# Lower Peninsula Deer Management Initiative (LPDMI)



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

The LPDMI is proud to announce that our official fb page is up and running with links to our website and the ability to support us with your financial gifts.
This will be an intense 4 months leading up to the late summer survey date filled with lots of travel, printing, sign setting, promotion, and gathering support.
PLEASE take a moment to visit or fb page and "like" us, read our proposal and then go to "support Us" in the header and give generously if you believe in our proposal.

https://www.facebook.com/LowerPenins...mentInitiative

http://mideerhunt.org/small-michigan...eds-your-help/

Tony SMith
LPDMI


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

It won't allow me to access the proposal. Tried twice and it failed. Hope its on my end. Let me know if there is another place I can view it. thanks 

Ganzer


----------



## Biggbear (Aug 14, 2001)

I just knew 12 Counties in the LP would never be enough for the special interest groups.

This a line from the proposal I found on the facebook page listed above "The experiences in Leelanau County suggests that regulations can be used in Michigan to increase hunter education and to *improve the hunting experience.*

I'm sorry but I don't need or want someone else to tell me how to "improve my hunting experience." I've been enjoying my hunting experience for the last 35 years. I don't need to increase someone else's chance at a bigger buck to improve my hunting.

This proposal, and the insuing surveys, polls, and rhetoric from both sides have nothing to do with a "healthy and sustainable deer herd." How much bigger can the deer herd in the SLP get? I'd say it's being sustained just fine as it is. This isn't about " sound, scientific managment either" if it was then the SLP would be left as is, again I would say the deer herd here is in fine shape with the current practices.

This is about bigger antlers, and the need for special interst groups to press their thoughts and practices on everyone. We all seem to hate it when PETA or the Humane Society find more and more ways to shove their thoughs down our throats, but when it comes from within it's in the best interest of the deer herd.


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

Biggbear. I completely agree. Hope no-one sends them a nickle.


----------



## stinky reinke (Dec 13, 2007)

QDMAMAN, who do I write the check to? Is that on the website?


----------



## thundrst (Oct 7, 2007)

I have no problem with the people that want to shoot only big bucks. I do have a problem with them forcing everyone else to do the same. If shooting only big bucks is that improtant to them, then they can buy their own land and set their own rules on their land; but don't force their rules on other private land owners or on public land. I know that we have to follow the laws but supposedly the laws are set by biological science & not the wants of a few influencial people. We aught to be putting our efforts and dollars into improving the biological science. IMHO


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> stinky reinke said:
> 
> 
> > QDMAMAN, who do I write the check to? Is that on the website?


Go to the "support us" tab and download the donation form or make a donation through Paypal.
http://mideerhunt.org/support-us/
Thanks!


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

stinky reinke said:


> QDMAMAN, who do I write the check to? Is that on the website?


Stinky. You have the option of hitting the "donate" button LINK. Below the donate button is a link to download a form to send a check where it says:

"If you would prefer sending a check Click Here."


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

thundrst said:


> I have no problem with the people that want to shoot only big bucks. I do have a problem with them forcing everyone else to do the same. If shooting only big bucks is that improtant to them, then they can buy their own land and set their own rules on their land; but don't force their rules on other private land owners or on public land. I know that we have to follow the laws but supposedly the laws are set by biological science & not the wants of a few influencial people. We aught to be putting our efforts and dollars into improving the biological science. IMHO


Your concerns are very understandable thundrst The process cannot go forward without the approval of the DNR after thorough review of the biological impact. Plus, adoption of these regulations requires 66% approval from a survey the DNR will do late this summer.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

*"A sound and sustainable deer herd"*

An interesting choice of words for an initiative that is designed solely to increase the number of larger antlered, older bucks. What's wrong with just saying that you are a bunch of guys who want to see greater numbers of older bucks with bigger antlers, to shoot at? 

Truth in advertising a problem? :yikes: :lol::lol:


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

Biggbear said:


> I just knew 12 Counties in the LP would never be enough for the special interest groups.
> 
> This a line from the proposal I found on the facebook page listed above "The experiences in Leelanau County suggests that regulations can be used in Michigan to increase hunter education and to *improve the hunting experience.*
> 
> ...


Good post that I can relate to & agree with 100%.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Munsterlndr said:
> 
> 
> > *"A sound and sustainable deer herd"*
> ...


Are you suggesting that a sound and sustainable deer herd can't, or shouldn't, contain greater numbers of older bucks with bigger antlers to shoot at?


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Anyone interested in de-railing this puppy? PM me. :lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> Are you suggesting that a sound and sustainable deer herd can't, or shouldn't, contain greater numbers of older bucks with bigger antlers to shoot at?


I'm suggesting that the "soundness and sustainability" of a deer herd has absolutely nothing to do with APR's and that it appears that the LP-DMI is carrying on the long tradition employed by groups promoting APR initiatives, of using misleading terms to explain their purpose. Past initiatives have used explanations such as "health of the herd" and described "goals" related to car/deer accidents, crop damage and fawn health, with the implication that those issues were outcomes dependent on the successful passage of the proposed initiatives. All demonstrably false claims. 

