SB 4739 - Establishes the yearling buck protection program

[stubby68]

The statement, AR will make a healthier heard, keeps popping up. What is a healthy herd? Why do we not have a healthy herd now?  Some areas have a lot of deer all of different ages and some   have few deer yet all of different ages..  Why does a herd have to have lots of older deer to be healthy? Just asking not wanting to start srgueing. Just want to know what everyone thinks makes a healthy herd and why. I keep hearing older bucks make for a healthier herd but no mention of older does doing the same. If we need more older deer to make the herd healthy then why not bucks and does. How does only passing young bucks help the herd. Why no mention of passing younger does. Again just asking. Trying to understand and learn.

[Adkhunter1590]

No guns during the rut, 1 buck rule and much better soil.


Thinking NY will one day have a 160" buck behind every tree is a "pipe dream!" There is a plethora of reasons why but most importantly it's hunter densities in the area where there is the potential to grow big ones in NY.

Look at the Adirondacks how many acres is there? With the lowest hunter densities in the state yet how many record bucks come out of there?


This buck was aged at 5 1/2 and won't score 120"



This buck was aged at 6 1/2+ and won't score 100"



Aged at4 1/2 what maybe 120"

Aged at 51/2 again not even 120"

So there's 4 bucks that all reached maturity. Only 2 of these bucks came from the same county with about 250 miles between 2 of them so it's not a regional issue. I have hunted a bunch of other states and have killed a couple nice bucks in my life but I end up back home every year. I have come to realize we don't have the potential to have big bucks in Eastern NY with any type of regularity. And I'm completely fine with that I love the challenge of shooting a mature deer in the land where there aren't any.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Never said you'd ever get NY to become what Kansas or any place else is. But we have a lot of room for improvement. There's nothing negative about improving in my eyes.

I can probably dig up pics of a couple 6 pointers we shot in Kansas that were 6+ years old. There are small racked deer everywhere. I seen the biggest 4 pointer of my life in Pike county Illinois. It happens.

Hunter density in the areas where bucks had the potential to mature shouldn't matter if everyone of those hunters passed everything small. Yep your probably going to see a lot more smaller racked older deer, but I bet after awhile your gonna start seeing more bigger racked deer to go along with them. Let the better genetics spread. It's gonna take time no doubt about it. And it will never be as good as out west, but it can improve ALOT.

I already know it works and I'm seeing it in my area already. I've talked to a decent amount of my neighbors and close by land owners who all seem to be looking for big racks and letting stuff walk.

Before my father sold our camp in Otsego county, we noticed a big change in our deer the last 4 years we were there. Other than some additional logging on our property we changed nothing. The biggest difference between the last 6 or so years up there was that hunting pressure in the area had dropped off by a large amount. A few of our neighbors got old and stopped shooting 4-5 dinkers a year. We heard less shots every year. Then all of a sudden, my old man arrows a 140inch 10 point and my uncle drops a 12 pointer he said went just over 145. And to top it off my old man swears up and down he spotted a buck much bigger than his on 2 different occasions. He showed me the track and it was a massive print. My dad and uncle owned this property for 35 years and had never shot anything over 120 in that entire time. All the years I hunted there growing up I never once saw bucks chasing does or many bucks at all. The last few years we had it, I witnessed more buck activity in the day time than ever before. There's no doubt in my mind that all those bucks previously destined to die, had lived and grown up.

[Adkhunter1590]

The statement, AR will make a healthier heard, keeps popping up. What is a healthy herd? Why do we not have a healthy herd now?  Some areas have a lot of deer all of different ages and some   have few deer yet all of different ages..  Why does a herd have to have lots of older deer to be healthy? Just asking not wanting to start srgueing. Just want to know what everyone thinks makes a healthy herd and why. I keep hearing older bucks make for a healthier herd but no mention of older does doing the same. If we need more older deer to make the herd healthy then why not bucks and does. How does only passing young bucks help the herd. Why no mention of passing younger does. Again just asking. Trying to understand and learn.

I don't think anyone means the actually "health" of the deer in particular. But to have a healthy age structure is what we are after. Well balanced age classes is what makes for a healthy or good herd.

