you crazy people


Arkansas "QDM" is just 3 points on one side to be legal.

Thats it.

And the first couple of years it was passed they neglected to factor in that if people couldn't shoot spikes/forkhorns for meat they'd shoot does for meat and they decimated our deer herds. Up to 70% decline in some areas.

We're back on track now, no more than 3 deer per year to be taken.

But ya'll know as well as I do a good 1 1/2 year old with good food will have a good chance at being a 4-6 point deer. Only the inferior genetics 1.5 year olds will have spikes and dink ranks (assuming the food supply is there)

Right ?


Overall we're seeing better bucks, but still gettin over the huge blunder by the G&F and the deer decline. Overall I'm okay with the 3 point rule. If not .......... I'll shoot the spike/forkhorn and tag it online and lie just like everyone else does [:@]

I think you should be very carefull here. Game commisions in MANY states are controlled POLITICALLY not by professional wildlife biologists. Here in NY the DEC makes no bones about AR being experimented with in Ulster and Sullivan counties as a direct result of hunter pressure to do so. All you have to do is go to a few meetings to find out that they are interested in what they term "hunter satisfaction" more than the health of the deer herd. Game commisions need to sell hunting licenses and keep their politician supervisors happy. So when the hunters are pushing for AR (not QDM) so they can get their big buck and the insurance companies are pushing the politicians to reduce the deer numbers, what do you think the priority is for the health of the deer? No, we can't just sit back and be ignorant of how game management works. That's a cop out. There is tons of literature available and anybody with average intellegence can read and understand it.

BTW the person that you quoted about the 8:1 ratio didn't have the answer either. He clearly hadn't read a thing about it but that didn't stop him from throwing the numbers around like he did know and that's part of the problem. When I tried to do some "education" regarding what doe/buck ratios really mean I was called a "wanker".

The above quote is from the first link that Sylvan posted.

I agree with this conclusion. It is basically saying that you can not rely soley on yearling buck harvests to tell you the number of bucks in your population. TRUE. It is also saying that you need hunters to be selective in the bucks they harvest to obtain a more balanced herd, with more trophy class animals. TRUE.

The other mortality rate link wouldnt open, so I cant comment on it.

What you have posted here is in argument against QDM?

I only ask because it clearly shows that a balanced herd will produce larger healthier deer. Unless Im mistaken, thats what QDM is all about. Antler restrictions, are clearly not the way to produce "trophy class" deer, I wont argue that. I also wont argue that basing models off of yearling harvest percentages is an inaccurate measure of age structure.

I also have to point out that you acknowledge and cite literature from a fish and wildlife division, and then turn around and state that most divisions are politically driven. So should we use the data that our biologists give us, or dismiss it as political heresay?

Having worked closely and having spoken with members of the division of F&W in NJ, I can guarantee you that there is NO "political" persuasion in their data. The research they do is based soley on science. However, you are correct in the other sense. Their job is not only to manage deer herds to the proper carrying capacities of the habitat, but more importantly to manage the herd to an acceptable social capacity. If this number is lower than the carrying capacity, so be it, we will have to reduce the numbers to the social limit. That is where the politics come in, keeping their jobs, and the sport of hunting alive.

You can rely on your states wildlife biologists to provide you with sound, rather accurate, scientific data though.

To put it in simpler terms; Its very difficult for the divisions to please everyone.

The majority of citizens want less deer.

The majority of hunters want more deer.

The carrying capacity of the land can only sustain a certain number as well.

How do you go about making everyone happy then?

First you find out what the social limit is, next figure out the carrying capacity of the land. Take the lower of those two numbers, and set it as your goal. Hunters are left out of the picture for the most part due to the fact, we are simply managers of the herd. Sheer numbers of deer are not accepted by the people, nor can they be sustained by the habitat. However as mentioned hunter numbers will decline if our goals arent met either.

Yes it seems unfair in most cases, we pay to enjoy hunting, yet the public takes priority over us. This is why I favor QDM. If we cant have sheer numbers of deer, then we might as well have the best quality deer we can have. With a more selective buck harvest, and the proper amount of does removed from the herd, we can further balance the age structure, and sex ratios of the deer. This provides the most fair outcome for everyone, from the public to the hunters, to the deer and surrounding wildlife.

Throw the antler restrictions out the window! If we as hunters want to keep the sport alive, we either have to indiscriminately harvest as many deer as we can to keep deer at socially acceptable numbers. Focusing on shooting bucks, like most hunters want, and NOT focusing on the quality of the deer left in the herd.

OR we can become selective in the harvesting of young bucks, and increase our doe harvests. Thereby keeping the herds at a level that is acceptable to the general public, but also increasing the quality of our deer. Eventually seeing and having more opportunities at larger bucks.

I choose the latter management plan, because it allows us to reap some benefits.



To answer bawana's question; I am a QDM supporter, I hunt 1000s of acres.....ALL PUBLIC. I cant plant food plots, or keep others from harvesting young bucks because its all state land. Yet I still plug along, trying to convince the others in my area, that if they want to see bigger bucks, which all of them do, they need to pass the young bucks. We are over-run with does, and I do my part every year to take at least one doe, many years taking two or three. I also pass any buck that I field-age at less than 3.5, because of this I havent harvested a buck in the past six years. However, due to my efforts, I have already begun to see a rise in the quality of the bucks in a few of the areas I hunt. This past year I passed approximately 15 slam dunk shots on young bucks <2.5. I also saw three bucks that were p&y, one of which I recognized as a buck I had passed two years ago, as a basket rack eight point. He was now a very VERY large ten point. Unfortunately I also had the misfortune of losing the second largest buck I have ever shot. Till this year, I hadnt drawn back on a buck in about four years. People can not claim I don't have self-discipline. I think most the hunters pushing for QDM are public land hunters. If I owned 100 acres of my own, I could care less what the others did. I would live in my own little hog heaven. We are pushing for this change in attitude, called QDM, so that we, actually ALL hunters can benefit. Like I said before, we will never be allowed to manage for sheer numbers of deer! So WHY NOT manage for QUALITY?!!??!?!?!

