# QDMA Mission and What the QDMA Promotes



## bwiltse

Mission Statement: 
The Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) is a non-profit wildlife conservation organization dedicated to promoting sustainable, high quality white-tailed deer populations, wildlife habitats, and ethical hunting experiences through education, research, and management in partnership with hunters, landowners, natural resource professionals, and the public. 

QDMA Promotes:
-Safe and ethical hunting.
-Adherence to wildlife and trespass laws.
-Adequate harvests of adult does.
-Restraint in harvesting young bucks.
-Habitat maintenance and improvement
-Hunter involvement in education and management.
-Cooperation with wildlife biologists and enforcement officers.
-Education of hunters and non-hunters toward a better understanding of wildlife management.
-Stewardship and appreciation of all wildlife.


----------



## Steve

I sure don't see much to disagree with on that list.


----------



## bwiltse

The QDMA supports an adequate harvest of any does including fawn does. There's more emphasis on adult (1 1/2 year olds and older) because these are the ones primarily responsible for population increases.

High quality does mean healthy and in balance with habitat - adequate nutrition, etc.

Restraint in harvesting young bucks will result in a more balanced age structure to the deer herd, which has certain advantages. And there will be some larger bucks and larger antlers as a by- product of a more natural age structure.


----------



## BVW

I also agree with most of the QDM mission, i don't yet know about the "Restraint in harvesting young bucks" part. My reasoning is if we can only take big bucks guess who is doing all the breeding. The little, less dominate and possibly mal nurished bucks because they big dominate bucks are getting shot. This also means for "trophy hunters" that a 8pt is no longer a "trophy", it is average. If everyone gets big bucks this will make people want even larger deer, what is next? After people start complaining about only taking 8pts are we only going to be able to take deer with 6pts on one side? I pesonally am not a Trophy hunter, i prefer a large buck for sure , but it is not the reason i hunt. 
When i first heard of QDM i thought it was a group of guys that were frustrated with only taking small bucks and wanted to be like the guys on the videos taking the monster 12pts. 
It seams to me that the smaller less inteligent, less dominate bucks are what the majority of hunters are taking which would help the gene pool because the wise old bucks are out there reproducing. It just seams more natural. Try telling the grey wolf it can only take large bucks because it will help the gene pool.
I am sure this has been discussed before and i am not looking for a debate. Just my opinion. maybe i will change my mind if i get all the facts. 
Thanks.


----------



## bwiltse

BVW, the thought behind protecting young bucks (1 1/2 year olds) is to make it so more bucks may live to an older age and become truly dominant bucks. We have very few dominant bucks now because we have a tendency to shoot most of them as yearlings. A 3 1/2 year old buck is not classified by QDM as a young buck, although it certainly has not reached its peak.


----------



## notmuchtime

I am not a "trophy" hunter either, but I do agree 100% with the QDM philosophy. If hunters are allowed to take nothing less than 3 pts. on one side, that particular buck and bigger ones have reproduced many, many times. Keep in mind that the "trophies" have been around for a few years and the little ones are still being dominated by them. Just my opinion as I'm just a meat hunter, unless someone can share a good recipe for antlers.


----------



## BVW

I guess i didn't know that the Michigan deer population was "unhealthy". I thought it was doing just fine, that's why i wondered if QDM's intentions where just to make larger bucks for hunters. 
I was out thursday night driving around and saw 2 nice 6pts near my house and a 10pt in Allegan county game area. These are nice healthy deer that are just fine for breeding, their genes will not change as they get older. So if they are tough enough to fend off the other bucks in the area as a 6pt then they have earned the right to breed . 
I guess if there is data that shows the deer population is getting weaker and the deer are getting smaller then QDM is a great idea, however deer seem to be the same size now as they always have been. That leads me to believe that QDMs altimate goal is just to have more "Trophy" deer. Like i said in my above post, It will not create more trophy deer, it will just change what a "trophy" is.
If a hunter needs a deer with huge antlers then pay a few bucks and shoot one in a cage at a ranch where they let them grow. A 8pt from a ranch is not even a "trophy" deer to me, because even if the deer is as dumb as a box of rocks it will still grow big if left alone with good food.


----------



## bwiltse

BVW, QDMA or QDM does not attempt to define the health level of the MI deer herd. I think you're trying to read something into the mission statement and objectives. Such items as maintenance and/or improvement of habitat contribute to the overall health of the deer herd. QDM objectives also call for a more natural age structure and more balanced sex ratios.


----------



## BVW

Thanks for the info,
But i was just wondering why QDM wants to change the current way deer are managed if there is nothing wrong or unhealthy with the current method?
I guess anything to fix a problem in the deer herd in Michigan is fine by me, like controling TB or CWD, but if they want to change the way deer are managed just to have more trophy deer then i see a problem. So far i can not see any other reason for QDM's plan to only take big bucks so the smaller one grow up to have more big bucks. It seams like some people don't want the challenge of getting a big buck, so they go to a Ranch for example. Forget big buck night, everyone that hunts will qualify.
I would also like to see what they are doing for thier other mission statements. Improving habitat is great for all animals, so i am 100% for that, as well as most of the other things the QDMA promotes. But do they just promote it or are they working on it?
I still only see a group of people that want to create a "super race" of deer, "Deer Hitlers" if you will. I just like the current method i guess, where a big buck becomes a big buck for a reason. 
I am always open to learn somthing new, so if i am way off on any of this let me know, i wont argue. I will find the QDM website and read up some more.
Thanks for listening to my opinion.


----------



## bwiltse

BVW quote "But i was just wondering why QDM wants to change the current way deer are managed if there is nothing wrong or unhealthy with the current method?"

There could easily be a case made that the MDNR is moving towards QDM with liberal issuance of antlerless deer licenses, one of your two bucks has to have at least 4-pts on one side, education of interested hunters on methods to identify button bucks in the hunting guide, etc.

BVW, the biggest hang-up on QDM seems to be antler point requirements, which are merely a tool and not QDMA policy. QDMA prefers restraint in harvesting yearling bucks, regardless of the number of points.


----------



## Allrounder

Around the Kent county area most year and a half old bucks are easily 6 pts. and sometimes 8 pts. The 3 1/2 year old bucks are already around. The problem is most hunters don't see them.
It is still going to be up to the individual hunters, whether they pass on an 11" 8pt. or whack a 14" 6pt.


----------



## bwiltse

Allrounder, your post could be a separate topic but has no application to the sticky as the QDMA does not promote or recommend antler restrictions


----------



## FixedBlade

bwiltse. QDM for Montcalm cty., is pushing for antler restrictions. Arn't they part of your group. Therefore don't you support antler restrictions.


----------



## bwiltse

FixedBlade, you are correct that the Montcalm initiative is being proposed by the Montcalm County Branch QDMA. 

Antler point restrictions are just one of several tools that can be used to protect young bucks. The QDMA will only support this methodolgy or recognize it as a legitimate tool if it protects an adequate number of young bucks and does not result in high-grading (shooting too many of the 1 1/2 old bucks), which would be detrimental. The MDNR procedure requires that at least 50% of the yearling bucks be protected under the proposal (anything less could be detrimental).

The National QDMA will be shortly coming out with a booklet on forming QDM cooperatives with your neighbors, which I believen will be helpful in promoting QDM. 

If this doesn't answer your question, let me know.


----------



## Bob S

QDMA also reccomends that any antler restrictions should be temporary. The Montcalm initiative is for four years. Nobody involved is talking about permanent restrictions.


----------



## Allrounder

BWILTSE, I stand corrected about the groups views on antler restrictions. If this is for education purposes I'm all for it, but most groups start with education to advance an agenda on the law books. If this is not the case I apologize. I do have a couple of questions though. What information do you have that says taking too many 1 1/2 old bucks is determental? Is it determental to the health of the species? Here is an opinion.
In Montcalm county put an antler restriction on how big a buck is. You can't shoot anything bigger than a 8-point for two years. Then 2 1/2 years and older bucks will get older, allowing the age groups to be more even. Two years after the restriction you'll have a whole wad of 1 1/2 old bucks again. Also if you loose more of those 1 1/2 old bucks every doe isn't going to get bred.
maybe? I'm interested in your view points, as options not as law. Every piece of land I hunt requires different management techniques. Some land has a lot of does some don't. Some have too many 1 1/2 old bucks, and some have too many 2 & 3 1/2 year old 3 - 5 points. Which I personally want to get rid of.

