Tmayer13
Well-Known Member
There are so many variables here. I think shooting does is just like shooting coyotes. Where one is killed another will fill that spot. There truly is no real winning here. Id like to see it be around 3:1 ratio but that's not possible.
The biggest issue is most people do their doe filling in the late season over large grain plots. Well that's fine BUT the issue lies in that A LOT of the deer that show up late season to munch on your corn plot aren't even resident deer. They are simply there for the delicious morsels.
So to answer your questions. It takes me 4-5 deer for my family to eat for the year. I usually try and take a few more out and either donate them or give them to other family members. Like I said I would love to see a 3:1 deer ratio but I just don't think its possible.
The biggest issue is most people do their doe filling in the late season over large grain plots. Well that's fine BUT the issue lies in that A LOT of the deer that show up late season to munch on your corn plot aren't even resident deer. They are simply there for the delicious morsels.
So to answer your questions. It takes me 4-5 deer for my family to eat for the year. I usually try and take a few more out and either donate them or give them to other family members. Like I said I would love to see a 3:1 deer ratio but I just don't think its possible.
Incredibly property specific. I have a farm I've taken 2 does off of in 6 years. Another one we plan to shoot 100 on this year.
Above good points on dynamics and obstacles.
Above good points on dynamics and obstacles.
iowavf
Active Member
Unless you have a fenced in area, how do you really know how many doe or bucks are on, or around your property? If you have a good population of doe in your hunting area, then shoot some each year. As been said already, properties are different, not all places hold deer, they just pass through going from point A to B.
tall@wide
PMA Member
I agree all properties are different with variables. I'm usually on places with very high doe numbers and it requires a lot of work to keep them under control. My observation has been mature bucks try to stay away from big doe groups except during the rut. During the rut they don't have to move as much for sure with high doe numbers.
Hardwood11
It is going to be a good fall!
Due to limited tags in Iowa we shoot 1-3 a year. Which is maybe not enough. In Minnesota we shoot 3-4 I suppose. Depends on the year and what we see.
Rous14
PMA Member
My “hot button” topic hahaha. To each their own and if you own land or legally harvest however many does you feel like so be it. BUT while as some posters have stated above that it’s farm specific, while technically true, 80-90% of farms in IL/IA and probably the Midwest in general have somewhere between 15-40% LESS deer than they did during the 2000’s timeframe when by almost everyone’s account the hunting was the best it’s ever been. Any scientific herd data (not my subjective opinion or the next guys) that you look at illustrates this. So I’m of the opinion that 80-90% of hunters/landowners should not be harvesting any does (or bare minimum greatly reducing their harvest) IF we desire the hunting to mirror when it was at its all time best. My 2 cents.
CurtisWalker
Well-Known Member
A better question is what does do you shoot? The big mature healthy does produce the best fawns with the greatest antler potential yet those are the does people target. Yeah that buck fawn will be kicked away but for how long and how far?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rous14
PMA Member
Is that the case though? I was under the understanding that antler potential on a buck was greatly influenced by the genetics of the doe it came from but not necessarily any correlation to whether a buck fawn was born to a “big mature“ doe or a young doe producing offspring for the first time. In other words, totally based on the genetics of the doe (of which there’s no way for us as hunters to know and use as a selection tool) not the age of the doe.
CurtisWalker
Well-Known Member
Studies show that bucks can have better genetic potential but will never reach their max if the doe was nutrient deficient during the pregnancy. Also states that even if the buck has excellent nutrition later on it still won’t reach the potential due to the lacking nutrients during pregnancy.
The health of the doe during pregnancy has more influence than the genetics. Many studies are showing this. Therefore a mature doe is most likely going to go into the pregnancy at better health over a yearling that’s still growing and trying to continue to build their bodies up. Look how long it takes a bucks body to finally level off growing 4-5 years. Once a doe matures a lot more nutrients are going to those fawns unlocking the bigger antler potential.
There’s a pretty cool study out of South Dakota State University that relates it to stress hormones released from the doe that have a lifelong affect on the fawns hormone production.
There’s a few studies on this topic that are pretty good reads.
Had discussion with someone recently related to this topic. It was in regards to buck generics on a farm and hitting the reset button to try to improve that. The conclusion was shoot most of the does and attempt to "start over". Interesting to say the least.
My goal is to consider, within reason, how many does our farm’s hunters will want to harvest annually and then build the population up to that number where, when harvested, the doe population will remain nearly constant, not increasing or decreasing significantly. While having lots of does might be really enjoyable, I think the result will be fewer bucks using the same property. My preference is to shoot only mature deer, bucks or does.
