# S... P... or Get Off the Pot



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

*I do apologize if I offended anybody who didn't deserve it with my origninal post, therefore I deleted it.* When I re-read it, I think I even offended myself. Heck I used to be anti-QDM at one time. When I originally wrote this post I was extremely upset though. Please read my follow-up post to see why.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Trophy Specialist,
I was a fence sitter like Trout, but you won me over with that post. I am going to guess that you wrote this post after having a difficult day.
L & O


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

1. Existing combo licence. Four bucks per year was absurd. That did have an effect on what you see now. I don't care what anyone says many people used all of their tags and more.
2. No buttons...If you do use your buck tag.
3. Educate people about the need to kill does...Some people still believe what their Pop's said about not killing doe's
4. More CO's to enforce the existing laws. Poaching, using other peoples licences...etc take a tremendous toll on the trophy population. It seems ludicrous to make more laws that will be tough to enforce. Even if QDM is implemented you will have the SOB's that will shoot whatever they please. As soon as its "in the barn." Who is to say where it came from? We have some real quality CO's, but there are just not enough of them.
5. Manditory check in of every deer. Location of kill important. With more valid data about deer populations and densities more traditional methods would be effective.

This may not be the quick fix that some QDMer's seem to crave, but it will certainly have an effect.

Beagle

P.S. Congradulations Trout on the no-smoking. Never quit quitting. It worked for me.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Huntnut quickly sticks his head in here...

And pulls it out immediately.

But not before he whispers *thanks Beagle*


----------



## hasenpfeffer (Oct 6, 2001)

Excuse me? 
You live in washtenaw county and you have to travel to another state to find good hunting?
Believe me when I say this. If you're not satisfied with your hunting now you never will be! 
I will refrain from responding to the rest of your comments.


----------



## hasenpfeffer (Oct 6, 2001)

You wanted it here it is. 
Each hunter is allowed two kill tags. He can use his tags for whatever season he desires but he can only purchase the two regular licenses. Bonus permits for does only could continue for areas where the state feels theres is the need. The first tag is good for either sex, but for a buck it is only good for one with less than six points. The second tag is good only for a buck with six points or more. The hunter that wants meat can fill his tag with the first deer he sees instead of having to wait for a buck only like most have to now. He will then, if he wants to keep hunting, have to wait for a larger buck or if they're available go and get a bonus permit good only for a doe. This system has the advantage of increasing the doe harvest, as well as limiting the buck harvest of both large and small bucks. I believe you will find most hunters after using their first tag (be it buck or doe) will not be ready to end their hunting season early by shooting a small six pointer. Most will wait for a really big one or get a bonus permit good only for a doe. This would allow for a better chance of bucks with superior genetics to survive and breed.


----------



## H2OFowl'er (Oct 26, 2001)

Trophy Specialist,

I would like to personally thank you for disrupting the constructiveness of this forum. For quite some time now many people have calmly and responsibly discussed the good and bad, the in and outs and different views on QDM. Many people here love the idea while many dislike parts of it. There is very few that down right hate the whole idea. I feel that your post will do more harm than good for your cause. By bashing those that oppose QDM for there personal reasons will more than likely get on the QDM band wagon after reading your post NOT!!!!!*NOT!!!!!* It is this type of out lashing that does nothing for the support of sportsman in the eyes of the anti-hunters and the non-hunters. Rather than going off on a rampage calmly express your feelings, without bashing people and you would be surprised at the response one would get. It is not rocket science, TREAT PEOPLE HOW YOU WOULD WANT TO BE TREATED!!!

I would suggest that you re-word your post, before it does any more harm....


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Has,

"as well as limiting the buck harvest of both large and small bucks."

This is so good to hear from you.

Anything to start the train!!

Hunt


----------



## DEERSLAYER (Mar 29, 2000)

Trophy Specialist,

First I want to say that I am all for letting young bucks grow up. I have done this on both Public and private {my own} land. Having said that... I have to say that your post is one of the most Pathetic outbusts I have ever seen on this forum.

You say " there's nothing worse than a complainer " and "... selfish, simpleminded complaints that sound like they're coming from spoiled, whining children".


Sounds to me like you just described yourself!


