# Michigan Hunters Love Their Bucks



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

So, the preliminary estimates are that Michigan hunters harvested about 277,000 deer during the 2003 general firearms season. About 158,000 of these deer were antlered bucks, and the remaining 119,000 antlerless.

Assume, if you will, that 20% of the antlerless harvest consisted of button bucks (lots of guys would say it's more than that, but let's say 20%). Adjusting antlered/antlerless to bucks/does, we now have a firearms harvest of 66% bucks, and 34% does.
Pretty remarkable, especially when you consider that does outnumber bucks in this state by a comfortable margin.

Every time I look at harvest numbers from surrounding states, it looks like hunters in those places harvest a substantially higher proportion of does than we do here. In Wisconsin, a state with a fair deal of similarity in numbers of deer and hunters, more does have been taken than bucks for the last few seasons; that is radically different from Michigan's numbers.

Like it or not, we Michiganders still have a lot of behavioral inertia toward changing our long-held heritage of cherishing any sort of a buck as a superior trophy to a doe.


----------



## OTIS (Feb 15, 2001)

158,000 bucks... Good job Michigan Hunters. 

Keep up the good work.

And keep posting pics and sharing your success stories with us on this Forum.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Farmlegend, the DNR`s estimate for 2001 was that 22% of the antlerless harvest was buck fawns. I don`t think they issued a figure for last year. I would think that it would be safe to assume the figure would range in the low 20`s %.

What that means though is that out of a herd of 1.5 million deer, Michigan firearm hunters harvested less than 100,000 does.


----------



## Jibber (Nov 25, 2003)

I once shot a squirrel in my backyard when I saw that he was eating my sweetcorn. I thought he was the only squirrel in the area. The next day I had 3 squirrels eating my corn. I had a pretty good idea of how many squirrels I had didn't I. In my opinion there is 3 million deer in this state, or is it 1 million. In other words I have no idea how many squirrels or deer we have in this state and neither does a state run agency that doesn't do mandatory check-ins! Deer numbers 4 days after season closes, what a joke. I'd like to know the confidence interval used on those statistics. 1 deer checked, 3 not checked, 2 deer checked, 5 not checked. Hunters spend more time in the woods than biologists, and I've only been surveyed once! Where does our money go, to snowmobile and ORV trail improvement?


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

I bet those trends start to change soon though, and through the volition of personal decisions as opposed to regulations.
The positive in that is that when it is one's own decision, it sticks, and the converted become the preachers, so to speak. In my opinion, it is more effective in the long run to change the culture and the collective attitude, than it is to simply change the regs.
The obvious possible negative is that it takes time. People do not always have an epiphany: they often have a journey to a viewpoint.

I think a lot more people are becoming receptive to scientific deer management. If you go back through the posts even just on these boards, over the past few years, there has been a lot of resistance to "QDM" per se, but in general the tone has become more friendly to at least the concepts.
I suppose it is difficult to sit and see the statistics each year while waiting for the masses to be converted, but perhaps it is worth it to see a more grounded conversion.

FWIW


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Amos I see the opposite trend occuring in one of the most TDM (traditional deer management) en-grained states in the country, PA. When Gary Alt released his plans for PA's deer herd in 2000, he was publicly crucified, had his life threatened, etc. PA hunters hated him, his ideas and everything he represented which was change.

Gary Alt knew there was no other way to manage the deer herd than scientifically and the only way to enact those changes were through drastic regulation changes. He did go to every county in PA and give seminars, not necessarily to change minds but to explain the coming changes and why they were necessary. 

Now, 3 years later and 2 years after the antler restrictions were introduced, PA hunters overwhelmingly support these regulation changes. PA hunters have seen with their own eye's that change is a very good thing. The same PA hunters that were cursing the name of Gary Alt are more optimistic than ever and can't wait until 2004! When is the last time the majority of MI hunters could
say the same thing?


http://www.outdoorlife.com/outdoor/hunting/whitetails/article/0,13285,483679,00.html

http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections...Deer_Season_Opening_Approaching_11170312.html

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/sports/outdoors/s_167871.html


----------



## Jimbos (Nov 21, 2000)

> I think a lot more people are becoming receptive to scientific deer management. If you go back through the posts even just on these boards, over the past few years, there has been a lot of resistance to "QDM" per se, but in general the tone has become more friendly to at least the concepts.


Amen!!!!! 

Something has to change in this state, and more and more people are seeing that. If it's not 100% acceptance of QDM principles, then it's dropping the second buck(yes I know it would be a very small number) or zero bucks for a year. But at the same time the state HAS to undertake a wholesale habitat program, especially in the northern counties. Just saying you want bigger bucks is not going to work with way past prime deer habitat. As has been discussed in the past, stateland is managed for a lot of different activities, so just managing land for deer is a hard sell.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

Oh I know that people can be convinced in more than one way.
But I am thinking of the example of Ed Grasavage, from the Outdoor life article, who went from wanting to punch Alt out, to becoming Penn's QDMA Chapter President: _that_ conversion came through persuasion and not coersion. His committment is deep. Seeing results will also win people over. But what is the chance those who love the results might blame the restrictions if a bad year or two years should happen (for other reasons)? If they buy into the philosophy, down years are less likely to sway them, I think.

As an aside, the Outdoor life article cited a recent (PA) State-sponsored poll in which 80 percent favored antler restrictions. Do you have any links to that poll, as well as any similar polls from previous years? It would be interesting to see.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Why is the state of Michigan, CONSTANTLY being compared to PA??? Or why is PA, CONSTANTLY being brought up, when discussing a "managed" deer herd???

Does PA, have the same amount of hunters as MI?

Does PA, have the same seasons and dates as MI?

Does PA, have or ever had the same tag regulations as MI?

Does PA, have a few counties that are infected with TB?

What were the seasons and tag regs, 10 years ago, in PA?

Is PA the ONLY state with antler restrictions?

Is the habitat the same & the winters just as harsh in the north?

I really don't think its fair to "compare" or try to "adopt" another states, deer herd management policies, unless everything is or has been VERY similar for a number of years.

It would be very interesting to hear from someone that had lived and hunted in PA, for 30 years and recently moved to MI and see what they think.


----------



## Tony H. (Feb 6, 2003)

Actually, PA is very comparable to Michigan and thus the comparison is logical and fair  except to those who refuse to step out of the dark ages and look to the future.

The attitude is slowly changing and it's only a matter of time before new regulations are here. Guys like Otis and the other "kill a buck no matter what" guys are getting older. They're getting fewer. And they're on their way out. Why? Because Michigan hunters, by and large, care greatly about our tradition and our heritage. And we understand change must happen or we all lose.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Yepper, Tony. PA has more deer hunters than Michigan, similar long-standing deer hunting tradition, over a million deer, similar climate.

And now, more bucks.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

I've only been to PA once and didn't realize we are "that" similar.

But,,,,,, what I think you really have to look at is,,, how was thier herd managed 10 years ago or 6 years ago??

And what was the reasoning behind the radical change in regs?

Were PA's deer numbers down?

This is what I'm getting at,,, I've never shot a button and I've passed on so many spikes, 4's , 6's and even 1 decent 7 in the last 3 years that it's not even funny. This is through early bow, gun and late bow. Now I don't see a TON deer, usually 1 or 2, every other time out or so. And the last 2 years, including this year,, I haven't seen ONE doe!

What I would hate to see happen,, is that it gets very late in the season and I have no meat in the freezer and a "decent" spike or 4 comes by and I don't have an "option" to take him. 

I don't think I'm alone in my thinking on this one, either.

What are the tag regs in PA, anyway??


