Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Serious Deer Talk Forum More on old doe behavior…….

So something I’ve noticed over the years of watching my old field was that when there was some old does in there with their doe groups…..the number of does using my plot would cap out……New ones may show up but the old does wouldn’t tolerate it for long and they’d aggressively run any additional ones off…..Its my understanding that they do this so as to conserve that top shelf food resource for themselves…….

So the question is then……Does taking out the old doe and leaving nothing but younger females open the door for the best resources to be exploited due to the lack of a dominance structure??

Based on what you're asking, it sounds like taking out the old matriarch is a good thing.

How so?

More of the herd can utilize the best available resources.

As long as resources are sufficient, the herd will benefit.

I’m taking out that long nose bitty every time. She’s smart and will educate others. Also more bang for your buck at the Processer, 130lb doe will feed a feller for a little while. Them kind that pick a mouth full of grass and look around chewing on it for 5 minutes before putting there head back down. I like to shoot em.

Analysis paralysis

Don’t know but I like it when they get up on their hind legs and pummel each other.

imo ,,,,a mouth is a mouth . they all eat up stuff so i aint picky when it comes to killing does . if limit is 2 a day i pop the little one thats with her

Old Matriarchs fill the freezer at my place

The angel on my left shoulder is hollering for me to take the high road while the devil on my right keeps saying that it would be far more entertaining not to…..Hmmmm…..who to listen to??

Who do you normally listen to ?

I try hard to listen to the angel but that devil just keeps standing there with a half-cocked Judy whispering…… “Sling it!!!!".....

I know that feeling bruh.

If the deer that you are watching are uneasy and nervous, you are just in the wrong place or the wind is swirling around and they are picking up your smell.

Some are just wired that way.

I gotta disagree Frankie.......all mouths are not the same......The mouth of an old doe will defend and protect resources from being exploited.....a young one will not......Is that not correct??......Are old does not far more aggressive and protective??

Gonna leave this right here.........

"This year an in-depth study published by Mark Turner, Dr. Craig Harper, Dr. Bronson Strickland, Dr. Marcus Lashley, Dr. Mark Wilber and William McKinley revealed break through research correlating doe weight to antler size. As doe weight increases, so does inches of antler."

https://southeastwhitetail.com/2024/07/28/qdm-data-within-jawbones/

One more.........

https://southeastwhitetail.com/2024/08/04/qdm-which-doe-should-you-shoot/

"By consistently removing the oldest females you’ll create an age structure of 1-3 years. Obviously, average body weight harvests will decrease. With that, antler potential for fawn bucks will be limited as it’s set during gestation. This research was outlined in my last article QDM: Data within Jawbones. "

In that last article it talked about an older age structure having higher reproductive success….It basically talks about it in the context of taking them out to cut down on reproduction if you have too many deer…….However, let me present it in a different context…..We’re in conundrum here in Alabama where most places are suffering from not having enough bucks……If everyone takes out the old does and it cuts down on reproductive success then that also means we’re cutting down on buck production rates in the process……Half of that reproduction that doesn’t happen is a buck that doesn’t get produced

Wouldn’t it make more sense to allow those old does to successfully have those twins and triplets and then just shoot the ones that arent bucks when they get to be old enough to tell them apart??

Alabama's problem is that our rut extends for 2,3, to even 4 months in some areas. Why? Because we do not keep enough bucks in our herd to be able to breed all of the available does or in most cases, even half of them, during their first cycle. Why, because Alabama allows too many bucks to be killed, every single year and has since deer hunting in AL was allowed. The other issue is rut stress, which is really bad on the bucks that are having to do all that chasing a breeding. We lose a ton of bucks to that as they simply run themselves to death. I'd venture to say that young bucks 1-2 yr olds are forced to do 70+ percent of the breeding in Alabama. That is not the way it should be. Why does that happen? Because in AL our herd structure is completely screwed up. Too many does, not enough bucks, and screwed up age structures in both, but most especially in the buck age structure. Why? Because living to age 3 is a major accomplishment for any Alabama buck sporting a rack with forks on it.

I shoot which ever one I can back my truck to.

Smart man 😁😁

So to summarize…….Old does:

1) Moderate the use of resources
2) Maintains improved doe lineages on great habitat
3) Produce higher end bucks
4) Have higher reproductive success


Of course I may just be over thinking it......

5) Don't taste as good as a young one

Yes, you are.