----------



## BEAGLEMAN (Oct 16, 2000)

Trophey Specialist,
I too am a fence sitter on QDM and to be honest with you, after reading your post it pushed me a little the other way. If you are trying to win hunters over to QDM you sure are going at it with the wrong attitude.


----------



## Tim Baker (Jan 18, 2000)

Hasenpfeffer, I have a "good" place to hunt in Washtenaw County. But I also plan to hunt out of state every year until this state gets with the program. Everything is relative to what you have come to believe is "good". I think if people against QDM could experience a hunt in a state where QDM is practiced they would get of the fence or even jump the fence.

Trust me when I say it's a lot better in a few other states and I'm comparing it to Washtenaw County. Washtenaw County is great compared to most of Michigan but it's not close to the quality you can experience in other states.

Tim


----------



## Sarge (Apr 25, 2000)

I don't sit the fence. I agree with QDM, but I don't like what I'm hearing. QDM needs to be an all or nothing at all situation. Either the law and all the hunters back it, or it won't work. Our deer herd needs more than a little help. It needs a radical change.

One suggestion I've made in the past, is One kill tag per hunter per year. Any sex adult size. any deer proven at mandatory check points to be undersized, will be confiscated. That takes care of the age thing, many young deer are big, and many old deer a small. While you can tell level of maturity by sight you can't really tell age by sight.

There is no question in my mind that this will never come to pass. It is too LEGAL, there is no room for error. enough people will never vote it in. It is pretty much the only way to give every hunter an equal chance to get what he wants. Either he wants a Trophy animal and will eat it if he gets it, or he wants a meat animal. No matter what he wants he can have it. ONE.

Nothing will ever stop poachers. The whackem and stackem guys will still do that no matter what the law says, until we agree to fund the DNR to have way more CO's than they have. 

I think the deer herd is suffering every bit as much from overkill as it is from lack of selectivity. They do work hand in hand though.

Oh by the way, the post that started this thread didn't have any effect on my opinion about QDM. It did change my opinion about the poster.


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

I certainly won't defend TS's post, I have to admit I'm both surprised and disappointed with it. I can't speak for him, but it has the outlash of the frustration of being attacked all the time. After awhile you start to hit back. Out of all TS's post this is the only one that falls out of his regular informative character.

Now to Trout, L & O, Hasenpfeffer, beagle, h2oFowler, deerslayer, & beagleman. You all chastise TS for his post, yet on a thread next to this one, "Stinger" posts the following.

"Ah yes, education is a beautiful thing. Your twisted form of religious qdm isn't fooling anyone in the thumb area and your dubious and disingenuous solicitations are going to result in the defeat of the qdm proposal. All to many people are discovering your less than honest promotion of this self-centered agenda. 

Just remember to keep an open mind."

Not one of you had anything to say about his comments. Did you not see it? or because he is on your side you choose to ignore it? I have to believe those of you who say you are fencesitters, are not or you would have reacted to the other post equally. 

I would like to thank everyone on both sides for the open, civil debate. Sometimes frustration gets the best of ALL of us and we strike out.

Neal


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Liver and Onions, you're right that I did have a bad day when I started this post. I went rabbit hunting behind my house and found two more dead deer wasting away. One was a button buck and the other was a 1-1/2 year old buck with his antlers sawed off. Both were shot during the late firearm season. Mind you that my property is posted and fenced. I also found two more dead deer earlier this fall on my property. These deer were all shot by neighbors and their guests, many of which are poachers, plain and simple. When I tried to convince these people to support QDM, I met fierce opposition. Because of trespassing and the wackm' and stackm' mentality in my neck of Washtenaw County, the hunting has been reduced from excellent to deplorable in just a few years. It's so bad that I can't even deer hunt on my own land (38 acres) any more. The same thing happened to other properties that I used to hunt in Washtenaw County. With a scant poplulation of deer on state land in my area, hunting there is now a joke. Instead, I have to travel to remote areas in the U.P. or venture out of state to find decent deer hunting these days.

I must apologize if I've offended anybody that didn't deserve it.  

