# DMU 118 Harvest Data



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

DMU 118 Clare County QDM (5) year demonstration biological harvest data
minimum buck standard 3 points on one side
data from MDNR Gladwin &Harrison field offices and highway check stations

http://members.tripod.com/~mmbqdm/DMU118_5yr_analysis.pdf


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Bob, do you really think the people who hold that shooting every 3" spike is their birth right will give a hoot about even more facts and evidence pointing out how much better the hunting will be with some management? I don't. I think they've got their minds made up that we're trying to somehow take something away from them, instead of realizing that management GIVES them everything, not takes away. It's like the Michael Moore Bush haters. No amount of evidence will ever disuade them from thinking that Cheney is the real President and Bush only went to Iraq for Haliburton because Cheney told him to go. That or Bush was a deserter. It's pointless to discuss the reality. We just need to convince the people in charge in Lansing that management isn't a popularity contest. Science should be the most important factor, not politics.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

I encourage folks to study Bob's link.

And keep in mind, that the 3-pt. per side provides the barest minimum performance standard; in DMU 118, it protects no more than 50% of the yearling bucks. A standard which would protect 75-80% of the yearlings, (4 a side in that area) would produce even more dramatic results.

Higher sustained yield, higher proportion of older age-class bucks, improved doe:buck ratio, hunters now paying so much attention to their targets that button buck harvest is way below the state average, a more productive deer herd with improved recruitment rates. A win-win-win.


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

I find the data compelling to say the least..I posted some of the pre 2003 data in a graphical format sometime ago.

Total harvest up, total antlered harvest up (with the exception of 2001), % of 1.5 yo bucks harvested down dramatically with a significant increase in harvest of the older age classes. 

Wow, Mature bucks roaming the woods in Michigan and a more balanced sex and age structure, What a concept! 

Hard to argue against the data but, unfortunately, I think [email protected] is correct in that many fail to see the forest through the trees.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Farm, I sure have studied it. 
1 1/2 year old bucks went from 78% of the harvest down to a 5 year average of 50.4% of the harvest.
2 1/2 year old bucks went up from 16% to an average of 30%
3 1/2 year old bucks went up from 5% to an average of 16.7%
4 1/2 year old bucks went up from 1% to an average of 2.9%

That there is one big bowl of pudding chocked full of extra proof!
I sent that link out to Rod Clute, Eric Sharp, Bob Gwidz, Bob Garner, Bill Parker (editor of MOOD), MUDH and my local MDNR biologist. I asked them if this is the type of evidence they're looking for to make this a statewide standard or if they think this tells us nothing.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

It is pretty interesting. You can shoot more does. Pass on the 1 1/2 year old bucks. Improve the sex ratio and age structure. And overall shoot more deer than you were shooting before the antler restrictions went into effect.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

As some of our "esteemed" journalists have stated, they already have the facts, they just don't want to take the time to research them for fear of "overwhelming" MI hunters and "upsetting" the non-hunting public that look down upon "trophy" hunting. They just want to sell papers.

I took a little "journalistic liberty" with the above paraphrase. LOL!

And remember Rod Clute's responce to the success in PA.


> Michigan has 9 QDM areas and those will be evaluated after five years of QDM regulations. It is only fair to give PA 5 yrs before evaluating their regulations.


 Hmmmmmmm, wonder what he's going to do? Any bets?

Garner, politcal prostitute, I would like to send him a nutmeg sandwich.

Sharp, might take a look.

MUDH's 75% super majority made that organization a lame duck before it signed up one member. We want improvement but cannot agree on or even form a plan for it.

Bill Parker has the above journalists working on his paper.

The evidence is crystal clear and was well before DMU 118 was even in existence. MI deer hunters will never voluntarily change, it's their right, because their great grandpa's did it that way.


----------



## omega58 (Sep 3, 2003)

These are good numbers, but don't tell everybody. . . .I wouldn't want every Michigan hunter to have as much fun in the woods as I do in DMU 118. 

Of course, to some people passing on 9 different bucks until a nice one comes along in one day might not be fun to them. . . . or better yet, passing on some small bucks and then taking a nice doe might just seem silly to others. 

I am hoping and praying every day that we can keep our area QDM. . . and have made my opinion clear to the "powers that be." Even if it doesn't stay QDM. . . we will still practice. . . .just don't know if our neighbors will do the same. IT COULD GET REALLY UGLY WITHOUT QDM NEXT YEAR!!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Love the facts! I don't know how legislators can decide without them.

Great results! Whatever happens, it is something for the MI QDMA to be very proud of, and can always be used as further proof of the effectiveness of a proper QDM plan.


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by [email protected] _
> *Bob, do you really think the people who hold that shooting every 3" spike is their birth right will give a hoot about even more facts and evidence pointing out how much better the hunting will be with some management? I don't. I think they've got their minds made up *


Well, just keep throwing in the arrogant, condescending attitude like that and you will never change anyone's mind.

The facts may sell QDM to the average hunter, but the attitudes of the QDM'ers are a little unpallatable and will turn people away.

You guys should try and work on that.

Bob S, thanks for posting the data.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Sure wish they do that in DMU 001  

Congrats to Ed and others - I hope the NRC - moves in a more proactive positive direction in the near future - 

ferg....


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Brian S., 

You'll have to excuse some of us QDM'ers sometimes, but we get awful darn excited and passionate about QDM, have all seen it work and know it works, but are constantly bombarded with folks who plain and simple, have formed a negative opinion, without looking at all the facts. From a passionate QDM advocate, it breaks down even the best of us and some frustration can creap through every once and a while.

You just have to excuse the excitement!


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

This report is very compelling. 

I would be ecstatic to have consistent opportunities at 3 1/2 year old bucks!


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

I shot a 4.5 year old doe on a heavily hunted part of a SGA.
I'm certain there are 3.5-5 year old bucks these as well, but very few are harvested.
They exist however, I see them each late summer.
The only real way to limit harvests and control sex ratio killing would be to have a permit system.
That system could regulate doe/buck kills.
Many would cringe at the thought.
It has flaws as well, but just think any given area could be governed as to the amount of harvests.
Higher car deer areas could see increased kills if needed.
Hard snow fall areas might need less harvests one or two years.
Validation of kills would help monitor deer kills.
Some areas could be one buck areas others doe only or limited sex kills.
Limit the deer population at the license counter.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

The only real way to limit harvests and control sex ratio killing would be to have a permit system.

