# QDM Article by Donarski



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

This was e-mailed to me and from what I understand Donarski is an outdoor writer which this article appeared in last Sunday's Column.


An interesting letter to John Hendrickson regarding QDM in Michigan and specifically the UP. Donarski makes several good points.


There Are No Magic Beans

Here we go again with the fairytale title. If you think that this must
mean we're going to talk quality deer management again you'd be absolutely
correct.
Of the calls, both polite and rather rude, I've received over last
Sunday's column there seems to be two major misconceptions about the
initiative started by Tri- County Wildlife.
One of these revolves around what many proponents of the program are
calling the "full support of the Department of Natural Resources." This is
simply false.
Director Cool has gone on record saying that the department is neutral
when it comes to mandatory QDM. What would be a true statement is: The
department supports the voluntary implementation of QDM on private lands in
Michigan. Key words included being voluntary and private. Key words missing
being mandatory and public.
The second misconception comes in drastic differences in what many
proponents think will happen to the antlerless harvest if this initiative
passes. 
More than one has told me that he will vote for the program if he gets a
ballot because it will mean that there will be no antlerless tags available
for this Deer Management Unit for at least two years. Others have said they
are for the program because the antlerless kill will be reduced and some
that it won't change. Wrong on all counts.
In order for QDM to have a snowball's chance to work an increase in the
antlerless harvest will need to take place. The national group, Quality
Deer Management Association, holds as one of its key tenets the adequate
harvest of female deer. This harvest is vital, according to the QDMA, if we
are to achieve a desirable buck to doe ratio. Basically this ratio is
earmarked in the one buck to every 1.5 adult doe. 
Locally, Rex Ainslie, the DNR area wildlife biologist, is managing the
antlerless harvest in the area for a harvest of three antlerless deer per
square mile. As of Wednesday night when this is being written, if you own
land in DMU 017, or have permission to hunt private land in the area, there
are still antlerless tags available. 
"If the QDM proposal passes up here," says Ainslie, "the antlerless
harvest will increase. The harvest of antlerless deer would have to at
least double if we are to bring the ratio in line and to balance the harvest."
Ainslie went on to point out that deer density, along with habitat, land
use and climate all need to be considered. "When you save a portion of the
population, in this case yearling and some 2.5 year-old bucks, you simply
have to compensate by shooting more animals of another age class.
Does Ainslie think QDM will work up here? "The only way this would work is
with an adequate antlerless harvest and all our indicators say that won't
happen. Currently we are not getting the participation we need now to
harvest three per square mile from private land owners. On public land we
seem OK." In other words, Ainslie isn't getting the support he needs now
from the private landowners. Under the QDM proposal he will need a lot more.
Leon Hank, Tri-County Wildlife's point man for this QDM initiative also
sees a real need for an adequate antlerless harvest and agrees that the
current harvest is to low.
"Consider that in an average winter, we usually lose more antlerless deer
to winter kill loss than we take as hunters. As hunters, we ought to be
ashamed that we let that happen. Said another way, in a typical winter,
we could harvest twice as many more does as we do now without impacting the
population in a negative way."
It is only fair to point out that Leon Hank is a man extremely passionate
about deer and deer management, especially here in the eastern upper
peninsula. Of anyone, and I mean everyone, I have ever spoken with about
deer and their management there is no one more widely read or well spoken
outside of the scientific community. And, there are some in that community
that couldn't hold a candle to Leon.
Hank points to prior winters in support of the argument that we need to
harvest more does, "In 2,000, with a Winter Severity Index of 102.5, we
probably lost somewhere around 4-5,000 deer (25%) to winter kill. We
could have harvested far more does and put them in our freezers rather than
let them die a horrible death from starvation. It's simple biology that we
can harvest more of these deer and not hurt our population levels at all if
we ever overcome the long-standing bias we have in the UP against shooting
a doe.
"There are still thousands of UP hunters who believe the DNR issued too
many permits years ago and slaughtered the deer herd. It makes for a good
story, but it's a long-standing UP myth that we shot off all the does in
the late 60's and early 70's. The facts are that there were eight winters
out of ten in the period from 1969 to 1978 when the WSI was above 100. In
1978, the index went over 140. That's catastrophic. We didn't shoot off
all the deer in the late 60's and 70's, they died in our deer yards after
we had a bad luck string of terrible winters.
"In contrast, in the late 70's and 80's (1979-1988), the boom years for
the deer population, we only had two years when the index was significantly
above 100 and there were at least three years when the index was so low, we
had virtually no winter losses. Few EUP hunters understand this principle
of nature. It's easier and more convenient to just blame doe seasons and
the DNR for what mother nature did to our deer herd because we carried more
deer in the winter than our habitat could support."
According to Hank, "We are also still killing far too many male deer
compared to female deer and that makes our buck to doe ratio way out of
balance. In a typical year like 2000, in Chippewa County, we killed 4,100
bucks and 2,200 antlerless deer out of our estimated herd of about 30,000.
That harvest is fairly consistent with the rest of the UP. Now, when you
consider that about 25% of the antlerless kill was button bucks, then you
can compute that we killed 4,650 males and 1,650 females or 2.8 "bucks" for
every doe we shoot. When you do that every year for even a few years, you
get a situation where you are going to see 10 or 20 does for every antlered
buck you see.
"This is the most basic change we'd like to make with QDM. We want
hunters to see far more bucks, even if we can't shoot all of them. We
think it makes hunting more fun to see more bucks."
Put in a nutshell, if the QDM proposal passes we all, and particularly the
private land owners who refuse to shoot an antlerless deer, need to step up
to the plate and start the harvest with gusto. That is, of course, if you
really want QDM. If we don't step up to the plate we will only be
increasing the deer density which in turn depletes more habitat, reducing
the carrying capacity, decreasing antler growth and severely compounding
the possibility of disease and winter kill.
And, I have to just shake my head at a few of the drum pounders for QDM,
private landowners all, who even this year refused to purchase even one
antlerless tag, nor did they allow anyone else on their property to harvest
one. "Let Johnny do it on his property, or on public land, but never on
mine" just don't cut it. 
The "Go Get em Dan Crowd" has a few perception problems, too. 
The largest misconception happens to center on something like, "No one is
going to tell me what I can and can't shoot." Quite wrong.
Think about it. We are told when we can hunt, with what we can hunt, where
we can hunt and what we can shoot. True, the proposed QDM rules would make
this more restrictive, but it's wrong to think that we aren't dictated to now.
Another problem with this crowd (and the other crowd, too, for that
matter) is that they believe that I am against QDM. That is not entirely
accurate.
Quality Deer Management, as mentioned last week is a marvelous system that
certainly does work. Give me three years and a block of property, in the
600 acre or above size( private, all mine or with cooperating neighbors),
and I'll show you some dandy deer. That land by the way should be located
somewhere in central or southern Michigan, or a similar latitude where
winter kill and migration of the deer herd is not a factor in their biology.
The principles behind QDM work, on that the QDM proponents and I agree. In
fact, I would be hard pressed to show anywhere a QDM area that hunters
disliked. And just as much a fact, I can't point to any extreme northen
range area where it has been mandatorily implemented until the central U.P.
zones this year. (In the southern states, where QDM got its start back in
the late 1970s there are some, but not many, mandatory areas. By and large
this has been a private land program.) These U.P. zones already implemented
under the experimental 5-year program also do not have the wide weather
swings we do. They have hard winters certainly, but not like ours on an
average.
It would be easy to point to specific private land holdings in the extreme
northern range where it does work. Hank's property on Neebish is a prime
example. There are other camps in the area as well who have gotten together
and have gentlemen's agreements to practice the principles. Heck, even on
our family's property we do the same with two of our neighbors. The other
neighbor chooses not to, and that's fine.
The national QDMA says that is fine, too. They publicly say that QDM is
not for all hunters, that QDM is simply an alternative to traditional
management.
Commemorative Bucks of Michigan, in their handout, "Quality Deer
Management: Principles and Possibilities," specifically states that along
Lake Superior the principles of QDM may not necessarily increase
recruitment (of adult bucks) because of the devastating effects of periodic
heavy winter kill. CBM goes on to say that, "The areas best suited to QDM
would appear to be large blocks of private lands in southern Michigan where
landowners could cooperate together to develop and enforce special hunting
regulations."
We keep hearing that one of the major problems with the real or perceived
lack of bucks in the woods is that of harvesting so-called button bucks. I
would agree that this is an area of concern. Would QDM fix this? No it
wouldn't. In fact, just the opposite could well occur.
It is a given that if the QDM proposal passes muster there will be at
least a doubling of the antlerless harvest. Using data from 2000, when
Chippewa County harvested 2200 antlerless deer there were approximately 550
buck fawns, button bucks, in that number. It is not at all farfetched to
think that with the doubling of antlerless permits the number of buck fawns
harvested will increase to 1100. 
Through an intense education effort this number could go down. It is
really not all that hard to distinguish a button buck from a doe fawn in
most cases. The QDM folks have good educational programs which could help.
These same educational programs may even help hunters understand the real
need for antlerless harvests. I think they would, but it will take time.
Another problem with the saving of spikes and fork-horned deer is in
genetics and food availability. There are 1 ½-year old deer out in the
woods with six and even eight points. These deer, while they are the same
age as the spikes and forks, would be legal game. While antler growth is
based on a variety of factors genetics may well be the largest. While we
are saving the smaller bucks, will we be harvesting the genetically better
bucks? The scenario is this: On your stand the first day of the season a
couple of spikes walk in and, because we are under QDM you let them pass.
Then a six comes in and you take him. Both deer are 1 ½-years old. There is
no net gain, and quite possibly there is a loss.
There's another group out in the woods who, like the QDMA, encourages the
harvest of antlerless deer and looks to harvest deer with at least three on
side. They go beyond the simple point rule though, they also say that the
antler spread must be at beyond the spread of the deer's ears. This group
also caveats the point and spread rule. Their mantra reads "we
encourage..., " not mandate. It also reads, "Except for young and elderly
hunters based on their ability."
In 2000, Karen caught her first legal walleye in open water. It was barely
15 inches and I couldn't have been prouder. If I caught it, it would have
gone back. Not a chance with Karen's. This past summer she caught a number
of fish and she saw me throw back some legal, but small fish I caught. By
the end of the summer Karen was releasing her legal but small fish. A
little education and example goes along way. 
What's the point? Simply this it was a choice. Her choice.
My father and his brothers can't get around like they used to. They
certainly can't get into the thick stuff. Because of where their stands are
I don't know if they ever would see a nice buck, they simply don't move
into these areas. The young bucks do, as do the does, and they have a great
hunt. Four out of five times they pass on the spikes but the forks are
shown no mercy. I'd hate to think that a mandatory QDM program would take
away their pleasure. Yes, that isn't very scientific, in fact it is rather
maudlin. It is also a choice.
Leon Hank and his helpers should be applauded for what they have done.
They have forced this issue to the forefront, where it should be. I'd hate
to think of the countless hours they have spent in bringing this to a vote.
I can't recall when deer management has been talked about at this level of
detail and in such passionate voice. If the vote fails their efforts have
not been for naught. 
So, while I do support the principles of QDM I do not support its
mandatory implementation. A fair number of private landowners have proven
they are not ready to harvest antlerless deer now and this proposal will
not change that fact. No one can force them to shoot a deer or let hunters
on their property. Hunters now are complaining, right or wrong, that there
aren't enough deer. Yet under QDM the number of animals will decrease. QDM
is not a magic bean, in some areas where it has been implemented antler
growth actually diminished. I cower at the thought of a killing winter. And
I cringe at the loss of hunting opportunities for the young and elderly
hunter.
For me it is all about choice. Let's educate landowners and hunters about
QDM so that they choose to implement the principles in their camps and
hunting grounds.
For the national QDMA folks it is about choice, too. This comes directly
off their web site, "There are and will continue to be hunters who prefer
traditional management, and that is what being American is all about,
having a choice."


