# To kill or not to kill



## boehr

AltRules said:


> Since you asked Spiltshot here's a few people who I do believe know as much or more than Smith and Rod Clute about deer management.
> 
> NorthJeff
> Swamp Ghost
> QDMAman
> The list really goes on and on.
> 
> And, yes, I'll include myself in that group. Becuase we KNOW that Traditional Deer Management is not the best way to manage deer. Becuase it's not a NATURAL herd that it creates. Period.
> 
> I have the same wildlife management degree that Clute has. Richard P. Smith has none. I'm not here to argue that a degree makes me better than anyone. But if you're looking for straight-up academic credentials, there they are.
> 
> In fact, Clute's specialty is not deer. Never was. He's simply in the position based on seniority, communication skills, etc. His position isn't about making policy. It's about dealing with the public and providing a voice.
> 
> As I posted earlier, Smith is not an expert. He talks to experts and writes, supposedly, what they say. BIG difference.


All this from a person who posts anonymously.  :gaga:


----------



## Swamper

Altrules quote - "Since you asked Spiltshot here's a few people who I do believe know as much or more than Smith and Rod Clute about deer management.

NorthJeff
Swamp Ghost
QDMAman
The list really goes on and on.

And, yes, I'll include myself in that group. Becuase we KNOW that Traditional Deer Management is not the best way to manage deer. Becuase it's not a NATURAL herd that it creates. Period."

Sparky Anderson had a great quote about self proclaimed stars and experts --"don't tell me, show me".

Swamper


----------



## Splitshot

Swamper if you read what I posted here before I edited this, my bad. Sorry. It's almost New Year, and I'll try to do better. Thanks Sib.

Actually now that you brought it to my attention I like it.


----------



## Sib

Splitshot said:


> Well Swamper at least you guys all stick together and have the same high opinion of yourselves. Good luck with your plan!


Swamper was quoting a post from above. His only comment was the Sparky Anderson Quote.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

I'm not proclaiming myself as an expert, but I can guarentee you that what I attempt to explain or illustrate comes straight from the source...either by word of mouth, or published data and I continually discuss these issues straight from the source to make sure I'm accurate. Many times even though I have a clear understanding, I still pick up the phone and clarify before I type. Sparky Anderson might have said..."don't tell me, show me", but I've found that that just isn't good enough sometimes for some people.

There are people in our own DNR, even Becky Humphries I've heard, that are under the false impression that if you have QDM, you have to increase antlerless harvest.

You can tell them that isn't true.
You can read them quotes from Brian Murphy, Executive Director of the QDMA, from an official statement from the QDMA.
You can read them a statement from a noted research biologist considered an authority on the source.
You can even have Brian Murphy give them a call and personally talk to them.

But, it all boils down to if they don't want to believe, they won't, no matter how much of definitive source they have. 

For example, you can believe a guy like John Ozoga, who has spent most of a lifetime researching deer in the U.P. at a time when the DNR could afford such luxary and actively pursued the research. You can choose whether to believe the data, the facts, the research scrutinized under peer review and published by either the source or credible media outlet.....

-OR-

You can believe some a media outlet who either ignores the research or does not believe it in it's entirety and uses personal opinion to influence his or her position in a deliverance of more opinion than fact without any research experience or contridicting research to back up those opinions.

For me personally, I like to go straight to the source and I've found that it can give you a very clear and definitive understanding of a particular topic.

John Ozoga is one of the Allstars, yet after a Hall of Fame career, people can still look at the .330 batting average and say....that just can't be true. Sometimes "show me" just isn't enough.


----------



## Happy Hunter

"There are people in our own DNR, even Becky Humphries I've heard, that are under the false impression that if you have QDM, you have to increase antlerless harvest."


