# Gwizdz on the "Think Tank"



## Benelli

Column 


Column:
Sunday, July 11, 2004 
There's no doubt that Gary Alt, who rewrote the rules of deer hunting in Pennsylvania, was the superstar of the recent Quality Deer Management Association convention in Grand Rapids. 
Alt pushed through controversial statewide antler restrictions in Pennsylvania. In some places, bucks must have at least three points on one side of their headgear to be legal. In other areas, the minimum is four. 
All fork-horned (or less) bucks are protected. Period. 
Sleeves rolled up, voice booming, Alt delivered a presentation at the convention's "Think Tank" session on antler restrictions that might as well have been the key-note address. 
Alt, a cross between Elmer Gantry and Knute Rockne, drew hallelujahs from the already-saved -- the vast majority of the crowd, as you might guess -- and made even skeptics think his idea was worth a good ol' college try. 
But what I suspect was lost on many in the crowd -- again, those already sold on the idea of growing bigger bucks -- is that Alt's message had almost nothing to do with that. What Alt was talking about, bottom line, was the need to kill more does. 
"The real issue is balancing the herd with the habitat," Alt stated. "In our state we had cultural problems -- we undershoot the does and shoot the bucks into oblivion." 
Alt didn't mention growing better bucks -- or even, for that matter, balancing the sex ratio in the herd, which is a regular topic of conversation in these parts. He talked about getting the herd under control. 
That, of course, is one of the keys to QDM anyway. But as guys walked out of the meeting wondering whether they could get the same thing going here as in Pennsylvania, they probably didn't consider that Michigan is already light years -- or at least a decade or two -- ahead of where Pennsylvania was when Alt started his program. 
Before Alt started his program, Pennsylvania had a two-week buck season and a three-day doe season. In Michigan, we've not only made it legal to take antlerless deer (with a permit) during any hunting season, we've also added preseason and postseason antlerless-only firearms hunts in areas of particular need. 
Twice in recent years, Michigan hunters have killed more antlerless deer than antlered animals. For the last couple of years, more than half the state's hunters have purchased antlerless tags. Michigan hunters are slowly absorbing that much of the equation. 
News out of Pennsylvania, as filtered through the QDM crowd, is all good. But visit some of the chat rooms and you'll find as many Quaker State hunters who are unhappy with the deer regs as those who are pleased. 
Rod Clute, Michigan's Department of Natural Resources deer specialist who participated in the session, said he didn't think Pennsylvania-styled regulations would have the same effect here because of the difference in attitude. 
"We're already taking 250,000 antlerless deer (a year)," Clute said. "Sure, we could bump it up to 300,000. But (Pennsylvania) went from 100,000 to 300,000." 
In his speech, Alt acknowledged that the problem was more severe in his state. 
"I don't think antler restrictions in Pennsylvania, as we have them, is the best thing we could do," Alt said. "But it was the only thing we could do." 
In Michigan, we're seeing the herd come (slowly) under control. The deer population is down by about a half million from peak. 
We're not over the hump by any means. Except in the Lake Superior watershed and some areas of the northern Lower Peninsula where there is a lot of public land, there are still too many deer. And Clute, who says he wishes Pennsylvania well in its experiment, still prefers "education to regulation." 
Opening day of (archery) deer season is less than three months away. And as all eyes are on Pennsylvania, it's worth thinking about whether we need to adopt a radical policy like Pennsylvania did, or whether we can get by expanding on what's already working -- albeit not well enough -- here. 
Contact Bob Gwizdz at (517) 487-8888 ext. 237 or e-mail him at [email protected].


----------



## BSK

Very good article.


----------



## Pinefarm

Yes it is a very good article. I have the pleasure of being friends with Bob and the two of us met there at the think tank. For those of us that have grand illusions about being a writer, however fleeting, reading the work of a good writer will put that dream to bed rather quickly. Bob and I sat together, saw the same presentation and briefly commented throughout. However, until I read this, I wasn't entirely sure of the bottom line message of the antler think tank. Well, Bob just cleared it up for us, or at least for me, and I was there! Very good job by Bob G. I think it's a 100% correct assessment of the current blur on antler regs.


----------



## BSK

*But what I suspect was lost on many in the crowd -- again, those already sold on the idea of growing bigger bucks -- is that Alt's message had almost nothing to do with that. What Alt was talking about, bottom line, was the need to kill more does.

"The real issue is balancing the herd with the habitat," Alt stated. "In our state we had cultural problems -- we undershoot the does and shoot the bucks into oblivion." 

Alt didn't mention growing better bucks -- or even, for that matter, balancing the sex ratio in the herd, which is a regular topic of conversation in these parts. He talked about getting the herd under control.*

This part is absolutely key. Hunters wouldn't believe how productive their areas could be if they would just bring the herd density in balance with the environment. Now hunters in agricultural areas generally don't see the effects of over-population due to the nearly unlimited food sources in the area, but those hunters hunting large sections of forest will see major differences simply by reducing the deer density to sane levels.

Everyone is looking at KY and there sudden surge in record-book buck production (going from a backwater deer hunting state to now being the #2 state in the nation for record-book bucks harvested per year). Everyone assumes it is *just* due to their 1 buck limit. But what they don't realize is buck age structure is only half the story. The other half is deer density. KY is making a concerted effort to lower deer densities *far* below the productive capacity of the habitat. Even in agricultural areas that could support very high deer densities, KY is trying to keep deer densities down around 25-30 deer per square mile. Yes, their 1 buck limit is allowing more bucks to advance into the older age-classes, but it is their low deer densities that are allowing those older bucks to express their genetic potential early in life. Many of the B&C bucks coming out of KY are only 3 1/2 and 4 1/2 years old. Growing older bucks is one thing; giving them access to high enough quality food to express their genetic potential is another. When the state has no control over the habitat (most deer habitat is privately owned and controlled), the only way to increase nutritional intake of the deer herd is too make sure there are fewer deer competiting for the best foods.

You can do everything right with the dynamics of a herd and still get poor production. Even if the sex ratio is balanced and the buck age structure is good, if the herd is at 90+% of maximum size, you aren't going to be growing many big bucks, regardless of their age. Herd density in comparison to habitat production is absolutely key to herd health. It is one of those rules that cannot be circumvented.


----------



## just ducky

Absolutely great article. I wasn't at the presentation, but this echos the point I've tried to make several times when I see comparisons of Michigan with PA. I lived and hunted in PA in the 70's when deer were like rabbits, and the buck/doe ratio had to be overwhelmingly skewed with antlerless. And the 3 day doe season IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING the regular firearm and bow seasons made absolutely no sense, and certainly didn't help change the ratio. Those of us who even went out for does then were fortunate to see one or two because they were so scattered. Although I haven't hunted there in more than 20 years, I have relatives there still. They truly needed a drastic change in philosophy, and they're getting it. But as I've tried to say before, comparing the present day deer herd in PA with Michigan is apples and oranges.....food for thought, but not really relevant. Glad to see someone put it in print.


----------



## Happy Hunter

"This part is absolutely key. Hunters wouldn't believe how productive their areas could be if they would just bring the herd density in balance with the environment. Now hunters in agricultural areas generally don't see the effects of over-population due to the nearly unlimited food sources in the area, but those hunters hunting large sections of forest will see major differences simply by reducing the deer density to sane levels."

While that may be true in some areas , it has not happened in PA in those big woods areas where the herd has been reduced to below its' density goal. The recruitment rate in WMU 2 G is one of the lowest in the state and buck harvests have steadily declined as the herd has been reduced.


Because our PGC establishes the goals based solely on forested habitat the average goal for the state is only 13 DPSM,which requires that we cut our herd by 50%. Increased breeding and recruitment will never come close to making up for the loss of so many deer from the over wintering herd.

There is one major error in the article. Prior to Alt's appointment we were harvesting 200K anterless deer annually, not 100K and that harvest was sufficient to keep the herd stable. Now we are harvesting 300K anterless annually and they claim the herd is still increasing.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

"But what I suspect was lost on many in the crowd -- again, those already sold on the idea of growing bigger bucks -- is that Alt's message had almost nothing to do with that. What Alt was talking about, bottom line, was the need to kill more does. "

Total, total, misunderstanding of the crowd that was there, and the true knowledge of QDM from ardent QDM supporters. 

Couldn't disagree more with that statement. That statement could have been made as "But what I suspect was the understanding of many of the educated QDMers in the crowd, but lost by the casual observeror neighsayer, is........"

Greatly underestimated what most QDM advocates already know.


----------



## Pinefarm

He said many, not most. Many could be 40 out of 300.


----------



## johnhunter

Jeff, your reaction was identical to mine. "Lost on many in the crowd...", I found that remark disrespectful and offensive. 

Perhaps Gwizdz has begun to learn about QDM, but his ignorance of QDM'ers is nothing less than a stunner to me.


----------



## Letmgro

I thought it to be a good, neutral article that for the most part captured the essence of the Think Tank session. However, the first thing that made me raise an eyebrow was the quote;

"But what I suspect was lost on many in the crowd -- again, those already sold on the idea of growing bigger bucks -- is that Alt's message had almost nothing to do with that. What Alt was talking about, bottom line, was the need to kill more does."

I didn't know anyone in that crowd that felt that way. Appearently the stereotype of the QDMer as only wanting monster bucks will not die with some.


----------



## just ducky

Letmgro said:


> I didn't know anyone in that crowd that felt that way. Appearently the stereotype of the QDMer as only wanting monster bucks will not die with some.


That's because there are many statements made on forums like this that support this thinking. When I first started checking in on this page a year and a half or so ago, it was for one reason......to try to understand what "QDM" was all about, because at that time there was an AR proposal for 4 pts on a side for the county where I do most of my deer hunting. Since this was touted by supporters as a "QDM" proposal, I thought I'd better get my facts straight because I was, and still am, very opposed to AR's.....at least blanket AR's like this proposal. I admit that I was misinformed then and thought QDM was simply about "big racks". I now know better, thanks to a core of you on this site who have had the patience with me to help me understand the whole concept. However, many who posted then here, and some who still do, as well as many who spoke in support at the meetings on the proposal for that county, are simply talking big racks. I could get into some of that discussion, but suffice to say that arguing the reason for AR's in that county was to get to a healthier ratio carried no weight.....we have a respectable ratio in most areas of the county already. It was a facade for some who simply wanted AR's, and it was defeated. Not saying these types were in attendance at Grand Rapids, but many so-called supporters of QDM are of this belief. As I've said at least once before, your job on the pro-QDM side is 99% education, and as much for your own supporters as for those on the fence such as myself. Having people on your team who don't understand the whole concept only hurts your effort. Keep educating....you will change the thinking of some who are open minded such as myself. I think your mission is finally getting through my thick skull  Thanks to many of you, I'm now leaning hard towards supporting the TRUE mission of QDM in those areas where the health of the herd has been scientifically shown to need it......not simply because of the emotions of a minority of hunters.


----------



## BSK

just ducky,

Of course there are those who support certain aspects of QDM because they think it will mean bigger racks for the wall. But then what hunters aren't interested in see or killing a big buck? I know a few who say they don't care, but I don't believe them for a second. Watch them stumble into a great buck and they will be showing it off to all their friends.

I think we're just going to have to get past this worry over who wants to see bigger bucks. Everybody would be proud as punch to kill a huge buck. Doesn't matter what type of management you support or oppose. Human's have valued large antlers and horns since we were living in caves. We haven't changed much since then.


----------



## Happy Hunter

"I think we're just going to have to get past this worry over who wants to see bigger bucks. Everybody would be proud as punch to kill a huge buck."

As long as QDM supporters continue to deny that the main goal of QDM is to produce bigger buck,we will not get over that issue. Nobody would support QDM if it didn't produce more big bucks and those that support antler restrictions support it because it will produce more big buck. The honest hunters are those that say they are happy with any buck, but if they lucky enough to have a choice they will take the bigger buck.

You are right that every hunter wants to harvest a big buck , but many hunters realize that they don't have the time or want to expend the effort required to consistently harvest a big buck and are happy with any buck. That is why there will always be a conflict between the rack hunters and the average Joe who is satisfied with any legal buck.


----------



## Pinefarm

Bob G. may have gotten that perception from me! LOL I want the overall good of the herd too with lower herd and doe numbers, but Bob G. knows that I'm desperate to improve the chronic small rack issue in my area. We discuss it often. And not just my camp, I mean traditional areas that have lots of public land and small private camps and have the old school deer camp traditions like the Baldwin, Lake County, White Cloud, northern Newaygo area. He may have thought my reasons for going there were universal. I have no shame in admitting that I'm interested in seeing a 20-30 B&C score increase on a lot more of the bucks in my area. And I'd like to tack on one extra year for about 40% of our bucks. As I've mentioned before, I have no illusions about making this area like the "classic" midwest area's with jet black soil and miles of corn. But I'd love to see a great improvement in 120 class bucks and just a few 130 class bucks. Having 20% of our bucks being 110-120 class and 3% being 130 and the herd reduced and balanced to a reasonable number for deer and hunters alike is my dream and goal.


----------



## BSK

Sounds like a realistic goal [email protected]

After 7 years of hunting my property and the hunters having killed a truckload of spikes and forkhorns, but ony 1 buck over 100 gross, we wanted to see something different.

Now?
























We are pleased. We also kill 2 to 3 times as many deer each year as we used to, due to our intense doe harvests. We kill 2-3 times as many deer, see and kill larger bucks, the entire herd is much healthier (body weights way up), and the amount of sign (rubs and scrapes) is out-of-this-world. What's not to like?


----------



## just ducky

[email protected] and BSK-
I didn't mean that there is anything wrong in wanting a big buck....heck we all would love it. What I meant was that some are convinced that QDM is THE answer for growing big bucks, and that's the main reason they belong to the movement. Nothing shameful about going after the big boys.


----------



## BSK

just ducky,

I think there are two reasons for that. One is our fault--those of us initially pushing QDM in its early years. We tried "selling" the idea of QDM by explaining to hunters how it would produce bigger bucks. We felt that was an easy selling point. However, I believe we over-sold that concept. We under-estimated the intelligence of the "new breed" of highly educated hunters we have out there now.

Secondly, big bucks are often used as a measuring stick that can be understood by the average hunter. If you measured the success of a QDM program by telling hunters how much your 4 1/2 year-old does have increased in body weight, or what your fawn recruitment rate is, you get some shrugs and dead-stares. That just isn't a "common enough" reference point. But every hunter understands buck antler scores. It is a common reference point. And a healthy herd will produce large bucks _for the area_. Not necessarily B&C bucks, but larger than what is common for that particular location. Hence, the size of bucks harvested becomes a common "measuring stick" of success, like my last post. Our goal wasn't to produce "monster" bucks, just better bucks. We've just been lucky to produce a couple of wall-hangers, and we use those bucks as proof we are doing something right.


----------



## Adam Waszak

C'mon folks, BIG BUCKS is behind most of this and I don't care what ya'll say :lol: I don't know why that is a bad thing either is some peoples minds? You watch the outdoor channel and see the ranches they hunt which are all managed intensely and see the bucks they harvest, That is what people want (minus the high fences) people want to take trophy caliber bucks year in and year out if it is possible. You have to manage the"herd" not just the bucks but I don't see anything wrong with touting big bucks as one of the rewards of an intensely managed deer herd. JMO  

AW


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Anyone who's been a part of QDM for any length of time knows that QDM is not just about big bucks, in fact the emphasis is on a foundation of 3 proven principles of biological balance with one of by-products of those principles being that of older bucks.

But, Bob G. grossly underestimated the vast majority of QDM advocate's knowledge of what QDM actually is. At best it was a testimony as to his own lack of experience and involvement with those that actually make up the MI QDMA(or national for that matter) and the level of involvement, enthusiasm, and knowledge that the vast majority of those members demonstrate. I thought it was a pretty "enlightened" opinion from someone who hadn't taken the time or effort himself to accurately assess QDM, or QDMA membership as a whole. Almost as if a light bulb finally went off in his head, and he needed to be one of the first enlightened ones out there to share it with the rest of us.

