# My take on QDM



## Tracker83 (Jun 21, 2005)

Seeing as I am new here, I thought I would take a minute and explain my views on QDM. That way you can have a little background as to where I'm coming from when we're in discussion.

I hunt in an area with numerous small parcels (most are 10-40 acres) that are in close proximity to several thousand acres of public land. The soils are extremely poor, and comprised mostly of sand. Due to the small parcel sizes and having public land close by, the hunter density is also quite high (as high as 15 acres/hunter as described in another post).

Approximately 8-10 years ago we were looking to improve our hunting. The most obvious option was to sell the land and find something more ideal for a quality hunting experience. Due to the "up north tradition" along with the long history that we had with this land we decided not to sell. That's when we learned about QDM and then met with several landowners in the area.

Since then we have done a fair amount of work improving the habitat with selective cuts of poplars, addition of food plots, TSI, etc. Along with this we implemented harvest guidelines of passing on yearling bucks and making sure enough does were taken.

At the time we implemented our program, our hunter participation looked something like this:
5-6 camps improving habitat
2-3 camps maintaining food plots
4 INDIVIDUAL hunters practicing the harvest guidelines

It did not take long for the other hunters in the area to catch on and join the program. We now have just short of 1,000 acres worth of camps in the area participating with us. Our food plot program really hasn't increased only because most of the other camps don't have the resources necessary to do this. But the habitat improvements and the harvest guidelines are now widely accepted in the area, and the results have been nothing short of amazing. Along with this the year-'round participation in projects has actually made the hunting much MORE fun and extremely rewarding.

I explained all of this to help illustrate my views of QDM. QDM works! There is absolutely no doubt about it, QDM works! I get extremely irritated when individuals who have never participated in it claim that it is a poor management strategy. Maybe you have to actually try it to know, but I have seen with my own two eyes the results.

I am NOT in favor of mandatory QDM guidelines. From what I have seen here, this is probably a minority opinion with the QDM supporters on this site. I do, however, find it unfortunate that Michigan's hunters are so opposed to QDM but quite frankly it doesn't effect my hunting and if they want to deal with the short-comings of traditional deer management then that is their right. I have witnessed first hand the results of voluntary QDM participation and "leading by example" to the other hunters in a given area. I choose to focus my energy in educating hunters within a 2 mile radius of my property about the benifits of QDM and informing them about the other camps in their area that are participating. Once or twice a year we invite as many local hunters as possible to our cabin for burgers and beer. We casually inform them about what some of us are doing, and let them know that if a spike is heading in our direction they don't have to worry about us dropping it. We pressure nobody, and if they choose not to participate than that is just fine with us. It is not hard, however, to convince other hunters because many of them have seen their own hunting improve because of our hard work.

Hopefully I have provided enough background for you to understand where I am coming from, and I look forward to our deer management discussions.

Tracker


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Good post, Tracker.

As to one of your remarks:


Tracker83 said:


> I am NOT in favor of mandatory QDM guidelines. From what I have seen here, this is probably a minority opinion with the QDM supporters on this site.


I wouldn't be so sure this puts you in a "minority" position. Many of us are ambivalent about antler restrictions, for example. My personal opinion is that it makes sense to experiment with antler restrictions in areas where such restrictions would protect a large proportion of yearling bucks (for example, there are places in Michigan where a 3pt. a side restriction would protect 80% of 'em). 

Down where I hunt, antler point restrictions would be less effective in protecting yearling bucks, hence, my ambivalence.

Now, I do believe, assuming no regulatory changes whatsoever, if we were to rely solely upon privately-financed hunter education efforts and voluntary adoption of QDM harvest practices, we'll see a balanced deer herd here in Michigan sometime around 2036. At some point, in order to move us forward, I believe we'll have to have some sort of restriction on buck harvest. 

I personally like the idea of limiting buck tags by DMU, much like we now do with antlerless tags.

I also like the "Lyon Rule", whereby a hunter has an option, at the point of purchase, of a single unrestricted antlered buck tag, priced at, say, $30, to cover the entire season(bow, gun, harpoon, whatever), or two buck tags for a grand total of $30, both of which are restricted to, for example, 8+ pointers only. 

In the southern lower, an Ohio-type regulation would be great. It would allow hunters to purchase 2, 3, 4 or more kill tags for their DMU. Use 'em in any season you want (bow, gun, muzzleloader), but a maximum of only _one_ of your tags can be affixed to a buck. They're "deer" tags, not "antlered" or "antlerless" tags.

Another change which I believe would have some merit would be to begin the gun season later, and have it shorter in duration. 

I sense that some folks would like to see an improved buck age structure and doe:buck ratio, but at the same time, don't want any our current rules to change. Thinking that we'll get there by purely voluntary measures, with no regulatory changes whatsoever, is wishful thinking.


