The correct cull/harvest.
In a population analysis model, described elsewhere on this website, one can find the best population situation, i.e. that hunting yield and that distribution of the cull, which after 6 years leads to a stable, desired population size and desired population composition.
– this for roe deer and approximately 198 other deer species in countries around the world.
Below are the main results from analyzing roe deer in Denmark:
As can be seen from the above, it is absolutely necessary to report shot deer by sex, age (in 1 and 2+) and type of antler – this must be mandatory (and not just voluntary) for all shot deer, if one is to be able to manage the population correctly, and without this it is impossible to detect and be able to correct safely and substantiate inappropriate population development.
There is a lot of evidence that we rifle hunters do not, in the voluntary reports, divide our shot bucks into 1-year-olds and 2+ years old correctly. – See more about this (also in english) at: https://netnatur.dk/bukkes-aldre-bedoemt-paa-taender-og-opsatser/
(Bucks’ ages judged by teeth and antlers/).
This page shows the correst annual hunting yield (cull/harvest) in the roe deer population, and the correct distribution of this cull in bucks, does and fawn – this on a national level and to archieve sustainable hunting.
The examples applies to Denmark, but the results (reg. %) shown above and later apply to roe deer populations in many countries.
————————————————
Below we write about population management in Denmark, about the large roe deer population decline we have seen since 2009, and about possible reasons for this, and a solution is proposed.
Regardless of the reasons for the population decline, only regulation of the hunting yield (cull) will be able to address this.
A theoretical simulating Game Analysis model is described, which can help solve these problems, of which we have not yet seen the final result.
Examples of results are shown by using such a game analysis in population management, which can match adaptive population management – and where all conceivable population situations can be analyzed and anticipated, and this for all 198 deer species and other animal species with roughly the same biology as roe deer.
The status and development of the roe deer population is reviewed.
*** It concludes by showing the best hunting yield in percentages – which are:
Yield percentage (hunting yield in % of presumed population size at the end of July) = approx. 28 %.
Shooting distribution between bucks, does and fawn= 42 % – 20 % – 38 % (fawn half of each sex).
(- which is a gender shooting of approx. 60/40).
Of shot bucks, 71 % should be 1-year-old bucks – and 29 % should be 2+ bucks – distributed as follows:
Approx. 37 % prickets, 32 % fork bucks, 25 % six-pointers and 6 % bud bucks and bucks in return.
Of shot does, 34 % should be 1-year-old does and 66 % be 2+ does.
At an assumed population size of 250,000, the annual hunting yield will be 28% of 250,000 = 70,000. – This corresponds approximately to the hunting yield in 2023/2024 in Denmark – which, based on the game analysis, should be distributed among: 29,400 bucks, 14,000 does and 26,600 fawn (half of each sex). – Of the bucks shot, 20,874 should be 1-year-old bucks, and 8,526 should be 2+ bucks – distributed among: 10,878 prickets, 9,408 fork bucks, 7,350 six-year-olds and 1,764 bud bucks and bucks in return.
Of the does shot, 4,760 should be 1-year-old doe, and 9,240 should be 2+ doe.
Being able to comply with an annual hunting yield of approx. 70,000 is certainly possible, whereas it is of course more difficult to comply with the aforementioned internal shootings in the buck population and in the doe- population. – But at least you can register what is shot, so that you have a chance to assess this, based on our (Danish) world-famous knowledge of roe deer from the Kalø studies. – In 2023/2024, the voluntary, detailed reports of shot roe deer only accounted for 42% of the total hunting yield, which is far too small a statistical basis, which gives large hidden figures (dark numbers).
– And one can only gain the necessary insight into the status and development of the roe deer population by improving (expanding the amount of information) in our current reporting of shot roe deer, and making this mandatory – just like for fallow deer and red deer.
It may seem strange, that during a long, constant and declining period, hunting periods have not been shortened – for such a popular and hunting-important game species as roe deer.
** It is impossible to see (without simulation over a number of years) how some key figures affect other key figures, and how a population will develop, influenced by given variables, factors and conditions.
————————————————
Background and elaboration of the above:
This website contains many different interests and some useful things – but one of the main goals of this website is to show, that a theoretically, simulating, self-controlling wild game analysis, which I have developed, is likely to be able to reserve a negative development in a huntable population – and I suggest this to be used by the population management authorities , and our hunting organizations.