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by William H Bonney _
> *What I would hate to see happen,, is that it gets very late in the season and I have no meat in the freezer and a "decent" spike or 4 comes by and I don't have an "option" to take him.
> I don't think I'm alone in my thinking on this one, either.
> *


Option??? So basically, for selfish reasons, you gotta get that deer?


----------



## Tony H. (Feb 6, 2003)

William, 

Sorry if I seemed to be busting your chops a bit. You sound like you're doing everything the right way. I really don't have an answer to your situation. You "should" be seeing some does. In your situation, I think I'd be concerned too. But you can only continue doing the right thing and it sounds to me like you're doing just that.

The current regs in PA are: three point minimum on a side in some areas, four points in others. Tons and tons of doe tags. Not sure how many bucks they can take.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

> _Originally posted by William H Bonney _
> *What I would hate to see happen,, is that it gets very late in the season and I have no meat in the freezer and a "decent" spike or 4 comes by and I don't have an "option" to take him.
> *


Just how awful would that be? 
Would that ruin your season? 

I don't mean to get on your case, but I am curious.


----------



## jimmyboy (Jan 10, 2002)

Gotta change the MICH deer hunters ingrained culture concerning the taking of juvenile 1 1/2 yr old bucks. As long as it is acceptable to brag about doing so,nothing is going to change. Fine for a 1st kill or two by a hunter new to the sport, but to be frowned upon from there on. Taking does should replace the juvenile buck harvest attitude. I started a thread about the ALT accomplishment in PA back in early fall, based on the OL mag article. Many nay-sayer/negative responses and some more optomistic ones as well. Nothing gets better until widespread acceptance happens. Dr ALT has led the way, and the results have been astounding.Especially PA's hunter acceptance and enthusiam for visable results there.Hooray for them-they've found a better method and I wish them continued success! Now MDNR-lead,follow,or get out of the way.


----------



## skulldugary (Apr 12, 2003)

Jimmyboy,.....To be "FROWNED"upon from there on...That statement ought to sway some people to jump on your band wagon!!!


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Moved...The conversation of "The earth is flat! No, it's round! You have no proof the earth isn't flat and we've been perfectly happy with a flat earth for years..." unfortunatley still belongs over in the other forum.


----------



## wrenchman (Jun 23, 2003)

i am not big on the q.d.m. part that says you have to take a buck with a certain number of points but i do beleave a buck is a buck 
when they first made it were if you kill butten buck you can tag it with you buck tag i did and later that same day had to pass on a 4 pointer
k.y. has it set up were if you kill a deer and it has any horn at all you just killed your one buck you get a doe tag and a buck tag
it makes you look over what you are going to kill before you kill it
in my group we have no problim if you kill a yearling doe becouse the adult doe has a better chance of serviveing the winter
opening morn i seen 9 bucks with horns every one in my group had a chance at a deer with horns open morn
over gun seasen we killed 6 does and 2 bucks one was a good 7 pointer and one a 5 and we have 5 guys in our group
i like to let deer walk by me to see whats comeing behind it 
i dont think the anser is just giveing out doe permits like they are going out of styl


----------



## Old Hunter (Jan 21, 2002)

What bothers me is the Unlimited Doe Permits and shooting, if its a deer its dead, the attitude of all the so called hunters then bragging about the deer they kill. SICK SICK SICK. I hunted most everyday on private land where unlimited doe permits have been issued for years now, there are no deer. WE are not doe shooters.   By the the brown its down hunters.


----------



## passthru (Oct 28, 2003)

There is a difference in the hunters that shoot countless does and those that shoot 1.5 yr old bucks and button bucks. The buck to doe ratio in MI is WAY out of wack and most of the QDMers I know along with myself are just concerned with getting the numbers closer to where they should be. The state is not giving too many doe permits but they are also NOT managing the herd properly either. Alot of you guys arent happy unless you are seeing deer all over the place while hunting and that is not a healthy population of deer and makes for unhappy farmers and non hunting landowners. If you look to the west states like Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska and the like and if you hunt there like I have you will notice that you will not see as many deer as you do here but better quality deer. I could care less about how many deer I can count on a givin day but the quality of the deer being seen is way more important. Id trade seeing 20 does and (3) 1.5 yrs old bucks for the sight of 2 does and (1) 3.5 yr old buck anyday. 

 I have hunted in Ionia Co. for 8 yrs now and have not noticed a decline in does in any way and I think we have had unlimited doe tags for atleast 3 or 4 yrs now and same here in Kent Co. One other thing is that the fewer does in a given area the better and more aggressive rut you will see and another good reason for thinning does is that if you have fewer does than the bucks come out of the rut faster and in better condition for winter. A buck will litterally run itself to death if there are tons of does to breed and thus go into winter in very bad shape or die before the winters end. Im not saying you should get into QDM but you should atleast look into some of the things they are trying to say. No one is telling you that you cant shoot a 1.5 yr old buck. If you give QDM a look and half a chance you wont want to shoot 1.5yr old buck when you see what it can do for YOU as a hunter. The benefits of QDM WELL outweigh the alternitives. It can work here and we can all come to an understanding. Any educated wildlife manager will say to have good bucks you need to let MOST of them grow and thin out the does to reasonable numbers.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

> Option??? So basically, for selfish reasons, you gotta get that deer?


and


> Just how awful would that be?





> Would that ruin your season?






To answer your questions,,,,,,, YA, basically!


How does QDM propose to deal with the button harvest if you want people to take more does??
I gotta believe the button harvest is gonna skyrocket.

Here's another situation, I'd like for you QDM'ers to explain,, I have a buddy that has been hunting 40 acres of private land in Albion, for 6 years now, 3 guys at the most,, hunting this particular parcel. For the first 6 years,, they shot EVERYTHING and I mean EVERYTHING, fawns with spots, buttons, does, if it moved it was DOWN! In that six years they killed 2 bucks, a "decent" 7 and a 6 point. No less than 10 deer a year, they would pull off this 40 acres and some years 20 deer. Now this year rolls around and they been seeing nothing but HUGE BUCKS!!, and only 2 does,, ALL YEAR!! Seems like they did everything "ass-backwards" as far as QDM goes, and look what they got now. 

I hunt by the calender and by what's in my freezer,,, every 4 pt. or smaller gets a pass, in Oct and up until the 2nd week of gun season. I would put down a BIG doe in that time frame also, if I got the opportunity. But if there's no meat in freezer by Nov. 21st,,,,,,,,,,,,,, sorry little guy, if you're the one that happens to walk by,,,,, you're goin' down.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

It sounds like that forty was overrun with deer to begin with! So by your numbers:
6 years, atleast 10 deer a year, sometimes twenty (!!) OK, lets say (by your numbers) they took 90 deer in six years on 40 acres. WOW! They filled some freezers didn't they!! Yet only 2 were bucks??????? Man, the buck to doe ratio was staggering 45:1?????
Interesting numbers and a perfect example of what is wrong in Michigan. I'm guessing these guys made room for a few bucks by shooting the does, they helped the habitat by basically doing exactly what the DNR wanted them too.....clean house! And obviously all those deer didn't live on that property to begin with since a deer's home range is much larger than a measly 40 acres. And since Albion is in good deer country where a number of people are practicing qdm or similiar management, your buddies are benefiting in a big way. All that doe killing on the property probably led to less dispersal by the young males, and since habitat and forage were probably improved, those males had no reason to leave. And since you didn't mention if these super hunters had killed these big bucks, I'm assuming they have just been sightings? Let see, less does, stronger rut, bucks actually traveling to seek female companionship etc. Sounds like they managed things pretty well based on the number of deer in the area. You see QDM programs are all not equal. You have to develop a plan and in some areas, lots and lots of does need to be harvested, other areas not so many.....each property needs to be assesed differently. Those guys unkowingly did themselves a favor, but just think if they would have left some of those buttons for the future...they'd be even happier. Although I'm guessing there probably pretty unhappy considering that haven't been able match previous kill numbers which is probably more important to them. 