203ntyp
PMA Member
I find it hard to put a number on the buck to doe ratios. Since buck split up a travel quite a bit. Typically, I might get about 14 different buck picks on an area of about a half a square mile through November. There's about 12 to 14 resident does on average a year, some years many more. I only harvest a doe when I see their numbers increase. My guess on the ratio is around 3 to 1 overall as far as the local heard is considered. Like mentioned previously, every parcel is different and food sources/cover are a factor.
Daver
PMA Member
The need to shoot does, or not, varies widely depending on how many does you have, etc. We are still in a neighborhood where despite several neighbors cooperating and upping our annual take, etc, we still have too many mouths to feed despite quite a lot of food plot acres collectively devoted to the deer. I do understand that many other areas in Iowa need to lay off on doe shooting. So you will get very disparate answers depending on the local situation.
That being said, if you are running out of food in January or February...or maybe even December...to me...you need to take the population down some still. FWIW, I was on an ultra prime deer property in Illinois last year in March and to my utter surprise...there was still significant food left in the fields, in the form of corn, soybeans, brassicas, etc. I had never seen anything like it back in my SE Iowa neighborhood. There...just about everything is grubbed down to dirt in January...if not before.
Our strategery is to take most of our does in October, from spots on the margins of the farm that aren't as "bucky". We try to "save" the good spots until November, or a good October cold front. Then we will often take another batch of does during the gun season(s). I am not sure if this is the optimal strategy or not, but we still have good buck hunting too to go along with full freezers, so it feels like it is working.
That being said, if you are running out of food in January or February...or maybe even December...to me...you need to take the population down some still. FWIW, I was on an ultra prime deer property in Illinois last year in March and to my utter surprise...there was still significant food left in the fields, in the form of corn, soybeans, brassicas, etc. I had never seen anything like it back in my SE Iowa neighborhood. There...just about everything is grubbed down to dirt in January...if not before.
Our strategery is to take most of our does in October, from spots on the margins of the farm that aren't as "bucky". We try to "save" the good spots until November, or a good October cold front. Then we will often take another batch of does during the gun season(s). I am not sure if this is the optimal strategy or not, but we still have good buck hunting too to go along with full freezers, so it feels like it is working.
Bassattackr
Well-Known Member
I've seen both sides of this equation in our area over the past 15 years.
Years ago, there was a large company that owned adjacent ground and they would bring in large groups of hunters, one year they took 26 does off about 4-500 acres, along with another immediate 40 acre neighbors that shot quite a few (6-8). The result? Lower deer numbers overall.
Since then, both of those groups have dwindled and there is significantly less hunters (immediately around me). The result - The deer (bucks and doe) population has exploded, with close to a 1:1 ratio now. On 300 acres (ours + my neighbor) we inventoried 18 bucks that were 2+ years old with close to as many yearlings. Hard to tell exact doe numbers beyond trail camera surveys and seeing 12-14 at a time in our fields.
Ratio due to previous elimination of does? If so, overall deer (buck and doe numbers) both became very low. So why did population rise almost 50/50 over time? Many thoughts and unanswered questions,but I've definitely "softened" my stance on does. We still try to take a few more does than bucks (5-6 does to 2-3 bucks) but the ratio seems to be maintaining itself.
FWIW, We both hold great habitat (50/50 mix of woods/tillable) with a decent amount of NWSG and early successional areas.
Years ago, there was a large company that owned adjacent ground and they would bring in large groups of hunters, one year they took 26 does off about 4-500 acres, along with another immediate 40 acre neighbors that shot quite a few (6-8). The result? Lower deer numbers overall.
Since then, both of those groups have dwindled and there is significantly less hunters (immediately around me). The result - The deer (bucks and doe) population has exploded, with close to a 1:1 ratio now. On 300 acres (ours + my neighbor) we inventoried 18 bucks that were 2+ years old with close to as many yearlings. Hard to tell exact doe numbers beyond trail camera surveys and seeing 12-14 at a time in our fields.
Ratio due to previous elimination of does? If so, overall deer (buck and doe numbers) both became very low. So why did population rise almost 50/50 over time? Many thoughts and unanswered questions,but I've definitely "softened" my stance on does. We still try to take a few more does than bucks (5-6 does to 2-3 bucks) but the ratio seems to be maintaining itself.
FWIW, We both hold great habitat (50/50 mix of woods/tillable) with a decent amount of NWSG and early successional areas.
Rous14
PMA Member
Interesting and I‘ll say that my experience on my farm has been similar. We’ve not taken a single doe in 5 hunting seasons now and I would say that for all 5 years we’ve felt as though our buck:doe ratio has remained the same. I can’t scientifically say what that ratio is but our observation is that during October thru February we see just about as many antlered deer as we do does. The other parts of the year is predominantly does.
