QDMA

Meeting tonight 4/12/16 7pm at Cabelas in Allen!
We are trying to strengthen the newly formed North TX Chapter.
ANYONE interested, please attend.

Questions, call me
Jay Gillespie
469-223-0513

In the interest of having the proper info going in, one should know that qdma is opposed to an individuals right to breed deer and an individuals right to high fence a property smaller than 640 acres.

Google for verification.

True. But, they do support ethical, moral, and science-based management philosophies and strategies that promote not only a true land ethic, but also the conservation ethic, the hunting heritage, and the principles of the North American Wildlife Conservation model rather than exploitation and privitization.

ahhhh...fun....



so is a good portion of this forum.

Not up to par with this QDMA you speak of, but I'm liking them already

They don't try to hide it. It's a big part of the reason they exist.

Key Points

"to an individuals right"
"an individuals right to high fence a property"

Ah yes, individual rights are diametrically opposed to morals and ethics. Got it. "Feelin the Bern" eh?!

Yeah I know. Wish we coulda put a fence up on our New Mexico, Oklahoma and Louisiana borders the past couple of decades to keep the nanny state immigrants at bay.

They are californicating Texas.

Just keep that qdma crap up there in yankeeland and we'll be good.

Guess i missed something. Private land is private land, bought by someone not the public. Breeding an animal can not be harmfully if not harming the breed. many animals escape high fences, makes better hunting in area.

And it's exactly why I cancelled my membership.

Let's divide hunters, cause division in the ranks, thrash rights and feed anti's

Instead of being a pompous, revenue driven wolf in sheeps clothing how about they focus on the one message hunters will always win with:

100% organic, environmentally friendly and sustainable food source, that we as true conservationist have conserved through our own actions, and management.

I like deer meat too Bobo.
And I agree hunters are the greatest group of conservationists that have ever lived.

I'll stop there so your return to the forum is a pleasant one.

P.S. We almost lost therancher to a heinous accident with some sort of human transport device, but he's OK and has provided a couple of cool sig line videos.

This. I don't much care for breeding or high fences, but it is absolutely none of my business what others do on their land.

Funny thing:

I've never met a deer breeder or high fenced ranch owner/hunter who has decided that everybody must share his/her preference/methods.

I note that there is a VERY large % of anti breeding HF hunters/ranchers who want to tell everyone else what they can and can't do.

Thank you sir (and others here) for falling in that % that supports individual rights.

I'm here for your (and others') entertainment.

Btw, did YOU ban BOBO??

Are you kidding? I couldn't ban Hitler if he came on here. Just a powerless minion who serves at the pleasure.

I'll check them out, I have a feeling it ain't pretty.

Lol, he wouldn't ban me if he could. He loves our deep long and thoughtful discussions.

No been traveling a bunch for work and pleasure. Just got back from coast and trying to postpone a panhandle trip.

It's great. He's been a good sport about it. The little "head jerk" he does trying to dismount that thing is the stuff YouTube fame is made of.

Lol that is true. I might put you on "shock probation" every now and again though.

Pursuit of perfection is too often the enemy of the good.

QDMA is doing more to promote thoughtful management of deer for small landowners than any other group right now, at least that I know of. If you don't like 100% of their positions, point out the group you think is doing a better job and with which you are 100% in agreement.

Between Texas Trophy Hunters and QDMA, which do you think will do more to advance deer for a small landowner and the "average" hunter?

If it's my land I will do exactly whatever the hell I want to on it

^^what he said

Hope you have a Nogalus on retainer with that thinking.

^^^^^^^^^^what they said

I'm good

Neither do a good job, but by the way where do you think that thoughtful management practices came from? We won't even go into which one has more revenue. Ironically you take out the TTHA ads they have similar content.

Regardless, what both need to do is voice support for synergies instead of pushing divisions in the conservation of our heritage. But then again synergies don't sell memberships and magazines.

