IT TAKES TWICE THE LAND TO GROW 3 YEAR OLD BUCKS AS IT DOES TO GROW 2 YEAR OLD BUCKS

[Mennoniteman]

The great thing about a spreadsheet is that it does a lot of math in a hurry, and can show a picture of numbers that are easier to grasp than just doing the same numbers one at a time on a calculator. Recently I've been playing with deer management statistics on a spreadsheet, and, as I loaded the numbers, one glaring deer management fact that I often overlook quickly became evident. This is a statistic that I knew before, but hadn't ever really considered the full importance of it in figuring out how many deer a piece of land can carry, and what the buck/ doe ratio on any given piece of land should be.
Regarding buck antler size, us hunters always tend to simplify the matter and say "that one needs another year", or, "just let them grow bigger" as we often tend to think we can shoot the same bucks as big bucks instead of shooting them as smaller bucks the year before. However, as this chart points out, it's not quite that simple, actually it takes a lot more land to grow big bucks.
So, here it is, the fact that all else being equal, in looking at a piece of land as a limited resource that can only carry so many deer per acre, according to my management chart, it clearly shows that it takes twice the amount of land to grow bucks to 2 year old maturity before harvest as it does to grow the same amount of bucks to 1 year old maturity, three times the land to grow bucks to 3 year old maturity, and four times the land to grow bucks to 4 year old maturity.
The driving factor for this equation is that, in order to have enough food to feed the bigger buck herd needed to enable harvesting only 4 year old bucks, the doe herd is going to have to be reduced by equal numbers to provide this required food, resulting in less replacement buck fawns each year. Not reducing the doe herd to provide this required buck food is the worst management mistake that can be made, resulting in poor quality deer and antlers all around.
For someone making their own deer management plan, if a deer herd is balanced at the starting point, all that's needed to maintain balanced herd numbers is to harvest the correct number of bucks, and harvest one doe for every buck harvested, which will maintain a balanced buck/doe ratio.
But the most important thing that this chart shows is that "the core of deer management is a very careful management of doe herd numbers".

 

[Mennoniteman]

Here is my spreadsheet;

BUCK AND DOE RATIO.xlsx

docs.google.com

 

[yoderjac]

I would contend that if you only have 250 acres that you can influence, you are not likely to have a measurable impact on the local deer herd regardless of how you manage. We have about 400 and cooperating adjoining properties bring the total to about 800 acres. We have been attempting to do QDM since 2006 on this land. Our biologist says he thinks he can see some improvement in body weights, but it is small enough that I doubt it is statistically significant.

The biggest issue is harvest controls. A typical buck home range is about 1,000 acres in average habitat. In better habitat, it is probably a bit less and in worse habitat probably a bit more.

Without harvest controls on adjoining lands, you are at the mercy of the neighbors when deer venture off your land. There is more to QDM than growing more mature bucks, but that is part of QDM and the result most guys are looking for.

In reality, most of us are kidding ourselves, that we are effective at QDM on lands less that 1,000 acres or much larger.

I think that in general, the number of mature deer we have access to has more to do the the 1-3 square miles around the subject property. For example, if you are in an area where the state has an antler restriction and hunters respect it you have a better chance of getting some maturity. But most antler restrictions only protect 1.5 year old deer. Much has to do with the hunting culture of the area.

We really don't "grow" mature deer, we just protect them until they mature.

I think most of our QDM efforts result in improving our chances of a harvest (of any deer) rather than improving the local heard health or age structure.

 

[Mennoniteman]

I would contend that if you only have 250 acres that you can influence, you are not likely to have a measurable impact on the local deer herd regardless of how you manage. We have about 400 and cooperating adjoining properties bring the total to about 800 acres. We have been attempting to do QDM since 2006 on this land. Our biologist says he thinks he can see some improvement in body weights, but it is small enough that I doubt it is statistically significant.

The biggest issue is harvest controls. A typical buck home range is about 1,000 acres in average habitat. In better habitat, it is probably a bit less and in worse habitat probably a bit more.

Without harvest controls on adjoining lands, you are at the mercy of the neighbors when deer venture off your land. There is more to QDM than growing more mature bucks, but that is part of QDM and the result most guys are looking for.

In reality, most of us are kidding ourselves, that we are effective at QDM on lands less that 1,000 acres or much larger.

