This is sort of a spinoff from the Myth of Genetics thread but something I've been thinking on a lot lately. Is it wise to take does out of the herd to try to adjust the ratios this late at the end of the rut? I'm leaning towards it being a bad idea. My #1 buck OMG got taken out this gun season but bred a doe for sure that morning....I was thinking what a shame it would be if that doe got removed. Granted there are a lot of variables, maybe it didn't take, maybe the offspring wouldn't survive, etc... but the opposite holds true....what if she would have had twin buck fawns and had the extra genetics herself to improve further on OMG's great genetics? What I'm thinking is that I may lean towards gearing my early season hunting towards ratio management and save the chasing big bucks until this time of year. Is there any wisdom to this line of thought or do you think it's just over thinking the entire situation? Before someone says a dead doe is a dead doe and you might take a doe out that would have been bread (taken out early) I would say yeah but that's not a sure thing whereas does now deffinitely are. I know for a fact that OMG bred this doe (among others). Does taken out early wouldn't be as likely to be missed by the breeding bucks as they would be to be missed by a management program after being bred, post rut.
Since most does have been bread by now you could be killing the future buck of a lifetime,personally I have not killed a doe in five years and don't plan on it on my main hunting ground just because of low doe numbers. Friend of mine just after miles away claims he sees 20-25 does on each hunt I can't say why there is such a difference I have tons more food,water cover and I am the only one hunting it. It's a small 110 ac farm here at my home so it's very easy to access vs. Driving to my other ground so I am working on making it better. As I get older it's nice to be sitting in my chair in the house after just ten min from stepping out of the tree stand.
I totally get what you're saying and understand the thought. By the same thought, if you kill a doe early season, you have no idea what genetics she carries for buck potential. Unless you can mark that particular doe and know which one she is, you definitely can't tell. A study on the king ranch showed that the average buck bred 11 does per year on average and only fathered 3.9 fawns, obviously most us can't do paternal tests on our herd :D You also may be shooting a doe that was bred by a 4yr old 5pt (or insert whatever buck you want) and that would be a good thing right? Or the doe that OMG bred might have horrible buck genetics. I'm just playing the devil's advocate here, but I definitely see your point.
HAha, yep those are all great points. Devils advocate has to be played out to completely see an issue from all points, I think and that's why I was posting this as a serious question and discussion. I don't know, I'm not sure a person could learn everything about deer if you lived a hundred lifetimes. A person could definitely learn enough through discussion of so many experienced hunters as to make great strides in managing deer though. Okay so say OMG bred a doe with poor buck genetics and we wound up with a male offspring that ended up a 150" potential instead of 200"....is that so bad for overall management? Or go a step further and say the union throws two doe fawns that have twice the genetic's of the original doe.... is it worth the gamble? I'm still thinking early doe kills would be a safer bet and let the bucks compete for the does that are left. Seems like the older, more dominant bucks would fare a far better chance in the competition to breed the remaining does and then the mature bucks can be hunted after rut. Maybe I'm crazy but this seems like a far more sustainable management positive course. Deer management is a game of odds, if a person can impact the odds to tip in the right direction (stacking the deck so to speak) then the overall effects should eventually stack to your favor should it not?
