# Beware of your Antler restrictions???



## OTIS (Feb 15, 2001)

Found this article interesting.
Not only pertains to the State mandated DMU's but the self imposed Point restrictions in most deer camps.



I found this quote to be very interesting. 

"We're culling the best quality of our 1 1/2-year-old bucks." 

Do you think that the antler restrictions that are trying to promote a better quality animal could actually be more of a detriment to the overall quality of the herd?

I think Bob brings up some good points. 

Antler restrictions Helping? or Hurting?


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Great article! LOL!

Bob has stooped to an all time low.



> A study in Mississippi, for instance, showed that after years of a three-on-a-side rule, antler quality of 2 1/2- and 3 1/2-year-old bucks had declined significantly.


Which study is this? Mississipi has a 4 antler point total restriction and it's been in place for over 7 years. 



> only the 6-point rule would be easily enforceable


Says who? Bob G? Maybe he should check with the states that have antler restrictions in place before you make such a statement, hey Bob call PA there pretty darn close. 

He has already shown he cannot provide even the most basic of journalistic integrity, it's called objectivity and checking your source.

*News Flash*

Antler restrictions are intended to produce the "perfect head gear" they are intended to recruit more bucks into older age classes, there-by strengthening natural selection.

If anything the Mississipi 4 point rule has shown you must practice a high level of QDM to be successful, that is why DMU 118 recommended a 4 point to a side rule, in order to protect 90% of the yearling bucks. And by the way they have the data to back it up, unlike Bob Gwizdz or cattleman Kevin Gould.

We aren't raising cattle or bird dogs.

I think the long term effect of antler restrictions will have one long term benefit that is rarely discussed, changing the way MI hunters look at the deer in this state. Everyone of us is a deer manager, we should look at ourselves as stewards of the resource, not just as a kill participant. 

MI hunters are obsessed with the past and present, not even considering making things better for the future. 

Many MI hunters have never seen a mature whitetail buck in the field or experienced the benefits that come along with having a balanced herd and increased age structure. I want my kids to experience these things and not have to go to Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Canada and/or pay $5000 to do it. 

Are antler restrictions a cure all? No. Just a GIANT step in the right direction.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

What 2 1/2 year old bucks? Where in the west central lower (Lake, Mason, Newaygo area) is he talking about having more than a rare 2 1/2 year old buck? This opinion makes the incorrect assumption that nearly ALL the 1 1/2 year olds don't get killed anyways. Even MDNR says 90% plus of the 1 1/2 year old bucks are killed every year in Newaygo county. And mostly, the 10% that don't only don't get killed because they're 2-3" spikes and nobody could see them. So 95% of the decent gene yearling 4, 6 and 8 pt's get dumped anyways. This opinion is irrelevant because it assumes there's lots of 2 1/2 year old bucks running around. There is in other states, but not most of the west central lower, where it's between 5-10%. I really like Bob G., I even consider him a friend, but he's still wrong on this particular issue. IMHO.


----------



## stevebrandle (Jan 23, 2000)

Although 5-10% of the 1-1/2 year olds survive the Michigan hunting seasons some are lost during the winter and to car accidents. The percentage of 3-1/2's in the State are even less. Bottom line is we're just about wiping out the buck population every year. 

Antler restrictions are a start, but they don't protect some of the best bucks in the better habitats of southern Michigan where even 1-1/2 year old deer can grow 8-10 point racks. 

Until Michigan allows a higher percentage of all bucks to survive the hunting season, we can forget about any improvements to the herd.


----------



## jimmyboy (Jan 10, 2002)

Why do we protect sub-legal bucks from firearms hunters w/o an antlerless tag, but allow archers and anyone WITH an antlerless permit to take them? Will we ever reduce the killing of juvenile bucks? I feel a 15 inch rack rule is necessary,not a # of points one, if the goal is more mature bucks statewide. And a single buck tag only. Obviosly,this will not be obtainable immediately,but could be a goal for the near future if buck maturity is the object.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Jimmy, we have no statewide goals right now, other than mere herd reduction. It's we hunters who are yelling about more bucks, not the policy makers. It's up to us to raise a stink to get their attention. Right now, the #1 goal in Lansing is getting to 1.4 million deer statewide, period. Other benefits are merely secondary. That's why Lansing says any other management, like shooting too many doe's, fawns, button bucks or bucks is all in our hands. They've washed theirs of it, at least for the short term. Hopefully things change in the near future. But TB caused a firesale in policy. IMHO


----------



## Eastern Yooper (Nov 12, 2000)

People keep referring to other states' deer management practices.....

