Posted: 10/9/2012 4:37:18 PM EDT
|
We will begin the project in the fall of 2012 by purchasing whitetail breeder bucks with 200” genetics and releasing them at various locations throughout Marengo County.
http://bigbuckproject.org/about/ |
|
I was thinking about this if they are going to invest this kind of money they wouldn't want to see it just run off into the aether to be killed by poachers, wolves, other males, CWD or abducted by aliens for a zoo?
So what are they going to do? Fence them in, let "hunters" pick one out of a menu, get a map to where it's being housed so they can get their money's worth. Hell at that point they may as well just let people pick it off the net and in 5-10 business days a pretty head gets delivered to their house. |
|
From a management perspective, it seems unwise, and I'd suggest that while the state owns wildlife, it's hard to imagine where a state would have any reason to spend the money to bring in extra deer just for hunters to shoot.
edit: After reading a bit more, that project is stupid. Guaranteed to fail. In a county with thousands of existing deer, they'd have to release hundreds of deer to have ANY measureable impact on genetics. And despite the CWD-free certs, there's always a risk of bringing in a CWD deer with devastating consequences. They make reference to successful restocking efforts, but they're making apples-to-oranges comparisons. The whole project is dumb, and they could get FAR more results by simply setting aside more land (at the behest of the landowners for bucks to grow older, or putting more money into better habitat and nutrition (read: more and better food plots) and doe harvesting. Meh. |
|
Quoted:
From a management perspective, it seems unwise, and I'd suggest that while the state owns wildlife, it's hard to imagine where a state would have any reason to spend the money to bring in extra deer just for hunters to shoot. State is not spending the money and the deer are from Alabama deer farms. This is being done by private landowners. Most states I think outlaw this. Alabama must have it legal. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
From a management perspective, it seems unwise, and I'd suggest that while the state owns wildlife, it's hard to imagine where a state would have any reason to spend the money to bring in extra deer just for hunters to shoot. State is not spending the money and the deer are from Alabama deer farms. This is being done by private landowners. Most states I think outlaw this. Alabama must have it legal. yah... crazy and a CWD threat |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
From a management perspective, it seems unwise, and I'd suggest that while the state owns wildlife, it's hard to imagine where a state would have any reason to spend the money to bring in extra deer just for hunters to shoot. State is not spending the money and the deer are from Alabama deer farms. This is being done by private landowners. Most states I think outlaw this. Alabama must have it legal. I read that after my post. It's still stupid. I'm shocked that AL even allows it - it's NOT a wise move, at all, to even allow such a thing. |
|
(at the behest of the landowners for bucks to grow older, or putting more money into better habitat and nutrition
That doesn't work if you don't have the genetics to produce 200 inch deer. Witness South Carolina and Florida. Used native deer to restock and they have very, very few deer over 200 inches Boone and Crockett. You can have all the food plots you want but if the potential is not there for 200-300 inch deer, its not there. While I think this should be legal, deer are already overpopulated and should be shot down not stocking more. |
|
Who's responsible for the damage caused by bigger deer?
What happens when one of these genetically enhanced deer gets hit by someone in a car and the someone is killed? Deer have been known to go through windshields. The last thing I want to see is bigger deer. |
|
Quoted:
(at the behest of the landowners for bucks to grow older, or putting more money into better habitat and nutrition
That doesn't work if you don't have the genetics to produce 200 inch deer. Witness South Carolina and Florida. Used native deer and they have very, very few deer over 200 inches Boone and Crockett. You can have all the food plots you want but if the potential is not there for 200-300 inch deer, its not there. While I think this should be legal, deer are already overpopulated and should be shot down not stocking more. If they release 300 deer (at an astronomical cost) amongst the 25,000 existing deer in that county (25k is a guess....MS has ~2,000,000 deer in 82 counties, that's ~25k each), there will be virtually -0- impact on genetics, and they'll still have almost the same (low!) potential for producing large-racked deer. For the money it would cost to secure, transport, tag and release those deer (300 is just a guess, no idea what the real number is), they could secure hundreds of acres of land scattered across the county (probably several thousand acres for what 300 trpphy-gene deer might cost) and/or make habitat improvements on almost every acre of land in the county. Further, they're in a county that's in the black-belt region of AL, already known for great soils and great deer. As plans for improving deer size go, this is the worst possible use of management dollars I could imagine. It smacks of being spawned by a bunch of well-to-do bubbas over a late-night deer-camp card game. I wish them well (I think I've actually hunted in that area, long ago) but it's a silly plan. |
|
Habitat means nothing if your deer cannot grow past 180 inches (as an example) even with the best of habitat improvements.
It may well be a dumb idea (and seems like it) but food plots and soils alone will not get you a 300 inch Booner. There is a reason Illinois and Wisconsin are known for 200-300 inch deer and Alabama is not. |
|
I've noticed a lot more nice bucks with picture perfect racks nowadays vs. back in the 1980s.
I've wondered if it's due to quality deer management (opening up more doe days) and/or from people putting out nutrient plots and mineral licks out for the deer. Now I wonder if it's the genes from the breeding of super deer that have been getting out into the wild. I ain't complaining. |
|
Breeding deer to hunt in a high fence pen is a get rich scheme. People pay thousands and thousands for a fixed hunt.
I wouldn't mind having some big deer and maybe a few exotics in a high fenced area on my property, but only for my viewing pleasure. If I'm going to go hunting, I actually hunt |
|
Quoted:
Habitat means nothing if your deer cannot grow past 180 inches (as an example) even with the best of habitat improvements. Deer in the black belt of AL (where this thread is about) can and do get past 180 already. And the introduction of a relatively small number of slightly better deer won't change that. I said that earlier, but you largely ignored it, as will most any deer hunter who thinks they know something about deer because they've been shooting them for the last decade or three. Such willful ignorance is, as I have stated here before, the reason I gave up a career as a biologist. I don't enjoy telling people obvious things then being ignored. It may well be a dumb idea (and seems like it) but food plots and soils alone will not get you a 300 inch Booner.
There is a reason Illinois and Wisconsin are known for 200-300 inch deer and Alabama is not. You're overestimating the gap between a mature deer's score in IL or WI versus AL. Remember that the current record typical is only ~214" and the Alabama record is 186 and change (I believe much larger deer have been killed in AL but not recorded, due to being harvested inside a fence or illegaly or...something. It's not something I keep up with) and their largest nontypical rack was something like 260". Like I said, I wish them well, but it's a silly idea. |