Sure, a permit system would work, but it would also be a nightmare for the DNR to count bucks in any given area to decide how many permits are needed. 

You know how good the DNR is at counting deer?

AR's and doe permits are by far the most logical choice for balancing sex ratios

As jk said, "I would be ecstatic to have consistent opportunities at 3 1/2 year old bucks!"

Most all of us would!

Getting to except that AR's are a change for the good, is what's really hard for some hunters to understand.


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

> Sure, a permit system would work, but it would also be a nightmare for the DNR to count bucks in any given area to decide how many permits are needed.


Based on a birth rate of close to 50/50, the permits could be issued 50 /50
Or even 70 antlerless/30 Antlered.
In order for Ar's to work you need to beef up CO's in the fields writing tickets, that cost money too.
Everything cost money and ultimatly the consumer pays. In this case the hunter would pay slightly more for better hunting oppertunities.
If you knew area ABC only had so many permits of either sex tags issued and mild winters it would be a prime target to hunt.
Same as the turkey permits.
Some areas are better than others and hunter apply for different areas each year.
By monitoring Buck tags you will control the quality of the herd.
Antler restrictions only will create poachers and waste from those who make a mistake and let it lay to rot.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

> Bucks will be shot and left in the woods.
> 
> This is the biggest unknown and the primary concern we have with the new antler restrictions. What decision will Pennsylvania hunters make when they see a buck this fall? The sum of these decisions will ultimately affect the success or failure of antler restrictions and the public image of our hunters. This is one of the reasons we intend to tag hundreds of bucks over the next three years. Rather than relying on anecdotal reports, we will have survival data on radio-collared bucks. When any is killed, we will know when, where and how, and whether it was a legal buck or not. Sure, mistakes may occur, but regulations have been adopted to handle mistakes with minimal consequences for the hunter.


 http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=465&q=151294


I would love a permit based system. Spreading hunting pressure over a 4-6 week period could be the single biggest improvement to the deer hunting experience we could ask for. But you get what you pay for and I also think the permit system would be far more cost prohibitive than AR's.


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

> But you get what you pay for and I also think the permit system would be far more cost prohibitive than AR's.


I wonder if they would.

Less hunters in the woods at any one time, might ease CO's patrol costs.

And has anyone got actual costs figures?
I enjoy discussing this and if we need to I guess we can start a new thread?
Sorry to side track this one.
I would like a new system but I don't even know what one.
Anything that benifits hunters and wildlife I will look at closely.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

I think a permit system would be a worthwhile experiment. Time for the NRC to exhibit some leadership, pick a DMU, and just IMPLEMENT it. Sure there will be great wailing and gnashing of teeth by the guys who fear losing their chance of slaying Sparky the Wonderbuck each season. But real leadership requires a thick skin.

No matter where such an experiment was performed, if it were done right, there would be some good hunting to be had.

Were it in my area, and I kept drawing doe tags, that would suit me just fine. Something like the last 15 deer I've arrowed have been does. 

Come to think of it, how about a preference point system for awarding buck tags? Keep applying, and you'll eventually get one, some day.
Nah, no bureaucrat has skin that thick.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Ug.

Again, I feel that a permit system would work, but.....

That's still an awful lot of exspensive micro-managing that would need to occur, not to mention more biologists afield, which almost seams an impossibility in todays budget restraints.

AR's are a heck of alot cheaper.

In the area of our co-op, which now has some pretty impresssive bucks walking around, I don't think anyone would agree that poaching has become an issue.

Impliment AR's statewide, and the poachers would hardly scratch the buck population in a few years.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Letmgro

Poaching is always an issue. 

Go ask your local COs, at one time Gary told me he felt half the deer taken in and around Hubbard Lake were taken illegally. If it's typical with the rest of the state, the number has now dropped to half the legal kill.

Poaching is stealing, pain and simple.


----------



## Ed Spin (Mar 20, 2003)

A permit system is not necessary if a rule is in place that protects an adequate number of young bucks. In DMU 118 the three points on one side minimum rule protects 50% of the 1-1/2 year old bucks. This rule is below what the QDMA recommends and yet the biological harvest data indicates that in the 2003 season there were the same number of bucks taken in the 3-1/2 year old and older class as the 2-1/2 year olds. 

The QDMA recommends as a learning curve, protect no less than 66% of the yearling bucks and eventually graduate to protecting 90% or more. This 90% protection rate also protects around 25% of the 2-1/2 year olds, insuring that a suffient number of bucks attain the age of 3-1/2. Ladies and Gentlemen this is all that is necessary for the deer herd to be socially blanced (more natural).

In the five year span of the DMU 118 demonstration, there was only one citation issued (justified) for an illegal buck and I did not hear of an illegal buck lay rotting in the woods from anyone, not a single one. 

The goal is to protect enough yearling bucks so that even with a two buck harvest rule no damage is done to the social make up. The number of three year olds taken in DMU 118 shows how smart bucks get after their experience in the hunting season as yearlings.

The much increased number of deer taken is not a fluke. Normally fewer bucks are taken at the start of antler restrictions and in a few short years they usally climb back up to the same number or slightly less. almost always more deer will be taken due to an increased doe harvest. 

The DMU 118 story of quite a few more bucks now being taken (an older class) and 80% more does happened precisely because many more does are now being taken. This biological harvest data showing an increase in bucks taken is an indication of a flawed deer management program in place previously. 

This increase in bucks being harvested can happen and will when there is a drastic change from a deer management practice that promotes a very young buck structure versus an older (medium age) buck structure. If you were to go to a trophy buck style deer managament program where the bucks are not taken until fully mature (5-1/2-7-1/2 years of age) you would witness a much lowered buck harvest. 


Yes, you can have more with less and hopefully the data from DMU 118 convinces a few skeptics. What I get excited about is that there are decidedly less deer now in 118, they are more natural in their social structure and the fawn productivity is soaring (I see many more triplet fawns now), which is the reason for the increased harvest number. 

Biologists knew this phenomenon many years ago and one wonders why it has not been our standard deer management practice?

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

There is a Pennsylvania CO on the Pennsylvania Outdoor News message board. He answers questions like boehr does on this site. I posted the DMU 118 results on the PON message board. Following is his response.



> *With a little help from Rob Gratson I was able to open and read the data and report. It is certainly some interesting statistics and shows that antler restrictions and improved breeding rates do work to provide more and better bucks in the future.
> 
> It looks like the entire concept provides more hunting opportunities as well.
> 
> ...