Have a good one---Matt

This was actually why I posted this link for you. I was responding to what you said indicating that mortality rates go down with the age of buck. The data in this link shows that it does not.

Actually it doesn't say you NEED to. Need is a subjective value judgement. The modeling was simply showing the effects of simulated selected harvest. There are other ways to accomplish the same goals without selective harvest.

Absolutely not. Like I have said, I am not against proper QDM, I am against what most QDM advocates turn it into. I think the majority of QDM advocates are just on a big buck band wagon and know little of what QDM is. I strongly object to the big buck mentality and I believe it is harmful to the sport. I have written extensivley on this. See an old thread called "Passing the buck" if you want to know more of what I think.

That does seem a bit silly but I do believe the work the biologists produce is valid and probably not influenced by politics. My point however, was that in many states (NY is one) the decisions all must go through the political machine before they can be put into practice. That is simply a fact and there is no question in my mind that politicians are influenced by "popular" opinion more than they are by what the biologists that work for them think. The biologists can only make recomendations. Here in NY for example we have been trying to get the age for hunting lowered. We are currently the highest starting age in the country. The DEC is all for it but it has been stopped in Albany several times now. The politicians are too influenced by the NY city vote.
AR is not the only way, there are other alternatives that de emphisize the trophy mentality and do a better job of expanding the age structure and eliminating the "old scragly buck" contaminating the gene pool problem. Limiting the buck harvest is a better way. But even the most diehard QDMers don't want to hear it. They claim to be for a healtheir herd which limited buck harvest should by their own definition of healthier should achieve in a better way but they don't want to take a chance on being denied a buck tag for a seaon or 2.

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

Not true. I mean, we all would love to shoot a 200" buck ........ but thats pipe dreams. I hunt for the HUNT, not for specific antler sizes (for the most part)

A place that has dozens of 150" bucks makes them equivalent to a spike/forkhorn IMO. In QDM places that have huge bucks ........ it water down what a trophy. I mean, some places you'd pass on a 175-180 buck because the "ranch" is full of thoose and you're looking for a 200" + rack.

What aint right man - thats hunting for the wrong reasons IMO

Data, Why do you go to Kanas to hunt??

I guess my point is that times change and with todays QDM the big rack will be taken more often. So just like the difficulty of sports records change with the times,they have less meaning from generation to generation (unless you raise the bar accordinly) because it's not apples to apples. So big racks don't impress me like they did 20 years ago. I don't care how the state runs it's deer herd,I play the game the same as I ever did. I don't like to see braggin'...do what you do quitely and act like you've been there before. To me,deer hunting is done behind the scenes (alone) and if you need others to praise your success your doing it (hunting) for the wrong reasons.

Hey Matt go easy or you are going to need rotator cuff surgury from all that patting yourself on the back. Unlike you I hunt my own 150 acre hog heavan. Unlike you I have spent the last 15 years paying for it. That means I can plant food plots ,I can harvest timber And I can keep doe slayers like yourself out. I haven't ask for neither do I want any resepct from you.You seem easly led so follow the path you are on,But the private land that you drive buy on your way to the states property is not posted buy nonhunters it is posted by people that spend their lives in those woods who do hunt deer some of us even buck hunt.Your hatred for the evil does has driven you to lose all that hunting is about.It is about time in the woods its family and it is about shooting deer,not just does.You will one day realize that your one size fits all deer management plan will not work.
P.S. I havn't needed to shoot a doe for over twenty years. I am a buck hunter!!!!!!!!

Hey, you asked a question, and I was just telling you about me.....nothing to pat myself on the back for. Unless you want to talk about the restraint.

I was just trying to get the point across, that you CAN do this on public land, and I wasnt trying to belittle you in the process.

However now that you have belittled me, I now know to ignore you.

What state do you live in that you dont need to harvest any does?

You must be blessed with a herd that regulates itself. Do the does jump off of mountain sides after a few years of life, so as to open some space for the younger deer?

YOU HAVE to KILL SOME DOES!!!!!!

What would happen if everyone was selfish like you?

Infact you know what, next year Im gonna hunt like you, Im gonna drag home six small bucks, cause thats the limit around here. Ill eat them, and throw their piddly little dink racks in my pile of shed antlers.

Of course I will have to shoot three does to do so, because my area is EARN-A-BUCK......I guess since Im a doe hater, I will just discard of them after tagging them in.....sounds like something you would do. I wont need the meat, cause I'll have all those tasty tiny bucks.....MMMMmmmmmmmmm.

Management? What the h-ll is that??? Who gives a rats a-- about management.....I want to kill bucks. I dont care how big they are, I just want to kill em. Thats what I ENJOY....I ENJOY BEING OUT IN THE WOODS.....and taking home whatever BUCK I can......Makes me feel better about myself.

Its a shame someone as naive as you owns sole rights to 150 acres, Im sure its being piss-poorly managed. Sad....


Buck only hunter...hahaha...wake up and climb out of the cave buddy!

Unless your state is still in the stoneage and doesnt allow any doe harvests......but I doubt that.