I am on your side RMK!

If you want bucks you need does and fawns. You can't kill them to make up budget short falls.

Everyone is not comparing apples to apples. Whitetail in states with heavey populations can't be compared to mule deer in western states. Not even a close comparison. One county in Alabama has more deer than all of Wyoming.

First I'll give my story, in the county in NE Texas where I live, the herd dynamics are all skewed. There is probably a deer per 12 acres and the buck:doe relationship is close to 1:5+. TPWD only allows doe hunting the Thanksgiving weekend. Since purchasing my 10 acres, only cattle fenced, two years ago my father has killed a 2.5 yo 8-point, and I have killed a doe the past two doe seasons. I call it my "Thanksgiving Deer", and it is sort getting back to the Thanksgiving spirit of the Native Americans teaching the Pilgrims how to survive in the "New World". I've got other leases where I go to hunt antlers, though this year I shot a crippled buck, had been shot last year, and a feral hog. I've shot enough little bucks and would rather shoot a doe than another. Our lease specs out 3.5+ yo bucks.

Now to the fun stuff, having taken Bio 101, Wildlife Mgmt 250, Wildlife Mgmt 350, Wildlife Habitat Mgmt 450, Mammalogy, Ornithology, Graduate level Small Game Ecology, Wildlife Ecology 506, written a thesis concerning wildlife, and have a scientifice paper published maybe I am qualified to have an opinion. In most cases in the Lower Continental U.S. not nearly enough does or cows are being harvested. In fact one of our case studies in college was the deer herd on the Kaibab, it overpopulated and crashed, and it was years before it recoved. In most cases a ratio of 1:2.5 or 1:3 is ok. But you also must have some knowledge of the carrying capacity of the ranges and what your target ratio should be, if everyone wants to have a chance at a decent buck, you need to push that ratio down by harvesting females and letting the young males walk. The number 1 factor in antler size is AGE, follow by nutrition, and LASTLY, genetics. Research in Texas has shown greatly increased mortality in bucks from fighting the closer one gets to a 1:1 ratio, but you do have a lot of bucks which is a plus. Anything higher than 1:3 and does are not likely to be bred during their first estrus, which leads to late fawns, then lower fawn survival, lower weights going into winter, and lesser quality racks from there on out. you also have to WORK at killing does once your population swings out of proportion. And it is better to kill them early in the year so they don't eat food that could go to the remaining animal, and it really doesn't matter if you shoot some fawn or 1.5 old does, they are not the productive ones anyway.

Think of it this way, if you have 50 acres in the Southeast, your Carrying Capacity (the maximum you can run without damaging the habitat from overgrazing and soil compaction) may be 30 cows and you will need 3 bulls. If all the cow calve, going into the winter you have approximately 45 cows and 18 bulls. You can get rid of all the bulls and still have to many cattle. O.K., some may die, say 15%, that still leaves you with 38 cows and 15 bulls. You still need to get rid of 12 bulls and 8 cows to get you back on track. Now just do some figuring if you wanted to have a better ratio of bulls:cows and that some (most) of these cows (like deer) will twin and you can quickly come to the conclusion that you must harvest does. Also consider that in a healthy deer herd you may get a production of about 1.75 fawns per doe and in an overpopulated herd you may get a production of less than one fawn per doe. You can quickly figure out that you can actualy get more production (fawns; slightly less than half of which will be bucks) from FEWER does; that may be the hardest concept to get across to people.

I will now step down off my soapbox; I'm tired of typing.

It's been more than ten years since I had the class and my notes are stuffed in a box somewhere, so my details where sketchy. The principle of the situation is what you are supposed to remember anyway.

Thanks,

Buck/Doe ratios often differ by the management objectives.

For example, right now the AZGFD manages the North Kaibab and AZ Strip units for quality and aim for a POST-HUNT ratio of about 20:100, but at the same time the department also looks at other management objectives such as overall hunter success and average age of the harvested bucks. They even monitor the weight of yearling bucks, which is a good indicator of the forage conditions. After considering everything, they adjust permit numbers accordingly.

And the statistical information AZGFD uses for the NK is highly accurate because EVERY successful hunter MUST go through a check station. So if a specific hunt shows a 50% success, it's right on the money. -TONY

This doen't mean they use the same management philosophy across the entire state, though. In some cases, they manage for more hunting opportunities. -TONY

Does and cows do not have horns, so why bother shooting them! Predators eat the trophy animals so we MUST kill every single predator!!