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Good article...thanks for posting .
L & O


----------



## Rico (Mar 15, 2001)

Boehr,
Thanks for posting that, It will be interesting to see if the EUP goes QDM.

Regards,
Ric


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Ditto! I have seen many of these same issues raised on this forum. <----<<<


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Thanks for the post, Boehr. Where was this column published?


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Not sure where the column was farmlegend...that's all I got in my e-mail. I thought it was interesting enough to post though...hence.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

overall a very good article but i can't help but point out some contradictions and falsehoods.

first, if you refuse to buy an antlerless permit or harvest a doe, you should not be referred to as or considered a qdm supporter/advocate.

second, you cannot say you support qdm in one breath and say that you/others shouldn't to be restricted in what you can or can't harvest.



> So, while I do support the principles of QDM I do not support its mandatory implementation.


contradicts


> The largest misconception happens to center on something like, "No one is going to tell me what I can and can't shoot." Quite wrong. Think about it. We are told when we can hunt, with what we can hunt, where we can hunt and what we can shoot. True, the proposed QDM rules would make
> this more restrictive, but it's wrong to think that we aren't dictated to now.





> Quality Deer Management, as mentioned last week is a marvelous system that
> certainly does work. Give me three years and a block of property, in the
> 600 acre or above size( private, all mine or with cooperating neighbors),
> and I'll show you some dandy deer.


contradicts


> Four out of five times they pass on the spikes but the forks are
> shown no mercy. I'd hate to think that a mandatory QDM program would take
> away their pleasure. Yes, that isn't very scientific, in fact it is rather
> maudlin.


yes, we all have choices. you can't have it both ways. make a sacrifice now for the future. the problem is not elderly or youth hunters. it is the overwhelming majority of michigan hunters and the choices they make every fall.

i offer two choices to mr. donarski 

*A.) PISS* 
or
*B.) GET OFF THE POT*


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Very well put jamie. Mr. Donarski and I happen to be in the same boat. Pushed to make a decision at this point and time, I would have to choose to get off the pot. My major concern is the future of the deer herd in Michigan. My main goal is to sustain a huntable resource for future generations. I could, if given enough scientific information, impliment a secondary goal of larger racks, and a ballanced sex ratio, if in fact I could be convinced that I wasn't jeopardizing goal 1. Unfortunately, I can not be convinced of this because of the lack of substantial evidence out there to convine me that both goals can indeed go hand in hand. Piss away if you want, I'm outa here. <----<<<


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

i am perfectly fine with and can except anyones decisions reguarding qdm as long as they are well thought out, not rash or rediculous. you cannot support qdm and go against some or all of it's priciples. it's one way or no way, it cannot work both ways.you can't take pieces of qdm and insert them in situations that are most convinient for yourself or that may benefit a minority of hunters. you cannot reap the benefits if you are not willing to sow the seeds.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

jamie...I don't think, at least I didn't take it that way, that the author was writing just his own opinons but, showing the contradictions in many of the opinions of many different people.


