# Northjeff QDM understanding thread.



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Sad that NJ comes here to help educate people on something he is very passionate about and the thread gets hammered and shut down because of personal attacks instead of good discussion. I enjoy reading NJ's comments and picking different things he says and looking at the property I hunt. I beleive the problem with the QDM message is exactly what NJ said, people do not know what it is and they mistake the tools and methods for acheiving QDM for the actual QDM it self. AR, doe harvest etc as I understand it are tools that "may be used if needed" to acheive QDM but QDM is just a definition of what the ideal deer herd would be. Ask me 3 years ago and I would tell you something different and would be very wrong in my answer. Please let the man post without going nuts he is full of a ton of information and agree or disagree listen and maybe learn something. Thanks Jeff I enjoyed the thread while it lasted.

AW


----------



## Buddy Lee (Dec 17, 2003)

I enjoy Jeff's posts as well...even if I don't always agree with him. He deserves our respect.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

the problem in the other thread was there was some 'spilt milk' and some 'sour grapes' that needed to be aired out. It was and now its over.

That being said, I'd remind everyone, that there will be no personal attacks tollerated within this forum and threads will be shut down as quickly as possible when that happens. 

There simply is no call for it - that goes for 'implied' personal attacks as well.

ferg....


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

Not sure how much was edited from the thread, but what I saw this morning after the thread was closed didn't seem too ugly, imo. But I also understand the mods want to keep things from getting out of hand and I can't blame them for that.

My thoughts on NorthJeff are this: He's a great wealth of info and I read every post I find from him. I have nothing but respect for the man and appreciate his temperment. Imo, you be hard pressed to find a better advocate for QDM on these boards. NJ and for that matter, BSK don't have the arrogance problem illustrated by some of the advocates, here and for that I hold them in high regard. Still, I'm going to have questions and we won't always agree, but I will do this in a professional, non-personal manner and hope I have done so in the past. I've learned much from reading NJ's post and I've learned much by playing devil's advocate to some of his posts, but again, I will do so in a professional and non-personal manner.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Thanks Sib we appreciate it. 

ferg.

I took out a good bit from other thread -


----------



## SR-Mechead (Jan 25, 2004)

I think when anyone posts a new thread they know that there is going to be pros and cons. The bad part is some take it the wrong way and then all hell breaks lose. 
Ferg I would hope that before closing you take a good look at what was written. What seems to be an attack is sometimes just a statement. Everyone has different opinions including myself.
I enjoy reading the post even though I hunt public land and do not practice QDM as much as others, or as much as I should.
I hunt to relax and enjoy the outdoors.


----------



## jpollman (Jan 14, 2001)

I don't hunt anymore and only read posts in the QDM forum occasionally. But I think the moderators do have to keep that forum on a very short leash. With the problems that the forum has had in the past I think that threads there are going to be watched extremely closely and will probably be closed quicker than they would in other forums. It seems to be the most troublesome forum we have and from what I've seen, the most passionate posts for/against. I applaud the moderators for their work in policing the site and keeping this an enjoyable place to visit.

Thanks !

John


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

SR-Mechead said:


> I think when anyone posts a new thread they know that there is going to be pros and cons. The bad part is some take it the wrong way and then all hell breaks lose.
> Ferg I would hope that before closing you take a good look at what was written. What seems to be an attack is sometimes just a statement. Everyone has different opinions including myself.
> I enjoy reading the post even though I hunt public land and do not practice QDM as much as others, or as much as I should.
> I hunt to relax and enjoy the outdoors.



We, Whit1 and I - (among other mods) - do not shoot from the hip when it comes to closing threads - Whit1 and I speak usually a couple of times prior to making the decision - sometimes we request other mod's to review the threads and super mods too - and even Steve is asked, sometimes, what he thinks - and - after some discussion the decision is made one way or the other - 

There are times - like last night - I wasn't online - and Whit1 was out also - Neil stepped in and exercised his judgment in that forum - Thanks Neil - and then when Whit1 did get back on line late last night he closed the thread.

I just wanted every one to know - that rarely is there a hip shot at closing a thread - I'm not saying that that never happens - sometimes you have to just nip it - but 99% are consensus events.



ferg....


