# QDM Not Wanted!



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

I am from the Thumb and am against the manditory implementation of QDM. 

I agree that some management needs to occur, but not QDM. It was born on fenced in game ranches where very close monitoring of herds take place. The DNR seems to not have a clue about the deer herd now. How are they going to manage QDM?

You say the public will manage themselves. I say , "Fat chance." For the last couple of years there have been unlimited doe permits and this apparently has not had the desired affect on the herd size. What makes anyone think that the same people that shoot doe's know won't be the same ones that shoot them if QDM is implented. Sure there will be a few more, but there are a large group of people that just will not shoot doe's.

So the result will be more bucks and about the same amount of does. ==> Bigger Deer herd. How does this help the farmers? or insurance companies. It seems to me that somehow the QDMA has duped the farmers and insurance companies into thinking that QDM will reduce the size of the herd.

This sample survey of the landowners and residents is also a joke. Of all the hunters hunters in the Thumb, this 1000 hunters and 1000 landowner survey represents very very fewof them. On the DNR's own website it says, "We support voluntary QDM on private lands...The majority of the hunting public (66%) needs to support" How does sampling a small minority determine a 66% support. This is just a show to say that we (the hunting public) voted it in. Sounds to me like the DNR and the NRC are just caving in to the Big Money QDMA Lobby from out of state with the backing of the farm associations and the insurance companies. 

I know some of the people in Cass City who have been working with the QDMA on there farmland for a couple of years. That is great for them. They are fortunate enough to have the land to do it. Why does it need to be forced on those of us who do not have our own land to hunt? They say that they don't even get excited when a small buck walks in front of them. Cry me a river. The day that I don't get exited when even a small doe walks in front of me is the day I quit hunting. Must be nice to have only 5 hunters on a whole square mile! Some of us have never enjoyed that luxury.

I thought that the NRC was voted in to make scientifically sound decisions about managing our natural resources. If they have data that shows that manditory implementation of QDM in the Thumb is the best way to manage our deer herd, then they should implement it. Since when is a sample opinion poll in any way related to science. Like I said before it sounds more like caving to Lobbies.

I know that I ranted quite a bit, but this subject makes me so mad I could spit. This thing is going to get shoved down my throat and I do not like it one bit.

Beagle


----------



## leon (Jan 23, 2000)

Beagle,

We are all certainly entitled to express our opinions in these forums, but I've also always believed we have an obligation to not misstate the facts in the process.

I believe your accusation that the Michigan Farm Bureau and the Insurance Company lobbies are supporting the national QDMA or the local QDMA chapters or current QDM initiatives is flat out wrong. I know of no single contribution that either of these organizations has made to support any QDM organization or QDM effort. I am absolutely certain that they have not supported the QDM effort in the Eastern UP.

If you know otherwise, please let me know. I'm big enough to stand corrected.

Leon


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Leon,

I did not mention anything about insurance company's or farm associations (did not mention The Farm Bureau) funding or even PUBLICLY supporting any QDM proposal. And I have no information to to that fact either.

Please do not take my ranting as dislike of farmers and insurance companies. I have great respect for both groups and understand their stand on the deer herd size. My issue is with the QDMA trying to impose their will onto other law-abiding hunters.

It is common knowledge, though, that crop damage and deer/car accidents drive the DNR to want to reduce the deer herd size. And this is prompted by the farm and insurance lobbies. I was only suggesting that any support from those groups would certainly help the QDM effort.

Why would the DNR and NRC even consider QDM. What do they care about the size of a deers antlers. The only reason that they would even consider it is if they thought that it would reduce the size of the herd.

If I was the QDMA I would certainly be working very hard to get the support of these groups. A few pushes from the right people can certainly get attention. The QDMA would need no public support or money from any lobby, only the connection to the top that they offer.

My point, however, still is that QDM will not work on a free ranging non-managed deer herd, such that exists here in the Thumb. If the NRC has data that shows that it will, why are they not fully endorsing the proposal and implementing it state-wide? Unless they are getting a push from somewhere to move forward. I can't believe that the QDMA has that much clout.

I offer no data or facts just an opinion. 

Instead of nit-picking a speculation. I would much rather hear why my perception is wrong. Why will it work in the Thumb? What example can anyone give that has as much public hunting land, as large of a herd and as large of a hunter population as the Thumb of Michigan. 

Rob


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

"I did not mention anything about insurance company's or farm associations (did not mention The Farm Bureau) funding or even PUBLICLY supporting any QDM proposal. ",Beagle


"Sounds to me like the DNR and the NRC are just caving in to the Big Money QDMA Lobby from out of state with the backing of the farm associations and the insurance companies. ",Beagle

i think you did. 

"I thought that the NRC was voted in to make scientifically sound decisions about managing our natural resources. ", Beagle

they were and people are sick and tired of waiting for them (dnr/nrc) to do something to improve the deer herd,habitat, sick of the way they manage the herd period, they never have hard answers to hard questions. so people took it upon themselves to change it and followed the nrc's own guidelines on establishing qdm area's. if the nrc/dnr believed that mandatory implementation of qdm in any area was detremental to that area's deer herd, don't you think they would say something? there action/inaction speeks volumes. 

