Todd1700

If you let young bucks live to be older bucks then they will have "Bigger Antlers". Especially when at the same time you are killing off does that would have competed with them for available local food sources. BUT, having more older bucks in a herd doesn't really do anything to make the herd more healthy. That is merely a more desirable outcome for people who like to kill bucks with bigger horns. Other aspects of a QDM program may benefit the herd in general but the above component is designed to do one thing only.

QDM is a very new concept compared to how long deer have roamed this earth. Who was here practicing QDM to keep the herds "Healthy" thousands of years ago? The deer did just fine before man was even hunting them at all much less selectively harvesting them in favor of optimum antler grow.

You seem a nice fellow and I mean you no insult. But at the same time I'm too old for you to pee on my back and tell me it's raining.

bluebird2

All the research shows that as buck age their average rack size increases whether it is a QDM buck or not. Just letting more bucks live one year longer will result in an increase of the rack size of the average buck being harvested. But, in Miss. the average rack size of 2.5+ buck decreased across the entire state due to the effects of high grading.

glew22

What you guys are missing is that an older buck age structure (ex: more bucks in older age classes) IS a sign of a healthier herd. It is also what persisted prior to european arrival, when the herds were healthier, and there was limited selective harvest. You may counter saying QDM is all about selective harvest, and you may be right, but its selects for a population that persisted prior to our arrival (1 to 1 sex ratio, balanced and older buck age structure). To answer todds question, native americans and natural predators kept the population in check in those days. And I guarentee you that the herd's buck age structure at that time did NOT consist of only immature deer.

PS: Did you know that a yearling buck's sperm are half as mobile and half as fertile as that of a mature buck. Those factors combine and mean that for a yearling to successfully sire the same number of offspring as a mature buck, he would have to breed 4 times as many does, or just breed them 4 times as much.

glew22

Found this quote online, thought it was pretty good.

"The biggest complaint you hear from some people is that QDM is all about “large racks”. This is a statement made only by the uneducated, because as you can see, QDM is a package deal. If all you are trying to get out of QDM is “larger racks”, please move to Texas and practice what you truly mean to practice – trophy management. QDM in Minnesota is going to be what it truly was meant to be. That is something that focuses on the big picture. Looking at the population as a whole and using sound biological principles to attain a hunting experience that is of the highest quality possible. Yes, larger racks are a product of a more natural population. That is what gets all the attention because they are promoted on TV shows, magazines, and in hunting clubs. Unfortunately, you don’t see too many pictures in magazines of the mature doe that someone shot during muzzleloader season."

bluebird2

That is only opinion,it is not a fact. The health of a herd is not measured by the B/D ratio or the age distribution of buck in a herd. The health of a herd is based on breeding rates,productivity , recruitment. Until you can prove that an improved buck age structure significantly improves those factors, you are just repeating QDMA talking points.

It doesn't get much funnier than that. Does that explain why 90% of adult doe were being bred before ARs was implemented and why productivity was higher in 2000 than it is today.

Todd1700

Says who? And exactly why would that make the herd healthier? The only people I hear say this are the proponents of QDM and they never give a reason based on anything other than pure conjecture. No real facts in other words.

First natural predators like wolf, cougar, bear, etc, typically most often catch the weak, sick, and deformed. They could give a rats @$$ about horn size, age of the animal or the sex of the animal. They catch whatever they can catch. They are the quintessential meat hunters.

Second, I'm sure that when Indians killed a big buck they may have viewed it as a bonus and used his horns as the basis of a knife handle or something. But I have never read anything that stated that they passed on small bucks and selectively harvested only does or big bucks. I'd love to see a link to that information. My guess would be that people like the native americans, who were hunting to survive with a stick bow and flint broadheads, shot whatever the hell they could get in range.

Who said that there has ever been only immature bucks?