# Whitetail News (Again)



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Did anyone read the article about Superior Deer Mgmt in the yup?

Comments? Thoughts?

ferg....


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

No, where can I find the article?


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Starts at page 66 - 

ferg....


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

What does it say?


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

I assume by your answer that Whitetail News is some sort of publication. If so, guess I have never heard of it.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

it's put out by the Whitetail Institute - (mostly Seed propaganda) - but sometimes has some good stuff in it - 

NJ - I'll get a chance around lunch to sum it up - 

ferg....


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

It's written my Mike Veine and is focused on Bud Norman and his effort with SDM in the central UP - how they use Whitetail Inst. products in their food plots and harvest large bucks yearly from their properties - 

Some history about the UP 'once' was the large buck capital of the state and a DNR harvest stratigy that changed about 15 years ago (4 buck limit) that messed the heard all up - and then about the reversal of that policy - and the comback of large/balanced heards in the UP - from over 1:10+ back down to around 1:2 - now - 

That there is a large growing acceptance of SDM/QDM in the UP and seems to spreading and that the future of deer hunting and the deer heard in da yup is on the way up and should continue to do so with the guidlines for a SDM/QDM attitude - 

Was a positive QDM aritical with only a single mention of the Whitetail Inst. product *(one sentance)* which for an 'advertisment rag' is pretty good. :yikes: 

ferg....


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I've talked to Bud Norman quite a bit and he and Jim Ladhe(sp?) were both at the QDMA convention. The want to convert SDM to a QDMA branch in the near future and purchased 15-20 memberships or so. I'm a member of SDM as well, and John Ozoga is an honorary lifetime member...I was at the dinner when they recognized him with the honor.

The U.P. once was the leader in the CBM record books, with at 1 time Alger/Delta/Schoolcrat holding more records than all the other counties combined. We have the potential up here to produce huge bucks again, but loss of winter habitat, and baiting practices are what I feel have led to the decline, not necessarily the 4-buck rule. As John Ozoga will tell you, we have become too darn effective at harvesting our yearling bucks.

SDM is definately on the right track and will most likely be a very positive additon to the QDMA in the near future. At the same time their past proposals comanded 70% and 72% approval from landowners and hunters. 

We'll see when the vote goes through in December how successful they have been.


----------



## campblujay (Jan 21, 2004)

Ferg said:


> Some history about the UP 'once' was the large buck capital of the state and a DNR harvest stratigy that changed about 15 years ago (4 buck limit) that messed the heard all up - and then about the reversal of that policy - and the comback of large/balanced heards in the UP - from over 1:10+ back down to around 1:2 - now -
> ferg....


Pardon my ignorance, I do not know what is meant by the 1:10+number. Is it a hunter to deer ratio or deer to wolf ratio or what? Its not a buck to doe ratio so what is it?


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Campblujay

I've read many of your posts and understand your frustration and dissatisfaction with your deer hunting in PA. What are you doing to change it? 

I've taken a piece of land in Michigan's UP which previously held very few deer and I'm now nearly over run with deer. Typically speaking this area supposed to hold less than 15 deer per square mile.

With habitat improvements, you and your family can have quality hunting also. It's not cheap and very labor intensive but the results will amaze you. All it takes is a few hundred hours of hard work a year.

Luv2hunteup


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

*All it takes is a few hundred hours of hard work a year.*

Unfortunate but true. Habitat management is an incredibly powerful wildlife management tool, but it *does* take either a lot of hard work or a lot of money.


----------



## campblujay (Jan 21, 2004)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Campblujay
> 
> I've read many of your posts and understand your frustration and dissatisfaction with your deer hunting in PA. What are you doing to change it?
> 
> ...


Thanks for your condescending reply. My one week hunt in pa is not really relevant to the whole season here. And although you have taken time lecture me on habitat, it really does not contribute to the discussion at hand which is about superior deer management and one posters assertion that the UP had a 1:10 'something' ratio. Now although I have not hunted in the UP, I would be interested to hear how they ever got the impossible ratio previously posted? I notice you had no comment to contribute, you only switched to another channel and wanted to talk about my contribution to habitat. Me thinks you do not even know what my work in that area has been or you would not have made such a silly comment. 

So heres a question for you. What does you owning land in the UP have to do with my question on the past or current 1:10 ratio? I am assuming YOU do know what Michigans B ratio and would expect you to correct the previous error that was posted by our peer.  

By the way thank you for reading my posts, its nice to know you care.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Campblujay

The name of this forum is Quality Deer Management
The theme of this forum is Deer managed for quality.
This thread is Whitetail News (again). Take the time and read the article.