Don't believe me, visit Wyoming and Montana (and a few other places I know). Kill the big bulls, wolves, bear, and mountain lions. Let the cows and calves be, because they are the nursery for future big bulls. It is the big bulls that bring in the money, gentlemen, and it has always ONLY been about the money!

Scott

>>Predators eat the trophy animals so we MUST kill every single predator!!<<

But you left one off the list -- yourself. -TONY

Well done tony,you've managed to post another gob of bullshit,that has nothing to do with anything.Who gives a fuck about arizona,it still has nothing to do with wyoming overissuing tags to make up for financial problems. This is what this whole thread is about,goatchoker is full of shit and had to take another thread out of context and start this one.



The doe population is crucial to the quality and size of a deer herd.Take it out of context all you want tony,you still can't change it. The vast majority of public game management is based on quantity of animals,not their trophy status.Quantity of available animals,is what harvest quotas are based on and in return this leads to the number of tags sold. What has happened,is the wygf. has pushed the envelope on tag sales and have over stepped the actual number of animals that needed to be harvested. They did this for a simple reason. The more tags sold,equals the more revenue brought in. Doe harvests are a viable management tool,when done responsibly and when actually needed.However in the case of wyoming,it wasn't done responsibly or with solid data backing it.



As to the elk scenario that another poster talked about. It is an unsound practice to hunt big game animals that late in the year.The animals are nearing the end of their pregnancy and when combined with weather and food conditions,are at a critical point in survival. That is why the majority of elk management areas are closed from december to may.



Just because elk move a few miles from high elevation to lower elevation,during winter.Doesn't mean its a migratory elk herd tony.You've obviously never hunted elk.



Your mention of the wolf thread and your shithouse biologist status,makes you sound an awful lot like that other dipshit boreal. He was another shithouse biologist like yourself tony. He probably even wrote a book too.

RMK: I don't know you...haven't had any disagreements with you..have just read you last few posts on this thread, and can't say that I disagree with the substance of what you have said. But I do have a have a question. Are you just not able to express yourself without profanity? Don't get me wrong, I'm not a prude and have been guilty many times of using "colorful" language, and I'm not offended. And I know it's your right to express yourself any way you want to. But FWIW, from a disinterested party, it doesn't strenthen your position, just makes one wonder if you are thinking objectively or emotionally.

Tony,

No I didn't. I shoot the big bulls. The predators must die so that the big bulls are available for all the hunters to shoot, and get a nice trophuy! Common sense, man!

Look at what has happened the the elk herds of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming since the reintroduced the wolves. Soon there won't be any elk or mule deer left! The wolves will then turn to livestock (already done that haven't they) and even people. California mountain lions, used to eat the deer (good enough reason to kill them all right there), but now they have developed a taste for hikers, joggers, campers, mountain bikers, and anyone else unfortunate enough to cross one.

The predators must die! It is that simple. We can then grow big bulls/bucks and get nice trophies. Leave the cows/does to do what they do best, birth the next generation of trophies!

Scott

Back in the old day's of Idaho,that's what is was.Take your pick,Know Tag's just fill the quota.Times have changed whether it is good or bad.

Just my opinion.Jayco.

Scott,tony is a prowolf asshole. He's probably even wrote a couple articles about how cute and cuddly they are. "They only kill the sick and weak,you know".

I believe RMK said (actually he did, I cut and pasted these statments) "The doe population is crucial to the quality and size of a deer herd."
This is an incorrect statement. I will guarantee you, 100 does in poor conditions in fall with crappy winter range will not produce the numbers of fawns compared to 50 does in good condition with healthy winter range. Health is not based upon numbers, it is body condition going into winter. Antlers do not grow well on starving deer...I have seen deer that are approximately 4 years old that were just spindly 3 points. Just try to grow a femur over the course of several months when you have nothing to eat but bread and water.
As far as the G&F "over stepped the actual number of animals that needed to be harvested". Just how do you know this?? Do you conduct your own classifications?? Are you monitoring browse transects?? Do you even know what a quota is?? What is your solid backing??? And "Ass, RMK's. et al. Journal of Nonsense. 2004" isn't going to cut it here.
Carrying capacity is not static (big word for you RMK). It changes, not over the course of years, but over the course of months or even weeks. It is never the same twice. Can you predict the future? Can you decide when we are going to have a hard winter, or a good summer? The G&F can't, but they have college educated, trained professionals doing their best to try and figure out what is best for the deer herd...and unlike you RMK, they have means to collect, analyize, and evaluate data. They don't just count deer...they look at the whole picture. More that what you can see from the couch.

