Audit Push: Time To Act!

[LandDr]

Can someone explain to me why a landowner would want a 1:1.5 or so buck to doe ratio?

Is it because that is what a book said or what the penned in deer people do...or is there some other reason?

Thanks

[mntatonka]

Can someone explain to me why a landowner would want a 1:1.5 or so buck to doe ratio?

Is it because that is what a book said or what the penned in deer people do...or is there some other reason?

Thanks

good question. considering how many does a buck will breed, there's no reason to have a ratio anywhere near 1:1. Heck, with cattle (not a great comparison obviously, but still a valid point), a good ratio is 1 bull to 20-30 cows.

[Jameson]

Can someone explain to me why a landowner would want a 1:1.5 or so buck to doe ratio?

Is it because that is what a book said or what the penned in deer people do...or is there some other reason?

Thanks

When a 1 buck to 5 doe ratio exists the hunting during the rut for bucks can be pretty poor compared to a hunt during the rut for bucks in an area with 1 buck for 1 doe. With a 1:1 ratio there isn't enough hot does for all the bucks at one time so that leads to a lot of activity by the bucks competing/marking of territory with each other and seeking out the current hot doe. Compared to the 1:5 ratio where there is a hot doe behind every tree for every buck and thus not much activity by the bucks. Hunters who have experienced both situations usually prefer more buck activity compared to less.

[Bear55]

More bucks = more competition = wild rut = more buck movement. However I'm not sure its a realistic number in most of the country. Give me a few thousand acres of public land with 3-5 mature bucks and I will be happy.

[B. Amish]

1 buck to five does doesn't exist. it's a myth, like the easter bunny.

[Jameson]

1 buck to five does doesn't exist. it's a myth, like the easter bunny.

It does, in rare circumstances. But that isn't the point. I was just using 1:5 as the reference to the population with less bucks:does than the 1:1 population.

Since you happen to know what the maximum ratio is, what is it?

[LandDr]

The Easter Bunny must live on my farm then.

So 1:1.5 is a ratio for hunting purposes only? Doesn't have anything to do with managing deer?

[Farmsfulltime]

HORN PORN !!!

[LandDr]

Why do some people say "horn porn"?

Do those people let 10 or 12 point bucks walk by because that is considered "horn porn"?

Are those people saying not to shoot big bucks or not to have a desire to shoot big bucks?

[PurpleFloyd]

So you are saying we shouldn't ever shoot a doe, only young bucks. Then the herd would explode and be too large. An overpopulated herd is ripe for disease and destroys habitat. That is what you consider better for the herd and the sport. nice.

No

[Farmsfulltime]

No that is not the reference at all , the reference has to do with perceptions that only certain animals are acceptable , so we have to manage all deer populations to achieve the desired animals at the highest levels to maximize our chances for those animals . In other words don't harvest antlerless deer as they can provide additional horned animals , rather that enjoying deer as a nobel animal they are reduced to objects to brag about or belittle other hunters for their choice to harvest certain animals . It cannot be denied there are factions that idolize antlers and antlered animals at the expense of the rest of the herd , and the fact that antlerless deer have been allowed to be harvested at the numbers that were going on makes the apr-horn porn crowd very angry in fact im sure there will be posts about me, or this post as they don't want what I have said to see the light of day. When it all said and done enjoy your season to have and chase deer on your own little piece of earth and let the dnr handle management they do a good job considering all the problems. Audit its time find out the truth it wont change a thing

[smsmith]

So 1:1.5 is a ratio for hunting purposes only? Doesn't have anything to do with managing deer?

It does have to do with managing deer. By having a balanced/nearly balanced (1:2 is likely about as good as is possible in free ranging herds) b:d ratio the rut is more intense and more does are bred early on in their estrus cycle. By doing that, you don't end up with fawns that are dropped late and who thus have lower odds of making it through their first winter. Balanced b:d ratios also lead to a herd with bucks of various ages from 1.5 on up.

The above represents a very different management style than what is used in MN and many other states. Many states use traditional management...i.e. get the most deer possible on the landscape and harvest as many of them as hunters are willing. This model pays zero attention to b:d ratios and buck age structure.

Is it important to have a close b:d ratio? To some it is...yes. To others it isn't. Does that make one group right and the other wrong? I don't think so.

An article from QDMA on various management strategies...I'm sure a number of folks will take issue with the source, yet the information is good

http://www.qdma.com/corporate/deer-management-strategies

[mntatonka]

By doing that, you don't end up with fawns that are dropped late and who thus have lower odds of making it through their first winter.

you also run into problems with cold/wet springs killing off newborn fawns when this happens, so it's not perfect.

