Sheds and their value to other animals

[LandYacht]

The thread on shed hunting got me thinking again about what the value is to other animals that would ordinarily eat them if they aren’t picked up by a shed hunter.

Has anybody seen any studies on this? It seems that every antler I find has at least a few gnaw marks from rodents. I would imagine there has to be at least some benefit to the rest of the animals that would have ordinarily chewed and eaten them had they been left where they fell.

 

[LandYacht]

Couldn’t find anything other than what the nutrients profile is.

Interestingly enough, the very animals that shed them eat them to according to a couple articles.

I wonder what the impact is now that these high density nutrient sources are being removed without anything taking their place...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[flatlanderhuffandpuff]

Not aware of studies but it's an interesting thing to consider.

I would bet the amount of antler taken from the woods if countered by the amount of bone left behind by hunters. I'm sure the mineral content varies.

 

[PF_JM]

I'd like to see some evidence of antlered animals eating antlers. Has anyone ever witnessed anything eating sheds. You can clearly see where rodents chew on them when you pick up an old set and dogs love to chew on them but I have my doubts about how much of a nutrient source sheds are to ungulates. Would definitely like to know more about it. Also, being that that they are bone, wouldn't that make all bones just as viable a source of nutrition for them.

 

[LandYacht]

Hmmm, lots of references saying antler isn’t the same as bone. More closely related to skin.

I’d be curious what the increase in dead carcasses would need to be to counter the antlers being picked up just on a nutritional level.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[6mm Remington]

As scattered as sheds are and difficult for us to find, I would not think that the impact would be huge on other animals. My dog loves to chew on them and I keep all the smaller sheds I find for the pooch.

 

[5MilesBack]

I'm not sure what eats them, but I had an entire pile of antlers (not sheds, but from kills) laying behind one of my wood piles. They must have been there for 8+ years with all the squirrels, and mice, and skunks, and raccoons, and deer, and foxes, and whatever else roams around here.......and there were very few gnaw marks on them when I tossed them.

 

[dotman]

Something I’ve always noticed, you find where an animal died and there never is a skull, now I’m sure some are from hunters but I can’t think of seeing many skulls or even skulls that have had the antlers removed. I also have seen many cattle bone piles with jaws but no skulls.

 

[Lawnboi]

It must really depend on the area. Here in WI they are normally chewed up or eaten in pretty short order. You have a small window to find them.

But when I go west I find many, from many different time periods. A lot get left behind to continue to be eroded by the elements. Rarely have I found one with any significant chewing like I would back home fairly often.

 

[Glendon Mullins]

It must really depend on the area. Here in WI they are normally chewed up or eaten in pretty short order. You have a small window to find them.

But when I go west I find many, from many different time periods. A lot get left behind to continue to be eroded by the elements. Rarely have I found one with any significant chewing like I would back home fairly often.

same here, the grey and fox squirrels eat em up pretty quick here in virginia, much harder to find sheds here than other places. When i see these articles about people finding sheds from a particular whitetail for like 4 years in a row, that is pretty much IMPOSSIBLE here in virginia

 

[Chesapeake]

A hunter leaving bones in the woods wouldn't be an additive effect. That animal was destined to die and leave its bones in the woods had man not come along. If anything hunters remove bones from the woods for the animals they pack out with bone in.

And the thought about not effecting ungulates cause they maybe don't eat the bone. Any rodents, bears, wolves, ect... that eat the bones will then in turn poop out much of those nutrients. Likewise the sun and weather will break them bones down into a form that plants can then absorb and ungulates could then use by eating the plants.

There are studies about salmon that explore a similar situation. How salmon bring nutrients back to the rivers and the animals and water then spread those nutrients over a very large area. But if humans catch those salmon that circle is interrupted. Many hatcheries now place the dead spawned out salmon carcasses in upper reaches of the tributaries to return those nutrients to the system.

 

[LandYacht]

A hunter leaving bones in the woods wouldn't be an additive effect. That animal was destined to die and leave its bones in the woods had man not come along. If anything hunters remove bones from the woods for the animals they pack out with bone in.

