For me, that's the definition of a "good hunter." If you can pull that off--7-10 days on new ground and kill a good deer--you're a good hunter.

Unfortunately, I don't think I could do that consistently, and that's why I don't consider myself a good hunter. Above average maybe, but not "good."

Thats what I lke about it, makes you have to LEARN every time you go in the woods, no relying on past knowledge to save the day.

OK, even though I realize this post is intended to produce acrimonious debate, I'll bite...

This is all part of the age-old debate about "how much management is too much management." Management intensity is a sliding scale, with no human intervention at all at one end of the scale and the most intense management possible--including artificial insemination, breeder animals, etc.--at the other.

Every hunter will put the point of "too much management" at a different point along that sliding scale. A few will feel that anything done with the intent to aid deer or alter their behavior or even herd structure is too much management. Others will feel fairly intense manipulation of the habitat and deer population is perfectly acceptable, including high-fences, large-scale habitat alterations, supplemental feeding, removal of management bucks, etc. However, most hunters will fall somewhere in between those two extremes.

How much management is too much management is a personal opinion, and sometimes hard to define, but generally "you know it when you see it."

And I live on "past knowledge"!

Give me a couple thousand acres of heavily wooded land in west tn. and five years to 'get it in shape" and you might be surprised what will come off of it....


seems like you need to make up your mind

BH you just love to stir it up ....doncha!

Where do you read in that post that I said anything about putting in crops, foodplots or anything like that?

That's because it refers to taking out deer, certain deer and letting others walk.....it has nothing to do with altering the landscape at all, which is what this thread is about.

managing whitetails , IMO, does not mean foodplots, crop fields or controlling anything more than what gets killed and what human access is granted......you can use the word management if you feel that NOT shooting certain deer and shooting others is management, but I prefer to call it "selectiveness".

BH,

It's absolutely true that management doesn't require alteration of the habitat. Even QDM refers specifically to what deer are or are not harvested. It's a harvest strategy.

However, from the earlier thread, "a couple thousand acres of heavily wooded land" isn't going to produce much if you don't alter the habitat. Expansive mature hardwoods isn't very good deer habitat.

BSK,

I sincerely appreciate your knowledge and your opinions. I have always been someone that believed that nature is it's own best manager. i also believe that deer can be "FED to greatness", but given proper time to age and be left alone , they too can reach reasonable potential on their own.

Again, my point is that I love to hunt dense timber near swamps and "less traveled by man" areas. To me, that is what it's all about. I guess my opinions offend some people because they think that i am putting what they do down and that could not be any further from the truth.

I will say that planting foodplots to attract deer to you is basically like chumming for fish, IMO......nothing wrong with it, but alot easier than actually fishing structures and landscape where you expect fish to be.....

Again, foodplot hunting and everything that surrounds it has it's place and is perfectly legal in every respect, but for me, I'd rather sit down in the Bottoms and plot my next strategy to succeed and not what my next foodplot will contain.....but, hey, that's just me.

No offense intended to anyone.....