MG

Oh yea, Redlander and Outdoor Writer and right on with their posts.
MG

I have to agree with RMK on a lot of aspects. Ideally if the biologist here in Idaho (or anywhere for that matter) were doing there job the tag quotas would be changed every year to suit the conditions of the herd. That has not been the case in most of the state. A prime example is units 43,44, and 45. Units 44 and 45 are trophy (draw only) areas that have limited buck quotas for as long as I have lived here (15yrs). Those numbers have not changed in that time regardless of the condition of the herd. Along comes the harsh winter of 93/94. In some areas of the state up to 80% of the deer herd was wiped out. The next year the IDFG issues huge doe quotas in all three units (roughly 2000 for the 3 units). Essentially the same quotas have been in effect since the time they were introduced (roughly 10 years). In the two drawing units the tag quota for bucks has always been roughly the same 200 (unit 44) and 125 (unit 45). So for the last 10 years 1600 doe tags and 375-400 bucks tags have been issued annually (44 and 45). I have hunted in unit 44 or directly adjacent to it for nearly all of the time I have lived in Idaho and the trophy quality and over all numbers since the winter of 93/94 have declined dramatically. I realize this is a small portion of Idaho but hopefully you get the picture that the numbers and trophy quality has declined yet the quotas have stayed the same. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the harvest quotas are wacked. And if anyone is wondering, no there hasn't been any major fires or winter range issues in the last 10 years.

It just so happens that the winter of 93/94 was the time I started my college senior seminar for biology. The subject I chose happened to be wildlife management. I spent much of my time collecting information from The Idaho Department of Fish and Game, hunters, and ranchers. I ran into a lot of conflicting info from outside sources as compared to fish and game info. Basically the fish and game department denied that the present winter had much of an impact on the herds yet ranchers saw places on their ranches where huge groups of deer had starved. The ranchers estimated that as high as 80+% of the deer they had been use to seeing had died. If that isn't a major die-off then I dont know what is.

I hope this shows how not all decisions made by fish and game departments are made to improve the herd quality. Tags = $$$$ and the all mighty buck drives most businesses including F&G. As a side note: the non resident tags here in Idaho are on a quota system and haven't sold out for several years. Maybe it has something to do with poor deer quality and quantity. Another side note while I'm at it: Last year F&G implimented a youth nonresident tag that cost less than a resident tag. This is suppose to be changed this year but one can only wonder what they were thinking. Maybe trying to sell unissued nonresident tags?

Goatchoker,you keep outdoing yourself with every post. You really are fuckin' stupid,you're not just putting us on.



You can't guarantee shit. According to your above statement,you can change the weather simply by harvesting does.Goatchoker you're not only stupid,but you think you can play mother nature also and control weather and ensure all does give birth to a fawn.



Just for the sake of arguement lets go with your above scenario,even though it makes no sense. Even under poor conditions 100 does stand a better chance of producing more fawns,then 50 does under better conditions do. You'll never have all 50 of those doe's succesfully knocked up,survive winter or carry for the full term. You stand a much better chance with 100 does under less then ideal conditions,producing as many if not more fawns then your magical 50does.



Yes the doe population,is crucial to the size and quality of a deer herd. I realize goatchoker,that both of your fathers had you believing that their same sex marriage resulted in you being born to them,but it was a lie. Only females can give birth and therefore they are crucial to the future of a species.









A four year old with spindly antlers,can be as much the fault of poor genetics as it is nutrition. Which also leads to another question.How the hell do you know it was 4 years old. Wait,I'm sure you probably raised it from a fawn.Or a real safe comeback,would be Gf told me the age of it. Nice try dickhead.