As I said, it's an interesting choice of words. In my opinion it was carefully crafted to try and add a sense of legitimacy to the effort and is intentionally designed to mislead people who are not familiar with the issue into believing that there is some kind of biological benefit to implementing APR's. Of course both of us know that is untrue, as we have heard the Wildlife division state clearly and unequivocally that an APR managed herd is no healthier than one managed through TDM. 

But I suspect that you hope that the masses are not aware of that fact.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> using misleading terms to explain their purpose.


 like you are with the fruit farmers.........


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucksnbows said:


> like you are with the fruit farmers.........


Can you actually name one thing that I've said to fruit farmers that was misleading or untrue? Or are you just ticked that I pointed out the actual truth about the methods being employed to "sell" a big antler agenda. :lol:


----------



## Biggbear (Aug 14, 2001)

QDMAMAN said:


> Are you suggesting that a sound and sustainable deer herd can't, or shouldn't, contain greater numbers of older bucks with bigger antlers to shoot at?


A deer herd can be healthy and sustainable with out manipulating the number of bucks to have bigger antlers. The two have nothing to do with each other. If this propoal is such a great idea, I would hope the groups putting forth the proposal would have the integrity to just state its objective openly and honestly. To shroud the desire to shoot bigger bucks under the veil of a healthy deer herd is far less than honest.

If the groups pushing this intiative would just stand up and say they simply want to shoot bigger deer, I could at least respect that. As my Grandpa used to say "Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining."


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Biggbear said:


> A deer herd can be healthy and sustainable with out manipulating the number of bucks to have bigger antlers. The two have nothing to do with each other. If this propoal is such a great idea, I would hope the groups putting forth the proposal would have the integrity to just state its objective openly and honestly. To shroud the need to shoot bigger bucks under the veil of a healthy deer herd is far less than honest.
> 
> If the groups pushing this intiative would just stand up and say they simply want to shoot bigger deer, I could at least respect that. As my Grandpa used to say "Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining."


I think your grandfather and I may have been good friends and neighbors.


----------



## hartman756 (Nov 21, 2008)

QDMAMAN said:


> Are you suggesting that a sound and sustainable deer herd can't, or shouldn't, contain greater numbers of older bucks with bigger antlers to shoot at?


 

If you were really concerned about a sound deer herd you wouldn't be proposing deer regs that supposedly increase the age of bucks , in the MAAZ bTB zone . 


c hartman


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Biggbear said:


> A deer herd can be healthy and sustainable with out manipulating the number of bucks to have bigger antlers. The two have nothing to do with each other. If this propoal is such a great idea, I would hope the groups putting forth the proposal would have the integrity to just state its objective openly and honestly. To shroud the desire to shoot bigger bucks under the veil of a healthy deer herd is far less than honest.
> 
> If the groups pushing this intiative would just stand up and say they simply want to shoot bigger deer, I could at least respect that. As my Grandpa used to say "Don't piss down my back and tell me its raining."


hey bear if you go to the home page of the lpdmi website and click on facts and read the first paragraph you will see that we do say what we want
pretty much says what you want us to stand up and say

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

johnathan.beebe said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qagxB26Gub4&feature=youtube_gdata_player how I feel and will always feel
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Really, always? At least don't take this "*******'s" word for what QDM is, he's so far off base I don't know where to start!

Oh SNAP! That's You! Wow! Fred Bear and Dan Fitzgerald "started" hunting?

http://www.qdma.com/corporate/about

Curious why you won't shoot a button buck or small spike with your bow or antlerless tag. Is it because in another year he'll have antlers, or bigger antlers?


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

A bite between the head and the ask is all that's needed.


----------



## stinky reinke (Dec 13, 2007)

johnathan.beebe said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qagxB26Gub4&feature=youtube_gdata_player how I feel and will always feel
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


This video is freakin sweet. 

My favorite line: "We hunt for meat. It's Michigan, that's what we do, we hunt for meat."


----------



## johnathan.beebe (Feb 6, 2013)

No I don't shoot a small deer just cuz if it's a 2 inch spike then it's usually a late baby. Next yr it would be what a 4 point if that. So what's the point of a button during if it still needs a parent to survive... So tell what's the difference between admin and farming say hogs? Both wait for them to be a certain size age weight to kill. Both plant crops to feed the animals and both take the sick wounded undesirables so to say out. So are we hunting wild game now because of qdm? No your giving us the same experience we would have hunting a ranch just without the fence.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## johnathan.beebe (Feb 6, 2013)

Qdm. Not admin 

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

wow


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

johnathan.beebe said:


> No I don't shoot a small deer just cuz if it's a 2 inch spike then it's usually a late baby.


