Yeah��well, it wasn�t very long ago that no one could perceive letting every doe walk being a problem either.

Last time I checked�. fire was not an artificial part of our ecosystem. Neither is the thinning of mature trees. The difference is that supplemental feeding grows the deer population artificially and to an extent, independently of the native system and its carrying capacity. Things like prescribed fire, thinning, etc� grow the native system which increases the potential for the deer herd as a result�.all the while still keeping things in balance. I see that as different but you may not. If I choose to not strike a match next year, the deer herd will not immediately collapse as a result. If I choose to not fill up the feeders I�ve been running for the last 10 years then there is the potential for a much more dramatic impact to occur.....not to mention the impacts that may have already occurred leading up to this point as a result of me supplemental feeding for years.

Who?? Lol!!!

Several QDMA members posting in this thread, bet 49er's bout to have a come-apart.

I can tell you it will not happen. People can't afford to do it. It would take tons and tons and tons to do it like I am talking about. Like one place in AL I saw it in a fence was feeding 80,000 lbs. a year on well less than 1000 acres. Just isn't going to happen by the masses. Good argument but not going to happen.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the Gobbler style of management all over the state. He and I do things very similarly. Based off of pics. and discussion anyway. All this is for arguments sake. There is a lot wrong with our deer management here in AL. I do think it is changing and I think given time it will get better if we give some people the benefit of the doubt for just a little while

Oh, and yes I've been on land in AL that has been degraded. We own ~185,000 acres in 27 counties that I handle. I know just a thing or two about AL land and how the deer are around here Though I don't know it all and I will not pretend to! There are much deeper resources here than I am...

Wouldn�t the number of lbs of supplemental feed it would take to see habitat degradation only be relative to the type and condition of the natural habitat before a feeding program is started�. as well as the other management practices being implemented in conjunction with the supplemental feeding program? Just because it took feeding 80K lbs on some piece of intensely managed south AL land to see habitat degradation does not mean a landowner up on fragmented Sand Mountain will have to feed that much before their habitat suffers as a result. Correct? Just to use arbitrary numbers, the guy up on Sand Mt could be artificially supporting a deer herd of only 20 deer with 10K of feed but it may be too much for the minimal habitat that exists there, while the guy in south AL could be feeding 50K lbs to 50 deer and not seeing negative consequences to the habitat. It�s all relative. Do you agree?

Bucktrot- I was referencing Gobblers habbitat management style.

CNC- It is relative but you have to compare apples to apples. I grew up on Sand Mnt. and know of no place but the statepark where the population approaches a level to achieve what you are describing.

If by some chance a 5000 acre club had the resouces to feed unlimited amounts of high quality feed in a high deer density area they could artificially inflate the population to a point if the food was removed it would all crash. There would be a lot of happy coyotes

The amout of $$$ the AL redneck is going to put into feeding deer in not going to be enough to cause major issues IMO. I could be proven wrong but it be very surprising.

I grew up there as well. You also probably know of no spot up there that has seen free range supplemental feeding implemented of the magnitude that could possibly happen now. Let the folks around Short Creek where it crosses Hustleville RD in that area start artificially cranking up the deer pop and see what happens. Do you see much habitat extending out toward Guntersville or Albertville for the deer to thrive on or expand into. The feeder, the feed, and the potential of that feed are still the same as the guys in south AL. The difference is the habitat around that feeding program and what it can support. Major differences. Major possibilities for different consequences.

We agree on a couple things��1) Yes, supplemental feeding does artificially increase the deer pop and��2) Yes, the possibility and the degree of consequences are only relative to the individual situation.

So let me ask you this question again��By legalizing wide spread supplemental feeding programs�..Are we setting the stage for the possibility of a large number of acres of degraded native habitat?

BTW.....Don't discount what some of us Alabama rednecks will mismanage money on.

I totally agree with your last line!

There is a very slim possibility of disaster but I would put the chances at less than 5%. I believe with the harvest numbers we keep statewide and the increase in coyote population we are not on route to disaster.

The biggest issue the feeders will cause to me is feeding the pigs.

Hustleville and Short Creek, you're in my stomping grounds. Got a family farm at Red Mill and one out in Alder Springs.

Agree.

