# Column:Most hunters still bucking QDM idea on antler restrictions



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/statewide/index.ssf?/base/sports-0/1133349012154450.xml&coll=1


Column:Most hunters still bucking QDM idea on antler restrictions

Bob Gwizdz

Saturday, December 3, 2005

State wildlife officials have chosen not to make any substantial changes to the process for establishing mandatory antler restrictions for deer hunters.

After a year of reviewing the process and accepting comments from the public, Department of Natural Resources biologists have decided that the two-thirds level of support among hunters and landowners for restrictive harvest rules is appropriate. That decision was to be presented to the Natural Resources Commission at Thursday's meeting.

That means -- unless the NRC decides otherwise, which is unlikely -- it will still take two-thirds support from both hunters and landowners surveyed in a proposed area to adopt buck harvest rules that are more restrictive than statewide policy.

The decision is certain to disappoint the hard-core element of deer hunters who want to see more bucks protected from hunters.

The DNR adopted the process for establishing hunting areas with antler restrictions in 1999, as the ideas of Quality Deer Management began to gain momentum here in Michigan. Since that time, 10 proposals have been forwarded and surveyed. Three of them have obtained the necessary two-thirds support level.

QDM aficionados have argued that the bar has been set too high, that a simple majority of support should carry the question. But the DNR, which chose the two-thirds level of support based on the experience of wildlife officials in Georgia (where the issue first came up), is sticking to its guns.

The DNR says it is neutral on the subject, indicating it supports voluntary adoption of QDM principles. But both sides -- those who support antler restrictions and those who oppose them -- accuse the agency of favoring the other side.

So the DNR has decided to no longer include fact sheets about antler restrictions in its survey mailings, but will include more detailed information on the process.

One of the contentions of QDM proponents has been that the DNR has weighted the survey results by allowing hunters and landowners four responses -- yes, no, don't know, and don't care -- when only a yes response counts in favor of the proposal. But Rod Clute, the DNR's deer specialist, says the survey instructions make that absolutely clear.

Fewer than 1 percent of respondents in the surveys said they didn't care, Clute said. But a fair number said they were not sure, and Clute said that should benefit QDM proponents because it shows them that there is work to be done.

"That will give the sponsoring organizations out there an idea of how many people are interested in the issue," Clute said.

Besides, the "not sure" option was included after an independent survey expert from Michigan State University recommended that it be part of the surveys, Clute said.

Public comments collected by the DNR during the process review were slightly more anti-QDM than pro, Clute said. But fewer than 10 percent of the respondents actually addressed the procedure, which is what the review was about.

The review team created by the DNR was made up of six DNR biologists, a conservation officer, the aforementioned MSU professor, and seven hunters. But when it came time for the team to vote on recommending changes to the procedure, the DNR staff withdrew itself. Six of the seven hunters voted to maintain the two-thirds level of support to make mandatory antler restrictions, Clute said.

As it stands, there are three areas in the state with harvest restrictions mandating a buck have at least three antler points on one side to be legal and three -- two of them were left over from before the survey process was adopted -- where it is illegal to kill spike bucks.

So the process for setting aside areas of the state where more young bucks will be protected from hunters remains essentially where it has been. And, unless the NRC decides to overrule state officials, QDM supporters will still have to convince a large percentage of hunters that they have a better idea.

Contact Bob Gwizdz at (517) 487-8888 ext. 237 or e-mail him at [email protected].



©2005 Booth Newspapers


----------



## walleyechaser (Jan 12, 2001)

The information provided is very interesting and goes to show that the majority of hunters in the group were opposed to mandatory ARs.
This having been said though, I have to agree with many on this site who have stated that the deer herd requires micromanagement to be effective.
There is no one size fits all in a state such as ours.
Perhaps I'm being overly simplistic but I would think that the most effective areas to implement mandatory ARs would be in those DMUs having the highest density of deer PSM.
Before I get flamed for all eternity here's my reasoning.
First of all, this would have the greatest short term impact on buck to doe ratios in those DMUs.
Add in a one buck per year restriction which would/should cause hunters to be more selective in theory.
Secondly, continue needed antlerless harvest in those areas to decrease the population density and further contribute to desired buck to doe ratios.
I personally feel that hunters experiencing the sight of more bucks and better overall antler sizes over a few seasons would go along ways towards creating an environment in which the average hunter would see the need for better identifying BBs versus does and that attitude, along with a better education program could solve many associated problems.
My ideas would not necessarily be without growing pains since initially, buck numbers may decrease during the second or third years due to overkill of BBs
but at some point, hunter awareness would improve to the point that BB overkill would begin to subside.
JMO


