Trophy Mgt. Poll

[tellico4x4]

I just got a malicious attack warning from my Norton Anti-Virus software when I tried that link!

 

[deerhunter10]

not surprised by the way the poll is going.

 

[Bone Collector]

Is it a bad link???

 

[deerhunter10]

didn't do anything on my laptop.

 

[in the dog house]

No problems with the mac

 

[BSK]

I've got Vipre anti-virus software (better than Norton or Mcafee) and didn't get a warning from that site.

 

[BSK]

True QDM can be good for hunter recruitment and retention when it is done reasonably. However, a major focus on antler size, taken too far, can be horrible for recruitment and retention.

 

[TLRanger]

My uneducated opinion is that KY has the best QDMA. Antler restrictions are perfect "visible antler", deer tag "one antlered-one antlerless or two antlerless" with extra antlerless by zones. Zones are updated annually.

 

[TheLBLman]

That's not QDMA.

I agree, that's not "QDMA". They are located in Georgia.
But the "State of Kentucky" is better QDM than much of what's being labeled as QDM.

 

[Winchester]

My uneducated opinion is that KY has the best QDMA. Antler restrictions are perfect "visible antler", deer tag "one antlered-one antlerless or two antlerless" with extra antlerless by zones. Zones are updated annually.

That's not QDMA.

Neither is Trophy management!
IMO a mix of QDM and TDM is good for hunter recruitment, now too much and too tight of restrictions can be a bad thing but a good mix does well IMO!

 

[redblood]

My uneducated opinion is that KY has the best QDMA. Antler restrictions are perfect "visible antler", deer tag "one antlered-one antlerless or two antlerless" with extra antlerless by zones. Zones are updated annually.

That's not QDMA.

Neither is Trophy management!
IMO a mix of QDM and TDM is good for hunter recruitment, now too much and too tight of restrictions can be a bad thing but a good mix does well IMO!

agree

 

[Frank G]

True QDM can be good for hunter recruitment and retention when it is done reasonably. However, a major focus on antler size, taken too far, can be horrible for recruitment and retention.

Agree with BSK all the way.

 

[TLRanger]

My uneducated opinion is that KY has the best QDMA. Antler restrictions are perfect "visible antler", deer tag "one antlered-one antlerless or two antlerless" with extra antlerless by zones. Zones are updated annually.

That's not QDMA.

Please excuse me for putting ti "A" on QDM. I will now go chop my left pinkie off so it will not happen again!

 

[BSK]

now too much and too tight of restrictions can be a bad thing but a good mix does well IMO!

I agree. Once a new hunter has had the chance to kill their first buck of any age, teaching them that passing up yearling spikes and fork-horns because bucks a year or two older will have "nice" antlers is generally good for hunter recruitment, especially when the biology behind the measure is explained (usually involving improved herd dynamics, and ultimately, improved herd health). Explaining why an equal harvest of females is often warranted is also good for recruitment. It increases harvest opportunities for new hunters.

However, this more recent idea that bucks should be 120 or 130+ before they are targeted is very bad for hunter recruitment, as in most areas, not only will many if not most bucks not grow those size antlers even at maturity, but even for bucks that do grow those size antlers, it takes until near maturity to do so. Mature bucks should not be the goal of new hunters. It takes years of hunting experience to be able to successfully target such bucks on any sort of regular basis (if at all). Setting up new hunters for almost certain failure is the fastest way to drive them away from deer hunting.

 

[102]

now too much and too tight of restrictions can be a bad thing but a good mix does well IMO!

I agree. Once a new hunter has had the chance to kill their first buck of any age, teaching them that passing up yearling spikes and fork-horns because bucks a year or two older will have "nice" antlers is generally good for hunter recruitment, especially when the biology behind the measure is explained (usually involving improved herd dynamics, and ultimately, improved herd health). Explaining why an equal harvest of females is often warranted is also good for recruitment. It increases harvest opportunities for new hunters.

However, this more recent idea that bucks should be 120 or 130+ before they are targeted is very bad for hunter recruitment, as in most areas, not only will many if not most bucks not grow those size antlers even at maturity, but even for bucks that do grow those size antlers, it takes until near maturity to do so. Mature bucks should not be the goal of new hunters. It takes years of hunting experience to be able to successfully target such bucks on any sort of regular basis (if at all). Setting up new hunters for almost certain failure is the fastest way to drive them away from deer hunting.

One of the best posts you ever made Bryan.

 

[102]

now too much and too tight of restrictions can be a bad thing but a good mix does well IMO!

I agree. Once a new hunter has had the chance to kill their first buck of any age, teaching them that passing up yearling spikes and fork-horns because bucks a year or two older will have "nice" antlers is generally good for hunter recruitment, especially when the biology behind the measure is explained (usually involving improved herd dynamics, and ultimately, improved herd health). Explaining why an equal harvest of females is often warranted is also good for recruitment. It increases harvest opportunities for new hunters.

However, this more recent idea that bucks should be 120 or 130+ before they are targeted is very bad for hunter recruitment, as in most areas, not only will many if not most bucks not grow those size antlers even at maturity, but even for bucks that do grow those size antlers, it takes until near maturity to do so. Mature bucks should not be the goal of new hunters. It takes years of hunting experience to be able to successfully target such bucks on any sort of regular basis (if at all). Setting up new hunters for almost certain failure is the fastest way to drive them away from deer hunting.

Another great post BSK.
And if someone defines "REGULAR" as every year, I know of not ONE Tennessee Hunter who takes a 120 - 130 inch buck every year...even on the most PRIME hunting properties in Tennessee. (I am not saying that there are not any hunters in Tennessee who do not kill these 120-130 inch bucks yearly, just I do not know any).

