Is there some kind of Doe Shortage???

[Scooter]

Ok not cool... I wanted this to stay on the topic of doe harvesting. I understand predation/predator hunting is a hot-button issue- but that's for a different thread. Let me put it another way and get the discussion going again:

 

All of the factors mentioned above (predation, fawn attrition rates, not enough deer in AZ) don't really give me the rock-solid answer I was looking for. Many, many folks have mentioned that they see does upon does and then rarely a buck. The ratios seem imbalanced to me- which leads me to believe that if we aren't shooting does because of a shortage in overall deer population, then should we be shooting so many bucks instead? I'm not just talking Coues does, Muleys are in this too. Maybe it's because I haven't seen the rut yet- huh? I just feel like you should be able to harvest a doe during an archery-only non-permit tag if you choose. How could that possibly decimate the deer herd??? Any way you cook it- you're still only allowed one deer per calendar year so if you tag out on a doe, a buck goes free to reproduce with the abundant doe population... But if you kill a buck, then there are some does that may/may not get bred. Am I thinking right? I wish there was a Biologist on here that would chime in with some science on this...

[Rag Horn]

When I am out hunting I see a lot of does and never any bucks. However the trail cameras I have in the exact same area show an 8 bucks to 1 do ratio (or so I did not count all I know it is a lot to a little). Which leaves me to wonder if I know how to look for bucks? I guess I say all that to say all this. If I based my judgment of the area on what I have seen I would think that there was not one buck in that area. If I based my judgment of the area on what my trail cameras have seen it would be a completely different story. I am not suggesting that you do not understand the area you hunt in. I am just expressing how my opinion of my area has changed because of different perspectives on the same few square miles that I am talking about.

[mcelkhunter]

Go out during the rut hunts and look. It is rare when the rut is going to find a group of does that doesn't have at least one buck hanging around with them and sometimes more.

[Scooter]

When I am out hunting I see a lot of does and never any bucks. However the trail cameras I have in the exact same area show an 8 bucks to 1 do ratio (or so I did not count all I know it is a lot to a little). Which leaves me to wonder if I know how to look for bucks? I guess I say all that to say all this. If I based my judgment of the area on what I have seen I would think that there was not one buck in that area. If I based my judgment of the area on what my trail cameras have seen it would be a completely different story. I am not suggesting that you do not understand the area you hunt in. I am just expressing how my opinion of my area has changed because of different perspectives on the same few square miles that I am talking about.

 

Yeah, it's pretty well-known that I don't know or understand the areas I hunt... I'm working on it. So no offense taken. While I've been a hunter for all my life, I only recently got stationed in AZ and I'm just trying to figure some of the "funny" rules out. I have hunted or know the rules in pretty much every Northeast State (NY, PA, VT, ME, NH, OH, MI), and of course my favorite...Texas. I wasn't criticizing AZ for its rules, just trying to gain perspective on why things are the way they are here. I guess I have to buy myself a few of them trail cameras and see what's lurking my neck of the woods. I probably would be surprised and frustrated!

[yotebuster]

Ok not cool... I wanted this to stay on the topic of doe harvesting. I understand predation/predator hunting is a hot-button issue- but that's for a different thread. Let me put it another way and get the discussion going again:

 

All of the factors mentioned above (predation, fawn attrition rates, not enough deer in AZ) don't really give me the rock-solid answer I was looking for. Many, many folks have mentioned that they see does upon does and then rarely a buck. The ratios seem imbalanced to me- which leads me to believe that if we aren't shooting does because of a shortage in overall deer population, then should we be shooting so many bucks instead? I'm not just talking Coues does, Muleys are in this too. Maybe it's because I haven't seen the rut yet- huh? I just feel like you should be able to harvest a doe during an archery-only non-permit tag if you choose. How could that possibly decimate the deer herd??? Any way you cook it- you're still only allowed one deer per calendar year so if you tag out on a doe, a buck goes free to reproduce with the abundant doe population... But if you kill a buck, then there are some does that may/may not get bred. Am I thinking right? I wish there was a Biologist on here that would chime in with some science on this...