Uhm, 2" of polished antler isn't a baby, it's a 1+ yo buck. If you're a meat hunter and are willing to shoot doe and willing to shoot a legal spike (>3"), why would you pass on the 2" spike?
There's a very good chance that the 6 pointer you shot last year and that 2" spike are within a couple of weeks in age. Why discriminate?
The QDMA website I linked you to is FREE for your viewing. You can watch it in the privacy of your locked room away from your Dad and buddies. Please take advantage!


----------



## SmokinIdahoan (Jan 9, 2013)

johnathan.beebe said:


> No I don't shoot a small deer just cuz if it's a 2 inch spike then it's usually a late baby. Next yr it would be what a 4 point if that. So what's the point of a button during if it still needs a parent to survive... So tell what's the difference between admin and farming say hogs? Both wait for them to be a certain size age weight to kill. Both plant crops to feed the animals and both take the sick wounded undesirables so to say out. So are we hunting wild game now because of qdm? No your giving us the same experience we would have hunting a ranch just without the fence.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Not even close.

The idea behind an APR is to protect the younger animals (like the late baby you mentioned above), so that they can mature, that's all there is to it really - its not some really big, complicated management plan that is going to transform how the animals behave, or influence genetics in any way, its just going to let more of the "baby" deer, grow up.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> SmokinIdahoan said:
> 
> 
> > Not even close.
> ...


 
...or a bow.


----------



## SmokinIdahoan (Jan 9, 2013)

QDMAMAN said:


> ...or a bow.


I completely forgot about that one....


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

These non-stop arguments crack me up. :lol:

I've listened to many a professional farmer, when talking about letting the older bucks go and every one has the same answer......... 'Would you expect me, as a cattle rancher/farmer, to butcher my best bulls and only leave young bulls in the herd?'


----------



## johnathan.beebe (Feb 6, 2013)

So then a spike is ok toshoot long as it's a year plus? Is what I'm taking from this?

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## johnathan.beebe (Feb 6, 2013)

Plus if a person went hunting and is barely scraping it by and has to feed his family. But the only deer he sees doesn't make it up to par with your standards it's wrong?

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## ReeseHunter (Jan 10, 2009)

johnathan.beebe said:


> Plus if a person went hunting and is barely scraping it by and has to feed his family. But the only deer he sees doesn't make it up to par with your standards it's wrong?
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


I have heard this argument for way to long and I am calling BS on it. If someone is truly scraping by they would be better off to save their $15 and all other costs associated with hunting and go out buy a case of Koegels, some bread and some peanut butter to feed their family. You just can't make this stuff up anymore


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

ReeseHunter said:


> I have heard this argument for way to long and I am calling BS on it. If someone is truly scraping by they would be better off to save their $15 and all other costs associated with hunting and go out buy a case of Koegels, some bread and some peanut butter to feed their family. You just can't make this stuff up anymore


 no siht


----------



## johnathan.beebe (Feb 6, 2013)

Answer it I deer ya option a you say yes- qdm looks like heartless upper class men who don't care bout the little people who have to do this stuff to put food on the table to help there family survive. Or option b you say no admit there's nothing wrong with shooting a deer not up to par. Which also means what's the point of qdm if it's alright to shoot a littler deer what's the point of managing them

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

:banghead3


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> johnathan.beebe said:
> 
> 
> > So then a spike is ok toshoot long as it's a year plus? Is what I'm taking from this?
> ...


It's okay to shoot with the appropriate license under the appropriate regulations at the time. Yes.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

johnathan.beebe said:


> Plus if a person went hunting and is barely scraping it by and has to feed his family. But the only deer he sees doesn't make it up to par with your standards it's wrong?
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Johnathan, you hunt for recreation, the venison is a nice bonus, and if you were struggling to feed your family you wouldn't lend chance to that endevour you'd be working a second job. Let's be honest here.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

johnathan.beebe said:


> qdm looks like heartless upper class men who don't care bout the little people who have to do this stuff to put food on the table to help there family survive.


To a person with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears, I'm sure it does.
The practice of QDM is not specific to one's socioeconomic status.
PLEASE do some reading on the link I provided!


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

ENCORE said:


> These non-stop arguments crack me up. :lol:
> 
> I've listened to many a professional farmer, when talking about letting the older bucks go and every one has the same answer......... 'Would you expect me, as a cattle rancher/farmer, to butcher my best bulls and only leave young bulls in the herd?'


Because there is so much similarity between the controlled breeding that we see in animal husbandry and what occurs in free ranging deer herds? 

You are seriously suggesting that as a relative argument? :lol:


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> Because there is so much similarity between the controlled breeding that we see in animal husbandry and what occurs in free ranging deer herds?
> 
> You are seriously suggesting that as a relative argument? :lol:


Nope....... I'm gonna play the game...... If its brown its down. :lol:


----------



## ReeseHunter (Jan 10, 2009)

QDMAMAN said:


> To a person with his eyes closed and his fingers in his ears, I'm sure it does.
> The practice of QDM is not specific to one's socioeconomic status.
> PLEASE do some reading on the link I provided!


