farm hunter

SteveB - I Box quoted ya.

That's actually a good point, until you examine the obvious. If EVERYONE (not likely - but lets go with it) targeted 2.5 years or older for bucks- that means that INSTEAD of 80% of bucks taken each year being 1.5 years old - they would ALL be 2.5 years or older!

As a resulta HIGHER PERCENTAGE would live to 3.5 and again aHIGHER PERCENTAGE would live to 4.5 years or older. And most importantly - almost ALL the breeding would be done by the animals in the older age classes. Thats what its all about (QDM that is).

Its an easy sell to guys that want to harvest a deer with larger antlers - because - guess what........... there will be more of them, because more male deer will get to live AT LEAST one more year.


FH

tsoc

Farm Hunter,
SteveB is being contentious.He knows how small a percentage of the population 2.5 year old bucks are,he knows that appx. 80% of bucks wearing their first antlers get shot every year.
I did not make a comment about "happy spike shooters" and he is attributing it to me,and suggesting that he rethinks any consideration he is giving to me.SteveB if you can find that happy spike shooter quote box it and bring it to my attention.I don't recall making that comment and it doesn't sound like something I would do,although with some of the closed mindedness on this topic any thing is possible.
I will continue to be involved of the pursuit of change of the current management practices for the benefit of all,to the degree that I can.Like most I have work and family and community responsibilities that come first.Like most I work hard to create time to hunt and scout and fortunately I am in the woods quite a bit,not as much as I would like but much more than most.
I wish everyone could experience hunting in an area that truly had exceptional deer hunting I think that it would likely change their views over what was possible in their home area's.I have had friends thathave stopped hunting in NY even as residents because the hunting has beenso poor relative to their experiences while hunting in other area's.I enjoy it tomuch to have that ever be the case but I understand it.
Best wishes to everyone for the 2007 hunting season!

Airborneguy

I said it. And if you read it correctly, I was saying that if his example hunters (not him) can be happyshooting spikes...

Like when he said it here on page 5:

...then this hunter (me), has a right to spend his hunting money in a way where he won't have to shoot spikes. I wasn't talking about him. I am not sure why everything I say in reply to him is taken as a personal dig on him, but he seems to take others' posts that way also. Maybe this topic just means a little mroe to him than it does to me I guess.

SteveBNy

Tsoc - I am sorry - Long day and I read a lot without looking back.
I publically retract my rethink statement.
You and FH are 2 of the pro AR's that contribute to a great discussion here and I hope it continues this way.

My question was not meant to be contentious - if the goal is for a higher balance of older age bucks, would it not be best to let all pass to an age closer to maturity? As with FH, I have set that as my personal goal and try to encourage others. Our differences arise from support of mandatory statewide AR especially when in fact it may not help but hurt many parts of the state.

I would still like to send you the CNWhitetails proposal - it is an adobe file and I don't know how to post info from it or attach it to a pm.
Need your email - it has a lot of good info - I and others that live and hunt in those areas did not like what the group sought to do with it.

Steve

SteveBNy

Sonny - I don't single you out - just ask for something to back up some of your rather strange comments with some real facts rather then "it's just my opinion" - something you seldom attempt to do.

Most who stay in these discussions tend to back their position - pro or con. Those are the ones who can disagree here, remain civl,and still could probably enjoy a hunt together.
Somehow I doubt you and I would enjoy time together in the woods.

16 posts - topic must mean something to you.

nybowhunter

QDM or not, what everybody needs to understand is....WE ALL HAVE A CHOICE! We need to keep that choice and not allow anybody (scientist or politician) to dictate whichbuck we can or cannot shoot. If you want to wait for a 3 or 4 or 5 y/o buck...God love you!!!! That's your choice not mine. NY would loose a lot more hunters if they choose to implement A/R becasue there areway too manyhunters that hunt for meat.

Keep the government out of it and let us ALL enjoy the hunt!

Steve863

I agree with your statement 100%! There are WAY more hunters who hunt for a little meat and care little how big a bucks antlers might be. They will lose more hunters than they think they will gain by implementing such restrictions.

Farm hunter, it does NOT bother me at all when someone says they want to shoot larger bucks only. But please don't try to tell us that QDM doesn't have trophy hunting in mind first and foremost.

"QDM guidelines are formulated according to property-specific objectives, goals, and limitations. Participating hunters enjoy both the tangible and intangible benefits of this approach. Pleasure can be derived from each hunting experience, regardless if a shot is fired. What is important is the chance to harvest a quality buck - an opportunity lacking in many areas under traditional management. When a quality buck is taken on a QDM area, the pride can be shared by all property hunters because it was they who produced it by allowing it to reach the older age classes which are necessary for large bodies and antlers."


Above is the last paragraph off the QDMA website which you didn't post. Please read it and notice how they talk about the better chances of a "quality buck" under QDM. Do you think they are talking about a buck with healthy looking fur or teeth, or are they refering to larger antlers? As I said, it is fine with me if hunters want to shoot only larger bucks, but I am not buying it in the least that QDM was devised for anything else other than trying to grow larger antlered bucks for hunters to shoot. The proof is in their writing.

Airborneguy

Since I clearly stated that I am no wildlife biologist, and this is just my opinion... may I ask why I would be required to back my opinion up with anything? I never stated facts, figures, charts, graphs, or anything else and tried to say they were hard proof of anything. Anything I write is my opinion and I said that already.

SteveBNy

Not required - just opinions carry a lot more weight if you can support them.
I'm not a wildlife biologist either - but my opinions come from research and reading of those whose credentials and mannersI respect.
Most of them are not like the blind man who felt the elephants tail and declared that an elephant must be like a snake.
The ones I respect, proffessional or not, show a willingness to look at the big picture - not just what is outside their window.

Best we ignore each other - nothing positive will come from further interaction.

Airborneguy

"I say that twoplus two equals four" - a statement of fact, which ifyou are going to make, you must be able to back up.

"I think two plus two should equal four" -a statement of opinion, which need not be backed up with anything, becauseits just an opinion.

I have nothing to prove to you, and I don't need your respect. You could lose the condescension though. If I say something IS, then I have to back that statement up. If I say I like something to BE, there is no need to back it up. You're not dealing with a "blind man". I just don't have the knowledge you supposedly do about NY's deer herd.