I look at it a little differently.....welcome Bob G. to what QDM actually is and the rest of us already believe, practice, and have known for a mighty long time.


----------



## just ducky

Adam Waszak said:


> C'mon folks, BIG BUCKS is behind most of this and I don't care what ya'll say :lol: I don't know why that is a bad thing either is some peoples minds? You watch the outdoor channel and see the ranches they hunt which are all managed intensely and see the bucks they harvest, That is what people want (minus the high fences) people want to take trophy caliber bucks year in and year out if it is possible. You have to manage the"herd" not just the bucks but I don't see anything wrong with touting big bucks as one of the rewards of an intensely managed deer herd. JMO
> 
> AW


No offense Adam, but [email protected] and BSK.....here we go. You've probably seen my numerous posts about "Saturday morning outdoor shows" and the fantasy world that many hunters now live in because of it. Here's my point in action.......I've been down the slippery slope of this discussion before, so I'm not going there. I think I'm smarter now.


----------



## Happy Hunter

"But as guys walked out of the meeting wondering whether they could get the same thing going here as in Pennsylvania, they probably didn't consider that Michigan is already light years -- or at least a decade or two -- ahead of where Pennsylvania was when Alt started his program. "

While that statement is true in some respects , Clute is wrong about our anterless harvest. Way back in 1990 we harvested 245K anterless with just a 3 day rifle season conducted after the buck season and in 1995 we harvested 248K. Our anterless harvests kept the herd stable from 1989 until 1997 at 1.1 M deer.. Since then, under Alt's leadership the herd has increased to an all time record level of 1.6 M preseason deer.

However, Clute is right in that Mich. has much more control over the harvest since MI has over 118 DMU's while PA reduced their WMU's from 67 to 22. MI. also does a much better job of estimating the carrying capacity of the habitat and establishes goals that are much higher than in PA. Alt wants to reduce our preseason herd from 1.6M to 862K ,while Mich. goal is 1.3 M deer.

So Mi. hunters, consider yourself lucky that Clute is managing your herd instead of Alt.


----------



## Pinefarm

Just Ducky, no offense at all. I've been hoping for a few nicer bucks on our property since before cable TV even existed! LOL :lol: 
It was me going and hunting in different states and experiencing far different hunter attitudes, first hand, that has changed my point of view. Hey, I've said it before, our camp used to be in the "brown it's down-shoot the first buck or someone else will" camp for years. From the 1950's to mid 1980's we did some things at our camp that I'm too embarrassed to even mention here. But we grew up. And I bet many here have many of the same confessions. Even as little as 8 years ago, if you'd have mentioned any of this QDM/pass on small bucks stuff to me, I'd have told you to stick it and you don't understand what it's like in my area. From what I've seen, there's more and more guys warming up to all of this talk every year. In another 5 years, I bet another 20% of hunters are doing what is discussed here. Shoot doe's, pass some bucks, lower populations, correct the ratio's, habitat, habitat, habitat. Time and the trend is on our side.


----------



## Bob S

NorthJeff said:


> I look at it a little differently.....welcome Bob G. to what QDM actually is and the rest of us already believe, practice, and have known for a mighty long time.


Excellent observation. I think it`s Bob G. that doesn`t understand what us die hard QDM advocates have been saying for some time. It it guys like him who have thought QDM=big bucks. Maybe "he" is finally getting it.


----------



## Adam Waszak

Ducky...ducky...ducky! I think you read me wrong Iam not getting into a debate here or trying to say that QDM equals big bucks and big bucks only......I am merely saying that I think it is ok to admit part of the reason to do this is to get more older large racked bucks. That is all I would not be ashamed to say that if i was managing property especiallya large tract of land. I know what you are saying "QDM is not only about big bucks" and that I understand but cmon there is nothing wrong with getting big bucks in the end and I do think anyone who actually says they are not interested in that aspect of it is full of it  If this wasn't the case, then what is the point in AR and passing small ones? Hey I am all for getting big bucks and QDM is one way to get there.

AW


----------



## rzdrmh

heck, i'm impressed that bob could manage to toss in a reference to a sinclair lewis novel that has nothing to do with hunting, in a qdm discussion.. i mean, when was elmer gantry written, 1920's, maybe 30's? ;-)

the idea of shooting more doe is slowly catching on.. to paraphrase a quote that someone posted a while ago:

scientic evidence and trends aren't necessarily accepted by the vast majority of people who simply change their minds.. more so, the old ideas die off, and are replaced with the new..


----------



## just ducky

Adam Waszak said:


> If this wasn't the case, then what is the point in AR and passing small ones? AW


Adam,
As I have been so repetitively taught on this site in the last few months, THE POINT of all of that is to achieve a healthy herd...i.e. ratio of bucks to does and ratio of age groups. AR's, passing on small bucks, shooting more does.....they all are part of the equation to get to that end. But just because you implement AR's, it doesn't mean you're doing it to achieve bigger racks....although obviously that would be a likely result. It's about the health of the herd....GEEEZ, is it me saying this???? :yikes: Gosh guys, look what you've done to me!  Now I'm sounding like you :SHOCKED: 

I think we're on the same page Adam. I know what you mean. Just a sensitive issue for me with what was proposed up in my hunting ground a couple of years ago, and a small group of guys who tried to make Montcalm County resemble a million acre ranch in Texas. :evil:


----------



## Adam Waszak

I got you Ducky but now I have to go home through Dewitt I will look for some of your bucks ok  

AW


----------



## Bob S

Adam Waszak said:


> what is the point in AR and passing small ones?


Nature did not intend for 1 1/2 year old, adolescent bucks to be breeding. They should be adding weight, and building skeletal growth not participating in the rut.

John Ozoga`s research shows that when there are mature bucks to control the breeding, then the best bucks breed. But when there are not enough mature bucks, and the 1 1/2 year olds participate in the breeding, then all bucks will breed, not just the best bucks. That is why there should be bucks in every age class. That is from John Ozoga`s research. That is what QDM strives for.


----------



## Happy Hunter

"Nature did not intend for 1 1/2 year old, adolescent bucks to be breeding. They should be adding weight, and building skeletal growth not participating in the rut."

If nature didn't intend to have 1.5 buck breeding ,then Mother Nature wouldn't have given them the ability to impregnate does. BB don't breed their first year but female fawns that reach 80 lbs do have their first estrus as fawns. That is what nature intended. You are simply imposing human stanards on the deer ,while nature says that 1.5 bucks should be available to breed any doe that is not serviced by an older superior buck.

We solve the problem of weight loss in 1.5 buck by harvesting them after the rut.


----------



## Letmgro

"It's about the health of the herd....GEEEZ, is it me saying this???? Gosh guys, look what you've done to me! Now I'm sounding like you "

 

Welcome JD, we've been waiting for you.... :lol:


----------



## just ducky

Adam,
Stop by any night and watch the show with me. The bucks don't show until about 7:30, but from then until dark is quite entertaining. Unfortunately on Monday I found one of the "piglets" (fawns) schmucked on the road in front of our place.  I've seen tons of fawns this year, so I knew it was only a matter of time.


----------



## BSK

Bob s wrote:
*Nature did not intend for 1 1/2 year old, adolescent bucks to be breeding. They should be adding weight, and building skeletal growth not participating in the rut.*

Once you get the sex ratio and buck age structure more in line, the first thing you will notice is yearling bucks not participating in the rut. In fact, on a well managed property, the easiest way to identify a yearling buck from an older buck during the rut is, is it acting "rutty" or is it just ambling along feeding? Yearling bucks will show few signs of "ruttiness" even during the peak of the rut. They will most often be seen feeding, just like a doe.


----------



## Adam Waszak

I think in order to keep the 1 1/2 year olds from breeding you need to pass the older mature bucks and let them breed and walk and in the mean time kill all of the 1 1/2 year old you can. So I will try to do my part and kill every spike I can so the big boys will breed and the small inferior bucks will be eliminate from the gene pool  Ok Ok Ok stop with the replies I am joking! So the whole idea is to eliminate the excess does so the mature bucks can concentrate on the smaller groups of doe's and breed them all as oposed to the mature bucks following 20 doe's while another 20 doe's are being bred by the 1 1/2 old bucks because the mature bucks cannot keep them out of the equation? Do I have it here folks or what? Probably need to have the deer season start after the rut is over then huh? Just joking again guys you are so serious :lol: 

AW


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

I had a real nice 5-point yearling under me in 2000. He was a big and dark for his age and really worked over some nearby trees. He originally came into a grunt call and stuck around for about an hour. I would grunt, he would look around and then rub a tree. The hair on his back would stand right up on end but after a while he just ingored the grunts and milled around. He was very aggressive for the first 10-15 minutes and then settled down when he couldn't find the other buck, while sometimes only a foot or two away from the tree I was perched in. Eventually he wandered off but was in bow range the entire time.

I told John Ozoga about it and he said that although it was a neat display and probably exciting to watch, he confirmed my thoughts when he said he was showing this display because he probably truly was the "demoninant" buck in the area, or at least was acting like it because there was little to no competition for him. Bottom line...bad age structure.

I saved that stand until 11/3 the next year, perfect wind, perfect time of year, morning, and went in there, rattled a day break, and shot a nice 8-point.....dark coat, black face, same type of rack, just a year older. Very likely the same buck.

If there had been older bucks around though, he certainly wouldn't have acted the way he did as a yearling because he would have been worried more about getting an antler in his rear-end.


----------



## BSK

NorthJeff,

If you grunt at a yearling buck on my place, he will tuck tail and run!


----------



## Ferg

Adam Waszak said:


> So the whole idea is to eliminate the excess does so the mature bucks can concentrate on the smaller groups of doe's and breed them all as oposed to the mature bucks following 20 doe's while another 20 doe's are being bred by the 1 1/2 old bucks because the mature bucks cannot keep them out of the equation? AW



Yup - you got it !

ferg....


----------



## Adam Waszak

Might be a little slowwww ferg but I will get it eventually :lol: I have always been a doe killer but have always been torn apart by everyone for doing it. Seems like I would hide from telling people that I had 2 doe's hanging in my garage after coming home from gun camp or something I have been ridiculed for a good number of years. I guess i have been ahead of this whole QDM thing and never knew it :lol: Actually I just love venison (and I got a 6 year old daughter who will butterfly the backstrap with me and eat aboout 2 pounds of it in butter). Well I got the doe killing down pat, the tough part for me is to pass on bucks I think hell I don't see but a few every year. But see Ferg you guys are starting to rub off on me. Me and QDM??????? My friends would kick my a** if they knew I was even considering such a thing :lol: 

AW


----------



## Ferg

they will come around  - I have been hunting sense the late 60's and NEVER taken a buck - seen a few - just not the 'right one' - love having the venison in the freezer boy ! Just always seemed to me that there was a lot more doe than bucks - and, well, if I was lucky enough to have a doe permit (and I mean lucky back then) - that I should fill it - so I did - and do.

ferg....


----------



## BSK

Adam,

Hunters get upset when you have only 2 does hanging up? You need to hunt one of our projects. Your buddies would freak!










4 bucks and 50 does. One weekend.


----------



## beer and nuts

NorthJeff - does anyone else wonder why NJ shot that 2.5 year old 8 point when you just got done saying there wasn't any mature bucks around the previous year and all the 1.5 year olds were doing the breeding. Now what did you think you accomplished in helping the age structure of your herd when you took out the only mature buck(I'm assuming this because of what you said about the previous year)??? Thats makes no sense to me and yet YOU practice QDM, but on the other hand it ALL makes sense to me now. Practice what ya preach to others!


----------



## rzdrmh

bsk - that last buck on the right looks a little small, don't you think?? ;-)

just kidding.. must be because he's next to those other big boys..


----------



## BSK

rzdrmh,

He's small, but that picture was taken on the Coastal Plain of South Carolina. Buck "upper end" antler-wise is severely limited by living on nearly beach sand "soil." No nutrients. With the exception of the last on the right, those bucks are about as good as it gets for the area. Most top-out at 110-120 no matter how old they get.


----------



## BSK

Question:

When is peak breeding in the UP? And is there a different peak of breeding for the LP?

How do those dates corespond with your gun season?


----------



## beer and nuts

BSK - that sounds like the NE region of Michigan in the Jackpine Country, poor nutrients and sandy soil. Habitat ain't much to grow antlers and most of that land is State/Federal land.


----------



## beer and nuts

BSK, the peak for the UP would be around the last part of OCT and maybe the first week of NOV. The northern LP is similiar maybe the week in to NOV is peak, the Southern LP is first week to second week in Nov. Opening day of gun season is Nov. 15th for all of Michigan. and runs 15 days.


----------



## johnhunter

MIDNR research has concluded that peak BREEDING date for southern lower Michigan is within a day or two of either side of the firearms opener, which is November 15. Most visible rutting activity in this region is along the lines described by B&N, earlier in November.


----------



## BSK

If peak breeding occurs on or just before gun season opens. What is harvested in gun season shouldn't effect herd dynamics much. The older bucks in the herd will have already provided their important influence the previous two months (the critical period for dominance-driven processes).


----------



## Adam Waszak

HOLY [email protected]#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BSK can I come shoot 50 does in a weekend? PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE? I think those bucks are beautiful even the one on the right (never really saw a buck I didn't like though) That is nothing short of amazing how large was this property you hunted? We had about 5 does and 2 bucks hanging last year and I heard a lot from friends with 5 does being shot! Man I f i sowed them that picture they would go into cardiac arrest :yikes: The always tell me "your going to regret it shooting all the deer up off your property". And somehow I still see those damn doe's every year :lol: 

ps. how big was the BarBQ that year?

AW


----------



## rzdrmh

bsk - just kidding about that deer - with the knowledge you've demonstrated, i'd never doubt your management choices.

but those deer in the 110,120 range - great deer, and in southern and mid michigan, those type of deer should be easy enough to produce with minimal management. not that they'd be everywhere - you still have to hunt, but i don't think its an unreasonable goal to see a deer like that every now and again.


----------



## johnhunter

BSK, "peak" breeding in Michigan is, based on my observations, a pretty weak peak. A better way of putting it is a "median" breeding date range between, say, 11/14 and 11/17. With as poor a doe:buck ratio and buck age structure as we have in most areas, breeding is spread out over a pretty wide window. There are a lot of does bred well after the gun season opens. And I'm not talking about the roughly 50% of fawns that may cycle in around December or Janaury, I'm talking about adult does being bred in December, or even later.


----------



## Adam Waszak

Welll I agree with Farmlegend at least in the places I have hunted, there isn't that big peak whee bucks are running half crazy for a few days. You will see your bucks chasing but not in such a frenzy like you see on tv every night. Depends on the year too a few years back it was 74 degrees on the opener. Didn't see a lot of anything that deer camp till the last day or so when it colled down considerably.

AW


----------



## BSK

Actually, that pic didn't come from our biggest "harvest" project. We only shot 795 does off that property in 10 years (plus 235 bucks, all 3 1/2 or older).

On our big project we're still working on, we've taken 749 does in 6 years (about 125 does per year) and 134 bucks.

Of course those harvest numbers don't sound so big when you see how big the properties are. The first one is around 6,000 acres and the second is approaching 10,000 acres. But when you hear my boss say during a talk "We are serious about shooting does," he isn't kidding.

I run my own property the same way. Every doe seen is shot (when legal). We've been doing that for 10 straight years and we now have more does than when we started.


----------



## Letmgro

"Every doe seen is shot (when legal). We've been doing that for 10 straight years and we now have more does than when we started."

BSK- I know you're experiencing some serious fawn recruitment, but that can't be the only reason for all those does, could it?


----------



## BSK

*BSK- I know you're experiencing some serious fawn recruitment, but that can't be the only reason for all those does, could it?*

Letmgro,

The answer is, you can't kill what you can't see. Under extreme harvest pressure, does simply disappear. The very rapidly learn to stick to thick cover and not move during daylight. *IF* you have any good cover on your property, you can basically have at the _older_ (those 2 1/2 or older) deer population, both male and female. They are old enough to know how to avoid human predators. Young deer are pretty easy to over-shoot, but older deer--if they have somewhere to hide--are nearly impossible to overshoot.

