What Is Our Duty?

[Altjaeger]

and are we doing it?

This is a spin off of an ongoing debate from the QDM forum but I do not want this to be a rehash of Pennsylvania. I want to look at the national level and see if a discussion can get started on just what our duties are and whether we are living up to our responsibilities as hunters.

I selected this forum because it is the most active forum and because deer hunters are the largest group nationally, plus the group I will suggest is most negligentin its responsibilities. As I said this is not about Pennsylvania and could as easily be Maryland, parts of the Northeast, Midwest or of central Texas. It is also not about QDM as most of us believe it to be. It is simply what are our resposibilities as hunters and are we fulfilling our duties.

We enjoy telling non-hunters that we help balance the deer herds and justify ourselves as providing a service and a role to wildlife and the community. But sometimes I wonder if we really do. How many of us encourage our game department to manage for more deer when we are not really sure the land can support it or are tight fisted in fees when that money could be used to manage forest for productivity? How many hunt an area where the herd needs trimming and take only a buck and the quit to go home with doe tags unfilled? Do we know are care if our desire for a bigger herd is contrary to the needs of the local grouse or quail population? How many contribute to conservation organizations?

I will contend that we have a responsibility to make hunting more than recreation, but to for the care of the resource in a balance way. We know some states are over-populated with whitetails but that is simply proof that hunters are not fulfilling a responsibility.

I will have more to contribute if this discussion gets rolling but for now simply state that I believe we that s awhole we are in fact lax in our performance of duties.

[ncboman]

I can't quite agree with that as the sole or even primary cause of deer overpopulation.

The primary cause of overpopulation is mostly private refuge areas where deer are not hunted at all and allow retreat during seasons. While wildlife resources policy can achieve overall desired results over time, no hunting policy in the world can manage deer where hunting is not allowed.

Overpopulation is a dicey word also as some farmers regard one deer track as overpopulation while some landowners doan think there can be too many deer.

good topic though. :)

[Herne]

I wouldn't wish to make any comment about the state of mind of the average US hunter - though if people wouldn't mind my saying so, there appears to be a degree of buck mania that far exceeds that in the UK, where most hunters expect to, and take pride in, herd management. Not all of course - and - there is no DNR, so the management is down to the individual.

And... the individual will be hunting private land so they are "his" deer and he has a stake in their future. Which is much less identifiably true of the individual hunting public land in the US.

However, there is an interesting consequence. In general (!) the public perceives the hunting of deer, by qualified people, as a good thing. It is generally perceived that the hunting of deer is desirable and supportable if done properly. Properly means no wounding, and a reasonable degree of herd management.

No its not all perfect, but even our League Against Cruel Sports is represented at the Deer Management Group in Devon, which controls the red deer population. So if you can get the League to agree to it.....

[Altjaeger]

I can't quite agree with that as the sole or even primary cause of deer overpopulation.

The primary cause of overpopulation is mostly private refuge areas where deer are not hunted at all and allow retreat during seasons. While wildlife resources policy can achieve overall desired results over time, no hunting policy in the world can manage deer where hunting is not allowed.

Overpopulation is a dicey word also as some farmers regard one deer track as overpopulation while some landowners doan think there can be too many deer.
NC, I think you have a solid point there. But I do not see it as hopeless. The solution takes some soul searching though in the question of property rights.

In Germany there is someone responsible for all huntable land right down to city parks. I have hunted ducks in a city park 2 hours after dark when they were simply silhoutes against the city lit sky and the end of the barrel all but invisible. Without good dogs the ducks would not have been recovered. I did so as the guest of the hunter who leased rights on that land taking fur bearers, pheasant, ducks, boar and deer. I assume where the land is not leased the land owner is responsible. Where animals cause damage such as crops on that property they are financially responsible. The hunter will submit a harvest plan. If they do not kill the number of animals approved in that plan then government hunters will go in and do the job. Then the responsible hunter gets a bill for those services for the job that he should have done.

Perhaps is areas where landowners do not allow hunters and the herd causes problems such as ornamental damage, tick diseases, crop damages government hunters should do the job and bill the owner. That may encourage him to be responsible by opening the land, high fencing it to contain the damage or killing them himself.