"If the NRC has data that shows that it will, why are they not fully endorsing the proposal and implementing it state-wide? ", Beagle

i think with all the new qdm areas popping up, they are going to watch these areas very closely and use them to form deer management policies in the future, maybe not statewide qdm, but a real tweeking of the current management scheme.


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Well, I guess that I should have never brought up my conspiracy theroy...but I was on such a roll. All it did was take away from the meat of my argument. I should have known better. Looking forward to a more productive debate.

Beagle


----------



## hasenpfeffer (Oct 6, 2001)

Glad I'm not the only one that doesn't care for this QDM stuff. It seems people think this is the answer to all our problems. You know what? I think the only problem we have in MI is too many people trying to run things their way. Sure we need balanced harvests. Sure we need to take does, but the year and a half old bucks make up the major portion of deer running around in our woods. It only makes sense that hunters see mostly young bucks. Duh! Maybe they have been over harvested a bit in the past, but that doesn't mean they need to be totally protected now. Heres the real kicker. The QDM rules call for a legal buck to have at least three points on one side. A study I recently read showed that of 30 bucks observed nearly every one that was four points or under at 1.5 years old, was still under six points after three years passed. On top of that, the bucks that were over six points at 1.5 years, (legal bucks under QDM management) were all eight points or better at the end of 3 years. That means under QDM rules as they stand now, all the genetically superior deer would be legal to harvest and the genetically inferior ones would be protected! How lame! I have brought this subject up with the QDMers here at this site, only to be called stupid and ignorant. 
Anyway, just wanted to let you know I agree with you.
Have a great one


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Beagle, you are are from alone on this manner and bring up some great points. One being that there are a large portion of hunters that will not take does. Two, being that most QDM is practiced on large private sections of land that maybe, maybe have 2-6 that hunt it and this is the data that QDMers thrive on.

I too have brought up some question that QDMer have failed to answer, they beat around the brush and say "just wait and see" and "we are doing this for the health of the herd" etc....

Truthfully I see nothing wrong with the deer herd of Michigan(at least northern and the UP), sure there are pockets of "few deer" and pockets of 25 does to 1 buck and areas that fluctuate do to mother-nature. But overall its pretty good.


----------



## Youper (Jul 8, 2001)

The problem in deer hunting today is not the points on a deer's head, but the loss of huntable habitat. Everytime a 40 is broken up, it is lost to hunting even if not to the deer. Even up here we have terribly wasteful sprawl. Many people want to live on little one, five and ten acre plot out in the sticks, and want the taxpayer to pay for their road maintaince and snowplowing. If we all lived in town, it would leave a better land use and ownership pattern.

I don't have a good answer to this problem, because I don't like to see the government tell us how we can use and dispose of our land. Freedom means being free to make the "wrong" or "bad" or "stupid" choice. Even we on this forum rarely agree on much. But if we spent as much time thinking about suburban and rural sprawl as we do antler points, then we would be much farther ahead.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

Everyone so far has valid points. The area I hunt has huge numbers of deer with a doe to buck ratio close to 19 to 1. Its a little lop sided. I have never had a problem filling a buck tag. The biggest problem is finding a decent buck with four points on one side. The bucks that I seem to see that do are young deer. They definetly are not 2.5 years old. I,m fortanate to have a large private piece to hunt. The problem is I let these bucks go and as soon as they cross the fence onto state land the guns start blazing. Every year come december we still see bucks in the fields they are all spikes barely legal. This year 2 spikes we killed in bow season were aged at 3.5 years. Both these deer had huge bodies no rack. I say do away with QDM or make it 3 pts. on a side walks for 2 to 3 years and let them prevent the breeding by these smaller racked bucks. This is what the area I hunt needs. If the DNR's QDM is to work in my area. If they are going to do this they have to micro-manange and they really are not willing to have such complicated laws CO's wouldn't be able to comprehend or enforce. I'm sure its different the areas you hunt. I would love to kill a big buck nearly every 3 years but I just as soon put a buck and a doe or two in the freezer. You can't eat the horns any ways.


----------



## H2OFowl'er (Oct 26, 2001)

Mondrella,

Those two spikes that were 3.5 years, could you describe them? We have a lot of spikes where we hunt, and are trying to come up with a way to thin them out by taking the older (3.5 years and older). We have been talking about taking spikes that have curve to them. That extends above the ears. That are wider than the ear tips etc. We have not come up with a final decision, but would like to hear what those two spikes looked like as far as the horns. Were they tall, wide, or were they just regular looking 3-5 inch spikes??

Thanks


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

I agree with all of you and your concerns, but let me tell you what we did this year. 

We have leased land for three years now. Before this we hunted many hundreds of acres that others could hunt also. We would only shoot year and half old bucks and does. Now that we lease we decided to only shoot one year and half old for each person and the next one has to be a big buck. We did this for a couple of years and this year we saw three big bucks and four two and half old bucks. 