The opposite of that is open farm country. With only fence-rows and scattered small woodlots, overshooting the deer herd is quite easy. They deer have nowhere to really hide.

That's why I tell small-property owners all the time, the most important aspect of small land management is cover. It is far more important than food. Deer will travel at night to find food, but if you want to hold deer on your property, make cover. That doesn't guarantee you will *see* more deer (in fact, you may see less), but you *WILL* hold more deer on your property if you create lots of small, scattered patches of cover.


----------



## Liver and Onions

In case anyone hasn't put BSK's numbers into perspective yet here they are:
On the 6,000 acre parcel they are killing about 1 doe per 75 acres and 1 buck per 250 acres per year.
On the 10,000 acre parcel they are killing about 1 doe per 80 acres and 1 buck per 450 acres per year.

L & O


----------



## BSK

That's exactly right L & O. Not that high of doe harvest when you calculate it out. The larger property was divided into two sections for experimental purposes. Half was managed with a 1 doe per 100 acre per year harvest density, while the other half was managed under a 1 doe per 50 acres per year harvest density. We wanted to compare the difference in herd health under the two harvest densities. Herd health has improved dramatically on both sections, but it improved quite a bit more (and faster) under the 1 doe per 50 acre harvest density.


----------



## Luv2hunteup

BSK

The peak of the breeding season in the eastern UP would be some where around the 6th to 10th of November which puts it about 1 week before our firearms season. There is some chasing still going on, but not very much by the time rifle season opens.

I'm glad to see doe shooters coming out of the closet, so to say. You give me the confidence that shooting around 10 mature does off my quarter section won't be too bad. Like most, I'm view a major doe harvest with reservations.

Since I'll be limited on tags which age class should I concentrate on? The most agressive doe off each plot? Does with buck fawns in tow? Or should I attempt to balance kill through the age classes, say 2 from each estimated age class? Any ideas? 

I could PM you a Terraserver link so you can see the type of topograpphy I'm dealing with. It's a very unique situation for the UP. We only have 3000 doe tags for my DMU. I can only buy one a day till they run out. They typically sell out in the first two weeks. I want to be able to pick and choose which ones live and which ones make it to mine and my neighbors freezers.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Info on doe harvest strategies is hard to come by. It's even harder to come by in an area that is supposed to only have 15 deer/sq mile. 

Luv2hunteup


----------



## just ducky

My experience on the timing issue, only from observations in the field, is that it begins here in my neck of the woods (south central lower Mich) around Halloween each fall. Halloween eve, and the days directly following, are historically when we start seeing the bucks running around like dogs in heat. That's when the bowhunting really heats up. My observations also that by Nov. 15 and the gun opener, they aren't acting crazy anymore. Again, non-scientific evidence, but actual observations that track the same year to year (I keep a diary of hunting activity, which supports these dates).


----------



## johnhunter

The deer may be acting craziest around November 1, but don't confuse that with breeding. At peak breeding time, buck sightings are much less frequent.

Peak breeding dates are pretty easy to measure, by sampling fetuses in a given area.


----------



## Benelli

Interesting discussion re: timing of the Rut in MI, perhaps worthy of a new thread.

Last year I got some photos on a trail cam of a few Dandy bucks with necks swollen and red eyed around 10/25 & 10/31.

One of the neighboring property owners that showed up to hunt rifle season on 11/14 commented to one of my brothers upon leaving camp after a few days that they didnt think a rut had occurred??? No bucks seen?

Granted, mast crop in the area was pitiful / failure last year, so traditional hunting spots on oak ridges, etc. werent even worth the effort. A few in our camp found a few nice bucks hunting in or near the thick stuff. A big 170# 8 pt was definitely following doe on 11/16, a slightly smaller 3.5 8 pt was not on 11/20. Not much activity around Thanksgiving weekend either, typically see a bunch of small scrapes occurring around that time.

Now since our property is at the edge of 452 (TB Zone) where liberal doe harvest has occurred over the last 10 years, I think we are finally starting to see evidence of a more balanced deer herd, i.e. earlier, shorter and more condensed rut.

Maybe Im wrong, but Im looking forward toward future observations.


----------



## campblujay

Benelli said:


> Column
> 
> 
> Column:
> Sunday, July 11, 2004
> There's no doubt that Gary Alt, who rewrote the rules of deer hunting in Pennsylvania, was the superstar of the recent Quality Deer Management Association convention in Grand Rapids.
> Alt pushed through controversial statewide antler restrictions in Pennsylvania. In some places, bucks must have at least three points on one side of their headgear to be legal. In other areas, the minimum is four.
> All fork-horned (or less) bucks are protected. Period.
> Sleeves rolled up, voice booming, Alt delivered a presentation at the convention's "Think Tank" session on antler restrictions that might as well have been the key-note address.
> Alt, a cross between Elmer Gantry and Knute Rockne, drew hallelujahs from the already-saved -- the vast majority of the crowd, as you might guess -- and made even skeptics think his idea was worth a good ol' college try.
> But what I suspect was lost on many in the crowd -- again, those already sold on the idea of growing bigger bucks -- is that Alt's message had almost nothing to do with that. What Alt was talking about, bottom line, was the need to kill more does.
> "The real issue is balancing the herd with the habitat," Alt stated. "In our state we had cultural problems -- we undershoot the does and shoot the bucks into oblivion."
> Alt didn't mention growing better bucks -- or even, for that matter, balancing the sex ratio in the herd, which is a regular topic of conversation in these parts. He talked about getting the herd under control.
> That, of course, is one of the keys to QDM anyway. But as guys walked out of the meeting wondering whether they could get the same thing going here as in Pennsylvania, they probably didn't consider that Michigan is already light years -- or at least a decade or two -- ahead of where Pennsylvania was when Alt started his program.
> Before Alt started his program, Pennsylvania had a two-week buck season and a three-day doe season. In Michigan, we've not only made it legal to take antlerless deer (with a permit) during any hunting season, we've also added preseason and postseason antlerless-only firearms hunts in areas of particular need.
> Twice in recent years, Michigan hunters have killed more antlerless deer than antlered animals. For the last couple of years, more than half the state's hunters have purchased antlerless tags. Michigan hunters are slowly absorbing that much of the equation.
> News out of Pennsylvania, as filtered through the QDM crowd, is all good. But visit some of the chat rooms and you'll find as many Quaker State hunters who are unhappy with the deer regs as those who are pleased.
> Rod Clute, Michigan's Department of Natural Resources deer specialist who participated in the session, said he didn't think Pennsylvania-styled regulations would have the same effect here because of the difference in attitude.
> "We're already taking 250,000 antlerless deer (a year)," Clute said. "Sure, we could bump it up to 300,000. But (Pennsylvania) went from 100,000 to 300,000."
> In his speech, Alt acknowledged that the problem was more severe in his state.
> "I don't think antler restrictions in Pennsylvania, as we have them, is the best thing we could do," Alt said. "But it was the only thing we could do."
> In Michigan, we're seeing the herd come (slowly) under control. The deer population is down by about a half million from peak.
> We're not over the hump by any means. Except in the Lake Superior watershed and some areas of the northern Lower Peninsula where there is a lot of public land, there are still too many deer. And Clute, who says he wishes Pennsylvania well in its experiment, still prefers "education to regulation."
> Opening day of (archery) deer season is less than three months away. And as all eyes are on Pennsylvania, it's worth thinking about whether we need to adopt a radical policy like Pennsylvania did, or whether we can get by expanding on what's already working -- albeit not well enough -- here.
> Contact Bob Gwizdz at (517) 487-8888 ext. 237 or e-mail him at [email protected].



Do QDM'ers ever discuss facts and not fiction? I am stunned that this thread has gotten so far and no one has pointed out the GLARING errors and downright misleading statements of the plan Dr. Alt is using and its comparisons to our future hunting. ????? Hello.....Mcfly....

Pennsylvania went from 100k doe killed???? What planet is this author from?

Penn stats:
1988 163,106 218,293 381,399 1,614 
1989 169,795 218,806 388,601 2,213 
1990 170,101 245,460 415,561 1,200 
1991 149,598 238,417 388,015 1,687 
1992 163,159 198,065 361,224 1,589 
1993 165,214 243,343 408,557 1,790 
1994 157,030 238,051 395,081 1,365 
1995 182,235 248,348 430,583 2,190 
1996 153,432 197,565 350,997 1,796 
1997 176,677 220,339 397,016 2,110 
1998 181,449 196,040 377,489 2,598 
1999 194,368 184,224 378,592 1,740 
2000 203,221 301,379 504,600 3,075 
2001 203,247 282,767 486,014 3,063 
2002 165,416 352,113 517,529 2,686 
2003 142,270 322,620 464,890 3,000 


YOU might notice that pa in 1993 harvested 243,000 doe to 165,000bucks and has been harvesting more antlerless than antlered for over a decade.
The origional author apparently fell and bumped his head to say they went from 100k to 300k due to Gary Alt. Gary took over thier program in 1998.!!

Yes, I can imagine gary talking about herd reductions as the primary tool for deer management. He has worked to get pa down to very low DD goals and the hunters are feeling the crunch. 

Our family camp had 7 hunters for the first week of concurrent season. We held the 7buck tags and 6 doe tags. Of 7 hunters, for 6 days, hunting all day we saw 2 does no buck. Of all the camps that line the road we are on, 13 camps, there was only one buck hung and it was not AR legal (military).

The author IMO is trying to be purposefully misleading as there could be no possible other explanation for his lack of research into what Dr. Alts plan entails. The numbers guys are right there on Pa DNRs website and yet he didn't check????????? 

Penna has for the last few years been on a kick to reduce its herd. No one know for sure but if you read the Game Commissions releases they have been saying that since 2001 we have bee knocking down the herd between 5 and 8% per year. But hunters in Pa are no happy, the lack of deer sightings, the drop in success rates for bucks and the general disgust at the lies told about 'more and bigger bucks' as a result of our efforts is distastefull. 

And it will be here if we decide to take the same route of lying to hunters too.
Distrust? You have never seen more than in Pa right now. They have set the stage for pa to have its 4th straight year of dropping buck harvests while increasing doe harvests. 203k down to 165k down to 142k and projected to drop to 130k for this season. 

YOU want that in Michigan? They have seen no appreciable change in the size of deer in pa after 5 years of Dr. Alts plan and deer team. 

Sound good to you guys for Michigan? You know why Clute is not real thrilled to boost our doe harvest up to 300,000 like pa exceeds today??? Because the same thing pa's lousy hunting brought to town will be brought here. 

When you start going after you does, you will see a drop in deer numbers and with the smaller overall herd come less bucks. Not more. 

Thier herd was at 1.3 million, for three years Gary Alt said in the PGC website that we were reducing the herd size. Then in 2003 when asked where we stand he said we had 1.6 million deer. I know what your thinking....improved breeding. WROOOOOONG. Marrett Grund the biologist just started counting SRA deer that had never been counted before in pa and added them into the computer model. !!!! (btw Marrett has since left town and is now working in Wis.)

The actual herd size is unknown because they have altered the computer model used for years to 'disguise' the fact that the herd is shrinking and hunters are definitely seeing less deer and taking less bucks. And the bucks left are not any bigger. Might be older, but ain't measurably bigger. 

Many articles on QDM are great. Many are factual as possible and a pleasure to read. I support voluntary QDM after living the hades of Pennsylvania.

But THIS article is garbage. It twists the story into spin and downright lies about pa's plan. 

Pushing our doe harvest to 300,000 for TEN years would mean one thing....a smaller herd with hunters seeing less and taking less. Clute knows that and is not anxious to repeat the bonehead errors of PA. 

Pa's herd reductions, mandatory AR, are not producing what the biologists said they would produce. Dr. Alt has been in charge for 5 years and it isn't working in pa....... and hunters aren't buying it..... and it won't work any better here.


----------



## Bob S

campblujay said:


> They have set the stage for pa to have its 4th straight year of dropping buck harvests while increasing doe harvests.
> 
> YOU want that in Michigan?


 YES, I do want that in Michigan. I would like to see Michigan actually get serious about reducing doe numbers.


----------



## rzdrmh

camp - 

it is every hunters responsibility to manage their area in the confines of the laws and regulations. alt isn't pulling the trigger on all those doe, is he? if your not seeing enough deer, quit shooting does.


----------



## BSK

Luv2hunteup,

Our most common answer to the question of which does to shoot is, "the one that presents the easiest shot." In the South we really push shooting does with male fawns in tow, but I really haven't seen any good research on yearling buck dispersal patterns in the North, so I can't say if they would have the same effect (reducing yearling buck dispersal) in your area.

Another common answer is "the biggest doe" simply to reduce the possibility of accidentally taking button bucks when trying to harvest does.


----------



## BSK

just ducky,

Observations can be used to find the peak of breeding, but you want to watch for bucks chasing _estrus_ does, not just chasing does. Bucks will chase and pester does for weeks before peak breeding, but only that ritualistic estrus "dance" is an indicator breeding is ongoing. And by estrus dance, I'm referring to a buck slowly following behind a doe, usually head down and grunting, with the doe staying just ahead of the buck, regularly stopping and looking back to make sure the buck is right behind her. This is very different than the flat-out, belly-to-the-ground chases that occur in the preceding weeks.

Another good visual indicator is the scrapes suddenly going dead. If the rut is tightly timed, bucks will not work scrapes when breeding is actually occurring. All of those super-hot scrapes suddenly go dead overnight, only to be re-opened in a week or so, after the peak of breeding.

Unfortunately, to get some real fetal conception data requires harvesting does 40+ days after conception. Do you still have doe seasons open in mid to late December?


----------



## johnhunter

campblujay said:


> 4th straight year of dropping buck harvests while increasing doe harvests.
> 
> YOU want that in Michigan?
> 
> You know why Clute is not real thrilled to boost our doe harvest up to 300,000 like pa exceeds today???



Yup, I want that here more than you can imagine. I'd love to see a smaller buck harvest and a larger doe harvest. Given our harvest data from recent seasons, we continue to overharvest bucks and underharvest does here.

I think you've wildly misinterpreted Clute's perspective on doe harvest numbers. First of all, he referred to Michigan's ANTLERLESS harvest of 250,000 animals, not a DOE harvest. Since 22% of our antlerless harvest is comprised of buck fawns, we're roughly taking only 195,000 does in Michigan. We'd have to increase our doe harvest by 54% to get to 300,000. And, if we're ever going to get to a pre-harvest herd of 1.3 million animals, we'll probably need to start taking 300,000 does in a season. If you were to ask Mr. Clute, he would concur that we should be harvesting substantially more does in Michigan than we have been in recent years. I have no doubt that every panelist at the Think Tank discussion, if familiar with Michigan data, would concur.


----------



## Adam Waszak

So Farmlegend, are you thinking of one buck per hunter with AR on that tag. Or are you talking even lower than that as far as buck harvest goes? The dnr has a good number of tags out there for this year what do they hope to kill this year do you know(doe's)? Thanks

AW


----------



## johnhunter

I really don't have strong feelings on whatever method might be employed(apr's, earn-a-buck, limiting buck tags, or, or something more creative, like the "Ray Lyon" rule(please don't ask for an explanation of that one)), so long as the result is a smaller buck harvest and a larger doe harvest.

My understanding is that a similar antlerless harvest (remember, we don't track doe harvests in this state) to last year is anticipated.


----------



## Adam Waszak

Well that is part of our problem all togather, the DNR doesn't really track anything. Counting deer over the Mac bridge doesn't sound really scientificly proven to me. We need to count bucks and doe's in the harvest numbers and come up with a way to do so. No solution is perfect but how do we expect to get an accurate estimate of population if we don't know how many we kill. To know where you are going you first have to figure out where it is that you are starting. I would like to at least see an online reporting option like we have for turkeys. At least those who care to do so could and the cost would be relatively low and we could gain a lot of information this way from a vast number of counties.

