# DMU 118 discontinued



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

trout said:


> I'm certain the powers in charge did this with the deer in mind.


I am certain, 100% put-my-life-on-it take-it-to-the-bank not-a-shred-of-doubt certain, that the welfare of the deer was NOT at the forefront for the reasons for discontinuing the demonstration. My guess is the well-being of the deer factored into the equation somewhere in the milieu of the NRC's decision-making process, but it wasn't #1. 

I don't know the entire story, but am familiar enough with it to know that there's some real ugliness here.

Someday, we will look back upon this little chapter in Michigan's deer management history with humor and amazement. Not nearly as tragic as the Neville Chamberlain saga which Bob alluded to, but similarly preposterous.


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

Hey I like wackin Does.
So if a few more fellas did just that and stopped shootin
4-6 points, just to have shot a deer ( exclude the first timers and senoirs here)
Alot of hunters would be happier.
The Earth flat?
Come on I know it's pear shaped.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

If that were true why didn't the support for AR in DMU118, increase after 4 years? The results of the survey showed that the support for AR did not increase,which tells me that thew majority of the hunters were not impressed by the results of 4 years of AR.


----------



## Setter (Mar 20, 2001)

The NRC is seems to be more interested in pacifying the uneducated than using good game management principles based on science and data to make their decisions. They don't seem to understand that their position is to lead based on information, not react to the loudest voices who want everything their way. The high deer populations in the 90's have a lot of people thinking that they are entitled to get a buck every year and do not understand what proper deer herd management is.


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2004)

DMU 118 facts

The MDNR Wildlife Division made the public statement at the April NRC meeting that the bio harvest data from DMU 118 showed after five years of an antler restriction of three points on one side minimum a significant improvement in all major areas of harvest data. It showed a reduction of button bucks to be 12% of the total antlerless harvest versus 22% state wide, it showed an increase of 84% in the doe harvest, an increase of 24% in the total mature buck harvest, as many 3-1/2 year old and older bucks being taken as 2-1/2 year olds and a drop in the harvest of yearling bucks from 78% to 46% avg. of the total bucks harvested the last four years. They did say some data was confounding.

In 2002 after the fourth year and following a survey sent out that showed 59% support (requirement is 66%), the MDNR made the public statement that the data was inconclusive and/or insufficient. They maintained that position even after they received the five-year harvest data. I asked them in late February of this year what they thought of the five-year data. The answer was &#8220;It is not useful&#8221;. That fourth year data is no different than the five- year data, so, why the quick turnaround in less than two months. I think I found the reason why.

DMU 118 in Clare County has a history (1990-1995) of taking few does (one doe per three mature bucks), around 6-7 small bucks per square mile with no more than 3 does per square mile and around 100-120 deer per square mile. The seven bucks taken per square mile is considered fair, while the 100-120 deer density is dismal.

Are you ready for the new facts for DMU 118 as known (not publicly yet) by the DNR? DMU 118 has gone from mediocrity to being the number one DMU in Michigan in total deer harvested as well as being number one in total mature bucks harvested per square mile. Yes! Number one in the entire state of Michigan. 

I think what turned the position of the DNR from inconclusive to a significant improvement with no negative impact is that they thought that eventually some respected MDNR deer research biologist with no agenda to maintain the status quo will determine what the data really means and along with DMU 118 being the state leader in does and bucks taken per square mile, will challenge the MDNR&#8217;s position. This would make it mighty difficult for MDNR officials to continue to say that the data is inconclusive.

There must be something wrong. How can you harvest more deer including bucks when you are pounding on the does yearly and protecting 50% of the yearling bucks? It is called scientific and sound deer management, where if the conditions are favorable as John Ozoga called it (rich habitat) it is actually possible to harvest more with less. The simple answer is much increased fawn productivity. DMU 118 is in a transition zone where agriculture and woodlands with rich soil is about even in percentage. This is as good as it gets. Another important fact is the agriculture leans toward cattle production with much land in pasture (alfalfa). You get the picture.

Normally one will not see an increase in the mature buck harvest with an antler restriction in place. This is the confounding harvest data to the MDNR. If you have never experienced this I guess it might be confounding. In the future they will see more confounding harvest data.

