# A Serious Question for Public Land Hunters



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)




----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

Now that we have the formalities out of the way...lol

Gunrod made a very valid point. Meathunters will take full advantage of the second buck tag. (well, really the first, since they can get a nice rack on top of the meat from the previous spike)

A while back I suggested utilizing some of the infrastructure from the hunting surveys and add some other criteria in the survey. This would give the DNR a better handle on the actual population. All of the permits and licenses are computerized and the DNR knows who hunts where and for how many years. The data provided by these hunters could be used to assess how many permits are issued the following year. It would be micro-managed on a grander scale. 

I fully believe that most hunters would be honest in the survey and the ones that are way off the scale on either end of the spectrum should be discarded. 

This type of information would benefit all hunters.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I like the computer system they have in KY. You shoot a deer, and have to call it in by sex and county within 24 hours. They then give you a code # to place on the tag. If you don't have a code # on a tag, you are then in violation after 24 hours. The CO's can look up you # and see what you were supposed to have shot, to verify what they are looking at. 

You can then go to the computer, and see that your deer has been added to your county total. The state of KY knows exactly how many deer, and what sex of deer, where shot for each county, and anyone else can look it up.

WI kind of does it the same way, but you have to do it in person. Where we hunt in WI it is one of the local bars. It's actually kind of fun. You sit in the bar, watch football, eat a sandwich, and watch all the excited, successful hunters bring in there bucks and does to be checked. It was also intresting in WI, because a 2.5 year old buck was the most common, and there were more 3.5 year olds brought in, then 1.5 year olds. The guy at the bar said that's the way it is every year.

It at least gives you a very firm harvest #.

There are some pretty good track-count survey methods that could be used during the summer to estimate populations representitive of a small enough area to be accurate. Each DMU could be targeted-especially in large forested tracts, to study track count data for several representative areas within each DMU. It could even tell you if areas of the DMU where vastly different from each other from one side to the next, and bounderies needed to be altered.

My camera census on my property tells me I had a little over 20 deer using the property on a daily basis last year. But while hunting I saw 5 deer once, 4 deer a couple of times, and 2 to 3 the rest of the time, at one time. Someone hunting my property, but not having the accuracey of a camera census, would assume a population of probably less than 10, which would be highly innaccurate.

Whatever way they do it, it would be nice to have some hard, more accurate numbers to be accountable to.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

The nice thing about computerizing the results can be the break up of current DMU's without adding manpower.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Until then...it's letters, flyers, and meetings to get the word out about current local population #'s to the area public land users in my neighborhood 

We've got to do it ourselves, unfortunately, or it won't be done right, or at least accurate, I should say.


----------



## Chuck (Sep 24, 2000)

Its not easy to answer your question in a few words. The biggest concerns for me are that it will limit oppertunity to hunters with little time to hunt.

I feel hunters can be broke down into 2 groups (excluding slob hunters and poachers who are not hunters in my book). You have group one who is the smallest group, they hunt hard, usually all day. They scout all year, they know there areas well and know how many deer are there. They get to hunt alot more than most maybe 30 or more days a year. QDM is great for these kind of hunters. I hunt this way and pass on bucks every year. Opening day of gun I passed on 3 bucks. A 4 pt and a spike that had to be 2 1/2 or older I would bet. He had a huge thick neck and a large body.

The rest could be broken down into samller gruops but they are basically guys who cant hunt as much do to family or work. They cant get the time to scout alot and hunt alot. They are not less of a hunter but they do have less oppertunity. Im against QDM for them becouse most of my friends and family are these guys. this is also the majority of our hunters. Based on friend s and family they want a deer, they want to be successful in the short amount of time they have to hunt. They will shoot any deer they see first if they legaly can. Alot of people on this board have a hard time with that and I understand why but its the truth about the MAJORITY of hunters in MI. This site represents only a miniscule fraction of the hunters in MI. If I had 2 weeks or less to hunt out of the year I might change the way I hunt also. Its very difficult to figure deer out in the woods in a short time. Especially on public land. You have to know what other hunters are doing and what kind of perassure they have recieved all weeek and so on.

The other reason would be over all deer numbers. Alot of hunters hear 60% below carring capicity and they think wow we didnt hardly see this year now they want to kill more and give us even less of a chance.

As far as habitat improvements on satte land, I think its a great idea. The areas we hunt has lots of clear cuts and this helps alot. But according to my dad he said the state used to plant corn and clover on state land and it was better then. In some areas the state leases open area to farmers why cant they do more of this??? This would help farmers, hunters, and the state budget.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

What QDM would do for public land:

1. In general, more bucks, less does.
Ex: 50 deer in a section-43 does, 7 bucks. Lower the number to 40, but with 12 bucks, and 28 does.

2. Improved age structure in bucks.
Ex: 7 bucks-6 yearlings and 1-2.5 year old. By passing yearlings, lowering numbers, and improving age structure, you may have 6 yearlings, 4-2.5 year olds, and 2-3.5 year olds.

3. Larger bodies and more meat.
Ex: Improved availability of preferred browse species due to the population maintained below the carrying capacity of the land.

4. Increased rutting activity, including seeking and chasing, due to improved sex ratio, timely rut, and improved buck age structure.

5. Improved fawn production.

How would this not apply to public land, and the benifits of those that hunt it?

Also, your success is greatly proportionate to the amount of effort. In today's day and age, people, including hunters want success quickly, and with little effort. Guys want to go in the woods for 4 days a year and come home with a buck. They blame the DNR and mismanagement if they don't. How many days do most of us spend hunting to shoot 1 deer? and we are the guys in the woods all the time. 

What if it takes the hard working hunter an average of 20 days to kill a buck. Well if a guy only spends 4 days a year in the woods, due to family and job obligations, then he or she shouldn't expect a deer every year, but 1 every 5 years. Not to mention the factor of the lack of experience with the area hunted, and hunting in general, compared to the guy that spends 30 to 40 days in the woods.

I think we've come to expect too much success for the little amount of time we spend. The numbers don't add up.


----------



## One Eye (Sep 10, 2000)

I think the habitat issue is the main factor on the public lands. Northwestern Michigan is full of mature pine plantations that may as well be wildlife deserts. These were awesome wildlife sanctuaries in their infancy, but the time has come for aggressive timber cutting.

As for the quality of bucks on public land, I have killed several bucks that would qualify for various record books, if you believe in that sort of thing. My experiences lately have shown that the number of mature animals sighted has been dropping dramatically on public land. I do not blame hunting pressure, but rather the deterioration of quality habitat.

As for the point restrictions, who am I to tell someone else what a trophy is?? I have passed younger bucks for many years, and will continue to do so. But this should be voluntary on PUBLIC land. Think about the impact you will have on others' ability to enjoy their hunting rather than just your little slice of the pie.

Dan


----------



## Roober (Jan 21, 2003)

Excellent thread. 
I believe that habitat is the bottom line when it comes to which deer to take. I took a spindly 4 point near Grayling that was 2 1/2 years old and passed 6 pointers that were obviously 1 1/2 near Hillsdale. The way I see it, state wide rules would never work. It would have to be county by county or zone by zone. That being the case, the DNR would never enact something so "confusing" because the weekend warrior (generalization) would shoot first and check the rules later and if they get caught, they "didn't understand the rules". 
(Major Trost gripe: "The rules are confusing"... if the rules are to hard to understand, put the gun down and save somebodys life)

I think QDM isagood idea but it has to be used in the right place. Some bucks will only grow so big in the habitat they live in. I think you have to know the buck potential in the area you hunt. If QDM wasput into effect in the northern LP, a lot of 6 pointers would die of old age


----------



## Chuck (Sep 24, 2000)

Part of QDM is habittat improvments. So why dont we start with that on state land? Those who i know who own private land start with habitat improvments. If we do this it will raise the carring capacity on public land and also provide better nutrition for deer, increasing antler and body size.

This could be done by leasing open lands to local farmers for a discounted rate if they agree to leave a small prtion after harvest. Corn, soybeans, alfalfa, wheat and other crops could be planted. This wouldnt cost the DNR, state, or hunters any money at all. It would actually make money. The DNR biolgist could even request winter wheat be planted and decide what crops would benifit different areas.

This does happen on a limited bases in some areas on public land. In the areas I find that are like this the hunting can be very good.

