Hi all,

I'm just curious as to the management practices best suited to bettering the quality of a wild fallow herd. I shoot a lot of naff bucks, but probably don't shoot anywhere enough does. This year I'm hoping to roll over a fair few does if possible simply to reduce numbers, but I thought while I'm at it is there anything I should look for in order to better the trophy quality?

I'm seeing a lot more good prickets this year with 6"-8" spikes, and less bucks with just a knob on their head.

Rgds,
FB

Potassium Permanganate

FB

Unless you have exclusive control over 25-30K+ acres you're wasting your time.

For a number of different reasons.

Might not be what you wanted to read but that just the way it is.

I'm not sure I agree. True, if you had control over the entire breeding stock, any implemented changes become apparent much more quickly. Applying a set of criteria to those that are under your control will have an effect but over a longer period.
The breeding biology of fallow does favour FB though since the dominant bucks do the majority of the mating. Every rutting stand over which FB has control therefore gives control over a high proportion of the deer born in that area whether on his land or not.
So in my view, what is important is to manage the dominant bucks with a view to desirable characteristics. With the does, I think its important to select in favour of health and vigour.

I think it depends on what you have to start with,if you are taking over new ground, then i would lay of shooting any bucks and just take a few does that look sick /straggly.This way you will be able to see any bucks that are around without having the temtation of taking any,this could take a couple of seasons, so you do have to be patiant and communicate with the land owner/agent. Once you have an idea of what is around and passing through, then you can start with your plan but IMO you should lay of any half decsent bucks for a couple of years at least only taking bucks that clearly have antler deforaties and other anomalies.

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Dave:
I'm not sure I agree. True, if you had control over the entire breeding stock, any implemented changes become apparent much more quickly. Applying a set of criteria to those that are under your control will have an effect but over a longer period.
The breeding biology of fallow does favour FB though since the dominant bucks do the majority of the mating. Every rutting stand over which FB has control therefore gives control over a high proportion of the deer born in that area whether on his land or not.
So in my view, what is important is to manage the dominant bucks with a view to desirable characteristics. With the does, I think its important to select in favour of health and vigour.

TD

Given the nature of Fallow.Not having control of the entire breeding stock make you efforts negligible at best. Inability to control the entire breeding stock means that you can not ensure the better bucks survive to become dominant, you can not ensure that the correct sex ratio's are achieved and maintained , you can not ensure that the better does are left out of the cull plan.You can not achieve a cull plan! What you can do is do your best and hope. Some might liken that to pissing in the wind!

The other rigger in the wood pile is until you have the population growth in check any "management improvemnet plan" is purely academic.You can not achieve effective, timely, realistic, population control unless you have control of the entire breeding stock. Again all that you can do is do your best and hope. whilst trying to refrain from pissing in the wind to often.

When you say "Quality" I take that you mean trophy size?
Important to let Bucks get to mature age to express trophy potential.
It's tempting to pop a buck as soon as it looks reasonable, which may be only 3-4 years old. Better to leave until 5-6 or older.
Culling flawed antlers and young animals that are not vigourous will give better quality trophy bucks the opportunity to breed/compete for food etc.
Like previous posters have intimated, there will always be a challenge when the area being managed is restricted in size, and while you have other hunters applying their own "Management" in the same area.
Round here there is a misconception that a young spike buck(Pricket) makes the ideal meat animal, when these young bucks should be left to see where their trophy potential lies. Better to shoot females for meat and population reduction.

That's an interesting view TrackersNZ, most management plans here take 30-40% of the cull from the younger age groups, including prickets.

I suppose the three things to necessary to achieve trophy potential are age, nutrition and genetics. You can affect two of those three, but the poor genetics may just be a fact of life.

Another fact I read recently is that park records show there is little/no correlation between the length of a prickets spikes and its future head...

"Improving the quality of the herd" might also involve at least a nod in the direction of bovine TB.
If the habitat in the area supports a large population of badgers, it might be of benefit to be able to demonstrate to the local farmers that the management plan has other objectives besides trophy size.
A plan which icludes the removal of older individuals as well as younger ones not doing as well as might be expected, coupled with a good meat inspection practice could deliver multiple benefits.

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Dave:
"Improving the quality of the herd" might also involve at least a nod in the direction of bovine TB.
If the habitat in the area supports a large population of badgers, it might be of benefit to be able to demonstrate to the local farmers that the management plan has other objectives besides trophy size.
A plan which icludes the removal of older individuals as well as younger ones not doing as well as might be expected, coupled with a good meat inspection practice could deliver multiple benefits.