[LandDr]

But who says more does are bred early?

Does that mean a buck with 4 or 5 does isn't going to get those 4 or 5 does bred when they are in estrous? Knowing the male species, I would say those 4 or 5 are getting bred plenty early...and as often as he can get it!

I have two very key components to my management philosophies when regarding does and bucks...

1. "More doe groups = more dominant bucks". Fact...you will never have two or more dominant bucks with one doe group. They will fight until only one buck is left. If you want more bucks...create the opportunity for more doe groups. If you want more doe groups...increase the carrying capacity to have more doe groups.

2. "More does hold bucks better". If I am trying to increase the age class of bucks on my property, I certainly don't want the bucks running all over the place, especially to the neighbors where it is "brown it's down". Doe groups with 4 to 6 does in a group hold bucks better...therefore the 8 and 10s make it through the hunting season so they can become mature 3, 4 and 5 year olds. Maybe some of those mature bucks take off to other properties, but most of them stay. Why? Because I have girls...and lots of them! I call it "ladies night"...and the boys show up for it.

Now I am certainly not horn crazy, but I enjoy managing for it, seeing the camera shots and the opportunity. If I don't get the mature buck I am after, then I harvest a doe for the freezer...and I look forward to next year. Everyone has their management styles, this just happens to be mine...completely the opposite of 1:1.5. Also...my deer are very healthy...high body weights and low stress and I do not have browse lines anywhere.

[smsmith]

you also run into problems with cold/wet springs killing off newborn fawns when this happens, so it's not perfect.

True enough..I wasn't saying its the ideal practice or that there are no downsides...just attempting to answer the question posed previously.

[PurpleFloyd]

Not sure what the difference is between an antlerless tag and a bonus permit. They both allow the same thing.

[PurpleFloyd]

I'll agree with you that the "shoot a doe and save a young buck" mindset is at least part of the problem PF. I'll also state that QDMA did not stay on top of the apparent nearly nationwide herd reduction that has occurred over the last decade or so.

Let's not kid ourselves though....those conversations will continue. I know and talk to plenty of guys in central MN who are still advocating an expansion of APRs.

Actually the QDMA was right in it's conclusion and actions in it's original mission in it's original situation. The problem came when it was adopted and pushed by people who didn't understand that it was not a universal solution. And actually the QDMA did say that does were the tool to control population but too many hunters were willing to sacrifice the population tool in exchange for an increase in antler size. As hunters we need to do a better job of looking at the whole picture.

[PurpleFloyd]

But who says more does are bred early?

Does that mean a buck with 4 or 5 does isn't going to get those 4 or 5 does bred when they are in estrous? Knowing the male species, I would say those 4 or 5 are getting bred plenty early...and as often as he can get it!

I have two very key components to my management philosophies when regarding does and bucks...

1. "More doe groups = more dominant bucks". Fact...you will never have two or more dominant bucks with one doe group. They will fight until only one buck is left. If you want more bucks...create the opportunity for more doe groups. If you want more doe groups...increase the carrying capacity to have more doe groups.

2. "More does hold bucks better". If I am trying to increase the age class of bucks on my property, I certainly don't want the bucks running all over the place, especially to the neighbors where it is "brown it's down". Doe groups with 4 to 6 does in a group hold bucks better...therefore the 8 and 10s make it through the hunting season so they can become mature 3, 4 and 5 year olds. Maybe some of those mature bucks take off to other properties, but most of them stay. Why? Because I have girls...and lots of them! I call it "ladies night"...and the boys show up for it.

Now I am certainly not horn crazy, but I enjoy managing for it, seeing the camera shots and the opportunity. If I don't get the mature buck I am after, then I harvest a doe for the freezer...and I look forward to next year. Everyone has their management styles, this just happens to be mine...completely the opposite of 1:1.5. Also...my deer are very healthy...high body weights and low stress and I do not have browse lines anywhere.

+1

[laker1]

The early 90's was the beginning of more liberal seasons,at the beginning we had a very healthy population of older does built up due to consrvative seasons before and these does survived winters better and had twins or better. Also we did take a downturn in 1995 thru 97 due to the harshest winters in decades. After that going into the early 2000's it was not uncommon in much of the north central deer range to have brown leaves showing in February and temps in the 40's. I think a few of those years deer actually gained weight in the winter.