I do try and take older does if I can. But sometimes it's better to take younger does because a lot of times the middle aged does are the most reproductive, and as seasoned mothers, they tend to be better at raising fawns. Now if a doe gets really up there in years, she may not reproduce as well anymore and should be shot. It's all a balancing act. And while one could argue that this doesn't work with small acreage, if everyone had the same mindset and goal it would be a lot easier to obtain our goals. It's gonna take a lot of education to bring people up to speed on a lot of this stuff that's for sure

[Buckmaster7600]

Never said you'd ever get NY to become what Kansas or any place else is. But we have a lot of room for improvement. There's nothing negative about improving in my eyes.

I can probably dig up pics of a couple 6 pointers we shot in Kansas that were 6+ years old. There are small racked deer everywhere. I seen the biggest 4 pointer of my life in Pike county Illinois. It happens.

Hunter density in the areas where bucks had the potential to mature shouldn't matter if everyone of those hunters passed everything small. Yep your probably going to see a lot more smaller racked older deer, but I bet after awhile your gonna start seeing more bigger racked deer to go along with them. Let the better genetics spread. It's gonna take time no doubt about it. And it will never be as good as out west, but it can improve ALOT.

I already know it works and I'm seeing it in my area already. I've talked to a decent amount of my neighbors and close by land owners who all seem to be looking for big racks and letting stuff walk.

Before my father sold our camp in Otsego county, we noticed a big change in our deer the last 4 years we were there. Other than some additional logging on our property we changed nothing. The biggest difference between the last 6 or so years up there was that hunting pressure in the area had dropped off by a large amount. A few of our neighbors got old and stopped shooting 4-5 dinkers a year. We heard less shots every year. Then all of a sudden, my old man arrows a 140inch 10 point and my uncle drops a 12 pointer he said went just over 145. And to top it off my old man swears up and down he spotted a buck much bigger than his on 2 different occasions. He showed me the track and it was a massive print. My dad and uncle owned this property for 35 years and had never shot anything over 120 in that entire time. All the years I hunted there growing up I never once saw bucks chasing does or many bucks at all. The last few years we had it, I witnessed more buck activity in the day time than ever before. There's no doubt in my mind that all those bucks previously destined to die, had lived and grown up.

I bet you can show me the pics but they are the exception not the norm. In most of the state a mature 4 1/2yr old buck doesn't gross 130"

All that changed without an AR? Sounds like you found your answer.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wolc123]

While most of the push for AR seems to be coming from the antler-worshiping crowd, I see a clear benefit, for a meat-hunter.   The quality of the venison from a 2-1/2 year old buck is about equal to that of a 1-1/2 year old, but the quantity is significantly greater.    With each successive year, the quality (texture and taste) drops off faster than the quantity increases, making a 2-1/2 year buck the optimum age for a meat-hunter to harvest.   The AR's would protect many of the 1-1/2's, which would obviously increase the 2-1/2 year olds available for harvest.         

[stubby68]

31 minutes ago, Adkhunter1590 said:

 

 

I don't think anyone means the actually "health" of the deer in particular. But to have a healthy age structure is what we are after. Well balanced age classes is what makes for a healthy or good herd.

I do try and take older does if I can. But sometimes it's better to take younger does because a lot of times the middle aged does are the most reproductive, and as seasoned mothers, they tend to be better at raising fawns. Now if a doe gets really up there in years, she may not reproduce as well anymore and should be shot. It's all a balancing act. And while one could argue that this doesn't work with small acreage, if everyone had the same mindset and goal it would be a lot easier to obtain our goals. It's gonna take a lot of education to bring people up to speed on a lot of this stuff that's for sure

 

 

          Why does there have to be a lot of older bucks for that healthy age structure? Why is a herd with more younger bucks a bad thing? Why does there have to be lots of older bucks for the herd to be healthy?  Why is there not a push to let younger does pass so that they may become older better producing mothers?  I agree that a herd needs a diverse age structure but why only push for the bucks to be older? As long as you have old middle age and young deer you have age structure. Why do the older bucks need to be higher in number? What is it that causes a younger over all herd to be bad? 

           I am asking these questions because because every time AR is brought up the number thin

 said is that it makes older bucks. Older means bigger and that where the trophy hunting things get brought in. No one ever explains why more old big bucks benefit a herd in any way other then to give antler hunters a trophy.  I think that is part of the problem with talking to people about ar. When someone asks why ar the answer is we need more big bucks because that makes for a better herd. Well why? If an answer was able to be given that didn't have the words bigger bucks in it I think more people would be willing to listen but when the answer is always older bigger bucks and no explanation as to why older bucks make a better herd that is where people stop listening.Also the fact that no one ever says that older does help the herd just older bucks. Never a push that says we need to shoot fewer young does because they will become older bigger does.