----------



## withgrace (Apr 24, 2005)

I agree with you 100%. Voluntary QDM is the way to go. I am glad it is working for you. 
What I dont understand is if 60% of hunters in eup (I think this was the number I might be off a little bit) supported mandatory ARs, why dont they do it voluntarily? If they did, deer hunting would hopefuly improve and QDM would gain more supporters and this never ending argument about mandatory ARs would not be an issue.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

I'm pretty similar, I embrace the three tenets of QDM, but am against mandatory ARs(antler restrictions). I think the majority of people that post on this management board are fanatics about deer hunting, we live and breathe deer hunting 24/7/365, but I also think we're a minority compared to the average license buyer in this state. QDM can be practiced without addition regulations, and I like the idea of the casual hunter, who is only interested in getting some venison for the table, will still get his opportunity to put venison on the table. 

I think hunting should be accessible to everyone. I want public land hunters to have a great hunting experience and I recognize the challenge public land hunters have when it comes to habitat improvement. Or should I say that I recognize that public land hunters have no control on habitat improvement, other than lobby for improvement from the govt. (fed and state). Public land hunters don't have the luxury of planting food plots, clear cuts and myriad of other habitat improvement methods. I consider myself fortunate to hunt private land and the opportunity private land offers to create quality habitat, but I always consider those that don't have the luxury of private land and the opportunities that come with private land, so I do not favor mandatory ARs.


----------



## withgrace (Apr 24, 2005)

Limiting buck tags by DMU. would make sense from a management stand point. However the politics of tourism get in the way of sound management. I have said before the two buck rule hurt EUP hunting more than anything else. Now that it has been in place for a while I dont see it going away without a fight from many people.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

withgrace said:


> What I dont understand is if 60% of hunters in eup (I think this was the number I might be off a little bit) supported mandatory ARs, why dont they do it voluntarily?


Excellent question and one I've had since the proposal was defeated. I believe the proposal was UP-wide and not just eastern, but it remains a very good question.


----------



## Tracker83 (Jun 21, 2005)

farmlegend said:


> I wouldn't be so sure this puts you in a "minority" position. Many of us are ambivalent about antler restrictions, for example. My personal opinion is that it makes sense to experiment with antler restrictions in areas where such restrictions would protect a large proportion of yearling bucks (for example, there are places in Michigan where a 3pt. a side restriction would protect 80% of 'em).


Don't get me wrong, I believe it would be benificial if implemented state-wide, but right now the push to mandate it is hurting my chances at recruiting certain hunters in my area. Call me shelfish, but right now I am more concerned with hunters in my area implementing QDM than I am about somebody 200 miles away.


----------



## Tracker83 (Jun 21, 2005)

Sib said:


> I embrace the three tenets of QDM





Sib said:


> QDM can be practiced without addition regulations, and I like the idea of the casual hunter, who is only interested in getting some venison for the table, will still get his opportunity to put venison on the table.


Sib,

I don't mean to pick on you, but I find these two statements somewhat contradictory. To believe that QDM hurts the casual hunter implies that QDM reduces the number of opportunities that a hunter has to put VENISON in the freezer. My experience has been that those opportunities are not reduced and may even be slightly increased. Now if you were to say that it reduces the opportunity for a casual hunter to put a BUCK in the freezer, then I may be inclined to agree. But if the object is simply to put venison in the freezer then I just don't agree that QDM will hurt that objective.

Tracker


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Tracker-

I agree with your position and Ill bet your in the majority of QDM proponents.

Too many people confuse QDM with ARs. They are two separate issues but because everyone refers to ARs as QDM initiatives, the label QDM has become controversial.

I dont see how anybody could be opposed to QDM as a philosophy, if they understand it. They may not choose to adopt every aspect of it, but why would they oppose the voluntary practice of it? I personally agree with two of the three tenants of QDM and have also found the QDMA to be a valuable source of information for the habitat manager.

I am, however, strongly opposed to ARs for a number of reasons. My primary concern is that they force a hunter to abide by a certain standard that they have not voluntarily adopted. I believe that in the long term this will fragment the hunting community and cause a great deal more harm than the slight benefit that may be gained by imposing ARs. If you look at this bulletin board as a microcosm of the hunting fraternity, ARs are by far the most divisive issue. As hunters we need to present a united front and internal divisions are much more likely to cause the end of hunting as we know it than external forces.


farmlegend said:


> I personally like the idea of limiting buck tags by DMU, much like we now do with antlerless tags.
> 
> I also like the "Lyon Rule", whereby a hunter has an option, at the point of purchase, of a single unrestricted antlered buck tag, priced at, say, $30, to cover the entire season(bow, gun, harpoon, whatever), or two buck tags for a grand total of $30, both of which are restricted to, for example, 8+ pointers only.
> 
> In the southern lower, an Ohio-type regulation would be great. It would allow hunters to purchase 2, 3, 4 or more kill tags for their DMU. Use 'em in any season you want (bow, gun, muzzleloader), but a maximum of only _one_ of your tags can be affixed to a buck.


