HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post

12-02-2002 | 09:54 AM

#121

RICHIE3

Joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 548

Likes: 0

From: saint joseph missouri USA

RE: Trophy Hunting?

First off, I have been informed that the debate is starting to get out of hand. So, let's tone it down a notch. I am guilty of it, and so are others. My appologies.

Now.........<BLOCKQUOTE id=quotequote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Heres an article from the WiDNR website for you.

With the state herd continuing to hover around 1.6 million animals, hunters can expect extra hunting opportunities again in 2002. The high deer population kicked off another year of special herd control seasons, with 41 (four units have been removed from the Zone T framework and are now governed by CWD regulations) Deer Management Units (DMU's) requiring Zone T status. Zone T are special antlerless only hunts held is DMU’s where it is projected that the traditional deer season framework would not reduce the deer population to within 20% of that unit’s over wintering population goal. Some of this year's Zone T DMU's will have been in that category for their second or third year. To minimize conflicts with winter recreation in the northern part of the state, Zone T DMU’s north of Hwy. 8 will not participate in the December Zone T season. Hunters should check the 2002 DMU Map to see which units are designated for Zone T in 2002. In addition to Zone T, many DMU’s will have bonus antlerless permits available for hunters who wish to harvest additional antlerless deer.

Kinda covers what I said all along in the first couple sentences , doesn't it? All the extra doe harvest opportunities are aimed at reducing the herd! If you wish to argue the difference between herd reduction and herd eradication , send Nub an email , he'll be happy to fill you in on the difference , he's from the eradication zone.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>I still do not see anywhere in the paragraph where it says the words "herd reduction". I see the words "herd control", but this could also mean obtaining a balance of the herd, amongst several other things. This is very vague in its phrasing. Please show me where it says "herd reduction by the way of harvesting more does."

You can call Nub in here, or whoever you want. But, just because a guy lives in a T zone, Eradication zone, or whatever zone, does not make him any more of an expert than you or I are.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Whats with the buzzer and rolling over comment?? Still trying to make me look stupid?<img src=icon_smile_blackeye.gif border=0 align=middle> It's getting old!<img src=icon_smile_sleepy.gif border=0 align=middle><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>Yes...I was....just as on several occassions others, including you, did towards me. But, this does not matter now, I appologized. We are adults, and we should act like them.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Richie , "the old way of thinking" (very limited doe harvests) was designed to increase the deer herd...period! Do you argue this fact? The only oooops they made was allowing the limited doe harvest to go on for too long until they realized that now their faced with too big of a deer herd. Any Wisconsin hunter who hunted in the 60's , 70's or before can verify this.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>Increase the deer herd. Fine, I'll buy that. But, what did they end up doing to the herd??? I will tell you. They removed too many bucks from the herd, period, during this time. In which, again, left no competition for the bucks for the right to breed, in turn, left all of the remaining bucks to breed whichever doe they choose too, without worrying about fighting off other bucks to do the same.

Here is some quotes straight from the 2002 Missouri Fall Deer and Turkey Information guide:

"As you might expect, because the deer herd has changed through time, management goals and strategies also have changed...As the deer herd continues to change, the philosophy of hunters must do likewise...Conservation Department biologists have always used doe harvest as a primary deer managment tool, but some hunters stiil adhere to the "save a doe, so the herd can grow" philosophy of the 1940's and 50's. Some even mistakenly believe thet "real hunters don't shoot does". The fact is that doe harvest is critical for sucessful deer herd managment.

Now, the words are "primary deer management tool" and "deer herd management". I see nowhere, the words "herd reduction".

Now, for the sake of arguement, those words can be just as vague in meaning, as the paragraph you posted above.