Many just don't see the synergies my friend. This ain't a "Kumbaya" subject, in case you haven't noticed. Hillary and Cruz are both politicians, but there ain't much synergy to be had there. Sometimes you just gotta pick a side and vote.

Not when it's comes to my rights, I'm sick and tired of false prophet green duck conservation groups dividing for financial gain. It's not like this is something new with me.

Black and white you either support legal hunting or you dont. In the end only one movement holds water. You can't divide property owners against non property owners. Public perception doesn't matter if the meat you eat comes from a HF ranch or LF ranch, just that you eat it and why. The HF vs LF Is nothing more then an internal hunting rooster measuring contest, thank you B&C. What the non hunting public really cares about is that we show a combined front in our conservation efforts and justify our past time with sound reasoning, FOOD and FAMILY time. Nothing more nothing less


HF vs LF is a profit minded scam to divide and sell memberships and magazines.

We'll just agree to disagree. The HF stuff arose because of the profit deal. Fair chase was the ethic long before deer farming for profit was even a thought (after the commercial hunting era ended).

So I can't follow the reasoning. Sorry.

I'm not too up on the duck deal. DU seems like a pretty successful conservation group to me that represents all comers.

DU is a whole other bottle of wax. I'll put it this way I'd support QDMA way before them.


No the HF rose from a management and protection or betterment of a resource not profit. Now the Breeder industry arose from a--- to conserve, to what if, then to profit. The two while you view as synonymous are not.

Again, agree to disagree. It's cool if you want to support it, but seems you can't just leave it at that - when you have to make them heroes a la Teddy Roosevelt and Aldo Leupold I'm way off the train.

My HF rose because I wanted to raise Ibex not Deer. So now I am the "bad guy" too?

Most of the guys that cry about it hunt twice a year anyway

Who did I put in hero status?

I think there are some guys that are doing us a lot of good right now by staying away from the LF HF debate and focusing on why we hunt, how it impacts society and showing how we have a true connection to managing our natural food resources.

The HF/LF trophy measuring contest and the bought B&C measuring contests are what are killing us. A united front focusing on food and family can't be defeated in agruement or perception.

Wait Don...Its your land correct, but what if the Elitist Crowd would like to tell you to do with your land

I would tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine. Be about like coming to take my guns.

well said don

If they'd stick with that I'd support them 100%.

It's when they actively work to restrict others to QDMA's preferred method of hunting/managing that they lose me. And IMO they should lose every other person who loves individual freedom.

Man, I'd LOVE to agree with just that. It sounds so pretty. However, it's going WAY too PC. No hunter should ever apologize for the sport of hunting and the trophy aspect. The meat and family are perfect as you say, but it's my individual right to enjoy the sport of hunting, and my individual right to consider anything I kill as a trophy.

I apologize to no one. And the only standards I care to meet are my own.

Sport, meat, trophy. It's a family thing.

100% here to, you can go back to my posts when I first joined. I was big pusher of QDMA, then they decided to join the realm of how we hunt is the only way to hunt.... Boom been done with them ever sense.

To me it is literally a crying shame they chose that path.

I can assure you I apologize to no one unless I've gone to far trying to make a point and took a unintentional shot at hunt or animal that caused my original message to be lost.

No body should apologize for hunting nor would I ever. Presenting hard facts on benefits of hunting for food and family isn't apologizing it's stating a truth we all already know just don't care to explain. If we are going to be proud why not make a statement about it.

It's always an interesting thread when the Nug gets brought up. But what's the one thing he has always stated since he first hit the screen. Organic wholesome backstrap. Never been a fan of his delivery or antics but have been a fan of his message. Ironically his message is now our best defense against anti's. It's a very very defeating agruement.

Chalk me up with the individual, landowner rights crowd. I have both low and high fence ranches to hunt and enjoy them both very much. I too was a former QDMA supporter, but when they advocate against a landowner's lawful rights, I can't support them. We are not a socialist country, but when the hunting community starts down that path, it sure looks like it is only a matter of time and that really should scare the hell out of everyone.

