickly and not be able to withstand the harvest. From the helicopter, I don't think the burn has much of an effect on the % of the deer we see in the surveyed area -- we always fly relatively open country anyway because it is a waste to survey in cover so thick you can't see deer. You have to think of the "Days/Harvest" as an average (it is) or as an index to how hard it is to harvest a deer from year to year. Since hunters hunt an average 2.5 - 4 days no matter how long the season is, I don't expect hunt success or days/harvest to be affected by having 7-day seasons rather than a 6-day and a 10-day. The age class data is available for every unit in every year if the WM in that unit has been collecting enough ages to make the sample size large enough. Even if the WM is aging a lot of deer in his/her unit it is hard to get a large sample size for one year - I like to pool several years to reduce the effects of a small sample size. One thing we can look at is to compare 2002-04 to 2005-07. I don't see a lot of difference other than that we are killing better bucks in recent years so the age structure is improving (while young hunters sit at home paying XBOX and their dads go golfing). One thing I am sure of is the 2 huge deadlines I have tomorrow. I love doing these summaries to answer questions and provide information that people are interested in, it just takes a lot of time and is hard to do and still get everything else done (I'd rather do this actually). JIM

Follow this link to my last post on the recent hunt structure changes Everyone LOVES December whitetail tags (and pronghorn tags and Early bull tags, and sheep tags......) But, hundreds of whitetail tags during the heat of rut with a 60% hunt success while thousands are not able to hunt at all is not the best way to preserve our hunting heritage. We as hunters need to balance what we personally want and what is best for the future of hunting. JIM