----------



## Whit1

Actually I think NJ was merely trying to dispell what may be a misconception among deer hunters, me included, that QDM/antler restrictions requires the taking of untold numbers of does in any area. His first post, which I thought was of value, attempted to qualm those fears. I've been reading these posts for over three years and that was the impression I got, that massive doe harvesting in all areas was required.


----------



## Happy Hunter

Whit1 said:


> Actually I think NJ was merely trying to dispell what may be a misconception among deer hunters, me included, that QDM/antler restrictions requires the taking of untold numbers of does in any area. His first post, which I thought was of value, attempted to qualm those fears. I've been reading these posts for over three years and that was the impression I got, that massive doe harvesting in all areas was required.



But isn't it true that if one implements AR in a QDM herd it requires a significant increase in adult doe harvest just to keep the herd stable? Remember that for ever additional buck saved by AR an additional doe has to be harvested just to keep the herd stable. Isn't it also true that if you implement QDM in a herd with a B/D ratio of 1:5 , it requires a significant harvest of adult doe to get the B/D ratio to 1:1.5. Also, if QDM is implemented in a herd that is above the goal deer density for the habitat,doesn't it require that additional doe be harvested?
That is what Alt said we had to do in PA in order to have a healthy herd with more and bigger buck ,so I see no reason why it wouldn't apply to a QDM herd in Mich.


----------



## boehr

I believe a statement like;


North Jeff said:


> ...There are people in our own DNR, even Becky Humphries I've heard, that are under the false impression that if you have QDM, you have to increase antlerless harvest....


 this is more in line with spreading rumors since it was stated, "I've heard". I have no idea when, if ever, he has discussed any wildlife issues with the Director. Before it was the NRC, I doubt that he can lay claim to the Director not having a wildlife background.

Lets face it, North Jeff will not consider the beliefs of others and some will not consider to his beliefs. That is the bottom line.

Maybe some of these experts should have applied for the job of Director or Chief of Wildlife Division and then they could have ran their own program. But no, it is easier to sit back and complain about it. After all, if there is soooo much support out there for mandatory QDM it should have been a cake walk to get the job.


----------



## Swamper

North Jeff,
You appear to have a strong opinion on many deer matters, and I respect your right to hold and express those, even though I may disagree with some of them. I submit to you that you may have confused several of us however, with 2 posts:

NJ quote of 12/20: &#8220;And here is the kicker....I don't really give a rip about if I actually have "hard facts" to back it up, what I have to back it up is something that is the most basic base to any understanding of just about any subject...COMMON SENSE&#8221;

NJ quote of 12/29:&#8220;You can choose whether to believe the data, the facts, the research scrutinized under peer review and published by either the source or credible media outlet.....
-OR-
You can believe some a media outlet who either ignores the research or does not believe it in it's entirety and uses personal opinion to influence his or her position in a deliverance of more opinion than fact without any research experience or contridicting research to back up those opinions.&#8221;

I would hope that you would respect any other person's right to express common sense and not rely on science at times.

Swamper


----------



## Ranger Ray

God practiced QHM (quality human management) once and look where it has got him, right back to the same sorry herd he wanted to eliminate. :lol:


----------



## Bwana

I have read every reply in this thread and the little voice in my head that I have my most compelling conversations with is screaming "make it stop"  . Pro-QDM...anti-QDM......:banghead3 


Ray, I heard the wolves are hatching out a similar QHM plan for UP Hunters as the humans are killing all of the deer in the UP


----------



## Splitshot

AltRules,

I was not trying to be funny when I said who cares, I was being sincere. 

I almost never make projections because I dont like to be wrong, but with your attitude I cant possibly see how you could convince anyone of anything with your attitude and thats why I dont think all your work in the UP will amount to a hill of beans. 

Tell me the name of the radio station in the UP that is giving QDM the bad rap? I want to contact them.

Wasnt one of the original goals of the QDM movement to work with the professionals within the DNR. Agree to disagree and all that. You credit yourself with being one of the spokespersons and experts representing QDM. Is your last post evidence of how professional people should act? 