I dumped them 15 or more years ago when I did not like the direction they were going way back then.

Well said ...I am surprised half the men aren't on a 28 day being so PC

Agreed.

Oh I know which column you're in. Just double emphasizing the obvious.

And I have no problem with people taking issue with teds style/delivery/antics. But, if you hunt, fish, trap, or own a gun, Ted is your friend and defender.

Just noting that he's got it right about sport/meat/trophy, and family. And his platform is bigger than ours.

Couldn't agree more.

I agree that a landowner should have the right to do what they want with your property including building a high fence.

But, reading this thread it has occurred to me that I see some similarities in this discussion to the argument some have made, rightfully so IMO, against protesters shutting down some of Trump's rallies. Does a person have the right to exercise their right (right of protest, free speech, or to build a high fence on their property) even if the act of exercising that right refuses someone else from exercising their rights (freedom of speech or the ability to hunt an animal that is legally the property of the state and not owned by an individual landowner)? Just got me to thinking ...

All of you that believe "you can do whatever you want on your land," do you shoot as many deer as you want, whenever you want? The State is restricting your right to take deer with seasons, and limits on how many you take.

I believe you are grasping at straws. I haven't read where anyone with a HF wants to shoot WT when ever or how many they want. There is a season on them. But the only limit on amount is for each individual. HF or LF a landowner can have as many individuals out shooting deer as they want. And I would imagine the HF owner is more management minded than the LF owner.

Very well said...was waiting for someone to break his stir stick

100%

don't we have enough things that the Gov. is telling us we can't do, that we don't need more butt heads trying to run our lives?

IMO, nothing has created a more negative impact on the deer hunting community than the QDMA. In addition to creating deer hunting "elitists" who feel they somehow own the knowledge as to what is best for the sport, their efforts to push hunters to keep shooting more doe has resulted in sharply lower deer sightings and hunter success rates. Also, their belief that every young buck should be allowed to walk serves as clear evidence of goals not designed to strengthen the herd, but to grow deer with big racks with greater financial value.

The question ultimately isn’t one of private property rights as much as it is manipulation and/or privatization of a public resource found on private property. I think most people realize that once you own something, land for instance, that you have a right to do whatever you want to do with it as long as it doesn’t adversely affect, or have the potential to affect, other people. Private property rights isn’t really the core of the issue. For those that speak of government interference, the notion that wildlife should be a public trust is core idea and very intent of the founding fathers and the government. It’s not something new or the directive of a ‘new’ change in thinking. Rather than follow along with the principles of the standard European notion of private ownership only for the wealthiest to enjoy, the North American Model was designed so that all people have a shared interest in wildlife species.

From there, the issue does become varied and increasingly difficult to nail down, as each individual opinion is based on a multitude of factors, none of which can be completely disregarded (except perhaps for those based on a lack of knowledge). Some view a high fence with complete disdain, others view it as a potential management tool with both positive and negative manifestations, and some view it as a saving grace and the answer to all the world’s problems. While there most definitely can be positives derived from high-fencing a property, specifically in reducing deer densities to increase habitat diversity and nutritional yield from native habitat, the simple fact is that most high fence properties use them to the detriment of the resource in one aspect or another, typically through elevated deer/exotic densities and the associated decline in habitat quality. But, also tied up within the high fence issue are a multitude of other issues. Fair chase hunting, disease concerns, habitat fragmentation, privatization, ethics, animal welfare, ‘breeder’ deer, introduction of exotics species (not only the common exotics, but a plethora of other organisms, both plant and animal), gene flow, etc., etc., etc.

