Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
I realised 10 years ago that there is no money in shooting Deer!
Just about covering your costs.
Biodiversity and Cull Selection
- Thread starter J D-C
- Start date
Just about covering your costs.
Shoot as many as you can when you get the chance. Starting with the does. Fallow numbers can’t be managed just too many about now. I work on a minimum cull for each piece of ground of at least half of the biggest herd I see. I only let the good bucks go to grow onto trophies
You need some more fallow
Leec6.5
Well-Known Member
No thanks 10 fallow a week is enough manhandling for meSwap you fallow for reds!
One to one is a perfectly natural ratio. Approximately equal number of males and females are born, so how can one to one not be natural? I can't understand your logic there. Admittedly male calves / fawns / kids have a higher early mortality rate than females, but the ratio is still not going to be significantly far off one to one under natural circumstances.
The problem of ratios arises due to stalkers over culling the males for whatever reason (bigger, impressive antlers, can charge clients more, better weather than stalking females in mid winter, etc etc).
Now, assuming a particular habitat is capable of sustaining a herd of, say, 100 deer, at a one to one ratio that's only 50 potential breeders. Discount the female fawns that are too young to breed and your actually only looking at 33 females giving birth in any one year out of a herd of 100 animals. So population growth would be manageable.
Now, let's assume that a higher number of males have been culled to achieve what you seem to feel is a more "natural" or "desirable" ratio between male and female. Our theoretical habitat will still support a herd of 100 deer, but that may now comprise 20 males and 80 females. Once again, discount the youngsters, but that still leaves about 54 adult females to breed in each year, resulting in rapid population growth that is not sustainable by the habitat, leading to an inevitable decline in quality (due to poor nutrition).
If you want to keep population down to a sustainable level you're actually better off aiming to have fewer females in the herd than males.
Last edited:
kieran222
Well-Known Member
Deer numbers are only going to go one way and that's up, fairly significantly. Lots of land is managed (loosely) by recreational stalkers who like the privilege of stalking but don't want to sell to game dealers at the current prices and don't want to have to butcher everything either as the novelty soon wears off.
Land owners in most cases are ok with this but perhaps after a few years they won't be. Where land owners have problems with large deer numbers in the future they may have to start paying to have them properly managed but this is likely to be put off as long as possible.
Land owners in most cases are ok with this but perhaps after a few years they won't be. Where land owners have problems with large deer numbers in the future they may have to start paying to have them properly managed but this is likely to be put off as long as possible.
You’re not going to get Rich on that!No thanks 10 fallow a week is enough manhandling for me
im retired its just pocket money
foxdropper
Well-Known Member
No, not disregarded it.So you’ve basically disregarded everything else ive written Tim
Yes ,naturally those that are born are roughly 50/50 split but making it to adulthood is entirely a different ball game favouring does all day long .
At least we are in agreement about culling does hard
Just taking issue with your statement that one to one "isn't natural". You also appear to contradict yourself - on the one hand saying that culling does hard is the priority, and on the other hand saying that the ratio of does per buck should be increased.
Apart from that, all good
foxdropper
Well-Known Member
Ok let’s get back to facts mate .Birth rates are more or less 50/50 but survival to adulthood arrives at a different level ,both natural .
I havnt advocated more does per bucks it’s just the way it is naturally .Young bucks wander in groups as you well know unlike does wedded to the ground .
I havnt advocated more does per bucks it’s just the way it is naturally .Young bucks wander in groups as you well know unlike does wedded to the ground .
Yep. As I said before, survivability of male offspring is lower. But not so much lower as to make a huge difference to the one-to-one ratio. It would still end up somewhere close to that without our intervention. We can intervene and adjust the ratio it any way we like:
Cull females, resulting in higher ratio of bucks per doe and a reducing population,
or:
Cull males, resulting in a higher ratio of does per buck (which, according to your earlier post, you consider to be more "desirable") and a rising population.
Given that the thread is about reducing population, then females must take priority for culling, even if that means more bucks than does remain in the herd at an "undesirable" (?) ratio.
foxdropper
Well-Known Member
And round we go again 
Ratio of breeding does to breeding bucks in a herd Tim given that dominant bucks do the breeding in the main .Yes lesser bucks sneak one or two but a herd of palmated bucks to match breeding does ain’t happening .
Disregard bucks of any other age that isn’t of breeding age ,they don’t get a look in but any doe over two will be mated .
This is the ratio I’m getting at and is perfectly natural .
Nowhere have I advocated leaving more does and culling bucks hard .
Deer counts are based on the herd as a whole I know but breeding stock on the ground in any one year is what reflects the next years birthing rate .
The crux of any culling is the females so let’s leave it at that
Ratio of breeding does to breeding bucks in a herd Tim given that dominant bucks do the breeding in the main .Yes lesser bucks sneak one or two but a herd of palmated bucks to match breeding does ain’t happening .
Disregard bucks of any other age that isn’t of breeding age ,they don’t get a look in but any doe over two will be mated .
This is the ratio I’m getting at and is perfectly natural .
Nowhere have I advocated leaving more does and culling bucks hard .
Deer counts are based on the herd as a whole I know but breeding stock on the ground in any one year is what reflects the next years birthing rate .
The crux of any culling is the females so let’s leave it at that
OK. You make a bit more sense now. Nowhere else in your posts can I find any indication that you weren't referring to the sex ratio in the herd as a whole. You didn't make that clear.And round we go again
Ratio of breeding does to breeding bucks in a herd Tim given that dominant bucks do the breeding in the main .Yes lesser bucks sneak one or two but a herd of palmated bucks to match breeding does ain’t happening .
Disregard bucks of any other age that isn’t of breeding age ,they don’t get a look in but any doe over two will be mated .
This is the ratio I’m getting at and is perfectly natural .
Nowhere have I advocated leaving more does and culling bucks hard .
Deer counts are based on the herd as a whole I know but breeding stock on the ground in any one year is what reflects the next years birthing rate .
The crux of any culling is the females so let’s leave it at that
I was referring to the population as a whole.
Clearly we were talking at cross purposes.
foxdropper
Well-Known Member
Apology accepted Tim
SpoilsportApology accepted Tim
With a bit more effort on your part we could have kept that going for another couple of pages at least
foxdropper
Well-Known Member
Not my style mate .Swift dispatch at earliest opportunity .
Atb .UTNG .
Atb .UTNG .
Look here, that kind of attitude is all very well when you're stalking, but not here. We have a moral obligation to amuse and entertain the other 26,130 site members.
foxdropper
Well-Known Member
They amuse themselves alright Tim .Merchant bankers most of them .
Similar threads