I know that there are some honest, respectable hunters out their that don't support QDM, but from what I've seen, those people are not stepping up to the plate to solve the problems that plague our deer herd. For the record, I don't even support all of the tenants of QDM. But, from what I've seen first hand, QDM has actually helped to improve deer hunting in areas where where supported and because of that, hunters should eithor support it or come up with something better.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

I am probably a fence sitter, but I would say a bit closer to the anti-QDM section. I could be swayed either way with substantial research-based evidence. In my opinion it is still very lacking. 
The points generally agreed upon so far is that QDM will increase the buck to doe ratio, and change the social structure of the herd.

It was generally agreed that genetics should be left out of the equation. 

The questions that still need to be answered are:
1) How vast are the improvements that MAY be achieved in the herd's physical characteristics?
2) What are the costs (in success rate, and survivability in a sever winter) to the deer herd?
3)With limitations on buck harvest numbers already in place in the entire state, why does QDM focus discussion on buck harvest? Seems we need to divert a bit of attention to the harvest of doe in areas that are over-populated.
4) How do we insure hunter success in areas with extremely low doe population (ex 452) where it is probably not prudent to harvest more doe?

The success rate (harvest rate) of deer continues to be very high in our state. Reported harvest rates for members of these forums is near 75% this year! A large number of trophy deer were taken again this year, and again even some new state records. 

Before we institute QDM we really need to be sure that we do not jeopardize what we already have in place. <----<<<


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Neal,
I do not believe my remarks were chastising T.S.
L & O


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

L & O~ Fair enough....Chastise may be too strong for some of the comments. Let just say you all COMMENTED on TS's post but not on Stinger's.

Neal


----------



## BEAGLEMAN (Oct 16, 2000)

Neal,
My reply to T.S was more about his attitude than QDM. I understand that we all have bad days but his comments were out of line in MHO.


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Neal, I will split hairs just for a second. I will quote myself from the post that Stinger responded to, I do realize that the antis comments have been just as inflammatory, if not worse. 

With fact that we are huMEN (like Sarge mentioned), we all care very much about this sport and the issues surrounding it, and this electronic communication allows us to go beyond what it necessary to convey our points, outbursts like that are inevitable. I have engaged in it myself.

Trophy Specialist, I very much respect the fact that you came back with such humility. The ability to admit when you made an honest mistake is a quality that I personally hold in very high regard. I wish that I could do it more often. It would have been very easy for you to continue down that path with us chastising you like that. I for one am sorry. For posterity sake I edited my response as well.

I just want to add a couple of thoughts to my proposal.

1. I think the season is too long. We hunt from Oct 1 thru Jan 1.
2. Maybe move the start of gun season 1 wk so that it does not fall at the peak of the rut. The dominant bucks will get a chance to breed more of the does.
3. I wonder about the level of technology in the equipment we use. When an average hunter (such as myself) using a special suit can set up wind of a Boone & Crockett buck and have him walk in for an easy shot, something seems askew. I take this from the example of the SE MI hunter who had the record book buck hanging at Cabellas.

Beagle


----------



## Stinger (Jan 29, 2000)

I just call them as I see them Neil. 

How about we let the DNR do their job and support the biologists and the widlife people? How about we take their advise and do what they ask by killing more does rather than DWELL on the bucks. 
If we could do that we wouldn't have had the problems that you perceive as being there.

I firmly beleive that the form of mandatory, point restricted QDM that is practiced here in Michigan IS a twisted form of QDM. The folks at the National QDM don't even promote it. They are in favor of a choice!


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Stinger~You can call them as you see them without being insulting, trust me I have been biting my tongue not lash out as I truely see it too a few individuals, but try to honestly debate with facts and knowledge. I have lashed out at a couple guys with derogatory remarks on this site, all have been met with apologies either private or public. 

I have no problem with a telling people what I think, or hearing what people think of me......I just don't think this is the forum nor the site to do so. Out of all the sites I have visited this one is unique for it's members restraint and maturity. I would like to keep it that way. If we must really go after eachother, lets have at it in the "sound-off" forum and leave the other forums for open debate and information.

Now, I asked you a question on the other thread that was either missed by you or ignored. You keep mentioning QDM focus on Antler restrictions" only. 

What other areas do you think should be addressed for the thumb area?

Neal


----------



## leon (Jan 23, 2000)

TS,

I appreciate what you've been through with this post and having a bad day....I commend your humility and ability to say I made a mistake and I am sorry. You're a passionate voice for better deer management and we need you to keep speaking out.

