# To "QDMers"



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Liver and Onions said:


> but I would suggest that other members besides NorthJeff contact a few of the "kill all doe" members and tell they privately that their rhetoric has hurt the QDM movement deeply in the past


That is not the case everywhere in Michigan. In the Mid-Michigan Branch, I get more complaints about the loss of the late antlerless season. Some members question why we aren`t pushing to get the late season reinstated because these members want more opportunities to shoot does. No one asks that we try to get antler restrictions back in DMU118. Pushing doe harvest is not hurting membership in the Mid-Michigan Branch.


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

Bob S said:


> That is not the case everywhere in Michigan. In the Mid-Michigan Branch, I get more complaints about the loss of the late antlerless season. Some members question why we aren`t pushing to get the late season reinstated because these members want more opportunities to shoot does. No one asks that we try to get antler restrictions back in DMU118. Pushing doe harvest is not hurting membership in the Mid-Michigan Branch.


How much of the huntable land in your area is farm land or relatively close to farm land as opposed to vast forested areas? Again, it comes down to the habitat, the respective densities and need to manage accordingly. How is the winter kill in mid Michigan?

I don't recall hearing too many complaints about doe harvest from the heavily farmed areas, only the heavily forested areas.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

Bob S said:


> That is not the case everywhere in Michigan. In the Mid-Michigan Branch, I get more complaints about the loss of the late antlerless season. Some members question why we aren`t pushing to get the late season reinstated because these members want more opportunities to shoot does. No one asks that we try to get antler restrictions back in DMU118. Pushing doe harvest is not hurting membership in the Mid-Michigan Branch.


Taken in context, L&O's point was that the "kill all the does rhetoric" is a strong reason why many hunters currently abstain from membership and involvement. 

You unwittingly proved his point by pointing out how enthusiastic the Mid-Michigan Branch members are about increased antlerless harvest, and that pushing doe harvest is not hurting membership in your branch. It's not a matter of what the current members are enthusiastic about, the point is that many more hunters are recruitable and would become involved if the QDM message focused on the basic tenets that NJ & BSK & others have been clearly stating. 

Just within this thread both Ed Spin & NJ have clearly explained why "one size fits all" does not and can not work. The QDM movement is weakened by advocates of the "one size fits all" mentality in terms of antlerless harvest.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Bwana said:


> How much of the huntable land in your area is farm land or relatively close to farm land as opposed to vast forested areas? Again, it comes down to the habitat, the respective densities and need to manage accordingly. How is the winter kill in mid Michigan?
> 
> I don't recall hearing too many complaints about doe harvest from the heavily farmed areas, only the heavily forested areas.


Then the hunters in the heavily forested areas should not shoot does. But, those hunters should not tell the hunters in the farm areas to not push doe harvest.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

jk hillsdale said:


> The QDM movement is weakened by advocates of the "one size fits all" mentality in terms of antlerless harvest.


I am not advocating a one size fits all management plan. Just the opposite. Not every DMU in this state is below the DNR`s goals like the DMUs in the UP. Every DMU in this state can not manage by a, don`t shoot does because we can`t shoot them in the UP attitude. Some on this site seem to suggest that no one should push doe harvest because that might upset the UP hunters. I am sure it is not NorthJeff`s intention, but sometimes he comes off as sounding like, we shouldn`t say anything that might upset the UP hunter.


----------



## 4x4_Hunter (Jan 2, 2002)

A LOT of these complaints and issues come from ESTIMATED herd numbers from the DNR. It definitely helps when all of us hunters get our harvested deer recorded by the DNR. We take every deer to them for the purpose of a more accurate herd estimate. 

Now, there are so many of us complaining about too many does being harvested or a need for AR's, etc., etc., etc... I still believe that if the DNR made it required to check-in all harvested deer (or some version of a better check-in policy), then the numbers would become much more accurate and the restrictions, regulations, and such could be put in place to coincide with those counts. I do believe the DNR is trying to make everyone happy. The problem is "everyone" includes their financing department of course and the insurance companies. For everyone who believes that the rules should be different for their specific area, please do your part and check every harvested deer and encourage your neighbors to do the same. 

