# Future of deer hunting



## Guest (Jun 8, 2005)

Just got back from the QDMA fifth annual expo and convention in Charleston SC. Seen and heard some pretty interesting stuff. Will our hunting heritage survive? Only if we want it to and there are plenty of us to see that we see that this happens. 

I'm going to get flack on this but I firmly believe that it will be the private deer hunting landowner who will take the lead to protect our heritage. They have spent much money for their land and now want to see something better than what is common on state land. We are already seeing this in the serious pursuit of deer and land management by private land owners. It wasn't too long ago that, all they did was buy timbered land and show up the day before November 15th.

This is not the story today. The food plot industry is exploding. A few years ago forest consultants were starving, with many only half employed, today it's hard to find one to look at your land. Many land owners are telling their foresters to make timber cuts to benifit the wildlife first, with income secondary. What happened and why? 

Success stories from more progressive neigbors and frustration from years of poor hunting experiences is driving this change. These success stories are true and what hunter really is satisfied with mediocraty. They may say that they are meat hunters first and they very well may well be, but not to many private landowners are. Therfore the big changes now taking place. 

Landowners are hungry for info to improve their deer hunting experiences and there are not too many sources one can get good information. As John Ozoga and many other senior deer bioloigists will tell you," They are not training anymore deer biologists". New students taking biology at univerities are in the main naturalists bent on saving our planet, (green people). Professors known as deer specialists will not be replaced when they retire. Talk to a new biologist and ask him or her a few sofisticated deer questions. Do not be surprised if you get a blank look. 

There will be only one source in the future to get accurate info to manage your deer. This is not a commercial but pure fact dear friends and that source is and will be the QDMA. I had a long talk with Kip Adams, (currently, QDMA Regional Branch Director in PA). Kip had been the state deer manager in Vermont and prior to that, florida's deer researcher. Kip has a msters in wildlife biology. Kip told me and others at the recent convention that he has learned more about deer and management of them from being with the QDMA in just two years than he has from all other training and experiences with state wildlife agencies. Look at the posts on this site from the likes of BSK. He lives deer and can run circles around most state DNR agency officials. This I have seen personally in several Southeast Deer Study Group annual meetings. Soon no more BSK's will be trained at universities, only by being associated with the QDMA. No other conservation organization is growing as rapidly as the QDMA and this is driven by lease holders and landowners wanting good deer management advice.

Unfortunately the one holding the bag will be the state land hunter with few and poorly managed deer for his or her pleasure. This I believe will change for the better in time. Give it ten years in Michigan and the state land deer hunters will tear down the Mason building in Lansing if our MDNR doesn't get their act in order.

We will not see the doom and gloom as predicted by some on this site. It will be better than most of you can imagine, with frustration and wanting things as good as they can and should be being the driving force, but it will have to start with you fellow deer hunters and nobody else in Michigan. We have no state agencie personal or political leaders with the courage to start it.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Ed Spin04 -

Good post. And thanks to you, many of us landowners are increasing our ability and skills to improve our land and habitat. My brother and I are becoming avid readers of your articles, and I am excited to get back to the US this summer and implement some of your recommendations. Thanks for all of your contributions, and the manner in which you present them both on this site and in written articles. 

Swamper


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Ed, no flack from me. Sounds about right and echos my thinking. Good post.


----------



## BDL (Dec 17, 2004)

Ed,


Great post....your non-hostile comments in support of QDM helps current nonQDMer's to open an ear and listen to you. I picked up a copy of your food plot book and it has great ideas. Keep up the good work.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Sounds great Ed...appreciate your efforts and those are wise words. Looking forward to seeing you in the next couple of weeks. Trying to get the food plots looking as pretty as possible for your visit!


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Some good points. But I feel that alot of landowners that are tryin to put all the time and money into their land have been heavily influenced on what they see on OLN/ESPN deer ranch shows. They see blinds overlooking these nice green clover/rye etc. fields and four, five, ten bucks walking around and the shooter gets to pick which one, this followed by advertisements from seed companies etc. The impression most get is, put in food plots and watch the deer show up in droves....also alot are being told they most put in food plots etc. to keep deer on the property(which well established lands do) or to pull deer away(increase better hunting opportunity) from neighbors/stateland, kinda the wrong impression and what QDM stands for.

Does everybody want food plots all over our statelands? 

I gotta ask when did the deer hunting become so terrible on our statelands anyways? Or did it?


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

B&N, much of the public land around here once was very thick second growth after substantial timbering earlier in the 20th century. Those same forests are now fairly mature with little sunlight hitting the forest floor. So there really isn't much food or cover. Meaning, if you were to cut down half of Lake county, in 10-15 years, after an explosion of food and cover, you'd have so many deer that I'm not even sure you could control them with unlimted antlerless tags. 
Much of our public land is no longer what I'd call good deer habitat.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Well, then people might want to move to Roscommon/Crawford/oscodo Co. cause there is so much clearcutting going on in the past 5 years and still going heavy that we will be run out of town by deer real soon!!!! 

BBt-thats wishfull thinking that you think deer would be that plentiful,doe permits un-managed have not done that around here and we have more "habitat improvement" cuttings than one cares to look at. 