Here's the graph from that research paper on #2.......Just for reference 60 kg is equal to 132 lbs........50 kg is equal to 110 lbs

Here it is again......The red line represents a 140" ......I dont know how everyone else reads it but it would seem that 125-130+ lb does are pretty important to producing good bucks

Yep it’s a little thing known as epigenetics. Does with increased body condition birthing fawns in superb habitat, over generations, increases genetic expression.

So why would someone want to shoot the biggest does then if they are the most likely to produce a 140” or better??

Is there an actual causal link or are they just connecting two random dots and calling it science.

*over generations* is the answer to your question. Nobody is thinking those terms (that length of time). Just hypothetical because I dont know what gains could generally be expected in scenarios like these, but if it takes 10-12 deer generations to gain an average of 2" of antler on the average buck, nobody is going to be concerned about fooling with that aspect of deer mgmt.... esp in clubs where there may be 100% turnover of hunters in 3 deer generations.

So are we discussing biggest does or oldest does? The 2 are not always the same.

Kinda both……I guess I’m merging the two…….Bear with me here and I’ll try to explain it……..

Basically what I’m getting at is that Miss St did their study where they took deer from the poor part of Mississippi and turned them loose on some good habitat in the Delta part of Mississippi and those deer changed in two generations to become the same quality as the Delta deer…….Basically what that is telling us is that its not really genetics….its nutrition……and if you change the nutritional plane then the deer will change with it…..Those does that were topping out at 115 lbs will have granddaughters that start topping out at 125 lbs and great granddaughters that go 135 lbs and so on…..I suppose theoretically that weight keeps climbing until you max out the body frame for our latitude……I’m guessing even down here in Alabama we have the potential for 150 lb does given enough nutrition over generations…..

(Don’t forget our graph ^^^^ showing the heavier the does the more potential for producing good bucks.....Keep that in mind )

So what the Miss St study means is that the concept is also true on the scale of a 1000 acre property and the doe herd that exists there……If you drastically change the amount of nutrition your doe herd receives then you change those doe lineages over the course of several generations to produce better bucks……with the BIG caveat being that those same direct lineages stay right there on that better nutrition…..You cant have them get shot out or replaced by neighboring does or the process starts over

Alright……so now if you still follow…….Imagine we have done just that on our 1000 acres and now we have doe lineages that have moved from the broader area average of 115 lbs to now we have 135 lb does leading our doe groups……That 3rd or 4th generation doe you’re looking at that has taken years to produce is a special doe……It would be counterintuitive of me to go to the woods with the mentality of targeting the biggest doe on the property and that’s exactly what we do most of the time…..We’re in essence shooting ourselves in the foot by not allowing that 1000 acres of prime nutrition to keep the epigenetic change rolling through time…..That 130 lb doe you just shot is the one that needs to keep eating good nutrition her whole life and produce the grandaughter doe that weighs 140……

In this scenario we should be targeting the small does and the ones that are trying to move in from surrounding properties……and the best way to identify those does from our superior lines is that those other does don’t weigh 135 lbs…….We would be better off as a group of hunters if everyone adopted that thinking because like was said before….these higher quality bucks that are being produced from the improved doe lines are most likely dispersing out to other properties in the area…..We really it need to be where LOTS of properties are holding better quality doe lines that disperse out the higher end bucks…..We need to change our group mentality of targeting the biggest does and instead see them as the most valuable ones to leave

I watched it go the other way. We lost about 300 acres of beans,corn and peanuts that were planted in long leaf pines. That was in the 90s and the weights and antler size has never recovered. We kept go records for years.

The simplest way of maintaining this “structure” is to leave these big old does alone and let them defend the best resources for their offspring……What I would imagine happens to some degree seeing how much deer are individuals is that you have a doe trait for who is the biggest bitch in the land that dominates and claims the best resources….You would want that trait passed on and learned and that be how those better doe lines are maintained through time on the same prime resources

I follow what your saying and agree on the nutrition aspect of the area they are in. I've always said that's a huge contributing factor as to why states that have the vast soybean fields grow the biggest bucks.

Let me run this by you......


If the above is true, shouldn't the choice of doe to be shot be the old doe? If the does develop into better quality does over time, shooting the older doe would be shooting the less "evolved" (yes I went there ) doe and leaving the younger, genetically superior doe?

Don't burst his bubble, Driveby.

