Best buck to doe ratio is 1:2... change my mind

[megalomaniac]

All the 'biological' craze over the past decade has been to slaughter does in an attempt to get your local herd down to a 1:1 ratio. The thought being is that you can free up additional food resources for bucks to reach their potential.

While that may be true in poor habitats with an overpopulation of deer, I've found that actually running a 1:2 to 1:2.5 buck: doe ratio produces a better outcome for hunting quality as well as sheer numbers of bucks to hunt in the future as long as you have adequate habitat to support the larger herd... all at the same time NOT hurting the bucks being able to reach their top end potential for antler growth.

More deer seen while hunting, intense 1st rut, with enough does going unbred 1st rut to produce an intense 2nd rut hunting opportunity, and more future buck fawns recruited for additional harvest opportunity in years to come


Bottom line, IN MY OPINION, if you can increase your local carrying capacity through habitat management, I would advocate striving for a 1:2 to 1:2.5 buck to doe ratio over the 'sought after magical' 1:1 ratio.

If you arent a deer nerd like me, just keep on killing whatever.

 

[jmf]

Do you have personal experience on the same farms with a 1:1 ratio and 1:2 ratio? This subject has really spurred my interest in the last week.

 

[GOODWIN]

I'm not sure what the optimum ratio is but the doe killing spree that folks went on for years past has hurt some areas I hunt in Tn and MS.

 

[megalomaniac]

Do you have personal experience on the same farms with a 1:1 ratio and 1:2 ratio? This subject has really spurred my interest in the last week.

Just limited trips as a guest to clubs where they are instructed to kill 1 doe for every 40 acres annually. After 4 or 5 years, the number of mature bucks killed has actually declined... and antler scores of the mature bucks killed didn't increase. And these were on properties in the MS delta where food WASNT an issue. So the end result of going for a 1:1 ratio was no improvement in antler scores, but fewer bucks killed.

Again, this may be different in terrible habitat where deer are starving. But I've not hunted those places.

 

[poorhunter]

All I know is that in my area the leases are killing the snot out of does and there's fewer deer than ever. In my holler I have sole access to 180 acres and in 6 years I have killed one doe and that was six years ago. I'm surrounded by leases, some 2-300 acres and one several thousand, and they pound the does. Three doe a day mentality is killing the herd.

 

[AT Hiker]

idk, but I can't find a good deer on my family farm so I'm considering killing them all and starting from scratch…it can't be any worse.

 

[jmf]

I'm not sure what the optimum ratio is but the doe killing spree that folks went on for years past has hurt some areas I hunt in Tn and MS.

Hurt as is number of deer sightings or number of mature buck sightings/harvest?

 

[jmf]

Just limited trips as a guest to clubs where they are instructed to kill 1 doe for every 40 acres annually. After 4 or 5 years, the number of mature bucks killed has actually declined... and antler scores of the mature bucks killed didn't increase. And these were on properties in the MS delta where food WASNT an issue. So the end result of going for a 1:1 ratio was no improvement in antler scores, but fewer bucks killed.

Again, this may be different in terrible habitat where deer are starving. But I've not hunted those places.

Thank you for the explanation. I wonder if the decline of the number of harvested mature bucks after heavy doe harvesting was the direct result of not necessarily the high doe harvest number but rather the unintentional high harvest number of buttons. People have to be real careful shooting does late season. I have been guilty of this.

 

[diamond hunter]

I ain't killing any does on my place,plent and I mean plenary of food and just not enough deer.My simple solution is don't shoot does for a couple years and increase cover.

 

[backyardtndeer]

Think you are right. For a very long time, I have held the position that killing too many does was not a sound management practice. Have to have does around, or you are not going to have deer around.

 

[GOODWIN]

Hurt as is number of deer sightings or number of mature buck sightings/harvest?

Both

 

[BSK]

Not going to argue against it. What I like about private land management is you can set the goals to the type of hunting the landowner wants.

I set mine a bit lower because I don't want a 2nd rut, for biological reasons. Late-born male fawns are behind the 8-ball, and they may stay behind antler-growth-wise for several years afterwards (and possibly forever). Now on smaller properties, the end result may be nothing, as most of the yearlings born there are going to disperse to somewhere else. But I'm going to shoot for something closer to balance (1.5 does per buck) to keep the rut tightly timed, hence fawn births tightly timed (which reduces coyote predation), but not so low as to have doe harvest pressure drive the does nocturnal during the rut.