Getting back to DMU 118 now being number one. The antlerless harvest per square mile is over 10, while the state leading mature buck harvest is 9.3 per square mile. This comes to 20 deer being harvested per square mile throughout DMU 118. There are DMU&#8217;s that have less than 20 deer total per square mile. Think about it, from mediocrity to being number one, state wide in five years but only after an antler restriction was put in place.

It is estimated that 50% of the bucks are now being harvested in 118 and around 30% of the does. This calculates to be around 60-70 deer per square mile now in DMU 118 come October first versus the historic 100-120 deer. Very few farmers are now complaining about their crop damage. Sure looks like a win, win situation to me. This can only be maintained by continuing the practice of pounding on those does and protecting the young bucks or we return to the days of extensive crop damage and harvesting fewer and smaller bucks. 

Oh, YES! I forgot to mention, the MDNR&#8217;s report to the NRC in April shows a significant increase in the antler size for all buck age classes. For those few persistent doubters they can contact the MDNR to verify the above data. and ask about their new position statement of significant improvement in the harvest data for DMU 118.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## Erik (Jan 17, 2000)

When I read the data for DMU 118 it is apparent to me that the harvest of 1.5 yr old bucks with antlers sporting more than three points on one side has increased. It should also be mentioned that the total buck harvest is STILL made up of nearly 50% 1.5 yr olds. And of those 1.5 yr olds the very best are the ones being harvested. 
I have not seen the data you speak of regarding the increased antler size of the male deer in unit 118. Could you please provide a link?



> Keep the fun in hunting!


It wasn't me that was trying to take it out!


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2004)

Erik:

Your're singing an old tune that has been addressed by the DMU 118 data and statement by the MDNR Wildlife Division, "There is a significant improvement in the bio harvest data in DMU 118". Your question should be directed to the DNR. Their data also shows a continuing improvement in the antler sizes in spite of targeting the better yearling bucks. 

Erik, if you are concerned about degrading our deer, due to targeting the better yearlings, why aren't you also concerned about degrading our deer using the present deer management system where we leave the very poorest yearling bucks that have spikes less than three inches to finish the breeding? If this dosen't bother you in that, the very poorest bucks are breeding, you need to look again at the real facts in our present day deer management system. We are degrading our deer using the present system in place, but very slowly.

By the way Erik, I'm concerned about degrading our deer and if the DMU 118 data showed a degradation in the antler size, I would be the first to recommed to kill the program. Yes, there was a slight chance for antler degradation with a 50 protection rate of the yearling bucks. We asked in 1999 for a four point on one side minimum rule for DMU 118, which would protect 85% of the yearlings. This antler rule would push the subject into the safe zone regarding antler degradation. It was the NRC's decision to use the three point rule. 

Another interesting point that few know of is that the NRC originally proposed a spike protection rule ,which would of protected only 20% of the yearlings. We told them "thanks, but no thanks, three points as an absolute minimum or nothing". So Erik we know the pitfalls, perhaps better than most in managing deer with suspect buck harvesting rules. 

Perhaps the best method is having a rule where spikes and three points are legal, then you cannot take a buck unless he has four points on one side minimum and/or a 15 inch outside spread. 

This simple rule addressess the mistaken spike taken for a doe, youth having the option and still addressess the biological needs of deer to maintain their health and passing on the better genes. 

Would this rule fit into your OK cloumn Erik?

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Ed, I read your last few posts and I thank you for YOUR personal opinion on why YOU think YOU found the reason why the MDNR made their decision. Its your personal opinion, nothing more.

"""""DMU 118 has gone from mediocrity to being the number one DMU in Michigan in total deer harvested as well as being number one in total mature bucks harvested per square mile. Yes! Number one in the entire state of Michigan.""""" Remember its per sq. mile(and how big is this DMU?) and with approx. 100 deer per sq. mile in this small DMU and with increase doe permits and forcing hunters to only take 3 point or more bucks, is this really surprising to you!?!?!? It isn't to me, if most people just think about it.

