# QDM Sucks



## Sarge

The 1.5 year old bucks make up the majority of the harvest because they have grown old enough to show some antlers. That makes them visible to the unconcerned masses. By that time they haven't developed their self defense system to perfection yet, making them easy to shoot. (compared to mature deer of either sex) They are a "I shot a buck" hunter's answer to waiting out a good deer. Baby bucks are a "got mine opening morning" doe hunters answer to waiting. 

The people here, although argumentative about QDM are overall the best friends the deer have. Those others who shoot the first deer of their respective preference, will come around after being here a while. I know, I'm one.


----------



## Joe Archer

I haven't seen a correllation between the sex of a deer and venison quality. The best eating deer i ever harvested was a 7 year old buck that dressed out at 220 pounds and produced 126 pounds of prime (boneless) venison. <----<<<


----------



## Neal

Beagle~ Sorry bud, can't help you there. I purchased the land 4 years ago. Before that I hunted a combination of private and state lands throughout the thumb. 

If anyone want to see true "walk the walk", Talk to Perry Russo, president of QDMA Thumb, I believe in his first year collectively with adjoining properties took in excess of 100 does.

SS~ If you could get past the "big antler" thing, you could open your mind to what QDM is all about. I find the "big antler" defense an easy out for those who don't want to talk about facts and realism. Apparently your preference for venison outweights you concern for our deer herd.

Neal


----------



## MIKE W

How can Quality Deer Management suck? Apparently your not interested in quality. No wonder all you shoot is does, when you shoot every puke that comes in front of you, your not going to see a quality deer and then you complain. I can't wait for the day it is implemented, majority rules, too bad so sad. Age is to hard to tell for the common hunter, so I vote for 4 pts on one side nothing smaller. That would be so nice and it would weed out all the slob hunters.


----------



## Beagle

Boy, is it going to take a non-supporter to explain it too you. For QDM to work you need to harvest more doe's

"when you shoot every puke that comes in front of you, your not going to see a quality deer and then you complain. "

I am a little confused on who you are taking issue with here. I have only heard the pro-manditory QDM guys express concern about the quality of the deer

"That would be so nice and it would weed out all the slob hunters."

Getting less hunters in the woods on top of the manditory QDM. What a great idea! More bucks for everybody.

Neal, You didn't really write that did you...

Beagle


----------



## Salmonsmoker

Response to several of the above comments;

1. If you reduce the numbers of hunters through "Weeding Out" -you ultimately reduce the numbers of people who support hunting. At the same time the Anti's are increasing their numbers - thus they win.

2. If you can not tell the difference in the flavor of meat from a young doe and meat from a buck, let someone else do the cooking.

3. If your goal is to improve the heard, leave the Alpha Bucks alone, shoot the young unproven ones that are competing with them.

4. As for describing venison meat as "It's all quality" - hummmm.
If my memory is correct, I've seen only a few button or spike wall mounts - lots of big rack wall mounts. Must be a different standard is used to rate the quality of trophies. What is your definition of quality? 

Salmonsmoker


----------



## Swamp Monster

Salmonsmoker, first off I'll take issue with your cooking comment in the last post. Apparrantly the way you cook yours, you can tell a differrence between a buck and a doe. Seems like that may be a problem with your cooking, not someone else's. I've cooked enough venison proffessionaly to know better. But when you read that in enough game magazines its understandable at how folks can be brainwashed. 
I do agree with you SS about not weeding out hunters. We are all on the same side and need to work together...doesn't mean we have to agree on everything either and spirited debate is healthy.
QDM is not just about big racks. Most opponents of QDM use that as their only argument against this management technique. And quality of the herd does not neccessarily mean just the quality of bucks either. BUT, quality bucks are a RESULT of QDM. Qdm focuses on a balanced heard that keeps the buck to doe ratio as close as possible and keeps deer numbers at a reasonable level. (on a side note, when you have a balanced buck to doe ratio you will experience a much more active rutting period because of the increased competition. You hear people every season saying that the rut was slow this year but really mother nature took its course but the bucks have so many does to choose from that the hot and heavy activity is sometimes non existant, but doesn't mean it didn't happen) Many areas still have to many deer for the habitat, and you usually see that in areas where every legal buck that walks in front of a hunter is taken. Those folks in those areas also don't shoot any or enough does. Instead they shoot that spindly little 3 point so they can say I got my buck! So what, a mature doe is a far greater challenge and your probably gonna get a few more pounds of Venison. Also when deer heards are kept a reasonable levels, the quality and health of our deer will be greatly improved. Now, when I say quality remember, I'm not talking just racks. I'm talking stronger, heavier yearlings because of reduce competition for high protien foods and minerals. Eventually these stronger, healthier animals breed geneticaly healthier deer. This is a simplistic explaination but you get the idea. In my experience most who don't favor this want to see 100 or so deer a day like they did a few years ago with no regard to this animals future and well being. They base the quality of their hunt on the number of deer thay see. To me hunting is not just about the number of animals you see, its about the whole experience and the memories made, but thats just me, everyone has their own idea of quality. At this point with our heard, I think we should just have a one buck limit regardless of what season you choose to take it in. Ofcourse our DNR won't do this because of license sales and budget concerns. Or even make it mandatory that you take one doe before you can harvest a buck, at least maybe in some limited areas of the state. 
Anyway, those of us that promote QDM are not on our high horse, we've just seen the light.