You cant shoot the baddest doe in the land and make her 3 year old daughter and 2 year old granddaughter defend the prime resources without her…..You have to maintain the social structure of that improved group being the dominant GROUP….. Group being a big key word here……When you cap that old dominant doe in her prime you create a void and open the door up for competition from other doe groups… You basically want the does in that improved line to die of some kind of age related issue and the next baddest daughter doe take over the group and so on and so forth through time……That’s a more structured transition that maintains the status quo for that lineage versus the reshuffling dominance choas we create by constantly shooting the dominant matriarchs

So how do you determine which doe group to harvest from? They all look the same. When shooting the smaller doe, am I shooting an inferior group doe or am I shooting a younger superior group doe?
Also, that 3 year old daughter has reached her peak and that old 5 year old is on the decline. Does reach maturity at 2-1/2 in Alabama with an average life expectancy of 6-1/2.

Wait for it......wait for it.......









The ones that arent using your food plots........Its really not that complicated......Remember what I said in the very beginning of this discussion??....Leave your food plots alone and shoot a small stray doe around the edges of the property away from the fields that isnt runninng in a big group.....The dominant groups will claim the plots........and that's only IF you need to shoot does or want one for meat

I can agree with that logic. I hope you were sitting down when you just read that.
I'll bet you already know what my next question is.
Let's consider a year like this previous one where the deer stick to the woods because of a large mast crop. How would you discern the dominant groups from the inferior groups in that scenario? By the way, I don't like the old big does to eat anyhow. They are as tough as an older buck most of the time. I prefer the young tender ones.

Just shoot a little doe that isnt in a big group and hope for the best…..Maybe reduce the total number you shoot on a year like that. There’s not gonna be a perfect system but I can tell what the worst thing to do would be……and that would be to constantly target the biggest doe on all your plots every season

You have way too much free time to think up a load of BS like this. ^^^^^

Damn,with all respect to Matt and other biologist. Didn't know you had to give a deer a interview before shooting damn thing.

This is the stuff that weed gets blamed on and gets a bad name. 😂😂

CNC…”Momma Does are like Momma Humans”

I’ve seen does act the way you describe CNC. But I’ve also seen a 2 acre plot with 50 does on it and no fighting over it.

CNC, did it say where this study was done? Was it done in an area where 130lb was a common weight in 4+ year old does?

What I read there basically says both numbers, doe weight and antler scores, have to do with nutrition, not age. So if you took one of the study sites in the Midwest, killed all the does 3 and older to keep the average body weight down, the bucks score wouldn’t drop since the nutrition wouldn’t change. So that tells me that increasing doe weight by adjusting the age structure wouldn’t affect the buck score number here in Alabama. It would affect it though if you adjusted the doe weight by nutrition.

Correct?

Yes. In areas with higher average body weights antler scores are, on average, higher as well. It has to do with habitat quality, not older does giving birth to bucks that develop into higher scoring bucks.

What happened to the little thing called epigenetics?

Correct…….We’re not talking about taking an area with 110 lbs does and simply letting them get older……We’re talking about taking those 110 lb does introducing better nutrition and creating 130+ lb does in the future generations…..which give birth to buck offspring with better potential……There was more about age but I’m not gonna rehash it all

To say it simply……if you are going to raise the nutritional plane on your property WAY above everyone else around you……then you need to shut down immigration of does which will be a constant pressure trying to get into the better resources……All replacement needs to come from reproduction of resident does……If you go in and have a ho down throw down and cap 30-40 of the most dominant old does and it opens up the door for immigrant does…..then you’re replacing your superior doe lines with lesser ones that have to start the epigenetic process over……However you want to do it immigration of these lesser does needs to be shut down and not allowed to be replacements…..I offered my suggestion of how to accomplish that

I don’t understand where the confusion is. What about epigenetics? I understand the concept of epigenetics and I’ve seen it play out over and over again. The MSU study was one of the catalyst and I was there when that data was collected and compiled. I worked for Demariais and Strickland at the deer research facility when those studies began.

I don’t understand your argument. Higher antler scores and higher body weights have a correlation because deer growing up in better habitat produce healthier fawns. It has nothing to do with the age of the doe birthing the fawn. It’s her physical condition that drives the health of her offspring for the remainder of their lives. These genetics triggers for larger body mass and higher average antler scores are triggered when higher quality nutrition is provided, and it can improve each generation.

You’re assuming does travel great distances to find better resources. Studies have concluded does are extremely loyal to their home ranges regardless of habitat quality. Some will certainly begin to use areas of higher quality habitat if it’s already within or very close to their existing home range. They will shift usage depending on habitat, but it’s not like landowners with intensive management are drawing deer in from 6 miles away. Bucks? Yes, due to natural dispersal. Does? Not quite as often.

