# Proof that QDM is Working Well in the Central U.P.



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Theres an old saying that goes, The proof is in the pudding. I shot both of these bucks last week in the Central U.P. in the middle of the experimental QDM area where bucks are required to have at least three, one-inch points on one antler. The larger racked buck weighed 170 pounds dressed while the other one sagged the scale to the 190 mark. In the last five years of the experiment I have tagged no less than seven adult bucks from the QDM area (it would have been 10, but I shot three bucks in southern MI during that period.) In the five years prior to the antler restrictions I only harvested one adult buck in the Central U.P. The hunting for adult bucks in my neck of the woods has been improved exponentially due entirely too wide scale QDM principles.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Congrats on taking two very nice animals. 

I guess one needs to define "mature" because alot on here do not consider 2.5 year olds mature. The 170 dressed looks to me like a couple I have shot and weighed in the UP-all 160 dressed, and all have been aged at 2.5 year old. Your other would fit the 3.5 age plus bill....a very nice UP buck!

Also, I'm curious on what you took the first 2 seasons of the experiment becuase if those "mature" bucks that you shot were 3.5 plus than the AR's really had nothing to do with those bucks and were never "saved", let alone obviously never not shot either, when they legally could have been. Glad your hunting practices are working out for you, but I would bet it has alot more to do that your putting alot more effort/management wise, into your land whether its manageing doe harvests better, increased food plots/selectcuts, refugee areas, etc.. than you ever did just 4 years ago!

Update: I just re-read your post and the smaller rack buck is the 190 pounder!?! Man, that seems wierd cause that does not seem to be very good antler developement for a 190 pounder, unless thats one healthy 2.5 year old with poor genes. Or the photo has a bad angle? Either way thats alot of meat for the freezer, what does one do for the 15th now!!


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Congrats on your two nice bucks!


I think more has to be studied about QDM, don't get me wrong, I do like QDM, but we have to look at alot of factors before we can credit QDM for some hunters success. We have had some milder winters in the U.P. so that may have something to do with? Also many times hunters just get lucky, Not saying this is your case, but There have been years that I have filled Both my tags with decent bucks and there have been years that I have not shot a deer. Not to take anthing away form anyone, But every couple of years someone in our party shot a good buck in Lake county. I'm talking about a nice 8 to 10 pointer with 18 inch spread and long tines. We haven't shot one like that in a few years, but If we did, It might be because we or someone in the area is practicing QDM or it might be because on average we shoot one like that every couple of years. We don't know.

Like I said before I do like QDM but before we give it all the Credit we have to look at all the factors. and also look at the previous Bucks that were shot in that county, hunting pressure etc. Many hunters that use to hunt areas will not go there if they can only kill 4 on one side or better. So maybe the pressure was reduced the last couple of years and this allowed for less bucks to get shot. I don't know, But lets look at all the facts.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Very nice bucks and congratulations.

From my limited perspective of QDM success (as I am a growing believer thanks to persons like Ed Spin and Letmgro teaching, not preaching), I would have to believe there are many ways to measure QDM success beyond the size of antlers and body weight. I have taken 2 of my biggest bucks over the past 2 years without practicing QDM in previous years. 

Again nice bucks, but I have to differ on jumping to such a quick conclusion.

Swamper


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Very nice to see more conclusive proof. Feels, pretty good, don't it? There's a sense of satisfaction from knowing all the work is paying off that's hard to describe.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

beer and nuts said:


> Congrats on taking two very nice animals.
> 
> I guess one needs to define "mature" because alot on here do not consider 2.5 year olds mature. The 170 dressed looks to me like a couple I have shot and weighed in the UP-all 160 dressed, and all have been aged at 2.5 year old. Your other would fit the 3.5 age plus bill....a very nice UP buck!
> 
> ...


Both bucks I shot this year were aged by their teeth at 3 years old. In 2001 I took a pair of 2 year old bucks that both dressed out at 150-155 lbs. In 2002 I took one 3 year old that dressed out at 165. Actually we also started practicing QDM (passing up yearling bucks) on my property in 2000. 

It is not just my land that is benifiting. I hunted public lands extensivly this year in the Central U.P. and I also saw a dramatic improvment in the adut buck numbers there too in recent years. 

