Indications seem to be everywhere that hunters in Maine aren’t harvesting the big body whitetail deer bucks or the trophy-antlered bucks as they once did. The million dollar question is why?
The state of Maine is notorious for producing big-bodied buck deer, well in excess of 200 pounds on a regular basis. I’ve seen a few of the frighteningly large rack of horns Maine produces as well. Al Wentworth, a legend to many around the state of Maine, has kept track of recorded big deer in Maine for a long time and his charts and graphs show us that the number of trophy deer being registered has dropped significantly, especially between 2002 and 2008.
You can read about this and view the charts in Part I of this article.
Lee Kantar is the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife head deer and moose biologist. I have enormous respect for Kantar and the sometimes thankless job he does. Being a scientist is a most difficult task when handcuffed by politics.
As you may know, if you read Part I, I contacted Kantar about these charts that I had received that were part of Al Wentworth’s collection, and asked for his response. In short, Kantar said that Wentworth’s charts seemed to mirror a reduced population in deer not just throughout the state in general but by deer management regions. In other words, if the deer population in Region II went down, so did the number of trophy bucks harvested. Kantar examined data collected by Al Wentworth dating back to the 1930s. He also stated that this same trend mirrored deer harvest data.
If Kantar has successfully determined that the reductions in trophy harvests follow the reductions in deer population and harvest, then we only need to determine why there are reductions in deer populations in these areas. We should first attempt to determine if the Maine deer population is healthy.
Kantar says:
Looking at the big picture, if you analyze the biological parameters of our deer populations you will see relative low-moderate yearling buck frequencies, excellent yearling body weights, 2nd to only New Brunswick in the east, and good size yearling antler beam diameters, suggesting that bucks are getting enough feed to maintain good body condition over time and therefore growth.
Even though Kantar qualifies this statement with, “Looking at the big picture”, it seems he is telling us the deer are healthy and supported by good feed. As a matter of fact, near the end of his report to me, he says this:
In the end what I conclude from the reams of data in hand is that biologically are (sic) deer herd is very healthy, even though in northern Maine we are at a real low point for densities.
If I’m understanding Kantar correctly, the deer we have show all the signs of being in good health. If that holds true all across the state, then why are there so few deer in the North and East?
I decided I wanted to look at some of the numbers Kantar talks about, specifically that his data mirrors that of Al Wentworth’s showing the same decline in the registration of big-bodied deer and trophy-antlered deer.
Before I jump into this with you, there are some things that need to be brought to the front. The data I am going to work with is not all the complete data on deer management. I intend to create a graph that will help us understand if Kantar is correct. I will be using the data that exists on the MASTC charts (big bucks, trophy antlers), as well as MDIFW’s data on harvest numbers and estimated deer populations. I’ll say this again, as I’ve stated many times before. The deer population numbers are estimates. These numbers are derived using tons of data and there is certainly a percentage of error, one of which I can’t tell you. I’m looking to support or refute a trend.
Follow this link to a graph that I compiled. You can open that pdf file and reference it along with my explanation of what you see.
Down the left column are percentages, pluses and minuses. Across the bottom are years shown from 2000 to 2008. I used these years because this is the time period for which I have data on trophy buck harvests.
Just above half-way up the graph, you’ll notice a horizontal red line marked at 0%. This is important. You’ll see 5 colors charted on the graph. Each color represents data. Black = the 200-plus pound bucks harvested. Green = the perfect antler trophy bucks harvested. Red = the typical antlered bucks harvested. Blue = Maine’s deer harvest statewide and Yellow = estimated deer population statewide.
At the year 2000, 0% represents the numbers for each of the categories for that year. I have them written on the graph but let me list it again.
In the year 2000, there were 772 registered 200-plus pound deer registered.
In the year 2000, there were 53 perfect-antlered bucks registered.
In the year 2000, there were 54 typical-antlered bucks registered.
In the year 2000, there were 36,885 deer harvested statewide in Maine.
In the year 2000, there were 291,000 estimate post hunting season deer wintering in Maine.
Beginning at the year 2000, each successive year will show either a percentage of increase of decrease of each of the items listed from that point. Bear in mind when reviewing the trends the graph show, that trophy information is accurate, as is the number of deer harvested state wide. The data used for deer populations are estimates but those estimates are derived using basically the same formulas for each season.
There is nothing here that would indicate to me anything different than what Kantar said and that’s that the trophy deer registrations matched by trend that of deer harvest and estimated deer population. What I don’t have here is a break down of region, Wildlife Management District or town. I also am waiting to see if I can get some data that might show sudden drop offs in trophy buck registrations in localized areas that traditionally yield large deer. But if the graph is an accurate indication and the trends remain relative, if trophy bucks taken in traditional areas dropped off, then we would have to conclude they went up someplace else. We are however not talking about huge numbers of trophy deer.
I tend to have to agree with Kantar that if his assessment is that the deer are healthy and reduced numbers of registered trophy deer matches the same reduction in harvest and general estimated deer populations, then we need to find those areas where deer densities are awful and find out why and what we can do about it.
In Part III, I’ll take a look at that. We can get a sneak into something that Kantar said.
Over this time period buck mortality has increased by all causes in each Region, but the hunting mortality part of this probably has not.
The time period he was referring to was from the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Buck mortality has increased since the 1980s but mortality by hunting has not and our deer populations in some areas are shrinking. Why?
Tom Remington