Thanks for taking the time to read Jason


----------



## bwiltse

Allrounder, some of what QDM is trying to do is to get a more balanced age structure and sex ratios. It's difficult to impact genetics in a wild deer herd, however, having said that, most biologists suggest waiting until the deer is 3 1/2 years of age. We also need to remember that the doe accounts for at least half of the genetic traits.

Regarding 1 1/2 year old bucks, I assume you were asking about high-grading, which could occur if too many (over 50%) of the wrong 1 1/2 year old bucks were taken (shooting a high number of the best 1 1/2 year olds.


----------



## quest32a

wow im impressed. finally a half way intelligent (and interesting)converstation about qdm. i can actually read this thread without yawning.


----------



## Steve

quest, some very intelligent and articulate people have posted on this thread. I am not surprized by it at all.


----------



## Whit1

Boyd,
Thanks for taking care of some sticky points in this forum. This intellegent, reasoned, and yes, civil discussion is quite refreshing. You may even have this ol' buck hunter leaning even more in QDM's direction.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

"On a related point, QDM doesn't allow the removal of those deer that are genetically inferior intellectually. Nature doesn't practice QDM, nor should it be forced on any hunters involuntarily. 

In the end, baiting and QDM are bad for the whitetail population and hunters."

Swamper,

You should count yourself lucky to ever get to hunt on a well-managed QDM property, but at the rate you are going, I'm not sure the invitation is in the mail, so you'll just have to read the facts.

Again, QDM is about balance.

1. Balanced buck age structure
2. Populations maintaned in balance with their carrying capacities
3. Balance in sex ratios

That's it, that's QDM.

What QDM does is allow for the process of natural selection to take place, which is nature's intention. When natural selection takes place bucks COMPETE for breeding rights, so that only the strongest and wisest participate in the breeding phase, which encourages the survival of the species. Right now this does not happen on properties unless they are managed under QDM philosophy, which is basically a reflection the way whitetails roamed without man's intervention, and is the closest parallel to natures intention. 

Currently, virtually every yearling buck..inferior or not, participates in the breeding phase due to no competition, high doe numbers in many areas, and no buck age structure, so those "stupid genes" you are fond of, get spread too much, every year. Again though...not on a QDM property, just in traditional management.

You want nature to manage, well mother nature would do a great job, but, for this to happen we need to remove all the people from the state, and any continuin influence that people have left, and only then will mother nature be able to have her way. We can then go back to very low sex ratios, great age structure, mature forests, and 50,000 deer, or less. Nature would eventually be in management mode, but no one would be around to see it. 

Until that time comes though, we have to do our part to mirror mother nature, and that's QDM, the foundation of mother nature using the 3 proven principles of management balance. Without QDM, we will continue to let the "stupid genes" be spread throughout the herd every year.


----------



## BSK

Traditional Management undermines Nature's processes. QDM tries to restore them.


----------



## Swamper

QDM is like govt bailouts of bankrupt private businesses, outcome based education, genetically modified vegetables, cloning of animals and humans, etc...they all mess with the laws of natural survival and evolution by artificially protecting the weak. Just like a row of newly sprouted radishes needs to be thinned...so do the bucks and does need to be thinned. And those that are thinned are the stupid and weak ones.

As far as getting invited to a QDM ranch, I would turn one down if "lucky" enough to be invited. I will stick to the swamp.


----------



## Letmgro

We don't have a ranch, but I can give you directions to the middle of a QDM cooperative, that only has free ranging (unfenced) deer browsing thru it's woods. 

This will be the 9th season of protecting young bucks, (now we have some bruisers around), and none of them look too stupid.

...and the 100% participation rate amongst the landowners says it all!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Again,

QDM is about balance....
1. Balance of buck age structure
2. Populations maintaned in balance with carrying capacity
3. Balance in sex ratios

I think what you fail to realize is if man stepped back, and let mother nature manage the herd, without mans interferance in any way.....it would turn into balance:
1. Balance of buck age structure
2. Populations maintaned in balance with carrying capacity
3. Balance in sex ratios

Sound familiar?!?  

QDM simply does not protect the weak, IN FACT it is the only plan used for statewide management that allows for the process of natural selection, where only the strongest and wisest compete for breeding rights to insure the survival of the species.

If you really enjoy the true "swamp" hunting, like I do, where low population numbers, healthy buck age structures, and improved sex ratios are often enhanced, you already are enjoying the benifits of QDM and don't even know it!  

Let nature run it's course and at the end of it all, when nature has finally stabilized the herd, you'll have one great plan...it's called QDM.

Swamper, I just have to ask, are you for real?!? I'm enjoying the discussion too! Do you ever listen to Rush Limbaugh where he lets a listener just keep talking, talking, and talking?


----------



## Swamper

Do you ever listen to Rush Limbaugh where he lets a listener just keep talking, talking, and talking? 

Thanks for clarifying ...Rushbo is a hero in the UP as well.

Sounds like we won't convince each other...as long it requires ALL landowners to agree to implementing QDM, then I won't worry about it. QDM is just another freedom and liberty grabbing attempt to split the hunting population.

A few words from Charlton Heston might be appropriate in closing:

"When loss of liberty is looming, as it is now, the siren sounds first in the hearts of freedom's vanguard. The smoke in the air of our Concord Bridges and Pearl Harbors is always smelled first by the farmers, who come from their simple homes to find the fire, and fight...

From my cold dead hands!"


----------



## unregistered55

How in creation can you QDM guys keep preaching your arm chair philosophical crap? It's test tube deer or nothing with you. With several million hunters in a finite area you are not going to duplicate natural anything. THAT is the big picture. If you are looking to balance the herd as it was before man populated the area, deer would be a protected species. It would be a healthy, balanced herd though. Get real. Maybe if most you opened up all your private land to the g.p. for a few years, quit baiting and planting food crops to propagte the herd you'd get the same results.

Swamper- we have about the same agreement at our camp for the adults, no spikers till the sun is full up, after that if it's brown it's down. For the young-uns and newbies, just hunt safe and take what your license permits. And ,yes, there are still plenty of decent bucks around year in and year out. Are they going get you in the front page? Some of them will. If that's what is important to you.
Until there is a shortage of deer try growing tomatoes! If "Natures Processes"
are calling out to you, don't pee on the tree you're gonna hug.


----------



## Swamp Ghost

Yep, QDM split the PA hunters right down the middle, it was so effective in doing so that the PA hunters can't wait until next hunting season! After they saw the results of deer herd mangement based on narrowing buck to doe ratio's and enhancing natural selection instead of management based on the production of the most living targets. They are asking themselves, "Why didn't we do this 10 years ago?"

I wonder which management scheme would be looked upon more favorably by the over 70% non-hunting public majority?

Several million hunter, huh? At least you had your facts straight before you posted. 

I usually try not to piss on the trees I am getting ready hinge cut, studies have shown it can hinder their regrowth.


----------



## Happy Hunter

After the 2003 season a poll was taken by WNEPTV in Wilkes-Barre that showed that only 46% of those surveyed said the PGC deer management was headed in the right direction 48% disagreed. The poll was not an internet poll and it was condicted by a professional olling service.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

This coming season will be my 11th year hunting in PA on public land, Lord willing, and I can not wait! :bouncy: 

I've said this for the past few years, but now more than ever, I'd give up the 2 weeks of our gun season, to hunt the opening 2 days in PA.

No bait, no blinds, no ATV's, and most of the bucks are shot between 9-2. Add in the antler reg's which give you a better chance at an older buck, more rubs, more scrapes, more seeking and chasing, etc.., but you feel much safer in the woods as well, knowing hunters have to now exactly what they are shooting before they shoot. Number of shots are down in our area, safer shots are being taken, but we've had our best hunting in the past 5 years out of over 30 years, in number of bucks taken per season, number of bucks per hunter, and age of bucks. We average close to 50% success rate, and in 2002 we had 7 bucks for the 10 guys that stayed at least 2 days.

It's pure joy to hunt in a state that does it right, and be a part of a state that is a leader.

Can't wait for PA scouting in a few weeks!


----------



## Happy Hunter

You are right when you say that we have great hunting in many areas of PA thanks to the previous deer managgers. However, when we reach our goal of 13 DPSM, hunting in Mich. will look a whole lot better. Where we have reached that goal they only harvest 2 buck PFSM and very few hunters would consider that to be great hunting.