----------



## Neal

> _Originally posted by Beagle _
> *
> Neal, You didn't really write that did you...
> 
> Beagle  *


Beagle~Did I write what? I am a huge advocate of maintaining or increasing hunter numbers. 

Swamp Monster~ Thanks for fielding that one for me. very nice post. Welcome to the site.

SS~ I hope we can settle this venison taste thing at the next outing, I will bring a sample of both a mature and immature whitetail and you can tell me which is which. I will be impressed that you can tell the sex of a deer by the taste. I will agree that older deer may have a tougher texture, but proper ageing, care, and cooking for that meat will leave it as tender as a backstrap.

Neal


----------



## outdooralex

I'll throw my two cents in on this topic. In this case I will take quality over quanity any day. I hunt in the Gladwin area and the buck to doe ratio is so skewed it aint even funny. I hunt over a rye field and it is nothing for me to see 20 to 25 does at one time and not see a single buck. I try to shoot my doe every season (although unsuccessfull this year)but it takes more than just me and my family. The people that hunt the private properties around me feel the only thing they should shoot are the few bucks that are around. I have talked to a few of them and it seems they dont eat the meat so they go for the horns. This is getting to be such a problem!! The nicest buck I have seen in the last few years is a small 6pt and thats been about it. I see tons of spikes and an occasional 4pt. I am getting so frustrated. My freezer always has venision in it whether its a buck or a doe, I love it all, but it sure would be nice to start taking a nice buck every once in a while. So people need to get out of there heads that taking a doe is a bad thing, and start thinking about proper management to ensure quality deer hunting for my kids and your kids.


----------



## Beagle

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. 

Neal 
____________________________________________________
Just kidding around bud....Everyone can change their mind.

Beagle


----------



## Beagle

As for the taste issue...

I am not much of a gourmet cook like some of the rest of you. I like it grilled with a little seasoning. I can tell the difference. But just like other things....its just opinions.

Neal, I would bet money if I took your challenge with a good prepared dish, probably couldn't tell the difference.

I like it all, actually, from my first yearling doe to my 3.5 year old 15 pt. Just some taste better than others. IMHO

But the basic fact is, "It's all Good"

Beagle


----------



## Neal

Beagle....Don't get me wrong....I am still optimistic, but after seeing the survey answers...where basically out of the four choices, only the "yes" votes approves the proposal and the other three answers, two mean "no" and one is neutral, the deck is clearly stacked against us. So basically if a blind man filled it out their would only be 25% approval for the proposal......I'm just hoping the voters in this survey aren't blind.

Neal

Outdooralex~ Welcome to the debate.


----------



## Swamp Monster

Neal, thanks for the welcome! These forums are well done and so far the threads I have read have been excellent with all views and opinions being expressed with out everything turning into a name calling fest. 
Another view point I have concerning QDM is that I don't necessarily think it should be mandatory for all hunters in all places. For QDM to really be succesfull, you have to want to participate, and you have to enjoy it. And obviously there is a very large number of folks who strongly disagree with the QDM practice. Last time I checked, hunting was supposed to be enjoyable, not misareble. On a property I used to lease, a neighbor always shot the first legal buck he saw and he was fine with that, but he agreed to try the managing thing and pass up these small bucks and take a doe if he was lucky enough to get a permit. You see, he lived out of state but owned just hunting property, and he only got to hunt 2-3 days a year. Well for one year he tried the program and passed up a number of small bucks, but he went home depressed and meatless. Soon after the season he was contacted and told that we and the other property owners would have no problem with him shooting anything he wanted and not to feel pressured to hold out. This guy would quit hunting if those or similiar practices were mandatory...so would others I believe. I know if my time afield was severly limited I doubt I would let a legal deer walk. And how do you ask a youngster to pass up what may very well be their first buck? There always needs to be exceptions for these types of situations in my opinion. 
Anyway, good debate with logical arguments from both sides.(even if we don't agree on those arguments!)


----------



## Huntnut

Outdoorralex,
Have hope my friend! I also do a large portion of my hunting right outside of Gladwin. Your hunting experience absolutely equals mine. We saw 162 does this season, and never saw an antlered buck.
There are others in your area that feel as you do! We have passed on a half dozen little guys, and have harvested 16 does in the last 3 years. Keep the faith.

Salmonsmoker-
"3. If your goal is to improve the heard, leave the Alpha Bucks alone, shoot the young unproven ones that are competing with them."

I just worked some real numbers last week on this idea. What happens is that you will reach a point of diminishing returns within 3 years.
You have to keep in mind the average lifespan of a whitetail deer. 

By protecting the oldest, you are protecting the deer that have already beat the odds in average lifespan, and are the oldest of the herd, and will die soon without being hunted. 

