# Could QDM spread CWD????????



## scott kavanaugh

traditional said:


> Hear me out before you throw a rock at me on this one.
> 
> I am OK with the baiting ban. Why? When CWD does hit this state some will not be able to blame baiting. Those Rotting Vegetables....
> 
> I believe CWD will either come from a Cervid farm or from the riverbottoms of Illiinois which does not allow baiting, Some on here wish Michigan looked like Illinois and I think someday they will get their wish.


I don't see pacifying the qdmers and the dnr/nrc as a reasonable pastime. 

Maybe if they would have been more straight up and said, we think it's time for a change in how we do things in michigan. Next year we're eliminating baiting for the good of the sport and the resource. I still would have known it was really for the same driving factors, but it wouldn't have reeked quite so much of deciet.

People can and will blame baiting for cwd, just as they blame the deer for tb in michigan. Regardless of how much proof is set out there to prove it probably or most likely came from another source. It's easy to push blame.The bad part is, so much is getting destroyed while they play their little games. Then they try to hide behind the idea that they are looking out for the resource.

Naw, I used to be ok with waiting for them to fall on their face. Now I've figured out they don't care how bad they look, because nobody holds them accountable. They screw up and just move on to the next thing, status quo.


----------



## oldrank

It really just crack me up how if ya throw a footplot question to a QDMer most will defend it to the grave.......If you throw a baitpile question in they all pop out of the woodwork with how the baitpile is the cancer of deer hunting.......But when people start questioning things on practical baiting and the cons of increasing the age structure of a deer herd.....Or the negative effects of food plotting do to unnaturally increasing the carrying compasity of the land using reliable data these same guys will not say a word......The problem with what these guys are doing is that they are managing the deer herd to what they want......bigger antlers!!!! A younger deer herd is a healthier deer herd....that is a fact.


----------



## hunterdude772

Hey everyone don't forget to do the DNR success survey. Tell them how satisfied you were with your hunt this year. It can be found here:

https://secure1.state.mi.us/deersurvey/

Hey 6 tell them about all those deer you shot this year:lol::lol:


----------



## Surf and Turf

great idea, but do you really think the mdnr will care? I have never participated in any of thier surveys and never will. They don't care about guys like us, they just cater to those who fit into thier agenda.


----------



## hunterdude772

Surf and Turf said:


> great idea, but do you really think the mdnr will care? I have never participated in any of thier surveys and never will. They don't care about guys like us, they just cater to those who fit into thier agenda.


I do agree and this was the first I ever did. I know they use this to publish what happened in the 2008 season. My thought is if they see a large spike in people participating and most are dissatisfied, and hours in the field and deer harvested have decreased maybe it'll bi**h slap them into reality.

I'm sure that is not likely but maybe someone else, like lawmakers, can get a hold of the survey numbers and see them for what they are???

This is one of the few ways we can voice our dissatisfaction so this year our whole group is doing it, although none ever have before.

Just think, the only hunters they have talk to are the ones who shot something and brought it into a check station. That would most likely be the "DNR gullible".

Just a thought......


----------



## scott kavanaugh

Surf and Turf said:


> great idea, but do you really think the mdnr will care? I have never participated in any of thier surveys and never will. They don't care about guys like us, they just cater to those who fit into thier agenda.


Although your point is valid, again everyone must keep in mind, the other side of this coin usually has a whole bunch of time on their hands. They fill out every survey, get in every c.o., biologist, nrc members, and legislators ear that will listen.

Although the dnr does like to skew surveys to their likeing, if we give them no negative feedback, then there is absolutly no reason to keep complaining about them on a forum. Furthermore every time anyone of us calls them to the matt, were just going to get our head handed back to us when they cite this years deer survey or the support for their decisions that has been demonstrated at the nrc meetings. 

No, unfortunatly we have to play the game and tell them over and over every time we get the chance what we already have and what they already know.


----------



## BigDog25

The simple idea of skewing surveys purposely is BS. It is the guys who aren't submitting surveys that don't get their voice heard, therefore when the results do come out and are published, then those same people are up in arms over the results. It seems pretty simple to me....Sit on your ***** and don't do anything to voice your concern and the results will reflect your effort. Actually create a voice somewhere else other than this forum and try to participate in surveys, townhall meetings, and what not, and you may be surprised as to the results you can then create.