And Alt doesnt rule. Now that he has created all you enlightened master deer managers he is quitting before the bottom falls out. Man you guys are losing it!


----------



## Whit1

*Time To Take a Deep Breath!!!*

Gentlemen, it's time to take a deep breath in this thread.

It this line of rhetoric continues it will inevitabley lead to one cluster fest of bashing and we won't have that in these forums. Agree! Disagee! Don't get personal.


----------



## Swamp Ghost

Touche`

I love the "harvesting best bucks in the age class" arguement that gets thrown around in these discussions. 

"Best" according to whom? Are you trying to determine "quality" for another hunter? And QDM'rs are the ones who are "trophy crazed?

I have seen recent studies that have shown that bucks that are less than 3.5 years old account for 30-40% of the breeding in highly managed areas of 1:1 ratio.

It would be extremely hard for most rational people to call a harvest of 1-2 does for every buck "slaughter" or "irradication" After all it's been going on in the buck harvest for 30 years, yet I don't hear those same claims. What was this year's harvest ratio 1 doe for every 3 bucks?


----------



## Happy Hunter

""Best" according to whom? Are you trying to determine "quality" for another hunter? And QDM'rs are the ones who are "trophy crazed?"



"Best" as defined by the only criteria by which they are being selected and that is the number of points required by the AR regulations.


----------



## Swamp Ghost

Nice caveat, HH.

AR's aren't about protecting the "best" according to you or even the "worst" (whatever that may mean, pretty subjective if you ask me), they are about allowing 60-80% of the youngest age class to make it through to the next year.


----------



## Happy Hunter

Swamp Ghost said:


> Nice caveat, HH.
> 
> AR's aren't about protecting the "best" according to you or even the "worst" (whatever that may mean, pretty subjective if you ask me), they are about allowing 60-80% of the youngest age class to make it through to the next year.



But , the fact remains that by saving a certain percentage of 1.5 buck, it is forcing hunters to harvest the buck with the most points in each agae class, thereby removing the buck that have shown the greatest potential for antler development.

But, you are right, AR is not about protecting the best buck!! It is about protecting inferior buck, that express the least genetic potential for developing racks with a high number of points..


----------



## Swamp Ghost

Thanks for making my point, HH. I'm not interested in "genetics" or "potental".

A 1.5 year old buck has shown *nothing and proved nothing*, unless your telling me you have the ability to see in the future. In reality 100% of the 1.5 year old buck should be protected, but 80% isn't too shabby, it's gotta be better for the herd than protecting 3" spikes.


----------



## TnRidge

HH, Who says a yearling buck is geneticly inferior and doesn't have potential ? It has been proven that even spike bucks have potential to grow nice antlers when allowed to grow up . A dead yearling buck will never grow a nice rack .


----------



## AltRules

First off Splitshot, I've never said anywhere that I'm trying to be a spokesman for anything. I've also never said I've done anything about the QDM movement in the U.P. I think you're confusing me with someone.


And I agree Whit that we should not be getting personal. But I do find it a bit interesting that my post contesting the tactics of Boehr was removed and yet his remains? That's EXACTLY the type of thing that brings the site down. What's fair for one is fair for all isn't it?


----------



## Splitshot

AltRules,

I am taking Whit's advice. If you have questions send me a PM and that is probably a surprise to Whit too. :smile-mad


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Boehr,

I didn't hear that from Becky personally, but I did hear it from both anti-QDM people and a pro-QDM people that did hear it personally from her directly. That is why I used "heard", because unless I hear it from her or read a direct quote from her, I can only reflect it 2nd hand.

Swamper,

What I've found is that research and common sense usually go together....sometimes commen sense tells a tale, and then research follows to prove it, and sometimes research reveals and an understanding of that research and practical application leads to commen sense......rarely do they totally contradict each other unless misinformation leads to a false understanding. To me, the closer you get to true understanding, the closer commen sense and research become one.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Have a happy and safe New Year everyone.....May the new year bring improved deer herds and a renewed or continued personal enjoyment and passion for both the hunter and hunted.

