Personal conservation

[ssumner1]

#6663

This has been something on my mind for many years and I would love to know what others think on this.I have always felt that our wild game should be managed by us more than the government because every circumstance is different. Heck every 50 miles may be different. To that end, I have made sure to only target does that I feel are around 3 years old. This is a guess on the age based on size of animal and it’s demeanor in the woods. Bucks have to be 6 point or bigger right now and if the horns appear really poor then I may take him to remove from the gene pool. Again that is an assumption I’m taking thinking it is inferior in horn quality.

Has anyone really seen any benefits from this? Especially knowing family members don’t hold the same standards as well as land owners around me.

Critics accepted. This may turn into a wonderful debate.

[David Coulter]

#53775

Sumner,

Good thoughts. There are usually inconsistencies when regulating game in a state wide or regional way. Where I live and hunt there are fewer deer per square mile in the woods than in the residential developments. On the other hand, often the bigger deer with nicer racks are in areas where there are fewer deer and more food source. It’s not necessarily about genetics. The higher concentration areas probably should be hunted harder, but the stands of woods are small and not everybody wants to hunt around barking dogs and car doors slamming.

One of the problems of having the hunting population control itself without police power oversight is having people not cooperate. Afterall, we wouldn’t need laws if everyone was considerate of their neighbors.

Thanks for your post. Dwc

[ssumner1]

#24784

dwcphoto wrote: Sumner,

Good thoughts. There are usually inconsistencies when regulating game in a state wide or regional way. Where I live and hunt there are fewer deer per square mile in the woods than in the residential developments. On the other hand, often the bigger deer with nicer racks are in areas where there are fewer deer and more food source. It’s not necessarily about genetics. The higher concentration areas probably should be hunted harder, but the stands of woods are small and not everybody wants to hunt around barking dogs and car doors slamming.

One of the problems of having the hunting population control itself without police power oversight is having people not cooperate. Afterall, we wouldn’t need laws if everyone was considerate of their neighbors.

Thanks for your post. Dwc

Thanks. Yea where I am from, I can legally take 11 deer per year. I believe in my area that would wipe out the population but in others it wouldn’t be such issue. Also my deer tend to be smaller. Food and over killing are probably the primary reasons why. I wouldn’t mind county by county regulations. More work, but maybe better for the conservation efforts.

[Ptaylor]

#32923

Hey Sumner. Good topic, and necessary to discuss. Here are some of my thoughts:

1) States should have some idea of how deer populations change across their jurisdiction. I’m not sure how it works back east (which is where I assume you live because you can shoot 11 deer/season), but some states out here in the west have different zones with different harvest goals. So they try to manage them with as much local knowledge as possible, but that is really difficult.

2) I think there needs to remain some level of big picture viewpoint. If our scale of looking at deer herds gets too small, then we might miss something detrimental. For example, one County might have a ton of deer and the neighboring County might only have a couple. This could be operating as a source-sink set up, where the County with the big deer herd is keeping the other County’s deer population viable. But if we lose the big picture, then the County with lots of deer might think they should shoot lots of animals, and that could have drastic impacts on the neighboring sink population. Of course, you could make the argument that it is better to have finer scale knowledge the deer herds to manage them better, which brings me to my next point:

3) Along the lines of what Aldo Leopold said, if we over manage animals, then they become less wild. They lose the magic. And they become livestock. I like knowing there are animals out there nobody sees or knows about. I prefer to have them wild and free, rather than intensively monitored and managed. And yes, I’m a biologists. I’ve captured animals and put tracking collars on them. That information is crucial to our understanding of their natural history. But we don’t need every animal tagged or monitored, or every herd.

4) I am skeptical of the whole QDMA approach. Who are we to think we know what is best for the deer genetics? When we talk about removing an animal because of bad genes, we almost always are talking about antlers. And we are selecting bucks for antlers that WE prefer. Not what the DEER prefer. We don’t know which un-portrayed genes are linked with the antler growing genes. We operate on such a short time scale, we don’t know what the long term impact of us selecting for big antlers will have on the deer. I also just think it’s pompous of us to treat the deer like that. Again, too much management for my liking. Let the deer and time sort out their own genetics.