We didnt see this until we started managing it a little. I like to shoot and harvest deer. We eat the meat and love the sport. We have decided to manager the farm with the anticipation of shooting a big buck. It is exciting to think any given day you go out you could shoot a big buck. Where we were hunting before you were lucky to see two does. 

Now for the State to come in and make people hunt QDM, well that is where is gets sticky. I am in favor of the four on one side where I hunt for the second buck. That just makes you hunt harder and appreciate the sport just that much more.


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

H2O FOWLER, 
Both spikes had tines that came straight up. The biggest of the two had spikes 9 and 3/4" and 9" without any mass. What really gave away his age on the hoof was his size. This deer body was huge compared to other bucks in the area. The second had spikes about 4" and pencil thin again he was just a big deer. I have killed spikes that had curve to main beams as wide as 11 1/2". These bucks were all 1 1/2 years old. This is not to say a buck could be a wide spike and be older. Its all trial and error at this point even the so called experts of QDM are 100% in agreement on spikes. It just seems in the last 3 years we let every spike walk. This year we were over run with them. I know last winter was long but these deer have excellent browse and food plots year round. The one thing that has helped us in aging deer on the hoof is watching the bucks in the summer in the Sanctuary. We live within just a few miles of this well known place. I was fortunate to befriend a gentlemen who owns stock in this place and just spending time inside watching deer and helping drive during the counts in December. You start to pick up on some of the body traits of older bucks compared to younger ones. If you can just spend a ton of time glassing deer in the summer in your hunting area and see a older buck feeding with a group of bucks you will see the difference in appearence. Hope this helps. If you have any more questions I'm glad to answer them.


----------



## toots (Dec 8, 2001)

I hunt in Huron Co. I hunting small tracts of land near the Verona State Land. I have been hunting here for 24 years. I do not agree with QDM. The current second buck rule is okay. Hunter education needs to get more involved. My personal survey of hunters in the area this fall, only those with larger tracks of land under their

control were in favor of QDM.I also know that hunters are hard to convince when anything is changed.As someone memtioned earlier ,you let a small buck walk by and when he gets across the line, bang. Thanks for letting me agree with some of you. This is my first post. I have been reading your forum for a couple of months I for the most part think this is one of the best groups online. toots


----------



## H2OFowl'er (Oct 26, 2001)

Toots, 

I keep hearing the same thing. If I let a small buck go it goes over the other side of the fence and gets shot. Well I bet the guy on the other side of the fence is thinking the same thing. Instead of bashing the idea, if hunters would take the initiative to go over to the next property and ask what there opinion is, I am willing to be that many would agree to let the small bucks go. Now on state land I know that is hard. But if the landowners around the state land are letting the small bucks go, people on state land will see bigger deer. The biggest thing here is communication. Talk with the other hunters in the area that you hunt and come up with a plan. If nobody wants to help out well so be it, "brown is down". But at least make an effort, and that goes for everyone that is thinking about QDM and is afraid to let the small bucks go....

Just my opinion...


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

I hear that all time too. If you let the small ones go they will get shot next door.

Well, we have hunters on all four sides of us and they shoot about whatever comes in front of them. But this last spring I found three different sheds from 1 1/2 year old bucks. I do agree that letting some of the 1 1/2 old bucks go will allow you to see more big bucks. The only reason I say that is because I saw it work on our property this year. IMO


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Toots~ I own property at Verona and County Line Rds...about three miles south from Verona state game area. We have been practicing QDM methods along with most of our neighbors. By working with eachother we now have 3 -1 mile square areas participating.....everyone seems pretty happy with the results. 

Neal


----------



## Ebowhunter (Apr 5, 2000)

Mandatory QDM is wrong.

I agree with Beagle, B&N, and Hassenpeffer.

I hunt public land in Tuscola County. The deer quality and densities vary tremendously troughout the thumb. 

In the Murphy Lake Game Area, the densities have been declining steadily over the last six years. This year, I believe that of the 20 deer I saw, there were 7 unique animals. I believe that in the six years I have hunted the area, I have spotted 30-40 unique deer. I have removed 5 of these deer. I know of two other deer that have been pulled out of the area.

The deer I shot in '00 was a four point. Hold your hands about four inches apart, make the peace sign with each hand, and that is the rack this 1.5 yr old deer carried. With mandatory QDM, this deer is allowed to breed. How do we remove his genes from the pool?


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Ebow,
The best way to answer your question is to read this thread:

"why I don' support QDM as its proposed"
http://www.bowsite.com/BOWSITE/TF/regional/thread.cfm?threadid=48347&MESSAGES=21&state=Mi

The whole thread deals with your question.

Hunt


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Toots,

I too have made the observation that the people who are in favor of QDM are the large tract landowners or people who have access. I know that is generalization. Im sure there are landowners against QDM and non-landowners for QDM.

Think about this. Every year that a deer makes it though another deer season, he/she becomes more educated about avoiding hunters. Basically, they learn to go where the hunters arent.