Take care!


----------



## boehr

NorthJeff said:


> Boehr,
> 
> I didn't hear that from Becky personally, but I did hear it from both anti-QDM people and a pro-QDM people that did hear it personally from her directly. That is why I used "heard", because unless I hear it from her or read a direct quote from her, I can only reflect it 2nd hand.


NJ...Like many things that you have stated about things being taken out of context from your statements, is it not possible that things you hear have not also been taken out of context about what someone else says? Maybe, maybe not but until you know for sure then it remains rumor or if rumor is too strong of a word for you, hearsay.

As I have said before, *voluntary* QDM is good (even QDMA states it is not for everyone), it just may not be the only way, *mandatory* QDM is not good at this time, *education* minus hearsay or putting the current wildlife managers down *is the greatest of all*.


----------



## Happy Hunter

Swamp Ghost said:


> Thanks for making my point, HH. I'm not interested in "genetics" or "potental".
> 
> A 1.5 year old buck has shown *nothing and proved nothing*, unless your telling me you have the ability to see in the future. In reality 100% of the 1.5 year old buck should be protected, but 80% isn't too shabby, it's gotta be better for the herd than protecting 3" spikes.




If you are not interested in genetics ,then you are not interested in dominant breeding,which mens there is no need to have older bucks doing the breeding.

If you believe an 8 pt. 1.5 has shown nothing compared to a spike 1.5 from the same area , then you apparently believe all buck have the same genetic potential, and large racked 1.5's have no better genetic potential then spikes. Even Dr. Kroll that admits that the if a 1.5 spike becomes a 6 pt. at 2.5 ,it will still be considered inferior to a 1.5 8pt. that becomes a 10 pt. 2.5.


----------



## Happy Hunter

TnRidge said:


> HH, Who says a yearling buck is geneticly inferior and doesn't have potential ? It has been proven that even spike bucks have potential to grow nice antlers when allowed to grow up . A dead yearling buck will never grow a nice rack .


http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/wildlife_pubs/wtd_antler_characteristics_inherited.pdf

Dr John Williams says the average spike is inferior to the average 1.5 8 pt.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/conserve/publications/media/spikes_not_inferior.pdf


----------



## TnRidge

H.H. Do you know of any 3.5 year old spike bucks being killed ,with proof of age being done by the tooth wear aging process ? From everything I have read ,studies have shown that in most cases ,a spike is a late born yearling buck , has very poor food sources , habitat , or herd health (too many deer) ,but is not a geneticaly inferior deer .
But ,I have an open mind ,and if you can answer my question ,and show me proof , I'll take your word for it .I'm all ears .


----------



## Happy Hunter

TnRidge said:


> H.H. Do you know of any 3.5 year old spike bucks being killed ,with proof of age being done by the tooth wear aging process ? From everything I have read ,studies have shown that in most cases ,a spike is a late born yearling buck , has very poor food sources , habitat , or herd health (too many deer) ,but is not a geneticaly inferior deer .
> But ,I have an open mind ,and if you can answer my question ,and show me proof , I'll take your word for it .I'm all ears .



A spike 1.5 does not have to remain a spike at 3.5 to be an inferior buck. If he is a Y at 2.5 and a small six at 3.5 he is still very inferior to a 1.5, 8 pt. In PA before AR was iplemented 3% of our 2.5+ buck were spikes and 18% were less than 5 pts. which would make them illegal under the 3 pt. one side rule.

Now, what many hunters don't realize is that in a stable herd , for every non-AR legal buck carried over and additional adult has to be harvested in order to keep the herd stable. That results in fewer BB being recruited and lower future buck harvests.