When we run out of land(trees) around here, Granholm will fill the coffers with Lake Co lands.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

beer and nuts said:


> But I feel that alot of landowners that are tryin to put all the time and money into their land have been heavily influenced on what they see on OLN/ESPN deer ranch shows.


Beer&Nuts, I've seen hundreds of your posts by now, so I believe I'm qualified to make an observation. I'm certain you've never even met a real QDM practitioner. If you had, you would know that most of them never watch those silly programs. Usually, because they're too busy cracking the books to educate themselves about topics of their passion or working on all sorts of habitat projects or, even more likely, trying to earn a living.

In fact, after thousands of conversations with hundreds of QDM enthusiasts, over the last half dozen years, I cannot recall any individual ever bringing up anything about a cable-TV hunting program.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

FYI Lake county public land is mostly all federal. Lansing gets none of it.


----------



## Guest (Jun 8, 2005)

B&N;

You are improving in your understanding of the practices of real QDM, but you do have a way to go, in addition your constsnt negative read on the positive posts of others on this site tells me that you may be a tough nut to crack.

I have a deal for you B&N, send me a personal messsage with your address and I will buy you a one year membership to the QDMA, tough nut or not. I ask only one thing of you B&N, please keep an open mind. 

By the way B&N food plots by themslves will not improve your success rate greatly without other deer management techniques in place. For example,the deer just may come off other properties to feed in your food plots and seen and taken prior to reaching your land, which may be only at night, and they are gone prior to daylight. It is a big picture and food plots alone will not make the big change in your success rate. Another example was posted by Jeff, where he stated that when the firearm season started his deer left due to excessive baiting by his neighbors. This I believe can and will happen, so food plots alone is just one tool in the mix. Jeff can control the outward movement of deer, but that is secret info and I will only share it with fellow QDMA members B&N.

I don't visit this site as often as I should, so B&N don't feel neglected if your PM is not acknowledged promptly.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Great post Ed, I think you hit the nail squarely on the head. Thanks for sharing your words of wisdom.


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

Great Post Ed!

Last Saturday, 6/4, Dr. Grant Woods opened up his presentation on Advanced Food Plotting Tips and Techniques at the National Convention with a picture of a Michigan Food Plot that he captured on film last fall (I think in Hale). 

It was a photo of a front end loader dropping a load of carrots into a trailer at a gas station. Got a pretty good chuckle from the crowd!

Suffice it to say some of Michigans current deer management practices are considered a joke by many biologists / deer experts across the country.

FWIW, Dr. Woods did mention the efforts of certain MI QDMA Branches and Coops later in his presentation as a model of how to provide communication and work togetherthat was cool! Im not aware of any QDMA individuals that are managing for a buck behind every tree, realistic goals in line with available habitat and other constraints seem to be the norm.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"Kip told me and others at the recent convention that he has learned more about deer and management of them from being with the QDMA in just two years than he has from all other training and experiences with state wildlife agencies. Look at the posts on this site from the likes of BSK. He lives deer and can run circles around most state DNR agency officials."

It is easy to be a deer expert and have all the answers when you are only have to satisfy one class of stakeholders in the deer management controversity. Kip didn't even know what the OWDD goals were for the PA WMU's even though he was afriend of Alt's.

QDM will obviously become more popular as the statewide herds are reduced in both PA in MI. But, one of the requirements of QDM which no one wants to talk about is limiting the number of hunters on a given tract of land As more private land is tied up by leases ,more hunters will be concentrated on the decreasing amount of land and open to the average hunter. Furthermore, in many areas QDM is not practical because there are to many land owners with varing interests. for exampe, if a given SM of land is comprised of property owners with parcels of 25 acres , there would be 25 different property owners within that SM. It would only take a few property owners who didn't allow hunting to make it impossible to mange the herd in that SM under QDM standards.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Happy Hunter said:


> "Kip told me and others at the recent convention that he has learned more about deer and management of them from being with the QDMA in just two years than he has from all other training and experiences with state wildlife agencies. Look at the posts on this site from the likes of BSK. He lives deer and can run circles around most state DNR agency officials."
> 
> It is easy to be a deer expert and have all the answers when you are only have to satisfy one class of stakeholders in the deer management controversity. Kip didn't even know what the OWDD goals were for the PA WMU's even though he was afriend of Alt's.
> 
> QDM will obviously become more popular as the statewide herds are reduced in both PA in MI. But, one of the requirements of QDM which no one wants to talk about is limiting the number of hunters on a given tract of land As more private land is tied up by leases ,more hunters will be concentrated on the decreasing amount of land and open to the average hunter. Furthermore, in many areas QDM is not practical because there are to many land owners with varing interests. for exampe, if a given SM of land is comprised of property owners with parcels of 25 acres , there would be 25 different property owners within that SM. It would only take a few property owners who didn't allow hunting to make it impossible to mange the herd in that SM under QDM standards.



Where did you read that one of the requirments of QDM is '....limiting the number of hunters...' ????

I must have missed it.

ferg....


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2005)

HH:

Why are you so angry? Lossen up! Better yet, join the QDMA and dream about what can happen versus your present condition of looking for failure! 

