Whats so hard about passing yearling bucks?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

So I am not putting words in your mouth Punch....you are saying those that oppose AR are inferior ethically....not as intelligent and not as safe since all of them are slinging slugs around? Did I get that correctly from your last post?

[steve863]

Yup, it would benefit THEM and that's about the extent of it.  All the benefitting the herd nonsense is nothing but a charade.  Not being able to man up to the honest and simple facts that a blind man could see is what bothers me with all this stuff.  You want to kill big bucks?  Good.  Just don't insult anyone's intelligence with phoney biology that clearly benefits trophy hunters more than it would benefit any deer herd.

The BS that spews out of your mouth is phenomenal.  Stop insulting our intelligence and admit your a brown its down man.  Regardless of what you think, there are a lot of hunters who practice QDM, want AR, and the AR zones will expand and NY state will eventually come up with a state wide deer management plan for area's that need it.  Again, YOUR area might not need any assistance, while other area's do.

So what is your problem with what I stated?  The truth hurts sometimes, don't it?

[punch]

Culvercreek,

You guys all claim and agree that the DEC doesn't do enough but at the same time seem to want less regulation.  Regulation is what makes things work and offers protection.  These are the same guys putting all their emphasis on enjoying the hunt with friends and family and thats what its about..not the antlers.  If thats the most important part, then who's the one needing to "beat their chest" over a little buck when a doe would eat just as well.

[steve863]

Can anyone give me a good explanation of how AR benefits the overall health of the deer herd..??...

Pygmy you made really good points and are asking a good honest question.  Now I dare the AR proponents to give you a good honest answer.  An answer that compares a herd without AR's and a herd with AR's.  And to be fair we need take the hunting equation out of the answer.  In a herd where hunting would NOT be allowed, exactly how would AR's benefit the health of the herd?  After all AR/QDM proponents are interested in deer health above anything else, right??  I have said time and time again that AR's have been implemented to benefit hunters MORE than they will ever benefit the deer.  I want to hear answers on exactly how AR's benefit a herd without having our self-serving hunting reasons (whatever they may be) involved in any of it?  I am all ears! 

[punch]

You just asked how AR would benefit a herd where hunting was not allowed.  If hunting was not allowed, how could there be AR?  I would like to answer your question but I need to know exactly what it is that your asking.

[punch]

If you really want to know all the numerous reasons how it would benefit, you should pick up a QDMA magazine and read  it.  The one written by biologists who actually study this stuff and oh yeah, did I forget to mention that they are hunters too! or are you going to throw that agenda word back at me.  and lets not forget that the QDMA is non-for-profit. So I don't want to see the $$ sign thrown at me either.

[steve863]

You just asked how AR would benefit a herd where hunting was not allowed.  If hunting was not allowed, how could there be AR?  I would like to answer your question but I need to know exactly what it is that your asking.

What don't you understand?  AR/QDM proponents keep telling us how it's all supposed to be so much better for the herd health, so tell us exactly how this is so without having self-serving HUNTING reasons as the primary motive behind it or part of the answer here?  Very simple question in my opinion.

[steve863]

If you really want to know all the numerous reasons how it would benefit, you should pick up a QDMA magazine and read  it.  The one written by biologists who actually study this stuff and oh yeah, did I forget to mention that they are hunters too! or are you going to throw that agenda word back at me.  and lets not forget that the QDMA is non-for-profit. So I don't want to see the $$ sign thrown at me either.

We have seen enough cut and pasting from QDM sources on these threads.  I want answers in the AR proponents OWN words, just like we are asking questions in our OWN words.  And as I said we are talking about herd health without looking at it from a hunting point of view.  Again, real simple question. 

[punch]

AR alone is not the answer, but its a hell of a start.  Doe management is another key element.  Having older age class bucks along with good buck/doe ratios and providing good habitat all benefits the herd.  It actually brings it back to a more natural state.  Natural predators don't single out bucks the way many hunters do.  I think the logic behind AR is not only to protect more yearlings but getting hunters to fill that tag on a doe instead.  AR isn't perfect, but it would get things moving in the right direction.  Healthy herds and ratios produce better bucks as a byproduct.  Ruts would be shorter and more intense allowing fawns to hit the ground early in the spring when they are supposed to, increasing survival rate from predators.  When too many does can get bred during the rut, you have a second and third rut.  This feeds coyotes all summer long.  I could go on and on but you should really pick up some literature and read it yourself.