----------



## huntingfool43

oldrank said:


> Or the negative effects of food plotting do to unnaturally increasing the carrying compasity of the land using reliable data these same guys will not say a word......The problem with what these guys are doing is that they are managing the deer herd to what they want......bigger antlers!!!! A younger deer herd is a healthier deer herd....that is a fact.



Finally and all it took for some of you to see what QDM is about was a case of CWD. There is no way that QDM can be good for the herd when they promote over populating your land by food plots and what not. What is natural about a herd that is manipulated by the land owner?


----------



## Michael Wagner

marty said:


> throw in a spin feeder and we got a deal:lol:


 I got a spin feeder for you, brand new never been used, I got it as a present so I could watch the deer in our backyard. I`ll give ya a heck of a deal on it.:evil: Mike


----------



## Surf and Turf

hunterdude772 said:


> I do agree and this was the first I ever did. I know they use this to publish what happened in the 2008 season. My thought is if they see a large spike in people participating and most are dissatisfied, and hours in the field and deer harvested have decreased maybe it'll bi**h slap them into reality.
> 
> I'm sure that is not likely but maybe someone else, like lawmakers, can get a hold of the survey numbers and see them for what they are???
> 
> This is one of the few ways we can voice our dissatisfaction so this year our whole group is doing it, although none ever have before.
> 
> Just think, the only hunters they have talk to are the ones who shot something and brought it into a check station. That would most likely be the "DNR gullible".
> 
> Just a thought......


 Point taken hunterdude, I will fill out the survey. For the time it will take, I'll give it a go.


----------



## twodogsphil

Much ado about nothing -- to the best of my knowledge [and the expenditure of over $! million by MDNR] we don't have CWD in the Michigan free-ranging deer herd.


----------



## Surf and Turf

BigDog25 said:


> The simple idea of skewing surveys purposely is BS. It is the guys who aren't submitting surveys that don't get their voice heard, therefore when the results do come out and are published, then those same people are up in arms over the results. It seems pretty simple to me....Sit on your ***** and don't do anything to voice your concern and the results will reflect your effort. Actually create a voice somewhere else other than this forum and try to participate in surveys, townhall meetings, and what not, and you may be surprised as to the results you can then create.


 Don't know where you live bd, but newsflash it isn't reality. I went to several meetings with dnr and dept of ag in the 80's when tb was the issue here. Public opinion and concern had no place in those meetings. When someone at the head table can stand up and tell a farmer that the farmers farm and livelyhood is not thier concern nor thier problem, well that gentleman was luckily escorted to his vihelcle be a dept shirriff. Someday you will learn, these individuals don't care about us common folk. They told a property owner near hubbard lake at the same meeting that after the deer irratication in that area, if he was concerned about the value of his hunting property, he needed to talk to the township assesser. Property Value was not thier concern. So I've been there, it has taken some time to develope the attitide I have to the dnr. I would not say what I wish would happen because I have more compassion and humanity than the people I heard speaking for those organizations in those meetings. I just know what goes around comes back around.


----------



## Neal

huntingfool43 said:


> Finally and all it took for some of you to see what QDM is about was a case of CWD. There is no way that QDM can be good for the herd when they promote over populating your land by food plots and what not. What is natural about a herd that is manipulated by the land owner?


 
QDM by definition promotes the opposite, with populations below carrying capacity.


----------



## 6inchtrack

But Neal
QDM does promote older and larger bucks.
Studies show that a younger deer herd is better for controlling disease.

6

If you oppose the baiting ban go to this site and print a letter to send to your elected officials.
*http://sixinchtrack.tripod.com/*


----------



## huntingfool43

Code:







Neal said:


> QDM by definition promotes the opposite, with populations below carrying capacity.



Then why don't the QDMers follow that definition. Farm Legend brags about drawing deer from the surrounding property and ruining the hunting around him, how is that good for the heard? You still didn't answer the ?, what is natural about a herd when the property owner is manipulating it? Neal I give you credit, you are not one on here worshipping the big antlers but I think you are the only QDM member who isn't. Another ? is if the youger herd will survive better then why try and change the age structure to an older age of animals? The stats show that the older the buck is the better his chance of contacting CWD so why would QDM stand by the older age structure, makes no sence.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Neal said:


> QDM by definition promotes the opposite, with populations below carrying capacity.