----------



## campblujay

With all due respect to swampghost and Jeff, only a very small number of Pa hunters are looking foward to a fourth straight season of declining buck harvests. 

My family has had the worst hunting in 30 years in pa over the last two seasons. One of the largest areas in North central pa in a state forest is fast becoming unhuntable. Our camp had seven hunters who hunted the whole first week and none saw a buck, and only two does were spotted. 

Pa. hunters face the prospect of seeing less buck this year. We have had increased doe harvests as part of our managment plan, but they are in the areas which have easiest access. Out public lands are losing out, yet private land holdings still protect thier doe. Very poor prsopects for 2004 in our families area of pa. I don't even think I will make the trip for a week of not seeing any deer. Ain't worth it.

There are still some well populated areas in nw and sw pa, always have been. But the overall Penna forecast according to family members is dismal. Dr. Alt has been strangley quiet since 2003 was such a flop. It was predicted that after implementing AR statewide, they would see at least as many buck as the year before (which was a poor season of 165k). They dropped from 165k buck to 142k buck in 2003 and nobody saw an increase in size or shape or color. 

Pa's 5 year old deer team just has not produced results. Less deer = less deer.


----------



## mecheadSR

Good post campblujay, No disrespect but I get real tired of seeing all these paper posts from PA about how great the hunting is now that they have this QDM plan, it is good to see a post that seems to tell the real truth, not just what an article say's. Here in michigan I will put my 2 cents in again, the unlimited doe permits are not working in the area I hunt, period. I have been out twice looking for sheds and have not seen a tail, I have seen the decline the last couple of years of deer in the area and it is discouraging to say the least.


----------



## johnhunter

You know, this was once a pretty good thread.

Bottom line, and we see it over and over and over again, my friends:


BSK said:


> Never ceases to amaze me the crazy excuses hunters will come up with to argue against the practice of QDM, when their real motivation appears to be not wanting to have to pass up young bucks.
> 
> Simply amazing...


I know, I know, the experts are all wrong, but the man on the bucket knows all.


----------



## campblujay

Maybe you are correct, maybe what I experienced first hand is not what you think is right..... then again maybe you are wrong. 

But, its not whether I think QDM is right, or wrong. I'm not claiming to be an expert, just sharing my first hand experience since Pennsylvania was brought up. You can make value judgements based on your experiences, and so can I. If your upset about this thread, oh well. 

I think that people sharing real experiences is valuable in the discussion. Much better than theoretical banter about could have should have would have. My cousin gets a kick when he reads the posts about how Pa is doing so well, and if Mich could only get Dr. Alt to come to Michigan! Heck, Ronny would drive him up personally if he thought he would stay here. :xzicon_sm


----------



## omega58

I'm to the point where I could care less about PA statistics or our own DMU 118 statistics. 

Bottom line, I know that QDM has helped out our hunting land in 118 and I just hope it continues. I wish the MDNR would figure out that anything over 50% is majority and I wish they would have had a better survey or better yet, sent one out in the final year. . . I guess that would be asking too much, because it actually makes sense!!

Oh yeah, a little side note. . . my friend just got his mount back from the taxidermist and other than a little burnt hair on the ear and some yellowing of the antlers that makes it look like it had a nicotine addiction, he said it turned out pretty good considering the circumstances. I get mine back next week and I guess it looks like it was never in a fire. 

Anyway, everyone have fun arguing about QDM. . . .I always do.


----------



## Happy Hunter

If you don't care about the stats ,why do you bother to continue to comment? If you are happy with what you have ,sit back and enjoy it. However, I do find it interesting that if AR was as successful as you claim, I would think the support for AR would have increased to 75-80%, rather than declining to 57%. It seems that a lot of Mich. hunters aren't as happy as you are.


----------



## Whit1

omega58 said:


> .
> Anyway, everyone have fun arguing about QDM. . . .I always do.


I prefer to discuss the issues on the site. As long as we're all civil to each other, refraining from insults, destructive digs that are personal in nature, these topics can be bantered back and forth.

Grouphug?? Hmmm! I've only met one of the regulars in this forum (I think only one...Neal) and he isn't what I called uhhh!.....errr!!!.....hugable!!.........LOL! However, the sentiment is accepted.


----------



## outdoorzman1

I think T Man hit it almost right on the head. People think that they are going to get the herd back to the way it should be naturally. Well things change. It is not the same today as it was back then, that's just the way it is. Another reason for wanting to shoot a buck or a deer at all is for meat. With rising beef costs in stores and all the increase in deer tags and property taxes, I say why the hell should they be able to tell me I can't shoot that small buck. He walked onto my property in deer season so he is fair game. Like I have said a few times if they don't want me to shoot that small buck then they should keep their deer off of my property! There is simply no way to make a ruling like this that will make the majority happy, the hunting group is to diverse. So I say the only way to make everyone happy is if you don't want to shoot a small buck and be a QDM hunter then don't! But if someone does then harvest it and enjoy the meat. Also, like I have said before my area dosn't have nearly enough people that would support QDM, Proof of it is that the Hale Chapter of Whitetails Unlimited proposed a QDM area for my hunting area and a vote went out for it and it was turned down with mine and all my family memebers votes against it. I think alot of people don't care so much about that perfect deer like 50 years ago. Bottom line people want meat. And a 1.5year old buck tastes just as good or better than that 5-6 year old buck.

I think that if some people support QDM and are having success with it, then that is great keep it up. 

If you don't support QDM and are harvesting deer for the table and perhaps a few good ones along the way than great keep it up, it is nice to see you having just as much fun getting a deer even if it isn't the perfect genetic one old in age.

Bottom line if you wan't to do it I have no problems with you wanting to do that. We live in America for that reason. But for those that don't want to don't try to take that same right away from us.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

You PA hunters could not stand hunting in MI, especially large tracts of public land such as in the U.P., where 84% is corporate or public. I have great respect for the PA hunters, and their abilities. Our camp has been around for over 30 years, and during that time guys have harvested around 170 bucks, with the best years in the past 5. The aggressive doe harvest started 6-7 years ago, and although the guys don't see the herds of 70 coming through the hollow with 1 buck or two, it's not uncommon to see 20 or more deer in a day, with 5-6 bucks. 

PA hunters simply know how to hunt! Stalking, walking, stillhunting, standhunting, etc., they do it all in our camp, and all are in the woods from sun-up to sun-down. Last year on the 2nd day of the season I saw 5-6 bucks, around 25 deer, and walked the entire day, while only seeing 2 other hunters. No blinds, no bait piles....just you and the deer.

There is a lot more to offer for hunting in PA than just AR's. It's the way hunting used to be in MI. 

At the same time, those 2.5 year old bucks are trully a different animal, and those that have continually harvested yearling bucks are in for a rude awakening. You won't shoot a 2.5 year at the same rate of success as yearlings. You have to hunt quite a bit smarter, and quite a bit different than you would have to shoot a yearling. A 2.5 year old is much, much harder to harvest on average than a yearling. To only drop from 165K to 142K in buck harvest is a testament to the skill level of PA hunters, considering the bulk of the harvest is 2.5 year old bucks, and the difficulties they present while hunting.

Also, I've heard that the taxidermist love the new regs in PA, because their whitetail mount quotas are filling up in some places before gun season even starts.

Bottom line, their are bigger bucks for the taking in PA, but they won't fall into your laps like a yearling. Add in some 3.5 year old+, and it can make for some tough hunting for guys used to targeting yearlings.


----------



## BSK

Outdoorzman1 wrote:
*People think that they are going to get the herd back to the way it should be naturally. Well things change. It is not the same today as it was back then, that's just the way it is.*

Outdoorzman1,

No offense intended, but that's a pretty poor excuse for not trying to improve herd health. No, that's not "just the way it is." We are able to produce more natural herd structures all the time, even on small isolated properties surrounded by poorer herd structures. Producing a more natural herd structure over large areas *IS* possible and it's not that hard to do, _as long as hunters want to participate_.

As I've said before, I'm a big supporter and practitioner of QDM. However, the hunting experience produced by QDM is not for everybody. I would like to see state agencies *allow and promote* QDM practicies. But *require* them? After seeing the results in several states, I question whether mandated QDM is the answer. Is mandated QDM improving herd structure and health? Absolutely. But is it making hunters happy? It appears to be dividing hunters about right down the middle, with half being happier and half being far less happy with their hunting experience. I strongly believe states are going to have to develop some sort of compromise. They will have to give up some aspects of herd health to satisfy the majority of hunters. In this scenario, neither group is totally happy, but neither side is extremely unhappy either. Each side will have to give up some of the things they want to get other things they want.

