Someone is lying or I am missing something

[Schoolhousegrizz]

First let me start off by saying, I appreciate wildlife managers and they have a tough job. So we all know that the Utah DWR states that in order to grow deer numbers the highest a buck to doe ratio can be is right about 18 bucks for 100 does. However, I just listened to the rokcast and some units in Colorado are as high as 40, 50 or even 60 bucks per 100 does. Their goal is 35 to 40 in these particular units that were discussed. How are they growing deer to the point where they can even have a limited doe harvest at that many bucks per does when Utah says it's 18. What am I missing?

 

[CoMulies]

I’ll start by saying I don’t know anything about the Utah situation in particular. If I were to speculate, it may be due to the carrying capacity of the habitat in those Utah regions, which was another topic covered in the latest rokcast.

Bucks tend to push does out of the prime cover and feed. If you’re trying to grow the population, this isn’t optimal and you’d probably want to err on the lower end of the buck:doe. Pretty positive the units referenced in CO with the 40-50 bucks:doe were in the Gunnison basin, which is notoriously productive mule deer habitat. It’s possible that the carrying capacity of that basin is such that you can get away with that ratio because there’s enough food/cover to go around, whereas the Utah region is not as productive and does/fawns need to be looked after more to increase population.

Again, no idea if that’s why, but a potential explanation.

 

[Schoolhousegrizz]

Thou

I’ll start by saying I don’t know anything about the Utah situation in particular. If I were to speculate, it may be due to the carrying capacity of the habitat in those Utah regions, which was another topic covered in the latest rokcast.

Bucks tend to push does out of the prime cover and feed. If you’re trying to grow the population, this isn’t optimal and you’d probably want to err on the lower end of the buck:doe. Pretty positive the units referenced in CO with the 40-50 bucks:doe were in the Gunnison basin, which is notoriously productive mule deer habitat. It’s possible that the carrying capacity of that basin is such that you can get away with that ratio because there’s enough food/cover to go around, whereas the Utah region is not as productive and does/fawns need to be looked after more to increase population.

Again, no idea if that’s why, but a potential explanation.

I thought about that, but there are also other units in Colorado, Wyoming, etc that manage for higher buck to doe ratio.

 

[WeiserBucks]

Thou

I thought about that, but there are also other units in Colorado, Wyoming, etc that manage for higher buck to doe ratio.

Ask SFW

 

[Macintosh]

Coming from the whitetail world, part of it has to do with balancing hunter opportunity and success.
The habitat can only hold X number of healthy deer.
Bucks dont lay eggs…so 100% of the fawns require a doe
A few bucks will impregnate a lot of does, so buck % of the total population is only a minor constraint on population, if at all.
So, at least to a point, the higher % of the total deer are does, the more deer you can take from the population in a year while maintaining the overall population. My guess is the overall strategy of the f&g dept around number of tags and harvest they want to maintain has something to do with it. Maybe differing natural mortality, or areas where due to habitat or weather does typically have 1 fawn versus 2, etc also likely in play.

 

[TR175]

After listening to the rokcast today I was thinking the same thing. Something doesn't seem right as there are even more elk on the landscape in CO than UT. So they do compete for some of the same feed. I think UT did a study to appeal to their "opportunity hunt" status. Not sure if either of these studies are peer reviewed.

 

[Schoolhousegrizz]

After listening to the rokcast today I was thinking the same thing. Something doesn't seem right as there are even more elk on the landscape in CO than UT. So they do compete for some of the same feed. I think UT did a study to appeal to their "opportunity hunt" status. Not sure if either of these studies are peer reviewed.

Yes I would sure like to know the reason. Maybe I am overlooking something, but it doesn't make sense or add up.

 

[willfrye027]

Different habitat and different social pressures? I think for Utah to manage to 40:100 it would mean a crazy long wait for general tags which is already not acceptable.

Lots of amazing and productive habitat in CO..it’s a deer factory some places. Also larger herds in many units means larger overall productivity.

I don’t know if you can say “lying”…it’s not apples to apples comparing the two states

 

[WeiserBucks]

Yes I would sure like to know the reason. Maybe I am overlooking something, but it doesn't make sense or add up.

Maybe Utah should auction off some more tags, or more CWMU tags, that'll fix it.

 

[Schoolhousegrizz]

Different habitat and different social pressures? I think for Utah to manage to 40:100 it would mean a crazy long wait for general tags which is already not acceptable.