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Gee, I wonder if any MI officials would be able to go on the record on our own DMU 118 data, just as this PA CO has?

Nah.


----------



## grundsow (Apr 17, 2004)

excuse my ignorance, but was the 3-point restriction the only change?


how in the world did the antlerless harvest double and the antlered harvest increase 1.5x in just one year? were season's and bag limits changed or did more people hunt the area?


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

Welcome to the site G!!

No change in bag limits, you can and still take 2 bucks (2nd has to be four points on a side or better statewide).

Doe permits have been pretty liberal in that area also (as well as statewide), perhaps a 118 guy could chime in and provide some numbers. Also, I doubt hunter numbers have fluctuated much.

Counterintuitive isnt it? More deer harvested, yet more deer??

I look at 118 as kind of our little PA in MI demonstrating that QDM practices really work when given a chance.

Please share your impressions of the PA program after a few years, your input would be appreciated.

Keep in touch


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

I'm a little confused by the stats from DMU 118 and would appreciate it if someone could explain why the buck harvests increased by 72 buck over the baseline average , the very first year of antler restrictions in 1999. I thought antler restrictions were designed to save 50% of the 1.5 buck, but the 1.5 harvest increased by 36 buck,which is an increase of 35% rather than the expected decrease of 50%. The harvests in all the other age classes also increased in 1999.

Can anyone explain why this happened?


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Just a note to anyone thinking of answering Happy Hunter`s question. He is a very anti-antler restriction poster from the PA Outdoor News site. So anyone here attempting to do anything except ignore him will be wasting their time. Do us all a favor and ignore him. 

Notice how his first post on this board is one that is questioning the effectiveness of AR`s. He couldn`t find anything else on this entire message board that was worth talking about?


----------



## grundsow (Apr 17, 2004)

Benelli



For our group, buck sightings have already increased phenomenally! This is on public land and private-open-to-public land. Several of us have killed out FIRST 2½-old buck because of the new regs.



IMO changing rifle doe season from 3 days to 12 days was the greatest thing ever!! Knowing you can shot doe makes it more exciting than ever to go out after the first day. And the WMU where I live just got an even longer rifle doe season. We went from 3 days to something like 5 weeks of rifle doe coupled with the new unlimited tags per person (until allocations are exhausted) in just one year, and its great fun!



That major change and several other increased opportunities at doe with special muzzleloader seasons etc and the doe kill increased roughly 20%. Thats why I cant understand how Michs doe kill for 118 doubled in one year. How is that possible? Or is it like someone said - that these numbers are not total kill, but rather only those recorded at check stations?


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Thanks for the warm welcome to Mich. Sportsman .Com. I suppose i should have extended the same welcome to you on the PA boards,but I didn't. I am not anti AR on private leases or where 66% of the land owners and hunters agree. I am against implementing AR in PA where we are trying to reduce the herd by 50%. There is simply no way AR can succeed in PA when we are reducing the herd at the same time. Our buck harvests decreased by 30% in just two years of AR and there is no reason to believe they will increase anytime soon.

You failed to answer my questions about the DMU 118 harvest stats on the PA board and are avoiding them once again,because you have no logical answers. AR didn't save a single buck the first year of AR , yet AR supporters attribite the 99% increase in harvests to AR ,when in fact, the buck harvested were produced by the previous management system. If you view the data objectively you will see that the harvests of older buck the first two years of AR actually reduced the average age of the buck in the preseason herd ,rather than increasing it.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

"This is one of the reasons we intend to tag hundreds of bucks over the next three years. Rather than relying on anecdotal reports, we will have survival data on radio-collared bucks. When any is killed, we will know when, where and how, and whether it was a legal buck or not."

I am amazed at what some will accept in exchange for shooting a trophy buck. Next there will be cameras in the woods to help keep watch as well. Maybe register all firearms as well. Our forefathers would be amazed at what we are doing in the name of progress. I expect their response would be "Lock and Load" to such "progress!"


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

I would suspect that the increase in 1.5 y.o bucks in 99 was due to a mild winter with abundant mast crops / excellent browse in 1998 that led to better antler development. I do not have my journal handy in which I record such observations from an area approx. 150 miles NE of 118, but I have come to notice through the years you can really tell when a deer was born in a banner year in terms of available mast and winter severity just based on body weight and antler development. Nevertheless, even though the number of 1.5 year old bucks harvested in 99 was up, the overall percentage of the total harvest decreased that year and each subsequent year.

With respect to the marked increase in doe harvest, availability of doe permits in conjunction with a change in hunter attitudes in that harvesting doe is no longer taboo is probably a simple answer.

Again, perhaps a 118 hunter could shed further light on the subject.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

The 3 pt. restriction was designed to protect 50% of the 1.5 buck. Based on the increase in the harvest from the baseline of 102 1.5 Buck , to 138 buck in 1999 ,the restrictions didn't save one single 1.5 buck , so the percentage decrease is a meaningless number.

The mild winter and good mast crop would have had little effect on whether 2.5 and 3.5 buck would be Ar legal, so it is unlikely that would account for the dramatic increase in older age class buck.


----------



## omega58 (Sep 3, 2003)

Well, I just checked my calender and it's 2004. . . . I don't understand the argument for 1999 stats.

All I can tell you is that things have gotten a ton better in the area. I have hunted in the now DMU 118 for 11 years and since QDM, it has improved greatly. I absolutely was opposed at the start and hated the idea. . . .NOW I LOVE IT!! To me, that is the best statistic I can come up with. I was actually opposed to QDM until 2 years ago, of course that is when we finally started with serious food plots and taking more does. Also, I think it just takes time to get the results. . . . in today's society of instant gratification. . . . it is a tough sell. . . and some just will never buy. . . to each his own.


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

Well said Omega.

There are too many variables associated with the population dynamics from year to year to really generalize.

Bottom line is that the 5 year data indicate that the deer herd is in better shape now than in the past. That has been accomplished through both antler restrictions and doe harvest. As the dynamics of the herd change in the future, regulations / harvest strategies should change accordingly.

Excuse mebut I need to get a bird in the freezer


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Happy Hunter said:


> I'm a little confused by the stats from DMU 118 and would appreciate it if someone could explain why the buck harvests increased by 72 buck over the baseline average , the very first year of antler restrictions in 1999. I thought antler restrictions were designed to save 50% of the 1.5 buck, but the 1.5 harvest increased by 36 buck,which is an increase of 35% rather than the expected decrease of 50%. The harvests in all the other age classes also increased in 1999.
> 
> Can anyone explain why this happened?