[punch]

Your asking for answers based on one person's opinion vs. what biology and science tells us. You apparently put more faith in your opinion than factual information.  Knock...Knock! Hellooo?

[steve863]

Doe permits have been issued by the state for a good many years.  Some areas issue more of them, some fewer and other areas none at all.  We already have female deer taken out with these doe permits.  We still want answers to how AR's would improve deer health? Telling us to read the stuff available from the QDM groups is a cop out in my opinion.

[punch]

I just told you!  Hey you do realize that the earth is round, right?

[steve863]

Your asking for answers based on one person's opinion vs. what biology and science tells us. You apparently put more faith in your opinion than factual information.  Knock...Knock! Hellooo?

And mother nature has been taking care of things quite nicely before any human put together the alphabet so that they could then write a science book! I will surely doubt that man knows best on all issues including this one.

[Larry]

  Could QDM be a prime factor in the lower number of deer sightings?

We all heard it at the end of deer season on wed sites or in publications from other hunters; I hunted all season and only saw 6 deer all season. Then we start looking for someone or something to blame. We blame the DEC because we think the herd size estimates are wrong, we blame coyotes, to many nuisance permits being given out and even cars. All these are factors and there are more one of the biggest factors is hardly mentioned and that’s “US” myself included.

  When we all first started to hear about QDM and its management style; we were told if we wanted to see bigger bucks we needed to let small bucks walk, manage does (kill more does) this is not the same as antlerless. We were told the buck to doe ratio was way off and needed to be 1 to 1 this ratio is not correct.

  The harvesting of doe’s makes scents; to control a population you need to add or subtract females. We were also told that if we killed Does we would see more bucks. I do not think that is necessarily true and I can prove it. When I say doe’s I mean females 1.5 years old and older not antlerless. Because at any time before the deer season ½ to 2/3’s of the antlerless population on a piece of land are fawns.

  If on your land you have 15 doe’s and 5 bucks (1.5 years and older) and you kill 10 doe’s and no bucks you still only have 5 bucks. What you have done is reduced the number of doe’s by 2/3’s. What you will see are more buck sightings per doe sighting and you will see fewer fawns the next year. Another example is in Allegany County a farmer started a QDM program on his 1700 acres. He went out at night spot lighting to see what kind of deer he had and he saw lots of antlerless deer. For 3 years they took over 40 doe’s a year using DMP’s and DMAP’s. He would let you hunt there but you had to kill doe’s no bucks. They would kill a few big bucks. Then in years 4-6 they started to kill fewer and fewer doe’s by year 6 they killed less than 10 doe’s and no bucks, saw plenty of bucks before the season but killed none. Funny thing started to happen, his neighbors started to kill big bucks. They were not killing off their doe’s so the bucks were moving to where the does are.

  What I believe he did was not only destroy his doe population he also destroyed the age structure of his doe herd. This is what I believe we are doing under the miss guided concept of killing doe’s gives you more bucks and the myth of the 1 to 1 buck to doe ratio. If anyone can show me how killing doe’s can give you more bucks that’s a trick I would like to see. With a birth rate at 50/50 bucks to doe’s I am not advocating not shooting doe’s; what I am advocating is be careful on how many and where in the age structure you harvest the doe’s from.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Culvercreek,

You guys all claim and agree that the DEC doesn't do enough but at the same time seem to want less regulation. I have never said less regulation. I beleive I am asking for supporting factual information anyone bases MORE regulation on. Regulation is what makes things work and offers protection.  These are the same guys putting all their emphasis on enjoying the hunt with friends and family and thats what its about..not the antlers.  If thats the most important part, then who's the one needing to "beat their chest" over a little buck when a doe would eat just as well. Again you are mixing the two issues. not one of the opponents to the expansion of AR into their areas has said taking does was bad. I fill every DMP I can. The questioins posed are your rights to impose restrictions on other hunters with the view that your satisfaction should outweigh theirs.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

