# True QDM?



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Ok here goes this is not in any way a smart [email protected]# question I am sincere with this one. If people are truly looking for the best interests of the overall herd, wouldn't it make sense to not shoot the 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 year olds. I say this because these are the strong big deer that are hardy and won't typically fall to predation etc. Wouldn't it make more sense to shoot 5 year old bucks etc that have kind of served their purpose as with old does who have served their purpose as well. I know this isn't popular with the trophy hunters necessarily but wouldn't the ideal buck to harvest be the one with the declining antlers say after age 6 or so? Just wondering and again this is not intended to take shots at QDM as I have stated before I am learning more about this all of the time But I simply lack the property to go full speed ahead.

AW


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Basically you just want to get an age structure in the herd that offers a little more balance that a 75% removal of the yearling age class so that the benifits of having older-aged bucks in the herds comes out. 4.5, 5.5, and 6.5 year old bucks are certainly a welcome bi-product in the herd and are an example of a great management plan, but are not necessarily needed to have a QDM experience and border more on "Trophy Management", than Quality Deer Management.

Sure, if you have lots of control(either fenced or extremely large properties) then your program can always be enhanced to your own desires, but the average hunter, whether it be on public or private land can still take part in the QDM experience by at least experiencing the benifits of a substantial portion of protection of yearling bucks, which will translate into a significant increase in 2.5 year old bucks, as well as more 3.5 year old+. Get the herd in balance with the habitat...not too low, not too high, but just right, protect the yearling bucks, promote an adequate sex ratio(maybe 2-2.5 does per buck in the south to closer to 3:1 in the north), and you have QDM. You can enhance the experience if you have more control and the desire...but you don't have to to still have QDM.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Jeff at what age although most never get there, are the bucks just taking up space and not benefitting the herd anymore. I ask because of what you posted about the Cull Bucks you hunted where the monsters die of old age. Also at what age do the old doe's go dry and no longer produce fawns. And finally isn't an old doe more valuable to the herd than an old buck being that the older matriarch does will teach and lead the young? Thanks 

AW


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

1. Jeff at what age although most never get there, are the bucks just taking up space and not benefitting the herd anymore.

It can be a very old age. In fact studies have show some dominant bucks retain their dominance to even 10-11 years of age. I would say that it rarely if ever happens anywhere in a free-ranging herd in MI that a buck would ever be too old to contribute. Where we hunted cull bucks they don't even harvest the culls most of the time until they are 3.5 years of age or older because you can't tell their true potential until around then.

2. also at what age do the old doe's go dry and no longer produce fawns.

I've heard of a 23 year old captive doe having 13 sets of triplets and the rest in twins! John Ozoga told me that no doe is ever dry unless it's really in such poor health it can't physically have fawns, at which time they won't make it through the winter, unless possibly they would be recovering from an injury or serious illness. Basically any healthy doe you see is capable of having fawns and that "old dry doe" lable is more myth than reality. At the same time, the older the mother, the more successful mother she is. Studies have shown for example that as the mother gets older, the hiding distances between her bedded fawns increase, which in turn increases survival.

3. And finally isn't an old doe more valuable to the herd than an old buck being that the older matriarch does will teach and lead the young?

I would say that the average age of doe needed depends upon where your property is at. For example, the more extreme the winter severity, the more predators, the more harsh the fawning environment, the older the average age of doe should probably be. But, in fertile farmland areas that may be overpopulated often herd reduction will bring the average age down and at the same time will give you an easier herd to hunt with less mature and experienced does. In fertile areas re-production and fawn survival is usually a non-issue and studies also show that by targeting does with buck fawns you can drastically reduce yearling buck dispersal to other surrounding property. So, from a managements standpoint a lower doe age structure may have more benifits in fertile areas, and an older age structure is probably more appropriate for areas where management strategies should be more towards protection and sustainment of the herd due to a harsh environment.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

So are you saying that it may be good to kill the mother who has Button bucks with her to reduce the chances that she will run them out of the area? I guess you learn more everyday, because I have always heard of people saying shoot the old doe's because they will be dry soon and not contribute. Guess I was wrong. Thanks Jeff I appreciate it.

AW


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Andy, I would bet that "dry-doe" myth is one of the biggest misunderstandings out there.

