The Most Expensive Deer

Bowriter

Member
When I was the editor of Bow and Arrow Hunting Magazine, they sent me all over the U.S. and Canada hunting. Now, with one exception, I do all my hunting within 15-minutes of my house. I have a sizable deer population in my backyard. I don’t hunt them. My yard, joins 34-acres of woodland thicket. It holds a lot of deer and turkeys. Those I photograph and study.

The county in which I live and hunt does not produce large antlered bucks. A 130 buck is a good one. I have killed a couple of those but for the last ten-years or so, I have mainly killed does and when possible, yearling does-the most “expensive” deer on your property. And that is what this post is about.

If you are managing a deer population for hunting, your emphasis is put on three factors: (1) Total population control. (2) Sex ratio. (3) Nutritional or habitat manipulation.

To control the first two factors, the removal of the young or yearling does is the key. That deer is going to do nothing but eat for two years before she contributes to the population. By removing her, you aid in the control of both the overall population and sex ratio. For me, the ideal sex ratio is one male to 2.5 females. A hard ratio to attain and to maintain. As for age strata in the males, something most trophy hunters are overly concerned with. That can be achieved by a simple antler restriction, one that should be imposed only on carefully managed and controlled private land. That AR is eight-points and an inside spread of 16”. That will protect 94% of the bucks under 2.5-years of age. After that, they need little protection. Once a buck advances to 3.5-years of age, 90% will die of something other than a hunter.

Just for giggles, here is some data on one piece of property I have been hunting for five years. It is a total of 27-acres, four of which are in house, barn and two small ponds, leaving approximately 23-total huntable acres. In five years, I have killed 23-does and four bucks. One of the bucks was an accident. I thought he was a doe. The largest buck was about 128”. There are more deer on that property, now, than when I started hunting it.

When I was involved in the deer management of a 21,000-acre piece of property, a commercial operation. We routinely booked 400-hunters a year, and killed 450-500 deer a year. An AR of eight and 16 was strictly enforced. For 25-years, we kept detailed records-age, weight, dressed weight, antler spread, points etc. That information is now used at a huge University as a teaching tool. Here is the nutshell. That operation produced the very best of the bucks in that part of the state. In 25-years, only four were killed that measured over 165-inches gross. But 10X the number of 130-140 inch bucks. In short, you can only produce the best of what you have. You cannot produce Midwest-size antlers in a sub-specie that does not have that genetic makeup. You can only manage for the best of what you have. And the most expensive deer, is the young doe.
This is one of my backyard bucks-2.5 years old and a good, representative of this county.
 
I agree - in theory. But you are also assuming an area with a high deer density. If you have a low deer density, that young doe is golden - she will produce your deer of the future. I have about 300 acres and we don’t shoot does - the neighbors take of that. We also have a 3 pt AR statewide. It has really helped us. But, according to my records, a 3.5 yr old deer (or older) has about a 10% chance of showing up next year - even if we don’t shoot them. The neighbors also take care of them. Our average 4.5/5.5 yr old buck scores 115/120. Then they start down hill. We select our shooter bucks more on age than antlers. Every area is different - and to prescribe a management plan based off success of an entirely different area may not be the best practice. I have properties eight miles apart in the same river valley that manage nothing alike.
 
I believe achieving the ideal sex ratio or population control is unattainable on properties less that 500 acres or without high fence.

Ideal for what, hunting (you) or the deer?

I don’t disagree with you, one property doesn’t have total control over other hunters. Natural death from predation, winter kill, EHD etc. varies too much for us to really control.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I believe achieving the ideal sex ratio or population control is unattainable on properties less that 500 acres or without high fence.