But, I think the largest argument to intensified “super-management” of deer is transformation of a game animal into a simple commodity, and it is a concept to which I agree. It is no more challenging in today’s world to kill a large buck than it is to go to the market and buy a really, really, really expensive steak. Reducing a significant game animal, to nothing more than a play-thing to be tinkered with on a whim is a travesty. Catching them, breeding them, confining them, and releasing them as a target is a ridiculous extension of the notion of hunting, whether for recreation or food gathering. The successful taking of a large buck at one time had a connotation of accomplishment, one of achievement, and something that took skill to obtain. There is absolutely none of that with the shooting of a manipulated deer, and that is why most people, hunters and non-hunters alike, dislike the “breeder” concept.

Even on the management side, it takes no more cunning, ingenuity, intelligence, creativity, or expertise to produce a large deer with a fence, some feed, and genetically-manipulated ‘creation’ than it does to open a beer without hurting yourself. You don’t even need actual habitat anymore. The challenge in management of deer has always been to correct limiting factors within the deer herd by dealing with the many challenges that adversely affect age, nutrition, sex ratios, and densities. If you were able to do that, you were able to reap the rewards, and there was a great sense of accomplishment. But over the last few decades, deer ‘management’ has been reduced to by-passing limiting factors rather than to correct them in an ecosystem approach, which is the preferred method when considering the health of the habitat and other species as well as deer. Habitat deficient? Just add more feed rather than correct the actual problems. Young age structure? Just put up a fence rather than correct the actual problems. Small antlers? Just get some breeder deer rather than correct the actual problem. Have a density problem? Just use a helicopter to catch some and make them somebody else’s problem. The notion that “breeder” deer somehow fill a research or management void is very much misguided. I have been involved with research of white-tailed deer for 30 years and can tell you with certainty that “breeder” deer and the concepts contained therein have not contributed a thing to the science-based management of the species. There is a very real and distinct difference in captive deer for research purposes to benefit the species and habitats they live in versus “breeder” deer to fill the void in somebody’s pocket or ego.

The notion that all “hunters” should ban together to protect the interests of “hunting” is a bad call. If simple meat production and the ability to hunt were truly the only concerns, there would be no need for high fences, “breeder” deer, a protein feeder behind every tree, semen straws, ear tags, tattoos, etc. Deer, with sensible hunting regulations, seem to do quite well on their own. Why would one group, with a position centered around time-honored and well-accepted principles (even with a surprising level of non-hunting support) wish to band together with groups who’s principles and goals are directly counter-productive to the sport and the species and that most hunters and the vast majority of non-hunters disapprove of? Weakening a foundation is not the preferred method to keep a structure standing. This would be analogous to saying that if you want to protect gun rights, we should band together with everyone that shoots, including those that use guns for criminal activity. Organizations such as B&C, P&Y, QDMA, TWS, etc. are the strongest advocates we have for the actual basis of hunting.

Sorry for the long read, this turned out a little longer than I had anticipated. But, while I don’t get on here often, this topic caught my eye.

^^^^^Amen. None of that can really be argued, but it won't stop the usual suspects. Why? Because they either don't understand or care about the true ethos of hunting, or they are monetizing the fact so many don't understand or care.

I have heard of "Baffle them with BS", but this is rediculus.

Touching Story

I manipulate the deer herds on both low and high fenced properties I hunt. It is funny that I use the identical deer manipulation techniques at both ranches including keeping tne herd within the carrying capacity of the habitat, balancing sex ratios, improving the habitat, providing supplemental feed, culling less desirable deer, etc.. All hunters are manipulating the deer herds they hunt. Every time you pull the trigger or let that arrow fly, you have manipulated the deer herd. If you find any of these things unnatural, they are. Whether inside or outside a fence, hunters are manipulating the deer herd.

Somehow this topic turned from what QDMA stands for to law abiding, ethical high fence landowners being likened to criminals who use guns for illegal activity. That is extremely offensive and the author of said post should edit it immediately. And for the record, since general statements of opinion are being made as fact, the vast majority, make that all of the hunters I know have no issues with hunting a high fence ranch. I've never had anyone turn down tne opportunity to hunt period. And to address the monetization statement, I hunt and manage deer for enjoyment only. You want to call it ego, fine. I have yet to meet a hunter without an ego. It is number one for me about spending time with my family and friends and enjoying what I love doing.