For your info HH, Kip is one hell of a biologist and you will see and hear about him doing things that will amaze you in the future. Also I predict a major improvement in Pa and New Yorks deer hunting experiences in the near future. When Kip joined the QDMA group of Regional Directors there were no branches in New York and only one in PA. Today there are seven in NY and 11 in PA and all due to Kip. How about a National QDMA organization being started in Canada, YES Canada and this year, Yep, Kip doing his job. How about a new QDMA branch in Vermont and West Virginia, again Kip at the wheel. HH, have you ever seen and heard Kip give a presentation? 

Also for your info HH, the QDMA has some pretty good management advise for small acreages such as your negative inferance of "woe is me I have only 25 acres and QDMA will not work for me". Yes there is hope for small parcels and only the QDMA has the answers.


----------



## Brad Gehman (Jun 6, 2004)

You can limit the number of hunters to allow more bucks to get through, such as a draw for buck tags, OR like in PA, we just allowed ALL to hunt and limited the size of the bucks they could shoot. 3 or 4 pts to a side, depending on DMU. 

But, the program in PA is NOT QDM, just trying to increase age structure, not save an age class, like QDM.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Thanks for the offer Ed, but I have no need for more mail. Some of you just fail to realize or comprehend that QDM is not for everybody, great if the individual property owner wants to follow some self-appointed guide lines that seems to work for him and he enjoys it, but please quit trying to push this sky-is-falling theory that if States do not start some sort of QDM regulations that whitetail hunting will some how crash and burn. 

"""your constsnt negative read on the positive posts of others on this site tells me that you may be a tough nut to crack."""" Listen Ed, my "negative" posts are also represented by a good portion of Mi deer hunters, they are only negative to you because you support the cause. "Negative" posts also ask some darn good questions and/or bring good points to the table. And please I'm not here to be changed or as you say "tough nut to crack", but thats just a slight hint on how hardcore QDM advocates think they somehow they are above and feel the need to change people into their beliefs. 

"""Another example was posted by Jeff, where he stated that when the firearm season started his deer left due to excessive baiting by his neighbors.""" Do you feel this is wrong that his neighbors are doing that??? Is there a difference in someone plenty "excessive" food plots on ones property for the sole purpose to keep deer. 

I understand the whole simplified QDM theory--really I do, its pretty basic. I really think the differences is in the "variables" and unknowns of QDM when implemented on large unmanaged lands(public lands, state-wide regulations).

I by the way, limitation of hunters is by far and away the best form of increasing age structure/size, if it wasn't the guides of ILL/Sask. wouldn't limit their clients to such low numbers.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"But, the program in PA is NOT QDM, just trying to increase age structure, not save an age class, like QDM."

Brad, not sure what you meant by that....the promotion of an older age structure is QDM and one of the 3 essentials of the triad of QDM biological philosophy.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

" But, one of the requirements of QDM which no one wants to talk about is limiting the number of hunters on a given tract of land"

HH, after all the time you have spent on this site you should know that limiting hunters has nothing to do with QDM. As far as buck age structure is concerned, it's all about practicing restraint on young bucks in an effort to promote an older age structure. If you think the only way to do that is to limit hunters, I disagree and so do a lot of others that practice AR's, or pass on young bucks of anywhere from 1.5 to 2.5 years of age.

Limiting hunters is one way to promote an older age structure, but I don't think you will find many QDM or non QDM folks that support that approach and it is rarely talked about as a viable solution.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

NJ---this is exactly one of the unproven variables I was talking about, that is NOT recognized by QDM. Limitation of hunters or along the same lines, limitation of the number of bucks one takes on a piece of property. 

example: you have 1000 acres, you practice 6 points or more and each hunter has a doe pemit(100% success on does), food plots, good habitat etc.. the piece of land has a 50% success rate with 1 "legal" buck per 40 acres or on avergae 25 "legal" bucks to harvest every year no matter what. 

25 hunters = 12.5 bucks are taken every year and 25 does. Every body is happy and the 25 private members drink and be merry. 

Now, you open up the membership to 25 more members, so its 50 hunters with one buck tag and 50 doe tags,doesn't a brain surgeon to realize how the "quality" and numbers of deer will go for the follow years....even though they are following QDM, but its unmanaged. QDM only works to a high degree when you limit(manage) the number of hunters to fit the land or limit the number of bucks being killed to that certain section of land, all done by ranches and guides' leases throughout the US. 

This is all a very simple example....in trying to make a point....one could add a billion variables to the example...



The more hunters one puts on the land even with QDM you will see the fraction of successful management dwindle with each hunter added.


----------



## nky_bowhunter (May 31, 2005)

I couldn't disagree more on limiting hunters in QDM. I do my best to practice QDM on my little 90 acre slice of heaven. But I also do my best to advance the sport that we ALL love. I take new people all the time! My stepbrother's cousin...the kid is 18 or 19 and wanted to try hunting deer.....you're darn right I let him come give it a whirl. I've got a buddy who I introduced last year to hunting (started with squirrels etc.) who will be hunting with me this year. My young cousin (15 or 16) will likely be joining us by the fall '06 season. I have several buddies I duck hunt with that I encourage to come down. I'm actually looking into the legality of auctioning off a deer hunt on the property for youth season at our Waterfowl USA banquet. I've granted access to 10 'average joe' hunters without their own private land over the last few years. Most of which have been youth, but certainly not all.