The area I hunt is roughly 50,000 acres. In talking to the local DNR biologist he believes the area holds more deer than it should. This blows my mind. Im not a biolgist but I spend alot of time in the woods and I cover alot of ground. I have not yet even come close to finding any place in this area that is over browsed or even close to it. Im not sure what hey base there data on but this is what worries most of the hunters I talk to. Its the 60% below carring capacity that worries every one. Are we talking about hunting all season to see one or 2 deer? Are we talking about 3-4 deer per sq mile? Sure I may have a great chance at harvesting a mature buck every 10 years but I have those odds now.

Most of the land owners I know are not shooting does (in S.W.) any more. They are complaing about only 20-30 deer per sq mile. Those numbers would be something to see on public land.


----------



## One Eye (Sep 10, 2000)

"If deer density falls below 20 animals per square mile, most hunters would have a hard seeing a deer." <A quote from the Jerry Chiappetta on the video "Way of the Whitetail">

I too question a lot of the stuff coming from the DNR right now on deer populations. I continue to hear about overcrowding, but I have yet to see it. Even in the hey days of the late 1980's, I never witnessed overbrowsing or stressed deer on the public land I hunt. There is only a fraction of the deer now, but the quality appears to be the same.

The whole thing keep me scratching my head???

Dan


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Brian S _
> *farmlegend,
> 
> I hunt thick swamps. If I had to know how many points were on a buck before I shot, I probably wouldn't have been able to pull the trigger on half the bucks I've taken. I don't want to deal with sitting in my stand after pulling the trigger worrying about how many points were on that buck.
> ...


AMEN! Couldn't have said it better........come to think of it, I DID SEVERAL MONTHS AGO! My hunting conditions are similar. Counting points should be irrelevant. As you said, good shot placement should be foremost on our mind.


----------



## Ebowhunter (Apr 5, 2000)

Did not read any of the responses...

Where I hunt, the quantity of deer is low. I would not like to pass up one opportunity as my success rate is just under 50% with my recurve. My family loves and is able to consume one deer per year.

I was able to talk to a couple of fellas that hunt on private land near the state ground I hunt. Their statements confirmed my concerns...

... when Sept 15 rolls around - they notice, simply by the increase in deer, activity in their area.

... all of the activity on the public land drives the deer out.

... I have not shot a deer prior to the rut. I usually hunt 6 of the 8 days (Saturdays & Sundays) in October. I usually see between 0 and 3 deer in October.

...over the last seven years, I have seen three deer that would qualify to fill a restricted tag.


----------



## Chuck (Sep 24, 2000)

I hunt thick areas also. I usually have about 10 seconds to decide if im taking a deer or not before i loose the oppertunity. Reasons are becouse its thick, I can only trim very small almost hidden shooting lanes. Most of my shooting lanes you could walk threw and not know they are shooting lanes. This is so other hunters cant find and utilize them.  Most places I hunt I try very hard to make it look naturel as much for the deer as for the other hunters. If you dont you risk other hunters hunting your blind and or tree stand set ups.


Just think of the challenges the private land hunters are missing out on. You have to phsyc out the other deer hunter, you cant leave your stand up other wise it may be gone when you come back, some scrapes Ive hunted have had as many as 6 different hunters pouring urine into them. I have even made mock scrapes to fool other hunters!! Its man gainst man and man gainst the weariest whittails on the planet. Imagine how boring it would be to hunt over a green field and watch 30 deer eat, 1/2 of them being bucks. Then at last light shoot the 180" monster you have been making a pet all year.............. oooppps did I really type that out loud???????  Hey thats the way they do it on the Teeee VVVVeeeyy. 

The biggens are there you just have to look hard for them.


----------



## Marrble Eyes (Jun 24, 2003)

Having hunted both public land and Private farms for the last 27 years when DQM came up I wasn't a big fan. 

While I hunted the last 15 years of private there are two poachers in the real close area that like to take multiple bucks every year. Not one, not two, not even three or four. They hunt from the 1st of Oct. to the 1st of January. And they kill most everything that has antlers. It makes me sick really, they even brag about it. problem is they never bring it out of the woods without some elses tag on them. The DNR has been after them for years. One of these days...

Anyhow I was invited to hunt on a 80 acre parcel last year that is run under QDM guidelines along with neighboring two parcels that is also controlled the same. 

WOW, I saw more bucks in the first 3 days of bow season than I had on the farmland I had been hunting in 5 years. That is Bow and rifle seasons combined. Nice 2 year old deer we were letting walk by. 

It makes a huge difference. 

One thing that always crops up in these discussions is "why should I let it go if joe bob over the ridge is gonna shoot it anyway."

Here is my response. Because If you let it go, YOU have done your job. If you let it go It MIGHT smell joe bobs stinky cigar or he shoots and misses and teaches bucky a lesson in survival of the fittest. No matter what, you can't control what Joe Bob does, however there is a chance that the one you let go just may make it thru till next year if you do. You shoot it as a 1.5 old one thing is for sure, It aint getting any bigger.


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

I have hunted Public Land exclusively, Federal Land to be more specific, during my lifetime with the exception of a few trips into farm country. As I hunt in the TB Area there was a time when I believe the hunting was very poor. So I changed my hunting tactics. I had noticed that overcrowding was a problem close to the roads but hunting populations thinned out as I progressed into the "deeper woods" (Disclaimer: I am in the NELP where there are some deep woods. Good luck in the Southern SGA's :lol: ). As I started to venture deeper into the woods I noticed there were more deer and I assumed it was because most hunters will not walk more than a mile into the woods and consequently were not harvesting too many deer in these areas. 

So to specifically answer your question FL, I find that the public land hunting can be above average if you are willing (and able) to "get off the beaten path". In addition, I am all for QDM. 

My biggest complaint about Federal Land is the lack of good habitat for the Whitetail. Our forests are increasingly becoming "old growth" forests that are only able to sustain deer in reduced quantities. I have been a big proponent of Public Land Habitat Improvement Projects that are suitable to the particular ecosystem. Therefore I do not expect the DNR to plant food plots three miles deep into the forest. However, a limited logging operation throughout the forest that is designed to improve habitat for animals by allowing natural regeneration (re: no pine plantations) would be a great idea in my opinion; I would also encourage some controlled burns as well. Additionally, think of all the added acces to the forest by utilizing the abandoned logging roads; a much easier walk.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Bwana,

I agree with everything you said and it was well put...this is the only thing I am concerned about for the future: "Additionally, think of all the added acces to the forest by utilizing the abandoned logging roads; a much easier walk."

I'm all for new roads and trails, but I'd prefer they be shut down to foot traffic only. You know how you love to go deep into the woods and enjoy increased quality of hunting, well when roads are added, the quality goes down considerably. We have very few "wilderness" areas left in the U.P. and those areas support some of the best hunting. While I'm all for ATV's and own 3, to me they make terrible hunting companions.  

Just a thought though, but I especially like what they do in PA. They shut off much of the forest land with gates during the hunting season on dead-end roads. They don't keep you from accessing where you want to hunt, just driving to the exact ridge or swamp....you have to do it the old fashioned way and walk. Most of the 60-70 year olds in camp still walk sometimes 2-4 miles in a day of hunting on some of the access roads. Sure it would be easier with a motor, but it's not impossible without and us "youngsters" are always willing to lend a hand.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

farmlegend said:


> Here's what I'm curious about: If the hunting is so poor in public lands, what is there to lose from trying a different approach? ......
> .....So, public land deer hunters, or those that would like to speak for them - what are your concerns about QDM and how it would affect your hunting?


Sometimes I think it would be nice to see people stick to answering the main question posted rather continually reiterating the same concepts on EACH and EVERY thread ad-nauseum.... Know what I mean?

Hunting is actually tough on public land for me. I see few deer, but am succesful because I put in my time. "Propper harvest of doe" in my area (Alpena) presently would be zero harvest in my opinion. Antler restrictions would mean only one thing to me.... Greatly increased odds of an empty freezer. Thus (for me) it would get worse. I would guess that anlter restrictions in my area would lead to even a more obscene harvest of doe. WE NEED TO SPARE THE DOE. As long as this is the case, I will be more than happy shooting a 1.5 year old buck or older for the freezer. I am not ready to hunt all year with little or no chance of at least one set of backstraps and deer heart in the pan. <----<<<


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Public land hunting land for me has always been good. It always comes down to effort put forth by the hunter. Even have some locals that hunt with little effort other than a blind in a semi-open area 40 yrds away a bait pile-there biggest effort is carrying the bait!!!

