High Grading, Bait, Cams and Crossbows is no good for anyone!

[S.T.Fanatic]

Do you think the limestone helps?

Possibly but....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Native Hunter]

I've been guilty of a bunch of high grading in recent years (especially this year with a 186 gross Booner). I'm trying my best to feel guilty, but it isn't working.....

 

[SwampCat]

Aside from the high grading comments, I think a lot of folks often consider things from one point of view. I am not going to weigh in on personal preference, but as far as baiting - there are some wildlife management reasons to allow it in some areas. For example, a lot of my home state is owned by corporate timber companies. It is not uncommon for 640 acres to include 620 acres of pine in various age classes from clear cut to sawlog, and 20 acres of streamside management zones. Not everyone hunting that area can pile into the 20 acres of hardwood. Many of the timber companies do not allow lease members to plant food plots. It is hard to hunt deer in thickets and areas where there are not mast concentrating food sources. Deer populations increased to the point of overpopulation. Baiting was the answer to helping to control deer numbers and spread hunters out more evenly across the countryside. Then, CWD hit. Right or wrong, the general management prescription is to reduce deer densities. Hunting over a bait site facilitates removing deer from the herd.

Crossbows are a gift of opportunity to provide many hunters extra time afield during usually much longer archery seasons - that might not have been able to hunt during that season because of lack of time to practice or some type physical impairment that would make it difficult to do so. In my state, there are still more compound hunters than crossbow hunters, and the compound hunters still take more deer than the crossbow hunters. If your herd can stand a small bit of increased pressure, allowing the use of a crossbow provides a lot of increased opportunity.

Game cameras probably save more deer than they contribute to the harvest. I don't know how many nice bucks I have passed because I knew there was one or two big ones in the area - that I usually ended up never seeing. A local NWR banned the use of game cameras of all kinds about five years ago. Their harvest numbers actually increased after that - coincidently or not - but I believe it was - at least in some part - hunters being less picky about what they shot because they didn't know what was out there. I know that is how it worked for me. It may, over time, actually reduce buck quality in the area, because now more younger bucks are being shot as opposed to passing those bucks waiting on that one big one.

I know a lot of hunters often consider only their own circumstances. But to be honest, those of us who own our own land or control large blocks of land with limited pressure - are among the minority of the general hunting population. On almost any evening, including the last day of season, I will probably see anywhere from 5 to 25 deer - several two or three year old 8 points among them. Yet I know folks hunting two miles away on public that are lucky to see one deer in a solid week of hunting. Yes, I would love to see a 4 pt on a side antler restriction with a 16" spread, to improve my odds of killing a 150" deer - but I also try to keep in mind by far the majority of hunters don't have the opportunities I have.

 

[Bill]

I'm no whitetail scholar but I don't think it's possible to affect the genetics of a wild herd. There are just too many variables. You definitely can't tell which doe have inferior genes so if you shoot all the inferior buck you're still only controlling 50% of the equation. Then if you don't know if the inferior buck you shoot have inferior genes. Maybe they have good genetics but grew smaller antlers for another reason, injury, etc.

On the personal side, Man I would love to be at the point where I pass on 130's. Where I hunt a 3 yr old is big. 4+ yr olds are like a fairy tale. I've only seen two deer that would score 130+ in 30 years of hunting and I missed one of them last year. (It still hurts my soul).

Here in PA the game commission had to force out the brown is down mentality. When I first started hunting you shot the first buck that walked by because you might not see another. As long as it was bigger than a 3 inch spike you shot. Back then if you got a buck that scored 100 it was big news. Hell if you saw a buck spotlighting that big it was big news.

Thanks to antler restrictions we now see bigger buck than we ever have. 3 pts on a side restriction is in a form high grading because the biggest yearlings are still getting killed but it at least allows some of the populations of bucks to make it to 2 yrs. I think people are finally starting to see what can happen if you don't shoot the first buck you see but it's still an uphill battle.

I grew up hunting down the street from you...

maybe not geographically, but in the same hood, somewhere else.

 

[Bill]

I only shoot deer over 160 inches. Because I’m better than you!
Until I don’t have any.

Then I only shoot deer over 140 inches because I’m better than you
Until I don’t have any.

then I shoot deer over 120 inches because I’m better than you.
until I don’t have any.

count down. But strive for the top in you’re area. And love what you shoot.

Pick your “happy place” Not your unreal place. Unreal would be “great” but not reaching it sucks if that’s your goal all the time.