----------



## SR-Mechead (Jan 25, 2004)

Thank You for the feed back.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Ferg explains it well. Neither of us "shoots from the hip" and read over the posts with care. There are times when we do miss something, a word or two and/or a nuance expressed. When we close a thread, edit or delete a post we do so with forethought. Sometimes it may not be the drastic uncivility of a post(s) that causes such action to be taken, but rather it is the beginning of a slope that quickly becomes wet clay and slides into the morass of deragatory verbiage (nice sentence heh!......:lol: ).

We've been accused of only taking the "pro QDM/MARS/TDM side" and the anti QDM/MARS/TDM side. In reality, when we perform our job as moderators, we take neither, although in the jaundiced eye of some that may not seem true.

The tread was closed due more to the fact that the comments of the last few posters were leading it down that clay slope I mentioned above and we've seen the results and they ain't pretty.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Besides each of us ensuring we are not making personal attacks, we also need to check ourselves if we are provoking them. Painting thought opponents with a common labeling brush is one of the surest ways to invite an attack and ultimately shut down a thread. 

In the end, we are all hunters with the shared interests of hunting and preserving our right to keep and bear arms.

Swamper


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Swamper said:


> Besides each of us ensuring we are not making personal attacks, we also need to check ourselves if we are provoking them. Painting thought opponents with a common labeling brush is one of the surest ways to invite an attack and ultimately shut down a thread.
> 
> In the end, we are all hunters with the shared interests of hunting and preserving our right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> Swamper


Thanks Swamper - very good advice.


ferg....


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I appreciate the kind words Adam and others.

My main reason for participating in these threads is to learn more and deliver truth. I know in my heart what the understanding of QDM has done for me personally, and the positive implications it can deliver to all hunters, hunted, and habitat anywhere a whitetail roams. I personally want every hunter anywhere they hunt to take part in the most quality hunting experience that is possible on their hunting grounds, whether it be public or private, and an accurate understanding and implementation of QDM and QDMA principles, will indeed provide the most that hunting has to offer. In the end, this will be of great benifit to all parties and I will not let misleading information or misunderstanding get in my way but will instead continue with stubborn determination to allow truth to reach as many as possible. When everyone truly understands QDM, I'll stop.


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

Hey Jeff,,,,,,,,,,,,    IF ITS BROWN ITS DOWN!!!!!!!!!    

Hey man keep up the good work and keep preaching the TRUTH!!!!!!!!

North Jeff for President!!!!!!!


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

NJ - perhaps your sharing of wisdom and knowledge would not receive such an emotional response if you recognized that we ALL sometimes speak from the heart rather than only facts. In fact, I found a quote of your's from last December - " I don't really give a rip about if I actually have "hard facts" to back it up, what I have to back it up is something that is the most basic base to any understanding of just about any subject...COMMON SENSE!". We all take this view at times, and sometimes it may collide with facts or supported data.

Swamper


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

I understand where you're coming from NorthJeff. I've been at this "QDM debate" for quite a few years. Having people who know better constantly attack the science of QDM--simply out of personal preference for hunting styles--really gets old.

On the other hand, age, experience, analyzing more hard data than anyone could imagine, and hopefully a little wisdom, have tempered my views. I used to believe that every hunter would choose the QDM hunting experience over the traditional management experience if they only had the opportunity to hunt a true QDM herd. I aways felt those that said they liked the way it is (traditional) just didn't understand what they were missing.

However, I've come to realize that there really is a large contingent of hunters that could give a rip about balanced sex ratios, older buck age structures and the hunting experience those create. Everybody, and I mean *everybody* hunts for entertainment value. Each hunter just gets entertainment from different aspects of the hunt. There are many hunters that want to go to hunt-camp with friends and family, have a good time, and if an antlered buck appears, have the opportunity to harvest it. That is the type of entertainment value they want from hunting. No complications, no worries about buck age, etc. It truly doesn't matter if harvested bucks are spikes or a whopper. If someone lucks into a whopper, everyone celebrates. But they are perfectly entertained with a couple young bucks spread through the group.

QDM is simply not for these hunters, and state mandated QDM *would* reduce the entertainment value and harvest success for these hunters. Would it be good for hunting and the deer herds to alienate a large contingent of hunters?