I think these are pretty good ideas and could agree to all three of them instead of mandatory AR's, which shows you that people with opposing opinions can come to a meeting of the mind.
Maybe it's time for a group hug.  :lol: :lol: :lol: 
_____________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## Tracker83 (Jun 21, 2005)

Thanks, guys. I'm glad we can have at lease one discussion here that hasn't turned into a flame-war (knock on wood). It appears to me that if we can find an alternative to mandatory QDM that doesn't include ARs, then we may have wide-spread agreement.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Tracker83 said:


> Sib,
> 
> I don't mean to pick on you, but I find these two statements somewhat contradictory. To believe that QDM hurts the casual hunter implies that QDM reduces the number of opportunities that a hunter has to put VENISON in the freezer. My experience has been that those opportunities are not reduced and may even be slightly increased. Now if you were to say that it reduces the opportunity for a casual hunter to put a BUCK in the freezer, then I may be inclined to agree. But if the object is simply to put venison in the freezer then I just don't agree that QDM will hurt that objective.
> 
> Tracker


Tracker-

Read my last post concerning the difference between QDM and ARs. QDM does not impact hunter opportunity but ARs can certainly reduce hunter opportunity. 

Remember the public land hunter does not have any of the benefits derived from QDM and cannot use the same QDM methods that the private land owner can to increase the quality of the herd. You mentioned using food plots and habitat improvement methods. The private land owner can also use sanctuaries and can limit the hunter density on their property. None of these methods are available to the public land hunter. You also have to remember that in many parts of the state antlerless permits are either very limited or are unavailable so the public land hunter may not have the option of taking a doe instead of a buck. 

So if you impose mandatory antler restrictions there is a very real possibility that a public land hunter may have to pass on harvesting a 1.5 year old buck. If they only get to hunt a few days out of the year then this may mean the difference between putting venison in the freezer or not that year. So Sibs two statements are entirely consistent in my opinion.
_____________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## Tracker83 (Jun 21, 2005)

Munsterlndr,

IMO Sid's statements ARE contradictory because he said QDM, not ARs. You just said that they're different, right? Had he said ARs then I would have agreed. I am in agreement with you in your opposition to MARs, and on there own they shouldn't be considered QDM. But I still hold faith that mandatory QDM can somehow be implemented without ARs. Until that happens I am not in favor of it.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Tracker83 said:


> Munsterlndr,
> 
> IMO Sid's statements ARE contradictory because he said QDM, not ARs. You just said that they're different, right? Had he said ARs then I would have agreed. I am in agreement with you in your opposition to MARs, and on there own they shouldn't be considered QDM. But I still hold faith that mandatory QDM can somehow be implemented without ARs. Until that happens I am not in favor of it.


Tracker -
I don't mean to speak for Sib, but what I understood his post to mean is that he supports voluntary QDM. The additional regulations that he was talking about refer to Mandatory AR's, and he was saying that these are not neccessary to practice QDM. I agree with him on this point.

As far as making QDM mandatory, QDM is a a goal. You can't make QDM mandatory. You can try and make some of the various methods used to achieve the goal of QDM mandatory, but so far the only method that has been made mandatory in some states are AR's. You can't force people to improve the habitat on private land and it's not feasible on public land because of cost. You can't limit the number of hunters on public land unless you want to institute a draw of some type. On private land you can plant food plots to supplement existing forage to be able to maintain herd density but on public land you can't really do this on a widespread basis.

You can try to balance the sex ratio in the herd by issueing more antlerless permits but it seems like in the areas of the state that would really benefit from this policy, there are already a lot of doe permits that go unsold. 

So let me ask you, what methods other than mandatory antler restrictions would you suggest we make mandatory to reach the goals that QDM aspires to?
__________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudeon in Training


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

> What I dont understand is if 60% of hunters in eup (I think this was the number I might be off a little bit) supported mandatory ARs, why dont they do it voluntarily?


This is a wonderful question. One I'm surprised hasnt' came up yet.



> I also like the "Lyon Rule", whereby a hunter has an option, at the point of purchase, of a single unrestricted antlered buck tag, priced at, say, $30, to cover the entire season(bow, gun, harpoon, whatever), or two buck tags for a grand total of $30, both of which are restricted to, for example, 8+ pointers only.
> 
> In the southern lower, an Ohio-type regulation would be great. It would allow hunters to purchase 2, 3, 4 or more kill tags for their DMU. Use 'em in any season you want (bow, gun, muzzleloader), but a maximum of only one of your tags can be affixed to a buck.


I personally feel that any of these three changes would make an incredible improvement over what we have now.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

> *Quote by withgrace*
> What I dont understand is if 60% of hunters in eup (I think this was the number I might be off a little bit) supported mandatory ARs, why dont they do it voluntarily?