And you ask about somebody side tracking. You better take a close look in the mirror. :yikes:  :lol:


----------



## campblujay (Jan 21, 2004)

Yes it is the QDM forum, and here was my question:

"Pardon my ignorance, I do not know what is meant by the 1:10+number. Is it a hunter to deer ratio or deer to wolf ratio or what? Its not a buck to doe ratio so what is it?" 

Now do you want to pose an answer, frame a related question, or discuss the B ratio that was discussed in this thread? Or do you wish to discuss my posting history? I will be glad to discuss either..... 

Hlep us all out here in QDM and tell us how you got 10 does for every buck in the UP when does have just about one buck for every doe fawn? (actually the studies have shown that they have 51%b and 49%doe. In doing the math, you can't get a 1:10. 

I believe the DNR who says depending on which DMU we are talking about east, west, north or south that we have anywhere between 1:1.9 to roughly an extreme of 1:2.9 Now I'm not an expert, maybe my math is wrong, so feel free to add to the discussion and enlighten me how you get a 1:10.  

I asked a very astute and nice question and you directed a reply to me about your plot in the up and how you improved your habitat? BTW my habitat (in pa) can support 40-60 dpm and I have talked many times about habitat with Gary Alt, Kip Adams, Merlin Benner, Dave Jackson and we have too many deer where I grew up, we are reducing them. But we do it with knowledge and education, not hype and hyperbole. Facts, not fiction. The land I hunt here is loaded with deer and I have only ever killed does in Michigan. Just because I do not follow the cult mentality of Pa deer management and Pa's attempt at statewide AR/HR, do not mistake that for lack of knowledge on habitat, QDM, or hunting. I do not want the mistake Pa made in its one size fits all mediocre deer scam to come to michigan. Pa has 22 DMU's, Mich a 165. Pa has MANDATORY AR regardless of you B ratio, your deer numbers, or your habitat status, Michigan believes in voluntary QDM in smaller DMU's which it manages differently based on data and input from hunters and landowners. The two states are light years apart and we do not need to import Pa's nightmare here (or anywhere). By the way Mich and Pa's B:d ratio's are similare and around the 1:2.1 neighborhood. 


The 1:10 ratio is fiction. :chillin: 

Lets get some facts.


----------



## Guest (Jul 22, 2004)

Why answer this guy? He is a professional baiter, with little constructive input.


Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## ArrowFlinger (Sep 18, 2000)

I think the 1:10 to 1:2 ratio may correct. The last couple years I have only seen 20% of the deer in the past


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Apparently you define " constructive input" as anything that agrees with QDM and anyone that disagrees is a baiter. The truth is you can't answer his question ,just like you couldn't answer my questions about the results from DMU 118. The data you provided on DMU 118 was just the raw check station data and made no sense and didn't support your claims about the benefits of AR and QDM.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Thanks for reminding me Ed. I get side tracked at times.


----------



## campblujay (Jan 21, 2004)

Heres why eddie, because the up does not have a 1:10 buck to doe ratio. You know it, I know it, Clute knows it but you would like people to think it does. sounds dramatic 1:10 :yikes: 

But its really less dramatic when in reality it is 1:2.1 or 2.2

Ed, you don't want to respond because you prefer to let people deal in rumor, innuendo, folklore rather than facts about deer management. 
Sorry it dis-agrees with a lot of the hype out there about QDM, but facts is facts........ :lol: 

If you start out with a hundred deer on your farm and you shoot all the bucks. Every single one, and your does then give birth in the spring to have
an equal number of boys and girls (51/49) then what is YOUR B ratio ?

I'm disappointed Ed you could not answer.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

CBJ...your quote: 

"DNR who says depending on which DMU we are talking about east, west, north or south that we have anywhere between 1:1.9 to roughly an extreme of 1:2.9"

.....is interesting, and new to me. It's much lower (meaning fewer does to bucks) than I would have guessed. I'm not doubting it, just looking for where I could find that stat, and similar stats, on the Michigan herd. I pick up bits and pieces of revealing stats in various links that Tom Morang, Hamilton Reef, Bob S., or Boehr occasionally post. 

Can you give me a pointer as to where one could find such?


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

1:10 ratio seems a little extreme.. but you can certainly have a worse ratio than 1:1.9 or 1:2.9 .

in our area, it has been demonstrated that a ration of 1:5 is about the worst you are going to get. I can't remember where that number came from, but its been put out there from someone.. 

if we really had a ratio of 1:2, then we wouldn't be talking about AR's and such.