         

[growalot]

I just read an articlel in the NYODN on waiting. He talks about all this waiting then a last minute monster 9 point shows and he kills it. Then goes on to say at the butchers he see' s  15, 2 1/2yr. old dinks waiting to be butchered. See where I'm going with this? First it's save the 11/2 yo. Next the 21/2 becomes the "shameful" buck to take. When is it OK to stop criticizing the personal choices a hunter makes. I'm sorry to tell you this,but no matter what you do,deer hunting will never be a team sport. That use to be the beauty in it, one on one with the game you attempt to shoot. No one elses experience,thus no one else's right to judge.

 Remember the shoot all the doe craze that happened 10  or so years ago? 1:1 ratios. Drury tapes come to mind. Then out came the same guys a few years later saying..opposes ,we may need to rethink this...it's about shooting the correct amount of doe. I see this as the same thing. Over thinking one aspect of a "plan " and under thinking the rest. Breeding age structure...go back and read the high lighted parts of one of my post....your never going to stop young buck from breeding doe..you are going to increase health problems in older buck by increasing rutting intensity.  Chasing doe isn't just because doe aren't ready and run. But by keeping the doe moving they keep other bucks away,until forced to fight them off. Reserve depletion in buck and doe. Fights increasing, big buck can usually run off a younger buck. The brawls are between older buck. Also those 21/2  olds. Injuries infections,mortal woundings.. Where's the health in this? See while that's going  on the little guys out there sowing his seed in the doe left untended anyways,according to the experts.

Do you really think seeing a doe being chased ,tongue hanging out by 3, 21/2 yo. Buck is healthy? For any of them ?

Lastly,yes it is hypocrisy to say "trying" a 5 yr.  forced AR is better than staying the course on an education plan that has had just one hunting season in play. If you don't want to allow the alternative plan at least some time to work,yet say it's needed.

Edited March 11, 2017 by growalot

[88GW]

Read this. Seems as though dec is not standing behind this and they are sticking with whatever data they collected from a 2016 study. 

[Four Season Whitetail's]

3 hours ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

Unless I'm mistaking not one of those states have AR's? How do they have mature bucks?

If the state thinks we need AR's lets start it on state land for 5 years and see what happens. Many states have certain lands that have different regulations, there's no reason NY couldn't do it as well.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Those states dont need Ar and neither does Ny....IF they do what those states do and shorten the season..Big Time...Get guns out of any part of the rut...Only 1 buck a year and most only shotguns and Muzzy;s used.... Bring that on and forget Ar.

[Buckmaster7600]

Those states dont need Ar and neither does Ny....IF they do what those states do and shorten the season..Big Time...Get guns out of any part of the rut...Only 1 buck a year and most only shotguns and Muzzy;s used.... Bring that on and forget Ar.

I agree with you other than the shotgun/muzzleloader part. 20yrs ago I would have said they make a difference now that they can be honest 200yd guns they wouldn't save enough deer to matter.

I have said for a long time that NY needs 2 zones, the Adirondacks and the rest of the state and go to 1 buck state wide.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Four Season Whitetail's]

16 minutes ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

I agree with you other than the shotgun/muzzleloader part. 20yrs ago I would have said they make a difference now that they can be honest 200yd guns they wouldn't save enough deer to matter.

I have said for a long time that NY needs 2 zones, the Adirondacks and the rest of the state and go to 1 buck state wide.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh rifles make a big diff eve today. I have friends that take great 150-180in bucks and they speak of these little wood lots in huge crop fields..The deer run out a million miles an hour and go 200-400 yards out into the fields and just stop and feed or even bed down right in the wide open. They have learned how to survive, Now throw in these 500 yard rifles and those big bucks are dead in the field. A shotgun-Muzzy only use would allow many killed but would save a huge number also.

[Buckmaster7600]

Oh rifles make a big diff eve today. I have friends that take great 150-180in bucks and they speak of these little wood lots in huge crop fields..The deer run out a million miles an hour and go 200-400 yards out into the fields and just stop and feed or even bed down right in the wide open. They have learned how to survive, Now throw in these 500 yard rifles and those big bucks are dead in the field. A shotgun-Muzzy only use would allow many killed but would save a huge number also.

I think your example is an exception and not the norm. I don't know the numbers but I would be willing to bet that 95+% of bucks are killed inside of 100yds. I don't think the number of bucks saved would be huge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ManicOutdoorsman92]

Yes I think better education and ability to easily access such education has absolutely made some impact. What I'm unsure of, is if it has made enough of an impact at this point in time.