Legally the game belongs to us held in common by the state. So there would be a legal basis for such action. Still it will also conflict with what we have long held as the rights of the property owner. It does require some soul searchng along wih actions from non-hunting citizens as well. Perhaps legislation is the answer. Perhaps that dreaded word litigation sueing non-huntng andowners in areas in which damage occurs such as auto collision and the other areas I have mentioned as well.

Something to mull over.

[southtexas]

Speaking of central/south Texas (the only area I am familiar with), hunters seem to me to be VERY slow to adapt, but eventually they move.

Most of us were raised in the days of fewer deer and the state-wide "management program", if one could all it that, was to protect the does so that the population could increase from the low point early in the 1900's. About 30 or so years ago, game managers started telling us hunters that the population had arrived and it was time to start killing does. It took a couple of generations, but we appear to be doing somewhat better, now.

[Altjaeger]

Having hunted in an area of a developing herd in the 1960s I agree that many became fixated on saving the does in a way that was later deterimental. Though better it still seems a problem in some areas of the United States.

[Altjaeger]

Is the man who kills a buck and quits with a pocket full of doe tags when an area is overpopulated a dedicated hunter and conservationist? or is he simply a duffer and exploiter of the resource?

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

Paul, I've been mulling this one over all day long as it is a very pertinent question. I believe it is multifaceted.

In regards to deer, deer management and deer hunting I have several duties. I have a duty as a hunter, a manager, a landowner, and as a Texas citizen.

My duty as a hunter is to obey the game laws and behave in a sportsmanlike manner in regards to the animals I hunt, the natural world, and my colleagues. I have a duty to keep myself in sufficiently good shape to not place myself or others at risk as I pursue an outdoor activity. I have a duty to keep my equipment in as good a shape as I can to accomplish the tasks of hunting and killing my prey in as quick and humane a way as the process allows. I have a duty to use those animals that I kill to some good and useful end.

As a manager I have a duty to those I manage for. I have a duty to provide the level of management that my finances, my experience and expertise will allow. I have a duty to utilize the resources at my disposal to the betterment of the property while protecting the interests of the shareholders (co-owners). As a manager I have a duty to manage the deer herd in such a way that provides ample opportunity for hunter success.

As a landowner I have a duty to protect my own interests in taking care of the property and insuring that those of my family that come after me can be blessed with the opportunities that I enjoy.

As a Citizen I have a duty to make my voice heard and my opinion known to those who represent me in government. I have a duty to stay informed and active in those things that concern hunters and hunting. I have a duty to vehemently protect the Constitution of the State of Texas and that of the United States of America.




I would never place one of my sons or my nephews in a position where they were expected to kill an animal that they did not want to kill for the sake of management. Hunting is a personal decision that a person makes at the time they see and can get a shot at an animal. If they wanted to fill their doe tags, that would be fine but I would never put it on them as a stipulation. There are other ways to remove does if need be.

I also think that the least amount of legislation involved in any aspects of our lives is better for all concerned. Obviously there must be some rules and guidelines but not to the point of regulation.


Finally, we have duty to conduct ourselves in a gentlemanly manner so that when those non-hunters of the world see us the first see a gentleman. It makes a difference.

Alan

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

Finally, we have duty to conduct ourselves in a gentlemanly manner so that when those non-hunters of the world see us, they see us first as gentlemen. It makes a difference.

There, that's better.

Alan

[Altjaeger]

Thanks Alan for the time and thought you put into it. Like I said I have seen one system that works, but it would take real soul searching whether as Americans we want a similar system. As I thought through your response today I remembered a joke among the troops in Germany back before the wall came down that explains the situation well.

"In Germany you cannot do it unless it is allowed, In America you can do it unless it is specifically prohibited. But in the USSR you cannot do it even if it is allowed."

We place great value own our independence and do not wish to restrict it if there is a possibility of avoiding doing so. I also think NC earlier hit one of the major problems in many areas.

[Rembrandt]

I'm quite frustrated with the QDM concept, it only works when more than 50% of the people make it happen.

In our state the adjacent property owners (farmers) complain about crop & vehicle damage, they won't be happy till the population is a fourth of what it is today.

The DNR's primary concern is finding consensus among all parties and getting the most revenue possible from available tags.

Insurance companies and the Farm Bureau lobbies legislators each year to reduce the populations because of the costs to their respective groups.

Local hunters, trespassers, and poachers are only interested in antlers and how to avoid the law to do so.

