Would you rather.....

[2rocky]

Hunt an area where there was only one deer (a 180 inch 4x4) in a 9 square mile area or

Hunt an area with 100 does and that same buck in the 9 Sq. Miles

FWIW you have a Buck only tag

 

[noharleyyet]

Ladies night...

 

[RyGuy]

I’d rather hunt around the does. I get too discouraged if I’m not seeing anything. I start getting thoughts like “there’s no life in this place, I have to leave”.

 

[Irrelevant]

I've consistently hunted areas where I think #1 is accurate. It's not a ton of fun.

 

[WNC2500]

I say with the 100 does. He is gonna figure out a way of breeding with some of those does, and next year there will be more bucks to glass over and keep us busy.

 

[ccc23454]

Get a new spot with more bucks

 

[SwaggyD]

C. Forked horn Thanksgiving Day weekend rut hunt!!!!!

100 does for sure, still fun watching deer.

 

[ridn9high]

If there is a lot of open country, give me that 1 buck in that 5760 acre area. If it’s super thick, I’m probably never going to see him because I’m in a different area with open country

 

[BradA]

What time if the year? November yeah 100 does, not in November then one buck by himself

 

[drexal]

Honestly, when I bump a doe, it gets in my head that every deer has left the zip code with her. Experience has proven that's not the case, but at that moment it's the feeling I get. For that reason, I don't want a 100 does to bump when I'm targeting a buck. The rut kinda changes that for me tho...

 

[Oak]

I'd rather find 9 square miles with a bigger buck.

 

[Mallardsx2]

I would rather hunt in an area with 100 bucks and 1 doe. lol

 

[noharleyyet]

I'd rather find 9 square miles with a bigger buck.

...and you usually do.

 

[Oak]

...and you usually do.

I wish.

 

[jtm307]

I'd go with scenario 2. Glassing for one deer without having seen deer at all is tough. Glassing for a specific deer is a lot easier if you've been seeing deer. That first animal is always the toughest to spot.

 

[WNC2500]

...and you usually do.

Not only does @Oak see the buck, but he sees the only sheep in that part of the state too.

 

[Brittany Chukarman]

#1 sounds like Oregon nowadays except the buck would be a fork or 3 pt.

 

[AvidIndoorsman]

Depends on the area... deciduous forest probably 100 does

Mountains probably just the one buck

 

[Pucky Freak]

When hunting in MT recently I saw about 50 deer in the mountains: 48 does and fawns, and 2 forkies. I think it would drive me nuts trying to find a nice buck in that mix.

I guess I’d rather be chasing that lone buck as long as there is some sign of his existence (prints, scat, etc). Otherwise I’d be hard pressed to try and find a ghost.

 

[Irrelevant]

I can't help but keep thinking about this, because this is the WA dilemma every year. It's fairly common to head into the mts with what I could see as similar density, and simply not see that lone buck all season even though you know he's there... somewhere. So you just took time off work and family, hiked into a remote area, and spent and entire deer season without ever seeing a deer. I'm sure sheep guys will say, "hold my beer" but it's pretty hard to stick with that game plan if you're actually interested in hunting and not just watching barren hillsides.