was not younger during years of female harvest than during 

 years when females were not harvested. 



In comparing population ecology and dynamics among 

 studies, care must be taken in expressing and interpreting 

 various methods of reporting population composition. It is 

 always most informative to be able to estimate and report 

 total numbers in each category rather than report only ratios 

 or percentages. This is especially true when determining the 

 implications to management and to hunters. For example: 

 assume that we implement a new season type and report that 10% 

 of mule deer population was males last year and 14% was males 

 this year. Did the new season result in an increase in 

 survival of males? Not necessarily. The total number of 

 males and females could have remained exactly the same, but 

 fawn survival was much lower. Thus: 



Year t 20 males (10%) 

 100 females 

 75 fawns 



Year t+1 20 males (14%) 

 100 females 

 20 fawns 



When examining the possibilities, it can be determined 

 that survival of males could actually have declined under the 

 new season even though they comprised a greater percentage of 

 the population post season. 



Similar problems exist when only ratios are reported. 

 Assume we report that post-season fawn: doe ratios have 

 remained at 70:100 for 3 years and the statewide hunter 

 questionnaire has reported an exactly stable harvest of bucks, 

 does, and fawns for each of the last 2 years. Have we 

 achieved the manager's dream of stability and is everything 

 wonderful? Possibly not! A potential result of observed 

 stable levels of harvest and fawn recruitment in post-hunting 

 season populations could be: 



Year t - post season 20 males 



100 females 



7 fawns 

 190 total deer 



Year t+2 - post season 5 males 



65 females 

 45 fawns 

 115 total deer 



350 