[PurpleFloyd]

The early 90's was the beginning of more liberal seasons,at the beginning we had a very healthy population of older does built up due to consrvative seasons before and these does survived winters better and had twins or better. Also we did take a downturn in 1995 thru 97 due to the harshest winters in decades. After that going into the early 2000's it was not uncommon in much of the north central deer range to have brown leaves showing in February and temps in the 40's. I think a few of those years deer actually gained weight in the winter.

Correct. The amount of tags issued increased yet the deer population increased due to more favorable weather.

I remember when I started to hunt in the 70's the ground was frozen and most years the rivers were frozen to where you could walk across the ice the first weekend in November in the southern part of the state.I had to dress like an eskimo to stay warm while sitting in the morning. By the mid 90's it was warming to the point where the ground was still thawed and we started having seasons where I could go out in the morning wearing a t shirt. That did wonders for the deer herd because they had a very easy winter and that led to better birth and survival rates. It also helped the pheasant population in the same way. Now we returned to a trend where we have had some bad winters, late springs and tougher conditions for the deer and their population is reflecting that as is the Pheasant population where we don't harvest any females legally. The DNR cannot do anything about that on the front end and as evidenced by the recent doe permit numbers they are doing something about it on the back end.

[leech~~]

I don't know if all of today's fancy QDMA craap being pushed is working or not!

I just wish I lived in 1903!

I also, wish they would start up a QCMA so we could get some Bou back!

Important dates in Minnesota Deer Hunting History

By Ron C Hustvedt Jr.

The following is a summary of historical deer hunting regulation changes since Minnesota first became a state in 1858. This data, provided by the DNR Fish & Wildlife Office, has never been previously published.

1858 First big game laws established. Deer season is five months from September 1 until January 31. No mention of limits or licensing.

1887 Deer season restricted to the month of November.

1895 First season limit established of five deer per person. No license requirements.

1899 First big game license introduced at a cost of twenty-five cents for residents and $25 for nonresidents.

1901 Season limit reduced to three deer per license.

1903 Resident big game license fee increased to $1. Limit of three deer, one male moose and one male caribou per license.

1905 Season limit of two deer. No license required for residents hunting in their home county.

1911 Coupons, provided with a deer license, must be attached immediately after the kill.

1915 Big game season limit reduced to one deer or one moose per license.

1919 All big game hunters required to purchase a license regardless of where they hunt. Nonresident license fee raised to $50. Hunting restricted to daylight hours and to rifles or shotguns which were to be cased when carried in a motor vehicle.

1921 Resident big game license fee increased to $2.

1923 Deer season opened on even-numbered years only (except in 1933 and

1937 when a Governor’s order opened the season).

1971 Deer season closed due to low deer herd population.

1972 “Hunter’s Option” introduced requiring hunters to choose a specific area with specific dates to hunt. Registration of harvested deer at DNR designated stations required.

1973 Introduction of “bucks only” regulation in certain zones.

1975 Introduction of “either sex” permits and quotas.

1976 Resident deer license fee increased to $10. Muzzleloading rifles recognized as legal for big game. Statewide “bucks only” firearms deer season with antlerless quotas in some areas.

1977 Muzzleloader season created on designated state lands as a late-season hunt (Dec. 3 to 18) and either-sex deer option.

1978 Trespass law enacted prohibiting unauthorized entry onto agricultural or posted land.

1980 Handguns allowed for big game. Purchase of deer license required before antlerless permit application submitted.

1982 License fee increased to $14 for all resident big game licenses (firearms and archery). Antlerless permit preference system begun whereby unsuccessful applicants receive preference in following years/drawings.

1983 All resident big game license fees increased to $15.

[PurpleFloyd]

Quote:

1977 Muzzleloader season created on designated state lands as a late-season hunt (Dec. 3 to 18) and either-sex deer option.

That must be the year the decikne started

[BLACKJACK]

By having a balanced/nearly balanced (1:2 is likely about as good as is possible in free ranging herds) b:d ratio the rut is more intense and more does are bred early on in their estrus cycle. By doing that, you don't end up with fawns that are dropped late and who thus have lower odds of making it through their first winter.

Another benefit of a shorter intense rut is that more fawns will be born in the spring at about the same time, overwhelming the predators, they can only eat so many and more fawns will survive (there is a biological term for this, can't remember what it is).

Side note, I saw a fawn last week that was small and spindly, only looked to be a few weeks old, it better grow like heck!!