Plenty of decent bucks on public land and 10% of the hunters are the consistant ones year after year taking the decent bucks. Lots more lazy hunters now than 20 years ago...period!

Unchecked and unmanaged doe permits on certain sections of stateland have not helped either.

Back tothe question: Stateland sucks IF you expect its like Hillsdale Co. with limited number of hunters on your property, tower blind sitting over a food plot, cornfields to the east and west and a swamp bordering the north and a 40 acres private section that does not get hunted and you pass on every 6 point buck, and you think your practicing QDM AND then and only then do people think QDM should work in Crawford Co. in the NLP. :lol:


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> Bwana,
> 
> I'm all for new roads and trails, but I'd prefer they be shut down to foot traffic only. You know how you love to go deep into the woods and enjoy increased quality of hunting, well when roads are added, the quality goes down considerably. We have very few "wilderness" areas left in the U.P. and those areas support some of the best hunting. While I'm all for ATV's and own 3, to me they make terrible hunting companions.


It was my understanding that all logging roads are shut down after the logging operation had ceased in the National Forests (I have not the slightest idea about Stateland)? All of the roads in my area have been Bull-dozed(sp?) at the entrance and are specifically marked foot traffic only. In case my assumption is wrong let me be clear, I am a proponent of FOOT TRAFFIC ONLY! :lol:


----------



## luv 2 bowhunt (Mar 27, 2005)

My concerns about qdm on the state lands that I hunt:
This past season 2004 our camp of seven hunters, killed two bucks. 
One 113 # three pointer
One 98# spike horn
both deer were two and a half years old. 
Five years ago my dad shot a three and a half year old spike weighing 93#.
All of these deer were aged by the dnr. The deer we shoot are usually shorter and smaller than the farmland deer of just 12 to 15 miles away. 
Our state land deer ofter look like "coues" deer from down south. 
On the state land we cannot grow food plots, put out minerals, or feed deer throughout the winter. The private land just 12 to 15 miles away however can create a haven for the deer. Food plots, Minerals, Year round feed. 
Sure qdm would be great on private land where food can be available year round, but the state land just doesn't have the same options that the private land owners have. 
My opinion on qdm: 1 - high quality year round food source
2 - genetics
3 - age
The state land I hunt the top two obviously don't exist and even when age does occur we still wouldn't be able to shoot the buck because it would still be too small.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

95% of the people I know hunt state land. They are either hunting for meat or enjoyment and relaxation. They could care less if the deer running around are 1.5 or 3.5 years in age or if the buck shot was a spike or an 8. They know quantity means oppurtunity therefore the more the merrier.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Ranger Ray said:


> 95% of the people I know hunt state land. They are either hunting for meat or enjoyment and relaxation. They could care less if the deer running around are 1.5 or 3.5 years in age or if the buck shot was a spike or an 8. They know quantity means oppurtunity therefore the more the merrier.


Isn't this the 'real' division between the those that support QDM and those that do not? Public or Private?

I would venture a guess, that the 95% number quoted by RR is a far greater number than those that would count themselve's as 'deer managers' or DM wannabes - 

How many hunters would fancy themself a deer manager? As compaired to those that Mr. RR mentions that fancy themselve's 11/15-30/ hunters?

FL - is this not going to continue to be the wedge? The I don't really care as long as there are enough deer (any age, any sex, any size) for me to shoot when I hit the woods on 11/15? Because between 11/30 and the next 11/15 I don't give a hoot?

ferg....


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Ferg,

I think you hit the nail right on the head. There are a bunch of hunters out there--and I strongly suspect many of them hunt public land--that just want to see deer as often as possible and have the opportunity to harvest one once and awhile. They seriously could care less if it is a spike or a monster. They just get their "entertainment value" from a different aspect of deer hunting that QDMers do. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I do worry that state or region-wide QDM-like regulations will alienate these hunters.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

maybe instead of calling it qdm you should call it trophy deer management. It seems to me that thats what you really want.

I think we should be looking at what I would call natural deer management.deer are born at roughly a 1 to 1 ratio, so we should have a 1 buck/1 doe licence. random hunter success will probably be close to natural survival rates, and that will leave you a few big ones. as far as heard health and carrying capacity, mother nature will take care of that, as she has been doing for millions of years.

people think that we can manage our environment, but in reality everytime humans try to screw with nature it just messes it up more, consider the high deer numbers everyone wanted and what we really got was population control through disease. We are not managers we are simply another predator in the food chain, there is only one manager that knows what shes doing!!

there are deer of every size and age class out there now. the problem is that a lot of hunters want the big reward with minimal effort, and that will not happen. 

I say no to qdm in michigan ,as well as all the other intensive management attempts!!!!


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

I also think you can extend that labeling theory too, in saying QDM people calling themselves "managers", somehow immediately climb the ladder in social status, or I'm a better "hunter" "sportsman" than you type feel. I'm not stabbing everybody that is in any way associated with QDM, I just think alot of non-QDM people get that feeling. It was really just shown in Ferg post in saying how many hunters would call themselves deer managers, well, if your a nonsupporter of QDM regs I would say none of them because this "manager" type labeling has come from the QDM section. When labeling, QDM associations try to give a "more important" label by using the word manager, its a great marketing theory. """Become your own deer manager"""--sounds important doesn't it, higher status if you will?!?!?!?


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

beer and nuts said:


> When labeling, QDM associations try to give a "more important" label by using the word manager, its a great marketing theory. """Become your own deer manager"""--sounds important doesn't it, higher status if you will?!?!?!?


B&N,

How about the label "steward"?
I believe this label has it's roots in a #1 best seller by our creator.

Big T


----------



## Randy Kidd (Apr 21, 2001)

Ranger Ray said:


> 95% of the people I know hunt state land. They are either hunting for meat or enjoyment and relaxation. They could care less if the deer running around are 1.5 or 3.5 years in age or if the buck shot was a spike or an 8. They know quantity means oppurtunity therefore the more the merrier.


I agree, and I am one of those people. I find it interesting that we as hunters use varying yardsticks to measure what a quality hunt is. Does anyone ever weigh or measure rabbits? squirrels? pheasents? ducks? grouse?, Do we argue and whine about the length of their beaks, or the wingspans, how about the length and color of the tail? But we do with any animal that has the word "Trophy" attatched to it such as Deer, Moose, Bear, Elk, Caribu, Turkeys, What makes them a "Trophy"? Measuring something on their body, Does a longer beard, bigger horns, or the fattest, with the biggest head make it a "better" animal? How many times have you heard the word "Trophy Doe"? Occasionaly. To me they are all trophys, and they are just icing on top of what is really important, the hunt and all that goes with it. I hunt State land 99% of the time, and anytime I know there are deer in the area, the hunt is satisfying.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

beer and nuts said:


> I also think you can extend that labeling theory too, in saying QDM people calling themselves "managers", somehow immediately climb the ladder in social status, or I'm a better "hunter" "sportsman" than you type feel. I'm not stabbing everybody that is in any way associated with QDM, I just think alot of non-QDM people get that feeling. It was really just shown in Ferg post in saying how many hunters would call themselves deer managers, well, if your a nonsupporter of QDM regs I would say none of them because this "manager" type labeling has come from the QDM section. When labeling, QDM associations try to give a "more important" label by using the word manager, its a great marketing theory. """Become your own deer manager"""--sounds important doesn't it, higher status if you will?!?!?!?


To even further confuse the situation - my point - was not even QDM/NON-QDM related - I was trying to draw a line between, for lack of a better term, those that at least care about hunting more than just 11/15 - 11/30 - 

For instance - I would put everyone on this fourm and the DH forum into the catagory of at least at 'some' higher level than the 11/15-11/30 hunter that NEVER thinks about it till day before the opener.

I would consider everyone on this site, in some form or fashon a 'manager' of what ever they are persuing. Why? Because they care, at least enough to be involved with the community year round - and discuss - and learn and educate themself. 