I'm not sure of the actual percent of support but it there is a large support base in the area of Rudyard. More camps are voluntarily practicing restraint on immature buck harvest every year in our area. I do think there should be exceptions for youth hunters but given a choice a vast majority of the kids who get invited to hunt my camp also pass on younger bucks. Why, because they know a mature one may be just around the corner.

withgrace
Get into the buck pool at the old Fibre store. The rules are simple, highest B&C score on the first buck you shoot in the Rudyard/Fibre area. If you shoot a young one that's your entry even if you shoot a fully mature buck later in the season. It's not big money but it's enough to pay for your mount.


----------



## Ogre (Mar 21, 2003)

Wonderful thread so far. A statement was: _I still hold faith that mandatory QDM can somehow be implemented without ARs._ Then another statement was made: _So let me ask you, what methods other than mandatory antler restrictions would you suggest we make mandatory to reach the goals that QDM aspires to? _

This sort of sums up where I'm at with QDM. I am not opposed to managing a herd so that it is in balance with the habitat but I am extremely ambivalent about buck to doe ratios as venison has no sex and yet I know that deer and antler size is important to others. I purposely look for a young deer as I believe they taste best on the dinner table so age spreads within the herd are of little importance to me. I believe that habitat improvement stands on it own merit and should not be part of a wildlife program. I am ethically opposed to artificial wildlife feedings (except my bird feeder) based, if for no other reason, upon what we know such action's roles have played in the TB and CWD arenas. So the QDM plank that I fully embrace is habitat balance and I can't see antler restrictions solving this one. Thus while I'm sure antler restrictions are not the answer at the same time I'm also not sure that I have counter proposals to offer in this regard.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

withgrace said:


> What I dont understand is if 60% of hunters in eup (I think this was the number I might be off a little bit) supported mandatory ARs, why dont they do it voluntarily?


A number of us would support the raising the price of all licenses & fees collected by the DNR to restore the staffing levels that we had prior to 2000. However, I doubt that any of us are going to send the state a check for say $50. We'll gladly pay when everone pays.
Have you had any bond issues fail in your district in recent years ? If you supported that issue & it failed, would start start sending the school district extra money with your summer & winter taxes ? Or would would wait until it passed and them gladly send alond the extra money.
I support raising the bar on AR's. Until that happens, legal bucks are fair game. 
L & O


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

GVDocHoliday said:


> This is a wonderful question. One I'm surprised hasnt' came up yet.


Questions along the same line have come up quite often in this forum.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

Tracker83 said:


> Sib,
> 
> I don't mean to pick on you, but I find these two statements somewhat contradictory. To believe that QDM hurts the casual hunter implies that QDM reduces the number of opportunities that a hunter has to put VENISON in the freezer. My experience has been that those opportunities are not reduced and may even be slightly increased. Now if you were to say that it reduces the opportunity for a casual hunter to put a BUCK in the freezer, then I may be inclined to agree. But if the object is simply to put venison in the freezer then I just don't agree that QDM will hurt that objective.
> 
> Tracker


Howdy Tracker83, fair question and in no way would I construe that as picking on me. 

I embrace the three tenets, which are:

1. Adequate buck age structure
2. Populations maintained in balance with the habitat
3. Appropriate sex ratios

These all seem like items that will improve our overall herd health and I think most people could support all three. The disagreements start when we start looking at the tools to acheive those tenets, ARs being one of those tools. My comments about QDM not needing new regulations for participants to be able to successfully practice hold true and I think your experience proves that point when you stated, _"There is absolutely no doubt about it, QDM works!"_ You made QDM work and you did it under existing TDM regulations.

I think the part of my post that brought this question was probably _"...and I like the idea of the casual hunter, who is only interested in getting some venison for the table, will still get his opportunity to put venison on the table."_ I don't believe QDM hurts the average hunter, but I do believe some of the tools used to acheive QDM and some of the regulations proposed by QDM advocates can hurt the average hunter's opportunity. Munsterlndr touched on this and it's holds true for many areas. Not all areas have antlerless permits available and even in areas where private land antlerless permits exist there are much fewer and sometimes none available to the public land hunters. In a situation like that the average guy that just wants to have a good chance at a deer and enjoy the comradery of family and friends doesn't have an opportunity to take an antlerless deer, he has only one choice, an antlered deer and I feel QDM sponsored ARs can hurt opportunity in a situation like that. Also note, I wasn't speaking of QDM in the original statement, I was speaking of _additonal regulations_ which I intended to mean up and beyond the three tenets, ARs being one.

Sounds like you and I have similar values when deer hunting, I know not everyone shares those values and a successful hunt for them might be any deer antlered or not. I want those hunters to have opportunities and feel successful in this great endeavor, so they can pass on their hunting heritage, at a time where hunting is becoming less popular. I will still pass on young bucks and purchase doe permits, but like many things in life, I don't expect everyone will do things my way, or even have a situation similar to mine.

I hope that clarifies things, ask away if you have any further questions and agree that this is a very productive thread.


----------



## Tracker83 (Jun 21, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> So let me ask you, what methods other than mandatory antler restrictions would you suggest we make mandatory to reach the goals that QDM aspires to?