Here's how I kinda see it. It's like some Ny hunters are asleep at the wheel when it comes to educating themselves on how we could obtain healthier, more mature deer herds state wide. So I think maybe someone(state) needs to give them a little shake to wake up. ARs might be that shake. There's many states that have similar topography and weather that have higher quality deer herds. It CAN be done here.

I'm also on the side of making ARs only last for 3-5 years to see what and if any impact it makes.

I know some will say this is the state imposing on your right to choose blah blah. But come on now, we all know the state does that a million other ways in our lives. This would be at least one restriction I could understand and see a positive outcome from. Who knows...we could do ARs for 5 years and maybe after 5 years we will all be on here saying " hot damn I'm glad we sucked it up, huntin has been great this year". Just never know until we try.

Again how do more mature male deer equate to a healthier herd, every one keeps saying this without saying why, it is more natural for 4,5, 6 YO to breed but why is it healthier, what is damaging the herd by having the dominant 3 yo do the breeding instead.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[ManicOutdoorsman92]

I would like to see a compromise version of state-wide AR's in NY state.  I see more pro's than con's to that.  Pro's: 1.) Improve hunter safety thru forcing folks to better identify their target before shooting. 2.) Allow more bucks to reach maturity.  Con:, I only see one, and that is an increased likelihood of "tag-soup". 

Well that a pretty shallow selfish thought process if thats what u come up with

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[wolc123]

I would never support the one buck rule.   I would rather kill, butcher and eat bucks than does. We consume 4-5 average-sized deer per year.   I like it a lot better when 2 of them are bucks, and I would prefer if they all could be.  Bucks are easier for me to process, with less fat to trim.  I do not consider a hunting season a complete success, unless I kill two bucks.   I liked it better when a DMP could be used on a buck.

It is not all about me though, and I do understand why does have to be killed.  That is especially important in overpopulated zones, including that where I live (9F).  I always do my part when given the opportunity, and suffer thru those added hours trimming the fat when I am able to get one.  At least they all taste about the same, after you get rid of that.  I know that I could do a lot better on doe control, if they ever opened up crossbow for all of archery season.

Edited March 11, 2017 by wolc123

[wolc123]

What is shallow or selfish about that?  Do you like the part you did not quote, about the penalty for non-compliance being the loss of a tag the next year?   What about the AR's for just the first 2 weeks of archery and gun seasons?

22 minutes ago, ManicOutdoorsman92 said:

Well that a pretty shallow selfish thought process if thats what u come up with

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk
 

 

[ManicOutdoorsman92]

Never said you'd ever get NY to become what Kansas or any place else is. But we have a lot of room for improvement. There's nothing negative about improving in my eyes.

I can probably dig up pics of a couple 6 pointers we shot in Kansas that were 6+ years old. There are small racked deer everywhere. I seen the biggest 4 pointer of my life in Pike county Illinois. It happens.

Hunter density in the areas where bucks had the potential to mature shouldn't matter if everyone of those hunters passed everything small. Yep your probably going to see a lot more smaller racked older deer, but I bet after awhile your gonna start seeing more bigger racked deer to go along with them. Let the better genetics spread. It's gonna take time no doubt about it. And it will never be as good as out west, but it can improve ALOT.

I already know it works and I'm seeing it in my area already. I've talked to a decent amount of my neighbors and close by land owners who all seem to be looking for big racks and letting stuff walk.

Before my father sold our camp in Otsego county, we noticed a big change in our deer the last 4 years we were there. Other than some additional logging on our property we changed nothing. The biggest difference between the last 6 or so years up there was that hunting pressure in the area had dropped off by a large amount. A few of our neighbors got old and stopped shooting 4-5 dinkers a year. We heard less shots every year. Then all of a sudden, my old man arrows a 140inch 10 point and my uncle drops a 12 pointer he said went just over 145. And to top it off my old man swears up and down he spotted a buck much bigger than his on 2 different occasions. He showed me the track and it was a massive print. My dad and uncle owned this property for 35 years and had never shot anything over 120 in that entire time. All the years I hunted there growing up I never once saw bucks chasing does or many bucks at all. The last few years we had it, I witnessed more buck activity in the day time than ever before. There's no doubt in my mind that all those bucks previously destined to die, had lived and grown up.