I have been reading these comments and trying to get some information together but a lot of other things got in the way so please excuse my delay in responding. Let me try to address some things that have come up in this discussion. It was my intent for the department to publish an article about these hunt changes in the Wildlife Views magazine before the draw. Somehow it didn’t get done, but guess who’s TO DO list it’s on now? We’ll have something in the magazine for the fall. Most of the discussion has been about all the “nonstop” pressure on the deer herd. There will be more days of hunters in the field this fall, but the good news (to most people) is there will be less hunters in the field at one time. In other words, you have a greater chance to go hunting in Unit 33 and all other SE AZ units this fall, and when you do you will see less people. I think the average hunter would consider that an improvement. In my opinion, more deer are disturbed when you pile a lot of hunters in a hunt at one time with limited access so that more and more people get pushed into more areas. I think with less hunters in the field at one time, they won’t get into the backcountry as much or in as high densities. If you like to hunt the roads you will see less people; if you like to get into the backcountry to get away from everyone, you will see less people. If I were a deer trying to hide on opening day, I would opt for less hunters at a time for more weekends. I can hide easier from less hunters. Research done in 34A showed that when they tried to purposely harass radio-collared does, by following their signal they could “bump” the deer once or twice and the deer would stay in their homerange or return immediately. Hunters don’t have radio telemetry gear and it is unlikely a deer would be flushed more than once by a hunter (unless there are lots of them in the field at one time). That’s not a whole lot of disturbance for an individual deer and the research showed that even the intensive harassment during the middle of rut didn’t affect reproduction at all (they monitored the reproductive success of those collared does they harassed intensively). I don’t think having less hunters in the field at one time and a few more weekends will make the deer nocturnal or actually change their activity patterns any differently than last year’s hunt structure. I pulled together some data on what is going on in GMU 33 whitetail herd because of some of the questions that have come up on this board and in my conversations with other hunters. This survey-related information and some of the harvest data are collected by the local wildlife managers. We have to start by highlighting the fires that occurred in 2002-03 because that is why everyone is excited about Unit 33 now. We had a 30,560-acre Bullock Fire in 2002 and an 84,300-acre Aspen Fire in 2003. These 2 fires burned 44 % of the forested areas of the Catalina range. In addition, the Oracle Hill Fire on the north end burned about 2,400 acres in 2002. Here’s a map from the Western Region Technical Attachment NO. 05-06 November 23, 2005. “Evaluation of Post-Burn Hydrologic Recovery of a Small Mountainous Watershed: Upper Campo Bonito Wash in Southern Arizona” By Mike Schaffner, NOAA/NWS Weather Forecast Office, Tucson, AZ William B. Reed, NOAA/NWS Colorado Basin River Forecast Center. Not all this acreage burned – within that fire perimeter it was a mixture of unburned green areas, lightly burned areas, moderate-heavily burned areas and charred spots. This mosaic effect is exactly what wildlife need and after the burns I commented that the WT population was going to explode. The WT population has done very well and it serves as a great example of what happens to the quality of deer habitat if you stop the natural fire cycle that existed in these mountain ranges (brush gets old and dies out without these rejuvenating fires). With that as a backdrop, let’s look at what is going on in Unit 33. In the years following the fires, fawn survival increased. Anecdotal reports were coming in of lots of fawns accompanying does in the field. I think there was even better recruitment than we measured on our surveys. We have to survey our deer herds in a scientific and structured manner and can’t just “go fly the burn” (that would bias the data) so I think, given all the other data we have on hand, we had a great reproductive response in our whitetail herd. We need to look at what’s going on with the Buck:doe ratio (B:D) in this unit because that’s an important variable for us all. You can see from the 2002 fires to the present we have had a steady increase in the B:D ratio as more and more fawns were added to the population at a 1:1 male to female ratio. This is typical of an increasing population. In fact, the B:D ratio has met or exceeded our management guidelines the last 3 years. At 25 bucks:100 does that’s a 1:4 B:D ratio and that is pretty phenomenal for public lands hunting in the west and way, way better than most whitetail hunting in the country. This shows we can have more permits out there and still be comfortably within our management guidelines. Another thing we can look at is the age structure of the bucks that have been harvested in the last few years. When the Wildlife Manager comes into your camp and looks at your deer’s teeth to age it, that all gets recorded and combined with all ages collected that year in the unit. We can then construct a little pie chart that shows how many mature bucks are being harvested. I added all bucks aged in Unit 33 during the 2002-07 seasons (6 years) and there was a total of 131 bucks aged (Classes= 1.5, 2.5, 3-5, 6-8, 8+ years). Looking at percentages in each age class shows that there are plenty making it into the older age classes. A full 41% are in the 3-5 year-old range. It would be hard to find many areas of public land whitetail hunting anywhere in the country with that kind of age structure of bucks harvested. This tells me that maybe a few more hunters can deer hunt in Unit 33 and not hurt the deer population at all. So with all these bucks, how have hunters been doing recently (I think everyone here knows the answer to this one). With our new Management Guidelines we try to manage for 15-20% of the hunters being successful (using only the Oct/Nov hunts for comparison). Unit 33 averaged 39% over the last 5 years! (not including the Dec hunts). That is pretty amazing. That is still almost twice the old guidelines. This clearly shows there have been a lot of bucks available for hunters and shows that we can increase permits to take advantage of all these bucks. We can let more people deer hunt and still have hunt success exceed what we are trying to manage for. The thousands of people who didn’t get drawn for deer last year might not agree that we need so many tags in the middle of rut so hundreds of people can have a 60% hunt success (that’s the 5-yr Dec average in Unit 33!) while they sit at home and try to find something else to do with their teenage sons and daughters. Another thing we track is the average number of days per deer harvested. This is closely related to hunt success and not really an independent variable, but another way to look at how hunters are doing. The average number of days/harvest has decreased since the fires started. This is a good thing - hunters are harvesting their bucks in fewer days of trying. This information about hunt success and days/harvest is from the post-hunt hunter questionnaire. Some people point out that hunters who are successful are more apt to send it back to us. That is true and we recognize that, but the questionnaire program has been operated the same way since the 1960s so the trends are what we look at. Also the hunt success Guidelines that we established to manage by are based on the questionnaire results (including this bias). So there are a lot of survey and harvest data that show the whitetail population is doing very well and there are a lot more bucks available for hunters than prior to 2001. What has the Department been doing with permit numbers in the last few years with this increasing population? After reading about our management in Unit 33, forum members and lurkers may be surprised to learn that throughout all these increasing trends in the whitetail population since 2002, we have increased permits from 1,700 to 1,900 (only 11.7%). This increase has been almost entirely Juniors-Only permits which are for either species (but mostly WT-hunting kids). I would have to disagree with those who feel AZGFD is destroying this population. I think the thousands who had to sit out last year with their kids and dads and grandparents and uncles would be appalled that this population was doing so well and so many more bucks are available and yet we still won’t let them hunt (for no good reason). What are we doing this year in 2008? Most of you know about the structure changes. In a nutshell, we will add a 3rd early WT hunt and reduce the number of tags in December (4 WT hunts total). The restructuring of deer hunts statewide was in response to all the complaints (including those in this very thread) about the sheer numbers of hunters/yahoos in the field during the hunts. Unit 33 is a great example of a unit responding well (biologically), but we felt we couldn’t put more hunters/yahoos in the field because of limited and decreasing amount of hunter access. The new structure does create more weekends and some see that as bad. The advantages, however, are huge. Being able to take advantage of an increasing deer population by letting more hunters take their kids, dads, friends, etc out to enjoy deer hunting and all the while, having a lot less hunters in the field with them when they go. What a beautiful thing. I never try to get people to agree with me, I merely wanted to provide this information so we can all form our own [different?] opinions from what is really going on in the deer population and our management of it. (Now I know some of you are cringing and saying “Quit telling everyone how awesome Unit 33 is right before the draw!” For that I apologize) JIM