I will say that I believe the majority of hunters starting out probably begin with access to a limited amount of private land. Probably not very expensive leases. And that the majority of these hunters have access to more public than private land, weather they know it at the time or not.

And I will also say that I know of NOBODY who kills 120-130 inch deer every year, on public land, in Tennessee, or anywhere else in the US for that matter.
Or even every other year.

But there are properties that exist, especially in the Mid West, that are capable of producing these numbers.

But these are intensely managed, expensive properties.
And, in my opinion, are properties that "FARM" deer into a certain category.

For me, this takes something out of the hunt.

 

[Mike Belt]

I agree completely that for hunter "RECRUITMENT" antler restrictions are not the way to go. They are geared more towards seasoned hunters that are willing to meet the criteria involved. If enough land is involved in such a program then it's possible to take a buck scoring 120" or better yearly. I haven't done so because I chose not to but I could haven taken multiple bucks that size yearly over the last 7 years.

 

[BSK]

I don't want my previous post to make it sound like I'm opposed to those who want the high-end big buck experience. I'm certainly not. If someone wants to hold out for only top-end bucks (for TN), then I say have at it and I wish you the best of luck.

However, to be successful at that endeavor requires a combination of very unique circumstances, and I would guess that about 2-3% of land in TN falls into that combination of circumstances. For those lucky enough to hunt those few areas, or who are willing to work hard enough to create those circumstances, I say "Good for you!"

But the original question was whether this type of management is good for recruiting NEW hunters to deer hunting. The answer is unquestionably, "No". That's a bar set far too high for hunters new to deer hunting. For a new, inexperienced deer hunter, those kind of standards are a prime example of "unrealistic expectations" that will certainly lead to disappointment, frustration, and a fairly rapid loss of interest.

 

[Winchester]

I don't want my previous post to make it sound like I'm opposed to those who want the high-end big buck experience. I'm certainly not. If someone wants to hold out for only top-end bucks (for TN), then I say have at it and I wish you the best of luck.

However, to be successful at that endeavor requires a combination of very unique circumstances, and I would guess that about 2-3% of land in TN falls into that combination of circumstances. For those lucky enough to hunt those few areas, or who are willing to work hard enough to create those circumstances, I say "Good for you!"

But the original question was whether this type of management is good for recruiting NEW hunters to deer hunting. The answer is unquestionably, "No". That's a bar set far too high for hunters new to deer hunting. For a new, inexperienced deer hunter, those kind of standards are a prime example of "unrealistic expectations" that will certainly lead to disappointment, frustration, and a fairly rapid loss of interest.

Exactly right BSK!! Even in the very tiny % of land in TN that these #'s could be met on a yearly basis, even then it takes TIME in the woods! How many, even seasoned hunters, that are limited to wknds and vac days only to hunt each yr, are willing to be limited to top end bucks only??? Very few and this should be by CHOICE only! TDM ONLY is very bad for hunter recruitment!!!

 

[102]

I don't want my previous post to make it sound like I'm opposed to those who want the high-end big buck experience. I'm certainly not. If someone wants to hold out for only top-end bucks (for TN), then I say have at it and I wish you the best of luck.

However, to be successful at that endeavor requires a combination of very unique circumstances, and I would guess that about 2-3% of land in TN falls into that combination of circumstances. For those lucky enough to hunt those few areas, or who are willing to work hard enough to create those circumstances, I say "Good for you!"

But the original question was whether this type of management is good for recruiting NEW hunters to deer hunting. The answer is unquestionably, "No". That's a bar set far too high for hunters new to deer hunting. For a new, inexperienced deer hunter, those kind of standards are a prime example of "unrealistic expectations" that will certainly lead to disappointment, frustration, and a fairly rapid loss of interest.

I have been fortunate enough to be invited to a few places like this. And I am amazed at the potential these lands enjoy.

But having hunted MANY more "average" and above "average" lands in Tennessee, (all falling well below the 2-3%) I am confident that 2-3 percent is probably a decent guess.

This is why I get such a giggle out of seeing some of the posts not just on Tndeer, but also Bowsite, and Archery Talk.
I believe that NATION wide our expectations are very distorted when it comes to most hunters.

And I will say again...I place a huge amount of blame on the "TV pros" for so much mis-information. In fact, down right LIES.

It disturbs me how warped many hunters perception is on what constitutes:
a mature buck
a trophy buck
a 100 inch buck
a 150 inch buck
a lethal and humane shot
and one of my favorites...QDM

(and too many others to name.)

Too many hunters don't realize how their actions influence our "recruits".
Too many hunters don't understand how a buck, or doe, for one hunter may mean EVERYTHING to THAT hunter, even though it may be a deer that another hunter would not look at twice.

Often times a "recruit" hunter may be in considerably older than another hunter. Yet the "recruit" is still the rookie while the younger hunter may be well seasoned.

Trophy deer hunting is VERY individual while QDM should be about the environment and the habitat and the population.

 

[tree_ghost]

^^^^ I think that this statement couldnt be more true. This year I was fortunate enough to take my 6 year old son and my 9 year old brother hunting for the first time. We had an awesome time and even though we werent able to harvest an animal we did get to put eyes on a couple deer. On the other hand I've been hunting for 20 years now and of all the deer I've harvested in that time only 2 of them are in the 120's, both of these deer came in the last 5 of my 20 years. I can only speculate but I'm willing to bet that if these young men were taught to wait on a deer of that caliber, they would have lost interest long before getting the chance to seal the deal. I guess what Im trying to get at is the fact that not everyone is going to start out at the top of the ladder chasing trophy deer. If we dont stifle the "hollywood" image of hunting in our young hunters minds and teach them how to care for the land and wildlife I fear we will be doing all outdoorsman a disservice both now and in the longrun.