I think that in general, the number of mature deer we have access to has more to do the the 1-3 square miles around the subject property. For example, if you are in an area where the state has an antler restriction and hunters respect it you have a better chance of getting some maturity. But most antler restrictions only protect 1.5 year old deer. Much has to do with the hunting culture of the area.

We really don't "grow" mature deer, we just protect them until they mature.

I think most of our QDM efforts result in improving our chances of a harvest (of any deer) rather than improving the local heard health or age structure.

I respectfully disagree with your 1000 acre numbers, I have successfully managed deer and grown several pope& young bucks on a perfect 34 acre property, watched on camera 24/7/365 and they were there almost 100% of the time. If a deer has everything that it needs supplied to perfection, it's home range is way smaller than most people realize.
And that is where good deer management comes in. The doe numbers and habitat need to be managed to perfection for this to work out.

 

[yoderjac]

I respectfully disagree with your 1000 acre numbers, I have successfully managed deer and grown several pope& young bucks on a perfect 34 acre property, watched on camera 24/7/365 and they were there almost 100% of the time. If a deer has everything that it needs supplied to perfection, it's home range is way smaller than most people realize.
And that is where good deer management comes in. The doe numbers and habitat need to be managed to perfection for this to work out.

I have no doubt you have some P&Y deer. I'm almost certain that if you GPS collared those deer you would be very surprised how much time they spent off your property. The fact that they were not shot on another property has to do with the neighboring properties. I'm sure thee is some variation with specific area and habitat, but collar studies show bucks have .larger home ranges and also take more frequent excursions than we thought out of that home range.

 

[Mennoniteman]

I have no doubt you have some P&Y deer. I'm almost certain that if you GPS collared those deer you would be very surprised how much time they spent off your property. The fact that they were not shot on another property has to do with the neighboring properties. I'm sure thee is some variation with specific area and habitat, but collar studies show bucks have .larger home ranges and also take more frequent excursions than we thought out of that home range.

These neighboring properties around my 34 acres had/have super high hunting pressure. But according to my cameras the bucks did go off the 34 property at night onto some adjacent large open ag fields to feed, but rarely in daytime.
I get a bit annoyed at the mantra that there's not much deer management worthwhile for anyone to do unless they own a thousand acres. That's so much baloney and it's misleading people who'd otherwise give it a try if they'd know how simple it is. There's many people like me who manage 30-40 acres with great success, and guys like Don Higgins on the internet who specialize in small properties with even greater success than I can do.
The requirements are; you've got to have a year-round water source, cover like MFR and green briars etc. over the entire property that's too thick for a human to get through, manage the doe herd size carefully, a really good 2 acre clover plot, only hunt the downwind perimeter, have a closed hunting blind, don't shoot small bucks, and totally stay out year round except to spray the food plot.
We've taken 20 bucks off of this specific plot in 10 years, 8 point and bigger, and a lot more does, enough to make any hunter think it's worthwhile managing.
I have several friends doing the same thing, heavily managing a small acreage, fake scrapes, buck sneak trails& everything, and consistently harvesting big bucks off their small plots. Granted, they don't get every buck they see on camera, and one phenomenon with bucks is that some are homebodies and some are wanderers, but if you give a deer absolutely everything they could desire, they will stick their nose out of that thick cover into open woods and decide they don't want to leave 30 acres of tight cover for 900 acres of open woods.

 

[yoderjac]

That sounds like a pretty common scenario. 30 acres can be managed very well to improve hunting. It sounds to me like a situation where they general area is supporting a good buck population. When hunting pressure comes, mature bucks head for unpressured areas during daylight and significantly reduce movement range. When the rut hits, bucks will often range quite far for quite a while.

Don't get me wrong. Small acreage can be managed to improve hunting and to improve an opportunity to shoot mature bucks. That doesn't mean that deer will stay on that small acreage. Much depends on what goes on with surrounding land. When you have the right small property in the right place and with the right situation, it can be a great hot spot for hunting mature bucks. That doesn't mean that you can take a small property and grow mature bucks. It means that if you have mature bucks with your small property as part of their home range, and you manage your property carefully, you can make it the place they hang out most of the time when the pressure is on.

 

[Mennoniteman]

That sounds like a pretty common scenario. 30 acres can be managed very well to improve hunting. It sounds to me like a situation where they general area is supporting a good buck population. When hunting pressure comes, mature bucks head for unpressured areas during daylight and significantly reduce movement range. When the rut hits, bucks will often range quite far for quite a while.