You will also feel better after a cold beer...

LH
 


ps: Turn your neighbors over to the state police or DNR. As active as they are, they will make a mistake and then nail them. A little jail time will make them understand your property rights a tad more.


----------



## Stinger (Jan 29, 2000)

Be specific in your objection to the post you are referring to. If you will point out what you are upset about maybe I can explain. When I was insulting? If I was I apologize but I really think you are just a wee bit sensitive with anyone that has a differing opinion. My statement may be inflamatory and you may disagree but that's how I see it.

Is this form of QDM not different from those practiced in the south? Does the National support mandatory antler restrictions?

You know I will even say that I disagree with a post under the title "QDM ----_". I don't agree with that statement at all but instead I would like to state that QDM as promoted here in Michigan (with the use of mandatory point restrictions) sure does smack of elitism.

Concentrate on killing more does on private property and make that a priority if you think the sex ratio is out of balance and you will solve your perceived problem. You can do that and not have to use antler point restrictions. Why must you insist that others must be restricted so you can have a chance at bigger bucks?

I would in all honesty like this question answered. Why was a contact persons name and phone number listed on the survey sheet as being from Caseville when in fact his residence is St. Clair Shores, Mi? Does the QDM association know this was done?
Why is that person trying to imply he lives in the thumb to those who receive the survey? Is that being up front and honest? So before you accuse me of being insulting ask those people in your association if they are being honest.

Would you do that for me Neil?


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Stinger~ I don't know of any numbers on the survey, if you can give me a name I will try to help. 

your post I was referring to is quoted in my previous post on this thread. I believe it to be insulting....I am not upset or sensitive I was just pointing out how others commented about TS's insulting post and not yours......that's in the past, lets move on.

The question I have asked of you is:

Other that antler restrictions what other areas would you like to be addressed in this proposal?

As far as honesty I believe that the thumb chapter has been pretty up front. The new rumor from your side is that the DNR is paying the QDMA thumb chapter to run this proposal. I'm sure there has been some mis-leading info from both sides. you keep your side honest and I'll work on mine.

BTW~ Check to see if your leadership has recieved threatening phone calls at both home and work, as the president of the thumb chapter has.

Neal


----------



## Stinger (Jan 29, 2000)

I stand corrected. I meant to say that when Paul Plantinga(QDM Officer) sent in a letter to the Editor in a thumb area publication he signed his name and then wrote he was from Caseville when in fact he lives in St. Clair Shores. Is that being genuine and honest? Was he trying to mislead? Why? These are the kind of things that only hurt the cause no matter how noble the original intent.


Your right there are all kinds of rumors flying around. 


I thought I was clear in what steps should be taken instead of mandatory point restrictions.

As far as "sides" go. I already told you I'm not against QDM, but I do have strong reservations in regards to mandatory QDM and anlter point restrictions.


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Stinger~ Please link me or get me a copy of his letter and to what publication. The only one I am aware of is printed below to the Tuscola County Advisor. No where in this letter does he mention his residency........

If there is another letter again please, show me. If there is such a letter I can only guess the answer. I do know Paul and he is an upstanding individual and strong hunting advocate. I seriously doubt he would intentionally be misleading. Maybe he was referring to where his property is, or where his cabin is......maybe he wanted readers to know he owns property in Caseville and has a more vested interest in thumb management than just a city boy from SCS.

Just shot does? that's your plan? ....no wonder I missed it. I don't have time right now to start from the beginning......I will be in Lansing most of the day tomorrow, meeting with MUCC, NRC members and politicians on QDM........I'll let them know what you have come up with  

Neal

Paul's Letter:

Editor, Advertiser:

On Sunday, Sept. 23, the Quality Deer Management Association's Thumb Area Branch held a town hall meeting at the Foxhunters Club in Ubly.

The meeting, which has been heavily advertised since the month of May, drew an attendance of approximately 100 people.

This turnout was lower than anticipated, considering the controversy that has been exhibited since the Thumb Area Quality Deer Management proposal went public.

The meeting began with presentations by Perry Russo of the Thumb Area Branch and Arnie Karr of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. A question/answer period and an open comment period followed these presentations.

