Here is the discussion......

[NorthJeff]

OK, It seems most of us are for QDM principles, that being practicing restraint in the harvest of young bucks and taking a doe if and when needed.

Why do we pass on a young buck? What are our personal reasons for doing so? Do we think it helps the herd, improves the hunting experience, just why do we do it?

What I'd like to discuss, civily if possible, is my firm belief that on northern pubic lands with baiting, we will never improve our buck age structure unless we mandate that it happens. Voluntary restraint is booming on private lands to the point that many private land areas, even in the U.P., are experiencing BETTER results than they would if just an AR was followed.

I see our public lands as no differnt than an average public access lake around here...fished out an sub-legal (young) fish with no chance of improvement because people have no real connection with the stewardship and management of the particular lake. However when you get to the non-public access lakes the fishing dramatically improves to the point that many private lakes form fishing associations to improve the fishing on what they feel is THEIR lake. It is no different on public land and deer hunting. It's nothing against the public land hunter, it's just that most are not there on public land to hunt within a stewardship or actual management role. Some are, but there are very few.

So, the crux of the discussion. Most of us hunt within the principles of practicing restraint on the harvest of young bucks, and most take a doe when and if needed, however, if we do these things because we think it equals an improved herd, an improved habitat, etc....do we understand that on public land, for public land hunters, they will never experience what we honestly believe in unless mandated by law? That is the issue. We will never experience a QDM herd, or a herd with an adequate buck age structure on public lands, unless mandated. Is that right for the public land hunter? Is that right that we can enjoy the fruits of good management on private lands (myself included in two states), knowing full well that our public land fellow hunters are falling further and further behind when compared to the modern management techniques we employ on private lands. Are most of you comfortable with that? I don't see it getting any better either. You just need to take a look at our immediate gratification culture we are in. Gone are the days when the typical hunter slept in a tent and hoofed it for 2 weeks straight. We want to harvest a buck in the 3-4 days we have allowed for hunting, even a full week, and take what we can, no thinking about next year, I'll just take what I can get right now. Maybe it's an issue of expectations....we expect the same results, but want to accomplish those results in a fraction of the time.

Anyways, on public lands with baiting, we will never experience an older age structure of bucks unless mandated, and that is my firm belief. I am reminded of John Ozoga's statement at one of our public meetings concerning QDM that was something along the lines of an MAR would be a good thing in the U.P., but he didn't think that U.P. hunters were ready for it and he was right, we only got a 2:1 support, which wasn't enough to pass. In the end though I don't think I am alone in my thinking that without an MAR, the public land hunter will never experience what most of us enjoy so much of hunting private land, even further distancing the bridge of gap of quality levels between the private and public land hunters...does that sit well with most of you as you prepare to take full advantage of your private land management efforts? It doesn't with me, and I personally think it's a shame because it could be so much better.

[Brown duck]

Before I make any statement, I really don't lean either way - I wouldn't oppose more antler restrictions, but I'm fine the way things are right now too.

The problem I see with QDM starts with the very first word: Quality. One buck might be a quality deer to some, but others would pass on it waiting for something bigger. Still others don't see the single deer as "quality," but the experience of the hunt. One might define a morning in which 3 spike horns cross by as quality, but another hunter might not be satisfied until he or she spots a 10 - point within range. Of course, I haven't come across a hunter yet that isn't excited with seeing a huge buck, but some hunters might be just as excited to see two smaller bucks.

Don't forget that there are still many hunters out there that are interested in harvesting a deer for the table. Sure, this can be accomplished by harvesting a doe (assuming done legally), but many do not think harvesting a young buck is any different.

When I first moved out of state, I met hunters from around the country. Some spoke of deer in "1xx-class," and those numbers that they spouted off meant (and still do mean) nothing to me. Obviously, I know that a 180 deer is bigger than a 100 deer, but I couldn't pick either one out of a crowd. The point is, people simply have different values, they aren't necessarily right or wrong, just different. One of the biggest problems managers face is managing people; wildlife can be much easier to manage - they usually act in a consistent manner.

[Munsterlndr]

Public land hunters are welcome to practice VARs, just like their private land brethren and in fact more and more of them are doing it every year. The whole MAR's issue should be put to bed for good. All it does is fracture the hunting fraternity and cause bad relations between sportsmen.