By continuing to blast 80% of the yearlings, and compounding that number with natural 10% mortality, we would only be allowing an additional 10% of 2.5 year "old" bucks to be protected next year.

10% added every year to the big "old" buck population will grow the big buck herd by 30% in 3 years, until natural old-age die-off of protected bucks will begin to surpass the # of new bucks entering that age class.

I won't source right now, but the average lifespan of a whitetailed deer in the wild is 2 years old. 
(remember, hunting is not a factor....every whitetail population is hunted by something, a hunter is needed by the whitetail, or the whole herd will expand and then crash far below a hunted population #.)

When you have an animal that average 2 years of life, protecting 3.5 year olds only extends his life and breeding opportunites minimally. 

If you wish, I can send you an e-mail that works with these numbers.

It is true....really.

Hunt

Deer issues are a riot!


----------



## Salmonsmoker

Swamp Monster,

The ability to distinquish between flavors of meat may well be in my taste buds. However, can others taste the difference - from my experience, yes. Certainly, enough seasoning (whether dry rub or marinade) can be added to any meat to mask its natural flavor. However, for the people who enjoy the natural flavor of venison - without a lot of spices to mask it - there is a difference. 

If you were at the Durrand outing this past Aug - the Venison that I grilled - the flavor that everyone liked - was just venison lightly dusted with garlic powder, then brushed with olive oil just prior to cooking over a very hot grill. That meat came from a yearling doe. 

If we look to the meat-producing industry (the people who produce meat professionally) for a bit of insight, we can learn a lot. 

My nearest neighbor (about 1/2 mile away) is a full time beef production farmer. (The following information was gathered over many winter evenings in his hot tub or in our sauna where we discussed this issue.) He makes his money each year when he sells his beef, so getting the best price is a critical issue. Meat quality is the key to getting the best price.

He keeps 2 carefully selected bulls, and anywhere from75 to 150 selected breeder cows:

He gets the very best price for his yearling hefers, and from steers that were casterated prior to reaching sexual maturity. They have the very best qualilty meat.

After only a few years, the breeder cows are sold. The price that he gets for cows is much lower than the yearling beef - because their meat is of a lower quality. They go mostly for ground beef.

Also after several years, he also sells the breeder bulls. They bring the lowest price (because their meat is the lowest quality) and the market for such meat is more limited. That meat goes into cured meat-products where their natural flavor is masked by the spices.

Now, for sure, you can argue the case that venison is not beef. I agree. Venison has a better flavor than beef. But, from my experience, meat-quality - regardless of species - is subject to the same basic meat-production principles.

Salmonsmoker


----------



## Salmonsmoker

Huntnut,

What ratio of younger bucks that beat the odds did you use?

That kind of variable can totally change the outcome of any calculations.



Salmonsmoker


----------



## Guest

The more I hear people whine against QDM, the more I lean towards favoring it. Some want a huntable/shootable surplus of animals...well then improve the habitat to increase the carrying capacity of the land to sustain more deer and there is your huntable surplus. Better habitat equals better fed and healthier deer which equals QDM. If it is not painfully obvious that the buck:doe ratio in the majority of our state is way out of wack, then I don't know what to say. In order to improve that you need to harvest does (not antlerless as defined by our state) and let some bucks walk, period. Also, how do you tell a youngster they must pass up a small buck even if it is to be their first buck? Easy, just like telling them they have to throw back an undersized fish!. Just some thoughts.

Regards.


----------



## Huntnut

SalmonSmoker,

I used a 4:1 ratio....4 does for every buck.
100,000 deer.

I can't do it here, because I need to show a graph as a proving model.(I dont know how to do it!)

Life span(yrs) x axis vs. # of deer y axis

I really did kick that idea around.

Regardless of personal qdm feelings, I really wanted to see if it could work.

I wish I could post it here.

*shrug*

Hunt


----------



## Biobow

Swamp Monster,

I just read your post about your neighbor and his limited days afield. I believe you made a good point. One size fits all QDM is not going to work. At lease not for the average deer hunter. I think the QDMA would like it if their restrictions caused individuals to quit deer hunting.
Less deer hunters = more big racks.


----------



## H2OFowl'er

Well it has taken me a while to read all of the post here concerning QDM, but I did it. Now I am not a wildlife biologist, or a statistician, but I am a hunter, and have been hunting the same piece of property for over 15 years, and for the last 5 years have been practicing QDM. We have about 240 acres that we hunt with another 160 adjacent to us that have also been practicing QDM. The rest of the area hunters are kinda-sorta passing small bucks and taking does, but have harvested some young bucks, more then we would like to see.

Well let me tell you, we have been seeing many more bucks since we have started and it does add more enjoyment to our hunts. 

With that said I would like to summarize what I have read on the forum here concerning QDM:

First most people here are in agreement of some type of QDM. Now there are many different ideas as to how it should be administered and managed, but all in all most would like to see it. I say let the biologist and the wildlife specialist determine how it would be best handled in our wonderful state and support it to the best of your ability. That is why they get paid the big bucks. Now dont get me wrong, they should also listen to the hunting population and use what they hear in their considerations, but bottom line is that is their job.