----------



## Swamper

NJ Quote:

"Swamper,

What I've found is that research and common sense usually go together....sometimes commen sense tells a tale, and then research follows to prove it, and sometimes research reveals and an understanding of that research and practical application leads to commen sense......rarely do they totally contradict each other unless misinformation leads to a false understanding. To me, the closer you get to true understanding, the closer commen sense and research become one."

On this note.... HAPPY NEW YEAR!!

Swamper


----------



## PERRY

Dear Jeff:

I couldnt agree more with your comments concerning doe harvest up in the UP. You know many sportsmen across the state are getting well down the learning curve concerning managing their properties for wildlife, but you have people in the public eye so to speak that drive the culture and the attitude. Several individuals - on the radio waves, on public broadcasting television, and some free lance writers here in Michigan are spreading nothing other than mistruths. I once was told by a very respectful biologist from the great state of Texas that "*many a beautiful theory has been murdered by a ruthless gang of facts." * These individuals have a soleum duty to provide both sides of the issue and provide unbiased information so sportsman of Michigan may make a more informed dicision concerning deer management related issues. Unfortunately, many are guided by what makes their day; they want to continue to demand as much as possible from the whitetail resoursce, but when it starts to crash; Its all the DNR's fault. I've been down this path myself several years ago sponsoring the Thumb Area Branch QDM proposal. And it only took one freelance writer to campaign hard by writing mistruths and spearheading the United Sportsman Alliance (USA) of the thumb. USA pressured the DNR to stop QDM as we know it; and still continue to do so presently. Unfortunatly, this writer hides behind his gang of bandits to do all the dirty work; and who ends up losing, the health of our habitat and whitetail resource. They are so proud of the fact of misguiding the general public concerning the implementation of QDM back in 2001 that since that time USA officers have resigned and became QDM members. You guessed it, they found out they shot themselves in the foot. Many area hunters have approached me since those days the proposal failed; wishing now that it had passed. Unfortunatly, many of those individuals who helped the thumb area QDM assessment fail have nothing to manage. I believe most are free loader hunters; in other words, they dont believe in conpensating the farmer for allowing them the prevalige to hunt. However, farmers are in fact the "salt of the earth" they are having a hard time makeing ends meet. But unfortunatley hunters demand free access remain free of charge. 

"Even though hunter numbers have dwindled on a national level, more people want quality outdoor opportunities on limited amounts of land. Deerhunting has become a supply and demand situation. At least quality deer hunting has reached that point. Most hunters will pay decent money to hunt out of state but refuse to pay a dime to hunt good ground in their own stae. Some complain about having nowwhere to hunt, while hauling a ten thouasand dollar ATV behind a thirty thoasand dollar truck!" Simply stated there are people who like to hunt and those who love to hunt. Their level of interest boarders on their ability or passion. Enough said on this issue. 

Undoubtedly, I have only one fear that true role models and mentors are becoming a endangered species. What I'm getting at here is the fact many of Michigan roles models have been hosts of outdoor television shows or radio programs for years; some hunting for all the wrong reasons, and they are trying desperately to maintain their individuality, popularity, and ratings by maintaining the status quo concerning Traditional Deer Management. These individuals have maintained a culture where by thousands of young hunters have absolutely no idea who the pioneers of our passion are. They only wish to remain in the spotlight. Consequently, Many individuals within the state of Michigan could replace these old antiquated TV host, Radio personalities, and freelance writers. When your uneducated doubt a theories credibility without reason you grab at anything you can to sell your point of view. As with the Thumb Area QDM proposal I'll end this thread by saying.

"What do lies do, they only postpone the truth" 

If the Superior Deer Mangement QDM proposal fails; it will only fail the DNR's assessment not the participation and implementation towards QDM

May the Magic of the Whitetail
Forever Enrich Your Life

Perry Russo
North Cental Regional Director
Quality Deer Management Association


----------



## Letmgro

Great post Perry!


----------