At least you can admit your confused!  j/k

Here is my opinion, the first year of antler restrictions had everyone a little anxious, wondering if they were going to get a buck and still suffering from the "if I don't shoot him some one else will" syndrome. One other reason is that it was the 2-3? year of the new restricted second buck tag so there were some 1.5 year olds being protected in the years prior.

The interesting fact is that in 1999 the increase in the harvest of 2.5 year old and older bucks doubled and in the case of the 4.5 year old+ bucks it tripled!

Could that have something to do with a few more of the hunters WAITING for a legal buck? 

It is blantly obvious that DMU 118 achieved and in most cases exceeded it's goals. You can restrict buck harvest, bring down the herd size and still kill more deer!

Oh and by the way the buck harvest averaged 149, 18 over the baseline average for every year after 1999, what's your point again?


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Swamper said:


> "This is one of the reasons we intend to tag hundreds of bucks over the next three years. Rather than relying on anecdotal reports, we will have survival data on radio-collared bucks. When any is killed, we will know when, where and how, and whether it was a legal buck or not."
> 
> I am amazed at what some will accept in exchange for shooting a trophy buck. Next there will be cameras in the woods to help keep watch as well. Maybe register all firearms as well. Our forefathers would be amazed at what we are doing in the name of progress. I expect their response would be "Lock and Load" to such "progress!"


It's called research with more biologists in the field and proper management, something this state needs more of.

I can't see how research and sound science is a bad thing especailly when it benefits not only deer but the people who them and the habitat around us all.

The only thing that comes to mind is the people that constantly use the term "trophy" are the ones worried about (maybe) not putting a rack on the side of the garage one year.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Our good friend Ed Spin continues to be plagued with unusual technological issues which preclude him from posting here on MSF. Here, he weighs in on the DMU 118 data. 



Much confusion and erroneous conclusions on the DMU 118 data especially the first two years.

Lets start with 1999 and why we took so many yearling bucks, when one would expect less to be taken, certainly not more than the base data of three
years. The percent of yearlings taken in comparison to the total buck
harvest is what we should look at first.


The base data shows that 78% of all bucks taken were yearlings. This is for
the years 1996-1998. I was given data from the MDNR for years 1990-1998 for 118 and chose the last three years for the base, which is the recommendation of deer researchers. If I had used all 9 years and averaged them out it would still be 78%. That is how steady the yearling buck harvest was.

The first year, 1999, the yearling percentage dropped to 68% and that is
exactly what trained deer professional would expect, considering that there
are few older bucks in the pipeline. OK, the percentages are reasonable, but
why was the deer harvest (bucks and does) so high in 1999. We have in
Michigan a TB problem and the MDNR starting in 1999 went to an aggressive
gathering of deer harvest bio data. There was a full time MDNR employee
gathering bio data (including deer heads) in Clare County, which DMU 118 is
located. This employee had a goal of collecting 300 deer heads and went to
hunt camps and deer processing shops. This is why there is a larger than
expected deer harvest. This employee became pregnant and did not work in
2000. Her job was given to another employee who spent some time in DMU 118 in 2000 but also had to take care of her old responsibility of gathering
harvest data for another county. I hope this explains the strange numbers in
the first two years.

For the third and subsequent years there was no attempt by any MDNR employee to seek out bio data for 118. However there was one person, (ME) collecting bio data for the first four years, because the DNR asked us to. I collected bio data on around 30 deer per year and most of these were does per MDNR request. In early 2003 I was accused by MDNR officials and Dr. Ben Peyton, Michigan State Fish and Wildlife Division, of collecting bio harvest data, which they viewed as skewing the bio data accuracy, therefore it became inconclusive. Upon hearing this accusation, I did not or anybody else except MDNR personnel collect deer harvest data in DMU 118 for the year 2003.

As it turns out the bio data for the 2003 deer season is the most impressive
of all. Compared to the base average there was an 84% increase in the doe
harvest, 24% increase in the total buck harvest and there was as many bucks
taken that were 3 ½ years old or older as the 2 ½ year olds as well as
keeping the yearling harvest below 50% of the total buck harvest.


Many might find it incredulous that we are harvesting more and better deer
and at the same time protecting 50% of the yearling bucks and pounding on
the does. How can this be? If one knew the forces that influence deer
production it becomes more understandably. Normally one can expect to
harvest fewer bucks in most newly mandated antler restriction areas of
around 85% of the previous buck total. One can expect to harvest more does,
with an overall deer harvest pretty close to the previous total deer harvest
number and with less deer in the population.

We now have much fewer deer in DMU 118. I know many farmers (I'm a recently retired- farmer in 118) and they all say that they will not take any does this coming deer season. Does that tell you something? In 1998 in a two-mile square in DMU 118 four of us farmers took a total of 135 does. The
hunters have taken on their responsibility and took up the slack. Very few
of us farmers in 118 are now complaining of too many deer devastating our
crops.

So, how in the devil can we be harvesting so many more bucks and quite
impressive ones I might add and pound on those does, which of course lowers
the deer density and still after all this, maintain a high mature buck and
doe harvest yearly. Are we living in a fairy tale? Nope, nothing more than
good deer management by the hunters of DMU 118 in a rich habitat.

What is happening in 118 will not necessarily happen everywhere. First you
need a rich habitat as John Ozoga calls it and a previous deer management of
taking an excessive number of yearling bucks including button bucks and way
too few does. In 1991 I estimated the buck to doe ratio in 118 at one buck
per four does. The last two seasons my observations showed a ratio of one
buck per 1.75 does, pretty nifty don't you think? You do not need any more
does than it takes to replace the bucks being harvested. A ratio in rich
habitat of one buck per 1.5 does will suffice, providing you are protecting
at least 66% of the yearling bucks.

All numbers are correct and now what happens is the fawn productivity just
soars off of the charts. It went in 118 according to my observations from
one adult doe to 1.1 fawns in 1991 to an average of one adult doe to 1.8
fawns the last four years. In 2002 it was one adult doe per 2.0 fawns, with
25% of yearling does having a single fawn. This means they were bred as doe
fawns. This is the secret to it all deer enthusiasts, high fawn productivity
and conditions in place to make it possible. Yes, you can have more with
less.

Some of you will understand and accept this phenomenon as being reasonable, others with an unyielding view will understand but not accept the stated facts as presented as possible. Not much I can do to sway the latter, only time can do that.

Keep the fun in hunting!