Anyway, those are some of my thoughts this morning. Looking forward to what others think.

[Ptaylor]

#32977

Oh yeah, something I forgot:

Regarding a buck with “poor” antlers. There is a lot more than just genes affecting antlers. At the local university, they have every set of antlers from a captive buck for his entire life. Sometime around 8 or 9 his antlers took a big dive in size. They stayed like that for 3 or 4 years. Then they shot back up to their big size. What happened was the game pen staff switched food, and the new food was missing some minerals. This greatly impacted his antlers. But when the minerals were reintroduced to his diet, his antlers took on their original awesome size. So unless you have been watching a specific buck for a few years you might not realize or know that it isn’t his genetics giving him the small antler size, but some environmental factor.

[Stephen Graf]

#8327

Ptaylor wrote: … I am skeptical of the whole QDMA approach. Who are we to think we know what is best for the deer genetics?…

Spot on! All you have to do is look out the window to see the consequences of this kind of thinking.

[wojo14]

#9174

Very good points guys. I too have been pondering this as well. The area/property I hunt has lots of deer, other parts of this zone do not. It is a tough topic. I have to say, I agree with you views on the QDMA issue. I admit, I was drawn in to them at a show, joined, then I started reading their magazine they send…well, let’s just say, I’m not a member anymore.

We all need to get over the big antler craze. That’s why I don’t agree with PA’ antler restriction….It’s more about keeping deer population and land sustainable for the wildlife. I love a big rack as much as the next guy, but I love the animals more!

I would love to have our regulation/bag limits in PA more localized.

I think self regulating you own area would be great, if you did it right, and did it for the good of the animals and land. I think a lot of people would abuse that freedom. I have come to realize, there are a lot of people out there that like to just kill animals…

I like the Leopoldo quote. I think it is perfect for this post!

[Don Thomas]

#16949

Excellent points, and Preston’s views mirror my own. State wildlife departments face an impossible task in that regulations have to be broad enough to be comprehensible and enforceable even though game population status often varies wildly even within a relatively small area. In such cases, hunters need to cut them some slack while exercising good judgement, which may well be more restrictive than what the law allows. And concepts such as “quality deer” and “management bucks” are largely irrelevant distractions we can do without. Don

[Jason Wesbrock]

#22428

Ptaylor wrote:

4) I am skeptical of the whole QDMA approach. Who are we to think we know what is best for the deer genetics? When we talk about removing an animal because of bad genes, we almost always are talking about antlers.

I couldn’t agree more.

[David Coulter]

#24820

Wojo,

I’ve been a wait and see guy on the PA Game Commissions decision to cut down the herd and implement antler restrictions. I was one of the guys, pre-archery, who was taking three or four deer a year with my flintlock and .270. I saw the local herd drop dramatically and was starting to wonder what I had participated in. But now, the deer herd is in great shape with larger healthier deer. I’m seeing lots of buck and plenty with large racks. I’m no trophy hunter, but the last two bucks I shot were freezer fillers. It’s been a win-win in my view, especially since the woods are in much better shape than they were before. I’m also seeing more grouse and rabbits around that I did 10 years ago.

I know in Western PA, it’s four on one side, as opposed to three in the East. That might make a difference. I have to say, it’s good to see the bucks grow up, as well as the does. Thanks, dwc

[wojo14]

#35933

dwcphoto wrote: Wojo,

I’ve been a wait and see guy on the PA Game Commissions decision to cut down the herd and implement antler restrictions. I was one of the guys, pre-archery, who was taking three or four deer a year with my flintlock and .270. I saw the local herd drop dramatically and was starting to wonder what I had participated in. But now, the deer herd is in great shape with larger healthier deer. I’m seeing lots of buck and plenty with large racks. I’m no trophy hunter, but the last two bucks I shot were freezer fillers. It’s been a win-win in my view, especially since the woods are in much better shape than they were before. I’m also seeing more grouse and rabbits around that I did 10 years ago.