Sorry Scooter I'll keep it on topic!

[Scooter]

No problem... I am already aware of the predator/prey arguments. I get it. It's a polarized issue which can eat up many thread replies and lead the conversation far away from the intention. What I see is alot of passionate sportsmen who share ideas and theories in an open forum, in which everyone can process and learn from or not learn from. I just want deer meat in the freezer and the freakin does are everywhere. I guess waiting another 3-4 weeks until the chasing starts ain't gonna kill me. Man, Domino's pizza must be scaring all the bucks away so they can get more of my $$$!

[ForkHorn]

Scooter,

 

The buck to doe ratio is by design. The AZGFD had been managing deer with the goal of 10-20 bucks per 100 does. Just recently the Arizona Deer Association lobbied to get that increased to 20-30 bucks per 100 does. Here's a link to a letter written about it - http://azdeer.org/presidents_%20message_Hunt_Guidelines_2011.pdf

 

 

Compare this to Texas where they often manage for a 1 buck to 2 doe ratio or even a 1 to 1.

 

The lower the buck to doe ratio = more tags.

[200"mulie]

From my angle and what I understand is.... the drought and predation is a big part of it. Numbers are not great for fawn survival and deer numbers aren't in plethora numbers like other states. Where you have to manage doe numbers to keep a healthy herd. I would think if you were allowed to shoot either buck or doe.... than numbers would greatly decline.

[OpticNerd]

We use to have an archery doe hunt. I can't remember when or why they got rid of it but I think it happened back in the mid to late 90s. When they 1st got rid of the archery doe hunts I thought we'd surly see an increase in our deer numbers but I can't say they've change much since then. In fact I tend to see less deer numbers now then I did back when there was an archery doe hunt. I don't know if it's because I'm not as good of a hunter as I once was or if it's all in my head. All I do know is that back when we had those doe hunts I use to find bigger and more herds of does during the winter months. It wasn't uncommon back then to see herds of 20-30 does. One of the biggest herds I've counted had 98 in it. Now days the biggest herd numbers I find are rarely more then 10-15 does. Maybe having the archery doe hunt back then was actually helping our deer numbers.

[Scooter]

Scooter,

 

The buck to doe ratio is by design. The AZGFD had been managing deer with the goal of 10-20 bucks per 100 does. Just recently the Arizona Deer Association lobbied to get that increased to 20-30 bucks per 100 does. Here's a link to a letter written about it - http://azdeer.org/presidents_%20message_Hunt_Guidelines_2011.pdf

 

 

Compare this to Texas where they often manage for a 1 buck to 2 doe ratio or even a 1 to 1.

 

The lower the buck to doe ratio = more tags.

 

Very informative, and confusing me at the same time.

 

So, lets make a model. Worst case scenario first:

 

Unit "X" has 15 bucks and 100 does. G&F issues a total of 20 tags for bucks only. Hunters harvest 10 bucks, and 10 tags go unfilled. That means there are still 100 does, but only 5 bucks left to do the breeding- and that only reflects hunter-harvested deer. Those remaining 5 bucks are the unit's only hope in furthering the herd and are still affected by the droughts, predation, habitat loss, and the list goes on. Can a single buck successfully breed 20 or more does? Maybe, he'd have to be a stud though- and the chase would nearly kill him. So the current model of 10-20 bucks per 100 doe looks pretty bleak in my eyes.

 

My idea would be this:

 

Unit "X" has 15 bucks and 100 does. G&F issues a total of 20 tags for either-sex deer. Hunters harvest 5 bucks and 15 does. That leaves 10 bucks to breed the remaining 85 does. All of the same attrition factors come into play like the worst case scenario above- but now you have more bucks to help breed all of the does. Even if you lose a buck or two to predation, there's still more out there than the current model. If all of the tags got filled by hunters taking bucks and the last 5 tags with does, you're still in the same boat.