I can pretty well maintain a semi-desirable sex ratio and population - but it means we basically don't shoot but a couple of deer a year off our 300 acres and let the neighbors do all the killing. Harvest numbers on our own property don't even tell a part of the story. It is harvest numbers in the general area. I have a neighbor with 20 acres, 1/2 mile away. He puts a corn feeder out two weeks before season - and killed three 3.5/4.5 yr old bucks I had a number of pictures of on my own place. Another one of my very regular shooter 4.5 yr old bucks was killed on public land 3/4 mile away. The biggest buck I had on camera was killed by a neighbor with 30 acres and a pile of nut grub. I have neighbors who own 20 acres who kill more deer than we do off our 300 acres, 30 acres of food plots, bedding cover, fawning cover, thermal cover - everything I can think of. All that still wont overcome a corn pile and an itchy trigger finger.
 
My preference has always been for a 80-100# doe with the milk still drippin from their chin. During a over populated period many years ago, we hammered the does. When we knocked the numbers back we started seeing rubs and scrapes again. Bucks don't really move a lot when they can find a doe every 10 yards. We had lots of late born fawns that went into their first winter in bad shape. So I think there is some truth in taking does when you can. The fact that I like to eat venison is icing on the cake.
 
Everywhere is different. I used to have few does and they would be bred in a couple of days and the bucks would be gone. I have a lot of does now - and i see very few rubs and scrapes - but man O man, do we see some chasing activity. It lasted for a month this year. Never seen chasing like we saw this year. If you saw a doe in november - just wait - there was going to be a buck.
 
Myself, I don't shoot yearlings. I think population control is more easily accomplished by shooting a mature doe that will put 2 or 3 mouths on the land in 6 months if let be. Not to mention, that mature doe is much more weary than a mature buck, at least during the rut.
 
Just getting around to reading this post and think there are a number of points made worthy of further thought. Following the order presented I have a number of questions and thoughts.

Why do you think the ideal sex ratio is 1: 2.5? Why not 1:1 ? Or why would you need any more does than required to meet recruitment goals and let as many bucks as possible get to the mature age classes. What is your experience with having more bucks than does? My father was good friends with Bill Theil one of the biologist on the King Ranch. As a result I got to spend quite a few years kicking around the 250,000 acre Norias division. At the time it had only been hunted by the family. While not scientific it appeared to me the ratio nature had for an unhunted deer herd was ~ 1: 1.5...my swag. As managers we have the opportunity to manipulate natural processes including ratios to meet our goals. Why would we want a herd skewed to does. Help me understand your thinking.

You propose Antler restrictions as optimum and best suited to " carefully managed and controlled private land". Really? Why not management based on buck age for the private land manager ? Aren't antler restrictions a bit like surgery with a chainsaw best suited for gross mgt. goals by state agencies trying to get a few bucks past yearling age on state wide or county basis? To me antler restrictions are a relatively crude tool. I also assume most managed private lands are more interested in seeing bucks reach maturity rather than any particular antler configuration. Maybe my assumption is different than yours?

You say 90% of bucks 3 yr old and older die of something other than hunters? What do you think they die of? Fighting? Disease? Old age? How old do you think the average buck lives to be when not killed by a hunter? What do you base the insight on that 90% die of other causes? I'm surprised at that statistic and not sure what circumstance you have based it on.

I'm blown away with the abysmal results you achieved managing a 21,000 acre property. What state and sub specie were you working with? I'm only familiar with a very few circumstances where sub specie or habitat is incapable of dramatically better results than you had.WHat was the compromise? Being a commercial operation was the directive economics rather than quality? I would agree that when economics drive decision making quality can be compromised. Were you unable to get enough bucks to 4 yr old plus? Was nutrition greatly compromised with no willingness to address the problem? 4 bucks over 165 in 25 years on 21,000 acres??? What university was using that performance and what were they teaching about it? I would love to review their use.

I hope you will explore these questions with us and continue a thought provoking dialogue. We can also continue thoughts about when and if doe harvest as well as when other approaches make more sense.
 