We all know that this is true. How many of those trophy bucks that we see while shining at night prior to season actually get harvested. I have read numerous stories about trophy bucks hiding in a small patch of tall grass in the middle of a field to avoid detection.

This is only a guess, but I would say that there are 20-25 hunters per square miles in the state land near my house during hunting season. 

With QDM there will be more of these mature educated bucks running around. Where are these dominant bucks going to be when the hunters hit the woods. On the 1 mile square with 5 hunters or the 1 mile square with 20-25 hunters per square mile. The dominant bucks are going to move to the less populated private areas leaving the 1.5 years olds to the State land.

This is just one of the many problems that I have with QDM.

Beagle


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Ebowhunter _
> *
> The deer I shot in '00 was a four point. Hold your hands about four inches apart, make the peace sign with each hand, and that is the rack this 1.5 yr old deer carried. With mandatory QDM, this deer is allowed to breed. How do we remove his genes from the pool? *


The old fashion way, through more larger antlered animals preventing the smaller 4 point from breeding.

Beagle~ You are correct, deer will always be more prevelant in the best habitat available. Private land owners invest in their properties.....we spend lots of money to purchase and maintain these properties and create the best hunting conditions possible. State land hunters for the most part, take from the land, without improving it. I know this as I was a state land hunter for years. QDM or not, this will be true.

I believe that state land will also benefit from QDM, mandatory or not, It will be the bucks we let go that will venture out during the rut for miles around. It is the young bucks we let go that also re-locate on surrounding lands. With mandatiry QDM State land hunters will have to be selective, this too will let more deer survive and will help deter the "I have to shoot it or someone else will mentality."

Neal


----------



## Ebowhunter (Apr 5, 2000)

Thanks Hunt N Nut. I post at the Bowsite as Wolfy.

It is nice to see a civil debate on the issue.

Also, your data base provides examples of gene diversity before breeding and after harvesting. "This is where I have my problem with QDM. Under its proposed guidlines, it is the genetically healthier (ie:superior,dominant) deer that are to be killed, leaving the genetically inferior (subordiant, recesive, less healthy) deer that are left in the wild to become the future breedstock." no one knows whether the new QDM superior harvested buck bred 50 does before he was harvested. Also, many of the subordinate "inferior" bucks may have been fathered the season before by this superior buck. - Huntnnut

I have shot all of my deer the first two weekends in November. This year, I missed two of my three opportunities the second weekend of November. 90% of the bow pressure I see is the first two weekends in November.

Peak breeding in Michigan is around Nov 15, according to charts in "Management of Whitetail deer in Michigan" by John Ozoga and Mark Sargeant. Half of our bucks breed before Nov 15. - Scott Bishop

I am shooting deer before the peak breeding period. Therefore, I am glad that I do not have a larger impact on the herd size. I try to avoid being in the woods with the orange army.

Aside... from the the 12/31 thread by Tom on the Bowsite, I realized something that I had not realized before. QDM is a thinking person's game. Unlike the crossbow (will be implemented due to the lack of interest pro or con), QDM may come to pass because of the "larger rack" but it will struggle to involve all parties because of the complexities (i.e. doe kills, doe genetics, button buck identification, etc.). 

When it comes time to avoid shooting the matriarch on Nov 15, 2003 for the 16 year old that is not willing to wait for the eight-pointer that was sighted three days ago by the neighbor... Heck, he may not get the chance if I see the matriarch on Nov 10, 2003 travelling without a buck or a buck smaller than 8 points...

At my house, we love to eat venison.


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Neal,

I have no reason to doubt that you, as a landowner, devote much time, sweat and money to improving the wildlife habitat on your property. I begrudge no one that through the grace of God has become a landowner. I myself have a goal of one-day owning property.

I am sorry to inform you, sir, that in my experience you are the exception to the rule. Much like the public land hunters that you refer to, several of the landowners around here take from their land and give nothing back. They show up a couple times a year to hunt deer and are never seen throughout the rest of the year. They have that right because they own the land. I would say that there are too many landowners and non-landowners alike that do not treat the environment with the respect that it deserves. 

If you and the landowners around you want to implement QDM in your area, that is great. As a landowner you have that right. I just do not appreciate having your will imposed on the other legal hunters who do not agree with you. Someday I too will have the right to do what I choose on my own land.

I would like to thank you, though, for perpetuating my perception of the typical QDM supporter.

Beagle


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Beagle _
> *
> I would like to thank you, though, for perpetuating my perception of the typical QDM supporter.
> 
> Beagle *


If you are referring to me putting the resource above my own personal success then you are very welcome.

I still strongly disagree that most landowners don't improve or manipulate their land for hunting purposes. People who spend $2000 to $3000 per acre for an investment in hunting land manage it for that purpose. Maybe you should get out of Caro a little more often and expand your personal experiences....Sir.


Neal


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Beagle,
please remember that QDM advocates come in all shapes and sizes.
I am an advocate that owns no hunting land.
I have access to some private,
But still enjoy a state land hunt more than a few times a year.

Me thinks you paint with too broad a brush!