I have no idea how you take the idea of immigration from neighboring properties and turn that into 6 mile dispersals…...That's not even remotely what was said

Matt, don’t bust his doe bubble.

I got a grand idea…..Why don’t you just stick to talking about the topic instead of talking so much about me…..I assure you that none of you are gonna bust any of my bubbles.

We have found that age, not nutrition, is by far the biggest factor in significant doe weight changes. Even if you overwhelm them with protein, changing the weight by 10% is good. Changing a doe weight from 100lbs to 130lbs+ just by nutrition is tough.

I got a grand idea as well. Lighten up, get some joy in your life, and learn to take a joke homie. And, your idea wasn’t all that grand.

Y’all just cant help you can you??.....Its all good….homie

It appeared to be what was inferred. Does are not going to significantly change their home range based on habitat condition, in most cases. They will, however, shift usage within their home range as resources are more readily available.

I'm gonna go ahead and throw in that last paragraph for later discussions......


"Studies show that 4% to 49% of female deer disperse from their birth site, with typical rates hovering around 13% to 20%. Dispersal depends highly on habitat and population density; when female deer do disperse, they typically establish a new home range several miles away.

Proximate influences on female dispersal in white-tailed deer are primarily driven by localized social pressures and physical landscape barriers rather than the mate-competition or inbreeding factors that affect males. Dispersal predominantly occurs at 1 year of age and is triggered during the fawning season when pregnant adult females become highly territorial and aggressively exclude subordinate yearlings. The primary proximate trigger for young females (yearlings) is displacement by their mothers, who isolate themselves to give birth. This density-dependent social exclusion pushes subordinate yearlings out of the natal range. During the fawning season, over 50% of yearling females make temporary exploratory forays outside their home range prior to permanent dispersal.

Unlike male movements, which are often oriented by open terrain and agriculture, female dispersal paths are strongly dictated by physical barriers. Natural features like rivers and human-altered landscapes (e.g., roadways and residential areas) shape the directionality of their paths and often dictate where dispersal terminates."

You’re talking about two different things here CNC. Yearlings dispersal is natural and happens to both sexes, although does typically don’t disperse as far or as frequently. That’s different than pulling established does into better habitat.

Are you sure it’s me that’s talking about two different things…..Go back and reread it……

Cool. I’m glad we are homies homie.

Since you asked Matt to read that again, I thought I would too. I've read it very carefully 4 times now and yes, you are talking about 2 different things.

Whew!!! I thought my reading comprehension was getting pretty bad. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

So now that a little time has passed to think about it…..Can we agree that this ^^^^ is actually a moot point as it concerns the bigger discussion we’re having??.....Meaning that it doesn’t matter whether it’s dispersing yearling does or neighboring doe groups with overlapping home ranges, etc, etc…….If they come in from outside of the higher end property we’re managing then they all count as “immigrant” does….....Do we agree on that?

......and just like that, nobody wanted to talk about doe management anymore.

That's because you don't want to "talk about it", you just want to give your assessment and everyone agree with you.

Since you like psychology.................

The constant need to always be right is often driven by a fear of inadequacy, serving as an emotional defense mechanism rather than a pursuit of truth. This behavior can damage personal and professional relationships, limit self-development, and lead to isolation.
The Psychology Behind the Need:
The compulsion to be correct generally stems from control and certainty, not fact. For individuals who always need to be right, their self-worth is deeply tied to their perfection. Admitting fault feels threatening or shameful, so being "right" becomes their psychological armor.
How It Affects Interactions:
People with this trait frequently employ certain communication habits to maintain dominance in discussions, such as talking over others, constantly correcting minor details, and striving to get the last word. Over time, this creates one-way dynamics where friends, family, or colleagues feel unheard, eventually causing them to withdraw or shut down.
Managing the Behavior:
If you are dealing with someone who constantly needs to be right, or are trying to manage this trait in yourself, awareness and boundaries are key. It helps to remember that facts usually cannot alter a deeply defensive opinion. Instead of trying to prove the person wrong, you can de-escalate by validating their perspective—such as by saying "I see how you arrived at that"—and learning when to gracefully disengage.

The words in bold are what's happening here.

CNC must have missed that when studying for his online psychology degree...

I love you

Always keep an open mind and never hold any one idea too tightly…..Its inevitable that ^^^^ this is where most of us we’ll eventually find ourselves at some point in questioning some practice that we once thought to be the best way…..You should fully expect your thinking at age 50 to be different than it was at 25……if not then you stopped growing and learning…..In order for that not to happen we have to be willing to accept that any one thing we believe to be true now could change in the future and its ok for our thinking to evolve as we grow…….Pride is a stupid thing to let get in the way of that…….

