# Hello from Marshrat



## marshrat (Oct 29, 2005)

I may as well say 'hi' since I found this site and have a few postings and responses. I was a wildlife manager in Michigan for 10 years. I managed a southern Michigan game area for 3 years, then moved up to the U.P. and was a wildlife manager up there for 7. I was responsible for deer pellet surveys, summer observation surveys, spotlight surveys, worked the Clare check station a couple years, worked my check station in southern Michigan each deer season and aged about 200 deer/year, then worked my check station in the U.P. and aged ~1500/year. I also took part in the population calculations and subsequent antlerless harvest objectives. 

I then was in Wisconsin for 5 years, but not in the wildlife business. Even with the supposedly "more accurate mandatory registration", hunters don't believe the WI DNR's numbers either. I used to go to the meetings and hear them talk about 'how Michigan does it' and how the way they do it in Wisconsin can't possibly be right. I have been back in my native Colorado for 2-1/2 year now, and population estimates are derived from helicopter survey transects along with population modeling/reconstruction based upon telephone harvest surveys. Incidentally, while people back in the midwest argue and complain about the DNR, bucks not big enough, numbers are wrong, not enough deer on my property, etc., I have not even been ABLE to hunt deer out here and won't be able to next year either. I need 4 preference points to get a tag in an area close enough to drive to...all in the name of 'quality' management. All deer licenses are by lottery out here now, since 2000. There are some really big mule deer statewide and whitetails on the eastern plains, but the price is high in both dollars for access to private land and in "wait time" to draw a license. Not complaining, just pointing out, as I did when I used to talk with sportsmen's clubs, etc., be careful what you wish for. 

The implications of 'quality deer management' at some point would/will restrict your ability to hunt on an annual basis. It is a CHOICE that managers can manage for either way; they know how. But hunters need to understand the implications of what they are asking for. It's hard to go through deer season without a tag in your pocket! I enjoy hunting too much to only do it once every 3-5 years...And what do I tell my now-10-year-old in 2 years when he's on his first big game hunt?..."no son, you can't shoot that one because some hunters want to 'save' him for later when his antlers are bigger." I have nothing against hunters who desire trophy racks. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The really beauty is the ability to be out there in the first place, and all that goes with it.

As far as population numbers go, folks have to remember the mathematics of the situation. There are 16 '40's' in a square mile. It is stated in many places by whitetail authorities that no property should have more than about 35 deer per square mile. Boiled down to the '40', that means that IF DEER ARE EVENLY DISTRIBUTED, which they aren't (they are more concentrated in the best habitats), there would be 2.19 deer/40 acres. If two guys share a '40' and both hunt, and they each see 1 or 2 deer, I guarantee they will think that everything the DNR says about deer numbers is whacked, but the reality would be that their property partially supports a decent-sized local population. Even at extremely high population levels of, say, 80/sq.mi., that is only 5 deer/40 acres. Now those 2 hunters see 2.5 deer each and are unhappy. If you aren't seeing deer, MOVE (if you hunt public land) or improve your habitat. Improving your deer hunting in localized areas and increasing the number of deer you see is up to the individual hunter, not so much the DNR.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Marshrat - welcome to the site.

Can you explain the concept of "preference points" for us? Thanks.


Swamper


----------



## glock29 (Mar 16, 2005)

marshrat said:


> And what do I tell my now-10-year-old in 2 years when he's on his first big game hunt?..."no son, you can't shoot that one because some hunters want to 'save' him for later when his antlers are bigger." I have nothing against hunters who desire trophy racks. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The really beauty is the ability to be out there in the first place, and all that goes with it..


Welcome to the site Marshrat.....you will find it a place of healthy debates but also the home of many who care about Michigan's outdoors....