As for what I'm going to do on the 15th? Just like last year I'll be out in the woods with my camera testing another stand for opening day's to come.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> Very nice to see more conclusive proof. Feels, pretty good, don't it? There's a sense of satisfaction from knowing all the work is paying off that's hard to describe.



Bob, Don't go bragging because you shot the Lake County Luvsten(sp) buck :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

poz said:


> Congrats on your two nice bucks!
> 
> 
> I think more has to be studied about QDM, don't get me wrong, I do like QDM, but we have to look at alot of factors before we can credit QDM for some hunters success. We have had some milder winters in the U.P. so that may have something to do with? Also many times hunters just get lucky, Not saying this is your case, but There have been years that I have filled Both my tags with decent bucks and there have been years that I have not shot a deer. Not to take anthing away form anyone, But every couple of years someone in our party shot a good buck in Lake county. I'm talking about a nice 8 to 10 pointer with 18 inch spread and long tines. We haven't shot one like that in a few years, but If we did, It might be because we or someone in the area is practicing QDM or it might be because on average we shoot one like that every couple of years. We don't know.
> ...


I just did an article on the central U.P. experiment and have some fresh data that goes way beyond my sucess. In DMU 155 the average sucess rate on bucks from 1997-2000 was 22% and the percentage of adult bucks (2 years old or older) in the harvest those years was about 40-50%. In 2000 the buck sucess rate was actually the highest on record at 38%, which did eleveate the average, but so be it. From 2001-2004 during the antler restriction experiment the average buck sucess rate was 23%, and that number was very similar for each year of the experiment. The percentage of adult bucks in the harvest from 2001-2004 was 85-92% a huge increase from 1997-2000. Those numbers clearly show that we are now taking just as many bucks now as before, but the age structure of the harvested bucks (and the bucks in the woods) is now composed of a much higher number of adult bucks. One also needs to consider that the winters of 2001-2004 were not mild; rather they were somewhat moderate to hard on the deer. What antler restictions also did was to moderate the effects of hard winters on the huntable buck population. Before the ARs the buck harvest, which was composed highly of yearling bucks, was highly dependent on the previous year's fown crop. Now dispite having two bad fawn crops in my area in a row, we still have good deer hunting and I'd bet that the buck sucess rate in DMU 155 will once again be around 23%. If we ever get a couple mild winters in a row, that sucess rate will rise, but it will take longer because with ARs it takes most of our bucks two years to become legal keepers.


----------



## BlockBUD (Dec 8, 2004)

Congrats on two nice bucks. Nice bucks have always been taken in the U.P. evry season, and nice bucks will continue to be taken in the U.P. every year in the future. Nature is the best deer manager and always will be.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Here's another photo of both bucks together to you can compare sizes a little better:


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I just did an article on the central U.P. experiment and have some fresh data that goes way beyond my sucess. In DMU 155 the average sucess rate on bucks from 1997-2000 was 22% and the percentage of adult bucks (2 years old or older) in the harvest those years was about 40-50%. In 2000 the buck sucess rate was actually the highest on record at 38%, which did eleveate the average, but so be it. From 2001-2004 during the antler restriction experiment the average buck sucess rate was 23%, and that number was very similar for each year of the experiment. The percentage of adult bucks in the harvest from 2001-2004 was 85-92% a huge increase from 1997-2000. Those numbers clearly show that we are now taking just as many bucks now as before, but the age structure of the harvested bucks (and the bucks in the woods) is now composed of a much higher number of adult bucks. One also needs to consider that the winters of 2001-2004 were not mild; rather they were somewhat moderate to hard on the deer. What antler restictions also did was to moderate the effects of hard winters on the huntable buck population. Before the ARs the buck harvest, which was composed highly of yearling bucks, was highly dependent on the previous year's fown crop. Now dispite having two bad fawn crops in my area in a row, we still have good deer hunting and I'd bet that the buck sucess rate in DMU 155 will once again be around 23%. If we ever get a couple mild winters in a row, that sucess rate will rise, but it will take longer because with ARs it takes most of our bucks two years to become legal keepers.


Not to start an arguement, But from the sounds of it, Your bucks were a result of AR's and not QDM. Maybe the title should read "Proof ARs Work"


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

I thought ARs were not a required aspect of QDM???