.....so long as it fits their personal agenda. Funny how when it doesn't, attitudes suddenly change.

I for one am tired of seeing Michigan constantly being compared to Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois, Mississippi, etc.

This is a unique state with unique terrain, habitat, and weather. We need to concentrate on how to improve the herd of this state.

Just because some other state is doing something, that doesn't mean it will/won't work _here_.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Eastern Yooper _
> *This is a unique state with unique terrain, habitat, and weather. We need to concentrate on how to improve the herd of this state.
> Just because some other state is doing something, that doesn't mean it will/won't work here. *


Unfortunitely, we are doing nothing. As they say, Lead, Follow, or Get out of the way. Right now this state is choosing to get out of the way. Something, anything, needs to be done to protect yearling bucks because we obviously can't leave it up to the hunter. We can be our own worst enemy at times. We sure can't look to this state for any ideas, they aren't generating any! And the grass is always greener on the other side..LOL!
Anyway, I think most of us agree some changes are needed.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

> Just because some other state is doing something, that doesn't mean it will/won't work here.


"Contrary to what some might think, QDM is not rocket science. The beauty of the concept is that it`s not complicated, and it can work wherever whitetails are found, if it`s given a fair chance."

Charles Alsheimer


----------



## stevebrandle (Jan 23, 2000)

We don't need other States for an example. The solution to most of our problems is STOP KILLING ALMOST ALL OF THE BUCKS EVERY YEAR!  

Geez, how simple can it be? 

Forget the QDM BS, food plots, and antler restrictions. If we want better and genetically sound deer in Michigan, stop shooting every legal buck in sight.


----------



## Eastern Yooper (Nov 12, 2000)

We can do without the quotes from all the ex-spurts, Bob S. Save that for the QDM page; this thread is about _antler restrictions_ and how it might affect the herd. Read the topic starter and stay on track, please.

Anyways.....

I agree that fewer bucks should be killed. Sex ratios are way outa whack, and the current "combo tag" this state has is, IMHO, counter-productive.

One buck/hunter/year should be plenty.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Exactly! And since our state has limited data concerning antler restrictions we have no choice but to look at other states for data.

As a person that runs a business, it would be foolish to ignore similiar business' success or failures. Looking at other state programs is no different.


----------



## hypox (Jan 23, 2000)

I've said all along that the 4 points on one side is hurting the genetics for big racks in southern michigan. Why not shoot the 1 1/2 year old spike and let the 1 1/2 year old perfect 8 go? I know northern michigan is having hard times for the bucks, but down here I'd guess 50% or more of 1 1/2 year olds have 4 on one side. Just a plain dumb rule for southern michigan.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Antler restrictions are intended to produce the "perfect head gear" they are intended to recruit more bucks into older age classes, there-by strengthening natural selection.


----------



## hypox (Jan 23, 2000)

My point exactly....I'm saying a conservative 50% of 1 1/2 year old bucks in southern michigan have 4 points on one side. That is not promoting an older age structure. And at the same time weeding out excellent genetics. No one is benefiting from it here.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

> STOP KILLING ALMOST ALL OF THE BUCKS EVERY YEAR!
> 
> Geez, how simple can it be?
> 
> Forget the QDM BS, food plots, and antler restrictions. If we want better and genetically sound deer in Michigan, stop shooting every legal buck in sight.


I wish it was that easy.

Here are some options to reduce buck harvest:

One buck tag

Earn a buck 

Antler restrictions

Permit based buck tags, similar to turkey and bear.

Move firearm season opener to after the rut. 

Which one of these still allows the same oppurtunity for harvest, supplies ample time afield and protects immature bucks (reducing buck harvest)?


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

A 4 point to a side rule will protect 85-90% of 1.5 year old bucks. 

Mountains of research support this, look no further than our own DMU 118.

Another inherent benefit of AR's are all the bucks that will be passed because hunters are unsure if they meet the restriction. It forces the hunter to think more instead of just reacting.

Just because "a conservative 50% of 1 1/2 year old bucks in southern michigan have 4 points on one side" doesn't mean that a 4 point restriction will suddenly make them become over-represented in the overall harvest.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

> _Originally posted by Eastern Yooper _
> *We can do without the quotes from all the ex-spurts, Bob S. Save that for the QDM page; this thread is about antler restrictions and how it might affect the herd. Read the topic starter and stay on track, please. *





> _Originally posted by OTIS _
> *I found this quote to be very interesting.
> 
> "We're culling the best quality of our 1 1/2-year-old bucks." [/URL] *


 OK, I re-read the topic starter. It includes a quote from a cattle farmer. What makes a cattle farmer an expert on deer? Why should we believe his opinion of antler restrictions has any merit? Deer are not cattle.

