Lil off topic here but a thought come to mind. I dont know if anyone else here lives in Saratoga County along with me. Saratoga County for its size is the fastest growing area in the whole country the last i read. Anyone with any kind of acerage up to farmers are getting out of the business or just plain selling off to developers. Houses around here are already SOLD before they are even built. Deer habitat where i live is diminishing very fast. I am beginning to wonder if deer numbers are thought to be as big because deer are being pushed into smaller confinments of land. NY is a large agricultural state one of the biggest in the country but with time passing and farmers sons and daughters not taking over they are forced to sell there land. As time passes deer are gonna have to depend more on mothernature then farm lands for feed. What was there one year for them here wont be there for them in an upcoming year.... its only a matter of time. When I drive around you see woods here and there and its all getting developed... my point to having good forage for deer to make deer like IL, KS, ect... is also having a healthy habitat for them to live.

I gotta agree with you 100% on that one summerflower. QDM in it's intended sense isn't the same thing as "trophy management" as it is way too commonly confused for. Limiting the harvest of younger aged bucks is just one component in the overall QDM scheme.

Sylvan - First - you and I agree on alot more that you think. But I think you are dead wrong on this:

I want you to understand - that Personally - I'm not for AR being legislated. I've never taken a buck that I would mount, and though I might someday - I do not want my chances improved by legislation.

I do however have a big thing for biodiversity, and a true appreciation for nature and the way things "should be". For example, Its not OK to have One aged stands of trees, or a Mono-Species plantation of tree types. Its Not OK to have swamps drained. Its Not OK to indiscrimantly shoot Coyotes - the only natural predator of deer in most areas. And its not OK to have entire Deer Populations skewed towards Young Does & Bucks.

I truly think this - I think its not right for many reasons, but its the reasons we don't know, or understand that worry me most. Young populations are Dynamic, they are primed for change - and while that can be a good thing for building a population - it is a detriment for maintaining a population (deer or any species).

I could go on more - but I really just wanted to get my point out there.

FH

Summerflower wrote: You should read my posts more carefully. I did not compare deer to humans . You asked me how I would define the health of a herd and I said that I would determine the health of the herd using the same method that is used in the medical profession to determine the health of a human population. That is to consider the maladies found in the individuals. Of course deer and humans are different and of course with a different set of potential maladies. That should have been obvious to you. Here was my definition:You see, the same way we determine the health of any population. This would be a good criteria for Chipmucks too wouldn't you think? To say I was comparing humans to deer is "borderline ignorant". Now please don't say I'm comparing humans to Chipmunks.

Rising or falling numbers though they may be cause to look closer at the reasons why are not by themselves reasons to assume "state of health". Surely you can see that numbers could rise with disease prevalent and numbers could fall in a healthy population. Over hunting can certainly lower numbers but the deer being shot may be healthy as can be.

Where did you get the idea that I implied that population size has anything to do with it. Of course you can asses the health of any size population but you would still be using the same criteria I described.

So unless you examine the health of the herd you just don't know. When you say more likely you are clearly speculating.

As an engineer I learned along time ago that statistical correlation is not a demonstration of cause and effect.

You seem to like to put words in my mouth. All I said regarding this was "You can't just say the herd is having X number of ruts therefore the herd is not healthy." Its possible that there is a link here but if you don't have a scientific study that proves it then its just speculation. It's extremely difficult to do a study and draw conclusions on something like this because there are so many variables that can't be controlled.

Look all this discussion is a lot of fun and I respect what you have to say but I think our disagreement comes down to this... I want to define the health of a herd through the incidence of maladies displayed. I don't think you disagree with my definition but you seem to want to add some other things that I don't. Where I think you are going wrong is to point to things like age and number of ruts that may or may not effect herd health and then "assume" that it does.


BTW, I like the idea of getting together. Maybe dinner and some great conversation. We don't all agree on everything but that's o.k. We all have the common bond of loving the sport.

farm hunter , I think we do agree alot too. It's just more interesting to discuss the things we disagree about don't you think?

Regarding the age thing... Wouldn't you agree that a population where the average age was 2 1/2 but was displaying high incidences of blindness, hair loss and misshaped antlers would be considered less healthy than a population where the average age was 1 1/2 but displayed no maladies whatsoever?