TD

86% of the UK habitat now supports a large population of badgers. Adopting any management strategy on the basis of giving "a nod in the direction of bovine TB" is at best facile at worst erroneous. The links between badgers and the spread of bTB are not thoroughly researched or proven, neither is the connection between badgers, bTB, cattle, deer and spread.Also it might only a concern if the area is predominantly livestock based as opposed to intensively arable.

"A plan which icludes the removal of older individuals as well as younger ones not doing as well as might be expected, coupled with a good meat inspection practice could deliver multiple benefits."

Is that not the fundamental basis of any good management plan?

Well its nice that you seem to agree that, albeit in a backhanded way.
The point here was that susceptible juveniles with possibly more acute symtoms need to be taken out as much older animals with chronic symptoms if the position is to be created where a reservoir of wild infection dies out by itself.
The Btb links are fairly well researched and whilst the mechanisms of transmission aren't clearly proven in some instances, much of the disconnect between the research and current practice is based more upon what is politically convenient than statistically validated.
By contrast, although less than 1% of deer are though to carry Btb, much of the basis of the meat inspection promoted by the lead bodies in Deer stalking and management is centred around its identification.
Whether the science justifies either position is, in sense beside the point. If FB cares to include TB as a part of his management plan, he will win the support of landowners and stockmen who percieve there to be a real link between increasing badger populations and increasing incidences of bovine TB.
It may be obvious but I'll say it anyway; the more FB engages all the stakeholders of the land over which his fallow herd roams, the more likely he is to be able to deliver benefits all round. For some that will be TB, for others tree or crop damage.
For his own objectives, deciding which bucks will breed and for how long is going to deliver the most benefits to the herd since they will father the bulk of the following years cohort.

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Dave:
Well its nice that you seem to agree that, albeit in a backhanded way.
The point here was that susceptible juveniles with possibly more acute symtoms need to be taken out as much older animals with chronic symptoms if the position is to be created where a reservoir of wild infection dies out by itself.
The Btb links are fairly well researched and whilst the mechanisms of transmission aren't clearly proven in some instances, much of the disconnect between the research and current practice is based more upon what is politically convenient than statistically validated.
By contrast, although less than 1% of deer are though to carry Btb, much of the basis of the meat inspection promoted by the lead bodies in Deer stalking and management is centred around its identification.
Whether the science justifies either position is, in sense beside the point. If FB cares to include TB as a part of his management plan, he will win the support of landowners and stockmen who percieve there to be a real link between increasing badger populations and increasing incidences of bovine TB.
It may be obvious but I'll say it anyway; the more FB engages all the stakeholders of the land over which his fallow herd roams, the more likely he is to be able to deliver benefits all round. For some that will be TB, for others tree or crop damage.
For his own objectives, deciding which bucks will breed and for how long is going to deliver the most benefits to the herd since they will father the bulk of the following years cohort.

TD

I never have problems agreeing with what I know to be correct.

Seeing as some beasts only ever act as carriers whilst some act as carriers and then become full blown subjects to the disease, ensures that just selecting beast demonstrating clinical signs would never facilitate the eventual dying out of a wild infected reservoir. Especially when combined with an inability to control the whole population.

Having read the Krebbs report along with the 4 Counties report, I would disagree with your view regarding political correctness and statistically validation.

As you point out less than 1% are thought to carry Btb therefore any management plan that includes Btb as one of its main selection criteria is to all intense and purposed merely playing lip service to the process.He would be better targeting badgers if he wanted to allie himself closer to the stake holders if they perceived Btb to be an issue.

"Whether the science justifies either position is, in sense beside the point." Any point not based upon correct science is misguided and untenable, is it not?

As said before unless you can control the whole breeding population you can not decide which bucks will breed and for how long. Any benefits delivered are therefore diluted often to a point of insignificance. Hence my initial remark "Unless you have exclusive control over 25-30K+ acres you're wasting your time."

25-30k acres is no where near enough ground to even begin to control the entire breeding population of a fallow herd.

The only way to do this is by co-operative deer management through a Deer Management Group made up of the areas land owners and not stalkers or deer managers as they will have thier own agendas.

For what purpose do wish to improve the antlers?

