D.E.C. seeking hunter input on the rescinding 2015 of antlerless only

[Buckstopshere]

Good points. But what happens when the population of yearling bucks, or spikes and forked two-year olds that don't grow big antlers equals or exceeds the doe population because of the tyranny of the notion that a everyone should pass on all small racked bucks? We have a high buck take...but in the past there was a certain consistency to the buck/doe ratio. As the ethos has changed over the last few years and those who shoot small racked bucks are looked down upon, the buck index has been skewed. I write a column in the NYON, but that is not why you should buy it. But because it is a good read and you get a lot of facts out of it. Ahemmm. In my column, I wrote about Junkyard bucks and how they are taking over two of my hunting spots. Nobody wants to shoot them and we are overrun.

But what might even be crazier...where overpopulation is a DEC concern, like in the DMUs near Rochester and Buffalo,  is it possible that the does there are getting a bad rap? Maybe it's the  little junkyard bucks that have overpopulated and of course the two-week moratorium on shooting bucks would not solve the problem since it was focused on does. It wasn't just does... but antler-shed junkyard bucks too. 

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by Buckstopshere

[dbHunterNY]

it'd be very hard to get even remotely close to a one to one buck to doe ratio or have buck numbers over take doe in a vast majority of areas throughout this country.  there always will be an should be youth, first time, or other hunters that just have a dry spell or chance to turn a yearling buck harvest into a memory or limited chance at getting something in the freezer as a bonus to the time spent out in the woods.  I mentioned big racks with slight sarcasm and cynicism.  rack size has nothing to do with managing a deer herd to better their well being.  it's only a by product of having a diversity of age classes present in the deer herd I believe.  I do think there's a focus on big antlers with hunters in general.  it's just another thing that's harder to get and looked at as an accomplishment.  It won't change any time soon.  no reason for it to be the bain of well intended effort.  pushing education on why it'd be good to pass yearling bucks is a great step.  I think DEC relies a little too much on bucks to determine population.  deer are pretty resilient but the population starts and ends with the doe.  they're the reason for replenished opportunity season after season, whether it's less or more then the hunter next to you desires.

[Larry]

The 1 to 1 buck to doe ratio is a myth. Nature never intended for deer sex ratios to be 1 to 1. If they were deer would mate for life. Just the nature of buck behavior puts them at higher risk. Also Bio. 101 states an overabundance of male is counterproductive for species survival. Anything we do is just a manipulation on our part for our benefit not the deer’s. to get to a 1 to 1 ratio we will have fewer deer over all so you will see less deer but more buck sightings per doe sighting. Can’t have it both ways and anyways where hunting takes place the DEC has said the buck to doe ratio is about 1 buck to 2 does.

[dbHunterNY]

The 1 to 1 buck to doe ratio is a myth. Nature never intended for deer sex ratios to be 1 to 1. If they were deer would mate for life. Just the nature of buck behavior puts them at higher risk. Also Bio. 101 states an overabundance of male is counterproductive for species survival. Anything we do is just a manipulation on our part for our benefit not the deer’s. to get to a 1 to 1 ratio we will have fewer deer over all so you will see less deer but more buck sightings per doe sighting. Can’t have it both ways and anyways where hunting takes place the DEC has said the buck to doe ratio is about 1 buck to 2 does.

 

I agree with much of this but not all of it.  nature doesn't intend for sex ratio to be exactly 1 to 1.  we don't hunt penguins.  if we stepped aside though it'd be pretty close.  the natural selection process caters to have multiple bucks compete for one doe.  I don't know about others on here, but it's a rarity that I see a few bucks running down a hot doe.  it's very often just one.  I agree if we left deer alone they'd do just fine.  I agree an overabundance of bucks would never happen unless we did it.  more deer to support but not anymore productive as a whole, which would never happen naturally.  however, we've determined we're inevitably going to effect/hunt them, so we should do so in the least detrimental way feasible given our needs and interests.  I agree, the nature of hunter preference to shoot and with bucks' natural activities there will be fewer deer the more we approach an even ratio.  the last part about DEC stating the buck to doe ratio is about 1:2.  Not a chance in my mind.  In areas of intensive doe harvest you could realistically see probably 1:3.  although, I'd say it's not the norm or common to have a ratio much larger than 1:5.  I understand harvest numbers in many WMU's across the state are 1:2, but harvest numbers alone don't factor everything in.  if we could use them like that I feel like it'd imply we don't pass on any buck or doe harvest opportunity.  also the implications would ignore the idea that bucks acting like bucks and hunter preference put them at a higher risk for mortality.

 

so I agree with a lot of this but not all of it... not that it means anything.  I'm just another guy typing in an online forum.

 

....keeping on topic protection of not all but most yearlings is good for many reasons.  It would definitely encourage more doe harvest in all but the lower populated areas.  also dropping the antlerless only idea is great.  it wouldn't discourage many and instead get them back into the woods during that time.  you can't capitalize on harvest opportunity for doe if you're not out in the woods.

Edited February 9, 2016 by dbHunterNY