One final thing for the high fence opponents to ponder. Why are you not opposed to tne property owner that high fenced their property to keep the deer out to protect their crops or fruit orchard for example? I don't see any of you belly aching over that. If you are being truthful it's only when there are deer behind that fence that makes it an issue. These landowners without deer are also manipulating tne deer that used to live on that land behind the fence.

Welcome to Texas the Kings deer since 1836. You don't like it then go petition the Goverment to revoke land deeds. I guess you want the Fed to come in drop low ball offers and basically use ED for a massive land grab....

Deer with sensible hunting regulations don't do well on their own or there wouldn't be a need for companies like QDMA pushing management strategies, nor would hill country deer be so small, and browse lines so prominent.

High Fences are a tool to better herds. Nothing more nothing less. When you can get white tails to relinquish core and home areas let me know. On animals that do migrate I'm assuming you're are opposed the 1000's of miles of State own HF that's used to manage migration routes also? Like I said a management tool.

As far as meat production Texas hunters donated almost 200k lbs of deer meat last year, majority of that coming from MLD and HF. Meat is meat. Wither it's from a 300acre low fence or 12000acre HF it's meat.

When people degrade others for how they hunt, they aren't hunters.

When I choose to fill my tag on pronghorn, white tails, elk and mule deer that have been living on alafafa all summer instead of sage because it's a higher quality meat, I guess I should be shunned for that also...... Wait isn't that essentially what protein pellets are....

Like I said the HF vs LF is a BS agruement all it does is divided. Faulting someone for growing a healthy herd is counter productive. You are on a QDMA thread where they goal is healthy herds via controlling carring capacity and ratios to help deer reach maximum skeleton potential.... Wait isn't that what HF guess also do.


Game animals are privatized why you have to buy a hunting license.


I disagree on B&C and P&Y. They are the down fall of hunting and not worth a flip at promoting hunting. Those scoring systems where developed to high light areas that had reached a very upper end level where management, nutrition, age and genetics had pushed animals to very extreme upper threshold of their abilities. Now those books are majority paid for trophies. They don't highlight hunting they highlight what money can buy antler size. Buy an animal and send in you publishing fee... Bamn you a record book holder.

Come back and play when you eat more then a deer a year, and cut your fences down and/or allow general public to hunt those deer that call your place home.

170 million acres of private land in Texas. Unless you buy it or lease it you aren't hunting it. Now you do have the option to go hunt the 2 million acres of public land if you pay your trespassing fee and hunting licenses fee to the Goverment.

If you think a deer or turkey etc are truly property of the people then go jump a fence any fence and kill one. 365 days a year on a calendar pick a day.

My deer are not penned up. So others can and do hunt them. Actually my neighbor is the National Forest. So that includes the general public.

Your new touchy-feely "it's all about the meat" argument is not very compatible with defending HF. Anyone with their eyes open knows the proliferation of HFs has zero, zilch, nada to do with meat.

I'll remind that you don't know what I do or don't do. Unlike it is for many, the THF is not my personal FaceBook for me to post up every time I eat a meal, drink a beer, go from point A to B, or have a bowel movement.

It's all pretty simple. Penning in animals and pouring feed to them is not "management". And shooting those penned in livestock is not "hunting".

Most of the folks on every forum I participate in kinda understand that instinctively - with one exception.

Didn't you buy protein feeders......you also have more then 300 acres so you have deer they may have never left your property.


Lol. I don't have to know you, your MO never changes. Your idea of promoting hunting is a head, the fact you would ignore and not push the fact that 200k lbs of meat in Texas alone is donated to the hungry every year, shows exactly what I'm talking about. The fact you constantly express how HF animals aren't allowed in B&C shows you care about only the head!!!