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Thanks for posting Bob's article Tom.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

This doesn't surprise me at all. The DNR has demonstrated that they are against QDM and MARs time and time again reguardless of the data that proves that they do indeed work. They also like to call Antler Restrictions QDM just to sully QDM's reputation. So why should we expect anthing different on this decision? For the DNR to say they are neutral is laughable.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Very true TS, nicely put.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Give me a break, TS.

If the DNR and the NRC are so anti-QDM and anti-AR's why did they set up the designation process in the first place? Why do they continue to allow groups to propose AR initiatives? Why do the specifically say that they encourage voluntary QDM and devote a portion of the hunting guide to explaining what it is? Because they secretly want QDM to fail? Come on!  

Conspiracy theories are just plain silly.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Munsterlndr said:


> Give me a break, TS.
> 
> If the DNR and the NRC are so anti-QDM and anti-AR's why did they set up the designation process in the first place? Why do they continue to allow groups to propose AR initiatives? Why do the specifically say that they encourage voluntary QDM and devote a portion of the hunting guide to explaining what it is? Because they secretly want QDM to fail? Come on!
> 
> Conspiracy theories are just plain silly.


They set up the process to appease hundreds of thousands of deer hunters in Michigan as they were under a lot of pressure to do so. They clearly set up the process to fail though and have stayed that course with their latest discissions. 

It's my opinion that the DNR is against QDM because they do not want hunters to pass up any opportunities to kill deer, any deer. They also just don't have the spine to do what's right (acording to sound, modern scientific deer management). 

The article states that only 10 percent of the responses that the DNR got addressed the MARs process and the rest were really not pertinent to their mission as they were "off topic" as Ferg likes to call it :lol:. What Id like to know is the results of those 10 percent, if there was any consensus on how things should be done?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Trophy Specialist said:


> They set up the process to appease hundreds of thousands of deer hunters in Michigan as they were under a lot of pressure to do so. They clearly set up the process to fail though and have stayed that course with their latest discissions.
> 
> It's my opinion that the DNR is against QDM because they do not want hunters to pass up any opportunities to kill deer, any deer. They also just don't have the spine to do what's right (acording to sound, modern scientific deer management).


I guess I missed the article about hundreds of thousands of orange clad hunters marching on Lansing with torches & pitchforks. How many QDMA members are there in Michigan 6-7,000? How many in the UP, around 400? If there were really hundreds of thousands of hunters in Michigan pushing hard for Antler restrictions don't you think membership in those groups would have grown much faster in the last couple of years?

Now I'd agree there are probably a hundred thousand hunters in Michigan who sit around and B*tch about the lack of big racks. But there are just as many who complain about the use of bait, the lentgth of the firearms season and any number of other issues, and I don't see the DNR changing policy on those issues because of a bunch of people complaining about them.

As to the DNR not wanting to discourage people from shooting any deer, why do they try to educate hunters about identifying BB's? Why did they cut back on antlerless permits in a many parts of the State? If all they cared about was hunters shooting the maximum number of deer why would they take those steps?

Does the DNR make mistakes? Sure they do, just like any other large bureaucracy. But to ascribe a bunch of ulterior motives to their actions, just because their actions don't agree with what your personal feelings are about how the deer herd should be managed, begs credability.

On the other hand, as I mentioned in another post, a lot of people actually believe that the DNR introduced wolves & cougars to Michigan to eliminate the deer herd as a means to pacify the Farm Bureau and the Insurance companies. So believe whatever you want to believe.


----------



## Oliron (Feb 20, 2004)

I think the NRC and the DNR is showing they have spine! They are not folding to the special interest group whom time after time are wasting my license fee's to put in a failed program. When will "no" mean "no" I live and hunt in 118, It was a failure!!! The QDMA can twist the figures anyway they want, and when they don't get their way they want to change the rules :gaga: ! 66% is a good rule. I would be disappointed is it were lowered. I have been to several NRC meetings and spoke at some. I do not believe in mandantory AR's. This issue is driving a huge wedge in the hunting community, I also believe the total cost of these surveys should be paid by the sponsoring group. I am not alone in this, A lot of residents in Clare county are also opposed as well in the thumb, I am all for voluntary implementation. But will vigourously take a stand against mandantory AR's. Its time to put this issue aside.

