bluebird2

Are you claiming ARs protect bucks with inferior genes for antler development?

livbucks

Are you claiming that highgrading occurs but has no relevance at all to genetics?

bluebird2

NO!!!!. What I am saying is high grading has nothing to do with a change in the gene pool. ARs result in high grading because they protect the buck that are inferior for the rate of antler development. the long term effect may have a negative effect on the gene pool ,but as yet that has not been proven conclusively.

Screamin Steel

Then tell us Glew, what scientific benefit was realized by protecting 50% (actually a bit more than that) of yearling bucks? Btw, improved odds of trophy success is NOT a scientific benefit, yet remains as the cornerstone of "questionable" deer management. When you are willing to advise private QDM practicioners to eradicate their deer herds for the sake of the trees, and force them to accept single digit DD, then I'll stop calling you all a bunch of antler- greedy hypocrites.

glew22

I think the biological benefit of protecting yearling bucks is that it promotes a more balanced buck age structure with bucks reaching maturity. To me its logical to say that a herd comprised of mainly yearling bucks is not biologically favorable because it does not mimic the natural herd dynamics that persisted prior to selective harvest.

Well it's actually not one of the four cornerstones of QDM. The cornerstones are: herd management (both antlered and antlerless), habitat management, hunter management, and herd monitoring (observation data, harvest data, and trail camera data). I would also add that its not "trophy success" that qdma is after. "Trophy" is defined on an individual basis. If a kid goes out and shoots a yearling spike, you better believe that deer is a trophy. I'm just trying to make the distinction between tophy and quality. While there is overlap in their "definitions," I refer to a quality buck as one that is 3.5+yrs old. And yes, increased odds of harvesting a quality buck are part of QDM, but it is not a cornerstone, instead, it is a byproduct of managing based on the 4 cornerstones listed above.

I wish you wouldn't assume so much about me or my work. Fact is, I have advised the owners and hunters of a 250ac property that there is detrimentally high deer density present on the farm and in the neighboring communities; also, I have re-iterated time and time again that sustained effort is necessary from all hunters to reduce the deer density. One of the habitat management projects I plan to incorporate into this property is TSI. Unfortunately, those plans are on hold until we get a handle on the DD. It is against my morals and ethics to suggest a TSI program when I am not confident that the landowner would get regeneration of preferred species...So im guessing you're not going to call me an antler greedy hypocrite any more??. Honestly though, I don't understand how that stereotype fits...I haven't even harvested a buck since I started practicing qdm 3 years ago.

bluebird2

If you want to be credible all you have to do is provide the data that shows that harvesting 80% of our 1.5 buck for over 50 years has had a negative effect on genetics,breeding rates ,productivity or recruitment.You can't do it , so once again you are just blowing smoke

glew22

Well blue, you're right. But you already know you're right because the data your asking for dosen't exist. And I'm sorry that I wasn't there 30 yrs before I was born to set up the correct expeximents. However, if you wanna throw me millions of dollars I would be glad to do the reasearch and I'll start today. PS: just because the data dosen't exist, dosen't mean there weren't negative effects.

Sometimes we have to use a little logic and reasoning. I think its logical to say that a herd with a balanced age structure is more biologically favorable. Now blue, please tell me why I am wrong.

Screamin Steel

In other words, Glew, all you can do at this point is speculate that some negative aspect must have been realized by harvesting young bucks....unfortunately speculation does not equal fact. You also keep mentioning that you consider a buck that is 3.5 years or older a quality deer. It is really shameful that you would consider a deer "poor quality" because he hasn't reached his third birthday. I'm sure you don't apply that 3 year rule to harvest of antlerless deer, of which QDM typically supports very intensive harvest to "balance buck doe ratios"....though intensive HR in PA has not been proven to narrow the breeding window, which only serves to create more intense rut action, serving hunters, but not necessarily realizing any scientific benefits for the deer once again. And since you already stated that you define "quality" deer as a 3 1/2 or older buck, then you just reiterated that QDM is about trophy potential. I know you are quite fond of jumping in here and playing the expert, and I'm not challenging your resume, but it will take more than your professional opinions and speculation to win your case. Show us evidence of any scientific benefit realized through implentation of AR. Until your theories are substantiated with hard data, they are just as much speculation as any other opinion posted here. Which of course is as welcome as the next.

Screamin Steel

It is to bad that you haven't harvested a deer in 3 years, but atleast it wasn't a bad quality deer! That would have been disastrous!

bluebird2

If harvesting 80% of our 1.5 buck had a negative impact on our herd, why aren't those effects evident in the data that was collected by the PGC prior to 2002? Why didn't we have much lower breeding rates, lower productivity,lower recruitment and poor genetics prior to implementing ARs and why didn't those measures of herd health improve dramatically after ARs?

What does"more biologically favorable" mean to you,older bucks with larger racks?