I know hunters who hunt in DMU118 and love antler restrictions. They do not believe the restrictions are culling the best 1 1/2 year olds. I wonder how many hunters Mr. Gwizdz interviewed for this article.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

I've moved this thread into the QDM Forum.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Whit...your a little off where you moved this thread.

Funny how I have not agreed with Bob G's articles a number of times in the past but I was told how Bob printed the truth by many but now his article states something you don't agree with and his article is all wrong.

Bottom line, writers have an opinion just like the rest of us which is no more right or wrong than each of our opinions. The only difference is they get a little bit of money for the work they do in getting their articles to be printed in something that costs money to buy and read those articles.

I have never hunted or worked in that DMU recently or in the past dealing with deer hunting so I don't have an opinion on what is happening up there at this time. So I get to decide if I want to believe Bob's article or what some others have posted. I get to try to decide by all that I read. I decide what is creditable and talks about the goals I want to see in the deer herd.

I have not posted much in the QDM Forum, I had joined QDM and I believe is some things and disagree with other things. But I do believe I sense a little selfishness in the disagreements with Bob G's article. So I will just add it to all the rest I've learned about QDM and hold my opinion on who is right for the time being.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Ray,
I wuz just seein' if youse guyz waz payin' 'ttention!!!!!........LOL!

Opps!

That's what happens when the cursor is unwittingly (or is that "Whitingly"?) dragged down as I select something.

Thanks for the "heads up".


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Many confuse inferiority, with small! Our best bucks are B&C, our worst....90,100,110 at maturity. So what?!?

Having the average age increased in the buck age structure far surpasses and supposed decrease in "Quality", or inrease in "Inferiority". The reason so many refer to other states is because most of them do not have the mind set of killing every legal buck! Until MI errases this Kill mentality....either voluntary, in not, we will always be behind.

A 2.5-3.5 year old buck, is a good buck to have in the general population, regardless of rack size. At the same time, most would be surprised how big they would be, even if labled, "inferior". We aren't supposed to be managing the herd in "trophy" fashion, so genetics have no place in any current management practice.

Whatever genitics you have had in the herd, in the last 50 years....is still there! They can NEVER be removed, so don't bother. It has been proven, even in an inclosure, it would take as many as 13 years if every animal that had an inferior trate could be removed....even does. "Inferiority" is deffinately a non-issue.

At the same time, a 4-point rule in sother lower MI protects 69% of all yearling bucks. It protects 80% in northern lower, and a 3-point rule in the Upper protects 80%. A 15" spread(or wide as the ears), protects 85% in the southern lower.

Age structure is the most important, regardless of supposed "inferiority".


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

> I usually wait for a fair amount of posts on subjects before I post to get a more complete picture of other's views. It has been said that the truth shall set you free. So, let's see if we can free Mr. Quizdz from his bias against sound deer management.
> 
> I talked to Bob at this NRC meeting and asked him if he wanted the latest data from DMU 118. He said without a second of hesitation NO! So much for balanced reporting. You notice he didn't quote any speakers from the pro side or refered to any MDNR harvest data from DMU 118. Does Mr. Quizdz have his own agenda? I'll leave it up to you to decide.
> 
> ...


----------



## OTIS (Feb 15, 2001)

What if we eliminated the 2nd buck tag, and antler restrictions? If 90 % of the 1 ½ year old bucks are being killed would that bring it down to 70  80 % ? (Depends on the % of 1 ½ year olds killed on 2nd buck tags?) I do not know that #.

Is it fair to say we could increase the number of 1 ½ yr olds that survive by 10  20% ? 

My concern is that the Antler restrictions could be counter productive. I have hunted in DMU 155 since the mid eighties and since the antler restrictions have been put in place I have not seen an increase in the # of mature bucks. Granted it has only been 3 years but it seems to me I would have started to see the rewards of the antler restrictions.

Along the same lines one of the adjacent landowners to the property I hunt has an eight point or more rule. His Daughter shot her first buck this year which happened to be a 1 ½ year old eight point. Probably already had a 13-15 inch spread. 
Just seems to be counter productive to harvest that buck when we let some of the genetically inferior animals spread their seed. 

