Originally Posted by
Larson
A slight over simplification but:
You shoot a fawn, and that is one less deer in the population next spring.
You shoot a buck, and that is one less deer in the population next spring.
You shoot a doe, and that is 3 less deer in the population next spring. The doe, plus its 2 offspring that didn't get born.
Out of the fawn, the buck and the doe, the fawn was also the least likely to survive the winter had it not been shot.
There's only a 50% chance the fawn is a female, so only a 50% chance it will have 2 offspring the 2nd spring after the hunting season.
If you wanna get more complicated and go two years out:
You shoot a fawn, and that is statistically 2 less deer that will be in the population 2 years later. The fawn, plus 1 offspring it will never end up having. (The fawn will have 2 offspring the 2nd spring if it's female, but zero if it is male so averages out to 1).
You shoot a buck and that is 1 less deer in the population two springs later.
You shoot a doe and that is 4 less deer in the population 2 springs later. The doe, + 2 fawns it would have had the first spring, + 2 more fawns it would have had the 2nd spring. Additionally the two fawns (one male and one female) the doe would have had the first spring, would bet set to add two more deer to the population come the 3rd year.
Of course this ignores predation, hunting, starvation. But you can see that hunting fawns is not killing the future of the herd. It is much closer to shooting a buck in terms of its overall effect on the population.