That's a great question, and I have already stated that I do not know the answer. That is specifically why I don't like mandatory regulations because as of now the only logical method is via the use of ARs. I thought I already stated that I am more in favor of voluntary not mandatory QDM?

So what else can the state do? I don't really know. It is impossible for the state to mandate any habitat improvement. They have no say in the private land or the federal land in Michigan, and those two make up a large majority of the land mass. They could do some projects in the state land, but that land is generally managed for multiple uses. But QDM states that the population needs to be kept in balance with the habitat. Therefore the only thing left is to keep the herd numbers down, but that is generally not accepted to well by Michigan's numbers.

I do think that the sex ratios and the age structures could be improved somewhat by allowing Michigan's hunters only 1 buck per year. I know of at least 4 yearlings that were killed by hunters near me last year by hunters who stated "now that I got a buck I can wait for a good one". I know for a fact that at least three of those guys wouldn't have shot those small bucks if they only had 1 buck tag.

But like I said, I am much more in favor of voluntary QDM participation. And yes, it does work on public land, it does work on small parcels, and it does work in areas with high hunter density.

Tracker


----------



## Tracker83 (Jun 21, 2005)

Sib,

Thanks for the reply. It appears as though both you and I are in agreement. I also agree that VOLUNTARY QDM works great under Michigan's current TraditionalDM strategy. Mandatory regulations are another story, and I have already stated that I am not real sure about them, and I am not in favor of them in their current form.

Tracker


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Tracker83 said:


> But QDM states that the population needs to be kept in balance with the habitat. Therefore the only thing left is to keep the herd numbers down, but that is generally not accepted to well by Michigan's numbers.


While the stated tenant of QDM is to manage the herd in balance with the habitat, what that really means is slightly different. None of the three main deer management philosophies advocate herd sizes that are out of balance with the habitat. But each of the three main management styles targets a different herd size for a different reason. Traditional deer management tends to target a herd size that is 70-75% of K (Carrying Capacity) This method tends to maximize the size of the herd while still maintaining the overall health of the herd. QDM targets a herd at 50-60% of K. By reducing the herd size you increase the amount of available food for individual deer and you also reduce social stress, which some think can impact the health of the herd. This method is designed to produce deer with large body weights and antlers within a given age group. Trophy deer management may set the target as low as 20-30% of K. The goal here is similar to QDM but seeks to maximize weight and antler development. So you can make the case that all three styles mangae to balance the herd. it just depends on whether you want more, albeit smaller, deer around to maximize the opportunity or whether you want to manage for "quality".


Tracker83 said:


> I do think that the sex ratios and the age structures could be improved somewhat by allowing Michigan's hunters only 1 buck per year. I know of at least 4 yearlings that were killed by hunters near me last year by hunters who stated "now that I got a buck I can wait for a good one". I know for a fact that at least three of those guys wouldn't have shot those small bucks if they only had 1 buck tag.


I would agree that the 1 buck a year model would protect a lot of small deer and I would be in favor of this. The DNR, though , is opposed for revenue reasons.


Tracker83 said:


> But like I said, I am much more in favor of voluntary QDM participation. And yes, it does work on public land, it does work on small parcels, and it does work in areas with high hunter density.


Yes, QDM can work on small parcels and on public land but it is much, much more difficult and the results will be much less impressive than on larger parcels. QDM originally evolved on very large Southern plantation type properties. When you are managing large amounts of property, there is no question that QDM can produce some really impressive results. When you try and adopt it to Northern properties that tend to be much smaller in scope, you start to run into problems. If you are practicing QDM on an 80 acre parcel, the property may hold what 5-7 antlered bucks? If your neighbors do not practice QDM there is a real good chance that many of those bucks are going to be whacked by a neighbor, especially if you border public land. This becomes frustrating to the property owner that is putting a lot of time and resources into producing quality deer. The natural inclination is to push for mandatoryAR's so that at least you may get a shot at seeing bigger bucks. The problem is that when you try to limit another hunters harvest, it is going to cause conflict. That is where we are at in Michigan currently. If you are a southern deer manager and are managing 15,000 acres, you could care less if the neighbor is practicing QDM because the majority of the deer are going to stay on your property, especially if you are providing good habitat & food supply. So I guess my feeling is that if you want to practice QDM on a small parcel, great, but you may have to live with your neighbors shooting some of the deer that you are trying to grow bigger. Having said that, you can still make a lot of improvements to the local herd and improve the quality of your own hunt by practicing voluntary QDM on smaller private parcels.
___________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> If you are practicing QDM on an 80 acre parcel, the property may hold what 5-7 antlered bucks? If your neighbors do not practice QDM there is a real good chance that many of those bucks are going to be whacked by a neighbor, especially if you border public land. This becomes frustrating to the property owner that is putting a lot of time and resources into producing quality deer. The natural inclination is to push for mandatoryAR's so that at least you may get a shot at seeing bigger bucks. The problem is that when you try to limit another hunters harvest, it is going to cause conflict.