Johnathan, please take Tony up on his advice and do some reading. While you are at it, try to meet some of these guys. It wasn't long ago that I thought a lot like you do at this point. Until I opened my eyes up and learned a bit. Then I met some of these guys like QDMAman and they are some of the nicest guys I have met. I am thankful I had the chance to meet them and I would encourage you to do the same.

Josh


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

ReeseHunter said:


> Johnathan, please take Tony up on his advice and do some reading. While you are at it, try to meet some of these guys. It wasn't long ago that I thought a lot like you do at this point. Until I opened my eyes up and learned a bit. Then I met some of these guys like QDMAman and they are some of the nicest guys I have met. I am thankful I had the chance to meet them and I would encourage you to do the same.
> 
> Josh


I'd bet that if you met some of the guys on the other side of the issue, you would think that they are equally nice guys. The debate has nothing to do with who is "nicer", it's about whether or not you support forcing others to adopt harvest standards that you have been unable to convince them to adopt voluntarily. "Nice" is really is kind of moot. Some of us think that individuals should be able to make their own decisions, absent any compelling biological reason. Others have decided that they know best and that everyone should have to adopt the socially based harvest standards that they have decided are appropriate. Again, "nice" really has nothing to do with it.


----------



## ReeseHunter (Jan 10, 2009)

Munsterlndr said:


> I'd bet that if you met some of the guys on the other side of the issue, you would think that they are equally nice guys. The debate has nothing to do with who is "nicer", it's about whether or not you support forcing others to adopt harvest standards that you have been unable to convince them to adopt voluntarily. "Nice" is really is kind of moot. Some of us think that individuals should be able to make their own decisions, absent any compelling biological reason. Others have decided that they know best and that everyone should have to adopt the socially based harvest standards that they have decided are appropriate. Again, "nice" really has nothing to do with it.


My "nice guy" response was towards Johnathan calling QDM guys upper class snobs. For the most part, you and I both know that is not true. Sure some are like that but a great majority are just regular guys. As far as forcing things, I guess we will just see how the survey turns out.

BTW, I really do appreciate the plans for the blind you sent me. It is all done and turned out pretty good. I will send you some pics when I get some time!!


----------



## johnathan.beebe (Feb 6, 2013)

Munsterlndr said:


> I'd bet that if you met some of the guys on the other side of the issue, you would think that they are equally nice guys. The debate has nothing to do with who is "nicer", it's about whether or not you support forcing others to adopt harvest standards that you have been unable to convince them to adopt voluntarily. "Nice" is really is kind of moot. Some of us think that individuals should be able to make their own decisions, absent any compelling biological reason. Others have decided that they know best and that everyone should have to adopt the socially based harvest standards that they have decided are appropriate. Again, "nice" really has nothing to do with it.


You said everything I've been trying to say in a better way thank you. and I called the upper class snobs because most don't care bout the little man. That's all I was trying to say

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## ReeseHunter (Jan 10, 2009)

johnathan.beebe said:


> You said everything I've been trying to say in a better way thank you. and I called the upper class snobs because most don't care bout the little man. That's all I was trying to say
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


He is very good at getting his point across. Some things he says I agree with some I don't but I respect everyones opinion and I respect yours as well. What I truly hope that is in a couple of years your hunting is even better than it is today and you come on here and thank the guys that had a hand in getting it that way. If it don't turn out that way I will be the first one to come on here and admit I was wrong..............don't think that is going to happen though


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

ReeseHunter said:


> ........... I guess we will just see how the survey turns out.......QUOTE]
> 
> Where is this survey? No one up here has it and I certainly haven't seen it.


----------



## johnathan.beebe (Feb 6, 2013)

I juste dont cet show you canal allié somnole tout tell you chat tour trophy Is. Anything is a trophy to anyone if they are happy with taking a smaller deer let them

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## ReeseHunter (Jan 10, 2009)

johnathan.beebe said:


> I juste dont cet show you canal allié somnole tout tell you chat tour trophy Is. Anything is a trophy to anyone if they are happy with taking a smaller deer let them
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Imagine how thrilled they will be when they get a chance at shooting something with 4 points on one side. As for the first part, I can't help you there. I have a headache just from trying to read it.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

johnathan.beebe said:


> You said everything I've been trying to say in a better way thank you. and I called the upper class snobs because most don't care bout the little man. That's all I was trying to say


Johnathan:

While I don't agree with some of the things you said, and you do appear to be confused on a few things (or maybe your just not that good at articulating how you feel), there are many on this site that are on your side. Some have gotten tired of being browbeaten and ridiculed and therefore don't post anymore, but rest assured you are not alone.

Keep on keeping on, and don't let some of the egos here keep you from participating.