Swamper


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

poz said:


> Not to start an arguement, But from the sounds of it, Your bucks were a result of AR's and not QDM. Maybe the title should read "Proof ARs Work"


On my property it has been QDM. On public lands it's pure ARs. They both work.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Swamper said:


> I thought ARs were not a required aspect of QDM???
> 
> Swamper


Part of any QDM strategy always involves passing up yearling bucks. Everywhere I've seen ARs implemented, yearling bucks are protected to some extent. Knowing that, ARs will help any QDM strategy. 

Back in the 90s, I like many skeptics in Michigan did not believe in QDM. Then I started hunting deer out of state on QDM managed lands I opened my mind as I was very impressed with what I saw. Then I decided to back the Central U.P. AR experiment to see how it would work, because quite Frankly, deer hunting couldn't be much worse than it was in the late 90s in that area. We had a horrible adult doe to antler buck ratio of worse than 10:1. Now, five years later and I have seen what it can do here in Michigan and especially on public lands in Michigan. Our doe/buck ratio is now nearly even. Now I'm a supporter of QDM and I'm also a supporter of ARs. I interviewed Ed Spinazzola for a Buckmasters article on ARs a few years ago and he said, "Antler restrictions educate hunters on QDM on the fast track." Someday we may not need ARs in MI but at this time we sure do.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

I"m not saying they don't work. All I'm saying is that there are many factors involved in growing a buck. and before people on here start saying here's the proof. I like to have all the factors out there. YOu manage your property for QDM that is great! But from your post it sounds like AR's are only for public land, when in fact that ARs are required on private land also. So your deer were a result of both of these practices being used. That is fine, But please don't give all the Credit to only one of these practices.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

TS,

Great job on those bucks coming from QDM property!! Again, afterall, QDM is only adequate buck age structure, populations maintained in balance with the habitat, and appropriate sex ratios. The AR was the last peice of the puzzle to produce a QDM herd in that area and glad to see you taking advantage of it. 

Great job and nice pics!


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Hard to believe that small rack buck is so heavy and aged at 3.5 year old but has such poor antler growth. 

TS-so with the numbers you gave your seeing a 30-40% increase in 2.5 year old and older bucks being taken and with the same success rate overall. How much do you think than is becuase more hunters are having to take more time to hunt(more time in the woods) in order see a legal deer? Is the time afield increased-any idea on that? I would not doubt if more hunters around here had to pass on spikes and such, that the 2.5 year old havest would increase. Does that make it a "healthier" herd or is it becuase hunters are having to sit(hunt) longer. Maybe a combo of both, maybe not, just asking.


----------



## huntnbrush (Oct 12, 2005)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I just did an article on the central U.P. experiment and have some fresh data that goes way beyond my sucess. In DMU 155 the average sucess rate on bucks from 1997-2000 was 22% and the percentage of adult bucks (2 years old or older) in the harvest those years was about 40-50%. In 2000 the buck sucess rate was actually the highest on record at 38%, which did eleveate the average, but so be it. From 2001-2004 during the antler restriction experiment the average buck sucess rate was 23%, and that number was very similar for each year of the experiment. The percentage of adult bucks in the harvest from 2001-2004 was 85-92% a huge increase from 1997-2000. Those numbers clearly show that we are now taking just as many bucks now as before, but the age structure of the harvested bucks (and the bucks in the woods) is now composed of a much higher number of adult bucks. One also needs to consider that the winters of 2001-2004 were not mild; rather they were somewhat moderate to hard on the deer. What antler restictions also did was to moderate the effects of hard winters on the huntable buck population. Before the ARs the buck harvest, which was composed highly of yearling bucks, was highly dependent on the previous year's fown crop. Now dispite having two bad fawn crops in my area in a row, we still have good deer hunting and I'd bet that the buck sucess rate in DMU 155 will once again be around 23%. If we ever get a couple mild winters in a row, that sucess rate will rise, but it will take longer because with ARs it takes most of our bucks two years to become legal keepers.