Undeniably, there is a conflict, and this conflict weakens the effectiveness of voluntary buck harvest restraint.

Hunter A manages his property hard, doesn't shoot yearling bucks.
Next door, Hunter B has different objectives, sets up near Hunter A's fenceline, and shoots every forkhorn he sees. 
Hunter B is happy; Hunter A's form of management makes Hunter B's hunting better; meanwhile, Hunter B's form of management makes Hunter A's hunting worse.
Hunter B may become unhappy when folks make noise about changing the way Hunter B hunts. Hunter B may not only object to something like antler restrictions, but also to earn-a-buck, later gun season, DMU-specific buck tags, or anything that he perceives will reduce his chances of getting his buck.

Voluntary QDM "cooperatives" only work when you've got neighboring hunters with similar objectives. The plain fact is, hunters have different objectives, for a variety of reasons. Some guys only have two days to hunt each year, along with a traditional desire of harvesting a buck. Some guys hunt a little 10a. patch of cover next to Farmer Brown's 420a. spread, and therefore feel justified in hunting near the boundary and trying to capitalize on whatever opportunity they get. I know it may sound inflammatory (to some) to say so, but the plain fact is that some hunters are comfortable looking at deer from a purely consumptive sense; that doesn't make them bad people, but it does set the table for conflict with someone who has a different perspective. 

We'll always have conflicting hunter desires, which will tend to ameliorate the effectiveness of individual hunters' management when it comes to developing a balanced deer herd. That's why I think it's important to try something other than the status quo, along the lines of many of the fine suggestions we've discussed in this forum.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

I really think there are very few people on this forum that are totally in disagreement with QDM and IF managed properly can have good results but remember the results are in the eye of the landowner. 

I* really think what this state is lacking is "management", lack of or poor management. The unchecked doe permits have killed the alot of areas, the two-buck license has done its damage, lack of biologists in the woods have put the DNR in a data guessing game, unmanaged timbering practices, etc.. . What I do not like about MAR's is in my opinion just "masking" the problems and not fixing the problems of our deer herds/DNR. 

License increases(the increased $ has to go into a management fund for more biologists etc..), simple license options, managed doe permits, etc...


----------



## Dedge (Sep 22, 2004)

GVDocHoliday said:


> This is a wonderful question. One I'm surprised hasnt' came up yet.


I think it is due to "If I didn't shoot him the person down the road would have." Believe me I am not picking on anybody with this post at all. I usually like to read but have yet to post in any of the WDM threads, because of all the flared tempers and everyone misconstruing what is said. But this one seems civil enough. For now anyway. But I do believe that a very large percentage of people would pass on deer if they knew it was not going to be shot an hour later, by the guy in the next blind. Which it seems is what everyone says. Kind of seems like a catch 22 to me.
I have not made up my mind yet as to whether I would fully embrace mandatory AR's. I believe that QDM is in general, a no-brainer. (adequate, in balance, appropriate) That all makes sense to me. But I am talking simply in theories here. The question is how do you enforce it. I have never heard (not saying they aren't out there, just that I have never heard them), any other feasable suggestions as to how QDM should be implemented.

Just my coupla pennies guys,
Dan


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> When you are managing large amounts of property, there is no question that QDM can produce some really impressive results.
> 
> How about a parcel the size of Michigan?
> 
> Big T


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

I would agree that the 1 buck a year model would protect a lot of small deer and I would be in favor of this. The DNR, though , is opposed for revenue reasons.
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training[/QUOTE]

The DNR is mandated by statute to offer a combo tag by the legislature they may, however, make the decision what the regulations will be on that combo tag ie: 1-buck 1-doe, 2 unrestricted bucks, 2 restricted bucks, 1 of each etc.. The problem comes into play with the different areas of the state and the harvest desires. The combo tag is good anywhere in the state. Soooo.... if it is designated to only allow 1 buck then the other deer must be antlerless, which would be a good thing in zone 3 but not in zone 1. 
It isn't neccesarily a revenue issue.

Big T


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> How about a parcel the size of Michigan?


If all of Michigan was privately owned you could turn it into one heck of a big deer ranch. The whole point that this thread highlighted is that you can't apply the same QDM methods that have proved so successful on private land, to public land.

The only method that has been tried on public land are AR's and these cause a great deal of controversy and division within the hunting community.

If you can come up with a public land management plan that incorporates food plots, habitat improvement, sanctuaries and limitation of hunter density *in addition* to selective harvest, great. But so far no one in the country has successfully developed that model.

Having said that, there are some changes that we could make to current managment policy, that would have a positive impact on the quality of public land hunting in Michigan. FL suggested several in this thread and I'm sure that there are a number of others that we could probably come up with. 
__________________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> The DNR is mandated by statute to offer a combo tag by the legislature they may, however, make the decision what the regulations will be on that combo tag ie: 1-buck 1-doe, 2 unrestricted bucks, 2 restricted bucks, 1 of each etc.. The problem comes into play with the different areas of the state and the harvest desires. The combo tag is good anywhere in the state. Soooo.... if it is designated to only allow 1 buck then the other deer must be antlerless, which would be a good thing in zone 3 but not in zone 1.
> It isn't neccesarily a revenue issue.


