Field and Stream

[brock ratcliff]

Scott Bestul has a piece in October's issue of Field and Stream. It's about deer management, and how it is becoming increasingly influenced by state's farm bureaus and politicians. From the article, it seems state wildlife agencies are having less and less actual influence on deer populations, and lobbyist are becoming bolder. We're seeing this very thing in Ohio, I believe.

FWIW, I've put myself on the sidelines in all these type threads recently. I'd prefer this thread not turn into a DOW bash, it's just a heads-up on a good read in Field and Stream.

 

[Beentown]

Scott Bestul has a piece in October's issue of Field and Stream. It's about deer management, and how it is becoming increasingly influenced by state's farm bureaus and politicians. From the article, it seems state wildlife agencies are having less and less actual influence on deer populations, and lobbyist are becoming bolder. We're seeing this very thing in Ohio, I believe.

FWIW, I've put myself on the sidelines in all these type threads recently. I'd prefer this thread not turn into a DOW bash, it's just a heads-up on a good read in Field and Stream.

I had my pitchfork ready and everything!

 

[brock ratcliff]

Ha! That is usually how any thread that mentions the DOW and deer management goes... However, if you get a chance to read the article, do it. It will add to the conversation around the fire in a couple of weeks I think.

 

[Beentown]

It is waiting in the porcelain palace...

 

[Outdoorsfellar]

It is waiting in the porcelain palace...

The King has spoken....lol

 

[Jackalope]

Just read it. That is exactly what's happening in Ohio today. However it's not as blatant as in other states. But the strings are being pulled from the top. Not from the biologist where it belongs. Wildlife management specifically deer is managed by farm bureau and insurance companies who use lobbyist to buy politicians who then bend the fingers of the DNR. There is no accountability for what they've done. If you want to know who is in the pockets of these lobbyist they all signed a letter recently attempting to bully the DNR into reinstating the bonus gun season. I was happy to see the DNR stand up to them even if it was by a 1 vote margin. The article mentioned Iowa where the hunters are now pissed that their DNR decimated their deer population. The reality is its too late. Even if their DNR pulls in the reins and appears to slack off, they will simply pull back enough to keep the herd at it low levels. Ohio isn't far behind in their decimation of their herd. And by the time people realize what's going on it'll be far far too late.

 

[LonewolfNopack]

I stopped subscribing to F&S but it sounds like a good read. Maybe someone will let me borrow theirs to read when they are done. As long as they didn't read it while they were taking a dump.

 

[Bigslam51]

I stopped subscribing to F&S but it sounds like a good read. Maybe someone will let me borrow theirs to read when they are done. As long as they didn't read it while they were taking a dump.

Sounds like everyone reads their outdoor mags while on the chitter, I myself prefer to not waste any time on the throne therefore I don't read while taking a dump.

 

[Mike]

Saw that and thought, OHIO.

 

[bowhunter1023]

I'll have to grab a copy. And IMO, Iowa can also thank the Drury Brothers who glorified both their DNR and the act of slaughtering does.

 

[MK111]

I would like to read the article but not buying a magazine to do so. Couldn't find it on line.

 

[hickslawns]

IF they did this short term I think we could benefit. Let the larger/more dominant bucks do more of the breeding. Doesn't mean the bucks with the best genetics will be doing the majority of the breeding, but probably an increased percentage of superior (in the eyes of hunters) bucks. Too bad this would only work if the population decimation were short term. I don't think this is where it is going. Therefore, the IF to start my reply is really a just a pipe dream. They are hellbent on decimating the herd, not bettering the trophy hunting.

Good thing I am a hunter first, trophy hunter second. Good thing I like a challenge. It is becoming more of a challenge to locate deer.

 

[Jackalope]

IF they did this short term I think we could benefit. Let the larger/more dominant bucks do more of the breeding. Doesn't mean the bucks with the best genetics will be doing the majority of the breeding, but probably an increased percentage of superior (in the eyes of hunters) bucks. Too bad this would only work if the population decimation were short term. I don't think this is where it is going. Therefore, the IF to start my reply is really a just a pipe dream. They are hellbent on decimating the herd, not bettering the trophy hunting.

Good thing I am a hunter first, trophy hunter second. Good thing I like a challenge. It is becoming more of a challenge to locate deer.

The great majority of does are bred by 2.5 and under bucks. That's not to say 2 years later that buck won't be a booner. But the 4-6 year old bucks don't do as much breeding as you think. As a percentage they are vastly outnumbered by dinks. Also. Often twins don't have the same father. Lots of times they're from two different bucks.

 

[hickslawns]

The great majority of does are bred by 2.5 and under bucks. That's not to say 2 years later that buck won't be a booner. But the 4-6 year old bucks don't do as much breeding as you think. As a percentage they are vastly outnumbered by dinks. Also. Often twins don't have the same father. Lots of times they're from two different bucks.

Right. I have read this before in multiple readings as well. However, I think the theory of "less does equates to more superior bucks doing the breeding" would reduce the number of dinks and young bucks breeding. BUT. . . it is all for naught UNLESS this reduction is a temporary strategy. The other "BUT" lies in the word "theory".