Selected Data from the 2010 White-tailed Deer Cull
At Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY
Background
The Vassar Farm and Ecological Preserve, situated in the Town of Poughkeepsie, Dutchess County, New York consists of 530 acres of open space that is actively managed for education, research, athletics, food production, composting, and recreation. Concurrently managing for biodiversity and ecosystem health, the property has gradually experienced increasing negative effects as a result of a locally over abundant white-tailed deer herd. The integrity and mission of the Preserve have been placed in jeopardy by the presence and impacts of a burgeoning white-tailed deer population overbrowsing the landscape. After lengthy deliberations Vassar College adopted a plan of action to lower the standing deer population on the farm. Officials contracted with White Buffalo, Inc, a 501 (c) (3) non-profit organization to cull deer under the provisions of a Nuisance Deer Permit from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). On the evenings of January 7 and 13, 2010, staff from White Buffalo carried out a sharp-shooting program and removed a total of 64 deer. All of the deer collected during the cull were retrieved and donated to the Federation of Dutchess County Fish and Game Clubs, Inc for inclusion in their venison donation program. All of the deer carcasses were processed into ground meat in accordance with provisions of DEC’s Venison Donation Program. The Hudson Valley Chapter of the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) an organization of volunteers dedicated to the sound management of white-tailed deer, offered to assist the effort and to collect biological data from the culled deer. Information regarding the biological parameters of unhunted, suburban deer populations in the Hudson Valley is lacking and collection of this data may prove to be valuable in helping to guide any future efforts in dealing with free ranging deer populations in similar urban/suburban scenarios. Culling operations began at or shortly after sunset and continued into the evening hours, concluding at 11:00 pm. After each culling event QDMA members collected age/sex data, live body weights, antler growth, qualitative abdominal fat deposition levels, fecundity and other gross observational data. Collection of fecundity data was limited on the first day of sampling as a result of manpower limitations and time constraints including a critical need to have all deer field dressed in a timely manner.
Age and Sex Distribution Data
A grand total of 64 deer were taken during the cull and the age and sex distribution of the culled deer are displayed in Table 1. Deer were aged using standard tooth wear and replacement techniques. All age classes are represented in the cull sample, although only five young-of-the-year (fawns) were present. Recruitment of the current year age class to the population appears to be lacking, while expected numbers of yearlings are present. Older age classes are present in expected numbers, declining as chronological ages increase. Survival among the cohort of middle-aged females (4 ½ years thru 7 ½ years) appears to be consistent, and then begins to linearly decline. Adult male specimens, especially yearlings, appear to be grossly under-represented for a deer population that has not been subjected to annual hunting mortality. Annual yearling buck emigration from a suburban deer population with landscape constraints may account for the lack of older males in the age structure.
Age Class |
Male | Female | Total |
| YOY | 3 | 2 | 5 |
| 1 ½ | 2 | 12 | 14 |
| 2 ½ | 3 | 7 | 10 |
| 3 ½ | 1 | 11 | 12 |
| 4 ½ | 5 | 5 | |
| 5 ½ | 5 | 5 | |
| 6 ½ | 5 | 5 | |
| 7 ½ | 4 | 4 | |
| 8 ½- 9 ½ | 3 | 3 | |
| 10 ½ + | 1 | 1 | |
| Total | 9 | 55 | 64 |
Table 1. Age and sex distribution data the January 2010 cull from Vassar Farm
Live Body Weights
Live body weights (entrails included) were taken for all deer in the sample using a calibrated Hanson 300 lb spring scale. The heaviest animals were a 155 lb 3 ½ year old male and a 188 lb 6 ½ year old female. Female deer displayed a decline in body size after peaking at 6 ½ years old. Fawn and yearling weights are comparable with recorded body weights of white-tailed in the northeastern United States. The sample sizes of older males are too small to make any reasonable body condition comparisons.
Age Class |
Average Male (lbs) | Average Female (lbs) |
| YOY | 82.3 | 81.6 |
| 1 ½ | 136.0 | 109.9 |
| 2 ½ | 145.6 | 129.8 |
| 3 ½ | 155.0 | 138.1 |
| 4 ½ | - | 139.3 |
| 5 ½ | - | 141.4 |
| 6 ½ | - | 155.0 |
| 7 ½ | - | 146.3 |
| 8 ½- 9 ½ | - | 140.6 |
| 10 ½ + | - | 130.0 |
Table 2. Average live body weights by sex and age class from the January 2010 deer cull at Vassar Farm.