why do hunters spewing this argument only equate antler growth to good genes, what about a thicker coat for colder climates, or something similar, genetics are MUCH more than antler size, but too often a large antlered deer have "good" genetics and small antlers "bad". This is a ridiculous notion and proves that in large part hunters like yourself are merely looking for larger antlered deer, and use a veil of "good genetics will be passed on to provide a healthier herd" to get their point across. To the herd managers out there what good genes do u work to keep in your herd, if all it has to do with is antler growth then your ambitions are clear

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Adkhunter1590]

why do hunters spewing this argument only equate antler growth to good genes, what about a thicker coat for colder climates, or something similar, genetics are MUCH more than antler size, but too often a large antlered deer have "good" genetics and small antlers "bad". This is a ridiculous notion and proves that in large part hunters like yourself are merely looking for larger antlered deer, and use a veil of "good genetics will be passed on to provide a healthier herd" to get their point across. To the herd managers out there what good genes do u work to keep in your herd, if all it has to do with is antler growth then your ambitions are clear

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

Never claimed to be a herd manager or that I was looking for the best survival genes. My intentions are larger racked deer. Nothing wrong with it. I don't need to hunt for food to survive. I'm not an Inuit. Hunting is a sport to me and the Goal is large mature big racked bucks.

I think you'll find any genetic talk about Whitetail's is usually all about rack size. Ever look into the huge amount of deer farmers out there? There's a entire forum for it. They are doing nothing but breeding big rack genetics. I've never heard of anyone breeding deer for anything else other than maybe certain diseases and coat colors. Mother Nature already provided what they need to survive their climates.

How would anyone even try and push certain genetics such as better thicker coats and stuff? You wouldn't be able to tell such things on a live wild deer. But you can tell what kinda rack he's got from a half mile away.

[ManicOutdoorsman92]

What is shallow or selfish about that?  Do you like the part you did not quote, about the penalty for non-compliance being the loss of a tag the next year?   What about the AR's for just the first 2 weeks of archery and gun seasons?
 

We'll have more mature deer, less accidents and only at the cost of potential tag soup. Is very shallow considering everything else brought up on the subject.

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[ManicOutdoorsman92]

Never claimed to be a herd manager or that I was looking for the best survival genes. My intentions are larger racked deer. Nothing wrong with it. I don't need to hunt for food to survive. I'm not an Inuit. Hunting is a sport to me and the Goal is large mature big racked bucks.

I think you'll find any genetic talk about Whitetail's is usually all about rack size. Ever look into the huge amount of deer farmers out there? There's a entire forum for it. They are doing nothing but breeding big rack genetics. I've never heard of anyone breeding deer for anything else other than maybe certain diseases and coat colors. Mother Nature already provided what they need to survive their climates.

How would anyone even try and push certain genetics such as better thicker coats and stuff? You wouldn't be able to tell such things on a live wild deer. But you can tell what kinda rack he's got from a half mile away.

And thats my point, its not about good genes or herd health, it about big antlers. If you want ARs to see more big antlered deer then own that, down act like it will help everone out when this isnt your ambitions. ( btw these posts arent meant to attack soley you) I'm more addressing the " ARs will allow deer to mature, pass down genetics(only pertaining to antlers), and make a healthier herd" argument. You cant claim to know genetics and whats good or bad in that aspect when u only focus on antlers

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[Adkhunter1590]

And thats my point, its not about good genes or herd health, it about big antlers. If you want ARs to see more big antlered deer then own that, down act like it will help everone out when this isnt your ambitions. ( btw these posts arent meant to attack soley you) I'm more addressing the " ARs will allow deer to mature, pass down genetics(only pertaining to antlers), and make a healthier herd" argument. You cant claim to know genetics and whats good or bad in that aspect when u only focus on antlers

Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

The word "herd health" can be argued 100 different ways. Everyone's perspective of healthy is different. Older deer may have lived to those old ages because they didn't get sick with EHD or blue tongue. Two major diseases that have shown some deer with quality genetics are resistant. So yes antler size is a big point, but there's many other factors. They have CWD resistant genetic lines as well in deer farms. Letting more bucks walk and spread their genes around can be a good thing. If everyone stopped hunting (don't freak out, not saying I'd vote for that!) and we just sat back and watched for 10-15 years, there's no way you could tell me that Mother Nature wouldn't weed out the weak on its own.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

1 hour ago, Adkhunter1590 said:

 

 

Never claimed to be a herd manager or that I was looking for the best survival genes. My intentions are larger racked deer. Nothing wrong with it. I don't need to hunt for food to survive. I'm not an Inuit. Hunting is a sport to me and the Goal is large mature big racked bucks.