Now I certainly won't allow 10 people at a time to hunt 90 acres, it isn't safe and would likely push my deer away. Those people do not have access whenever they want either....I keep it to 3 at a time (sometimes I allow a 4th in rifle season). I'm sure that my hunting could be improved if I didn't grant anyone else access, but I want to make sure YOUR grandchildren's grandchildren can still enjoy the sport we all love.

I'm sure I'm not the only person here who believes in QDM and also lets others hunt. My biggest criteria for letting another person hunt (other than starting a new youth), is the ability to work! I spend a lot of hours and money improving my habitat, and I ask that anyone who wants to hunt with me do the same. Actually not the same, I don't ask for money, only work. If you're always busy all summer, but magically come up with free time during deer season, you can probably guess how far that gets with me. Believe it or not, I grant full access whenever you want if you work with me on the property, and I've never had more than 2 other people, EVER!

So explain to me again how all QDMers are elitists that just don't get it and have so much more opportunity than the 'average' hunter.


----------



## nky_bowhunter (May 31, 2005)

I forgot one thing...I wouldn't grant access to someone who didn't agree with my philosophy. If it's brown it's down simply won't work for me, no matter how much work you're willing to do. I protect my young deer, but I encourage shooting mature bucks and does. Especially does, my stepbrother was a meat hunter, but he helped me out a lot and respected my wishes on which deer to harvest. He used to complain incessantly about passing on 6's and small 8's, but now that he's got 2 130+ deer on the wall, he is a convert.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

wowowow hold on NKY, we arent talking about limiting hunters to HUNT, but you would never continue that trend of allowing all those people if their sucees rate was something higher than you desired and you started to see a diminish in the number of bucks you like to see every year?!? You said yourself you only _"limit the number of hunters"_ to three at one time. Now if 2 out 3 harvested a deer that opening weekend of bow and then another set of three buddies harvested two more the following weekend, I'm pretty sure your open visitation to hunt woudl decrease quite a bit...??? 

"""I'm sure that my hunting could be improved if I didn't grant anyone else access, but I want to make sure YOUR grandchildren's grandchildren can still enjoy the sport we all love."""" Well done, but alot of guys(most) do not open their private lands to so many people.


----------



## nky_bowhunter (May 31, 2005)

B&N,

You're right and wrong, if 4 mature bucks were harvested off of 90 acres (very unlikely) that would be it for the year on bucks, but I would still allow doe harvest. However, if 4 deer were harvested in the first 2 weeks and 3 or 4 were does, I would call that a good start. We routinely shoot 8 or more deer a year off of the property. In fact, I'm hoping to see 12 does harvested this year. But my property is in KY and our herd is too large (in my opinion)...plus my neighbors won't harvest does, so we do it for them.

The funny thing is this, I've never harvested a mature buck from the property. Missed a dandy 140 class with the bow last year....but I enjoy doing what's right for my herd. I have one friend who has harvested 2, my stepbrother has 2 as well, and my grandfather has one also. It's not like we have monster bucks crawling out of the woodwork...that's not what QDM is. It's just that before, we saw all 4 pointers and now we see 1 to 3 mature bucks in a year, mixed in with the little forks. I know that what I'm doing is right though, and someday it'll pay off for me.

In the meantime, I enjoy many doe burgers and dream about the one that got away. It really is a rush to know that you have a chance to see a big boy when you go into the woods, and that just wasn't there before we implemented QDM. As far as the other guys not allowing access, I think you might be surprised how far a little work goes. 

Also, keep an open mind. What I see is this....Ed Spin offered to buy you a membership to QDMA, and you turned it down. You have one of the premier food plot authorities in the country offering you free advice and a chance to educate yourself. Now I understand that you don't buy all that the QDMA says, but is that any reason not to read the magazine. At the VERY LEAST you'll pick up some good tips for next fall. I'm not saying I'm better because I believe in QDM or that you're views aren't valid.....but why not learn all you can? These guys aren't against you, they're offering to SHOW you what works for them. Food plot days, seminars, the magazine, all of it...they're not just on here preaching, they're willing to invite you out to their properties and SHOW you! I'm thinking of driving up to Michigan to learn what these guys can teach, and I'm from Cincinnati....they're a valuable resource and to have such a closed mind to it just baffles me.


----------



## Guest (Jun 9, 2005)

B&N, sorry you are not interested in learning about a proven method of good deer management. That tells me a lot about your bias's and also tells me that you are not interested in looking for ways to improve everyones deer hunting experiences nor the welfare of our deer.. 


There is a lot of knowledge within the membership of the QDMA. Consider that we have over 1,000 members who are professionals, professionals such as life time member John Ozoga. We are not elitests bent on self gratification. The QDMA membership of Michigan gave the MDNR an infra red imaging device that cost them over $10,000. We have an experimental food plot of 4 acres planted on public land using the no-till method. The results are not conclusive due to the exceptionally poor soil purposly selected for this experiment. Costs so far are around $3,000. If this project is successful, (we are now into the fifth year) all Michiganders, incliding B&N will benifit. This is just a sample of where our interest lies B&N. We want to improve everyones hunting experiences along with improving the welfare of our deer and our actions show this.