That, my friends does in fact put you all, at a level above the 11/15-11/30 guy. Whither you like it or not. It does.

ferg....


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

QDMAMAN - again I meant nothing toward any group just trying to make the point of labeling. Use steward of the land if you want I dont care, use manager whatever. I personally call myself Deer "Supervisor"


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

Ferg said:


> For instance - I would put everyone on this fourm and the DH forum into the catagory of at least at 'some' higher level than the 11/15-11/30 hunter that NEVER thinks about it till day before the opener.


I agree, but I feel a lot of empathy for some of those Nov. 15-30 guys. Not everyone is capable of making the committment we make on these forums make. There are many reasons some cannot make the committment, employment, family and physical distance being 3. I have a bud overseas in the military, it's not that he doesn't want to be involved, it's that he cannot. That's why I think it's best to make deer hunting laws with these people in mind, so they too can have the best opportunity with the limited time they have. Hunting needs to be inclusive, rather than exclusive, imo.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Randy Kidd said:


> How many times have you heard the word "Trophy Doe"?


The only guys I've ever heard refer to "trophy does" are hardcore QDMers.  

Swampbuck, you bring up an interesting point; if we were to manage such that mortality from hunting and other factors (winter kill, etc.) were similar to that which the species is born with (roughly 50:50 males/females), that should get us to a more balanced sex ratio. The thing that has been screwing with "mother nature"(to use your words), has been Traditional Deer Management, with the exagerated emphasis on the harvest of bucks(usually around 65% of the harvest in Michigan). 

From where I sit, Traditional Deer Management is a more "intensive" form of management than is QDM.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Sib,

Very good post, and I agree with you. But let me play Devil's advocate:

*That's why I think it's best to make deer hunting laws with these people in mind, so they too can have the best opportunity with the limited time they have. Hunting needs to be inclusive, rather than exclusive, imo.*

If we manage the deer herds just for those that want to see deer, are we leaving out those hunters interested in producing more natural and healthy herds?

To me, that's the major condundrum of state deer management. What one group wants is completely contradictory to what the other other group wants.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Whether they like it or not, or take their job seriously or not, *EVERY* hunter is a deer manager. The state does not manage the deer herds, we hunters do. The state is not pulling the trigger or deciding not to pull the trigger, we hunters are.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

*I think we should be looking at what I would call natural deer management.*

Swampbuck,

I apologize in advance if I'm missing the point of your post, but QDM is exactly that--an attempt to return deer herd dynamics to a more natural structure.

On the other hand, if QDMers are honest with themselves, they have to ask themselves what was the driving force behind their orginal interest? Wasn't it the fact that more natural herd structures contain older bucks, hence provide older, larger bucks for harvest? As someone who practices deer management and teaches others to practice deer management for a living, I would say 95% of hunters who get involved with QDM do so *at first* for the promise of older, bigger bucks to see/kill. Only after they've been practicing it for awhile does the enjoyment of simply managing and seeing herd health improve become part of the "enjoyment" equation. And although some QDM-haters refuse to see it, there really is enjoyment/entertainment value from site-specific management and watching the effects.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

I feel for folks like you BSK, you have to make decisions knowing a good many people aren't going to be happy regardless of what management philosophy gets implemented. Choose A and the folks preferring B are going to be your largest critics, and visa versa if B is implemented. Try and compromise and you get criticized from both camps, we're a passionate lot, us deer hunters, lol. 

_*If we manage the deer herds just for those that want to see deer, are we leaving out those hunters interested in producing more natural and healthy herds?*_

I'm one who believes all of us are managers of deer, also. I don't believe I need to wait for laws for me to implement my 'idea' of management. Like many QDM folks, I use discretion with my trigger finger. I don't have an issue with taking does where it's prudent to take does and we encourage everyone in our camp to get doe permits if filling the freezer is a big priority. I don't think we'd need to have the AR debate if people just followed their heart and implemented what they feel is correct, especially if 2/3 espouse to wanting AR. Why wait for the DNR, we can practice AR without laws.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Sib said:


> I'm one who believes all of us are managers of deer, also. I don't believe I need to wait for laws for me to implement my 'idea' of management. Like many QDM folks, I use discretion with my trigger finger. I don't have an issue with taking does where it's prudent to take does and we encourage everyone in our camp to get doe permits if filling the freezer is a big priority. I don't think we'd need to have the AR debate if people just followed their heart and implemented what they feel is correct, especially if 2/3 espouse to wanting AR. Why wait for the DNR, we can practice AR without laws.



Well said Sib! 

Throw a little deer management education into the deer management equation; and soon more hunters will be on board voluntarily. Hopefully.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Mr. Sib,
Ya said some good stuff up there in those two posts.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> The only guys I've ever heard refer to "trophy does" are hardcore QDMers.
> 
> Swampbuck, you bring up an interesting point; if we were to manage such that mortality from hunting and other factors (winter kill, etc.) were similar to that which the species is born with (roughly 50:50 males/females), that should get us to a more balanced sex ratio. The thing that has been screwing with "mother nature"(to use your words), has been Traditional Deer Management, with the exagerated emphasis on the harvest of bucks(usually around 65% of the harvest in Michigan).
> 
> From where I sit, Traditional Deer Management is a more "intensive" form of management than is QDM.


 I agree traditional management has really screwed things up, but I also dont believe that qdm as I understand it is the answer either. I believe that every hunter should have the right to shoot what they see fit weather that be a doe,spike or booner. the majority of public land hunters will not even see a "trophy" rack in season,but we should not begrudge them the right to take home some venison.because thats what it is really about MEAT not horns.
I contend that the best management is NO MANAGEMENT. with the amount of deer in this state there is no group or agency physically able to manage the deer heard. that has already been demonstrated. the best answer is to adjust the harvest to match the natural mortality and let nature take its course, because it will anyways. that is the only management that I would agree with on public land.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

swampbuck said:


> I contend that the best management is NO MANAGEMENT.
> 
> 
> with the amount of deer in this state there is no group or agency physically able to manage the deer heard. that has already been demonstrated.
> ...


How can you 'adjust the harvest' without management? :yikes: 

It's all management - from the length of the seasons - to the types of tags you can buy - including the AR's currently in effect.

Remove it all???? NO management??? Everyone shooting anything they want, whenever they want???

Do you really mean NO MANAGEMENT?

ferg....
:SHOCKED:


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"Only after they've been practicing it for awhile does the enjoyment of simply managing and seeing herd health improve become part of the "enjoyment" equation. And although some QDM-haters refuse to see it, there really is enjoyment/entertainment value from site-specific management and watching the effects."

BSK, to echo that statement for me personally if you gave me a choice...hunt on my property, or manage it only...I'd give up the hunting on the property. Shoot, I go to WI and PA for my quality hunting anyways.


----------



## trailsend (Feb 12, 2005)

NorthJeff said:


> "Only after they've been practicing it for awhile does the enjoyment of simply managing and seeing herd health improve become part of the "enjoyment" equation. And although some QDM-haters refuse to see it, there really is enjoyment/entertainment value from site-specific management and watching the effects."
> 
> BSK, to echo that statement for me personally if you gave me a choice...hunt on my property, or manage it only...I'd give up the hunting on the property. Shoot, I go to WI and PA for my quality hunting anyways.[/QUOTE
> 
> If given a choice after applying qdm to your land you would still rather hunt in another state . man you lost me there.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Ferg said:


> How can you 'adjust the harvest' without management? :yikes:
> 
> It's all management - from the length of the seasons - to the types of tags you can buy - including the AR's currently in effect.
> 
> ...


 
I probably shouldnt have said no management.

in my previos post I stated that I would support a 1 buck/ 1 doe license to closely match the natural birth ratio.
as far as management beyond that I would support an extra harvest in cases of extreme overpopulation in limited areas or temporary closures if the population was extreamly low in a given area.
I do not believe that anyone or any organization can truly manage millions of deer in a area the size of michigan and I feel that every attempt that has been made has been a total failure (not including qdm on private parcels)
I guess I should have said extremely limited management. Let nature handle the rest
as far as seasons I would shorten bow season, have a short primative season and leave rifle season alone. it would only be 2 tags I would say 15 days for each (45 total)should be plenty of time to fill 2 tags, with a lot less stress on the deer


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

swampbuck said:


> I do not believe that anyone or any organization can truly manage millions of deer in a area the size of michigan and I feel that every attempt that has been made has been a total failure (not including qdm on private parcels)



I respectfully disagree with your outlook that all attempts at deer management in Michigan have been a total failure.