Ed Spin


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"It is blantly obvious that DMU 118 achieved and in most cases exceeded it's goals. You can restrict buck harvest, bring down the herd size and still kill more deer!"


No that is not true. The older bucks harvested in 1999 and 2000 were not produced By AR. Once there were bucks saved by AR in 2000 the buck harvests and the harvests of older age buck decreased rather than increasing as expected.


"It is blantly obvious that DMU 118 achieved and in most cases exceeded it's goals. You can restrict buck harvest, bring down the herd size and still kill more deer!"

That remains to be seen. There is no data provided that indicates that the herd size has been reduced. If the OW( over wintering ) herd is increasing harvests can increase as long as harvests do not exceed recruitment. Many counties in PA have continually increased their buck and doe harvests and the herd continued to increase. In 1999 and 2000 , hunters harvested excess buck that were not being harvested prior to AR . In 2001 the buck harvest of 117 was less than the base line average of 131.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"The first year, 1999, the yearling percentage dropped to 68% and that is
exactly what trained deer professional would expect, considering that there
are few older bucks in the pipeline. "

That simply is not true If AR protected 50% of the 1.5 buck ,the number of 1.5 buck harvested in 1999 would not have increased from the baseline avg. of 102 to the 1999 harvest of 138. AR saved absolutely zero bucks in 1999 and that is an undeniable fact. In 2000, AR saved a grand total of 23 buck , but the harvest of 2.5 buck was 32 over the baseline even though not one of those buck were saved by AR.

The bottom line is that AR can not increase the number of legal buck avaialable to be harvested due to normal non-hunting adult mortality.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Letmgro said:


> Sorry, I don't know a biologist that would consider a 1.5 year old Male as an adult, nor do I know of one that would refer to a yearling as a BB.


Absolutely correct. For the contemporary definition of a yearling, consult with Webster's. Likewise, every biologist I know of refers to 1.5 year old bucks (or, as I've recently heard, "buck") as yearlings. They are also occasionally described as "juveniles", or just plain "immature bucks".


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Now since this discussion was based on the topic of adult male mortality,all you have to do to prove you are right ,is post one link that separates the mortality rate of 1.5 buck from the mortality of all 2.5+ buck. Most studies show that 1.5 buck have a higher mortality rate that 2.5+ buck ,due to the effects of dispersal. maybe you would like toprovide the members with afew links that support your position on adult mortality?


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Happy.

I'm not trying to prove anything to you.

I'm only interested in supplying facts and dispelling false beliefs about QDM. It's your choice whether or not to except those facts. I'm fully aware that this has now just turned into a game for you. That's fine.

...But I'm not going to go out of my way to find a link that's totally insignificant to 99.99% of those who view these threads.

If you believe that a study exists that proves your point, YOU POST IT!

Sorry.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"I'm only interested in supplying facts and dispelling false beliefs about QDM."

If you want to dispell the false beliefs about QDM ,supply the links that support your position. Your personal opinion has no more weight than anyone elses. If you can't support your position with independent research, you are just blowing smoke. Anyone that would want a 1;1 B/D ratio obviously doesn't know what he is talking about since there are no QDM ranches that manage their herd at that ratio.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

"a doe:buck ratio as close to 1:1 as feasible."

That's my statement, take it anyway you like.

You really seem grumpy tonight Happy. :tsk:


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

"If you can't support your position with independent research, you are just blowing smoke."

There really isn't such a thing as indepentant research in the "deer research world".

The QDMA is home to roughly 10,000 deer Biologists, Researchers, and Deer managers. 

Basically a Who's who's of the deer research world. 

It would be really hard to find "independant" research when basically everyone in that field already belongs to the QDMA. :chillin:


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Letmgro said:


> I'm fully aware that this has now just turned into a game for you.


Way back on Sunday evening I warned everyone in this thread that answering Happy Hunter would be a waste of time.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"It would be really hard to find "independant" research when basically everyone in that field already belongs to the QDMA. "

That simply is not true. Try expanding your horizons and read the reports from Dr. Demarias and Larry Castle from Miss. Try reading the reports from Dr. Williams regarding the negative impact of harvesting the best of the 1.5 buck while protecting the inferior 1.5 bucks saved by AR. There is no biologist on the face of this earth that would claim that harvesting the best 1.5 buck and protecting inferior buck will produce a healthier herd with better genetics.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

I may be wrong here but QDMA mission is about harvesting older age class bucks and is not for shooting any 1.5 year olds even if they are a 12 point +.

Could you please post a link where it states QDMA if for harvesting the best antlered 1.5 year old bucks because I would like to read that article. Thanks.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

"That simply is not true. Try expanding your horizons and read the reports from Dr. Demarias and Larry Castle from Miss. Try reading the reports from Dr. Williams regarding the negative impact of harvesting the best of the 1.5 buck while protecting the inferior 1.5 bucks saved by AR. There is no biologist on the face of this earth that would claim that harvesting the best 1.5 buck and protecting inferior buck will produce a healthier herd with better genetics."

And that's exactly why it was never supported by the QDMA!


Bob, fortunately it's been kind of slow around here over the last week, and I've kind of enjoyed repeatedly dispelling Happy's mis-leading statements.  

...And I really Love these new little smilies...


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

How does QDM protect 1.5 , 12 pt. buck? The answer is ,it doesn't unless they implement Ar ,which means the 12 Pt. 1,5 buck will be harvested as a 1.5 buck ,but the 1.5 buck spike will be saved and allowed to become the 2.5 fork horn.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"And that's exactly why it was never supported by the QDMA!"

QDM supports AR. AR means that we harvest the best of each age class. That means the majority of bucks that are protected are inferior spikes and Y's ,while we harvest the superior 6&8 pts.

Anybody that claims the 6 & 8 pts. ,1.5 buck that are harvested are inferior to the spikes and Y's ,needs professional help.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

O.k. Bob, I get the picture.

I guess that's why my wife keeps telling me I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.

...but these little smilies are so cool...   :woohoo1:


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Did SFK move to PA?


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

> How does QDM protect 1.5 , 12 pt. buck? The answer is ,it doesn't unless they implement Ar ,which means the 12 Pt. 1,5 buck will be harvested as a 1.5 buck ,but the 1.5 buck spike will be saved and allowed to become the 2.5 fork horn.


QDM does protect 1.5 year old bucks at my camp. We try to not shoot any bucks under 3.5 years of age. I don't believe in antler restrictions but I do believe in trying to shoot only older age class bucks.