I didn't agree with all you had to say on bridge counts in that thread but you hit a home run with your above post and especially the quote above. That is exactly why I am against QDM. I know what you are saying about preference points out West. I have hunted in Wyoming several times and I apply each year. It's hard to get permits for deer and nearly impossible for Elk. I've drawn 1 bull permit in 11 years. It's one way or the other....


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

marshratI have not even been ABLE to hunt deer out here and won't be able to next year either. I need 4 preference points to get a tag in an area close enough to drive to...all in the name of 'quality' management. All deer licenses are by lottery out here now said:


> Hmm.. Using whitetails as an example, do you think that the restricted ability to hunt whitetails in Colorado might actually be because the post hunt whitetail population for the entire state doesn't even total 10,000 animals?
> http://espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/s/h_deer_forecast03_CO.html
> 
> To my knowledge, the three basic tenets of QDM don't have anything to do with restricting hunting opportunities. It's also my experience that many QDM practitioners don't in any way to attempt to set the same standards for young or new hunters as they do for themselves. As my children gain hunting experience, I wouldn't begin to consider denying them an opportunity at any legal kill, and the majority of QDM advocates that I personally know feel the same way.
> ...


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

Glock29 brings up a good point, we wouldnt be debating if we all didnt care.


I, unlike you, prefer to hunt throhy whitetails or at least in areas where throphy whitetails exist. What I have witnessed and what I can prove after talking with someone at CBM (name withheld) is there is a tend that shows in areas where antlerless permits have been issued to reduce the herd size, we are seeing a dramatic decrease in CBM entires and in increase in areas where deer desities are growing (SLP). We are also seeing no major fulctuation in areas where they are not tampering with the herd size. What you stated above about deer numbers PSM and Hunters PSM brings up a good point. When deer numbers are dramiticaly reduced on public land, the chances of survivial and their ability to grow old and large enough to reach trophy size are greatly reduced. The vast majority of deer taken on public land are 2 1/2 year old bucks. Now if you know anything about growing large bucks (and I know you do), you know that this is the exact year that is crucial in survival. I'm not saying we should stop shooting 2 1/2 year olds but the combination of what I mentioned above is exactly why we are seeing a reduction in trophy whitetails on "public" land in areas where the herds are being reduced.

I know there are other factors involved in growing big whitetails but some of these areas that have been greatly effected by reductions, did at one time produce alot more trophy class bucks. These bigger bucks are the ones that need to be the breeders to pass on good genetics, not the 1 1/2 and 2 1/2 year olds.

BTW, Welcome!!!!


----------



## Grouse Hunter (Jan 23, 2000)

Welcome aboard!


Colorado is a place I have always deamed of hunting, the abundance of game and the opportunity to harvest a western animal like a mule deer or elk is very appealing. I imagine that there are many others just like me. It seems that this would put a substantial burden on local populations with out of state hunters coming in. Maybe the restrictions are in part due to the number of out of state hunters that the are drawn to hunt CO. Seems like with enough pressure put on the herd, that if not regulated heavily, could put a real hurt on the pop.




codybear said:


> The vast majority of deer taken on public land are 2 1/2 year old bucks. Now if you know anything about growing large bucks (and I know you do), you know that this is the exact year that is crucial in survival. I'm not saying we should stop shooting 2 1/2 year olds but the combination of what I mentioned above is exactly why we are seeing a reduction in trophy whitetails on "public" land in areas where the herds are being reduced.


Thats interesting. I would have assumed that the public land areas reflected the rest of the state in terms of age class of harvest. Can you point me in the direction where you got that information?


----------



## trailsend (Feb 12, 2005)

Welcome!


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

Grouse Hunter said:


> Thats interesting. I would have assumed that the public land areas reflected the rest of the state in terms of age class of harvest. Can you point me in the direction where you got that information?


I didnt say it doest but more and more private land owners are putting restrictions in place which can effect the results so I didnt do any research based on private land..

Take a pole if you done believe me.