1) You're allowed to take no more than 2 bucks. (use to be four)
2) One buck must have at least 4 points on one side. (use to be no restriction)
3) Many areas are starting to increase their doe harvest. (use to be a mortal sin to shoot a doe)
4) Many other areas and hunters are voluntarily letting young bucks walk.
5) More Landowners today are aware of how crutial Habitat Management is compared to managing their forests for just board feet.

Even the State of Michigan today in some regards now have more constraints on the lumbering practices on state land, that benefit wildlife, compared to 20 years ago.

I think we're making progress, and the future is getting brighter!


----------



## treeman (Mar 18, 2002)

I hunt state land. I purchase a combination license and a doe permit. This allows me to shoot the first mature deer that comes along. I do this to put meat in the freezer.
I have been hunting deer for the past 9 years and have shot an equal number of does and bucks with varying size antlers.
I have never shot a low quality deer or had a low quality hunting experience. All of the deer were healthy and strong. The meat was flavorful and tender.
Every one of these deer were a trophy to me. 
I did not check their genes to determine what they might have looked like in 5 or 6 years. 
It seems to me that carrying capacity is carrying capacity. It doesn't matter whether the deer doing the eating has big antlers or not.
Let the wildlife biologists and not the politicians or the armchair quarterbacks manage the deer herd.
I won't get on this forum and tell the proponents of QDM that they should think like me nor should they tell me I should think like them.
In my opinion this is just another divisive issue which can potentially detract from hunting in general. 
I try not to put restrictions on other people and don't want them to force restrictions on me. If you place enough restictions on me to quit hunting deer, then thats one less persons dollars and voice against the anti-hunters.
Thats all folks.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

It's hard to believe this thread is still going strong after 2 years!

Most threads get locked within a couple of days! :lol:


----------



## Guest (Mar 31, 2005)

I believe that both Ferg and Letmgro are correct in their view of current deer mangement in Michigan. 

When there is a 50% death rate of fawns at birth in the northern Up and further complicated by another 50% death rate of these fawns the following winter, it can only mean that someone is doing nothing to improve this. Yes, it can be improved, we have the technology. It is appaling to need two adult does to recruit a single fawn. Another reason to not take adult does in the northern UP.

Yes, we are experiencing an improvement in our deer herd in several ways and in certain areas. Example the average total of yearling bucks present in the total deer harvest is improving. It was just recently around 78% for the entire state, now it is below 70%. Certainly a move in the right direction, except it is driven by voluntary acts of hunters, public land and private land. Nothing done by the MDNR has influenced this change. It is YOU, hunters, the Ultimate deer manager, that are getting the message.


----------



## dodge7 (Jan 18, 2005)

I personally hunt public land almost exclusively. Dont think that public land is a bad place to hunt. See a lot of deer, always harvest one. been skunked once in last 11 years. Always take mature bucks. Never have taken a doe. But I hunt all season and pass on smaller deer to make season last longer. If I have 90 days to hunt, am not going to fill liscences early. I figure I have October November and December to hunt so I can afford to be picky. I am defiently against food plots and supplimental feeding practices in any way. What god put there is what belongs there, an eco-system is a delicate situation that should not be tampered with in any way. The supplimental planting of aggressive and overpowering plants is something I feel is not needed. The need to alter soil with additives and fertilizers, to fuel ones ego should be illeagle. Hunt them harder,and become proffecent, dont try to grow them bigger just make hunting easier or more productive. My idea of Q>D>M> is our 240 acre farm in southern Michigan that is off limits to all hunting. Hasn't been farmed or lagally hunted(a couple of teenage exceptions) for 15 years.No additives or human interference, just nature taking care of nature.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

BSK said:


> *I think we should be looking at what I would call natural deer management.*
> 
> Swampbuck,
> 
> I apologize in advance if I'm missing the point of your post, but QDM is exactly that--an attempt to return deer herd dynamics to a more natural structure.


Since this was posted by a wildlife professional. I thought it was worth repeating. QDM is good for the deer and for the habitat. If you want a management plan that is best for the deer, i.e. a natural deer herd. That plan is QDM.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

trailsend said:


> NorthJeff said:
> 
> 
> > "Only after they've been practicing it for awhile does the enjoyment of simply managing and seeing herd health improve become part of the "enjoyment" equation. And although some QDM-haters refuse to see it, there really is enjoyment/entertainment value from site-specific management and watching the effects."
> ...


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Trailsend,

First off, I am very passionate about two things when it comes to whitetail:

1. Management

2. Hunting

Both are pretty equal and to me have their time and place throughout the year. Now it's very difficult to intensely manage for whitetails on my lease in WI or on the public land in PA, but on my own property it gives me year round enjoyment. Planting, cutting, fertalizing, photos, scouting, hiking, observation, tractor work, all while enjoying the property with the family including chasing rabbits with the beagles and kids for 4 months and numerous family ATV rides and walks. Literally the management end of my enjoyment is a very full 9 months of the year.

Hunting. I love the 1:1 pursuit of a mature buck and have been exposed to quality hunting areas on basically self-guided hunts in many states, including KY, IN, WI, and PA. You can only hunt so many times on one property without burning it out for mature bucks so it's really not appropriate to hunt on my own property more than 3-4 times a week anyways, even by myself. On our 234 acre lease in WI we have 16 stands and we are greatly pushing the limits on a 4 day weekend, let alone our week long rut hunt. On my property I hunt maybe 40 times over a 3 month period, but really, I could be just as happy guiding my dad during gun season, or an occasional friend, or even not at all if I had to make a choice. This year I guided a 12 year old to his first buck while his dad and I sat together and watched during the youth hunt, and had another young hunter take his first deer on the property.

Really though, when it comes down to it, my own property gives me 9 months of great family enjoyment, not including hunting season, and there are too many extreme quality areas of the country to hunt in, if you have the opportunity.....other than the U.P. of MI. 

It's not about the kill, it's about enjoying and practicing your craft at the highest level you can, whether it be managing on your own property or hunting bucks of dreams more readily available in many, many other areas of the country. Not saying that I don't enjoy hunting on my own land, but I can greatly appreciate hunting in other areas of the country where different attitudes and management styles are readily embraced to command a higher level of opportunity and quality in the hunt than the current traditional deer management of the herd in the U.P. allows for.

Look at it this way too, if I had to choose to hunt in MI at all, or hunt out of state....I'd choose out of state whether I owned property or not. The grass is indeed greener on the other side of the fence and once you've tasted it you then realize and expect the differances. I firmly believe sometimes many who are opposed to change really have no idea how much better they could have it. People look at hunting vidoes or shows, compare it to their favorite public land in MI, and think, "all those hunting shows are behind a fence". Well, I live my own private hunting show every year and it's not behind a fence, or even guided for that matter. We have just become complacent with mediocrity for so many years that it is ingrained into our hunting culture.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Big T


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

NJ-the above is what you can afford...period! 

If you think for a minute the majortiy of hunters could afford to do what you do out-of-state(and I'm not saying you did) and than turn around and somehow compare it to MI hunting, your misleading people. 

Your WI hunt costs you what??-lease, travel and vacation time???

I too can find you a lease in MI that has everything you experience on your WI lease--but because you lease this very fertile/private land in WI-you somehow treat WI hunting as if its rules/reg are different than MI, that all the hunters are different and all practice AR/QDM, which is again misleading.
You flat out PAY for your hunt, you pay to hunt this fertile property...you think every WI hunter somehow has the same experience you do because they hunt in WI.?? 

"""""I firmly believe sometimes many who are opposed to change really have no idea how much better they could have it""""" Really? What is WI doing that MI is not?? Change??-like PA is experiencing???

"""People look at hunting vidoes or shows, compare it to their favorite public land in MI, and think, "all those hunting shows are behind a fence". Well, I live my own private hunting show..."""" YOU LEASE THE PRIVATE LAND IN WI....you are not hunting public land in WI. Lots and lots of hunters in MI experience the same thing you do in WI.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

beer and nuts said:


> I too can find you a lease in MI that has everything you experience on your WI lease
> 
> Lots and lots of hunters in MI experience the same thing you do in WI.