Like you, I want to see the healthiest deer herd possible, and in the past I always felt that the health of the deer herds came before hunter satisfaction. States should manage for healthy herds first, and hunters would just have to live with it. Besides, once the deer herds were healthy, hunters would realize how great the hunting could be and be thanking the game agency in the long run. But now I realize there really are hunters--and many of them--that *wouldn't* like hunting that "healthy" herd.

Not that state agencies should manage strictly for hunter satisfaction (i.e. a deer behind every tree). That's simply biologically indefensible. However, keeping the majority of the hunters _relatively_ happy is important. Hunters are the true managers of the resource, and very unhappy hunters will stop managing. State agencies must work towards that difficult compromise, with bag limits supporting QDM practices where hunters/managers want to practice it and insuring yearling bucks aren't completely slaughtered every year, but also provide an enjoyable experience for the traditional hunter. That means no one gets everything they want, but both sides can live with it. It also means the herd isn't and won't ever be super healthy, but the herd can certainly continue to exist into perpetuity at moderately high densities with moderate health and production.

And before someone mentions the 60+% support for limiting the harvest of small/young bucks in the UP, I've seen states/regions where hunters supported this too--until they had a few years of it and decided they hated it. Arkansas comes to mind, as well as many WMAs and public land experiments. Why did they hate it? Because it didn't take long to realize that the casual/traditional hunter doesn't benefit from a better buck age structure. Older bucks are smarter bucks, and much harder to kill. Generally, the hunter who has consistently been successful at harvesting yearling bucks, hence keeps hunting like they always have, will *not* be successful at harvesting older bucks. To be regularly successful on older bucks requires hunting specifically for them, and the traditional hunter isn't going to do that because it's a lot of work--work that takes the fun out of hunting for them.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

BSK,

Point taken. But in the mean time I'll continue to try and assist in the education process so that hunters actually have the opportunity to hear the truth. When I hear, "QDM won't work because of wolves and the winter", or "With QDM you have to increase doe harvest", and untrue statements like these, it offers continual proof of the misunderstanding of the QDM message and it needs to be countered. I have no problem with people that are against true QDM when they actually understand it, but what a shame when they are against QDM due to being misinformed, and we have plenty of that going on. I have yet to find very many people up here that are against QDM, that actually know what QDM is.

In the end, as long as there continues to be a harvest of 75% of the yearling bucks, continued mismanagement of the antlerless herd in the face of winter severity resulting in unecessary significant population fluctuation, and growing disatisfaction with the current state of deer hunting in the U.P. contributing to a loss of hunter dollars, there is a lot of work to be done.

Also, you have to remember we are UNDER DNR stated population goals in 11/19 DMUs and additional doe harvest would not be appropriate, even with a "QDM" plan. In fact, we could stand to raise our total population while at the same time implementing more progressive anlterless management tactics in the interest of the promotion of a more stable and sustainable herd. This alone sets us apart from many other areas of the country. Much of the disatisfaction that I have heard is not necessarily because of AR's, or that people don't like the resulting older buck age structure, it's because the overall herd numbers were drastically reduced. This would not happen under an accurate QDM plan here in the U.P., in fact, we have room in the majority of the U.P. for MORE bucks, as well as an increase in density.

Really, the only things a QDM plan would change in the U.P. is buck age structure, followed by a possible increase in overall population due to the increased restraint on harvesting young bucks. So, older bucks, and most likely more bucks with no change in doe population and for the most part this would be pretty easy because we don't have to worry about doe harvest by hunters.

Do you know of any areas where overall, hunters were not happy with QDM when the resulting plan only increased age structure with no drop in doe population?


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

I agree with you NorthJeff. Although I've tempered my view of state-mandated QDM-like regulations, I will continue to "evangelize" QDM. There is no scientific doubt it is the best way to manage deer herds (for the herds long-term health), and that many hunters, if they had the opportunity to hunt a QDM herd, would find the experience far superior to traditional management.

However, I just go about it differently than I did in the past. Now it's more of:

1) Provide the best scientific information available on herd dynamics and their role in herd performance.

2) Point out that QDM is intended to maximize those factors.

3) Explain what QDM is and how it works, as well as the realistic up-sides and down-side of hunting/managing a QDM herd and the hunting experience it produces.

4) For those that express an interest in QDM, provide information, advice and encouragement.