I guess I don;t get this last statement cause this is what Happy Hunter and others pointed out with the data and others had no answer and now Ed you actually agree and this is the first time I ever seen this from a QDMer, and I'm confused on why the change?!?? """""Normally one will not see an increase in the mature buck harvest with an antler restriction in place."""""""" ???????

And I also don't get what your trying to point out in this statement as well?? """""""This comes to 20 deer being harvested per square mile throughout DMU 118. There are DMUs that have less than 20 deer total per square mile.""""" So what? Some DMU can not support more than 20 deer per sq. mile.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"This is as good as it gets. Another important fact is the agriculture leans toward cattle production with much land in pasture (alfalfa). You get the picture."



I just love it when the QDM supporters flaunt their ignorance. No farmer in their right mind uses alfalfa fields as pasture. Alflafa is the primary hay crop and is used to carry the herd over during the winter. Pasture land is usually the poorest quality land on the farm that can't be used to produce a harvestable crop.

"DMU 118 in Clare County has a history (1990-1995) of taking few does (one doe per three mature bucks), around 6-7 small bucks per square mile with no more than 3 does per square mile and around 100-120 deer per square mile. The seven bucks taken per square mile is considered fair, while the 100-120 deer density is dismal."


If WMU ever reaches its goal of 29 PS DPSM the total sustainable harvest will be 5 males and 5 femakes PSM, if the recruitement rate is 50%. The buck harvest didn't decrease in DMU 118,when AR was implemented, because prior to AR the herd was being underharvested and a large number of 1.5 buck survived. That is supported by the data you provided.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Thanks for the facts Ed! MI sportsmen should thank you for the untiring amount of work and effort you have personally sacrificed to make MI a better place for both the hunter, and the hunted.

The 60%+ average approval of AR's and QDM test units is a testimony to the people of MI to be able to discern fact from fiction and an example of how the education process has been able to work. I think the more time we concentrate on the positive 60%+ overwhelming majority, the more we can be efficient at not only continually grow the QDMA at it's current rapid pace, but increasing that 60% approval as well. Up here in the U.P. our votes for the Rock area were 70% and 72%....

1st, what other MI management philosophy or practice has ever had that much support?

And 2nd, what other management philosophy or practice are being advocated that are against QDM?....none.

Keep up the great work ED! and again, the more we concentrate on the majority and continue to win their support, the more successful we will be in the end and raise the level of support.

Thank you Ed!


----------



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

North Jeff your reply's do nothing more than to divide hunters more now than they ever were, I understand your trying to be a recruiter for QDM, that is fine with me, but I think you do not give enough credit to all respected hunters about there views and opinions which I think is wrong.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Either YOU agree with ME or else YOU are the one who is dividing hunters against each other! Yawn.

I'll have to remember this tactic next time someone tries try to divide hunters by claiming the experts are all wrong and we have no idea how many deer there are in Michigan, or how many get taken by hunters. Or by being so divisive as to defend Traditional Deer Management. Or stirring the pot by insisting that there aren't enough deer in Michigan to make it worthwhile to hunt.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Should we give our whole hearted support and blind devotion to a severly understaffed government affiliate? 
To me it makes as much sense as voting for a party instead of a person.

The more I learn, the more I question.


----------



## MoneyMan11 (Jan 8, 2004)

Since I own property and hunting in 118, this personally affects me. I think that I'll have one more year of better than average hunting and hopefully during that time can convince the nearby landowners who have been far more successful the last couple years to continue the program. A lot of what has been done to benefit the deer may come to an end. While I love to tinker with food plots, they're expensive. Might as well let them eat the farmer's crops, he'll wish he'd supported QDM the following fall.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

I guess I don't get it, Moneyman, because it is not 'law' you will know quit what your doing(food plots)?? IF approx. 60% of land owners wanted it why would they not take it upon themselves to continue it???

"""A lot of what has been done to benefit the deer may come to an end.""""" Such as????