Assuming we are talking about free-ranging deer, I seriously doubt both of these remarks. One of the our DNR's most esteemed biologists, whose specialty happens to be deer(unlike most of their field biologists), volunteered to me that the vicinity of my farm has as good, if not the most superior, habitat in the entire state of Michigan for growing large, healthy whitetails - and he is quite familiar with this area. Having hunted there on managed ground for the last 10 seasons, I can tell you that the hunting experience in my part of Hillsdale County in no way compares to what NorthJeff has described on his Wisconsin lease. The age structure amongst bucks, the doe:buck ratio, competition amongst multiple mature bucks, etc. which he described are entirely alien to anything that I've observed here in Michigan.




beer and nuts said:


> IWhat is WI doing that MI is not?? Change??-like PA is experiencing???


Big factor is that WI has a one week long gun season, which begins after the peak of the rut.

B&N, are you trying to paint your own picture of PA deer hunting? From what I understand, they'd have a riot on their hands if they went back to the old way of doing business.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Despite my recent complaints about unlimited permits in PA...I still have yet to have as quality of a hunt on MI public land compared to PA....just isn't happening and I've hunted MI public land in lower MI and several places in the U.P.-in total at least 9 opening days of rifle that I can think of. As I said, different attitudes and management style and you can even throw in traditions and methods. I know people around here that spend more on just bait than I do on MY ENTIRE TRIP TO PA to hunt on public land if you really want to have a financial discussion.

As far as WI we just don't have the quality overall here in MI and as numerous when comparing state to state. It helps that their gun hunt is after the rut as well, in fact, I've killed 3X more bucks in PA in the last 4 years in 1/4 the hunting time than in WI. 

At the same time, I've never known of someone from out of state to actually come to MI to lease land and hunt. I'm sure some do, but I bet we export a whole lot more hunters to just one of the surrounding several states in the region than we import from all those states combined. Simply, we are used to mediocrity, it continues, and it's now a part of our culture. All you have to do is visit another state and leave MI one time to see that. If you never leave, you never know.


----------



## BDL (Dec 17, 2004)

Just look in the CBM records...where are most record bucks taken? Answer - southern tier counties of Michigan. Thus, if I had a lease in prime buck country, I too would increase my odds of taking nice bucks yearly. I'm betting its no different in other states. To compare the NW lower to southern Michigan, is comparing apples to oranges. Winter range, winter severity and forage are the main factors in this difference of producing bucks of size. Thus, one cannot compare one single lease in prime buck country and apply that standard to an entire state.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

NorthJeff said:


> Simply, we are used to mediocrity, it continues, and it's now a part of our culture. All you have to do is visit another state and leave MI one time to see that. If you never leave, you never know.



I have never seen a statement on this forum, that in a nut-shell, sums up deer hunting in Michigan, as well as this.

The nail was hit smack-dab squarely on the head!


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

BDL said:


> To compare the NW lower to southern Michigan, is comparing apples to oranges. Winter range, winter severity and forage are the main factors in this difference of producing bucks of size. Thus, one cannot compare one single lease in prime buck country and apply that standard to an entire state.


If you show me a place that consistantly lets young bucks walk, no matter where it is in this world, I'll show you a place that will produce respectable bucks. They all may not be jaw-dropping monsters, but they will be respectable. No matter the climate, soil, hunting pressure, habitat, moon, stars, or what have you, age is, and always will be the number one ingredient to rack size. 

Dead bucks don't grow.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

BDL,

Actually, the pre-1980 CBM records will show more entries in the top 4 counties in the U.P. of MI than every lower MI county....COMBINED. However, since 1980 I don't believe ALL the U.P. counties combined equal just the top county below the bridge.

Ever wonder why that is? What one change in our hunting culture took place in the past 25 years? How can there be such a drastic differance? Is it because the weather has actually been lighter the past 25 years? What do people do different now with hunting than they did 25 years ago, especially in the U.P?

What has changed? There is an easy answer and it's contributed to a continuing downward spiral of mediocrity and continued complacency.

Have you hunted out of state?...just curious.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

BDL said:


> Just look in the CBM records...where are most record bucks taken? Answer - southern tier counties of Michigan. Thus, if I had a lease in prime buck country, I too would increase my odds of taking nice bucks yearly. I'm betting its no different in other states.


BDL, unless I'm misunderstanding your point, you would lose that bet. Probably half the counties in Wisconsin have more P&Y entries (sometimes _way_ more) than _any_ of the southern tier counties of Michigan.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

I have not read any scientific information that proves that there is any benefit to the deer if the ratio is 2 does to one buck or 10 does to one buck. Although it might almost seem intuitive that two does to each buck is best for the herd doesnt make it so. The most important aspect of deer management in my opinion is to keep the number of deer under the carrying capacity of the habitat.

It is more important from a hunters point of view to have more bucks because that is what most hunters want. Antler restrictions might achieve the goal of more mature bucks, but the jury is still out. The end result might be that less deer are killed overall causing the numbers of deer to exceed the carrying capacity. I am against antler restrictions because it gives a real advantage to the more skilled hunters, especially those who hunt through out the entire season.

The odds go way down for the guy who hunts only a few days a year to kill a buck if he has to count antler points which means more bucks for the serious hunters, especially those who dont believe all hunters are a management tool for the DNR but think it is the responsibility of every hunter to have an intimate understanding of the herd dynamics in the area that he hunts and shoot only those deer that those dynamics dictate.

I believe that many people want antler restrictions do so because they spend a great deal of time and energy managing their land growing big bucks and cant stand the idea that some rookie hunter might hunt and kill one of the big bucks they think belong to them. It matters little if the buck in question wanders off their land and is shot on public land. They believe the deer they grow belong to them and QDM is just a guise to hide that fact.

There are those who honestly believe that QDM will improve the hunting experience for all hunters if given a chance and even understand QDMs shortcomings.

If indeed 60% of deer hunters agree with QDM and practice QDM like many would like you to believe, that alone should have a dramatic impact on herd dynamics without mandatory antler restrictions. 

Then there is always talk about science and fact and how the non QDM forces misrepresent QDM. Overall I see more junk science, emotion ,acrimony and propaganda from the QDM guys than from all other forces combined. The proof of that is in this Whitetail Deer Management forum for all to see if you are so inclined. 

For example several times I have brought up the point that antler restrictions discriminate against the average hunter. Not once has this point been answered directly. It is either not acknowledged or the replies answer some dubious non related statement. 

In any event deer management is destined to change and I just hope the decisions are made by the professionals within the DNR.


----------



## Guest (Mar 31, 2005)

Hey FL;

You posted

B&N, are you trying to paint your own picture of PA deer hunting? From what I understand, they'd have a riot on their hands if they went back to the old way of doing business.

Normally I agree with your in depth and well thought out remarks, but this time i think that you are out of order.

The last survey in PA last year showed more than 85% approval from hunters to keep the present antler restrictions.

It wouldn't be a riot it would be a revolution if PA dropped the AR's. Look at New York. they are picking up on the Pa experience and expect at least one county to try the PA system. Thank you Dr. Gary Alt.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Splitshot said:


> Then there is always talk about science and fact and how the non QDM forces misrepresent QDM. Overall I see more junk science, emotion ,acrimony and propaganda from the QDM guys than from all other forces combined. The proof of that is in this Whitetail Deer Management forum for all to see if you are so inclined.
> 
> For example several times I have brought up the point that antler restrictions discriminate against the average hunter. Not once has this point been answered directly. It is either not acknowledged or the replies answer some dubious non related statement.
> .


I'll acknowledge this....It's your opinion AR's discriminate, as it is my opinion that mandatory AR's are a waste of time and energy. Both opinions are heard, but there really is no reason to debate that issue, because...they're just opinions.

Whether either one of us likes AR's or not, the fact remains that AR's are just a tool that works to help get bucks into the next age bracket, which "science" has proven to be a factor in the general health of the deer herd. Prove it doesn't by debating that issue if you want....

Now give me real examples of "QDM Junk Science"?


----------



## BDL (Dec 17, 2004)

NJ
I've hunted in Price County......not much different then the area around Laughing Whitefish Falls in the U.P.

