Localqdm Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 Okay guys, I have no desire to start another thread of name calling and bashing--so if that starts I hope this discussion is stopped. I've heard the stats and thought it would be interesting to hear straight from the ones dealing w/AR in Mississippi. So here's the link to a discussion I started on their website for anyone interested in what they've experienced. Also, check out their photo section. http://www.msdeer.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9669 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Localqdm Posted December 5, 2010 Author Share Posted December 5, 2010 I know this is NY and not MS and everything is not the same. I just thought some may consider this an interesting read for perspective of those dealing w/AR. I'm not sure that I would support AR even though I am certainly pro qdm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyantler Posted December 25, 2010 Share Posted December 25, 2010 Great read... not sure that I agree with the guy that is for culling bucks, at least not for developing age structure for bucks. If we were managing for perfect racks that might be an issue. The proof has been out there for many years that qdm works... but i think it works much better when everyone buys into the program instead of fighting it. The only thing I would like to see added to a good management plan is making sure there is constant re-evaluation every so many years in case some portions need to be tweeked to account for any changes in habitat or population fluctuations. QDM shouldn't be deer farming, but rather a more natural deer managing based on populations, age structure and habitat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Localqdm Posted December 25, 2010 Author Share Posted December 25, 2010 I definitely like MS new AR policy better. I think it is much improved over their original and shouldn't have as much side effects. They have gone to a spread or main beam length requirement rather than point restrictions. There certainly was no backlash from those who responded on the forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba Posted December 25, 2010 Share Posted December 25, 2010 I ownder hw many have even clicked the link. Not too many responses, so I doubt very many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyantler Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 Some guys won't click the link for fear that they might read something positive about deer management.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 or they dont care about somethng as phony as global warming Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyantler Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 Very surprised to hear that from you... Bubba... but to each his own...by the way nothing is as phony as global warming... except maybe Al Gore! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
First-light Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 Would not like AR's here in NY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 I ownder hw many have even clicked the link. Not too many responses, so I doubt very many. With so many threads being about AR or being turned into AR threads, it's likely that members are getting to the saturation point with the subject. It gets tiresome when you have to make the same points on a dozen different threads that have basically the same subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 The whole concept of thinking you can make a deer herd better by only shooting select deer is by in large phony. As I have said a few times, anyone who thinks they are smarter than mother nature is at best foolish. The deer quotas for hunters in NY are based on the carrying capacity of the area. I will admit the way the numbers are calculated is flawed at best. However, that being said, it is the system we have. We are only allowed to harvest the deer that are above the carrying capacity. So, if you limit the deer take by not being allowed to take smaller bucks, the population goes up, but the carrying capacity stays the same or dwindles as the food sources dry up. What do you think happens to the others? Any guesses. Disease, starvation, road kill etc. So you either let them die by hunter or die naturally. Mother nature has ways to control the population. We as hunters are such a small factor. Which deer do you think die by starvation? The older one? umm nope. they will run the young ones off a food area. So the very deer you are trying to protect from hunters die from natural ways, in a much more horriffic way. So in a few years, no young deer means no deer population. Get a disease in the population and see what happens to the majority of the deer. We were lucky enough to thwart off CWD, but who knows next time. We as humans also keep infringing on the habitat these animals have to live on, as well as the antis fighting against us every day, so the carrying capacity drops. As far as I am concerned, it seems to me that all these ar and qdm and all other ways to make hunting more like it is portrayed on tv is phony. It will make the deer population worse. If I choose to pass a smaller deer, it should be by choice and no one elses. As long as the deer is legal so be it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SplitG2 Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 Bubba, your post confuses me? Can you please explain how Habitat improvements destroy the deer population? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 I am sayng we are destroying the habitat not improving it infringe on means taking away from Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nyantler Posted December 26, 2010 Share Posted December 26, 2010 Sorry Bubba but you are entirely wrong..not my opinion ... fact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba Posted December 27, 2010 Share Posted December 27, 2010 oh ok then someone better contact the DEC, because that is what they tell us to teach in our hunter ed classes. And in my class, a retired officer form the DEC teaches it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culvercreek hunt club Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 Funny thing in reading the forum posts. I didn't see one post talking about the overall betterment of the herd.All the coments seem to be focused on teh size of the horns. I really disagree with their take on culling spikes and forks as an indicator of true potential. Now I am no genetic expert but something they were saying just isn't sitting well. If the restrictions they are supporting are for a healthier herd why would horns matter. Let me explain this question better. Could we have bucks with great body size and very health physical make up but carry genes that are poor in rack quality. I think so,. and the converse is also true then.....poor body size and not the best physical characteristics but a great rack. Seems as though the main focus of the comments I read are all about the horns. The threads I have read here on this forum seem to want to use the arguments of herd health and a better age structure to support that. It seems great care is taken here to make it sound like it ISN"T all about the horns...If you guys are using the comments on the MS forum to substantiate your position are you saying it IS all about the horns?...just asking...NYANTLER...I know better from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.