You and Tman both mentioned "meat" hunting. I have no idea what your or Tman's motivations are, but I have often heard this argument. Yet I can't imagine why a "meat" hunter would not *love* QDM. Under QDM guidelines total deer harvests usually increase, and increase quite dramatically, often doubling. That means doubling the meat harvested. What's not to like about that, *if* meat produced is the primary goal? Could it be less opportunity to harvest antlers, no matter how small? Too often the "meat" hunters I talk to really end up being "horn" hunters, and what they are really arguing against is limitations on the bucks they can kill.

QDM promoters/practioners and traditional hunters are just going to have to "come to the table" and decide what type of a compromise can be reached. If QDM proponents decide what is most important to them, and traditional hunters decide what is critical to their hunting enjoyment, perhaps they will find that each can have what they most want while giving up things of lesser importance to them. Again, neither get all they want, but everyone can live with the compromise.


----------



## omega58

Happy Hunter said:


> If you don't care about the stats ,why do you bother to continue to comment? If you are happy with what you have ,sit back and enjoy it. However, I do find it interesting that if AR was as successful as you claim, I would think the support for AR would have increased to 75-80%, rather than declining to 57%. It seems that a lot of Mich. hunters aren't as happy as you are.



Sorry once again that you are not a Happy Hunter over in PA. :sad: 

The reason I said I don't care about the DMU 118 statistics is because I don't like the fact that they didn't do a survey at the end of the experiment.  

I know of several guys that would have changed their mind from last year to this, I talked to around 15 personally. . . also, I wish the MDNR would have posted the comments. . . I know a lot of them from the people that own land on the border simply said, "Make it statewide, and I will vote for it."

Have fun in PA, tell JoePA hello, time to get ready for some dog training for me here!!! :coolgleam


----------



## BSK

Tman wrote:
*I hunt for a multitude of reasons but specifically for one, probably a primevil calling. I MUST.*

Great comment Tman. I whole-heartedly agree. I don't hunt because it is a "sport" I enjoy participating in. I hunt because that is what I am--a hunter.


*Imho it appears that most,not all, supporters of QDM want to simulate a fenced environment while preaching herd health and "natural balance".*

I respectfully disagree with your opinion. I don't know many QDM practitioners that want to create a fenced environment. In fact, it is just the opposite. They are trying to create a more natural herd structure, and a fenced environment is about as unnatural as it gets.

I could easily fence my own property, and my "management" would be much more successful behind a high-fence. But that would ruin my hunting experience. I'll just live with what I can produce on my small property surrounded by neighbors that aren't helpful. My ability to affect herd structure and health (management) will be more limited, but I'll still be hunting wild, free-ranging deer.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

"If you don't care about the stats ,why do you bother to continue to comment? If you are happy with what you have ,sit back and enjoy it. However, I do find it interesting that if AR was as successful as you claim, I would think the support for AR would have increased to 75-80%, rather than declining to 57%. It seems that a lot of Mich. hunters aren't as happy as you are"

--Happy Hunter

"Any resource manager will tell you, you&#8217;re doing well whenever you can satisfy more that one-half of those involved in any deer management issue. Hoping to satisfy 66 percent of them, as required to implement QDM in Michigan, is nothing short of ridiculous.

The survey currently being used here is modeled after that used in Georgia. (I might add, the Georgia DNR was not initially sympathetic with QDM philosophy, and in my view attempted to roadblock such change.) Face facts, this is not Georgia, and we are not dealing with Georgia Deer Hunters. As you well know, Michigan deer hunters are notoriously traditional and disagreeable&#8212;if you can satisfy more than 50 percent, that&#8217;s great.

I&#8217;m disappointed that the Michigan DNR could not be more original in designing a survey that was better suited to their clientele. They do have the expertise, don&#8217;t they?

Also, each person surveyed should be provided with pertinent data (scientific facts) concerning sex and age of deer harvested prior to and during QDM. Without such information, the respondent has no sound basis for making an intelligent decision."

--John Ozoga, nationally known and respected deer research biologist, Deer and Deer Hunting research editor, author of 7 books and 100's of articles, and U.P. of Michigan resident.

57% approval rate....an awesome number considering hunters and landowners did not have the data supplied to them at the time of vote so they can make an educated and informed decision and no opinions count as a "no".

57% percent...that was great! :bouncy: 

Just something to think about....If there was a survey out, do you think we would get 57% approval if the question was, "Are you sattisfied with the way our deer herd is currently being managed by the NRC/DNR?"...do you honestly believe we would hit 57% with that question?!?

I personally am getting sick and tired of traditional deer management being crammed down my throat!


----------



## mecheadSR

We'll than northjeff practice QDM on your land and be happy, hunt, enjoy the sport for what it is, HUNTING.


----------



## outdoorzman1

BSK,

I disagree that my commetn was a poor exscuse. What is wrong with the current state of the deer herds "HEALTH" as you guys are saying. The deer I am harvesting are perfectly healthy and taste GREAT!! So I see nothing wrong with the health. Now to get the deer heard like it should be naturally is not really i feel feasible. Ok lets say when there heard was in so called natural balance do you really think every area in Michigan was the same. Do you really think that every acre of Michigan was in perfect balance. I highly doubt it. So I don't think trying to get it that way now is going to do much. I will say it again like I have said it in all of my other posts. I pay the taxes on my property and pay for the right to hunt. If the DNR want's to mandate a so called QDM program then they should fence off all of the landowners properties that don't want to participate so there deer are not on our properties. Then everyone can be happy. If they don't want to spend the time to fence of all of these properties then they could simply pay my taxes for me and we can deal. Until then if it is a Deer with horns in season and steps on my property it is fair game.


----------



## Ferg

:sad:


outdoorzman1 said:


> BSK,
> Until then if it is a Deer with horns in season and steps on my property it is fair game.


The 'brown it's down' is going to haunt QDM for years and years until the education level of the 'real' QDM message can't be learned....

I don't think that the nrc/dnr or anyone thinks that a blanket plan for the entire state is the answer - in fact - the science would indicate otherwise indeed - but something needs to be done .... something ....

ferg....


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Maybe I'm just a "glass half-full" kind of guy, but for you guys that love traditional deer management so much, why don't you practice traditional deer management on your own land?

For some, the continuance of mediocrity may be sufficient, and you can practice that on your own property, but for the rest of us who own land and hunt on public land, why should we be handicapped by the current system supported by a minority?


----------



## omega58

outdoorzman1 said:


> BSK,
> Until then if it is a Deer with horns in season and steps on my property it is fair game.



And then people complain that there are no bucks on the property and all they see are a bunch of doe, I don't know how that could happen??


----------



## BSK

Outdoorzman1 wrote:
*If the DNR want's to mandate a so called QDM program then they should fence off all of the landowners properties that don't want to participate so there deer are not on our properties. Then everyone can be happy. If they don't want to spend the time to fence of all of these properties then they could simply pay my taxes for me and we can deal. Until then if it is a Deer with horns in season and steps on my property it is fair game.*

Whoa!!! I try to throw it into every one of my posts, but I'm *not* in favor of mandated QDM. I just think it divides hunters too severely. There is room in the deer woods for everybody.


*The deer I am harvesting are perfectly healthy...*

Based on what?


*What is wrong with the current state of the deer herds "HEALTH" as you guys are saying.*

There is more to "health" than just body weight, antler production and fawning rates. There is also "social health." And by social health, I mean the make-up of the herd, as in the ratio of males to females, age structure of both males and females, etc. Deer have evolved a very complex social behavioral system that is tied to Natural Selection. Unless herd dynamics are more natural-like, these processes no long function as they were intended to insure the long-term health and genetic diversity of the herd. Unless there are a certain percentage of males in the older age-classes, and competition between bucks for breeding rights, these natural processes break-down. The results are a lack of genetic diversity (something critical to whitetailed deer herd health), and a lack of Natural Selective processes. No longer will the deer with the "best" genetics be doing more of the breeding (and no one knows exactly what are the "best" genetics, but Nature will work towards that if natural processes are allowed to function). Plus, much breeding will be done by unknown and untested genetic quality males, since there is no competition. In addition, if many young bucks are breeding, this breeding activity can permanently reduce their growth potential as well as their ability to express their genetic potential. Basically, unless Natural Selection is allowed to work, the processes Nature has designed to keep the herd healthy cease to function. The only way for Natural Selection to work properly is to have older bucks in the herd and a more balanced sex ratio, i.e. a balanced herd structure. What damage is being done without Natural Selection working properly is not fully understood, but if environmental scientists have learned one thing over the last century, it is that undoing what Nature has designed is *always* a bad idea.