 

[yoderjac]

How does property size affect the size bucks folks target?

I would suggest the larger the property, the older the bucks it is practical to target. For example, we have a little under 400 acres and about that of cooperating neighbors. Part of our goal set is to introduce new hunters, so we let them shoot any legal deer. We target 3 1/2 + year old class deer. Why? if we targeted older bucks than that, we would have shot exactly zero bucks. All of the deer we harvest are aged by a department biologist, so I've got a good handle on age. We have shot a handful of 5 1/2+ does but no older bucks. We get pictures of a few older bucks each year, but pretty much only at night during the season. Folks in the general area have a lower standard for buck harvest. There is enough pressure that most deer, except perhaps fawns, are mostly nocturnal by the time gun season rolls around. Outside the chase phase of the rut, mature bucks are nocturnal before that.

I would contend that if you have a sufficiently large parcel where mature bucks rarely if ever leave your property, you can target older age class bucks and have success.

The rule of thumb I use is the top 10%. In are area, anything that is 3 1/2 or older is large enough to be in the top 10% of bucks. That is top 10% by age.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Jack

 

[Telemark]

I don't see why crossbows would be a problem. I can shoot a crossbow much better than I can shoot a compound bow. I'm guessing many others are the same way. That probably contributes to fewer wounded deer.

It reminds me of places that don't allow scopes. A lot more deer will probably get wounded by people shooting iron sights.

At some point we have to think about the animals we hunt. Increasing the challenge increases the risk of wounding animals. This is inherently unethical.

 

[roymunson]

How about a law that if you have cell cams, you must be 150+ miles away? Seems if you live on your hunting property, cell cams may be a tad unfair. If you live out of state, the need changes somewhat.

No.

 

[roymunson]

I've been guilty of a bunch of high grading in recent years (especially this year with a 186 gross Booner). I'm trying my best to feel guilty, but it isn't working.....

pics or it didn't happen.

 

[Mortenson]

No.

I didn't say I was in favor of it, but you have to admit they're getting into the realm of the fair chase debate. Even another of the posters who also disagreed needed the caveat that he only uses cell cam info once a day. I don't own a cell cam, but have considered buying one for the most remote area of the farm. I live three miles away.

 

[Native Hunter]

pics or it didn't happen.

Ask, and you shall receive:

 

[SwampCat]

I use cell cams extensively for shooting hogs. I have for six years now. While I often get up out of bed at 3 in the morning to shoot a pig, I have never used a cell cam any differently than a conventional game cam to hunt a deer or a turkey. And my main cell cam is a five minute walk from my house. I could see, with someone living on the property full time, it could be abused for deer hunting.

 

[Timinator]

Acreage that holds deer are like ponds; they change every few years no matter how you try to keep them the same.

 

[SwampCat]

Acreage that holds deer are like ponds; they change every few years no matter how you try to keep them the same.

I agree. I have a food plot three hundred yards from the house. The east end is 100 yards from a state highway and the west end is towards 1000’s of acres of roadless land and swamp. For ten years, almost every deer entered the west end of the food plot and stands were positioned accordingly. Then one year, almost every deer started entering from near the highway. They still come from the same area, but now walk south of the food plot, fifty or 100 yards deep in the woods - to get to the east end to enter. Nothing has changed on that property that would cause them to do that.

 

[yoderjac]

I don't see why crossbows would be a problem. I can shoot a crossbow much better than I can shoot a compound bow. I'm guessing many others are the same way. That probably contributes to fewer wounded deer.

It reminds me of places that don't allow scopes. A lot more deer will probably get wounded by people shooting iron sights.

At some point we have to think about the animals we hunt. Increasing the challenge increases the risk of wounding animals. This is inherently unethical.

When crossbows were legalized in our state, compound bow hunters expressed concern. First they thought most gun hunters thought it was like a gun so they would buy one to extend their season. We know a crossbow is quite similar to a compound bow, so these hoards of inexperienced "gun hunters" would be taking long shots at deer significantly increasing the wounding rate. Second, compound bow hunters said that bow harvests would significantly go up since you don't have to draw in the presence of game with a crossbow.

The counter argument was that legalizing crossbows would allow existing bowhunters to extend their bowhunting careers as that got older and could not physically use a compound bow effectively. Second, it would allow existing bowhunters to start kids bowhunting earlier in life since all of the skills needed to get in range of a deer and wait for the right shot are identical with a crossbow.