Hunt


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

The posts by H20 Fowl'er and mich buckmaster seem to be right on target. And if the primary reason you shoot that yearling buck is because you're afraid your neighbor will shoot it, you're probably hunting for the wrong reason.


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Huntnut, sorry for using too thick of a brush, but I did qualify the statement by saying, I know that is generalization. Im sure there are landowners against QDM and non-landowners for QDM.

OK Neal, now we are even you gave your cheap shot and I gave mine. Now back to the issue. The issue is not landowner vs. non-landowner. The issue is QDM implementation in the Thumb. 

You seem pretty firm in your belief in QDM. I am real interested in your opinion. I keep asking these same questions to QDM proponents and cant seem to get a straight answer.

1.What exactly is wrong with the health of the Thumb's deer herd? I am not looking for the usual skewed buck to doe ratio analysis. I am looking for some science not opinions that says where we are at now is bad. Why does it so drastically need fixing? 

2. Where is this needed increase in doe kill going to come from (to achieve the 2:1 doe to buck ratio referred to in the DNR sample opinion poll)? We have had unlimited doe permits issued in the last few years that apparently has not had the desired affect on the size of the herd. The same people that kill the does now are going to be the same people that kill does when QDM is implemented. It is a simple fact that some people will not kill a doe. 

3. Why not give the existing law changes a chance before moving on? Just a couple years ago we could kill up to 4 bucks per season with little push to kill does. Now with the combo license you can kill two, the second of which has to have four points or more on one side. There has been a big push to kill does for the last couple of years

4. Where is the infrastructure going to come from to support QDM? The articles and other papers that I have read about QDM by QDM proponents talk about the constant management tweaking needed to assure good results. 

LookI am 100% for managing our resources so that my son can enjoy the same hunting experience that I do. I just see several major flaws with the QDM proposal as it relates to our free ranging, non-managed whitetail deer herd here in the Thumb.

My proposal would be:

1. See if the current law change has any affect. 
2. Enforce the existing laws. We don't need more laws that will be difficult to enforce. The one that bugs me the most is the guy that fills his licenses, his wifes license, and his wifes, cousins, husbands, friends license and any other license he gets his hand on. 
3. More education about not killing button bucks and about how to properly identify button bucks (they should be sacred cows). If someone kills a button buck make them use a buck tag. 
4. More education about the need to kill more does. Too many people will just not do it. 

I think this would be a baby step in the right direction. The QDM proposal for the Thumb just seems too radical. 

I look forward to your answers to my questions

Beagle


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

hopefully these answer some of your questions

1.What exactly is wrong with the health of the Thumb's deer herd? I am not looking for the usual skewed buck to doe ratio analysis. I am looking for some science not opinions that says where we are at now is bad. Why does it so drastically need fixing? 


nature always seeks an even ratio, without human interference wild populations are 50:50, young are born at a 50:50 ratio males to females. humans alter this ratio by focusing on the male of the species, altering it. 50:50 is the way it was intended. if this is deviated from (even slightly 2,3,4:1) for any length of time it is considered unnatural or unhealthy and problems will begin to crop up.


2. Where is this needed increase in doe kill going to come from (to achieve the 2:1 doe to buck ratio referred to in the DNR sample opinion poll)? We have had unlimited doe permits issued in the last few years that apparently has not had the desired affect on the size of the herd. The same people that kill the does now are going to be the same people that kill does when QDM is implemented. It is a simple fact that some people will not kill a doe. 


this has been a problem for awhile and is something the MDNR has been trying to address and QDM will address. you can't force people to do something they refuse to do, but you can take the pressure off of some of the buck population, this will increase the overall buck population and in return with stricter buck harvest criteria may make doe harvest more acceptable.we have come along way in terms of doe harvest but we could go a lot farther.


3. Why not give the existing law changes a chance before moving on? Just a couple years ago we could kill up to 4 bucks per season with little push to kill does. Now with the combo license you can kill two, the second of which has to have four points or more on one side. There has been a big push to kill does for the last couple of years 



we have had very liberal buck licenses and regulations for many years, time to change the rules, they may seem extreme now but in the future few will give them a second thought.IMHO
the vast majority of deer hunter shoot one buck/any buck, few of the second buck tags are filled because few utilize them and they are harder to fill. many hunters are happy with one buck and that is fine, the problem arises when the harvest is skewed in favor of buck harvest, mainly 1.5 year old/immature bucks, this also marks the third year the antlerless deer harvest harvest has dropped.


4. Where is the infrastructure going to come from to support QDM? The articles and other papers that I have read about QDM by QDM proponents talk about the constant management tweaking needed to assure good results. 


the MDNR/NRC will enforce and oversee the QDM programs in the experimental area's. they are going to keep close track of the progress or lack of there of and offer suggestions for program improvement.


i agree with your proposals and they should be implemented not just in proposed qdm areas but statewide as well.


i stand behind qdm because they have been proactive in the pursuit of improvement, you can't make all the people all the time. they dove head first into a huge undertaking, overcoming many obstacles to get to the point they are. nothing's perfect and we can't see into the future, but that should not stop us from trying something new.


i'm no qdm expert or biologist, just a deer hunter trying to make deer hunting better.


i do know a good wildlife biologist, who is a pretty sharp cookie and explain things in better detail than this fireman ever could.

he goes by huntnut on this forum.

what's up hunt?


