# Now, Now Children



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Children,
For whatever reason the QDM Forum is really becoming a pain in the butt to moderate and too many of you guys are the reason. Both sides of this issue, both new members and long time contributors to the site, are increasingly sinking into "tit for tat", "who do you think you are", "you can't do/say that to me", "I'll show you", "Your data is wrong/untrue/twisted/spun and my data is right/the truth/untwisted/unspun" sinkhole.

My goodness you are acting like elementary students. I won't dignify many of you by saying "junior high school students"

It seems the time is drawing near for many of you to take a step back, take several deep breaths, and relax. Maybe its time for many to stop posting in here for awhile or to close the QDM Forum for a time.

Grow up guys and leave your egos, supreme knowledge, or whatever it is that causes members on both sides of this issue to vent in ways that bring on a plunge into the abyss of rancorous discord.

We don't need the poison that is being spread in this forum.


----------



## drwink (Oct 15, 2003)

Somehow I found myself here and read this thread
I thought to myself, well said Whit1. Although I stay out of the QDM and the Political forums just for that reason as pushing, shoving and name calling are not my bag.
I will say I will be approching my 35th deer season this year, the last deer I took was in 97 and that has been by my own choice. I plow and plant my own food plots and try to improve my hunting and personal wildlife sanctuary wherever I can. 
If I visit this forum again It may be for entertainment puposes only.

I posted a thread for some of you in the Sound off section titled "TROLLERS"
enough said


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2004)

Sorry Whit;


I don't see it the same way you do. I think most so called QDMers are sensible in their posts and restrained in their reponse to the BAITING and that's what it is by the non-believers. 

I see a healthy exchange in this even though it appears at times to be contentuous. I pick up on the negative response with an open mind and have learned more than a few important items that they are concerned about. I hope all pick up on some of the proven truths by extensive reseach that's been posted here.

No, there is more good that we ALL recieve from this exchange than the opposite. The good that I refer to is knowing the view of others, however it is given. I believe that in time throughout the entire US there will be some form of mandatory QDM in the deer hunting rules. I feel all here know this and of course that is the rub to some. Let the truth be known.

Whit, I'm disappointed in your tolerance about the exchange of views in a subject that is naturally explosive.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## snakebit67 (Oct 18, 2003)

Whit, I have a question. I read all forums, I don't post in this one much because I am still on the fence on the whole qdm issue and I really don't have anything that I would say is factuall to add. I do however enjoy and respect the posts of what I seem to think are knowledgeable people, ie north jeff, Farmlegend, etc. (sorry if i missed some of you).. With that being said, When I see the forum name QDM, i assume (yes I used the word) that the forum was for people who practice qdm and share their Ideas, not a site of "yes there should be/no there shouldnt be" qdm. Posts of that nature seem to get the juices flowing. I hope my question made sense


Thanks

Snake


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

If people shot a doe first,
Refrained from thinking antlers make the hunt.
This world here in internetland would be better.
But.....that is not going to happen too soon and most people respect different views.
We are learning to live with each other here and that may take awhile.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

I want a group hug....but only with the Female members of this forum!


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

*"When I see the forum name QDM, i assume (yes I used the word) that the forum was for people who practice qdm and share their Ideas, not a site of "yes there should be/no there shouldnt be" qdm."*

Excellent point. This forum tends to deteriorate when those opposed to QDM come here and attack, bash or whatever you want to call it, QDM and the hunters who practice it. 

On the main forum page, the small print under the Quality Deer Management title says: _Deer managed for quality._ It doesn`t say, deer managed for quality and alternatives. 

If those who want to practice other forms of management would do so in the general deer hunting forum, we could discuss QDM here. Isn`t that what a QDM forum is for?


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

snakebit67 said:


> When I see the forum name QDM, i assume (yes I used the word) that the forum was for people who practice qdm and share their Ideas, not a site of "yes there should be/no there shouldnt be" qdm.
> Snake



Looking through the archives, you'll see a load of threads in this forum that began with sharing QDM ideas, then de-generated when the "baiters" showed up. When that happens, some of us just can't resist dishing it right back.