And you asked how QDM propose to deal with BB harvest due to taking more does? Simple, in a word, education. And taking more does in itself is hardly QDM. You've been on this board enough to know this! It's about a more natural ratio of Bucks to doe's, just so happens that in the majority of our state, doing that requires taking more does!! And unless buck harvests are limited more than they are currently, that need will continue!!!

In my humble opinion, if not taking a deer ruins your season, hunting is not for you. I know some pens that would gladly take your money though. The hunt itself and all the intangeables that go with it are far more important to a succesful season than the taking of an animal. Don't get me wrong, I love to take an animal as much as anyone else, but it is just one reason out of many for me that makes a hunt.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Jimbos _
> *Amen!!!!!
> 
> If it's not 100% acceptance of QDM principles, then it's dropping the second buck(yes I know it would be a very small number) *


Actually, according to DNR stats it can be upwards of 15% of the total firearms buck harvest. To me, that's substantial.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Swamp Monster,,
The guys I know, have been hunting out there for 6 yrs. The same guy has owned the property for 15 yrs. and would take a doe or maybe 2 a year. for the 10 seasons previous. This 40 is by NO MEANS, overrun with deer. 10 acres of this parcel is either corn or beans, it gets rotated every couple of years, and is NOT A FOOD PLOT, it is leased by a farmer who tries to make some extra cash, during the year.
With the amount of food available, they couldn't figure out why they weren't seeing more deer, especially with the low hunting pressure. I told them to BAIT IT with something besides corn or beans, and when they did,,, the deer showed up. That's when they started whacking everything that was brown. QDM was and is the FURTHEST thing from these guys' minds. They weren't whacking does to help the herd. You guys would find me and lynch me, if I gave an actual number on the amount of BB's these guys shot.
"Super Hunters", na, I don't think so,,, I forgot to mention the amount of deer they wounded and never found, that would inflate those numbers even more. As far as those "big ones" they've been seeing,, they got 3 in the freezer, a 10 and 8 that are flat out BRUISERS and a 7 that dressed out at just under 2 bills.
I haven't hunted out there in few years,, I seriously thought the deer herd was in jeopardy in Calhoun Co., after what these guys would do, year after year. 

I have a very hard time accepting QDM, when I've actually seen the EXACT OPPOSITE done and it seemed to work out fine.



> You see QDM programs are all not equal. You have to develop a plan and in some areas, lots and lots of does need to be harvested, other areas not so many.....each property needs to be assesed differently.


 So, what exactly are you saying in the statement above??? 
Should we let QDM section off certain parts of the state???

And as far as hunting, not being for me??? I put in 46 sits on the stand this year and saw 4 deer,, the whole year (ya think I'm not dedicated) and passed on the first 3. I hunt on state land and wouldn't trade my spot for anything,, well, you know.


----------



## GrizzlyBear (Apr 27, 2003)

I think if I didn't see 4 deer every sit I would trade my spot.


----------



## Jimbos (Nov 21, 2000)

> Actually, according to DNR stats it can be upwards of 15% of the total firearms buck harvest. To me, that's substantial.


It looks to me to be 4% of the hunters from the 2002 harvest shot two bucks Whit. Please correct me if i'm wrong.

 


http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/reports/deer_02harvest.pdf


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by William H Bonney _
> * So, what exactly are you saying in the statement above???
> Should we let QDM section off certain parts of the state???
> *


 huh? Not exactly, but common sense tells me that propery in southwest michigan could and should be managed differently than property in northeast michigan. More does need to be taken down here in many areas but that is not the case in some areas of the northeast. Pretty simple. 

The fact that those guys didn't kill dozens of deer before they baited doesn't prove the deer weren't there, just proved that they needed a little help! lol!


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

JimB,
I'll take a look at it again. I did the math last spring....maybe using the 2001 harvest, and, as I recall, it came out to 14%. If it is 4%, that is not nearly as significant.


----------



## passthru (Oct 28, 2003)

Swamp Monster, Im with you 100% in that you cant manage the whole state the same. It needs micro managemnet to say the least. 

William H. Bonney, Deer are lazy and will goto the easiest meal they can find. If you put a pile of corn next to a 100 acre cornlield they will probly start feeding off the pile becouse they have to do less work. I would!!! Beats pulling corn stalks apart. Also who knows what the neighbors have been trying to do on the properties surrounding or in the area that 40 acres you were talking about. All make sence to me. Sounds like some sort of QDM on other properties to me. Now you will probly come back and say you know that the neighboring properties hunters are against QDM to try to prove us wrong. 

Also for the life of me I cant figure out why a hunter against QDM is even posting in the QDM forum if he is against it sooooo much!!!!!!

Bonney, You could learn alot if you just gave it a chance. AS we all could. I have personally seen it work and you WILL see more of it here in Mi in the future. 10 years ago there wasnt even a QDMA chapter around in MI and if there was it was only one and it was the Mid MI chapter and it was small. Now there are 3 in mid and southern MI and they are growing by leaps and bounds. Just the Kent Co. one that Im a member of went from 0 member 3 yrs ago to over 100 this past year. This is a growing trend and it makes sense for the benefit of all wildlife not just deer. There will be a growing shift towards this more and more every year. I personally know of 3 different guys(landowners) that were 100% dead against it and are now members of QDMA and can not believe the results of their patients and work. It is catching one and results will be proven. The proof is in the pudding!!!!!


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Passthru~ This is not necessarily the pro-QDM forum. Opinions and discussions from either side are welcome here, as long as they stay within the rules of the site.

Neal


----------



## skulldugary (Apr 12, 2003)

Her we go again,if someones opinions or thoughts on QDM does'nt line up with thiers they are given the OLD SAYING DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN THE A-- ON YOUR WAY OUT.I 've been coming to this thread to try to under stand what you guy's are trying to get across,but it seems as tho you don't want to be bothered with anyone who questions it or has a strong opinion or belief that differs from yours.I though that by coming here it was going to be more educational than anything but that has'nt been the case.It's the same dozen or so people that want to use the FIRE and BRIMSTONE tactics....So here is another old saying.....".You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinager"......Let the Gary bashing begin......


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

PA seems to have no problem implementing antler restrictions statewide, they do have a 3 point per side restricition in the forested regions of the state and a 4 point per side restriction in the agricultural regions of PA. 

PA only has 22 WMU's reduced from 31. 67 counties in PA.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/land/wmu/index.asp


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

> _Originally posted by Neal _
> *Passthru~ This is not necessarily the pro-QDM forum. Opinions and discussions from either side are welcome here, as long as they stay within the rules of the site.
> 
> Neal *


Also Neal, we should keep in mind that for many people, it is not a simple question or choice between Pro-QDM or Anti-QDM.

It is a mistake to view this as sides to a war. Many people support elements of scientific deer management already, if not "QDM" part and parcel.
I think it would be a mistake to alienate those who do not wholly endorse QDM by expecting them to either take sides or get out of the way.

FWIW

Skulldug - Neal _did_ give passthru a reminder to stay civil.


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

I think I'll just change my sign in to Amos and save myself a bunch of typing. All three posts you've made mirror my thoughts exactly. A true conversion of someone to QDM priciples is worth more than mandatory regulations forcing someone to follow. It will take some time but once these priciples are followed by the majority it will hold much better.