----------



## Grouse Hunter (Jan 23, 2000)

codybear said:


> I didnt say it doest but more and more private land owners are putting restrictions in place which can effect the results so I didnt do any research based on private land..
> 
> Take a pole if you done believe me.



I wasn't concerend about the private land. I would have made the assumption that Public land harvest is a majority of 1.5 year old bucks. Can you point me to the research for public land then?


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

As is found all too often there is confusion between QDM...Quality Deer Management and MARS..Mandatory Antler Restrictions. Yes, I know the MDNR (don'tcha just love our world of acronyms?....:lol: ) uses QDM to describe a type of deer herd management, but what they really mean is MARS.

The two are not synonomous.

By the way MR, welcome to the site. Your input is very welcome.


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

Your right Whit and its so highly misundertood to the point where even private landowners think they are practicing QDM when in fact they are practicing MARS.


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

Swamper said:


> Can you explain the concept of "preference points" for us? Thanks.


Swamper, check out the Michigan Bear Hunting Rules as we use Preference Points for that hunt. I believe I read that our Elk Hunt is going in that direction as well. To me Preference Points are basically a Weighted Average Lottery. The more points you have accrued by application the higher your odds are of pulling a permit/license.

Marshrat, I find it interesting to hear information about hunting from other Jurisdictions. How is the Mulie Population doing in Colorado? I keep hearing doom and gloom stories but just wanted to hear a locals perspective.


----------



## marshrat (Oct 29, 2005)

Whit1 makes a good point, along with some others. QDM is too often confused with MARs. I have nothing against Quality Deer Management, because the concept is keeping the herd well below the carrying capacity of the land (again, this is determined much more by health and less by 'numbers' of deer), thereby producing quality (i.e. healthy) does, fawns and bucks. Too often hunters have a tendency to put all the emphasis on BUCKS. Many of the complaints heard after deer season are STILL about antlerless harvest. The reality is that hunters should kill at least as many antlerless deer as bucks each year, and that harvest must be at least 30% of the total population to just MAINTAIN the current population level. Another thing to remember is that a herd can DOUBLE in two years. In much of the whitetails range, we're almost in a situation where we can't shoot too many deer. 

As far as Colorado's whitetails are concerned, the restrictions are more or less based on the fact that over 95% of eastern Colorado is private ranch land. One thing going on out here is a rapid acceleration (disturbingly) toward the European model of wildlife management, where only the wealthy landowners are able to hunt. You don't hear much about it, but the push for 'trophy' animals has led to greed and commercialization of resources. Ranchers are pushing for, and getting, an ever-larger share of deer and elk licenses, which they can then sell (even on E-bay, etc.) to the highest bidder. These tag purchasers don't even have to go through the draw, because the landowners get 'vouchers'. It's bad and getting worse. The mule deer situation is somewhat different in that their problems stem in large part from destruction of winter range due to development of 'trophy homes' and ranchettes in the mountain valleys. Since mule deer are a little less productive than whitetails, their seasons must be restricted as well.

So my professional/biological opinions are based upon my education and experience, while my personal opinions are based on the fact that we should all enjoy what we have because we have a lot. I always felt that the whining and complaining before and after deer season were POSITIVE things based on hunters' passion for their recreation and resource. I realize, and acknowledge, that people express their opinions and concerns because they care...and that's a great thing. It's also one of the reasons why I always felt it was important to talk to hunters and groups and try to educate them of what we did/do and why.


----------



## marshrat (Oct 29, 2005)

Oh, preference points...based on the desirability of a unit and past history of # of hunters and population levels, most units have preference point requirements. For example, a unit might require 4 points to draw a license. This means that for 4 years, you apply with the understanding that not drawing a license generates 1 preference point for that unit. When you get 4, you draw a license for that year. The good news is you pretty much know what year you will draw a license. The bad news is, you don't hunt the others....


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

marshrat said:


> The reality is that hunters should kill at least as many antlerless deer as bucks each year, and that harvest must be at least 30% of the total population to just MAINTAIN the current population level.


