Buck to Doe ratio question

[Bobcat13]

How do yall estimate your buck to doe ratio on a property?

I'm hunting on 165ac low-fence ranch and from my game cams it seems like there are several does to every buck I've seen in the last few years. I went down there for Dove day and set up my feeders and cameras and saw the same ratio of deer moving while I was scouting. Ranch is located in Gillespie county.
If there truly is a 1:4 or more ratio, should I harvest all does, and encourage the same from hunting relatives?
TIA.

[RiverRat1]

Get with your local TPWD biologist.

That and google TPWD how to calculate buck/doe ratio using a camera survey. It's not hard.

And what to shoot all depends on too many factors. Biologist can tell you more.

[AntlerCollector]

On 165 acres it probably won't make much difference what you do.



Game cams are the best way to get a good count of your deer ratio.

[MagicBlade]

Get with your local TPWD biologist.

That and google TPWD how to calculate buck/doe ratio using a camera survey. It's not hard.

And what to shoot all depends on too many factors. Biologist can tell you more.

We hunt on 600 acres, does it cost anything to have a local biologist help you?

[Apodz]

It WILL make a difference what you do despite being on only 165 acres. Anyway you look at it, the more deer there are , the more mouths there are to feed, and the more does there are that can get bred by your culls and unwanted genetics. 165 acres can hold more deer than you think. I would def get your numbers down. But as they said before, get with biologist.

Think about it like this. Those deer dont just live on 165 acres. They live on it just the same as if you owned 1000 acres. If your numbers are like that on 165, then i would say you have some work to do. It does matter and will make a difference. Especially if some of the neighboring properties are doing the same thing.

[AntlerCollector]

We hunt on 600 acres, does it cost anything to have a local biologist help you?

It's part of what your hunting license pays for. I've used local biologists before. It's always been free.



I would suggest having the biologist come out then try and talk to your neighbors and get them on the same program. You will probably have to kill lots of doe.

[RiverRat1]

We hunt on 600 acres, does it cost anything to have a local biologist help you?

It does not cost. Texas wants all landowners to understand management. They will look around and tell you a lot more than just what deer to shoot.

[Deerguy]

Cameras are the absolute worst way to determine herd composition (i.e., sex ratio and fawn crop). In order for either to be accurate you have to assume that all sexes and age classes visit the bait sites at the same rate and stay in front of the camera for the same duration, which is a difficult assumption to meet. Bucks frequently dominate feed sites (especially protein), thus throwing off the sex ratio calculations, and fawns tend to not be at-heel consistently during the time frame that most camera surveys are conducted (throwing off the fawn crop calculations). Most research has indicated that truly random incidental observations provide the best herd composition estimates.

[AntlerCollector]

Cameras are the absolute worst way to determine herd composition (i.e., sex ratio and fawn crop). In order for either to be accurate you have to assume that all sexes and age classes visit the bait sites at the same rate and stay in front of the camera for the same duration, which is a difficult assumption to meet. Bucks frequently dominate feed sites (especially protein), thus throwing off the sex ratio calculations, and fawns tend to not be at-heel consistently during the time frame that most camera surveys are conducted (throwing off the fawn crop calculations). Most research has indicated that truly random incidental observations provide the best herd composition estimates.

I didn't say anything about putting bait out in front of the cameras. I will disagree that randomly seeing deer in person is the best way, and cameras is the "absolute worst way." I have about 25 cameras out and have a very good idea of my deer herd. If I drove around trying to see them there's no way I would see as many. The type of land and terrain will play a major role in how you see the deer also. From my experience, several game cameras spread out all over the property along game trails, water holes, etc. is very effective. This is in the Piney woods of East Texas. No way can I drive around and do an accurate spot survey.
Your method I'm sure will work great in other, more open parts of the State.

[Deerguy]

I didn't say anything about putting bait out in front of the cameras. I will disagree that randomly seeing deer in person is the best way, and cameras is the "absolute worst way." I have about 25 cameras out and have a very good idea of my deer herd. If I drove a round trying to see them there's no way I would see as many. The type of land and terrain will play a major role in how you see the deer also. From my experience, several game cameras spread out all over the property along game trails, water holes, etc. is very effective. This is in the Piney woods of East Texas. No way can I drive around and do an accurate spot survey.
Your method I'm sure will work great in other, more open parts of the State.

I'm thinking from your response that you thought I was referring to you, which wasn't the case at all. Just that cameras frequently do not yield accurate information relative to herd composition. You are correct that truly random camera placement should produce more accurate results than over bait sites/feeders, but, that's how most folks use them. Also, random incidentals really are the best measure of sex ratio (which would include random camera pics as long as you only use 1 pic, not multiples, from each encounter). It's not the number counted that's important, it's the ratio. No question there are areas where it's easy to gather more photos than visual observations, but, if the ratio is incorrect, the number counted doesn't really help. I too have conducted camera surveys where I thought the ratios were consistent with what I believed the actual sex ratio and fawn crop were, but, this is without question more the exception than the rule.

[AntlerCollector]

I'm thinking from your response that you thought I was referring to you, which wasn't the case at all. Just that cameras frequently do not yield accurate information relative to herd composition. You are correct that truly random camera placement should produce more accurate results than over bait sites/feeders, but, that's how most folks use them. Also, random incidentals really are the best measure of sex ratio (which would include random camera pics as long as you only use 1 pic, not multiples, from each encounter). It's not the number counted that's important, it's the ratio. No question there are areas where it's easy to gather more photos than visual observations, but, if the ratio is incorrect, the number counted doesn't really help. I too have conducted camera surveys where I thought the ratios were consistent with what I believed the actual sex ratio and fawn crop were, but, this is without question more the exception than the rule.

I quoted and responded to you because myself and RiverRat1 had both suggested cameras. You said cameras were the "absolute worse way." Then you went on about bait stations. What you said was correct. I was just clarifying that no one on here said anything about bait stations. Neither one of us is wrong, and trying to survey deer to determine a buck to doe ratio is very difficult.

[Whampuscat2]

If you have too few bucks, killing does will not help.

[buzzbait]

I have too many bucks and not enough does. Both in Colorado County and Gillespie County.

[muzzlebrake]

I didn't say anything about putting bait out in front of the cameras. I will disagree that randomly seeing deer in person is the best way, and cameras is the "absolute worst way." I have about 25 cameras out and have a very good idea of my deer herd. If I drove around trying to see them there's no way I would see as many. The type of land and terrain will play a major role in how you see the deer also. From my experience, several game cameras spread out all over the property along game trails, water holes, etc. is very effective. This is in the Piney woods of East Texas. No way can I drive around and do an accurate spot survey.
Your method I'm sure will work great in other, more open parts of the State.

Works in west Texas also. Moving cameras to trails and bedding areas captured a lot of bucks that have never been seen at feeders or by driving around day or night. The majority of these deer were old mature bucks from the pics. The number of does seen or photographed at feeders have nothing to do with ratio. Helicopter survey to me is the best way to count.

[Mexico]

Yup kill all the does, that way you won't have any bucks either...

Bro you have control over 165 acres, you're way over thinking it and no matter what people tell you that small of a LF parcel of land you can't manage properly anyway.... just enjoy what you've got and have a good time