I did not mean for this to be a QDM principles debate, I was curious if anyone had seen any success with antler restrictions in their clubs, etc.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

One thing that gets lost in a discussion of antler restrictions. It is NOT, I repeat, NOT the focal point of QDM as advocated by the QDMA, the national organization.

Antler restrictions, as I understand the idea as postulated by the QDMA, is an effort to "jump start" a wide ranging program to bring the deer herd in balance, not only in regards to sex ratio, but also with the carrying capacity of the habitat. Eventually the goal is to refrain from the taking of younger bucks, no matter how many points it has, thus perpetuating the gene pool, improving the buck to doe ratio, and bringing the herd into balance with the available forage, etc.

If I am in error in what I'm saying above, and I may be, please advise.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

You're correct Whit, our challenge is getting hunters to restrain from harvesting young bucks.


----------



## Ed Spin (Mar 20, 2003)

The data from missisippi suggests a degradation in the antlers in the Delta region only, and I repeat it SUGGESTS. The National QDMA has over 700 professional as members, such as life member John Ozoga. Very few agree that in only 7 years the degradation can show up significantly to make a definite conclusion. In fact research has shown that a buck would need to pass on his genes to four generations of inbreeding to show gene degradation. That means he would need to breed his daughther down to his great great grand daughter for the degradation to show. I doubt very many bucks live to be this old and if they did how often would this happen? As Jeff notes Genitics in the deer world are generally a non issue. They do influence our deer, but only in long terms unless a very poor buck deer management program is in place. 

An example would be our own state deer management program. Traditional deer management targets almost all bucks creating a very young age class that has little social structure. Something like having a thirteen year old boy being head of household in 80 % of our homes. Our social order would soon be anarchy. Deer have evolved through millions of years and have created their own cocial order and this has allowed them to be one of the most adaptable mammals ever, something like a coyote. Wolves have also created their own social order. They have only one breeding pair per pack and these are the alpha ones unless they are brother and sister. wolves have a very complex social system to insure that the best only pass on their genes, yet they cannot adapt well to humans, but deer do. Deer too, have complex social systems to insure that the best bucks do the bulk of the breeding.

Going back to our state deer management program of maximim harvest of all bucks, you can be sure that there is a degradation of the deer gene pool going on but very slowly, due to almost all bucks being targeted. This tends to dilute the problem. 

Is there a problem in mississippi in only seven years? I don't know but have my doubts in such a short length of time. If there is a problem we should be concerned about our deer using traditional deer management. You can accelerate the problem by protecting a low percentage of the yearling bucks such as in the Mississippi delta region. 

This is the reason we didn't accept an offer from our NRC in 1999 to protect spikes only in DMU 118. It would only protect 20% of the yearlings, and create a potential fast lane for gene degradation. We told them three on one side minimum or nothing.

The best rule is to protect around 90% of the yearlings and don't worry about any degradation, good genes or anything. When you protect this number of yearlings you are also protecting around 25% of the 2-1/2 year olds, which insures a fair number of bucks advancing into the the 3-1/2 age class. You have now set up enough older bucks to be in the herd for the natural selection process to take place, with very few so callec inferior yearlings passing on their genes, not to mention we now have a more natural deer social system for the first time in decades. 

Some post here about protecting just a few yearlings, not a good idea as noted above. Also when protecting 90% of the yearlings a two buck rule for hunters is very doable, with no cause for concern about the gene problem. We had a one buck rule historicly and it didn'y protect the yearlings as some suggest.

QDM works every where, but better in the southern lower than in the northern upper, with corresponding results. 

Keep the fun in hunting1


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Not only 'lawmakers' write laws - ANYONE - can draft legislation, I'm not sure how much of 'that' type ever gets anyplace - but - from what I have read in many of these fourms - we have some 'well placed' individuals that could/should/maybe - sponser some ledgeslation - no comes the tuff part - 

What do we, as a group, want to sponser? - 15" spread? 3 - 4 on a side? - Six point over all? 

For me? - I think the fastest way; is to look at the spread - as wide as the ears or not? - inside ears? outside? tips? well, we can work that out - but - I fear - as with most other topics discussed here, including the public land improvment, we as a group are too split on how to get to the goal - I think we all WANT better for the heard - but how to get there is sometimes a 'bit' of concern  

Some of the seemingly easier things to 'swallow' would be going back to a single buck tag - it was that way before and - well multiple tags just don't seem to be having the desired affect or should that be effect? - 

I think a single tag - and 15" min spread or as wide as the out side of the ears - would handle a great deal of the young buck heard - 

Antlerless vs Doe - would be for another thread  

ferg....


