Vito: I stopped right here. This just isn't realistic. IF .....IF you choose to go this route, "I" think it's unrealistic to think you have enough breeding-age bucks to perpetuate the herd (i.e. you don't have enough breeding-age bucks to breed all the does). I think you need to use some common sense in these exercises. NO OFFENSE.
I get that but let's say I only had 20 acres. If I wanted to collaborate with the adjacent property owners to get an accurate ratio how big does it need to be? I don't think a guy can sit on his 20 acres and review his trailcam pics and think he has the sex ratio pinned down.
Well I was using the extreme to show why the ratio wouldn't be higher than 3:1. Assuming not all bucks at least 1.5 weren't killed, and some does were, the ratio would be even lower. No?
Agreed. So, his 1:1 or his 10:1 is flawed. The constant is.....both are flawed. I think the "herd" I'm hunting is defined (by ME) as occupying about a 3 sq. mi. range. Is that the "right" way to do it? I think it's acceptable.
The problem I have with this is that it negates all other factors. For example, D&DH has discussed the possibility that a significant quantity of bucks die each year by running till they die during the rut. That does not happen to does. Let me be clear. I'm not saying it is possible to get above 3 does/buck but to do that calculation and take out the "nature" factor is not proof of anything to me. Also, let's not forget who the dumbest deer in the woods are.
Yes. You have to assume some of the bucks survive.....or else....there's no one breeding the does. That's why I said it's impossible to SUSTAIN a high doe:buck ratio. It's not impossible to achieve it.
I think we are saying the same thing for the most part. I suppose it is possible if are killing all bucks, including fawns, to get a higher ratio. I should have stated earlier I was talking about preharvest numbers each year. Before fawns are born, the ratio certainly would be higher. SUSTAIN was the keyword.
I'm pretty sure D&DH is where I got my "ON AVG." 20% rate of herd die-off (deaths not caused by hunters). It didn't differentiate between sexes. 20% die-off of does......20% die-off of bucks (ALL deaths not related to hunting). 20% of 50 does is more than 20% of 30 bucks (duh). So, this always works in favor of getting the numbers closer together.
On a side note..... I've read quite a few articles on this topic and I bet at least 50% talk about ratios at, or higher than 3:1. Interesting stuff.
I think you said all the bucks were killed (after breeding) in one year. From there.....you're screwed!....lol There's no breeding-age bucks. Am I missing something? I very well could be. For a year or two (haven't done the math), you'd be skewed, badly. EDIT....actually, you might not be! If NO bucks are breeding....that means (of course) no does are breeding. Interesting. You'd be off for a year????????????
I was trying to use the extreme to show why you couldn't sustain a higher ratio than 3:1. Lets say not all 1.5yo bucks are killed until after all of the does are bred. That work?
True... they don't all have to be killed before the rut. I used one example... there still are other nature and environmental factors that could influence this. Jeff, I still don't think the die off is the same percentage wise between the sexes after the rut. The bucks exert so much more energy. This has to weaken them more than the does. Just using my brain here.. maybe I'm wrong.
Has it been confirmed that the birth rate is in fact 50%? Is this just assumed? I'm asking.. don't know.
The birth rate (for these exercises) is 50%. Why not? Do you think the "die-off" is the same during hunting season? Your harvest numbers will tell you if that's true or not. Vito....I'm with ya!....lol After that first year, you'd have a full season of NO breeding. So, no change in sex ratio (actually.....this isn't true. With a 20% die-off ratio across the sexes......the ratio would get closer to 1:1). After that season with no breeding age bucks....it'd be game-on, again! If you kill of every 1.5yo buck, every other year.....your example "works". Is it realistic? Ma nature knows what she's doin!