AW


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Luv2,

Shoot your mature does. Anywhere there are excessive doe numbers, it will reduce doe numbers the fastest by shooting mature does. For me personally, I'd shoot the mature does with fawn bucks, but not if I couldn't reach my targeted harvest numbers by being too picky. Also, I'd shoot those does early in the season as they are probably your best representation of your actual local population.

On the other hand, per John Ozoga and my own personal observations of fluctuating population levels, my mature does need to be protected, not shot. In fact, according to John, my mature does may NEVER need to be shot, or at the very least rarely shot, so that that a sustainable population can be maintained.

At the same time, my game pics for the past couple of years especially, clearly portray the yearling buck dispersal phenomenon and mirror John's observations. Not all, but many of the yearling bucks I get photos of in the summer, are never filmed or seen during the hunting season. But, on the other hand, there are many yearling bucks that are seen during the hunting season that were never seen or filmed during the summer. I would guess that in warmer climates the yearling buck dispersal may be much sooner, but around here the fawns are so dependant on the mother during the migration and winter survival, that until the testosterone kicks in during the fall as a yearling, they are tolerated by the mother.

You've said you deer numbers triple, or double, whatever during the hunting season. Is that 1-2 month peak where you should set your harvest objectives from, or should you set your targeted harvest number from a representation of your actual local population? Do you see any habitat degredation caused either by your summer population, or the influx of the fall spike in population?


----------



## BSK

I couldn't agree more Adam. We have manditory check-in here in my state, which allows for some excellent data collection. Every deer must be checked in and a paper record of that harvested deer is recorded by the state. The harvest data is even listed down to sections of counties. This provides excellent year to year harvest data to analyze.

In addition, the wildlife agency sends out all their employees to different check stations around the state during the opening weekend of gun season. Every deer checked in those stations on that weekend is aged, weighed, and antler measurements are taken from bucks. This detailed sample data is then available to the public in a 250 page report, all data listed by county. Absolutely invaluable data for tracking herd health.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Same as WI.

Very painless, and most of the check-in stations from what I've seen are bars, party stores/gas stations. Takes less than 5 minutes unless you want to stand around and talk, eat, drink, buy snacks, use the restroom, etc. Might conveniant and the folks from the WI DNR have always been very friendly, as well as the property owner that opens his or her facility up to be a check station. We pass several on the way home, with the closest being 1 mile away.


----------



## Adam Waszak

BSK, how the hell do you get 50 plus deer to the check in station and what do they say when the flatbed rolls up????????? :yikes: 

AW


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

"NorthJeff - does anyone else wonder why NJ shot that 2.5 year old 8 point when you just got done saying there wasn't any mature bucks around the previous year and all the 1.5 year olds were doing the breeding. Now what did you think you accomplished in helping the age structure of your herd when you took out the only mature buck(I'm assuming this because of what you said about the previous year)??? Thats makes no sense to me and yet YOU practice QDM, but on the other hand it ALL makes sense to me now. Practice what ya preach to others!"

B&N,

You really need to take some time and read my posts and others, instead of forming an opinion that you havn't taken the time to research or made an attempt to be thourough on...would really save some time.  

Many anti-QDMers Assume that an older age class is 4.5-5.5-6.5 year old bucks....wrong! That's all fine and dandy, but just about anywhere QDM is preached 2.5-3.5 year old bucks are fine representations of the local population and are targeted harvest animals in ANY QDM plan. Any more is beginning to border on Trophy Management, or TDM...big difference! The whole idea of QDM is to establish effective harvest guidelines needed to produce herd balance, and stick to it. That does not mean don't shoot deer for 3 years and then go at it. It means establish effective harvest guidelines based on your region to produce balance and follow it. 

Are you honestly making the assumption that that buck was the only one in the area?!?  Later that year during gun season on the surrounding public land I passed on a 2.5 year old 8-point...just didn't excite me and I already had a buck for the year. In most any heavily hunted area, pressured property, etc., a 2.5 year old is about as good as it gets, with an occasional crack at a 3.5 year old. That's about as good as I can expect in my area. But, on our lease in WI, a 2.5 year old is deffinately off limits in my book, but an honest 3.5 year old is a good possibility, so that's what my limit is. 4.5 year old...even better, but I won't and haven't turned down a 3.5 year old or better. 

Just depends upon where you are at, what the local buck age structure is, etc. I suggest you quit trying to come up with holes in what myself and some others are saying and listen more.

Anywhere you have seen me talk about buck restrictions it centers on at least an 80% protection rate and in my opinion that is what is needed to produce an adequate buck age structure. That's basically the same formula they have used in PA. For me personally though, I practice 100% protection of yearling bucks, regardless of points, so I'm taking it to a higher level than even what I preach. I also expect that same standard from anyone that hunts on my property. 

So, in a nutshell that 2.5 year old 8-point was actually a HIGHER standard than what I preach. Remember, as BSK pointed out QDM is a form of harvest balance, or harvest guidelines needed to produce balance. Balance in age structure, sex ratios, and habitat.

If you've read any of my posts, and my own property observations, you'd see that I have indeed drastically improved the age structure on my property, so I must be practicing what I preach! 

Nice try!


----------



## Guest

First, I apologize to those who have sent me a personal message with no reply from me. Not ignoring anyone, my system just dosen't function like it should. I have tried several times to answer you guys but no dice.

Bob G has come a long way in his understanding what QDM really is, so have many others as evident on the posts viewd here. BSK hits the nail on the head when he mentions the message given out by so called QDM'ers. Most QDMA members in less than two years pick up on what the message really is about QDM. Pure and simple the word is BALANCE. Unfortunately as BSK notes hunters don't care about balance as much as shooting a big buck, so balance talk dosen't get their attention but big bucks will. Bottom line balance equals big bucks. If they don't appear the management plan is not balanced.

Much talk about shooting does. How many should be taken and is the targeted 234,000 antlerless harvest by our DNR for this season a high or low number. As FL notes 22% of the total antlerless harvest are button bucks, so that means there should be only 182,520 does harvested this coming deer season. Is this number high or low?

Let's look at the real numbers and what they mean as projected by our MDNR. Our DNR estimates a present deer population of 1,850,000 total deer. The last buck to doe sex ratio suggested by our DNR is one buck per 2.4 does. This comes out to 1,305,882 does and 544,117 bucks. 

It is commonly understood among profesional deer managers that depending on local habitat conditions 30 to 40% of the does should be taken yearly to maintain a healthy habitat along with a healthy and consistent deer herd density. If we use an average of 35% harvest to calculate the proper number of does (adult and fawns) that should be harvested yearly this comes out to be 457,058 does that should be harvested not 182,520 as targeted by our MDNR. Figuring that around 20% of the doe harvest are doe fawns the total adult doe harvest should be around 365,646.

Farm legend you couldn't be more accurate when you suggested that we should take 300,000 does. You wern't right on but you were a lot closer than the MDNR goal of 182,520. Why aren't you a commissioner on the NRC? Why the low doe harvest target from our DNR? Could it be they really aren't interested in bringing that deer herd down to 1,300,000 as they so often state is their goal. Could this explain why they haven't made a dent in that direction for 25 years. FL, why didn't you run for the recent MDNR Executive Directiors position? 

The MDNR stated goal of a 182,520 total doe harvest (adult and fawns) this year is only 40% of what is needed for balance.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## johnhunter

Ed Spin04 said:


> Could it be they really aren't interested in bringing that deer herd down to 1,300,000 as they so often state is their goal. Could this explain why they haven't made a dent in that direction for 25 years.
> 
> The MDNR stated goal of a 182,520 total doe harvest (adult and fawns) this year is only 40% of what is needed for balance.


Seriously, I think the time has come to launch an investigation. The 1.3 million pre-harvest target was set a long time ago. There are steps that could be taken that would result in a greater doe harvest, but they have not happened, and that is because of a lack of leadership. Director Humphries has an opportunity to show what she's made of. If it's more of the same-old-same-old, and we're saddled with 1.8 million deer cruising around Michigan three years from now, we'll know where the problem lies.


----------



## Luv2hunteup

*Quote by NorthJeff*


> You've said you deer numbers triple, or double, whatever during the hunting season. Is that 1-2 month peak where you should set your harvest objectives from, or should you set your targeted harvest number from a representation of your actual local population? Do you see any habitat degredation caused either by your summer population, or the influx of the fall spike in population?


I'm fortunate in the fact that deer do not winter near my property. With zero deer browsing for 4 months per year helps more than you can imagine.

Mid spring I see the deer returning from the yards. They are eating everything green in site. I'm surrounded by hay fields so that takes some pressure off my land.

Once the cool fall weather starts the deer numbers seem to really jump. The deer seem to come out of the woodwork by mid to late September. By mid October I can hit just about any food plot during the daylight hours and see deer. If I travel around my land in stealth mode (drive my diesel tractor) the deer just move out of the way and continue to feed. I'll only do this during midday hours.

Early goose season seems to pressure the deer out of the surrounding hayfields and on to my land. They find little to no hunting pressure with plenty to eat and drink. Most of my bow blinds near the perimeter of my land. If the deer feel any pressure they just move father in towards my bigger plots.

I have noticed a slight browse line on the lower branches of aspen. What I do notice is the brassica and BFO getting hammered. They seem to lay off my clover at that time, which is great. I get some regrowth from the early August mowing and fertilization. By the time the cover goes dormant it's had time to regrow nicely. This is when the deer are keying on BFO and starting to hit the brassica.

If I don't give them a reason to leave so they just hang around moving from plot to bedding or plot to plot. It's a plan that's worked for me.


----------



## campblujay

Bob S said:


> YES, I do want that in Michigan. I would like to see Michigan actually get serious about reducing doe numbers.


Thats nice. Now we know what YOU want, but las time I checked the DNR doesn't run things by what one QDM'er wants. It is interested in what ALL hunters want..... thank god.


----------



## campblujay

rzdrmh said:


> camp -
> 
> it is every hunters responsibility to manage their area in the confines of the laws and regulations. alt isn't pulling the trigger on all those doe, is he? if your not seeing enough deer, quit shooting does.


How long have you been out in the sun? 

No, it is not the responsibility of every hunter to manage thier area within the confines of the laws. I had no idea you were this far behind in your education on state Dept of Natural Resources. 

If individual hunters will just regulate them selves there would be no need for DNR's, Game Commissions etc... the legislature would just make a law and as individuals we would just police ourselves??!!?? Wheeeew... thats a bit pie-in-the-sky ain't it?

No it is very much up to each state agency who manages wildlife to set bag limits, seasons and enforce regs and rules for EVERYONE. They do not just 'hope we all do what is right'.  


Dr. Alt has created huge bloated DMU's into which he has thrown buckets full of doe tags. Public and private all the same and high densities are treated the same as low densities. 

I may not pull the trigger on one doe, but the 16 guys from New Jersey who are there might. So might my 8 cousins, six neighbors, and the 11 camps on the road... So conscientous Pete goes home with no venison and everyone else does. 

No, your irrational system does not work real well in the real world.

I will give you credit for "best use of a sound bite" in the QDM forum today.
"Dr. Alt didn't pull the......" Puhlllleeaase.


----------



## campblujay

farmlegend said:


> Yup, I want that here more than you can imagine. I'd love to see a smaller buck harvest and a larger doe harvest. Given our harvest data from recent seasons, we continue to overharvest bucks and underharvest does here.
> 
> I think you've wildly misinterpreted Clute's perspective on doe harvest numbers. First of all, he referred to Michigan's ANTLERLESS harvest of 250,000 animals, not a DOE harvest. Since 22% of our antlerless harvest is comprised of buck fawns, we're roughly taking only 195,000 does in Michigan. We'd have to increase our doe harvest by 54% to get to 300,000. And, if we're ever going to get to a pre-harvest herd of 1.3 million animals, we'll probably need to start taking 300,000 does in a season. If you were to ask Mr. Clute, he would concur that we should be harvesting substantially more does in Michigan than we have been in recent years. I have no doubt that every panelist at the Think Tank discussion, if familiar with Michigan data, would concur.


No.... actually I very accurately pointed out Dr. CLutes words from the article. 

"Rod Clute, Michigan's Department of Natural Resources deer specialist who participated in the session, said he didn't think Pennsylvania-styled regulations would have the same effect here because of the difference in attitude. 
"We're already taking 250,000 antlerless deer (a year)," Clute said. "Sure, we could bump it up to 300,000. But (Pennsylvania) went from 100,000 to 300,000." 

So Farmlegend, before you accuse me of 'wildly' doing anything you may want to review the origional post and mine. You obviously are mistaken.

Dr. Clute was quoted as saying "But (Pennsylvania) went from 100,000 to 300,000." <=== and I accurately pointed out that is FALSE. And neither you nor the author of the article did any checking to see if it was true or not. 

Thus, my comments 'do qdm'ers ever deal in facts? or just fiction? that question still stands btw.... it seems qdm'ers are the worst at checking facts. As evidenced by this and many other msgboards. If it sounds good, run with it should be the Michigan QDM'ers motto....

I compared Pa's numbers which are AL, not doe harvest to what Dr. Clute said. Apples to apples. And Pa. has been taking not only more does than bucks (accounting for 22% of the AL harvest being BB) and as a result they are having abysmal hunting. My extended family in Pa can attest to that. As well as the Pa hunters the author of the article alluded to clogging Pa's mesgboards with very unsupportive posts for herd reductions. 

i don't doubt for a minute that Dr. Clute and Dr alt are in favor of whacing as many does as they can. Who cares if the buck harvest plummets by 30%, you can always repeat the mantra that QDM is making herd health 'better' and saving cedar trees etc... but who speaks for the 81000 guys who go home without bucks ? Is taking a doe as great as taking a buck? Well if it is qdm couldn't be struggling here as it is. 

Voluntary versus mandatory is very much part of the discussion between the approach of Clute and Alt. As I remember Ozoga is NOT in favor of statewide AR, and I think he only has to look as far as Pa and Arkansas to see why. 

Constantly dropping buck harvests are not winning friends and influenceing people in those two states, and if it comes to Michigan, it won't here either. 

Its easy to be flippant and recite the party line of QDM all they way, gungho support. But don't be so blinded by the rack waving that you forget about all the other hunters out there in the woods who are not wannabe rack hunters. Thats why I say volutary is one thing. State sponsored wannabe trophy hunters is another.... :sad: 

Clute does not want to jump his AL harvests or doe harvests by another fifty to a hundred thousand deer anymore than the hunters in Arkansas or pa, because it means a smaller herd with less hunter satisfaction. Sure there will be 1% of Michigan who loves less deer, but thank god we do not manage deer for the 1% we manage it for the whole mainstream group.


----------



## Swamp Ghost

It's been said before (as have others) and I have told Bob G. the same thing, QDM is about balance, plain and simple. The problem is how to get there. Maybe it took a while for it to sink in to Bob G. or maybe he really didn't believe it until he heard it from a different perspective. 

The thing that cracks me up is how the MDNR and many journalists choose to tell half the story concerning certain aspects of our harvest numbers in order to fit their particular agenda. 

Bottom line : KILL MORE DOES!


----------



## BSK

rzdrmh wrote:
*the best advice that i've ever heard with regards to doe harvest - its simple and makes sense - 
when in doubt, harvest more doe. the deer herd will rebound MUCH quicker than the habitat.

wouldn't you agree that's the truth, BSK? if you practice high doe harvest, and come to a point where you're not seeing enough deer to make your hunting (and your neighbors) enjoyable, then take a year or two off, and numbers will rebound quickly, right?*

I would whole-heartedly agree with the above. How many females to remove from the herd is a very tough question to answer. If you're afraid of harvesting too many females, then my best generic advice is to start small and work your way up. Something as simple as starting with harvesting at least as many females as you do males. Then slowly increase the female harvest, taking it a step farther each year. Keep harvesting more does each year until either 1) your biological goals are reached, or 2) the hunting experience declines to unacceptable levels. In the case of #2, back off the doe harvest for a year and then return to a moderate doe harvest--something a little less than what caused the unacceptable experience.

