Buck:Doe Ratio....How bad can it be?
05-28-2008, 04:04 PM
#31
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chatham, Ohio
Posts: 8,834
RE: Buck:Doe Ratio....How bad can it be?
I didnt say it was, note where i put (and they have that right),
Im simply stating that if the ratio is really bad where you hunt, then shooting whatever you want isnt a great way to produce more trophy caliber bucks. Im also stating that their isnt too much you can do about it (unless you own thousands of acres).
Im simply stating that if the ratio is really bad where you hunt, then shooting whatever you want isnt a great way to produce more trophy caliber bucks. Im also stating that their isnt too much you can do about it (unless you own thousands of acres).
05-28-2008, 04:08 PM
#32
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mont County, Pa
Posts: 7,368
RE: Buck:Doe Ratio....How bad can it be?
ORIGINAL: bawanajim
With your 10 - 1 ratio your either seeing a pile of deer or your not letting that many walk.
Think if you and two of your friends didn't kill a buck for 4 years but instead each killed five does. You would then be proud stewards of the land ,and become what we all strive to be, a true conservationist.
ORIGINAL: early in
I let "legal" bucks walk with regularity.
ORIGINAL: bawanajim
They don't need killed at all. If the ratio is as bad as you say,then if you shoot a buck you are the problem not the solution.
ORIGINAL: early in
This is EXACTLY why I think we need "Earn a Buck" in my specific WMU! Come on PGC, get with the "program"!!!
ORIGINAL: bawanajim
I really think if the ratio is that out of balance the only reasonable thing to do is stop killing any bucks at all.
"Savethe rage for a nanny!" Should be your slogan.
If as those of you state killing does is the best thing that can happen to herd health ,then the other mortality that takesthe greatest toll on bucks is man kinds harvest of said bucks .
We can't stop cars,winter storms or the rut,which are the leading causes of buck mortality, but ethics and morals alone should be enough for you herd dynamic folks to call off the buck slaughter for the good of a healthy herd of deer.
I really think if the ratio is that out of balance the only reasonable thing to do is stop killing any bucks at all.
"Savethe rage for a nanny!" Should be your slogan.
If as those of you state killing does is the best thing that can happen to herd health ,then the other mortality that takesthe greatest toll on bucks is man kinds harvest of said bucks .
We can't stop cars,winter storms or the rut,which are the leading causes of buck mortality, but ethics and morals alone should be enough for you herd dynamic folks to call off the buck slaughter for the good of a healthy herd of deer.
Think if you and two of your friends didn't kill a buck for 4 years but instead each killed five does. You would then be proud stewards of the land ,and become what we all strive to be, a true conservationist.
05-28-2008, 04:09 PM
#33
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Morgan County, IL
Posts: 1,073
RE: Buck:Doe Ratio....How bad can it be?
And besides thats not the question that was asked.[:-]
...and I get your point Siman, But you have heard that before, right? And don't these posts always end up there anyway?
05-28-2008, 04:11 PM
#34
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chatham, Ohio
Posts: 8,834
RE: Buck:Doe Ratio....How bad can it be?
Yes they do
Its hard to get the feel of everybodys hunting on here, because some of us are in heaven and some in hell when it comes to deer population and buck size.
Its hard to get the feel of everybodys hunting on here, because some of us are in heaven and some in hell when it comes to deer population and buck size.
05-28-2008, 04:15 PM
#35
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Wisconsin/Michigan
Posts: 9,679
RE: Buck:Doe Ratio....How bad can it be?
ORIGINAL: bawanajim
I really think if the ratio is that out of balance the only reasonable thing to do is stop killing any bucks at all.
"Save the rage for a nanny!" Should be your slogan.
If as those of you state killing does is the best thing that can happen to herd health ,then the other mortality that takes the greatest toll on bucks is man kinds harvest of said bucks .
We can't stop cars,winter storms or the rut,which are the leading causes of buck mortality, but ethics and morals alone should be enough for you herd dynamic folks to call off the buck slaughter for the good of a healthy herd of deer.
I really think if the ratio is that out of balance the only reasonable thing to do is stop killing any bucks at all.
"Save the rage for a nanny!" Should be your slogan.
If as those of you state killing does is the best thing that can happen to herd health ,then the other mortality that takes the greatest toll on bucks is man kinds harvest of said bucks .
We can't stop cars,winter storms or the rut,which are the leading causes of buck mortality, but ethics and morals alone should be enough for you herd dynamic folks to call off the buck slaughter for the good of a healthy herd of deer.
05-28-2008, 04:16 PM
#36
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mont County, Pa
Posts: 7,368
RE: Buck:Doe Ratio....How bad can it be?
ORIGINAL: Siman08/OH
Yes they do
Its hard to get the feel of everybodys hunting on here, because some of us are in heaven and some in hell when it comes to deer population and buck size.