There's an old political philosophy, which I cannot recite, something along these lines: If someone is spreading misinformation about your issue, and you remain silent, a number of observers will conclude that the misinformation must have some merit. In other words, if you care about your issue, and someone who disagrees with you is clouding the waters with B.S., you MUST respond. Now, some of us tend to employ some "color" to our posts from time to time, and they may read more mean-spirited than the author intended - that's just the nature of this type of venue. As long as we don't get nasty to others, I see no crisis. We're big boys (and girls) here.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Sorry Whit

You're right. The theme of this forum is *deer managed for quality*, I'll have to keep all my comments within that context. Very good suggestion.

I guess I could liken it to posting on the Traditional Bowhunters Forum my views on compound bows or crossbows.

*Michigan Traditional Bowhunters* 
_Michigan Traditional Bowhunters enjoy shooting recurves and longbows and love to watch the flight of a well shot arrow. www.mitraditionalbow.com_


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

farmlegend said:


> There's an old political philosophy, which I cannot recite, something along these lines: If someone is spreading misinformation about your issue, and you remain silent, a number of observers will conclude that the misinformation must have some merit. In other words, if you care about your issue, and someone who disagrees with you is clouding the waters with B.S., you MUST respond. Now, some of us tend to employ some "color" to our posts from time to time, and they may read more mean-spirited than the author intended - that's just the nature of this type of venue. As long as we don't get nasty to others, I see no crisis. We're big boys (and girls) here.



How much better could it be said?


----------



## NATTY BUMPO (May 12, 2001)

Whit1,

I appreciate very much the good work you and the other Mods do in keeping these Forums in line. To me, the general tone here ( with a few exceptions) is much better than in the "old days" (ie before this Forum was closed for a time). I think the exceptions need to be handled on a case by case basis.

But I must agree with farmlegend and Ed Spin on this one. There's a tremendous amount of missinformation out there about QDM. Hopefully, some folks can become better informed in places like this thru civil discourse.

Natty B.


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

snakebit67 said:


> When I see the forum name QDM, i assume (yes I used the word) that the forum was for people who practice qdm and share their Ideas, not a site of "yes there should be/no there shouldnt be" qdm.


Disagree with this one. Sure, its a great place to learn about QDM, but when people start pushing to have it (or part of it) applied to state land, thats when it becomes a "yes there should be/no there shouldn't be". 

And thats the way it should be (like the political philosophy stated by farmlegend) 

Talk about improving your property and balancing the herd on your land and you'll get nothing but support and encouragement from everyone here. But talk about forcing it (through regulations like ARs) state-wide and you should expect some debate.


----------



## KrazyKletus (Feb 6, 2002)

Please don't close this forum. I enjoy coming here and learning about pros/cons and successes/failures of managing deer. I respect everyones opinion and knowledge base. This forum helps teach me new ideas I can implement on my property to manage for a healthier deer herd. I don't participate in the debates, because quite honestly I don't practice QDM everyday. I do however work to improve wildlife habitat on my property. I do enjoy eating venison, and shoot 1-2 deer per year (what I can eat). I have taken many does and passed on smaller bucks. I also have shot smaller bucks. For the past several years I havent hunted over a bait pile but sometimes hunt near attractant type food plots (this is my choice). I pick up fresh killed roadkill deer to make into sausage. I enjoy my time spent in the woods regardless of whether or not I shoot a deer. I don't need to shoot a trophy buck every year to feel like a deer hunter. I don't agree with laws forcing people to manage their property how "others" think it should be managed. I believe that every kid/senior citizen should have the opportunity to shoot the first deer they are comfortable with regardless of sex/size. (without being chastized). I'm very concerned about TB, CWD, and the political driven $$ decision making within Michigan. I don't believe in the MDNR's current "projection" method of counting deer and deer harvests. These are my Beliefs and Opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions. That's what makes this country a great one. Please keep this forum open for the learning that all of us "silent visitors" come here for.