By the way B&N your accusation of QDMers limiting the accessibilty of others to the sport of deer hunting is untrue. Of course there are some who are selfish and have their own agenda but there is absolutly no truth to your negative implication. The official policy of the QDMA is just the opposite. As you probably know B&N I'm on the board and if anything we look for ways to improve the hunting experience of all, including public land hunters. 

Example we have many QDM demomstrtions, that show an actual increase in the harvest of bucks while at the same time protecting the yearling bucks. Also at the same time taking more does. The better managed demonstrations showed from 2 to 5 times more bucks taken and a higher class than before the demonstration. YES, this is hard to believe but true. Unexperienced skeptics just will not accept the truth that one can have more with less. 

The five year QDM demonstrtion in Clare County Mi (DMU 118) showed this exact same phenonenem, just not as great of an actual incearse in the harvest of bucks (24% increase) while protecting 50% of the yearlings. Even our MDNR said that the harvest data was inconclusive. Same kind of mind set as you have B&N.

B&N the offer still stands with no expiration date.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Ed Spin04 said:


> There is a lot of knowledge within the membership of the QDMA. Consider that we have over 1,000 members who are professionals, professionals such as life time member John Ozoga. how this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are own DNR profesionals say that shooting more does in MIchigan now will not help the buck population, why is the push to shoot more does.



In Lake county in the mid 1990's they did a DMU that didn't allow any does to be shot with gun or bow. They did this for 2 years I believe. There were a ton of bucks running around after that because most of the button bucks survived. Boy it sure is funny how a bigger population meant more bucks. 

Lets put this into perspective. A buck to doe ratio of 1:1.5. the more deer, the more bucks, the more bucks, the more that can make it to an older age, the more older bucks the more quality Racks we will see.

That is if we do not decimate our herd.

Many QDMers on this site say how they build it and now they see 10-15 deer a day on there 100 acres, and how everyone around them is practicing QDM. 

We'll the goal in Michigan is an average of 20 dpsm. You guys better start shooting more deer, because you should only be seeing an average of 3-4 deer per 100 acres. Now throw in your 1;1.5 ratio. you should only have 1-2 bucks per 100 acres, are you guys telling us that you want to only shoot a buck every 2-3 years. because if you shoot one then the other one will have to grow a couple of years(to be of any quality) so you can shoot it. and these numbers are for your whole hunting Party. How can you call this Quality. 2 or 3 bucks taken in five years by 5 hunters. I don't want to hunt in an area like that.


----------



## nky_bowhunter (May 31, 2005)

The reason is that QDMers have quality habitat. Try as we might, we simply can't keep the deer coming from poorer habitat off of our land. It's not such a bad problem to have, I admit.

And as for your logic, if shooting a buck every year is important to you, regardless of how big it is, than QDM is surely not for you. I personally have gone 4 seasons without shooting a buck, and let literally dozens walk by. I've never harvested a mature buck. But my freezer has been filled all the time with equally good meat from mature does and I actually have the opportunity to see big bucks. Not often, usually no more than twice a year, but I gain more enjoyment seeing that than continually harvesting bucks that score 25 B&C points. 

I'm not trying to change your opinion, it's obvious that you will not be swayed by any amount of scientific evidence. I'm just relaying my experience and asking one little question. Would you rather harvest a tiny buck a year or a bruiser once every 5? 

The answer is obvious for me. My property has produced 5 bruisers in 5 years and it's only 90 acres, none of which were harvested by me. But my turn will come and I'm happy doing what I know is best.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Ed Spin04 said:


> B&N, sorry you are not interested in learning about a proven method of good deer management. That tells me a lot about your bias's and also tells me that you are not interested in looking for ways to improve everyones deer hunting experiences nor the welfare of our deer..
> 
> 
> There is a lot of knowledge within the membership of the QDMA. Consider that we have over 1,000 members who are professionals, professionals such as life time member John Ozoga. We are not elitests bent on self gratification. The QDMA membership of Michigan gave the MDNR an infra red imaging device that cost them over $10,000. We have an experimental food plot of 4 acres planted on public land using the no-till method. The results are not conclusive due to the exceptionally poor soil purposly selected for this experiment. Costs so far are around $3,000. If this project is successful, (we are now into the fifth year) all Michiganders, incliding B&N will benifit. .



Get that no till thing going please I would love that stuff. OK OK OK I'll take B&N's membership if it makes you happy :lol: 

AW


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"Also I predict a major improvement in Pa and New Yorks deer hunting experiences in the near future."

That is what Alt preicted and our buck harvest declined by 39% in just two years and AR's only increased the harvest of 2.5 + buck by 18%, while Alt predicted it would double.

To those that say the PA program is not QDM, the primary goals of Alt's plan was to;

1 Balance the herd with the habitat

2. Improve the age structure of the herd by implementing Ar's

3. Improve the B/D ratio by harvesting more doe and protecting more buck.

So why isn't the PA plan considered to be QDM? Kip Adams supports it,so why don't MI QDM members support it?