Yes they do
Its hard to get the feel of everybodys hunting on here, because some of us are in heaven and some in hell when it comes to deer population and buck size.
05-28-2008, 04:16 PM
#37
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 8,167
RE: Buck:Doe Ratio....How bad can it be?
I'm one of the guys that don't think there are to many deer,and where I live there aren't.The more does equal more bucks.
I just feel that there are allot of feel good herd managers out there,and if they really cared about herd dynamics like they say they do then there is no justifiable explanation for the killing of any bucks.
I listen to the whining about some one killing a button buck,but your a hero for killing a 3.5 year old. A buck is a buck young orold. The herd ratio is what we're talking about here.
I just feel that there are allot of feel good herd managers out there,and if they really cared about herd dynamics like they say they do then there is no justifiable explanation for the killing of any bucks.
I listen to the whining about some one killing a button buck,but your a hero for killing a 3.5 year old. A buck is a buck young orold. The herd ratio is what we're talking about here.
05-28-2008, 04:18 PM
#38
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Mont County, Pa
Posts: 7,368
RE: Buck:Doe Ratio....How bad can it be?
ORIGINAL: bawanajim
I'm one of the guys that don't think there are to many deer,and where I live there aren't.The more does equal more bucks.
I'm one of the guys that don't think there are to many deer,and where I live there aren't.The more does equal more bucks.
05-28-2008, 04:23 PM
#39
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chatham, Ohio
Posts: 8,834
RE: Buck:Doe Ratio....How bad can it be?
Well if you take into consideration that some people will kill a small buck over a doe, then that will start the wheels spinning on bad herd ratio. If you only kill 3.5 year old bucks or older, then you are taking out a smaller part of the buck population. There are a far greater number of younger bucks then older bucks, so if we shoot more does and onlyolder bucks, then that will create a larger population of younger bucks which will eventually mean a larger population of older bucks.
But everything i just said is more about trophy deer and not herd ratio....so i guess it doesn't count towards the original question
But everything i just said is more about trophy deer and not herd ratio....so i guess it doesn't count towards the original question
05-28-2008, 04:26 PM
#40
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,796
RE: Buck:Doe Ratio....How bad can it be?
If you do the math......how bad can it really be?
If we have to assume that the newborn ratio is 1:1......let's assume you hunt a square mile. 640 acres and your herd count is 20/sq. mi. .
Let's say you start with a 9:1 (highly unlikely....but for the sake of the argument.....we'll use it). 20 deer, total. Let's even go a step further and say you kill 2 racked bucks off your property. Now.....you are at 0:18.
Now....if you have a 75% fawn survival rate.....and assume100% are bred (1 fawn:1 Doe).....you have 18 does giving birth to 9 buck fawns and 9 doe fawns. Take out your 25% that don't survive.....and you now have13 fawns surviving......half of which are bucks.If you have an equal %-age of doe mortality....you now have a herd that entails 31 deer for the upcoming season......and closer to a5:1 Buckoe ratio.
I'm one to see a lot of deer throughout a season....and I admit to seeing very few bucks. But.....that don't mean they aren't there.
Throw in displacement/Dispersal.....and I think it pretty much evens out (some leave.....some move in).
Is there anything wrong with this way of looking at this? I just think the ratios we see posted are sometimes NOT the way things really are in the wild.
If we have to assume that the newborn ratio is 1:1......let's assume you hunt a square mile. 640 acres and your herd count is 20/sq. mi. .
Let's say you start with a 9:1 (highly unlikely....but for the sake of the argument.....we'll use it). 20 deer, total. Let's even go a step further and say you kill 2 racked bucks off your property. Now.....you are at 0:18.
Now....if you have a 75% fawn survival rate.....and assume100% are bred (1 fawn:1 Doe).....you have 18 does giving birth to 9 buck fawns and 9 doe fawns. Take out your 25% that don't survive.....and you now have13 fawns surviving......half of which are bucks.If you have an equal %-age of doe mortality....you now have a herd that entails 31 deer for the upcoming season......and closer to a5:1 Buck
oe ratio. I'm one to see a lot of deer throughout a season....and I admit to seeing very few bucks. But.....that don't mean they aren't there.
Throw in displacement/Dispersal.....and I think it pretty much evens out (some leave.....some move in).
Is there anything wrong with this way of looking at this? I just think the ratios we see posted are sometimes NOT the way things really are in the wild.
When I read a post like this, I have to step back from the computer and put the tips of my fingers on each side of my head and go.......OOOOooommmmmm OOOOooommmmm, you are h-u-n-t-i-n-g d-e-e-r B-o-b-b-y, d-e-e-r. OOOOooommmmm.
There, better now.