sure fire way to grow more and bigger bucks

hey guys,

just a thought here,

what if (and that’s a big “if”) every 3 or 4 years we were to have a closed season on bucks? in other words, only does would be allowed to be harvested that year….. NO BUCKS KILLED

just think of the increase in overall size you would get. the number of 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 year olds would explode…..and those deer that are already of decent size would become true monsters.

would this idea turn MN into big buck heaven or what

obviously, something that makes this much sense will never fly with the general public……but a guy can dream can’t he

there’s flaws in your logic somewhere.

there’s flaws in your logic somewhere.

Quote:

---

there’s flaws in your logic somewhere.

---

Is it really a flaw if a flaw can’t be identified?

Too much of the sporting community would never buy into it. All the old stories around the huntin’ shack are 99.9999% about bucks and the other .00001% are about does mistaken for a buck. The mission may be the meat but the trophy is in the antlers.

Ecologically speaking, I think you’d have to know what the buck to doe ratio is in any given area. I’ve read in the past that the “perfect” herd is at a 1 buck to 2 doe ratio. If you’ve got an over population of does, maybe bucks could be closed in that zone for a season but I think that would have to be a drastic measure. I like the idea of adding anterless hunts better than subtracting antlered hunts. More hunting………..never an argument from me! Bring it on!

When things get really bad, like northern MN 3-4 years ago, the restrictions will reflect what is deemed to be the best measure to create and hold good numbers, as well as to balance the herd.

Keep thinking up the ideas though Jake……….ponder and research often lead to “invention”, and we all may need some of your “flawed thinking” someday. One day, YOU will be the old man paving and leading the way for others.

Quote:

---

there’s flaws in your logic somewhere.

---

Is it really a flaw if a flaw can’t be identified?

Too much of the sporting community would never buy into it. All the old stories around the huntin’ shack are 99.9999% about bucks and the other .00001% are about does mistaken for a buck. The mission may be the meat but the trophy is in the antlers.

Ecologically speaking, I think you’d have to know what the buck to doe ratio is in any given area. I’ve read in the past that the “perfect” herd is at a 1 buck to 2 doe ratio. If you’ve got an over population of does, maybe bucks could be closed in that zone for a season but I think that would have to be a drastic measure. I like the idea of adding anterless hunts better than subtracting antlered hunts. More hunting………..never an argument from me! Bring it on!

When things get really bad, like northern MN 3-4 years ago, the restrictions will reflect what is deemed to be the best measure to create and hold good numbers, as well as to balance the herd.

Keep thinking up the ideas though Jake……….ponder and research often lead to “invention”, and we all may need some of your “flawed thinking” someday. One day, YOU will be the old man paving and leading the way for others.

Also..you’d have a mad rush of MN hunters coming to WI in order to get bucks..

Also..you’d have a mad rush of MN hunters coming to WI in order to get bucks..

o great piratepete……please explain to me where my logic is flawed …….. if you don’t shoot any bucks one year, the next year you will have more and larger bucks…….makes sense to me

…..i believe that, other than those few “minor details”, this is an excelent idea .

o great piratepete……please explain to me where my logic is flawed …….. if you don’t shoot any bucks one year, the next year you will have more and larger bucks…….makes sense to me

…..i believe that, other than those few “minor details”, this is an excelent idea .

ok, on average you will have larger bucks if you close hunting on them for the next year. HOWEVER, as I see it, the chances of harvesting a larger buck will remain generally the same for any given area. This is due to a few factors…

1. Very Large bucks are territorial and tend to disperse and stick a very specific area once they have matured, unlike smaller bucks which tend to roam.

2. While mature bucks will disperse, they will still remain mildly concentrated around areas that complement their needs, and thus the buck herd of the entire state might not see that much improvement…certain areas will, but those areas already have a lot of mature bucks.

3. This kind of repeats the last one, but…I’ve heard that even if you shoot a few 1-1/2 year old bucks as opposed to shooting none in a given year, the next year your chances of shooting a very mature buck will remain generally the same.