Its really simple,the GF biologists admitted that they over issued tags in the early 90's. If you'd actually been around in the early 90's,you'd know this. You can throw around terminology all you want. The only people that really conduct and follow your so called browse transects,is the forest service and BLM. They use them for monitoring livestock grazing and they'll be the first to admitt that they have accuracy problems. You can manipulate a transect,simply by how you place it. They make a nice project for a junior high science class. "Classification",yes goatchoker,you are a classic fuckin' idiot.







Nobody can predict the future with any real accuracy, but you seem to be stupid enough to think you can goatchoker. Game and Fish like to think they can predict the future also,by over issuing tags today and praying like hell that the game population will survive it.



No the GF can't predict weather,which is even more reason why they shouldn't over issue tags like they do. As was stated in the other thread on wyoming. The GF does very little actual field work. They base the vast majority of their supposed data off of mail in game surveys,and game processing plants. Which is flawed to begin with. The whole picture,is biologists turning over data to the GF administration and then having the administration base their decisions off of what will generate the most money,regardless of whats best for the species.

Norseman,

Quote:

---

O.D.F.W. (state wildlife) allow's harvest or hunting of cow elk during calving/birthing time.

---

Surprising indeed. The only reason I can think of is a drastic reduction of overpopulation and/or disease. In my country, and it's about the same in many countries of Northern Europe, we shoot does/fawns between 1/15 and 3/15 (before calving time) and bucks between 5/15 and 9/15. We proceed along a legal (imposed) shooting plan, stating the number of young, females and males (we get fined for each head if we don't make the numbers). Quantities are based on population count and habitat's bearing capacity*. IOW, once a balance is reached, one has to harvest a number equal to the natural yearly increase (= roughly 1/3). There's an unwritten rule that forbids shooting a doe followed by her fawn = fawn first and doe afterwards (if you get the opportunity...) is OK.

*while not obvious, it is made possible by the fact that hunters lease their private territory for 12 years (no public hunting here) and get quite intimate with their contents, thanks to weekly observation. The drawback is that hunting has become very technical and very expensive in our overpopulated countries.

I grew up in an era when hunting does and fawns would have made you less than a man; certainly less than a real hunter. My first deer was a buck. Probably my next two were doe if I remember rightly. I don't believe I've killed a doe in like 40 years. If somebody invited me on a doe/fawn/cow hunt, I wouldn't go.

My attitude has changed but not my preferences. I don't hunt to eat. I hunt to hunt. I like a good representative trophy male; if he eats, all the better.

The record book doesn't mean squat to me though. I don't really believe there is a record book any more. Too much high fence, farm raised, "wild" game.

I notice that both you and the resident potty mouth are from Wyoming. Here's a little snipet I used about WY in my IN THE FIELD column for Rocky Mt. Game & Fish magazine in 2001.

In light of meager winter forage and reduced hay stocks, big game managers are echoing the same sentiments across much of the state. Declining habitat availability and productivity -- not just from drought, but also from urban growth and energy development -- are having an adverse impact on deer and antelope, wildlife managers say.

The shrubs that traditionally sustain deer and antelope through the winter are stunted, and in some parts of the state these species are short of fat reserves.

"With big game entering the winter in less than desirable condition and with scarce winter feed available, most big game will be vulnerable to starvation this year especially if the winter is severe," said John Emmerich, Game and Fish Department wildlife management coordinator in Cody Wyoming.

In the region Emmerich is responsible for -- the Bighorn Basin, Absaroka front and west slope of the Bighorns -- winter range forage or grass production is well below average but probably better than winter range shrubs.

Surveys of mountain mahogany in the Bighorn Mountains and sagebrush on the northern foothills of the Owl Creek Mountains found production or new growth was less than 10 percent of average.

Emmerich says the region's best winter ranges, which are only rated as fair, are higher elevation elk ranges of Sunlight Basin, Northfork of the Shoshone and Greybull River drainages.

The Whiskey Basin area has averaged 437 pounds of forage per acre over the last 15 years. This year it only produced 179 pounds per acre. On the north side of the valley, the most meager forage production year ever recorded through 2000 was 208 pounds per acre. This year it was only 89 pounds. The 19 year average has been 320 pounds.

"We're in sort of a catch-22 situation," said Lander Region Wildlife Management Coordinator Joe Nemick. "If it snows a lot early in the winter, animals will suffer because they can't reach what little food is left. And if it doesn't snow, much of the forage production will be low again next summer, and wildlife will suffer on the other end."