The hunters are the managers. And if the hunters aren't happy, they won't manage.

If you want to see quicker results, then my best advice is harvest females until it scares you. In essence, keep harvesting females until you really start to worry you've taken too many. THAT is usually what is required to see a significant change in herd dynamics.


----------



## Happy Hunter

Here is what ED Spinazzola had to say about harvesting doe in Mich.

"As in the 60% traditional, the 60% QDM program requires an adult doe and fawn harvest. The 1:1.1 buck-to-doe harvest ratio is necessary to maintain the balance. This ratio has been proven through many years of experience. Notice the 9.4 fawns that need to be harvested. Be observant and count the fawns in relation to does. Are 80% or more of the adult does with fawns? Do the doe/fawn families consist of at least 50% twin fawns? If the answers are yes, you may need to harvest 9.4 fawns per 10.3 total bucks harvested to maintain the 60 quality deer being present the following spring. If you are located in high-stress areas like the Upper Peninsula where the winter kill will selectively crop them off naturally, leaving the hardiest, you may want to contact your local DNR biologist for advice. Remember 8 fawns already have been allocated to non-harvest losses.

The numbers as shown are accurate. The need to follow them is important. Following them exactly is not important. Over-harvesting to a 40% or 50% density causes no harm. Under-harvesting temporarily up to 70% density is acceptable. Be alert for the flashing red lights. Note any changes like lower dress weights, lower adult doe -to- fawn ratios and a change in the buck-to-doe ratio. Watch closely the adult doe harvest (the KEY element). If the adult doe harvest consists of more than 50% 2½ yr. olds and younger you are harvesting too many does and keep a keen eye on the browse damage, for you have just become a deer manager! 

Good luck and keep the fun in hunting!

Ed Spinazzola"


Note he refers to the breeding rate of adult does and how that effects your harvest plan. If over 80% of the adult doe are being bred , the B/D ratio is 1:2 and you don't have over browsing or crop damage you don't have too many doe.


----------



## boehr

Swamp Ghost said:


> The thing that cracks me up is how the MDNR....tell half the story concerning certain aspects of our harvest numbers in order to fit their particular agenda.
> 
> Bottom line : KILL MORE DOES!


Swamp Chost, please explain to me your comment concerning the MDNR. I want to ensure that I understand you correctly. Where has the MDNR not wanted hunters to shoot more does?


----------



## Guest

Boehr:

I like your posts and somewhat understanding attitude and yes some others who post here don't have much tolerance for other views. I also think you being a CO colors your perspective and leans you into defense of your employer. Not uncommon, I have many friends in law enforcement, yes also Co's and it is obvious to me that their personal job experiences with bad guys influences their prejudices. 

Swamp Ghost is an adult and can answer for himself but I would like to touch on your challenge "Where has the MDNR not wanted hunters to shoot more does"? 

I have had some contact with MDNR personal for several years and in the upper ranks I see no problem with them in their goal of 1.3 miilion deer. The only way this will happen is to take more does. I believe there will be over 600,000 antlerless tags avilable this year. That certainly is much more than is needed. The attitude is not universal with the field biologists, For some reason the district supervisors who make the final antlerless quota feel that they are pulling teeth when faced with their field biologists quota suggestion, which is too many times way below the state quota. 

This attitude may be something like the law enfocement phenomenon " Too close to their job and citizen contact'. Except for the farm commuity I doubt if many field biologists have requests from hunters to take more does.

The goal is good, the method is not. We have had over 1.3 million deer since the early 1980's, with the peak of 1.9 miilion in 1990. Last estimate this spring given by our MDNR is 1.85 million deer in Michigan. This has been the estimate now for over 16 years and every year we hear the same story, "Our goal is 1.3 million deer for the state of Michigan".

Boehr, please explain the rational for this lack of movement toward the purported goal of 1.3 miion deer. 

We all know one simple thing about goals. If we are really serious about it we will find a way to achieve it. If you look hard enough for an answer to solve a problem you will find it. If you look hard enough for reasons to defend policy or results you will find it. Boehr I believe our MDNR has the talent, experience and wisdom to make the right decisions in good deer management. For whatever reason it is not happening. 

It would be very simple to harvest the proper number of does. For an example (A earn a buck for bowhunters only in the overpopulated DMU's would go a long way to address this). An early, doe only season, in mid September coinciding with the early doe season in the UP and DMU 452 is a start. Everyone, including especially Bowhunters could use any legal weapon (firearm, bow or crossbow) in this doe only season to qualify to take their buck on their bow opener. So far no pain, well maybe a little peer pressure. This would vastly improve the sex buck to doe ratio just in time for the bow opener (increased rut activity) and save a bunch of winter forage for the remaining deer. There are over 300,000 bow hunters and sadly they take too few does and too many button bucks. Boehr, this is a natural deer management move, that is not a mystery. Why the stall with our DNR Wildlife Division? Boehr, there are many other sure fire deer management practices to improve the sex buck to doe ratio and lowering the deer density that could be instituted by our DNR. Sorry to say all we hear is the same old refrain "We want to improve the sex ratio, the buck age structure along with the deer density and we will achieve this, you hunters need to take more antlerless deer". End of DNR rhetoric.

Boehr it is so easy to achieve what our DNR says is their goal that it's outrageous that they don't. Please explain. 

It is easy to interpret their inaction as action to maintain the status quo of 1.85 miilion deer forever. 

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## boehr

Ed Spin04 said:


> I believe there will be over 600,000 antlerless tags avilable this year. That certainly is much more than is needed.


Nice read Ed and most of your posts are enjoyable reading. We seem to be in some agreement though and this is where I get confused. Your statement above is exactly what I'm thinking, that number is more than is needed. The DNR could have higher quotas but that doesn't mean more does would be killed and I know you already know that fact. Even farmlegend knows it and stated that all the permits in Calhoun and Hillsdale where not even purchased last year little lone used. The problem we have is getting the hunter to shoot the does. Again, educate the hunters and get away from the ego problems of having to shoot a buck, any buck, in order for one to be accepted as a hunter or accepted at their camp. You do mention some mandatory ways to kill does and that is an option but I still very much believe education is the best way to go.

To find the real cause, I believe, would take just a quick search of this site by itself, posts made this year or from close to the begining of this site of what the hunters want. We can not just dismiss the wants of hunters especially large numbers of hunters. Complaints about unlimited antlerless permits, or visa-a-versa complaints about no antlerless permits in some areas. You know exactly what I'm talking about here. Yes, on this issue I am in defense of my employer because I am in greater defense of the natural resources and on this issue I believe the DNR is right. If you knew many CO's you would have to agree that CO's are not soft spoken with their opinions and what they believe what is right. Be it for or against their employer. The much more difficult part is convincing hunters.


----------



## Swamp Monster

boehr said:


> Again, educate the hunters and get away from the ego problems of having to shoot a buck, any buck, in order for one to be accepted as a hunter or accepted at their camp. You do mention some mandatory ways to kill does and that is an option but I still very much believe education is the best way to go.


I agree education is the key, and it will take time. Atitudes are changing but very very slowly. Boehr, What is our MDNR and NRC doing to educate the hunters? I'm not being a smart arse, honestly, but I don't see this education process taking place. Sure, there are a number of hunters that take the time to educate themselves, but we are in the minority I believe. I just don't see our state taking a lead in this education process. QDM associations have, but as you found out, some within this organization can quickly push away a guy that is willing to learn. I guess I just feel that if we are going to wait on education, we will be waiting a generation or more. I honestly feel that at some point the DNR will have to step up to the plate and be forced to regulate and then educate. I'm not criticizing, just stating an observation.


----------



## campblujay

Boy, it sure seems like nobody wants to hear about my experience in Pa, even though several folks here try to refer to pa allllllll the time in making up stories about what Pa has experienced (or Ark. for that matter). 

And apparently in this forum you have to tow the party line or people get reeeeal uppity. Sorry, but I do not think Mandatory statewide AR will work any better here than they did in my home state. I know, from experience what Dr. Alts plan has brought, not just to me but to most of my exteded family, and that is poorer hunting. By any-ones standard. Less deer in the reduced herd, the PADNR is changing its computer model each season so nobody can track the draw down, and we have guys here in Michigan who are quoting the 'rackwaver' Dr. Alt??? C'mon you have got to be kidding?

this thread was about Dr. Alts "keynote presentation" at the QDMA convention. Well it ain't too hard to give a good speech and get back on the plane when there is nobody to rebut ANY of the information. Then some zealous sportwriter spins some yarn and it hits the message boards and right away without ANY checking people buy it hook----line----and sinker.

To RZD, I suspect you are purposely being obtuse as I have cleary explained that in most states there are not "too many deer" or "too few deer". Our state as well as PA and Ark. (states using mandatory AR for several years), WE all share a common problem. Too many deer in some areas, too few in others....... it was an issue in 1955, in 1965, in 1995 and guess what? It will be a problem in 2005. And QDM, no matter which state you are looking at,(to try and justify getting it installed here,) does not fix that problem. Private lands everywhere tend to hold higher numbers than a dmu's public area with 23,000 hunters on it.... that is not new. 

You want to practice QDM? Feel free to voluntarily use your land and have low deer numbers, low buck harvests and you can take your chances to see if it even helps your stand of pole timber habitat one iota. :tdo12: 

I don't mind talking about QDM, or changes for Mich to make deer hunting better, but most of what is espoused here is spin, hype and fantasy. Rarely ever backed up by a link to a study or non-QDMA source. You need to be a little bit more like FOX NEWS, fair and balanced. 

I disagree with those who say that the lesson of Pennsylvania is a good one, and we should quote thier program. It has not produced anything even close to what its own creators predicted. It has, in fact, produced some abysmal hunting for many. It has exacerbated the private/public rift PA has always had and now is widened. You want that as ANOTHER problem for Mich to face? 

By the way as far as posting ettiquette, you guys are not as pure as the driven snow over my time here on the boards. As long as we are giving lectures, lets look in the mirror and reflect for a moment at the smarmy comments directed at me, HH, or anyone else who does not immediately swallow the rhetoric of QDM and D&DH magazine articles that have no fact checking and balance............................... 

This forum, as are all here are for discussion. And what I see is very little discussion, but a few zealots who seek out the like thinking of other zealots. If that was the purpose of these boards then maybe the owner should consider a "say positive things about QDM forum".  

You guys in one breath say Dr. Alts methods (used car salesman, rack waving wanna-be trophy hunter) area a 'keynote' to your convention, then in the same breath when I speak of the particulars of his plan in his state, you guys go all wobbly knee'd and say Pa is not important to Mich.????

Hey, if you guys are the ones who put him up on a pillar, don't get mad at me for pointing out some of his lesser points in his plan and WHY IT IS NOT A GROOVY THING FOR US to bring anything he says here. 

You worried 600,000 doe tags are enough? In Pa they threw 1,040,000 doe tags on the table in only 18 DMU's. That, my friends, is bordering on no management at all....... thats just a saturation on doe, while retricting hunters from taking bucks. Dr. Alt has done one thing though we would never do, he implemented his actions before ever doing one SINGLE STUDY in PA. He implemented them first with one idea in mind. Keep the timber industry in PA cranking in the cash for fine Penna. harwood lumber (big income in pa), and to placate some of the special interests. He said the harvest of bucks would increase, but it dropped. Except for BB which increased with the increased doe harvest. They/we always got about 22-24% BB in the AL harvest and badda-bing badda boom when you shoot an extra 100,000 does for the timber industry you shot yourself in the BB foot. 

This something I hope Michigan never does, put the interests of a few big business's ahead of traditional sportsman. Put in changes to deer managment wihout any study (which I know they probably will not due to our track record so far), and to walk away from hunters to bring in ecotourism dollars and 'wildlife viewing' dollars. 

You want to talk about Michigans future as a hunting state, you might want to ask some questions as to where our own DNR exec Becky is taking our deer herd? Is she like Gary Alt going to be pushing for a small deer herd to placate business's like uhmmmmm...... forestry? 
http://www.forestproductscouncil.com/newsletter/viewnews.cgi?newsall

Well we will see what realtionship our herd has to Granholm's economic plan. 

Hey, you might like seeing less deer. You might not care if the buck harvest drops in Michigan under QDM and a reduced herd, but there are a LOT of us who do. Pa's reductions aren't for herd health or 'resource first', its an obvious play for big business. 

People 'used' qdm in Pa to further an agenda, and it could happen here. Statewide AR with severe herd reductions down to an OW herd of 700,000 is not QDM, but they linked the two every time they could. Is it being done in Michigan too? Hmmmmmm....

Sure this is long winded, but I suspect since I do not tow the party line and swallow every piece of rhetoric out of QDMA, that my tenure here will be cut short (like a few before). Seems we are willing to fall into the trap of just surrounding ourselves with 'like thinking people' and spinning yarns and tales rather than going out and doing REAL studies which will address real deer problems. 

If we want to address overpopulation, we have small DMU's and can manage accordingly. But if hunters do not WANT QDM methods there then why ram it down thier throats? Do we need to reduce buck harvests with herd reductions and send tens of thousands of hunters home with no buck (note pa 203,000buck down to 142,000) just because of a few special interest groups and business'es. Why do Michigan hunters deserve to get relegated to the back of the bus?

You want QDM methods used to enhance your ability to take what you term a "better buck"? Nobody is stopping you from joining a QDM club. Have at it. But why mandate statewide, one size fits all AR/HR like pa. Ark. when not everybody here wants it? You want to pass on little ones........goooo ahead its your CHOICE.

You want better habitat and think there is only one way to get it? Kill off half the herd and let it rebound? I think that rational people realize that deer are NOT the only stress on our forest. You can take a holistic approach and work on all stresses without unduly focusing on just the deer pollution. 

Gary Alt the best speaker at the convention, I would believe that. He IS a talker, but he is not a DO'ER. His slick willy approach to deer management in PA has not produced what was promised. So don't even think about bringing any of it to Michigan (or for that matter ohio, where I may end up next), because the thought of that kind of dishonesty here is nauseating. 
Boehr is wanting a 'concensus' for everyone to voluntarily practice AR, and Swampy is waiting for everyone to all agree in 'the next generation'. Niether will happen, and you will be forced to make a decison. Take the lowroad like Gary Alt, or not. Your choice.

King of the "rack wavers", I promise you more bucks (and it dropped by 61000 bucks) Alt. oh,,, I almost forgot. Yes, you DO owe those 61,000 buckless hunters an apology, if that is the road we choose.

(there was supposed to be a picture here posted of Gary waving a big
rack over his head and using his best used car salesman pitch, but alas the PaDNR has removed the tacky picture from its website. Pa hunters do not like gary's propensity for rack waving and trying to appeal to the lesser nature of hunter. Thier wannabe trophy hunter side. So instead I will jsut post a link to an article about AR, the illegitimate strepchild to QDM) 


http://www.deernutrition.com/info/news/aug03/6.html


----------



## boehr

Swamp Monster said:


> Boehr, What is our MDNR and NRC doing to educate the hunters? I'm not being a smart arse, honestly, but I don't see this education process taking place.


Swamp I can't believe you are looking very hard then. It is very difficult to compete with relatives of young hunters but CO's have tried, I have tried, when speaking at Hunter Safety Classes and trying to make the point of getting a buck or even getting a deer does not make you a hunter. If the only reason one hunts is to shoot a deer then he/she is really missing the boat. Also the DNR, for years, is and has been promoting shooting does in press releases and the number of permits issued. Also using the tagging allowance for button bucks the last few years and the concept of a buck is a buck as stated in the Huting Guide. Last but not least of course, K. Cool tried to use Buck Wilder as an educational tool. This may have been something that could have been utilized, I don't know but I do know that it was never given a chance. Hunters thought it was a joke and complained up a storm about it without ever really looking hard at the possibililites That is some examples but education costs money and to be honest, hunters don't want money spent on education of any type.