----------



## leon (Jan 23, 2000)

The article was printed in the Soo Evening News, the major newspaper in the Eastern UP at Sault Ste. Marie. I am the project director for the EUP QDM program and I was disappointed because I think there are a number of inaccurate statements in the article and because Dan Donarski did not contact me or any EUP QDM people before writing the article. Of course, an article like this just days before the public vote on QDM, can have a significant impact on undecided hunters. There's no question articles like this hurt our effort to start QDM in the area.

I spent an hour on the phone with Dan after the article and he agreed to write another article for Sunday's Dec. 16th Outdoor page in the Soo Evening News. I had hoped that Dan would write the "other side" of the story this week (our side of the QDM story), but, in my opinion, he again focused mainly on his personal preferences about QDM. 

As Dan puts it, he and I agree on many things like the increased doe harvest, but we disagree on mandatory programs and the number of antler point restrictions. On the positive side, he says we've done some good things to increase the understanding of deer management issues throughout the area. I did also like that he says he is hard pressed to find an experimental QDM program that has failed and that he might support a no-spike restriction.That's about the best I can take from the second article.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

boehr,
i made sure these were indeed his opinions and statements before quoting him. he pointed out many contradictions when they were convinient to convey his views. he did not, however, do a good job of covering contradictions of his own.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

joe,
we have had many interesting, thought provoking, somtimes heated discussions about qdm. we have established this much:



> Ok you guys, I am going to let the cat out of the bag. I am not against QDM. Jamie, the problem with the literature is probably the bar I am measuring it with. If they write that "this" is different than the "other thing". I want to see the statistics and how the data was collected. I am looking for substantiated evidence that would be publishable in a peer reviewed journal. Unfortunately, nothing that I have reviewed so far on QDM meets this standard.


 Joe Archer

i want to ask you and others hunting in TB zone a few questions:

do you really think that under similar mangement that the herd in that area will not return to the out of control scenario that has besieged that area?

when this happens again (and it will), are you prepared to repeat the consequences you are currently suffering?

we cannot predict the future, if we could we would have all the answers, but we don't. the precidence has been set in the TB zone and it will repeat itself under current management practices, i will go as far to say it will happen in many, many others and will do so soon. 

joe if the problem is the bar by which you measure qdm maybe your's and other's like you should lower it slightly to give it a chance. you see the results of traditional management everytime you go out hunting, what more proof do you need. the traditional management bar could not be any lower! it simply sets this state up for failure and disappointment. we need to be proactive not reactive.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Jamie, it is the bar I am measuring the literature with, not QDM. The reason for my hesitation has to deal directly with my being in an area that was once grouped with 452. I have seen total mismanagement lead to what may be the eradication of the resource I have tried to cultivate for the past 20 years. I have seen flash judgement lead to what I believe are hasty descisions based on economic farm data and not sound wildlife management. It hurts to see the herd that I have been hunting for 20 years nearly wiped out. 

I agree that the herd has been mismanaged. I would like to see it managed to insure a huntable resource for my grandchidren. If at the same time we can increase trophy deer that would be ok too. I, unlike the DNR, want to see sound scientific evidence before I can agree on how the herd should be managed. That sound scientific evedience supports the bar I am measuring QDM with, and I will not lower it one inch. <----<<<


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

how much more evidence do you need to realize that traditional mangement simply does not work (in the long run)? you may never recieve all the evidence or proof that you want to justify qdm or some other form of progressive deer management. the state has, on the other hand, reaped the benefits of 40 years of traditional deer management, only to be let down by it in a short few. give it a few years to prove myself and others wrong, that will be the only way you will ever know for sure. you say you want a future huntable resource, keep following the traditional deer management dead end and your children and grandchildren will be left with ever increasing problems and a situation much worse than you are experiencing now.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Under traditional management, we may have not produced a vast number of large racked animals in my area. The deer herd however was very healthy, free of disease, and thriving. In areas such as mime, I want evidence that a change will yeild improvement. And again, I am willing to give QDM a chance, but right now it would not be a valid option in my area with a herd that has been nearly obliterated. Try it in the thumb, it should work very well here. In the UP however, I think you are asking for trouble. The point being, study the area and shape a QDM (or simply management) plan that fits the specific area. <----<<<


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

that's what i have been preaching from day one, qdm is an evolving managment practice, not a rigid set in stone commandment. it has to be area specific, much like the turkey program is run.

please read following thread:

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81127#post81127

the TB area is in the perfect situation to start qdm, it is at level population of deer and would benefit the most by this sort of micromanagement.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

The turkey management plan is in its infancy. Turkey are not being managed for quality and health, they are being managed for numbers. The deer herd 20 years ago was being managed nearly identical to this. 

The TB area in many regions doesnt have enough deer to manage ... period. The trouble here is that in state woodland areas (not really areas of major TB concern) the deer numbers are depleted. In large tracts of private land (adjacent to agricultural land), there has been inadequate harvest of doe. Management of the TB area may be better to start with a plan that spares the doe in woodlands and harvests the doe on private lands. <----<<<


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

At 2,645 words, Dan Donarski's article was awfully damn long for an editorial. When you write an article this long, you're bound to contradict yourself a few times. Dan Donarski is one of the most respected and talented outdoor writers in the business. This article is unnecessarily protracted, internally redundant, waffles back and forth, is poorly organized and does not represent the kind of professional journalism that Dan Donarski is capable of authoring. I know Dan and I'm certainly baffled.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

look at the care and attention it has recieved, carefully regulated and micromanged, the exact opposite of what deer mangement is receiving now. are you telling me that the deer herd in the TB zone is not back to it's infancy levels of the '40's-'50's and could not use some of turkey re-introduction TLC?


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

I believe that is exactly what I said. This would require a few years of not harvesting doe, as it was back then. The trophy bucks do not fit into the equation at this time. <----<<<


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

i don't think "trophy buck" has or will ever come out of my mouth. qdm is not about large racks or trophies, people may think this or believe this. some of the qdm advocates even believe this. it is very disappointing for myself, the fact is those people are the ones to be disappointed. qdm is so much more. it is sad that some people focus on this misconception, instead of all the positives that are associated with qdm. 
i am sorry to say that the "trophy" part of the traditional management equation in the TB zone was it's demise.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Jamie, I appreciate that, and honestly do believe you. The reason with my initial frustration here was probably due to the fact that many QDM advocates (on this site) do not echo your sentiments. Before we can really begin to rationally discuss QDM, or deer management in general (on this site), it would be nice to get QDM advocates on the same page that you are on Jamie. I mean this sincerely. <----<<<


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

My taek on a few points.

"In 2,000, with a Winter Severity Index of 102.5, we 
probably lost somewhere around 4-5,000 deer (25%) to winter kill. " - quote from Dans' article 

For one I'm real hestitant to once again see guess work and not real numbers, in explanation.. When you start using 'probably', you are guessing. 