I'm sorry if I'm not quoting the numbers exactly, but from what I remember if the mother is alive, her buck fawn will disperse as a yearling sometimes for many miles around 90% of the time. I see this phenomenon on my property all the time. Some of the bucks I photograph and watch all summer long, and then in Sept. many of them vanish, and a new crop of yearlings come in that have not been there the entire year and I have never seen before...I'd say I pick up as many as I gain.

At the same time, when the mother is killed, her buck fawn or fawns will only disperse around 10% of the time.

Of course, up here in the U.P., especially the mid-northern U.P., you shoot the mother and it's quite possible the fawns won't be around next year either due to winter severity and the fact that approximately 50% of the fawns die each year. Also, I believe the mother plays a large part in the survival of her fawns during severe winters. Little different perspective up here.

Shooting does can be quite a bit more complex than just going out and filling a tag. Selective harvest of the does that positively effect your property the most is the best way to use your tags, for your specific conditions. That's why it is so important to watch your deer during the summer and early fall months, and then base your harvest objectives to target the specific needs of your property, with YOUR local deer herd. I had a mother with a buck fawn and doe fawn picked out on my property by mid August and shot her with my bow in mid-Oct. I'm still not sure I should have done that...probably won't take a doe this year, but my objective was made early and carried out. With the light winter this year, it might end up being an effective gamble, but only time will tell. I know of a couple other does shot nearby and a button buck, so looking back I certainly didn't need to take one, but "hind-sight"....


----------



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

Adam, I watched a show on OLN last night in alberta or manitoba and I believe it was a show by tom hicks, could be wrong on that. Anyway, the guide was talking about how they like to take the older bucks and let the little one's go so they can grow up, now there little one's are 140 class bucks as the author passed on and took a 8yr old that had no teeth left, anyway just a little different perspective from a different area.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

also, contrary to popular belief, the buck that is most susceptible to winter death via starvation or predation is the buck that bred the most. they have lost the most weight, endured the most confrontations with other bucks, and generally expended the most energy. that buck can be any age, but its safe to say that the 1.5 year old bucks have the BEST chance of surviving the winter.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Up here in the deer yards where John Ozoga studied deer for his career very, very few bucks ever died in the deer yards....of any age. The bucks ability to survive had to do with it's size advantage over other deer..does, yearling does, and fawns. Our breeding window is very short up here and a buck can only breed so many does during that window. The one unknown though is how many solitary older bucks die on there way to the yards, on a migration trail. Often a mature buck is one of the last to exit their summer ranges and they may be very susceptible to predation at that time...just a thought but no studies have been done as far as I know. Once they get to the yards though, they do very well.


----------



## BDL (Dec 17, 2004)

I have thought of Adam's question before about harvesting a high grade rack. Right or wrong (based on deer management), it takes aware from the gene pool. I don't remember who it was in this forum, but one person took two exceptional racks early in October. Those were two beautiful breeding bucks that most likely didn't sire any youngsters. In hindsight, 3.5 - 4.5 year old bucks should be harvested after the full rut.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

*Why I believe preserving young bucks helps the herd.* 

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12847


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"First, our buck population. 
The majority of our antlered buck herd every year is 1.5 years old, and the individuals have yet to display any signs they may mature to be an inferior, subdominant, or dominant adult. "

I don't understand how or why anyone would make that claim when every study I have read states that 1.5 6 or 8 pts. demonstrate a higher potential to develop big racks quicker than 1.5 spikes and Y's.

Furthermore, as far as I know ,I haven't seen where any expert has stated the principle of dominant breeding doesn't apply among 1.5 buck.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Looks like Leroy couldn't help mother nature with natural selection at all


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Thank you for confirming what I posted. Old clyde was still the best buck after 4.5 years and all the other smaller 1.5 buck were still smaller after 4 years. With AR most of the buck saved will be harvested as 2.5 buck,which means the average 2.5+buck harvested from an AR herd wil be smaller than the average 2.5+ buck harvested from a non-AR herd.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Yep, genetic inferiority at it's best.


Leroy is 4" below the 174" B/C average and 14" below "superior" Clyde.

How many hunters have seen a 170" buck in the wild? And how many would pass on a 165" buck? 

LOL!


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Swamp Ghost said:


> Yep, genetic inferiority at it's best.
> 
> 
> Leroy is 4" below the 174" B/C average and 14" below "superior" Clyde.
> ...