There has been only one 1.5 year old buck taken at my place. It was taken by a 16 year old hunter who miss took it for a doe. The antlers where broken off at the skull so maybe it was a 12 pt. The kid was congratulated for his first kill and as proud as can be, so was his father.

There has been two 2.5 year old bucks taken at my camp. One was my mistake and the other was my best friend and hunting partners mistake. All the rest have been older than 2.5 years old.

Please take the time to look in my gallery, you will see a 3.5 year old with 4 points. It's a skull only mount. That's one of the reasons I don't believe in ARs. My gallery can be visited by clicking on the camera icon underneath the number of posts on the right hand side of the screen.

You don't need ARs to practice QDM, just knowledge of what older age class bucks look like. Sorry, I respectfully disagree with your thought pattern on this subject.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

I don't believe we disagree as much as you might think,because I agree AR is not a required component of QDM,and in fact may be contrary to QDM, since AR on average protects lesser quality buck and promotes the harvesting of the best of each age class. In some counties in PA a 3 pt. restriction will save protect 42% of the 2.5+ buck,and these buck should be removed from the herd .But, instead they will be allowed to live and breed ,even though they are inferior buck.

I agree QDM works great without AR on private land where all the hunters agree to abide by the standards established by the members. However, it can never function as designed ,when it is implemented statewide where hunters will never agreee on the same set of standards. On your land you don't shoot BB's or 1.5 buck. In PA we harested 77K BB in 2002 and 68K BB in 2003. Over 60% of the bucks we harvest are still 1.5 buck and our antlered buck harvest still dropped by 30% in just two years.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

HH, seeing you continually spin your wheels has become quite entertaining!


SO in your perfect PA hunting world protecting 10% of the buck population (3" spikes) ensures quality bucks?

There are other overlooked factors that enhance the immature buck protections of AR's: hunters become more selective, they often have to let borderline/running bucks go because of the "unsure" factor, they don't shoot first and ask questions later, they know they have one tag and don't want to waste it, these are just a few that come to mind.

All of this combines to protect at least 60% and in most cases 80% of the immature bucks in the herd.

Here are a couple mortality studies:

White-tailed Deer Mortality

As deer hunters and managers, many of us have wondered what happened to young bucks that we have passed up over the years. What happens to those bucks as they grow up? Why is it that we do not see those older bucks through our scopes as often as we would like? This article will attempt to answer the first question. Perhaps only our hunting skills will explain the answer to the second.

A multi-year research project to look at the impact and importance of hunting and natural mortality factors on white-tailed bucks was initiated in 1990, conducted by Mississippi State University and Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, and led by Dr. Harry Jacobson. Over 408 deer (238 bucks) were captured using various techniques on 19 study areas across Mississippi. Bucks were fitted with radio telemetry collars and tagged with metal numbered and yellow numbered ear tags.

Collared bucks were monitored regularly using radio telemetry and locations were plotted on study area maps. Mortality sensors, a feature built into the collars that was activated when the deer stopped moving for a period of time, sent a signal to the researcher that was distinctly different from the normal locator signal. On receiving this signal, researchers immediately searched for the deer and if found determined cause of death. Necropsies (autopsies for deer) were conducted, when possible, by the MSU College of Veterinary Medicine. During the study, 185 mortalities were recorded, of which 107 (57 percent) were attributed to legal harvest (even though study area participants agreed to protect radio-collared bucks from harvest). Granted, some of the bucks left their study areas. Twelve bucks (6.5 percent) were linked to poaching, and others were suspected, but never proven to be lost to poaching. If these were added, the percentage of the mortality due to poaching would have been more than 13 percent. Wounding losses accounted for 4 percent of the mortality, harvest unknown (either legal or illegal but no way to tell which) accounted for 6.5 percent, natural mortality including disease, predation, and parasites accounted for 12.4 percent of the losses, and vehicles, capture and collar techniques, and unknown causes accounted for the remaining 13 percent.

One of the more important questions asked was whether young bucks less than 2.5 years old, if protected from harvest, would survive to older age classes and thus be available for future harvest. This study found that, if protected from harvest, more than 98 percent of 1.5 year old and more than 93 percent of 2.5 year old bucks would survive to the next hunting season.





MORTALITY AND SURVIVAL

Knowledge of age-specific, sex-specific, and temporal patterns of natural (non-hunting related) mortality in white-tailed deer are critical to understanding their population dynamics. Several studies have been completed examining natural mortality rates of deer in south Texas.

AGE-SPECIFIC MORTALITY 

Recent research (M. W. Hellickson, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, unpublished data) indicates age-specific changes in natural mortality rates for male white-tailed deer between the ages of 1.5 and 9.5 years old (Figure 1).



The study, completed on the Faith Ranch in the Western Rio Grande Plains of south Texas, involved radio-tracking 125 different-aged male white-tailed deer. Over the course of the 3-year study, 29 of the 125 males (23%) died of natural causes. Natural mortality rates were highest within the yearling age class (1.5 years old). Mortality rates then decreased through the middle age classes, increasing sharply when males reached an estimated 7.5 years old. Less is known about mortality rates of female deer. Kie and White (1985) reported that mortality rates were lowest for yearling females (13.3%) and that rates increased with each successive age class reaching highest mortality at age 9.5 years (54.7%). Fawn mortality rates are often much higher than adult mortality rates. Cook et al. (1971) reported that 72% of fawns on the Welder Wildlife Refuge died of natural causes before reaching 2 months of age. In other years on this same refuge, 66-70% of fawns died before reaching 6 months of age (Knowlton 1964, Kie and White 1985). Natural mortality rates of fawns from November-May varied from 25-67% (Sullivan et al. 1990). Combined, these studies indicate that very few fawns survive to become yearlings.

SEX-SPECIFIC MORTALITY 

It is difficult to compare sex-specific mortality rates in south Texas deer populations due to the lack of mortality research within the female segment. However, on a range-wide basis, mortality rates reported for females are almost always lower than rates for males. Kie and White (1985) suggested that increased natural mortality rates for males resulted in a skewed adult sex ratio for deer on the Welder Wildlife Refuge. They reported an average of 1 adult male per 2.57 adult females during 1961-71 despite the absence of differential removal of males by sport hunting. Annual mortality rates reported in south Texas for males have varied from 9.3% (Heffelfinger et al. 1990) to 35.7% (Kie and White 1985). DeYoung (1989) reported annual mortality rates varying from 25-29% for males in the Western Rio Grande Plains of south Texas. More recent research (C. A. DeYoung, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, unpublished data) combining telemetry data over a 10-year period, indicates a long-term average natural mortality rate of 20.8% for males in south Texas. The authors are unaware of any similar type data for the female segment of the deer population.