FL
In terms of P & Y records, the boys I know in Wisconsin are very eager to record their bucks versus in Michigan, that attitude just isn't there. Many non-recorded P & Y bucks just are nailed to the wall in Michigan. I know our family hasn't recorded any bucks, when some would definetly qualify. I guess we're just a humble crew of hunters.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Likewise in WI...I've never entered my bucks


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Splitshot said:


> For example several times I have brought up the point that antler restrictions discriminate against the average hunter. Not once has this point been answered directly. It is either not acknowledged or the replies answer some dubious non related statement.


I'm not sure how to address this - because I'm not sure what your asking split, for instance, we have AR's now, already in place in Michigan. How are they discriminatory against the average hunter?

ferg....


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Our current 3" AR discriminates against the hunters that expect and demand at least an average quality in the buck age structure. At the same time, the recent AR proposal for the entire U.P. gathered support by almost a 2:1...so who's descriminating against who?


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Could you, or rather, would you please address how the whitetail is much different socially than the other harem type big game. I read in an earlier post about how there is no difference between having a 1:2 1:1 B/D ratio has having a 1:10 or higher as in harem types. 

And I simply don't know how to explain this inharent difference.

Selective AR's to increase buck numbers AND selective doe harvest to help equal the numbers IS in the best interest of the social health of whitetails.

Thanks

Ferg.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Rob,

You got it wrong, it is a waste of time to debate facts because by definition they are irrefutable. Opinions are almost always the reason for debate or discussion. It is opinions that get us thinking about a subject and hopefully the catalyst to figure out conclusions.

If antler restrictions make it more difficult to shoot a deer and less deer are killed in areas where there might already be too many deer for the habitat than getting deer to the next age bracket means very little if they cannot get enough nutrition. In that situation it very well might be a factor in the general health of the deer herd only for the worse.

From that point of view some might consider antler restrictions as junk science especially if ARs prove to be detrimental to the overall health of the deer herd.

Ferg,

It is simple. The guy who only hunts 3 or 4 days a year is less likely to set up close enough to where the deer travel and although in many instances he might see a deer and identify it as a buck, it is very likely he wont be able to count points and therefor have to pass on that buck.

Experienced hunters will have a better idea where deer travel and will set up better and most likely see a deer well before the average hunters sees it and therefor have more time to determine points. In addition seasoned hunters might see the deer and set up closer the next time and get a shot.

Seasoned hunters should have that advantage because they put in the time and deserve it, but 
antler restrictions in this case increase the advantage serious hunters have over the once a year guys. 

Most ethical hunters will not shoot a buck under antler restrictions unless they can be sure of their target. Not that they cant identify it as a nice buck but as a specific buck with a specific number of points. Because of this many legal bucks under antler restrictions will be passed because the hunter cant tell for sure. Again all of this works out better for the serious hunter.

In the end, it is hard enough for the guy that hunts only a few days a year to shoot any buck and antler restrictions make it even harder. It becomes even more difficult after opening day so the buck they passed the first day turns out to be no deer at all. The advantage is amplified even more for the serious hunter when you factor in new hunters and older guys whos eyesight might not be as sharp as it used to be.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Splitshot said:


> Rob,
> 
> You got it wrong, it is a waste of time to debate facts because by definition they are irrefutable. Opinions are almost always the reason for debate or discussion. It is opinions that get us thinking about a subject and hopefully the catalyst to figure out conclusions.


I'll agree with this, good point!



> If antler restrictions make it more difficult to shoot a deer and less deer are killed in areas where there might already be too many deer for the habitat than getting deer to the next age bracket means very little if they cannot get enough nutrition. In that situation it very well might be a factor in the general health of the deer herd only for the worse.


And this is why we strongly encourage doe harvest to help keep the herd within the carrying capacity of the habitat. You need to make room within your habitat for an increased number of bucks. 

No junk science there!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Remember, 11/19 DMU's in the U.P. were under DNR state goals between 5 and 50% entering the 2004 season....quite a few between 35 and 50%. So, no need to harvest does under and AR..or not.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

I understand - and that's a very good point - however, I would contend, and I tried to elude to this before, that the 11/15 - 11/30 hunter is at a distinct disadvantage in the first place - NJeff mentioned before - is it harder to see 3 pt side or determine if there is a 3" spike or not?

I see your point split, but I think that we must be careful about, for lack of a better term, 'dumbing down', our science as it pertains to the long term health of the resource for the benefit of the 11/15 - 11/30 hunters. ( Not that there is anything wrong with the 11/15 - 11/30 hunters, their money is green just like everyone elses) 

And please don't anyone take that the wrong way - but this is just like ANYTHING else in life, your are only going to get out of it, what you put into it.

ferg....


----------



## Dawg (Jan 17, 2003)

Public land hunting is such a broad cover. What it means in Oakland County is completely different than what it means in Marquette County. Here you have much higher hunter densities, and much lower deer densities. The public land on the map is little green specks and the private land up there becomes a white spot in a sea of green.

Couple that with the fact that southern areas have expansive areas of unhunted+unhuntable land among privately managed land with better habitat - whether agricultural or other you just don't have adequate hunter densities on private holdings. People keeping them safe I guess? I could sit on public land down here for a month straight and see 2-3 <100# deer. Unless you bait...different topic. I still assert that a public land 1.5 year old down here is every bit the 'trophy' quality that a 3.5 year old is most anywhere in the state. Mature does? Foggetaboutit. If I go to the only public land available within a reasonable drive and wait for a 3.5 year old deer, I'll likely be waiting more than 3.5 years. Now I'm not suggesting that this DMU is void of deer, quite the contrary - it is overpopulated. If the public land hunters don't manage then who? Would QDM fix the problems with this deer herd or exacerbate the problem? I've got my theory.

However, different area completeley different story.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> BDL,
> 
> Actually, the pre-1980 CBM records will show more entries in the top 4 counties in the U.P. of MI than every lower MI county....COMBINED. However, since 1980 I don't believe ALL the U.P. counties combined equal just the top county below the bridge.
> 
> ...


 
thats easy BAITING!!!!


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

So everyone can judge the success or failure of AR's in PA for themselves, here are the PGC harvest stats for 2.5+ buck. The first year of AR's was 2002. Note the increase in the 2.5+ buck harvest from 2001,even though none of those buck were saved by AR's. Also note that there was no increase in the 2.5 + harvest in the third year of AR's.

Statewide data from 1981 through 2003 showing the buck harvest, percentage of 2 ½ and older bucks harvested and the number of 2 ½ year old and older bucks harvested for each year.
Year-------buck harvest------% 2.5 plus years old---# of 2.5 year old buck harvested 
1981--------N/A------------------18.4------------------------N/A
1982--------122,264-------------20.3------------------------24,819
1983--------120,291-------------21.7------------------------26,103
1984--------135,388-------------22.8------------------------30,868
1985--------136,104-------------20.0------------------------27,221
1986--------150,363-------------21.2------------------------31,877
1987--------157,559-------------18.9------------------------29,779
1988--------163,113-------------19.0------------------------30,991
1989--------169,814-------------19.4------------------------32,944
1990--------170,099-------------17.9------------------------30,448
1991--------149,633-------------18.0------------------------26,934
1992--------163,195-------------18.5------------------------30,191
1993--------165,250-------------20.8------------------------34,372
1994--------157,030-------------17.5------------------------27,480
1995--------182,235-------------17.4------------------------31,709
1996--------153,432-------------16.2------------------------24,856
1997--------176,677-------------18.6------------------------32,862
1998--------181,449-------------19.4------------------------35,201
1999--------194,371-------------20.0------------------------38,874
2000--------203,221-------------18.3------------------------37,189
2001--------203,247-------------21.6------------------------43,901
2002--------165,416-------------31.8------------------------52,602
2003--------142,270-------------43.6------------------------62,030
2004--------124,000-------------50%------------------------62,000

The final bit of information you need to know is the total buck harvest before Ar's and the buck harvest after AR's.

2001--203K
2002--165K
2003--142k
2004--124K

The 2004 harvest was the lowest harvest since 1984. So while our buck harvest decreased by 79K ,our 2.5+ buck harvest increased by only 9.4K So it is clear that AR's did not double the number of 2.5 + buck, nor did it double the number of 8 pt. buck as predicted.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Happy Hunter said:


> 2000--------203,221-------------18.3------------------------37,189
> 2001--------203,247-------------21.6------------------------43,901
> 2002--------165,416-------------31.8------------------------52,602
> 2003--------142,270-------------43.6------------------------62,030
> ...