Not necessarily, You have given no numbers that would prove that just as many bucks are being taken. As the number of hunters would have to be equal in order for percentages to give an accurate assessment. If for example from 1997-2000 they counted 1000 hunters, 220 bucks taken, 100 - 110 were mature. If from 2001-2004 they counted 100 hunters 23 bucks taken, 20 were mature. I know the numbers I used are not accurate and are obviously exagerated but it makes it easier to see how the math involved could scew results in favor of or against the results you want to prove. I'm not saying that I am for or against I just believe the whole story should be accurately presented in order to make an inteligent decision. I do like the idea of some type of restictions because I know too many guys that that would be the only way they would ever give thought to doing what is best for the herd.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

beer and nuts said:


> Hard to believe that small rack buck is so heavy and aged at 3.5 year old but has such poor antler growth.
> 
> TS-so with the numbers you gave your seeing a 30-40% increase in 2.5 year old and older bucks being taken and with the same success rate overall. How much do you think than is becuase more hunters are having to take more time to hunt(more time in the woods) in order see a legal deer? Is the time afield increased-any idea on that? I would not doubt if more hunters around here had to pass on spikes and such, that the 2.5 year old havest would increase. Does that make it a "healthier" herd or is it becuase hunters are having to sit(hunt) longer. Maybe a combo of both, maybe not, just asking.


Genitics govern antler growth along with envronment. Some bucks are not predisposed to have large antlers. Some bucks are not predisposed to have large bodies. 

From DNR data collected from DMU155, the average number of hours hunters spent afield during gun season was 6.78 in 1999 and 7.49 in 2004. There was an increase in the hours hunters spent afield during the experiment, but it was not a huge jump. Also the bucks observed per hunter day have escalated over the experimental period. In 1999 there were .2 bucks observed per hunter day. In 2004 there were .6 bucks observed per hunter day; a three fold increase in the number of bucks sighted. Hunters are seeing more bucks, harvesting the same number of bucks, but the bucks harvested are bigger.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

huntnbrush said:


> Not necessarily, You have given no numbers that would prove that just as many bucks are being taken. As the number of hunters would have to be equal in order for percentages to give an accurate assessment. If for example from 1997-2000 they counted 1000 hunters, 220 bucks taken, 100 - 110 were mature. If from 2001-2004 they counted 100 hunters 23 bucks taken, 20 were mature. I know the numbers I used are not accurate and are obviously exagerated but it makes it easier to see how the math involved could scew results in favor of or against the results you want to prove. I'm not saying that I am for or against I just believe the whole story should be accurately presented in order to make an inteligent decision. I do like the idea of some type of restictions because I know too many guys that that would be the only way they would ever give thought to doing what is best for the herd.


I don't have the data for the total number of bucks killed, but I do have the number of hunters surveyed. There was only a differenence of 3 hunters between 1999s survey and 2004s so it has remained pretty constant.


----------



## huntnbrush (Oct 12, 2005)

Excellent, I bet you're hoping the "experiment" becomes the rule.


----------



## glen sible (Dec 11, 2004)

Am curious as to the origin of the data being used in this thread. I was told, by a DNR biolosist in Escanaba, that none of the experimental data from the DMU's with MARS will be tabulated and made available to the public until the spring of 2006. This also makes me wonder how much the DNR wants the publics assistance in regards to whitetail management since the continuence surveys are scheduled to be sent out sometime in December. Hunters may have personal experience to use in determining their responses, but what are the nonhunting landowners supposed to use in forming their opinions?

Seems to be a very awkward timeline for a very important issue.

glen
Thanks for reading and carry on.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

glen sible said:


> Am curious as to the origin of the data being used in this thread. I was told, by a DNR biolosist in Escanaba, that none of the experimental data from the DMU's with MARS will be tabulated and made available to the public until the spring of 2006. This also makes me wonder how much the DNR wants the publics assistance in regards to whitetail management since the continuence surveys are scheduled to be sent out sometime in December. Hunters may have personal experience to use in determining their responses, but what are the nonhunting landowners supposed to use in forming their opinions?
> 
> Seems to be a very awkward timeline for a very important issue.
> 
> ...


I hit some roadblocks in the DNR when doing research for my article. Basically, the DNR is holding the data on the central U.P. antler restriction experimint hostage until next year. That includes all the data that the DNR collected themselves and the data that Superior Deer Management collected at check stations over the past five years. Fortunatly I already had lots of data that I had previously gotten from the DNR prior to the blockade of information. My data came from studies done by Craig Albright and his people at the Escanaba DNR office. It amazes me that the DNR does not want the public to know how sucessful the experiment is prior to the surveys going out next month. I was told that they want the respondents to strictly vote based on their opinions on whether they are happy or not with the antler restrictions. They don't want any data to sway people one way or the other. I've heard people actually say that the DNr is behind and suportive of antler restrictions. Based on all the actions I've seen of the DNR that notion is preposterous.