Okay-Baker, I'll try to take them in order.
(1)- Sex ratio of 1:1, accomplishes three major things. 1- More mortality due to fighting. )2) Less buffer due to disease such as EHD. (3) Lower hunters success on average. Higher hunter success on mature bucks due to probabilities. IOW-fewer bucks killed but the ones that are, are larger. #1 complaint on such a place is, "I didn't see anything."
(2)-Bucks 3.5 and older die most frequently of vehicle collisions, next is injury, next is disease and finally old age.(study is an ongoing one using stats from hunter input and other causes compared to percentage of population of bucks over 3.5.) May Google mature buck mortality.
(3)You can only produce a buck with antlers to the best of his genetic potential. On this plantation and in that part of the state, we were producing the best of the best. With the restrictions we had in place, no property was better managed. We simply did not have the genetics and by the time a buck possibly exceeded 160", he was usually, unkillable. A buck at 5.5-yrs, may reach 150"...maybe.
(4) You may want to research the material at Auburn University. We worked closely with them for nearly 20-years.

I am working a little with one piece of property, now, that is less than 100-acres, has maybe 35-deer total and I have seen two bucks that exceed 150". I estimate both of them at 3.5-yrs. But...different state-different genetics, same sub-specie. Understand, within 10-miles, you can have tremendous variables, example-Peak of the rut, soil nutrient and antler development including casting of the antlers as much as 30 days different. On the farm I mostly hunt now, I seriously doubt there has even been a buck that would exceed 130". However, just three miles away, two have been killed this past season that are in the low 140's. Go figure.

I have no idea where you live or hunt. One of the hardest things to get someone to understand is, the deer world aint flat. It is full of dips and dives that tend to confuse many hunters. A perfect example is when I hear someone say, "Well, in Texas...." In the deer world, Texas is a different country. You cannot manage deer in Louisiana, or South Carolina the way you would in IA or IL. Deer, in fact all wildlife, should be managed only on four basic principles: (1-Environmental impact-is it friendly to the environment? (2-Biological impact-is it biologically sound? (3-Financially feasible-Can we afford to do it? (4- Hunter satisfaction. Then within those parameters, we sculpt a plan suited to our personal goals. Keep in mind, when we do that, it is private ground we can control, not on public land. I work only on private land and no more large tracts. I will not work on more than 750-acres simply because I am too old to walk that much. On a 5,000-acre tract, just getting an accurate beginning census would take a year and wear out two trucks, nine pair of boots and three ex-wives. This aint Texas. :)
 
I can pretty well maintain a semi-desirable sex ratio and population - but it means we basically don't shoot but a couple of deer a year off our 300 acres and let the neighbors do all the killing. Harvest numbers on our own property don't even tell a part of the story. It is harvest numbers in the general area. I have a neighbor with 20 acres, 1/2 mile away. He puts a corn feeder out two weeks before season - and killed three 3.5/4.5 yr old bucks I had a number of pictures of on my own place. Another one of my very regular shooter 4.5 yr old bucks was killed on public land 3/4 mile away. The biggest buck I had on camera was killed by a neighbor with 30 acres and a pile of nut grub. I have neighbors who own 20 acres who kill more deer than we do off our 300 acres, 30 acres of food plots, bedding cover, fawning cover, thermal cover - everything I can think of. All that still wont overcome a corn pile and an itchy trigger finger.

A very relatable post right here... you can spend thousands to keep a deer around but you can’t control where he wanders off to during hunting season


Sent from my iPhone using Deer Hunter Forum
 
Okay-Baker, I'll try to take them in order.
(1)- Sex ratio of 1:1, accomplishes three major things. 1- More mortality due to fighting. )2) Less buffer due to disease such as EHD. (3) Lower hunters success on average. Higher hunter success on mature bucks due to probabilities. IOW-fewer bucks killed but the ones that are, are larger. #1 complaint on such a place is, "I didn't see anything."
(2)-Bucks 3.5 and older die most frequently of vehicle collisions, next is injury, next is disease and finally old age.(study is an ongoing one using stats from hunter input and other causes compared to percentage of population of bucks over 3.5.) May Google mature buck mortality.
(3)You can only produce a buck with antlers to the best of his genetic potential. On this plantation and in that part of the state, we were producing the best of the best. With the restrictions we had in place, no property was better managed. We simply did not have the genetics and by the time a buck possibly exceeded 160", he was usually, unkillable. A buck at 5.5-yrs, may reach 150"...maybe.
(4) You may want to research the material at Auburn University. We worked closely with them for nearly 20-years.