I think you'll find any genetic talk about Whitetail's is usually all about rack size. Ever look into the huge amount of deer farmers out there? There's a entire forum for it. They are doing nothing but breeding big rack genetics. I've never heard of anyone breeding deer for anything else other than maybe certain diseases and coat colors. Mother Nature already provided what they need to survive their climates.

How would anyone even try and push certain genetics such as better thicker coats and stuff? You wouldn't be able to tell such things on a live wild deer. But you can tell what kinda rack he's got from a half mile away.

 

 

Bingo!   I nature and a balanced herd the best males of the herd will do most of the breeding. It will in turn be a genitic thing in part because the best of the best will pass down the best. In todays world it is all about bigger racks on whitetails but as was said...Most wont own that fact even though every night and every sit they hope to have the next record buck walk in front of them......But will settle sometime with a smaller animal and then the meat thing comes into play.

[Death From Above]

Wanted to address some thing that has been asked a few times today, and also discredited on several occasions as well. 

Reasons that AR (or simply an older structured deer herd when talking about bucks) would make for a healthier deer herd:

Letting the majority of year old bucks live through the first hunting season would potentially double the number of bucks the following season.  I would assume that it is largely recognized that this group is typically the easiest deer in the woods to kill.  Yes, I realize that more older bucks would die to fill buck tags if they could not be used on younger deer.  But over a short period, there would be a lot more bucks alive to start a hunting season because the large majority got a pass their first year.  Whatever ratio you would prefer to use for the above theory such as 1/3, ¼, I don’t care, I am using the double figure simply for discussion sake below.

Most likely all of the antlered bucks will breed.  If there are twice as many bucks, each but will possibly breed half as many does.  If young 1.5 year old bucks make up the majority of our current herd, which age do you think does most of the breeding.  They do.  Which bucks seem to start the searching and chasing the earliest?  In my area it is this same group.  Which group seems to be the last to give up?  In my area it is once again these younger bucks.  They work the hardest, and likely are the least prepared for the rigors of the rut.  They do not have as much body fat saved up and aren’t as big as the larger bucks to start.  When the season ends, it can be tough on all bucks to survive a winter after going through what they just did.  However, this group has not conserved as much energy, stored away as much fat for fuel, and likely put on more miles searching (started earlier, ended late).  If this is the majority of the bucks in our herd, it doesn’t start us off well for the following season.

If we set ourselves up to have more bucks to start with (such as letting the young ones go for a year) then we have a lot more bucks to start the next year.  Again, each buck does not breed as many and work as hard, because there are more around to do the work necessary. 

Additionally, the does are bred in a more timely fashion.  There would likely be less does that are not bred in the first go round, and need to be bred in that later December “2^nd” rut.  This means our bucks don’t have to continue with the rutting behavior throughout a second period.  In addition, and maybe more importantly, the later the does are bred the later they have the fawns.  The later the fawns are bred the smaller they are when winter hits.  The fawns are working to increase body size and fat storage before bad weather hits.  The later they are born the harder this is to do. 

Also, fawns and young deer do not digest some of the cedar, twigs and less palatable browse that many of our deer need to eat to make it through tough winters.  They starve easier due to this fact, and because they are not as adept at finding and working for harder to find food deep under the snow.  Having more bucks would provide a higher majority of our does being bred in a timely and more advantageous fashion, which equals less smaller fawns struggling with winter.  As these late born fawns that I am describing are likely both our future does and bucks, this even further affects the number of bucks we have overall.

I know that there are other reasons, but these would be the most obvious to our area in NY.

[growalot]

Study after study has said the oldest and youngest fall first in winter..also studies have shown when looking at a 11/2 yo. Spike next to a 4pt the same age, everything equal in a 3-4 yr span. The spike will not come near the same potential as the 4 pt.This being in both mass and time length. BTW your not protecting the majority of 11/2 yo with a 3  (1") per at least one side..your also cutting out many on the 4 (1") to a side.That definitely isn't helping the herd. Basically the same deer will be shot as are getting shot now ,with a glaring exception..the 1 1/2 old spikes or the 21/2 old forks that will be breeding those early doe,that you mentioned. I will gladly post that study later.

[Four Season Whitetail's]

Im not sold on this..Young deer do the breeding>  You see many young fellas chasing the ladies but you see the ladies running from them.  I believe your 21/2 and up still do most of the breeding.