Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New Trophy's
New trophy room comments
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Classifieds
Trophy Room
New items
New comments
Latest content
Latest updates
Latest reviews
Author list
Series list
Search showcase
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Tennessee Hunting Forums
Quality Deer Management
Interesting shift in MS management techniques
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="deerchaser007" data-source="post: 1133496" data-attributes="member: 1783"><p>So your saying in ag regions the yearling harvest is much higher because the restriction ,. correct??BUT,.. what yearlings are not killed are the ones with the worst genetic potential,.. the spikes. </p><p></p><p>I personally like AR's. I'm not saying they are appropriate for every area,.. but are a valuable management tool in other areas when combined with adequate doe harvest. I'm sure if MS set different goals for each region they could come up with a compromise for every area. I feel GA has proven this with different techniques for their state. </p><p></p><p>If a state agency see's a need to protect more yearling bucks in certain areas , units with AR's can improve the herd for that area. BUT,.. i agree ,.. it must be done county specific or unit specific. Using TN as a example and if there were a need to protect more yearling bucks ,.. what result would come from a 3 pt 1 side AR from nashville eastbound? Its been said that this area has the most hunters and poorest soils. Would a AR help this area? I can see how the same AR would hurt from nashville westward with fewer hunters and better soils and higher deer densities per square mile. I also see a need for alittle different management technique for the two areas also.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="deerchaser007, post: 1133496, member: 1783"] So your saying in ag regions the yearling harvest is much higher because the restriction ,. correct??BUT,.. what yearlings are not killed are the ones with the worst genetic potential,.. the spikes. I personally like AR's. I'm not saying they are appropriate for every area,.. but are a valuable management tool in other areas when combined with adequate doe harvest. I'm sure if MS set different goals for each region they could come up with a compromise for every area. I feel GA has proven this with different techniques for their state. If a state agency see's a need to protect more yearling bucks in certain areas , units with AR's can improve the herd for that area. BUT,.. i agree ,.. it must be done county specific or unit specific. Using TN as a example and if there were a need to protect more yearling bucks ,.. what result would come from a 3 pt 1 side AR from nashville eastbound? Its been said that this area has the most hunters and poorest soils. Would a AR help this area? I can see how the same AR would hurt from nashville westward with fewer hunters and better soils and higher deer densities per square mile. I also see a need for alittle different management technique for the two areas also. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Tennessee Hunting Forums
Quality Deer Management
Interesting shift in MS management techniques
Top