5) Share experiences, both good and bad--"pooling" data/information between hunters practicing QDM in the area can be invaluable. I've learned a great deal from others' experiences.

6) Lead by example.

The one thing I no longer due is push hard to have hard-core QDM-like rules enacted as "law of the land." That is where the violent opposition to QDM comes from. As soon as hunters hear there is a move afoot to alter regulations that might actually reduce their entertainment value and enjoyment of the hunt, they are going to instictively and violently "bite back."


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"The one thing I no longer due is push hard to have hard-core QDM-like rules enacted as "law of the land." That is where the violent opposition to QDM comes from. As soon as hunters hear there is a move afoot to alter regulations that might actually reduce their entertainment value and enjoyment of the hunt, they are going to instictively and violently "bite back."

As I talked about at the last meeting, in large chunks of private land you really don't need mandatory AR's, or really that much DNR assistance. In large chunks of private land areas you can actually have a better QDM experience with voluntary, than most public land areas with mandatory. Voluntary co-ops work great and if you go at it with the attitude of helping your neighbor and leading by example as you pointed out I've found that not only do people change there minds about QDM for the better, more and more in the co-op begin to participate. In fact, I encouraged this last co-op to try and help their neighbors out with food plots and habitat management practices to help build relationships...whether they are for QDM, or not. In the end everyone wins.

BUT, on public land it's a different story and what I've found is that with the increase of todays habitat management practices and habitat management knowledge private land owners are continuing to increase the level of quality hunting between themselves and public land hunters. Due to many factors private land hunting is getting much better, and public land hunting in many cases is getting worse. The way I see it in these cases a QDM type plan is the only way that a public land hunter will be able to close the quality distance between themselves and the private land hunter. For example, this past AR proposal wouldn't have done much more for the private land hunter, but the public land hunter was the one that had much more to gain....older bucks, and possibly more bucks, with no loss in overall population density.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Absolutely true NorthJeff. QDM works great on private lands. But it's track record on public lands is pretty dismal. Why? Ownership in the process. If hunters are limiting their harvest of young bucks only because they have to (buck restrictions), not because they want to, the results are almost always disappointing.

The fact is, if you want to practice QDM and see major benefits, start looking for private land. That's just the hard reality. Remember that many of the public land hunters hunt public land because that is the experience they want. If a hunter wants to be part of a QDM program badly enough, they will find a way to have access to QDM managed private lands, whether that be a club or a cooperative.

Just my personal opinion from seeing this battle waged across the Eastern US, but I think public lands shouldn't be forced to use buck restrictions for size/age. Limit buck harvests by number, yes. Limit bucks by age, no.

All it does is cause conflict between hunters, and cause those disaffected to attack QDM. QDM works, plain and simple. Everywhere. A long as the program is biologically sound and takes into account local factors (winter-kill, drought, poor soils, etc.), _and the hunters have ownership in the process_. But the truth is, not everyone wants that type of experience. Don't force it on them.

QDM used to have a much better reputation and track record when it was purely voluntary. State regulations can be written to help those practicing QDM, but I don't want to see hunters forced into practicing it. Long-term traditional management will keep deer herds in a constant state of poor to mediocre health/performance, but that *can be* maintained basically indefinitely. If hunters don't care if their buck weighs 80 pounds or 120 pounds, so be it. If they don't care that they see 10 does for every buck, so be it. If they don't care that they never see anything but yearling spikes or forkhorns, so be it. Some actually enjoy that experience. More power to them.


----------



## vandermi (Jun 6, 2003)

It is about choice to me. I can practice QDM any time I want and to the degree I want. I can pass on younger bucks, or I can take one if I choose too. I can thin the doe population or pass on every doe I see, it is my choice. There have been times after the fact that I have said to myself and my friends.... "wish I had let him go passed me" "sure would like to see what he would look like next year"!

This year we figured out our Buck 2 Doe ratio "b2dr" and amongst ourselves figured how many does we should take to get the herd closer to what WE think we would like it at. Then as we were seeing 100- 200 deer in the fields during Coyote hunting second guessed ourselves on if we were correct. But it was our choice to try and do what we figured was correct.

Last season I told myself 3 years or older and nothing younger with the Bucks! Well.... that changed when the two year old walked out and gave me an opportunity to take a fine animal. "My Choice".