In my opinion, the majority of deer hunters in Michigan are more interested in taking home some venison than they are in shooting a large buck. They may whine & moan about not seeing big bucks but when push comes to shove they want to harvest something. In some areas, where there are a surplus of does, it makes sense for meat hunters to harvest a doe. But in many parts of the State antlerless permits are unavailable. To further restrict the harvest by imposing antler restrictions is going to limit the potential for success to such a degree that more and more hunters will just give up and quit. Of course, some on this site would say that would be a good thing and would create less competition for the hard core deer hunters, but I disagree that hunters leaving the sport would be a good thing.

Also, MAR's invariably gets tied to QDM and it has a negative impact on the perception of what QDM is all about. QDM in Michigan is finally getting to the point where it is not saddled with the perception that "QDM is all about the Antlers". It would be regressive to go back to pushing for MAR's and all of the baggage that goes with it.

I realize that most of the people who frequent this site are fanatics about deer hunting but lets remember that the vast majority of deer hunters in Michigan take a much more relaxed approach to the sport. It's important to keep things in perspective. Every once in a while someone will post about a family member or loved one who is missing deer season because they are in Iraq. I would surmise that they would be quite happy just to go hunting and be out in the woods without someone shooting at them and if you asked them whether they were worried about the "quality" of the buck that they shoot they would probably say they could give a rats behind about whether they even shoot a deer. There is a lesson to be learned there and it's "don't sweat the small stuff in life". Just be glad you have your health and the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors with friends and family. At the end of the day, does it really make that big a difference, in the greater scheme of things, whether you shoot a 6 point or a 10 point?

[NorthJeff]

How does it fraction the hunting fraternity...who is the negative one to do this? What was said when public fake lynchings were held and doe-permit burning barrels warmed the hands in the center of town in the U.P.? Game management shouldn't be a popularity contest...but it's nice when there is 2:1 support for something...ANYTHING! Shoot, the 1 buck license didn't even garnish that much support.

The points mean nothing....it's all age related. And you are right, public land hunters can practice VARs, but they don't, and that is the problem that sets apart hunters even further in quality and frankly the number of bucks and buck encounters that one experiences when hunting. The problem is not that VARs are a great thing...it's that they don't work on public land looking at the big picture.

We can put MARs to be for good, and they may be, but the discussion centers around the fact that public land hunting will never improve in number of bucks or age of bucks unless there is an MAR, and of course I take you are O.K. with that, and I totally respect that, but that is the decision we make. We just have to be realistic. I think that some have a very flowery opinion that VARs will work someday on public land, and I see no evidence to follow that line of logic. We have to be aware of the decisions we make, the positions we take, and their implications. We have to be realistic with our expectations and end result. The problem isn't necessarily the thought that guys don't want an older age structure, more bucks in the woods, improved sex ratios, increased rutting activity, etc., etc....the problem with me personally is that hunters feel that an older age structure and increase in buck numbers will happen voluntarily and they are not realistic in their expectations. I have total respect for the hunter that wants to shoot any legal buck...more power to them! However, we need to be realistic about how to achieve the end result, if it's what we believe in.

As far as the association between MARs and QDM..so be it. Whatever we do in life there are tough choices. But, right decisions need to be made with the honest conviction of doing what is best, regardless of the consequences or inappropriate negative image that is assumed by the ill-informed, even if it is the majority. I never get this saying right, but is it "complaceny is the abscence of leadership"? Sometime the right path is a lonely one, but so be it.

The discussion is past the effectiveness of an MAR on public lands...anyone knows that it is the most effective at what it is designed to do, however, do people realize it is the only way to attain an olde buck age structure and increased number of bucks within the herd? A VAR will not work on public land where baiting is allowed.

[NorthJeff]

"I think you will see that MAR's definitely fractured the hunting community."

Actually, I ask you to show what other issue has united the hunters & landowners over such a large area to the tune of a 2:1 support?

Again though, a MAR is the only way to achieve an older age structure on public land...VARs do not and will not work. So, are guys comfortable with this...do they realize this? You can't blame a guy for wanting to enjoy shooting a small buck..no problem with that, same with a guy wanting to take 8 rabbits, a small bass, 7 grouse, etc....I have no problem with any of those desires of hunters or fishermen. However, we have to realize that effective regulations in public settings, whether it be land or water, are what determine population numbers and age structures, people do not voluntarily do it on their own. In fact history has shown that when hunters are left unregulated they just about wipe-out whatever species they pursue. We just do not do it on our own unless we have a connections of stewardship with the land, or we are mandated.