If populations were managed substantially below the _natural_ carrying capacity, then you might be correct but the way QDM is practiced by the vast majority of practitioners, carrying capacities are boosted to levels substantially higher then the natural carrying capacity of an individual property, through the implementation of food plots, habitat improvements, etc., and then an attempt is made to reduce the population through the harvest of does. This usually results in a substantial net increase in the individual deer densities on improved properties and contributes to the overpopulation problems that we are experiencing. Since overpopulation is the single, most likely contributer to the potential spread of CWD, you can make a very credible argument that QDM, as practiced by the majority of hunters, could substantially increase the potential for the spread of CWD. 

I am a major supporter of QDM, as practiced correctly but not when practiced in a manner where the interests of the hunter supersedes the interest of the herd.


----------



## scott kavanaugh

BigDog25 said:


> The simple idea of skewing surveys purposely is BS. It is the guys who aren't submitting surveys that don't get their voice heard, therefore when the results do come out and are published, then those same people are up in arms over the results. It seems pretty simple to me....Sit on your ***** and don't do anything to voice your concern and the results will reflect your effort. Actually create a voice somewhere else other than this forum and try to participate in surveys, townhall meetings, and what not, and you may be surprised as to the results you can then create.


So rod why do you feel the need to be so hostile in your communications, were you not held as a child:lol::lol::lol: Seriously,you don't think the dnr cooks numbers??? Blackhawk helicoptors, cougars, ufo's aside, for real?????

I suppose you believe we shot more deer this year in the NLP during gun season than we did last year??? Despite the fact that there wasn't anybody out there, which unless I'm the one loseing it, means there wasn't anyone to shoot the imaginary guns to kill the imaginary deer.
Come on man think.:SHOCKED:


----------



## Neal

huntingfool43 said:


> Then why don't the QDMers follow that definition. Farm Legend brags about drawing deer from the surrounding property and ruining the hunting around him, how is that good for the heard? You still didn't answer the ?, what is natural about a herd when the property owner is manipulating it? Neal I give you credit, you are not one on here worshipping the big antlers but I think you are the only QDM member who isn't. Another ? is if the youger herd will survive better then why try and change the age structure to an older age of animals? The stats show that the older the buck is the better his chance of contacting CWD so why would QDM stand by the older age structure, makes no sence.



Please don't equate certain members of this site with the general proponents of QDM.
Natural? What's left that's natural when it comes to habitat? The land that I primarily hunt is mostly agricultural, as with most of this states wilderness there is not much natural left. The goal of myself and neighbors is to increase habitat, using many techniques, and decreasing deer population via DNR wildlife biologist recommendations.



> If populations were managed substantially below the _natural_ carrying capacity, then you might be correct *but the way QDM is practiced by the vast majority of practitioners*, carrying capacities are boosted to levels substantially higher then the natural carrying capacity of an individual property, through the implementation of food plots, habitat improvements, etc., and then an attempt is made to reduce the population through the harvest of does. *This usually results in a substantial net increase in the individual deer densities on improved properties and contributes to the overpopulation problems that we are experiencing*.


Do you have any data supporting the highlighted sentences above? or is this just your observations? I am involved with large QDM co-ops involving 100's of people and 1000's of acres, and my observations are opposite of yours.
I don't really want to continue another QDM debate, and since this thread is in the disease forums, I think that should be the focus. Issues like these are important to me, and if found substantially relevant, it should be to all conservationists. Are diseases transmitted more within a higher age range of deer? The answer to that is, according to the posted data is a definite "maybe". From the article: "Transmission rate *may* also vary in space and *may* vary with age of the deer"
What they did find in this one study is the specific disease, CWD, was more "prevalent" in older class deer in infected areas. I think more importantly is the actual increased rate between a 1/2 year old deer and a 4.5+ deer is a fraction of a percent. QDM recommends that deer reach an age of maturity, usually at 2.5 years old, the increased prevelance rate increase there is almost immeasurable. I think this miniscule finding should be somewhere very low on our list of concerns when discussing CWD prevalence & transmission. I also find pointing a finger at QDM, which again, by definition is battling the largest contributor to all diseases, the over population of deer, is short sighted and quite frankly, ridiculous
QDM supports a Balanced deer age structure, in which in Michigan's case, would probably lead to an increased age structure where in many biologists opinions is where the structure should be for that species. So what do we do for the best interest of our whitetail deer? Continue to manage them for proper structure? or let one study that suggests that structure would increase the prevalence of CWD manage our wild herd (which right now, the prevalence is zero). I'm honestly curious what the suggestions are?