----------



## skulldugary (Apr 12, 2003)

I came to the QDM section last fall to use it as a learning tool.After several weeks of my way or the highway or don't let the door hit you in the rear on your way out attitude,I bailed out and never returned until I seen the Children,Children caption and knew right away what it was about.
I posted my disappoinment and recieved 9 pm's from other members that felt the same way.We came here to try to under stand the finer points of food plots,passing on young bucks,taking more doe's from people who practice it,but sorry to say thats not what we got.I'll close by saying this.....
If you want more hunters to practice QDM......Remember this...

"
YOU GET MORE FLIES WITH HONEY THAN YOU DO WITH VINEGAR"


Whit1..no reason to close the QDM section...don't punish the many because of the few.....


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

well, things get heated sometimes, and that's going to happen. for the most part, i think people have civil discourse.. i'm not advocating censorship, but there have been a couple of members that i can't handle, and therefore use the 'ignore list'. i'm not censoring differing opinions - there are many intelligent posters that oppose qdm for one reason or another, and although i am pro-qdm, there are many valid concerns, and i welcome those discussions. but those few posters that i've had to ignore, well - i simply disagree with the context in which they post, not always the content. it has been great, i don't get nearly as heated.

qdm is a great management tool, i think we should strive to find ways to implement it. but thanks to the discussions by some effective, non-qdm people (not necessarily anti-qdm) i've come to the realization that there are legitimate hurdles, and there is not a simple answer - there's no 'AR' switch to flip that will solve all the problems. lets keep talking about it so we can improve the herd, and in turn, maintain and improve people's experiences in the field.


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Sorry Dad!!! :gaga:


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Neal,
LOL! Dad! Dad? Oh my!!........LOL!


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

A QDM Forum is definitely a double-edged sword. When a state is not considering statewide, region-wide or Unit/County-wide QDM-inspired regulations, the discussions stay civil and primarily involve those who are interested in or already practicing QDM. These discussions can be very helpful for trading "experiences" and "how to" information.

However, as soon as QDM discussions jump the boundary between voluntary practices on private land to mandatory practices within a given area, the discussions turn ugly. As Brian S pointed out, those NOT in favor of mandatory restrictions must be able to and certainly will voice their displeasure with the idea in the QDM Forum. _Usually_ these discussions can be kept civil, but there will invariably those who will stop at no level of data twisting to lambast QDM regulations. The same is probably true from the other side (pro-QDM advocates).

Too bad. In other Deer Hunting Forums I visit, the QDM sections can be the best areas of the whole forum for the exchange of good management and hunting information.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

I'll agree with Brian S. here """""Talk about improving your property and balancing the herd on your land and you'll get nothing but support and encouragement from everyone here. But talk about forcing it (through regulations like ARs) state-wide and you should expect some debate."""""

Very well said!


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

The debate is not the issue. Thats what we are about is the exchange of information and ideas. The issue is the manner in whicth the ensuing debate is carried out. It is not that hard to debate without things dissolving into a quagmire of personal attacks and peeing matches.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

Many of the topics just scream for confrontation.

A poll on Mandatory AR's? Come on..... DUH


----------



## Oct.1 (Jun 29, 2000)

I am certain that even though this forum wishes to be only an information center for QDM there will always be those that disagree with QDM. Consequently they will voice their opinion against it for the sole reason of protection of their beliefs. If it is to be information about QDM only, it shouldnt be open to everyone.
Example: and really a far out left-handed one,

If Steve were to open an Animal Rights forum with the intent of only animal rights information being discussed, I am certain many, if not all of you would voice you disagreement within that forum very strongly.
Well quite frankly there are some hunters that dont agree with QDM. As long as the personal insults stay out and the pro and con can be discussed in a civil manor, so-be-it.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

ESOX said:


> The debate is not the issue. Thats what we are about is the exchange of information and ideas. The issue is the manner in whicth the ensuing debate is carried out. It is not that hard to debate without things dissolving into a quagmire of personal attacks and peeing matches.