My point was that whenever anti baiting people compare the nutritional value of baiting vs green patches they invariably set the comparison up as corn in the feeders and the most expensive high grade year round seed blend that money can buy in the green patch. My contention is that this is not a fair comparison. Most people simply plant winter wheat, rye or oats. Patches like those are not a year round source of nutrition. And while they may provide a little more protein than corn they are not the holy grail of food sources either. There are also some very good supplemental feed pellets out there that you can put out for deer which are excellent. I know for a fact that supplemental feeding with a mixture of these pellets and corn has increased body weight and antler size on our deer. Something just green patches never seemed to do.

And as much as corn gets bashed for it's low nutritional value it is an excellent source of carbohydrates for deer. Yeah, I know most people would list that as a negative. But carbs provide energy and help deer put on weight. Something that many of them need to get through cold winters. Excessive carbs may make us fat and cause long term health problems in humans but deer don't live long enough to develop type 2 diabetes or ischemic heart disease.

You know when I think of some of the best places to hunt deer in the country, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, Nebraska, I ponder what it could be that those states have in common. Oh well, at least there's no evil corn in those states to ruin the deer. LOL!

CNC, I now know who you are!!! Oh wow. My hat's off to you!!! Awe, I don't care about the sup feeding issue.... I am more interested in your knowledge of no-til!!! I just finished the best thread read I have ever seen between David B and you on the QDMA website.

Baiting vs Feeding? Who cares?

Tell me more about your experiences with cover crops!!! LOL!!!! You became my hero 30 mins ago!!! I look forward to reading about your updates regarding your property.

Back to B v F... I really don't think sup feeding is going to be widespread to the point where it will make a difference. I hope that clubs don't choose to bait as opposed to food ploting. I wasn't for baiting but it's here but I'm really ambivalent about it. Kinda... whatever. We may incorporate the use of sup feeding during hunting season... I don't know what my club's stance is going to be.

Looking forward to reading about how you plant your fall food plots.

Haven't seen anything on genetics I don't care what u feed if the deer don't have good genetics its don't matter got to have some good genetics also.

I'll say this to the guys feeding around Alberta & just south of lamison where I hunt also. keep it up I love me some fat deer! Lol

Well... I like killing mature bucks and although a 4 yr old buck may not score high in inches of antlers, you've still done something special in killing him. I think a buck's antlers will reflect his diet to some degree. He may not be a 150 but a big'ol mature buck, no matter what he scores, still turns me on.

Genetics would be the last thing you worry about anyway. You can affect age and diet... and, well, genetics? It's not really worth the worry.

Amen I love me a big ole nasty buck. I still like just shooting a big heavy deer remember everybody always wanted to know man what it weighed not what it scored

LOL... well... I have to admit that when I ask: "How big was he?" I ain't talkin' about his weight... That's my "second" question. I am really asking about score. I do get a thrill out of killing a 215 lb nasty five pt with good mass but I gotta say it.... if he's a 140 or above inches of antlers, I really don't care about his weight. I mean I want him to be mature and healthy but ... Grin! Some of the largest antlered bucks I have seen... some have been surprisingly lower weights than you'd think. They were healthy and mature but just not huge in body size. Go figure.

He he well my biggest so far was 141 & that fart weighed only 140ibs nice 10point rack looked even bigger on that little body

Honestly think he was probably 3years old killed him north west of g.hill on 70acres wasn't letting him walk no no.

I guess we can agree to disagree. "IF" "most" people only plant wheat, oats and rye and "most" baiters do or would use protein pellets, soybeans, etc. for their bait and would bait/ feed year around then you would have a solid case that that the supplemental feeder was providing more nutrition and food than the fooplot... I think/ pretty much know that both of those assumptions are incorrect. I think a more accurate assessment would be that maybe, maybe 50% (max) only plant wheat, oats and rye (nothing that provides value after February), BUT of those that currently illegally bait 95% or more only put out corn and that corn is only put out during hunting season. Of those two scenarios the cereal grain foodplot is going to provide much more value than a pile of corn or a feeder that throws our corn twice a day and is only kept full during deer season. That being said, I believe that the majority of landowners, clubs, etc. plant mixes now days that are nutritious and do provide food 9-10 months of the year...hunters are much more knowledgable now than ever before and they are also suckered in to all the advertising on hunting shows some of which are from seed companies...

Anyway, I think the reason we are all going round and round is because comparing those that supplemental feed year around to those that do bait and would bait if made legal is comparing apples to oranges.

and by the way, it isn't the corn that makes deer big in those states...it's the soil and soybeans...but your right, there is nothing wrong with corn, especially in the winter, but during the summer it's purely a filler/ attractant...kind of like the big fat yeast roll...LOL