I know in Western PA, it’s four on one side, as opposed to three in the East. That might make a difference. I have to say, it’s good to see the bucks grow up, as well as the does. Thanks, dwc

I agree with limiting tags! I think too many PA guys just like to kill. You are right, the herds are way better now than even 5 years ago, and the deer look heatlthy. I am just not sure I agree with the antler restriction…I hear bith sides, I am not sure I am on either side of the fence.

By the way, it is 3 up on the Western side as well, but outside of the Pittsburgh area, the buck has to have 3 actual points on one side. They do not count brow tines as a point. Needless to say, I had a lot of shot oppurtunities at some mature 4 points and a 6 point that was not legal!…oh well, I had the opurtunity, thats worth something. I did take a nice doe early. I would love to tag out with a “legal” buck! I have yet to take a buck!

[ssumner1]

#40740

I have been gone a little longer than I thought I would. I appreciate the responses.

I like what you all have to say, and it helps me adjust my own mindset on the situation.

I have been supplementing venison to my families diet, and so far my family sees no difference. I am going to hopefully make it a complete change from beef and save money. I think we all would agree that conservation is the goal. I do not see taking more than 3 deer a year or two very big deer a year to sustain that change.

What would you guys say is the most deer you would take a year?

[arthurw]

#48435

I hunt in a zone with an unlimited antlerless regulation. I only take what I can personally eat, since the deer hunters I’ve had experience with don’t like venison, and I’m alone in my love for the meat it seems.

For me, and me only, I am unsure about taking antlerless deer who have been bred during the rut. I took my first recurve antlerless deer a few weeks ago. I shot a small, immature doe. I needed the experience of shooting a deer with my recurve, but didn’t want to shoot a pregnant doe. I don’t think this one was old enough to have been bred. I have the meat,and the skin is with an uncle who makes stuff with it.I teared up a little when I shot her. I won’t kill again until I run out of meat. I hunt almost everyday.I’ve avoided the property where the 6 pointer busted me during the rut. I will hunt there during winter bow.

[Ptaylor]

#53495

You folks that can actually choose what to shoot are lucky. I live in a buck only state, and one antler has to be forking, which usually means they are 2+ years old (sometimes yearlings have a fork). And I only get 2 buck tags each year. So that pretty much sets my limits (if I could even manage to get that close to 2 legal bucks with a clean shot and not miss each year…) The state fish & game agency tried to institute an antlerless hunt about 50 years ago in a select few zones. At the end of the season the biologists’ view point was that the number of does killed was acceptable, BUT the public’s viewpoint was that too many does were killed. After lots of complaining politics took over. Currently, the only game and fish law a County can overrule is: antlers hunts 😳 This fall I submitted a petition to the CA Fish & Game Commission to address 2 issues. First, that our buck only harvest has skewed sex ratios and that we should institute an antlerless deer tag. Second, to create a primitive or traditional archery season, because he spirit of the archery season is eroding; it is quite common for compound hunters to shoot in excess of 60 yards at game out here, and with the encroaching crossbow threat we need to firmly secure traditional archery hunting.

We’ll see what they say. I received a letter from them that they will at least dress my petition in their next meeting in February.

[Stephen Graf]

#57882

Ptaylor wrote: …This fall I submitted a petition to the CA Fish & Game Commission to address 2 issues. First, that our buck only harvest has skewed sex ratios and that we should institute an antlerless deer tag. Second, to create a primitive or traditional archery season, because he spirit of the archery season is eroding…

Good luck with the petition! How many signatures did you get?

[Stephen Graf]

#57947

ssumner1 wrote: …I have been supplementing venison to my families diet, and so far my family sees no difference…

They see no difference? Do you mean they taste no difference?

For the last 12 years or so, I’ve been lucky enough to keep my family fed 100% on game (deer) and home grown chickens, and salmon we get from friends in AK. The last few years we’ve had home grown sheep too. They see a big difference between the deer and beef. Venison wins every time.

Committing to eat only what you catch, kill, and grow is a big challenge. And have no illusions, it can never be cheaper (in the short term) than buying from the store. But I harbor suspicions that having built my kids from deer will make them live longer / healthier lives then they would have had they been made otherwise.

Good luck with the challenge of feeding your family by your own hand!