----------



## Swamp Ghost

_You and Tman both mentioned "meat" hunting. I have no idea what your or Tman's motivations are, but I have often heard this argument. Yet I can't imagine why a "meat" hunter would not *love* QDM. Under QDM guidelines total deer harvests usually increase, and increase quite dramatically, often doubling. That means doubling the meat harvested. What's not to like about that, *if* meat produced is the primary goal? Could it be less opportunity to harvest antlers, no matter how small? Too often the "meat" hunters I talk to really end up being "horn" hunters, and what they are really arguing against is limitations on the bucks they can kill.
_

That my friends sums it up. Great post!


----------



## outdoorzman1

Omega 58,

Last year I saw 13 different bucks in bow season all of them in range not to mention others out of range plus the few I saw in gun season. So I am not complaining about seeing bucks, neither should anyone in surrounding properties.

Under Michigan's two buck system as it is now a hunter can take a buck of choice and a second buck must have atleast 4 antler points on one side. So what is so wrong with a guy taking a buck of any size for meat then being selective on his second tag. Now if I do the math right, lets see that's 1 of any size + 1 of atleast 4points on one side that would = 2. WOW I got 2 bucks last year one of which was on the smaller side. So you mean to tell me that I messed up the entire social structure. Now let me see what about the other 14-15 bucks that I didn't shoot. Now you tell me how bad my hunting messes up the social structure.

From some of the info that I am gathering about social health is sounds as if QDMA is supporting larger ranch type of racked deer herd. Because, who really cares if they shoot a 2 year old 5 or 6pt buck or a 3-4 year old 5-6pt buck. I know I don't! Tastes the same to me. I see no problem with the current regs as they are. Let a liscense purchaser atleast fill one tag the way he pleases. Don't try to take everything away from him. I do believe that this QDMA is definatly going to split the hunters down the middle and like people are saying that's exactly what we do not need. I guess for some it is not good enough to leave good enough alone or to practice what they preach thereselves and with others that want to follow. Instead they want to try and make what they think and believe the rule for the whole. I don't start an organization trying to get the DNR to pass it so that NO QDM can be practiced by those that want to hey that is your choice. So don't make your choice my law.


----------



## Ferg

outdoorzman - what would you shoot if you only had 1 buck tag?

ferg....
Which I think we will see, long before any state mandated QDM system -


----------



## Happy Hunter

After implementing AR and shooting more doe, harvests decreased by 20% in Miss. and 40 % in Ark. Buck harvests in Pa. dropped 30% in just two years. Even in WMU 118 harvests were highest in the first year of AR and were lower after five years .


----------



## Swamp Ghost

_So what is so wrong with a guy taking a buck of any size for meat then being selective on his second tag_

Aren't doe's made of venison?

That is the problem, the MI hunter's inherent inablity to harvest a doe.

You have virtually equal oppurtunity to harvest bucks and does. The antlerless population outnumbers antlered at the very least 3:1, yet we harvested more antlered bucks than antlerless and have done so for the past 10 years.


----------



## Letmgro

"I do believe that this QDMA is definatly going to split the hunters down the middle and like people are saying that's exactly what we do not need. "

I hate to tell you this outdoorz, but us hunters ARE split down the middle, (actually slightly more in favor of QDM), and nothing short of proper deer management will make us all agree. 

A few short years ago, hardly a Michigan deer hunter heard of the QDMA. Now it's spreading like wildfire across this state. 

I'm sure you'll be a holdout for awhile, but change is coming, you'll see. :Welcome:


----------



## Happy Hunter

"A few short years ago, hardly a Michigan deer hunter heard of the QDMA. Now it's spreading like wildfire across this state. "

If that is true why didn't 75-80% of those surveyed in DMU 118 support AR after 4 years. Why didn't they get the required 66% when it was initially proposed? Why isn't every DMU petitioning DNR tio implement AR?

QDM and Ar work fine when they are implemented on leases,coop's or ranches where everyone is in agreement and the hunters, the herd and the habitat can be managed for the common good. However, they will not work when they are forced on hunters who disagree with AR or QDM and where the state has no control over the habitat.


----------



## Letmgro

Happy Hunter said:


> "A few short years ago, hardly a Michigan deer hunter heard of the QDMA. Now it's spreading like wildfire across this state. "
> 
> If that is true why didn't 75-80% of those surveyed in DMU 118 support AR after 4 years. Why didn't they get the required 66% when it was initially proposed? Why isn't every DMU petitioning DNR tio implement AR?


Sorry HH, but the actual numbers for DMU118 are:

40.1% of landowners DID NOT support continuing with AR's, and
40.3% of hunters DID NOT support continuing with AR's.

That's a far cry from 75-80%.


----------



## Happy Hunter

"If that is true why didn't 75-80% of those surveyed in DMU 118 support AR after 4 years. Why didn't they get the required 66% when it was initially proposed? Why isn't every DMU petitioning DNR tio implement AR?"

Note, I didn't say 75-80% didn't support AR, I ask why 75-80% didn't support AR. If AR was as successful as you claim ,the support should have been overwhelming and they would have gotten 75-80% support from both landowners and hunters ,but they didn't.


----------



## Letmgro

HH- You're losing me.

Here's the address to the survey.

http://www.michigandnr.com/publicat...lifehabitat/reports/deer_qdmsurvey_dmu118.pdf

We had 55%+ in favor of AR's, and only 40.2 % opposed. 

If it were an election, those in favor of AR's would have won by a landslide.

Why does it take a super majority (66%) to adopt what the simple majority already wish for?

..and this survey was conducted after only 4 years of AR's, not 5 like it was intended.


----------



## Happy Hunter

"Why does it take a super majority (66%) to adopt what the simple majority already wish for?"

Because that is what the DNR established as the criteria for implementing AR. They bent the regs when they implemented AR without the 66% support and now you are complaining because they are abidding by the regs. after AR had five years to prove that it would accomplish what it was designed to do. The landowners and hunters voted and said it didn't produce as expected ,but you can't accept that.

The difference between the fourth year and the fifth year of AR ws only 12 buck, so there is no reason to expect te vote would have been different after 5 years.


----------



## Swamp Ghost

As I said, "_Aren't doe's made of venison_?"


----------



## omega58

TMAN said:


> You got a better idea what motivates me now? I'm hunting again. For phonies.
> And I'm on a hot track. Spin that.


Hey, is that from an Eminem song?? That's a pretty SWEET BEAT!!


----------



## Letmgro

O.k. T-man, Happy Hunter,

Back to the basics again.

QDM is:

A) Proper sex ratios.
1) keeping the doe numbers in check.
2) protection of young bucks.
3) a doe:buck ratio as close to 1:1 as feasible.

B) Proper Age Structure
1) Keeping the doe numbers in check.
2) protection of young bucks so that an older age class of bucks is established.
3) creation of an actual social structure dominated by mature deer.

C) Maintaining a herd within the carrying capacity of the habitat.

Why do you NOT want to see this?

I don't see anything in there that says " grow huge bucks to keep the trophy hunters happy"

Larger antlered bucks are a By-product of a properly managed deer herd!
Nothing more, nothing less.

I'll let the numbers (percentage of Hunters/Landowners in favor of QDM) speak for itself. :woohoo1:


----------



## Happy Hunter

"2) protection of young bucks.
3) a doe:buck ratio as close to 1:1 as feasible."

I have no problem with harvesting enough doe in order to balance the herd with the true carrying capacity of the habitat.

Protecting young buck is only required if the goal is bigger rack sizes. There hasn't been one study that documents any negative effects of harvesting 75-80% of 1.5 buck. PA has been doing it for over 50 years and there have been no documented ill effects.


