When there's too few hunters . . . . . .
- Thread starter TheLBLman
- Start date
TNGunsmoke
Well-Known Member
Nature will find a way. This won't work, and those sterilized bucks will develop some freaky racks because of not having the testosterone to cause them to shed, and they may stay in velvet as well.
Mike Belt
Well-Known Member
Unless I missed it I didn't see where these deer were hunted??? If not 720 deer = 92%. That leaves another 62 breeding bucks left the first year totaling the buck harvest to about 782. They mentioned they have about 2000 deer but just figuring a 1:1 ratio of bucks to does that would mean there are about 782 does; 1218 does if the count is actually 2000. They figure there are 250 bucks that now need sterilized. If all 782 does were bred and they threw a 1:1 sex ratio of fawns pre sterilization that would put another 391 bucks in the herd plus the 62 they missed the first year. That adds up to 453 bucks but they're figuring 250 total. Sounds like some are getting missed???? Of course these numbers are without any mortality, there is a 1:1 birth rate, all does being bred, and figuring all bucks breed at 1.5 years of age and just figures.
Aside from that maybe it'll work or at least give them some relief. I saw the million+ dollar figure per year but I figure it'll cost more than that, get more expensive with time, and be a never ending process for it to stay successful. Going back to being hunted... if they aren't just open the place up to archery. The state will make money rather than spending it and they'll still get some relief in numbers. I would imagine that if there were ever too few hunters that there'd be more to worry about than just deer numbers.
Aside from that maybe it'll work or at least give them some relief. I saw the million+ dollar figure per year but I figure it'll cost more than that, get more expensive with time, and be a never ending process for it to stay successful. Going back to being hunted... if they aren't just open the place up to archery. The state will make money rather than spending it and they'll still get some relief in numbers. I would imagine that if there were ever too few hunters that there'd be more to worry about than just deer numbers.