Id also add that I don’t really think our overall numbers on my place have increased much either. Marginally but not significantly. Can’t explain that either other than I suspect we all greatly underestimate how much “herd management” the explosion in coyote numbers is doing. We all have way more doe hunters killing does on our farms than we did back in the day (they’re just not using guns/bows, they’re using packs and teeth) and i don’t think as an industry we are accounting for that by reducing our doe harvest.
Determining the amount of deer that the habitat in IA and IL will support and therefore how many does to harvest is, in my opinion, largely unknown because when the herd was at all time highs in the late 2000’s the quality was also off the charts good so someone would have to explain to me how there were too many deer for the habitat to support when by every metric the herd was in phenomenal condition. So I struggle with the concept that we need to reduce or maintain deer levels in the name of the “health of the herd“, “buck:doe ratio”, ”if you’re out of food in February”, etc….To me those are largely made up ideas by the hunting industry and hunters in general to justify hearing their gun go bang or releasing an arrow- and I get it, it’s fun to shoot a deer, hunting should be fun and I don’t want to discount that. But 12-15 years ago we had 15-40% more deer in almost every county in IA and IL. And the hunting was better. I know the harvesting equipment the farmers use has become more efficient and doesn’t leave much behind but I suspect it’s not much different than it was 12 years ago so those deer didn’t have much food to find in the fields then either and there was way more mouths. They have fat reserves, they get through. Plus there are waayyyyy more acres in food plots across the Midwest than theres ever been so I’m convinced that the habitat could absolutely sustain a huge increase in deer numbers in MOST areas not all (sounds like Daver and some other posters on here have some areas where numbers are really high) Now, the farm bereau and auto insurance co’s……whole different story and if I were them I wouldn’t want more deer either.
hillrunner
PMA Member
A "huge increase" would spark legislation that none of us want to see. It's not all about hunting quality, we share this world . We need to be mindful of other land uses when discussing carrying capacity or we'll see the pendulum swing hard the other way.
Rous14
PMA Member
Yep, I don’t disagree w ya at all. That’s why I said the habitat could, not that I’m necessarily saying we should. All Ive ever maintained is that as hunters and as an industry let’s all say that then. Let’s say that the hunting would be significantly better if we increased the deer numbers as evidenced by the 2000s but that we can’t because other stakeholders will throw a fit. I could at least accept that. Thats not at all what most hunters think or say though. They’ve been brain washed in to believing there are too many does for the habitat, that social stress requires more does to be shot, buck to doe ratios have to come down and my bucks will get bigger, that we’ll have bigger bucks and better hunting by reducing numbers, on and on and on. Those things are simply not true, again, as evidenced by the 2000s. More hunters than ever before are doing everything they can think of habitat wise, food plot wise, mineral wise, tsi, hiring consultants, etc…and one of the biggest primary motives is to make their hunting as good as they possibly can quality wise and I think that contradicts your point a little bit about its not all about the quality. I think if most serious deer hunters that are trying to kill big deer truly believed that more does would increase their chances at a big deer than way more of them would stop shooting does despite the point you make. Most of them are shooting does bc they think it’s helping improve their herd/hunting.
I do think that 15-20% in a lot of areas (especially Illinois) wouldn’t result in what you’re talking about though. Beyond that though, my broader point is that 95% of hunters are killing does because they have been lead to believe that they are somehow helping the quality or health of the herd. Not at all for the reason you are suggesting that certainly has merit. The original post in this thread for example wasn’t motivated by what you are saying, it was that most serious deer managers are lacking in the area of doe harvesting…..to me that implication is that to improve your deer hunting most hunters don’t take enough does. Thats what I’m trying to change and speak to in my small circle of the hunting world.
Daver
PMA Member
Yes. ^^ When deer numbers were really high, pretty much everywhere here in IA, the insurance companies and farmers were VERY upset with the damage caused by "too many" deer. What the land would potentially support and/or what hunters would prefer the most in terms of high numbers will never be allowed by farmers, drivers, etc, etc. In those "high" years even the "good guys" in the Iowa DNR/legislature were basically begging hunters to whack the numbers down...or else.
Although I don't think we ever got all the way to "or else"...the regs were very liberal there for a few years and dedicated rifle toting late season hunters were bagging insane numbers of deer per year back then. Plus or minus the year 2008.
I joined one of my good friends on a January hunt in early 2008 and easily cracked a couple of does that day. I was good. But in talking with him that day...he bagged 3 or 4 that day to bring his total for the year to something like 70. Yikes!! I was floored...but he wasn't done. He killed over 100 deer that year!! And there were plenty still crawling around when they ran out of bullets.