Sort of like the liberal/conservative dynamic. Just because we have a conservative in the Whitehouse does not mean that liberals will embrace conservative values. It takes a desire to change which comes from truths which you can no longer refute, or want to for that matter.


----------



## GrizzlyBear (Apr 27, 2003)

Skulldugary,
I am sorry that you feel that way about those of us here at the QDM site. I think one of the problems is that we feel (as do many not aligned with QDM) very strongly about these issues. Most of us are also those that have seen the results of QDM here in MI or have hunted in other states and we know how truly awesome hunting can be. For the QDM'ers its hard not to get angry at opposition because to us it all seems so clear and with every piece of news from PA it gets so much clearer. That is why we are so persistent, we know old values and ways of thinking will die hard but we are positive that once these concepts catch on, they will spread like wildfire.

I hope you continue to visit the QDM forum in an effort to fully understand what it is that we are trying to get across. There is a wealth of information on this site and it truly can make you a better hunter and resource manager. Pay particular attention to the posts about PA and the 2003 season, they will speak volumes about our end goals. Good luck and try to keep an open mind.

GB


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

I don't believe, correct me please if I'm off base here, that the issue of QDM (PA style or other) is a voting issue - don't we hire the NRC/DNR to manange the heard in the best interest.

If they determine, politics aside, that antler restrictions are in the best interest of Mi's heard can they not 'just do it' ????

ferg....


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

PA has the right idea on bringing the deer numbers in line with the habitat by taking more does.

From personal experience:

If you build it they will come and when they do be prepared to take lots of does. Last season when I did not fill my doe tags I thought no big deal. This year I regret not doing it and not buying enough anterless tags. It won't happen again.

There's multiple ways to have your cake and eat it to. You can either reduce the herd size to fit the habitat or increase the productivity of the habitat. I did the latter but failed in realizing how fast deer numbers can multiply. My population exploded and if I don't get a handle on it I'll be in more trouble than I am now.

I also love my bucks, that's why there are still living.


----------



## Freestone (May 15, 2003)

Who is going to be Michigans Gary Alt? I don't think we can rely on hunters to impose restrictions on themselves on a statewide basis. The grassroots movement is great but I still think we need someone to spearhead it. Who do you think will step up to the plate?


----------



## Jimbos (Nov 21, 2000)

> is great but I still think we need someone to spearhead it. Who do you think will step up to the plate?



Neal!!!!!


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

That's *Dr.* Neal to you!!!!


----------



## Jimbos (Nov 21, 2000)

Seriously Dr. Neal you are prime for the challenge. You have the contacts both political and in the press, your a good writer, you've spearheaded causes before, and I hope you have a bullet proof vest.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Neal, I posted this at the bottom of the "hear that sound? thread. If up to the challange, here's really what needs to be done, IMHO...

Grizz is correct. Alt went beyond the call and almost got his head chopped off. But he stuck with it. Management is not for hunters to decide with a vote. We need enlightened, ambitious, and aggressive leadership from lansing. Dr. Alt has been making the circuit, beating in sense since 2000. I'm not a fan of cut and paste, cut and paste, but you really have to read a few of these and wonder where our whitetail expert is and why he isn't going around every county to tell us what the grand plan is and to answer questions...
http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/PGC/deer/schedule.htm
DR. ALT'S 2002 STATEWIDE PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE
For the third year in a row, Dr. Gary Alt, Pennsylvania Game Commission Deer Management Section supervisor, is keeping his pledge to meet with the public about the agency's new direction in deer management. After the Board of Game Commissioners gives preliminary approval to the 2002-2003 deer seasons and bag limits, Dr. Alt will begin a lecture series on Jan. 16, in Dauphin County, that will conclude on April 2, in Clarion County.
"The issue of deer management invokes strong emotions from many people," Alt said. "Over the past few years, the Commission's deer management program has undergone major changes in order to bring our deer herd into balance with the available habitat and to move toward a more natural breeding ecology between older-age bucks and does.
Dr Alt
"To continue our public education and outreach efforts, I will be cooperating with several local partners and legislators to hold a third round of public meetings to explain why we believe this new direction will work." 
In formulating this year's schedule, Dr. Alt is trying to visit communities and counties that were not part of the lecture series during the first two years. Also, the program this year will provide a shorter-version of the basic biology of deer and history of deer management and focus more attention on where the deer management program is heading and the status of the ongoing research projects. 
http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/PG...ews/nr20-00.htm
"By working within the newly structured seasons, hunters will help correct the imbalance in the buck/doe ratio and will help us take the first steps toward quality deer management," said Dr. Gary Alt, who heads the Deer Management Section. Alt traveled to more than 50 meetings in 34 counties to discuss the deer proposals. He also appeared on Pennsylvania Cable Networks Call-In statewide television program on March 16 to address deer management and answer callers questions. 
"Through these meetings and interviews, we were able to explain to Pennsylvanias hunters and wildlife enthusiasts the objectives behind our proposals," Alt said. "Once they had an opportunity to hear our presentation, we won their support and encouragement for future changes."
And this is a very good one too.
http://www.sharon-herald.com/localn.../ln030401b.html
Deer expert bags hunter support 
Alt explains his plan for deer herd 
STRAIGHT SHOOTER WINS OVER A TOUGH CROWD 
By Kristen Garrett
Herald Staff Writer
The topic of deer management drew about 900 hunters from around Mercer County to Lakeview High School Saturday morning.

Dr. Gary Alt, head of the Pennsylvania Game Commissions deer management division, tried to sell the crowd on his plan to control the deer population and improve the states habitat.

Alt said he worked with the state bear population for 25 years and has been charged by hundreds of bears, knocked down and even had his pants ripped off by a bear once. "Ive never seen anything so scary as trying to sell deer management to the state of Pennsylvania," he quipped.

"Im an avid deer hunter," Alt said. "You may not agree with me but I will go down to my dying breath trying to save hunting."

Alt explained some of the problems with the deer herds today. One issue is the over-grazing in the forests because of the large number of deer. Alt said this leads to many problems with reproduction because does must weigh at least 80 pounds to carry a fawn, and they must have ample food to sustain the fawn during pregnancy.

Another problem is a buck-to-doe ratio that is out of proportion. Alt said more bucks are killed in Pennsylvania than any other state. This causes problems with breeding because there are not enough bucks to reproduce at the right time of the year. The later a doe has a fawn, the less survival chance it has, he said.

"We have what it takes to grow big bucks in Pennsylvania if we let them grow up," Alt said, adding only 1 percent of the bucks live until their fourth year because so many are killed young.

Alt proposes starting doe season the Saturday before buck season in November. He said he hopes with an expanded doe season hunters will use the doe for food and the bucks "wont waste effort breeding with them."

Tom Liszka, a meat processor from Greenville, asked Alt what happens if the processors are so full of doe meat that the buck meat goes to rot because they cant handle it all.

Alt admitted this is a "huge concern." He said he has contacted the state Department of Health to help contact processors in preparation for the proposed change. Alt said he still believes his plan will work but he will rescind it if they find meat is being wasted.

By allowing the bucks to live an additional two years, their rack becomes much larger, Alt said. "Mercer County can grow huge bucks -- better than many areas in Pennsylvania," he said. "What do you want?"

Alt also told the crowd it is important for them to work together so that "anti-hunters" dont end hunting forever. He said fighting among themselves will be harmful to their cause. "If we dont work together then God help us all," he said.

Alt seemed well-received by the crowd.

Several people asked: Why not shorten buck season to one week?

Alt said a shortened season would not help the problem because 90 percent of the deer are killed in the first week.

"I think it deserves a chance because his track record has been proven," said Mike Yevchak of Sharon, referring to Alts work with the bear population. "If it doesnt work I know hell correct it."