----------



## PITBULL (May 23, 2003)

Just an idea, How about just being able to shoot spikes every two years. Then 4 pts on one side only the third year? Yet allow doe permits each year. Statewide.?????


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

> If we want better and genetically sound deer in Michigan, stop shooting every legal buck in sight.


Couldnt have said it better myself!!


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

Great post(s) Ed and others

I would suggest that everyone read Opinion and / or Editorial columns that appear in various newspapers & magazines (such as Gwidzs) for what they are. Just opinions of the author and sometimes misquoted and/or misleading citing of data sources to perhaps support their own beliefs and ideas. 

The articles are often posted on these forums as an I Told you So and are considered Fact. I think that most of the Op /Ed folks embellish somewhat to support their own position, be it pro or anti QDM.

Read the articles, form your own opinion, but most importantly check the source(s) of the data!!! 

The Mississippi study was posted on here in the past (old news) and of course the DMU 118 data is readily available (maybe less one 5.5 yo 6 pt ). 

Look at the published, often peer reviewed, data and form an opinion based upon that presented. I do not consider an opinion from a columnist that is published in a magazine or newspaper to constitute a credible source unless I check the references, if any.

I believe we are moving toward change here in MI with respect to deer hunting regs, I just hope it is based upon science rather than public opinion or that of a few columnist (the NRC is a different topic entirely ).

Looking forward to 10/1/04!!


----------



## hypox (Jan 23, 2000)

What does a bucks age have to do with how good his genes are? Were his genes not as good at 1 1/2?


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

> What does a bucks age have to do with how good his genes are? Were his genes not as good at 1 1/2?


It means absolutely NOTHING!! EXCEPT age is the ONLY way to find out if a buck HAS good genes!! 

Let him grow and then you can find out what kind of buck he will be, and then you can decide to take him out of the GENE pool or not. But until age allows you to see him and his potential than one will NEVER know.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Also with age, dominance takes over and the cream comes to the top.


----------



## omega58 (Sep 3, 2003)

It is funny how people think antler restrictions are counter-productive and hurt the buck population by taking out the "best bucks." You don't know what the best buck will be until later in age. . . which they rarely get to in Michigan. A spike has a chance at being a great buck, some bucks are spikes simply because they were born later than the others. 

I think it is great reading all these 'arguments' and wonder how many have hunted in a QDM area? I hunt in 118 and I have passed up many 6s, 7s, 8s, 9s, and 10s. Not all of them on purpose, but when you have to make darn sure of antler points, a small 8 can get by very easily. Also, after the first couple of years. . . you look at a 5 or 6 or even a 1 1/2 year old 8 and say it will be a great buck next year. If it gets shot, there are more deer in the woods. This year I saw 9 different bucks and it was great watching the "little ones" and seeing them walking around doing what deer do. Oh yeah, that was just opening day of rifle. 


If antler restrictions don't work, then we must be doing something else right. Sure, maybe it is foodplots and all the habitat that we put out there for the deer. . . but antler restrictions are the way. 

Try it for five years and see what you think. . . oh wait. . . we want INSTANT GRATIFICATION AND RESULTS YESTERDAY. . . AND BE IN THE WOODS WORKING ON FOOD PLOTS?? Ah nevermind, let's just shoot every buck because I am too lazy for all that.


----------



## Ed Spin (Mar 20, 2003)

Hypox:

Fair question, and many look at the picture the same way you do.

Our deer have been with us for several million years. They have evolved to be what they are through their own special social system. We have all heard of the term " Survival of the fittest", which applies to their social culture to a great degree. Not like other social animals like wolves, where only the alpha pair in a pack breeds, but there is a pecking order a buck must climb before he is allowed to breed freely. Elk gather a haram and if the bull is mean and strong enough, he and only he will breed the cows. This bull elk established his position in the pecking order throughout the summer with his size, and disposition.

Same thing to a great degree applies to the deer specie. All summer long through the month of September they establish who is king of the hill and have earned the right to be the prime breeder. 