If you have rutting stands on your ground remove the poorer quality satalite bucks, but ensure you keep enough buck to allow progression, reducing the number of satalite bucks with reduce the pressure on the stand buck, fallow bucks will generally return to the same rutting stand year after year.

The only flaw with this is that bucks will travel anything up to 40 miles to a rutting stand and if they are resident on land where there is no selective shooting you could be wasting your time.

quote:

"Whether the science justifies either position is, in sense beside the point." Any point not based upon correct science is misguided and untenable, is it not?

Its pragmatic and since the landowners believe it to be the case, it futhers his interests.
The science is politicised and the politicians find that position tenable, why should't FB trade in the same coin?

Reserviours of TB have died out in wild populations of some species in the pest. Since it is possible, it is a worthy aim is it not?

But no, I forgot, your view is that no interventions will be effective in the gene pool so why would they be effective in other arenas of population management?
Better for FB to throw up his arms and shoot all that comes his way because it makes no difference?

I'm still waiting to see you put forward one positive suggestion for him......seems that all your pleasure lies in sniping at those suggfestions others venture.

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Dave:
Its pragmatic and since the landowners believe it to be the case, it futhers his interests.
The science is politicised and the politicians find that position tenable, why should't FB trade in the same coin?

Reserviours of TB have died out in wild populations of some species in the pest. Since it is possible, it is a worthy aim is it not?

But no, I forgot, your view is that no interventions will be effective in the gene pool so why would they be effective in other arenas of population management?
Better for FB to throw up his arms and shoot all that comes his way because it makes no difference?

I'm still waiting to see you put forward one positive suggestion for him......seems that all your pleasure lies in sniping at those suggfestions others venture.

Pragmatism is always a good yet unsurprising view. However even pragmatic management plans based upon incorrect or dubious science are doubtfull in their effectiveness, and leaves their practitioners open to criticism sooner or later. The science is the science, the fact that it might not be to your liking does not make it any the less correct. As for natural eradication of Btb. I have never found straw clutching to be a particularly effective or efficient aspect of a specific, realistic and time bound management plan.

As I have always maintained unless you are in control of the whole breeding population effective population control and genetic improvement is by and large pot luck. Depending entirely upon how much of it can be influence by your direct actions. Not a difficult concept to understand. FB can do as he wishes. But its always best to do so as fully conversant with the realities of the situation, and as few delusions, and misconceptions as possible. What ever he chooses I wish him all the success.

Positive suggestions Hmmm. Let me see. Gain as much control over the breeding population as possible, either by direct access or by influence. Genetics plays its part as does feed and lack of stress and competition. Shoot does as hard as you can. Concentrate on what you can do not on what you can not do. Oh yeah! Have fun whilst doing it.

I do make every effort not to snipe. But when suggestions no matter how well intentioned are flawed, incorrect, inappropriate, unachievable, I see no reason not to comment. I am sure you would be the same.

Isn't that what discussion is all about the exchange of views, opinions, facts, truths, the offering of experience and expertise and the imparting of knowledge.

Well it is where I come from.

quote:

Isn't that what discussion is all about the exchange of views, opinions, facts, truths, the offering of experience and expertise and the imparting of knowledge.

Yep, you supplied the whole jamboree bag full.

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Dave:

quote:

Isn't that what discussion is all about the exchange of views, opinions, facts, truths, the offering of experience and expertise and the imparting of knowledge.

Yep, you supplied the whole jamboree bag full.

Glad that's settled. I never doubted that you'd get there in the end and eventually see the broader picture.

As an aside. You're showing your age mentioning jamboree bags.

quote:

Glad that's settled. I never doubted that you'd get there in the end and eventually see the broader picture.

As an aside. You're showing your age mentioning jamboree bags.

You too, stay away from the kitchen at parties

quote:

Another fact I read recently is that park records show there is little/no correlation between the length of a prickets spikes and its future head...

Too True!!

The article on "selection of animals for culling" which is a Word document and can be downloaded form here might provide some interesting background info:

http://www.dcs.gov.uk/info_research.aspx

It doesn't exactly ask, or answer, this precise question but it does give some useful pointers and I think it clearly highlights that trophy quality has very little to do with genetics.

There are a range of other interesting papers available.

quote:

Originally posted by caorach:
The article on "selection of animals for culling" which is a Word document and can be downloaded form here might provide some interesting background info:

http://www.dcs.gov.uk/info_research.aspx

It doesn't exactly ask, or answer, this precise question but it does give some useful pointers and I think it clearly highlights that trophy quality has very little to do with genetics.