Lots of amazing and productive habitat in CO..it’s a deer factory some places. Also larger herds in many units means larger overall productivity.

I don’t know if you can say “lying”…it’s not apples to apples comparing the two states

It could be that's what I'm missing. Because if I'm not missing something, they are lying.

 

[WeiserBucks]

It could be that's what I'm missing. Because if I'm not missing something, they are lying.

Why do the liars always acuse others of lying?

Not calling out @Schoolhousegrizz in particular.

 

[robby denning]

Good question OP. I don’t have a tight answer and think @willfrye027 is close

I can say, and said it in the episode, that I remember even before Colorado did away with OTC, they seemed to always have post hunt buck ratios above 30.

It’s a deer factory and with nothing more than empirical evidence can say it’s always been easier to hit those numbers in Colorado

And UT does have some high buck ratio units: Pauns & Henry’s. Grab a number and get in line

 

[trevore]

You're looking at it inversely. A high buck to do ratio means fewer bucks.

@18/100 that is 5+ does per buck. That is a high ratio
@50/100 that is 2 does per buck. That is a low ratio

Bucks cannot breed that many does in a season. They spend too much time chasing as a doe comes into estrous. He will stay with her until he is finished breeding her and break off and look for another. If you have way too many does you end up with does that are not bred in the primary rut. Mature does will cycle and come back into estrous a month or so later. They will get bred but fawns may or may not have a good enough start before winter hits. Lots of late fawns will die first winter particularly if it is a bad winter. Reducing numbers.

 

[realunlucky]

Don't forget Utah is limited by annual rain fall as it's raked as the 3rd most arid state. That simply means there is less prime habitat and the units @robby denning mentioned have aggressive elk harvest objectives to limit competition for that habitat.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[Dos Perros]

Optimal buck:doe ratio will be dependent on the unit, and could even vary year to year based on weather conditions, and then also how close the unit is to carrying capacity.

 

[robby denning]

You're looking at it inversely. A high buck to do ratio means fewer bucks.

@18/100 that is 5+ does per buck. That is a high ratio
@50/100 that is 2 does per buck. That is a low ratio

trying hard to wrap my mind around this

please clarify "....fewer bucks"

 

[MuleyFever]

You're looking at it inversely. A high buck to do ratio means fewer bucks.

@18/100 that is 5+ does per buck. That is a high ratio
@50/100 that is 2 does per buck. That is a low ratio

In the context of buck to doe ratios a high ratio does not imply more bucks than does. You are looking at it kinda backwards or reading into it too much. It is also regional.

In UT a high buck to doe ratio in most units is 20-25 bucks to 100 does. In CO that would be considered a low buck to doe ratio as most units are 30+ bucks to 100 does, last time I looked anyway. But even in CO a buck to doe ratio of 50:100 is considered a high ratio.

 

[KHNC]

trying hard to wrap my mind around this

please clarify "....fewer bucks"

He must mean a HIGH doe to buck ratio. Which obviously is the same as low buck to doe ratio. lol

 

[TaperPin]

For a couple years after running into a big guy in a very marginal part of a marginal area, I was cocky with enthusiasm to hunt the worst of the worst where nobody else hunts and turn up a good one. For two years we criss crossed every mile of a triangle between Nowhere, BFE, and the turn off to Middle of Nowhere. There were so few bucks in the entire place that if one walked over a ridge the total number went to zero. Hell there could have been only one doe and one buck in the whole place. Crossed that off the list as too sparse.

I felt vindicated years later when a real buster buck was taken there.

I wouldn’t get too excited about averages.

 

[CoMulies]

In the context of buck to doe ratios a high ratio does not imply more bucks than does. You are looking at it kinda backwards or reading into it too much. It is also regional.

In UT a high buck to doe ratio in most units is 20-25 bucks to 100 does. In CO that would be considered a low buck to doe ratio as most units are 30+ bucks to 100 does, last time I looked anyway. But even in CO a buck to doe ratio of 50:100 is considered a high ratio.

While he is technically correct that less bucks results in a higher ratio in relation to does than somewhere with more bucks from a mathematical perspective, that’s not how anyone in the hunting world has ever viewed buck:doe ratio. Given that we’re all for the most part looking for bucks, it follows that higher ratio of bucks to doe means more bucks. Ex. 50:100 buck to doe is greater than 18:100 buck to doe