None of the moderators, administrators, and owner want to stifle debate. It is the roads down which the debate sometimes lead that is the problem. Eighteen months ago this forum was the bane of the site. The slamming that we see in here now is mild in comparison. However, that doesn't give anyone a license to hit back just "a little bit". We are adults here (for the most part) and, while we may agree with or even like what someone says, it is a part of being an adult that requires us to treat each other with respect.

Pro-QDM or against, many of you who are regulars in this forum don't see what other members say about it. The moderators, administrators and Steve H. do. In PMs, emails, and at outings guys make comments about this forum and I can tell you, they are not complimentary. They avoid the QDM Forum like the plague just to stay out of the quagmire of mudslinging that sometimes arises, tepid as it has been. That very fact severely limits the debate/deiscussion of the issue and THAT is a huge problem.

Paul, in his post as quoted above, says it very well. He is wise.


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

All I have to say is that IT ISNT ONE SIDED!!!!!!!

Both are just as at fault. We cant point fingers here guys, cause there are people on both fences.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

QDM is an emotional issue, especially when it becomes something other than voluntary. The verbal assaults and mud slinging are prime examples of what the involuntary aspect of QDM can do us group of MI deer hunters.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Unfortunately a lot of the negative posts have nothing to do with deer management, and I suspect that a fair number have little or no interest in deer management but are concerned their hunting may be affected. Having said that, I don't have the silver bullet / answer but perhaps we could just call the forum "deer management".


----------



## suppa roosta (Oct 3, 2003)

DOWN IN FRONT!!!!!

uhhhh,,,pass the popcorn please,,,,,,  

ummmmnn,,, fhanks


----------



## reddog719 (Dec 22, 2002)

As long as the QDM atays on the QDM page I stay out of it (At least I do now I was a little confused when I started posting about things)That is for QDM people to discuss things to do or try,At least that is what I get out of the title of the page  I personally dont adhear to what they believe so I stay out of there page  So should anybody that doesent believe in the practice.


----------



## Eastern Yooper (Nov 12, 2000)

You're not alone, Reddog......

Even some of us that _do_ believe in and practice QDM stay off this page; it has a well-deserved reputation all of its own.

To me, this page is like a church in that it allows the members to "preach" and pass along their "gospel" to one another (and anyone else that cares to listen). Hence its easy for most of us to avoid the ruckus that goes on here. 

Only when it starts to spill onto the other pages do I have a problem, kinda like when a _Jehova's Witness_ comes knocking on my door.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

I love the guys that "abhore" this forum, yet seem to know about every "arguement"/ disagreement. If this forum truly bothers you that much, you wouldn't have a clue as to what goes on in this forum. So obvioulsy it's not as bad as some you like others to believe it is.

Tons of info on this board mixed with a lot of emotion, nothing wrong with that at all, even the most derogitory of debates always lead to increased knowledge for people on both sides of this issue.

We are all big boys here and if your feathers get ruffled over an internet comment, your issues lie much deeper than with QDM.

Another thing that grows tiresome is the comment that QDM is ammo for the anti's or some other garbage to that effect. QDM and deer management are devisive by design. There is always more that one way to skin a cat, and everybody thinks their way is the best, some methods are much better than others  . Regardless of the management style your most comfortable with, to think that another hunter would jeopardize every hunter's right to hunt over an opposing view point is rediculous. It's simply a technique to skirt around factual issues.

We still kill animals no matter which way you slice it.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

I have to say Swamp Ghost, that I did get quite a bang out of your comments.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

I think part of the problem is there is no way to tell someone else that they are wrong without ruffling some feathers. If there is some established, preferred message board etiquette ,for doing that, then a moderator should post it.

However, there are cases where one party is right and the other party is wrong. For example, the data Ed Spinozzola compiled for DMU was labeled as " Biological harvest data" when in fact it was just the raw data collected at check stations. For 2002 , Ed reported the total anterless harvest for DMU 118 as 109 deer, but Mich. DNR reported the total anterless harvest of 1346. Ed said the B/D harvest ratio was 1 :1.7, but MI DNR reported 1275 buck(including BB) were harvested along with 1285 females. Therefore, there would have been little change in the B/D ratio,contrary to Ed's claims.