NJ,

I didn't say it was necessary to limit the number of hunters to improve the buck age structure or B/D ratio. It is necessary to limit the number of hunters to have a quality hunting experience. If a QDM lease had the same number of hunters / SM as public land and the same success rate ,there would be little incentive to join a QDM lease. Since most QDM members have an economic investment, they expect a return on that investment. If their quality of hunting and success rate is no better than on public land ,there will be little incentive to join a QDM club or lease.


----------



## Brad Gehman (Jun 6, 2004)

Jeff, here is what I meant. In PA, our antler restrictions are set to "save" about 1/2 of our 1.5 year old bucks. True QDM would set them to save ALL 1.5 year olds and maybe even a large percentage of 2.5 year old bucks. They would use a spread restriction based on the area. 

I once belonged to a QDM lease in PA, total acreage was 3800, plus 2 other clubs in the same program brought the figure to about 8000 acres. This was also in Potter Co. The AR's were set at 6 pts AND a 14 inch spread, which, in that particular area, based on measurements by biologists, saved all 1.5 yo bucks and the majority of 2.5 yo bucks. That allowed us to pretty much harvest 3.5 yo bucks and up. 

PA's AR's will gets us more 2.5 yo's, but it won't get us a large number of 3.5 yo's,


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

nky_bowhunter said:


> The reason is that QDMers have quality habitat. Try as we might, we simply can't keep the deer coming from poorer habitat off of our land. It's not such a bad problem to have, I admit.
> 
> And as for your logic, if shooting a buck every year is important to you, regardless of how big it is, than QDM is surely not for you. I personally have gone 4 seasons without shooting a buck, and let literally dozens walk by. I've never harvested a mature buck. But my freezer has been filled all the time with equally good meat from mature does and I actually have the opportunity to see big bucks. Not often, usually no more than twice a year, but I gain more enjoyment seeing that than continually harvesting bucks that score 25 B&C points.
> 
> ...


 
You say your pulling deer from poorer habitat, that might be true, but when the deer numbers drop and there isn't any more deer to pull, than what are you going to do. If the goal is 20 dpsm, do you think that all of them will be on your property. Your property produced 5 bruisers in 5 years, That is great and I'm happy for you, but with these numbers your property shouldn't have 5 bruiser living on it. You would have shot all the bucks you have.


Would you rather harvest a tiny buck a year or a bruiser once every 5? 

So it does come down to antlers, a hunt is what you make of it. I'm am just as proud of every deer I have shot, bucks, or does. Every hunt is it's own experience whether you kill something or not. I would be more proud of a hunter who saw a doe or small buck in the middle of the field and stalked to within bow range and shot or even got a shot at it, than I would be of some guy saying that I passed on this buck for 5 years in a row and fed it in my field the whole time just so he could grow to be a 180 class deer so I could shoot it. Big deal, if you want to be a deer farmer, than go to Texas. If it was about shooting a Bruiser, all the money and time I spent on my land could have paid for 25 years of hunting in Texas. It's not about shooting the biggest deer to most of us, If we do get a big one, it's a bonus. It's about time with family and friends, and enjoying the outdoors. and if you can, put some meat in the freezer.

You say I won't listen to scientific Facts, Show us the facts that we had a bad herd and all the winter kill in the lower Pen. and the purpose for the mass reduction of our herd.


----------



## giver108 (Nov 24, 2004)

Amen, poz.

The answers you'll hear is the deer numbers a few years ago were too high and the habitat could not support the amount of deer even though the habitat you hunt hasn't changed and never seen any evidence of a browse line. You'll also be told by someone who never hunted wherever you do that you need to get off the beaten path if you hunt state land, maybe set up a food plot because it's likely you'll be the only one who knows where it is. Oh yeah, only shoot 2.5 year old bucks with a 16" spread. If you do this, you'll get a chance at a 8-pt. once every four years in the NLP.


----------



## nky_bowhunter (May 31, 2005)

poz,

It's ludacris to assume that I'm a trophy hunter and that antler size is all I care about. You seem to have forgotten that in my previous post, I stated that I have NEVER, NOT ONCE harvested a mature whitetail buck. I do, however, think it's a shame to shoot a little 4 point when I could get a doe instead and let him grow up. I've gone 4 years without harvesting a buck at all and I'm happy to continue harvesting does. It's time spent with friends and family in the great outdoors, and that IS what it's all about. I too, am proud of every deer I've ever harvested....I just don't understand why you feel it necessary to harvest a buck when a doe would have given you the same meat.

I am fortunate to have property in an area with loads of deer and neighbors who won't shoot does. Since they won't, I do it for them. I don't pretend to know your situation, I'm not from Michigan. Where my farm is in Northern Kentucky, we're allowed UNLIMITED does, and our deer herd is still increasing! I wish everyone had it as good as I do, truly I do. 

I could list statistics, but they don't mean much to me. All I know is this, when I started hunting the property, I kicked 3 individuals off of it who adhered to the 'if it's brown, it's down' rule. They had the place shot out. It was a good day if you saw a deer. Through forest management, tree plantings, food plots, fescue eradication on my hillsides, etc. I have seen an amazing turn around. I frequently see 20 plus deer in a day now. A couple times a year, if I'm lucky, I can get a glimpse of a mature buck. My friends and family have harvested some of these magnificent creatures. I'm thankful that I've been able to provide them that opportunity. And the benefits I've seen aren't just in the deer. We have wild quail for the first time in over 20 years! Our turkey population has gone through the roof! I had never seen a rabbit on our property until last year! I have seen first hand my hard work pay off. And I enjoy every minute of it....there's no place I'd rather be than on the farm. And there nothing I'd rather be doing than making it better for my future children. If that makes me wrong, I don't want to be right!