But, this also comes from the same Missouri guide:
"Missouri's deer hunters also are Missouri's deer managers... Without hunting, deer survival rates will approach 95%, which can result in deer numbers nearly doubling every three years. Consequently, all responsible hunters must do their part to help achieve management goals to ensure that Missouri's deer herd remains healthy and strong...Last year, we advised that the January Extension portion of the firearms deer hunting season would likely be altered or eliminated because it had not proven sucessful in increasing antlerless deer harvests...Shifting this portion of the firearms deer season from January to December should minimize the possiblity of taking a buck that has shed its antlers..."

There it is in black and white, straight from the horses mouth. and I still have not seen the words, "herd reduction".

But, before you get started on the "that may be good for Missouri, but what about the areas who do not have deer numbers" arguement, read this.
...we advised the January Extension portion of the firearms deer hunting season would likely be altered or eliminated because it had not proven sucessful in increasing antlerless deer harvest...Many Missouri hunters do not have access to privately owned property and hunt only on public lands, including those owned or managed by the Coservation Department, recieve intense hunting pressure during the various hunting seasons, and especially during the deer seasons. The result of many years of heavy hunting pressure on Department areas is low deer numbers.... Consequently, it is time to consider new deer managment strategies on these public lands...It is possible that, beginning with the 2003 deer hunting season, some restrictions may be necessary on selected areas. In some instances, hunter access may be limited. In others, hunting methods or bag limits may be restircted.

"Altered or eliminated", "hunter access may be limited", and bag limits restricted".

These should be the management tools imposed on area with small herd numbers, to increase the herds to a huntable population. If it is not, you should write to your state agencies and voice your opinion on the subject. This shows, once again, that QDM is not all about "the rack". QDM is the over all balance and health of the herd. This is something you have just started to agree to in this whole debate. The "rack" debate I have always said, is icing on the cake. But you cannot do only half of the job towards QDM and expect it to be the same. Just as one could not get half way pregnant, or half way harvest an animal. It needs to be done as a whole to be sucessful, and can be done so very easily and without any cost whatsoever to the individual. All it takes is a little willpower.

Now, take a look at what is said about "intense hunting pressure". This proves my point, if you want to reduce the herd, intensify the harvest of all deer in a given area, not just the does.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>...but I sure wouldn't bat an eye at them for shooting young bucks as well.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote> Maybe you should start. Now, by all means, I do not go and pick a fight with a guy/gal just because he harvests a small buck, but if he/she is an experienced hunter, and ever asks me "Isn't this one a beauty??" or something to that nature, I will not hesitate to give my two cents.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Most of this nation is faced with over population of whitetail deer.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>I guess we need to put more intense harvest on all deer then, in these areas.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Back to the QDM. If a hunter does his part at bringing the buck to doe ratio closer by culling does , shooting a young buck does absolutely nothing to damage the health of the herd...period! You cant argue that fact! Your arguement there is based on your trophy mentality!<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>I think you are missing the point. It is simple math and obvious reactions. You have 2 totals of something, with one total being at a 15-1 ratio to the other. Your goal is to equal out both totals. So, the first thing you do right off of the bat is to take down the higher number, and not even touch the lower number. If you take out any of the lower number, you are hampering yourself in your goal. Granted, after many, many, times of doing this, you may eventually succeed, but after how much time??? Chances are really good that you will run out of the lower number before you equal out the numbers all together.

It is the same for equaling out the herd by letting the young bucks pass. How much time are you willing to use up before the state imposes more restrictions that you nor I want?? Wouldn't you think the logical thing to do is start your own little QDM practice as a whole, no matter where you hunt??? Wouldn't the logical thing to do is help spread the word that if things keep going the way they are, unwanted restrictions are soon to follow? I think it would be.

Now, for the record. If we as a whole do not change our ways, no matter where we hunt, we are all going to face restrictions that none of us want.

But, I am finished. I am burnt. We can go on and on screaming at each other, quoting this and that. But I see, and I am sure you agree, that we can agree to disagree. If you would like to continue, thats fine. If not, and you agree to yours and I agree to mine, it has been a pleasure debating it with you!!! You are a most formitable foe!!

My thanks, Rich