None of the above are interested in better quality herds....if I were to push for QDM it would the equivalent to whizzing in the wind. These varied interests have operated like this for years and show no signs of changing. It's difficult to explain to the kids why we pass on 130 class deer so they can grow older when others shoot what we passed on.

My family and I will pursue our own hunting program, wish those the best that can make a difference in your area. We will continue to fill doe tags and take older mature bucks.

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

It has long been said to the point of cliche, that the longest journey begins with a single step. You are evidently taking that step. Let your little light shine man!

Nobody wanted to do it either back in 1984 when I started. I didn't know diddly squat about QDM or management. What I did know was that a buck didn't get to be a monster by shooting him and that we weren't doing that. One of my uncles had started a system of shooting only ten point bucks or better. While this is a less-than-desirable management tool it is miles ahead of no system at all. In knew that some bucks never made 10 points no matter how old they got so I started researching and even enrolled in college to study it! Imagine that! I presented a plan to my hunters and they rejected it and agreed to compromised plan which wasn't very good. But I knew something they didn't know. I knew that they weren't coming back the next year. And so it started. We aren't nudging anyone out of the way getting into the record books but we provide hunting opportunities for 14 hunters, each of whom has the option of killing a mature buck, grown spikes and does. Everyone does not do this but the chance is there. I really don't worry about the management too much any more. All the boys (my sons and nephews) were all brought up under the program and they seldom stray from the line. the only thing you can do with your neighbors is talk to them and if that doesn't work, Oh Well!

We also had a problem with people coming in uninvited. I gave out keys to the Game wardens, Sheriff's deputies and even a few BP agents that I knew. This had a huge effect until the poachers got out of the habit of coming in. You've just got to keep the faith. Most important aspect is that you are teaching your children the right way.

Alan

[Altjaeger]

You need to spend a little time around the QDM forum. Between the talk of Pennsylvania you will find that Pepaw and others share some of your frustrations. Still they and even a fellow with only 36 acres up north enjoy some success through perserverance.

[Bob S]

I'm quite frustrated with the QDM concept,...

It's difficult to explain to the kids why we pass on 130 class deer so they can grow older when others shoot what we passed on.QDM is about buck age structure, not antler size. What age class are you managing for if you are passing on 130 class bucks?

[GF.]

Is the man who kills a buck and quits with a pocket full of doe tags when an area is overpopulated a dedicated hunter and conservationist? or is he simply a duffer and exploiter of the resource?

B.

More or less....

He might be a dedicated hunter, but he's not an effective partner in managing the resource unless he's doing what the deer managers have asked him to do - and if they're giving you doe tags at a ratio of 2 or 3 or more to one vs. your buck tags, then they obviously would like to see the harvest stats reflect the same ratio.

I have no real quarrel with a guy taking just one buck if he can only put one deer a year to good use. Provided that it's a personal best of some sort.

And that's because there are two parts of the equation - overall numbers and buck:doe ratio. Shooting a 1.5 or 2.5 year-old buck and quitting for the year really serves no useful purpose in an overpopulated area and probably does more harm than good- it skews the buck:doe ratio towards does and creates a net herd reduction (come spring) of 1, rather than 3. And those antlers don't get any bigger nailed to the garage.

If a guy hunts hard all season looking for a good buck, then he's just given himself more hunting time, more experience, and better chances at a 'shooter' for next year. But if he has passed on one or more does earlier in the season, then (IMO) it's pretty selfish of him to try and justify taking that basket rack on closing day. If he wanted meat but didn't want it bad enough to take a doe earlier on, then he's played his hand and ought to take his lumps like a man. Maybe next year, he'll think to fill the freezer first, and then he won't 'have to' dump a promising youngster just to have a few steaks for the grill.

Personally - and barring Buckzilla wandering through- I feel kinda sheepish about taking a buck these days. I'll do it if it looks like my last chance - or my only chance - to fill the freezer, but I never pass a clean shot on a doe, because given the local herd size, it's just flat irresponsible not to shoot one whenever you can....

[Herne]

That's because there is a difference between being a good deer man and just a shooter.

Shooters one can find anywhere. Deer men are a bit rarer.

[Bob S]

That is a great post GF.

To let everyone know that I "walk the walk" and am not just talk. Last year I quit hunting when I ran out of antlerless permits, even though I still had both antlered tags unused in my pocket.