Establishing such a wild game analysis is a particularly extensive peace of work, if it is to show the development in all key figuras throughout all months of the year in 6 simulation years – this for both the population situation chosen as the starting population in year 1, and for the best population situation found in the analysis with the best population harvest found.
And these things are necessary, when you are going to be able to see the difference between the development in the population with a freely chosen population- harvest (cull), and with the best population- harvest (cull) found – and when everything in the game analysis must be qualiti assured and self- controlling, and so that everyone can control everything.
The game analysis shows exactly what happens in all analysis areas, and in all common key figures and a number of new, previously unseen, results from freely chosen stock removal and shooting distribution – and this throughout all months of the simulation’s 6-year course.
– Thus, it is seen how the same freely chosen hunting yield and the same freely chosen shooting distribution between bucks, roe deer and fawn, used for 6 years, affects the freely chosen starting population – and if this results in a decreasing population size and/or inappropriate population composition and poor key figures, the Game Analysis finds the best population sample, which provides the best population situation for the roe deer population, and prospects for sustainable hunting in the future.
A huntable game population is subject to many conditions and factors, but it is most often the hunting yield that is the largest determining and regulating factor – and when this is the case, it is the hunting yield that must adapt to the current population situation in a huntable game population.
The most important thing for a huntable game population is generally:
1. To monitor and assess the development of the population – and adjust the population cull accordingly.
2. That the size of the hunting yield is adapted to the presumed size of the population.
3. That the shooting distribution between bucks, does and fawn is adapted to the presumed population composition and gender distribution.
4. That the shooting distribution between older and younger bucks is correct, in relation to the presumed population composition in the buck population – and in relation to the estimated number of doe and number of bucks, at their different ages.
I have been very surprised that the population harvest has not been regulated in a very popular game species such as roe deer – during the period with such large repeated declines in annual hunting yields, which only reports population declines. – Roe deer hunting has thus not been the subject of adaptive population management – and why not?
Before presenting the best hunting yield (Yield percentage) and the best shooting distribution between bucks, roe deer and lambs – we must look at what speaks for using advanced theoretical, self-controlling game analysis, which simulates a freely chosen population situation over a 6-year period – and with freely chosen hunting yield and freely chosen biological and condition-dependent variables:
In 2023/2024, the annual hunting yield was below 70,000. – This gives a registered decrease in hunting yield from 2009 to 2024 of: approximately 62,372 animals, corresponding to a decrease in hunting yield of approximately 47%.
We have not been able to counteract this development shown above, and this probably indicates that there has not been or is not a secure, recognized and verified basis for optimal stock management on the shooting side. – On the contrary, in the last many years we have received so many widely differing recommendations for yield percentage and shooting distribution – which in their differences cannot all be correct.
We have seen recommended percentage shooting distributions of: 30-20-50 / 50-20-30 / 54-26-19 etc. – and the last recommendation from the Danish Hunters’ Association is: 25-25-50%.
– In helplessness, confusion and probably distrust of these many different recommendations, this has over time led to the emergence and use of several different “home-knitted” shooting policies in the individual hunting areas – and where the 3 best known: “We only shoot from the top (six-pointers)”, “We don’t shoot any forked bucks” and “We don’t shoot any prickets”, all can be shown to be extremely harmful to the population, in a simulated game analysis model.
The reasons for the population decline:
The decline in hunting output from 2009 to now 2024 can only mean that the size of the roe deer population has decreased, which can have several reasons – and it is probably a combination of several reasons, factors, variables, conditions and circumstances.
The most important reasons for the population decline can probably be assumed to be related to the loss of fallow land, other changes in biotopes (changes in landscapes/agriculture), incorrect population sampling, incorrect shooting distribution, and disease to an unknown extent, as well as climate change.
Regarding population harvest and cull- distribution, the game analysis indicates that we are not shooting too many animals – but that it is the cull- distribution between bucks, does and fawns that is decisive for gender ratios, population composition, promotion ratios, recruitment, and mating conditions (number of days available per mating), etc. – and it is these things that are decisive for (determine) population size.
It has been claimed that increasing numbers of fallow deer and red deer play a major role in the decline of roe deer, but the shooting figures for fallow deer and red deer, and the observed, estimable population increase in fallow deer and red deer do not justify these conclusions – when analyzed in more detail. – Regarding competition between roe deer and fallow deer, the county population densities of fallow deer do not correlate with the county population densities of roe deer, which makes it likely that the increased fallow deer population does not displace or reduce the roe deer population.