In one of my messages above I said I'd get back with information about the fertility of 3/4 WT, and 7/8 mule deer and so forth. And also what the metatarsal glands look like in 3/4 WT, and 7/8 WT, etc. The only people that would have that information are the researchers who raised all sorts of hybrids in captivity in Alberta. I even have some tissue samples from 15/16 mule deer and 1/16 whitetail. I e-mailed the lead researcher and he said they are in the process of publishing that infomation and so he is not ready to release it until they complete their paper. This is very understandable - we'll just have to wait. Here is his message: "Hello Jim Yes we have recorded the changes in metatarsal changes in the F2 and F3 generations. And we have traced the fertility of the hybrids. You may recall that we wish to publish our findings on this information. We were pleased to hear of your progress on the genetic test. Keep in touch B&B" Jim Heffelfinger

Thank you, The Idiot. Bobby, I hope I didn't insult you and come across like I was correcting you personally - the value of these forums is so we can all learn from others. I learn lots of stuff on here (when I have time to visit) from those of you who are out there seeing all sorts of interesting things. 1. Don't know. We would first need a genetic test to identify 1/2, 3/4, etc hybrids (working on it). Then we would have to use that test on a big sample of deer in the population. Just looking at deer (not DNA) it is very very hard to tell a 3/4 hybrid. I'm not sure I can do it. No one has documented what they look like with some animals known to be a 3/4. When a 1/2 back crosses to one of the parent species, they seem to start looking very much like that parent species. 2. Good question. I don't know the answer, but I may know someone who does. I'll ask the retired guys who had lots of hybrids of different combinations in pens. In fact, I built a spreadsheet with all their pedigree information so I may be able to check at home and answer that myself. I'll get back to you. I don't think there would be a logrithmic pollution of the gene pool, but certainly some contamination that would be diluted each generation. 3. I think so. I think the metatarsal gland of a 1/2 hybrid (~ 2") is bigger in her fawn if she breeds with a mule deer male. It might be about 3". We don't really know .... or do we? That would be another good question for the Alberta guys who had lots of hybrids of different combinations (if they measured MT glands). I don't know of anyone who has kept several generations of hybrids. 4. Any deer not 100% Coues is currently disqualified from B&C records - that's why B&C asked me to facilitate this research. It is only fair for everyone that the record books reflect pure Coues WT. There was a deer several years ago that looked like a hybrid in the pics and when they tried to enter it, B&C said they had to show it to me first and the hunter never answered the letter or tried to enter it, so that was probably another hybrid I could have documented. JIM