Part of the reason to bring this up is to express the need to be realistic in our actions and expectations. If we want to get to a certain goal, and we believe in that end result, we have a responsibility to be realistic in our approach. I think Gary Alt of PA described it best when he discussed the hardship he and his team discovered when they wanted to make changes in PA. They new the buck age structure and sex ratios were a problem, and a MAR believe it or not was the LAST tool of management they wanted to use. However, they went through the list: Cutting tags, buck quotas, stopping buck hunting, lotteries, VARs, etc. and in the end the only way they were going to improve buck age structure was to implement an MAR. They looked at their desired end result, looked at all the possible ways to get there, and went with the only solution that would produce credible results. Then came the tough decision. They knew it was the only way..but they had to choose to go that way and as history has shown, they did. They were making an honest assesment of the situation, looked at all the options, and went with what they thought would work the best even though they knew it would not be a popular decision. That is leadership at its finest. Not because they did what I would have done, but because they took honest intentions, sound research, looked at all the options, and did what they thought was the best regardless of hunter opinion. They were realistic with their expectations, and they found a tool that would produce the desired end result.

[Trophy Specialist]

Public land hunters are welcome to practice VARs, just like their private land brethren and in fact more and more of them are doing it every year. The whole MAR's issue should be put to bed for good. All it does is fracture the hunting fraternity and cause bad relations between sportsmen.
In one breath you say that MARs are fracturing the hunting fraternity and you violently oppose such measures based on that argument; then in the next breath you push for a one-buck limit, expanded crossbow seasons and other extremely controversial measures that one could argue are even more divisive among hunters. Coming from you that “divisiveness” argument rings as a façade.

Michigan has one of the fastest growing QDMA memberships in the country. IMHO, that growth is largely due to MARs initiatives across the state. It is certainly why I got involved with Superior Deer Management, which is now a large QDMA branch. MARs jump started the QDM movement in MI and I guarantee that if MARs were ever adapted statewide, QDM participation and QDMA membership would grow much faster than if not. Ed Spin once told me that in an interview that MARs are like QDM on the fast track. That statement still holds true.

Pescadero made an excellent point.

[Munsterlndr]

"I think you will see that MAR's definitely fractured the hunting community."

Actually, I ask you to show what other issue has united the hunters & landowners over such a large area to the tune of a 2:1 support?
Yet a majority of the MAR's proposals have not reached the required amount of support. Yeah, I can hear it already, it's unfair that the DNR required a 2/3rd's majority, but hey those are the rules they established. If you don't like it, take it up with Bob Garner, I'm sure he'll listen with an open mind. If there was the overwhelming support for MAR's that you would have us believe exists, we would not be having this discussion and MAR's would be the status quo in more than just a few DMU's in Michigan. Your kidding yourself if you don't think this is a divisive issue among Michigan deer hunters.


Again though, a MAR is the only way to achieve an older age structure on public land...VARs do not and will not work. So, are guys comfortable with this...do they realize this? You can't blame a guy for wanting to enjoy shooting a small buck..no problem with that, same with a guy wanting to take 8 rabbits, a small bass, 7 grouse, etc....I have no problem with any of those desires of hunters or fishermen. However, we have to realize that effective regulations in public settings, whether it be land or water, are what determine population numbers and age structures, people do not voluntarily do it on their own. In fact history has shown that when hunters are left unregulated they just about wipe-out whatever species they pursue. We just do not do it on our own unless we have a connections of stewardship with the land, or we are mandated.
Strawman argument. We are not talking about unregulated deer hunting. We are talking about imposing a regulation that may improve the buck age structure. While that may be a laudable goal and having mature bucks in the herd does add some benefit to the social structure of the herd, you would be hard pressed to demonstrate that it has an appreciable impact on the overall health of the herd. Under TDM the Michigan herd remained pretty healthy. Population controls will have the most impact on overall herd health, not buck age structure. You are also being a little disingenuous when you say "you can't blame a guy for wanting to shoot a small buck" yet at the same time wanting to pass a regulation that would in fact stop him form doing so.