BTW - I am not a spokesman for QDMrs or QDMA, just myself........Sorry for the long post


----------



## Munsterlndr

Neal said:


> . The goal of myself and neighbors is to increase habitat, using many techniques, and decreasing deer population via DNR wildlife biologist recommendations.
> 
> Do you have any data supporting the highlighted sentences above? or is this just your observations? I am involved with large QDM co-ops involving 100's of people and 1000's of acres, and my observations are opposite of yours.


At the risk of drawing this thread farther off topic, I'd be happy to provide you with literally dozens of quotes from QDMA representatives, State Wildlife agencies, Biologists, Etc., indicating that one of the results of of habitat improvements and supplemental feeding in the form of food plots is that it increases the carrying capacity of individual properties. As Kip Adams, QDMA Biologist and Director states " Plant it and they will come." It's pretty basic, you increase the available food supply and create habitat conditions that are favorable for deer and you are going to concentrate deer on a given property and increase deer densities. While in theory you may be able to hammer enough does to decrease the resulting density below what it would have been prior to improvements, the fact of the matter is that most guys that plant food plots can't harvest enough does to compensate for the increased density that results. I'd also say that your experience within a coop is unlikely to be representative of the experience of the average QDM'er. The fact that a coop was formed is indicative of a higher level of understanding and commitment, which probably reflects an increased willingness to correctly manage populations then your average food plotter would exhibit. If you want to believe that all of the supplimental feeding that results from food plots and habitat improvements in our State does not contribute to our over-population problem, that's certainly your right, everyone is entitled to an opinion.


----------



## Neal

> At the risk of drawing this thread farther off topic, I'd be happy to provide you with literally dozens of quotes from QDMA representatives, State Wildlife agencies, Biologists, Etc., indicating that one of the results of of habitat improvements and supplemental feeding in the form of food plots is that it increases the carrying capacity of individual properties. As Kip Adams, QDMA Biologist and Director states " Plant it and they will come." It's pretty basic, you increase the available food supply and create habitat conditions that are favorable for deer and you are going to concentrate deer on a given property and increase deer densities


I wasnt questioning that. I'm well aware that increasing habitat will increase carrying capacity.



> While in theory you may be able to hammer enough does to decrease the resulting density below what it would have been prior to improvements, the fact of the matter is that most guys that plant food plots can't harvest enough does to compensate for the increased density that results.


That's a fact? Again I'd like to see the data.



> The fact that a coop was formed is indicative of a higher level of understanding and commitment, which probably reflects an increased willingness to correctly manage populations then your average food plotter would exhibit.


I disagree, you may be correct when it comes to the organizers of the co-ops, but the general membership is made of average joe hunter who wants to see a difference in our deer herd, food plot or not.


----------



## swampbuck

Neal,

I didnt read the article but in the past I have posted a few different articles regarding Tb and CWD that sighted a 2-3x prevalance amoung mature bucks. Heres a result that Wisconsin (where cwd originated in a qdm area) has documented



> Analysis of the sex and age composition of positive deer has shown that very few fawns
> are infected; only 10 out of more than 7,500 tested. Disease prevalence increases with
> age and the rate of increase is faster in males than in females. Only 2-3% of yearling
> females and males from the core area have tested positive for CWD. This increased to





> 4% of females and 10% of males for deer 3 years old or older.
> 
> 
> 
> www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/Whealth/issues/CWD/doc/CWD_report.pdf
Click to expand...




> The CWD prevalance rate is currently Unknown, And if it is zero that is probably only temporary. Give it a few years. I have some studys and documents that raise questions about the wisdom of habitat improvements in disease areas also. And probably something about the difficulty of reducing numbers of does in a deer management co-op in oaklahoma. If you want to read them.
Click to expand...


----------



## huntingfool43

Neal said:


> Please don't equate certain members of this site with the general proponents of QDM.
> Natural? What's left that's natural when it comes to habitat? The land that I primarily hunt is mostly agricultural, as with most of this states wilderness there is not much natural left. The goal of myself and neighbors is to increase habitat, using many techniques, and decreasing deer population






The fact is if people would stop tring to interfer mother nature and the deer would take care of the problem themselfs. All the food plots, habitat improvements are all for one reason and that is to draw and hold more deer in a smaller area than if they were allowed to disperse naturally. Now correct me I am wrong but the higher concentration in a smaller area is what caused TB to spread and will "acording to the experts" cause CWD to spread. That is good for the herd? HOW Not to mention if the deer were scattered over a much larger area more hunters would be able to help keep the numbers in check helping to keep something like CWD from spreading. What is QDM going to do if indeed it is proven that their practic is indeed to blame for the spread of CWD?
"Please don't equate certain members of this site with the general proponents of QDM"
Are there that many black sheep giving QDM a bad name or is there a core group that really is concerned about more than big antlers, if so they better start cleaning house or their messengers are going to be their downfall.