And the thought about not effecting ungulates cause they maybe don't eat the bone. Any rodents, bears, wolves, ect... that eat the bones will then in turn poop out much of those nutrients. Likewise the sun and weather will break them bones down into a form that plants can then absorb and ungulates could then use by eating the plants.

There are studies about salmon that explore a similar situation. How salmon bring nutrients back to the rivers and the animals and water then spread those nutrients over a very large area. But if humans catch those salmon that circle is interrupted. Many hatcheries now place the dead spawned out salmon carcasses in upper reaches of the tributaries to return those nutrients to the system.

That’s a lot of the same thoughts I was having too.

Seems like the antler nutrients are coming from the plants that the ungulates are eating. If the antlers are being taken by humans, instead of being used by the other animals in the woods, how are these nutrients going to replenish the soil so that plants will continue to grow and in turn fuel the antler growth?

I wonder at what stage we will start seeing it affect antler growth? I think that would be an indicator seen before the loss of rodent life. Or will animals move to more nutrient dense food locations i.e ag ground?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TheTone]

I think things chewing on them is too random to calculate. I've picked up a lot of sheds over the years and can't put any sort of factor into what percentage I find are chewed vs. what aren't. I can find some fresh ones that are chewed to heck and on the same area on the same day find a chalky old one that has seemingly never been touched.

 

[archer wapiti]

Seems highly speculative. Can we first establish that these deer and elk are growing their antlers on the same range that they shed them? For montane migratory deer and elk populations, a lot of times that answer is a definitive no.

 

[gwl79902]

Porcupines eat sheds and they are an important part of there diet. It is my understanding that we have had a crash in porcupine populations in Oregon. I can not find any scientific evidence to support this. As for me and the time I spend in the woods I would say their numbers have crashed. 15 years ago I would see a couple a year in central Oregon. I have not seen one in several years.

 

[kestump]

If we keep picking up sheds the squirrels are gonna develop rickets......

 

[archer wapiti]

Porcupines eat sheds and they are an important part of there diet. It is my understanding that we have had a crash in porcupine populations in Oregon. I can not find any scientific evidence to support this. As for me and the time I spend in the woods I would say their numbers have crashed. 15 years ago I would see a couple a year in central Oregon. I have not seen one in several years.

Again, highly speculative. They eat sheds, yes. Important part of their diet needs some supporting data. It's really hard to establish population trends in animals as relatively rare as porcupines are (especially one like porcupines that hardly anybody studies), and how widespread those population trends are. To then correlate that anecdotal decline with another no-data trend (that there are fewer sheds in the woods) is a recipe for some really spurious conclusions.

There's calcium in vegetation. In order to avoid a bunch of research, I'll go out on a limb myself and speculate that most of the calcium comes from, and has always come from, leaves.

 

[flatlanderhuffandpuff]

A hunter leaving bones in the woods wouldn't be an additive effect. That animal was destined to die and leave its bones in the woods had man not come along. If anything hunters remove bones from the woods for the animals they pack out with bone in.

And the thought about not effecting ungulates cause they maybe don't eat the bone. Any rodents, bears, wolves, ect... that eat the bones will then in turn poop out much of those nutrients. Likewise the sun and weather will break them bones down into a form that plants can then absorb and ungulates could then use by eating the plants.

There are studies about salmon that explore a similar situation. How salmon bring nutrients back to the rivers and the animals and water then spread those nutrients over a very large area. But if humans catch those salmon that circle is interrupted. Many hatcheries now place the dead spawned out salmon carcasses in upper reaches of the tributaries to return those nutrients to the system.

Hunters are killing more animals in a season than would die of natural causes in a season. What percentage of shed antlers are found and or removed from the woods?

 

[LandYacht]

Hunters are killing more animals in a season than would die of natural causes in a season. What percentage of shed antlers are found and or removed from the woods?

That’s a great question.

I wonder at what point it makes a difference? Is there even a threshold that matters? Maybe you can take every antler that falls and it doesn’t impact anything...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Antlers]

I once saw a penned whitetail chewing on a small shed - blew my mind.