Killing does to increase buck sightings

[Football Hunter]

Im with red blood. I started killing mature bucks when i quit killing does with firearms. I still shoot them with a bow but not with any kind of gun.

I agree,though I will shoot a couple does very,very late season.

 

[Hollar Hunter]

Im with red blood. I started killing mature bucks when i quit killing does with firearms. I still shoot them with a bow but not with any kind of gun.

Let me add a little here.
First, I see little difference between killing does with firearms vs. killing them with an arrow. Dead is dead. IMO, one can be more efficient and less disturbing when killing does with firearms, i.e. get it done quicker and be gone. I kill most my does now with a neck shot, and they don't run. Half the time when I shoot, other deer either just stand around wondering about that loud clap of thunder while others frequently run towards me. The gunshot itself is usually little more "scare" to the deer than a deer suddenly taking a death run from an arrow hitting it.

Here's what I believe matters most regarding shooting does: TIMING.
It's not so much which weapon you're using, but rather when and how you use it.

I believe it's best to shoot them early, such as during early archery season, the first few days of TN's Nov. muzzleloader season, or post-rut. From a herd-health (biological) standpoint, it's best to shoot the does pre-rut, meaning much of the best "time" is during the archery-only season. If legal, I'd much rather take out the needed does with a firearm during early October. Archery is sometimes the only legal choice with the best "timing".

Generally speaking, I now avoid taking does during the rut peak, which where I do most my hunting is approximately a 2 to 3-week period of about Nov. 5 to 25. My reasoning is that this is the "time" that older bucks are moving most during daylight, and I need to spend as much time "hunting" them as I can, and not lose any of that time to dragging out and/or processing a doe. And of course, there's the issue of "disturbing" the hunting area by tracking and dragging, an issue in itself more than issue of what weapon's being used.

But any time "can" be a great time to take a doe, even during the rut peak. Let's say it's a cold November morning, about sunrise, and an estrous doe comes by, providing you a very easy neck shot at 20 yards (with a firearm). It may very well be the best strategy you have for taking a good buck is now dropping that doe in her tracks and remaining on stand. The key is not to blow your opportunity by acting like some of those TV actors on hunting videos, i.e. don't move, don't make any noise. The sound of a single gunshot seldom spooks a buck trailing the doe you just shot, while there is no better big-buck attractant than a just-killed estrous doe lying in front of your stand.

Let me add something about neck shots. I've killed over 50 deer with them, and in the past 20-plus years, have had zero misses, zero failed recoveries with neck shots. I only take them up close and with a firearm, and when I'm near 100% certain it's an "easy" shot. For this, I need "close" and have studied deer behavior enough to know when's the "time" to pull the trigger. When a doe stops walking, and raises her head, she will usually hold it still for at least a couple seconds. A feeding doe will typically flick her tail before raising her head, then holding still for at least a couple seconds. To do this effectively, you must be ready to pull that trigger when the motion stops, crosshairs centered on neck, squeeze trigger. Typically, the deer will simply fall in place and not move anything. Other deer standing around will often walk over to the dead deer, that just fell in its tracks ---- something that almost never happens with a perfectly placed arrow, i.e. the deer runs off, as nearby deer throw up their flags and run away as well.

It's very important to me to only take high-probability kill shots, regardless of the weapon being used, so a neck shot is often not an option. Just saying when it is, it's the least-spooking to other deer, and you won't have to worry about tracking. It also damages the least venison. Unfortunately, necks shots should never be taken with archery equipment. For those who haven't tried this, it's been my experience that a close neck shot with a firearm is usually a higher probability kill than a close-range double-lung shot with a bow.

How do you know if it's an estrous doe? The only one I've ever seen and new FOR SURE was in estrous was because she kept licking her "cookie" and so were all the other does with her were sniffing and licking her. I also shot one of my biggest bucks about 5 minutes after that. I see the bucks chasing all the time but that doesn't mean she is in estrous? What are the signs that you look for Wes?

 

[dr]

Im with red blood. I started killing mature bucks when i quit killing does with firearms. I still shoot them with a bow but not with any kind of gun.

I agree,though I will shoot a couple does very,very late season.

Some of the biggest bucks i've seen showed within 5 minutes of doe sitings.

 

[catman529]

catman529,

The reality is, considering the does using your 100-acre property probably are covering 400-600 acres, you really can't have that much of an impact on doe density or adult sex ratio when you only have 100 acres to work with. Now that doesn't mean you shouldn't shoot does. It just means that those doe kills you make won't make a big biological impact on the area. If you want to shoot does, for fun or for meat, have at it.

