# Thankyou Mr. Gwidz!



## Guest (Dec 5, 2002)

I'm on the edge on my seat waiting for the fabulous results to start trickling in from PA....Of course there will be just amazing results, just ask the PA-DNR. Anything that unpopular with the general hunting population better show good results or else those managers will be counting rats in Philadelphia.

How many deer were taken in PA anyway, they don't have a bridge to funnel traffic, so they can get an accurate count.


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Jim, I have said this 100 times.....come to this or any other forum and ask a question or make a statement without insults and attitude and you will get the same back. If you go back and search these QDM threads it is more often than not, that we are on the defensive. Start with the "QDM SUCKS" thread"

Neal


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

jamie, it would on private property.

Not on state land.

If you consider clearcuts an improvement on deer habitat, then the DNR has done everything in there power to improve the deer habitat. In the state land where I hunt, I would estimate that 80% of the land within three miles of my cabin has been clear cut in the last 10 years.

Buck sightings will not increase by killing more does. It will increase by killing less bucks. I don't mean passing small bucks either. If the buck /doe ratio is going to increase on state land then there has to be a one buck per year rule.

I'm against antler restrictions for two reasons: the first reason is along the same lines as Mr. Gwidz, when I see a buck in the woods I should be focused completely on one thing, good shot placement, NOT counting points; second, antler restrictions are basically done so hunters will pass up 1 1/2 year olds and shoot them when they get bigger antlers. Deer hunting offers many rewards for me, the least of which is antler size.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Ok, I have watched this forum progress into nothing but personal attacks for way too long. It's time for both sides of the debate to stick to the issues. 

I am *very* close to shutting this forum down indefinitely just like I did with the Sound Off forum a while back!


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

One more thing.



> As for being based on fact. Sure it was. The facts were: he saw a nice sized deer, he couldn't count the antler points, therefore, he disagrees with antler restrictions.


Just because the guy says it does not make it a fact. As far as you know he made up the story to make a point. Don't believe everything you read.

Neal


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

LOL!, GOOD ONE NEAL!

brian, if you would like to see research that shows the benefits of a balanced herd, that contains a larger population of mature bucks than michigan. i would take neal's suggestion and go to QDMA's website or MI QDM.

i've said it before and i'll say it again the best indicator of the health of the herd is to look at it's buck population.



> While the DNR is still trying to estimate the size of this year's herd, officials say that it's slightly smaller than last year - but still too large.By measuring antler beams and the number of points on 18-month-old bucks, DNR biologists say the large deer population is affecting the health of the herd. "We've been seeing smaller beams and fewer points, which indicate a less healthy population," Urbain explained. "The more points and bigger beams show a better balance with their habitat. And, if the bucks are healthier, so will be the does and fawns."~John Urbain~1999


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

Neal, I did not intend to insult you.

I think buck/doe ratios and greater age structure benifit only the hunter.

I determine the health of the herd when I pull that hide over the hind quarter and see all the fat stacked up around the hips.


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

Neal, I don't believe EVERYTHING I hear, but I don't assume they are liars because they have a different opinion, nor do I require proof before giving credibility.


----------