Any state agency that would attempt to manage the herd with the goal of attaining a B/D ratio of 1:1 would be guilty of gross mismanagement. A 1:1 B/D ratio is simply not sustainable unless one severly limits the number of buck hunters. That is unacceptable because it is necessary to retain high hunter numbers in order to control the doe population. With a 1:1 B/D ratio ,recruitement and harvest rates would crash and many hunters would simply quit hunting and the remaining hunters would not be able to control the anterless population. The vast majority of QDM leases manage their herd at over 50% of the carrying capacity and try to maintain a 1:2 B/D ratio because that produces the max. number of buck, which means more older buck can be harvested.

Remember this simple fact. The sustainable buck harvest is determined by the number of BB that survive to become 1.5 buck. If fewer BB are born due to a B/D ratio of 1:1 ,or if the buck are harvested as BB,they cannot be saved by AR. Every buck that is saved by AR but dies from normal adult mortality also reduces the harvest. There is no management plan that revokes the basic laws of nature and the sooner you accept that the sooner you will understand that a 1:1 B/D ratio is a terrible idea.


----------



## Letmgro

"Protecting young buck is only required if the goal is bigger rack sizes. There hasn't been one study that documents any negative effects of harvesting 75-80% of 1.5 buck. PA has been doing it for over 50 years and there have been no documented ill effects."

....And now you've hit the nail on the head, why do you think the PA hunting season is now so vastly different? 

DING!

If you choose to do so happy, (but I won't hold my breath), please visit the QDMA's web site. You'll find quite a bit of research/studies concearning the consistant removal of young bucks, and the over all negitive effects the practice has on the deer herd.

http://www.qdma.com/

Some of the research indicates that when there is an absence of an older age class of bucks, the rut then becomes chaotic, because there is no social order amongst the bucks...And younger bucks expell way too much energy engaging in the rut, and in turn they go into the harsher winter months with much less fat reserve than they should have, and they end up with less wieght gain thru the following growing season. 

If a bucks body does not achieve its full weight gain potential, then the antler growth is retarded during the growth period. Smaller racked bucks become the norm in an area, which in turn allows genetically inferior smaller racked bucks to partake in breeding at a rate higher than natural. This then leads into genetics issues.

So yes, there's plenty of research about this subject, and I've only touched the tip of the iceburg...

"Any state agency that would attempt to manage the herd with the goal of attaining a B/D ratio of 1:1 would be guilty of gross mismanagement."

I agree with you on that one. That's why you'll never see an agency manage to that level. By implying that we want to manage closer to a 1:1 B ratio, we saying we want a herd closer to natural, or as close as "feasible". in a free ranging deer herd, where hunters make the harvest decision, 1:1 is highly unlikely. But...it is irresponsible to let the B ratio get so far out of wack. 

It's a goal, probably not attainable, but feasible.

Happy-I can see that you and I are really not getting anywhere. 

And I apologize for not getting you to see the light.


----------



## Happy Hunter

If AR's are only supposed to be temporary , why are so many QDM supporters upset about the recommendation to suspend AR in DMU 118 after 5 years? What is your definition of temporary?


----------



## Letmgro

Our definition is 5 years, just like the proposal states.


----------



## Happy Hunter

"If a bucks body does not achieve its full weight gain potential, then the antler growth is retarded during the growth period. Smaller racked bucks become the norm in an area, which in turn allows genetically inferior smaller racked bucks to partake in breeding at a rate higher than natural. This then leads into genetics issues."

That is nothing more than a QDM theory . There is not a single study that supports that claim . We have been harvesting 75-80% of our 1.5 buck in PA for over 50 years and there has been no documented negative genetic effect. However, in Miss. after 5 years of AR there was a documented decrease in rack size in the areas with the best habitat. BTW, AR in Miss. protects 80-90% of their 1.5 buck ,so it more that meets the QDM standards.


----------



## Letmgro

However, in Miss. after 5 years of AR there was a documented decrease in rack size in the areas with the best habitat. BTW, AR in Miss. protects 80-90% of their 1.5 buck ,so it more that meets the QDM standards.

Untrue. Mississippi's AR was that a buck must have a forked Antler to be legal. This in NO WAY protects hardly any yearling bucks, and in fact it protects the wrong bucks.

The QDMA has never supported Miss. Antler Restrictions!

"If a bucks body does not achieve its full weight gain potential, then the antler growth is retarded during the growth period. Smaller racked bucks become the norm in an area, which in turn allows genetically inferior smaller racked bucks to partake in breeding at a rate higher than natural. This then leads into genetics issues."

That is nothing more than a QDM theory.

Yep, I'm a dreamer, and every single deer researcher (and probable QDMA member) that doesn't see your point of view is also a dreamer...living in a fairy-whitetailed world... :coco:


----------



## Happy Hunter

Then you shoudn't have a problem with suspending Ar's in DMU 118. They had 5 years of Ar's ,now all the hunters are educated and are passing on small 1.5 buck ,so AR's are no longer needed.


----------



## Letmgro

Happy, I sincerely wish to thank you in helping all those who chose to follow these last few days worth of threads, to have a better understanding of what QDM is, and what QDM isn't.

I'm sure that in the not-so-distant future, when PA is experiencing some of it's finest years of deer hunting, you'll truely find that you are a Happy Hunter!

Good Luck, and happy hunting!


----------



## Happy Hunter

"Untrue. Mississippi's AR was that a buck must have a forked Antler to be legal. This in NO WAY protects hardly any yearling bucks, and in fact it protects the wrong bucks."


The fact that AR saves 80-90% of their 1.5 buck is easily documented on the Miss. website. The 4 pt. rule in Miss. protected many more buck that the 3 pt. rule in DMU 118 in Mich. The stats show not one single buck was protected by the 3 pt. rule in Mich., but the harvest of 1.5 buck dropped by over 80% in Miss. 

If you know so much about Miss. ,why don't you post the link to their studies? I have it,do you?


----------



## mecheadSR

The last 5yrs in my neck of the woods has been terrible, absoulutely terrible, but 20-25yrs ago when I started out being a rookie hunting the same pieces of land I hunt today was absoulutely fantastic. You would see quality, quantity and a lot of big bucks in these areas. Now from my perspective, without studies, data, articles from well known writers whoever, that tell's me one thing, It was better 25yrs ago than it is today.


----------



## Happy Hunter

"But...it is irresponsible to let the B ratio get so far out of wack. "

What was the average B/D ratio prior to AR and what were the negative effects of that B/D ratio? Do you think that a B/D ratio of1:3 causes problems?


----------



## unregistered55

Swamp Ghost said:


> As I said, "_Aren't doe's made of venison_?"


Yup, and grill marks don't discriminate.


----------



## Swamp Ghost

TMAN said:


> Yup, and grill marks don't discriminate.


So does your brilliant theory apply to


> brutes that made pretty mounts that a dog wouldn't eat the meat


?


----------



## Swamp Ghost

Broken down by our good buddy Huntnut.



> I do believe that man can positively influence the gene pool. Obviously we breed many animals for traits. Over decades we have refined dominant traits in animals.
> Breeding a champion stallion to a champion mare does help ensure champion offspring...but thats in a controlled environment, breeding for traits controlled by man....sometimes for over a century.
> Man controls that the strongest stallion breeds the strongest mare.
> 
> In our wild deer herd, no such control exists.
> 
> I do believe QDM, allows more bucks to survive, which increases competition, and puts more control back in natures hands to determine which champions will do the breeding.
> 
> Once the champions do the primary breeding, their traits will begin to show in their offspring, and over time, you will have the biggest baddest strongest whitetails in the neighborhood.
> 
> I believe thats as far as the deer genetic arguement can go.