And with regard to red deer, there are counties on Sjælland in Denmark with large declines in roe deer populations, and where there are only a few and/or more locally widespread red deer populations in these counties. – And on Fyn in Denmark, red deer are almost not seen, and where the decline in roe deer populations has been the greatest.
I have also often seen roe deer walking together with fallow deer, and also often seen roe deer and red deer standing during the day in the same tiny piece of forest/thickets. I also often see roe deer walking and grazing side by side with red deer. – On the other hand, I never see fallow deer walking together with red deer.
In addition, there is a not particularly mentioned factor, namely that climate has changed (extended) both the mating period and the lambing period, which alone can cause population declines, because too many strong bucks are shot at the end of the spring hunt (resulting in a lack of strong bucks with proven good genes during the mating period) – and because too many late-set fawn (right up to August) are used, especially when the mother- does is shot in October and a little into November, for an unknown number of does.
A contributing factor regarding the observed population decline could easily be inadequate annual registration of animals shot, as a more detailed and mandatory registration of animals shot by hunters annually could provide a lot of (free) information about the development of the roe deer population – all of which would be useful for regulating the population harvest based on a reasonably probable population development.
– In this connection, it is possible that we rifle hunters to a greater extent misjudge the ages of our shot bucks, which can actually easily happen – and this can give an incorrect picture of the population composition within the buck population. – See how to reasonably reliably judge buck ages at: https://netnatur.dk/bukkes-aldre-bedoemt-paa-taender-og-opsatser/.
Back to the population decline: A roe deer population cannot increase almost continuously for many years prior to, and up to 2009, when the population suddenly finds out that it is too large due to changes in agriculture, as these changes also existed many years prior to 2009. – And if the cause of the population decline were to be sought in decreasing ecological carrying capacity, this would have been expressed in a steadily reduced population increase (flatter increase curve) prior to 2009.
If the almost constantly increasing size of the roe deer population was not too large for our current landscapes and agricultural structure in the 15 years before 2009, after which the population began to decline, the population cannot decline in the next 15 years as a result of changes in landscapes and agricultural structure – and in 2011 there seemed to have been a broad consensus that landscape changes and the intensification of agriculture, especially over the past 50-70 years, were the reason why huntable game species have been reduced in number.
The population decline only occurred after 2009, and no major changes in agricultural areas have been demonstrated from 2009 to now that would justify or explain a halving of the population harvest during this period – and we are increasing our forest percentage in Denmark. – Nor has disease been demonstrated as the cause of the population decline.
– However, there is a striking, significant coincidence between the clearance of fallow lands around 2009 and the decline in the population of roe deer.
If I were to point out the reasons for the observed decline in the population of roe deer in Denmark, in order of priority, this would be:
1. Extremely rapid clearance of fallow lands in 2009 – and where fallow lands have always been very important for roe deer, and who knows how many lambs were lost in this clearance process. – The clearance of fallow lands must necessarily have led to a decreasing ecological carrying capacity, and a lack of scattered cover options, as well as a lack of scattered “safe” birthing and resting places for fawn – providing the opportunity for much greater damage from the fox population.
2. Climate change, which has shifted/extended the mating period and birth period – and possibly a disturbed/disturbed relationship between the fawn´s growth period (energy needs and food requirements) and the seasonal state of food sources.
3. Many years of incorrect stock removal and especially the distribution of shooting – all on the basis that sustainable stock removal has never been investigated and defined, and on the basis of the free play that the mighty “Supply and demand” gives. – There are also conflicting interests between deer hunters and forest owners, where one interest group wants to have more deer shot, and another wants to adjust the hunting yield so that deer hunting can continue.
4. The dissatisfaction that the 3 previous positions may have caused can end up in illness.
5. Insufficient game yield statistics, with too few and too voluntary (not mandatory) reporting obligations. – The necessary data and information are not received from hunters for use in assessing stock composition and stock development (only 42% report detailed information in 2023/2024, and this is statistically insufficient). – In scientific reports, one often sees data requested, necessary amount of data/registrations, and the need for specific studies has been pointed out.
6. And then you can’t avoid the so-called harvest kills, which were previously estimated at approximately 20,000 lambs annually – and where the development of the number of harvest kills from, for example, 2009 to now 2024 is not known. – If, for example, the roe deer gives birth later than before (due to climate change), then these later birth times may coincide with harvest periods, and do you know the extent of the prevention methods used on agricultural machinery, and their effect? – All of this relates to the important recruitment to the population.