Second, most of the people that oppose QDM to whatever extent keep using the excuse "QDM just wants bigger bucks" that is just simply not true. I quote from QDMA:



> "Quality Deer Management (QDM) is a management philosophy/practice that unites landowners, hunters, and managers in a common goal of producing biologically and socially balanced deer herds within existing environmental, social, and legal constraints. This approach typically involves the protection of young bucks (yearlings and some 2.5 year-olds) combined with an adequate harvest of female deer to maintain a healthy population in balance with existing habitat conditions and landowner desires. This level of deer management involves the production of quality deer (bucks, does, and fawns), quality habitat, quality hunting experiences, and, most importantly, quality hunters."


What is true however, is that by practicing QDM you will see more and bigger bucks. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if you pass on the smaller bucks, they will be able to grow up to be bigger bucks, and their numbers will increase.


Next thing I read here is "I dont want to pass the smaller bucks, because they will just go across the fence and the neighbor will shoot them." Well instead of wondering or thinking if they will take a ride and talk to that neighbor, Im willing to be that more than not that neighbor is thinking the same thing about you. By discussing it you and your neighbors could come up with some type of a plan.

Another point I read is "I dont think the antler restriction is the way to go". Well to be honest with you either do I, but try to come up with a better way to let the 1.5 year old bucks go? 15 inch spread? I dont see that working, many people have a hard time determining whether the deer they are shooting at is 50 yards away or 70 yards away, this is just to difficult to do, let alone enforce. I think the best way to protect the 1.5-year-old bucks is to learn how to tell the difference in the way they look, but again this is probably more difficult to do then the first way. There has to be some type of restriction in place that is enforceable, understandable and comprehendible. 

Next thing I read alot is "Well older people, younger people should be able to shoot whatever they want." Why??? Can older people or younger people shoot 8 rabbits? Can they shoot 3 hen mallards? Yes it can be hard to tell a youngster, "No, you cant shoot that one." But like Bvrtamer said, it is just as difficult to tell that youngster "you have to throw that 14 inch walleye back even though it is 8 inches bigger than any other fish that youngster has ever caught. It is a rule; therefore it needs to be followed. Just to back up what I have stated here, I am in the Air Force and have been stationed in many different places, what does this mean, I have limited days afield like many other youngsters, older people and other out of staters. There have been some years that I was lucky to get 3 days of hunting in period. But I still pass the small bucks, that is something we do. Is it easy no not at all, but it is definitely worth it.

Another thing that I read here alot, and should hold some weight with those that either oppose QDM or are fence sitting is this. "We have been passing young bucks for a while now and are seeing many more bucks." I have yet to read any post that states people have been trying QDM and have had negative results. Everyone that has been practicing QDM on their properties have all said the same thing "it works". What better evidence can you have then another hunter stating that "QDM works and yes it works here in Michigan? 

Next thing I read is "I support QDM, but dont think it should be mandatory." Well tough, if the NRC and DNR feel that it is necessary to better manage our herd than it should be mandatory. Any rules that are set forth are no different than any other game animal that we hunt. For example, few years ago when the duck population was very low, the bag limits were low as well. The bag limits were lowered to better "manage" waterfowl numbers. Along with this, when leadshot was outlawed, it was to better "manage" the waterfowl resource. It was not something that was suggested to be implemented voluntarily, but it was law, and people abided by the law or were held accountable for their actions. As a result of lower bag limits and outlawing leadshot, many waterfowlers quit. Now that the bag limits are back up to where they use to be, those that quit are now back at it.

Will mandatory QDM cause deer hunters to quit, I'm sure many will probably at least think about it, but I am willing to bet that after a few years of QDM, they will be right back at it. Why, one there will be many more bucks to hunt, and the ones that quit because of QMD will then enjoy the benefits of what QDM would do. Secondly, after the doe to buck ratio gets in check, the "mandatory" rules on bucks will be changed, to better "manage" the herd, i.e. younger bucks will need to be harvested to keep the age ladder correct in the herd. 

Im sorry this is so long, but I feel that it is best if we as hunters can discuss topics like this in an open forum, allowing everyone to be heard, and then allowing them to make logical decisions on those topics.

Oh and just for the record, (how this got introduced into this thread is beyond me, but anyways) "all" venison is good, just some of it is better than others. I dont like to cover up the taste with all kinds of spices and gravies either, so I can definitely taste and/or feel the difference between "quality" and "better quality" venison....BUT I LOVE IT ALL!!!!


----------



## Beagle

H20Fowler,

Obviously you have not read all of my posts. I have made plenty of suggestions. Had plenty of good discussions. And have actually learned a lot. Do you actually have any first hand knowledge of our situation in the Thumb? You should really take some advice from Neal and educate yourself.

If I even thought for one minute that the Thumb area would be managed one tenth as good as Shiawassee. I would be the first one in line. They have a very controlled hunt with mandatory check in and prime habitat throughout. It is in effect a game ranch with dedicated people to manage it. Where are all the people to manage our area? Is that in the proposal? I have not seen it! It is apples and oranges to compare Shiawassee Federal Reserve to the situation on the Thumb State Game Areas. Challenge me on that

The proposal in the Thumb is a sell-out. Nothing more than the current QDMers trying to protect their deer.

