Yes, I don't think that's what Dr. Harper or Lashley have said. They're just saying the traditional management of those poorer soil areas isn't conducive to producing bucks that express their full potential. More quality forage grows in the Mississippi River bottoms by default, I can attest to that. I hunted some whoppers in the Louisiana river bottoms.Lets say you own a 1000 acres of bottomland hardwood in the middle of the rich soils of the Mississippi River Alluvial Delta where row crop ag land is prevalent, or 1000 acres of bottomland hardwood surrounded by commercial timberland in the pineywoods. And do no land/deer management other than trigger restraint. There is no doubt, on average, the deer in the Mississippi delta are going to have higher body weights and larger antlers. Most folks would probably assert that the deer in the delta are going to utilize the crop ground - eating soybean vegetation in the summer and waste beans and corn in the fall and winter - and they would probably be correct.
The question I ask, is why is there cropland adjacent to the 1000 acres in the delta and commercial pine timberland adjacent to the 1000 acres in the pineywoods. It is because the soil is more fertile in the delta and can support row crop utilization and the soil is less fertile in the pineywoods and not economically feasible to rowcrop. So the reason you can have better habitat in the delta is because the soil supports it.
That may or may not be the case - depending on a number of considerations - but typically management activities, if not expensive are at least labor intensive or time consuming. Supplemental feeding might be expensive, but might not require much labor. A realistic approach has to be considered, also. I have never heard of a B&C buck coming off Dr Woods property - even though it is very intensively managed. Most of us - even if we owned the same sized property - would not have the finances, time, or knowledge to manage the property like he has - and he has still been unable to produce a B&C buck. Unmanaged lands in more fertile ground produce many more trophy bucks.A lot of the management done has been in the form of foodplots or supplemental feeding. From listening to Drs. Harper and Lashley, this doesn't do as much as managing your entire property. Squeezing out every acre's potential by doing larger landscape management practices can provide more at less cost according to their work.
I forgot I had seen the. All about the fort bragg deer. Not a good plot or feed in sight and they were growing hammers by burning and cutting.This video is along the same lines demonstrating just how valuable native habitat manipulation is.
Having the most affect over the largest area you can on a property certainly doesn't have to be costly or labor intensive. Reducing the canopy to 50% in a closed canopy forest can provide alot more food on a 40 acre tract than clearing out your average food plot and putting up a feeder. It could even pay you to do that logging. Taking a large field and removing the cool season grasses and allowing it to grow up into early successional plants could also be less costly and less time consuming while providing more food than carving out a food plot into a corner of it. A lot of people go straight to the food plot or feeder or other micro type manipulation rather than doing a macro practice across larger areas that will have a greater effect.That may or may not be the case - depending on a number of considerations - but typically management activities, if not expensive are at least labor intensive or time consuming. Supplemental feeding might be expensive, but might not require much labor. A realistic approach has to be considered, also. I have never heard of a B&C buck coming off Dr Woods property - even though it is very intensively managed. Most of us - even if we owned the same sized property - would not have the finances, time, or knowledge to manage the property like he has - and he has still been unable to produce a B&C buck. Unmanaged lands in more fertile ground produce many more trophy bucks.
Anyone know how to get this on youtube or somewhere? I don't have facebook and wanna watch/listen on my phone.Craig Harper disagrees…but what does he know!
I just clicked on the video at the bottom left there is a play button. I am on my computer at work, not my phone, but I don't have any social media on this computer.... just habitat and deer pornAnyone know how to get this on youtube or somewhere?
Anyone know how to get this on youtube or somewhere? I don't have facebook and wanna watch/listen on my phone.
Having the most affect over the largest area you can on a property certainly doesn't have to be costly or labor intensive. Reducing the canopy to 50% in a closed canopy forest can provide alot more food on a 40 acre tract than clearing out your average food plot and putting up a feeder. It could even pay you to do that logging. Taking a large field and removing the cool season grasses and allowing it to grow up into early successional plants could also be less costly and less time consuming while providing more food than carving out a food plot into a corner of it. A lot of people go straight to the food plot or feeder or other micro type manipulation rather than doing a macro practice across larger areas that will have a greater effect.