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

For anybody interested in getting an independent opinion of the success level of the DMU 118 demonstration, I strongly suggest that you contact the MDNR. Brent Rudolph, MDNR Wildlife Research Specialist, has all the data, including a slideshow, which answers the questions being raised on this thread. Brent's phone number is 517-373-9565 and his email is [email protected]


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"North Jeff your reply's do nothing more than to divide hunters more now than they ever were, I understand your trying to be a recruiter for QDM, that is fine with me, but I think you do not give enough credit to all respected hunters about there views and opinions which I think is wrong."

What the QDMA has been able to do, as evidenced as closely as in our great state of MI, is to provide and promote the ONLY scientifically proven management philosophy to the point that over 60% of both surveyed landowners and hunters approve, statewide! That is simply awesome. When at anytime in MI do you think we've had that many hunters "under one roof" to agree on any management philosophy?

John Ozoga started out a talk at a past QDMA meeting up here something to this effect..."there are 2 types of hunters in MI, those that want to be a part of the management process and give back to the resources, and those that just want to take or consume or take from the resources.....if you are part of the later group, you might as well leave the room now."

When I was in banking the President of the bank said it this way...."you could send every customer a new $20 bill in the mail, and you would still get complaints from those that said we should have given $50". Bottom line, you never will, and can't make everyone happy or agree. The more you spend concentrating on the negative 10%, the more the majority suffers. Same with this, we can spend all our efforts on "discussing" with the same negative guys, day after day, post after post, but no matter how much evidence and fact is put forth, there is a certain percentage that never will agree, period. That's just life.

"I understand your trying to be a recruiter for QDM"

NO, actually, I have been a subscriber to the QDM philosophy and practicer of it for at least 8 years now, and passed on my first yearling buck at the age of 17, 17 years ago, at a time when I had never even shot a buck yet. QDM, and now the QDMA, has strengthened my passion for whitetailed deer that has basically entrenched my hobbies, way of life, job, and where I live to further enjoy deer management, as well as many other outdoor and property related pursuits, such as grouse habitat, hiking, riding ATV's with the family, snowshoeing with the family, beagle field trials and running snowshoes all winter. Basically, I am very, very, excited at the personal enjoyment and benifits that have developed with being a part of QDM and the QDMA, and for that 60% majority, as well as my close friends, I greatly enjoy associating with and encouraging them to participate, because they deserve the best! Personally, I've never known someone that has been dissappointed by their full and active participation in the QDM experience, so you will have to excuse me if I try for the majority of my time and effort to associate with the majority of MI hunters, and try and surround myself with positive, like minded individuals. In the end, it just makes the day go by better. 

There are 2 types of political canditates in the country today...1 will attack and degrade another in an attempt to negatively promote himself in a positive light, and 1 type will attempt to run on his or her own merits, a sound plan, and a positive message. If you can't tell by now, I like to associate with the later. Staying positive is a great asset in life and is sometimes highly underated.


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2004)

Somewhere it is written "The poor will be with us always". I think it was meant for the poor in spirit.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

> What the QDMA has been able to do, as evidenced as closely as in our great state of MI, is to provide and promote the ONLY scientifically proven management philosophy to the point that over 60% of both surveyed landowners and hunters approve, statewide! That is simply awesome. When at anytime in MI do you think we've had that many hunters "under one roof" to agree on any management philosophy?


Jeff, when you say that 60% supports, isn't that pretaining to AR's.....The precieved most "radical" of all QDM tools. If so, the the number of people who support QDM as a basic management policy should much higher than 60%.

Neal


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I would certainly agree NEAL!

60%+ is support for AR's (DMU118) as well as in part I think for QDM as a whole and is a reflection of all the hard work and QDM meetings that have taken place.

I would imagine that a vast majority, especially much higher than 60%, agree with most everything that QDM has to offer. If we continue to focus on that number, I think we will all be very successful.


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

Your talking 60% + in DMU 118, certainly not state wide. Can you bring up a link to show percentages state wide, for and against AR's.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

_"those that just want to take or consume or take from the resources"_ John Ozoga

I especially like this part of the quote. It describes many Michigan hunters. They tend to look at deer as a product being produced by the State for their consumption. You can tell who they are, because they continue to talk about deer numbers. How many deer they see, how many legal bucks they see. Don`t talk to them about management because that might reduce the number of deer they might see in the woods and worse yet it could reduce the number of shootable bucks.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

FixedBlade said:


> Your talking 60% + in DMU 118, certainly not state wide. Can you bring up a link to show percentages state wide, for and against AR's.


