OH I do get it. IT is the choice between HR with AR or HR alone. HR alone would mean next to NO bucks to be had anywhere of any kind.

Also, unhunted “natural” sex ratios were also female biased and best guesses put them at about 1.3-1.4 does/buck. I have yet to see a biology-based reason why a sex ratio of 2:1 is damaging or undesirable. A factor often overlooked by those that think they want an unnatural 1:1 sex ratio is that total harvest of both bucks and does would be reduced. One does not merely stockpile bucks. If you seek a 1:1 sex ratio and shoot “adequate” numbers of does to maintain a population at an established density goal, you reduce the proportion of the herd that is productive does. Thus, fewer fawns will be born into the population and total harvest of both bucks and does could be reduced by as much as 30%. Age Structure of Bucks Where mortality (death rate) of bucks is 60% and spread equally across all age classes, the age structure will be 60, 24,10, 6 (yearlings, 2.5, 3.5, and 4+). This is fairly typical in much of Wisconsin. Some APR advocates believe that protecting yearlings will result in 60% more bucks and an age structure like 60, 60, 24,16. However as mentioned above, the reduction of females necessary to accommodate more bucks will reduce the number of male fawns added each year. Fewer does in the population mean fewer buck fawns. Therefore, saving yearlings is not simple addition. Another factor missing in this assumption is that harvest mortality is only a portion of total mortality. In northern units it is common for more than 1⁄4 of deaths to be from causes other than legal harvest (roadkills, winter, poaching, etc.). Thus, there is “leakage” from each age class even in the absence of legal shooting. And, mortality rates seem to increase in the older age classes. Even if bucks got smarter with age (as many hunters believe), prime age bucks are more vulnerable to other mortality – even guns as their antlers are attractions.