For you buck hunters...what's your opinion on killing does?

[Vincent Vega]

I will say the two biggest bucks I have killed have been solo and cruising. However, the most exciting hunts I've had have been where bucks have busted in on a group of does shortly before dark or have otherwise been chasing does. I'd love to have gotten a look at all of the deer I could hear chasing, crashing and grunting but never could see.

 

[rtross]

I'll occasionally shoot a large doe (mature and without yearlings), but only when I REALLY need venison.

I always feel guilty about shooting does; I don't like to be violent towards women folk!

 

[rockyfatcat]

The wildlife management people have tinkered with various management theories. Years ago the thought was reducing the number of bucks and the number of deer would drop. The result was a boom in deer population. Why? The few bucks that survived the hunting season had nearly no competition for breeding with the untouched doe population.

The management finally came to the conclusion that to reduce the deer population they needed to reduce the number of deer uterus's producing more babies. Hence the increase in doe tags. The goal of a healthy deer population is a balancing act of competing interests.

The deer population is analyzed and the number of tags issued every year are considered. The encouragement to hunt the doe and remove that uterus from cranking out more deer and limiting the total number of deer running around. The limited number of buck tags hoped to provide the hunter with a higher quality buck when they did take a trophy.

In order to control the deer population a set of numbers are projected and tags are issued. When the tags are filled that data is collected and the changes in the overall population are noted. If the current 10 to 2 ratio doesn’t have the desired impact on the total population they may make charges in the number of each.

 

[Psilloh1]

The wildlife management people have tinkered with various management theories. Years ago the thought was reducing the number of bucks and the number of deer would drop. The result was a boom in deer population. Why? The few bucks that survived the hunting season had nearly no competition for breeding with the untouched doe population.

The management finally came to the conclusion that to reduce the deer population they needed to reduce the number of deer uterus's producing more babies. Hence the increase in doe tags. The goal of a healthy deer population is a balancing act of competing interests.

The deer population is analyzed and the number of tags issued every year are considered. The encouragement to hunt the doe and remove that uterus from cranking out more deer and limiting the total number of deer running around. The limited number of buck tags hoped to provide the hunter with a higher quality buck when they did take a trophy.

In order to control the deer population a set of numbers are projected and tags are issued. When the tags are filled that data is collected and the changes in the overall population are noted. If the current 10 to 2 ratio doesn’t have the desired impact on the total population they may make charges in the number of each.

Maybe... but the insurance companies probably give much more concrete data of vehicle/Deer collisions...

I would think their lobbying interest trump any other data...

 

[Horsehat]

One thing to consider is that an area will be capable of carrying a certain number of deer based on available food sources. Areas with a high amount of agricultural sources where crop residues or winter cover crops with high forage value exist will carry more deer than areas with poorer food sources. An agricultural area also interspersed with mature oaks that are dropping plentiful amounts of acorns is better yet. Does will feed throughout the rut and if adaquate food is available will hold or gain weight during this time, going into late winter the most critical food source time of the year, in fat/good condition. Bucks however don't have eating on their mind and may lose 15+% of their body weight during the rut. Going into the critical winter period where food is scarce and caloric need the greatest carrying little or no fat. Mature bucks are the most at risk segment of the population during this period. If food is plentiful they will generally get through, if food supplies are poor, they often will not. Removing does during times of tight resources will aid in year to year buck survival and even when food supplies are good will improve retention numbers. It is probable that a number equal to the capacity of the habitat to feed is going to survive wether they are shot, fall to predators, disease or starve to death. Keeping deer numbers lower through hunting will make for healthier deer. Shooting does reduces numbers faster and allows for better late winter buck survival and greater potential of killing a big buck, though obviously you will see less deer. Improving habitat by growing late winter forage crops will improve both numbers and quality. IMO

 

[Psilloh1]

One thing to consider is that an area will be capable of carrying a certain number of deer based on available food sources. Areas with a high amount of agricultural sources where crop residues or winter cover crops with high forage value exist will carry more deer than areas with poorer food sources. An agricultural area also interspersed with mature oaks that are dropping plentiful amounts of acorns is better yet. Does will feed throughout the rut and if adaquate food is available will hold or gain weight during this time, going into late winter the most critical food source time of the year, in fat/good condition. Bucks however don't have eating on their mind and may lose 15+% of their body weight during the rut. Going into the critical winter period where food is scarce and caloric need the greatest carrying little or no fat. Mature bucks are the most at risk segment of the population during this period. If food is plentiful they will generally get through, if food supplies are poor, they often will not. Removing does during times of tight resources will aid in year to year buck survival and even when food supplies are good will improve retention numbers. It is probable that a number equal to the capacity of the habitat to feed is going to survive wether they are shot, fall to predators, disease or starve to death. Keeping deer numbers lower through hunting will make for healthier deer. Shooting does reduces numbers faster and allows for better late winter buck survival and greater potential of killing a big buck, though obviously you will see less deer. Improving habitat by growing late winter forage crops will improve both numbers and quality. IMO

I would agree with you if we were talking about the Northeast, Midwest, or upper midwest where SubZero temps plus snow
Blanket the region for months at a time. in Georgia we do not have to worry about “Winterkill” here in the south.

Interesting you bring this up. Here’s a pic my brother in law sent from Pennsylvania today...

 

[Horsehat]

View attachment 1453860


I would agree with you if we were talking about the Northeast, Midwest, or upper midwest where SubZero temps plus snow
Blanket the reguons for months at a time. in Georgia we do not have to worry about “Winterkill” here in the south.

Interesting you bring this up. Here’s a pic my brother in law sent from Pennsylvania today...

It is no doubt exacerbated by severe temperatures but it isn't always death by freezing it can be nutrition too poor to fight off an otherwise unfatal disease or infection.

 

[chrislibby88]

I shoot a doe early as possible.I call em bait.Hate to shoot one after the rut at all.And really hate to shoot a first year deer any time.

Why feel bad bout the youngsters? One way to look at is is they aren’t proven breeders like mature bucks or does. The young ones are the most likely to die if food is scarce, and have learned the least about predators, so they are more likely to turn into coyote or bear food. You kill a 6 monther and chances are it wouldn’t have made it to 5 years old anyway, hell the next year isn’t guaranteed....but a deer that has made it to 3 or 4 years or older is likely to keep surviving. And breeding.

I prefer bigger deer personally, as they yield more meat. 4 large deer are roughly equal to 6 youngsters, but I don’t have any issue with an extra tender small treat once a year.

 

[chrislibby88]

haven,t shot a doe in years main reason with all coyotoes preying on fawns diease EHD alot of greedy folks really how many deer year can u eat a year The deer Numbers in North east ga have been on the decline for past 5 to 10 years same thing with turkeys alot things happening diease wise we don,t have a clue about 2 bucks a year is enough

Dude my family can almost eat through a nice sized deer a month. 12 per year would probably meet meet my red meat needs.

 

[rockyfatcat]

Maybe... but the insurance companies probably give much more concrete data of vehicle/Deer collisions...

I would think their lobbying interest trump any other data...

I would think a state level decision maker would include as many data points as they could. Insurance info, number of carcasses on the side of the road, number of buck/doe tags filled out.
None of these by themselves is going to be absolutely perfect. But the numbers are going to give you a good idea of the actual numbers out there but they can indicate the current trend.
They are going to be interested in the state population and they will not be concerned about the plot you manage. Maco vs micro. With all their fiddling with the number of tags and the mistakes they make, Mother Nature still works things out.