_"We posed four regulations that would contribute to older age classes of bucks. Respondents supported (59%) the idea of an antler restriction to protect yearling bucks in their hunting area. Support was essentially unrelated to type of land access or age of respondent."_ Peyton-Bull

Link to thread on this board

59% of Michigan hunters state wide support antler restrictions as a way to limit the harvest of 1 1/2 year old bucks.


Maybe Swamp Ghost can post a link to the Peyton-Bull survey. I can`t find it on short notice.


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

C'mon guys, lets not get so shallow as to suggest that its "my way or the highway" or "with us or against us".

I think Ozoga's quote says a lot. He may be a great biologist, but IMHO, he sounds like a public relations moron.

I don't think QDM will work on state land and it could be disastrous for the deer herd. Sure, the DNR has the tools (hunters) to manage the herd but there is no way they can effectively micro-manage the entire state with its diverse habitat and deer densities. To do that requires an intimate knowledge of the habitat, deer densities and hunting pressure of each and every piece of land in MI. It could work for the private land owner on his little parcel, but state-wide, no way.


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

Bob S said:


> _"We posed four regulations that would contribute to older age classes of bucks. Respondents supported (59%) the idea of an antler restriction to protect yearling bucks in their hunting area. Support was essentially unrelated to type of land access or age of respondent."_ Peyton-Bull


So were they saying that out of the 4 new regulations, ARs were the lesser of the evils?

Did the survey ask "Do you see a need for ARs to better manage the MI deer herd?"


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Brian,

John's statement goes along with the thinking that not every hunter is a good hunter, and I'd have to agree.

Also, virtually every vote, for every AR DMU in the state, has averaged to above 60%. For example, on the high side, up here in the U.P. the Rock area votes was 70%, and 72%, DMU 118's votes was 59%, but on average, above 60%. Also, other areas have passed in the U.P., and to pass, you have to have at least 66%.....so, add them all up, and your above 60%.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

By saying there are only two types of hunters in Michigan and then to virtually say one is right and the other is wrong says alot about Joh Oz. and how little he knows the Michigan hunter, BUT than again its his PERSONAL OPINION.....his statement and the way he played to the QDMA crowd also tells me he problably told that group exactly what THEY wanted to hear...thats the way paid public speakers work!!!


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Boy...this get so confusing, with PERSONAL OPINIONS from both sides....
But who do I believe? Who has more credibility? The whitetail deer biologist with decades of experiance Or the faceless internet guy named "Beer & nuts"

Man...I need more time on this :lol: 

Neal


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

B&N,

By the way...Mr. Ozoga was not a paid speaker by any means, but more of a somewhat reluctant expert taking a personal interest in the welfare of both the local hunters and hunted in his home town. At the same time, it was one of the first QDM meetings in the U.P., if not the first, almost 5 years ago, in a public forumn, without the backing of any local branch or organization. At the same time...not one person left the room and most were glued to their chairs to hear John speak, whether they liked QDM or not. In fact, John wasn't even referring to QDM when he made the comment, but it was instead a comment regarding the opinion that some feel they should get, get, get, from the resources, and some feel they should be stewards.

An example of this...

There is a group I don't hunt rabbits with anymore in the area that takes the approach of continually hunting a piece of ground with multiple dogs and hunters until every rabbit is gone, and then blame the DNR when they can't find one to shoot. I went hunting with them and we had a great time...we shot two rabbits, and my male ran 1 for 3 large loops over an hour and after a couple of misses, I got him on the 3rd loop...I really enjoyed the hunt. After the hunt my friend said I have to apologize, he said the first time out they shot over 20 rabbits, the 2nd around 10, and this time only two. He then told me the hunting wasn't any good any more(although I really enjoyed the hunt) because the rabbits had MOVED. MOVED! How about they were all DEAD. He then proceded to blame the DNR and their trapping efforts in the area to transplant rabbits somewhere else?!? Consequently, I have no desire to hunt with that group anymore, and they are exactly the type that are to be considered "takers" of the resource, instead of stewards. Sure, they were all legal, but if that's all it takes to be called a hunter, were all missing the point. We have to be responsible for our actions and be RESPONSIBLE stewards of the land, taking into account our own actions, legal or not. That is exactly the type of group John was referring too.

