Welcome to TheOhioOutdoors
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Login or sign up today!
Login / Join

Increasing Deer Numbers -

at1010

*Supporting Member*
4,944
139
Ok so I know the old argument deer numbers are up, deer numbers are down, deer numbers go up and down. I get it. However, when I am thinking about deer this is a typical scenario that comes to mind. Is this logic flawed, or is the math correct? Assuming my math is somewhat correct, it seems as though growing a herd is much harder than most think, it will not double every year.

Your thoughts on this?

If you have 10 does and they all have 1 fawn then you have 20 deer. However, lets say half of them are bucks. You have 15 does, not lets say coyotes/bobcat/road kill/bush hog killed 3 of the 10 fawns and 2 were does and 1 was a buck fawn. Now we are only looking at the reproductive deer.

With that being said, now before deer season even starts you have 11 does from your original 10 that you had the year before. Now what happens if that year the neighbors and yourself shoot 3 does of that 11, you start the next year with only 8 does. This is causing the next years cycle to already be lower then the previous year.
 

brock ratcliff

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
24,834
247
They do not come back over night. But controlling predators in February and March along with restraint in harvesting does, they will rebound.
 

at1010

*Supporting Member*
4,944
139
Ok yes thank you all. I think that many don't realize though it does take time. How many times have you heard "hell we just took a few"

If my numbers are even somewhat accurate a few could put you in the red if done year after year.
 

at1010

*Supporting Member*
4,944
139
You need to redo your math. Most does have 2 to 3 fawns in areas which can support more deer than currently live there.

That might be true. However the other numbers would be increased most likely. Higher yote kills, road kills, etc.

The numbers are made up. However in a hypothetical situation I think they prove how easy it is to reduce deer numbers.
 
Ok yes thank you all. I think that many don't realize though it does take time. How many times have you heard "hell we just took a few"

If my numbers are even somewhat accurate a few could put you in the red if done year after year.

Your logic is correct, but not controllable. The states deer herd is "in the red" by taking excess numbers year after year. But, preaching to the choir. on this site or any other will have very little impact on deer numbers IMO. Everyone hunts for his or her specific reasons. Some hunt for meat, some for antlers. You and I can only control what we do. Others will do what fits their agenda and what they feel is right. It really is as simple as that. I haven't shot does for a while, but I can't expect others to do as I do.
 

at1010

*Supporting Member*
4,944
139
Your logic is correct, but not controllable. The states deer herd is "in the red" by taking excess numbers year after year. But, preaching to the choir. on this site or any other will have very little impact on deer numbers IMO. Everyone hunts for his or her specific reasons. Some hunt for meat, some for antlers. You and I can only control what we do. Others will do what fits their agenda and what they feel is right. It really is as simple as that. I haven't shot does for a while, but I can't expect others to do as I do.

Isn't that a true point! I wasn't really trying to preach. However, it just was something that came to me after long discussions with some buddies. I cannot tell you how often I hear "hey, a couple does won't hurt the population". I myself after seeing my 9th doe during the Saturday of Muzzy season (most I have seen in years), thought maybe I should take one or two, it won't hurt anything.

So I guess i was just sharing my ideas on how easy it truly is to over harvest an area. I do believe that with the decreased bag limits we will all see increases in deer but it will not be overnight.

Thank you for reading/commenting. Sorry if it did come across as "preachy"!
 

giles

Cull buck specialist
Supporting Member
I can say that in 3 short years we have just about decimated a very healthy herd of deer. This was by design and I believe we have hit a point that we can now slow down and start to manage what's left. It'll be interesting to be part of what happens from here on out on this property. The property owners wanted to thin them out...we did that with smiles on our faces.
 

at1010

*Supporting Member*
4,944
139
Sorry if it did come across as "preachy"!

You didn't come across as "preachy", no need to apologize. I've preached letting does walk for a few years. I've come to the conclusion that trying to change the masses is futile.

Yea I guess my big thing is often times it is easy to say "just one won't hurt". Some farms it might now however when you look at hypotheticals it very easily can sway a given population one way or another. I am fortunate that myself and neighbors have limited the doe harvest to none this year and possibly next year. That's on a few hundred acres so we have seen an increase.
 

Lundy

Member
1,307
127
The math is never that simple, but if you look at historical data it would trend towards the opposite of your example.

It seems everyone focuses on the population reduction that has taken place and doesn't recognize how the population grew to its previous size. The deer population can grow very, very quickly. Look back at the harvest numbers in the early 2000's. The harvest were higher than we have had the last 3-4 years yet the population continued to increase to the apparent high in the mid to late 2000's.

Even a small reduction in doe harvest leads to large population increases pretty quickly.

A property has 4 does and 2 bucks. Average 2 fawns per doe yearly, one fawn male, one fawn female

5 years later with 100% survival - 124 bucks and 128 does.

Obviously is doesn't work this cleanly in real life, there will be attrition but it clearly illustrates that growing the population is much much easier than reducing it. Population growth occurs naturally without our influence, reduction requires lots of willing hunters, lots of tags and reduced tags, high kill, lots of by kill (non recovered kill), sustained over years.
 
Last edited:

at1010

*Supporting Member*
4,944
139
The math is never that simple, but if you look at historical data it would trend towards the opposite of your example.

It seems everyone focuses on the population reduction that has taken place and doesn't recognize how the population grew to its previous size. The deer population can grow very, very quickly. Look back at the harvest numbers in the early 2000's. The harvest were higher than we have had the last 3-4 years yet the population continued to increase to the apparent high in the mid to late 2000's.

Even a small reduction in doe harvest leads to large population increases pretty quickly.

A property has 4 does and 2 bucks. Average 2 fawns per doe yearly, one fawn male, one fawn female

5 years later with 100% survival - 124 bucks and 128 does.

Obviously is doesn't work this cleanly in real life, there will be attrition but it clearly illustrates that growing the population is much much easier than reducing it. Population growth occurs naturally without our influence, reduction requires lots of willing hunters, lots of tags and reduced tags, high kill, lots of by kill (non recovered kill), sustained over years.


Lundy, Thank you for this post!

I have always heard, read the same thing in many different areas. I believe this is what got me thinking "how could this be?". I don't know the answer, and maybe does will start producing fawns with higher survival rate than I give them credit for.

I do know I have read studies down up in WI, I think WAUPAUCA (sp?) county. They will count sometimes 300 deer in one field. Guys talk about how they have 0 regeneration of their forests because of the mass amounts of deer. They try to hammer the does (shooting 30-50 per year on 400 acres), didn't even make a dent in the population.

I am more interested in the science behind the growth of a deer herd, then trying to slam the ODNR. Atlas with this post! HAHAH

As I said in the beginning, it seems to me it would be so easy to reduce deer numbers. Apparently it can be more difficult then I give them credit for.

Thank you everyone for chiming in.