Buck to doe Ratio

[toddyboman]

Ok lets talk about this and how we think it impacts our hunting areas.

And what goals we have and how we plan to accomplish them.

Several of the hunters I hunt with or talk with think its crazy to shoot a bunch of does. Their thinking is if we have a bunch of does we will pull a bunch of bucks too. I try to get them to understand the quality of bucks but they do not agree.

I think my hunting area has to many does. But its also hard for me to tell 100% forsure. Since spotlighting is illegal. So each year I try to shoot a couple to try and help out.

So what do you guys thoughts on the topic.???

[buckee]

Re: Buck to doe Ratio

I've found just from observation over the years, (on these blacktails) that the more does you have, the least likely you are to see the bigger, dominant bucks. The reason being, that when there are too many does, compared to the buck population, the bigger bucks don't really have to compete much at all for the does, therefore less chasing, and less sitings. They will also stay in the cover with a group of does, until after dark, just because they can, and there is no pressure to get out there and fight and chase for what they're after.

The ideal ratio, is (I think) 1 buck for every 1 1/2 to 2 does. This leaves the door open for some great rutting activity, and lots of competition. It makes your chances of seeing mature bucks, that much greater.

Good competition, also results in a stronger gene pool further down the road.

my opinion

[Tominator]

Re: Buck to doe Ratio

We shoot every doe that comes into range.

Well, Ohiobucks shoots every doe that comes into range. I either never get a doe in range, or I miss every doe in range.

[wtnhunt]

Re: Buck to doe Ratio

Think that you can go too far with trying to manage the does. Here we saw a pretty significant drop in the overall herd after a couple years of more aggressive doe hunts and more liberal limits. We also took equal numbers of does or more does than buck in each of the past 3 or 4 seasons prior to the 2006-2007 season. I decided after seeing only one fawn in the 06 summer that does were off limits, and passed them all up here. The wife ended up doing the same. Without any does, you will have NO deer.

Not surprisingly with less does around, we have been seeing less deer in general including bucks here the past few seasons. There has to be a balance. I think 1 buck to every 2 does is a good ratio.

[Doc]

Re: Buck to doe Ratio

I think that trying to establish a certain buck to doe ratio is an effort of futility unless you have a situation where you can count every deer, such as a fenced in game farm. Yes, you can get a rough perception of whether you are seeing an awful lot of does compared to bucks or vice-versa. But when someone tells me that they have a 1:2 ratio or are working toward that, I have to wonder what secret method of inventory they have discovered. Perhaps they ought to share those secret methods with the state game agencies since there's not a one of them that ever seems to get it right.

The best I can do is to state that I see a lot more does than bucks or just the opposite, which ever the case may be. I would never try to put an actual number to that. My hunting area is an awful lot of square miles of heavily forested land, and the best I can do is talk about a vague perception. Heck even opinions about the over-all population are merely perceptions, and only good for the immediate area that you hunt.

Often these kinds of subjects are talked about like we are managing a herd cows or a flock of goats or something. Let's face it, there is never a time that every deer in the woods comes out in a field and stands there so we can count them. Even if they did, some places don't even have fields...lol.

Doc

[MUDRUNNER]

Re: Buck to doe Ratio

[ QUOTE ]

I think 1 buck to every 2 does is a good ratio.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

No doubt taking to many does can be bad for the herd.The spots I hunt seem to be about 1 buck for every 4 or 5 does and on average I would say we take 3 does for every buck.It still seems like we have to many does,but I think our local herd numbers are down so we may ease up on the does this year.

[Texan_Til_I_Die]

Re: Buck to doe Ratio

I've got the ranch I hunt right at 1:1 and it is absolutely fantastic. There's nothing better than going out in the morning and knowing you're going to see bucks. The only drawback I've seen is that there is so much fighting during the rut that by late season, most of the bigger bucks have broken tines.

[RangerClay]

Re: Buck to doe Ratio

[ QUOTE ]

We shoot every doe that comes into range.

Well, Ohiobucks shoots every doe that comes into range. I either never get a doe in range, or I miss every doe in range.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL Chris

[Guest realtrhunter]

You have to manage the herd of deer to some extent. If we dont try to keep into some kind of check things would be horrible as far as vehical accidents and all. Not to mention we would only have forest of trees that dont produce much or any mast for animals (that is a whole different thread on its own).

If you were going to try and take a count of a deer herd I would almost bet that you could count deer in a field in the evening and multipy the number by 2 and you would be somewhere close, but I am not for sure about that.