Wyoming's deer and pronghorns face a range of problems that are rooted in more than a century of land use. Both these species depend on shrubs like bitterbrush, mountain mahogany, chokecherry, and big sagebrush. These plants grow in Wyoming's foothills and basins where they provide critically important forage and cover for wild ungulates like elk, deer, and pronghorns along with dozens of other wild species.

Surveys on five elk feedgrounds from Big Piney to Jackson discovered grass production at its lowest level since statistics were first compiled in 1995. Shrub or browse growth was nearly nonexistent on the Big Piney deer winter ranges.

Deer reproduction reflects the drought and the drop in food stocks. Doe to fawn ratios in the Wyoming range deer herd have fallen to 63 fawns per 100 does this winter from an average of 75 to 85 per 100 in the period from 1997 to 2000.

The drought has had similar effects on sagebrush.

"Research has shown that a lot of our sagebrush is old and decadent with only around 13 percent protein," said Dan Stroud, Pinedale habitat biologist. "This is a concern since we know a pregnant deer generally requires a diet of 13 to 18 percent protein during late gestation and lactation. We'd like to rejuvenate these old sagebrush stands with fire or mechanical means, because the young plants that come back have around 17 percent crude protein."

"If winter conditions are relatively mild, deer losses could remain about average," he added. "However, if we end up with heavy snow accumulations and continued cold temperatures, we could lose a lot of deer as we did in the winter of 1992 to 1993." < !--color-->

Tony,

What you are saying is merely a cover-up designed to protect the reintroduction of predators in general and wovles in particular. The truth is that the wolves have eaten/killed the big game. That is why the populations are so very low.

Scott

Scott,

Cover up of what? I haven't said a word about wolves or their reintroduction anywhere on this site since I've been here. Are you perhaps clairvoyant and *think* you know how I feel about wolves??

>>The truth is that the wolves have eaten/killed the big game.<<

Are you serious? Geez, and here I thought they ate at MickeyD's. Thanks for the revelation! -TONY

Tony you're full of shit. Your scenario of the 100 does versus 50 does again holds no water. Because you have no way of predicting the shape the animals will be in come spring,or how spring,and summer will treat them. The odds favor the greater number of animals. Unless you're like goatchoker and have a crystal ball.



Your write up in the rag you wrote for,is nothing more then rhetoric. The practice of counting fawn to doe ratios,and using these ratios to help base harvest quotas off of is a joke. Simply because GF has no idea how many of these fawns survive into fall.Their counts take place in the early spring when doe/fawn pairs are easily observed and don't take into account what goes on later. The area you listed as having 63 fawns per 100 does,is now up to 69 fawns per 100 does and GF is already talking about a liberal harvest quota and extended season. You can't tell me that 6 extra fawns can make that much fucking differance in the quality of the deer herd. Its simply Gf jumping the gun and trying to issue more tags for more money.

RMK "Their counts take place in the early spring when doe/fawn pairs are easily observed and don't take into account what goes on later."
That is incorrect. Counts take place after the hunting season, during the month of Dec. They do this before the bucks start dropping their antlers and with snowcover when these animals are more readily visible and concentrated(call any WGFD biologist).
RMK "The area you listed as having 63 fawns per 100 does,is now up to 69 fawns per 100 does and GF is already talking about a liberal harvest quota and extended season. You can't tell me that 6 extra fawns can make that much fucking differance in the quality of the deer herd."
This is only a ratio...when looking at a deer herd with 10000 animals the difference between 63 and 69 fawns is around 203 deer. Many of Wyoming's deer herds are much larger. This difference would equate to over 1000 extra fawns herd wide, between 63 fawns and 69 fawns, when looking at some of the larger deer herds in the state.
RMK "Tony you're full of shit. Your scenario of the 100 does versus 50 does again holds no water. Because you have no way of predicting the shape the animals will be in come spring,or how spring,and summer will treat them. The odds favor the greater number of animals."
This does hold water, and there is literature to prove it. Given similar wintering conditions (temp and snowcover) but differeing habitat and numbers: If you have 100 does in poor physical condition in fall, and spend the winter on poor winter range that cannot support the fetus, many of those fetus' will be reabsorbed or aborted. The 50 fat and greasy does going into fall that spend the winter eating on good winter range (healthy sage, mahogony, and bitter brush) will produce more (higher occurance of twins), larger (heavier, more fit) fawns than the 100. The birthing event will be during a shorter time period to offset predation on fawns..thus a higher survivability.