"Few EUP hunters understand this principle of nature"(winterkil)- again from the article. I understand completety and when people try to be mother-nature-(harvest the deer that mother-nature will take anyways)- you usually get burned. In the article his local expert wants to control the winterkill by harvesting more does, he doesn't understand why and who survives these harsh winter anyways. Doesn't matter how many deer you take, a harsh winter will take deer. Fact: The deer that do die in the winter are the smaller ones(yearlings), reason is they cannot reach the browse lines as the bigger/taller deer do. During these winters there is no ground food source for them, so they browse and its the yearlings that cannot reach this food source. Look at Houghton county they have like 1 deer per sq. mile(exaggerating but its low), but yet they always have winterkill.

Funny how Tri-county said they had all this support up there. Where did that go?

Leon, hard pressed to find a QDM program that has failed? My take, Drummond Island is one.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

This shows how QMD can vary from area to area. Anything mandatory would be tough. This article says that some area's would like to have a ratio of 1 buck to 1.5 does. I'd like to get it to like 1 to 3 or 1 to 4 in my area. 1 to 3 would be great. Area's that have good buck to doe ratios and not 30 hunters per sq mile can worry about 1 to 1.5. With all the heavy pressure we have, we need some 10 bucks and 30 does per square mile, otherwise, at the end of the season, we'll have 0 bucks or maybe 1 and 10 does left. QDM is hard when 98% of your bucks get killed at 1.5 year old.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

beer and nuts, I have not taken a close look at the Drummond Island results but will offer this comment: When you establish criteria that is too low and doesn't protect an adequate percentage of yearling bucks, you may do more harm than good. And I might add that the Drummond Island program of protecting only spikes is probably borderline at best.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

that is why one of qdm's motto's is to "SET YOUR STANDARDS HIGH", borderline or poorly practiced qdm can do more harm than good in an area, a no spike rule is a joke and should not be considered qdm.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

No-spike rule is a joke!?!? This is confusing me, when the DNR implemented this rule on Drummond and a couple other Central Michigan areas, most of you(nobody in particular) QDMer said great, now wait and see in a couple years what Drummond will have, then we will get other areas to follow and we will have a no-spike rule for the whole state. I remember these commments in newspaper, forums, etc...etc...

Now less than 5 years later, this is now considered a joke, why? Because it was shown it doesn't work to what everybody back then expected. What is wrong with it?-gave out doe permits(which they never had done in the past on Drummond) hunters shot does, we passed on spikes(young 1.5 year old deer), which made up the largest portion of deer taken on the island in the past, so we saved lots of bucks for the following year(2.5 year olds). Seems logical to me. Didn't work. 

I would love to learn why this practice(no-spike rule) can do more harm than good, because I have three spikes behind my house and if its doing more harm having them there, then I need to call a couple buddies over.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

simply protecting one portion of an age class is not sound qdm, you have to do your best to protect an entire age class, how many 3,4,5,6 point 1.5 year old bucks are harvested off of drummond island?how many does are harvested? that is where you'll find your answer on why this attempt at qdm has not worked.

an excerpt taken from the article:
"QDM KEEP YOUR STANDARDS HIGH"

http://members.tripod.com/~mmbqdm/articles/qdmkysh.htm



> Getting back to why practicing a low grade of QDM can be a serious downside. As I mentioned with a 3" minimum spike rule, all buck classes are targeted. In the upper peninsular, passing on spikes protects up to 60% of the 1 ½ year old bucks. It is 20% in the farming Mid Michigan area and less than 10% of the 1 ½ year old bucks are spikes in southern Michigan. Protecting 60% of the 1 ½ year old bucks should produce positive results. Protecting 20% in Mid Michigan will get you no where. Not only will you not see any positive results and get discouraged, (this is where the downside occurs) you can create deer genetic problems. At our last QDM educational seminar held September 9, 1998 our keynote speaker was Dr. Harry Jacobson, world known biologist specializing in deer genetics. His 30 years of intense research at Mississippi State shows that spike bucks can become truly trophy bucks. You really cannot predict what a buck will become when observing him as a 1 ½ year old. Even at 2 ½, it's questionable. What a buck shows at 3 ½ years of age, he will likely show throughout his life. However there is a distinct separation of class which shows in a 1 ½ year old buck, and this is between the spikes to the 8 point group, and the 9 points and more group. The 9 point and more group remains superior. A 1 ½ year old buck with 9 points or more is more common than most people think, and this occurs from Mid Michigan to our southern border. Protecting spikes only in the Mid Michigan agricultural area could seriously over time degrade our deer herd. By eliminating the superior group of bucks and letting basically only spikes to finish the breeding, the slow degradation of our deer herd will be accelerated. When practicing QDM, whether it is on a private or state level, SET YOUR STANDARDS HIGH. You should protect all of the 1 ½ year old bucks. My minimum recommendation when starting a QDM program is protect at least 50% of the 1 ½ year olds and within a couple of years upgrade your standards. In Dooly County Georgia where it all began as a regulated rule, the minimum buck standard is a 15" outside spread. The rule protects all of the 1 ½ year old bucks and up to 20% of the 2 ½ year olds. This assures some bucks will attain an age of 3 ½ and as we all know, older bucks are smarter and more wary. In Dooly County there are now more bucks being taken in the 5 ½ year old and older class.


Ed Spinazzola
President Mid-Michigan Branch QDMA


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Here we go again, no wonder an innocent bystander can get confused into thinking it is ONLY ABOUT RACK DEVELOPMENT! You can have a good buck to doe ratio, and never ever produce a large racked animal. The real question is was there a change in buck to doe ratio on Drummond? Was the herd number at all changed to a more appropriate level for the resources of the land? Does any body really care??? <----<<<


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Joe Archer, I don't know if you were referring to my post but below is the portion of the State QDM procedure concerning bucks. No where does QDM or the procedure make reference to producing trophy bucks. Though, we can talk about the QDM attributes of a more balanced buck to doe ratio and more even age distribution.
State QDM Procedure -
"Proposed regulations must protect at least 50 percent of yearling bucks to be considered effective and measurable. In the Upper Peninsula, a "no-spike" rule would be recommended to meet this threshold, based on data from 1987-98. In the Northern Lower Peninsula (see Appendix D for area definition), a three-points-on-a-side rule would be needed to protect at least 50 percent of yearling bucks. To protect at least 50 percent of yearling bucks in the Southern Lower Peninsula, an antler point restriction would need to protect animals with less than four-points-on-a-side. These minimum standards are recommended for proposal sponsors to reduce complexity of regulations across geographic regions while still ensuring protection of yearling bucks for Quality Deer Management objectives."