----------



## toots (Dec 8, 2001)

I also feel it is not right to ask any hunter to pass on a legal buck if they are young or old and have never taken a deer. As you get some time in the woods you should be able to back off on your own.I also am for young hunters and getting them stared. I am not in favor of the youth hunt, it is going to lead someone astray. toots


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

toots, no one is asking anyone to pass on a legal buck. the definition of a legal buck will be modified to address harvest specific objectives.

the oppurtunity will be no different under qdm, it will force people to be more selective, actually increase time afield, increase hunter success due to encouraged increased doe harvest and enhance the overall experience.


----------



## hasenpfeffer (Oct 6, 2001)

Why is it that QDM doesn't ask to limit the harvest of trophy class bucks? Why should one hunter be allowed to kill two trophy bucks while another is forced to go without venison because he didn't get a chance to shoot an eight point or larger? I mean truthfully, whos doing more damage to the "quality" of our deer herd? Is that a balanced harvest?
I question the forementioned statement that nature creates a 50/50 balance naturally, but thats not really the issue here. I do believe, and have said this many times now, no matter what the actual balance is between bucks and does, hunters will continue to see more does than bucks. And of the bucks they do see, they will see more young ones than older ones. 
What if MI adopted a system like this? Each hunter gets two tags. The first tag is good for a buck with less than three points on one side, or a doe. The second tag is good for only a buck with three or more points on one side. In areas where there are too many deer the state could issue bonus permits only good for harvesting does. This makes a bit more sense to me than simply protecting the scrub bucks in hopes that they will someday become trophies. It would surely balance the harvest better from all aspects. Think about it.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

i really can't consider an immature, inexperienced buck to be a "scrub" buck.

how many hunters fill their second buck tags now? not many

how many many hunters will fill their first tags under qdm regulations? quite a few. the first couple years of the program will see an overall drop in buck harvest, once the buck population catches up you will see a dramatic rise. i don't think it will be up to current levels, due to the fact that a 2.5 year old or older buck is pretty elusive. but i think you will see a more even harvest of bucks and does.


you can't consider these immature bucks "scrubs", you can't predict what they will be. many of these "scrub" bucks are killed now and we will never know their true potential or how they will impact the herd, they simply don't get the oppurtunity. 


to think that qdm is going to increase pressure on mature bucks is a little jaded, these bucks are already exposed to a tremendous amount of pressure by all hunters. qdm can't place a bull's eye on their chest, it's already there. these bucks simply are tougher to hunt and harvest, that's why they don't make up a large part of the harvest and why the the second buck tags are rarely filled.


"What if MI adopted a system like this? Each hunter gets two tags. The first tag is good for a buck with less than three points on one side, or a doe. The second tag is good for only a buck with three or more points on one side. In areas where there are too many deer the state could issue bonus permits only good for harvesting does."

that is really no different than the current system, except for the doe/buck choice on the first tag, i like that idea.


"I question the forementioned statement that nature creates a 50/50 balance naturally, but thats not really the issue here."


" What is the sex ratio at birth? Out of every 100 fawns born, how many are males and how many are females? The answer is usually, but not always, slightly more males than females. We could discuss the theories about why this occurs for hours, but the bottom line is I dont think anyone really knows.", Larry Marchinton, School of Forest Resources at the University of Georgia.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

I think the question of herd health is a very good question. I have yet to be convinced that the deer herd is in that bad of health. In fact the Michigan Environment with periodic extreme winters, pretty much mandates many weak or sick deer will die.

The bottom line question for me (and I hope many others) is; How many years will I go without venison if i am willing to harvest doe, once QDM has been in practice for a few years? I think that is what most of us are concerned about. The current system can be compared to agriculture or beef production. A few bulls are used to sire herds of females, and the males (steers) go to market. The consumer is happy and the farmers are happy. 

Right now, most hunters are happy and need to be assured that any risk to the deer herd is minimal. <----<<<


----------



## Ebowhunter (Apr 5, 2000)

it will force people to be more selective, actually increase time afield

I would love to be able to increase my time afeild. How? I did not spend one single uncommitted moment not afeild during this years archery season. Unfortunately, I am unable to spend any time hunting during the week. The most common comment from the "hunters" I work with, "I missed deer (gun) season this year due to a lack of time"

My new stance on QDM: It is a thinking man's game. It is fine to debate at a place like this where people like to think. 

Look around at the people you hunt with. Most likely, they like to debate this issue. 

Of the 750K deer hunters in Michigan, how many are aware of QDM? How many are involved in QDM? How many could care less? How many are against it? How many remain undecided? How many will quit hunting because it will take 5+ years (how many years will it take?) for the shootable population of bucks to reach a level where the average hunter can walk into the woods on Nov 15 and walk out with a deer (like they do now)? What will QDM do to inhibit the poaching industry?


