Watching a YouTube video just now. They were doing a herd analysis via a drone. They thought they were heavy in the doe to buck ratio, which they were according to them and they were way over the total population that they thought they could actually sustain.

This brings up my question.

What is a healthy doe to buck ratio for most property in Alabama or what does a healthy deer per acre type of number look like?

I’m sure this varies greatly from property to property so I’m just looking for raw numbers if there is such a thing.

“It depends”

But seriously it can be anywhere from 5-50+ deer per mile in Alabama. Some folks are convinced you’ve got to kill 4 of the 5 deer in a square mile to have a healthy herd

I would imagine hunting an area with less than 10-12 deer per section would not be very much fun. Ask me how I know!

What if one family say three people shoot their limit of bucks and you had 10 bucks per mile ?
Then take three does a piece also off the same area .

This is kinda my thoughts for my property. It’s really pretty close with the buck doe ratio so if I kill three bucks off my property I will kill three does to keep it in check. If the numbers start to change from fawn crops I would try to keep it 2:1 ratio

If you have more deer plant more food. Then you wont have to cry about not seeing deer. Seems so easy to me

I think you need to break down the age of your bucks. You can't count spikes and fork horns because dispersal will push these bucks to new property up to 5 or more miles away, I would think a ratio of 1 buck 3 1/2 years or older to 8-10 does would be good in the black belt with 250 deer per square mile.

250 deer per square mile? I think the average in Alabama is around 35-40 per square mile. Maybe I miss read what you are saying though

Ideally a buck/doe ratio would be 1:1 however, that’s hard if not impossible to maintain. Normally we would count them per sq mile. Maybe Matt can jump in and give better than answer than I can.

You can have a lot of deer , if you have food for them.

If your buck/doe ratio is all messed up.... the bucks are dead. Something is happening to them. Figure out what is going on and try to correct the issue if possible.... but for many it is not. Because it's the neighbors doing the shooting or they can't get consensus in their "club" not to shoot small bucks...so nothing will change. Year-in Year-out same small bucks on their property... and "too many does".

if you want to manage your deer you need to manage your land for the deer. You have to increase the land's carrying capacity and you have more deer, more food and therefore more bucks. When you have more bucks you hopefully have stopped the blasting and now you can have better age structure. When you have better age structure you have a better chance one of those bucks will not only get to 5 yrs + old but ALSO when they get there that one will have a good rack. They don't all have good racks. That fact is why you can't shoot "deer" and expect to have bigger racks. They don't all have one. The more 5 year old deer you have the better the chances... this IS the key to having one with a good set of antlers.

No older deer... no good racks. Messed up buck/doe ratio? Welcome to Alabama.

Simple as that.

We have a very good ratio, a lot of days I see more bucks than does, but letting people kill 3 bucks and an unlimited # of does on a house lot or in their backyard is a problem. There needs to be a # of deer you can kill based on the acreage hunted. This is happening on a massive scale. Everybody I talk to kills deer in their yard. Same as a person who hunts in a 4000 acre club. It’s not sustainable like this IMO.

Everyone has the ability to feed now . I put out feed and the deer come to my feeder whether that be 2 or twenty they eat and walk off . The neighbor 1000 yards away feeds the same deer and the neighbor shoots three of the deer i would have let walk . The deer go another 1/8 of a mile and that neighbor has a feeder out . Guess what he shoots two does and three bucks that didn't need shot .
Before long your deer numbers are exhausted and it takes years to build them back up if you do .

Nope. That ain’t happening. 250 deer per sq mile is a deer for every 2.5 acres. A VERY high density and about all I personally recommend to maximize growth potential in excellent habitat is about 140-160 deer per sq mile, or deer per 4-4.5 acres. That’s with great habitat and a lot of work. You can push those figures with year round supplemental feeding but I still wouldn’t recommend it.

A realistic expectation for ratios here is about 1:2-1:3 in most cases. 1:1 is hard to achieve and most managers are not willing to sacrifice numbers to achieve it.

I feel the pain in this. Know it all too well.

The DCNR needs to take a hunter satisfaction survey..... I think it would be eye opening. Most hunters I talk with view all the deer blasting as an issue for them personally.... not a solution to an non-existent state-wide problem.

Everyone that blasts 15-20 deer per season are the first ones to the table to start hollering about how anyone who wants to put a leash on them is going to ruin deer hunting for everyone. It's all about the "kids" and a whole bunch of other assorted BS about how nobody is going to hunt if they can't blast anything they want when they want.

There is a flip side to this. I know several hunters who are very good deer hunters who no longer hunt in AL. Why? Nothing they want to shoot. Why? Neighbors shoot everything. The sport is out here promoting land management and a whole lot of great things. If you can get out there with your tractor and plant and improve your property.... THEN capitalize on the fruits of your labor you are in the minority not the majority. It's a fools errand for many. Most groups of hunters do all this and they still have 'too many does" and a bunch of small bucks.

Why? Because we can't put a leash on our neighbors. The overwhelming majority of hunters share their deer with their neighbors in Alabama. That's a simple concept.

DCNR isn't interested in those people who want to put in work, improve their property and try to better their hunting situation. If you want a better age structure, older deer and bigger racks... they don't care apparently. Only focus is on a body count like we are fighting the Vietnam war or something.

The DCNR's mission is to manage the wildlife.

It's not to make hunters happy, especially the ones who want "trophy" bucks or a "better experience."


Not that hunters, or anglers, should be ignored. But the various whims of the populace or what the majority or minority demand are not the guiding factors of state wildlife agencies. Or, they shouldn't be.

What do you mean when you say “manage”?.......What are the goals of our state wide management? Should the opinions and interests of other industries like agriculture and insurance be taken into account with those management decisions?

Everyone already knows Ag and Insurance run things, CNC. Right? Especially Insurance ... they're the ones who mandated the big ol' liberal "shoot the does" seasons.

Wildlife agencies have to take into account a lot of input and factors. Bottom line, though, ideally, whatever is done should be done first and foremost with the wildlife (fish, animals) in mind.

No one on this site can agree. We have folks clamoring to see 20-30+ deer every time they go out but wondering why they don't have a hard rut and "giant bucks." We have others who want to have "giant bucks" and that big ol' Midwest Hunting Experience but to do that you'd have to kill a lot of chit and do things differently.

The DCNR's mission isn't to grow giant bucks and provide everyone with a happy experience. If so, I've missed the damned boat for 30 years talking with agency people and even CAB members.


As for a hunter survey, I think that would be a great idea and have lobbied for that for years. I like the way Idaho and some other states require hunters to fill out a post-season survey or their license is invalid the following season. It's easy, in this day and time, and considering that the old "statistically valid survey" that used to be done was ignored and trashed by the current top G&F brass a few years ago, you'd think they would want to do something easy to get more input.

Exactly……we don’t manage deer with the goal of “what’s best for the deer”…..we manage by what is tolerable to the other interests……How big of a population will they tolerate being a nuisance to their interests……With that being the case I think its unfair and off the mark to then say that “hunter satisfaction” shouldnt matter as if we are making decisions based on anything to do with biology

Clem believes in anarchy. We've already been down this path several times.