The question then becomes whether the information was intentionally misleading in order to promote QDM or whether it was just an honest mistake.
That is where alot of the controversy originates.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

This issue by nature is controversial, much like a discussion about abortion or politics is. What I find troublesome is that some people who post here seem to have the "my way or the highway" attitude, and aren't willing to admit that there are many sides to this discussion. This issue, more than most of the other pages on this forum, has no clear-cut right or wrong answer. If all we are trying to discuss is the pro-QDM side of things, then I suggest the name of the page be changed to that. Many times I find myself playing the devils advocate just for the sake of discussion. Some find this approach confrontational, but I simply think it's important to hear both sides of a discussion. I have admitted many times to being on the fence on the whole QDM issue, but by viewing the QDM posts over the past year or so I have been educated in many ways about deer herd health, population studies, sex ratios, etc. As Martha would say...._that's a good thing_. :evil: I have also been involved in some of the controversial discussions, and have at times had to step back and take a breath. Just like in any healthy debate, the particpants need to take responsibility for their words and actions. We're all adults, and there's no need to resort to insults and name calling. I for one appreciate the healthy debate that goes on, and I've recently taken personal responsibility for not fueling the fire of the nastiness that sometimes happens. I think carefully now before posting a response on this site, and I think we should all adopt this attitude. :chillin:


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2004)

Just Ducky;

Thanks for a thoughtful post. Yes, I agree there are several view points we should all respect. These opposing view points as you may observe centers around what the indivdual wants from their deer hunting experience. 

I have yet to hear from any naysayer what they think is the best thing to do for the deer. 

Why is that? Are they all that self centered in their quest to be satisfied in their deer hunting experience? I realize all of us has have at least a bit of selfishness in us but there must be more to it than just that or is there? Maybe that is all there is to it. 

If this is the case than the QDMers haven't gotten their message across, as Ozoga states "Let's not lose sight of the fact that deer hunting is a wildlife management tool -- not an end in itself. Deer shouldn't be managed soley for recreational and economic benifits. Instead we should be managing deer as they evolved". 

The above message I believe is only preached by the advocates of natural deer management (AKA QDM). They may need to be more effective and smoother in their delivery of their message, but let,s not forget that they are the ones that are protecting young bucks, (not shooting every buck they see) taking enough does (not saying you shoot a doe you are taking three deer) and pushing for good habitat management. 

We all have much to learn about sound deer mangement and this forum is an excellant source of info, as Just Ducky paraphrases Martha "That's a good thing". So, lets learn from each other, (what's the right thing to do for our deer)?

Thanks again Just Ducky.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

Ed Spin04 said:


> Are they all that self centered in their quest to be satisfied in their deer hunting experience? I realize all of us has have at least a bit of selfishness in us but there must be more to it than just that or is there? Maybe that is all there is to it.


Keep trolling Ed, it may take a while but maybe you'll get a bite. Slow day for ya?


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Now, Now Children


----------



## omega58 (Sep 3, 2003)

Brian S said:


> Keep trolling Ed, it may take a while but maybe you'll get a bite. Slow day for ya?




I think you read into it too much, but if not, you were the first to bite. . .wonder if Ed will practice catch and release and throw you back. :lol:


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

I have to laugh........even this thread isn't immune. :rant:  :gaga: .



:help: :help: :help: :SHOCKED:


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Brian S said:


> Keep trolling Ed, it may take a while but maybe you'll get a bite. Slow day for ya?


Here we go again...picking on a simple statement. In addition to stepping back and taking a breath now and then, we need to get thicker skins. Paranoia appears to be rampant on this page....


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

ducky, dude, you're killing me. 

Paranoia? Ya, right.  

I'll tell ya what, I'll take ya through this nice and easy.

Re-read Ed's first post in this thread.

Now read his last.

Do ya see a little unnecessary instigating going on? 

If not, don't worry about it.


----------