Yevchak said he was a little skeptical going into the meeting but felt more comfortable after hearing Alt speak.

Likewise, Ed and Linda Offacker of Clarks Mills said they are also relying on Alts track record. "I think it makes very good sense," Offacker said of the plan. He said its worthwhile if there will be benefits for his children in the future.

Chris Blatt of Greenville said he thinks Alt is "right on" with his proposals. He said Alt is working "to break some of the traditions that people have in their own personal minds" by using solid data to make his point.

Alts proposals also include:


A six-week early archery season from Sept. 15 to Nov. 10 for antlerless deer and Sept. 20 to Nov. 10 for antlered deer.

Muzzleloader seasons for antlerless deer from Oct. 18-20 and the traditional, flintlock muzzleloader season from Dec. 26 to Jan. 12.

A new October antlerless deer season from Oct. 18-20.

Crossbows in special regulation areas.
"I thought it was very well presented," said Paul Burns of Sugar Grove Township. "There are a lot of good ideas if hunters will go along with it."

Alt is planning on convincing the hunters to go along with it. He has already done 25 presentations and has another 35 scheduled before April when the Game Commission will give final approval to the proposals.


__________________


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Although I appreciate the encouragement and kind words, I am not accepting any "challenges" at this time 

My biggest challenge now is trying to make time for my wife and two young ones. They are already getting few of my hours that they deserve.

Plus. I'm no where near having the skills and knowledge as a Dr. Alt. If the culture of hunting keeps changing, I believe someone will step up, but who would want to walk into it right now?

Neal


----------



## Freestone (May 15, 2003)

Is Rod Clute in a position to make changes? What about the NRC commissioners themselves? If enough people e-mail them asking for change maybe it would have an impact. We have to strike while the irons hot and use Pennsylvania as an example of what we want in Michigan. Does anybody have e-mail addresses to any of the people mentioned?


----------



## skulldugary (Apr 12, 2003)

Grizzlybear,I don't have any bad feelings towards anyone,I started coming to the QDM site to get some education on the subject.Two weeks ago I would'nt even come to this site because of the don't let the door hit you additude of some folks.I am a curious type guy and want to know the ins and outs of QDM,right now I'm straddeling the fence on the issue and am looking for "civilized" honest education on the matter.I am sorry if I said anything out of line to anyone...........Gary


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Rod Clute
[email protected]


Commissioner Names and Addresses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jim Campbell

37904 Palma Road

New Boston, MI 48164

734-654-2905 (Office)

734-654-2905 (Home)

Appointed: 8/31/01

Term Expires: 12/31/03

Democrat


Keith J. Charters (Chair)

126 Spring Hill Road.

Traverse City, MI 49686

231-947-7566 (Office)

Appointed: 12/29/94

Re-Appointed: 12/20/01

Term Expires: 12/31/05

Republican


Paul Eisele

21001 Van Born

Taylor, MI 48180

313-792-6031 (Office)

734-944-3616 (Home)

Appointed: 7/18/91

Term Expires: 12/31/03

Independent



Bob Garner

7020 E. 48 Road

Cadillac, MI 49601-0984

231-779-9866 (Office)

Appointed: 8/5/99

Re-Appointed: 1/1/03

Term Expires: 12/31/06

Democrat


John Madigan

831 W. Munising Avenue

Munising, MI 49862

906-387-4468 (Office)

Appointed: 1/1/03

Term Expires: 12/31/06

Republican


William Parfet

MPI Research

54943 N. Main Street

Mattawan, MI 49071

616-668-3336 (Office)

Appointed: 1/8/96

Re-Appointed: 9/4/01

Term Expires: 12/31/04

Republican



Frank C. Wheatlake

Reed City Power Line Supply,

420 N. Roth Street,

P.O. Box 147

Reed City, MI 49677

231-832-2258 (Office)

Appointed: 2/6/01

Term Expires: 12/31/04

Independent

Department of Natural Resources
Executive Division
Attention: Teresa Gloden
P.O. BOX 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
517-373-2352


----------



## passthru (Oct 28, 2003)

Neal, Im sorry I didnt not by any means suggest that if your anti-QDM then you cant be here. But on the same token there seems to be an element out there that no matter how many facts you show them and they may even understand what we are trying to do, they are going to stir things up with this topic just becouse they want to be against it. These are the folks Im reffering too. I alsway encourage people who disagree to enter conversation and we can have healthy debate about this. 

I am a strong supporter of QDMA and the practices they are trying to implement in our state. I even have hunting buddies that are not in line with me who I hunt with still every seson so Im not taking the road that some of you may think. QDM is sometimes hard to swallow and I dont expect them to have it shoved down their throats all in one year. It is a big change and some of my buddies are starting to understand what Im trying to do. It is thru understanding and education that we will get things changed. I can understand and deal with the fact that an increased doe harvest means buttons will be shot but thru education and patients we as hunters can be tought to tell the difference between a doe and a button and thus decrease the numbers of them being killed each year. 

Another buddy was upset with the antler restrictions in that he thought that I was trying to tell him that a firstime/young hunter had to wait for their FIRST buck to be a mature buck. I feel that young hunters and first timers should be allowed to take any buck for their first. By no means would I ever say to a young boy that he should have waited for a bigger more mature buck to come. That would be very unfair, since I have a bushell basket in my basement full of 1.5 yr old bucks dating from way back until a few yrs ago. We just need to educate that you will not ever have a chance a better deer if you shoot every little buck that walks buy. Im not sure how you could implement such a thing as young/first timer can shoot a spike or fork while another hunter with many kills under his belt can only shoot a buck with say 4 points on one side. maybe a first time license holder got a different tag until shot a smaller buck. In order for something like taht to work you would have to implement a manditry deer check in (for which Im 100% for doing). Anyway I just had a few things to explain on how I feel the direction QDM needs to go.


----------



## passthru (Oct 28, 2003)

Skulldugary, I welcome you and I hope we can ALL figure out how to make MI a better place for everyone to hunt. We need to band together to educate and encourag QDM. Who here is a member of QDMA and which chapter. I think I may need to renew already.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Passthru, I hear you loud and clear and agree. I'm for some form of QDM or trophy deer management, meaning some reduction in the herd, correcting ratio's and somehow protecting a decent segment of smaller bucks. But often, QDM comes across as "my way or the highway". Some form of management needs to be "massaged" into the fabric of the hunting community, not shoved. At least by hunters themselves. If it came from the top, meaning Lansing, and was explained by an authority, you'd see many more hunters jumping on board. You have a valid complaint. We need someone in Lansing to step forward from out of the "safe" row and take the buck by the horns. If anything, that's what many of us are trying to do. Smoke out a leader in Lansing.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Its not the message,,,, its the messenger(s).

A more delicate approach in recruiting new QDM'ers would go a VERY LONG WAY.


----------



## Jimbos (Nov 21, 2000)

As far as i've seen on these boards William, the pro-QDM'ers have been just fine. The only post that borderline should be removed is your last one.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Hey, I'm not trying to play the "blame game" here. I know anti's are just as guilty as pro's, when it comes to "heating up" the discussions.

And I wasn't trying to single anyone out on this thread,,, I'm talking about, in general.

Passthru even said,, it's a bit hard to swallow, all in one year or something to that effect. That's what I was getting at.

So if you wanna pull it,,,,,,, pull it.


----------



## Jimbos (Nov 21, 2000)

In general? Why even bother posting something like that unless your trying to stoke the flames?  

By the way passthru apoligized.


----------



## Kevin (Oct 4, 2000)

The tone of nearly every QDM proponent has been fine. Maybe in the margins a few have been condescending and/or self-righteous, but one could certainly say the same for a few who have stormed into the QDM debate from a "traditional deer management", or "do whatever I want management" standpoint, and been confrontational and nonproductive as well.