If someone wants to buy a deer, I don't care!!!! it will be eaten wether it's donated or kept. That's the only fact that matters. Weither HF, LF, Public, private, guided, unguided, draw tag or gov tag it's all the same meat wise. If they want to put horns on their wall who are you to degrade it. In the end It's meat and will be eaten.

You sound like Trump. Just making it up as you go and arguing for HF by saying those who don't support it are all about the head - as if the HFs exist for altruistic folks to have deer meat to eat and give to others. Sorry BOBO, I can't relate to your bizzaro-world where everything is opposite.

Nobody is or has ever degraded anyone for eating deer meat or providing it to those in need.

Just making stuff up, accusing someone of the made-up stuff, and then arguing against it is not a discussion. It's just gum-flapping.

P.S. Yeah I bought a protein feeder. The deer didn't eat it. Why? Because they weren't penned in and had other choices....

And the fact you still make the silly argument deer won't leave 300 acres says it all.

I'm done. If you want my response to anything else just keep re-reading the post the gentleman made above.

the fact you don't know why they didn't eat it says alot. Had nothing to do with wether your place is HF or not. I didn't say ALL your deer didn't leave, who is making stuff up now



Exactly thank you for making my point.... if YOU cant argue it then no anti hunter can!!! Bizzaro world Hun...

BoBo, You know better than argue with lawyers. When I used to work there was a flight attendant that was like that. You might as well go beat you head against a wall as argue with them. You will get more satisfaction. At least now I know that and I had always figured that NP voted for obama.

That's why every post is edited...Can't keep up with all the rhetoric.

My Grandfather used to say, never trust a man that takes 100 words to explain something that can be explained in one sentence.

I don't support either. But if I had to pick one it would be most likely TTHA just for diverse article content, and the fact it has featured so many THF members( almost all LF deer bye the way), and they aren't Calling their selves a conservation group.

QDMA
When you claim to be a conservation group and draw a division amoung hunting landowners. You aren't a conservation group focused on hunting. When you promote bigger antler deer off better management programs(brought to us by HF's) then trash bigger deer managed because of a fence.... Its becomes obvious that they are selling and marketing a product specifically to a smaller landowner that doesn't have the resources of some. All they are doing is taking HF principles and gift wrapping them and calling the something else. Oh the irony...pitting one against the other to sell a product.

TTHA
When you are a hunting member written magazine, (even though your articles are high lighting lots of kids, women and veterans) and you lets advertisement/money dictate your perception, it obvious it's about the money and not highlighting the hunting articles.

You haven't ever explained anything about anything in all your years on this forum - in 5 words or 500. All you can do is insult, attack or "attaboy" someone else who's insulting or attacking. Just like the above. You got nothing. You never have.

Duly Noted and will take that under advisement..

So you take having voted for obama as an insult?

Hey Trash fish and cull bucks, just read your post, and while most of it is total BS and I don't have time to pick it apart in depth right now, maybe you could respond to this.

Your words: "Why would one group, with a position centered around time-honored and well-accepted principles (even with a surprising level of non-hunting support) wish to band together with groups who’s principles and goals are directly counter-productive to the sport and the species and that most hunters and the vast majority of non-hunters disapprove of?"

My question: why would one group (the one you so ineptly represent) feel it necessary to determine how other people hunt, manage deer, make their living, etc?

You can in fact hunt LF in many more places than you can hunt HF. HF are a tiny fraction of available hunting land.

No one who breeds deer, or high fences their place advocates that you shouldn't be able to hunt all the legal ways you choose to hunt.

You can in fact choose to hunt as hard as you want to for a trophy as determined by whatever criteria YOU personally apply to yourself, and NO breeder or HF hunter is advocating against you satisfying your own set of standards.

So, please, let us know why you need to determine what my standards, criteria, ethics etc needs to be.