I’m not criticizing your effort for problem-solving. I’m just skeptical of the specific process that you came up with. Ideas are good. I’m just supplying the “bad cop” in the “good cop-bad cop” kind of discussion system.

ok, on average you will have larger bucks if you close hunting on them for the next year. HOWEVER, as I see it, the chances of harvesting a larger buck will remain generally the same for any given area. This is due to a few factors…

1. Very Large bucks are territorial and tend to disperse and stick a very specific area once they have matured, unlike smaller bucks which tend to roam.

2. While mature bucks will disperse, they will still remain mildly concentrated around areas that complement their needs, and thus the buck herd of the entire state might not see that much improvement…certain areas will, but those areas already have a lot of mature bucks.

3. This kind of repeats the last one, but…I’ve heard that even if you shoot a few 1-1/2 year old bucks as opposed to shooting none in a given year, the next year your chances of shooting a very mature buck will remain generally the same.

I’m not criticizing your effort for problem-solving. I’m just skeptical of the specific process that you came up with. Ideas are good. I’m just supplying the “bad cop” in the “good cop-bad cop” kind of discussion system.

Quote:

---

if you don’t shoot any bucks one year, the next year you will have more and larger bucks[/b

…..i believe that, other than those few “minor details”, this is an excelent idea .

---

They’re not really minor details Jake. Balancing wildlife is a tough business and not an easy task. One simplified gesture is not going to create a boon of trophy bucks.

In some areas where the ratio is healthy, it might produce more quality racks the next year but some areas are already overpopulated. In these areas, competition and resource availability will have an effect on the quality of the surviving deer. If the diet is sacrificed or reduced at all, the racks can suffer. So, it’s possible that the surviving 4.5 yr. old has antlers the same or less than he did a year prior.

There’s also territorial issues. As the younger bucks get pushed out of the bachelor groups and the winter yards, they have to find somewhere to call “their own”. The competition will increase almost everywhere and with competition comes a higher natural mortality rate. Chased deer get hit by cars. They don’t always get a good diet in the areas they’re left to survive in and are too weak for a harsh winter……………which we haven’t had with any regularity, but it can happen. With competition is increased sparing for dominance. Scars, injuries, and exhaustion of fat reserves kill mature bucks…………. Over populating bucks will have an adverse effect on the results you’re suggesting we’d achieve. It truly isn’t that simple…………..

I have an area in which to witness these words…………..1000s of acres posted from all hunting……….does EVERYWHERE……..total buck magnet! Yet the buck numbers don’t increase. In the “shine runs”, the does continue to WAY overpopulate the bucks and it’s all related to how many can eat there, fight off all the challengers, and not become a statistic. Racks? I see bigger racks consistantly in areas with less deer populous. But again, this info only pertains to the area I’m involved in. It may be just the opposite elsewhere……………but it still depends on the balance.

Numbers aren’t the key……………balance is the key.

Keep the eyes open and the dreams alive Jake! Ideas are the birthplace of progress!

Quote:

---

if you don’t shoot any bucks one year, the next year you will have more and larger bucks[/b

…..i believe that, other than those few “minor details”, this is an excelent idea .

---

They’re not really minor details Jake. Balancing wildlife is a tough business and not an easy task. One simplified gesture is not going to create a boon of trophy bucks.

In some areas where the ratio is healthy, it might produce more quality racks the next year but some areas are already overpopulated. In these areas, competition and resource availability will have an effect on the quality of the surviving deer. If the diet is sacrificed or reduced at all, the racks can suffer. So, it’s possible that the surviving 4.5 yr. old has antlers the same or less than he did a year prior.