Part of the reason to bring this up is to express the need to be realistic in our actions and expectations. If we want to get to a certain goal, and we believe in that end result, we have a responsibility to be realistic in our approach. I think Gary Alt of PA described it best when he discussed the hardship he and his team discovered when they wanted to make changes in PA. They new the buck age structure and sex ratios were a problem, and a MAR believe it or not was the LAST tool of management they wanted to use. However, they went through the list: Cutting tags, buck quotas, stopping buck hunting, lotteries, VARs, etc. and in the end the only way they were going to improve buck age structure was to implement an MAR. They looked at their desired end result, looked at all the possible ways to get there, and went with the only solution that would produce credible results. Then came the tough decision. They knew it was the only way..but they had to choose to go that way and as history has shown, they did. They were making an honest assessment of the situation, looked at all the options, and went with what they thought would work the best even though they knew it would not be a popular decision. That is leadership at its finest. Not because they did what I would have done, but because they took honest intentions, sound research, looked at all the options, and did what they thought was the best regardless of hunter opinion. They were realistic with their expectations, and they found a tool that would produce the desired end result.
You want to get to a certain goal but I have not seen any evidence that a majority of Michigan deer hunters have the same goal as you do. Not everyone is so wrapped up in shooting large racked deer that they would move to another state if a one buck limit was passed. As far as Dr. Alt and the Pennsylvania experiment, don't forget that the MAR's implementation was also taking place simultaneously with a herd reduction program which reduced the size of the herd in PA by about 2/3rds. Are hunters seeing larger racks in PA because of MAR's or because there is much less competition for food among the remaining deer and the overall health of the herd has improved. How many of the 6 or 8 points that are being harvested under PA Mar's are 1.5 year old bucks? It is a little premature to canonize Alt at this point.

[Munsterlndr]

In one breath you say that MARs are fracturing the hunting fraternity and you violently oppose such measures based on that argument; then in the next breath you push for a one-buck limit, expanded crossbow seasons and other extremely controversial measures that one could argue are even more divisive among hunters. Coming from you that “divisiveness” argument rings as a façade.
TS, for someone who complains about personal attacks and trying to get threads off topic you sure don't practice what you preach. :lol:

Please quote where I said I was "violently" opposed to MAR's based on the argument that it fractures the hunting community. I simply made the statement that it fractures the hunting community and regardless of what you or Jeff think, that is a fact. I am opposed to MAR's ( as I have stated numerous times before) because I feel that it unreasonably limits recreational opportunities for the vast majority of hunters. As far as my opinions on the one buck rule or crossbow use, they are not really germaine to this thread and my guess is that the moderators would prefer it to stay on topic. If you want to start a new thread I'll be happy to voice my views on those topics.


Michigan has one of the fastest growing QDMA memberships in the country. IMHO, that growth is largely due to MARs initiatives across the state. It is certainly why I got involved with Superior Deer Management, which is now a large QDMA branch. MARs jump started the QDM movement in MI and I guarantee that if MARs were ever adapted statewide, QDM participation and QDMA membership would grow much faster than if not. Ed Spin once told me that in an interview that MARs are like QDM on the fast track. That statement still holds true.
Well Mike, as you stated that is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. I would submit that a large number of QDMA members in Michigan (myself being one of them) disagree that the MAR's debate has been positive for QDMA recruitment.

[Swamper]

Why do we have to keep discussing QDM with a focus on big bucks/MARs/telling others what is a "quality experience"? It keeps setting progress back! It mislabels what quality deer goals are all about.

We shall overcome, I am confident of that. We are making progress despite.

Swamper

[Pauly3511]

This just goes to show what a real mess our state is in. Look at you people or hunters. Noone every agrees and nobody ever agrees to disagree. Everyone is right noone is wrong noone cares what anyone else says. lets face it it will be like this till the day we die. Our deer herd is heading for god knows what and everybody says they care but knowone will work together. Oh well its a mess and probably always will be just look at these threads and how they go immediately after they are posted, its starting to get disgusting. my white flage out. On our property we will practice letting the little ones go and harvesting a doe when needed, we will do our part to help the hear by managing our property, as for everyone else im too the point where i dont really give a fat ****.