There are a range of other interesting papers available.

Unless there is another reference to the effect of genetics other than para 1.15 then this is not strictly true.

That reference was specifically to Scottish hill red stags where feeding was considered to be of equal or greater importance.

Surely no one is seriously suggesting that the fact that the Warnham red stags produce such huge heads is little to do with genetics.

If this were true what would be the point of leaving good bucks and stags to pass their prime and therefore allow them to mate with as many females as possible before culling them?

Why have Warnham for reds and Petworth for fallow been selling stock for herd and trophy improvement for many decades?

I have to agree with Steve here, genetics must play a bigger part in it than accounted for in this research paper....particularly in lowland fallow where agricultural crops form a big part of their diet.

I find it hard to believe that even the lowest rung on the deer ladder can't get a decent daily feed in the South of England.

Perhaps one issue is the fact that half a deer's trophy potential comes from its mother and you have no idea what potential a doe carries in her genes when culling...

quote:

Originally posted by Boghossian:
I have to agree with Steve here, genetics must play a bigger part in it than accounted for in this research paper....particularly in lowland fallow where agricultural crops form a big part of their diet.

I find it hard to believe that even the lowest rung on the deer ladder can't get a decent daily feed in the South of England.

Perhaps one issue is the fact that half a deer's trophy potential comes from its mother and you have no idea what potential a doe carries in her genes when culling...

A very good point, even if you could recognise does and their fawns it would be a number of years before you could assess the progeny for antler development. However if you keep culling out poor bucks the doe herd will eventually be substantially the progeny of the better bucks and this should contribute.

Look at the fallow in the Forest of Dean which can have very large body weights with bucks of well over 200lbs recorded which must indicate good feeding and yet antlers are generally nothing to write home about. In the 1970s a buck from Petworth was kept in an enclosure near Monmouth and wild does allowed to enter in an apparently successful attempt to improve antler development.

Two further examples in support of genetics are firstly that roe from East Anglia which are of fairly unaudulterated German stock are about the poorest in England whereas the East Anglian reds are from English park stock and carry some of the best heads in the UK. They inhabit the same ground in some cases and this pretty much discounts feeding as a major factor, albeit they feed in a diffent way. Secondly, the roe in some parts of the country have different styles and average sizes of antler and this can really only be explained by genetics.

I can quite see that the quality of feeding in the poor environment Scottish Highlands might be an influence and could actually be suppressing positive genetic influences but in the rich agricultural land of England and Wales I think that this is way off the mark.

Food is only a binding constraint in climax populations. Although fallow deer populations are apparently on the increase, there doesn't appear to be any evidence that numbers have increased beyond food supply even at a local level.
Petworth deer are confined for the most part within a walled park so it might be argued that the deer managers are in control of the breeding and gene pool, as well as overall population size and forage.
However, recent observations there suggest that the females there are more attracted by frequency of vocalisation than by antler size or aggression to other males. So long term selection by not culling the larger bucks may have been partly undermined by the females own agenda. Despite that, the bucks are very imposing even if you allow that there was a wildcard element in the breeding program.
There is no doubt that nature in the form of genes and nurture in the form of access to good forage will both have an effect upon the outcome.
Intervention in the form of selective culling should have an effect too, especially if you have, as FB does, control of some of the rutting stands.
Since most of the copulation takes place in close proximity to these locations, it is not necessary to control the entire range to influence mating activity.

I personally believe age is the missing ingredient in most areas.

How many 'decent' 4/5 year old bucks get taken every year, with the head tossed in a ditch because the stalker has already shot dozens just like it. These bucks might not all have medal potential, but most would definitely be keepers at age 8-12.

Even 'poor' bucks with fishtailed antlers end up as nice heads if given time to gain sufficient mass and character. Fallow just take a lot longer to develop as trophies than roe.

quote:

Intervention in the form of selective culling should have an effect too, especially if you have, as FB does, control of some of the rutting stands.
Since most of the copulation takes place in close proximity to these locations, it is not necessary to control the entire range to influence mating activity.

TD

Fact. The greater the control the greater the influence.
Fact. Limited control brings limited influence. The more limited the control the more limited the influence, until such point as it become insignificant.

Unless FB is therefore in control of a significant proportion of the breeding herds rutting stands his influence is minuscule at best.