I was referring to a quote from Rod Clute, in which he indicated that going to a 1 buck model would cost the DNR $5.6 million a year in lost revenue, equating to laying off 56 DNR field personnel. Even if you could eliminate the combo tag I don't think the DNR would look at it for revenue reasons.

I realize that the combo license is legislature mandated but I still think that changing it to one buck/one doe would be a positive step. It would save a lot of small bucks in all three zones and while some additional antlerless may be taken in zone 1, archers can already use the combo to take two antlerless if they want. Maybe the trade off would be to make the combo good for 1 buck/1 doe for both firearm and archery. If an archer wants to take more does with a bow then they can buy additional doe permits, if available. I know that if I was gauranteed an antlerless permit I would be more likely to pass up a small buck. 
_______________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

luv 2 bowhunt said:


> Where can I sign up?
> I would love those wages.
> Laying off 56 field personnel would cost $5.6 million . WOW
> $100,000.00 per year for a field person. Whew no wonder we don't have any money in the state budget.
> ...


Folks that have never stood inside the shoes of an employer may not naturally grasp just how much it costs to employ someone.

An employee that costs an employer $100,000 per year could conceivably earn less than half that amount. When you budget for a single employee such as a DNR professional, you must build in for payroll taxes (roughly 10% of gross pay), travel, vehicle or vehicle allowance, health/dental/disability benefits (likely over $1,000 per month), paid time off(ie., paid vacations and holidays), retirement plan contributions, supplies, uniforms, training, supervision, and a host of other expenses.


----------



## Guest (Aug 2, 2005)

What makes anyone think that QDM will not work on public land. What is their bases for that conviction? Have they looked up bio harvest data on demonstrations for 5 years or more with a serious QDM program in efffect.

There is much data available to refute that premise. In fact it is a fact that a serious practice of QDM will improve hunter experiences on public land much more than on private land. It just needs to be done correctly. 

Yep, the above is true and rather hard to belive. We know for a fact that in general the majority of public land hunters have poor experiences. Many have not seen a buck for years. We know that hunters on private land have in general a better hunting experience than the public land hunters. It doesn't take much to improve the experiences of public land hunters and it is this improvment in experiences that we are refering to. From seeing none to even one is fantastic. 

It is also a fact that in average environmental conditions, a protected yearling buck has a greater than a 95% chance of surviving to the next hunting season. What is really taken away from hunters by practicing restraint?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Ed Spin04 said:


> *What makes anyone think that QDM will not work on public land.* *What is their bases for that conviction? Have they looked up bio harvest data on demonstrations for 5 years or more with a serious QDM program in efffect.*


Show me where QDM has been practiced on public land. We just saw several letters to the DNR, from QDM proponents, complaining that Antler Restriction initiatives are *not* QDM and should not be called such. Are you saying that Antler Restrictions are a "serious QDM program?"


Ed Spin04 said:


> *There is much data available to refute that premise. In fact it is a fact that a serious practice of QDM will improve hunter experiences on public land much more than on private land. It just needs to be done correctly.*


 Please supply this data. If you are referring to the data accumulated from DMU 118, I was not aware that seperate data was collected for private vs. public land hunters. Unless you have data specific to private land only or public land only it is only an opinion as to whether hunting improved more on one versus the other.


Ed Spin04 said:


> *Yep, the above is true and rather hard to belive. We know for a fact that in general the majority of public land hunters have poor experiences. Many have not seen a buck for years. We know that hunters on private land have in general a better hunting experience than the public land hunters. It doesn't take much to improve the experiences of public land hunters and it is this improvment in experiences that we are refering to. From seeing none to even one is fantastic.*


Again, where are these facts? This is a sweeping generalization that a majority of public land hunters have a "Poor" experience.
Poor because they don't see a buck? If they don't see any bucks for years, why are so many QDM advocates worried about them shooting all of those non-existent spikes, forks & sixes? Or do you mean to say that they don't see a "quality" buck?


Ed Spin04 said:


> * What is really taken away from hunters by practicing restraint?*


Maybe the opportunity to harvest one of those non-existent spikes, fork horns or six points and put some venison in the freezer that year?