In reality, most compound bowhunters simply did not want to share the woods with crossbow hunters. Many thought of a crossbow as an unfair advantage since you don't draw in the presence of game.

Our stake kept track of the compound versus crossbow kills. In reality, there was not a big jump in overall harvests during archery season when crossbows were introduced. We did see many compound bow hunters switch to crossbows over time, but their harvests simply moved from one form of tackle to the other and any increase in their kill efficiency was offset by the current reduction in hunter numbers through attrition.

In our state, with all forms of weapons, total deer harvests peaked a few years back and is declining somewhat. This is in the face of regulation changes promoting higher harvests over time. It turns out that with hunter attrition, fewer folks have been harvesting more deer each over time. We were close to the peak about the time crossbows were introduced. They have had little impact on overall harvest.

We have no data on whether more mature bucks have been harvested since crossbows were introduced, but I suspect not.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[yoderjac]

I agree. I have a food plot three hundred yards from the house. The east end is 100 yards from a state highway and the west end is towards 1000’s of acres of roadless land and swamp. For ten years, almost every deer entered the west end of the food plot and stands were positioned accordingly. Then one year, almost every deer started entering from near the highway. They still come from the same area, but now walk south of the food plot, fifty or 100 yards deep in the woods - to get to the east end to enter. Nothing has changed on that property that would cause them to do that.

Sure it has...you've been hunting them. Deer can react very quickly to hunting pressure. We can also impact them both epigenetically and from a learned behavior standpoint by hunting. The deer we remove from the population are those that are the most bold during hunting season. This is true for both male and female deer. This can have an epigenetic impact favoring deer that are more sensitive to hunting pressure and more cautious. Deer also learn stand are related to danger and avoid them.

One good example, and I've told this story before, is a project we worked on to reduce deer numbers. It was a large training facility that was not hunted in spite of department necropsy studies calling for hunting and big population reduction. It was heavily overpopulated with an obvious browse line and deer would eat out of the hands of folks visiting for training. The facility was eventually sold to a developer and our archery group was brought in to do population reduction. The developer did not want firearms used because of the setting and his business strategy.

Because of the delicacy of the situation with many non-hunters hiking in the woods, we instituted a rule that required our bowhunter to hunt from treestands only for safety reasons. For the first several weeks, it was very easy to harvest deer as they had not been hunted and did not see humans as a threat. After several weeks, you could still walk within 20 yards of a deer without any reaction, but as soon as you climbed a tree, the deer were gone. The would walk around looking up for hunters. They quickly learned that humans on the ground were not a threat but humans in a tree were.

This is just an example of learned behavior. Now add that kind of learning to multiple generations of shooting less cautious deer.

Deer are amazing creatures.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[S.T.Fanatic]

My recently retired uncle moved home from OK. He hunts with a crossbow. It doesn't bother me in the least. I'd much rather have him out hunting with that crossbow than a compound set at 45# or not at all. He doesn't kill any more deer than I do.

 

[Telemark]

I use cell cams extensively for shooting hogs. I have for six years now. While I often get up out of bed at 3 in the morning to shoot a pig, I have never used a cell cam any differently than a conventional game cam to hunt a deer or a turkey. And my main cell cam is a five minute walk from my house. I could see, with someone living on the property full time, it could be abused for deer hunting.

I have to disagree. If it helps you shoot your target deer then how can it not be considered a benefit to the herd?

 

[yoderjac]

I have to disagree. If it helps you shoot your target deer then how can it not be considered a benefit to the herd?

That would only be in the hands of folks whose intent is to target deer that benefit the herd. Most cell cams are use by folks that don't have deer management in mind, just hunting. Personally I don't think they provide a significant advantage over non-cell cams in most situations. Having said that anything that gives large numbers of people an advantage over deer in hunting, can have an impact on the herd. The nature of that impact depends on how those folks use the advantage.

That is why we have game departments. There job is to provide us recreational hunting opportunities with regulations that protect the resource from over exploitation. Seasons, bag limits, equipment bans, and so on are tools they can use to do this.

Private property owners with sufficient scale an further refine management on their property by setting their own limitations inside the legal bounds.

Thanks,

Jack

 

[finahol]

How about a law that if you have cell cams, you must be 150+ miles away? Seems if you live on your hunting property, cell cams may be a tad unfair. If you live out of state, the need changes somewhat.

I am 149.6 miles driveway to driveway guess i will have to drive around the block and come in from the back, lol. On the other hand my bro lives 10 miles further away so he should be ok.