I think the people in the crowd just thought John was referring to people from downstate, so no one was offended!


----------



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

North jeff just because john ozaga say's something it does not make it right, to me there are more than two types of hunters in michigan, a whole lot more and to put hunters into categories were one is good and one is bad is also wrong, john ozaga may have not said that but that is what I think is being said. I also did not intend to degrade you or anyone else on this board, but I consider myself a pretty darn good hunter who works his tail off on public property every year just to see a nice buck, I do not have food plots or hedges or swamp land or sanctuaries, I have 640 acres of standing timber with about 10 vehicles all around it to compete for the "GOOD" spots, I also practice qdm myself, but I do not believe it should be on a state wide basis. Again, I did not mean to offend anyone on this board, but I also believe john ozaga can be wrong, he is human right.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Are we saying that the majority of Michigan are "good"? Lots of ways to look at that one: Do they harvest a greater number of deer per hunter than other states? Do they have higher success rates than other states? Do the majority of MI hunters harvest a deer?

If that's your criteria, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that MI hunters as a whole are below average on all accounts.:evil: 

As stated in the Peyton-Bull study an alarming number of MI hunters don't care about deer regulations. 

_Regardless of management region, a majority (55%) of our respondents agreed that theagency should manage for an older age structure among bucks in Michigan. Nearly a third were uncertain and 16% disagreed._​​_One option to protect yearling bucks is to place a minimum antler size restriction on all bucks harvested. At the time of the survey, Michigan required that one of two bucks harvested have a minimum of four antler points on at least one side, but the other buck harvested could be any buck with a minimum of 3 inch spike antlers. Respondents were asked what their positionwould be if an antler restriction was proposed to protect yearling bucks in their hunting area._​_Respondents were more decided on this matter than on the goal of older age structures amongbucks. Nearly *2/3* of the deer hunters who said deer hunting was their most important recreation supported the idea and about a fourth opposed it. _​​_We also probed reasons for their support or opposition to the antler restriction idea. Those who supported the regulation *(59% of respondents)* were primarily interested in seeing and/or harvesting bucks with large antlers. Encouragingly, an equally important reason had to do with being responsible for the quality of deer in their area. Satisfaction derived from their involvement in managing deer has been claimed as one of the benefits of QDM._​​_*Perhaps opportunities exist to capitalize on this as a means of encouraging stewardship in Michigans deer management program*. Although balancing buck to doe ratios was the third most important reason for this group, the mean suggested this reason was of considerable importance to respondents._​​_About 24% of respondents were opposed to antler restrictions. Among the reasons we listed for their opposition, the most important to this group was the concern that it would interfere with young hunters opportunity to shoot a buck. *A strong majority was also concerned that their own ability to take a buck would be limited*. Over a third of the group indicated they were opposed because they did not care whether they shot a large buck. By inference, the remaining 2/3 of those who oppose antler restrictions do care whether they have an opportunity to shoot a mature buck and may favor a different approach to producing them._​ 
http://www.fw.msu.edu/people/peyton/SubmittedPublicQDMreport.pdf


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2004)

With all due respect to those who do not know John Ozoga but fell free to dinigrate him with grass comments. If you knew John, I promise you, you would not say anything negative about the guy. you may disagree and that is your US constitutional rights, but put downs on one of the most respected, honest and sincere in his conviction of being stewards of our resources gentleman is way out of order. All here who post should have the opportunity to meet and know John. You would be better off for the experience for you will leave his presence with the new attitude of being a gentleman in all your future people meetings. I know!