----------



## glen sible (Dec 11, 2004)

One wonders what the purpose of data collection and tabulation really is. Why make the info available at all if the DNR doesn't want it to influence anyones opinion or decision making. Mr. Albright told me last spring that he had started to tabulate the data from the effected DMU's after the first year but was given a directive to discontinue his efforts due to "lack of man-hours available". Perhaps this is fallout from Bob Garner who told me(also last spring) that making any of this type of data available to the public would usually lead to misinterpretation and confusion, which I took to mean that he did not think the public(you and I) were smart enough to use this data to form valid opinions.

Ignorance is truely bliss!

glen
Thanks for reading and carry on.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Data can be interpreted many different ways by a group of people, leading to many conclusions and many questions. Interpreting data and answering questions requires time of DNR, which requires money. Let's not jump to the conclusion that there is some type of DNR cover up of data conspiracy here. Jumping to that conclusion is dangerous as jumping to the conclusion that 2 nice bucks from an area is all due to QDM and ARs. Many factors to consider beyond. Given that, this is a forum and deer season is upon us.

Swamper


----------



## glen sible (Dec 11, 2004)

Shouldn't we all be given the opportunity to at least have access to the data? The DNR knew that interpretation of data and answering questions is part of an 'experiment' when they started the whole process and they have contradicted themselves when they say that 'man hours' were the problem earlier but they can somehow find them(man hours) sometime next spring. Certainly not accusing anyone of a coverup, just a delay in accepting their responsability. Collecting, tabulating and dispersal of data is one of the major functions of the DNR. This is the knowledge base of many of their decisions and recomendations to the NRC. It appears to me that many in positions of authority in these matters believe we(the public) don't have the intelligence to form any valid opinions or arrive at common sense conclusions.


glen
Thanks for reading and carry on.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

I would agree with Glen that this data should be made available to the public, either in a tabulated form or if the DNR does not have the manpower then in a raw form. 

I don't buy the "lack of manpower excuse". How many public universities are there in Michigan? I am sure that there are any number of wildlife biology grad students at our public universities who would be thrilled to get access to the raw data, to compile and analyze for the DNR, for free. 

Without accurate data the AR experiments are useless. I have been asking this question for some time and have never gotten an answer. The DMU 118 data that has been published on this forum and used to bolster arguments for some time, where did it come from? Was it taken from DNR data or from other private sources? If it came from DNR data was it based on the usual post season mail-out survey or was there another source for the data? What methodology was used to gather and compile the data? 

In the DMU I hunt in we are going into the 4th year of MAR's. I have never seen any data published for this DMU, either baseline data before the MAR's were enacted or any data for the period during the MAR's. To base the renewal survey on a random sample of personal opinions without supplying any data to be reviewed hardly sounds like scientific deer management.

Has anybody tried to FOIA any of this data from the DNR?


----------



## weatherby (Mar 26, 2001)

Congrats!! Those are beauties


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Munsterlndr said:


> Has anybody tried to FOIA any of this data from the DNR?


The DNR has had Freedom of Information Acts bestowed upon them before and they simply charge so much for the information (which they are allowed to do by law) that it stops all requests from being processed. 

Fortunatly in this case, I did have data that I had previously collected prior to the information freeze currently being practiced by the DNR. It's funny how you won't see any investigative articles on these shady DNR tactics. There are only a scant few outdoor writers in Michigan that are pro QDM. Woods N' Water News is the only magazine in Michigan that will print pro-QDM articles.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

I just got back from the Central U.P. Even though I had tags, I chose not to harvest any does this year because of poor fawn crops for two years in a row. On my property, we observed (logged) only one fawn for every five adult does this year. Last year we observed one fawn for every 3 does. The last two winters did not kill lots of deer in my area, but they did impact fawn production severly. Not surprisingly, our buck to doe ratio suffered this year due to low numbers of yearling bucks from last year's poor fawn crop. We saw one antlered buck for every three adult does in 2005. Last year it was an even sex ratio. Dispite the reduced numbers of yarling bucks in our area, my wife had a great hunt. She hunted for nine days straight and positivly identified 7 different antlerd bucks of which three were big boys. I also saw two trophy class bucks along with a few yearlings. 