Marshrat -
Welcome to this forum you made some excellent points. You are exactly right that we should be harvesting more antlerless deer in many parts of the State, particularily in the SLP. Last year the Antlered Buck/Antlerless harvest ratio in Michigan was approx. 52/48. This year, according to the preliminary estimates published by the DNR, that ratio has risen to 56/44. As Farm Legend has pointed out in previous threads, Michigan is one of the few States in the Midwest that harvests more antlered bucks than antlerless deer. Remembering that approx. 20-25% of those antlerless deer are BB, we are killing a lot more bucks than does every year. We are also only harvesting around 25% of the total herd every year and this year it may drop below that figure.

I'd agree, too much emphasis is placed on shooting bucks.


----------



## weatherby (Mar 26, 2001)

Welcome aboard. Sounds like ya have a lot of good knowledge to share with everybody


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Welcome aboard Marshrat!

"The implications of 'quality deer management' at some point would/will restrict your ability to hunt on an annual basis."

Way off base on that comment. In fact, MI has been managing for "QDM" deer density numbers for some time now(that doesn't mean all herds are in line with stated density goals..some are way over, some are actually way under) and any herd across the entire country should be managed to be in balance with the habitat. So, QDM has nothing do do with restricting hunters as to actually hunting, but instead practicing restraint on the harvest of young bucks in order to achieve an improved buck age structure. With QDM you still work within the same population density in you are in line with the habitat..it's just you change the structure of that herd to include more bucks, and less does if needed to improve both the age structure of bucks within the herd, and sex ratio.

Restriction of hunting has nothing to do with the equation where QDM is concerned.

Also, keep in mind that many portions of the U.P. you CAN still shoot too many deer and depending upon where you live in the U.P. shooting a mature doe can be an unwise management decision. Northern Lower MI and most of the northern 1/2 of the U.P. is not SE Ohio or southern WI for that matter so the herd does not rebuild as quickly as most areas of the country in these areas. In fact, you have to count on several years of below average winters to significantly increase deer populations in some of these areas.

Many guys say there is too much emphasis on taking trophy bucks/mature bucks etc., but keep in mind that a mature buck is a reflection of a healthy herd. Some say, "just go out and enjoy the hunt, who cares about trophy bucks". Well, an older age structure of bucks is GREATLY enjoyable to hunt. Several times more rubs and scrapes, fighting, seeking, chasing, snort-wheezing(which it would be a fair guess that most MI hunters have never heard in the wild) and basically competition for breeding rights are all part of a "QDM" herd and are very enjoyable to witness. Some say to who cares about the trophies within the herd..I say you can't fully enjoy all the whitetail world has to offer unless older bucks are part of the populations and those who have never experienced a true QDM herd are greatly missing out. Problem is, due to our very low expectations in MI most may never realize what they are missing out on unless they leave the state or buy property that they can control and manage themselves.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> Restriction of hunting has nothing to do with the equation where QDM is concerned.


But restriction of hunting or loss of opportunity, _is_ a result of MAR's, which to many unfortunately has become synonymous with QDM in Michigan. When you advocate MAR's you need to take into account the negative impact that they will have on the average hunter in Michigan. This is mainly the reason that many QDM advocates are choosing to push VAR's instead of MAR's.



Northjeff said:


> Many guys say there is too much emphasis on taking trophy bucks/mature bucks etc., but keep in mind that a mature buck is a reflection of a healthy herd. Some say, "just go out and enjoy the hunt, who cares about trophy bucks". Well, an older age structure of bucks is GREATLY enjoyable to hunt. Several times more rubs and scrapes, fighting, seeking, chasing, snort-wheezing(which it would be a fair guess that most MI hunters have never heard in the wild) and basically competition for breeding rights are all part of a "QDM" herd and are very enjoyable to witness. Some say to who cares about the trophies within the herd..I say you can't fully enjoy all the whitetail world has to offer unless older bucks are part of the populations and those who have never experienced a true QDM herd are greatly missing out. Problem is, due to our very low expectations in MI most may never realize what they are missing out on unless they leave the state or buy property that they can control and manage themselves.