I do believe that deer numbers "in general" have gone down and the DNR may or may not recognize that. What is really strange is that some of what Bob S. writes, I see just the opposite and our 40 ac. properties are less than 10 miles apart. I don't feel that we need to harvest a lot more does. From my trailcam pics in the past 3 years, the doe numbers have dropped considerably. But that is only from my pics. I don't expect the DNR to change anything because of what I see. However, Bob S. may have "too many" does in his area and he may need to shoot more. I am a big believer in gaining extensive knowledge of the herd and habitat in your specific area and hunt according to what you think is best. I DON'T believe in going out and filling 10 doe tags just because the DNR allows you to! I would say that right now, the rules are broad enough to allow you to hunt the way you think is best. For areas that have too many does, you have plenty of opportunity to get extra doe tags and take a few extra. For those areas that have a high buck:doe ratio, you have an opportunity to take 2 bucks each. For those areas that have very low deer numbers, you can pass on smaller bucks and limit you doe harvest. It all comes down to opinions on how many deer there are. That brings me back to finding a way to get a much more accurate number and that could start by checking in your deer. Am I way off base on this or does this make sense??? Because this is how I see it.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

4x4_Hunter said:


> What is really strange is that some of what Bob S. writes, I see just the opposite and our 40 ac. properties are less than 10 miles apart. I don't feel that we need to harvest a lot more does.


You don`t have to harvest does because I would suspect your deer numbers are much lower where your place is than where my property is at. That 10 miles puts you too far to draw deer from the dairy farms south of me. Isn`t all that is around your place woods and Christmas tree farms? My property is barely a mile from the closest alfalfa field. I have seen as many as 130 deer in the fields on the two farms south of my place at dusk in late March and April. When those doe groups breakup and spread out looking for fawning areas, many of those deer will be in the woods and swamps in my area.

While your overall deer numbers are much lower than what I see, I believe from some of our emails, that your buck to doe ratio is much closer than what I see.

Also, hunters on about half of the properties in this area are pretty good about sharing information. So I have a good idea of how many does my neighbors aren`t shooting.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Ok we are all meeting at Bob S place this fall and doin an all out doe slaughter :evil: I wish I had the deer around to do what you do Bob that would be a fantasy to have ayear or two of "theres one......Bang" I would be in my glory that year and I sure would eat well too. Someday I suppose I may have a piece that needs to be severely thinned and I can't wait for it.

AW


----------



## 4x4_Hunter (Jan 2, 2002)

You're right Bob S. We do the same and share as much info as possible with our neighbors (those who have a head on their shoulders anyway). I know exactly where you are talking about. In that same time-frame that you are talking about, we have seen up to 400 deer in that same field. Yes, that is an estimate because there were so many that 4 of us guys had to divide up sections and try to count in each section. However, that was about 3 years ago and each year it has gone down. This past year, I think the most we saw around your area was about 40-50 at any one time. Could be just a coincidence though. 

Adam, don't get too excited... I haven't ever seen those kinds of numbers around there in the Oct-Dec timeframe. Also Bob S, actually we have a big dairy farm about 2 miles from our place (Dean's). Also, there are a lot of corn, wheat, alfalfa fields around us. BUT, just not the amounts that are around you. I wish we could have afforded to purchase that beautiful place across from that notorious field this past fall when it was for sale. Did that end up selling or did they take it off the market?


----------



## Buck Rogers (Nov 7, 2004)

In my opinion - Since this is a forum based on opinion, It is not the DNR who is messing up the deer herd in many area's of the NLP and the UP but the hunters who hunt these area's. We say the DNR doesn't know what there doing by giving out all these doe permits but there are still many people who go out and shoot every deer they see in these area's and there justification is because the DNR says there is too many deer. Don't misunderstand me, I am not against shooting a few does if it is warranted but in many area's of the NLP and UP, Especially on State Land we should be very restrictive on the deer we shoot. Sure, maybe the DNR should not give out the permits in these area's but they do and we as hunters need to use common sense on what is right and what is wrong.