Don't get me wrong. Small acreage can be managed to improve hunting and to improve an opportunity to shoot mature bucks. That doesn't mean that deer will stay on that small acreage. Much depends on what goes on with surrounding land. When you have the right small property in the right place and with the right situation, it can be a great hot spot for hunting mature bucks. That doesn't mean that you can take a small property and grow mature bucks. It means that if you have mature bucks with your small property as part of their home range, and you manage your property carefully, you can make it the place they hang out most of the time when the pressure is on.

No, you have a mental block to this entire concept of small property habitat improvement, that's totally not what I'm talking about. You keep manipulating what I'm saying, and the only reason I'm saying it is to try and help someone else achieve their dream by telling them what's possible, I never post pics of my best stuff online, there's too many stalkers out there.
I understand that this may be a difficult concept for you, someone who never did this or witnessed this will not believe small plot management until they see it. Those university gps deer collar studies you mention are done in open woods and general habitat areas where a buck will need and use a thousand acres. I am very specifically talking about taking a smaller piece of mostly open land that had very few deer on it, and growing big bucks, mostly on that small piece of land through a total transformation of the property with fair sized machinery and expert advice. I have done this several times in several different counties, and each small piece of land had almost no deer on before we started, and now holds big bucks. What happens with that newly created honey hole deer magnet is that it siphons deer off of the adjacent 1000 acres owned by people who don't think you can manage less than 1000 acres, don't do any high intensive work on their property, don't understand deer management and balance their herd, and don't have a clue what their neighbor just did.
In reading other people's online posts it becomes very evident that most people do some work to manage their deer, some more, and others very little, besides maybe popping up a hunting blind and a mock scrape, and doing a fall plot. I'm talking a whole other level of deer management here, bringing in timber harvesters, excavators to dig water holes, D5 dozers and 953 loaders. Planting MG grass by the pallet, putting in Rubbermaid water tubs, covering stand entry and exits with spruce, making buck beds. One property I had a Fendt 200 hp tractor in on a 1 acre food plot, and a 20 ton lime truck. A disc mulcher on a track skid loader is one of the most valuable tools to go in and take out junk saplings to allow sunlight to the ground. Do the work and then stay out and watch the cameras.
A friend of mine worked on 25 acres for a week with a large excavator, making plots, specific buck and doe areas, a perimeter buck sneak trail, using big downed trees in line to make a fence to separate areas. This 25 acres that wasn't producing any deer before is now good for a ten point every year. There were people traveling from other states to tour his high intensive small acreage deer management, which actually hurt the buck management because of people touring in the off-season.
Often times the timbering pays for the whole operation, sometimes with a pile of cash to spare. After the initial setup most of the plot maintenance is done with an atv or something like a Ventrac. Maybe this sounds expensive and overwhelming to some people, but compared to a lot of other hobbies like golfing, having a boat, or running a race car, the price and time isn't really all that different, it depends what interests someone. Lick Creek Paul Knox was famous on this forum, what was he famous for? High intensive food plots. Making a difference requires high intensive work.
Deer management is going to give a return for exactly what a person puts into it, the serious guys get a serious return and doesn't need to own 100 acres to get it. The guy that goes out with hands tools for several hours and hinges a few trees on several hundred acres isn't going to see much difference in bucks harvested.
But this is all real stuff that is possible and I am specifically talking about growing and holding big bucks on a 30, 40, or 50 acre tract, where not much was happening before. Even a tract 10 acres has tremendous deer possibilities with serious management.

 

[Mennoniteman]

This is what my average woodland looks like managed for maximum timber dollars, and also has good deer habitat, but not near enough cover to hold big bucks on 30 acres. Obviously the tulip poplar trees do nothing for deer, but they pay a lot for timber. This is what I would call a well managed woods with all sizes of trees and brush, and a good bit of cover for deer. With a hundred acres of this it definitely would be worthwhile to manage and balance the doe herd, but this is not high intensity deer management. For high intensity deer management on a small acreage this big timber would need to go.

 

[yoderjac]

I don't have a mental block, I just think we have a language difference. I look at deer management as managing the herd and impacting their health and quality. I agree with everything you say. I just don't see it as QDM.