----------



## chevyjam2001

If QDM is to blame, then how come there is not a TB or CWD problem in the South East where QDM started over 25 years ago???


----------



## Munsterlndr

chevyjam2001 said:


> If QDM is to blame, then how come there is not a TB or CWD problem in the South East where QDM started over 25 years ago???


Because neither disease is spontaneous. The disease has to be present in order to be spread. Nobody is saying the QDM causes the disease, Anything, whether it's baiting or QDM practices or farm fields or an oak grove or supplemental winter feeding that concentrates deer has the potential to increase the spread of a disease but the disease has to be present in order for that to happen. That's why an increased population is more vulnerable, because there are greater numbers of deer to concentrate and then spread the disease.


----------



## twodogsphil

As far as Michigan goes, this thread is much ado about nothing -- to the best of my knowledge [and the expenditure of over $! million by MDNR] we don't have CWD in Michigan's free-ranging deer herd.


----------



## Nick Adams

Neal said:


> .........Quote: While in theory you may be able to hammer enough does to decrease the resulting density below what it would have
> .................... been prior to improvements, the fact of the matter is that most guys that plant food plots can't harvest enough does
> .................... to compensate for the increased density that results.
> 
> That's a fact? Again I'd like to see the data.


Here was my favorite recent data point from this websight. Is this part of the solution to high deer densities, or part of the problem?

"... living out there showed me that my QDM efforts were paying off but increasing the number of accidents with lots of late night crashes, people coming to the door, etc."

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2437721&postcount=1

-na


----------



## Surf and Turf

Neal said:


> Please don't equate certain members of this site with the general proponents of QDM.
> Natural? What's left that's natural when it comes to habitat? The land that I primarily hunt is mostly agricultural, as with most of this states wilderness there is not much natural left. The goal of myself and neighbors is to increase habitat, using many techniques, and decreasing deer population via DNR wildlife biologist recommendations.
> 
> Do you have any data supporting the highlighted sentences above? or is this just your observations? I am involved with large QDM co-ops involving 100's of people and 1000's of acres, and my observations are opposite of yours.
> I don't really want to continue another QDM debate, and since this thread is in the disease forums, I think that should be the focus. Issues like these are important to me, and if found substantially relevant, it should be to all conservationists. Are diseases transmitted more within a higher age range of deer? The answer to that is, according to the posted data is a definite "maybe". From the article: "Transmission rate *may* also vary in space and *may* vary with age of the deer"
> What they did find in this one study is the specific disease, CWD, was more "prevalent" in older class deer in infected areas. I think more importantly is the actual increased rate between a 1/2 year old deer and a 4.5+ deer is a fraction of a percent. QDM recommends that deer reach an age of maturity, usually at 2.5 years old, the increased prevelance rate increase there is almost immeasurable. I think this miniscule finding should be somewhere very low on our list of concerns when discussing CWD prevalence & transmission. I also find pointing a finger at QDM, which again, by definition is battling the largest contributor to all diseases, the over population of deer, is short sighted and quite frankly, ridiculous
> QDM supports a Balanced deer age structure, in which in Michigan's case, would probably lead to an increased age structure where in many biologists opinions is where the structure should be for that species. So what do we do for the best interest of our whitetail deer? Continue to manage them for proper structure? or let one study that suggests that structure would increase the prevalence of CWD manage our wild herd (which right now, the prevalence is zero). I'm honestly curious what the suggestions are?
> 
> BTW - I am not a spokesman for QDMrs or QDMA, just myself........Sorry for the long post