Trying to paint the picture as prettily as possible doesn't alter the facts or make the end result any the more picturesque.

H5,
You present and interpret what you see as the facts and what you see as the situation and how you see them fitting together.
I do the same but I don't necessarily draw the same conclusions.
There are only a limited number of pieces and possible moves on a chessboard but, despite that, the possible combinations are almost endless and the outcome never quite a forgone conclusion.

TD

Facts are not interpretations of situations or projected results of hypothetical events. Facts are as in this case proven rules of biologial science.
Nor are they wishfull thinking or half hoped for sequences of favourable events.

Conclusions drawn from hoped for events as previously said are most likely to fail. The predictability of out comes always increases in direct correlation to the degree of control. Be that in a game of chess or in deer management. You could always safely predict the trouncing of a novice when pitted against a grand master. If I were a betting man I'd not bet on the novice, irrespective of what odds offered.

If FB decides to opt for a shoot/don't shoot, wish and hope strategy that is his choice. Accepting its inevitable failure is something he'll just have to get use to.

As I said in my first post it might not be what you wanted to read but that just the way it is.

The things you call facts are not something etched indelibly upon the fabric of the universe.

They are condensed representations of various bits of scietific hypothesis. They hold for the interim until replaced by another hypothesis that more closely fits the observed phenomena.

Science moves forwards by this process and there are no sacred cows.

Every true scientist entertains a theory or thesis, takes it home to tea and ensures he understands it, then takes it apart and then tries to find conditions or circumstances where it does not work.

This process advances understanding, mostly by small increments and occasionally by big breakthroughs where new grand theories emerge.

There are thousands of zoologists around the world working on deer and publishing the results in science journals.
Their work is more accurately described as very probable rather than proven since it is mostly validated statistically.

What you read in books is the trailing edge of scientific knowledge and not the leading edge. The most up to date works are probably 5 years + behind the latest publications.

Further, the process of simplification, necessary to make books readable tends to represent the theories included as more certain than they really are.

The state of play with science is always a working hypothesis, good for the interim.

Those scientists who get too attached, too personal or too ownerish about theories or who substitute the language of belief and religion for that of science tend to end up with egg on face.

As for betting on Grand Masters..........look at the current economic crises..... the billion to one outside chance comes in occasionally and upsets the applecart.

quote:

Originally posted by Trapper Dave:
The things you call facts are not something etched indelibly upon the fabric of the universe.

They are condensed representations of various bits of scietific hypothesis. They hold for the interim until replaced by another hypothesis that more closely fits the observed phenomena.

Science moves forwards by this process and there are no sacred cows.

Every true scientist entertains a theory or thesis, takes it home to tea and ensures he understands it, then takes it apart and then tries to find conditions or circumstances where it does not work.

This process advances understanding, mostly by small increments and occasionally by big breakthroughs where new grand theories emerge.

There are thousands of zoologists around the world working on deer and publishing the results in science journals.
Their work is more accurately described as very probable rather than proven since it is mostly validated statistically.

What you read in books is the trailing edge of scientific knowledge and not the leading edge. The most up to date works are probably 5 years + behind the latest publications.

Further, the process of simplification, necessary to make books readable tends to represent the theories included as more certain than they really are.

The state of play with science is always a working hypothesis, good for the interim.

Those scientists who get too attached, too personal or too ownerish about theories or who substitute the language of belief and religion for that of science tend to end up with egg on face.

As for betting on Grand Masters..........look at the current economic crises..... the billion to one outside chance comes in occasionally and upsets the applecart.

TD

Thanks for the explanation. Unfortunately I am already fully aware of the theory, processes, and mechanisms behind the establishment of scientific facts and theoretical concepts. But I'm sure it will have benefited someone.

I don't know about you but I try to keep myself abreast of what is happening at the front end of zoological research. It always been an interest both recreationally and professionally. It also helps have a zoology professor as a family member. When I get stuck a quick email or phone call usually ensures an suitable simplistic explanation.

As for the current global economic melt down from what I can make out it was the bets placed on that billion to one chance that got us here in the first place.

Apple cart or no apple cart. I'll stick with the grand master, and leave you to sweat on the novice getting lucky.

Blimey...an invitation to a p*ss*ng contest!
You're too kind but Nooooooooooo ;o)

TD

There's me thinking you were a betting man! Especially with you inclination to back rank outside chances. LOL