I also might add that I did split my time during bow season between my property and public land. In fact, the larger racked buck that I shot was killed on public land. I bowhunted three distictly different areas in DMU 155 and on the public land spots that I hunted, I saw lots more fawns than I did on my property, so it apears that fawn production varied depending on the location the area. The buck to doe ratio though was about the same in the public land areas compared to my property though. I saw few yearling bucks at my public land spots, which leads me to believe that the fawn crop last year was poor all over in my area. The wet cold spring of 2004 was likely the culprit.


----------



## Lew (Jun 8, 2003)

Mike, Nice bucks! I wish we had AR's over in Iron county. AR's are an importamt part of scientific deer management but unfortunately blocked by many hunters opposing them. Like you, we try to protect young bucks and in three weeks of bow hunting I saw twenty different legal bucks, a few very close to trophy status. If we can just carry over most of these bucks we will have some very good hunting in the future. The way I look at it, I would much prefer to take a doe then a spike buck. Those old does are no ones fool and a real challenge. Keep up the effort to promote scientific deer management (QDM). Lew


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Great news for the Yoopers!


----------



## Guest (Nov 29, 2005)

Nice for you and the UP deer herd TS. I see the skeptics are on your case and having a diificult time giving any credit to good deer management. First, official rules in place are not true QDM but practices taken from QDM to manage the buck segment. The Lake Superior Deer Mamagement Association, LSDMA, did the right thing when they fought the efforts of the DNR for a much higher doe harvest. Through the efforts of LSDMA they got it lowered significantly. Now that makes the big picture darn close to QDM.

Interesting that you are not given the true yearly harvest data from your DMU TS. You can blame me for that. When the five year DMU 118, Clare County Demonstration was approved by the NRC in 1999 I was asked by the Chairman Keith Charters to give a yearly report on the harvest data. I did for all five years. That data as is anything that is new and controversal was in question from the beggining to the end. For the record it is 100% MDNR harvest data. It is actual harvest data from deer checked in at DNR field offices and highway check stations and nothing else. We did help in collecting data for 25 to 35 deer the first years, mostly does, due to the request of the MDNR. When the MDNR made the statement to the NRC in the fourth year's data to the NRC that the data was tainted due to us collecting some data, we stopped collecting for the fifth and last year.

Think about it, the DMU 118 sponsoring group was asked by top officials of the MDNR to help collect harvest data. They even said that they would teach us to age deer and they did for three years. Then they use that additional harvest data, which they asked for, against us as tainted harvest data. Therefore the harvest data for DMU 118 is inconclusive. You can check the record for the (I think March or April) 2003 NRC meeting where the DNR gave their report. Check the words used, (the sponsoring group collected harvest data, therefore it is inconclusive).

As mentioned we didn't collect one piece of harvest date for the fifth and last year of the demonstration. It was 100% MDNR harvest data and it was the most impressive data of the five year period. First cosider that there was a drop in the deer harvest taking place throughout our state and due primarily to the large increase of the doe harvest, (look at the record). Yet the deer harvest increased in DMU 118. We had a base data to compare with. The base data is three years, (1996-1998) of DNR data from DMU 118 and averaged out. 

The fifth year showed the following. The yearling buck harvest was at 48% of the total buck harvest versus the base of 78%. The 3 1/2 year old and older buck class had exactly the same buck harvest number as the 2 1/2 year olds and at 26% each of the total buck harvest, which means that we are advancing the buck age class. The doe harvest was 84% higher than the base average, as was the five year average. The button buck harvest was at 12% of the total antlerless harvest versus the base average of 19%. Lastly and most impressive, the total buck harvest was 24% higher than the base average. Yes, it is possible to actually harvest more deer with less using good deer management. The above is 100% MDNR data and approved personally by Brent Rudolph, DNR Research Biologist in early 2004.