 

 

From that letter linked above in Forkhorn's post- I would have to support the 20-30 buck to 100 doe ratio (or higher), AND have a limited doe harvest because it seems like keeping the buck numbers so low and the tag numbers high just invites the possibility of reduced breeding and non-breeding to occur in certain areas. Now I know that not all the antlerless deer are female and some button bucks might breed a doe or two- but you get what I'm saying? 20% buck to doe ratios are just risky in my opinion.

 

-AND-

 

How in the world does managing for less bucks and issuing more tags make any bit of sense to anyone??? Someone please educate me because it seems like I'm way off in left field on that one

[gearsnagger]

Scooter,

 

The buck to doe ratio is by design. The AZGFD had been managing deer with the goal of 10-20 bucks per 100 does. Just recently the Arizona Deer Association lobbied to get that increased to 20-30 bucks per 100 does. Here's a link to a letter written about it - http://azdeer.org/presidents_%20message_Hunt_Guidelines_2011.pdf

 

 

Compare this to Texas where they often manage for a 1 buck to 2 doe ratio or even a 1 to 1.

 

The lower the buck to doe ratio = more tags.

 

Very informative, and confusing me at the same time.

 

So, lets make a model. Worst case scenario first:

 

Unit "X" has 15 bucks and 100 does. G&F issues a total of 20 tags for bucks only. Hunters harvest 10 bucks, and 10 tags go unfilled. That means there are still 100 does, but only 5 bucks left to do the breeding- and that only reflects hunter-harvested deer. Those remaining 5 bucks are the unit's only hope in furthering the herd and are still affected by the droughts, predation, habitat loss, and the list goes on. Can a single buck successfully breed 20 or more does? Maybe, he'd have to be a stud though- and the chase would nearly kill him. So the current model of 10-20 bucks per 100 doe looks pretty bleak in my eyes.

 

My idea would be this:

 

Unit "X" has 15 bucks and 100 does. G&F issues a total of 20 tags for either-sex deer. Hunters harvest 5 bucks and 15 does. That leaves 10 bucks to breed the remaining 85 does. All of the same attrition factors come into play like the worst case scenario above- but now you have more bucks to help breed all of the does. Even if you lose a buck or two to predation, there's still more out there than the current model. If all of the tags got filled by hunters taking bucks and the last 5 tags with does, you're still in the same boat.

 

 

From that letter linked above in Forkhorn's post- I would have to support the 20-30 buck to 100 doe ratio (or higher), AND have a limited doe harvest because it seems like keeping the buck numbers so low and the tag numbers high just invites the possibility of reduced breeding and non-breeding to occur in certain areas. Now I know that not all the antlerless deer are female and some button bucks might breed a doe or two- but you get what I'm saying? 20% buck to doe ratios are just risky in my opinion.

 

-AND-

 

How in the world does managing for less bucks and issuing more tags make any bit of sense to anyone??? Someone please educate me because it seems like I'm way off in left field on that one

Sounds like the remaining bucks need a shot of viagra to get the job done!

[Scooter]

Viagra spiked with enzyte and cialis! I've heard of bucks breeding up to 5 or 6 does in one season, but having the energy to chase and breed 20 would have to be a herculian effort.

[narrox]

There have been doe hunts in the past. My Dad is one who can claim Kaibab does as "trophies"! On one hand I could have filled every deer tag if it were for any deer, and I think that is the issue. How many deer get tagged versus how many tags they can offer? Thanks

[ForkHorn]

 

Very informative, and confusing me at the same time.

 

So, lets make a model. Worst case scenario first:

 

Unit "X" has 15 bucks and 100 does. G&F issues a total of 20 tags for bucks only. Hunters harvest 10 bucks, and 10 tags go unfilled. That means there are still 100 does, but only 5 bucks left to do the breeding- and that only reflects hunter-harvested deer. Those remaining 5 bucks are the unit's only hope in furthering the herd and are still affected by the droughts, predation, habitat loss, and the list goes on. Can a single buck successfully breed 20 or more does? Maybe, he'd have to be a stud though- and the chase would nearly kill him. So the current model of 10-20 bucks per 100 doe looks pretty bleak in my eyes.

