blkpowder

Copper nails or Caustic Soda (sodium hydroxide) solution will kill a tree. This product can be found at any hardware/paint shop. Make a solution of 1 part Caustic Soda and 2 parts water and pour it around the base of the tree.

bawanajim

The idea of killing the trees is so plants can grow to feed the deer we want to eat, toxins are a no- no.

glew22

Uh Ohh. We cant have these left wing eco terrorists out there pushing good ideas. Someone make them stop!!!!

blkpowder

My apologizes!!! I guess that's why it's wise to read back a couple posts before making reply's.

bluebird2

With the PGC's current DMP ,I doubt any of us can cut enough trees to make a significant improvement in the population in a given area. For example, about 4 years ago two neighbors timbered over 100 acres. There is unlimited browse and dense cover but apparently the deer avoid it due to hunting pressure and it has done nothing to increase the deer herd in our area.

At this point it seems the only thing that might change the DMP,is an order from a judge in response to the USP suit, but that is highly unlikely.

bawanajim

By creating better habitat you give the fawns a better chance of survival from predators, you give deer a better food base and you benefit your self financially. Just like weeding a garden most all wood lots could use a good thinning of undesirable trees to the benefit of mast producing ones.There is no down side to proper forest management.

bluebird2

I agree, but the question remains as to whether it will produce a noticeable beneficial change when the PGC is still issuing more doe tags than when we had 1.6M PS deer.

I know of a club that manages 2 SM for deer ,not for timber ,and they have been unable to offset the negative effects of the PGC's HR plan.

glew22

bawana jim, I really liked the weeding the garden analogy.

blue, I used to share the sentiment that the pgc needs to reduce antlerless allocations in some of our wmus (they may still need to do so), but to play devils advocate, I would say if hunters are complaining about to few deer, then the hunters can choose not to use these tags. I know the antis aren't buying tags and shooting deer with them.

bluebird2

That is not a viable option,since there are still a significant number of hunters who believe they are doing God's work by killing every legal deer they see and then there are those that just don't care and will fill every tag they have for the meat or to give it away.

The PGC has the authority and the responsibility for managing the herd and the only way hunters can control the herd is if they own or lease enough land and severely limit hunting pressure.

glew22

[quote] This is why I stand by qdma and conduct about 10-20 educational seminars every year. Education is the key. We need to reach out to these hunter's, and educate them on the way to properly balance deer with habitat; and no that does not mean shooting every deer in the woods. FYI, QDMA does NOT always support antlerless harvest.

I think you're dead on right here with the exception of one oversight. Cooperatives. The can, do, and will work. Again, it goes back to education. Don't think that I'm suggesting that to have a working cooperative you need to set 125" minimums and shoot everything without antlers. They will work with a lot fewer restrictions than that. All that matters is those involved set common goals, and work together to reach those goals.