One must consider that the three points on one side minimum protected only 50% of the yearking bucks based on the historical data of the nine previous years and the data shows exactly that. This DMU 118 data is true and quite impressive and that is why the present DNR does not want any data from new demonstrations published. The saying is true, "the truth hurts" and in this case it hurts the efforts of the MDNR. They are supposed to be neitral but neutral they are not.

Another joke you are given is the availability of the harvest data. In early 2004 after the fifth year I asked Rod Clute, Big Game Specialist, if I could recieve the harvest data from DMU 118 to give my report to the NRC. He gave me a person to contact, I did and asked for the harvest data from DMU 118. I recieved it the next day through E-Mail. Rod told me that they had the system running so smoothly due to modern tech, that all data, including historical, is now at their finger tips. 

The above is all true TS, and if you were given the data by our employees, (they are our employees , arn't they) for your DMU I wouldn't be surprised if you found a similar result. Perhaps that is why they are reluctant to do just that. Isn't there a law about access to government data, excuss me, our data.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Ed Spin04 said:


> As mentioned we didn't collect one piece of harvest date for the fifth and last year of the demonstration.


Superior Deer Management Association volunteers collected baseline data at check stations prior to 2001 and also for the first four years of the experiment. Then, low and behold, they found out that none of the data they (or the DNR) collected would be made available to respondents in the survey. So, the SDMA are very upset now, enough so that no effort was made this year by volunteers to collect any data this year. And why should they since it was not going to be used anyway?

Brent Rudolph is the DNR employee that has been assigned to handle all the data collected and I was ultimately referred to him to get the data. He did not return my calls once he learned what I wanted. 

Robyn Oliver also contacted Brent Rudolph and was denied the data at first as well. However she eventually let me know that she did manage to get the raw data and was going to crunch it. I'm curious to see how it compares to the previous data that I had obtained from years past.


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2005)

Mike, Makes you wonder who they re working for, we know who they are working against.

The saddest part of this story is Brent rudolph. I personnally think he is one of the few real stars within the MDNR. He's bright, creative, cooperative and someday will be our MDNR Executive Director. Yes, he is that GOOD, just needs to grow a bit in his gonads. Unfortunately Brent is saddled with the old curse of that outfit. "Protect thy power and keep the status quo". It's amazing that keepers like Brent stay with an organization with such a mindset. Set Brent and others like him free to do their thing and WOW, will we see a differance.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Ed Spin04 said:


> Makes you wonder who they [DNR] re working for, we know who they are working against.


They are working for the people of the state of michigan, well over 90% of whom do not hunt deer.

They are working against those who would like to boost deer populations in areas where they need to be reduced.

-na


----------



## Guest (Nov 30, 2005)

Nick, your constant support for any and all of the acts of our MDNR is to applauded, everyone needs a buddy. Now please explain their reluctance to give out deer harvest data in existing DMU's. There is a "Freedom of information act", which the MDNR has now an official policy of ignoring. 

While you are seaching for excuses please look for one to explain their action of asking the sponsoring group, (for a demonstration of MARS for five years in DMU 118 Clare County in 1999), to gather harvest data and even offering classes to age deer. Then when the data looks a bit over whelming in favor of MARS, they turn and run and make an official statement saying that the harvest data from DMU 118 is insignificant and inconclusive following the fouth year of the rules being in fo, due to the sponsoring group gathering harvest data. Indeed Nick, please explain that one.

By the way, your insinuation that having a MARS demonstration increases the deer populaion is off base. Please look at my post and note that for the five year period in DMU 118 there was an 84% increase in the harvest of does and by the hunters. 

I'm a farmer and know quite well the crop damage that the deer have been doing in the Clare area. In 1998 I and three other neighboring farmers using block permits were responsible for the taking of 130 does. Yes, 130 and not a single male fawn in the bunch.

I know for a fact that the crop damage now is less than 25% of what it was in the mid 90's and this is all a tribute to the mindset of hnuters in DMU 118, today versus what it was just a few years ago. We couldn't convince any of those hunters other than farmers to take does. Today we do not even apply for block or DMAP permits, thanks to the changes wrought in the reasoning of hunters from experiencing QDM.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Nick, Ed - if you get this worked out please let us know, but in the mean time this thread WAS about Proving QDM worked/works in the UP - not about whither or not the DNR is doing their job - Certainly the subject of another thread - but just not this one - 

Thanks guys - 

ferg....


----------