Would the average Leroy survive to be a 4.5 buck in MI with a 3 PT . one side rule? No that buck would beharvested as a 2,5 buck and at that age it would be smaller than a 1.5 6 or 8 pt. if tey had lived to be a 2.5 buck.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

> Would the average Leroy survive to be a 4.5 buck in MI with a 3 PT . one side rule?


I sure would like to find out.

I think all these bucks are pretty impressive @ 2.5 years. What do you think that smallest one nets? 130" ?  

Extra year of competition, passing on genes, increased age structure, these are bad things?


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

The genetics in the Michigan Deer Herd are fine. The bucks are only lacking age and nutrition (in many cases). In many cases the difference between a yearling forkhorn and an 8 pointer is simply nutrition. improvement in our habitat would do a great deal to improve our herd. Add in a method to allow them to age somewhat and you will have some pretty nice bucks.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Thanks for posting what difference a year can make. Also a very good example of what good nutrition, genetics and properly timed breeding can do.

Across the board each age class is much larger than what we find in and around my part of the EUP. That's why it's more important for each hunter to know how to age a deer on the hoof based on body traits. ARs should = age restriction not antler restriction.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Luv2hunteup said:


> . That's why it's more important for each hunter to know how to age a deer on the hoof based on body traits. ARs should = age restriction not antler restriction.


Couldn't agree more, once MI hunters actually saw a few more 3.5-5.5 year old deer in the field it would be a lot easier to distinquish the mature from immature.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Letmgro said:


> Please continue to harvest whichever buck you see fit, and I'll do the same.



Unfortunately , due to AR ,I no longer have that option, since one group of hunters are imposing their values on me and my fellow hunters. Statewide Ar's divide hunters into the haves and the have nots ,which is not good for the future of hunting for the majority of the hunters.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

> That is also quite interesting ,since you are advocating harvesting the truly superior and dominant buck before they are truly mature adults


I guess I don't understand, does age alone make a *buck truly superior and dominant*? Wouldn't genetics/nutrition lead to superiority and age help with dominance?

Since '96, I've some how managed to take eight 3.5 year old bucks while hunting a combination of public and private land in 3 different northern Michigan counties. They may have been one of the dominant bucks but I would not call any of them superior, just older. None of them were fully mature but I'm sure all of them had the same genetic make up since birth.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Luv2hunteup said:


> I guess I don't understand, does age alone make a *buck truly superior and dominant*? Wouldn't genetics/nutrition lead to superiority and age help with dominance?
> 
> Since '96, I've some how managed to take eight 3.5 year old bucks while hunting a combination of public and private land in 3 different northern Michigan counties. They may have been one of the dominant bucks but I would not call any of them superior, just older. None of them were fully mature but I'm sure all of them had the same genetic make up since birth.


 IMHO age will make a buck dominant even though it may not be a buck with superior genes for antler development. A 3.5 buck will without a doubt be heavier and have more experience and statue in the herd than a 1.5 or 2.5 buck.

You are right that the genetic make up does not change with agae, but can you provide any evidence that shows that a 1.5 spike saved by AR is superior to the avg. 1.5 6 or 8 Pt?


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Happy Hunter said:


> You are right that the genetic make up does not change with agae, but can you provide any evidence that shows that a 1.5 spike saved by AR is superior to the avg. 1.5 6 or 8 Pt?


Can you provide conclusive evidence that it's not?

Remember Big Charlie?

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/conserve/wildlife_management/hillcountry/deer/spikes_not_inferior.phtml


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Happy Hunter said:


> Unfortunately , due to AR ,I no longer have that option, since one group of hunters are imposing their values on me and my fellow hunters.


Sure you do, as long as it's within your state's buck harvest criteria. Some state's have narrower criteria than others.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Swamp Ghost said:


> Can you provide conclusive evidence that it's not?
> 
> Remember Big Charlie?


 i can provide the links to Dr. Kroll's research that shows the avg, spike does equal the avg, 1.5 * pt until 3.5 or 4.5. I can provide the link to Dr.Wiliam's report . " Spikes are not inferior or Are They'. I can provide a link to the research of Dr. Demarias in Miss. that shows that rack sizes decreased in the areas with the most frtile soils.

What can you provide to show 1.5 spikes are superior?


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Spikes Are Not Inferior - or, Are They?