I am working a little with one piece of property, now, that is less than 100-acres, has maybe 35-deer total and I have seen two bucks that exceed 150". I estimate both of them at 3.5-yrs. But...different state-different genetics, same sub-specie. Understand, within 10-miles, you can have tremendous variables, example-Peak of the rut, soil nutrient and antler development including casting of the antlers as much as 30 days different. On the farm I mostly hunt now, I seriously doubt there has even been a buck that would exceed 130". However, just three miles away, two have been killed this past season that are in the low 140's. Go figure.

I have no idea where you live or hunt. One of the hardest things to get someone to understand is, the deer world aint flat. It is full of dips and dives that tend to confuse many hunters. A perfect example is when I hear someone say, "Well, in Texas...." In the deer world, Texas is a different country. You cannot manage deer in Louisiana, or South Carolina the way you would in IA or IL. Deer, in fact all wildlife, should be managed only on four basic principles: (1-Environmental impact-is it friendly to the environment? (2-Biological impact-is it biologically sound? (3-Financially feasible-Can we afford to do it? (4- Hunter satisfaction. Then within those parameters, we sculpt a plan suited to our personal goals. Keep in mind, when we do that, it is private ground we can control, not on public land. I work only on private land and no more large tracts. I will not work on more than 750-acres simply because I am too old to walk that much. On a 5,000-acre tract, just getting an accurate beginning census would take a year and wear out two trucks, nine pair of boots and three ex-wives. This aint Texas. :)
Thanks for the quick reply.
I agree with you that at 1:1 you have higher mortality from fighting. I lose a surprising number of bucks every year to fighting but still have overall higher buck numbers at 1:1 than if I went to a higher doe ratio . I see no reason to hold any more females than required to meet recruitment goals. I also think we both would agree that sex ratios are the last thing the typical small landowner should be concerned with. The ability for the typical small landowner to have meaningful impact to a herds overall ratio is negligible considering a deer...especially many bucks...typical range. I cant see where sex ratio has anything to do with disease resistance. Perhaps you can explain that. Why wouldn't there be higher hunter success on a balanced ratio? Given an absolute number of deer, if half are bucks doesn't that equal more opportunity? Ratio dont have much to do with absolute numbers with absolute numbers having a lot to do with hunter sightings/satisfaction.

I see what you are saying about more bucks dieing of other causes once 3 or older. Not sure I buy it but just my opinion. Share the study you reference and it may help.

I was hoping you would share the state/county where you managed 21,000 acres as that would have helped a lot with understanding .What restrictions were in place? What was the mgt. strategy. What was the habitat strategy? I understand genetic potential and understand what can be done to shift bell curves of quality...positively and negatively . I also understand the impact of age and nutrition. To have such poor performance as you describe it would be as helpful to understand more in detail as a learning experience. Many times we can learn as much from what went wrong as what went right.



I live in Louisiana on a farm managed for wildlife and also have a ranch in Mexico. I have been on many ranches and farms throughout the U.S most of my life working with many of the top biologist around. It is a passion. I think I understand that management changes in different parts of the country based on many things including property size, climatic conditions, habitat characteristics, laws etc. I also understand that most small landowner/managers are limited to managing habitat hoping to influence herd conditions rather than actually managing a herd of deer. Perhaps I should add that my experience is in managing properties much larger than the 750 acres you mention as your max.
 
Back
Top