[giver108]

This just goes to show what a real mess our state is in. Look at you people or hunters. Noone every agrees and nobody ever agrees to disagree. Everyone is right noone is wrong noone cares what anyone else says. lets face it it will be like this till the day we die. Our deer herd is heading for god knows what and everybody says they care but knowone will work together. Oh well its a mess and probably always will be just look at these threads and how they go immediately after they are posted, its starting to get disgusting. my white flage out. On our property we will practice letting the little ones go and harvesting a doe when needed, we will do our part to help the hear by managing our property, as for everyone else im too the point where i dont really give a fat ****.

Although I enjoy reading these threads and admire certain members' tenacity in defending their viewpoints, I see your point, Pauly. Maybe one of these days the MDNR or NRC or whoever would make up their minds about how they want to manage deer. Whatever it is, mandatory MAR's, no baiting (I wish), a 40-acre to 480-acre rule, who knows. I do know that we would still be here b_tching I'm sure. Part of the MI deer hunting tradition I guess.

[lang49]

Quite a cycle isn't it. Public land hunters take young bucks because there are no mature bucks to take and- There are no mature bucks because hunters take young bucks. :dizzy:

Yet, I find it amusing that the opening post makes it sound like its a sin to take a doe ("taking a doe if and when needed"). I think the answer to the problem is the doe, not the buck. People don't seem to recongize the fact that a smaller deer heard may be significantly healthier (one with "adequate buck age structure "). Yet, we've got to see tons of deer in the woods in order to consider our season successful...

-Andrew

[skipper34]

The most difficult thing in life is to get the majority to agree on a subject such as deer hunting. There lies the problem. Like I said in an earlier post, unless we are all on the same page, this discussion will never have an end. Hunting is and always will be a personal thing for all hunters. We each have our own values and definitions. Put 100 deer hunters together and see how many will agree on even a few such matters. All I can say is, if you want to practice QDM or herd management or VAR or MAR or want to put out bait, as long as you stay within the laws, have at it. Enjoy your time spent in the deer woods. Lord knows we may not have all that much time left to enjoy it. Make the most of it. Have fun! Isn't that what it's all about?

[Ferris_StateHunter]

"I also believe that a lot of the QDM supporters have pushed for MARS and QDM on public lands knowing that if they can get those bucks to 2 1/2 a lot of them would be smart enough to drop into the private lands when the pressure came. Our public lands don't need QDM, it just need Deer/Habitat Management which it hasn't had for a long time."

I disagree, Private land owners are not looking for their own gain on this issue, but its because some have actually tried things on their own piece of heaven and its worked for them
and with so many people complaining about numbers and such, most are public land hunters. Your exactly right in the management on public land needs to be changed, but no one seems to be doing it on their own, because one of the mindsets is if i pass on this buck someone else will shoot it..

So thats why I feel people come up with such things as MAR's, one buck and such because in the areas it has been used, they have been proven to give hunters what they want (for the most part)but it wouldnt be that difficult to do if hunters did it voluntarily, but untill that happens we need a law to help

[Pauly3511]

the thing is its great for private land owners to practice sound managment it does make a difference but its not a huge impact. For a big impact to be made for their personal hunting a private land owner has to has a very large piece of property. 80-160 acres is nothing the deer they manage will with out of doubt not always be on their property, if everyone else around them for a substantial radius of land is not on the same page its all for not its like pissing into the wind. Dont get me wrong every little bit helps but its still a give and take battle

[Whit1]

As a moderator in here I shuddered when I saw the title of this thread (no offense Jeff) knowing where it would go....into posts that were off topic (baiting especially) far too personal in their comments, and overblown hyperbole in referring to members, comments, and ideas.

I've deleted several threads, PMing one of the authors (I don't have the time to PM all of you who have a post deleted), due to the above, including the interlinking of QDM and MARS. They are not synonomous.

Believe it or not you can make comments, express your feelings, thoughts, and experiences without going into a childish rant about the topic and especially members who happen to disagree with your take on the topic. It is possible.

Leave the insults, hyperbole (gross exaggeration) and misrepresentation out of here. If you can't do that don't post.

Now............back to the topic at hand which is:

OK, It seems most of us are for QDM principles, that being practicing restraint in the harvest of young bucks and taking a doe if and when needed.

Why do we pass on a young buck? What are our personal reasons for doing so? Do we think it helps the herd, improves the hunting experience, just why do we do it?