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Hi all...

I would like to take an unbiased stab at Beagles questions.

"1.What exactly is wrong with the health of the Thumb's deer herd? I am not looking for the usual skewed buck to doe ratio analysis. I am looking for some science not opinions that says where we are at now is bad. Why does it so drastically need fixing?"

It is not necessarily the current health that worries me. It is the gradual degredation of the herd as a whole.
We have far more does than we have bucks, and therefore, have too much indiscriminate breeding. Bucks that do not have the physical characteristics of dominance pass these indominant traits to far too many offspring. 
Lets remove hunting from the equation for a minute.
If we had a normal age class structure...the "proven" big guys will do the majority of breeding and thus pass on the "big guy" traits to his young. This is survival of the fittest, and this system gaurantees strong offspring. These strong offspring battle when they become mature, and then only the strongest of the strong produce offspring. In Natures sytem, the deer herd as whole becomes stronger and better apt to survive throughout time.

In todays herd, there is very little competition. A buck that Mother Nature would never allow to breed gets to hit many does a season. He passes these weaker traits to offspring. His offspring are born at a disadvantage. Yet with so many does, all of these weaker offspring get to pass their traits on to more weaker offspring. The overall amount of inferior deer grow, as the traits are born to both buck and doe offspring.
When I use the term "weaker", I mean deer that are genetically dispositioned to be: smaller in size, less antler mass, inadequate immune systems, etc....any trait that could threaten an individuals existence in hard times. What we have to remember is that an inferior buck sires just as many inferior does as he does bucks. An inferior (under weight?) doe is next years breeding stock, even though she is lacking....this leads to inability to nurture young properly.
This change doesn't happen over night, but through time, a higher percentage of the deer herd will degrade. This is the exact opposite of natures plan. She derived this foolproof plan of natural selection through millions of years of trial and error. We are screwing it up in a matter of decades.
No matter what anyone says or thinks, Mother Natures system is far better than any system man could ever dream up.
If you doubt the above theories, please read up on what happened to the endangered cheetah population because of hunting. The genetics were degraded too much and the cheetah is in a free fall extinction that cannot be stopped.
This is what I mean by health of the herd. Not that individual deer over there, but the status of the herd in 50 years.
I am sure some of you will find fault with the above premise, but if you do, you are arguing with Mother Nature....not me.

"2. Where is this needed increase in doe kill going to come from (to achieve the 2:1 doe to buck ratio referred to in the DNR sample opinion poll)? We have had unlimited doe permits issued in the last few years that apparently has not had the desired affect on the size of the herd. The same people that kill the does now are going to be the same people that kill does when QDM is implemented. It is a simple fact that some people will not kill a doe. "

I don't know how we do it. Maybe it will happen on its own. I believe the majority of people who don't shoot does are from the baby-boomer generation, taught by their fathers that shooting does was a no no. I may be wrong though. More and more of these hunters will drop out due to age. It's the younger hunters that need to adopt the "does are ok", it will come through.....I hope. I know this doesn't answer you question, but this is one that I really don't know.

"3. Why not give the existing law changes a chance before moving on? Just a couple years ago we could kill up to 4 bucks per season with little push to kill does. Now with the combo license you can kill two, the second of which has to have four points or more on one side. There has been a big push to kill does for the last couple of years"

Whatever we did in the past should be forgotten, and not used in an attempt to create a better sport and herd. As it stands, our normal regs leave far too many disgruntled hunters after season, and for some reason..55,000 hunters are disatisfied and quit the past 2 years alone. I don't know regulation questions....I know Wildlife Biology 
I would support any of the following:
A button must be tagged with a buck license.
4 pt. minimum/side south of Flint, 3pt to a side north of flint.
Single buck tag, single doe tag (for areas that warrant)

"4. Where is the infrastructure going to come from to support QDM? The articles and other papers that I have read about QDM by QDM proponents talk about the constant management tweaking needed to assure good results. "

I absolutely agree with you here. I don't believe the NRC or the QDMA is addressing this issue enough. 
I believe the NRC to be totally at fault in binding the hands of the QDMA and the Whitetails Forever group. From where I stand, the NRC is causing more problems than they are worth. The NRC is only interested in getting as many deer harvested as possible, and could care less about people shooting buttons, let alone managing the deer herd for the deer's sake.
There was a great article about this in the October 2001 issue of Woods-n-Water News by Tom Antor. My jaw absolutely dropped when I read the reasons they would not allow different regulations. It is truly a sickening read.

All right....I gotta go back to work now 

Hunt


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Thanks Huntnut for an excellent post. In answering Beagles concern - Where is the infrastructure going to come from to support QDM? - you mention that QDMA could be doing a better job in this area. As an active QDMA member, I have no doubt that we could be doing a better job in this area as well as others. And would be especially interested in any specific suggestions that you might have. Don't hesitate to send me an email if you feel your response may be getting us off track from the original post.


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Beagle~ First of all you took the first shot, then me.....I know I'm splitting hairs, but I want to be accurate.