Although the Danish roe deer hunters have been impressively skilled and sensible in adjusting hunting yields themselves in this new greatly reduced population situation – this must now have been shown to be insufficient. – To what extent the hunters’ reluctance to shoot deer contributes to the decline in hunting yields is of course not known.
And so that this is not misunderstood to mean that Danish hunters are to blame for our observed population decline – I must state:
That I certainly do not believe that hunters alone are responsible for the drastic decline in the roe deer population – but that the responsibility for sustainable hunting lies with everyone involved in population management. – Perhaps hunters are even the least guilty of observed population declines, among other things because sustainable hunting of roe deer has never been specified, because game yield reporting and hunting statistics have failed (can and should be significantly expanded), and because hunters have received so many conflicting recommendations for shooting over time – both from within their own ranks and from above.
Sustainable hunting is a societal issue, where the highest level of management must create the framework and the practical possibilities for sustainable hunting to be achieved and continue to take place.
Reklamer.
This view from Terslev in Denmark, where a hunter loads a shot buck in the car, while 6 roe deer are seen in the background – may become a rare sight in the future.
How does the Danish Hunters’ Association react to observed population declines?
With these above-described figures and data in mind, it seems peculiar (in my opinion) that the Danish Hunters’ Association (DJ) writes on July 16, 2024 to danish TV2 ØJ (link), quote: “That the population is still too large, and that the solution may be to shoot some more.” – The Danish Hunters’ Association (Danmarks jægerforbund) recommends quote: “shooting two fawn and one doe for every buck you shoot” – i.e. a shooting distribution of: 25% bucks, 25% doe and 50% fawn.
– To this, it can be said that a population that is failing/reduced in some areas does not justify a general shooting distribution nationwide (for many reasons), and where does such a recommendation actually come from, and what is it based on?
To assess the above recommendation, the above-mentioned recommended shooting distribution of 25-25-50 (tested in the Game Analysis Model) would result in a population decline of approx. 161,000 animals (54%) over 6 years, if, for example, 87,000 were shot annually (i.e. more animals shot than in 2023/24, as recommended by DJ) in a starting population in year 1 of, for example, 300,000 animals, with estimated current population composition.
With these above-described figures and data in mind, it seems peculiar (in my opinion) that the Danish Hunters’ Association (DJ) on July 16, 2024, writes to TV2 ØJ (link), quote: “That the population is still too large, and that the solution may be to shoot some more”. – The Danish Hunters’ Association recommends quote: “shooting two fawn and one doe for every buck you shoot” – i.e. a shooting distribution of: 25% bucks, 25% doe and 50% fawn.
– To this, it can be said that a population that is failing/reduced in some areas does not justify a general shooting distribution nationwide (for many reasons), and where does such a recommendation actually come from, and what is it based on?
To assess the above recommendation, the above-mentioned recommended shooting distribution of 25-25-50 (tested in the Game Analysis Model) would result in a population decline of approx. 161,000 animals (54%) over 6 years, if, for example, 87,000 were shot annually (i.e. more animals shot than in 2023/24, as recommended by DJ) in a starting population in year 1 of, for example, 300,000 animals, with estimated current population composition.
See much more about this on Netnatur also in english, where everything is explained in detail, in:
https://netnatur.dk/de-syv-syndere/
https://netnatur.dk/den-rigtige-afskydning-i-bukkebestanden/
https://netnatur.dk/hvad-sker-der-ved-25-25-og-50-afskydning/
https://netnatur.dk/brandpunkter-i-dansk-raavildtforvaltning/
https://netnatur.dk/raavildtjagt-og-muligheder/
https://netnatur.dk/boer-vi-skyde-faerre-raaer-og-er-det-nok/
https://netnatur.dk/jack-hansen-parringsperioden-hos-raavildt/
https://netnatur.dk/er-53-skudte-bukke-for-meget/
https://netnatur.dk/det-rigtige-jagtudbytte/
https://netnatur.dk/mistrivsel-raavildtsyge-og-jagtudbytte/
https://netnatur.dk/baeredygtig-jagt-paa-raavildt/
https://netnatur.dk/hvor-mange-raalam-aeder-raeven/
—————————————————
The best hunting yield (cull) of roe deer in Denmark:
– But this also applies to many other countries.
What is the best stock removal and the best shooting distribution in the Danish roe deer population?