I can understand your concerns but my contention is that with regard to deer we have over a 60 year history of what today's AR advocates would call high doe:buck ratios, multiple ruts, bad age structure and on and on but no evidence at all that the herd is unhealthy as a result. They claim that the herd is unhealthy because they see the things I just mentioned but to me its bad science to look at what are possible causes of poor health and then conclude that poor health exists.

What we truly "don't know or understand" are the long term effects of selectively killing male deer based on an antler criteria. One of the states (Mississippi) that has had AR in place for 7 years now is begining to worry that they are actually lowering the quality of buck by protecting the "small" antlered ones. Makes sense doesn't it. When there is a physical trait that tends to give you a better chance to breed, nature has a way of producing more units that have that trait. What will nature do if it determines that there is an advantage to having less than 3 points on 1 side?

Again, I believe all of this is just a cover for the real reason most want AR. They simply want a better chance at a nice buck.

In my opinion, AR on a statewide scale simply transfers a percentage of the buck harvest from 1.5 year old bucks to 2.5 year old bucks (in other words, about 30 lbs of meat). Off course the overall buck harvest will decline in year 1, then increase some in year 2 and be right back to pre-AR numbers in year 3. A few more deer may squeak through to 3.5+ but I believe the percentages are very insignificant. I believe the statistics in PA are starting to show this but since I do not have them in front of me, I will refrain from throwing numbers around.

I scanned through the post in nthis thread and have to agree that AR is not the way to go. Personally I try to pass on smaller bucks, but my first buck was a small 4 point and at that time it was great.

Now, I have taken a buck every year since I was 16 and there have been a number of years I have taken 2.

In the 2003 season I took a 4 point. A 4 point with a 19 1/2" inside spread. The deer dressed out at 190 lbs. Now tell me that i should have passed that one up. I was only a 4 point but it was also probably about a 5 year old deer. I have alot of deer where I hunt many of which have small basket racks but there a number of real monster's out there too. If you know what you are doing and put in your time you'll get one of them if you are just the casual hunter that throws on the orange and strolls through the woods you might get lucky but that's about it.

I am in the process of teaching my son how to shoot a bow and when he gets old enough to go out and get a crack at his first deer I don't want anyone telling him a four point isn't good enough if that is what he takes.

AR might be part of QDM but it certainly isb't the big picture.

The thing you people in NY need to watch is Gary Alt needs a job.The hunters here in PA were sold on AR. Alts idea of antler restrictions is if you kill every doe you see you will be to busy to shoot a buck.Three years of doe slaughter and no bucks he was run off.The tree huggers hate deer and if you are dumb enough to believe them, go ahead and shoot every doe you can (they taste just like chicken) and in five years when your deer are gone and all the land is posted.You will take up golf and tell your kids about the old days when deer lived around there.Some how I don't get how a healthy deer herd is a dead deer herd. Deer managment & deer slaughter are two differant things ,Just be carefull what you wish for you might get it.[:'(]

Jhoffman, nice 4pt.

That is an oddity for sure. i surely wouldn't like to to see any "new" hunter pass on that one.
I am a passer of smaller racked bucks for a few reasons. I remember my first buck like I shot it yesterday. I think every 1st buck should be that way. AR is not about horns though, it's about helping to increase the age class of bucks and horns are the only way to to it here in NY. Man recognizes antler size much faster than "on the hoof methods"
QDM is not what the DEC wants for the state.


Mr Alt had great ideas. All of his ideas could not be put in place because of the uninformed sportsmen(that complained) and the anti's. If PA's herd is ruined it's because of the ignortant and the anti's (stupid)

The herd is not ruined, because private property owners would not let the slaughter continue on their land.The problem with any deer management plan is that you can not put a plan in place that blankets the whole state as if it were a table top.Here in northwest Pa the carrying capacity of the land is far higher than the forested central parts of the state.It does not take thirty to fifty acres to grow a two hundred pound whitetail.Gary Alt is not a fool, he has too much education to make the mistakes that were made here.If like he says the people above him did not back him thats politics .The doe slaughter that he put in place polarized him from many that thought he had a plan to make things better.Bigger bucks were supposed to replace seeing so many deer in a day of hunting.I will be the first to admit Dr alt said we needed to lower deer numbers and we have,but we didn't know the plan was to kill them all.