Reproductive Data
A grand total of 23 of 53 adult female reproductive tracts were examined. Four of the 23 tracts (17%) appeared to be unbred, however given the dates of the collections, recent conceptions might have not been detected by gross examination. There were an average of 1.54 embryos per bred adult female (1 ½ years+) The observed sex ratio of the embryos collected was 56% male / 44% female (17 of 30). Calculated conception dates ranged from October 29 to December 2, a range of 34 days. Parturition dates ranged from May 15 to June 18, with similar range of 34 days.
Tag No |
Age of Doe | Fetal Count | Conception Date | Parturition Date |
| 39050 | 1 yr 6 mo | Not Bred | - | - |
| 39202 | 1 yr 7 mo | 1 male | 11/18 | 6/3 |
| 39046 | 1 yr 7 mo | Not Bred | - | - |
| 39057 | 1 yr 7 mo | 1 male | 11/10 | 5/27 |
| 39210 | 1 yr 7 mo | Not Bred(1) | - | - |
| 39203 | 1 yr 7 mo | 1 Male | 11/10 | 5/27 |
| 39222 | 2 ½ | 1 Female | 11/3 | 5/20 |
| 39058 | 2 ½ | 1 Male/1Female | 12/2 | 6/18 |
| 39214 | 2 ½ | 1Male | 11/13 | 5/30 |
| 39049 | 3 ½ | Not Bred | - | - |
| 39221 | 3 ½ | 1Male/1Female | 11/14 | 5/31 |
| 39056 | 3 ½ | 1 Male | 10/29 | 5/15 |
| 39212 | 3 ½ | 1 Female | 11/24 | 6/10 |
| 39052 | 4 ½ | 1Male/1Female | 10/30 | 5/18 |
| 39017 | 4 ½ | 2 Male | 11/15 | 6/1 |
| 39055 | 4 ½ | 2 Female | 11/2 | 5/19 |
| 39045 | 5 ½ | 1Male/1Female | 11/7 | 5/24 |
| 39053 | 5 ½ | 2 Female | 11/6 | 5/23 |
| 39220 | 6 ½ | 1Male/1Female | 11/19 | 6/5 |
| 39224 | 6 ½ | 2 Male | 11/19 | 6/2 |
| 39059 | 7 ½ | 1Male/1Female | 11/10 | 5/27 |
| 39054 | 8 ½-8 ½ | 1Male/1Female | 11/5 | 5/22 |
| 39223 | 10 ½ + | 1 Male | 11/2 | 5/19 |
(1) Although this yearling female was not bred, teat length suggests that it had lactated as a fawn. Table 3. Selected data from Reproductive tracts examined.
Reproductive Data (cont)
Figure 1. Graph of Vassar Cull Deer Conception Dates (2009)
Figure 2. Fetal size variation with a 34 day range of conception dates.
Antler Data
Six adult males (1.5 years+) were taken during the cull. Antler beam diameter taken 1” above the base of the burr and antler point totals were collected. Antler beam diameters are consistent with 2008 average antler beam diameters from deer taken in Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) 3F. Average beam diameters for WMU 3F were 16.96 mm for yearlings, 24.22 mm for 2 ½ year old bucks and 25.33mm for 3 ½ year old bucks. All of the males with the exception of one of the 2½ year old specimens were in good body condition with heavy depositions of mesentery and kidney fat. However based upon limited sample sizes, live body weights of the two older age classes of bucks appear less than noted in adjoining habitats. No bucks were observed to have shed their antlers at the date of collection.
| Tag No. |
Age |
Beam Diameter | Antler Points | Live Weight (lbs) |
| 39216 | 1yr 6mo | 15mm | 2 | 135 |
| 39179 | 1yr 5mo | 18mm | 4 | 137 |
| 39208 | 2 ½ | 19mm | 6 | 150 |
| 39204 | 2 ½ | 23mm | 7 | 139 |
| 39051 | 3 ½ | 32 mm | 5 | 155 |
Table 4. Selected antler data from bucks taken during the cull. Gross Morphology and Anomalies One 3 ½ year old doe had abnormal mesentery fat depositions with fat appearing to be amorphous, large and very hardened to touch. Two specimens had external cutaneous fibromas, or papillomas, on the mandible and abdominal regions. These localized wart-like growths are a viral reaction to the bite of an insect and are not uncommon in portions of southeastern New York. Fecal samples were also taken for use in white-tailed deer diet studies being conducted by Vassar College researchers.