Second~ Jamie and hunt nut gave some pretty good answers to your questions. The only thing I would add on the increase of doe kills, is I believe with the proposed restrictions hunters will be more likely to shoot a doe to insure they have thier freezer meet.

I also think Bwiltse struck a cord with his statement.......QDMA, like all organizations, is not perfect, especially at the rate they are growing. We would love to have more volunteers to address the areas that are not up to snuff. I think the biggest problem is not so much our management strategies, but an impression on who we are. I can assure we are just a bunch of regular guys with a different plan. I think if you came to a Thumb chapter meeting you would see our true intentions and who we are.

BTW~ I also have 40 acres between Caro and Deford, nestled next to the Deford State game area,maybe we can meet over a cup of coffee or a cold one the next time i'm up.......or maybe a rabbit hunt? Mt buddies also run their beagles out of Kingston.

Neal


----------



## leon (Jan 23, 2000)

I agree Mich Buckmaster. My experience has been the same. Some of my neighbors cooperate and let little bucks go and some do not. Even so, I keep practicing QDM because I know it works and it makes the hunting more fun. I like seeing more bucks, even if they are little guys that I do not shoot. Sometimes, real magical things happen like the huge 185 pound monster eight pointer my dad shot this year late in the rifle season or the nice 9 pointer I got two years ago with the bow in early October.

Last year, a neighbor shot a huge 12 point buck that was incredible late in rifle season. He told me he'd never seen and certainly never shot anything like it in his life (he's in his late sixties). He got the trophy of the lifetime and he knows he got it because we let a number of small bucks go over the last few years so this big boy could grow up. This year, two twin brothers hunting on state land near our place both shot nice 7 and 8 point bucks. Like my neighbor, they had never shot a decent buck like this in their lifetimes.

Until you've experienced something like this, it's hard to accept the change of QDM and you think you are satisfied shooting spikehorns. For those of us who have seen it work firsthand, this is a no-brainer....


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

I have to say huntnut fine job answering beagle's questions! I completely agree with the inferior bucks breeding doing the breeding and passing on bad traits. I remember when there was no doe tags. The area I hunt is in my opinion some of the best deer habitat around. There is about 3700 acres of state land surrounded by farms. These farms are 60% tillable and 40% prime deer cover. This state land has more hunters opening week than any thing you can imagine every 150 yards you see a orange blob. Every decent buck would be killed it seemed within the first 4 days of gun season. We eventually saw the body size of deer shrink. I remember the first 8pt I killed weighed 78lbs. field dressed. The very next year the DNR issued crop damage permits. We started killing does to keep the farm afloat. The year before they ate 65% of are normal corn crop. After 5years of killing 50 does a year off of 320 acres we farmed we saw body weights increase, better racked bucks and less winter die off. 
The only problem I have with the present QDM rules is 3pts on a side. A few years ago we tried somthing very similar we let many spikes narrow racked 4 and 5pts. go. This was easy to do considering we were seeing many 6 to 9pts. 11/2 year old bucks to fill tags. This year during the summer glassing out of 46 bucks in one night only 5 bucks were 5pts and better. Normally it is closer to 50:50. This year we decided to let the better bucks walk and hope they survived and took spikes and scrubby rack forkhorns. Granted it will take 2 to 3 years to see results. The only real negative this year is so many state hunters killed buttonbucks. I just don't understand how you can kill one they are so easy to identify. These are the deer that need to be protected with the QDM rules.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Mondrella,
Thank you very much, I appreciate that.

Boy, you are in a unique scenario.

I have stated numerous times that I believe QDM will lead to more harvest choices for the hunter than we have today.

Your post absolutely slammed that opinion home.

You lucky dogs are actually in the MANAGEMENT phase of QDM. The ratio has been equaled, and now you are managing a healthy herd. You the manager deduce it is time to remove the lesser scrubs in an effort to increase the health of your already superb herd. 

You the hunter has every harvest choice available . Congradulations.

You are light years ahead of the rest of this state.

In all the debating I have done defending antler restrictions, your post is the first good reason I have heard not to have them. Kudos.

I can only say that I hope the rest of our state will catch up, so I can be against antler restrictions too.

Hunt


----------



## mondrella (Dec 27, 2001)

Thanks hunt I think we are on the right track the buck to doe ratio is problably still 1 buck to every 8 or nine does. Much better than the 1 to 30 we had before. However this was the first year during the first week of Nov. bowhunting we rattled in bucks. It took one guy on the ground makeing as mush noise as possible. Granted we only took one this way. But it was the best possible buck to kill a 3.5 old spike. The very next day we went back to same spot and tried again and had to bucks coming across a open field when a guy hunting state land stood up and started pounding on the fence and waving his arms. Needless to say both bucks vanished one was a fine 8pt. a nieghbor killed opening day of gun. Just wish the guy on the other side of the fence would have had a little respect for another hunter. Anyone against QDM I just wish they could experience bucks coming to rattling they would be hooked for sure. I think we would be better off in QDM areas to protect 3pts. to aside and better at least for the first 2 years. What do you think hunt?


----------