I come to this thread because it gives me the information Pro/con on the different types of actions I can take and use as I choose. The facts do remain that I can pass on younger bucks only to have the neighbor drop him as soon as he sees him! Oh well... I do not own the deer. It would be nice if we all agreed on deer management but it is unrealistict to think we ever will. My neighbor likes his pink house! I think it is gaudy!

Mandatory QDM may be the anwser... or may not. I do not think we as sportsman are ready for the will of some to be the rule for all. I do appreciate that everyone here shares their thoughts so I can use the information to make informed ideas on what degree of QDM do I want to practice.

Thank you everyone here for letting me read your thoughts and ideas and applying them when I think I would like to try it. I think everyone that comes to this thread gets alot out of it...even though we sometimes are so passionate on our opinions, feelings and thoughts that it sometimes causes hard feelings.

I bet if the Humane Soceity was to say they 100% support mandatory QDM and will even finacially support a plan that we would wonder what they were working on "It would limit younger bucks from being taken" and to them that would be victory one and would seperate the sportsman further making their true agenda and attack plan easier for them.

Please continue to encourage all of us to perform QDM where it fits or where we think we would not mind using it. I would rather not argue or insult another sportsperson, but rather tell him I support his feelings and ask he do the same for me. We need to concentrate on being an undisible group of one to preserve the sport we love.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

BSK,

So what would you prescribe for our U.P. deer herd without AR's. We can't eliminate baiting

*70-80% public land
*Extremely heavy reliance on baiting 
*Little farmland with large expanses of "wilderness" area and little mast or fruit crops
*11/19 DMU's under DNR stated population goals
*Winter severity that kills 50% of fawn crop on average
*Continued 75% harvest of yearling bucks
*Currently 2 buck tags with the 2nd tag resulting in 4.3% of the buck harvest
*Many out of area hunters that hunt on public land for 2-3 days a season during gun season.
*Hunters and Landowners support mandatory AR's by almost a 2:1 margin, but continually show that if not mandated, they don't support voluntary AR's.
*50% of yearling bucks are spikes, 82% 4pts or less
*Doe harvest by hunters in at least 1/2 of the U.P. is rarely an issue, and some areas never an issue. 

Now I understand that voluntary QDM works well on private land, but are we to just except the continued mediocrity on public land? or what can we do? Keep in mind that to this point the AR proposal process is the ONLY form of management the DNR/NRC has allowed for change or possible implementation.

So what can we do...just except the mediocrity and improve our own private properties with little concern for the public land hunter?


----------



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

BSK, very good read on the situations. The only thing I disagree upon is public land hunting is an experience I can afford, it is not supposed to be a sport for only the folks who are better off finacially or have the private property but for all to enjoy. I know why private land owners who have large tracts of property or are in a large co-op of private land want qdm, it seems rather obvious if you can grow them you can manage them, simply put you can keep a small herd of deer on property all year long if they have adequete bedding, food and shelter and the better you manage the more your rewards are. If qdm could impose some kind of habitat improvement for public lands in a chosen dmu then I would not have a problem with it, but as of right now it is for a certain majority.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

At the same time though, you can have a great public land QDM experience without habitat improvement, or doing anything for that matter, like the Lake Superior Shoreline area. In fact, if it wasn't an hour drive for me, coupled with the hour walk to a hunting spot, I'd probably spend the majority of my rifle hunting in that area...huge bucks, no to few hunters, and great sex ratios. Again though, great QDM hunting on public land, without using any QDM tools.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

mecheadSR,

Without question, those who "have" will have better hunting and more opportunities to manage under QDM than those who "have not." But what is different about that than anything else in life? The rich always have more toys. In a free-market capitalist society, there's nothing that can be done about that.

However, I have many blue-collar friends that are so passionate about deer hunting and QDM, they scrape and scrounge all year to be able to join a club or large lease that practices QDM. It all comes down to what it's worth to you. I've forgone much in life and many cool toys to ensure I have my own place to hunt and manage. It was worth it to me to morgage myself forever.

The one thing I *DO* encourage states to do is set up a couple of their WMAs are large sections of public land as "QDM areas." That gives the public land hunter that wants the QDM experience somewhere to hunt. If someone isn't interested in QDM, then they can go to one of the regular or non-QDM areas.