I see it as habitat manipulation to improve hunting. I don't doubt its effectiveness. It is still limited by the neighboring properties. Changes there can have significant impact on the small property. Forming a strategy using the existing use of surrounding properties for small property management can be effective provided that use stays the same. For example, we have a neighbor with 150 acres that does not allow hunting or trespassing and is rarely on the land. It becomes our sanctuary. There is not doubt in my mind that if the neighboring farm land has standing corn those bucks are using it prior to the harvest.

There is no doubt in my mind that a small property can be managed to significantly improve hunting by encouraging target animals to use it during hunting season. The big key is limited human presence that you identified.

I just see this as managing a small property for hunting, rather than managing a local deer herd.

 

[Mennoniteman]

I don't have a mental block, I just think we have a language difference. I look at deer management as managing the herd and impacting their health and quality. I agree with everything you say. I just don't see it as QDM.

I see it as habitat manipulation to improve hunting. I don't doubt its effectiveness. It is still limited by the neighboring properties. Changes there can have significant impact on the small property. Forming a strategy using the existing use of surrounding properties for small property management can be effective provided that use stays the same. For example, we have a neighbor with 150 acres that does not allow hunting or trespassing and is rarely on the land. It becomes our sanctuary. There is not doubt in my mind that if the neighboring farm land has standing corn those bucks are using it prior to the harvest.

There is no doubt in my mind that a small property can be managed to significantly improve hunting by encouraging target animals to use it during hunting season. The big key is limited human presence that you identified.

I just see this as managing a small property for hunting, rather than managing a local deer herd.

No, it's the exact opposite of what you are saying. Doing QDM on a thousand acres, even with the neighboring properties on board, there's still hunters who shoot little deer, and it is still difficult to increase specific deer weights, because its difficult to change the food quality and stresses on a thousand acres, mostly you are just letting the deer grow older before you shoot them.
On a 40 acre plot where you are limiting herd size and giving the deer exactly what they need and desire, less deer movement and need to travel for food, and removing stresses, deer body weights increase drastically, a fact that I have documented.
Intensive deer management on small properties often includes a protein supplement feeder where legal, which also helps boost animal health and body weights. The target animals aren't encouraged to be there during hunting season, they are living there year round because life is much better there. This, intensive small acreage management mirrors the loose parameters of "QDM", increasing deer health and size better than most bigger parcels.
And intensive small acreage management is in no way limited by neighboring properties, (unless trespassing is an issue, which has much the same impact on large properties) it is only limited by terrain features, time, and pocketbook.
Just as a local steer farmer isn't limited by neighboring steer farmers, small plot deer management grows its own deer and controls it's own herd health. The biggest problem isn't the neighbors getting your deer, it's you getting the neighbors deer, because they all want to be where the food and cover is perfect. It takes intensive doe management to control this, and it can be difficult to remove does without disturbing bucks. A lot of downwind perimeter hunting is the key.

 

[yoderjac]

No, it's the exact opposite of what you are saying. Doing QDM on a thousand acres, even with the neighboring properties on board, there's still hunters who shoot little deer, and it is still difficult to increase specific deer weights, because its difficult to change the food quality and stresses on a thousand acres, mostly you are just letting the deer grow older before you shoot them.
On a 40 acre plot where you are limiting herd size and giving the deer exactly what they need and desire, less deer movement and need to travel for food, and removing stresses, deer body weights increase drastically, a fact that I have documented.
Intensive deer management on small properties often includes a protein supplement feeder where legal, which also helps boost animal health and body weights. The target animals aren't encouraged to be there during hunting season, they are living there year round because life is much better there. This, intensive small acreage management mirrors the loose parameters of "QDM", increasing deer health and size better than most bigger parcels.
And intensive small acreage management is in no way limited by neighboring properties, (unless trespassing is an issue, which has much the same impact on large properties) it is only limited by terrain features, time, and pocketbook.
Just as a local steer farmer isn't limited by neighboring steer farmers, small plot deer management grows its own deer and controls it's own herd health. The biggest problem isn't the neighbors getting your deer, it's you getting the neighbors deer, because they all want to be where the food and cover is perfect. It takes intensive doe management to control this, and it can be difficult to remove does without disturbing bucks. A lot of downwind perimeter hunting is the key.

Well, then we have a very different perspective. I see no way to hold deer on 40 acres. I see 1,000 as a bare minimum for QDM where you can measure results. I don't care how you manipulate the habitat, it is simply not the nature of a deer herd to remain on 40 acres.