I think the correct ratio for an area is site specific so there is not a cure all answer. I would talk to the state and other experts about the area. Then it is not to mention that you would have to possibly have to get the neighbors to work with you to make it a successful program.

[Randyman]

Take the hint from Mother Nature, the natural birth rate in a relatively healthy herd is just about 50/50 bucks to does. Anyone who thinks it should be much more than that is not seeing the forest for the trees. In my opinion, too many hunters think the herd should be managed strictly for artificially high numbers and/or big bucks. Ironically, too many hunters refuse to believe that a 50/50 ratio is one of the few ways to assure bigger bucks, because only then will the most dominant bucks be doing the majority of the breeding. I completely agree with the notion that too many does assures that you are not going to see many bucks during the rut, because they don't have to go far to find receptive does. From what little i know about QDM principles, doe control is a crucial aspect. What does that tell you? I know here in my home state of Illinois, the DNR gets pressure from Farmers, Insurance Companies, Homeowners Associations, etc. to reduce deer numbers and hunters do themselves a disservice to think that their opinion is the only one that should matter. I still know far too many hunters that all but refuse to shoot does because they feel cheated if they don't see 20-30 deer every time they go out. Then they will turn around and shoot a 1 1/2 year old forkhorn for "meat in the freezer". I don't have a problem with shooting small bucks, but i always try to balance it out with a couple of does.

[Doc]

Quote: "If you were going to try and take a count of a deer herd I would almost bet that you could count deer in a field in the evening and multipy the number by 2 and you would be somewhere close, but I am not for sure about that."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fields? ........... What fields? We have two small fields that are about 2 miles up the road that are quickly going back to brushland. The closest thing that I have to a field in our immediate area would be my front lawn....lol.

And where on earth did you grab this arbitrary number of "2"? Is that really based on anything at all?

I still say that unless you are equipped with aerial surveilance and some pretty wide open land, every discussion about buck to doe ratios is nothing more than a guess. And by the way, if your guess is completely wacked out, and you act on that flawed notion, you may wind up with more does than bucks. I'll just bet that isn't too great a situation either.

I know it sounds impressive to talk about buck to doe ratios, but I'm sure the reality is that greater than 99% of all hunters have absolutely no clue how many deer are in their hunting area let alone what the buck to doe ratio is. I'm sure we can all get an idea of whether we have a lot of deer in our hunting areas or not. We can even make judgements as to whether there seems to be many more does than bucks. But that is a long way from being able to actually assign hard numbers to such things. If you run a tightly controlled, heavily fenced hunting preserve that may be a different story, but most of us do not have that situation.

Doc

[tennswamper]

There is a way to get a pretty accurate count on your deer population and you ratios

I know within a small error each way what our ratio is and this in the deep south.

I also know what our pre-hunt census was. IT was within a small error either way.

All you need is cameras and bait and the formulas.

Also, killing a few does to justify "balancing" out your yearling buck is not the way to look at it. You CANNOT balance that out, no matter how many does you shoot. In order to get any sort of "balance", you must allow those bucks to reach maturity or at least 2.5y/o.

[Doc]

The camera method sounds like it does have some promise, but how many cameras would you need for a couple hundred acres. Probably more than I or most people could afford.

And, of course there is the problem of verifying the error. How do you do that? I know that there are a lot of methods of trying to count deer.....has been for many years. The problem is that most of them have been abandoned because there was never any way of verifying the count.

Doc

[johnf]

We shoot every doe that comes into range.

Well, Ohiobucks shoots every doe that comes into range. I either never get a doe in range, or I miss every doe in range.

I think you may need to shorten your range.

I've never hear of doe fever, except during the rut.

[johnf]

The camera method sounds like it does have some promise, but how many cameras would you need for a couple hundred acres. Probably more than I or most people could afford.

Doc

I would think that all you would have to do is put cameras up in major travel areas and that would get a pretty accurate count.

[tennswamper]

Here is what I was told by a well known deer manager. He had managed properties all over the country for one of the biggest consultants. I think I trust what he says. LOL

"The best time to run a photo census is as late in the summer as possible (so antler development is near complete), 2) yet before any acorns begin to fall (acorns outdraw any other food source--deer will stop coming to the camera bait once acorns begin to fall).

For me, I like anywhere from the first of August through mid-September. Antlers are almost fully developed by early August and acorns begin to fall in mid-September. Just remember that any food-source bait must be completely removed at least 10 days before the start of bow season.