Oliron


----------



## halfcore (Nov 11, 2003)

I just read that article today in the paper....sad but true. Unfortunately I don't think the state of MI will ever widespread support (or really truly try) MAR's, or QDM for that matter. .

The DNR is running itself as a business and has no intention of changing anything. It allows itself to be lobbied by special intrest groups (insurance co's), and placates the massess (3-5 day a year hunters). We'll see what really happens with their new initiative of micro managing dmu's and listening to sportsman's concerns..but...we have seen the results of the above managment strategy, and few are pleased.

If you talk to any "hunter" (term used loosely), less than 10 of 100 will say they are pleased with deer hunting overall in MI. What does that say to the DNR? Trophy hunters, weekend warriors and everyone in between...few have anything positive to say.

I will be putting my money and effort into hunting opportunities in WI, IA and IL where in my belief (attributed to their stellar hunting opportunities) they do a MUCH better job of managing deer and deer hunters.....and still manage to make money at it.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Quote - The review team created by the DNR was made up of six DNR biologists, a conservation officer, the aforementioned MSU professor, and seven hunters.* But when it came time for the team to vote on recommending changes to the procedure, the DNR staff withdrew itself.* Six of the seven hunters voted to maintain the two-thirds level of support to make mandatory antler restrictions, Clute said. Un-Quote

So all six of the DNR biologists didn't have an opinion on whither to change or not? and left the final decision up to 7 hunters and an some professor?

I call BS

They, all six, should be fired and find someone(s) with some guts - wouldn't vote for it, wouldn't vote against it, WITHDREW???? 

   

Sad sad sad - what the heck are were they afraid of?

ferg....


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Quote - "They, all six, should be fired and find someone(s) with some guts - wouldn't vote for it, wouldn't vote against it, WITHDREW???? "...
I guess personal attacks are back on again!

Sometimes people withdraw from making a decision for reasons that may not be so obvious to us. Perhaps, in the end, they were split or each had opinions so evenly matched that they decided against voting. For us to assume they did not have "guts" is a bit reaching.

Swamper


----------



## olliek (Nov 11, 2003)

6 out of 7 ( or 85%) of the hunters voted to maintain the status quo.
I don`t know how those hunters were chosen but think it reflects the sentiments of the majority of Mich. deer hunters.


----------



## Guest (Dec 4, 2005)

For the record, Bob Quidz didn't get it right again. What Rod Clute was refering to was the original group that was organized to form the mandatory guidelines in early 1999. Also Rod who was one of the six MDNR biologists who abstained from voting got the vote total wrong. It really wasn't an abstension by the biologists, there were five representatives from four conservation organizations that voiced their attitude from the beggining, "they did not favor any form of mandatory antler restrictions". The MDNR knew they had it locked, for they selected these guys and didn't need the votes of the biologists. In fact one biologist (the one from my area) complained to me, "What am I, chopped liver, why can't I vote? He apparently didn't get what his superiors had set up. It was set up from the get go, so that they could say to everybody, "The sports people decided it". These five went with everything that was suggested by the MDNR officials and the MSU expert, (DR. Ben Peyton).

Also for the record, "There was not a single sentance or word that any of the so called seven sportsmen contributed to the language of the guidelines, not a single word". Nobody was listened to, especially me.

I still don't know why I stayed and attended these meetings. The MDNR biologists had several meetings prior, created the guidelines and said "This is it and that is that". 

There was something interesting that happened to me. One MDNR biologist around the third meeting took me aside and said, "Ed, I agree with you about that 66% being wrong, but I can't help you". This guy is now a district supervisor. I talked with John Ozoga about him and this is what John told me. --- ------- is very knowledgeable and one of the few progreesive biologists we have in the MDNR, but he and everyone else including me have our mouth shut or else. John didn't tell me, but his brother in law did, "that's why John retired early". I found out later that this biologists made the suggestion at their prior meetings that the vote threshold should be 51%, others said 60%, while Dr. Peyrton and the officials insisted that it be at 66% and so it became to be. Dr.Peyton also is the author of the "no opinion and I don't care" choices.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

So Ed Spin - I guess you would be comfortable if government raised your taxes, elected officials, etc - all by conducting a survey of a sample of area residents, and only 51% was required to change, and perhaps during this process you and your neighbors were not selected to vote?