Jeff, you are a self admitted trophy hunter and I'm sure you would personally benefit from an increased number of mature bucks out there but the fact of the matter is that the average hunter is not going to benefit very much from an increased Buck age structure and if MAR's are the vehicle used to realize that increased age structure it will probably have an overall negative impact on the hunting experience for the average hunter. The fact that you enjoy hunting trophy whitetails comes through clear in your attitude but recognize that most of the hunters in this State are not going to have the same kind of experiences that you have had, even with an increased buck age structure.
Here is a quote from *BSK,* which illustrates my point. 

_"Once bucks get to 3 1/2, they are *very* wary creatures. I hate to say it, but the average hunter is not prepared to kill 3 1/2 year-old bucks on a regular basis, even when those bucks exist in good numbers. In essence, just because older bucks exist doesn't mean they're going to get shot. Hunters that have cut their hunting teeth on killing yearling bucks are going to be unpleasantly surprised at how hard it is to hunt 3 1/2+ year-old bucks."_

Now you can argue that an increased age structure is good because of the impact it has on the overall health of the herd and that may be a valid argument. But that is a much different justification for increasing herd age structure than to do it because you feel that too many other hunters are missing out on the experience of harvesting an older buck.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

""""*The implications of 'quality deer management' at some point would/will restrict your ability to hunt on an annual basis*."""""

Great point and we are seeing that in Illinois, Sask. and increasing in the midwestern states UNLESS you have the cash$$$.

NJ, you state you disagree but your last sentence kinda gives an example about what Marshrat is trying to point out. NJ""""Problem is, due to our very low expectations in MI most may never realize what they are missing out on unless they leave the state or *buy property that they can control and manage themselves*."""" This exactly what we are seeing in SLP which in turn restricts alot of hunters. How big has leasing land become in MI?? 

I understand QDM is not directly at fault but one of the negative by-products of QDM is restriction of hunters who do not have cash to spend on leases/oufitters/land. Just like you guys say the by-product of QDM is bigger mature bucks. 

NJ-before you leased that land in WI with a max of 2-3 guys, how many hunters USED to hunt that land??


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

Munsterlndr said:


> _"Once bucks get to 3 1/2, they are *very* wary creatures. I hate to say it, but the average hunter is not prepared to kill 3 1/2 year-old bucks on a regular basis, even when those bucks exist in good numbers. In essence, just because older bucks exist doesn't mean they're going to get shot. Hunters that have cut their hunting teeth on killing yearling bucks are going to be unpleasantly surprised at how hard it is to hunt 3 1/2+ year-old bucks."_


I would agree with that during the pre or post rut but not during the peak of the rut or firearm season. A buck will let his guard down when running a hot doe and make more daytime appearances during the peak of the rut. I would be willing to say that most hunters that bag a trophy buck on public land are not experianced throphy buck hunters.


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

poz said:


> If a kid did catch a world class muskie off the shore, it would make a great story, just like when a guy shoots a trophy buck, it makes a great story. but how great would the story be if almost every kid caught world class muskie. would the kids strive for it then, or would they say"hey what's the big deal I can go down there anytime and catch a big muskie, because we made the lake be full of them.


Know your not making any sense. His goal would be to strive for a larger buck, not all the buck running around will be trophy class.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

marshrat said:


> Swamp Ghost,
> 
> I don't understand your Michigan-to-Colorado contention...


How much land is available for public hunting in Colorado?

Are there maybe 600,000 deer in Colorado? 

Are there maybe 90,000 deer hunters in Colorado?

Wasn't the deer herd declining with the over the counter system? 