KPC


----------



## ReeseHunter (Jan 10, 2009)

ENCORE said:


> ReeseHunter said:
> 
> 
> > ........... I guess we will just see how the survey turns out.......QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## ReeseHunter (Jan 10, 2009)

KPC said:


> Johnathan:
> 
> While I don't agree with some of the things you said, and you do appear to be confused on a few things (or maybe your just not that good at articulating how you feel), there are many on this site that are on your side. Some have gotten tired of being browbeaten and ridiculed and therefore don't post anymore, but rest assured you are not alone.
> 
> ...


I surely hope this was not intented for me? I have not nor will I ever browbeat someone for thier opinion. And there are "EGOS" on both sides of the fence on this one.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

Here is a release from the DNR published in November. It cuts thru some of the pro-APR foo-foo and gets to the bottom line. The deer herds are overall doing good and getting better. 




> *Northern Michigan deer hunting headed for a comeback
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

ReeseHunter said:


> I am not a spokesman for the group so I will defer to them but I believe the surverys were just sent out not long ago. If you filled out a 2012 Hunter survey stating you hunted in th lower peninsula then you have a chance at getting one of these surveys. If you didn't fill one out, you will not have any chance at seeing one.


You are mistaken. The LP DMI initiative was recently amended and is still with the DNR's Wildlife Division. The survey process won't begin until next fall, assuming that the initiative is not cancelled prior to that point. First there will be a series of "informational" public meetings that have to be completed prior to the survey period starting.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

johnathan.beebe said:


> You said everything I've been trying to say in a better way thank you. and I called the upper class snobs because most don't care bout the little man. That's all I was trying to say
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


 Who do you suggest "the little man" is?
the common blue collared pubic land hunter or small parcel owner?
poor people
hunters who are midgets?


----------



## ReeseHunter (Jan 10, 2009)

Munsterlndr said:


> You are mistaken. The LP DMI initiative was recently amended and is still with the DNR's Wildlife Division. The survey process won't begin until next fall, assuming that the initiative is not cancelled prior to that point. First there will be a series of "informational" public meetings that have to be completed prior to the survey period starting.


See, that is why they don't want me for a spokesman. :lol: Thanks for clearing that up. I was going off something I read on here, my mistake! I was correct about them not getting one of these surveys if they didn't fill out a 2012 hunter satisfaction survey wasn't I?

I completely understand why both sides of the debate get a little heated. My hope is that we can all be civil towards each other until this plays out..............so far that don't seem to be happening and that is too bad!!


----------



## johnathan.beebe (Feb 6, 2013)

Average Joe hunter who hunts for food not racks

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

ReeseHunter said:


> I surely hope this was not intented for me? I have not nor will I ever browbeat someone for thier opinion. And there are "EGOS" on both sides of the fence on this one.


Absolutely not Reese. Sorry if you thought that.

KPC


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

ReeseHunter said:


> See, that is why they don't want me for a spokesman. :lol: Thanks for clearing that up. I was going off something I read on here, my mistake! I was correct about them not getting one of these surveys if they didn't fill out a 2012 hunter satisfaction survey wasn't I?
> 
> I completely understand why both sides of the debate get a little heated. My hope is that we can all be civil towards each other until this plays out..............so far that don't seem to be happening and that is too bad!!


Yes, the criteria for being included in the sample pool that is used to choose the APR survey recipients from is the following;

1) Purchased a deer hunting license in 2012

2) Were chosen to receive a 2012 annual hunter survey and returned it. Approx. 50,000 hunters are chosen to receive the annual hunter survey, 45% of annual survey recipients did not return the survey in 2011.

or

3)voluntarily filled out an online annual hunter survey in 2012.

4) Indicated on the submitted hunter survey that you hunted deer in one of the counties included in the APR initiative. 

If you were not chosen to receive the annual hunter survey or did not fill it out online or if you did not return an annual hunter survey after receiving one or did not indicate that you hunted in one of the specified DMU's, then you are excluded from potentially being included in the pool of recipients for the APR survey.


----------



## ReeseHunter (Jan 10, 2009)

KPC said:


> Absolutely not Reese. Sorry if you thought that.
> 
> KPC


Nothing hurt on my side. No harm no foul!!


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

johnathan.beebe said:


> Average Joe hunter who hunts for food not racks
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


Fair enough


----------



## ReeseHunter (Jan 10, 2009)

Munsterlndr said:


> Yes, the criteria for being included in the sample pool that is used to choose the APR survey recipients from is the following;
> 
> 1) Purchased a deer hunting license in 2012
> 
> ...


Thank you very much for this. It will clear things up for a lot of people who are wondering about the upcoming survey.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Sep 20, 2008)

Jonathan,

QDM at it's basic level is passing on 1 1/2 and some 2 1/2 year old bucks as well as maintaining deer populations within the carrying capacity of the land.

It has nothing to due with genetics, breeding, or taking out inferior deer. It is not set up as a trophy program, but rather getting a more diverse age structure across the herd. Whitetail deer do not reach their full trophy potential until 5 1/2 to 6 1/2 years of age.

That two inch spike yearling you passed the previous year will more than likely be a nice 8 or 6 point the following year. The vast majority of the bucks will be available for harvest by their second year of antler development under the 3 or 4 point APR.