The deal with one sex being sterile was first described in a scientific paper in 1922 by a guy named Haldane and is refered to as "Haldane's Rule." It says that which ever sex has the different sex chromosomes (females have XX & males have XY in mammals) will be sterile when hybridized. In birds the females have the different chromosomes (XO vs. XX in males) so it is the female hybrid birds that are sterile. So according to that all WT x MD hybrid males should be sterile and all females fertile. I have never heard of a female hybrid that was sterile nor a male hybrid that was fertile. One study looked at an F1 (50:50) hybrid male testicular tissue under a microscope and reported that there was no physical reason he would be sterile so he must not be, however they went on to say that it was with does in the pen for the last 2 years and there were no fawns. Can everyone see the 3 hybrid pictures I posted in my message above? They showed up last night from home, but not here on my work computer. JIM

Hope its not too late to jump in here. I was at meetings then trying to shoot a mule deer myself, then had a colleague and world-renowned antler expert visiting, then off on a Jr hunt with my son. Luckily he shot his deer opening morning and I can now get back to work. Whitesheep I did get your message and will call you - I am currently wading through 200+ e-mails and had 16 voice mail messages, and a pile in my mailbox. We may seem like unresponsive bureaucrats sometimes, but often we are just plain buried. Reference the text above, I think all the Wildlife Managers in SE AZ know how to diagnose a hybrid after all the discussions I've had with them and info I've provided. I thought Jesse told me that the Wildlife Manager knew it was a hybrid (I personally know that one does), but Jesse was in a hurry and didn't think to cape it and have it mounted. He didn't say anything about a full body mount. Hybrids can come in all different combinations of percentages because the females are fertile (not the males) and can back-cross to either species. I am currently doing some genetic research with Boone & Crockett to develop a genetic method to test for hybridization using even antler shavings so that will be exciting. I have tissue samples for that research from a captive herd in Alberta that has all sorts of combinations of WT and MD -- including one that is 11/16 mule deer! I found the account of the 2 species mixing in the Galiuros to be fascinating - great first hand account. It is interesting because genetics and knowledge of breeding behavior show that it is usually (not always) a WT buck on a MD doe. I do have pics of a hybrid that was shot in 34B and butchered in St. David. Many of you may have heard about this one. The hunter gave me permission to post these. Note the tails are often WT-like, but some are black on the back. The only non-genetic way to determine if something is a hybrid is the metatarsal gland. This is on the OUTSIDE of the hind leg. They are 4+ inches in MD and less than 1" in WT. Hybrids are right in between. (you measure the black ridge under the fur) In the case of this deer, Regional Supervisor Gerry Perry was there and recognized this deer as a hybrid and took these pictures for me and called me while he was still there. I am trying to get a tissue sample to include in our research, but the hunter's friend who has the meat has not contacted me and I don't have his number. For anyone interested in more on hybrids there are several sources out there that explain it all in detail. JIM

Hunters have always been and will always be the rock solid foundation for this system of wildlife conservation we have in North America. Our conservation model (the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation) is the greatest system ever developed in the history of mankind for conserving native wildlife, their habitats and entire ecosystems. The entire world is envious of what was built by hunters and what continues to be strengthened every year by sportsmen and women. We should all be so proud of our part in funding this incredible achievment - we should be telling everyone who will listen about the financial support that hunters give and what it continues to accomplish on a continent-wide scale. We shouldn't be complaining about how our state wildlife agency is trying to convert permits to noodle a couple dollars out of us (IMO). I didn't understand some of the deer management discussion above, but I did post some recommendation details on the other thread dealing with B:D ratios. http://forums.coueswhitetail.com/forums/in...30&start=30 JIM