> In a deer herd there is both dominant bucks and dominant does.
> They achieve this status by PROVING their qualities to the rest of the local herd. Dominance increases survival potential of offspring.
> 
> Under these brutes you have subdominant bucks and does.
> 
> And under the subdominant individuals you have the inferiors.
> (remember, we're only talking about mature deer able to breed.)
> 
> THE ECOLOGY TODAY
> 
> First, our buck population.
> The majority of our antlered buck herd every year is 1.5 years old, and the individuals have yet to display any signs they may mature to be an inferior, subdominant, or dominant adult.
> 
> 80% of this age class of scattered potential is eliminated before they have a chance to mature and PROVE their potential.
> 
> Also,
> There is not a proportional amount of PROVEN mature bucks to satisfy the breeding demand of our over abundant doe population.
> 
> Hence, many unproven bucks breed. The scattered potential is bred to the offspring.
> Yes some future dominators will breed, but so will some future inferiors.
> 
> Dominant Does Today.
> 
> Dominant does exist. These dominant does will seek the most dominant bucks and fight off inferior and subdominant does for the right to be bred by the big guy. These offspring carry the potential to be dominant in the future. They will be nourished by the strongest and healthiest does.
> 
> Subdominant does and inferior does that will not be bred by the big guy "settle" for subdominant and inferior bucks (no matter the age) because it is better to be bred by any buck rather than no buck at all.
> 
> The offspring next year is very "scattered" in potential.
> 
> And the cycle repeats the year after.
> 
> (our deer herd today)
> 
> WHAT PRESERVING IMMATURE BUCKS ACCOMPLISHES
> 
> The first year of SUSPENDING the harvest of immature bucks will not display the results we want to achieve by next spring.
> 
> It is the following rut cycle that will begin to show results.
> 
> A 1 1/2 year old buck that is allowed to survive to 2 1/2 begins to show his true potential. (infer, sub, or dom)
> (THIS IS WHAT IS SO IMPORTANT, THEY ONLY BEGIN TO SHOW POTENTIAL AT 2.5 years of age.)
> 
> It is at this age or older that their potential will help or hinder their breeding success.
> 
> These 2.5 year olds will begin to compete for breeding rights using their new potential. They will begin to compete with the dominant bucks, the subdominant bucks, and the inferiors (no matter what age) to breed.
> 
> He will not win against the dominant buck, but he may win or lose against his 2.5 year old peers.
> 
> If his evident potential is good at 2.5 he will breed more does.
> 
> If his evident potential is bad at 2.5 he will breed less does.
> 
> The difference is, he is showing potential now and that influences the amount of doe he will breed. We want proven potential to be passed on.
> 
> Very few of the many new 1.5 yr old "scattered potential" bucks will breed this cycle, because they are NOW competing with the proven potential of the 2.5 year olds as well as the few big guys.
> 
> Overall, there are more 2.5 year olds to "kick the butt" of the unproven 1.5 year olds. (that were doing a ton of breeding the year before)
> 
> The 2.5 year olds also fight each other mostly.
> 
> This age class achieves it's own heirarchy dominance. (we still have scattered potential, but the potential is more evidenced).
> 
> The 2.5 year olds that do PROVE their potential to be strong, breed the most subdominant does.
> 
> Leaving less offspring from the "unproven" 2.5 year olds.
> 
> And also much less offspring from the "scattered potential" 1.5 yr olds.
> 
> 
> Basically, the proven 2.5 year olds subdue the 1.5 yr olds breeding efforts(allowing them to enter winter in better shape), and also subdue the 2.5 year olds that prove to be inferior.
> 
> Your herd will be bred by more proven 2.5 year olds, then todays unproven 1.5 year olds.
> 
> This cycle repeats itself as well.
> 
> The overall potential of the herd is increased.
> 
> The most important variable in this system is that it is ONLY 2.5 year old or older bucks that will physically display their potential that will help their breeding success.
> 
> It is the only way to ensure that the majority of breeding bucks are the ones that prove their dominant strong potential.
> 
> And dominant potential is what increases survival probabilty and keeps health issues subdued.
> 
> This is the best way I can say it guys, and yeah...there are about a million sources used in this elementary way to convey what I think is a better harvest way than today.
> 
> But its about the best I can do on this board.
> 
> We can talk about this, but the second it becomes unfun, or derogatory, it won't be worth talkin about .
> 
> This is just my educated opinion.
> 
> Hunt


----------



## BSK

Happy Hunter wrote:
*We have been harvesting 75-80% of our 1.5 buck in PA for over 50 years and there has been no documented negative genetic effect.*

Based on what?


*However, in Miss. after 5 years of AR there was a documented decrease in rack size in the areas with the best habitat. BTW, AR in Miss. protects 80-90% of their 1.5 buck ,so it more that meets the QDM standards.*

That would not be correct. The AR's protect a high percentage of yearling bucks in the _low quality_ habitat areas, but not in the high quality habitat. And it is the lack of protection of yearling bucks in the high quality habitat that _might_ be causing problems, although the documentation for the reduction in antler size is weak (although very interesting, and that is a primary reason I question the value of antler-point restrictions).


----------



## ESOX

Easy there people. Rebuttals to ideas are fine, but we are getting a little personal in some of these posts.


----------



## BSK

Swamp Ghost,

I spent some time talking to Larry Castle about their 4-point rule. He said he definitely isn't against a "point rule" in Mississippi, he just wished they could set those rules by region (soil type and fertility). Remember, the MS Fish and Game did not impose or have a hand in setting the rule. It was imposed by the state's legislature. As Larry put it, "One day I came to work and found out we now had a 4-point buck rule."

If they were allowed to fine-tune the point restrictions by region, he feels the regulations would be much more affective.


----------



## Swamp Ghost

No doubt, BSK.

I would like to know how a reduction of the buck harvest by 42%(?) results in the protection of over 80% of the 1.5 year old bucks? Your numbers don't add up. MS. has a 4 point or more "total antler point" restriction. MI's DMU 118 has a 3 point to a side restriction and after year 4 of their study recommended a 4 point to a side restriction to protect even more 1.5 year old bucks. As you well know PA has both a 3 point to a side and 4 point to a side restrictions based on Eco-region.

And as the article indicates it's still unclear as to whether AR's alone are to blame for the antler measurement decreases or if it was due to environmental/habitat fluxuations or a combination of both. It's also crystal clear that you cannot practice a low grade of AR, a 4 point total restriction just won't cut it in 90% of the country.

It appears that the best case for AR's can be made in MI's DMU 118, a model AR success story! With PA being a close 2nd


----------



## Happy Hunter

I see you are being confused by the percentage of 1.5 buck in the harvest versus the percentage of the 1.5 buck harvested. The percentage of 1.5 buck in the harvest does not give you the percentage of the 1.5 buck population that was harvested.


In order to determine the percentage of 1,5 buck that were saved by AR , you first have to know how many PS ,1.5 buck there were. In Miss. the average buck harvest is 145K. If 17 % were 1.5 buck ,25k 1.5 buck would be harvested. Now ,from memory ,I believe Miss. had 1.8M deer so at least 200K would have been 1.5 buck. Therefore, 25K/200K = 13% 1.5 buck harvested.

In DMU 118 AR didn't save a single buck in the first year. In the second year it saved 23 ,1.5 buck, but the harvest of older buck still exceeded the baseline. In the following years the buck harvests were all lower than in the very first year of AR when there were no buck saved by Ar.

In PA the results were even worse . We saved 38K buck in the first year of AR and in the second year the harvest dropped by another 23 K. Apparently the 23 K buck saved by AR just disappeared,because they weren't reflected in the harvest.


----------



## BSK

*I would like to know how a reduction of the buck harvest by 42%(?) results in the protection of over 80% of the 1.5 year old bucks?*

Swamp Ghost,

Because it doesn't. I don't remember the numbers off the top of my head, but the percent of yearlings protected by a 4 total point rule varies considerably by region in MS. In the Lower Coastal Plain (swamps) it protects a very high percentage, but in the rich-soiled agricultural regions I believe it protects less than 50%. And that is where the problems with _potential_ high-grading are.


----------



## Happy Hunter

You are right that in the Delta region it protects less than 50 %,but statewide it protects over 80 %. It would be impoossible to have a harvest with 45% 2.5 buck, 38% 3.5 buck and 17 % 1.5 buck, unless at least 80% of the 1.5 buck were saved by AR.


----------



## Swamp Ghost

No confusion, just assumptions on your part.

I have never heard a MS biologist state that a 4 point total restriction protects 80% of their 1.5 year old bucks. As a matter fact not only did the QDMA not endorse the lax MS legislature passed AR's, MS biologists didn't either.

"The Mississippi study is an evaluation of various antler restrictions from theoretical and practical views. On one hand, the researchers used data from penned deer and ran computer simulations to determine the effects of six different antler restrictions at three harvest levels on antler size at 4.5 years of age. Then, they looked at actual data from wildlife management areas throughout Mississippi to see what happened in the field. They found field results corresponded to the predictions from their computer simulations of penned deer for Mississippi's four-point restriction. A four-point antler restriction resulted in smaller antlers for older deer. Field evaluations of the other five antler restrictions were not conducted.

It is also important to note that Mississippi's four-point antler restriction is four points total. Not four points to an antler, as in Pennsylvania. For this reason, direct comparisons between Mississippi's and Pennsylvania's antler restrictions are not appropriate.