The biggest problem with this system is, those QDM areas generally have so many people wanting to hunt them, quota systems must be used to limit hunters.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Expanding a bit on BSK's remarks, what we have is a clear conflict in the desires of the different factions of deer hunters. Unfortunately, the "live and let live" approach is also problematic in itself, even if we limit the discussion to private land. The guys that hunt the private land around me(practically none of them are landowners) are mostly the sort that want to see lots of deer, and are happy to fill their annual harvest quota with yearling bucks. _The way they, and I, manage, are it total conflict with each other._ 

I found this on another forum:



BSK said:


> In addition, do my neighbors care that shooting yearling bucks is harming my ability to manage for an older buck age structure? Of course they don't care, nor should they. They manage for what they want (actually they don't "manage" at all), while I manage for what I want. Unfortunately, we are trying to produce two completely different and conflicting things. I want a higher quality herd with a balanced sex ratio and advanced buck age structure. They would like the highest deer sightings possible and to harvest as many bucks as he law will allow, regardless of size/age/quality. Their management negatively effects my management and my management negatively affects theirs.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

NorthJeff,

I would have to have all available past and present herd and harvest data from the UP to review, plus spend considerable time discussing winter-kill situations and dynamics with a local expert (like Ozoga) before I could make a recommendation on seasons and bag limits for the area.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

BSK's post about the problems associated with statewide QDM,was right on the mark and PA is experiencing the very problems BSK pointed out. Our buck harvest dropped by 39% producing 79,000 unsuccessful disgruntled buck hunters. At the same time hunters are seeing fewer doe and the anterless harvest is also dropping. The fact that our 2.5+ buck harvest increase by 18% , or 9,400 buck, does not come close to compensating hunters for the decreased harvests and and a lot fewer deer being cited.

When the average hunter harvests a 1.5 buck and sees a nice layer of fat under the hide, it is difficult to convince him that the deer wasn't healthy because there weren't enough older age buck in the herd. IMHO, the concepts regarding the relationship of social and age structure are to abstract for the average hunter to worry about.

I believe that if they continue to reduce our herd, many hunters will quit and eventually the PGC will not have enough hunters to control the herd . Even with the current number of hunters they didn't get the increase in the anterless harvests the expected ,even though they increased the anterless season by 400% and issued a record number of anterless tags,


----------



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

I guess I speak for the little guy, but no management decision should be favored toward any one group and that is what qdm does. The deer herd is michigan's, no one else's, if they cannot come up with a way to improve habitat on stateland then I dont buy it, it should not give a distinct advantage to one group of hunters than the other. Everyone should be on a level field when we talk about deer hunting, this is a recreational sport where every hunter should benefit from a healthier herd, not just a few.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

It isn't about favoring one group against another. The state *could* practice QDM if they wanted to. But 1) I doubt it would be that effective without the hunters really wanting it, and 2) I seriously doubt it would make the majority of hunters happy.

If hunters want to practice it on their own land, have at it. If they don't, don't. As long as adequate doe harvests are allowed by law, every hunter can practice QDM if they want to--private or public land--their choice. Just don't shoot young bucks and shoot enough does to keep herd growth and the adult sex ratio in line. That's it, nothing more.

Habitat management is an incredibly powerful tool, but it is not a specific part of QDM. QDM is a harvest guideline. Habitat management is a tool that can be used successfully in any type of management, from Traditional to QDM to Trophy Management.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

farmlegend,

And that's the tough part. If everybody is hunting on little chunks of land, and everybody is practicing a different form of management, no ones management is that effective. But what are you going to do? I have no more right to tell my neighbors how to manage than they do to tell me the same.

I've just tried to use their form of management to my advantage. They don't shoot does. I do. LOTS of them! That way, their "doe refuges" keep me in a steady supply of doe-shooting-entertainment. My "buck refuge" keeps my neighbors in a steady supply of young bucks to shoot. But the good thing is, I never get all the does and they never get all the bucks. We are both limiting each others management, but we are actually both pretty happy (although they would love to have some of our older bucks!). Our management is still _relatively_ successful.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

mecheadSR said:


> I guess I speak for the little guy, but no management decision should be favored toward any one group and that is what qdm does. The deer herd is michigan's, no one else's, if they cannot come up with a way to improve habitat on stateland then I dont buy it, it should not give a distinct advantage to one group of hunters than the other. Everyone should be on a level field when we talk about deer hunting, this is a recreational sport where every hunter should benefit from a healthier herd, not just a few.