 

[Mennoniteman]

Well, then we have a very different perspective. I see no way to hold deer on 40 acres. I see 1,000 as a bare minimum for QDM where you can measure results. I don't care how you manipulate the habitat, it is simply not the nature of a deer herd to remain on 40 acres.

Perspective is shaped by life experiences, and the assumptions that an individual brings into a given situation. If the individual has never done it themselves, and never witnessed it done by anyone else, and they have a narrow worldview, they will probably say "it's impossible because I have never heard of it", and their perspective becomes their reality.
People with a more open perspective are always looking for additional ways to broaden their knowledge of things that interests them, and get excited about new things that they've never seen or heard of before. Those people are easily identified by their desire to see and know more as they absorb new information and grasp new concepts. It is this type of person that is able to replicate and improve upon what others have done before them.

 

[yoderjac]

Just point me to any scientific evidence that shows one can hold a deer herd on 40 acres without a high fence and I'm very open minded. Anyone who deals with science needs to be willing to change their minds when new evidence is accumulated. So far, all of the science leans the other way. If you can really hold a deer herd on 40 acres or have a measurable impact on herd health, you should have someone come in and GPS your deer. It would be a break-thru that would change everything we think we know about deer.

Short of hard evidence, you are right. I have a very difficult time buying in.

Having said that, I don't think anything you are doing is ill-advised. Short of data, we all can easily be mislead by our anecdotal experiences.

Without data, I'm happy to agree to disagree. I don't want this thread to devolve. There is a lot we don't know about deer.

 

[Mennoniteman]

Just point me to any scientific evidence that shows one can hold a deer herd on 40 acres without a high fence and I'm very open minded. Anyone who deals with science needs to be willing to change their minds when new evidence is accumulated. So far, all of the science leans the other way. If you can really hold a deer herd on 40 acres or have a measurable impact on herd health, you should have someone come in and GPS your deer. It would be a break-thru that would change everything we think we know about deer.

Short of hard evidence, you are right. I have a very difficult time buying in.

Having said that, I don't think anything you are doing is ill-advised. Short of data, we all can easily be mislead by our anecdotal experiences.

Without data, I'm happy to agree to disagree. I don't want this thread to devolve. There is a lot we don't know about deer.

I am not trying to foment an argument, and I'm pretty much done discussing the matter, however, I do find your positions here to be misleading to anyone that is interested in deer management . Your first statement "I would contend that if you only have 250 acres that you can influence, you are not likely to have a measurable impact on the local deer herd regardless of how you manage" seems to highlight your lack of perspective on deer management. I've gone into great detail here to try to explain the difference between doing almost nothing, and doing a huge amount of management work, and I realize that it's difficult to grasp the factor of the input value if one's never observed it.
The principle of the worth of a small chainsaw with a sharp chain over a big chainsaw with a dull chain applies to deer management, and 40 acres of intensive management is going to have a way greater impact on the deer than 1000 acres lightly managed.
The "coming big wave" in the future in deer management is small plot layouts much like @dogghr outlines with his great "random" clusters thread. Small plots with intensive management, where being surrounded on multiple different sides by multiple different land uses such as high pressure hunting in unmanaged open timber, high pressure human presence in housing developments, open ag fields, etc., create pressures that are key to making intensive management work. If small plot intensive management abuts a neighbors adjacent small plot intensive management, the two are always going to operate as one QDM unit, whether the owners like it or not, and this potential is one of the few limitations of adjacent land.
No matter the naysayers, we are way beyond anecdotal and theoretical evidence on small plot management. Empirical data, both qualitative and quantitative, is being compiled right now, but it is not going to be presented by a no-name mennonite buried in the depths of a no name thread, rather, it is going to be front page by a big name biologist with a doctorate, on their own website to reap the big advertising dollars that go with it. And meanwhile, I'm having so much fun out managing deer and making them want to be where I want them to be, so much fun that I don't have much online time anymore to tell others what some of us are doing, and probably if I would they wouldn't believe it anyway

 

[yoderjac]

As I say, point me to the data, and I'll be more than open to change my mind. There is not doubt that deer range less in high quality habitat than in low quality habitat. Once you have data to show you can keep deer in 40 acres without a high fence, please post the link. I'm more than anxious to see how that is done.

I skeptical, but more than willing to change my mind when the data changes. It would not be the first time I've had to do a 180 when new data became available.