TEMPORAL MORTALITY 

Recent research (M. W. Hellickson, unpublished data) indicates strong seasonal trends in natural mortality rates for male white-tailed deer. Natural mortality rates were highest during January and March when 44% and 26% of mortalities occurred. Mortality rates never exceeded 7% during any other month. A combined 78% of males that died of natural causes died during the post-rut period of January-March. A second study (C. A. DeYoung, unpublished data) reported relatively high natural mortality rates during September, in addition to January-March.

CAUSES OF NATURAL MORTALITY 

Numerous studies have been completed in south Texas examining deer mortality causes. Cook et al. (1971) concluded that coyotes (Canus latrans) caused the mortality of at least 29 of the 58 fawns (50%) that died in their study. They suspected that coyotes were responsible for 17 additional fawn (29%) mortalities, while the remaining mortalities were caused by bobcats (Lynx rufus; 3%), starvation (9%), disease (7%) and accidents (2%). An experimental 2-year study on the King Ranch, examining the effects of intensive coyote removal on fawn survival (Beasom 1974) resulted in fall ratios of 0.47 and 0.82 fawns/adult female in the coyote-removal area versus ratios of only 0.12 and 0.32 fawns/adult female in the control area. Beasom (1974) estimated that the lack of an intensive predator removal program in the control area resulted in 74% and 61% higher fawn losses during 1971-72. Kie et al. (1979) conducted a similar predator removal study on the Welder Wildlife Refuge. They intensively removed coyotes from within a coyote-proof exclosure-fenced area and monitored effects of this removal on the enclosed deer population versus a control population outside the exclosure. During 1973-78, fall ratios inside the exclosure averaged 0.62 fawns/female versus 0.42 fawns/female on the control area. However, these researchers reported several detrimental aspects of the coyote removal to the enclosed deer population. They found that deer densities quickly increased within the enclosure to levels over twice as high as densities outside. Natural mortality rates increased for fawns 3-12 month old and for adult females within the exclosure. Increased mortality of adult females was attributed to the increased lactation resulting from higher survival of fawns 0-3 months old. Decreased adult female survival resulted in adult sex ratios of 0.37 males/female inside the exclosure versus 0.24 males/female outside. They also reported lowered reproductive rates after 1976, as well as decreased body mass and increased internal parasite loads. Lastly, they suggested that increased densities resulted in delayed velvet and antler shedding in males. Fawn survival is also influenced by seasonal rainfall amounts. Carroll and Brown (1977) reported fawn mortality varied from 10 to 90% during 1971-73. Highest mortality occurred in 1971 and was attributed to a severe drought that reduced fawn security cover. A more recent fawn mortality study, examining the impacts of red imported fire ants (RIFA; Allen et al. 1997) concluded that in areas with high RIFA densities, fawn survival was significantly lower than survival on areas where RIFA infestations were reduced. Natural mortality in adult males has been attributed primarily to malnutrition as a result of depleted fat reserves after the breeding season. Kidney fat, body mass, and femur marrow fat all reach their lows in males during January-March (Kie 1977). Forage production (Box 1960) and nutritional quality (Varner et al. 1977) also reach lows at this time of the year. Additional causes of mortality have been attributed to coyotes (Heffelfinger et al. 1990), mountain lions (Felis concolor; DeYoung 1989), disease (Davidson et al. 1990), and accidents. Causes of mortality in adult females are largely unknown; however, adult females are most stressed nutritionally during summer (Hellickson and DeYoung 1996) due to pregnancy and lactation.


Buck Movements and Mortality

By: Bronson Strickland and Dr. Stephen Demarais 


Quality Deer Management (QDM) is an increasingly popular management strategy with today's landowners and hunters. QDM typically involves protection of young bucks coupled with an adequate harvest of antlerless deer to produce the desired herd size, age structure, and sex ratio. However, some landowners and hunters become frustrated with QDM after several seasons because they have not seen or harvested significantly older bucks than under previous management. In many cases, expectations exceed the ability of the management area to produce the desired number of older bucks. Additionally, many landowners and hunters do not understand how buck movements and mortality factors can limit the number of young bucks they are passing as yearlings from reaching the older age classes. In this article we will review how buck mortality, dispersal, and home range size may impact the success of your QDM program.


Mortality

The annual mortality rate for a deer herd is simply the percentage of the population that dies in a given year. Mortality can be attributed to hunting, poaching, predators, weather, disease, malnutrition, vehicle collisions, etc. Mortality rates vary by sex and age of deer and by season and region of the United States (Table 1). Understanding the most common sources of mortality in your area and the percentage of bucks lost to these sources will help you refine your management strategies.











Legal harvest is a significant source of mortality in most areas, and is controlled with regulations and hunter selectivity. Illegal harvest, on the other hand, is not easily controlled and has not been quantified, but is assumed to be substantial. In most of the Southeast, legal and illegal harvest account for most of the annual buck mortality.

Populations near the northern and southern boundaries of the whitetail's range have the highest reported nonhunting mortality. In these regions, up to 25 percent of all bucks may be killed annually by predators. Coyotes, wolves, and black bears have been reported predators of whitetails in the North, whereas, coyotes and mountain lions are the prominent predators in the Southwest.


The Southeast no longer has viable populations of large predators such as wolves and mountain lions that are capable of killing adult deer. Coyotes and bobcats are about the only significant predators of whitetails in the Southeast, and they mostly take fawns and adults that are sick or injured.


Most healthrelated mortality in the Southeast can be attributed to two causeshemorrhagic disease and malnutritionparasitism syndrome. Hemorrhagic disease (also known as bluetongue) viruses can kill up to 50 percent of a deer herd, although mortality rates are typically less than 15 percent. Deer populations in the South are confronted with these viruses much more frequently than their northern counterparts and have developed some immunity. Deer populations in northern latitudes may only encounter the disease every 510 years and suffer much higher mortality rates.


Malnutritionparasitism syndrome is generally associated with highdensity deer populations where the habitat has been chronically overbrowsed or where populations occur on very poor quality habitats. Nutritional stress makes deer much more vulnerable to both internal and external parasite infestations. Primary internal parasites include the large stomach worm and lungworm. Major external parasites include ticks and keds (deer lice). High deer densities can increase the transmission of these parasites to other deer. Actual mortality rates vary by parasite species and age and health of deer.

