I also want to clarify my stance on QDMA.

I am a full supporter of folks who want to practice QDM on their own properties and I have led many folks to seek info from the QDMA. However, I've been having more and more problems with the organization and its followers trying to steer statewide or regional management plans. QDM is only accomplished when it is mutually accepted by all participants. Laws forcing QDM are usually uncalled for and for the most part, ineffective. Many times the "QDM laws" restrict hunters beyond the biological need for the area. In other words, it's not based on science (data). And that's exactly what was supposed to be the foundation of QDM.

BSK or BGG,

So let me see if I got this...

QDMA is good for a local land owner who wants to manage his property. So, I would not go wrong by joining the organization as a local property owner. I have mixed feelings on the whole thing.
Is it worth my time and money to pursue?

BGG,

Yeah, I know I was raised in MS and still hunt there, matter of fact i'm up a tree right now! I never thought the 4pt rule ever did protect the yearlings very well. My question would be how do they really know they needed to get more strict?

If that article had been submitted to a "peer reviewed" journal, it would have been rejected and never seen the light of day in any scientific publication.

westtntoms,

The QDMA has gone through several phases of growth, from a small grassroots organization fueled by Southeastern university wildlife researchers and professors, to what it is today--a rapidly growing economic and political force in the hunting world. However, some of us "purists" question how the organization made that transition.

A concious decision was made within the organization to make this transition, and that required "opening the door" to more market-driven people, especially in the leadership. Because it is "where the money is," this new leadership opened the door to a different management philosophy. Although they don't completely embrace this group, the "anything is acceptable in the pursuit of trophy antlers" trophyist set was accepted into the organization, again, because that is where the money is. In my opinion, this group's over-zealous and questionable management practices are given too much of a voice in the organization. But because they have greatly benefitted the organization monetarily, many are hesitant to criticize their management practices and "antler-centric" view of hunting.

BSK,.. care to explain your thoughts on forced mature buck management? I would like to hear BGG's thoughts also. This would relate to statewide levels of course,.. what is to much and what is to little?? Example,.. is restricting all yearling buck harvest to strict,.. or is allowing a 70% yearling buck harvest doing to little?

As far as the report,.. IMO,.. it is what it is. If they got the data straight from the agencies of the state, like they say they did,.. then thats what they are,.. just numbers. I think the real problem here is not the report,. but rather how TN was ranked.

Again,.. they are just numbers!! We TN folks know we have a ways to go ,..

committed the cardinal sin of science, knowingly compared incomparable data. They knowingly compared "apples to oranges" data

LOL I have seen several charts and graphs from state biologist that use the same data to compare each state.