Below is a write-up by a QDM member that does a pretty good job of addressing some of the differences between QDM and Trophy Deer Management:
"QDM is really about simply growing healthier deer of both sexes and in all age classes. We want fawns, regardless of their gender, to be born at optimal weight and on time each year. We want them to be born to healthy, experienced does and to grow up in exceptional habitat. We strongly desire to protect juvenile bucks through their first hunting season and believe some doe fawns should be harvested each fall in order to help maintain a herd size in balance with available habitat. We also care about the does. We want them to maintain optimal weight throughout the winter and early spring months so they can deliver healthy fawns on time each year. This requires optimal fall and winter habitat both in food sources and sheltering cover. We want them to exist in an environment that allows them to flourish, not just survive. We want a portion of them to grow older to serve as matriarchs or leaders of their generational family groups as it should be. We want managers (we used to be called hunters) to harvest adequate numbers of does from all age classes in order to help keep the herd in balance with its habitat. Oh, and yes, the bucks. We want them to survive their first 6 months of life and to not be harvested as an antlerless deer. Once they enter their second fall as yearlings, we'd like them to be dominated by older bucks so they don't get intimately involved in the rut, since in reality, they are immature and inexperienced. Heavy rutting activity on this age class leads to higher than normal winter mortality simply because their systems arent mature enough to handle the added stress. We want them to rub and scrape and grunt and chase does and be chased away by older, dominant bucks during this stage of their lives. Then, when they enter their third fall (as 2 ½ year olds), or their fourth fall, and maybe even their fifth fall and beyond, we want to actively pursue them during hunting seasons. Each year that they survive, they get healthier and smarter, and they become more efficient and experienced breeders. We do not set minimum antler criteria in order to define what is/is not a trophy buck. We do determine selective harvest criteria as part of our county-wide QDM demonstration as a way to help the majority of yearling bucks become 2 year olds. We strive to promote balanced age structures and sex ratios, not racks on bucks. We encourage hunters and landowners to become deer managers by improving native habitats and planting food plots where needed, in order to provide superior nutrition to any deer that happens to live in the area, in part, to help make all of these things possible. A Quality Deer Management program also seeks to improve hunter opportunities both in availability and enjoyment. In Mason County, we have too many deer and QDM seeks to reduce the herd size, not for the benefit of bucks, but for the benefit of the farmers and growers, for the drivers on our roads and the person who today cant grow even a small backyard garden. If we dont do something, nothing will change.

Trophy management programs on the other hand seek to produce large antlered bucks; period. They care very little about doe and fawn health. These programs are set up with the Boone and Crocket and Pope and Young scales as their core foundations. They care very little for the native habitat, because supplemental feeding is almost always undertaken and is seen as the replacement for what the native vegetation cant provide. Trophy management programs first of all seek to pair a mature buck that sports exceptional antlers with a mature doe that has a history of producing large-racked offspring. How can this be accomplished in a free-ranging deer herd where breeding is controlled by the animals, not people? Many bucks that reach their 3rd fall as 2 ½ year olds, and do not sport at least an 8-point rack that is either very high, or very wide, are culled out. Trophy management programs create unnatural sex ratios by over harvesting does, usually through massive culling operations, not hunting opportunities. This creates a mating frenzy whereby a single doe may be harassed by several mature bucks. Rather than the rut being a magical time, it becomes an all out gang fight where the biggest bully in the area finally breeds after the rivals have been beaten into submission and the doe is so exhausted she simply can no longer flee. These programs control deer numbers to provide the best chances for the males of the species to flourish, without regards to milk production, fawning dates and the like. Many trophy management programs are driven by trophy fees, access fees and management hunts for animals classified as sub-standard. True hunting opportunities under these programs are usually severely limited."


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Not to be a fly in the oinment, but bigger bucks had better be a by-product. Otherwise, it will be a nearly impossible sell to the hunting public. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a healthier herd isn't a good thing, but hunters won't put up with seeing a third as many deer if the racks remain spikes and forks. Know what I mean. But hunters would put up with seeing half as many deer as say, 5 years ago if half the bucks were 14", 2 1/2 year old 8 pts. That's the only way QMD will fly.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Bwiltse, I was referring to the two posts in front of my last. It's like watching ping-pong. We want large racks, we don't care ablut lare rackes....we want large racks....we don't care about large racks....we want large racks.... we don't want large racks but QDM wasn't successful because we didnt produce them. Personally, I have stated from day one I want a system that insures a huntable resource for my grand kids. I am not against QDM, and I am not against management. Plans have to be taylored to the specific area... I havent wavered from this line one bit. <----<<<


----------



## leon (Jan 23, 2000)

I have a detailed spreadsheet on the Drummond Island harvest data over the last five years that shows the QDM impact to date. I don't know how to attach it so you can see it, but in round numbers, two highlights are that they are harvesting about 50% more 2.5 year old bucks than prior to QDM and the average size of these 2.5 year old bucks is about 7.5 points. Their antlerless harvest is also higher.

Of course, the local biologist tells me to be careful with this data and that we need more years of data to determine the long-term effects.

I understand they are conducting a detailed hunter satisfaction survey right now and the results should be available later this winter.

I talk to a number of DI hunters and the vast majority of them are happy with the early results. They have also filed an application with the DNR to move to a three-point on a side. I am not sure of the status of this request....


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

[email protected], I understand you're just playing devil's advocate, but I do think most hunters are aware that 2 1/2 year old bucks will be larger in body and antler size than yearlings but most will not make the minmum record book requirements. If your QDM expectations are to harvest book buck trophies, your're probably going to be disappointed with QDM. Food for Thought: If we double the annual harvest of B&C bucks, what do you think an individual hunter's odds of harvesting a B&C buck would be? (Not very good!)

Joe Archer, I agree that maintaining a huntable resource should rank at the top of our deer management objectives.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Leon, I'm not going dispute that you might have talked to a couple of hunters from DI, but NO WAY start spreading the rumor that most are willing to go to a six point on one side crap. This is your proganda your pushing and I can tell you most(at least locals, cannot comment on non-locals, except for a few) were not happy with the results and would rather go back to no does harvesting and shooting the spikes. 

Your comment about the local biologist tell you that more detailed studies need to be collected, where were they this year?, they dropped mandatory check-ins, the DNR check-in station was never open and it was left up to the hunters to check their deer in at a few sporting good stores, NICE DETAILED STUDIES BEING DONE THERE. 

Now granted I'm not taking the whole island in to view but I can witness about 50 hunters that hunt throughout the island and most if not all say it has not been as good as hunting since the new spike rule came into effect and would like to go back the way it was.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I'm not worried about book bucks. I 'd like a few more basket 8pts running around. In spike and fork land, we have to start slow.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

[email protected], all we have to do is pass on the yearling buck to accomplish your objective. Now, how best do we proceed to accomplish this is the question.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

beer and nuts, you mention "six point on one side crap". I believe Leon's post only makes mention of possibly going to 3 points on one side for D.I., which by State QDM guidelines would probably make more sense and be more effective.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

simply put drummond island was implemented with poorly focused qdm, the point of my previous post is to point out that you cannot implement certain portions of qdm that are least controversial or more traditonal and expect it to work, the entire plan has to be put in place and followed through. you can't practice half-*ssed qdm and expect results of properly practiced qdm.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Concerning the QDM article by Donarski I was struck by the comment made concerning private land owners not allowing other hunters on their property for the purpose of harvesting does in order to balance out the buck/doe ratio closer to the 1:1.5 goal. This seems to be a common problem in most parts of the state, including areas where crop damage by deer is a major problem. Again, you can't have it both ways..........or can you?


----------



## leon (Jan 23, 2000)

Beer and Nuts,

Let's make sure we are dealing with the same set of facts regarding the Drummond Island QDM experiment:

1. Drummond Island has had a NRC sponsored QDM project since 1997. Local outdoor groups did not sponsor this project like is required today and they did not go through the 66% approval survey process like other QDM experiments started today must pass. A local DI outdoor group, however, has approached the DNR and requested that they be allowed to change the current QDM experiment to a 3 point on a side rule, just like Tri-County Wildlife proposed for the rest of Chippewa County and parts of Mackinaw County. 