Based on the number of people that made opposing comments, it initially appeared that there were more people at the meeting against the proposal, than there were people for the proposal. However, the surveys filled out by the people attending the meeting revealed a different tale.

When asked on the survey if they were in favor of using restraint in harvesting young bucks, 66.7 percent said "yes," 31.1 percent said "no" and 2.2 percent were undecided. There were 55.6 percent of the respondents who said they favored minimum antler restrictions to protect young bucks, while 40 percent said they did not, and 4.4 percent were undecided. To the question of "Are you in favor of a one buck limit to protect a number of bucks," 71.1 percent said yes, and 28.9 percent responded no.

When asked if they were satisfied with the deer herd age structures, 62.2 percent said no, while 35.6 percent said yes, and 2.2 percent were undecided. Likewise, when asked if they were satisfied with the buck/doe ratio, 66.7 percent stated no, and 33.3 percent answered yes. And finally, when asked if they were in favor of harvesting female deer to control deer numbers, 93.3 percent replied yes, 2.2 percent replied no, and 4.4 percent were undecided.

While a small group of people opposing the QDM proposal for the Thumb "made a lot of noise," in the end the surveys revealed that support for the proposal was very strong, as anticipated. Officials with the Branch were encouraged that this event, which was preceded by many published announcements, ended on such a positive note and with a lower than expected level of negativity. The Branch will continue its educational efforts over the next three months, leading up to the mid-December mailing of the random surveys that will determine the outcome of the proposal.

Paul Plantinga 
Thumb Area Branch 
Quality Deer Management Association


----------



## Stinger (Jan 29, 2000)

That isn't the letter I'm refering to. I'll try to find a link.

Good luck in Lansing. You're going to need it, that's a long list. Are you telling me you would stoop so low as to speak with politicians over this issue. The NRC has the authority to make these type of decisions don't they?

The plan is very easy isn't it.

Shoot the doe so he can grow.


----------



## hasenpfeffer (Oct 6, 2001)

> There were 55.6 percent of the respondents who said they favored minimum antler restrictions to protect young bucks, while 40 percent said they did not, and 4.4 percent were undecided. To the question of "Are you in favor of a one buck limit to protect a number of bucks," 71.1 percent said yes, and 28.9 percent responded no.


It almost looks to me as though there actually were more people that opposed the current QDM proposal that attended the meeting. Only slightly more people favored the minimum antler restrictions, but the greater majority was in favor of limiting hunters to only killing one buck, and that is not what QDM is proposing. I know as for myself, if asked those same questions I'd probably have similar answers and I don't support the current QDM proposed restrictions. Personally I think limiting hunters to only one buck is a way better plan. I'm not thrilled with it, but I like it alot better then the antler restrictions. 
Definitely would not support shortening the seasons! They're too short as it is


----------



## fishandhunt (Dec 14, 2000)

Why not simply have the DNR biologists determine the management area carrying capacity (be it county wide, township level or block of woods) and issue tags according to the herd structure. If there is a reasonable buck to doe ratio then allow a certain number of "any buck" tags issued through a lottery. This tag would be good only for this area. For those who hunt a variety of locations (myself included) allow the purchase of the equivalent of the 2nd buck tag for use statewide.

Obviously people who apply for an antlerless permit have an idea where they want to hunt. The same should go for the "any buck" tag. Your opening day spot, your bow hunting spot etc. You have to make the decision. 

The any buck tag could be done similarly to the doe permits with a fee to process the application. This money could be used to fund the biologist research. 750,000 x $ 4 = 3 million dollars (its a start). Those who only want to hunt bucks that fit the 4 points on one side rule can simply purchase a license. 

That way buck and doe population levels as well as habitat issues can be addressed on a management unit basis. This method would certainly allow the DNR to set realistic goals for the herd by management unit.

As it stands now, antlerless permits are used to control population and does nothing to address herd buck/doe ratios. An any buck lottery would limit the number of smaller bucks as fair game in a given area and help to bring the bucks/doe ratio into management goals.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Very interesting ideas Fishandhunt; well thought out; seems to cover most of the bases.