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## Buddy Lee (Dec 17, 2003)

Ed Spin04 said:


> With all due respect to those who do not know John Ozoga but fell free to dinigrate him with grass comments. If you knew John, I promise you, you would not say anything negative about the guy. you may disagree and that is your US constitutional rights, but put downs on one of the most respected, honest and sincere in his conviction of being stewards of our resources gentleman is way out of order. All here who post should have the opportunity to meet and know John. You would be better off for the experience for you will leave his presence with the new attitude of being a gentleman in all your future people meetings. I know!
> 
> Keep the fun in hunting!


Other than the public relations comment above, I fail to see anyone here putting Ozoga down...and the public relations comment wasn't even related to his deer management expertise, rather his style of expressing himself.

I sure wish I could be right 100% of the time, just like John Ozoga! :lol:


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

Well said ED SPIN!!


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

Ed Spin04 said:


> , but put downs on one of the most respected, honest and sincere in his conviction of being stewards of our resources gentleman is way out of order.


But HE started it! :gaga:


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Neal said:


> Who has more credibility? The whitetail deer biologist with decades of experiance Or the faceless internet guy named "Beer & nuts"


Lets see, one of these is the research editor for Deer and Deer hunting magazine and writes a whitetail biology column for Michigan-Out-of-Doors. What publications are paying the other guy for his deer knowledge?


----------



## MoneyMan11 (Jan 8, 2004)

As a hunter in 118, QDM has caused a lot of debate for our camp over the years with the majority (80%) buying into the idea. Our one member who doesn't like it doesn't like it because he doesn't want someone to tell him what he can and what he can't shoot. I have no problem with that except that we are always told that with the current regulations. One buck with less than 4 on a side and no more than 2 total. To my way of thinking, there are already restrictions placed on the hunter when you buy your tag. The other arguement is that we shoot the best 1.5 year old bucks. We shot them before QDM as well, now we tend to harvest a much better animal and the size of all our deer is up. With the genetics we had before, the quality of the herd was way down. We had a pencil spike with a unique white patch on his back in 02. We took that same buck last year as a 7 pt. that scored in the 90's. Not bad for a genetically inferior animal that we let go and that probably did some breeding. Do you think that 04 will be a quiet year in camp as everyone worries about what everyone shoots and we go back to a bunch of little spikes and forks lining the buck pole within 3 years. In the long run, this will save me money with the taxidermist unless this forces me to go out of state. :smile-mad


----------



## izzalaker (May 6, 2004)

If you've read this forum for more than ten minutes, you'd come to the conclusion that NJ tends to put things rather... bluntly. I too would be offended if I believed that John Ozoga held coarse regards for MI hunters enough to attempt to divide the ranks and conquer as opposed to educate and unite them. I don't. But I believe this supposed quote was spun to intend meaning that it frankly does not. At least NJ was kind enough to preface it with "something to this effect", something I take exception to when he regurgetates harvest numbers, poll results, and the mathematical conclusions of "people of interest." Though, I have learned a lot wading through some of what he says.



NorthJeff
John Ozoga started out a talk at a past QDMA meeting up here something to this effect..."there are 2 types of hunters in MI said:


> Come on... who in their right mind, at a meeting designed with a platform for John Ozoga, would consider themselves in the latter category. For that matter, who with enough interest in deer hunting to include it as a matter of conversation could perceive themselves as a leech.
> This was a non-statement. The only thing that can be taken from the attitude presented is - "Here QDM comes, we are big and bad and know more about these things than you do, so step on board or get out of the way." An attitude I see represented often, but not personally by John Ozoga.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

When we have "sportsmen" misquoting respected wildlife experts and also slamming MI hunters by criticizing them for enjoying deer camp (ie, lumping UP hunters into a negative category), then it is time for me to question their intentions. As I have said before, we have so much to be thankful for in this great state and land.
Swamper


----------



## suppa roosta (Oct 3, 2003)

I have one question.

Why the hell do I find the urge to occasionally subject myself to viewing such inane posturing.

I mean a Cat fight has some redeming qualities. You know, stimulate some primal sense of erotica.

Or you could liken it to those who find a perverse intrique rubber knecking a horrific car accident.

But this?

I can only equate to the "inner core tug of war" debate of suicide vs. homicide everytime my Mother-in-Law opens her mouth.... :help: :tdo12:


----------