You should really read my posts before you type.


----------



## Belbriette

Beagle, 
If you have not already done it, may be you should go to my new thread "Minimum herd size for QDM". 
If SPECIFIC herds are not taken in consideration, you are ALL loosing your time on this Forum.
Jack.


----------



## jamie7117

"This isnt about anything more than protecting Neal and Jamies deer so that the guy next door cant shoot them. Plain and simpleend of discussion."

"Actually the problem lies in the fact that the state has mis-managed and over issued doe permits and buck permits for too many years. State land needs to be managed to sustain the herd."

where is your proposal to the NRC? if you were that concerned about the percieved overharvest of deer in your area, why haven't you taken the reigns and organized? you can sit back and critize a proposal for not addressing every issue you can possibly dream up, after it is drafted, or you can mobilize, organize and get something started. stop crying because someone or some group beat your content *ss to the punch and decided to be proactive. you must not be that concerned,sitting back on your "cherry" piece of private land. the only thing your concerned about is the fact that *YOUR* ability to harvest any buck will be reduced, if your not willing to be part of the solution you are merely part of the problem. it takes more than spouting off your rhetoric on a forum board to make a difference, you have to practice what you preach. QDMA's thumb chapter has addressed the concerns of many thumb hunters and wants to do something about it, more than i can say for yourself. these problems are not imagined, although you would like to believe so, they are not only the complaints of "A guy comes up from the city and hunts for a day, a weekend, or even a week and doesnt see the deer he expects", they are your neighbors, landowners and fellow thumb hunters. now, tell me again, who's worried about who's deer.


----------



## Huntnut

Beagle,

I never ever ever ever had any personal gains in mind when I promote a better management system for our state.

I will never reap any rewards from any current QDM proposal.

I love my sport, and only wanted to make it better for others.

I have it good, many do not.

I have the time, money, and conviction to help others as well as our deer. I have even volunteered my hands, my truck, and my chainsaws to create better habitat on stateland I will never even hunt.

It is apparent that I am not wanted, and certainly not needed by the vast majority of stateland hunters.

Still, no one has said they are a stateland hunter that supports qdm.

I see it is apparent that stateland hunters don't want QDM. It is apparent that complaining is ok, but sacrifices are not.

I didn't wake up on the wrong side of the bed. I have been honest, civil, and courteous, in the face of criticism for too long.

I have been bashed, flamed, and scorned too much for me to take.

All I ever really cared about was our deer and our sport.

Right now, I don't really care if this state is ever managed right.

The QDM proposal does not meet your standards, because it does not address every single concern you folks have.

*shrug*

It doesn't address every concern I have either...BUT ITS A START.

I guess we wait until another deer management group forms, gains support, and is successful in changing some things in this state.(never)

I guess we will also have to wait for the group that gains TOTAL hunter support, and addresses EVERY issue EVERY hunter has with them. (never)

In the meantime, you complain it's the private land hunters that are shoving QDM down your throat.
While at the same time complain that private land is so much better than state. Anyone see the correlation?

It doesn't make sense.

And I am tired of gettin bashed for volunteering.

Hunt


----------



## Neal

> Like I asked whereanywhere in the proposal for the Thumb of Michigan does it address habitat improvement anywhere on state land? Everyone has said it. Now cough it up. WHERE? I am talking simply about The Proposal NOT The QDMA.


Beagle~ What would you have us do? Introduce in the proposal something that is difficult or impossible to impliment? Did you want us to state in the proposal that 1000 acres of public land must be forested per year? Sorry it doesn't work that way. The state is not going to allow the DNR wildlife division or 2000 hunters/landowners do that. QDMA is the loudest, if not the only, organization that pushes habitat improvement on private and public land. Come on Beagle you seem to have taken the position of spokesperson for the thumb area, what is the anti-QDM organization in the thumb doing to solve these issues. Why are you not ragging on them?



> Address my concern. You take away the majority of the buck population as legal targets. Where are these people going to get their venison, with the unmanaged and over-issued doe permits on State land? There are many more locals than you all know that for several years now get a public land doe permits to simply take it off the market. We can see with our own eyes that the herd on public land is not what the DNR claims it to be.


Again...What are you and your organization doing to address this with the DNR?



> I did not ask for you all to come in and disrupt my hunting.


Your Hunting?



> All I have heard is lip service from you guys about how this is all about the concern for the public land? Where anywhereI am begging youshow me where the specific proposal in the Thumb addresses any of the State Land issues.


The thumb proposal addresses private and state equally.





> This isnt about anything more than protecting Neal and Jamies deer so that the guy next door cant shoot them. Plain and simpleend of discussion.


If this is what you really got out of these discussions, then there is no hope for you.