> There is no other herd of deer like the Kerr deer herd and no other published genetic research available. There are some deer breeders, but no geneticist actively involved in long term whitetail deer genetic research. This type research requires many years and hundreds of animal





> In the article by Haley, Steve Nelle was quoting data from the Kerr Wildlife Management Area (KWMA). The data, which was said to present the "naked truth", came from the final report of a five-year pilot study dated May 26, 1987, which used only five animals in each of two groups. This study consisted of only 10 yearling deer, which were classified as spike or fork (1) according to the sire (2). The five deer in the spike group came from one spike sire which was mated to four different females, one which had no pedigree and three which were sired by spike sires. The five deer in the fork group came from a single-forked sire which was mated to only three different females. This is not a line of deer and certainly not a population. It would not be considered an adequate sample from which to make broad statements concerning fork vs spikes; it is, however, large enough to suggest trends and provide support for further investigation.





> Stedman apparently knows nothing about gene frequency, random breeding, genetic equilibrium or selection and accuses "Mother Nature's" bell-shaped curve and its magic of all the things he cannot explain by nutrition and age. He also describes the distribution of B & C scores as a "statistical phenomenon."


*Spikes: Wanted dead or alive?*



> The crux of the debate between most recent studies centers on whether or not spike bucks can close the gap in antler production with same-age bucks that started with forked antlers. Research by Dr. Harry Jacobson with captive whitetails at Mississippi State University from 1978 through 1995 suggested little difference between spikes and fork-antlered yearlings that were given time to mature.
> 
> 
> "Basically, by the time they were 7 1/2 there wasn't any difference between spikes and forkhorns," said Harry. "Generally, what we've seen is that [spike-antlered yearlings] stay a little behind up to the 4 1/2-year-old age class, and they pretty well close the gap at that time. There was a little bit of a difference in B&C scores on out until 7 1/2, but the difference was miniscule for the average deer hunter. Once a deer gets to 125 inches, it's a pretty good deer for the average deer hunter."





> "On average, fork-antlered yearlings are larger than spike-antlered yearlings in gross B&C score. They don't catch up," said Mickey. "Those two words, 'on average,' are the key, because there are exceptions," he said, "but in population management, your goal should always be to manage on the averages, not on the exceptions."
> 
> 
> Though it may take time for researchers to reconcile the finer distinctions in the data, on one thing they seem to agree.
> ...


http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=1964660&type=story


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"There's only a handful of places in the world where culling is a true issue," said James Kroll, "but, it gets press. If our research came out to show that spikes are the scourge of the earth, I would still not recommend [shooting spikes] to most people." 



When a researcher makes a statement like that , I think it is pretty clear that he has a personal bias toward protecting spikes and therefore his research and recommmendations are of questionable value.

"Five years ago, I was a strong proponent for not shooting spikes," said Mickey. "But I'm focusing on the scientific question, 'Are spikes inferior?' On average it's pretty clear. I think they are. The question, and it will remain after our study, is how applicable this research is to other places. Outside of south Texas, there are very, very few places where I would recommend shooting spikes. There are so many other things to focus on first that will have a much greater impact on your herd than will shooting spikes. People focus on the spike issue to the detriment of other management efforts, and it's a hindrance." 

Once again, although Mickey belives that on average,spikes are inferior, he downplays the significance of that a points to other managemnet efforts that would be more effective at producing bigger buck. furthermore, it appears that Mickey is talking about managing a herd for a club or lease rather than AR implemented state wide, where there is little if any control over the quality of the habitat.


If you believe that spikes are not inferior , then it follows that you believe there are no buck with inferior genes. If that is true ,then the theory of dominant breeding is irrelevant since it wouldn't matter if a doe was bred by a 1.5 spike or a 3.5 8 pt. ,since the genetic potential of both bucks would be the same. Therefore, there would be no need for improving the buck age structure and no need for AR.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Happy Hunter said:


> If you believe that spikes are not inferior , then it follows that you believe there are no buck with inferior genes.


Me thinks maybe this is a 'leap' - just a little.

But, from what I have read, there is no way to manage the 'gene' pool in a free ranging whitetail herd. So why does the subject of genes always enter the discussion?

ferg....


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Happy Hunter said:


> If you believe that spikes are not inferior , then it follows that you believe there are no buck with inferior genes. If that is true ,then the theory of dominant breeding is irrelevant since it wouldn't matter if a doe was bred by a 1.5 spike or a 3.5 8 pt. ,since the genetic potential of both bucks would be the same. Therefore, there would be no need for improving the buck age structure and no need for AR.