Now me, KPC, and Munster will agree on virtually nothing, but there is not much that I wrote that will be argued by either of them although I'm always Leary.:lol:

Oh, there are also many of us that are not wealthy men, at least financially wealthy.

Form your own opinions, but always try to look at both sides of any issue.

Have a good day, Pez


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Pez Gallo said:


> Jonathan,
> 
> QDM at it's basic level is passing on 1 1/2 and some 2 1/2 year old bucks as well as maintaining deer populations within the carrying capacity of the land.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't disagree with anything that you said.

I'd only add further that the issue that is controversial is not QDM or QDMA, it's APR's. What's unfortunate is that the two have become synonymous in the minds of all too many people in Michigan. QDM has always been intended to be a voluntary practice but unfortunately anyone who is opposed to mandatory APR's get's automatically branded as being "anti-QDM" by many of those who support making APR's mandatory. Those two points of view, opposing mandatory APR's and supporting the QDM philosophy are not mutually exclusive and it's unfortunate that the distinction between QDM and APR's is lost on many people who are not familiar with what QDM actually is (and some who are).


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> I wouldn't disagree with anything that you said.
> 
> I'd only add further that the issue that is controversial is not QDM or QDMA, it's APR's. What's unfortunate is that the two have become synonymous in the minds of all too many people in Michigan. QDM has always been intended to be a voluntary practice but unfortunately anyone who is opposed to mandatory APR's get's automatically branded as being "anti-QDM" by many of those who support making APR's mandatory. Those two points of view, opposing mandatory APR's and supporting the QDM philosophy are not mutually exclusive and it's unfortunate that the distinction between QDM and APR's is lost on many people who are not familiar with what QDM actually is (and some who are).


And I agree with everything you say here.

It is truly unfortunate that the various APR programs have been labeled as "QDM" programs by MDNR.

I wish they would stop doing that.

MAPRs and QDM are not the same thing.


----------



## Tron322 (Oct 29, 2011)

the APR or QDM practices kill the chances for a lot of hunters to join in our sport.

I have tried to introduce quite a few hunters to deer hunting, these hunters love the action of waterfowl and small game. but we go and sit, walk, drive, etc. with the increase of doe tags the last 10 years and we see only a few deer, all bald.

most of these "new" deer hunter have already given up, they don't like seeing only squirrels and no deer(with all the does being shot, an APR or QDM will push the rest out of the deer woods, which I am sure will raise the remaining deer licence fees .....

(Which I don't understand, fishing licences restock and create habitat, waterfowl helps fthe management areas, but where does my deer licence money go to help provide more deer? guess that can be discussed another time.)

Another issue that I know other hunters have found since we have a restricted 4 points on one side tag is 4 and 6 point bucks dead in the woods, obvious kill shot. my thought is a hunter was sure it was 4 points on a side and didn't want to chance losing the venison, upon finding the buck the hunter took off seeing it was not legal.... why not make one DEER tag, buck or doe, mature or yearling, every hunter gets one tag and they can shoot what they want, this three deer per hunter is unreal, our new hunter see no deer and stop hunting.

I have heard one plan that I believe would be fantastic, a southern state, can not remember which one, you get a phone number to call, you bag a deer you call a number, tell the dispatcher where the deer was harvested, size, gender, etc......then you get a confirmation number you write down, now if you get stopped the C.O. calls in the confirmation number and finds out if you are legal or not........new hunters can have no APR, shoot what they want and learn to love the hunt, older hunters like me will be forced woth bigger bucks, because after 20 years of deer hunting, that is all I want now.

So now we have new hunters in the field, one tag so everyone is seeing deer, and us vets who have been hunting forever can target the big boys. sounds good to me, everyone wins, making one rule for everyone to follow does not work, Me and my girlfriend just moved to Leelanau county, brand new here and only been hunting the dunes, she voted to hunt Benzie county because she does not want to be told what she can or cannot harvest, or having a buck moving fast where she can see antlers and cannot see the size but she can hit him in the kill zone she wants to shoot....the 12 county APR or QDM goes into effect she says she will not get a deer licence again......is this really what we all want?


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Tony, has the Quality Deer Management Association sanctioned or approved your LPDMI?


----------



## johnathan.beebe (Feb 6, 2013)

Well since I started this ill finish it. On one side you got racks people who want bigger deer so no one will shoot small bucks. Pro easy bigger bucks cons what will be the new standard of a trophy. On the brown it's down side the pro is more meat and the con is it will harder to see bigger deer. So both sides has pros and cons. But not one side can say there idea is better than the others. People can think whatever they want and believe whatever they want but one side shouldn't force the other to do theirs. Its just not right so one side should go their way and the other go theirs. And atheist agree that we all hunt for our own purposes whether it be meat or racks. Just do what makes you happy

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Pez Gallo said:


> Jonathan,
> 
> QDM at it's basic level is passing on 1 1/2 and some 2 1/2 year old bucks as well as maintaining deer populations within the carrying capacity of the land.
> 
> ...