----------



## Swamp Ghost

Saying they (MDNR) want hunters to harvest more deer and coming up with a more inventive way of doing so, other than throwing more tags at the problem, are two different things.

As far as half truths, using an antlerless quota that's made up of 20+% button bucks and trying to pass off the numbers as being 100% DOE harvest.

Michigan hunters are not interested in being educated, just give them regulations to follow based on sound science.


----------



## johnhunter

boehr said:


> education costs money and to be honest, hunters don't want money spent on education of any type.


There is a lot of truth to this. And no matter what your financial resources, you cannot educate those with no desire to learn. Lots of deer hunters (and, as a generalization, deer hunters are probably worse in this regard than other hunters), already think they know it all about whitetail deer, a state of knowledge which zero real deer experts would ever proclaim for themselves.

Lots of hunters would, though, like to see some resources dedicated to education. And there are ways to do it that wouldn't cost much. The MSU Extension seminars organized by Robyn Oliver were not high-budget deals. Facilities for such events can be had for free. Qualified speakers are available gratis. The Department would get full cooperation from QDMA or other groups in planning, staffing, and promoting these sort of events. And, importantly, the active support of the MIDNR would embellish the efforts of those private groups that also support sound deer management and adequate doe harvests.

Back to my previous post - the fact that we're still so far from the 1.3 million target, and that we continue to be stalled at nearly 40% above that target, may lead one to believe that our resource managers are really not serious about achieving our goal. At this point, something is needed, other than simply printing more antlerless tags. That strategy has got us about as far as we appear to be willing to go in harvesting does. 

That means we need leadership. That requires courage to take action that will ruffle some feathers. To have a vision, and to sell that vision to the NRC, the legislature, to DNR staff, to hunters, and the non-hunting citizens of this state. That leadership can ONLY come from the Director of the DNR. Only that individual has the credibility, as well as the authority, to lead. The sorts of practices mentioned by Ed Spin are worth taking a look at. If the vision were articulated, it could be part of a package to get the legislature off the dime to permit a license fee increase to provide some really needed funds for the Department (remember, over the last 32 years, the Consumer Price Index has better that quadrupled, yet a deer tag has only doubled. Were they to have kept pace with inflation, a buck tag would run at least $28 today). 

We shall see what Ms. Humphries is made of. I was not enthusiastic about her selection, as I was hoping for an out-of-stater with a whitetail biologist background (for my own selfish reasons!). My guess is that we will know over the course of the next year or so what her perspective is. I can say, if she moves aggressively and shows some guts to sell a vision of managing our deer herd for maximum herd and ecosystem health, she will have more allies than she may imagine.


----------



## fairfax1

My reply here is a bit off-topic. It's really a post about the thread itself ..not the topic.

I came across this site a little more than a year ago. There were a couple of topics on the header board that first time that caught my eye. I read the threads and became intrigued. Then became hooked. I think I check the header boards most every day. And, in doing so, I know I have become better informed about the intricacies of my hobby, my passion. 

This long long thread is a perfect example of why I remain an avid reader. The views are seemingly sincere, some are articulate, some are well reasoned......a few have more passion than reason, but they add, in my view, a level of intensity that makes the read a bit more compelling....it's drama, of a sort. 

I don't want to see posters, even the sarcastic, or, I think it was labeled, the "smarmy" ones deleted. An impassioned tussle is good on this issue: it distills and clarifies the argument; and it serves as an incubator and lab for polishing and tightening that argument for when it is projected to a larger audience. Perhaps someday, a voting audience. 

So, for what it's worth to you folks in the arena --boehr, Swamp, BlueJay, FrmLgnd, Spin, BSK, rzr...an so on --- you've made my evening immensely entertaining. As only a spectator on this thread....it's been a good ride.

There's the bell. Time to start Round...what? 128?


----------



## Adam Waszak

Ok this was a topic statred about an article in a newspaper and it has gone hog wild sonce then. My take is that we need some more education throughout the state (and that is not to mean there is none now) but we need to expand the education beyond hunter safety. Wealo need a no spike rule (for or against AR a no spike rule will preserve a lot of deer and it will be law which wil help) Next, we need people in the NRC who know what they are doing (some do not currently  ) Next to make everything in this state run the way it is supposed to and so ther is a monster buck in every woodlot I think we need to elect Campblujay to lead the DNR and the NRC and take us into the promiseland since he knows more than everyone :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Sorry guys I just am sick of the bickering I come here for information about QDM because I am quite ignorant still when it comes to the whole thing but I admitit  

AW


----------



## Swamper

Quote by Adam W. "Wealo need a no spike rule (for or against AR a no spike rule will preserve a lot of deer and it will be law which wil help) Next, we need people in the NRC who know what they are doing (some do not currently ) Next to make everything in this state run the way it is supposed to and so ther is a monster buck in every woodlot I think we need to elect Campblujay to lead the DNR and the NRC and take us into the promiseland since he knows more than everyone".

How can you make statements like these and then complain about the bickering? A forum is for discussion as well as education. Suggest you might try reading a book if you want to avoid the bickering. 
Swamper


----------



## rzdrmh

fairfax - you're exactly right. this is where we hammer it out, cause we need to be fairly united when presenting to the general population, most of which are not hunters.

campblujay - 
i'm not sure how i'm being obtuse on the situation. i've already said that i support your argument of hunter satisfaction, because they are the managers, and we need those managers. maybe you're still stinging from some sarcastic remarks i made earlier - i apologize. there was a little mud slinging going around, and i'm not always immune from that.

realistically, can we agree on this:

1) appropriate number of doe should be harvested in a given area. ie = balanced sex ratios (=QDM objective)
2) a balanced age structure in bucks. (=QDM objective.)
3) a herd below carrying capacity of the habitat. (=QDM objective.)

this is really the core of QDM. do you agree with these objectives, as stated? do you agree that these objectives are best for the herd?

now, the real problem comes with achieving these objectives. AR's are nowhere in the list of QDM objectives, and are not advocated by QDM. the only reason they are used is to help achieve objective #2. i don't like them myself - i'd rather say - 'only shoot a 2.5 year old + buck.' that's tough though.

and i've always advocated that an APPROPRIATE number of doe be harvested in a given area. i fully realize that you can't manage that # at the state level, it needs local consideration. that's why i state that the hunters are the managers.

my whole point is - lets try to achieve these objectives.. Not necessarily the way PA has, but there's plenty of options with different kill tags, etc., to achieve the objectives. something will work. But you seem to keep discounting QDM in general. I'm wondering if its really QDM that you have a problem with, or just PA's ATTEMPT at achieving those objectives.

additionally, i don't want to see you're stay here short. we need all sorts of opinions - we need to expose flaws in plans so we put our best foot forward. i'll be the first to admit that while PA's herd reductions may be necessary, it probably hasn't happened the way it should.. problem is, one guy only has so much time in the spotlight, and can't afford to make slow changes. anyway...

and finally - you discuss hunter satisfaction - a valid argument. here's another take on that argument.

i'll be 30 this season. i've never taken a buck, not for lack of trying. hunted while i was growing up, took about 7 years off while at college and working near detroit, and when i moved back to the family farm, got back into it.. been hunting again for 3 or 4 years now, and have yet to get many opportunities to take ANY buck, let alone a 2.5 year old (fortunately, we have many doe, as most do, and i still get some venison). i hunt with a lot of family:
2 brothers: same as me.
father in law, brother in law: each ended a five year drought of buck harvest last season - both got a buck on opening day.
2 cousins: one has shot a single buck in the past 4 years. the other has shot one buck in the last 5 years.
family friends: one friend shot his first in 3 years last season. a four point that was missing part of his hind leg from an earlier attempt by another hunter. this friend's dad will start the 7th year of his buck drought this season. 
here's the key: we ALL hunt PRIVATE land.

hey, the list goes on. these guys are not bad hunters - that's just what its like. who's apologizing to us, for not getting bucks? that makes an average of one buck every 3 or 4 years, at best, right?

now you tell me, why wouldn't we want to seek out some change? does this group of QDM guys sound like trophy hunters to you?

as far as you 'toe-ing the party line' and 'swallowing every piece of rhetoric from the QDMA' - I don't think you have adequately identified the difference between Alt's plan and QDM. there are some good posts on this site, and elsewhere, identifying QDM.. Please check them out. 

Can you argue Alt's plan? Certainly. it has flaws. Can you argue the science behind QDM in general? that's a much bigger task - one that you and I are certainly not qualified to do.

really, you honestly think I'm being obtuse?


----------



## boehr

farmlegend said:


> We shall see what Ms. Humphries is made of. I was not enthusiastic about her selection, as I was hoping for an out-of-stater with a whitetail biologist background (for my own selfish reasons!). My guess is that we will know over the course of the next year or so what her perspective is. I can say, if she moves aggressively and shows some guts to sell a vision of managing our deer herd for maximum herd and ecosystem health, she will have more allies than she may imagine.


What you really mean is providing the Director manages the deer herd in the way the YOU think it should be managed. Like you said, for your own selfish reasons. :yikes:


----------



## boehr

Swamp Ghost said:


> Saying they (MDNR) want hunters to harvest more deer and coming up with a more inventive way of doing so, other than throwing more tags at the problem, are two different things.
> 
> As far as half truths, using an antlerless quota that's made up of 20+% button bucks and trying to pass off the numbers as being 100% DOE harvest.
> 
> Michigan hunters are not interested in being educated, just give them regulations to follow based on sound science.


You can't take does without issing antlerless tags. The hunter is the one that pulls the trigger for button bucks. Your statement of hunters not interested in being educated is basically what I said to start with in my posts about egos ("_make the point of getting a buck or even getting a deer does not make you a hunter_").


----------



## Adam Waszak

That is true, the hunter pulls the trigger and kills or does not kill button bucks. There are a lot of them killed every year and that is a major problem. We do need education which helps people identify button bucks and thus avoid them. I also think we need to get the estimates on how many Button Bucks are killed in comparison to the overall antlerless harvest. That will give us infomation on age sex etc which will be helpful (if the deer get checked or reported most get pretty embarassed and will not check Button Bucks) 

AW


----------



## Ferg

How do we educate the 'majority' of hunters, that don't even think about deer hunting until Nov 14th and forget about on Dec 1st? :yikes: 

They are the variable in this equation that, without regulation, will not be educated nor care to be - :sad: 

ferg....
more questions that answers


----------



## BSK

One of the major problems with QDM on a statewide basis is the practice was never intended to be used on a statewide basis. It is a site-specific management system, used to manage individual properties. Can the same _philosophy_ be used on a statewide basis? Yes, but it will require different "rules" than when practiced on individual properties. And that is the major problem. There are certainly going to be "growing pains" as a site-specific form of management is redesigned to fit statewide applications. The experiences of MS, AR and PA are all examples of "first attemps" at statewide QDM and each are showing their downsides. But that is to be expected. They are "Grand Experiments" and both some successes and some failures with each attempted program should be expected. It's a learning process at that level. I at least give credit to those state agencies willing to be the first to try _something_, whether it works or fails in the long-run. They are still good experiments and the information learned will help every other agency in the future.


----------



## BSK

Ferg wrote:
*They are the variable in this equation that, without regulation, will not be educated nor care to be*

I used to think the same thing Ferg. But now that QDM has been practiced in the Southeast for 20+ years, it is much more widely accepted there. Yes, there will always be the "old school" hunters that want a deer behind every tree and won't be happy with anything less, but that attitude seems to be slowly fading down here.

The average hunter *can* be educated, but it takes awhile.


----------



## Swamp Monster

Boehr, there may very well be some education on the importance of a balanced harvest in hunter safety courses and thats a good thing, but since I haven't taken the course since I passed way back, I wouldn't see this effort.....thats why I asked. I believe that is working, as the younger generation is much more open minded about deer management. I wouldn't consider offerring doe tags education on it's own.....you've heard all the conspiracy theories way to many times by some hunters on why the DNR issues those tags....some can't see the management aspect of it. The Buck Wilder had potential, just not sure if it was marketed correctly. The Button Buck identification in the guide is great!! But again, I'm talking about education on the management aspect, the importance of a balanced harvest etc. I know the money is an issue, it always is....and you can only educate those that want to be educated as well.


On a side note I can't help but laugh everytime Camp says we must apologize to the hunters that don't tag a buck! Thats the funniest thing I have ever heard! Next he'll be saying that the state should refund the $$ from their license if they fail to get a buck. If you want a guarantee, there's a number of fenced enclosures that would happily take your money. That 'I have to get my buck" mentality is sad. Heaven forbid it be a challenge. Maybe the next time I fail to catch any steelhead when on the river, I'll call the local DNR field office and demand an apology....or maybe the guy that caught and released three owes me an apology. Pretty ridiculous eh?


----------



## Ferg

BSK said:


> but that attitude seems to be slowly fading down here.
> 
> The average hunter *can* be educated, but it takes awhile.


hope so - and the start of QDM Co-ops etc - short of forming QDM branches - which is a great start - I hope so - I truly hope so - 

ferg....


----------



## Adam Waszak

Ferg said:


> How do we educate the 'majority' of hunters, that don't even think about deer hunting until Nov 14th and forget about on Dec 1st? :yikes:
> 
> They are the variable in this equation that, without regulation, will not be educated nor care to be - :sad:
> 
> ferg....
> more questions that answers





You are right Ferg  Sometimes forget that a lot of people really don't care till they get to deer camp. But then again maybe they should or don't complain when change happens JMO

AW


----------



## Swamper

"hope so - and the start of QDM Co-ops etc - short of forming QDM branches - which is a great start - I hope so - I truly hope so - ".

First QDM co-ops, then mountains of QDM restrictions, then gun restrictions...all in the name of the "real hunters", not in the best interests of the "average hunters". If possible, take away the voices and then the hunting rights of the Camp Blue Jays, the Swampers, and others. Before you know, we will all be banished from the wilderness. Banish the voice of protest first from the public forums, then from the woodlands.

"And there shall rise a voice from the wilderness. And that voice shall speak of individual rights and for that of man. And from that voice shall come democracy" - author unknown

Swamper


----------



## Ferg

Swamper
"And there shall rise a voice from the wilderness. And that voice shall speak of individual rights and for that of man. And from that voice shall come democracy" - author unknown
Swamper[/QUOTE said:


> Swamper - your missing THE most important thing/issue/whatever. The Deer.
> 
> This is not about 'man' it's about our stewardship of the whitetail - take hunting out of it - and 'someone' the 'manager' or steward - is going to have to cull does, and pass on yearling bucks - and give the meet to a homeless program - if we want to manager the herd properly, as ALL confess - something has to be done - and what we have been doing hasn't worked -
> 
> Ya, know - when you bake a cake and hundred times and it comes out too salty - you need check the directions - whooops that was supposed to be sugar? hummmm.
> 
> It it's not working - we need to change the directions....I'm open for hearing what the new ones should be....
> 
> ferg....


----------



## Swamp Monster

Ferg, some don't want any changes. Some think tradition for the sake of tradition should be the deciding factor in their eyes. Some think seeing 50 deer per sqr mile is good. Some are only interested in shooting deer during deer camp and don't care about the consequences there own management habit has on the heard. Some fear any and all change regardless.

Personaly, I like the idea of AR's but I like the idea of one buck tag better....for all seasons, not one for each.You'll never here me criticize anyone for shooting a small buck, I've done it myself in the past, I just choose not to anymore. I get enjoyment from passing deer up just like many get enjoyment from killing a buck. To each their own, but I honestly feel that different regulations than we have currently will be needed for the betterment of our deer and our habitat.


----------



## Letmgro

Swamper said:


> "If possible, take away the voices and then the hunting rights of the Camp Blue Jays, the Swampers, and others. Before you know, we will all be banished from the wilderness. Banish the voice of protest first from the public forums, then from the woodlands.
> 
> Swamper


Hey Swamper, CJB; I know of a forum where you can rant anti-QDM, non-progressive traditional deer management philosophies until you're blue in the face; and they'll cheer every breath you take.