"No taxation without representation" - and likewise, if taxed, thou shalt be represented!

Swamper


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Ed Spin04 said:


> For the record, Bob Quidz didn't get it right again. What Rod Clute was refering to was the original group that was organized to form the mandatory guidelines in early 1999................
> 
> Well, that certainly presents a different view of that meeting. I would like to suggest that a few members e-mail Bob G. Ed's reply to his article and see if he might do a follow up article.
> 
> L & O


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Munsterlndr said:


> As to the DNR not wanting to discourage people from shooting any deer, why do they try to educate hunters about identifying BB's? Why did they cut back on antlerless permits in a many parts of the State? If all they cared about was hunters shooting the maximum number of deer why would they take those steps?


That's easy to answer: They had to cut back on antlerless permits in some areas because they went way too far in past years with issuance of antlerless permits. The deer herd was hammered in many areas to the point where deer were becoming scarce. The DNR knows that if they wipe out the herd to badly that there would be a serious backlash so they will cut back on antlerless tags for a short while, then hammer them again. 

Their attempt at education on passing up button bucks is laughable. If they were serious about protecting button bucks, with the stroke of a pen they could put some teeth into the effort by forcing people to tag all bucks with buck tags, yet they have gone on record saying that they do not support such a move because hunters might not shoot as many antlerless deer with such a regulation. Their policy on button bucks just strengthens my argument.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

olliek said:


> 6 out of 7 ( or 85%) of the hunters voted to maintain the status quo.
> I don`t know how those hunters were chosen but think it reflects the sentiments of the majority of Mich. deer hunters.


Actually, acording to the last survey that canvased the entire U.P. aproxamatly 33 percent of the hunters and landowners surveyed were not in favor of mandatory antler restrictions. In fact, in most of the surveys done in Michigan, the majority supported antler restrictions. So you see the group of people (the scape goats) that voted were not a very good representation of the Michigan's deer hunters.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Swamper said:


> Quote - "They, all six, should be fired and find someone(s) with some guts - wouldn't vote for it, wouldn't vote against it, WITHDREW???? "...
> I guess personal attacks are back on again!
> 
> Sometimes people withdraw from making a decision for reasons that may not be so obvious to us. Perhaps, in the end, they were split or each had opinions so evenly matched that they decided against voting. For us to assume they did not have "guts" is a bit reaching.
> ...


I'm not attacking anyone personally - as a group - these guys, and this is not reaching, were in a position where they were there to make a decision - and choose not to - I sure would like that to be explained to me - 

ferg....

Man - I must have compleatly missed the boat on that - I read that post (tom's) as this report was on the current decision and review of that initive. Guess not - Sorry.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

I have lost respect for DNR and deer hunting in Michigan. Michigan is doomed to be nothing more than a junk hunt state. The sad part is our license dollars pay the DNR salaries and the DNR still refuses to work for us. The DNR is working for the Ag and insurance companies that pay the bribes to the legislators. I can understand well why biologist are forced to say nothing and forfeit their integrity to keep their jobs. I worked for the USFW as a biologist and we were also ordered to screw the state resources for the greater 'politics'. This is not just about this QDM issue, but a broader issue for a different thread.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Neal - your quote of "Are you questioning the statistical analysis? What evidence do you have to counter the results? So you think the DNR is specifically surveying to sway the stats FOR antler restrictions? What about Bull - Peyton? I know the facts don't align with your opinion, but suggesting the method and results of these surveys is pretty weak."....

Where did I question the statistical analysis in my post? Where did I disagree with the results?? Where did I say the DNR is swaying the stats??? Where did I state my opinion in the post???


I did emphasize the importance of noting it as a survey. I was highlighting a key fact that you did not include.

Swamper


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Swamper said:


> Neal - your quote of "Are you questioning the statistical analysis? What evidence do you have to counter the results? So you think the DNR is specifically surveying to sway the stats FOR antler restrictions? What about Bull - Peyton? I know the facts don't align with your opinion, but suggesting the method and results of these surveys is pretty weak."....
> 
> Where did I question the statistical analysis in my post? Where did I disagree with the results?? Where did I say the DNR is swaying the stats??? Where did I state my opinion in the post???
> 
> ...


