In the wild, no. Thats why I lean towards the belief that the deer herd most hunters are hunting are at, or below, 3:1. I also think most hunters don't realize there is a big difference between 3:1 and 2:1.
Copy and paste: Understanding deer sex ratios I often hear hunters, outdoor writers, and even biologists refer to 10:1 or 15:1 doe:buck ratios. These cannot be pre-hunt adult ratios because as long as the deer herd is reproducing, the ratio cannot become more skewed than 5 does per buck. The biological maximum is about 5:1 because even if no does are harvested, 15-20% of the adult females in the population will die each year from old age, vehicles, disease, predators, etc. Also, about 50% of fawns born each year are male (it's actually slightly more than 50%), thus the sex ratio gets an annual correction when fawns are recruited. This concept is easier to understand with an example. Let's say a hypothetical population contains 120 adult deer (fawns not included). Pre-hunt population = 100 does and 20 bucks (this is a 5:1 ratio) During the hunting season let's say hunters kill 90% (18) of the bucks and 0% (0) of the does. Hunting mortality 0 does and 18 bucks Post-hunt population = 100 does and 2 bucks (50:1, heavily skewed after the hunt) Natural mortality gets added next. Since there are very few bucks left in the population, very few will die from other causes. We'll say 1 of the 2 remaining bucks dies. However, 15-20% of the does will die from natural causes. We'll be conservative and use 15% (15 does). Natural mortality 15 does and 1 buck Remaining population = 85 does and 1 buck (85:1, the ratio is still heavily skewed) We'll be conservative again and say each of the remaining does has only 1 fawn. That means there will be 85 (about 43 buck and 42 doe) fawns. These won't be added to the adult population until the following year but last year's fawns get added this year. For simplicity, we'll assume last year's population had the same number of fawns and immigration and emigration are equal. Recruitment 42 does and 43 bucks Pre-hunt population = 127 does and 44 bucks (this is a 3:1 ratio)
Who can actually count (and keep up with), accurately, how many deer "live their entire life on your land"? "Trying" to keep a ratio is one thing. Actually doing it, and knowing the numbers of deer (buck/doe) on your property is futile at best. Even the TV guys with great properties can not effectively accomplish this. What they can do is kill what "they think" is best for their property.
Guess I just will never be in the We population. If you don't have a "herd" to balance, and all the necessary land/water/food/beddingto hold them, what's the point? LOL
I find it quite amusing that some people believe that their individual actions in some way effects the way nature deals with man made situations and desires. If you have ever been in an airplane on a clear day and looked down at the vastness that is America, and some how thought that that extra doe you shot made a difference any where but in your freezer then you have more than made my point. Mother nature should be so humbled by some of your accomplishments.
And to think some people think over-harvesting of some species, or habitat destruction has whipped them out in certain areas. The egos of some people! Now if you will excuse me, I'm going fishing for grayling because the Michigan rivers are still full of them! Oh wait... Was that really a serious post? You're messing with me, aren't you? Awwww, you got me!
One thing I'm not getting, is how a certain percent die off distributed evenly across the sexes brings the ratio closer together? Say it was 100 does and 50 bucks....2:1 ratio Administer your 20% die off, and you are left with 80 does and 40 bucks....still a 2:1 ratio. I think trying to keep doe numbers down for the good of the herd is silly as an individual's standpoint. I can understand if you are trying to reduce the number of deer hammering your food plot. Or if you want to kill some for the meat. Or if you want to buy into the theory that killing a few does will make the bucks more competitive around the rut. The more i read about this and see it myself, I tend to agree with those stating that habitat management is more crucial than herd management. Rifle hunters take care of that for us on a statewide basis annually. In the wild, people will never achieve a 1:1 ratio with humans involved. It is also impossible to go above a 3:1....so why fret so much on such a minute change when we are talking about thousands and thousands of animals?
There would be more grayling if baiting had been banned, and QGM had been practiced instead of the over harvesting immature fishes.
Just something you might be interested in. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/01/14/what-is-killing-the-pacific-salmon/?hpt=T2
20% of a larger number is more than 20% of a lesser number. Example. 20% of 100= 20. 20% of 40 = 8 So if there were 100 does the remaining does would be 80 So if there were 50 bucks the remaining bucks would be 42 Now the ratio is 1.9:1 If you use larger numbers the difference will be more.
That should be 50 = 10 100 does x 20% die off leaves 80 does 50 bucks x 20% die off leaves 40 bucks Still 2:1
And that article proves? If you don't think we as hunters make a difference in the deer herd, why are there a limit on tags for each state/county? Why not try and kill them all? That is, if we tiny humans don't make a difference.
Humans have never been able to effect buffalo, bison, rhino, bald eagle or wolf populations. Why would deer be any different?
I guess I didn't make it clear enough to some, so I will try again.In the context of this conversation. and if some how you thought that that extra doe you shot made a difference any where but in your freezer then you have more than made my point. Kinda like the ash from that last joint you smoked is irreverent, when compared to the ash from Mt. Saint Helens. I am hope this clears up some of your misconceptions.
It should be dependent on what your buck to doe ratio is and not just a blanket "shoot 25-30% of does every year". You have to take into consideration the population dynamics of your particular herd. Otherwise you're not practicing "herd management" any more than your neighbor that shoots every buck he sees. If you've got a 1:1 buck to doe ratio I'd say that you shouldn't be shooting any does at all. If you've got a 1:20 buck to doe ratio you better be shooting every doe you get in your sights! You can't responsibly manage a population without some data/knowledge about that population.
Imagine what it's like when you're seeing upward of 50 and sometimes 100 deer a day and your buck to doe ratio is consistently 1:15 - 20 with 8 hunters afield over 2 years making counts. (This is in wide open country where you can count every deer on 2-3 mountains at once.) ADF&G needs to get some more localized management tools into the hands of our hunters to deal with these locally wacky buck:doe ratios but all they're concerned with is production, not quality. They see it as more = better.