[Ferris_StateHunter]

Well personally I pass on younger bucks to maintain a balanced herd, but yea I will admit it also has to deal with seein bigger bucks. Sure any deer I see in the woods gets my blood flowing, but man the adrenaline when a really big buck walks in front of you is like none other to me.

Also I practice certain things because I find it enjoyable, Extends my season to year round (I found that if I dont I get a little ancy during the year). I feel like I am a part of something that does good. QDM is makes me feel good and big buck management can make hunts even that much more special. not saying that any time in the woods is ill spent, but Like I stated earlier, I like to have trophys on my wall. and if by restraining myself on certain things helps my chances, well I am all for it

[boehr]

The most difficult thing in life is to get the majority to agree on a subject such as deer hunting. There lies the problem. Like I said in an earlier post, unless we are all on the same page, this discussion will never have an end. Hunting is and always will be a personal thing for all hunters. We each have our own values and definitions. Put 100 deer hunters together and see how many will agree on even a few such matters.
:yeahthat: The most honest/truthful post in this thread.:)

[Swamper]

Whit - thanks for narrowing the topic down.

To your question - I would answer yes to all of your reasons listed, but will also take a young buck if the time and situation justify it. As many have stated, buck size harvest is just one element of QDM.

Swamper

[Brian S]

So, the crux of the discussion. Most of us hunt within the principles of practicing restraint on the harvest of young bucks, and most take a doe when and if needed, however, if we do these things because we think it equals an improved herd, an improved habitat, etc....do we understand that on public land, for public land hunters, they will never experience what we honestly believe in unless mandated by law? That is the issue. We will never experience a QDM herd, or a herd with an adequate buck age structure on public lands, unless mandated.

Anyways, on public lands with baiting, we will never experience an older age structure of bucks unless mandated, and that is my firm belief.


Not trying to stirr the pot, but the quote above further defines the intent of the original post.

While I'm at it, I'll never support any elimination of baiting or the implementation of MARS. A QDM herd is not that important.

[beer and nuts]

Why I pass on small rack bucks or should I say small normal looking bucks(I'll shoot a crazy looking rack buck)? Because the #1 reason is for me, I do not want to use my buck license up in order to pursue the bigger buck or/and to keep hunting and be in the outdoors, but at the same time I might consider a younger buck IF my son is sitting with me and/or time of season and/or if I have a doe permit(s) to use and/or if I have already shot a doe and/or if I have already shot a 4 point on one side buck(would not shot another buck unless its bigger than the first). I only can put so much in my freezer, everything is taken into account with many many more factors(ie...how many deer am I seeing that particuliar year). Duck hunting is also in the equation and how good is the duck season going and the season dates...I could go on and on with factors on why I do or do not pass on smaller bucks....

Also, it seems we are really getting alot of "assuming" when it comes to public land and its hunters and how good or bad the hunting might be. I ask some of you on here to think and answer this question to yourself(no need to answer on this thread): When was the last time you actually hunted MI public land and what was your hunting experience?? I think the suprise will be in the first part of the question.

[Gilbey]

OK, It seems most of us are for QDM principles, that being practicing restraint in the harvest of young bucks and taking a doe if and when needed.


Why do we pass on a young buck? What are our personal reasons for doing so? Do we think it helps the herd, improves the hunting experience, just why do we do it?

I know what you mean Jeff, but this can be taken a few ways. And this is one of those sociologic deals where none, or little of it can be backed by science. Opinions are as they are.

We hunt not for the benefit of the herd. We hunt for the experience of the hunt. But we do follow some of what we believe to lead to better hunting in things such as passing on the smaller bucks and taking does if necessary. I guess you could say the two are mutually inclusive to us.

I hunt both private and public. VARS can and does work well on private. It can also work on public to a CERTAIN EXTENT. At home(private), VARS can produce some nice mature bucks.

At camp however, we have been under the MARS for the last five years. We hunt sections of public land, and the surrounding camps that tap into that are currently for the most part going to continue VARS. We, the guys that have hunted there, do hunt there, and will be hunting there have all agreed that we have seen many more mature bucks compared to 5 years ago. So....as for quality of hunt for larger bucks, it's been a very good thing.

However, with more and more visitors this year, next year and so on from downstate or surrounding areas checking others out, VARS can and will only work to a certain degree. Many people WILL take the first spike or 4 they see. So, VARS will only be a round for a period of how long it takes everybody else's mood to sour on passing that decent 4 and then getting shot 200 yrds away.