If you really want to know all the numerous reasons how it would benefit, you should pick up a QDMA magazine and read  it.  The one written by biologists who actually study this stuff and oh yeah, did I forget to mention that they are hunters too!and if a PROBLEM didn't exsist, made up or not, how would they be filling their fridge.....They have to come up with a soulution to a problem that does not exist to justify their position and their paycheck. so don't for one minute think that money is not at the root of this. Let's say for a minute we follow this route and make NY the new BIG BUK capital of the country....what then? Have you ever tried to hunt in Pike County IL? ever try to get a lease or buy property there? I know guys who have and was involved with them until the numbers started rolling in. The common hunter can't play in that arena. the costs get crazy and it makes it a kings sport again. Is that what you want for our hunting legacy? or are you going to throw that agenda word back at me.  and lets not forget that the QDMA is non-for-profit. So I don't want to see the $$ sign thrown at me either.

[steve863]

Larry, what you write makes a good deal of sense.  Of course the AR/QDM proponents keep telling us to be men and let the little ones walk and shoot does instead just because the QDM wizards keep telling them to.  Pretty soon there just might not be anything left to shoot if we implement all their brilliant ideas!  Of course then they will say it was us "brown and it's down" people who were the cause of it!!  LOL

[Culvercreek hunt club]

AR alone is not the answer, but its a hell of a start.  Doe management is another key element.  Having older age class bucks*( The last two points I agree with but have yet to see any proof that age structure of the bucks increasing provides any benefit to the herd besides bigger horns) along with good buck/doe ratios and providing good habitat all benefits the herd.  It actually brings it back to a more natural state.  Natural predators don't single out bucks the way many hunters do. (Correct, they single out sick, beyond prime and the young. So logically in a natural setting the 1.5's based on the argument that they are dumb, uneducated animals at that stage in their lives, would be a much higher target than the mature bucks. Which flies in the face of the AR approach) I think the logic behind AR is not only to protect more yearlings but getting hunters to fill that tag on a doe instead.  AR isn't perfect, but it would get things moving in the right direction.  Healthy herds and ratios produce better bucks as a byproduct.  Ruts would be shorter and more intense allowing fawns to hit the ground early in the spring when they are supposed to,(suppose to? In a natural non hunting world, there would still be a second rut. WHy? because Mother Nature evolved them that way. If the second rut wasn't need throughout history it would not have come about. That type of system development IS back by science.....unbiased science) increasing survival rate from predators.  When too many does can get bred during the rut, you have a second and third (First I have heard of a third rut ...really hadn't heard of it. Based on their 28 day cycle that would make it in January? When are you saying those fawns drop?) rut.  This feeds coyotes all summer long.  I could go on and on but you should really pick up some literature and read it yourself.

[punch]

Are you implying that its natural for more bucks to get shot each year than does? and that mother nature magically fixes itself every year.  You are basically saying mother nature takes care of everything so long as your rights aren't infringed upon.

And QDM goes way beyond passing yearlings and doe management.  I suspect you haven't looked into to deeply to know otherwise.  It always easier to do nothing, why try to improve habitat?  Mother nature provides everything, right?  I'm willing to bet that the guys that aren't seeing as many deer aren't doing anything to improve the habitat to carry deer capacity or make the deer want to be there.  Food (quality food) sources all year long, cover, sanctuaries, water.

[Geno C]

WOW, how did i over look this topic? lol

well 10 pages in, in 2 days is to much for me to read and catch up on..

Alls i can say is this is a hotly debated topic that will never go either way. There are way to many opinions on this and luckily for all of us, if AR's are decided in any WMU it will be the DEC's decision and ultimately NONE of ours... So rest asure that argueing about opinions based on personal experience or opinions in general are totally irrelevant. We all in our own ways have our own thoughts on this topic and to me i can level with both sides of the spectrum.