Isn't it increasing with tag draws and preference points? 


Seems like you are only telling part of the story........................


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

"near 60% support from 10's of thousands of those surved from across the entire state on what, 11 initiatives there is a very clear mandate of what hunters want"...

Mandate of the masses....or of those surveyed????

Swamper


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

codybear said:


> Know your not making any sense. His goal would be to strive for a larger buck, not all the buck running around will be trophy class.


See this is what takes time. You seem to be at this place in your life where you are striving for that trophy buck. Nothing wrong with that, but you think everyone should. Most hunters start out shooting any buck they see, and after a while they strive for a better buck, and then a better one and so on. YOu learn this over time, yet we have alot of guys that expect people to skip over the early successes in hunting and just go for a big one. This is the I want it all now attitude that alot of people are promoting.

You seem to be a fisherman, Did your dad just take you trophy muskie fishing and that is all, or did you start fishing like most of us did, catching bluegills in a pond. and then try for other species as you got older. And learned as you went and strive for better catches as you went.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

Swamp Ghost said:


> Are there maybe 600,000 deer in Colorado?


There are less than 10,000 whitetail deer in Colorado.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

NorthJeff said:


> On a side note, interesting statistic that the rock area AR test unit DOUBLED in hunter numbers over the 2001-2004 seasons. Hunters have shown that where quality hunting exists...they HUNT!


Do you have a reference to where this doubling number comes from?

It certainly isn't reflected in the state's Annual Harvest reports. 

Number of Hunters by DMU
Year......DMU155....DMU152....DMU252.....Combined
2001.......6,076.......4,800.......2,864.......13,740
2002.......5,935.......6,106.......2,901.......14,942
2003.......7,072.......5,854.......3,537.......16,563
2004.......5,465.......4,857.......3,043.......13,365

-na


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

jk hillsdale said:


> There are less than 10,000 whitetail deer in Colorado.


Yepper! But I was giving the benefit and included muley's.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

Swamp Ghost said:


> Yepper! But I was giving the benefit and included muley's.


This is a detailed report about the declining mule deer population in Colorado. The report states that the population may only be half of what it was in the 1940's.


----------



## lodge lounger (Sep 16, 2005)

If we assume that near 60% is a representative sample of what deer hunters across the state think about QDM, does that suggest that 60% are practicing it?


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

60% have shown they want to practice...IF mandated but there are whole lot of folks out there that will not pass on a young buck knowing full well that the guy sitting in the blind 200 yards away is going to shoot it. That choice works fairly decent when you know the guy sitting on the next property and you know most of the neighbors will not shoot that young buck, but on public land it doesn't work that way.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

I forgot to post the link about the declining mule deer population in Colorado. Here it is:

http://wildlife.state.co.us/reports/MuleDeerDecline6_01/


----------



## marshrat (Oct 29, 2005)

Swamp Ghost,

Maybe I wasn't clear in my statement, or you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. I was not comparing Michigan white-tailed deer and hunting with Colorado white-tailed deer and hunting. The white-tailed deer situations are totally different...700,000+ Michigan hunters compared to 90,000-ish and 1.8 million deer (or whatever the estimate is now) vs. somewhere around 10,000. My point was that with QDM there ARE restrictions on hunting to some extent. In Michigan, you may be able to hunt each year, but at some point in the future there will have to be a restriction on the number of bucks taken which means a restriction on the number of licenses, which means a draw of some sort, which means that some hunters will not be able to hunt bucks each year. 

Having been through many meetings post-deer season where we, the DNR, was accused of allowing too many antlerless deer licenses (read the posts!! not enough deer, the numbers are wrong...I'm not happy...), I just don't think that most hunters will accept that. I'm not saying that's right...as I said, I agree with QDM when the emphasis is on the total herd. However, it seems to me that there are many hunters who want a 10-point 160 class animal while they watch a parade of deer walk by their stand all day.