I didn't leave out survey.



> The Bull-Peyton survey also disclosed that nearly 60% of Michigan hunters support ARs.


Your post didn't just note that it was a survey, but noted _those_ surveyed. Maybe I mis-read it, but that sure implies that you question the validity of _those _ Surveyed.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Neal said:


> I didn't leave out survey.
> 
> 
> 
> Your post didn't just note that it was a survey, but noted _those_ surveyed. Maybe I mis-read it, but that sure implies that you question the validity of _those _Surveyed.


It is stated within the Peyton-Bull survey that it was not intended to be used as any kind of vote.

" _It is important to keep the context of this survey clearly in mind. It may be enticing to use __these survey results simply as a vote for decision making on some issues. However, survey __results should not be construed as a mandatory public vote unless the study is designed to be __used in this manner. Studies such as this one are designed as diagnostic tools. They describe __what is regarding public opinion  not necessarily what ought to be in public policy."_

The question in the survey regarding antler restrictions did not spell out what that restriction would be. Basically, all the 59% response tells you is that a majority of hunters surveyed feel that some kind of antler restriction would be a good idea. That restriction might only be a spike-only rule, though, it is not spelled out.

The survey also states that a larger majority of hunters favored a one-buck rule than those who favored some form of antler restrictions.

For what it's worth, you should probably take the Peyton-Bull survey with a grain of salt. They indicated that they had a major problem with getting people other than QDMA members to respond to their survey. This raises some questions about how representitive the sample they eventually ended up with really was.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Neal - adding the words "those surveyed" does not imply "questioning validity", at least in my limited understanding of the english language. based on my years of using the language, but perhaps things have changed. It is key to note "those surveyed". How could I question the validity of those surveyed? Don't know.

Swamper


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Enough - you guys want argue the symantics of your posts do it in a PM - the rest of us don't care if you want to have a urination contest - 

ferg....

:Modified_


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

Ferg said:


> the rest of us don't care if you want to have a urination contest -


Keep in mind that similar to deer hunting, wind direction and intensity is always an important consideration in a urination contest. 

Carry on.


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

> It is stated within the Peyton-Bull survey that it was not intended to be used as any kind of vote.


Hey, I'm just stating the results of the many *surveys* taken. If anyone would like to post any surveys that counter those....I'm all ears. There are many who oppose QDM/MARS that try to establish that those who support them are a small minority. I'm just showing that data I've seen that argues differently. No pissing match involved.



> They indicated that they had a major problem with getting people other than QDMA members to respond to their survey. This raises some questions about how representitive the sample they eventually ended up with really was.


I have not seen that, can you direct me to where that was mentioned?



> Enough - you guys want argue the symantics of your posts do it in a PM - the rest of us don't care if you want to have a urination contest -


Couldn't wait to use the baby pic could you?

I'm honored


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Neal said:


> Couldn't wait to use the baby pic could you?
> 
> I'm honored



Had to start someplace 

ferg....


----------



## halfcore (Nov 11, 2003)

poz said:


> The article was about hunters bucking QDM and AR,s. I gave you an example of how wrong the thoughts That QDM guys that were commenting on the Lake county situation were. If these guys were wrong about this area how many other things are they wrong about. I had guys telling me, just like you are what a vast waste land Lake county is. Lake county had some of the highest deer densities in the lower Pennisula for over 30 years, If the habitat was that bad, don't you think the deer would have starved after being over populated. No they did the opposite they thrived, Their population grew even with it being a heavily hunted area. The thing that desimated the herd was one thing. The over shooting of does, pure and simple. they didn't have winter die off, disease or anything else, just over shot.
> 
> As for it being a waste land, do yourself a favor and drive around it, The county contains 1000s of miles of lush river bottoms, clear cutting is every where and every sq. mile of public land has has a couple of deer plots in them. Planted specifically for the deer.
> 
> ...


So the DNR admits mistakes to make hunters happy? I am still on the floor laughing about that one. 

I am not promoting QDM with my post, I am stating an obvious fact about dnr management.

please explain why

-dnr decides to lay waste to deer pop's in lake county 5-8 years ago?
-dnr decides now that suddenly that county can now support as many or more deer than most slp counties?

What exactly changed up there in great Lake county. It had all this great habitat, yet the dnr let you take as many deer as you want (and you did)? Where they perhaps practicing secret QDM?