General Observations
- Young of the year (fawns) of both sexes are poorly represented in the age structure of the sample, however reproductive tract examination reveals a high level of fecundity. Recruitment of the current years cohort into the population appears to be lacking, suggesting a high level of mortality to fawns during the neonatal period. As reported by the shooter, only four observed deer escaped the culling operation, only two of which were fawns. The diminished number of fawns suggests poor survival of the current year class beyond six months after parturition. Possible causes of this low recruitment could include predation by domestic dogs and coyotes, motor vehicle collisions, human interference and lack of suitable fawning habitat as a result of diminished ground cover.
- The extended period of parturition could also contribute to poor fawn survival. A range of 34 days during which fawn drop occurs subjects them to an extended period of time during which the newborn fawns are immobile and subject to higher levels of depredation.
- The absence of adult males 1 ½ years and older in the age structure in this unhunted, suburban deer population is also evident. Poor adult male/adult female ratios are more common in populations subject to heavy annual hunting mortality, often to the detriment of the population. On Vassar Farm high fawn mortality, coupled with emigrations of yearling males out of the area could lead to diminished numbers of adult males. Urban barriers could similarly be precluding immigration of yearling males from other areas onto the farm property.
- Given the high level of fecundity observed the potential exists for the deer population on Vassar Farm to rebound quickly. Recurring removal of deer will likely be required to maintain deer densities and reduce browsing to levels needed to maintain the integrity of the vegetation on Vassar Farm. Data collections in any subsequent deer removal operations should continue, as should additional investigations concerning deer abundance and distribution.
Richard J. Henry Big Game Biologist (Ret) Hudson Valley QDM
Why not open a bow only season for Ny residence instead of bringing an out side group in and paying them money. They could be generating money for the collage and the state in a partnership.
Very insightful! It shows what can be accomplished when groups work together towards better conservation of our natural resources.
Have Dutchess Federation certify Bow Hunters for harvest of deer. Vassar should be more community minded.
To assume that this place doesn’t get hunted is wrong, the buck harvest was proof of that, I would bet every state park and non hunting area in NYS gets hunting pressure, it does here in CNY, why not else where? The deer herd is so missmanaged and hunters are so thirsty for an adult buck they will not stop at any cause. I personally know of many entries in the NYS Big buck record book that were shot illegally, first clue many with multiple entries that live near me and we have the well know facts of were they hunt. I think you get the point, THIS PLACE HAS HUNTING PRESSURE
Very well done!
I hope the recommendation to Vassar College included an overhaul of their habitat management plan as well as the obvious inclusion of a hunting strategy and follow-up studies.
What a shame that the DEC did not bother to get involved? I guess they are too busy preparing more nonsensical hunter surveys?
What a great opportunity to study a non hunted deer herd. For those who do not know this area is in a city so it is not hunted. It is great that dedicated people were willing to put in the time and effort to gather this data. Unfortunately the citizens of New York are becoming responsible for doing their own wildlife management.
We all must thank the author for putting his professional skills to working on a volunteer basis. It required a lot of work to analyze this much data and write the study. It is also great we all have access to the report.
Great job! This study would not have been done with your generous donation of time, professional skills and effort.
This is a great looking study that contains alot of good data. Great job to those involved.
[comment edited by administrator]
Just a quick reminder: This blog is intended for the open and sometimes spirited discussion of QDM and QDM related topics. While we appreciate your comments, we ask that you refrain from taking personal shots at other blog participants. Thanks and happy blogging!
i have worked at the college for 30 years an have seen the farm trans form in many ways we have tried to get a program in place for deer manegement for many years . my hat is off to thouse who got it done . an good data as well
Why have we not seen any pictures of the mature/adult bucks taken on the slaughter permit? Various hunters have asked me, if something suspicious was going on with that project over at Vassar. While I have my own opinion, most of these people had the same question; why have not we seen the pictures of deer taken. I do not have an answer but I feel that is a good point. If our group, DEC, and Vassar want to earn the trust of sportsman throughout the area then transparency needs to be an absolute. I also strongly believe that the college needs to re-evaluate this as a future strategy. So many successful and fair programs (e.g. Mohonk) are facilitated using hunters, rather than legalized poachers” or “sharp-shooters.” Another idea, why not dart and relocate the deer to places suffering decimated or nonexistent populations, like around Ruby Rod and Gun Clubs properties. That would be a win-win, Vassar gets rid of the deer, and Ruby gets a population jump-start. Oh, and Vassar would avoided the stigma associated with this current actions. I figure they would prefer the positives of relocation to the negatives of a slaughter permit. Anyway, just an idea, and if anyone brings up cost as limiting Vassar from this alternative be advised they have many tens of millions of dollars in their surplus accounts. I am sure the DEC would issue a permit to do this if the college paid the right permit “fee.”