That's absolutley correct, because there are more positives to improving buck age structure than just antler size.

Evolution and natural selection determined that a normal, natural, healthy, whitetailed herd should have these things:

1. A balanced sex ratio
2. A balanced proper age structure
3. A herd size kept below carrying capacity.

This is FACT. Evidenced by:

1. A 50:50 sex ratio during herd regeneration

2. Age structure should have a proper distribution...evidenced by a 10 year life span in whitetails.

3. Predator populations rise right after prey populations rise. If there is not enough predators to keep herd below capacity, disease, or starvation will do it. 

These are fact and can't be disputed. 

Natural selection culled the negative, and the unsuitable traits out of the whitetail millions of years ago.

The deer herd was shaped in this manner for many many reasons. Thousands of reasons.

The deer herd was shaped by evolution to accomplish this:

Offspring produced by strongest parents.
Generous yearly offspring recruitment.
Disease resistance.
Evolutionary longgevity.

The herd was shaped by nature to provide the highest possible chance of species survival, while ALSO providing individuals with the tools necessary to do this.
And she had 8 million years to trial and test her whitetails.

By not allowing allowing a herd of deer to balance it's age structure you are circumventing mother nature, dominance and evolution. 



> Stedman apparently knows nothing about gene frequency, random breeding, genetic equilibrium or selection and accuses "Mother Nature's" bell-shaped curve and its magic of all the things he cannot explain by nutrition and age


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Ferg said:


> Me thinks maybe this is a 'leap' - just a little.
> 
> But, from what I have read, there is no way to manage the 'gene' pool in a free ranging whitetail herd. So why does the subject of genes always enter the discussion?
> 
> ferg....


 The justification given for implmenting AR's is that an improved age structure will result in more dominant breeding, thus insuring the bucks with the better genes will pass those genes on to more off spring. So the justification for AR's is that one can improve the genetics of a free ranging whitetail herd and the agrument against Ar's is that by protecting inferior spike bucks the genetics of the herd will be negatively impacted.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"By not allowing allowing a herd of deer to balance it's age structure you are circumventing mother nature, dominance and evolution"

By harvesting the best buck in each age class and protecting inferior buck in each age class , AR's do the exact opposite of what would happen in a natural unhunted herd. This circumvents mother nature and neutalizes any benefit you would gain from having a improved age structure.

This flaw could be over come by protecting the best buck in each age class and harvesting the inferior buck, but that that would not be socially acceptable. Therefore,possibly the best way to improve the buck age structure would be to limit hunters to 1 buck/yr. and shorten the seasosns.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Happy Hunter said:


> "There's only a handful of places in the world where culling is a true issue," said James Kroll, "but, it gets press. If our research came out to show that spikes are the scourge of the earth, I would still not recommend [shooting spikes] to most people."
> 
> When a researcher makes a statement like that , I think it is pretty clear that he has a personal bias toward protecting spikes and therefore his research and recommmendations are of questionable value.



Interesting that you should infer that. Dr. Kroll once did have a bias that spike bucks, in free-ranging deer herds _did_ have a genetic proclivity to developing inferior antlers when they reached maturity. He described this to me personally about 3 years ago. It was only when he began to conduct his own research that he changed his mind (as all good scientists will consider when their research indicates results which are contrary to their previous beliefs). Last I knew, he believes that, in a free-ranging herd, one cannot draw conclusions of the antler development potential of a buck based upon the appearance of their yearling antlers.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"Therefore,possibly the best way to improve the buck age structure would be to limit hunters to 1 buck/yr. and shorten the seasosns."

I don't believe a 1 buck license will do anything. Most around here only hunt for a handful of days anyways and when they do get 1 buck it's an excuse to either go home, or stay at camp and play cards. 

Just like in PA, I go out, hunt for a 1/2 day, shoot a buck, go home. If there was a 2nd tag it wouldn't mean anything to me. 