And, I don't think Grant Woods believed he would be pumping out B&C bucks from the Proving Grounds. He wanted to show that you could produce top end deer for an area through different practices. If his goal was just to produce the highest scoring bucks possible, he could have high fenced the place. Providing that protection, then supplying the best food available, he could have grown B&C sized bucks and the soil would have nothing to do with it.
Yes, sir, I agree with what you are saying. I have done several of those large scale management activities myself. I even have a couple of neighbors who recently cut/thinned 200 acres that join my property that didnt cost me a cent.Having the most affect over the largest area you can on a property certainly doesn't have to be costly or labor intensive. Reducing the canopy to 50% in a closed canopy forest can provide alot more food on a 40 acre tract than clearing out your average food plot and putting up a feeder. It could even pay you to do that logging. Taking a large field and removing the cool season grasses and allowing it to grow up into early successional plants could also be less costly and less time consuming while providing more food than carving out a food plot into a corner of it. A lot of people go straight to the food plot or feeder or other micro type manipulation rather than doing a macro practice across larger areas that will have a greater effect.
And, I don't think Grant Woods believed he would be pumping out B&C bucks from the Proving Grounds. He wanted to show that you could produce top end deer for an area through different practices. If his goal was just to produce the highest scoring bucks possible, he could have high fenced the place. Providing that protection, then supplying the best food available, he could have grown B&C sized bucks and the soil would have nothing to do with it.
I agree.I understand what some of these guys are saying in theory - but in reality - at what expense and effort? Our state maintains a record of antler data, by geographical area - and the differences in average antler measurements mirror the fertility of the soil in that area.
Yes, sir, I agree with what you are saying. I have done several of those large scale management activities myself. I even have a couple of neighbors who recently cut/thinned 200 acres that join my property that didnt cost me a cent.
However, my point being - as in Grant Woods case - he probably incorporated more management techniques, activities, and expenditures than most of us ever will - and that was on a decent sized acreage - more than most of us will ever own - and he didnt produce B&C deer - yet 150 miles to the east in the Delta, they grow them by accident. Dr Grant’s property is not located in prime fertile soils. Just how much habitat work would have to be done on grounds of lesser fertility to produce the quality of deer that are produced with no targeted habitat improvement on highly fertile lands.
I understand what some of these guys are saying in theory - but in reality - at what expense and effort? Our state maintains a record of antler data, by geographical area - and the differences in average antler measurements mirror the fertility of the soil in that area.
To be fair, we are seeing more and more big deer produced in non-traditional area. I think this is a function of hunters in general practicing trigger restraint and more widespread use of supplemental feeding. Even in your home state of Louisiana, there are some monsters being killed in some non-traditional areas - and those folks have enough sense to be tight lipped and stay off social media.
“In the Ozark Mountains, not row country, this deer is world class” - Dr Woods said after taking that buck. That is a heck of a nice deer anywhere, in my book. There are deer pretty much everywhere that are a true anomaly - that are a lot bigger than even the normal big ones. Where habitat, genetics, nutrition, and luck all manifest at once. I have seen it a couple times on my place. Upper 150’s is about what I reasonably expect to see on my place every few years. That is about normal size for the big deer folks occasionally kill in the area. But, I have had a couple giants show up over the past 20 years on my place. First or second year I had my place, back in the days of film game cams - I had one food plot, and got one picture of a mainframe - 12 pt I estimated mid to upper 170’s. Never got another pic and never heard of anyone killing him. Six years ago, I had a really nice main frame ten point - about a 150 class deer. The following years, he had added eight stickers, four on each side. I hunted that deer hard. I actually hunted him everyday for two weeks when he was dead. Neighbor had killed him two weeks before and I didnt know it. He scored 174 4/8. That is an absolute giant for our area. They kill them bigger than that every year in the delta in our state - but not where I live
Read the comments in this video. This buck scored 172 5/8".
I think you left out a comma between the R and P.I just clicked on the video at the bottom left there is a play button. I am on my computer at work, not my phone, but I don't have any social media on this computer.... just habitat and deer porn![]()