So I guess in answerf to some of your questions Jeff, yes we hunt according to these QDM principals for NOW. We do this for "next year's" enjoyment knowing that the MARS, now VARS will POTENTIALLY create opportunity. We have plenty of food source, so there's no argument there in what caused the larger racks. It ends up being better for the herd, for our camps selfish reasons.:evil:

But the MARS worked. And I, along with the bordering dozen camps or so, are going to continue with VARS. And on publiic land to boot.

We'll see how long it takes to revert back to brown is down after we start experiencing "visitors" taking whatever. I'll give it two years and VARS will be only a personal choice, not a cumulative effort.

Bring MARS back:cool:

[Pinefarm]

I pass on yearling bucks only because I hope that somehow they will make it through the season to live at least one more year. If I kill that buck I passed, which would be relatively easy if below my treestand in archery or with my crosshairs on it in firearms, then that buck will never see 2.5 years old.
I see it as an investment. Anyone here have any investments? Do you cash them in as soon as they show some small profit or do you practice restraint because you know that, more than likely, time will be kind to the investment?

I have to add one thing, I don't think most guys looking for an older age class want novices or guys that "only see 1 or 2 bucks a year" to necessarily pass on any buck if they see one. To me, the problem arises from the guys that kill lots of bucks and still continue to kill 2 small bucks a year, even when they have 15-20 bucks, or more, under their belt. And believe me, there's lots of those guys. At least around my camp there is. Again, it's isn't just 4% of all hunters that shoot 2 bucks a year that is the number that should be looked at. The important stat is that 1 out of every 7 hunters that kills 1 buck ends up killing 2 bucks. And as stated here many times, we all know lots of neighbors that kill a spike and then turn around to kill a little 4x2 or 4x3 yearling for their restricted tag and they do it every year. Many times, those same guys brag about "never killing does". There's also still a lot of "kill the yearling buck because somebody else will if you don't" syndrome out there. Anyone who kills a buck only to spite someone else is certainly not part of the solution, in my book.

[QDMAMAN]

Anyone who kills a buck only to spite someone else is certainly not part of the solution, in my book.


BRAVO!!!

[Joe Archer]

My main objective each year is to put venison in the freezer. Also, I love to see and take mature bucks on the state land I hunt. I will pass on a yearling buck if the doe herd warrants taking one for the table. If the deer numbres are down, I will settle for that yearling, generally having passed him up multiple times. I feel my choice every year is in the best interest of matching herd numbers with habitat. In my mind you shouldn't mandate MARS and manage the buck herd until you establish a management plan to align the existing herd with their environment.
<----<<<

[Swamp Ghost]

Not trying to stirr the pot, but the quote above further defines the intent of the original post.

While I'm at it, I'll never support any elimination of baiting or the implementation of MARS. A QDM herd is not that important.

Way off topic..........

[Brian S]

Way off topic..........

Maybe you should read the first post in this thread:rolleyes:

[Swamp Ghost]

As a moderator in here I shuddered when I saw the title of this thread (no offense Jeff) knowing where it would go....into posts that were off topic (baiting especially) far too personal in their comments, and overblown hyperbole in referring to members, comments, and ideas.

I've deleted several threads, PMing one of the authors (I don't have the time to PM all of you who have a post deleted), due to the above, including the interlinking of QDM and MARS. They are not synonomous.

Believe it or not you can make comments, express your feelings, thoughts, and experiences without going into a childish rant about the topic and especially members who happen to disagree with your take on the topic. It is possible.

Leave the insults, hyperbole (gross exaggeration) and misrepresentation out of here. If you can't do that don't post.

Now............back to the topic at hand which is:

OK, It seems most of us are for QDM principles, that being practicing restraint in the harvest of young bucks and taking a doe if and when needed.

Why do we pass on a young buck? What are our personal reasons for doing so? Do we think it helps the herd, improves the hunting experience, just why do we do it?

:rolleyes:

Now............back to the topic at hand ;)

[Brian S]

Try this SG, if you don't like my post or think it is off topic then report it to a moderator.

Otherwise, stick to the topic.

[Brian S]

:rolleyes:

Now............back to the topic at hand ;)

And your contribution to this thread is . . . . . . . . . .?

Oh, wait, was that it!?

Just stopping by to keep us in line?