Wow! I believe Mark and his hunting buddies should read the report again. (Instead of making inflamatory, drive by comments often made by my fellow hunters) There were NO mature bucks taken at Vassar. A best friend in the Dutchess Co Federation of sportsmen, who was actually there, confirmed that. I did not hear it from my brothers ,sisters cousin! No need to show mass pics of dead deer (Does and yearlings)
I atteneded several meetings at Vassar (open to the public) and many ideas were brought up but this was the most logical and realistic. Knowing the political and idealogical issues surrounding this project, we should be thankful (Not critical) that this even happened at all. Unfortunately opening up Vassar Farms to hunting is a pie in the sky dream. At best one could hope for a managed hunt with uniformed regulations to a well vetted, hand picked crew. By the way, if you think protesters were geared up about this cull what do you think they would do about hunters in there? It’s a can of worms. Move on and seek access from other more huntable areas.
In a recent post, Mark appears to be poorly informed and/or confused about the role of Hudson Valley QDMA in the recent deer cull at Vassar College.
For the record, it should be stated that QDMA was not a part of the deliberations and discussions concerning the issuance of a cull permit, played no role in the decision by NYSDEC to issue a cull permit and did not participate in the field operations when the cull was carried out. However, once the decision was made by NYSDEC to allow Vassar to conduct a cull, it was crucial that biological data from that herd be gathered in a timely manner. NYSDEC failed to put forth the effort to fulfill this responsibility, so members of QDMA stepped up take on this endeavor. As both the number and size of suburban deer populations grow in the Hudson valley, there will be continuing issues about how best to deal with them. Gathering the biological data from the cull will help allow and justify a wider range of options for controlling deer numbers than simply killing deer by sharpshooting. Mark asks for “greater transparency” and that is exactly the reason why the report was posted on this website. You will note that the title of the report is “Selected Data from the 2010 White-tailed Deer Cull at Vassar College.” It was never intended to be a comprehensive report of the complete cull operation, nor should it have been, given QDMA’s extremely limited role in the event.
No pictures were taken of mature bucks because no mature bucks were taken. The yearling bucks and few 2 ½ and 3 ½ deer were hardly noteworthy and a picture of a pile of antlerless deer adds little value to the report of the data. It is inappropriate and insulting for someone to attempt to read “conspiracy” into this simple act of fact-gathering.
Mark also suggests that a viable alternative to the cull is a “trap and transfer” program. There is a very good reason for not doing this and the answer is that there is a long history showing “it doesn’t work.” It didn’t work for the Slide Mountain deer reintroduction program in Ulster County the 1880′s. It didn’t work for the Chapin Estate in the Sullivan County deer reintroduction program in the 1920′s. And it didn’t work for the Adirondack Deer Reintroduction program that was funded under the 1975 Bond Act in which deer were captured in Dutchess County and reintroduced into the Adirondack foothills. Why you may ask? Simply because deer have habitat requirements and a fidelity to a home range unlike pheasants and other standard “put and take” species. If the habitat exists, white-tailed deer will repopulate it, evidenced by what has happened across NYS in the last 80 years. Ruby Rod and Gun Club is to be commended because their membership is currently doing the best possible alternative to enhance deer populations by carrying out extensive and very impressive habitat work to their property. To quote the infamous line from the movie Field of Dreams , “if you build it, they will come”.
Mark also seems to further cloud transparency by erroneously suggesting that fees played some role in the permit process to cull deer. Section 11-0521 of the Environmental Conservation Law is very clear in that no fees are required for either Nuisance Deer Permits or Deer Management Assistance Permits
Urban/suburban deer management is quite likely the Last Frontier for deer management as we know it today. As shown in other locales such as Pennsylvania, hunting as a management tool can successfully occur in these environments and can serve to properly manage white-tailed deer if hunters can adapt to a framework that is different from traditional deer hunting as we know it.
“It ain’t your grandfather’s deer herd.”
Congratulations and Thank you to all those who participated! This was a great representation of an intelligent,scientific and thoughtful project.
I read the same report that Mark did and it was perfectly clear to me that there were not any mature bucks harvested.