I am fortunate to hunt and area of NLP that is totally surrounded by private land (TB Zone) and the land owners can all come to and agreement on a strategy around deer population. In 3 years this area has gone from seeing maybe a deer every day to seeing a few deer every time out. The best we can tell the buck to doe ratio is about 3 to 1 which is pretty good so we have not shot any doe in 3 years and the herd in this area is thriving. We are very restrictive on the bucks we shoot (8 point or better) and all the land owners in the area have been putting in food plots to help with the deer nutrition. This have made a huge difference. Its amazing how good the genetics on these deer in the area are if you let them live to 3 1/2 or 4 1/2 years.

I guess my point is that every area needs to be handled differently and it is possible to build the deer herd back up to acceptable levels if you can get together with other land owners and agree on a sound management practice for your area. We realize that we will need to start shooting some doe's soon but believe me when that day comes we will not be out gunning for every one we see. If you want to have more deer and bigger deer you need to stop shooting everything around and definitely let the smaller ones go. Just because the DNR is handing out unlimited permits doesn't mean you have to use them all. Just my 2 cents.

I realize the Southern Half of the state is a totally different situation.


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

I am a pro QDMer, but this is the first year that I have felt the push on this forum that some PRO QDMERS KNOW IT ALL!! There are some that will listen and at least understand some peoples viewpoint, then theres the ones that KNOW IT ALL!!!!!!!!

It does get tiring hearing the same old crap all the time. 

Oh well I will keep shooting the does and hopefully some bucks will make it for next year. 

Good Luck guys!!


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Sometimes I wonder. MI hunters who have experienced a "reduction" in the deer population are always blaming increases in antlerless permits and blame it for lousy hunting.

Very rarely have I ever heard one of these complaintants express a concern for lack of buck sightings or express a willingness to curtail buck harvest.

Are bucks not deer? Wouldn't an increase in the buck population "fill a void"?

For folks that are not willing to accept or support curtailing buck harvest, they sure are happy and more than willing to curtail other hunter's antlerless harvest.

Makes no sense what so ever................


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

4x4 Hunter,
*From my trailcam pics in the past 3 years, the doe numbers have dropped considerably. But that is only from my pics.... I am a big believer in gaining extensive knowledge of the herd and habitat in your specific area and hunt according to what you think is best.*

Great post 4x4 Hunter. And that's the way it should be done. Collect some good data (and trail-cameras can produce the best data) then evaluate your local situation and adjust your harvest accordingly. Well said!


----------



## Buck Rogers (Nov 7, 2004)

"Sometimes I wonder. MI hunters who have experienced a "reduction" in the deer population are always blaming increases in antlerless permits and blame it for lousy hunting."

Swamp Ghost - Hunters are justified in blaming the reduction in deer population on increased antlerless permits. After all, wasn't that the purpose of the DNR handing out all those permit, too reduce the deer numbers??????

I'm all for Sound Quality deer management but no one person has the right or wrong answer. It seems to me every area needs to be handled differently depending on the carrying capacity of the land and current population. My point is that in the NLP and the UP, Especially on many state lands, the deer populations have been decimated and the main reason for that is unlimited doe permits (which was the purpuse according to the DNR).

In area's of private property, there are places where the deer numbers are still too high and in these area's doe permits should be used to help reduce the numbers to acceptable for that properties carring capacity. Again, the use of doe permits to reduce the deer herd. This is there purpose.

Not trying to argue with anyone. Just stating facts.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Buck Rogers said:


> "
> Swamp Ghost - Hunters are justified in blaming the reduction in deer population on increased antlerless permits. After all, wasn't that the purpose of the DNR handing out all those permit, too reduce the deer numbers??????
> 
> I'm all for Sound Quality deer management but no one person has the right or wrong answer. It seems to me every area needs to be handled differently depending on the carrying capacity of the land and current population. My point is that in the NLP and the UP, Especially on many state lands, the deer populations have been decimated and the main reason for that is unlimited doe permits (which was the purpuse according to the DNR).
> ...