In general, I agree with Jimbos: it has been mostly civil, and the moderators on the site appreciate it, and we would appreciate it if the civility continues.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

I'll second what's just been said. I'll also add that the moderators will NOT brook any post/member in here who allows their emotions to take hold and toss civility out the window.

Thanks guys and gals for making the moderating of this forum much more pleasant than it was a year ago.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Time to make my "probably" well-awaited, exit from this thread.

I'm gonna go back to "forgetting" this forum even exists.


----------



## passthru (Oct 28, 2003)

William, Please stick with us and understand as well as we need to also that this issue means alot to all of us. This is a very sensitive issue for those that love and care for the outdoor like you and I both. I just see a need that needs to be filled. Alot of people that are against QDM seem to think that we are trying to take something away from them and it couldnt be further from the truth. What we are trying to do is set better standards and most would agree it would seem for the first 1 or 2 years that we havent made alot of progress if we were to implement some of the ideas expressed here but after 2 to 3 good solid years you would start to see results that would infact make you happy. You and I share a common bond and that is we both live to hunt in a certain way or form or we wouldnt be here on this site on a daily basis and sometimes more than once on a daily basis. What we are trying to get out there is that their are some serious issues that need to be fixed and we are as passionately for QDM as you are against it. I just wish I could take some of you guys to Illinois to Pope Co. or somewhere else like SE Iowa and show you the results of the work thay have done with their QDM efforts. Trust me no hunter complains there about having too big of bucks. I dont care if you say you are a meat hunter and could care less about a big rack. That just is a guy trying to convince himself more than convince me. ALL GUYS WOULD LOVE TO SHOOT A BIG BUCK. I know bagging a deer is only part of why we hunt but like I said Ive NEVER heard ANYONE ever complain about have big bucks infront of them. That is a fact and you cant argue with me. I have heard alot of complaining about too many small bucks though and so have all of us. One thing we cant argue with is that if we dont manage our herd better we will never see big bucks on a consistant basis and we have the genetics here to have them with education, restraint and patients.


----------



## Freestone (May 15, 2003)

Thanks Swamp, everybody should take the time to contact these people and ask them to keep an eye on Pennsylvania.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

It would be great if a few more members of this site kept an eye on Pennsylvania.


----------



## Freestone (May 15, 2003)

Yes, the DNR is watching Pennsylvania, along with other nearby states deer herds and hunter numbers. Michigan has similar regs. There are 9 experimental QDM areas in Michigan that will be evaluated after 5 years. It seams only fair to allow PA to have 5 years before rushing to any evaluation.

Rodney Clute
Big Game Specialist
Mason Building
P.O. Box 30444
Lansing, MI 48909-7944
(517)-373-9337 

A reply to my E-Mail. I guess we'll see in 5 years how things are going.


----------



## passthru (Oct 28, 2003)

Maybe some of the QDMA chapters here in MI could get together and bring in Dr. Alt for a semenar or a speaking engagement. I think that would be great for us here in MI. I think he could probly go a long way in helping us to see what we need to do to organize and work towards our goals. Just a thought and maybe you guys have already talked about it.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Got the same reply Freestone. Almost word for word:

Thank you for the information on Pennsylvania. Michigan has 9 QDM areas and those will be evaluated after five years of QDM regulations. It is only fair to give PA 5 yrs before evaluating their regulations.

Rodney Clute
Big Game Specialist
Mason Building
P.O. Box 30444
Lansing, MI 48909-7944
(517)-373-9337


The paste function in MS Word must be stuck! LOL!

What a crock! Nice clinical, politically correct response. So much for our Gary Alt, anytime soon.

I wonder what he and his DNR whiz kids are doing with the data from our own DMU 118? Hasn't it been 5 years?


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

One look into the PGC website shoots down Rod's pathetic response.

Why have 3- and 4-point areas?
Different areas of Pennsylvania produce larger bucks at younger ages than others.Using four years of antler point data collected from more than 71,000 bucks, we assigned 3- and 4-point restrictions to different areas based on antler characteristics. The objectives of these new restrictions are designed to protect about half of the yearling bucks from being taken during the hunting season and yet have most adult bucks legal.

Throughout most of the state, a 3-points to a side restriction should satisfy this objective. In western Pennsylvania, however, a 3-point restriction would protect less than a third of all yearling bucks, whereas a 4-points to a side restriction protects more than half. The same is true for some southeastern counties, but the restriction was kept at 3-points to a side because the high human densities and deer-people conflicts play a larger role in our management decisions there.

Why have statewide regulations instead of trying new antler restrictions on smaller, pilot areas?
In answering this question it is important to understand that the fundamental goal of a pilot area is to evaluate a management action to see if it will work across the state. To meet this basic goal, the pilot area must be representative of the entire state. If the pilot area is different than the entire state, then results from it have limited value when applied to the entire state.

Therefore, restrictions were implemented statewide (except for Special Regulation counties) instead of pilot areas for three reasons. First, we didn't want to create areas hunters could avoid the first year, because of limited opportunity to harvest a buck, and then flood the second year when more adult bucks would be available. Second, we did not want to encourage the leasing of hunting land here. Generally, hunters lease land to obtain opportunities not available elsewhere. By implementing new antler restrictions statewide, no area is unique. Therefore, we expect leasing of hunting land to be less likely than if we designated local pilot areas that offered increased opportunities to harvest adult bucks. Finally, from research data, we know that if yearling bucks are not shot, they are likely to survive to become adults. So, success of antler restrictions comes down to hunter acceptance and behavior. In essence, with small pilot areas hunters would likely behave differently than if restriction were applied statewide. For these reasons, we favored statewide evaluation of the new antler restrictions.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

It may only be a cut and paste generic response, but I think it's a very important response. It's the first public acknowledgement. I'll take it! The first electron has just smashed into the nucleus. I take this response as very good news. If not for the near future, for the not so distant future.


----------



## Freestone (May 15, 2003)

Does anyone know what data they are collecting from the 9 areas with antler restrictions that they will use to determine wether or not to implement this in more areas. I would bet they aren't doing anything differently. 

I would hope they would survey everyone who bought a tag and really do it in a more scientific manner than estimates and word of mouth.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Ed Spin has some great info from another post. All indicators point up.
http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/f...282&perpage=15&highlight=dmu 118&pagenumber=2

All one needs to do is look at the data from DMU 118 in Clare County for the last four years.

The buck limit is still two per year, but three on one side minimum for one tag while the second is the statewide rule of four on one side minimum. 

Compare the doe to buck harvest ratio during these four years (1:1.3 average), which is perfect for the area and buck to doe ratio goal of 1:2 to the base of 1:1.9. This tells us that the hunters accepted their responsibility in havesting does along with passing up on the button bucks which plummeted to only 11% (half of the state average).

Maybe all that is needed is a sensible mandatory buck harvest restraint rule in place and the hunters get a mindset change and become deer managers.

Look real closely at the DMU 118 data and it boggles the mind. Where else in Michigan is this happenning? How is it it possible to harvest more total deer, including more bucks than before the demonstration was put into place. Why are the hunters taking an adequate number of does? Why are the farmers complaining much less about their crop damage? Why are the hunters for the first time in their hunting career passing up bucks even late into the season and enjoying it?

I think it is called QDM.

Keep the fun in hunting!


__________________
Ed Spin


----------



## omega58 (Sep 3, 2003)

Here's the better question. . . . WHY DID IT NOT GET THE PERCENTAGE IT NEEDED TO PASS FOR NEXT YEAR? If you hunted there, you would know! 