[Ptaylor]

#26866

Steve Graf wrote: [quote=Ptaylor]…This fall I submitted a petition to the CA Fish & Game Commission to address 2 issues. First, that our buck only harvest has skewed sex ratios and that we should institute an antlerless deer tag. Second, to create a primitive or traditional archery season, because he spirit of the archery season is eroding…

Good luck with the petition! How many signatures did you get?

Steve- I didn’t need to get any signatures, but I had to fill out the application, dot the i’s and cross the t’s correctly, and provide information for the reasons I want the law changed. If any of those aspects were answered incorrectly or insufficiently then it would rejected immediately. So at least the petition made it to the meeting minutes and will be discussed.

[David Coulter]

#27149

That’s great that you got the petition going. Good work and good luck with it. At least the concerns are read. best of luck, dwc

[ssumner1]

#52631

Steve Graf wrote: [quote=ssumner1]…I have been supplementing venison to my families diet, and so far my family sees no difference…

They see no difference? Do you mean they taste no difference?

For the last 12 years or so, I’ve been lucky enough to keep my family fed 100% on game (deer) and home grown chickens, and salmon we get from friends in AK. The last few years we’ve had home grown sheep too. They see a big difference between the deer and beef. Venison wins every time.

Committing to eat only what you catch, kill, and grow is a big challenge. And have no illusions, it can never be cheaper (in the short term) than buying from the store. But I harbor suspicions that having built my kids from deer will make them live longer / healthier lives then they would have had they been made otherwise.

Good luck with the challenge of feeding your family by your own hand!

The taste in the ground meat. We use it in tacos/chili and whatever else we want to eat with it. Currently it would cost me to get a full deer processed for $65 and beef runs about $8/pound. It seems that we are saving.

[Stephen Graf]

#58025

When you try to feed your family from the meat you kill, you will find it takes more deer than you thought it would… Which in turn adds to the costs… An extra freezer to hold all the meat, maybe a grinder to process the meat and save the money / time spent on a processor, if it’s warm where you live, you will need a cooler / fridge to age the meat in… The list goes on.

I know right now it doesn’t seem so. But just wait and see.

The rewards for feeding yourself are multiple. If you do feed your family by your own hand, you will discover that it adds to your life, and your family’s life, in ways you hadn’t expected. So much so in fact, that you will find it hard to go back.

Building your children from venison instead of industrial meat will, I believe, make their bodies stronger and more durable.

But above all, don’t forget to enjoy the adventure!

[John Cholin]

#41521

I have been using personal standards for years. If a deer doesn’t meet my standards then God has other plans for it.

I like the QDM concept but like everything else there are some who will pervert it for their own purposes. I hunt New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. In NJ you can take one deer per day from late September to January but all but 3 must be does. In New York you get 3 tags (rifle, ML and bow) and a 75% chance on at least one doe tag. The ML and bow tags are either sex. In PA its one and done for bucks. The deer herd seems healthiest in southern NY. Still, there are years when I don’t take a buck because one that met my standards (16 inches wide, 3.5 years old) didn’t stand still within my 22 yard range limit. If I take a buck, I then hunt only for a doe until I’ve gotten one, then I will start after a “good” buck again.

Pennsylvania is the worst. Every farm has a shack at the edge of a field with a bunch of fat guys with 270’s or 300 Win Mags in it taking 300 yard shots. But the antler restrictions have improved the heard substantially in the past 5 years. But PA ends the archery season too soon, around the 15th of November. From November 15th to December 3rd or 4th you can’t hunt deer at all. It stinks if you hunt trad.

John

[wojo14]

#49299

Pennsylvania is the worst. Every farm has a shack at the edge of a field with a bunch of fat guys with 270’s or 300 Win Mags in it taking 300 yard shots. But the antler restrictions have improved the heard substantially in the past 5 years. But PA ends the archery season too soon, around the 15th of November. From November 15th to December 3rd or 4th you can’t hunt deer at all. It stinks if you hunt trad.

John

John,

Yes, it does suck! Plus PA allowed crossbows in archery….:x

Well, I got a doe, no buck in PA again this season!

Taking the recurve out for a walk and searching for a bunny or 2!8)

[Author]

Posts