 Neal, 
I understand what you are saying and I feel for you. I'm sure that many of us would fit into some forms of QDM. You have fallin into the steriotype of a qdmer, the same as many of us fall into the baiters steriotype. I would say IMO that qdm can be practiced in alot of different ways. We are doing similar things here where I hunt. We let alot of year and half old bucks go and try to communicate amongst ourselves on how many does we should harvest to maintian the numbers that the group of property owners feel we can handle. Has worked very well in the past until this year, without supplemental feeding we were unalble to keep the deer spread out over several acres. They moved from cornfield to cornfield as the were harvested, which really concentrated them. That is one of the other things that is never really said. Deer follow the food source. Therefore the deer that were in one place in October might be 6 to 7 miles away come the middle of November. I am not refering to data that I've read, just want I've seen over the years in my particular area. I don't think what you are doing is wrong, if it is working for you in your area, keep up the good work. There are many of us on this site that have commercail qdm shoved down our throats and still beleive that we do know how to hunt whitetails, just because it isn't the way of the modern qdm, we have been told we don't know anything about the deer we hunt. If you read the anti baiting threads, you'll understand how some qdmers got thier bad rep.


----------



## oldrank

Thanks for some good points Neal........


----------



## swampbuck

Nick Adams said:


> Here was my favorite recent data point from this websight. Is this part of the solution to high deer densities, or part of the problem?
> 
> "... living out there showed me that my QDM efforts were paying off but increasing the number of accidents with lots of late night crashes, people coming to the door, etc."
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2437721&postcount=1
> 
> -na


neal,
Although nicks post illustrated the point perfectly, heres some more reading.

http://www.noble.org/Ag/Wildlife/KillingTheFactory/Index.htm


----------



## traditional

In the herd there is one animal that spends the first part of it's life in one environment and then disperses to another environment taking everything it was exposed to from one environment to the next. This would spread a disease (geographically) from one place to the next. Any quess which animal that is.


----------



## Surf and Turf

Nick Adams, I have a question for you, ya yooper. Where I hunt, imo I beleive some of the deer here may travel up to 10 miles thoughout the year. That would be tops. I am saying from where they would call home in the summer, they may get 10 miles from there until the following summer, then back home. Up there in the U.P. how far would you say they travel in a year. I have heard up to 60 miles. Would you agree?


----------



## Neal

Nick Adams said:


> Here was my favorite recent data point from this websight. Is this part of the solution to high deer densities, or part of the problem?
> 
> "... living out there showed me that my QDM efforts were paying off but increasing the number of accidents with lots of late night crashes, people coming to the door, etc."
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2437721&postcount=1
> 
> -na


QDM Paying off, but increasing the number of accidents? There's a lot of misunderstanding of what QDM is, I'm guessing that the factor here. The post really doesnt offer much info. or detail about the situation. Regardless, thats not meaningful data.




> neal,
> Although nicks post illustrated the point perfectly, heres some more reading.
> 
> http://www.noble.org/Ag/Wildlife/Kil...tory/Index.htm


Thank you, I will try to look that over tomorrow.


----------



## Nick Adams

Neal said:


> QDM Paying off, but increasing the number of accidents? There's a lot of misunderstanding of what QDM is, I'm guessing that the factor here. The post really doesnt offer much info. or detail about the situation. Regardless, thats not meaningful data.


It wasn't being offered up as a complete body of evidence, only an example of the attitude that you were claiming was not common. It is a lot more common than you are making out, both here and out in the real world. 

I agree that ist is a misunderstanding of the principles of QDM. My point was that the misunderstanding is common among people who claim to be QDM practitioners as well as among those who are not. The solution being discussed in the thread I used as an example above never even touched on the subject of too many deer - the solution to the increased deer-vehicle accident problem was to lobby the MDOT to put up a deer crossing sign, instead.

The fact that QDMA's message often gets distorted is not my problem. It is QDMA's problem, or not, depending the extent to which they have any concerns over their public image as an organization.

-na


----------



## Nick Adams

Surf and Turf said:


> Up there in the U.P. how far would you say they travel in a year. I have heard up to 60 miles. Would you agree?


It varies. Some summer near the yards where they winter and some summer 60 miles or more away from them. A range of between 0 and 70 miles would be probably be a fair assessment.

-na


----------



## Surf and Turf

Nick Adams said:


> It varies. Some summer near the yards where they winter and some summer 60 miles or more away from them. A range of between 0 and 70 miles would be probably be a fair assessment.
> 
> -na


 thanks Nick. I have some friends up there and that is what they claim as well. I would suppose in some areas depending on the winter they go from top to bottom. I have some friends with property near Curtis and when they get early snow, a foot or more, muzzleloader season is awsome for them. Like this year. They are doing very well. Not as many big bucks, but 9 2 to 3 year olds the last I heard.