This is a very reasonable question. We have many things that are considered in making a hunt recommendation, but the B:D, F:D, & Hunt Success are definately the core of our hunt recommendation guidelines. It would be great if these 3 indicators always pointed in the same direction. They rarely do so it takes a biologist to evaluate how far above or below each population parameter is. The magnitude of the "increase" or "decrease" indicators is taken into account. One thing that operates as a sort of balance is Hunt Success and Fawn Recruitment (F:D). If you have a high F:D one year, your hunt success nearly always goes up the next year because you have lots of dumb yearling bucks out there. Hunt Success is a pretty good indicator of the number of bucks available in the population year to year (if you keep season timing similar). If you have a high hunt success for several years and are running consistently above guidelines for that and then you have a F:D this year that is slightly below guidelines, then the lower number of fawns entering the population will result in less yearling bucks available next year and the hunt success will be expected to decline and be closer (but probably still above) guidelines. This was the case in 33 for WT this year. The hunt success for the Oct/Nov hunts averaged 38.5% and we are supposed to be managing for 15-20% so when we have fawn recruitment (31:100) slightly below guildeines (35-45) it doesn't make sense to reduce permits or even stay at the current levels. We can let more people go hunting in that unit without hurting the population at all and we still will be above hunt success guidelines next year (but probably closer). kwp is absolutely right that it is simply a case of increasing hunter opportunity, but in a way that will not negatively impact any biological parameters in the deer populaiton. The Wildlife Managers (WMs) make the GMU recommendations, but the final decision is not made at the field level, it is made April 21st by the Commission. The WM submits the recommendation to me in the region, I assemble them all (over 40 different recommendations) for Regional approval through the Wildlife Program Manager and Regional Supervisor, and the Regional Supervisor approves the Regional package and forwards it to Game Branch. Game Branch reviews it and assembles all regional packages into a statewide package and discusses this with the Executive Staff & Director in Phoenix and the statewide package is then sent to the Commission and posted on the internet and available for a major internet flaming. The Commission then reviews public comment before and at the April Commission meeting and decides what the final regulations will look like. There may be disagreements at any and all levels of this process. We are all just parts of the overall hunt recommendation machine. Sometimes I disagree with the WM, sometimes the Regional Supervisor disagrees with me, sometimes Game Branch disagrees with the Region. As professionals we discuss all the issues and 99% of the time we come to an agreement about what to do. You may hear about WM's hunt recommendations being over-ridden, but this is a very very rare these days. If a WM is overrulled it is because the recommendation is not consistent with the statewide guidelines and the WM does not have an argument that will hold up to scrutiny. What normally happens is I discuss a dissagreement I have with the WM and we agree on a compromise recommendation - not what I wanted originally and not what the WM wanted, but something we can both support together as it moves up through the system to the Commission. I pride myself in making sure the WM and I resolve any issues between us so we can support it together from that point on. Recommendations are almost never changed once they leave the Region. I can't think of one example of that happening (although I am prone to the same CRS affliction). This 33 WT recommendation was a compromise that we all agreed was a good recommendation. We were sensitive to the access problems we have in this unit and that is why the Oct/Nov hunts are only increasing by 25 permits each (this will be 23 more hunters in the entire Catalinas and Rincons). There is definately an opportunity to allow more harvest in this unit, so we decided to give that opportunity to the Juniors. We did this so we were not making the crowding in the earlier hunts any worse and because we were below last year's total number of Juniors tags and wanted to offer similar Junior hunt opportunities. There are reasons for what we do and it doesn't center around money, it centers around letting people go hunting with their kids and fathers and grandfathers. JIM

