Sylvan, I dont really see any disagreements in your thoughts and mine. You seem to be on the side of QDM. And in agreement with me...

I just wanted to clear up a few things though.

Its hard to discuss the mortality rate, if we arent using the same model. The link to mortality rates that you posted was no good. Perhaps you can post it again, Im interested in reading it.

I also think you are misunderstanding some of what I said. I never said that the buck mortality rate didnt increase as bucks got older. Though, if I recall correctly, I believe it doesnt begin to increase naturally until a buck reaches the age of seven. Also, a study I read a few years back, stated that the majority of roadkilled deer are 1.5 year old bucks. Thats what I was getting at in my original post.

Its also safe to say that the mortality that hunting causes decreases as a buck grows older. There is no arguing that as a buck survives a few hunting seasons, he learns to avoid hunters. Many bucks that make it through several years of hunting, learn to avoid humans alltogether, and die of old age, predetation, or starvation due to worn teeth, and/or limited mobility.

As I said before, I agree that AR is not the way to go.

I also agree with you on limited buck harvests. However, I think the benefits seen would be accomplished faster if there was a trend toward letting the younger bucks walk as well. Do you agree?

I believe far too many hunters put too much emphasis on killing a buck. I honestly think that they feel it is more macho to harvest a buck. Thinking they will earn more respect for harvesting a deer with antlers on its head.

I have less respect for someone who harvests several bucks a year, or one small buck a year, than someone who toils away, killing does, and evening out the herd balance, passing young bucks in hopes that they will live to grow another year. I also dont have much respect for a hunter who buys trophies. Having someone else do the work for you is not something I could bring myself to do.

Perhaps my lack of respect is unfounded, but I think you would agree with me, that these attitudes are selfish and driven by the urge for antlers.

Lets use two opposite types of hunter for example;

Hunter A shoots two small bucks a year, never allowing the bucks to reach full potential, or trying to up the bar and seek more challenge by pursuing smarter, mature bucks. He shoots these bucks to prove that he can shoot bucks. Discarding the dink antlers into an evergrowing pile of "bone" thats collecting dust. Sure he eats the meat, but he could have easily replaced one, if not both bucks with a doe(s), and eaten venison just the same. Taking a femal deer also removes the future deer it would have produced. Along with allowing the bucks he shot to live and increase their potential.

Hunter B climbs aboard a plane with all of his top of the line eqiupment, pays $2500 to a guide who puts him infront of the largest bucks the Midwest can grow. The guide tells him to pass bucks that would otherwise make him poo in his pants, and explains which buck to harvest, and when and where he normally comes from. The hunter shoots and mounts this monarch. Eating the meat and getting all the use out of it.

Both of these hunters are similar in the fact that they are driven by the antlers. Eating venison was not a driving force in either one of their decisions. The "prestige" they think that shooting a buck brings drives them to harvest as many or as large of a buck as they possibly can.

What is the purpose of Hunter A shooting a small buck, just to saw the antlers off of its head, and discard the rack in a cardboard box? There isnt any purpose, its pointless, and selfish.

On the other hand, whats the significance in mounting a giant buck that hunter B shot because of someone elses know-how? There is no great task accomplished. Hunter B didnt pass bucks for years to put himself infront of a larger deer, he didnt learn the habits or improve the herd. He paid to kill a big buck. Pointless.....and lacking purpose. And unless he hunts and manages his home states deer herd, its also selfish.


Now lets look at Hunter C. Hes like most of us. He doesnt have the BEST equipment, but its not shabby. He hunts public lands, having to share it with several others. He does his part to better the herd and habitat by taking a few does. He lays off the immature bucks he sees, because he knows that if given another year, they will further near their potential. He doesnt have to take a buck every year to prove his skills. His skills and respect for the animal are proven everytime he comes home empty handed, having had the opportunity to take immature deer. But having the self-restraint to not shoot.

I have little respect for Hunters A and B.....but I have the utmost respect for Hunter C. Even if he NEVER harvests a buck, or never harvests a state record, I will know that he wasnt driven by antlers, or so selfish he took more game than he needed just to prove his manhood.


While QDM supporters cant claim that antlers arent part of the driving force, neither can hunters not wanting QDM. If opposers could care less about the antlers, why worry about harvesting bucks? Why not just shoot does?

Whether a hunter needs one or two bucks a year to prove their success, or they need to shoot the largest buck in the woods, they still want ANTLERS.

The truth is, ANTLERS will ALWAYS be somewhat of a driving force for hunters, its only natural.

So why not let them grow bigger?

Have a good one---Matt