Can someone please clarify my confusion?
Total deer numbers are affected by birth rate. While total deer numbers aren't nearly as effected by male only deaths, they are highly affected by doe death. Theoretically, killing one doe kills two deer minimum. Killing one buck kills only one deer. Killing two does, you kill a minimum of 4 deer. Killing two bucks kills twp deer. Three does killed equals a minimum of 6 deer out of the herd. Three bucks equals only three deer. Basically, one doe killed doubles the loss of next years herds versus every buck. At a minimum.
That is why the DNR is so aggressive at reducing doe harvests versus buck harvests
I've not read one biological study saying you need more bucks to stabilize your heard but have read that less does will destabilize your heard.
Hope that all makes sense.
From a management perspective, the only thing agency can regulate is opportunity. Not success. Not participation of hunters, weather, etc.... Just opportunity. And, when the herd is showing signs of being below target levels, opportunity gets cut. Oposite when it shows signs of growing.
I know the DNR saying that most hunters do not even kill a second buck, plus their harvest data supporting that, doesn't register with your agenda Cory. But, that doesn't change reality. I'm not being a wise guy either. But, in 4 years of this, the only data we have contradicts what you and others propose as the greatest thing since sliced bread. If harvest data suggested that the state needed to do a lower buck harvest for better health and hunting opportunity's, I'd be the first to get in line. Until then, it's just a want. Nothing more.
God Bless men
By giving bucks away but charging to kill does?
We have the northern half of wv with skewed populations and not enough doe kill yet we still do everything in our power to keep it that way.