2. I am born and raised in the EUP and I have a significant network of relatives and friends who live, work and hunt throughout the EUP, including on Drummond Island. I hunt almost exclusively today on Neebish Island, two islands north of Drummond from Sept. 1 to Dec. 31st. My family owns the largest sporting goods business in the EUP and we talk to thousands of hunters a year, including many from Drummond Island. I stand by my statements that a majority of the hunters like the current QDM experiment on DI and hope to go to the three points on a side rule soon. In any event, local DNR biologist Rex Ainslie tells me he is currently conducting a satisfaction survey among Drummond Island hunters and we will know soon how the majority of hunters feel about the QDM experiment from a statistically valid survey.

3. Here's the actual harvest detail compiled by DNR biologist Rex Ainslie for two years prior to the QDM experience and for the four years of the project. I pray this formats correctly or you'll have a mess of numbers:

1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000
Bucks 
0.5	43	38	17	17	12	37
1.5	347	173	28	81	198	198
2.5	100	63	41	49	97	148
3.5	15	19	17	14	11	10
> 4.5	20	9	8	8	7	2
subtotal	525	302	111	169	325	395

Does 
0.5	45	38	16	16	21	50
1.5	75	53	15	21	45	118
2.5	76	79	24	24	31	112
3.5	23	61	15	14	10	45
> 4.5	64	93	23	11	17	49
subtotal	283	324	93	86	124	373
Total	808	626	204	225	449	769


4. This is actual data from mandatory registration checks on an island where its difficult to hide or not report your kill. You are correct that, this year 2001, the expensive mandatory check was discontinued. Even so, this is one of the most closely studied deer herds in the state outside of an enclosure.

5. When analyzing the above data, keep in mind that we had tons of deer in the EUP in 1995 and 96 and we had our devastating winters with an unbelievable winter kill in both 1997 and 1998, the starting point of this QDM experiment. At least to me, it's hard to figure the impact of these winters on this data...but I know it had a significant negative impact.

6. Note that in 2000, DI hunters shot more does than even in the boom year of 1995, almost 32% more. I think that's an incredibly good trend and one positive benefit of the QDM experiment. Note also that DI hunters shot 48% more 2.5 year old bucks in 2000 than in the boom year of 1995. I think that's another positive trend. I've talked to some of those hunters and I think they had much more fun seeing and tagging a bigger buck than the spikes they were used to seeing in 1995. Rex Ainslie warns me to be careful making too many generalizations from this data as we need more to determine the real success of the QDM program. I agree, but I am very encouraged by the preliminary results. If the data looks this good for protecting spikes, it should be even better for 3 points on a side.

7. I've talked personally to the leadership of the current DI outdoors club and they are happy with this experiment and they look forward to raising the standard to the 3 points on the side. I can put you in touch with Dennis Bailey and other leaders if you'd like to discuss your particular concerns. Dennis and other DI outdoor leaders gave us their support in our current effort to establish a three point on a side proposal for the rest of the EUP.

8. In round numbers, here's what a QDM program does in the UP. First, if you protect spikes, you protect about 50% of the 1.5 year old bucks. Second, if you protect spikes and forks (the 3 on a side rule), you protect about 75% of the 1.5 year old bucks. The remaining 25% of the 1.5 year olds are six and eight point bucks. These numbers, of course, are far different for the northern lower and southern lower peninsula where the 1.5 year old bucks have better developed antlers. You can get these numbers from the DNR's QDM procedure paper on its web site.

Beer and Nuts, while we won't agree on a number of opinions about QDM, I hope we agree the above objective data is certainly interesting....

Leon


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Thanks for the DI update Leon.


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

I am new to this board. Sure glad I found it. Forgive me if I ask dumb questions. I have read most of this post (skimmed some...a little long winded)

For the record, I am from the Thumb and currently am against mandatory implementation of QDM.

I have a few questions and points to make:

jamie7117 asked in a post:

=====
"how much more evidence do you need to realize that traditional mangement simply does not work (in the long run)? "
=====

Please educate me on the evidence that the traditional management has not worked in the Thumb. What is your definition of 'does not work?" I have lived and hunted in the Thumb all my life. What exactly is wrong with the health of our herd. I agree the management could be better. There are plenty of trophy bucks taken every year. We probably should kill a few more does. 

Joe Archer states: 

=====
"Try it in the thumb, it should work very well here"
=====

Not being sarcastic, but I would really like to know what makes the Thumb such a good candidate for a QDM experiment.

Mr. Donarski's article states basically that killing the number of doe's needed to make QDM effective just is not going to happen. I totally agree on this point. There are certain people that will just not shoot doe's. Some don't find it sporting and some just don't care enough about the venison to "mess with a doe" Where is the doe kill going to come from too achieve the desired buck to doe ratio. We are going to end up with a larger deer herd.

I know a gentlemen who is involved with one of the QDM set-ups in Cass City. They hunt bucks all season. At the end of season there is a mad dash to kill the required doe's. In the two years that I am familiar with they have not. My question to him was how are you ever going to meet the QDM goal of buck to doe ratio. His response was that if they get to 7 or 8 to 1 they will be happy. As far as I know only 5 people are allowed to hunt in their section. Again I ask where is the doe kill going to come from.

I won't be a hypocrite and say that I would not shoot a big buck over a small one standing next to it. I just think that QDM is not the answer.

Beagle


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Beagle,
There is no such thing as a "dumb question". Keep asking away. We generally try to be civil in here, but at times the very nature of online communications makes for misinterpretation of what someone is saying, or rather the tone of what they are saying. Welcome


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

i disagree with a lot of people here and some probably cringe when they see my responses and i make no apologies. i enjoy a good debate, i am no qdm expert or biologist, i am a qdm proponent because i have seen it work with my own eyes, i have seen success stories from around the country, i have researched to the best of my ability to find something that will make a difference and make an effort to improve michigan's deer hunting and it's herd. it's qdm. people will nit pick it, call it names, yell, scream and cry. i have been called an elitist trophy hunter, arrogant, and probably a few that are best left unsaid.

the guys on state land are the ones i want to see more bucks, i want them to have the same oppurtunities i have had, i want them to be able to say "i passed on that fork horn or six point, because he'll be back next year and he'll be bigger". i want them to be able to do this without worrying, "if i don't shoot him, someone else will" and this is the worry of 90% of the hunters out there, mandatory qdm eases these fears. i want them to be able to harvest a doe instead of an immature buck and be proud of that fact alone, i want them to consider themselves a steward of the resource instead of a reaper that never gives anything back. if that is a selfish or an "elitist trophy hunter" attitude then i quess thats what you can call me. 

i used to hunt a large sga in so. mi. for many years and each year the whole experience got worse and worse, less deer,poor habitat. i know the frustration that they have felt and are feeling. everyone talks about michigan's 2 million+ deer herd, tell that to state land hunters after opening day, that's why i am so passionate and sometimes beligerant when it comes to qdm. i don't mean to be arrogant or condesending, but it pisses me off when people tell me i am selfish for wanting mandatory qdm, this could not be further from the truth. i have seen qdm work with my own eyes and want others to see it for themselves. 

that being said you asked, "how much more evidence do you need to realize that traditional mangement simply does not work (in the long run)? " 

i refer to a previous post: 