[ncboman]

pondering this more and ...

I doan see it as my duty to kill anything beyond feeding my family. In doing that I doan really care what sex or age the animals are.

When there are plenty deer in the area, I surely favor shooting doe but when the freezer is void of venison as it is now, groceries are groceries, ... I'll take what I can get. :o

[manwithaplan]

Our duty is to kill em quick other than that was owe deer or any other wildlife nothing.

[Altjaeger]

GF, I like your response. NC and Manwithaplan I guess to you my question is do you reject the concept that God or some other being gave man the responsibility to manage the resources of this earth reasonably. That hunters have no responsibility to remove excess animals any more than a rancher to remove cattle from overgrazed range? Or are you saying it is not the hunter's responsibility but society at large?

[ncboman]

I believe nature has ways of dealing with overpopulations beyond what wildlife resource commissions do or can do but overall, I think state agencies do an outstanding job.

Socially acceptable populations vary. :D

[DaveHawk]

I agree NC , with the use of the internet, DNR's are able to survey their states hunters and get a good read on just about each game animal they need to follow. This enables the state to develop a reasonable hunting program, bag limits for each species.

[southtexas]

nc: unfortunately, nature's way of dealing with over populations (at least in the country I am familiar with) is massive die-offs, usually in a dry year. Even if we ignor the suffering by death-by-starvation, issue, by the time the die off occurs the deer will have done severe damage to the flora. Which can take decades to recover. Moreover, the deer will have decimated the plants they prefer, first, before moving down their preference list. So that the most preferred plants (which also happen to be the most beneficial to them) may never come back.

We are probably dealing with semantics here, but I believe that we as hunters should do our part to follow the guidance of the state biologists, and thereby do our part to help optimize the population. Now whether that is a "duty" or an "obligation" or just a good thing to do, I'll not argue.

[Bob S]

NC and Manwithaplan I guess to you my question is do you reject the concept that God or some other being gave man the responsibility to manage the resources of this earth reasonably.Altjaeger, while not directed at me, I would answer your question this way. Since it was primarily man who has removed the deer's natural predators, I think man has a responsibility to replicate the predators role in controlling populations.

That is why I practice QDM. Because QDM strives to produce a deer herd similar to what nature would produce.

[GF.]

I doan see it as my duty to kill anything beyond feeding my family. In doing that I doan really care what sex or age the animals are.

When there are plenty deer in the area, I surely favor shooting doe but when the freezer is void of venison as it is now, groceries are groceries, ... I'll take what I can get. :o

Nothin' wrong with that approach.... And it's honest hunting, too. None of this trophy crap... ;) Nothing wrong with being a dedicated horn hunter, either, as long you set a reasonable minimum standard and hold yourself to it. The problem is with the guys who will shoot only antlered deer, and pretty much any antlered deer.

The distinction, though, is that I figure a guy waives his option on the 'empty freezer' argument the first time he passes up a shot on a doe that he would take on a 'meat buck'.

What it comes down to, I guess, is whether you take yourself seriously as a steward of the resource, or if you're only in it as a self-interested consumer. Whether you're working together with the deer managers, or if you figure they're there (along with a lot of other hunters) working for you.

It's like this....

When the Deer Managers structure seasons and tag allocations to reduce the herd and we hunters do our part, then everybody wins. The land wins because it's less hammered by overuse; the herd wins because it's at a more natural buck:doe ratio, they're less vulnerable to getting wiped out by disease, and they don't have to compete so hard for marginal browse; and the hunters win, because filling the freezer with doe meat and letting the antlers age a while longer means that when a guy does take a buck, it's likely to be an older, healthier animal in really prime condition.

On the flip side, some guys are apparently worried that shooting anything without antlers is going to cause certain valued portions of their anatomy to wither and fall off, so they ignore the does and hammer the first rack that comes by. Or maybe they start off being picky and then shoot whatever little buck shows up on their last day to hunt. Either way, that does nothing to ease the load on the land, because shooting a buck instead of a doe actually increases the herd size; it drives te buck:doe ratio the wrong way; it weeds out a buck that might have become the real King o' the Woods; and it leaves fewer, smaller & skinnier bucks for everybody.

So one guy with some self-confidence issues gets to feel a bit more manly for a few minutes at the check station or wherever, and everybody else loses.

