Buck Only Zones and deer populatuon

[chasemukluk]

So the one tag thread got me thinking and I apologize if this has been discussed on here before.

Do you think buck only zones negatively impact the population in these zones as a whole?

Do you think if a zone is to the point where it is buck only, it should just be closed for the year?

And, would you be disappointed if your buck only zone just got closed for two years to bring the heard back?

I have no facts to back up my thoughts, but I feel that these buck only zones are detrimental to the heard as you end up having guys shoot the first spike they see as they are out to put meat in the freezer. Over time, all you have are 1.5 year old bucks mating every year. I am fine with guys not Trophy hunting, but feel these zones really impact hunters who are after a larger age class and they also impact the heard as well.

Anyone have similar thoughts? Or different thoughts and you can educate me on the subject?

[ Post made via Android ]

[SRWbowhunter]

I'm certainly no expert on the subject but what you're saying makes sense. I've always heard that we should shoot does to try to keep the buck to doe ratio fairly close and buck only zones obviously makes that impossible...

[ Post made via iPhone ]

[UPbowhunter]

When they implement a buck only zone it is generally strictly for the numbers not quality. And another thing guys don't realize a spike or fork breeding doesn't mean there is no good genes be passed on. Just cause a buck is young doesn't mean he has bad genes. Trophy potential comes from mom and dad. I don't think a place like the U.P. going to buck only, has anything to do with trophy management. There is an urgent feeling to save whitetail as a game animal at this point. There are some many things to think about when managing a heard, this one is about survival of a hunt able heard
Trophy talk comes later, in that citation.

[ Post made via Android ]

[dkoy85]

When they implement a buck only zone it is generally strictly for the numbers not quality. And another thing guys don't realize a spike or fork breeding doesn't mean there is no good genes be passed on. Just cause a buck is young doesn't mean he has bad genes. Trophy potential comes from mom and dad. I don't think a place like the U.P. going to buck only, has anything to do with trophy management. There is an urgent feeling to save whitetail as a game animal at this point. There are some many things to think about when managing a heard, this one is about survival of a hunt able heard
Trophy talk comes later, in that citation.

[ Post made via Android ]

I may have read it wrong but I think he is more concerned about too many young bucks being shot and the age structure rather than trophy potential. That would be my concern.

[Bigburner]

Antler restrictions to balance out age classes in bucks while encouraging doe harvest in these areas is what helps out with balancing sex ratios and overall herd quality. I would think a buck only area would not accomplish much of anything unless your overall density was down in the breading doe population then go for. B/c the managing agency figures it only takes a few bucks to breed many does. As far as a healthy population is concerned "buck only" is no bueno. PA esentially did that for decades where you had to harvest a buck before a doe and it was a disasterous failure as far as herd quality was concerned. But even after a catastraophic event like EHD, herds usually bounce back in about 3 years as far population is concerned less predation and climactic conditions. At least in my area. As far as quality management or what I would rather it be called age class management public agencies have to gauge the quality of hunter that they are dealing with in order to try and fullfill managemt goals and you have to strike a balance with the mostly un-educated masses. You can't rely on a hunter to say hey that looks like a 2.5 yro on the hoof so its off limits but you can rely on them to say that bucks antlers are past his ears, it legal. And your gun seasons are your management tools. I refer to it as the "Hammer" for obvious reasons. I manage a pretty substantial piece of public land in my state and I have put antler restriction on four of our lagest tracts and I can attest it works.
Knock on wood in my case hoping to never having to deal with the threat of loosing a population but if you had to allow a hunt in a population I'd say try and shoot a buck. There is less of them, they are generally harder to kill especially a mature buck and antlered harvest are always far less than antlerless harvests statistacally. Even the 1.5 yro bucks on public here look up in trees. So in the end less deer are killed overall and more chance of herd recovery in terms of population.

[Kraftd]

My guess is this thread is largely related to the buck only zones in northern WI, MI, and MN (among other states). In those instances they are being implemented due to very low deer densities. In that case, I think it is a very sound first step to allowing the herd to recover. When the overall deer numbers are as low as they are in many of these areas right now, trophy potential is well down the management goals list, as I believe it should be. These herds have seen the perfect storm of population decline. Easy winters going back 15 years or so resulted in huge increases in predator numbers along with management agencies issuing large numbers of tags. People shot what they were given tags for, instead of relying on what they were seeing to gauge antlerless harvest in areas, then we got hit with a few normal to severe winters, on a herd already being hammered by predators and hunters, and here we are. We can blame wolves and bears all we want, and they are definitely an issue, but in many areas, hunters are just as big of an issue.

As stated earlier, young bucks breeding isn't necessarily an issue in the short term. Nothing says that spike doesn't have booner genes. Many studies have shown young antlers often don't have much correlation to peak potential when mature. My experience in the big woods type areas has been even to 3.5, deer can have fairly small racks, and still see big gains later on. Year to year antler growth is also more variable in these areas due to stressors like predators, late springs, bad winters etc.

