We in Alabama hear all the time we need to kill a lot of our does and get the herd balanced about 1 buck to every 2 or 3 does. They tell you this with letting the bucks get older will produce more "trophy" or at least more big bucks. but my question is why years ago when I got to hunt property that had very limited hunting and no doe killing at all it still produced trophy deer up to a 162" buck. this was in Choctaw county and it was nothing to see groups of up to 50 or more deer at a time. Also there was no supplemental feeding not even food plots,I personally watched deer eat oak and gum leaves off the ground when there was no browse and they still were healthy looking. Also when you watch a lot of these hunting shows they are sitting on a field or food plot and there will be 50 does or so out there and huge bucks still show up. they obviously aren't wacking their doe trains and they still have large bucks. Have we just been sold a bill of goods (crap).

I tend to say yes. Today I see fewer deer period, including fewer bigger bucks. I've seen no correlation between the overall number of deer (regardless of sex) as it relates to the size of bucks. I know the theoretical reason (more food, fewer mouths), but in Alabama we have PLENTY of food for even more deer. Furthermore, I see no more pronounced rutting behavior today than I ever have either, so this "balanced herd" rhetoric either isn't true, or we're still just as unbalanced, but with fewer deer. In fact, I think I saw more rutting, and more intense rutting, when we had more deer.

I can remember the days when we'd have 30 or 40 deer on a food plot, we'd see large batchelor groups of racked bucks, we'd hear fighting in the cutovers, bucks were chasing on the powerlines, etc. I don't observe a fraction of that action today anywhere I hunt. I don't really know what's the cause, but there's been a gradual (and noticeable) decline in hunting for 10-15 years to me. The one thing that has changed in the hunting regs is the liberal waxation of does. The land looks the same, so I don't think it's carrying capacity or anything like that. I will say though that (to me) there are more hunters than there have ever been. I think it's a combination of over-harvesting and all out pressure.

That's a tough question to answer due to so many variables. I think that the biggest factor is the land itself and the resources that land provides. Some tracts of land may be able to support a higher population and be able to produce higher quality bucks. Also, I think cutting the doe population only helps ensure that your dominant bucks breed over your less dominant bucks due to the fact that a buck can only breed a limited number of does each season.

I think your population should be determined by what the land can support and then your doe to buck ratio should be determined by what the gene pool looks like. For example, having 100 does to 20 bucks would be great if all of those bucks have good genes. However, 100 does to 20 bucks would be a bad thing if the majority of those bucks have poor genes because your poor genes will have more opportunities to breed.

QDMA provides alot of good data for these questions. At the end of the day I think it should be a case by case study for each heard. You really can't make a blanket statement across the board due to so many variables.

These are just my opinions.

Basing anything on hunting shows is not realistic. 90% are filmed in the Midwest. 2 yr olds can grow 150+ inch racks.

Pressure, Pressure, Pressure in my opinion has to do more with it than anything. I think the number of doe you kill should be decided on a individual property basis. I have hunted properties within pretty close proximity to each other that carried various numbers of deer. I think the problem is that in areas where you really do need to kill a good number of doe, the hunters tend to go to their best producing food plots, stands etc.. to whack them, so you are putting much more hard pressure on these spots by shooting deer out of them and tromping through the woods trailing and dragging them out, therefore limiting the buck sightings from that location. I dont think everybody needs to kill a bunch of doe every year, but when you do, I think you should put more thought into where they are harvested on the property.

that's another question from all my reading on deer reproduction does are just as responsible for passing on a big bucks genetics ( her father,grandfather etc.) as the buck is.When you kill that doe you might be killing out your best bucks bloodline.

True. There was a study by Auburn University that is on QDMA somewhere which concluded that it is virtually impossible to control or impact the gene pool over time. Long story short they said that the only sure way to improve the quality of your heard is to only harvest mature deer. Nature will work itself out and take its natural path over time no matter what we do to alter or manipulate it.

I think it is a situation of people thinking if a little bit of something is good a lot of it must be better. This logics was applied to the doe harvest in a lot of places. Somebody somewhere said if you want to kill big bucks like you see them killing on TV you have to kill off them does so people did what they forgot to tell them was they ain't hunting in AL on those shows. You can have to many deer but I have only seen one place that was what I would call over populated and that was on the river close to Boligee over 20 years ago the woods looked like a cow pasture with a solid browse line 3-4 feet high. Now the state realizes they went to far allowing to much doe killing and they are trying to reduce the number of does killed. They should have reduced it 5 years ago but like most things they usually get it right it is just usually a little late by the time they do. The more does you kill the less deer you will have that is pretty simple. Unless they are truely overpopulated killing them will not increase the size of the bucks.