Camp - you asked a fair question, didn't quite get a direct response. but you expected one.. why have you disregarded the direct question i asked you in a previous thread? (you probably remember which one.. ) that question was echoed by others.

if you have the time, would you post your thoughts on qdm objectives, in the "Gwizdz on the think tank" thread. i'm interested to hear what you think.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

campblujay said:


> Pardon my ignorance, I do not know what is meant by the 1:10+number. Is it a hunter to deer ratio or deer to wolf ratio or what? Its not a buck to doe ratio so what is it?


The article is not talking about the present it was talking about what the ratio was PRE SDM. And what happend in the early 80's when the harvest stratigy changed.

And I quote MR. Michael Veine, in Vol 14 No. 1 Whitetail News, page 67:

The buck/doe ratio was skewed to worse than 1:10 causing a social imbalance in the deer heard. More juvenile bucks became responsible for the breeding, which usually occurred later than normal. The resulting fawns were often born late and suffered a high mortality rate and stunted growth. Average body weights and antler production also suffered. UNQUOTE

Read the damn article first.

Ya know - if you just want to pick fights GYST first.

ferg....


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Take state agency sex ratio, population density, and age structure data with a *huge* grain of salt. Computer population models don't work. It is numerically impossible to make them work.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Ed Spin04 said:


> He is a professional baiter,


And he appears to use way more than the legal 2 gallon limit. :lol:


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Thanks for providing the information to those of us who don`t get that magazine Ferg.


----------



## campblujay (Jan 21, 2004)

Ferg said:


> The article is not talking about the present it was talking about what the ratio was PRE SDM. And what happend in the early 80's when the harvest stratigy changed.
> 
> And I quote MR. Michael Veine, in Vol 14 No. 1 Whitetail News, page 67:
> 
> ...



there is no need for you to swear. It is very unbecoming and very unpolite.

I asked a very basic question of WHERE they got thier 1:10 B:d ratio. because anything over 1:3 is fantasy and hogwash. 

I was taking a good view of superior deer managment, as I though maybe they were the next logical educational step above QDM. I thought QDM had moved some of its folklore based deer management and became SDM, but alas it appears SDM is folklore based. 

Did you bother to do the math I provided? I doubt it, or you would realize that 1:10 is not possible. For example: tke 100 deer on your property. 

You tell me what your numbers are..... 10 buck 90 does? O.k. (any numbers work)

We kill all your bucks, and the 90 does left give birth to fawns. How many? We know that they have as many boys as girls (actually 51 to 49) so your 90 does bred 100% produce 51 bucks 49 does. Add to them the doe who done brought them into the world and you have how many?? Thats right 51 boys and 139 girls. and what is the ratio? 1:2.7 badda bing badda boom....... not qdm or sdm or any articles change that. 

now how in mathematical wizardry did SDM come up with 1:10? Oh, thats right we just read magazine articles meant to sell magazines and we don't bother to ask any questions. just take anything we read as gospel. Question nothing............. :sad: 

well john Ozoga said....

well Gary Alt said.....

Hey, Gary alt said his plan would create "more and bigger bucks" and for three years the buck harvests have dropped. Hugely, by 61,000 bucks. Michigan is following the advice of SDM? Man you better be carefull then, because we might have a management system built on folklore and fantasy and not on science or facts. Of course here and in magazines we only have opinions. Like it or not.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

just me or does it look like some posts are missing? with 2 threads in this forum, my browser indicated new posts by one id, but they don't show up.. what gives?


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Rzdrmh, there are some posts commenting on posts by campblujay. It appears some of campblujay`s posts are no longer here. Must have been removed either by himself or a moderator.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

I was thinking I was drinking because I too was missing half of the discussion here  I assume his posts are being edited or removed.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Sex ratios are a controversial subject. *IF* a herd is reproductively successful (produces a lot of surviving fawns per doe--high fawn recruitment) it is nearly impossible to skew the _pre-hunt_ sex ratio beyond 1:3, no matter what the harvest rate. You can build a simple population growth model and calculate zero doe harvest and a buck harvest of 90% of all existing males, yet by pre-hunt fall of the following year, the high reproductive rate has replaced most of the bucks with new yearlings (the large button buck crop from the previous year), keeping the sex ratio from being highly skewed (of course, the buck age structure would be terrible, since the majority of the male population would be yearlings each year--a very common real-world situation). However, if the herd density increases to the point fawn production begins to decline (and that *will* happen as herd density approaches maximum), then the pre-hunt sex ratio can become highly skewed because there *isn't* a large male fawn crop to replace harvested bucks each year. This same situation can occur any time fawn production is low, and any number of food resource, health, climatic conditions can cause low fawn survival.