It is not a dead issue yet, but right now it is voted down for next year, most people in the QDM say statewide or no thanks. I think 65% needed to pass and only got 58%. Again, we know of hunters around our property that refuse to practice QDM even in the area because there is no way to regulate it effectively. And if you have property on the border, you are screwed!


----------



## passthru (Oct 28, 2003)

Omega, QDM will be difficult to regulate but not practice it for that reason alone is obserd foresure. There are underlying selfesh reasons why they refuse to practice it. The excuse above is just that! An excuse. QDM is something that will have to be imbedded in the heart of the hunter himself to make it work.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

First off, whoever in MDNR that set it up so that 58% of the vote loses should be fired, today. The majority has spoken. And unlike Sunday hunting, antler regulations aren't protected by the Constitution. A minority is holding back the majority. Can we find out who's responsible for this set up? Although if you read below, county antler regs need to be scraped. They don't work as well. Only statewide regs will work right...

This is from Christopher S. Rosenberry, PhD PGC Wildlife Biometrician. It explains why PA went to statewide antler regs vs. like we do here, with limited/select QDM counties. There's several faults to using just a few counties to make a judgement of 3pt antler regs. Makes sense...
http://groups.msn.com/PennsylvaniaO...strictions.msnw
NEW ANTLER RESTRICTIONS
By Christopher S. Rosenberry, PhD
PGC Wildlife Biometrician

NEW ANTLER restrictions arrive this fall. By raising the bar from the old restriction, 2 points to an antler or a spike at least 3 inches long, to the new restrictions, 3 or 4 points to an antler, depending on location, more yearling (1½-year-old) bucks should survive into the adult (2½ and older) age class. Reasons for the new antler restrictions have been discussed elsewhere (see 2003-2004 Hunting Digest). In this article I address some questions and concerns about the new antler restrictions.

Why have 3- and 4-point areas?

Different areas of Pennsylvania produce larger bucks at younger ages than others. Using four years of antler point data collected from more than 71,000 bucks, we assigned 3- and 4-point restrictions to different areas based on antler characteristics. The objectives of these new restrictions are designed to protect about half of the yearling bucks from being taken during the hunting season and yet have most adult bucks legal.

Throughout most of the state, a 3-points to a side restriction should satisfy this objective. In western Pennsylvania, however, a 3-point restriction would protect less than a third of all yearling bucks, whereas a 4-points to a side restriction protects more than half. The same is true for some southeastern counties, but the restriction was kept at 3-points to a side because the high human densities and deer-people conflicts play a larger role in our management decisions there.

Why have statewide regulations instead of trying new antler restrictions on smaller, pilot areas?

In answering this question it is important to understand that the fundamental goal of a pilot area is to evaluate a management action to see if it will work across the state. To meet this basic goal, the pilot area must be representative of the entire state. If the pilot area is different than the entire state, then results from it have limited value when applied to the entire state.

Therefore, restrictions were implemented statewide (except for Special Regulation counties) instead of pilot areas for three reasons. First, we didn't want to create areas hunters could avoid the first year, because of limited opportunity to harvest a buck, and then flood the second year when more adult bucks would be available. Second, we did not want to encourage the leasing of hunting land here. Generally, hunters lease land to obtain opportunities not available elsewhere. By implementing new antler restrictions statewide, no area is unique. Therefore, we expect leasing of hunting land to be less likely than if we designated local pilot areas that offered increased opportunities to harvest adult bucks. Finally, from research data, we know that if yearling bucks are not shot, they are likely to survive to become adults. So, success of antler restrictions comes down to hunter acceptance and behavior. In essence, with small pilot areas hunters would likely behave differently than if restriction were applied statewide. For these reasons, we favored statewide evaluation of the new antler restrictions.

Why use antler points instead of antler spread?

We used antler points instead of antler spread because points gave us more flexibility. The typical spread restriction is limited to a single criterion that hunters can readily identify in the field. For example, ear tip width of about 14 to 15 inches. The usefulness of this criterion varies greatly across Pennsylvania. In most areas it protects yearling bucks, but in some areas it also protects many adult bucks. By using points, we varied the regulation according to antler characteristics in different areas.

Biologists in some states with point (or spread) restrictions do not favor them. Why have them in PA?

Most states that have some type of spread or point restriction also allow hunters to take more than one buck. In conversations with these biologists, to reduce harvest pressure on yearling bucks they prefer to reduce buck bag limits rather than new antler restrictions. However, in Pennsylvania, with our bag limit of one, reducing the bag limit is not an option. To reduce pressure on our yearling bucks, we chose new antler restrictions where every hunter has a chance to take a buck over the alternative of limiting the number of hunters allowed to take a buck.

Bucks will be shot and left in the woods.

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

Smaller yearling bucks will still be small when they're adults.

This statement is based on the assumption that yearling bucks with few points grow into adult bucks with few points, and yearling bucks with more points grow into adult bucks with more points. This assumption is generally not supported by scientific research. A recently published research paper specifically looked at the effect of antler restrictions on antler characteristics of adult bucks. The paper presented a total of 18 different scenarios where antler restrictions and harvest rates varied. Fifteen of the 18 scenarios resulted in no differences in antler characteristics of the surviving bucks at 4.5 years of age.

The scenario that most closely represented our new antler restriction format showed no difference in antler characteristics of adult bucks. In other words, antler characteristics of adult bucks with antler restrictions were the same as those without antler restrictions. Additional data from various deer populations indicate adult bucks generally have 8 to 10 points regardless of the number of antler points they had as a yearlings.

Protecting yearling bucks with fewer than 3 or 4 points to an antler will degrade antlers of future bucks.

This statement relates to how well a yearling buck's antlers represent the quality of the buck's genes. Research from Mississippi and Texas - where most antler research has occurred - differ. Results from Mississippi State University suggest that yearling antler points provide little information about the genetics of a buck. On the other hand, research from the Kerr Wildlife Management Area in Texas suggests that yearling antler points do reflect the genetic quality of a buck.

An independent review by an animal breeding and genetics expert concluded that problems existed with the data used by both states and, therefore, that no strong evidence exists for either conclusion. Despite the important role of a buck's mother in his antler characteristics, neither the Mississippi nor Texas results have provided valid estimates of maternal effects on antler growth. Studies specifically designed to evaluate maternal effects are needed. Also the Texas data include high levels of inbreeding - no new deer have been introduced to the deer pens since the 1970s -and many of the deer are related to one buck, "Big Charlie."

A recent review of the scientific literature on genetics in hunted populations concluded that there is little evidence available to suggest that hunting, including selective harvests, has long-term genetic consequences. One reason for this conclusion is the combination of genetics and harvest regulations apparently diminish suspected negative impacts. For example, if antler restrictions did selectively harvest "better" bucks, antlerless harvests are generally nonselective in their removal of "better" or "poorer" does. Thus, a continued mixing of "better" and "poorer" genes throughout the deer herd reduces the amount of change.

We do know that genetics is just one of many factors that determine the number of points on a yearling buck. A buck's mother and her genes, nutrition, health and other factors affect antler points. All these factors create a situation where there is no strong evidence that the new antler restriction will hurt or improve genetics of Pennsylvania's deer herd.

Do Pennsylvania hunters support antler restrictions?

When the Game Commission makes management decisions, those decisions affect all hunters, not just a group that reads a certain magazine or belongs to a specific organization. Therefore, the most responsible method of assessing hunter support is through scientific surveys that provide all hunters an equal chance to participate.

Professional wildlife managers must also consider scientific data in favor of anecdotal comments. We regularly hear comments like "none of the hunters I know support antler restrictions." We also hear comments like "everybody in my camp is in favor of antler restrictions." Which comment should be considered more? If we listen to those who disagree, those in support are upset. If we listen to those in support, those against are upset.