I too, would agree with everything you said Pez.

The only thing I would add, and I think you would agree with this also, is that unfortunately the true QDMA movement has been hijacked and bastardized by many, with the intention of making it nothing more than a trophy program.

Most negative impressions about QDM have to do with that impression.

KPC


----------



## ReeseHunter (Jan 10, 2009)

KPC said:


> I too, would agree with everything you said Pez.
> 
> The only thing I would add, and I think you would agree with this also, is that unfortunately the true QDMA movement has been hijacked and bastardized by many, with the intention of making it nothing more than a trophy program.
> 
> ...


I think that is a fairly accurate statement. I am not sure I would use the word "many" but the ones that are giving QDM a bad name really give the organization a huge black eye.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

KPC said:


> I too, would agree with everything you said Pez.
> 
> The only thing I would add, and I think you would agree with this also, is that unfortunately the true QDMA movement has been hijacked and bastardized by many, with the intention of making it nothing more than a trophy program.
> 
> ...


 so what does qdm have to do with advancing the buck age structure of the lp deer herd which is what this initiative is intending to do?
This initiative has nothing to do about trophy management . We simply want to advance the age structure in bucks to have more older bucks in the herd.
Thats our motive. Suggesting otherwise what are our motives is purely speculation based on some twisted bias opinion. Some of us firmly believe that more bigger bucks will be what the majority will want. If that dont prove out so be it then no harm done. You folks will have won.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

brushbuster said:


> so what does qdm have to do with advancing the buck age structure of the lp deer herd which is what this initiative is intending to do?
> This initiative has nothing to do about trophy management . We simply want to advance the age structure in bucks to have more older bucks in the herd.
> Thats our motive. Suggesting otherwise what are our motives is purely speculation based on some twisted bias opinion. Some of us firmly believe that more bigger bucks will be what the majority will want. If that dont prove out so be it then no harm done. You folks will have won.


 
What if the DNR stated there already is a satisfactory age structure?


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

TVCJohn said:


> What if the DNR stated there already is a satisfactory age structure?


if they believe that and want to stop our proposal they certainly have that authority

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

brushbuster said:


> This initiative has nothing to do about trophy management . We simply want to advance the age structure in bucks to have more older bucks in the herd.
> Thats our motive. Suggesting otherwise what are our motives is purely speculation based on some twisted bias opinion. Some of us firmly believe that more bigger bucks will be what the majority will want. If that dont prove out so be it then no harm done. You folks will have won.


If that's the case, why is your group using misleading and fabricated claims about APR's being a solution for loss of hunters in the NLP? Why not just make your campaign about the actual goal, which is to advance the buck age structure through the implementation of mandatory antler restrictions? 

Why the games about promoting a "Sound and Sustainable deer herd", when we already have a biologically sound and sustainable deer herd in Michigan? 

Why don't you guys just be honest and say "Hey, we want mandatory antler restrictions that will result in more older deer with bigger antlers", if you support that idea join us, if you don't support it, we respect your opinion. Seems like that would be the honorable thing to do based on what you claim is your actual motive above?


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

brushbuster said:


> so what does qdm have to do with advancing the buck age structure of the lp deer herd which is what this initiative is intending to do?


Well bb, they say a picture is worth a thousand words...maybe this will help.










KPC


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> Why don't you guys just be honest and say "Hey, we want mandatory antler restrictions that will result in more older deer with bigger antlers", if you support that idea join us, if you don't support it, we respect your opinion. Seems like that would be the honorable thing to do based on what you claim is your actual motive above?


I'll say it. This represents precisely why I am involved in this initiative. 

*Hey, we want mandatory antler restrictions that will result in more older deer with bigger antlers, if you support that idea join us, if you don't support it, we respect your opinion. *

Thank you for that nice way of saying what the main goal of the initiative is.

It is pretty obvious if you go to the LPDMI website but I know you are just desperate to make it seem to seem like there is some kind of subterfuge going on. Pretty obvious what is going on here. CLICK


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> I know it makes you very, very uncomfortable to know that hunter numbers have not fallen in those 2 DMUs where APRs are in place, but that is reality.


No, it is not a reality, it's a fabrication based on some cherry picked data that you selected. 

It is a demonstrable fact that hunter numbers have fallen in Leelanau Co.

There is also no evidence to support the claim that hunter retention numbers are in any way connected to APR's, yet you make that implication in your youtube video. Clearly you are afraid to promote the APR initiative on it's own merits, so you have decided to deceptively promote it on the basis of fabricated benefits, much in the way the NW12 initiative was promoted on similar fabricated benefits related to crop damage, car/deer accidents and fawn recruitment. 