You can't identify them in free range deer. In a free range herd a doe is a doe. If you need to shoot some does shoot some, if don't need to thin them out , don't. You can have a lot of deer on your property IF you have food for them. Every property has different needs and no ones arm is being twisted to shoot does.

If you're even a little below carrying capacity, which most of the state is, killing does for the sake of it is total BS.
It's funny too how killing turkey hens is somehow sacrilege and killing does somehow magically produces a better herd.
We've got like 6 resident deer on our place of several hundred acres, so killing a single doe is a huge percent of our deer population!

I couldn't agree more about the original 2 points made by the author of the post. I think the fewer numbers and doe to buck ratio ideas that have been presented are unrealistic.

I realize no ones arm is being twisted but people being people when you tell them they can kill a doe every day or worse 2 every day for 120 day season most are going to rationalize it is ok to do so and when they do realize its not, its going to take quite sometime to repair the damage.

I'm pretty sure no one is out there that has killed 240 does in a season legally or otherwise. And contrary to what some folks think there are areas of the state that need the 2 does a day limit. I don't know about row crop farmers in other areas, but our local guys thin them out in Summer with a 2 a day limit.

I agree with that. I'm sure Dallas county and Randolph county need different doe days. Just a example.

2Dogs you are correct about some areas. But the state didn't specify what areas it was state wide. I don't know anybody that has killed 240 either but I know a lot that killed 20-25 while they could but let the property go when it got to where they couldn't hardly see a deer anymore. A lot of out wma's in this part of the state used to have what myself and most other people would of considered pretty good deer hunting but they have severely thinned the herds on them too. Scotch management area 25 years ago you could see several deer a day on there but I wouldn't waste my time now, upper delta about the same.

To the original poster. First, what you experienced in the good old days was a herd expanding and growing because of repopulation and restocking, into habitats that could support it. Problem is, those habitats can't support those numbers now because of the damage the deer did to the native plant community. It can take decades for habitat to recover from overgrazing.

Balancing a herd's sex ratio, allowing bucks to reach maturity, and bringing the herd to a level the land can support and sustain over time, absolutely does lead to a healthier herd, with a tighter breeding window, and more mature bucks in the population. I hunt and manage properties like this. It works. Biologists didn't gone up with it without first experiencing the results. It WONT work on a statewide level without a lot of cooperation among neighbors.

The very liberal doe harvest opportunities were allowed for the properties that needed it. And believe it or not, some needed it bad, and still do. Others do not. The problem with making something legal is some people interpret it as mandatory, and it has indirectly and directly led to declines in some places. That coupled with the inability of folks to practice trigger restraint has led some people to believe the doe harvest is why they don't see bucks. Simply not true. You don't see bucks because people are killing them. If you look at where the really big bucks are bring consistently killed now verses 25 years ago it is in counties that have lower deer populations expanding into good habitat. The counties that produced the big boys of the 70-80s still produce some, but aren't like they used to. It has everything to do with habitat.

Where i hunt, we don't see the woods tore up, like we did in the 80's. Back then a bunch of retired guys dog hunted everyday, and shot anything that was in front of their dogs. Fewer deer, back then and i'm sure there was fewer doe's, so the bucks had more competition for the ones that were there. We see sign, but not like back then. They were conservationist and didn't know it.

I said this in the other thread and it holds the same water here. Let the deer and habitat condition tell you what you need to do. You have great indicators to look at, learn them, look for them or find someone that can help you.

It is all about habitat loss in Conecuh county where I have been for 25 years. The woods were full of hard woods and large pines. We had soy beans ,corn and peanuts. Game was abundant. Now as far as you can see, we have planted pines. Why would a timber company leave a smz and then come back with a chopper and poison all the hardwoods. The quality of the land goes down and the lease goes up... Our doe population is down from where it was. I would like to see doe killing cut some more.

It would probably be an accidental overspray into the SMZ if that happened. It is against BMP's to do that.