> Just for the record. I have played myself off as a poor public land hunter. In all realityI hunt 120 acres of the most cherry private land in the Thumb and have for several years now. Now you ask yourself, if I did not think that there were major flaws with your plan that are not being addressed, do you think that I would even waste my typing strokes Like Neal, I was a state land hunter for many years.


And so many accuse us of being misleading and dishonest.

Neal


----------



## jamie7117

but we are the selfish, elitist, trophy hunting, land grabbers

i said it for ya, Beagle

*give me a break!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## Biobow

Hi Jamie,
There you go building bridges again. Were you just joking when you referred to my quote and told me to "shove it"? I would like to know so I can explain it to my son who happen to be sitting next to me when I was reading your post. Here's a quote for you; 

" Hey look! They let the retard out to play" 

(Check out "Habitat and QDM" at www.Bowsite.com the Michigan conference) "Retard" Jamie, really?. I suppose you were just joking with that guy? 
"Medication? Shove it? Retard?" Come on Jamie, it's time to grow up and play nice. I think you may have just violated QDMA Code's 3,4, and 8. Or do they just apply to those who agree with you. You better hope the QDMA police don't wash your mouth out with soap and send you to bed early.

As far as the MDNR/NRC goes, I have expressed my opinions to them and to my state represenatives on many issues. And you know what Jamie, I've never been told to "shove it" because they have disagreed with me. If you disagree with my opinions and statements, that's fine. But I think you could do it in a more mature way without the insults. Especially when my kid happens to be sitting next to me while I'm on the computer for goodness sake.

You know what Jamie, and I'm sure you've heard this before. I probably agree on most of what the QDMA wants to accomplish. But insults and Neal's " I give back more than you" arguments are not going to build consensus with anyone. If this is the way that you and Neal are going to sell QDM sorry pal, I'll take my chances with the MDNR, NRC and my state representatives.

Neal, 
Are you implying, if you don't bring thousands of people into hunting, you shouldn't voice your opinions. I'm not sure you really understood my reply to your question. The reason I chose not to play your game is simple. I am not going to stroke your ego. Maybe there should be a prerequisite for debate here. You can't participate unless you have brought one thousand people into hunting. And you must post a picture of yourself holding big buck.
Your the poster child for QDM. BIG RACKS to support your BIG EGO. As much as hate to admit it, I feel Jamie and Huntnut are very sincere about their QDM 
Now that I've gotten that off my chest. I honestly believe that with Jamie and Huntnut's and passion and perserverance this QDM thing is going to work itself out. And someday Jamie, HuntNut might even share a campfire.


----------



## Biobow

Sorry, I had just had an 8 year old jump in my lap. He wants the PC. Anyway, I didn't get to finish saying ... It's possible that someday even Jamie, Huntnut, and other on both side will share a campfire. I know


----------



## jamie7117

i don't say things unless i mean it, if you fail to see the sarcasm in some of my posts,that's your problem

as far as your comment about


> " I think the QDMA would like it if their restrictions caused individuals to quit deer hunting. Less deer hunters = more big racks


my comments stand 

as do the ones on the BOWSITE

no apology needed and if your looking for one, *KEEP LOOKING*


----------



## leon

I think I spent an hour reading this entire post. All I can say is "wow."

I started getting active in caring about how our deer herd is managed about five years ago when I accepted that this sport that I've loved so much is too important to me to not be involved.

About ten years ago, my father started encouraging me to let little bucks go because he thought it would be better for the deer herd. We also started to shoot a few does to replace the bucks we were letting walk away, so our venison supply didn't decrease. We didn't have a fancy name for this and we didn't know there was a national organization that promoted the same concept, but we tried it anyway for several years.

Guess what? It worked. Not only did we start seeing more bucks where we hunted religiously, but we started seeing some huge bucks and a better sex ratio. In summary, the hunting was much more fun!

Now, this isn't an unusual story, except that it took place on state land. State land heavily hunted in the eastern Upper Peninsula.

Today, I am one of lucky ones who has his own private land, so I guess I am tainted by that label. But, in my heart, I have never forgotten about public land hunters and a two-man experiment.

For the last year, it has been my pleasure to have served as the project director for eastern UP QDM proposal. While our proposal is slightly smaller than the Thumb area proposal, it will be a huge QDM experiment, if approved. We also proposed a three-point on a side rule vs. a four-point harvest restriction recommended for the Thumb.

Like many of the previous posts, I believe that the QDM proposals, while not perfect, will do much to improve hunting in our state, if given a chance. I won't get into another debate over the biology or social acceptance angles of the proposal. Those are well documented here.

What I know is QDMA is a caring organization that wants what is best for our deer herd and the future of deer hunting. I just shake my head in disbelief when someone accuses QDM programs of being sinister plots to reduce hunting opportunities or to protect landowners rights. I get physically ill when I see that unfounded stuff. 

If I had any reservations about the QDM work I have done in the last year, it is that it was much more divisive among hunters than I would have ever thought. While I remain convinced that the vast majority of hunters would like to try QDM, I don't like the divisive rethoric of this very vocal minority. I've never understood why we can't come together and find a way to try these experiments (and other non-QDM deer management experiments) without tearing each other apart. I hate it when we give our real enemies (the anti-hunters) any more ammunition.