> have you seen the final "estimates" for firearm deer season 283,000 deer harvested, 167,000 antlered, 116,000 antlerless this is already a terrible ratio, but then you add in button bucks to the antlerless harvest which comprise 25-35% of the anlerless deer harvest you have on the low side 29,000 button bucks added to the 167,000, that leaves 196,000 bucks harvested during firearm deer season alone 69.-----% of the total harvest, now tell me who is being dessimated here. after nov. 15th you already are lucky to see a 1.5 year old buck. so much for "plain old deer management".
> 
> to put these numbers in more of perspective, i have been told that john urbain has put the statewide doe to buck "average" ratio at somewhere around 3-1, i have my doubts, but is an "average" and john urbain is no dummy so you would have to say there are 1.5 million antlerless deer and 500,000 antlered deer, if we use the dnr's estimate of 2 million deer. knowing this antlerless deer suffer a 7% hunter related mortality rate, compared to the 33% hunter realted mortality suffered by antlered bucks(70%of these are 1.5 year old bucks). before you say,"thats leaves 300,000 bucks" for next year have not factored in other deer seasons and causes of deer mortality that usually favor survival of does and the favors the dimise of antlered deer. if we used harvest numbers to guage population would have to say that antlered deer make up the majority of the deer population, but ratios and the estimated deer population show that this could not be further from the truth.


that is why traditional mangement is begining to show it's shortcomings, that will get worse with current trends and time.

i agree with you and the doe harvest, some areas simply have too many and others may not have enough, every area is lacking in mature bucks. anyone who refuses to harvest a doe is not a qdm'r, they are just part of the problem. 

BTW, i have a tendency to be long winded


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Jamie7117,

I can truly respect your passion for QDM. It seems genuine. But I respectfully disagree. From what I have seen thus far on the subject, it seems that it boils down to one persons opinion of quality hunting vs. another. 

I saw the statistics, but who's criteria are we going to use when judging that. Sure there are a higher amount of buck's than doe's killed. I don't know the history that maybe some of you do, but what is the problem with that. All of the doe's get bred each year around here. I am looking for something that say's that is bad. Not just an opinion, but data that says that it makes for an unhealthy herd.

You talk about seeing success with your own eyes and other success stories. What is your definition of success? Why does that take priority over someone elses opinion of success?

I have a problem with the way that it is being approached here in the Thumb. All of a sudden out of nowhere pops up QDM. Next thing we know it is going to be decided by a small sample opinion poll.

Hunting to me is about so much more than horns. It is about tradition, family, time in the outdoors. Don't get me wrong I like big bucks. And they are around. They just disappear during hunting season. We see them when we go shining all the time. Then these people come in and tell us that we need to be so drastically concerned about the health of our herd. And if we are not concerned we should be ashamed of ourselves. 

I posted somewhere else about the debate in our local newspaper about QDM implementation. Example: One Week ==> Anti-QDM: "QDM only cares about horns" The next week ==> QDM Supporter: "No we don't, we just want a healthy deer herd" This has been playing over and over. That poster "Trophy Hunter" who admitted to being pro-QDM said hey lets be honest it is about the horns. Boy that sure was refreshing after the last six months of propaganda.

Lets see what the current law changes do before jumping headfirst into a frozen pond. Just a couple years ago we could kill up to four bucks and there was little push to kill does. Now we have the combo license, where the second buck has to have four points or more on one side. I for one had to pass on two bucks because I took a 4-pt with my bow. And we have unlimited doe permits. Let us see if this experiment works first. 

Here I go babbling again, but it sure is nice to rant a bit.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

my idea of success is seeing sacrifices made by myself and others pay off. more bucks, less does, more rutting activity, providing proper habitat and the satisfaction that goes along with enjoying something tremendously and helping the resource at the same time. i have not and will not classify a trophy for anyone, i don't think "trophy" buck is in my vocabulary. the rack is eye candy and everyone loves to see a large rack, hunters and non-hunters alike. mature bucks are very important to the management scheme they also happen to come along with large racks . they are considered the pinniacle of the species and they are reveered and sought after. are they important? yes. is that all qdm is about? no. racks and antlers get people attenton and that's why many studies focus on them, to peak interest. the people who get into qdm for bigger racks are going to be dissappointed (there are a lot out there). in qdm dominant bucks do the breeding and dominant bucks don't usually have the best antler characteristics, they are usually just more mature, larger, and very aggressive. with qdm there will simply be more of these mature bucks competing for dominance.

reasons why a harvest of more bucks than does is detrimental:
(even here there is an empahsis on rack size, but good overall information none the less)


"As a result of a deer management study by Dr. Larry Marchinton between 1981 and 1986, it is now believed that the peak of the rut, or peak breeding period, of white-tailed deer should normally occur from mid-October to late November in many areas. It is also believed that it is the current management and hunting practices in many areas (which result in lower than normal buck:doe ratios) that are the cause of the rut being delayed until late November, and continuing into January and even February in many northern states. During Marchintons study (with the emphasis on quality management) the average number of fetuses per does over the age of 2 ½ years increased from 1.6 in 1985 to 1.9 in 1986, and pregnancy in doe fawns was detected in 1985. Fetal male:female sex ratios shifted from 64:36 during 1981-83, to a more balanced 47:53 during 1984-86. The average weights of yearling bucks increased from 90 pounds in 1982 to 110.5 pounds during the 1983-86 portion of the study. There was a significant weight increase in the 3.5 year and older bucks in a similar study by McKelvy. The positive results of these studies were credited to the increased age structure of the bucks. 

An increase in the number of older dominant bucks also has a direct suppressing effect on the testosterone levels of younger bucks, which reduces their aggressiveness and competition for breeding privileges. Since a low position in the breeding hierarchy results in less reproductive behavior and lower weight loss, those young bucks that do not breed grow to greater body size before they become dominant. This results in an overall increase in the number of older dominant bucks which leads to earlier fawning dates and heavier body sizes of yearling bucks, and this leads to higher survival rates and eventually to increased buck numbers. 

If both game managers and hunters can agree to reduce the number of does and let the younger bucks grow, while still keeping the herds balanced and within the carrying capacity of the habitat, there will be an increase in the number of older bucks. There is also a good probability that the younger non-breeding bucks, because they are not stressed by breeding activity, will produce larger racks. The increased number of older bucks may also shorten the length of the rut and make it occur earlier. This could mean that hunters who prefer to hunt during the rut might be forced to hunt a month earlier, and they might be forced to take up archery hunting, or game managers might be forced to change the timing of some hunts. But, the end result of an increased number of older bucks will create a healthier more balanced deer herd, and increase the odds of hunters seeing more, and bigger, bucks.", T.R. Michels from "How Social Status Affects Deer Health and The Rut"

another problem i have with people is the "meat hunter" arguement, the people who claim to hunt solely for venison, if this was the case then the harvest estimates would show a different story, one geared to the harvest of does not 1.5 year old bucks.


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Good try Jamie7117, but I am still not sold. I still only see opinions.

As you stated, most of Dr. Marchinton¡'s study bases success on antler size. To me that is not a sufficient reason to implement QDM. One point was interesting though. Higher birth weights and earlier fawn dates could be very helpful in an environment with high winter kill. Maybe the U.P. is a better candidate than the Thumb, I am only arguing against the Thumb. As far as I know (someone please correct me if I am wrong) we don't have much winterkill around here.

Where was Dr. Marchinton¡'s study completed? He makes statements about the rut changing. I have been hunting the Thumb for 20 years. In the beginning, I was taught that the rut starts at about the last week in October. And in every year according to my recollection it has. If someone has data that say's otherwise please lead me to it.

"my idea of success is seeing sacrifices made by myself and others pay off. more bucks, less does, more rutting activity, providing proper habitat and the satisfaction that goes along with enjoying something tremendously and helping the resource at the same time." Jamie7117 

Why is "more rutting activity" important? The rut goes into full swing about the last week in October like clockwork. There is a tremendous amount of rutting activity. And like I said before all of the does seem get bred.