So from an Ethical standpoint - the old Golden Rule Test - we all really do have some degree of obligation to pass up bucks whenever possible (when hunting in overpopulated areas), just the same as when guys used to feel an ethical obligation to pass up does back in the days when deer were few & far between.

Seems to me that old-time Ethical Duty to 'preserve the brood stock' has outlived its usefulness and is now creating a problem in its own right. The population pendulum has swung well past center going the other way, and if we don't reverse our own practices, we're just knowingly undoing everything that the old-timers once accomplished on our behalf. That pendulum may swing far enough to tip the whole thing right on over or it may swing back, but when it does, it's gonna be comin' hard & fast like a coal train, and it ain't gonna be pretty.

Now, this may be hard for some of you guys to believe, but hunting's not so popular in the urban centers where the vast majority of the population lives - and that's the human population, the voting population that I'm thinking about, but the same goes for deer on overstressed range, now that I think about it....


Anyway, if we want to represent hunting as an effective means of wildlife management, then we'd best get the job done before we lose the opportunity and the state has to go into the culling business. In my area, a favorite tactic of the antis is to blame the deer problem on hunters. 30 years ago, we didn't even have a deer season; then the farmers lost the right to shoot them year-round as agricultural pests (the few that were around back then....). Once there was a regulated season, the statewide population boomed, so obviously, hunting deer causes overpopulation. :rolleyes:

Now, anybody with half a lick o' sense can see that the deer problem we have now is not a 'problem' at all in the few remaining agricultural areas of the state, but that's the kind of bogus 'logic' that we're up against in much of this country.


Dave made this point....

This enables the state to develop a reasonable hunting program, bag limits for each species.

That's true, if we do our part. Not just the handful of maniacs like Hawk & Twanger, but as a rule, rather than a handful of scattered exceptions. It doesn't matter how good the plan is if you can't get the hunters to go along with it.

Ask Gary Alt.....:rolleyes:

[Altjaeger]

GF, Iam not trying to call anyone right or wrong, but to promote discussion. Now NC is a trophy hunter but willing to take or have his family take many smaller deer. I have probably taken 9 or 10 does since my last buck and that was a 18 month old.

I think you are right about brood stock. I think now it is trying to keep the overall number balanced to the land and a mixed gender/age class herd while providing as much sport hunting as possible within those paramiters.

[Herne]

If I might just back ST on the business of overpopulation.

Don't forget that overpopulation affects all the deer. Even the ones that don't die. Antlers, stress, winter die off, late fawning, poor fawn survival etc. It doesn't just hit the fawns, it hits every single animal in the area.

Following Chuck S's point. I believe he is right - man should replicate the predators if possible. That means that about 60% of the cull should be youngsters, and the harvest of adult bucks rationed to about 20% of the total.

QDM doesn't mean IMO, planting a few food plots to entice deer in , and then wellying the first big one you see, while braying "I've improved my bucks!!!"

[ncboman]

What I typically see here in eastern NC are pockets where deer are relatively scarce and other areas where they are abundant. The farmers that shoot them during summer is the difference. No deer ever starves in eastern Carolina.

I have land in a neighboring county where the local farmer shoots the deer hard. Several years I've declined to shoot ANY deer there, hoping the boys will get shots at what I pass. There just aren't that many there.

A few miles down the way is another property I sometimes hunt where I'll shoot almost any deer that shows. There's more of em of both sexes and my hunting won't make a difference either way.

My trophy hunting is a complete aside because I travel hundreds of miles to trophy hunt. On a world class scale, eastern NC just doesn't rate.

Here at home I don't trophy hunt nor try to shoot to 'make' trophys. Here at home, I am a meat hunter and have no respect. :D

[Bob S]

Following Chuck S's point. I believe he is right - man should replicate the predators if possible. That means that about 60% of the cull should be youngsters, and the harvest of adult bucks rationed to about 20% of the total.

QDM doesn't mean IMO, planting a few food plots to entice deer in , and then wellying the first big one you see, while braying "I've improved my bucks!!!"I think you meant Bob, not Chuck.

Last year 50% of my doe harvest were fawns. I did not shoot a buck. I also don't have food plots on my land. I do a lot of work improving the natural habitat, but don't have any plots.