In closing, just think what we could accomplish for the "typical" hunter if we put this much energy and passion into habitat improvement on state land.

Unleash the hounds on me!

Leon


----------



## Elk Guide

Hi Salmon Smoker........i'm with you on QDM i don' t like someone telling me what i can or can't shoot....In my opinion we should let nature take its course and stop intervening.....My Great Uncle once said if we shoot all the does there will be no deer just like in the sixtys.....But he also said to take from nature only what nature can put back.....So we didn't shoot does and we didn't shoot spikes and we had a large herd of deer by 1971 then sadly he died ....now this was a man who hunted with Fred Bear and Floyd Eccelson if any of you know who he is......these two men taught me many things in my youth....and i learned from there actions..........now i hunt both state and private the state land being in the atlanta area and private in Isabella county......in Isabella county where i hunt they gave out over 13,000 doe permits way to many if you ask me.....where i hunt my friends and there 10 of us all together have taken over 200 does and 50 bucks in the last 12 years......i personaly have only taked 12 deer total during that time and 6 were does my point here is you can kill off the deer herd in a short time if you continue to shoot a large quantity of does.....i no we now have no deer on our 400 acers thanks to my friends greedyness to shoot every doe they see....we have a rule of no buttons or imature does and that has been in place for years ......but our deer are still gone because of the doe shooting and in case you wondered all our deer were shot legal and taged with the appropriate tag......i'm not for QDM or large doe harvests i think we need to rethink what were doing do we want our children and grand children to be able to enjoy the sport of hunting like us or do we want to be greedy.....Because thats what we are doing wether you want to admit it or not.....now as far as up north goes i have seen so many big city people come up there to hunt and leave trash all over and shoot deer and not even so much as go look....a few years ago i found 13 dead deer of all sizes and sexs now someone on this forum and i won't use any names said something to that effect the people up north are the poachers and they would like us not to come up there so they could poach more deer........let me tell you something in my 41 years of hunting i have never seen a local slub hunter as you call them now i'm not saying anyone on this site is a slub hunter but i will tell you that the only slub hunters that i see are big city got lots a money can do anything they want slub hunters...In fact heres what i started doing this year i am taking down license plate numbers of any one i see that hunts up there and if i find a dead deer i give the dnr the whole list of license numbers i will put a stop to it ........you see i am all for the sport of hunting because i love it but i don't like people who abuse the right to hunt ...we are all indiviguals and we deserve the right to have are our ideals and charactor so if your heart tells you its all right to shoot that spike or doe if there are enough does to do that you should be able to make up your own mind not some organization telling you what you can and can't shoot....i just think you should use common sence and dont' shoot them all......sorry about this being so long but i had to vent.


----------



## ETm

Yep, by golly. You are a work of art my friend. Jammie you helped change my mind on this entire issue. At first I was only opposed to the mandatory antler point restrictions that QDM proposed and not QDM in general. Now because of your little outbursts and snide comments to others I have gotten off the fence and I now beleive that QDM does suck. Thanks entirely to you.

I also think your attitude towards others who have a differing opinion quite frankly needs a little adjusting. 

You are no better than the folks in the Jeep marketing department who insulted one segment of their customer base while trying to appeal to another. Get down from your high horse and grow up. You're hurting QDM in Michigan more than you are helping it.


----------



## jamie7117

now you see where i am coming from: THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE.

if you want to pin your rediculous reasoning and faulty logic on myself, thats fine. people will do anything to make themselves feel better. not to mention doing anything to avoid looking in the mirror.


----------



## Belbriette

You all who participate in this Forum share enough interest in hunting so as to involve yourself in its future, or in your own selfish, very short term future.
Hunting has two facets : either hunting favours wildlife or it is the opposite which will only become evident later or much later on. 
Unless the arguments developped in this Forum are so for the single purpose to fulfill a need to communicate or to argue, for the sake of it, I feel this happens because is not shared a BASIC knowledge of what deer are badly in needs in the present and future world we made for them.
Yet, without really knowing it (for some of you), because you hunt in very different personal or collective contexts, in different specific environments, if you are using the same vocabulary, evidently, you are not giving the same words the same meaning.
Education is the key : either for meat or for any other reasons
(the thrill or the trophy) you are all in the same boat, if not for yourself, at least for your children, grand-children or their children.
In both cases, as deer are your preys, deer welfare in the long run must be your common goal. 
Those who need it must attach themselves to learn about deer biology, ethology and ecology so as to insure their best perpetuation in the long term. 
Jack.


----------



## bwiltse

Well said Belbriette!!!


----------



## Huntnut

Very well said.

Hunt


----------



## Guest

Hey Hunt, you gotta empty out that PM box of yours. You saving every PM ever sent?