 
You're spinning yourself blind!

The 2004 buck harvest Sucked here in Michigan too, and hey guess what? 

We don't have mandatory AR's.

So much for your theory!


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Dawg said:


> Couple that with the fact that southern areas have expansive areas of unhunted+unhuntable land among privately managed land with better habitat - whether agricultural or other you just don't have adequate hunter densities on private holdings.


This is one of the most persistent myths in the world of Michigan deer, and has been identified as such in this forum. The fact is that southern lower Michigan receives more overall hunting pressure than both the northern lower and the U.P. _combined._ According to the DNR's 2003 Deer Harvest Survey Report (the most recent available), 52.5% of the total deer hunting effort applied that year was applied in the southern lower. 

It's true that there's plenty of unhuntable ground in the southern lower, owing to the greater density of human population. Still the idea that there are vast unhunted tracts of huntable land in the southern lower is simply untrue. The data says it gets pounded with hunting pressure more than any other region of the state.

Side note - moderators, we gotta keep this thread going --- this must be a record, a Deer Management Forum thread that persists with posts spanning a period in excess of two years, without getting closed!


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Ferg, 

Having been there many times, it is harder to count 3 points on a side than it is to determine if it is a legal buck by far. I dont think we should maintain the status quo, clearly something has to be done especially about the over abundance of deer. In some areas there might be far fewer deer than in the recent past, but at least in some instances I think it is because of lack of habitat.

Even though there might be some areas where there are too few deer, our overall efforts must be to get the herd in check with the available forage. It might be that we need to get the numbers well below the carrying capacity in order to give the habitat time to recover.

I dont want to dumb down the science at all. I think we need to take more sophisticated steps to manage our herd by factoring in our overall loss of habitat do to urban sprawl, the nutritional needs of the deer herd and the other animals that rely on the habitat as well. I actually think it is hunters who are a part of the problem and in a way the professionals at the DNR are not doing what they believe should be done because of the political pressure put on them.

Back in the fifties over 90% of the hunters thought that killing does was wrong but the DNR made decisions based on what they believed was the right for the deer. Of course there was very little political pressure put on the department in those years. We all know now they were right and the rest is history. 

At some point the DNR realized that there were too many deer and are now trying to do something about that but now that politicians are involved it is much more difficult for them to do what they think is right because they must consider the political ramifications involved and their own survival.

Your right of course about you get out what you put in to something and the real serious hunters still do. My point is that no one should make it easier to fulfill a goal by making it more difficult for the average guys who, young and old overall put many times more dollars in than all the QDM guys put together.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Splitshot said:


> My point is that no one should make it easier to fulfill a goal by making it more difficult for the average guys who, young and old overall put many times more dollars in than all the QDM guys put together.


Split,

I actually agree with darn near 100% of what you just stated...But, that last statement really makes me believe that you only think that QDM is about AR's, and AR's are the only thing that the QDMA focuses on, which is far from the actual case.

AR is a tool, a very small tool, in a very large deer management toolbox. Let it go....read up on QDM/QDMA and just maybe your outlook on the whole concept will be different, or you may find, that it's very similar to what you already understand regarding your knowledge of deer management.

There's no junk science; I swear!


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Rob,

Actually I am pretty much in agreement with the other tenants of QDM, but from what Ive read, the only way to achieve those goals is by implementing antler restrictions. The reason I am always given is Rod Clute will consider nothing else. Some have even agreed that shoot a doe first or your license allows you only one doe and you must apply for a buck permit until balance is achieved. might be a better way or than antler restrictions.

My point is if you believe it is better I think one should make a serious attempt to promote the best alternative before settling for the AR method. 

Outside the DNR I think the guy who has some great ideas is Bob at BBT. We have had several discussions on this issue and he has made me aware of some options I have never heard before. He is a very bright guy and because of all his study he is someone who should be listened to. I think he is open to antler restrictions but thinks there are several ideas that would work better.

My main issue is for the rookie hunters and I dont mean that in a derogatory sense. I fish more than most of you guys work on your land and hunt and I fight for the rights of the guy who fishes a couple of weekends a year who often gets the short end of the stick because some minority groups are organized and lobby for their own self interest without regard to the once in a while fishermen. Most often the average guy doesnt have a clue. 

In the end I think somehow these guys think they deserve special treatment and for some of the most asinine reasons you can imagine.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

*Here we go again with the numbers game* 

Ogre,
Let's talk about all of that stuff in another thread that you start. We'll keep on topic in this one.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Buck Bass,

I can understand your frustration and the reason you are getting sick of guys using the argument I set forth. That kind of frustration often afflicts some people especially when they can think of no reasonable answer. 

I wish you would please explain how you think you know what is best for Michigans deer population. Last time I looked, people who are actively involved in QDM represent less than 2% of the deer hunters in Michigan. While Im at it I want to correct your assumption that a person who is against antler restrictions is not necessarily against good deer management. If you have problems grasping that concept, please send me a PM and I will try and explain it to you.

I would also like to know the many other factors which are more important than the majority of Michigans 750,000 deer hunters that hunt only 3 or 4 days a year. Im just asking because you made the statement and I am sure there are many others here who are interested to know what those factors are. Please enlighten us!

FarmLegend,

I would agree with you comment about the use of the word elitist if it was used in the context as you framed it. I think the term was used because the writer showed little regard for the rights and or opinions of other hunters. In either case you are correct about it being a prerogative but I contend that in my latter example it was justified.

Ogre,

Your point is very valid about the meaning of the vote in the UP. I was surprised that the vote was that high and showed me that many people worked hard to promote QDM. While I think they should take some encouragement from the vote, the idea that this poll is representative of 60% of those who hunt the UP is a very very long stretch.

It looks like this thread is heading the way most threads in this forum tend to go. For a while I think there was some real communication going on but I see I am starting to get defensive. Not that I dont think Im justified, but in my opinion little more will be accomplished or agreed upon by continuing, so I think I will take a break for a while.


----------



## SR-Mechead (Jan 25, 2004)

Spiltshot don't take a break because you are backing a lot of hunters who agree with you about QDM. Myself included. You have made some very good points. Stay on the offense.


----------



## Randy Kidd (Apr 21, 2001)

BuckBass said:


> The fact that some will not like it should not block us from doing the right thing. That was my point. I said nothing about taking away anybody's rights. If you're implying that doing what is best for the resource as a whole is eliteist snobbery then I will take your name-calling as a compliment.
> 
> Brad


Who has decided it was the "right thing"? So you are saying again that You are right and I am wrong, Ok I am done here.


----------



## Guest (Apr 1, 2005)

Randy Kidd said:


> Who has decided it was the "right thing"? So you are saying again that You are right and I am wrong, Ok I am done here.


OK folks, take a deep breath. I am trying to keep this on topic of deer management on public lands. I think you once again need to re-read my posts. No where in this thread have I pushed a particular management strategy for public lands. All I am saying is that it is not a valid argument to say that a particular change should not occur because group "x" might not like it. Whether we are talking about deer management or anything else in life, there is always going to be some group opposed to any proposed change. Does that mean we never change anything.

I will repeat my main point one last time:

We must do what is best for the resource as a whole on public land (be it Trad. DM, QDM, TDM, status quo, ect.) even if it means offending some people. No matter what the management strategy is, there will always be opposition.


----------



## luv 2 bowhunt (Mar 27, 2005)

Just curious, what is the perfect deer number per square mile?
I have heard around 20 deer per square mile is the accepted number. 
Where I hunt on state land there is 50 hunters on one square mile, those 20 deer don't go very far in making for a quality hunt for that number of hunters.


----------



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

luv 2 bowhunt, that's because there on the 80, 120 or 240 acre parcel were habitat improvement is established, food plots and etc. This is why it is only voted on by landowners who know if you grow bigger bucks it gives them more incentive to keep them coming to there property, I mean if your a deer and want the best food where are you going to get it, overbrowsed public land I keep hearing about or food plots on a 40-80 acre parcel that taste like candy to a deer. Splitshot, I agree also 100% with all your posts, good job.


----------