[BLACKJACK]

No that is not the reference at all , the reference has to do with perceptions that only certain animals are acceptable , so we have to manage all deer populations to achieve the desired animals at the highest levels to maximize our chances for those animals . In other words don't harvest antlerless deer as they can provide additional horned animals , rather that enjoying deer as a noble animal they are reduced to objects to brag about or belittle other hunters for their choice to harvest certain animals . It cannot be denied there are factions that idolize antlers and antlered animals at the expense of the rest of the herd , and the fact that antlerless deer have been allowed to be harvested at the numbers that were going on makes the apr-horn porn crowd very angry

This post explaining his earlier 'horn porn' comment is a little convoluted but I've underlined a couple of lines that are right on.

Everybody likes big antlered deer but sometimes that pursuit of big antlers is detrimental to the health of the herd.

[SmellEsox]

Yeah right, guys who like big bucks don't think deer are noble animals. And yep, if you want more big bucks in the population, that means you are just a pride filled glory-seeker. I've argued long and hard for more big bucks in the population. Not so I can brag about killing one, but because it would make the hunt far more exciting and fulfilling if there were a few mature bucks in the section I was hunting. Who wouldn't like that?

That said, there is no way I'd support buck management unless population goals were increased to the point where you could have significant antlerless harvest and still not drive down the population. And I don't think it would work everywhere in the state.

[smsmith]

I get a kick out of the guys who complain about other guys who like the idea of having big bucks around to hunt.

My Dad was a confirmed meat hunter...yet he still got just as excited as I did when someone in our party shot a big buck. He took a few bucks over the years that would have been shoulder mounts for me, but that wasn't important to him at all.

It's pretty easy to add some older bucks to an area's population. Just quit shooting the yearlings. Why the vast majority of MN deer hunters feel it necessary to shoot every buck they see is beyond my comprehension.

[Getanet]

I believe "Horn Porn" is an appropriate term. It extends from people watching too many hunting shows where trophy animals are shot regularly. Most of these hunts are on private ranches where trophy bucks are highly managed for an cost thousands of dollars to shoot. Yet most viewers come to have an expectation this is the "norm." Just like XXX, viewers who think what they see on screen is what they should or will experience in real life are going to be greatly disappointed - and it can become an addiction.

Now, there's nothing wrong with wanting to shoot a trophy buck or holding out for one. The problem comes when people want to impose restrictions on others so their version of what hunting should be can be met.

[smsmith]

I believe "Horn Porn" is an appropriate term. It extends from people watching too many hunting shows where trophy animals are shot regularly. Most of these hunts are on private ranches where trophy bucks are highly managed for an cost thousands of dollars to shoot. Yet most viewers come to have an expectation this is the "norm." Just like XXX, viewers who think what they see on screen is what they should or will experience in real life are going to be greatly disappointed - and it can become an addiction.

Now, there's nothing wrong with wanting to shoot a trophy buck or holding out for one. The problem comes when people want to impose restrictions on others so their version of what hunting should be can be met.

I agree that TV hunting shows/internet streaming vids have contributed to the desire for shooting larger bucks. I don't watch that kind of craap anymore, stopped many years ago when it became obvious that those guys aren't hunting in the "real world".

As far imposing restrictions goes...that's a two way street. We have a current system of restrictions....those who want a different set are just not happy using what they perceive to be an antiquated model of deer management. Who's right? The guys who are satisfied with traditional management or those who'd like something perceived as being more up to date? Neither? Both?

[laker1]

I do know bigger older bucks are more efficient in getting deer bred the firsr cycle. Mn DNR records do show that there has been know problem with practically all does getting bred the first time.

[SmellEsox]

I believe "Horn Porn" is an appropriate term. It extends from people watching too many hunting shows where trophy animals are shot regularly. Most of these hunts are on private ranches where trophy bucks are highly managed for an cost thousands of dollars to shoot. Yet most viewers come to have an expectation this is the "norm." Just like XXX, viewers who think what they see on screen is what they should or will experience in real life are going to be greatly disappointed - and it can become an addiction.

Now, there's nothing wrong with wanting to shoot a trophy buck or holding out for one. The problem comes when people want to impose restrictions on others so their version of what hunting should be can be met.

If there was a management scheme that would allow both parties to be happy, wouldn't that be the best scenario? Have enough deer on the landscape to allow traditional hunters plenty of opportunity to harvest deer, yet have enough mature deer to keep big buck hunters happy. I guarantee overall hunter satisfaction would increase.