Basically, if the herd is reproductively successful, it is impossible to skew the pre-hunt sex ratio too far. If the pre-hunt sex ratio *IS* heavily skewed, that is proof the herd is not reproductively successful, for whatever reason. In that situation, 1:10 ratios are possible.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Commenting on the comments of 'Bob S.' and 'J.Ducky':

I certainly hope he wasn't censored. That in fact, his missing comments are due to his own self-editing.

But if not. If he was blue-pencilled out by Moderators...then I'd ask those folks: _Don't do that. We can stand the heat._

One of the marvelous properties of internet forums is that it can be a wide open free-for-all, that everybody can have an opinion, and express it in language that is sometimes forceful, or sarcastic, or disrespectful, or patronizing, or just damn irritating. And that's OK. We can handle it.

To be sure, none of us want, and the moderators are justified in removing, language that is profane, vulgar, or personally abusive. THAT is a proper role for wielding a blue-pencil. But simply because a poster is stridently opposed to all or any of the points being posted is not a good enough reason to edit him out.

That's my free opinion....and it's worth every penny of it's cost.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Be careful with sex ratios. I believe post hunt ratios are a much better measurement of the overall age structure balance of the herd. Obviously when it comes to pre-hunt sex ratios, fawns and yearlings are going to be balanced.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Can anyone define what the proper buck age structure would be in a properly managed QDM herd? What should be the ratio of 2.5 buck to adult doe and the same for 3.5 buck? Does the proper age structure require that some bucks survive to 4.5?


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

JMO, but if CBJ is censored or removed from the thread that is no better than how the QDM people are treated over on the MON site. Let Camp back up what he says and let everyone else distinguish between it all and decide what they think. To remove all of his posts is a little unfair and I think we have had some treated like that on the other site recently. Again JMO I can't decide if wht he said was wrong or what Because it is not there to read anymore!!!!!!

AW


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

*I believe post hunt ratios are a much better measurement of the overall age structure balance of the herd.*

20:1 _post-hunt_ ratios are *very* possible, if not common in some areas.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

For some of you that don't want to hear the thoughts of another, just place them on you "ignore" list, it really can improve the quality of your internet experience and you don't even have to see what they say. It's rather enjoyable!  

Not that I'd want to, but I found you can't do it with a moderator though...oh well!!


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Adam....what is the "MON site" that you refer to in the above post?


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

michiganoutdoornews.com

You will not find another forum in this state that is more in tune with the thought process of the traditional deer manager.

Tell them all I miss them.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

That article was edited severly to fit on one page. The original submission contained a much more detailed description of the history of central U.P. deer story. From what I saw during my spring and summer scouting trips to my hunting areas in the Central U.P. those areas will be producing some awsome bucks to chase after. Like them or not, those improved hunting prospects are in large part due to antler restrictions. Antler restrictions are somewhat of a pain in the rear, but they do infact improve the number of older age class bucks in the herd, which in my opinion is a good thing.

On a sidenote, Bud Norman, the focus of that article, is one of the nicest men I know and he is also dedicated to the improvment of the U.P. deer herd. He is one of those rare individuals that doesn't just sit back and complain about deer herd managment, he dedicates vast amounts of his own time and money to make things better. Hats off to Bud Norman and other like him. 

Mike Veine


----------



## Guest (Aug 24, 2004)

Hi Mike, It's nice to hear from you.

I talked to Bud at the QDMA Convention and had the pleasure of meeting him for the first time in early 1999 when they were in their early years of forming their Superior Deer Management, SDM, organization. Yes, indeed Bud is of excellant caliber as are many of the SDM group. The present MDNR Wildlife District Director, Bob Doecker is more than willing to work with the SDM group and their sponsership of deer management in the UP. Too bad the previous District Director had little to no interest in progressive deer management. 

I believe they will have seven town meetings in the Up to explain their sponsership of antler restrictions (three points on one side minimum throughout the UP), habitat improvement and proper doe harvest etc. The survey will be sent out this December and they need all the support they can get from you deer enthusiasts. The 66% requirement of support is overwhelming, but if it happens anywhere, it will happen in the UP. Their main recreation activity is deer hunting and they take it seriously. It is very common throughout the UP for hunters to pass up on yearlings. Example, Just 5 years ago the yearling buck harvest represented 65% of the total buck harvest in the UP, now it is 55%, while the rest of the state averages over 80%. 

Of couse the yearling buck harverst should be lower, much lower, something like 10% of the total. 

Guys like Bud will make it happen!

Kepp the fun in hunting!


----------