QDM is a harvest guideline, not a food plot program.

[Herne]

Bob I do apologise -early am after a long night shift.

NCB - I wasn't having a go at you. More those who in areas short of decent bucks, plant up food which ends up more or less as bait. then they attract in a decent animal and shoot him - on the assumption that the food plot has produced decent bucks. When in fact, at a time of recovery, that one buck was the one who should NOT have been shot.

Personally I'm rather anti food plots. Yes you can sustain more deer but...territory sizes are controlled not just by food availability but by cover as well as other food sources. So to artificially increase sustenance can in fact also increase the concomitant undesirables.

I feel a bit on this one - heaven knows how many rescue jobs I've done on shot out land or wrecked land in the past. Always the same = lots of deer, big time shooter, no bucks, lots of does, Start all over again. Takes 3 years minimum, (and the landowner wants a rent.Ha!)

[DaveHawk]

Food plots; What are they for? Money driven ...................
From seed to equipment. Very few big bucks are taken from food plots. Most big boys are very leary of food plots and baited areas. Food plots are to bring deer in and hold them from other areas.
Then you have biologic food plots another money gimic, hype to get hunters to spend money. I have a feeling that most of the monster bucks shown on the outdoor channel where biologics are used have been bought for the genetics and then with the use of bio and other sources of high protein to develop these large racks. So unless you have the big bucks. Throw a can of corn out a day before your hunt throw another can out if your so inclined. When I hunt the big woods I hunt the deer not the food.

[dave-t.]

I think you're very close there Dave.

I don't think they bring deer in for genetics, but I do think that the TV market hunters buy up or lease a property, speckle it with plots in ideal hunting/stand set-ups, post it for no hunting, and wait for 2-3years before hunting it. That brings the age of bucks up, herd population is way up, pressure is a non issue as most deer on the property won't know of hunting pressure at all.

Now you have mature deer that have no clue about hunting pressure, or that standing about in a secluded but open food plots is a bad idea, and the TV guys have an inventory list with 50+ pics of each buck in the area.

To top it off, they have several properties under similar programs in proximity to each other, and in multiple states.

It is so far off from any type of normal hunting that it is hardly the same sport that the rest of us participate in.

[GF.]

It is so far off from any type of normal hunting that it is hardly the same sport that the rest of us participate in.

I'll go you one further - it's not any kind of 'sport' at all; it's just business.

Sport Hunting, the sport is the thing, not the kill. That's what allows us to ban practices such as baiting or jacklighting and enforce regulations like dawn-to-dusk shooting hours and ethics around things such as a fair chase standard and a quick, one-shot kill.

In Subsistence Hunting, if you don't kill anything, you go hungry. You go hungry long enough, you die. So jacklighting, deadfalls, killing a deer that's swimming a lake or stuck in a mudhole or a snowdrift--all of that is in bounds when your own existence is on the line. Not that I would tolerate or encourage any tolerance for poaching. There may be a few honest subsistence hunters left in the Americas, but none of us qualify. Not by any stretch...

But in Market Hunting, if you don't kill anything, you don't make any money. And that's what the Horn Farms are all about. Big Bucks for Big Bucks. If the client doesn't kill anything, they're going under, so of course they have to do everything possible to maximize their kill percentage, whereas the spirit of Sport Hunting is basically to do everything you can possibly do to maximize the animal's chances of a clean escape before you do everything you can possibly do to maximize the chances for a clean kill.

And I'd argue that the spirit of Sport Hunting is rapidly being left in the dust. Between herds that have been artificially increased with feeders and food plots and all the rest - tree stands, shooting houses, calls, decoys, lure scents, cover scents, carbon suits to remove our own scents; laser rangefinders, '500-yard rifles'; scopes & sabots in the ML season; cams & triggers in the bow season; habitat modifications that change the way the animals use the land....

Sport Hunting isn't dead yet, but the line's getting pretty blurry.....

[DaveHawk]

GF I think you went more then one better. But I also think that it is a very small percentage out there who live hunting like the TV commercial hunters do. It's all hype to get you to spend the big bucks.
I have backed way off to where I may spend 300 bucks a year not including gas and out of town turkey hunts.

[Herne]

Yes - of course its a business, but i think that, in some ways people are being simplistic.

The assumption is often that somehow because one is running market hunting, the bucks will be big.