If you go, tell LG I said hi!


----------



## BSK

There are two major obstacles to biologically "proper" deer management:

1) Hunters can't see with their own eyes the damage deer overpopulation causes. Almost no one can look at a deer standing in a field and tell if that deer is healthy or not. Plus, many hunters hunting overpopulated deer herds have been doing so for generations. They see no "decline" in herd performance because they have never in their lives seen a truly healthy deer herd, nor have they ever seen a truly healthy ecosystem. The ecosystem was damaged by deer overbrowsing long before most of todays hunters were even born (in some of the northern areas). The woods look like the same woods they've always known because they've always known over-browsed habitat. In essence, hunters don't believe the herds they hunt are unhealthy, because they have only known unhealthy herds and unhealthy habitat. From the hunter's perspective, deer aren't walking around looking like skin and bone. The deer herds aren't "crashing." The deer herds _look_ fine and there doesn't _appear_ to be any problems. Everything must be hunkey dorey. It is very, very difficult to convince hunters a particular deer herd is unhealthy, even when that herd is showing severe signs of overpopulation (to a trained eye--overpopulation is never obvious to an untrained eye).

2) Hunters really don't care about the deer. As long as they can go hunting each year, see lots of deer, and shoot the occasional fork-horn, they're happy. Anything--even things that are intended for the good of the deer herd--that disrupts this traditional view and experience of deer hunting is definitely considered "bad." Unfortunately, many hunters aren't happy with their hunting experience unless they are seeing deer regularly. However, it usually requires over-population to produce that many deer sightings.

These are two "truisms" of deer hunting and deer management I see regularly in every section of the whitetails range, from Texas to Maine. How to combat them? I've tried everything I can thing of and still haven't found the right answer.


----------



## boehr

Swamp Monster said:


> Some think seeing 50 deer per sqr mile is good.


That right there, in my opinion, is the biggest problem. It doesn't matter what ideas you have for change,or what any group wants to do to change it, until that problem changes, other changes will be difficult to obtain. That problem exists because of hunter attitudes, a lot of hunters. Besides regular education, there must also be peer pressure.


----------



## Letmgro

boehr said:


> That problem exists because of hunter attitudes, a lot of hunters. Besides regular education, there must also be peer pressure.


I agree 100%.

We Michigan hunters have about 800,000 different attitudes and ideas on how our deer hunting should be. I'd bet the vast majority of these hunters would probably do nothing different in their management style until someone they know and trust, persuades them to try something different.


----------



## johnhunter

Boehr, you misinterpreted me. When I said a whitetail biologist background, I meant that as opposed to a fisheries, or turkey, or forestry background. I wasn't talking about sharing my management philosophy, though that would be a plus. 

Heck, a law enforcement background would be a big plus also.


----------



## Benelli

Two things I never saw mentioned in this thread that Dr Alt did say/reference at the Think Tank were:

(now it was a long thread, so perhaps I missed something, pardon my error in advance if I did miss something, or correct me if someone saw it differently) 

I shall paraphrase:

--Dr. Alt indicated that ARs were one of the LAST avenues that PAGC wanted to travel, decided in the end it was the best plan to implement to achieve short and long term management objectives, in conjunction with increased doe harvest. Certainly subject to change in the future.

--Dr. Alt indicated that the MAJORITY of PA deer hunters have never seen a truly mature deer, mature buck anyway.

--Dr. Alt showed photos of a clear cut, half fenced the other unfenced as he spoke. The left side of the screen was lush and growing with thick browse, the right side looked like a moonscape to me.

I applaud Dr Alt for his approach and his desire, change in PA was long overdue and he has the ball rolling. I suspect regional regs will change again soon as they accumulate their data over an appropriate time frame.

Gwizdz did indicate in his Column (which is only an OPINON by the way, never take an opinion column as truth) that MI is way ahead of PA in doe harvest and hunter acceptance of same. My OPINION is MI is due for some buck harvest regs in the near future, be it ARs, 1 buck, etc.

BSK, Im with you on this one with respect to habitat and hunter recognition of degradation. Unless you can see a comparison of a fenced vs unfenced area of a forested region, you will really never be able to claim the deer dont have an effect on the pole timber (or any type of habitat for that matter). Geez, just look at the Metro Parks in Southern MI where they cant figure out how to kill the deer, or give them condoms, or somehow render them infertile to save the habitat for other species. The high deer densities have a profound and mostly negative effect on the local biota.

JMH*O*


----------



## Luv2hunteup

> That problem exists because of hunter attitudes, a lot of hunters. Besides regular education, there must also be peer pressure.


I agree 100%. 

A majority of Michigan's deer hunters are of the casual type deer hunter. I can ask alot of guys I work with about the last time the read the deer hunting guide. A pretty typical answer would be "why" it still opens up on the 15th doesn't it? I'm not sure what the answer is but peer pressure is a strong influence. But how do we get the message to mosts of the peers?


----------



## RecurveRx

Though I read pretty much everything that&#8217;s posted on this forum, rarely do I post. Most of the time, anything that&#8217;s on my mind has already been rehashed time and time again. However, for some reason, tonight, I feel like rambling. Bear with me&#8230;



First &#8211; Camp Blue Jay, thank you for your posts. I sincerely mean that. As with QDM, balance in message boards is also important. I&#8217;m glad you&#8217;re representing the other side of the coin. Right or wrong, you represent a very large contingency of hunters. We need to be reminded of that perspective. You have to keep in mind that you&#8217;re posting on a very pro-QDM message board. You have to expect that you&#8217;re going to get a lot of rebuttal. Try to stay positive, keep an open mind, respect others, don&#8217;t take things too personal, and continue to post on this site. 



That being said, I am curious what your response to rzd&#8217;s question is. Do you think the principles of QDM are sound? It&#8217;s obvious that you don&#8217;t think the means that PA has used to attempt to accomplish the ends is appropriate. I agree with you. I know that most hunters in my area are not ready for such restrictions either. In fact, I am sure that they would become very disenfranchised if the DNR were to enact this management process. All that aside, do you think the goals of QDM are sound? Please believe me, I am not trying to be inflammatory. I only ask because 90% of the people I hunt with/around feel just as you do about ARs and doe harvests. However, when I talk to them about the management technique I use (without using the words like QDM or ARs), they generally agree. Are you in agreement with the goals of QDM?



I do agree that we sometimes push too hard. I also think we make this harder than it has to be. I also agree that statewide ARs are not the answer, at least not right now. My rational for this is the success rates that were mentioned earlier. Even without ARs, we&#8217;re still harvesting a small percentage of our bucks. I really believe that to be the case *in my area*. I have hunted my family&#8217;s farm for nearly 20 yrs now. Most people that hunt the area are hard working farmers who don&#8217;t have the luxury to spend the time in the woods nor put the effort into hunting that I do. For me it&#8217;s a passion and a way of life. For them, it&#8217;s a one-week a year diversion from the farm. Their only goal is to harvest a buck, any buck, and there&#8217;s nothing wrong with that (IMO). Everybody meets at the local tavern for lunch and swaps stories. I&#8217;m always amazed at how few people actually take a buck, yet I&#8217;m the ONLY guy that lets a buck pass. Everybody else will take any buck they see. This is mostly because they will only see one per season, if they&#8217;re lucky. I have no problem with these guys shooting a 1.5 yo buck. They really don&#8217;t take that many anyway. I hunt the same land they do, just with a different intensity. I see A LOT of bucks and I&#8217;m pretty selective. Last year I saw 3 different 120+ class bucks on our farm. Even with everybody else taking any buck they see, I&#8217;m still able to consistently arrow a mature buck (man, I sure hope the Gods Of The Hunt don&#8217;t curse me this year for saying that). My experience has been that once a guy gets really intense about hunting, has harvested a few bucks, and really learns about his quarry, he will no longer want to take a 1.5 yo buck. It&#8217;s kind of a progression. The guy that doesn&#8217;t progress to this probably isn&#8217;t taking a buck every year anyway. So let him shoot a four point every three years. I just don&#8217;t think he&#8217;s having that large of an effect on the herd anyway. 



I guess what I&#8217;m trying to say is that we have to keep the &#8220;hobby hunter&#8221; happy and interested. Yes, I practice QDM. However, on our farm, ARs are purely optional. I will give no one grief for taking a 1.5 yo buck. Now, you start doing that year in and year out, and we&#8217;re going to have a talk. 



I spend a great deal more time encouraging friends and neighbors to shoot doe than I do telling them not to take a 1.5 yo buck. This has been very productive and people are much more open to it. They almost want to hear why it&#8217;s okay and good to shoot a doe. They just don&#8217;t understand. They&#8217;ve been told for decades that you only shoot bucks. I really don&#8217;t think our problem is that we&#8217;re taking too many bucks, we&#8217;re just not taking enough doe. You start telling &#8220;Uncle Pete&#8221; who&#8217;s farmed the same piece of land for 40 yrs that he can only shoot a 120 class buck, and you&#8217;re going to get nowhere. He&#8217;s never even seen a 120 class buck (though there&#8217;s one on his farm every year). &#8220;Uncle Pete&#8221; only takes a buck every three or four years anyway. Now, &#8220;Uncle Pete&#8221; has been seeing A LOT of deer lately. You start telling him why we need to take some of those doe and suddenly he&#8217;s buying into QDM without even knowing it. He&#8217;s happy because his chances of putting venison in the freezer just skyrocketed. Nobody is putting restrictions on him. He can still shoot a buck, if he&#8217;s &#8220;lucky&#8221; enough to see one. And I&#8217;m happy because it&#8217;s no longer up to just me to shoot ten doe a year (yes, we have that many deer).



So, I guess in a nutshell, that&#8217;s why I&#8217;m opposed to statewide ARs and in favor of increased doe harvest. Now, I realize this isn&#8217;t a one-size fits all program. I hunt private farmland in Shiawassee County. Most of the hunters are good old boys looking for a little fun. There are a few of us who live and breathe the stuff. Funny thing is, we&#8217;re the ones who seem to get &#8220;lucky&#8221; fairly regularly. We lead by example, and I think, in the end, that&#8217;s the only thing that is going to change people&#8217;s habits. We&#8217;ll keep shooting doe and proving that you can do this and still take nice bucks every year. Now, I realize that I&#8217;m blessed with incredible habitat and a low hunter density. But that&#8217;s exactly why we&#8217;ve got to shoot more doe. 



So now you know why I rarely post, I just can&#8217;t shut up when I get to talking about this. Imagine how my wife feels. Sorry for the rambling, but I warned you at the beginning of the post. 



May your fall be filled with bloody arrows and steaming gut piles.


----------



## Ferg

Letmgro said:


> Hey Swamper, CJB; I know of a forum where you can rant anti-QDM, non-progressive traditional deer management philosophies until you're blue in the face; and they'll cheer every breath you take.
> 
> If you go, tell LG I said hi!



That's funny ROTFLMFAO!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

(I guess you had to be REALLY paying attention to get 'it') ;-)

ferg....


----------



## rzdrmh

hey recurve - nice post, good read. hopefully, people will catch on that just because your pro qdm, that doesn't mean you're only concerned about yourself.. i feel the same way as you.. 

by the way, you mentioned you hunt private land in shiawassee county - so do i.. and 'just ducky' is around the laingsburg area too.. small world, eh?


----------



## BSK

Great post RecurveRx. I couldn't agree more. Honestly, if hunters would just harvest more does, the buck population will do OK. In fact, if MI had a harvest of 60% females and 40% males for a year or two, the sex ratio would take care of itself (high reproduction rates will balance the sex ratio fairly quickly under a nearly equal harvest of males and females).

I also agree there are a lot of casual hunters that never see bucks older than yearlings, even when older bucks exist. I have a brother-in-law in his 50s who has hunted all his life. He wasn't a "serious" deer hunter until recently, but he deer hunted every year (mainly opening week of gun season). Yet even though he has hunted deer for many years, he had never seen a 2 1/2 year-old buck in his entire hunting career. That is, until he started hunting on my property, which is intensively managed. The first time he saw an average 2 1/2 year-old, 100-class buck, you would have thought he had just seen the next world record. He is totally sold on QDM now and is more than happy to help us shoot as many does as we can. Basically, he sees doe harvests as free venison. And he now has no problem passing the yearling bucks he would have eagerly shot in previous years. He has seen the results of passing yearling bucks with his own eyes and wants to participate.

Often, "show me" is the only way to convince a hunter to practice QDM. Plus, it helps to have the hunter take that "next step" in his hunting career, from a casual deer hunter to a serious deer hunter.


----------



## Adam Waszak

BSK, "show me" is the best way to do a lot of things I think but In my opinion I think you need some basic AR (no spike rule etc) or it will not be likely followed. My deer camp has 8 guys in it and most have not shot a buck in the recent hunting seasons let alone seen one. If a spike comes in it will fall or jump the fence and fall over there; however, if it is illegal there will be no shot fired and that spike walks. This will not save all young deer I know but if we get all spikes to another winter isn't that going to be a great start? This way the antler requirement should not be so high that is turns people away from hunting but at the same time it preserves a great deal of deer. At least in the northern sections of the state. You will be pushing for a change and that rarely goes over very well no matter what you are talking about. But i beleive BSK is right "show me" I was dead set against QDM a few months ago because I did not know what it was all about (thought it was classifying big bucks only as the quality deer) now I am starting to "see" what it is. Show people and they will begin to come around

AW


----------



## BSK

Adam,

For individual properties, you have to start somewhere, and ARs can be designed that work very well. Once hunters get the hang of identifying buck age by body conformation, then you can do away with the ARs. But on a region-wide basis, ARs are a bit more difficult. In my own state, I have buck antler data from several individual properties within my state agency-designated region. Each of these individual properties show quite distinct "cut-off" points for age-related antler characteristics. Yet when you lump all of the antler data by age from the entire region together, those distinctions fall apart. The regional data is a collective of everything from great habitat and proper deer densities through terrible habitat and over-populated deer herds. When they are all mixed together, there are no obvious antler characteristics that identify age. It would be impossible to set an AR for the region that would work, yet ARs that work are easily set for individual properties within the region (although each property will end up with different AR restrictions). That is my great concern with state mandated ARs. Will they work?

As for a "no spike rule," that would depend on the percent of yearling bucks that are spikes. If it is high, a no spike rule would work. If not a high percentage, I worry about "high-grading." Not _genetic_ high-grading but temporary high-grading. In the Southeast, the data is quite clear that late-born male fawns usually produce only spike antlers as yearlings. These late-born males will not catch up in antler development with their earlier born cohorts until at least 3 1/2 years of age, and some not until 4 1/2 years of age. And in body weight, they _never_ catch up. If all of the late-born spikes are protected as yearlings, but the branched-antler yearlings are removed, this will produce 2 1/2 year-old and even 3 1/2 year-old age-classes with lower-quality antlers. Now this high-grading is not _genetic_--the lower antler development in the younger age-classes has nothing to do with these bucks' genetic potential. But the poorer average antler development of 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 year-olds will be "real," and could be significant.

One argument against this concept is that northern whitetails appear to have their breeding dates more genetically programmed. Their breeding dates do not appear to be as tightly linked to herd dynamics as southern whitetails. Many researchers believe that Natural Selection has weeded this out of the northern deer herds. In essence, deer that have the genetic predisposition to breed late when herd dynamics are poor do not produce many surviving offspring that could pass this genetic trait on. Late born fawns simply don't survive the brutal winters, hence that genetic trait does not get passed on. Even Ozoga could find no indications of changing breeding dates or duration even when they purposefully skewed the herd dynamics within their research facility. On the other hand, the longest breeding season we have ever documented did not come from one of the Deep South states, but from New York. With only the fetuses from 20 harvested does to work with, we found a 110 day breeding season. If we had had more fetuses, I'm sure the breeding season would have been found to be even longer. That's at _least_ a 4 month breeding season. In that situation, there will be late-born male fawns, and their late birth _will_ cause disparities in antler production as yearlings, opening the door to high-grading under "no spike" ARs.