 

My idea would be this:

 

Unit "X" has 15 bucks and 100 does. G&F issues a total of 20 tags for either-sex deer. Hunters harvest 5 bucks and 15 does. That leaves 10 bucks to breed the remaining 85 does. All of the same attrition factors come into play like the worst case scenario above- but now you have more bucks to help breed all of the does. Even if you lose a buck or two to predation, there's still more out there than the current model. If all of the tags got filled by hunters taking bucks and the last 5 tags with does, you're still in the same boat.

 

 

From that letter linked above in Forkhorn's post- I would have to support the 20-30 buck to 100 doe ratio (or higher), AND have a limited doe harvest because it seems like keeping the buck numbers so low and the tag numbers high just invites the possibility of reduced breeding and non-breeding to occur in certain areas. Now I know that not all the antlerless deer are female and some button bucks might breed a doe or two- but you get what I'm saying? 20% buck to doe ratios are just risky in my opinion.

 

-AND-

 

How in the world does managing for less bucks and issuing more tags make any bit of sense to anyone??? Someone please educate me because it seems like I'm way off in left field on that one

 

Scooter,

 

You're right that managing for less bucks and more tags seems counter intuitive. They are managing for a certain number of deer that the land can theoretically hold. A carrying capacity. (Usually based off habitat conditions, although other factors can come into play)

 

They reach that goal through tag manipulation, and another pre set goal of hunter opportunity.So how do they come to the conclusion that less bucks = more tags?

 

The way they are looking at it is through fawn reproduction. The more does = more fawns each year = more bucks to shoot next year. Maintaining skewed buck to doe ratios (high doe numbers)production will be greater and more deer will require harvesting to maintain deer at carrying capacity. Let's go through an example. Assume 100% fawn survival for the sake of a simple example.

 

EDIT: My little table isn't coming out right. Hopefully you can still read and understand it. It shows a gap between the examples when I edit it but on the forum it shows up mashed together.

 

Example 1 Example 2

Carrying capacity = 120 deer Carrying Capacity 120 deer

Buck to doe ratio = 1:1 Buck to doe ratio 1:5

Percent Fawn crop = 100% Percent Fawn Crop = 100%

Spring Population = 120 Spring Population = 120 (After hunts, before fawns drop)

Males = 60 Females = 60 Males = 20 Females = 100

 

Fawns Born = 60 Fawns Born = 100

Male Fawns = 30 Female Fawns = 30 Male Fawns = 50 Female Fawns = 50

Excess Deer = 60 Excess Deer = 100

 

Total males = 90 Total females = 90 Total males = 70 Total females = 150 (Total population)

 

Population after harvest Population after harvest

Males = 60 (90-30) Females = 60 (90-30) Males = 20 (70-50) Females = 100 (150-50)

Harvest is 30 antlered males Harvest is all 20 antlered males plus 30 male fawns

 

 

Using this example, 20 more bucks were allowed to be killed using the buck to doe ratio of 1 to 5 (example 2) vs the buck to doe ratio of 1 to 1 (example 1). Without doe hunts, they are just building a larger surplus of does every year, or they may be factoring in the fact that many fawns don't make it to adulthood in AZ.

 

The problem with either sex tags is that given the choice to shoot a buck or a doe, people will almost always choose to shoot a buck anyway.

[ForkHorn]

How many deer get tagged versus how many tags they can offer? Thanks

 

 

Low success rates = more tags and hunter opportunity as well. Short hunts, and lots of people in a limited area (with limited bucks) all add up to limited success.

 

Everything factors in to the number of tags set each year.

 

 

Archery is still over the counter (except strip) because of the super low success rate.