In fact (unless one is simply buying in and doing a put and take job), to get big bucks, you still have to manage the population correctly. the parameters may be different, but the management still has to be sound.

I think also its a utopian view being pushed - at least to a point. Somehow we all want to get back to the pure outdoors, pure deer pure hunting. So far so good, except it isn't pure, and the gun laws have introduced an artificially high level of a particular type of predation, mans occupancy has changed the habitat, and if you didn't have this skewed type of set up, you wouldn't be able to accommodate the number of hunters that have to be accommodated.

We have much of the "purity" you crave. Our deer are entirely wild (apart from the tiny proportion of park deer which are not run for a profit). Its great hunting for those who can get it. (Or the price everyone else has to pay for it)

So you pays your money and takes your choice

[GF.]

I think the difference, though, is that over there the land owners are not primarily in the deer business and you can sell the meat to a mass market. Here, the does and cull bucks have zero commercial value, and only the bone mass matters.

That makes (IMO) for better herd and land management over there, because there's not nearly the economic incentive towards overpopulating an area. None, I'd expect....

I'd disagree, though, with the notion that we have 'too many hunters'--we just have extremely patchy access to the land. Not enough 'harvest' on the private land; too much hunting pressure on the public areas. Not nearly so bad out West, though...

Anyway, most of what passes for 'QDM' over here seems to be geared towards increasing the herd size on private land that's often got too many deer on it in the first place, and of course I'd say that that's driving the equation exactly the wrong way.

[dave-t.]

That is it GF. Create more food to feed more deer for more action and exciting hunts, regardless of what the land would naturally support. With creating big year round food sources, and having set sanctuaries for the deer, you alter their movement and patterns to what benefits the hunter the most.

Some of the TV guys are very good at aging deer on the hoof, because they've named the bucks and have seen each one on film for 2-3-4years.

That gives a guy a lot of incentive to pass on that 165" 4yr old, when you've seen him every year, have picutre proof of his favorite haunts, and know that next year he may get bigger yet.

Not the norm for where I hunt.

[Herne]

Not in the deer business- yes thats true. Deer are a by product, mostly of the tree business.

Having said that, most that I met wanted good deer, and since it was their land, and the families had owned it for generations often, they felt they were handing on an asset to the next generation.

So there are differences.

Too many hunters - well there are certainly an awful lot of applicants - point 1. 2 - most people hunting public land have no direct interest in the deer beyond what affects them personally.

I'm absolutely convinced that if you can give people a stake in the deer, stalking private land, or paying a farmer a REASONABLE rent, then people get interested. Push the equation askew, like charging too much rent, and people start to have to shoot or whatever to recover money. Or "get value" etc.

Take Germany and other places - one of the reasons rents are high is because there are an awful lot of guns about.If its easy to get a gun, inevitably you want to use it....

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

Herne, just out of curiosity, what are the penalties for selling deer meat illegally in the UK. The reason I ask is an extension of GF's post. It is strictly prohibited to sell any part of a game animal in the US. There are exceptions of course, but they are very regulated. Even animals that are donated to food kitchens still come under the rules and regulations of whatever wildlife service. Likewise, any game animal killed legally must be utilized as "Wanton Waste" is also prohibited. (not that anyone here would do that)

There is little doubt that hunting is a business. It has been so for many, many years. I am recalling the purity of the hunt described by my grandfather in the mid 1920's on the Soledad Ranch in South Texas. He told me of times when he would chase deer on horseback and shoot them on the run with a Winchester 92 in 25-20. All of these deer were eaten in their entirety by the ranch hands on that 100,000+ acre ranch. There were no roads or refrigeration and not too much water. He called it hunting, and it was. It was also business because those ranch hands had signed on for $2/day and food. It was common practice. I doubt if we would go back to that. Not many of us really want to go back to the purity of the hunt otherwise we'd be sharpening sticks and chipping flint and digging pits and setting traps. Most of us just want what we want and we don't want what is what we want.

Those high dollar buck hunts are the first ones to go unbooked in times like these.

All the big boys just finished watching their stocks drop by half. They are not going to spring 5 - 10 K for a Deer right now.

Oh Well, off to work!

Alan

[GF.]

Dave - More exciting hunts, you say?