----------



## Swamp Monster

Recurve, great post!!


----------



## Happy Hunter

"Now this high-grading is not genetic--the lower antler development in the younger age-classes has nothing to do with these bucks' genetic potential. But the poorer average antler development of 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 year-olds will be "real," and could be significant."


That statement may or may not be true. It is quite possible that the rate of development is in fact controled by genetics. Initially there is no doubt that many 1.5 spikes are due to being born late or poor nutrition, but the fact that it takes those buck 2 or 3 years to catch up ,even in good habitat indicates their may be a genetic link. Also, the fact that they never catch up in terms of weight ,also points to a genetic link.


----------



## Guest

BSK thanks for real deer biological data. I talked to Dr. Steve Demaris of Mississippi State. and he said the exact same thing about the so called high grading results from the delta region of Miss. The hygrading data does not mean that there is true genitic degradation happening in Miss, just a result of the harvest rules in place. 


We have had the deer for more than four million years practicing natural selection in their breeding to be where they are now, not very likely that a seven year period of so called hygrading will degrade the genitics in place.

In Michigan we have had protection of spikes less than three inches long for many decades. Now that's really hygrading, letting the pipsqueaks do the breeding. Yet our MDNR will say there is no study that shows a negative impact in our deer herd using the existing deer management sytem. Of course we all know that this system cannot possible be improving the genitics of our deer and who is doing the so called study if there is one. I never heard of one to verify their theory, have you BSK?

I personnally believe that there is degrading happening in our large state forests but at such a slow pace that it is very hard to measure. BSK, what do you think?

The data from the UP from just the last 35 years shows a difinite downward trend in the deer weight and antler size for all age classes of bucks, per Ozoga. Wonder if this data ever crossed the desks of our MDNR Wildlife Officials?

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## Guest

One more thing, Dr Demaris did say, "If the delta region stayed with the harvest rules in place for an extended periord that possible in time there could be evidence of true genitic degradation.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## BSK

Ed wrote:
*Now that's really hygrading, letting the pipsqueaks do the breeding. Yet our MDNR will say there is no study that shows a negative impact in our deer herd using the existing deer management sytem. Of course we all know that this system cannot possible be improving the genitics of our deer and who is doing the so called study if there is one. I never heard of one to verify their theory, have you BSK?*

Ed, I don't know of a study that has been conducted concerning that exact situation. I do know of studies that show when the buck age structure is low, yearling bucks are doing a lot of breeding, but if age structures are good, yearlings are doing much less breeding than their representation in the population (they are the largest age-class of adult males by percentage of the male population, but they were responsible for a lower percentage of the successful breedings).

When it comes to the genetics of antlers, I _strongly_ believe most hunters/managers have the wrong idea about how it works. Far too many assume the genetics of antlers works like eye-color in humans--a simple 50% from the father and 50% from the mother combine to produce the offspring's eye-color--very simple Mendelian genetics. After review numerous penned, controlled breeding situations, as well as having worked with some spectacularly successful deer breeders, we are convinced the genetics of antler characteristics are extremely complex. In addition, once the whole process has been deciphered, we strongly believe it will be found that the females are the primary carriers and hereditary contributors of antler genetics. Some early statistical analyses of antler characteristics and their links to the parents found there were *NO* correlation between a males antler characteristics and his sons' antler characteristics. In this study, they compared each characteristic individually, mass, beam length, spread, "shape" of the rack, tine height, gross score, etc. On the other hand, they found relatively strong statistical correlations between the antlers of males _from the same mother._ This study certainly suggest most of the antler genetics is being passed from mother to son, not father to son. If this is the case, there is no link between father and son, but _could be_ a link between father and grandson. It would have to go from father to daughter to grandson through the daughter.


*I personnally believe that there is degrading happening in our large state forests but at such a slow pace that it is very hard to measure. BSK, what do you think?*

I suspect herd dynamics and herd density versus habitat quality would over-ride any genetic problems. If you remember our article in _Quality Whitetails_ entitled _The Lowest Hole in the Bucket_, poor quality food resources are almost always the controlling factor in herd performance. Worrying about genetics or other factors while ignoring food resources is a major cause of management "failures." Almost without exception, more can be accomplished through balancing the population density to the habitat's production than through any other management technique, or through addressing any other problem.


*The data from the UP from just the last 35 years shows a difinite downward trend in the deer weight and antler size for all age classes of bucks, per Ozoga. Wonder if this data ever crossed the desks of our MDNR Wildlife Officials?*

Oh, I'm sure it does, but are they looking at it? For years I had a *VERY* antagonistic relationship with my state's wildlife agency. I kept warning them our deer herds were going to be in trouble very soon. The "old school" managers in the agency kept downplaying my comments and would respond with ludicrous statements such as, "the habitat could easily support three times as many deer as we currently have. There is no deer herd in the state that is overpopulated." Of course, I showed them pictures of browselines I had taken from various locations around the state, as well as used their own harvest data to show the rapidly declining body weights and antler dimensions by age-class that were occurring in the most over-populated areas. Thankfully, as of the last year or two, the state agency has moved away from their old-school doe-protectionist attitude and have opened the flood gates to doe harvests. Just in time too. Now if I could just get the hunters of TN to take advantage of those doe harvest opportunities. From an experimental "wide-open" doe season that was tested in 10 counties in TN last year, it was found to impact doe harvests almost not at all. When going from restrictive doe harvest limits to almost no limit on does at all, doe harvests in those 10 counties increased by less than 1%. With a gun-season limit of 2 bucks and 30 does, hunters still harvested 60% antlered bucks. Sad but true.


----------



## boehr

Ed Spin04 said:


> ...In Michigan we have had protection of spikes less than three inches long for many decades. Now that's really hygrading, letting the pipsqueaks do the breeding. Yet our MDNR will say there is no study that shows a negative impact in our deer herd using the existing deer management sytem. Of course we all know that this system cannot possible be improving the genitics of our deer and who is doing the so called study if there is one. I never heard of one to verify their theory, have you BSK?
> 
> I personnally believe that there is degrading happening in our large state forests but at such a slow pace that it is very hard to measure. BSK, what do you think?
> 
> The data from the UP from just the last 35 years shows a difinite downward trend in the deer weight and antler size for all age classes of bucks, per Ozoga. Wonder if this data ever crossed the desks of our MDNR Wildlife Officials?...


I would find additional considerations that you didn't mention. You discuss about the prtection of spikes with less than 3 inch antlers but those are only protected if a hunter doesn't have an antlerless permit. So, not really what I would classify as protection. Next, you bring up the UP in the last 35 years. You may or may not be correct but I also believe that there are other effects that could cause the same type of results you see along with your indications of degrading such as habitat being one of the most important factors. Especially in the UP, loss of cedar swamps which are not being replaced by cedar but other faster growing forests for commercial uses by paper companies that own large tracts of land. Once the cedar swamps are removed you have less habitat, especially in the winter, less food, and higher populations in the remaining cedar swamps in the winter again causing less food. Bottom line less habitat equals too many deer for the area until habitat can be replaced. The I get confused more when you state "_We have had the deer for more than four million years practicing natural selection in their breeding to be where they are now, not very likely that a seven year period of so called hygrading will degrade the genitics in place_," but then you say you can tell a difference in 35 years. Either I'm missing something here or it must be the other factors that have as big and likely even a larger impact. Some of those other factors that have causes than hunters or the DNR have little control over.


----------



## beer and nuts

Boehr, I too found that to be very confusing by Ed S. IF there is degrading in the last 35 years of the UP herd, this is by far the first I've heard of it too. 

Protection of yearling bucks(three inches or smaller)???? Are you the same person that is educating people into trying to identifying button bucks so we save more of these male deers?? I guess I can not understand your comment Ed, you seem to NOT favor saving the young bucks("In Michigan we have had protection of spikes less than three inches long for many decades. Now that's really hygrading, letting the pipsqueaks do the breeding."")??????? 

Good post Recurve!


----------



## BSK

boehr and beer & nuts,

You missed Ed's addition below:



Ed Spin04 said:


> One more thing, Dr Demaris did say, "If the delta region stayed with the harvest rules in place for an extended periord that possible in time there could be evidence of true genitic degradation.


Probably impossible to cause genetic problems from "negative" selective pressure over just a few years, but if you keep that up long enough, you could cause problems. Deer have very short "generations" (the time from the birth of an animal until it is spreading its genetics by producing offspring). Unlike people, with their 15-20 year generations, deer produce offspring at 2-3 years, and with some does only 1 year.


----------



## boehr

I didn't miss that BSK, you must have missed my words about other factors besides or in addition to genitic degradation and 4 million years in comparison to 35 years, or I should say part of Ed's words.



Ed Spin04 said:


> We have had the deer for more than four million years practicing natural selection in their breeding to be where they are now, not very likely that a seven year period of so called hygrading will degrade the genitics in place.


----------



## BSK

4 million years, 35 years, 7 years... I'm confused...


----------



## boehr

boehr said:


> The I get confused more when you state


Yep, I already said that too.


----------



## campblujay

rzd asked in another thread to post a reply with my thoughts on qdm and how it is going. He asked a civil question and I feel I owe him an anwer as he asked politely. 

I support voluntary QDM. Always have as an adult anyway. I believe that habitat based goals in deer management are part of the equation, I abhor and deplore anything that tries to grow bigger racks for hunters, I support and practice passing on some bucks. right now I don't even plan to take a buck, the area a co-worker invited me to is overpopulated according to the landwner and he and I will help to take does while others pursue WHAT THEY CHOOSE. Not what the state dictates to them. 

Background, I used to work directly across the street from the Pa Game Commission hdqrts. Anyone familiar, knows what state agency I worked in.  I attended many meetings in the formulation of pa's deer plan and even attended workshops on forestry and habitat in thier state system. 
I am in Michigan for a few years, as my face is not known in the Detroit area... and then I will look to return to Pa or Ohio where I have family. 

Now on our extended family holdings in pa we practice some QDM techniques related to habitat enhancement, harvest goals, etc... but much of our work is to get our pole timber and mature timber gone and get it reverted to seedling sapling stage which supports much more wildlife, not just deer alone. I respect the ideals of those who choose not to. We are all different.

That is part of the reason why I part company with many QDMA guru's who focus well on deer, but at times loose sight of all wildlife. We are trying to get all wildlife improved on our few measly acres back home (the cousins) and will not focus just on deer. 

But having seen the nightmare that is Pa deer management first hand I cannot ever wish it on us. You mentioned RZD in an earlier post that mandatory AR forced on hunters who do not wish to practice it is not your style either...... I would not promote nor want statewide AR forced down Michigan hunters throats like pa did. Gary said in Grand Rapids that he had no choice...... well he is flat out wrong. He had a choice, and he made the concious decision to reject the information from hunters in the workshops and force it on them against thier wishes. And he wants it done FAST, before hunters can react and defend thier rights (privledges). He misled sportsman from day one and I have a beautifull picture of him waving a big 10 point rack over his head and holding a little 4 point by his side. "what do you want" he would yell in his gymnasium dog and pony show and then wave the big rack to appeal to hunters lesser nature. Trophy aspect? Sure its there. But outside to the reporters he would speak of 'science', yet he had not done one study yet as a deer manager when he implemented statewide AR's with only 22 DMU's and he never mentioned herd reductions in ANY of his speeches. Only when the PGC gave him his huge allotments of doe tags was it clear to everyday hunters what the REAL agenda was. :yikes: 

Pa biologists would like to take the pa deer herd at 1.3 or 1.6 million and OW 700,000 deer. now that is a substantial reduction that Gary never shared with hunters up front. he got them to buy AR as a carrot, bait to get them going in one direction and promising them "more and bigger bucks". 

Now RZD, how could he when he is cutting the herd in half? He cannot. this was not Arkansas where hunters where taking twice as many bucks as does..... Pa has been taking more does than bucks for a decade prior to Alt. We harvest 300,000 plus AL to 142,000 A. They had prior to AR/HR 90% of all adult does bred, 25% of all fawns bred....... you can't get much better than that unless you are trying to factory farm whitetails for the basic greedy desires of hunters. Resource first? Not in PA, and you do not want to emulate them here. No way, you would be doing a dis-service. In the years of AR/HR we do not see increased breeding since we already had ample numbers of buckt to do the breeding by the PGC's own numbers. He exagerated habitat claims saying if we just kill mor does the deer will be breeding like rabbits. Studies from Miss. and Ark as well as first hand experience in both states showed him it would not happen, yet he spun that tale over and over to get hunters on board. Because he knew that a change in deer management in any state is like a 200car frieght train. Once it gets started it takes forever to stop it or turn it around. Say anything , true or not. Do I question a lot? Yep, sure do. I have to I'm from Pennsylvania. We just harvested more does and with them 24% BB so we limited our own future buck harvests. Every hunter in the workshop predicted we would...... 3 years of straight lower buck harvests. 

They put 1,040,000 doe tags in 22 dmus and that means almost no management. Do we want micro manage here in Mich? No but by god you don't want to throw 1.04million doe tags on the table like pa and yell "have at it boys." Thats why Pa suffers like Arkansas from areas with limited access having high numbers, and many accessed areas being devoid of deer. 

It is not uncommon today in pa to hunt a week with a full family and never see a deer. So far in Mich that has not happened to me. I may not see many bucks but we have had opportunity to take does and in areas of high populations (18-20 dpsm depending on habitat cond) I see no problem. But don't go to mount Pennsylvania and in an area of 2dpsm or even 2dpfsm and shoot them. Thats poor management. I can control me, but I can't control the 40 hunters from New Jersey who take anything and drive home.

Lack of management. Lack of habitat work in pa.

Michigan does suffer from politics, misguided folklore, but they do not undermanage, they work on habitat, they give sportsman and LANDOWNERS inut into their programs and allow mixed seasons and bag limits based on habitat and region. How could you not like that? why would you mess it up with statewide AR/HR and no mangement with a flood of tags??????? 

Nobody in thier right mind would. 

Input from everyday hunters on what is best for our sport. We have earned the right to have a say. Our grandpa's and dads have paid the way for habitat and studies and we should never be relegated to the basement of the natural resources world like happened in PA. 

To sum it up I practice some QDM techniques, by choice, not by state mandated 'one size fits all' beaurocracies. I work for all wildlife not just for deer (sorry but its mostly in pa as I do not know how long my tenure is). I believe hunters should be educated in the merits of QDM and other methodologies based on region and then be alowed to make thier own choice. There is room in this state for traditional hunters, voluntary qdm methods, hybrids, don't mess it up with the heavy handed nightmare that PA has used. And then lie and say they had no 'choice'. 

Michigan has always been up front and honest about studies and trial qdm dmu's. Pa has lied and misled because they feel the end justifies the means. Never do that here, it ruins any good reputation you built up. Its not only important that you do deer management, its HOW YOU DO IT that also counts. I like many in Pa do not oppose QDM in part but do reject wholesale the methods they are using. BTW state mandated AR/HR statewide is NOT qdm. Its a big bureaucracy out of control. 

Michigan manages by region and habitat and hunter desires. A cultural carrying capacity. Pa has turned carrying capacity upside down into a sad joke. the southern portion of the state has habitat that can by the PGC's own support 40 -6o dpm and yet it sets a goal of 12. yet in the northern counties/wmu's they allow 23 dpm in forests they claim are devastated forests devoid or regeneration ???   

Do your homework before looking to other states and thinking the grass is greener over there..... oh surely it must be.... it isn't always. 

Michigan can get to a healthier herd over a longer period of time. Sure QDMA guys are impatient, they want fast food speed to better hunting. It won't happen that way. Steady is the course, follow the lead of biologists, seek input from everyday sportsman (not lobbyists), they've earned it. And we will have good hunting a more educated hunting family, and we'll do it with honesty and integrity. 

not with D&D H articles, folklore, and unconfirmed rumors like 1:10 B ratios in the UP


----------