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Stinger _
> *Are you telling me you would stoop so low as to speak with politicians over this issue. The NRC has the authority to make these type of decisions don't they?
> *


The one State Rep. I was referring to was Tom Meyer-(R) Bad Axe. He is the one YOUR side is trying to pursuade to step in. My intentions were to find out where he stood and if he had some plan to interupt the current survey policy. I wanted to make sure he was aware of proposal "G". Unfortunately I ran out of time before I could reach his office.

Neal


----------



## Dangler (Mar 24, 2000)

I'm a new visitor to this QDM part of the forum, and I don't have a lot of science to back up anything I say, but as your average Joe Hunter from southern Michigan, here's my opinion.

I would like to see bigger bucks here in Ingham County. I would be happy with a one buck per season limit. I'd let it go if the law says it has to have 4 points on one side. I'll shoot a doe each season if the DNR says I should (it's venison for my family).

I don't want to force these ideas on others, as they're just my opinions, but it sure would be nice to see some big bucks in the woods. I gotta believe that only two years of restrictions would make a world of difference. I could bite the bullet for that long.

TS, I understand your frustration, and I wasn't offended.


----------



## Stinger (Jan 29, 2000)

Just a dang minute Neal. I don't like drawing lines with no good reason.

Correct me if I am wrong but I remember reading some of your posts on other threads where you stated that you don't believe in or support mandatory antler point restrictions. Didn't you say that? 

I stated that I am not against QDM I just don't support mandatory antler restrictions. So it appears to me that we are BOTH on the same "side". That "side" being defined as those who support voluntary QDM!!!


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Stinger~ You apparently know more about my prevous posts than I do. Please direct me to the post you are referring to. I don't think antler points are the perfect way to determine age, but in this situation I believe is the most practical.


Since we are talking about previous post......you still have not shown me the article by Paul P. where you accused him of being dishonest........PLEASE DO SO OR GIVE ME THE NAME OF THE PUBLICATION and I will contact them. 

Neal


----------



## Stinger (Jan 29, 2000)

The paper is not available on the web, I'm getting a copy and will forward it to you. That you can depend on.


I quess one could take this comment you made on another thread in many ways----



> _Originally posted by Neal _
> *I think most people are for QDM practices, the problem arises with many hunters is when it becomes "Mandatory". I don't like new laws....that restrict our recreation or private property rights, but If these regulations are in the best interest of the deer heard, based on sound scientific management (Proposal "G") then I support it's success. I practice QDM stratigies on my property, it is frustrating to let a immature buck walk, just to have it killed on the other side of the fence, but I respect those individuals and their right to hunt for their purposes.
> 
> It is my prediction that this proposal WILL pass.
> ...


I guess it would depend on what you believe the definition of sound science to be. Are you sure you support mandatory antler restrictions 100%?


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

Stinger~ let me know when you have something substancial....you are really grasping here.

BTW~ I have changed my prediction on the proposal passing. The manor the survey is layed out, will make it almost impossible.

Neal


----------



## Stinger (Jan 29, 2000)

BTW----------The same survey template was used in the UP last year and it passed. The real difference is it had the support of the local community there.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Everybody thought that the central U.P. survey would not pass last year either. In fact the leaders of Superior Deer Management (SDM) didn't give it a prayer, but much to their surprise it passed overwhelmingly anyway. Here's why: The survey is sent to a random sample of both deer hunters and landowners. Landowners were chosen from tax roles, but a large number of the voters were deer hunters who were chosen from the 1998 antlerless deer permit applicants in those DMUs. Because of hard winters before 1998, very few public land antlerless permits were issued in the Central U.P, QDM area. Thus, most of the hunters selected from the survey were private land hunters that were willing to shoot does during 1998 and these people voted "yes" in big numbers. The hunter portion of the survey selection process excluded anybody that didn't believe in shooting does, a major tenant of QDM. As far as local support goes, it's true that the leadership of SDM was mainly local, however in the Central U.P., there are probably more non-local, hunting-land owners and hunters than locals. In fact there was very stiff opposition to the measure from the people that live in the area. The measure still passed by a long shot though. I predict that the Thumb and Eastern U.P. QDM proposals will also pass muster. If the Leland County survey gets shot down, and it may very well, it will be because of the one buck component of the measure.


----------