"Jim, thanks for the reply. What happened to the late Jr. Hunt in 36A a few years back we hunted the first week of December and that was an awesome hunt. Did the December whitetail hunters complain? We hunted the last week of the hunt and saw several bucks every day and not one other hunter. Thanks, azyoung" That was an awesome hunt! As mule deer populations declined and we were slashing tags to keep up with the decline, we didn't think we could justify having a hunt where the 70% of the hunters killed mule deer and a lot of them very very nice mature bucks. As muley populaitons recover you will again see some of these cool hunts we used to have. Remember the late December rotating mule deer muzzleloader hunt in 36ABC? That was a great one too. IMO it doesn't make sense to take 3 hunters out of the field so one 15-year-old can shoot a 180 B&C (and that is coming from someone who has a 15-yr-old that hunts down there). These hunts can be brought back when the deer herds recover (and they will). JIM

I just noticed this, but have to get to the So. AZ Wildlife Callers meeting now to give a talk and then have to get my taxes done tonight. I'll come back to this Friday. JIM

The total of 138 deer for the ratios is lower than I would like to see, but the WMs get out there on the ground and in the air and do the best. As everyone here knows it is hard to see and classify a lot of WTs in a morning and then go find different ones in different areas each day (and helicopters cost about $700/hour). They have to go canyon by canyon and survey new areas each day. The 5-yr average number of deer seen in that unit for surveys is 174 so this year was below average for number seen. For some reason hunters just prior to our surveys saw plenty of WT as the 26% and 28% and 47% hunt success shows for the Oct/Nov/Dec hunts. Keep in mind this sample of 138 is gathered consistantly with previous years and other units which is important for comparison purposes. We calculate confidence intervals with show us how solid our ratios are and take that into consideration when making the recommendations. All our Junior hunts in SEAZ are over the Thanksgiving holiday. Kids have off, parents have off, its cooler, and the mule deer may start showing some increased activity as it gets closer to rut. I think the trend of jr hunters harvesting a higher percentage of WT is a reflection of MD populations much lower and WT populations holding out very well (relatively speaking) during the mostly dry decade we have experienced. In units like 33 I would expect kids to go after WT, rather than the scattered MD. JIM

We are talking about all those things. Make sure your comments like that get to the Dept and the Commission. The return rate for questionnaires is dropping slightly so there may be some changes in the future. JIM

I didn't like the overlap either, but for a different reason. I took my son to a "secret" spot during opening weekend (Sunday afternoon) of the 36A Jr hunt and when we were just about to our destination we met a guy leaving with a ~ 2yr-old whitetail buck in the back of his jeep. From my perspective, I don't want WT hunters in there when I'm trying to get my son on a deer. The reason for the overlap (and this applies to a lot of species and seasons in the state) is that you really run out of calendar space to fit everything in. As everyone reading this thread is now aware of, these hunts are all interconnected and moving one thing may seem easy but can cause all sorts of other repercussions. We try to get the kids in during a time of the year that is not too hot, not after all the other hunts, during a holiday so they have time off, etc. When you get a calendar out and try to lay all these seasons out and try to take into consideration all the misc considerations it gets very hard to avoid all overlaps. In the past we have thought that an overlap between a WT and MD hunt is less critical because they are hunting mostly different areas by elevation. Junior hunts have traditionally been mostly a mule deer hunt. Data from just this past year has shown that there is a recent shift in the species make-up of the junior harvest - juniors are taking a lot more WT now. In 2001, the harvest from the GMU32 Junior hunt was 35% WT, but last year (2006) it was 53% WT. In 2001, the harvest from the GMU36A Junior hunt was 34% WT, but last year was 68% WT. Juniors in GMU33 last year reported a whopping 83% of their harvest was WT! (See how important it is for you to return your post-hunt questionnaire? We can gleen all sorts of cool stuff from that thing.) This means we will have to rethink our idea that the Jr hunts are basically "mule deer" hunts and will have to do a better job of keeping the junior hunts from overlapping with the WT hunts. For the fall of 2007, however, I would say we should leave it because as we saw here, making last minute changes to hunt structure can be problematic. Also, (and more important) the public meetings this summer all over the state are to get input for hunt structure changes like this. The best and most appropriate time to fix this Jr problem is during this next cycle for the 2008-09 and 2009-10 seasons. JIM