Second, these results are not new, nor were they ignored by the PGC. They were published in 2001 in a scientific journal and were included in an October 2002 Game News article, "New Antler Restrictions: Questions & Answers." 

Finally, prior to recommending antler restrictions for Pennsylvania, scientific research results from many sources, including the Mississippi research, were considered. The Mississippi research presented a total of 18 different scenarios in which antler restrictions and harvest rates varied. The scenarios that most closely represent Pennsylvania's antler restrictions showed no difference in antler characteristics of adult bucks. The Mississippi study suggests antler characteristics of adult bucks managed with antler restrictions similar to Pennsylvania's should not be different than adult bucks without antler restrictions."~ Dr. Christopher S. Rosenberry, PGC Wildlife Biometrician


I think the long term effect of antler restrictions will have one long term benefit that is rarely discussed, changing the way MI hunters look at the deer in this state. Everyone of us is a deer manager, we should look at ourselves as stewards of the resource, not just as a kill participant. 

MI hunters are obsessed with the past and present, not even considering making things better for the future. 

Many MI hunters have never seen a mature whitetail buck in the field or experienced the benefits that come along with having a balanced herd and increased age structure. I want my kids to experience these things and not have to go to Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Canada and/or pay $5000 to do it. 

Are antler restrictions a cure all? No. Just a GIANT step in the right direction.


----------



## Happy Hunter

"I have never heard a MS biologist state that a 4 point total restriction protects 80% of their 1.5 year old bucks. As a matter fact not only did the QDMA not endorse the lax MS legislature passed AR's, MS biologists didn't either.'

You are right that they never said that AR protects 80% of their 1.5 buck and they have never said what percentage the 4 pt. rule actually protects. therefore ,sometimes inquirying minds figure things out for themselves.

He is a simple math lesson which you may find useful. If 1.5 buck were 17% of the harvest and the harvest was 145 k, then there were 25K 1.5 buck harvested and 120K 2.5+ buck. Since all of the 2.5+ buck were once 1.5 buck it is a mathematical impossibility for the 1.5 buck harvest to exceed 20%. Therefore ,at least 80% of te 1.5 buck were saved by the 4 pt. rule


----------



## Swamp Ghost

Thanks again for enlightening us with your baseless assumptions.


----------



## Luv2hunteup

Here's some more simple math. 100% of the bucks shot at 1.5 years of age never get older.

I'm not for ARs but is there a simple system out there which will help the uninformed gain the experience it takes to identify 1.5 year old bucks so they don't get shot before they have time to mature?

I realize that ARs could provide a temporary fix to allow hunters to gain the experience to judge a bucks age on the hoof. Each geographic area is different so one size fits all is not an option.

Judging a 1.5 year old is easy once you gain experience. Even my youngest daughter can tell the difference in age classes and she's not old enough to hunt with a firearm yet.


----------



## Happy Hunter

"Thanks again for enlightening us with your baseless assumptions."

If my assumptions are baseless they should be easily refuted, so why don't you post the percentage of 1.5 buck that are saved by AR in Miss? The simple fact is the 2.5 and older buck can't comprise 83% of the buck harvested on a sustained bases unless at least 83% of the 1.5 buck are saved.

Remember, AR does not add any additional legal buck to the herd. It always reduces the number of legal buck( compared to a non-AR herd) due to normal non-hunting mortality.


----------



## BSK

*I think the long term effect of antler restrictions will have one long term benefit that is rarely discussed, changing the way MI hunters look at the deer in this state. Everyone of us is a deer manager, we should look at ourselves as stewards of the resource, not just as a kill participant.*

Thank you Swamp Ghost. Great comment.

Bag limits can have far more affect than just limiting or allowing kills. In my home state of Tennessee, in 1998 the buck bag limit was changed from 11 bucks per year to only 2 bucks per year. The data indicated very few hunters (around 9%) actually harvested more than two bucks per year, so many (including myself) were sceptical if dropping the limit to 2 bucks would actually accomplish anything. But were we critics ever wrong. The 2 buck limit changed hunters "perceptions" of what to harvest. Most hunters still harvested the first yearling buck they saw each year, but with only one buck tag left, they held off for something better (older) with the second tag. Often this meant not harvesting a 2nd buck or actually harvesting an older buck. The percent of the buck harvest that was yearlings dropped from around 80% down to the low 50% range. That was a much, much bigger impact than anyone expected. I guess the moral of the story is that changes in bag limits or ARs can cause unforseen changes in hunter attitude, and these changed attitudes can have major impacts on harvests.


----------



## Happy Hunter

While I don't doubt what you say is true, if the herd size remained the same and the buck harvest remained the same , harvesting more older buck instead of 1.5 buck would actually reduce the average age of the buck in the preseason herd,since you would be repalacing 2.5+ buck with 1.5 buck.


----------



## BSK

The number of yearling bucks harvested dropped from approximately 66,000 down to approximately 40,000 with the implementation of a 2 buck limit. That means somewhere around 24,000 more yearling bucks (minus natural mortality) moved on to the pre-hunt 2 1/2 year-old age-class the following year.

The total buck harvest did not stay the same nor did the total deer population.


----------



## Happy Hunter

Did the buck harvest drop by 20K? Did the population increase or decrease? Why not provide all the data rather than bits and pieces?


----------



## Ferg

and we can debate this adnausium - maybe its time to move on - its like politics one guys uses the numbers his way and someone else uses the same numbers and spins them his way - 

Just agree to disagree - and we'll see what the future brings - I think - that QDM is here to say - and think that it should be - but this thread is about what the QDMA promotes and whats its mission is - not to debate the numbers game - 

Time for a new thread I would suggest - 

ferg....


----------



## BSK

*Why not provide all the data rather than bits and pieces?*

Because I don't believe you are truly interested in the wildlife sciences. You already stated scientific data is not as important as your perceptions. I learned long ago that debating that attitude is a lesson in frustration.


----------



## Happy Hunter

" You already stated scientific data is not as important as your perceptions. I learned long ago that debating that attitude is a lesson in frustration."

No ,I never stated that. That is simply your misinterpretation of what I said.


I am very interested in the scientific data since it so often refutes what is published in many articles supporting AR. I agree with your views on QDM and AR in that I think both are fine for private clubs and leases where all hunters agree with the terms of the plan. However , it is very difficult to be successful in a statewide program when many hunters diagree with the goals.


----------



## Swamp Ghost

HH, your continued editorializing and bombardment with self made or self interpereted "facts" makes your opinion worthless to most of us. I may have missed something out there but I have not made up or twisted any facts to make my point.

It is a lie when you twist partial facts into your own meaning. It's a lie when you make a statement citing statistics or figures that ignore other facts that would change the meaning of that statement. Partial truth out of context is no truth at all. 

HH your actually quite clever. 

There's an old cliche that seems appropriate here: Figures don't lie, but liars can figure. 


Sound familiar?


----------



## Kevin D

Interesting reading.

The rise of QDMA (and I don't think anyone can argue it is on the rise all over the USA - just slower in Michigan) reminds me of how the mentality of bass fishermen has changed over the years. During the 60's and 70's,bass fishermen learned that if you keep every legal two pounder, five pounders pretty soon become rare. Most bass fisherman today don't keep any legal fish because they know it's the best thing for the resource. The mentality of "If I don't kill it someone else will" is for the most part gone. The law didn't change anything, the mentality of the resource managers (bass fishermen) did. 

The same thing is now happening with deer mangement. Those who practice QDMA (and I am one) should not concern themselves with the law. It boils down to individual choices being made on a collective basis. The majority of the deer hunters in Michigan (especially the younger ones) understand the simple formula necessary to get Michigan's herd to reach it's full potential - shoot the does and let the little bucks walk. It's happening in baby steps. I know many hunters (myself included) who shot every fork and six they legally could 15-20 years ago. It doesn't happen as much anymore. 

Kids? New hunters? Let them shoot anything they want if it's legal. Again, it's about individual choices. But for the life of me, I can't understand why a grown man who's shot a lot of small bucks would want to shoot another one instead of letting him walk and dreaming of the day you see him again in three years. Shoot the doe instead!

QDMA still has a long way to go in Michigan, but it's happening.


----------



## Ferg

Kevin - and welcome to the site - I can get interesting sometimes LOL

ferg....


----------