----------



## jamie7117

facts are facts, some refuse to acknowledge them, others have to be convinced they indeed are fact, and others take it upon themeselves to get the information and form opinions based on them. we can candy coat QDM or current harvest practices to make them easy to swallow or you can just state the facts and they usually go down like castor oil. it is hard to admit that some of our harvest decisions may not be right for the situation that each of us are in, it's even harder when no one can or is willing to set an example or set regualtions that require a little bit more of us as hunter/managers. until that time comes we have to realize that our decisions today have long reaching effects. we can refuse to believe this, but it's true. we are not the only hunters in the woods and if we think it's only one 1.5 year old buck and it really doesn't matter if it's harvested, remember there are 750,000 others making that same decision.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut

Boy, what a long post!
I'm from Tuscola County, Kingston to be exact. What I do not like about the QDM proposal is that I don't think a group that's charter membership is less than 3 years old needs to go to the N.R.C. to get what they want, they would have more credibility if they tried "VOLUNTARY" QDM for 10 years or more, "doing the legwork needed to get a good established voluntary QDM area."I don't think they have" PAID THEIR DUES" yet. To be proposing to the N.R.C. a rule change like this is like saying "I WANT IT AND I WANT IT RIGHT NOW!" That is the main reason I would like to see the proposal soundly defeated!

I have let young bucks walk for the 13 years that I have owned my 80 acres. I am for QDM on a voluntary basis and do not think anyone has the right to tell me what I can and can't do on my own property over and above what the current statewide regulations are.

I was at the QDM meeting at the Ubly foxhunters club when Brian Murphy and James Kroll were speakers and it was a good informative meeting and I have the QDM newsletters and brochures and agree with a lot of it.


----------



## fishinlk

For the most most part I'm pretty much pro QDM. I've read through this thread and I don't think I missed this BUT there seems to be a major oversight that the QDM group seems to be missing when complaining about the state land people aren't for the QDM regs. For QDM to work properly (and this goes hand in hand with the statement made regarding minimum herds for managment) not only do hunters need to limit their take of small bucks but you need a finite number of hunters in an area or every deer taken checked. It's rediculous to think that most LP state game areas can be effectively managed for QDM without some kind of limitations on the harvest taking place, regardless off the quality habitat. Seems pretty un-enforcable to me.


Forgive me if this has been put this way already, its a verryy loonngg thread.


----------



## wildbill64

WOW! Here where I live in Indiana, my family do our own deer managment. After talking to the QDMA and Grant Woods which to be me is a loser. He said we need to keep our ratio 1 to 1. WOW WOW I said what happens if or the other gets shoot or hit by a car. YOUR DONE! Its what ever you want to kill or let walk. Here we shoot nothing under 8 pointers, WHY you say because around us are the Amish and others that kill anything that brown. Example this year on opening day the Amish shoot 32 times and killed 3 deer, one 45 lb doe, one 55 lb button buck and other doe around 85 lbs. One other guy had a 44 mag level action and kill 5 deer in 1/4 of a hour. Again all around the 45 to 70 lb range. So if we do not let them grow up in our area then we will not have any deer. I am not proud of the QDMA or GRANT WOODS.


----------



## itchn2fish

bumpty


----------



## GVDocHoliday

Salmonsmoker said:


> I was going to stay out of this discussion, but several people who agree with my thinking (and we are all politically active) encouraged me to express this concern.
> 
> First, the only reason that many of us hunt deer is because we like to eat tender, tastes good, venison. All of this crap about any hunter will pass on a spike for a larger buck is just a rationalization for your particular line of reasoning. I do not hunt bucks. I let them all pass. For the past several years, when I had a choice, I have not even purchased an antlered deer license. For the meat hunter (and I am proud to be part of that group and we are many) all that your QDM has done is to reduce the harvestable surplus.
> 
> Second, it looks to me like QDM takes a position of total disregard for the attack on hunting from the ANti's. Case in point: "How many anti hunters will be converted by a deer head hanging on your wall?"
> 
> A widely held view of the Anti's that I have talked to is that it is immoral to kill an animal just for a trophy and since the meat does not taste good - there is no reason to hunt.
> 
> Over the past several years I have personally converted several Anti's to a position of acceptance of hunting by serving them an excellent venison dinner. That meal negates the "it is not good food" agruement for all but Vegitarians.
> 
> Third, If you have valid arguements for QDM (like biological) then we need to hear them - not your BS. If you want support for your QDM from the meat-hunting crowd (and as hunters, we certainly all need to be united against the Anti's) then you need to include our point-of-view in your proposals. So far, what I have heard from the QDM's is more of a lame attempt to disgiseTDM than anything else - and it is not very convencing. It also cuts into my enjoyment of hunting. That's why I opened and close with "QDM Sucks."
> 
> Salmonsmoker


1st, that's the whole idea of QDM. In a proper heard, there is no surplus. A surplus is a signal of an out of balance heard with the habitat. 

2nd, It's called proven science...not BS. 

3rd, the meat-hunting, brown it's down mentality has pretty much stereotyped all hunters as backwood lead slugging hicks with a blood lust for defenseless woodland critters. QDM is actually doing a good job of shedding this image from hunters into one of more conservative minded intellectuals who are aware of the impact made to the heard and habitat with each trigger pull. 

Checkmate, four-letter word it.


----------