Below is a summary of the results from a large, impartial, self-monitoring and quality-assured Game Analysis Model, which simulates an optional stock, with optional variables, over 6 years – to demonstrate stock size, stock composition and many new key figures for all 6 years.
New key figures are, for example, key figures about the very important: “Promotion ratio” and “Number of days per mating”.
Sustainable hunting yield has been achieved when the stock size in year 6 has not been reduced compared to year 1 – and when the stock composition in year 6 has not become inappropriate – after 6 years with the same stock removal and shooting distribution.
The documentable correct shooting, according to the Game Analysis, is:
– In a roe deer population at the end of July with a gender composition of: approx. 34% males and 66% females, a gender ratio of approx. 1 adult buck per 4 adult doe, and a fawn- proportion of approx. 46% – the best shooting is:
*** The best Yield Percentage (Stock removal/harvest in % of presumed stock size) is approx.: 28%.
– with an estimated stock size of 250,000 animals, a Yield Percentage of 28 will give an annual hunting yield of approx. 70,000 – which roughly corresponds to our hunting yield/harvest in 2023/2024.
The best distribution between shot bucks, does and fawn is approx.:
*** 42% bucks, 20% does and 38% fawn (half of each sex).
– Which is a gender shooting of approx. 60/40.
The best Internal shooting distribution in the buck population is:
*** Approximately 37% prickets, 32% forked bucks, 25% six-pointers and 6% bud bucks and bucks in return.
– And that approximately 71% of the shot bucks are 1-year-old bucks and 29% of the shot bucks are 2+ bucks.
The above will give approximately the same population size in the Game Analysis simulation years 1 and 6, and improve the animals’ mating situation, improve promotion conditions and population composition and increase the average age of bucks – i.e. provide sustainable hunting.
Example:
That is, if we shot 70,000 deer last year, we must (as a best guess) assume the population size to be a maximum of approx.: 70,000/28 x 100 = 250,000 deer – and that next year we can sustainably (according to the Game Analysis) shoot a total of approx.: 250,000 x (Yield percentage) approx. 28 = 70,000 animals divided into:
Shot bucks: 70,000 x approx. 42% = 29,400 bucks in total – divided into (29,400 x approx. 71%) 1-year-old bucks = approx. 20,874, and (29,400 x approx. 29%) 2+ bucks = approx. 8,526.
Shot does: 70,000 x 20% = 14,000 does in total – distributed over an estimated doe- population as of June 2 of: 34% 1-year-olds does and 66% 2-13-year-old does = 4,760 1-year-old does and 9,240 2-13-year-old does.
Shot fawn: 70,000 x approx. 38% = approx. 26,600 (approx. half of each sex).
Status 2023/2024 and comparison with the Wild Game Analysis:
The annual population harvest 2023/2024 in Denmark is approx. 68,000 deer.
Before 2009, the shooting percentage of bucks was approx. 50-53%, but after the population decline in 2009, it is now said that in the period from 2014/2015 to 2023/24 there has been a fairly stable proportion of shot bucks of approx. 30% – this according to Technical Note no. 38 from DCU on 24 June 2024, where shot bucks are estimated based on information about gender in the detailed reports.
– However, “Harvest (cull) in detail” at https://fauna.au.dk/jagt-og-vildtforvaltning/vildtudbytte/vildtudbytte-med-detaljer” says that 16,903 shot bucks were reported out of 28,579 reported shot animals in total – and this is what I get: 59% (and not 30%)?
– Similarly, the detailed reports for 2016/2017 show that the proportion of shot bucks was approx. 51%, i.e. an increase of 8% from 2016/2017 to 2023/2024. – So how the proportion of shot bucks was estimated at 30% in the period from 2014/15 to 2023/2024 I cannot understand, and this should probably have been clarified and explained in more detail.
Source:
https://fauna.au.dk/jagt-og-vildtforvaltning/vildtudbytte/vildtudbytte-med-detaljer.
– But if the 30% shot bucks is correct, this probably tells the story that the hunters realized that the harvest of bucks was too large and reduced this – but a shooting distribution with only 30% of bucks will result in 70% shot roe deer and lambs (and where about half of the lambs are young lambs), i.e. an excessive harvest in the productive part of the roe deer population (giving birth to females), and this leads to a population decline.