That 2nd tag accounts for only around 4% of the annual buck harvest, where as an effective AR will target between 70-80% of the yearling age class for protection. Being that we harvest 75% of the yearling age class right now and many already pass on a spikes in favor of at least a 4-pt. or greater, I don't see how an AR will do any worse for genetics than we do already, and I don't see how eliminating a tage which accounts for only 4.3% of the annual buck harvest will be better at improving the age class in the long run than protecting 70-80% of yearling age class. At the same time, 1 tag will substantially decrease hunter days afield and opportunity. For example, I've bought 2 tags for 17-18 years, but have only filled them both twice. BUT, during all that time there were only a couple of years I couldn't have killed at least several bucks and there were no years in the past 12+ years I couldn't have killed at least a few. So, that extra tag kept me hunting sometimes all the way until the last day of the season. When my wife and I discussed moving when we lived in the thumb, one of the main reasons I didn't want to move to PA was because there was only 1 buck tag, for all seasons.

With AR's you can actually INCREASE the amount of buck tags which can generate more income for the state and increase hunter days afield. 

Again, many already pass on spikes anyways, 75% of the harvest are yearling bucks, and the 2nd license only accounts for a very small percantage of the buck kill. Couple those facts with the fact that most hunters for gun season, especially on public land, only hunt a handful of days and will generally shoot the first buck they see anyways, I just don't see how a 1 buck license could ever compete with a 70-80% protection rate of yearling bucks in the promotion of an older age-class, especially when our best yearlings tend to be the true "trophies" that attract the vast majority of hunters.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> Interesting that you should infer that. Dr. Kroll did have a bias, at one time, that spike bucks, in free-ranging deer herds _did_ have a genetic proclivity to developing inferior antlers when they reached maturity. He described this to me personally about 3 years ago. It was only when he began to conduct his own research that he changed his mind (as all good scientists will consider when their research indicates results which are contrary to their previous beliefs). Last I knew, he believes that, in a free-ranging herd, one cannot draw conclusions of the antler development potential of a buck based upon the appearance of their yearling antlers.


 I am not at all sure that he did in fact change his mind. He still believes it takes 2 or 3 additional years for a 1.5 spike to equal a 1.5 8 pt. Therefore, it appears that he still believes spikes are inferior, but he doesn't believe that they should not be culled as 1.5 buck. Remember ,AR not only protects inferior 1.5 buck, it protects inferior buck in each age class.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Happy Hunter said:


> This flaw could be over come by protecting the best buck in each age class and harvesting the inferior buck,.


I'm interested to know how you would go about determining which buck in each age class is the inferior one. Unless all of the bucks are lined up next to each other to be evaluated on their merits I can't see this being a viable option. Just curious HH.
Big T


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> I'm interested to know how you would go about determining which buck in each age class is the inferior one. Unless all of the bucks are lined up next to each other to be evaluated on their merits I can't see this being a viable option. Just curious HH.
> Big T



AR select the deer to be harveted based on only one genetic trait , which is antler development. It protects the buck with the slowest rate of antler harvest and makes the bucks withthe fastest rate of antler development legal.

Therefore, to save,on average ,the best buck in each age class one could make any buck with 6 or more points illegal. If one chose to save fewer buck ,one could make any 8 pts. or larger illegal. That is what one one would do if the true goal was to improve the breeding ecology ,promote dominant breeding and improve the gene pool.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Right now many pass on spikes and 8-pt. yearlings are considered "trophies" to many and quite frankly those are as good as it gets in many cases. An effective AR program will protect 70-80% of the yearling age class. Right now we kill 75% of the yearling age class.

HH, 
Tell me how with no AR, our herd is better off. Also, there are many spikes in Kroll's study that were actually larger 2.5 year olds than yearlings with 8 pts. Again though, right now we hold the holy "8pt yearling" in trophy status and they all die anyways......so why would an AR be any worse? Good genetics, bad genetics, they will always be there and any genes are impossible to remove in a free-ranging herd. 

If you want to get fancy, and have your own property to do so, then you could do what I like to do on my own property, and that is to not shoot ANY yearling regardless of number of points. The real goal would be to not shoot any yearling, ever, but an AR is the only way to protect a super-majority that can be used by the general public and is a definitive measuring stick, with fairly definitive protection rates.

We need to get it in hunters heads that any and all yearlings are the same. Guys will say they are only out for meat so they want to shoot a yearling, but will hold out for an 8-pt yearling over a spike. So many say that antlers don't matter, but then they put so much emphasis on bragging about the big 8pt they shot...that was still only a yearling buck. On average it takes a heck of a lot more skill to kill a 2.5 year old 6pt, than a yearling 8-pt. but again the focus is on the antlers. We need to shift that focus to age. Once the focus is on age then genetics, # of points, AR's don't really matter. The AR is just an initial tool to help educate and guide hunters into becoming more of a selective predator and to recognize their role in the management process. 