When you only have a young class of bucks, primarily yearlings, there still is a dominance that appears within this young group, but it isn't a true social order. Think of it as the school yard bully, who blows out a lot of hot air, but no earned rank. Yes if there are no older bucks in the area this bully will do his share of breeding, but so will the other yearlings and every chance they get. I have seen studies that show multiple bucks as fathers (DNA technology) in twin fawns. This occurs when there is not a true social buck structure in the herd. In other words every buck that can run has a chance to breed wheter they have good genes or not.

When there is a fair number of older bucks in the herd the best of these (not necessarily the oldest) establish their dominance during the summer and this now becomes the true social order necessary to keep their gene pool, health and strength in the upper level. This true dominance can occur at two years of age and no younger. You will not find any twin fawns that have differant fathers in this natural scene when the dominant buck has partnered with his mate. Remember he only stays with one doe at a time (and she will be the most dominant doe available), (he is not a bull elk). 

So the little rascals smelling about and have their tongues hanging out do have a chance to breed other less dominant does if they are in heat. Not to worry, the bulk of the breeding is still done by the one who should do the bulk of the breeding.

So, hypox, if one is concerned about the health of our precious resource (the whitetail deer) it is best to have a more natural deer herd. In time (a long time) poor deer management will show a negative impact. It is our responsiblity Hypox, to see that they are managed right.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

Good points and good questions again.

Perhaps this would be a good time remind folks of the importance of sex structure in the deer herd when genetics are suggested as a reason why restricting, or restraining the harvest of young bucks is debated. Here in MI until the age and sex structure of the herd is in balance, genetics shouldnt even enter into the discussion IMHO. 

Here is a Hypothetical MI scenario.

Doe to buck ratio at 3:1

30 deer per square mile

Therefore 27 mature doe and 3 bucks in the area

Average dominant buck may breed 7 or 8 doe during the primary rut, for the sake of argument lets say 10. This dominant buck could be 1.5, 2.54.5 and so on.

Therefore, those 2 less dominant little rascals have a crack at the remaining 20 doe and will likely breed a few or many of the remaining doe as there is no competition involved for breeding rights. They may be genetically inferior or have great potential, but the young ones do the breeding if the opportunity presents itself. 

Considering the above MI scenario, the 2 less dominant bucks are likely 1.5 yo and many doe may be bred late in the season, which leads to smaller and seemingly genetically inferior deer that are viewed the following fall. In all likelihood, the three bucks never make it for another year under current MI harvest guidelines. 

Here is a Hypothetical MI scenario No. 2.

Doe to buck ratio at 1.5:1

30 deer per square mile

Therefore 18 mature doe and 12 bucks in the area

Now under this scenario, competition for breeding rights will be intense and the cream comes to the top as Bwiltse suggested.

With 12 bucks in this hypothetical square mile instead of 3, Im sure a few of the strongest and smartest would survive to pass on the genes.

Sure, a few potential non breeders that have great potential may be harvested, but those that remain will participate in the battle for dominance the following year. If they are genetically inferior, the dominant deer in the area will put them to the test. As Ed Spin put it, the bulk of the breeding will be done by the one (those) that should be doing it.

I suppose this is my own Op/Ed column so you can take it for what you think it is worth, but the math, logic, etc is quite simple IMHO.

Sorry this is long, Looking forward to 10/1/04


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Short, sweet and to the point! Excellent...........


----------



## OTIS (Feb 15, 2001)

Quote from Benelli
"Here is a Hypothetical MI scenario.

Doe to buck ratio at 3:1

30 deer per square mile

Therefore 27 mature doe and 3 bucks in the area"


Isn't that more like a 9:1 ratio 

I am thinking 3:1 is more like 23:7 

Am I figuring this wrong?
Thanks


----------



## nymph (Dec 14, 2001)

OTIS,

You're exactly right with the question that you have proposed in reference to the 3:1 ratio mentioned above.

A 3:1 ratio relates to the fact that there are 3 does for every 1 buck, which can also be stated that 1 out of every 4 deer is a buck. With that said, if you have 30 deer in a single square mile area with a doe-to-buck ratio of 3:1, you would have 22.5 does and 7.5 bucks making up the total deer number of 30.

The first scenario above does in fact reflect a 9:1 doe-to-buck ratio. The second scenario is correctly stated at a 1.5:1 doe-to-buck ratio.

Doe to buck ratios for 1 square mile with a total number of 30 deer would be as follows:

3:1 = 22.5 doe / 7.5 buck
2.5:1 = 21.5 doe / 8.5 buck
2:1 = 20 doe / 10 buck
1.5:1 = 18 doe / 12 buck
1:1 = 15 doe / 15 buck



nymph


----------