Legal and illegal hunting are usually the most important mortality factors in the Southeast. In comparison, legal hunting, weather, and predation are probably the most important in the North and Southwest. Table 1 details numerous whitetail mortality studies throughout North America.


Dispersal

Dispersal is the process of an animal moving from its point of origin to where it reproduces. Most animals exhibit some form of dispersal to ensure exchange of individuals over time. Dispersal of bucks to and from your property can significantly impact the success of your management plan.


Reported dispersal rates vary from 40 percent in Virginia to 70 percent of bucks 818 months old in Maryland. Researchers in Maryland found that the number of yearling bucks dispersing onto their property was much lower than the number of yearling bucks dispersing from their property. This resulted in an annual net loss of yearling bucks. They suspected the reason for unequal dispersal was the intense harvest pressure from neighboring properties.


Legal harvest is typically the most significant factor limiting the success of QDM programs. Research in Mississippi demonstrated that the most significant cause of buck mortality was legal harvest. Clearly, control of legal harvest is required for a successful QDM program. Properties less than several thousand acres also must rely on cooperation from neighboring hunters.


Home Range Size

Home range is simply the area that an animal travels during its normal activities and is estimated during specific time periods (e.g., breeding or annual home range). Whitetail home range size varies by sex, age, and habitat type. Home range sizes of bucks throughout the United States are listed in Table 2. The average annual home range size for females is around 300600 acres. The average annual home range for bucks is probably 24 times larger (6002400 acres), and older bucks generally have larger home ranges than younger bucks.












Management Implications

We will use some hypothetical examples to illustrate how movement and mortality factors can affect the number of bucks on your property and, thus, the success of your QDM program. Suppose you are managing a 5,000acre property with a deer density of 1 deer per 16 acres. If the adult buck to adult doe ratio is 1:2 and the annual fawn survival is 80 percent, you should have around 83 buck fawns alive at the beginning of the hunting season. Now we will evaluate the effects of natural mortality and harvest on these 83 buck fawns, and calculate how many would survive to maturity.











(Figure 1) Line 1 represents the effect that a 10 percent annual natural mortality rate would have on this group, with only 73 percent (61 of 83) surviving to 3.5 years old and 60 percent (50 of 83) surviving to 5.5 years old. Line 2 represents the effect of a 10 percent annual natural mortality rate and a 30 percent annual legal harvest. Only 25 percent (21 of 83) would survive to 3.5 years old and only 10 percent (8 of 83) would survive to 5.5 years of age with this combination. Line 3 represents the effect of a 10 percent annual natural mortality rate, a 30 percent annual legal harvest, and a 10 percent annual illegal harvest. Only 13 percent (10 of 83) would survive to 3.5 years while only 4 percent (3 of 83) survive to 5.5 with this scenario. Now imagine how these figures would change if you included unequal dispersal rates off and onto your property.


Now let us use the information on home range size to see how it could impact harvest levels on your property. If you have a 100acre tract of land, no deer will be totally protected given the average home range size of over 600 acres. Let us look at another example, with a 5,000acre tract (Figure 2). The box represents a property boundary and the circles represent the home ranges of deer. You can see that most of the deer could be vulnerable to harvest on surrounding properties. As the size of the management unit increases, the number of bucks that can be protected within the management unit also increases. Property size and harvest intensity on peripheral properties can have a big impact on the success of your management plan.


Another source of frustration for hunters can come from differences in the susceptibility of bucks to harvest. The absence of older aged bucks in the harvest can lead hunters to believe that these animals are not present in the herd. Often older bucks do not expose themselves to hunters during daylight hours with about the only harvest opportunities occurring during the rut. Therefore, it is possible these older aged bucks are present but are not being harvested.


Conclusions

We hope the information provided in this article will assist you in understanding some of the factors that can affect the success of your QDM program. Local harvest rates, natural mortality rates, dispersal rates, and home range size all can play an important role in the success or failure of a plan. Landowners and hunters must have goals and expectations that are reasonable given these limitations. The degree to which a QDM program works is dependent on these and many other factors. Consultation with a biologist from your specific region about these considerations can help you finetune your management program and increase your chances of success.


Bronson Strickland is a Research Associate in wildlife biology at Mississippi State University. Dr. Stephen Demarais is an Associate Professor of Wildlife Management at Mississippi State University.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"Sorry, I don't know a biologist that would consider a 1.5 year old Male as an adult, nor do I know of one that would refer to a yearling as a BB."

What you don't seem to be able to comprehend is that we are talking about the mortality of the bucks that are saved by AR. The vast majority of those bucks will be 1.5 buck. But, normal adult non-hunting mortality occurs from the end of hunting season to the beginning of the next hunting season. Therefore, we are talking about the mortality of "adult" 2.5 deer. They are the 1.5 buck that were saved by AR and become the next class of 2.5 buck.


----------



## DEERSLAYER (Mar 29, 2000)

Happy Hunter said:


> "Sorry, I don't know a biologist that would consider a 1.5 year old Male as an adult, nor do I know of one that would refer to a yearling as a BB."
> 
> I'm just jumping in here without reading the ENTIRE thread, so I may be missing something here, BUT, I can't believe what I just read. EVERY biologist I know of would refer to a 1.5 year old buck as being an adult. Mature, no. An adult breeding age male? Absolutely.
> 
> However, I agree that a BB is not a yearling. A BB is a FAWN, not an ADULT.


----------



## campblujay (Jan 21, 2004)

Have to agree here, a 1.5 is an adult any way you dice or slice it. 

And adult deer mortality is fairly high in most states. As much as 20% 

I have to agree with the points HappyHunter has made, they do also show why in Pa at least, the notion that a 3point rule (while reducing the herd with the largest doe takes ever) has not produced any bigger bucks anywhere for hunters. The reduction in herd size in my families hunting area outpaces the few buck saved by AR. (remember in PA, jr hunters can shoot anything only adults need abide by AR). 

They have certainly not seen any bigger bucks after 5 years increased pressure on doe harvests and 3 years of AR and herd reductions in combination. 

A lot of people can regurgitate info from Demaris and Ozoga or Alt, but few have really put it in practice on the ground and seen a benefit for most hunters on the ground. 

I hope the fad of QDM fades soon so we can work on issues that affect habitat and all wildlife and we stop just trying to raise a few psuedo trophy deer for a few folks who want a rack.


----------