Why the need to mislead and fabricate reasons for people to support the initiative? :nono:


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

KPC said:


> Well bb, they say a picture is worth a thousand words...maybe this will help.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i see a nice doe and a nice buck mmmm that should fill the freezer

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

KPC said:


> Well bb, they say a picture is worth a thousand words...maybe this will help.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ok so the lpdmi has a few things in common with qdm . Advancing age structure in bucks and were not managing for trophys. we want more bigger bucks in the herd.
I probably have a few things in common with you like a love for trad archery gear but we are not the same entity.


posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

Thanks Tony.


----------



## Musket (May 11, 2009)

Tell you what. I will make a deal with all who support APR, Me and my friends will hold off and stay out of the woods till you have had your chance. Fair enough. APR = another good showing of bad characters.


----------



## ReeseHunter (Jan 10, 2009)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> Being nice to a fellow supporter or possible supporter is one thing....... How a person goes about showing respect and consideration to someone with opposing views is a better measure of a man's true character...just sayin'


Can't say that I disagree with your statement at all. You will never see me bash someone just because they have a different view than what I have.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

bioactive said:


> Big;
> 
> 
> What rut-n-strut's concern is, *is that the guys who got the survey and didn't return it are not being represented.* In that regard, they are like people who did not register to vote, and therefore did not get their voice heard.
> ...


Wow, that was your take? While it is a concern, using a survey where bias can/is introduced into the MI-DNR Deer Hunters Survey. 

*My main concern is that the MI-DNR recognize that using a larger, more diverse, more unbiased pool of survey recipients is a more fair and unbiased approach to gauging the real sentiment of MI deer hunters and needs to be used for future MAR surveys when they are available....Got it yet?....Jeeze....Use that Phd for cripes sake.*


----------



## da Appleknocker (Jan 26, 2009)

You got to love it but the truth hurts sometimes, right Bio? :lol:


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

da Appleknocker said:


> You got to love it but the truth hurts sometimes, right Bio? :lol:


:lol::lol::lol:...Mornin' Da Appleknocker.


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

ReeseHunter said:


> Can't say that I disagree with your statement at all. You will never see me bash someone just because they have a different view than what I have.


 If they dish it out, they can take it. I am not one for words. After it gets to a certain point, I just start swinging.


----------



## ReeseHunter (Jan 10, 2009)

itchn2fish said:


> If they dish it out, they can take it. I am not one for words. After it get to a certain point, I just start swinging.


Yep, and anymore there is a lot of dishing out going on but don't seem like people can take it too well!! :lol:


----------



## stinky reinke (Dec 13, 2007)

johnathan.beebe said:


> No I don't shoot a small deer just cuz if it's a 2 inch spike then it's usually a late baby. Next yr it would be what a 4 point if that. So what's the point of a button during if it still needs a parent to survive... So tell what's the difference between admin and farming say hogs? Both wait for them to be a certain size age weight to kill. Both plant crops to feed the animals and both take the sick wounded undesirables so to say out. So are we hunting wild game now because of qdm? No your giving us the same experience we would have hunting a ranch just without the fence.
> 
> posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


I totally agree, i just wanna shoot deer, a whole ****pot full of em.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Tony I PM's you a suggestion for a fund raiser.


----------



## Valerie Nixon (Jan 16, 2013)

A friend hearing about APRs is curious and concerned what they might mean for her, some of her family grow apples. Do APRs change crop damage any, she wants to know. Specifically apple orchard damage. I guess that might be a question about tree or browse damage instead of like row crops.

If anyone could give me a link to any information. That says if APRs cause less of that, or more, or makes no difference, thank you.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Valerie there is a link in the deer management section that has a 2 week early October gun season in the title that may help. 


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

bioactive said:


> Big;
> 
> The survey is only sent out to about 1 in 12 hunters. That is more than enough to get a sample with high reliability.
> 
> ...


If numerical ratio was the only determining factor for the dnr, and I can believe that it was, it certainly does not demonstrate a high reliability factor for an opinion survey. It may work for a consistently held biological sampling survey but that one factor means little in a sociological opinion or voting survey. Example: I could take a sample of 1 in 12 voters but take them all out of one big city and that result would be marketdly different than one held under the proper geographic and demographic factors. Your comment speaks volumes about the accuracy of that survey. Apparently the dnr experts do not understand data, statistical, or probability analysis or they choose to deliberately ignore proper procedure. Even if they felt that all of the surveyed opinions came out of those counties, the representative value is questionable to say the least if they did take further efforts to include a properly balanced sample. Without balance or proper proportions that statistical representation may very well be false. There is no way of knowing what the reliability is in that circumstance. Nearly every professional statistician that I know of and have read about will tell you that your description is how a survery is created to get the results that were determined before the process even began. Thank you for clearing up any mathematical doubt that was in my mind. I believe the NW group wanted honest results. They should demand their money back for a very improper survey process and I am not referring to the language at all in this post. That procedure would not be accepted in any thesis by any reputable mathematics department. How did the dnr think that they could slip that one over for any amount of time? And they wonder why they struggle to get the respect of the public:lol::lol:.


----------