We need to change the culture in which we eliminate 75% of the yearling age class on an annual basis, until we do that, genetics are the least of our problems.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2005)

Happy Hunter said:


> The justification given for implmenting AR's is that an improved age structure will result in more dominant breeding, thus insuring the bucks with the better genes will pass those genes on to more off spring. So the justification for AR's is that one can improve the genetics of a free ranging whitetail herd and the agrument against Ar's is that by protecting inferior spike bucks the genetics of the herd will be negatively impacted.


I don't know anybody here that promotes AR's due to any genetic factors. The goal is to allow deer to live 1 extra year before they become targets. Genetics are nowhere in the reasoning. Please don't imply that AR's are being promoted to improve herd genetics.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Happy Hunter said:


> Therefore, to save,on average ,the best buck in each age class one could make any buck with 6 or more points illegal. If one chose to save fewer buck ,one could make any 8 pts. or larger illegal. That is what one one would do if the true goal was to improve the breeding ecology ,promote dominant breeding and improve the gene pool.


HH,
I get the impression that you believe that the number of points a buck has makes him "geneticly superior" or more dominent. 
It would lead a person to believe that you are leaning toward a "trophy" style of management.
I would argue that the more bucks in different age catagories, regardless of points, would determine dominance in the herd and, as far as genetics go, only the strong survive.

Big T


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Happy Hunter said:


> AR select the deer to be harveted based on only one genetic trait , which is antler development.


and correct me here - someone - that antler development was MORE a statement/condition of Nutrition vs. Genetic anything???

ferg....

And as attempt to get this back on track - lets put AR's into a True QDM plan and see if there is a place for them there. Not as a stand alone issue. I don't think anyone truely believes that AR's are being used as a Genetic tool, but do believe that there is a place for them as a 'tool' to accomplish a much larger QDM goal.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"Right now many pass on spikes and 8-pt. yearlings are considered "trophies" to many and quite frankly those are as good as it gets in many cases. An effective AR program will protect 70-80% of the yearling age class. Right now we kill 75% of the yearling age class."

While it is possible that " many" hunters pass on spikes in order to harvest an 1.5 8 pt. ,I doubt that DNR has any stats to support that claim. What we do have are the stats that ED Spin posted for DMU118. Those stats show that the number of 2.5 buck harvested the first year of AR increased from the baseline average of 21 to 47 , which is more than a double. the number of 3.5 buck harvested also dobed since it increased from 15 to 31 and the number of 4.5 buck harvested tripled increasing from 1 to 3. Now all of the bucks that were 2.5 years and older were the produced by the previous deer management plan ,without AR.

Now if we total the number of 2.5 and older buck harvested in 1999 ,we get 65 buck that were carried over from 1998. The average 1.5 buck harvest was 
102 but more than 65 bucks that were 1.5 or older survived. Therefore , dominant breeding was occurring before AR was implemented and the bucks that survived were a random distribution of all of the buck, which means some 8 pts. survived and some spikes survived and the selection process was much closer to survival of the fittest rather , with AR where the inferior buck in each age class are protected.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Ferg said:


> and correct me here - someone - that antler development was MORE a statement/condition of Nutrition vs. Genetic anything???
> 
> ferg....
> 
> And as attempt to get this back on track - lets put AR's into a True QDM plan and see if there is a place for them there. Not as a stand alone issue. I don't think anyone truely believes that AR's are being used as a Genetic tool, but do believe that there is a place for them as a 'tool' to accomplish a much larger QDM goal.



AR selects buck that are protected within a given geopgraphical area where all buck are subjected to the same conditions. Therefore nutrition and condition are not the determining factors.

When AR is implemented statewide or in a given DMU ,it is not necessarily a part of a QDM plan,since the state cannot control what happens on private property. An individual or coop can choose to manage their land at much higher OWDD's than the state recommends, Therefore, IMHO there is no such thing as a statewide QDM program.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> HH,
> I get the impression that you believe that the number of points a buck has makes him "geneticly superior" or more dominent.
> It would lead a person to believe that you are leaning toward a "trophy" style of management.
> I would argue that the more bucks in different age catagories, regardless of points, would determine dominance in the herd and, as far as genetics go, only the strong survive.
> ...



