GMMAT

I don't think you're getting my point. Bucks don't hang out in areas with LOTS of does......unless it's that special time of the year. Most of the year.....(in high doe density areas).....they stay away from them. I live "there"....lol.

davidmil

The only way it'll work on small parcels is if you get all the neighbors to agree to some form of controlled buck kills. Then once you get all the neighbors to agree you have to convince the night hunters and poachers.[&:][:@]

jackflap

I haven't read the article, or the previous one mentioned, but from the overview I am getting here, I don't see the conflict of ideas presented in each one.

Yes, I believe in general, (there will always be exceptions as deer are individuals just as us) that the older a buck gets the smaller his core area becomes. Some, if not most, will be almost 100% nocturnal even during the rut. It has also been documented that some mature deer don't breed any doe at all and won't leave their small core area even during the rut.

But we also know that bucks of all ages, including a large percent of maturebucks, will be on on the move during the rut and their range and daily travels expand considerably.

It is probably easier for me to visualize 1000 acres in dimensions than a lot of you guys since our country is pretty open and that we usually refer to land parcels in units of "sections". A section is 640 acres or 1 square mile.

So the article is referencing an area that is roughlty a section and a half.

If this 1000 acres was perfectly square, it would encompass an area 1.25 miles long and 1.25 miles wide. And if you were exacty in the center of the area it would be only 1100 yards(not quite 2/3 of a mile) in any direction to the perimter.I CAN"T imagine a buck NOT roaming at least that amount of area during the rutin my area.

Does his core area, which is much much smaller, change within that 1000 acresafter the rut? I have no idea, but I am not seeing the inconsistency in the articles based on what I am reading here.

early in

I totally agree with this. That's why the bucks where I hunt in Alberta travel huge expanses of land looking for does in heat. Because there's not many doe and there's plenty of competition for what few does there are. It's also why using the "Can" and rattling work so well.

njbuck22

Like jackflap mentioned, i have read that certain bucks will stop breeding as they get older. I think its all based on the individual buck that you are talking about. Like jeff mentioned, there are no absolutes when it comes to killing these critters.

LouisianaTomkat

This is the reason I have only 1 Absolute I concern myself with:

HuntingBry

This is another case of what I have come to strongly believe over the last few years and that is that many magazine articles written about deer hunting are written by and thus mostly apply to midwestern hunters. In the midwest what the article states (and yes I did read it and the one Jeff mentioned) is probably true. Around here in SE PA they don't "Walk Until They Die" for the very reason stated by Jeff, Lanse, and others. They don't need to roam great distances to find does because there are plenty in their home range. Jeff's other argument holds water too that if the home range is small and the accessibilty to breeding does is great they will not leave that home range. In the midwest where the doe numbers are lower and competition is much higher they will travel great distances to get a little love. Around here it would be more accurate to say "They Run Like Hell Until They Die," because that is what they are doing during gun season.

This trend of midwestern writing and application has had me reading and paying attention to more local writing and publications that reflect more closely my hunting situation, such as Joe Brooks' book. There is nothing wrong with the midwest style, it's just that I cannot apply it in 90% of my hunting situations.

130woodman

I got your point. Just my attempt at some humor.

dukemichaels

You know.. I read the article. It was a bit long winded I thought at times.. but I read it none the less. (By long winded I mean.. I got the subject of the story very quickly.. they didn't need to elaborate as much as the author did.)

I thought the article was nothing more than common sense. A deer needs food, water, and cover to survive.. and will only move as far as it needs to meet that criteria (obviously differs during the breeding season). 1,000 acres is relatively small I thought after reading the article. We're only talking a little under about 1.5 square miles. Not unimaginable... certainly.

I always think some hunters read these stories with such naivete.. as if to believe a whitetail just lives on his own 50 acres. As if the whitetail knows what a boundary or a property line is... he/she only knows survival... of him/herself and of the herd.

So a whitetail uses 1,000 acres or 2,000 acres... I think it would best a hunters interest more when he knows when to hunt his/her 50.

Nothing more than another article on common sense. That's what I thought of it.

Steven McBee

ok if theres does, water, food and cover why the heck would that buck leave and walk around if he doesnt have to....... a bucks core area shrinks to even 100 acres if it has the 4 needs, i think that articles retarted.....Al Brothers helped a guy in New York(its in a book forgot the name) with only 215 acres manage his land and ke killed giant bucks year after year after he passed them up when they were 2.5