...All politics my friend, all politics. Again, nothing wrong with that, except the fact that the DNR wont acknowledge how it really "manages" the deer herd.

I couldnt think of a better example than this.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Ferg - "Enough - you guys want argue the symantics of your posts do it in a PM - the rest of us don't care if you want to have a urination contest"..

I was just trying to respond to a misunderstanding, but I understand, and my apologies.

Swamper


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

halfcore said:


> please explain why
> 
> -dnr decides to lay waste to deer pop's in lake county 5-8 years ago?


The DNR raised the antlerless quotas in Lake County 5-8 years ago as part of the TB Eradication program. There were positive TB deer found in both Osceola and Mecosta Counties, both counties adjacent to Lake County. Lowering deer populations in Counties where TB may be easily introduced from neighboring infected counties seems like a pretty reasonable step to thwart the spread of TB.



halfcore said:


> -dnr decides now that suddenly that county can now support as many or more deer than most slp counties?


After 5 - 8 years there have not been any subsequent TB positives in Mecosta or Osceola Counties, nor has it shown up in Lake County. One might venture to say that the TB containment strategy worked. Since it has not spread it seems reasonable to increase the deer population back up to a reasonable carrying capacity.

I can only speak for the part of Lake County that I own some property in, but in that part of Lake County there is habitat sufficient to support a pretty substantial herd. Our property is a mix of hardwood & aspen with a big chunk of cedar swamp. The cedar has not been overbrowsed and there was a pretty incredible mast crop this year. We have selectivly timbered most of the aspen in a ten year rotation that provides a lot of forage for the deer. Just because a county is not located in the Southern LP farm tier does not mean that it cannot support a healthy deer population. 



halfcore said:


> What exactly changed up there in great Lake county. It had all this great habitat, yet the dnr let you take as many deer as you want (and you did)? Where they perhaps practicing secret QDM?


So what changed? TB. 

Yes, people took a lot of deer from Lake County during the years when there were a lot of antlerless permits. This year there were none. I would guess that the herd will rebound pretty quickly in that area.

The DNR was practicing TB Eradication & Containment, not QDM. In hindsight I'd say that was a good thing.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Thanks Munsterlndr,

It always amazes me how all these guys think they are biologists and know what is good for every part of the state. And the exact habitat every part of the state has. 

These are the guys that that jump on the hunting band wagons that pop up every once in a while, they act without thinking it through. Let's look at these.

For a while, even though we had a healthy doe population, many old timers though it was a sin to shoot a doe. I got blasted by a neighbor one time for shooting a doe, Then a few years later he was shooting them, saying he was managing the herd? So it was Okay now because this was the new wagon to jump on.

We use to be told to shoot every spike and take it out of the gene pool, because they would spread bad genes. We all know this is wrong, but a ton of spikes and quality genes were ruined because of this thinking.

Lately it the new thing was shoot every doe you see and shoot more, this would give you more bucks, so herds were decimated in some areas, because every one thought they were going to improve there hunting.. So now the Dnr says a place has been over shot and that they want to bring it back up to the sustainable level and they are bowing down to the pressure of hunters.

I would rather have the DNR bow to hunters than to Insurance agencies. Or special interest groups. BUt I guess some people thing that hunters should come second. it's a shame.


----------



## BlockBUD (Dec 8, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> Whit,
> 
> I can greatly appreciate your comments. You know, the funny thing is that many do not even realize or appreciate the effort that some of us have taken to assist in the education process. How ironic that the best thing for myself..either mentally or physically, would have been to just sit back, enjoy my private land, keep all I do to myself, reap the rewards of my efforts and just look at the poor souls around me hunting and say, "Tough Luck". But no, it's just not my nature. You spend countless hours attempting to make a differance while most sit back on their fannies and continue to complain..but do absolutely nothing for what they believe in..nothing! The AR's I've tried to help get passed do a lot less for me because we already have stricter ones in place and they are working, and a whole lot more for the public land hunter within the area. Again, I guess I just need to be a little more selfish and develop more of a "screw you" attitude...."I have it, who cares if you ever do", maybe should be my new theme.
> 
> ...