What does QDM have to do with "providing proper habitat?" Is someone from the QDMA or DNR going to come into the state game areas and change the habitat? If that is part of the proposal in the Thumb, please educate me.

I still have not seen or heard anything that would make me think that the push for QDM in the Thumb is anything short of trying to grow bigger antlers. Please do not get me wrong, I have no doubt about your passion and desire to make a difference with QDM. I just do not see it as necessary in the Thumb of Michigan.

I guess I am unfamiliar with the "meat hunter" argument against QDM. Please explain.

I will give it to you straight. I usually put 2 deer in the freezer each year and eat venison a couple times a week. More often than not one of those is a doe. But I will always shoot a buck standing next to a doe (when it is legal to). To me there is nothing sexy about shooting a doe, I just like venison. Quite honestly, I believe a young doe tastes much better than a buck. Some people don't agree.

I am still waiting for an answer to my questions. 

1. What exactly is wrong with the health of the Thumb's deer herd?
2. Why does it so drastically need fixing?
3. Where is this needed increase in doe kill going to come from?
4. Why not give the existing law changes a chance before moving on?

Maybe someone with knowledge about the specifics of the Thumb could give me this information or at least point me to where I can find it.

Thank You,

Beagle


----------



## H2OFowl'er (Oct 26, 2001)

> An increase in the number of older dominant bucks also has a direct suppressing effect on the testosterone levels of younger bucks, which reduces their aggressiveness and competition for breeding privileges. Since a low position in the breeding hierarchy results in less reproductive behavior and lower weight loss, those young bucks that do not breed grow to greater body size before they become dominant. This results in an overall increase in the number of older dominant bucks which leads to earlier fawning dates and heavier body sizes of yearling bucks, and this leads to higher survival rates and eventually to increased buck numbers


This is a very important fact when it comes to management of the herd. With so many does and few bucks, it takes a long time for all the does to get bred. This results in fawns being born late, which in return makes it harder for them late fawns to grow. Whether it is they die from starvation, or from predation. This year during the last weekend of gun season I witnessed 4 fawns that still had spots along their back. These 4 fawns were very small and with snow coming will probably be killed by predators or will just plain not last the season. During muzzle loader I found two fawns dead. I do not know what caused their death, but I do know it was not from being shot. Both of these fawns had spots along their back. I am pretty sure at least one of them was one I had seen only a few weeks earlier. We practice QDM where we hunt in the sense that we let small bucks go, we harvest a fair amount of does and I can tell you that in just the last 5 years we have seen many more bucks. QDM IS NOT ABOUT ANTLER SIZE!!! But it is a favorable side effect from it. I have been hunting the same place for 17 years and the last 3 years have been more enjoyable for the simple fact that I have seen MORE bucks. 

Beagle, you mention something about habitat being changed on state land. Yes, QDMA national and Michigan are trying to get the state to allow them to plant protein rich grasses in these areas to enhance the health of the deer population. I do not know anything about your deer herd in the thumb, but can only imagine that you see many more does than bucks? QDM will allow you to see more bucks. I understand that it is your onion that the herd in your area is healthy. I guess it depends on what a "healthy herd" consist of.

Maybe that is where we need to start. We should ask all hunters what they would like to see changed/not changed. Just like waterfowlers have to fill out the HIP survey maybe when you buy your deer tag a couple of questions should be asked:

1. Are you happy with the amount of deer you see?
2. Would you like to see more bucks?
3. Are you willing to harvest more does and let small bucks go if it would mean you would see more bucks?
Etc. You get the idea.

Your (anybodys) opinion about a healthy herd and mine will be different. Personally I like to see more bucks, even if they are not monsters. I get sick of seeing 40-50 does and 1-3 bucks. Seeing more bucks just seems to get the blood flowing. Dont get me wrong I still get excited when I see does, and my hear definitely skips a few beats when I decide to harvest a doe, but seeing more bucks the last few years sure is exciting. 

I have hunted in many different states, and I have to say that Michigan has the worst tracking system in all the places I have been when it comes to tracking deer harvest. For instance, in Ohio all deer have to be checked in by the next day after harvesting.


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

That is a great point H20Fowl'er. I would love to see a bette tracking system here. And I have ofter wondered why they don't ask those types of questions when we buy our licences.

An article I read about what QDM is (by a QDM proponent, i can't remember his name) said that the management needs constant tweeking. In Michigan, the infrastructure is just simply not here to support it. 

I get tend to get more emotional than I should about this, but deer hunting has been near and "deer" to my heart for so long.

Here they have moved forward and are going to base the qdm decision (4 pts or more on one side for any buck) on a sample opinion poll (1000 hunters and 1000 landowners). That is a small minority of hunters in the 3 county area proposed.

It just seems like a huge step, when some of us do not feel that there is that big of a problem.

In addition to that I have some basic issues with QDM in general that I outlined earlier.

My proposal would be:

1. See if the current law change has any affect. Just a couple of years ago we could kill 4 buck per season with little push to kill does. Now we can kill two bucks the second of which has to have four points on one side. There have also been unlimited doe permits for the last couple of years.
2. Enforce the existing laws. We don't need more laws that nobody enforces. The one that bugs me the most is the guy that fills his lisences, his wifes and his wifes, cousins, husbands, friends licence and any other he gets his hand on.
3. More education about not killing button bucks. 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 to radical. Plus I don't think I have ever got a point count right in the field. I have talked to several people that have the same problem. 

Thanks for your input, but I sould sure like to here from some people with information about the Thumb.


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

To All,

I have been following this Forum for 3-4 years or more.
About one year ago, I thought QDM principles had progressed.
I was wrong.
Even if I am not at all directly interested, I feel bad about it.

Deeply interested and involved in *red* deer management in Europe, I spent countless hours on the Web to reach access to scientific publications dealing with the subject.
I found some.

All along this search, I found countless very good scientific publications about white-tailed deer : If all those who are concerned by deer long term management would follow the same path I did, and took time to think about what they would find , much lost of time would be avoided ... for the best of YOUR herd.

Friendly yours,
Jack.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

The article was certainly well written. I do disagree with one point.

"Director Cool has gone on record saying that the department is neutral
when it comes to mandatory QDM." That was proved false when the DNR deliberately set the QDM surveys for passage at the 67% level and then also counted the indifferent in the "no" column to further bias the survey. To deliberately set the bar at that extreme level was the DNR's way to bias and kill QDM. Remember that an honest survey/vote would have had the simply had the bar set at 50+%. That's all it takes to put corruption in the white house.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

To expand on Hamilton Reef`s comments about the DNR being biased against QDM. If the DNR was completely neutral, why was the vote for continuing 118 taken after 4 years and not after the 5th year? It was supposed to be a 5 year test. Why was there not any harvest data from the first 4 years sent out with the survey? Why were the surveys destroyed before the vote totals were made public? No one other than the DNR knows what the true vote totals were. Not that I would ever suggest that a government agency would ever be anything more than completely honest.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

*Quote by Hamiltion Reef* 


> That's all it takes to put corruption in the white house.


I respectfully disagree with the above quote. The man who won the popular vote did not even win the election. Bush was the runner up with way less than 50% of the vote.

I agree with your point that the cards were stacked in favor of defeat.


----------