If you can kill them early in bow season, do so. If you want to wait until after the rut, that's fine too. But as others have pointed out, killing them during the rut can be a problem simply due to all of the human activity and traffic required to recover a downed doe; i.e. everything involved with "harvest pressure."

But the idea that less does in the area reduces the number of bucks attracted certainly is not true, and the idea of having more does increases the amount of chasing is equally untrue.

let's say the acreage is isolated and surrounded mostly by developed areas with few places for deer to travel to and from. Does could come and go by select few routes, but not so freely as if they were in a 100 acres surrounded by 2500 acres of woods. Also, during the rut, I don't plan to whack does like I do now. I am having fun killing whatever is brown right now and stocking up on meat, and when the rut comes, I will be more interested in bucks. also I don't want to only target a big buck, just would hope that one does come through while I am sitting in the stand. The only buck I might pass is a spike, but I'm not going to be very strict about passing up deer unless I have found a big buck I would like to target. I'll just be sitting in the woods watching to see what comes through.

 

[mike243]

Its been my luck to see bucks following does from 50y out to 30 min latter.They can tell how close the does are to coming into heat by smell without having to get close.The problem i have is small amount of land with hunters every where & limited time for doe harvest.The more Doe's around means a better chance at a buck imo.i have taken a big doe before & a splke wouldnt leave her.i ran him off after 1 hr. Danged if you do & danged if you dont lol

 

[BSK]

The more Doe's around means a better chance at a buck imo.

I hear this idea thrown out by hunters all the time, and it makes simplistic logical sense. Bucks ARE attracted to does as the rut approaches. However, the idea that "more does means more bucks" really isn't true. Over and over again I've seen managed properties that greatly reduce their local doe population, yet this never reduces their buck population or reduces how many bucks start using their property as the rut kicks in. I've seen properties cut their adult sex ratio down through doe harvests until bucks slightly outnumbered does, yet come the rut, "new" bucks began using the property until individual bucks outnumbered individual does to the tune of 2 to 3 bucks per doe.

Bucks don't have the mental capacity to conceptualize that the "grass may be greener on the other side of the fence." That takes imagination, and no animal has that except humans. Bucks will deal with whatever conditions present themselves, even if that means competing harder for fewer does.

 

[mike243]

I was looking at it from my hunting area view point.no doe harvest might help get the #s up here some maybe.more doe lead to more deer #s.Cover/Food//Willing doe's lead to more deer sightings .

 

[TheLBLman]

Bucks don't have the mental capacity to conceptualize that the "grass may be greener on the other side of the fence."

I just fixed up several sharp sticks if you want a couple.

 

[waynesworld]

I don't know what the bucks mental capacity is but would reason also look at if you lower the doe population then the competition for the food would also be lowered and that has a direct influence in the quality of bucks. Also you lessen the problems of over population. But on the other hand the less does the less chances for a buck born the next year to replace the ones you are killing.

But don't listen to me I am not a natural science guy I am a numbers guy

 

[BSK]

I was looking at it from my hunting area view point.no doe harvest might help get the #s up here some maybe.more doe lead to more deer #s.Cover/Food//Willing doe's lead to more deer sightings .

Not necessarily. If you create too much of a "deer heaven," you can end up with a doe sink.

But if increasing the deer population is your goal, then keeping doe harvests to a minimum is the way to do that. But I would also keep buck harvests to a minimum as well.

 

[BSK]

I don't know what the bucks mental capacity is but would reason also look at if you lower the doe population then the competition for the food would also be lowered and that has a direct influence in the quality of bucks. Also you lessen the problems of over population. But on the other hand the less does the less chances for a buck born the next year to replace the ones you are killing.

In an area where deer populations are relatively high in comparison to food availability (and the actual number doesn't have to be high--just high in relation to how much food the habitat produces), lowering deer density will increase antler size on same-age bucks. This is exactly why we saw a big surge in large-antlered bucks being killed in the areas hit hardest by EHD a few years ago. Fewer mouths were sharing the same available food sources, hence each deer received a diet higher in the best food sources, which in turn increased individual deer performance (antler growth).

But lowering the deer density and increasing performance also does more than grow larger antlers. It also allows does to produce more offspring. So lowering the deer density doesn't automatically decrease fawn production. In fact, it can actually increase fawn production (more surviving fawns produced per doe offsets the fewer number of does).

Calculating how many does need to be removed from an area is an extremely complicated process. It requires knowing a great deal about the local population, how that population is relating to the available food resources, what current doe harvests are for the area, predator numbers in the area, the goals of the hunters/managers in the area for population and herd health, etc. Developing proper doe harvest goals will always we a site specific process. No easy answers exist.