Rather than consider only surveys of specific groups of hunters or anecdotal comments, we contracted Pennsylvania State University to conduct a scientific survey. Results of this survey presented at the April 2002 Commission meeting indicated that most Pennsylvania hunters support antler restrictions.

What does the future hold?

This year, the antlered harvest will be smaller, because most yearlings will be protected. In the future, the deer population will contain proportionally more and larger bucks. The population should contain proportionally more bucks because about half of all yearling bucks will be protected and most should survive into the adult age class. The population should contain larger bucks, because the yearling bucks passed up one year will likely be around the next year as larger bodied adults with larger antlers.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

omega58 quote "Here's the better question. . . . WHY DID IT NOT GET THE PERCENTAGE IT NEEDED TO PASS FOR NEXT YEAR? If you hunted there, you would know!"

We can only guess at this but let's point out the process and you make your own judgment.

1. The MDNR surveyed hunters at the end of the 4th year and not the 5th. I assumed it was a 5 year program and results would be evaluated and hunters surveyed at that time (although that obviously wasn't the case).
2. There was no mention in the survey as to how the experiment was doing (good, bad or so so). The survey only mentioned that a 66% supporting vote would be required, and the MDNR supports QDM on a voluntary basis. 
3. Hunters were unable to make an informed choice, and when I asked the MDNR about their process, I was told they wanted more data.


----------



## jawbreaker (Aug 18, 2003)

One of the posts spoke of QDM requiring a certain number of points on a deer before you can harvest it. That is just not true. What QDM's goal is, is to manage the deer herd to a healthy level. A one to one or two to one buck to doe ratio being one of the goals of QDM means you allow young bucks to grow up and you harvest a doe instead, which inturn will help bring the ratio of buck to doe into balance. By letting the little guys go you naturally start to get deer with bigger antlers. Harvesting a buck with a large rack/large point count is a result of QDM not a requirment.


----------



## Ed Spin (Mar 20, 2003)

These posts warm my heart. To think just a few years back most of you probably said "huh" when asked to comment on the value of practicing QDM. Thanks Boyd on your take and explanation of the survey results for DMU118. 

Yes, indeed why didn't the recipients of the survey get at least a simple overview of the four year data to make an informed decision? I think we know why. Why have four choices, yes, no, no opion and I don't care in the survey, with the no opinion counting as a no vote and the I don't care segment not counting for any thing except to take away yes votes? I think we know why. Why did the survey get sent out after four years instead of five and why did the officials deny our request to send out another survey this year (the fifth year) with the sponsoring group willing to pay for the expense of the survey? Could it be they felt there would be too much of an improvement in the survey results with the accompaning embarrassment. 

The results of the survey if only the votes cast as a yes or no were counted would show that the hunters of DMU118 supported it by 59%. If we played with results as they did and have the no opinions not counting for anything except information but have the I don't care votes counted as a yes both the landowners and hunters support would be 60%. Most politicians consider 55% support a landslide. 

By the way Pass thru, Dr. Gary Alt will be in michigan and be involved in our national QDMA annual banquet held in Grand Rapids on June 22 thru 24 2004. Be there and ask him yourself how things are going in the new state leader in progressive deer management. 

There is no need to bash our DNR officials, in time there will be improvement (perhaps even greater then in PA). All that needs to be done is keep gentle pressure on them and educate your fellow hunters by doing what is best for the deer herd. The results will speak for you. 

The DNR's efforts in stacking the deck and preventing the spread of QDM is understandable. What would you do after 100 years of manageing the deer your way and some new kid comes in and suggests that they have a better way.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Ed Spin, gentle pressure? OK, OK, I'll let the brick slip from my hand and to the ground. Keep us posted on the Dr. Alt thing. I'm there! How do we get tickets? Do you have to be a member? Does he speak each day? Will any MDNR big wigs be there?


----------



## omega58 (Sep 3, 2003)

Just a quick update on the Clare QDM. I talked with the guy that had it started or is at least one of them and it's not a done deal yet that it will be terminated. We will know later. 

Also, you are correct about the fourth year to this year thing. I had a talk with five guys that would change their vote. . . of course one of them just shot an 8 point with a 22 inch inside spread the other day, so that would change quite a few people's minds 

Most of the guys that voted had a good reason as I said. If you hunt on a border and let small bucks go to be shot by somebody 5 minutes later. . . wouldn't you vote no?? I can't fault them there. We are still going to go with it on our 200+ acres next year regardless and about 200 acres around us have agreed for now as well. 

Also, a lot of people wrote something to this effect for a comment in the survey that voted no. . . GO STATE WIDE !!!!!


----------



## Ed Spin (Mar 20, 2003)

[email protected]:

If you have never been to one of these three day QDM annual banquets or deer study groups you are missing the cream of the crop in deer management personnel. Yes Dr Gary Alt for sure will be there at least in the think tank session. Also our own John Ozoga, retired world known deer research biologist will be on the think tank panel along with Charles Alsheimer. The think tank seminar is always interesting in that you ask the experts questions. Bob, I think you and most of the posters here can come up with a few good questions. Yes, it is expected to have at least one MDNR Wildlife official on board. Now, there is an opportunity to voice your thoughts to our decision makers. 

Hopefully many MDNR personnel from all departments attend this event. I assure them all it will be friendly and informative and they will have the opportunity to meet and speak with their counterparts from many states, I know for sure a few will come from Pennsylvania.

The make up of invited deer gurus is still being formed along with the number of and type of educational seminars. There will be a trade show with over 100 vendors and a fabulous banquet with a host of items from exotic hunts, guns etc being raffled. Boyd wiltse our secretary probably will post here to let all know in time the details.

Bob. no you do not need to be a member to attend this gala 
affair and by the way I was wrong about the date. It is schelduled for June 24 thru the 26th 2004 at the Amway hotel Grand Rapids, Mi. 

If any of you have been to the Deer spectacular held in Lansing at the Lansing Center and attended their seminars you just seen the tip of the iceberg compared to the show that will be presented by the QDMA this coming June. Bob see me at the show and we'll talk about you becoming a new member.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

> It is schelduled for June 24 thru the 26th 2004 at the Amway hotel Grand Rapids, Mi.


I smell a MS.com outing 

Neal


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Ed, assuming I can make it, I'm there! Neal, I like your idea too. I will make every effort to make it at least one day. Unfortuantely, mine is a weekend business, but that Thurs, the 24th should work. I have no intention of beating up on any MDNR guys. It'd just be nice to chat with them and pass along my observations. The biggest one is, on this site, there seems to be decent opposition to any antler regs. Or any major changes, period. However, when I chat with customers in the store, one on one, nearly 100% say that they'd have no problem with a 3pt on side reg, if everyone else statewide had the same. I don't know if it's because it's a more personal face to face conversation or it's "between two guys talking" or what. But even from all or nearly all of the locals that I expect a "hell no, we already have too many regs" all I ever get is "yeah, that's a great idea". Same with maybe changing the gun opener to a later Saturday or whatever. I think that sometimes these internet sites are much different on assessing opinions because it's devoid of any body language and voice inflection. People get defensive. But one on one, when I suggest the issue's, there seems to be almost unanimous agreement. Some sociologist should do a study on why that is the case. Do you think Rod Clute would show up as a speaker? Maybe he'd like to see the reaction from hunters on these issue's first hand. Although, I imagine he gets all the PA news passed along to him. But maybe if he talked with PA biologists in person, he might like what he hears, instead of cut and pastes from unhappy hunters from Michigan.


----------