 

[Lewi B]

I am not trying to foment an argument, and I'm pretty much done discussing the matter, however, I do find your positions here to be misleading to anyone that is interested in deer management . Your first statement "I would contend that if you only have 250 acres that you can influence, you are not likely to have a measurable impact on the local deer herd regardless of how you manage" seems to highlight your lack of perspective on deer management. I've gone into great detail here to try to explain the difference between doing almost nothing, and doing a huge amount of management work, and I realize that it's difficult to grasp the factor of the input value if one's never observed it.
The principle of the worth of a small chainsaw with a sharp chain over a big chainsaw with a dull chain applies to deer management, and 40 acres of intensive management is going to have a way greater impact on the deer than 1000 acres lightly managed.
The "coming big wave" in the future in deer management is small plot layouts much like @dogghr outlines with his great "random" clusters thread. Small plots with intensive management, where being surrounded on multiple different sides by multiple different land uses such as high pressure hunting in unmanaged open timber, high pressure human presence in housing developments, open ag fields, etc., create pressures that are key to making intensive management work. If small plot intensive management abuts a neighbors adjacent small plot intensive management, the two are always going to operate as one QDM unit, whether the owners like it or not, and this potential is one of the few limitations of adjacent land.
No matter the naysayers, we are way beyond anecdotal and theoretical evidence on small plot management. Empirical data, both qualitative and quantitative, is being compiled right now, but it is not going to be presented by a no-name mennonite buried in the depths of a no name thread, rather, it is going to be front page by a big name biologist with a doctorate, on their own website to reap the big advertising dollars that go with it. And meanwhile, I'm having so much fun out managing deer and making them want to be where I want them to be, so much fun that I don't have much online time anymore to tell others what some of us are doing, and probably if I would they wouldn't believe it anyway

Amen brother. I like your style. Been doing the same thing for a lot of years. Keep on talking. Thumbs up

 

[Deadeye]

On our small 80 acres of leased Pine Tree Farm with very chitty soil, in the 5-6 years that we have had it I've seen a great difference in the Deer Movement and Size of Bucks.

We had really One Decent Plot Area until I added Feeders into the Mix and the last 2 years we saw a great increase in the amount of Deer seen while hunting as well as Deer using the Property. This past Summer I created 2 additional Plots but lack of rain caused them to poorly produce yet the Deer still found them and are using them.

We really only hunt on about 40 Acres of the 80, leaving the rest for Sanctuary and as thick as it is only animals access it anyway. Two ponds produce Water and there is a small creek that runs through the bottom land which is also one of our Sanctuary Areas. On that 40 we have 4 Stands Set and can move to whichever one gives the best wind usage that day.

We have gone from maybe seeing 1-2 Deer Total during a 4 Day Hunt to seeing 3-8 Deer on 2-3 Days each of a 4 Day Hunt.

We are only there 1-2 times for Work Days and then 2-5/6 Hunts a year.

This past October I laid eyes on 2 of the Biggest Bucks I've seen since I moved to Florida in 2000. To far for Archery Range, but is showing that with a little work and time Small Acreage Plots can produce more and better Deer.

 

[yoderjac]

On our small 80 acres of leased Pine Tree Farm with very chitty soil, in the 5-6 years that we have had it I've seen a great difference in the Deer Movement and Size of Bucks.

We had really One Decent Plot Area until I added Feeders into the Mix and the last 2 years we saw a great increase in the amount of Deer seen while hunting as well as Deer using the Property. This past Summer I created 2 additional Plots but lack of rain caused them to poorly produce yet the Deer still found them and are using them.

We really only hunt on about 40 Acres of the 80, leaving the rest for Sanctuary and as thick as it is only animals access it anyway. Two ponds produce Water and there is a small creek that runs through the bottom land which is also one of our Sanctuary Areas. On that 40 we have 4 Stands Set and can move to whichever one gives the best wind usage that day.

We have gone from maybe seeing 1-2 Deer Total during a 4 Day Hunt to seeing 3-8 Deer on 2-3 Days each of a 4 Day Hunt.

We are only there 1-2 times for Work Days and then 2-5/6 Hunts a year.

This past October I laid eyes on 2 of the Biggest Bucks I've seen since I moved to Florida in 2000. To far for Archery Range, but is showing that with a little work and time Small Acreage Plots can produce more and better Deer.

That's great and the kind of improvement in hunting opportunity folks can expect on a well managed small property. We can have a great impact on how and how often deer relate to our property relative to how they relate to those that surround it.