----------



## scott kavanaugh

Nick Adams said:


> It wasn't being offered up as a complete body of evidence, only an example of the attitude that you were claiming was not common. It is a lot more common than you are making out, both here and out in the real world.
> 
> I agree that ist is a misunderstanding of the principles of QDM. My point was that the misunderstanding is common among people who claim to be QDM practitioners as well as among those who are not. The solution being discussed in the thread I used as an example above never even touched on the subject of too many deer - the solution to the increased deer-vehicle accident problem was to lobby the MDOT to put up a deer crossing sign, instead.
> 
> The fact that QDMA's message often gets distorted is not my problem. It is QDMA's problem, or not, depending the extent to which they have any concerns over their public image as an organization.
> 
> -na


This is too factual Neal, Nick hit this on the head. Now I know that QDM isn't supposed to be about this, I've always understood that. I also know that some of you guys have a better understanding of qdms goals, than many many others.

My experience and opinion is what I consider reality, instead of maybe how it's supposed to look on paper. This guy in Nicks post might or might not of cared about the people that were possibly going to get hurt. But I think he was probably concerned about his deer getting ran over, which prompted him wanting to do something to protect them.

I have an aquantaince who plotts and considers himself a QDMer. He lives next to a busy two laner. When he hears sqeeling tires in the fall, he's running to see if they ran over one of (his) big bucks. He could care less if the people are hurt, really. He works for GM, he wants to be able to go in and show off another big buck he shot, to his envious co-workers.


----------



## Sandwich

This has nothing to do with the QDM issue but "What the f*** is "HIS BUCKS"? I know a few yo yo's in Jackson who think because they manage their property/QDM every deer is considered "their deer"....You can take these guys fishing, golf with them but when it comes to hunting on property they own, every deer is "their deer"....News flash, unless it's penned up and you have a permit to raise deer, it's not "Their deer"....I can't stand these type of guys...Sorry just had to vent, I'm better now.....


----------



## Neal

Nick Adams said:


> It wasn't being offered up as a complete body of evidence, only an example of the attitude that you were claiming was not common. It is a lot more common than you are making out, both here and out in the real world.
> 
> I agree that ist is a misunderstanding of the principles of QDM. My point was that the misunderstanding is common among people who claim to be QDM practitioners as well as among those who are not. The solution being discussed in the thread I used as an example above never even touched on the subject of too many deer - the solution to the increased deer-vehicle accident problem was to lobby the MDOT to put up a deer crossing sign, instead.
> 
> The fact that QDMA's message often gets distorted is not my problem. It is QDMA's problem, or not, depending the extent to which they have any concerns over their public image as an organization.
> 
> -na


Nick, were getting away from the subject here, but I can give you dozens of examples that point in the other direction. It's hard data i'm concerned with.



> The fact that QDMA's message often gets distorted is not my problem. It is QDMA's problem, or not, depending the extent to which they have any concerns over their public image as an organization.


Exactly the reason for my involvement in this thread.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Neal -

You have admitted that you accept the fact that improvements can increase deer density. Do you really believe that all of the landowners that are implementing habitat improvements are also harvesting a minimum of 40% of the does on their property? Most guys have no idea what the resident density is on their property and have not bothered to calculate what number of does need to be harvested to keep the population static. Then it comes to the practical aspects of doe harvest, most property owners, especially in the NLP are handcuffed by the lack of antlerless permits available. The rest won't shoot enough does because they are worried about scaring away bucks. As one of the more experienced QDM managers on this forum has said, "the more does you shoot, the harder it is to shoot does." For many, espcially in the SLP, adequate doe harvest is a chronic problem and much of it results from improvements that are made which boost the carrying capacity and increase the number of does that are needed to be harvested, just to keep the population static, let alone make any meaningful herd reduction.


----------



## Neal

> You have admitted that you accept the fact that improvements can increase deer density. Do you really believe that all of the landowners that are implementing habitat improvements are also harvesting a minimum of 40% of the does on their property?


No, I don't believe all do.....I can only speak for myself and those I associate with. I appreciate the comments on this thread. (well, the civil ones) I am looking at this from another viewpoint, and intend to look into it further. Keep in mind I am speaking about QDM, what it is and what it's goals are, not for those that through some seed down to draw in deer and call it QDM. I will concede that the amount of those who do that is probably greater than I suspect, but also less that many others suspect.


----------