There’s also territorial issues. As the younger bucks get pushed out of the bachelor groups and the winter yards, they have to find somewhere to call “their own”. The competition will increase almost everywhere and with competition comes a higher natural mortality rate. Chased deer get hit by cars. They don’t always get a good diet in the areas they’re left to survive in and are too weak for a harsh winter……………which we haven’t had with any regularity, but it can happen. With competition is increased sparing for dominance. Scars, injuries, and exhaustion of fat reserves kill mature bucks…………. Over populating bucks will have an adverse effect on the results you’re suggesting we’d achieve. It truly isn’t that simple…………..

I have an area in which to witness these words…………..1000s of acres posted from all hunting……….does EVERYWHERE……..total buck magnet! Yet the buck numbers don’t increase. In the “shine runs”, the does continue to WAY overpopulate the bucks and it’s all related to how many can eat there, fight off all the challengers, and not become a statistic. Racks? I see bigger racks consistantly in areas with less deer populous. But again, this info only pertains to the area I’m involved in. It may be just the opposite elsewhere……………but it still depends on the balance.

Numbers aren’t the key……………balance is the key.

Keep the eyes open and the dreams alive Jake! Ideas are the birthplace of progress!

yep………minor details

i guess the only point i can disagree with you guys on is the buck/doe ratio…….i believe piratepete said something about an ideal ratio is 1 buck for every 2 does (i think i’ve heard this before also). now i don’t know where you guys are hunting but the last few years, the buck/doe ratio where we hunt (SE) has been more like 1/10……..on a normal year, i can count the number of bucks i see on one hand. the way i figure it, if we were to only harvest does one year, then the ratio would even out a bit.

i do not believe that not having a buck season for one year would have enough of a negative impact to effect the overall antler growth or health of the deer…….but then again, how would i know .

yep………minor details

i guess the only point i can disagree with you guys on is the buck/doe ratio…….i believe piratepete said something about an ideal ratio is 1 buck for every 2 does (i think i’ve heard this before also). now i don’t know where you guys are hunting but the last few years, the buck/doe ratio where we hunt (SE) has been more like 1/10……..on a normal year, i can count the number of bucks i see on one hand. the way i figure it, if we were to only harvest does one year, then the ratio would even out a bit.

i do not believe that not having a buck season for one year would have enough of a negative impact to effect the overall antler growth or health of the deer…….but then again, how would i know .

Keep in mind Jake……….1 to 10 ratio of deer SEEN. My trail cam really opened my eyes this past fall to revealing how many bucks were looming around my little 20 acre parcel! Opening morning my dad takes a buck within 150 yards of my camera spot and wouldn’t you know it? It was a deer I never caught on film! Capturing does to bucks by camera…………I’m honestly running about a 1 to 1.5 ratio. I’ve got bucks galore and honestly, the surrounding area is unpleasant to hunt (for most folks!) and very low pressure.

Biggest difference? Buck pics were mostly at night…………when you’re not hunting. In my area, the “no buck” restriction would make no sense by the evidence gathered by my trail cam.

If the does are really a problem, I’m more for extending hunts and adding hunts to thin them out. These special hunts are already anterless only, which is what you’re promoting, so essentially, it’s gunning for the same objective. It’s just a different method……………..slightly.

Keep in mind Jake……….1 to 10 ratio of deer SEEN. My trail cam really opened my eyes this past fall to revealing how many bucks were looming around my little 20 acre parcel! Opening morning my dad takes a buck within 150 yards of my camera spot and wouldn’t you know it? It was a deer I never caught on film! Capturing does to bucks by camera…………I’m honestly running about a 1 to 1.5 ratio. I’ve got bucks galore and honestly, the surrounding area is unpleasant to hunt (for most folks!) and very low pressure.

Biggest difference? Buck pics were mostly at night…………when you’re not hunting. In my area, the “no buck” restriction would make no sense by the evidence gathered by my trail cam.

If the does are really a problem, I’m more for extending hunts and adding hunts to thin them out. These special hunts are already anterless only, which is what you’re promoting, so essentially, it’s gunning for the same objective. It’s just a different method……………..slightly.