Mule deer crashed after the winter of 64-65, recovered very slowly, then got hammered by the winter of 83-84 (I believe). Part of the reason they had a hard time recovering is the fact that mulies are not quite as adaptable as whitetails (although, there are some who say they are becoming more adaptable out of necessity of their modern lifestyle), the same 'protect the does' mentality that existed almost everywhere else at the time (which led to an overharvest of bucks), and the slow but sure encroachment of people onto winter range. 

By the way, we have 16.15 million acres on 11 National Forests, 612,000 acres of National Grasslands, 120,708 acres of State Forests, 3.2 million acres of Wilderness Areas, 160,000 acres of State Parks, and 241 State Wildlife Areas.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Ok - easy - don't get personal - 

ferg....


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

poz said:


> You seem to be a fisherman, Did your dad just take you trophy muskie fishing and that is all, or did you start fishing like most of us did, catching bluegills in a pond. and then try for other species as you got older. And learned as you went and strive for better catches as you went.


Actually I am self taught but your right, I learned to catch smaller fish first, just Like I learned to hunt rabbits and squirrels first  

Then I moved up to larger game like deer and occasionally got lucky and caught a big one 

There are different levels of hunting just like they are differnt levels of game fish so how can you base hunting in whole to deer only?


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

codybear said:


> Actually I am self taught but your right, I learned to catch smaller fish first, just Like I learned to hunt rabbits and squirrels first
> 
> Then I moved up to larger game like deer and occasionally got lucky and caught a big one
> 
> There are different levels of hunting just like they are differnt levels of game fish so how can you base hunting in whole to deer only?



I don't compare hunting in whole to deer only, But when we talk about deer hunting a kid doesn't go from rabbit hunting to shooting trophy bucks, If he is like me he goes from small game hunting to rifle hunting, to archery, to muzzleloader etc. Kids and adults that don't hunt and are just getting into the sport, will not have the expectations that veterans have. I remember just seeing a deer was something you bragged about to your friends for the rest of the year. We have learned a great deal about hunting any animal throught years of experiences. It's funny, how you look back sometimes and you laugh at the things you did while hunting, Not that they were wrong at the time, it is just that we didn't know better.
Very few people are naturals in a sport, yet some of the things being proposed by some people want to for go the learming process and the early successes and force them to hunt the way they want them to.
I wouldn't change one bit of my hunting history, because it made me the hunter I am today. The experiences gave me the love of the sport I have today. And I don't expect to take that away from a new hunter, just so I will have a better chance at a big buck.


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

poz said:


> I don't compare hunting in whole to deer only, But when we talk about deer hunting a kid doesn't go from rabbit hunting to shooting trophy bucks, If he is like me he goes from small game hunting to rifle hunting, to archery, to muzzleloader etc. Kids and adults that don't hunt and are just getting into the sport, will not have the expectations that veterans have. I remember just seeing a deer was something you bragged about to your friends for the rest of the year. We have learned a great deal about hunting any animal throught years of experiences. It's funny, how you look back sometimes and you laugh at the things you did while hunting, Not that they were wrong at the time, it is just that we didn't know better.
> Very few people are naturals in a sport, yet some of the things being proposed by some people want to for go the learming process and the early successes and force them to hunt the way they want them to.
> I wouldn't change one bit of my hunting history, because it made me the hunter I am today. The experiences gave me the love of the sport I have today. And I don't expect to take that away from a new hunter, just so I will have a better chance at a big buck.


Throhpy whitetails are shot every year by first time hunters that dont have a great deal of knowledge or expeirience. We have many rules in place for sport fishing and size limits that offer equal opertunity for everyone. Like anything, the more knowledge you have the better chances for succcess and you can still get lucky and get the big one too. You surely dont have to be forced into this to be succesful. I think were just running in circles on this topic


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

codybear said:


> I think were just running in circles on this topic


 
I agree!

Me too: (ferg)


----------

