Fish,
I posted this in response to the same thread you started in the "Serious Deer Hunting" section:
I really don't have time to get into this, and I have a lot of other stuff that I should be doing instead, but...
I want to clear up some misconceptions, in my opinion, about the benfits of taking as many does as bucks everywhere, in all situations. But first, a little history.
Twenty or thirty years ago, I remember reading about statewide deer kills, in the United States, in Field and Stream, or Sports Afield, or some such, and I was amazed that Texas had a deer kill of 500,000, Mississippi killed 250,000, and Alabama killed 250,000. So, between just three states, they were killing one million deer annually. (At one time, the Llano basin in Texas had the highest deer densities on earth)I read this at a time where I had been hunting for several years without even seeing a deer in my state. Obviously, the deer herds in those states had already matured while other states were in the infancy of deer restoration.
Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and probably Georgia, along with a few northern states, already had well established, mature deer herds, while the rest of us were still trying to restore them. There were many states with large sections sans any deer. During that restoration phase, does were sacred. Does were not to be shot, under any circumstances, so the population could grow. As deer populations began reaching a "cultural" carrying capacity (the point where a lot of people said, "OK, dammit, that's enough deer") the antlerless harvests started up. In Tennessee, the first real doe harvests started in the mid-1980s, while we were still stocking deer.
During those restocking years, any buck was a "good" buck. Close to 80% of the harvest were yearlings. Not many bucks reached the older age classes. But the hunters were able to take "a deer" once in a while.
Meanwhile, Texas, Georgia, and Mississippi, in particular, had reached a point where hunters had become dissatisfied with the little bucks, and the deer managers were becoming alarmed at the explosive growth of deer populations. Hunters wanted bigger bucks, managers wanted to halt population growth, and the best way to accomplish both goals was to cut back the number of little bucks killed and dramatically increase the doe harvests. One way to accomplish this task, and measure success, was to get harvests of does to equal harvests of bucks. In addition to limiting herd growth, more bucks would reach older age classes, and a lot of mature bucks in the population would affect herd dynamics and social interactions. There would be more competition during the rut for available females, creating stupid, unwary, big bucks running under tree stands.
From those states, the basics of Quality Deer Management took root. Pass young bucks, shoot lots of does, improve the habitat. That made sense, and still does make sense.
Remember, however, Tennessee was still stocking deer in 1985. There are some counties with deer herds well below their potential. Yet there are other Tennessee counties with deer densities which rival any in Texas, Mississippi, or Georgia.
Now, with that as background information, I would like to give my opinion regarding the "benefit" of a 1:1 sex ratio in Unit B counties. And I do so, even though I am not the most qualified, since I am on the other side of the state.
There are two ways to achieve an equal harvest of bucks and does, with the goal of equalizing the sex ratio of the population. You can shoot fewer bucks, or you can shoot more does. Here is a very simple example:
A population of 100 deer, with an annual harvest of 30 bucks and 10 does, changed to:
A population of 100 deer, with a harvest of 10 bucks and 10 does, OR
A population of 100 deer, with a harvest of 30 bucks and 30 does.
In the first instance, 1:1 is achieved by reducing buck harvests. In the second, by increasing doe harvests. (or there could be a middle ground if the harvest was altered to 20 bucks and 20 does)
The point is... There is a big difference in "effects produced" depending on which method is used to achieve a 50:50 buck:doe harvest. If you just cut back the number of young bucks, but not the number of does taken, the population can still grow at the previous rate, but more bucks will reach older age classes. If you just raise the number of does taken, but don't change the number of young bucks taken, you slow herd growth, and you do not produce more older age bucks (in fact, you may have fewer old bucks, because you might reduce fawn recruitment into the population). (I know, I know, BSK can jump on me for that simplification, because there is a compensatory increase in recruitment and survival if the population is reduced)
So, now we have hunters who would like to see the Unit B antlerless opportunities expanded. They want to shoot more does. One reason for this desire is to create a 1:1 sex ratio, along with the corresponding benefits. The problem is, in my opinion, the wrong way to do it is "just let them shoot more does" until they are shooting as many does as they are bucks. All that will do is reduce herd growth, without increasing older age bucks. There will be no "improved herd dynamics" because the older bucks will still be absent. In the words of on biologist, it would put Unit B back to 1985.
OK, so let's reduce the buck harvests in Unit B to a level equal to the doe harvests. OK, great. But, how? We dropped the limit from 3 down to 2 bucks, yet, that has had no apparent difference. The bucks harvests appear to have continued on the same course as they had been going, before the reduction. In other words, the reduction in the buck bag limit seems to have saved very few bucks in Unit B. Would reduction to 1 buck in Unit B produce the desired effect? It might, but there are very, very, few hunters who want to see a bag limit of 1 buck in East Tennessee.
I guess I am arguing for (or against) the simplification that a 1:1 sex ratio, achieved by a 50:50 buck:doe harvest, is not the same in all instances. Nor is it the right thing to do, in all instances. In a mature deer herd, if it is achieved by BOTH a reduction in buck harvests AND an increase in doe harvests, it could very well be the best management option. If it is a growing herd, and a 50:50 harvest is achieved solely by increasing doe harvests, WITHOUT a corresponding reduction in buck harvests, it may well be the worst.
One final thought... I had a biologist say to me, a few years back, "This 1:1 sex ratio stuff is like a chartreuse rubber worm."
When I asked him to explain he said, "You know how some big TV fisherman has a show and catches a great, big bass on a chartreuse rubber worm, and for the next couple weeks, all the fishermen want a chartreuse rubber worm because it's the only way to catch a big bass? That's what this 1:1 sex ratio has become. It is the chartreuse rubber worm of deer management."