I'm not saying QDM is right for you, right for Michigan, or right for anyone else. I'm not arguing that your herd should or should not have been reduced. I don't know the facts and don't pretend to know them. I'm sorry that you don't have the best hunting you've ever known. But I also think that blaming QDM for your currently poor hunting conditions is baseless. I know it works, I prove it every year. You don't have to practice it or agree with me. QDM did not cause whatever problems you are facing. Perhaps the MDNR allowed too many does to be harvested. Perhaps the habitat couldn't support the larger herd. Perhaps it could. Regardless, QDM is not the culprit.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

nky_bowhunter said:


> poz,
> 
> I
> I am fortunate to have property in an area with loads of deer and neighbors who won't shoot does. Since they won't, I do it for them. I don't pretend to know your situation, I'm not from Michigan. Where my farm is in Northern Kentucky, we're allowed UNLIMITED does, and our deer herd is still increasing! I wish everyone had it as good as I do, truly I do.
> ...


You sound like you have a great peice of property, now answer me this question, How would you feel if all of the sudden your deer herd dropped by 80% and if you started questioning some of the practices being imposed in your area, and all of the sudden everyone says to you, that the herd hasn't dropped, you just aren't hunting as hard as you did, or you need to get into the woods farther. or We don't really know your property or the habitat in your area, but you must of had browse lines and an unhealthy herd. I would expect you as a hunter to be mad as hell. and that is how many of us feel in Michigan, in certain areas. Like I said before I'm not against QDM, but QDM is still young an we need to learn more about it and listen to different arguements and do what is right. Many hunters in Michigan jump on band wagons and do what is popular at the moment. 20 years ago people were told to shoot spikes because they would never grow to anything bigger than a spike, and they needed to be taken out of the gene pool. Look how wrong we were there. Now how would we feel if in 20 years we figure out that maybe we shouldn't have reduced michigan's deer herd so much.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

poz said:


> Like I said before I'm not against QDM, but QDM is still young an we need to learn more about it and listen to different arguements and do what is right. Many hunters in Michigan jump on band wagons and do what is popular at the moment. 20 years ago people were told to shoot spikes because they would never grow to anything bigger than a spike, and they needed to be taken out of the gene pool. Look how wrong we were there. Now how would we feel if in 20 years we figure out that maybe we shouldn't have reduced michigan's deer herd so much.


If we, as a humans, always 'waited' we would never move forward on anything - you have to go with what is considered to be the 'facts today' I think that QDM 'as a "movement"' has been proving itself over and over, this didn't 'just start'.

I also think that the 'largest' trouble with QDM is NOT QDM itself, but, sometimes the salesmen....and as we all know, there good ones and bad ones. You don't have to go very far from this forum to see there people on the same side of the arguments but present their simular positions in completly different manners. Some encourage other to learn and listen and others just piss people off - 

The people that are involved in the learning curve (and that's all of us) have to decide whom we listen to and where to gather our OWN facts and whither they work for us or not. 

Nobody is shoving anything down anyones piehole, only sharing personal experances and putting out information. Take it or leave it, that part is up to the individual(s).


But to 'wait'? How long? When do we 'do something'? We know that the current situation is failing or do we? Is it? What is the current management 'wind'? Is it definded? Does is have established goals? Can it be achieved? What do we 'wait' for?

I and I have said this in the past - believe something that a member here once said in a different thread - I think it was 'safetreehunt' - the future of Michigan deer hunting is going to rest firmly with smaller DMU management 'advisory groups' - 

I'm usually against 'micro managment' of any sort - However, I think in the case of whitetails - in Michigan - it's going to have to be done that way. People that live daily, close to the local heard are going to have to step up and be counted. Lansing CAN NOT be in every DMU or Section. Nor will they be.

I know, I know, money money money - I understand - there are huge road blocks to micro management of the heard - but - long term - we are going to have to over come these issues. (Volunteers - ! ) Is what it's going to take, and as much as I don't want to say this - you don't have to look very far for those that are willing to step up - they usually at a QDMA meeting - whither they agree with it or not - there out there trying to learn what's coming......

ferg....
I guess I've run on plenty for this morning.....sorry -


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Ferg,

I agree with what you said about the salesman being bad. 95% of the people on this site that hunt the baldwin area are complaining about the hunting there, But we are constantly told we are at fault, and the deer are still there and it had to be done. I don't live up there but I do go up there to hunt and my family members use to hunt up there. Ask the locals up there and they will tell you the numbers are way down, some like it and some don't. 

I think we should micro manage to an extent because each area is different. But we should also do what is good for the hunting community, because we don't always know what is on the agenda in certain areas. I'm sure that if an area wanted to ban hunting because they felt there deer population was down, or that they want to grow the population, every hunting organization would be up in arms over ther ban. we wouldn't want that to ever happen. there are many ways to manage a herd. but This my way or the highway mentallity has got to stop. 