I am a little taken aback by the innuendo in Mark’s comments. He and “various” hunters are obviously skeptical about the “free” information that was gathered by Mr. Henry and staff. I wonder if he has any idea how much time and effort went into compiling that information? I wonder if he realizes how blessed he is to have Mr. Henry volunteering his expertise and knowledge on local projects?
The Hudson Valley Chapter of the QDMA has done more under the guidance of Mr. Charles Fiscella towards better deer management and public education than any chapter in this country; to this point in history. To subject Mr. Fiscella and Mr. Henry (a renowned world class wildlife biologist) to what amounts to grade school aspersions, is demeaning and insulting!
Had Mark taken the time to do a little reading and investigating he could have easily assuaged the trepidations of the “various” hunters who came to him with their questions. First of all, Vassar College went to great lengths researching their options and then published their findings, and the reasons for which they were going to White Buffalo. All one had to do was Google “Vassar College Cull” and a surfeit of information would have been at Mark’s fingertips. I myself wanted to know the answer to a specific question, “were does specifically targeted during the cull?” I reasoned that HVQDMA would not know the answer since they were not doing the culling so I emailed Dr. DeNicola (White Buffalo) and asked him the question. He responded immediately and assured me that indeed “does” were the target of the cull and that the bucks that were harvested, were harvested due to a specific scientific phenomena that hindered further expeditious culling.
Mark there is a wealth of experience and knowledge there at the Hudson Valley QDMA. I hope in the future you will take advantage of that mastery!
Mark, I am not affiliated with the cull team, but on two different occasions I have seen around 100 pictures that documented the deer harvested and there were no racked or mature bucks. The pictures of all the deer taken are not secret. They are freely shared. Since the intention of the cull is to reduce the deer population, does are the target of the removal. My only regret is that I was not there to help with the data gathering. Next time I hope to help out. If you want to see the harvest its a great opportunity to volunteer.
We want to thank everyone that has commented on what turned out to be our most popular blog post ever. We greatly appreciate all the comments and the time taken to make them. That said, we have decided to close comments and archive this blog post (regarding the Vassar Deer Cull) as of 3/21/10. The archive will still be available to those of you looking to review the data as well as the accompanying comments.
Thanks Again
Lou Lynch
HVQDMA.com Webmaster
[...] Vassar College recently culled 60-odd deer on their preserve in about ten hours, much to the dismay of the local animal huggers. It wasn’t a hunt; professional sharpshooters took ‘em out. [...]
The reason for posting the following comments under this topic is that the older post/blog related to the Vassar Cull is closed and it is a chance for clarification. First, Mr. Henry and all others who felt slighted by my comments, I did not and do not call into question the expertise of the HVQDMA members that participated in the data collection. Second, I am fully aware that none of our members participated in the actual cull. Third, I do realize that there is a vast amount of information on the internet; however, I am also aware that a lot of information is partially or completely false, therefore why put all my faith in information that could be suspect at best. Next, when I mentioned transparency and everyone responded as though “they” were insulted; Mr. Henry answered the question… FYI, that is all I wanted and that is all some of these other hunters wanted. Unfortunately, sometimes, it takes someone stirring up the “hornets nest” to get people to move and take you seriously. Again, all some of us want is to hear is the truth. Remember, we are surrounded and all being inundated by lying politicians and media, hence my reason to “pour a little gas on the fire.” Do I like the idea of White Buffalo in the area taking deer no, but I think that unless BO has taken away my first Amendment rights, I can have an opinion. Oh, and last comment before I forever drop this Vassar Cull discussion; the DEC not providing personnel to adequately participate and monitor the event is shameful and no excuse is a good one, and as far as that agency and the practice of collecting fees or “fines” as I have been told by a DEC official recently, supposedly that practice does exist; however, if I am wrong please educate me. Let me know where I can look to see DEC policy/law on for example the DEC “looking the other way because the right person paid the right amount of money to do whatever they wanted, such as clearing of wetland, illegal mining ops, etc… Please feel free to send me the links to look up this information, so I may be better informed as to the straight arrow and unbiased activities of our state government. AGAIN, I am not questioning the integrity of our members or individuals that work for the DEC Regional Offices. I am questioning practices and policies of agencies as a whole, and the political machines that drive unethical activities. Thank you for your earlier comments, I am not offended. By the way, as you have seen I like stirring up emotions to see what people are really thinking, so be aware that if I see a topic that I enjoy debating about come up, I will be commenting vigorously. Enjoy your summer and preparing for the up-coming season. Oh, also anyone want to talk about the new CROSSBOW or CROSSGUN (depending how you look at it) legislation