A guy who only gets opening weekend to go up and make a harvest will not be happy with AR's in his WMU because it limits it opportunities. But one who has his own land and can practice AR and QDM might get angry with a neighboring hunter who shoots anything, when the hunters who is trying to do somthing good can ruin it.

honestly i think it is what it is, NY does not have a shortage of deer but in some areas may have smaller deer then others. i will support whatever decisions and laws implemented for us by the DEC. So long as prices do not keep going up on tags... i could be off base here to some but i am writing this on the fly on break right now. (limited time)

[punch]

Arguing can often change minds, or lead to compromise, or better yet, find solutions.  Fighting gets you nowhere.  But so does doing nothing at all. ;D

[WNYBuckHunter]

  Could QDM be a prime factor in the lower number of deer sightings?

We all heard it at the end of deer season on wed sites or in publications from other hunters; I hunted all season and only saw 6 deer all season. Then we start looking for someone or something to blame. We blame the DEC because we think the herd size estimates are wrong, we blame coyotes, to many nuisance permits being given out and even cars. All these are factors and there are more one of the biggest factors is hardly mentioned and that’s “US” myself included.

  When we all first started to hear about QDM and its management style; we were told if we wanted to see bigger bucks we needed to let small bucks walk, manage does (kill more does) this is not the same as antlerless. We were told the buck to doe ratio was way off and needed to be 1 to 1 this ratio is not correct.

  The harvesting of doe’s makes scents; to control a population you need to add or subtract females. We were also told that if we killed Does we would see more bucks. I do not think that is necessarily true and I can prove it. When I say doe’s I mean females 1.5 years old and older not antlerless. Because at any time before the deer season ½ to 2/3’s of the antlerless population on a piece of land are fawns.

  If on your land you have 15 doe’s and 5 bucks (1.5 years and older) and you kill 10 doe’s and no bucks you still only have 5 bucks. What you have done is reduced the number of doe’s by 2/3’s. What you will see are more buck sightings per doe sighting and you will see fewer fawns the next year. Another example is in Allegany County a farmer started a QDM program on his 1700 acres. He went out at night spot lighting to see what kind of deer he had and he saw lots of antlerless deer. For 3 years they took over 40 doe’s a year using DMP’s and DMAP’s. He would let you hunt there but you had to kill doe’s no bucks. They would kill a few big bucks. Then in years 4-6 they started to kill fewer and fewer doe’s by year 6 they killed less than 10 doe’s and no bucks, saw plenty of bucks before the season but killed none. Funny thing started to happen, his neighbors started to kill big bucks. They were not killing off their doe’s so the bucks were moving to where the does are.

  What I believe he did was not only destroy his doe population he also destroyed the age structure of his doe herd. This is what I believe we are doing under the miss guided concept of killing doe’s gives you more bucks and the myth of the 1 to 1 buck to doe ratio. If anyone can show me how killing doe’s can give you more bucks that’s a trick I would like to see. With a birth rate at 50/50 bucks to doe’s I am not advocating not shooting doe’s; what I am advocating is be careful on how many and where in the age structure you harvest the doe’s from.

Isnt this the SAME post you have copied and pasted into every QDM thread on this board? 

[TheHunter]

You just asked how AR would benefit a herd where hunting was not allowed.  If hunting was not allowed, how could there be AR?  I would like to answer your question but I need to know exactly what it is that your asking.

What don't you understand?  AR/QDM proponents keep telling us how it's all supposed to be so much better for the herd health, so tell us exactly how this is so without having self-serving HUNTING reasons as the primary motive behind it or part of the answer here?  Very simple question in my opinion.

In the AR Zone I was in.

 

• 
   
• There was a poor buck to doe ratio before AR
   
• Shorter more natural ruts, better buck survival because of better physical condition for the winter months
   
• There is no biological reason to shoot up all the 1.5 bucks
  

I gotta get to work, I'll write more later on.

[nyantler]

Larry. I'd be willing to bet that QDM would be responsible for lower numbers of whitetails.. thats kind of the idea... by definition the original premiss for QDM was to establish the healthiest deer heard given the particular habitat. Which in most cases means reducing population and establishing good age representation among bucks for more natural breeding. The habitat can only sustain a certain amount of whitetail  and unfortunately that isn't always a number that some guys like as far as being able to see deer.

[Larry]

i don't think i have posted anything on the QDM thead it is on the AR thead some where