– As far as I remember, we have never had a shooting percentage of bucks that was below 46% (when divided into shot bucks, roe deer and fawn). – And in the Scientific Report FR 742 of 2009 it is stated: “If the fawn are disregarded, bucks constitute 2/3 of the annual yield” – and this would mean that about 66% of the adult animals shot were bucks. – And in 1993/1994 the shooting distribution was 48% bucks, 19% roe deer and 33% lambs (Link).
– If, on the other hand, the 59% shot bucks is correct, this is far too high a proportion, which has even increased by 8% from 2016/2017, according to the detailed reports. – And this could indicate that hunters have held back on shooting roe deer and fawn.
Regarding the above-mentioned 30% (or 59%) buck proportion, it should be remembered that this is based on information about gender in the detailed reports – and that the voluntary detailed reports in 2023/2024 only concern 28,579 shot deer out of approx. 68,000 shot deer in total, i.e. only approx. 42%, and statistically speaking, this is far too small a basis that creates a large undercount in precisely the most important thing: the sex ratio of adult, mating-ready/fertile males and females.
In the above context, it may be found completely incomprehensible that there is a reporting obligation for shot sexes in fallow deer and red deer, where the populations are increasing – but for the roe deer population, which is in decline, it is not mandatory to report shot sexes.
According to recieved danish “Harvest in details 2023/2024”, reported shot bucks amounted to 16,903 out of a total of approx. 28,579, i.e. approx. 59%.
According to recieved danish “Harvest in details 2023/2024”, reported shot doe amounted to 6,347 out of a total of approx. 28,579, i.e. approx. 22%.
According to recieved danish “Harvest in details 2023/2024″, reported shot fawn amounted to 5,325 out of a total of approximately 28,579, or approximately 19%.
Summation:
According to the danish detailed reports 2023/2024, a shooting distribution of:
59% bucks, 22% does and 19% fawn (38% male fawn and 62% female fawn).
However, it should be noted that the proportion of shot bucks, according to Technical Note no. 38 from DCU, is stated at approx. 30% – where shot bucks are estimated based on information about gender in the detailed reports.
This gives a sex-based shooting of approx.: 19,013 males and 9,563 females = approx. ratio: 67/33.
And this can be compared with the results from the simulated game analysis´s found the best shooting distribution of approximately:
42% bucks, 20% roe deer and 38% fawn (half of each sex) – and the best sex-wise shooting of: approximately 60/40.
Previous recommendation for shooting distribution from DMU Denmark in 2002:
Was: 30% bucks, 20% does and 50% fawn.
– And to see what happens to the roe deer population with this shooting distribution of 30-20-50, my previous analysis is shown below, where the starting population size was estimated (that time) at approximately 399,000 animals and where the population removal in 6 consecutive years was approximately 123,500 (assumed yield percentage of approx. 30.4), with a culling distribution of 30-20-50 (males, females and fawn):
* In 6 years the following development occurs – in the first selected population situation (shown above):
– The analysis obtained number of points: 77.24, which is a deterioration compared to 100.
– The population size is reduced by 167,230 animals – down to an index of 58.10 (from 100) – approx. 42%.
– The sex ratio is deteriorated from 1 adult buck per 4 adult does – to 1:6.5.
– The general population composition improves from index 27 to 88.
– The average age of the male deer improves from index 100 to 112.
– The mating situation (number of days per mating) deteriorates from index 100 to index 92.
The game analysis then found the best, sustainable population harvest:
Best annual hunting yield: 115,476 (Assumed Yield Percentage of 28.93%).
– with the best shooting distribution of: 41.57% bucks, 19.88% does and 38.53% fawn (half of each sex).
Here it appears that the size of the total hunting yield does not mean as much for the development of the population as the shooting distribution between bucks, does and fawn. – It is also seen that some key figures can easily be improved, even significantly, even though there are population declines and other deteriorated key figures, which, taken together, significantly deteriorate the population situation. – In other words:
** It is impossible to see (without simulation over a number of years) how some key figures affect other key figures, and how a population will develop, influenced by given variables, factors and conditions.
* In 6 years, the following development occurs – with the best population situation found (best hunting yield/cull):
– The number of points obtained by the analysis: 102.22, which is an improvement compared to 100.
– The population size decreases by only 6,100 animals.
– The sex ratio between adult bucks and adult does remains almost unchanged.
– The general population composition improves from index 27 to 129.
– The average age of the male deer remains almost unchanged.
– The mating situation (number of days per mating) remains almost unchanged.