Once I determine the camera locations, I pre-bait the location (keep an active pile of corn) for at least 10 days before I start the census (to get deer accustomed to using the site), then I place the cameras and run the census for at least 10 days. In 10 days, you will get pictures of the vast majority of deer using the area (90+%).

Minimum camera/bait locations are 4 per square mile, or one per 160 acres (quarter square mile). I literally draw a one square mile square on a map, divide it into four equal quarters, and then pin-point a camera/bait site near the center of each quarter-square. "

[Doc]

I still remain a bit skeptical about schemes that promise to give highly accurate deer counts. When you consider the number of variables involved, from ever changing food sources to the wide varieties of reactions and movements due to changing weather conditions, it really is hard to believe that there is any one method that works adequately over all areas of the country. And then to refine that even further to determining defined buck to doe ratios truly is a bit hard to swallow.

If the deer herd was a single entity that stayed in a small confined area, all this would be a lot more believable. But that isn't the nature of deer, at least not in our area. Even when deer are yarded up in the dead of winter, those yards do not comprise all the deer in the area. We have many small herds and solitary deer that operate independant of each other in terms of their travel routes and feeding habits. On any given day, you can find deer scattered in any number of locations within a hunting area, and they are not all feeding on the same thing or in the same place. To be able to find locations for cameras that are guaranteed to catch all the deer in a 100 to 200 acre hunting area, or whatever size area that you may be trying to survey, would be a spectacular feat indeed. Further, to assure that deer are not being counted multiple times would a pretty neat trick unless they all had I.D. numbers painted on their side. The same old non-descrip doe can trigger the same camera several times, or trigger several cameras as it wanders around the area.

Again, I would say that you might be able to get a very rough idea of whether the population was up or down, but to try to boil that all down to exact numbers and ratios is still a heck of a stretch that I believe could have a lot of people trying to manage herds with a completely flawed idea of the actual reality. It is nice to theorize as to what the ideal buck to doe ratio should be, but trying to manage so that that ratio is achieved is still a pretty far-fetched activity. This would be especially true for the non-professional manager who does not do this sort of thing for a living (which is what.......99% of our forum members?).

It's not really a big deal, but I think that there are a lot of people who get roped into the idea that if they spend enough money on cameras and such that they all of a sudden will be able to accurately survey the population numbers and sex ratios. with very rare cases, I believe that these people are merely being duped by camera manufacturers and all the hype about average, run-of-the-mill hunters being able to micro-manage their herds as a part-time activity. Things are getting pretty wacky out there with people talking like they are managing a deer farm. I can understand trying to improve hunting in your area, but let's face it, these are not flocks of penned sheep. They are wild, and hopefully, free-ranging animals. The good news is that it is the unpredictibility of these animals that makes them so great as a hunting challenge.

Doc

[Rhino]

Idealy I believe a buck to doe ratio of about 1 buck to 1 1/2 does is about right. If you get down to the 1 to 1 ratio you'll find more bucks breaking off tines and main beams from fighting. You'll also find bucks killing other bucks from fights if it gets below that.

I read a biologist article about a ranch in Texas where they attempted to reduce the buck doe ratio to around 1 to 0.5. When they got below 1 to 1 they found dead bucks from fighting and numerous bucks with broken up racks. After that they gradually raised the ratio back to 1 to 1.25 and quit finding dead bucks and fewer bucks with busted up racks.

I won't argue with Doc over determining the ratios. Fact is you can only come up with a rough estimate of the approximate ratio. Nothing is exact when it comes to these numbers.

From my own deer sightings I'd say ours was about 1 to 1 3/4. My deer sightings over the past 5 seasons have shown a ratio from 1 to 1 on the low side up to 1 to 2 on the high side. That comes from seeing on average 170 deer/season over that 5 year time frame.

[Doc]

I read a biologist article about a ranch in Texas where they attempted to reduce the buck doe ratio to around 1 to 0.5. When they got below 1 to 1 they found dead bucks from fighting and numerous bucks with broken up racks. After that they gradually raised the ratio back to 1 to 1.25 and quit finding dead bucks and fewer bucks with busted up racks.

That is an interesting piece of research. It really does make you wonder about keeping such close ratios. Here in the northern climates, it is essential that bucks, and all deer for that matter, go into winter with the best level of fat reserves possible in order to ensure survival during the occasional extra harsh winter. I wouldn't think it would be a great thing to have bucks depleting these fat reserves by promoting extra fighting activity through close ratios. I wonder if anyone has ever done any research in northern climates, specifically related to that item when concocting these "ideal" buck to doe ratios.

Doc