 

[GOODWIN]

BSK I do think the hunting pressure that goes with shooting a lot of does is a factor in seeing the amount of deer especially older bucks

 

[megalomaniac]

I'm NOT advocating for not shooting does. Heck, I've taken 1 myself this year. What I am arguing against is striving for a 1:1 buck to doe ratio, which is prescribed locally on the DMAP properties is a blanket harvest of 1 doe killed per 40 acres. Doesn't matter the habitat, carrying capacity, actual population, deer density... its always prescribed by the managers as kill 1 doe per 40 acres.

Actual property management should be much more nuanced. And to me it seems striving for a 1:1 ratio ends up degrading hinting experience without providing any benefit.

 

[BSK]

I'm NOT advocating for not shooting does. Heck, I've taken 1 myself this year. What I am arguing against is striving for a 1:1 buck to doe ratio, which is prescribed locally on the DMAP properties is a blanket harvest of 1 doe killed per 40 acres. Doesn't matter the habitat, carrying capacity, actual population, deer density... its always prescribed by the managers as kill 1 doe per 40 acres.

Those type of blanket management strategies can be a real problem, as every property is different and every group of hunters will have different hunting goals.

 

[BSK]

Actual property management should be much more nuanced. And to me it seems striving for a 1:1 ratio ends up degrading hinting experience without providing any benefit.

I've seen perfectly balanced sex ratios produce biological advantages (a tightly timed rut), but honestly, in most cases it did not benefit the hunters as was expected. This is primarily due to the heavy harvest pressure required on the doe population, which tends to drive them nocturnal, even during the rut.

 

[Andy S.]

I agree 125,000 %, yes percent. You can over harvest your does to a point where the standing herd deer density is WAAAAAY below carrying capacity, hunting is little to no fun, and the number of bucks on the landscape are less than what they could/should be and still allow maximum potential with age. I have not traveled the entire USA, but I have yet to see an area where the browse line was so bad that the deer herd was TRULY OVER CARRYING CAPACITY. I am sure they exist, but I have never hunted one. I am not a fan of kill all the does at all costs, and I am seeing fewer and fewer areas in SW TN that need more does killed/removed than bucks.

 

[Andy S.]

Just limited trips as a guest to clubs where they are instructed to kill 1 doe for every 40 acres annually. After 4 or 5 years, the number of mature bucks killed has actually declined... and antler scores of the mature bucks killed didn't increase. And these were on properties in the MS delta where food WASNT an issue. So the end result of going for a 1:1 ratio was no improvement in antler scores, but fewer bucks killed.

I've seen this and lived it as well. Some of my buds have done the "kill does at all costs" on several strictly managed farms and the end result was the same: far less deer density, far below carrying capacity and far fewer good bucks over time to keep them interested in hunting. They eventually abandoned all properties/programs due to the miserable hunting experiences that resulted.

 

[BSK]

I have not traveled the entire USA, but I have yet to see an area where the browse line was so bad that the deer herd was TRULY OVER CARRYING CAPACITY. I am sure they exist, but I have never hunted one.

You needed to be with me when I started working deer management in the Southeast, especially the Deep South. Browse lines like I never hope to see again. And I saw them in western TN as well, but not as severe as in the Deep South (primarily Alabama and Mississippi). Luckily, QDM was adopted much more thoroughly by hunters than I ever imagined. That has greatly improved herd densities across the region since the "bad old days" of the early 2000s.

Have some taken doe harvests too far? Absolutely. You can shoot the deer density down below desirable numbers from a hunting standpoint real quick. But I have also seen properties where animal quality sky-rocketed after deer densities were reduced to a biologically sound level. In fact, I can say with good conviction that we are seeing the fruits of that in much of TN now.

 

[DoubleRidge]

Those type of blanket management strategies can be a real problem, as every property is different and every group of hunters will have different hunting goals.

I absolutely agree with this statement.... every property is different and managers have different goals.....no way are we shooting 1 doe per 40 acre.... honestly...we haven't seen the need to shoot a single doe in many years....but again, our circumstances are different than others.