Did you learn that in your online Freud classes?

No but you wanna know something that’s kinda cool??.....That idea about the immigrant does resetting your epigenetic progress was not something I had thought of ahead of starting these last couple threads…..We actually all figured that out together in real time……That’s one of the things I like about these types of discussions…..They help spur along ideas……

Didnt see that one coming did you??

Diamond Dave was the baddest in the park.

No says I

So in the spirit of this being a group idea……

Back when we were still talking about doe management I had broken out the crayons and made a little sketch…..I was thinking about a scenario where you had a couple thousand acres being intensely managed for high outputs of high end groceries and cover…..What would be the most ideal way we could all manage the doe population on a landscape scale as a group??.....Because even if we go conservative and only consider doe dispersal coming from 2 miles away and less……that’s over 16,000 acres of potential immigrant producing land that surrounds our 2,000 acres……How this plays out and the pressure our 2,000 acres is subjected to is highly dependent on other factors surrounding us……..

You remember that scene from the movie with Russell Crowe where he plays John Nash the math professor…….and they’re in the bar trying to pick up girl’s and he suddenly comes to the realization that “John Smith needs revision!!.....The best outcome for the individual occurs when the individual does what it best for the individual and the group”……or something of that nature……That’s the situation we have here with doe management……If we could set up the most ideal scenario for everyone in the area it would be for the high-end food properties to shoot a few young does while the other low end properties surrounding them shoot a bunch……This would do two things……1) It would reduce potential immigrant pressure for the high end property……and 2) It would help insure the high end property is only exporting young dispersing does (emigrants)………

That ^^^^^ would be how we as a group produce the highest potential buck offspring for everyone in the area to potentially benefit from……All of the high end properties on the landscape with great food need to retain the same old doe lineages over time……They need to retain a fairly constant number of does that's in line with however many the property can support without exploiting and diminishing resources over time and they need to keep recycling from the same doe lines……If we could accomplish that as a group then over time all of the high end properties would be kicking out high potential bucks to the whole landscape…..I suspect that this is actually what is happening in areas where folks claim to have “good genetics”…..Probably a lot of it is just occurring out of chance without folks knowingly doing it….. but I suspect you probably have some pockets where the same old doe lineages are recycling generationally on the same good nutrition and that's allowing higher end bucks to get kicked out to the landscape around them

Fixed it for you brother.

Ok you are right. I’m in. Let’s do it

In theoretical terms I think I am correct……I think that would likely be the most optimal “blue print”…….How to accomplish that though is another question altogether. For the most part I think you would have to change the narrative on shooting old does versus young and change the narrative on shooting does on food plots, etc…..Basically simplifying the means by which we reach the same ends… …..That would allow dominance to implement a lot of the idea on its own through structure

I’ll expand on it more in the morning but the way I think this may be occurring in some places revolves around the balance of food to cover being heavily weighted toward lots of food with minimal amounts of cover…..

So this could play out in a lot of places depending on habitat but a good example to use just to explain the concept would be some of the areas around the western side of the black belt…….Basically it’s the idea that with coyotes on the landscape as thick as we have them…..its gonna be tough for a deer population to grow any larger than the amount of fawning cover available……You could have thousands of acres of food but if you only have a hundred acres of cover then the population cant grow beyond the constraint of the limited fawning cover

So if we have a situation like over in the western blackbelt where we have hundreds or thousands of acres of the landscape in food sources less than knee high with only a smattering of cover here and there amongst it……then those deer would be overwhelmed with all the food resources they need without having to worry so much about exploiting them…….That means you could potentially have properties over there where guys arent shooting does but because of the scenario described above these doe herds are still getting optimal nutrition as well as capping out in older age structure……These are your doe herds that are kicking out the higher potential bucks that show up and have people talking about those “good genetics” ……Its not good genetics…..its good nutrition running through generations of the same isolated pockets of does

I will say this though about the “good genetics”……I still think there may be something about the northern genetics in Bankhead and a few other areas that’s retaining a different potential to be expressed when some of those does are subjected to the same generational nutrition concepts from above ^^^^……..I think it’s those northern does that find themselves in one of these pockets of good nutrition without any immigration occurring over time that are kicking out those few Bankhead freaks we occasionally see being produced that just don’t look like they came from Alabama……Keep in mind that these high potential bucks being produced from these pockets of high end does still have to live to get older to see those freak racks……So that’s why they tend to be almost anomalies