MecheadSR, the hunters on the state land north of my property last year were not allowed to buy an antlerless permit. None were issued for DMU 057. Yet, on my side of the property line I could buy an antlerless permit a day. Traditional management in Michigan favors the land owner. 

I can shoot all the does I want while the guys on the state land to the north can`t and I can protect young bucks in my sanctuaries. I sure do love Michigan`s traditional deer management plan.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Bob S said:


> MecheadSR, the hunters on the state land north of my property last year were not allowed to buy an antlerless permit. None were issued for DMU 057. Yet, on my side of the property line I could buy an antlerless permit a day. Traditional management in Michigan favors the land owner.
> 
> I can shoot all the does I want while the guys on the state land to the north can`t and I can protect young bucks in my sanctuaries. I sure do love Michigan`s traditional deer management plan.


Excellent point Bob!


----------



## bucks forever (Apr 10, 2005)

I think as hunters we all want to see deer when we go hunting. It is just that some of the hunters like it the way it is and others want to see if we can make it better.


Every QDM from Texas to Pennslyannia has differant goals. That is fine. The big thing is we need to get the population down where it needs to go down. Some areas the population is right on in other we need more deer. I hunt just about every day during gun season and the second rut is almost as good as the first. This is very bad for bucks and the does. Bucks that run to much do not make it. Fawns that are not born on time are to weak to make it.

I believe QDM will work. I love venison but bucks and does taste the same to me. 

It is hard for people to practice QDM on there land and watch that fat forkhorn hang on your neigbors pole.


----------



## Heavyhound (Feb 18, 2005)

I spent most of 30 years living in Michigan but have spent the last few living a 10 miles south of the line in Ohio. I would love to see more bucks but as a public land hunter I rarely see any. My non-resident deer permits cost a fortune already and now the QDM proponents want limit the buck harvest (at least temporarily) . Under QDM I would drive eight hours to the U.P., and pay a big license fee, most likely for the privilege of killing a doe. 

I realize out of state hunters aren't popular, but the QDM proposals could force guys like me to stay home. Less hunters to manage the herd, less license fees, less tourism dollars.


----------



## Brad Gehman (Jun 6, 2004)

In PA, we saw a small decline in NR hunters after we put in AR's. However, those numbers came right back. It was one of the arguements people used aginst the AR's in PA.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

I think we can all find a multitude of definitions of QDM represented in this forum, often dependent on the individual (and sometimes dependent on the time of year, ie summer vs post deer season). It is similar to finding a consistent definition of "a great vacation", "leisure time", or "a healthy lifestyle" -- depends much on the personal perspective. I would be hard pressed to find a deer hunter who is opposed to healthy deer, improved deer habitat, and the preservation of the right to hunt and bear arms. Ask 50 hunters and you get 50 definitions and 50 ways to achieve it.

When an individual or group espouses a particular theory, or supports a mandate on others to achieve their particular wish, then opposition should be expected. We should be disappointed if we expect anything different. To label, broadbrush, stereotype, or personally attack an individual or group in support or opposition is wrong. 

Swamper


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Good post Swamper.


Heavyhound,

Good point. Regulations protecting bucks certainly would reduce the opportunity to harvest a buck, especially for the first couple years. This could lead to declines in license sale revenue.

However, if history is an example, if an area's reputation for producing big deer improves due to the regulations, suddenly there will be more hunters wanting to hunt the area than before. This is certainly happening in areas that traditionally produce large deer (Midwest) and in areas that are now producing large deer due to specialized management. KY is now a major destination for out-of-state hunters due to the huge increase in large deer being taken there (as a result of great management).


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

BSK,

Are you saying that Michigan is quickly becoming the last bastion of mediocrity? :sad: 

Big T


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

QDMAMAN,

If the shoe fits...  

Actually, I wouldn't put MI at the bottom of the pile. Now that PA has made changes intended to improve their situation, that takes them off the top of the "worst managed state" list. I think AL may now have that destinction (they still allow a buck per day for several months of gun season--talk about poor buck age structure...).


----------