Antler Restrictions are a very poor substitute for all of the QDM tools that the private land deer manager can employ to increase the quality of the hunting experience. QDM is an excellent management philosophy for private land hunters.
____________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training, specializing in naysaying & wannabeing


----------



## luv 2 bowhunt (Mar 27, 2005)

I have to kick this dead horse again.
All you here from qdm is FOOD PLOTS, just look at all of the qdma food plot days seminars. FOOD is very important to growing quality deer.
On private land you have the luxury of doing just that, food plots, habitat improvement, year round food sources.
On State land however these are NOT an option. 
So according to qdm: keeping deer at 40 to 60% of carrying capacity, in many State land areas with poor food you will have to get the herd down below 10 deer per square mile, like has been done in areas of Pennsylvania.
I will tell you for a fact that with less than 10 deer per square mile on State lands that without a doubt qdm will not work. I just heard last weekend that in Michigan it is split in a 60% of hunters hunt on State land and 40% on private. So 60% of the hunters are going to fight over a pretty much non existant deer herd yet the private land owners with food plots can say we can support 50 to 60 deer per square mile because we have the habitat to support higher numbers.
Is qdma going to foot the bill to create equal opportunities for public land hunters?
I keep seeing these qdm guys adds on the outdoor channel and they always say:" YEAR ROUND NUTRITION IS THE KEY TO GROWING QUALITY DEER"

So again I will say qdm on a voluntary base great, I am all for it, it just isn't right for every location.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Luv 2, the breakdown of hunters isn't anywhere close to that. In fact, it's wildly the opposite. Anyone have that stat handy? I think it's something like the clear majority hunt private land, then next is those that hunt private and some public and then it's only like 25% that only hunt public land. My guess is that the public land hunter anywhere near me will benefit immensely from all the habitat work and food plots I've put in.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

According to the Bull/Peyton Study of hunter attitudes, dated December, 2001, and based on a random sample of over 5,000 hunters, 18.7% of Michigan deer hunters hunt strictly on public lands, 23.4% hunt both public and private lands, and 57.9% hunt strictly private lands.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Bob, 

I think you also have to look at where people hunt, I'm sure in the SLP more people hunt on private and the more north you go, more hunt on Public.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> According to the Bull/Peyton Study of hunter attitudes, dated December, 2001, and based on a random sample of over 5,000 hunters, 18.7% of Michigan deer hunters hunt strictly on public lands, 23.4% hunt both public and private lands, and 57.9% hunt strictly private lands.


Another interesting statistic from Peyton/Bull is that 81% of the QDMA members hunted exclusively on private land and only 4% of QDMA members hunted exclusively on Public land. I find it interesting that despite the fact that very few QDMA members hunt on public land, many want to impose Mandatory Antler restrictions on those hunters that do hunt on public land. 
______________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

That's the debate, isn't it? MDNR has lowered herd numbers. That much is a given and any QDM member should be happy. But, after that, we need to discuss how we decrease the harvest of adolescent bucks, as both MDNR and QDM also desires. Should the opinion of a minority of hunters who desire to still shoot any buck prevail over a majority who desire some type of higher standard? (I bet over 80% plus would vote for a statewide "no spike" rule). Should buck regulations reflect the desires of and be more tilted towards the 19% that hunt public only or the 58% that hunt private only? Should the hunter who buys his first tag on Nov. 14 and hunts until Nov 16 have the same weight given to his or her opinion as someone who's living and breathing deer management 365/24/7? Is an uninformed opinion just as important as an informed one? Is deer management like voting? One man, one vote and let the science take a backseat? As the Bob G thread notes, that is the question state game agencies will have to figure out. Should MDNR biologists even attempt to manage by democracy and committee?


----------



## Ogre (Mar 21, 2003)

It was stated "_we need to discuss how we decrease the harvest of adolescent bucks, as both MDNR and QDM also desires."_

I wasn't aware that the Michigan DNR had issued a statement to this effect. Can you please point to where this can be read. Thanks

Stated: _ " Should the opinion of a minority of hunters who desire to still shoot any buck prevail over a majority who desire some type of higher standard? (I bet over 80% plus would vote for a statewide "no spike" rule)."_

The state has no money so there will be no statewide vote thus it's easy to make statements of fact that aren't and can't be substantiated. Civil arguments are one thing but revising facts does not seem to be not playing the game fair.

Stated:_ " Should buck regulations reflect the desires of and be more tilted towards the 19% that hunt public only or the 58% that hunt private only? Should the hunter who buys his first tag on Nov. 14 and hunts until Nov 16 have the same weight given to his or her opinion as someone who's living and breathing deer management 365/24/7? Is an uninformed opinion just as important as an informed one? Is deer management like voting? One man, one vote and let the science take a backseat? As the Bob G thread notes, that is the question state game agencies will have to figure out. Should MDNR biologists even attempt to manage by democracy and committee?"_

Are you really willing to pit hunters against each other?

I can't believe that I just read such an elitists statement as this one. Let's take a young man that has a wife, a child, and another one on the way with complications thus the wife is unable to work. Let's continue and say the man is working double shifts to keep the bill collectors away from his door and is a small flat in the city as it all that can be afforded. Let's continue and say he only has two days to hunt and with all of that you can say to us that this person should not have an equal say to you. All I can say is that your values and priorities don't jive with mine. It seems to me that we fought a revolution for equal representation. I'm not in the least bit sorry to say that I totally and disrespectfully disagree with you.


----------