But , the fact is that AR determines which buck are protected solely on the number of points. Therefore a 2.5 spike or a 3.5 Y would be a protected dominant buck that would pass on his genes for producing small racks ,while the 1.5 6 or 8 pt. would be harvested before they reached 2.5.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

BuckBass said:


> I don't know anybody here that promotes AR's due to any genetic factors. The goal is to allow deer to live 1 extra year before they become targets. Genetics are nowhere in the reasoning. Please don't imply that AR's are being promoted to improve herd genetics.


 The concept of dominant breeding is based on the theory that the bucks with the best genes will be dominant and pass on those genes to their offspring. Therefore, AR is in fact based on improving the genetics of the herd.


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

Happy Hunter said:


> But , the fact is that AR determines which buck are protected solely on the number of points. Therefore a 2.5 spike or a 3.5 Y would be a protected dominant buck that would pass on his genes for producing small racks ,while the 1.5 6 or 8 pt. would be harvested before they reached 2.5.


Genetics is generally not a limiting factor with the Michigan deer Herd. Generally speaking, the difference between an 8 point and an spike of the same age is usually a matter of nutrition. So even if a spike is saved through A/R's and breeds he will be passing on good genes as genetics are not affected by diet.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Bwana said:


> Genetics is generally not a limiting factor with the Michigan deer Herd. Generally speaking, the difference between an 8 point and an spike of the same age is usually a matter of nutrition. So even if a spike is saved through A/R's and breeds he will be passing on good genes as genetics are not affected by diet.


But ,if that is true and all bucks have good genes it doesn't matter if 1.5 bucks do the breeding or if 2.5 bucks do the breeding, Therefore, there is no need to improve the age structure in order to promote dominant breeding.

Do you truly believe there are no bucks that have inferior genes for antler development? Do 2.5 spikes ad Y's have small racks because of nutrition, even though other 2.5 bucks from the same area may be 8 or 10 pts?


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Happy Hunter said:


> AR selects buck that are protected within a given geopgraphical area where all buck are subjected to the same conditions. Therefore nutrition and condition are not the determining factors.
> 
> When AR is implemented statewide or in a given DMU ,it is not necessarily a part of a QDM plan,since the state cannot control what happens on private property. An individual or coop can choose to manage their land at much higher OWDD's than the state recommends, Therefore, IMHO there is no such thing as a statewide QDM program.


If I understand.....

We (the collective we) can not impliment any form of QDM on a state wide basis, even if it's 'taylored' to certian areas? 

I think individuals and co-ops are now being overly agressive with OWDD, because of what the state is doing on public lands. Would it make sense that if a comprehensive QDM plan was implemented (and taylored to the local areas) on a state wide bases, that the private owners/co-ops would lighten up some with their plans to bring them more in line with what was going on with the 10's of thousands of acres of public land? 

I know, as a land owner, that I would. It would take some of the extensive work out of my own plan if I knew there was 'some plan' running on the state forest across the road.

Again - a True QDM plan is more than AR's, and as you have stated many times, maybe AR's are not the way to bring more younger bucks into the the older age classes, but, I think they are a tool that, without much education, you can at least have a shot (*pardon the pun*) at moving some of those animials along.

The bottom line or at least part of the bottom line is balance - 

and in achiveing that, we have to do one of two things, ensure that more bucks stay alive longer, or reduce futher the number of does.

I don't think there is a great feeling among hunters, at least in Michigan right now, that we need to be reducing the does, keeping in mind that is totally regional. (In fact there are many places that need just that), but I know in NE Michigan, to balance the herd, they would sooner let young bucks live than take anymore does.

ferg....


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Here is the answer to your question from QDMA.

"Hunter management is a critical, yet often difficult aspect of QDM. Within most hunting groups, support for QDM varies. It is difficult to achieve the objectives of QDM unless all hunters are fully committed. Education is the key. Hunters must fully understand the benefits and costs of QDM before they become active participants."


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

Happy Hunter said:


> Do you truly believe there are no bucks that have inferior genes for antler development?


I used the term generally. Generally was used specifically to avoid someone replying just as you did. Had I wanted to say there were no problems with the herd I would have used a phrase such as "absouloutly no" or "positively no" as opposed to generally. :banghead3 You know, this is a forum, not target practice and is the exact reason why I do not come here often.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

twice to bring this back 'around' - Sorry guys - time to regroup on this one - 70 posts was a good run - but I think it's over for now.

ferg....


----------