Wasn't the purpose of the reduction in many areas to bring the herd to within it's carrying capacity in the NLP? Who's to say that the current herd in many area's of the NLP aren't right where there supposed to be?

Another thing I can think of very few (if any) areas in the NLP other than 452 that have had "unlimited" or even a large quota of public land antlerless permits.

Public land in the NLP isn't the deer factory some think it should be.

Not one single factor is to blame for "lousy" hunting in the NLP, it's a combination of many, many things that over time came back to bite MI hunters, NRC and the DNR in the rump.

With a balanced harvest you will have improved hunting, period. Most seem to overlook it or just don't care.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Buck Rodgers wrote:
*I'm all for Sound Quality deer management but no one person has the right or wrong answer.*

But the biology is well understood and the answers are there. However, what happens when the right biology does not make hunters happy? And that is the huge conundrum--often good biology is directly opposed of what hunters want. What to do then?

If an ecologically sound deer density is 10-12 deer per square mile, hunters aren't going to like that at all. In a state like MI, at 10-12 deer per square mile, there could be more hunters than deer.

The question isn't opinions on sound biology, it's the balance between sound biology and hunter wants/needs. THAT is a very debatable subject with as many opinions as theorists.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

4x4 Hunter wrote:
*This is a partial answer to your question of how to sell. We need to create a message that is habitat based. What works in Farm Country doesn't necessarily apply to Northern Forests.*

_Absolutely true_ 4x4 Hunter. And that's why one of my montras has always been: "Effective deer management is always site specific." The problem is, states can't manage on a small enough scale to produce site specific management. Their recommendations and bag limits have to be generic.


*The problem is that people fear change. When they fear something they will use any negative against it to stop the change. QDM is change.*

That deserves to be repeated 4x4 Hunter: "_When they fear something they will use any negative against it to stop the change._"

I will quickly point out the failings QDM and the QDMA when I see a failing. However, I will also just as quickly defend them when they deserve defending. I realize many on here see the zealous appeals against and criticisms of traditional management by QDMer and think they are inappropriate (and possibly rightfully so). But what many don't see, or fail to recognize is the attack methods of the traditional management supporters. I've been at this "publicizing and teaching" of QDM biology and management techniques for about 15 years and I've had to deal with all of the debate tricks of the anti-QDM group, and often these attacks have been downright brutal. Anyone else that has been "spreading the word" for awhile knows exactly what I mean. Perhaps we QDM supporters have become a tad too sensitive over the years and are far to quick to "return fire" when we see the first hints of an old argument we've had to dispelled over and over and over. And I'm not talking about legitimate questions of biology, just simply debate tricks intended to draw attention away from the bad biology of traditional management by questioning one or two out of context points of QDM. Again, just age-old debate tricks I was taught in Junior High debate classes--not honest discussions of real biology. Those type attacks get very, very old, and I'll admit I'll quickly jump all over them--often with a overzealous vehemence--simply because I've faught that battle too many times in the past and I know exactly where that argument is going.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Blaming the DNR for low deer numbers based on them issuing too many doe permits is like the smoker who blames the government for allowing himself/herself to smoke. We have to take responsibility for our actions. I buy 4-6 doe permits each year and fill them based on how many deer I am seeing in our particular area. Not many deer means I don't fill all of my doe permits.

Swamper


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Great post Swamper.


----------



## Buck Rogers (Nov 7, 2004)

Couldn't agree with you more Swamper. Just because you can get that many doe permits, if the deer numbers don't justify it don't shoot the does.

Swamp Monster,
You make some good points but actually the purpose of the doe permit, at least in the area that I hunt (TB Zone) was to cut the deer numbers down to way below carrying capacity. 

If more hunters follow the approach that Swamper uses and only shoot the does when warranted then the herd would be in much better shape as far as low numbers go.


----------