What's so damn exciting about sitting in a heated shooting shack, watching dozens of animals mill around while you shop for this year's 'trophy'?:confused:




:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Maybe it comes from having a lifetime collection of punched tags that still numbers in somewhat modest double-digits, and maybe that comes from just not being all that good at it, but what keeps hunting interesting for me is the question of IF I'll fill a tag at all, not whether or not this year's buck(s) will make the book.

It's really nice to have had a freezer full of veni to take us through the winter, but I'm looking forward to raising the ante this year by leaving the rifles at home...

[GF.]

That's my point exactly; if we're good stewards of the public resource (as your UK landowners must be with their private ones), we'll have a sense of responsibility to manage it well for the benefit of all of us, rather than just ourselves. JMO, that's reason enough to ban scopes & sabots from ML seasons and limit every hunter to just one buck a year, regardless of method, but those are a couple other rants.... ;)

The Europeans hae a sense of having a stake in the herd because they do; we over here tend to see the public resource as something owed to us, rather than something we're obligated to help manage for the general good.

Sure, I'm an idealist. But when you have no ideals to live up to, there's no telling how low you'll be willing to stoop.

[Herne]

You'll lose your firearms certificate, certain = lose your guns + lose you stalking.. Thats not a court action though your appeal against the police administrative action might be (You'd lose on the grounds that you have demonstrated that you are not a fit and proper person to own and use a firearm- you'd also lose any shotguns too. Thats for life normally.5 years absolute minimum. Bad news to play around witrh the game laws and firearms laws!!! Drunken driving you'll lose your guns - personal responsibility etc!)

If you were prosecuted under the law then a gaol term is on the books. More realistically a fine

We did stop cutting arms off people and toes off dogs a while ago BTW ;)

[Alan R McDaniel Jr]

We did stop cutting arms off people and toes off dogs a while ago BTW ;)

Too bad.



The reason I asked is because I figured the penalties were pretty stiff. That is not the case here. While penalties for firearms and wildlife violations have become increasingly more severe they don't compare to what you have described.

Alan

[Herne]

Matt- i think that if there is a personal stake in something, or people can be shown that they have a direct stake, then they are likely to do it better.

Not sadly that its always done well here - but on average its reasonably good.

Alan - don't forget that our law is completely different. Here to have a gun, you have to show due cause and that you have a degree of competence and are likely to behave responsibly with it. Then there is a criminal records check. And a medical check with your doctor for a history of specific problems (typically depression)

Then you get your ticket. This doesn't affect the normal sensible person. You go through a bit of an administrative palaver once, pays your £50 of so for a five year ticket, and that's it. On renewal is a near enough formality unless you have been stupid.

But what it does allow is the police to sort out someone who has disobeyed the law, because they can remove his ticket (and weapons) until he appeals through the courts (who may not uphold that appeal.)

So if you want to keep your guns, it behoves you to behave - that doesn't make you a good deer manager, but it might persuade one not to go poaching!

Is it a good system. Like all it has its limitations. We have virtually zero crime with legally held guns. We have virtually no hunting accidents resulting in injury with rifles, and very few involving the much more common shotgun. We don't have your freedom to buy guns, we probably get better and less legalised and controlled hunting. Its what you get used to, and it doesn't really affect the normal rational person who has permission to shoot on a farm or belongs to a gun club and wants to do no more than go out and hunt a few ducks/pigeons /deer or bang away at targets all day on a range.

[DaveHawk]

Herne have you ever worn Camouflage?

In Maryland if you get cought hunting on state land it will cost you 50 bucks , that's it and their are many guys who will chance the hunt for a monster buck. But I can't see it, no need to have my name on the DNR's list of poachers.

[Herne]

Camouflage - yes all the time - face veil and gloves too. Never worn orange though.

Mostly I never bothered with camo on the legs - just goretex lined green moleskins. I have a set of Cabelas extra heavy bowhunting kit (jacket and trousers) and wore it too. I just preferred the Deerhunter (Danish stuff) and they make these beautiful goretex jackets, with a zip in fleece lining - leather edges to the pockets, and collar - top quality. And their moleskin trousers were very comfy and very long lasting. Its all Realtree pattern of one sort or another (none of which is any better than another so far as I can tell)

I wouldn't wear camouflage on a formal pheasant day, bird shooting, obviously - breeks and tweed jacket. But deer, ducks, pigeons etc - yes, surely.