I can appreciate your philosophies concerning deer hunting. I still sense some contempt from you towards hunters like me. I do agree with this post of yours, though; I don't make excuses why I take the spikes or young deer that I do. Like you said, I just like to shoot bucks, period. I get a thrill out of shooting whatever buck, and I know I will be really stoked when I do shoot a bigger (mature) buck, if that day ever comes. Perhaps someday I could meet you and have you show me how and when to hunt an area near where I live. I do certainly learn a lot from you on this board.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

BlockBud,

Thanks for the comments but I really have no ill feelings towards you or others that shoot small bucks. In fact if listen to Tim Kubasic's radio program the next couple of Saturdays you can probably hear me say that I really don't blame hunters for shooting a young buck on public land and I fully understand why. There are so many reasons that guys shoot small bucks around here and 1 is they just want to shoot a buck..any buck and there is no problem with that and like I said that is a refreshing reason. Some do it because of the lack of time either in scouting or hunting. Some do it because the way they have been taught to hunt does not really give them a fair chance at an older buck, even if they are around to some degree. Hey, there are lots of reasons, especially on public land and that's why I continue to support AR's, especially on public land as the only way to ever achieve an adequate buck age structure. It's not about reducing deer numbers to have an AR, it's about working with the same density number that the DNR is seeking, but changing the structure of that density number to include not only more bucks with less does, but more OLDER bucks included in the increased number of bucks per square mile. That's basically a QDM herd at that point: A herd density in balance with that habitat, improved sex ratios because you are both passing on younger bucks while maintaining a larger buck herd and keeping your herd numbers in check by limiting antlerless deer IF NEEDED, and an adequate buck age structure due to the restraint in the harvest of young bucks. That restraint on the harvest of young bucks can either come voluntary, or it can be regulated, but in my experience on public land it won't happen without an AR or severely limiting hunters as to number or season lengths.

Anyways, I understand why guys shoot yearling bucks. Now, I do feel there are older bucks for the taking, and I know there are in your area...and you have to work hard or be very experienced to take them, so it is a possibility, but I'd prefer to see an increase in the number of older bucks in the herd on public land to make it easier and more exciting for every hunter to partake in...and I hope you can do just that someday!


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

JEFF,
What is QDM's idea of a good buck to doe ratio?


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

NorthJeff said:


> I really have no ill feelings towards you or others that shoot small bucks. In fact . . . I really don't blame hunters for shooting a young buck on public land and I fully understand why. There are so many reasons that guys shoot small bucks around here and 1 is they just want to shoot a buck..any buck and there is no problem with that and like I said that is a refreshing reason. Some do it because of the lack of time either in scouting or hunting. Some do it because the way they have been taught to hunt does not really give them a fair chance at an older buck, even if they are around to some degree. Hey, there are lots of reasons, especially on public land and that's why I continue to support AR's, . . . restraint on the harvest of young bucks can either come voluntary, or it can be regulated,


You understand why, yet you are pushing to make it illegal?

Those of us that oppose MARs will continue to fight this tooth and nail, no differently than we would if PETA showed up and tried to take away our rights to hunt.

See ya on the battlefield.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

Brian S said:


> Those of us that oppose MARs will continue to fight this tooth and nail, no differently than we would if PETA showed up and tried to take away our rights to hunt.
> 
> See ya on the battlefield.


What an incredibly weak analogy. It's offensive to compare any element of the deer hunting community to PETA.


----------



## halfcore (Nov 11, 2003)

poz said:


> Thanks Munsterlndr,
> 
> It always amazes me how all these guys think they are biologists and know what is good for every part of the state. And the exact habitat every part of the state has.
> 
> ...


The point here is clearly the inconsistency of the DNR. They obviously have little if any clue. "Shoot does"..oh wait, we shot too many.."Don't shoot does". Why is it way overboard in both directions instead an even balance? Its called politics.

It's up to you my friend to email [email protected] about Lake County and to tell the DNR that you want to be able to sit on your bait pile and see 50 antlerless deer a day (if that is truly what you want). I am sure they will listen and probably give you what you want. Don't worry about the habitat, health of the herd, car/deer crashes, or possible spread of disease again (all of which QDM btw can address). You just get those darn deer numbers up there as high as you can again! Best of luck to you!


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

jk, I'm not comparing anyone in the hunting community to PETA. 

The analogy was done to illustrate how vehemently opposed to MARs some of us are.

Can you follow that?


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

This is NOT a personal fight - don't make it so - differing opinions are one think, but let do not make it personal - back to the topic at hand - 

ferg....


----------