Look at the way people are treated on this site if they don't agree with QDM, how do you expect them to go to a QDM meeting and feel comfortable. I believe many QDMer think they are doing the right thing, That is fine and I commend them for their efforts, But they need to listen to some of the concerns hunters have. 

I enjoy sitting in my tree stand and seeing a bunch of deer, as well as squirrels, grouse, turkeys, and what ever other animal comes my way. Sometimes I shoot something, sometimes I don't. But I'm tired of people saying that I'm hunting the easy way, and what i do is not challenging when all they do is improve their habitat and sit at the edge of a food plot and shoot a 10 point that they watch for 5 years developing into the deer they want to shoot.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

poz said:


> Look at the way people are treated on this site if they don't agree with QDM, how do you expect them to go to a QDM meeting and feel comfortable. I believe many QDMer think they are doing the right thing, That is fine and I commend them for their efforts, But they need to listen to some of the concerns hunters have.


I don't think it's a matter of not listening - or - treating anyone any particular way - 

I think there is a diffaculty in expressing the 'concerns'.

The anti qdm guys come in swinging and the QDM guys come into threads swinging and back and forth - and then nothing gets accomplished - I'd like to see a 'list of concerns' of the anti qdm camp.

Poz - start a new thread - list your concerns - don't toss out a bunch of numbers and assumptions and what if's etc etc - but your heart felt concerns about QDM.

I would love to see 'where it goes' and who from the QDM side steps up and address your concerns.

ferg....


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Ferg, 
As you know I have gone back and forth with a bunch of guys. I've asked numerous times for someone to show me winter kill numbers (in the lower)and why the herd has to be reduce so drastically.NO one has.



The numbers I have used mostly come from the DNR. Yet when they come up with different results than what people want to hear, I am accused of making up numbers or twisting them to come out with what i want the results to be or the thread gets shut down. Am I suppose to think that all the numbers people say on here are correct and just mine are wrong. come on! 
People have accused me of blamimg the DNR. We'll the DNR controls the deer population by issueing permits. They have the final say on how many licenses will be issued. I don't want my hunting to be controled by insurance or other interest groups. Yet, people on this site seem to blame the reduction of this herd on better management practices for a healthy herd. I believe the herd was reduce to accomodate a wide interest of non hunting groups. 

Look at all the complaining about the poor hunting going on now. Just think what it will be like when the DNR meets it's goal of 1.3 million deer. a 30% decrease of the amount we had last season. It will devide the hunters apart and we will be the cause if the end of our sport. not the anti's.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

poz said:


> Ferg,
> As you know I have gone back and forth with a bunch of guys. I've asked numerous times for someone to show me winter kill numbers (in the lower)and why the herd has to be reduce so drastically.NO one has.


They will - 



poz said:


> The numbers I have used mostly come from the DNR. Yet when they come up with different results than what people want to hear, I am accused of making up numbers or twisting them to come out with what i want the results to be or the thread gets shut down. Am I suppose to think that all the numbers people say on here are correct and just mine are wrong. come on!


I'm not accusing anyone of making up or twisting numbers - people toss numbers out here all the time - I NEVER see any references to back up the numbers - and when I don't - I summarly discard them as being conjecture.



poz said:


> People have accused me of blamimg the DNR. We'll the DNR controls the deer population by issueing permits. They have the final say on how many licenses will be issued. I don't want my hunting to be controled by insurance or other interest groups.


Do you some documentation that this is happinging or is this what you ' believe' is going on?



poz said:


> Yet, people on this site seem to blame the reduction of this herd on better management practices for a healthy herd. I believe the herd was reduce to accomodate a wide interest of non hunting groups.


What does the DNR say the reduction is all about? It's not just 'people on this site' that claim that.



poz said:


> Look at all the complaining about the poor hunting going on now. Just think what it will be like when the DNR meets it's goal of 1.3 million deer. a 30% decrease of the amount we had last season. It will devide the hunters apart and we will be the cause if the end of our sport. not the anti's.



The complaining is isolated - it is local - I see tons of quys in this, and many other forums on this site and others that are tickled pink with their hunting opportunities.

This is why I think the DMU's need to micro managed - are there good placed to hunt? Sure - Are the crappy places? Sure - can the bad be made better? Sure - the question is how?

An 'overall' reduction in heard size is not necessarly a bad thing - it's just were that reduction takes place. You can't just toss out a number to people, like a 30% reduction and not tell them where those numbers are supposed to come from. 

If someone went to Baldwin and said we are going to reduce your deer numbers by another 30% - he/she would likely be shot. - However, that being said, there are places in southern Michigan where if you told them that they would ask when do we start and how come we have to stop at 30% :yikes: 

That's the whole point - it has to kept on a small(er) level that was is managed today - and people have to STOP talking in 'general terms' when we address the problems with the management of the heard and the overall hunting experance.

See we don't disagree on this issue - only on how to present it to the hunting community - and sportsman alike. We, too, have to remember, that the public lands of this state are everyone's - that's all hunters not just deer hunters - and all non-hunters too, and in fact 'everyone' all groups have to be heard as we continue to manage habitat for the mutual good of everyone.



ferg....


----------