They do not have to count all the critters, just enough to get a tight confidence interval on their sample that will reflect what is out there. The library and books are a wonderful thing, you should try reading sometime RMK.
Oh, and Wyoming does adjust their quotas each year for each big game speices. Try going to a season setting meeting.

MG

You finally got one thing correct tony. You can't make a credible arguement.

Still waiting for you to come out of that middle school locker room or crack house and provide some back up to your preposterous claims! You made them, be man enough to back them up with something credidible instead of juvenile personal attacts that do nothing but show what a blithering idiot you are. Personally I don't think you can and that your mental development stagnated at about age 13.

Goatchoker you can start a new thread and ask the same questions over and over again,all you want. The answers are still the same. This same shit was answered on the wyoming thread,but you're an idiot and couldn't handle facts.

GF does surveys for fawn and calf birth rates during the spring. A survey during the winter wouldn't do any good for animals that aren't even born yet. Their ratios are also questionable,since they only count a couple hundred does and then try to apply this limited data against thousands of animals. It doesn't work worth a shit and the declining number of mule deer are proof of it.



The majority of field data done in the winter,is done through aerial counts and they aren't sex specific. They simply count all available animals. There are alot of short comings in an aerial survey. One is the weather,aerial surveys depend on snow cover. Wyoming hasn't any real good snow in several years and the GF openly admitts that they've done very few surveys and the ones they have done,aren't accurate. They didn't do any in my area last year and this was common around the state. The other problem with aerial surveys,is they don't account for animals held up in cover.

The majority of data achieved on antlered game,is done through field check stations during hunting seasons and visits to game processing plants. All of this is openly talked about by Gf during their town hall meetings.


Goatchoker,you can continue to talk about your mythical 50 does all you want. The facts are still the same. You're better off going into winter with a surplus of does,since there is no way of determining what the winter or spring conditions will be like.The odds of a 100 does is better then your 50. There is also no way to accurately predict what the length of birthing will be. You have no way of knowing when the 50 were knocked up. Sure the birthing duration will be less on 50 does,then it will be on 100 does. You're dealing with fewer deer. The Gf likes to go into winter with 50does,because it allows them to sell the other 50 does at a profit,wether its sound practice or not. The Gf has also stepped on their dicks more then once with this method. They've went into winter with low numbers of does,that were supposedly "healthy" and had a poor spring wipe out the deer.


You can read all the books you want. The majority of text is based on theory and very little field work or real world conditions. Much like your 50 doe scenario. On top of this you have guys like tony writing books and its clear that tony doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

Tony,

You have a PM.

Scott

If my statements are incorrect altjaeger,then you come up with data to disprove them. I'm sure you probably tried,but can't.



I figured for sure altjaeger,that your fixation with 13 year old junior high boys would have stopped after you were arrested for taking pictures of them naked. You silly little texas faggot.

Besides a foul mouth, you must also have a reading comprehension problem since you keep posting replies to my messages.

So let me type this a bit slower & louder:

EVERY MESSAGE YOU post in ANY thread or in ANY section on this site, regardless of whether you click on the REPLY for one of my messages or someone else's, simply shows as ***You are ignoring this user*** on MY computer screen. NONE -- repeat -- NONE of your messages show. IOW, you are wasting your time typing messages directly to me or to others for me to see.

The only reason I was able to quote your senseless tripe is because I copied and pasted it from a quote in ANOTHER member's message.

Have a nice weekend wallowing in the gutter.

RMK, they do count bucks,does,fawns,yearlings... Not just total numbers of deer. They do it from helicopters and from the ground. Helicopters are pretty good at flushing animals from cover as well...Also, field checks are not specific to antlered game. They are specific to what's shot. It's that simple.

I'm sure you think Wyoming should have antler point restrictions as well.

Why don't you start ignoring my posts then tony and stop telling me about it, you fucking moron.

No the GF doesn't use a chopper to do surveys in my area. They rent a plane from the airport and fly the face of the mountain and surrounding management areas. The use of a point restriction would be something stupid enough for them to try. But colorado already beat them to it. It doesn't work,you end up killing the very deer your trying to grow more of.