Allowing the doe herd to recover, will only benefit trophy hunting in the long run in these areas. Firt and foremost, overall herd numbers need recovery though. All that being said, buck only in southern WI, IL, IA, MO etc. would probably end very badly with huge deer herds, most bucks getting shot at 1.5 and other issues.

[olivertractor]

Should be 1 buck like MN bow/rifle, under such dire herd populations (in the north), it'll be a while before buck population recovers.

[ Post made via Android ]

[headgear]

I've hunted most of my life in buck only zones, save for maybe 8-9 years when we had extra doe tags. I know in the 70's MN closed the season once or twice because of extremely low populations, I have lived through some of those low populations in the late 90's, it's not fun seeing 2 deer and a flash of something the entire season but it does beat sitting on the couch. I'm ok with closing the season if necessary but not because it puts the hurt on young bucks. Vast stretches of northern MN are buck only, you are talking about displacing maybe 150,000+ hunters and I don't see how that does much good. I would rather those guys go out and hunt and have a good time if the population is stable. If I have to work a little harder to find a buck to hunt so be it, I am use to that anyway. Some guys won't even hunt bigwoods anymore because it's not all that easy when the numbers are good.

If you do close down areas like that you are also going to ramp up pressure in other areas because if it were me I would travel to a new area so I don't have to sit home an entire season. You are also going to have all kinds of trouble cramming more hunters into less land because people don't want to stay home. Then you are talking about cramming thousands of extra hunters into other lands that aren't bucks only, the pressure would be sky high hurting those populations and you probably have a ton of issues with guys fighting over deer and land, it would be a mess.

As long as the doe population is good and reproducing I say hunt, there are always some bucks that slip through the cracks, especially up north where they have unlimited cover. I sometimes wonder if that big population boom a while back didn't spoil us, yes it was cool to see a ton of deer but maybe not realistic long term.

[headgear]

My guess is this thread is largely related to the buck only zones in northern WI, MI, and MN (among other states).

It should be noted that these areas are far different than the rest of the Midwest or country save for places like Maine, Vermont or Northern NY. The deer are always pounded by wolves, winter and hunters. It is always something and unless the stars align with multiple mild winters there usually is no magical recovery even if you did close the season. Even from northern MN to southern MN there are huge differences in the weather, sometimes an extra month or two of winter. Things like APR would be pretty much be like closing the season for 99% of the hunters.

It is just one of those things until you have hunted that far north you won't really know what it's like. See the map below, if you are hunting below 45 degrees you really don't have to worry about winter being a huge factor, you might think it's bad but trust me that would be a mild winter where I hunt.

[olivertractor]

I've hunted most of my life in buck only zones, save for maybe 8-9 years when we had extra doe tags. I know in the 70's MN closed the season once or twice because of extremely low populations, I have lived through some of those low populations in the late 90's, it's not fun seeing 2 deer and a flash of something the entire season but it does beat sitting on the couch. I'm ok with closing the season if necessary but not because it puts the hurt on young bucks. Vast stretches of northern MN are buck only, you are talking about displacing maybe 150,000+ hunters and I don't see how that does much good. I would rather those guys go out and hunt and have a good time if the population is stable. If I have to work a little harder to find a buck to hunt so be it, I am use to that anyway. Some guys won't even hunt bigwoods anymore because it's not all that easy when the numbers are good.

If you do close down areas like that you are also going to ramp up pressure in other areas because if it were me I would travel to a new area so I don't have to sit home an entire season. You are also going to have all kinds of trouble cramming more hunters into less land because people don't want to stay home. Then you are talking about cramming thousands of extra hunters into other lands that aren't bucks only, the pressure would be sky high hurting those populations and you probably have a ton of issues with guys fighting over deer and land, it would be a mess.

As long as the doe population is good and reproducing I say hunt, there are always some bucks that slip through the cracks, especially up north where they have unlimited cover. I sometimes wonder if that big population boom a while back didn't spoil us, yes it was cool to see a ton of deer but maybe not realistic long term.

Well said ^.... I enjoy looking for the ones that slip thru the cracks :)

[ Post made via Android ]

[chasemukluk]

Thanks for all the replies. I was referring to a lot of the Northern WI counties going buck only. The displacement of hunters makes a ton of sense and it would increase pressure if the seasons were closed.

I was mostly thinking back about hunting Forest County, WI with my grandfather the last 8 or so years. It has been buck only up there like 6/8 seasons, and my grandpa still doesn't get many deer on camera.

There are many factors playing into that including predators, winters, etc....

My post wasn't really about hunting trophy bucks or anything. I mentioned it because I could see many 1.5 year olds getting shot. It was more about creating balanced heard, that had a varying age structure and would a closed county be better than a buck only county. Thanks again for the replies!