# QDM meetings in Montcalm Co.



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Montcalm Co. land owners and hunters this a reminder that the first meetings will be held this week. Check your Hunting & Trapping guide for locations and times. I've talked with a few land owners/hunters the past two weeks. At this time all would vote against the plan. 
L & O


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

If anyone goes to Tues. meeting in Stanton or Wed. meeting in Lakeview, will you please post a few lines about the meeting ?
Thanks L & O


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

I just found out about the "plan" from the landowner where we hunt. What a bunch of BS!!! Please keep me informed guys. I'll round up some support to shoot this thing in the ass!


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

j.d., would you or the land owner support the plan if it were 3 pts. on one side instead of 4 ? Some that I've talked to would switch sides with that one change. If I were to go to a meeting, I would ask the QDM group if they had ever had any discusssions about allowing 12-15 year old kids tagging any buck while the adults were restricted. I like this idea, but since I have never heard it batted around I guess I'm standing on that island alone.
L & O


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

L&O, I believe that Pennsylvania, which has implemented statewide antler restrictions for this season (3 on a side E. 2/3, 4 on a side W. 1/3), has a youth exemption.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Yes, the 3 pt. on a side idea is more palatable than 4 to me. But quite frankly, I have some strong philosophical issues with this kind of regulation in general. It's quite similar to "no-kill" or "flies only" trout regulations. I know I'll get some heat from some of the QDM supporters for it, but here goes. 

First, I am not ashamed to admit that I like to eat venison. Before my wife and I got married, she had never eaten any wild game. Guess what, after a couple of years of eating it, she loved it better than beef. And after 17 years of marriage, she now almost demands that I bring home venison each year. In nearly 35 years of hunting, I have never shot a doe. I could always get a buck, so never needed to take a doe. Just my own personal preference. Some would cheer me for this, and some would slam me for this. So I'm interested in a buck....period. And if I'm interested in simply taking home venison, any kind of antler restriction will cut my chances. 

Second, we hunt a large tract of private land in Montcalm. This landowner/farmer does not believe in block permits of any kind. So, he does lose some crops to the deer. If he wants to shoot a legal fork horn, who is to say he can't? 

Third, this country is a democracy, not a dictatorship. From my understanding, there must be some kind of vote on this issue. If they conduct an honest to goodness, straight up, fair vote, which includes all interested parties, I would suggest that the majority will favor no restrictions on points in Montcalm Co.

Fourth, these restriction unfairly favor bowhunters. Years ago I bowhunted. I lost interest because I became addicted to duck hunting, and still am (afterall, my computer name is "just ducky"). What I have seen in the area we hunt in the last 30 years is that the bowhunters have a month and a half to be patient and wait for a real nice buck before the gun hunters even get a crack at them. The bowhunters I know just about have all the bucks named. They know each one very intimately, and can wait for the one they want. Talk to the deer processors up in that area. They often get better size bucks in the early bow season than they do in the gun season. Why? Because the bowhunters picked the one they wanted. If antler restrictions such as these go into affect, then why not rotate seasons between gun and bow hunters where this year the bow hunters get first crack at them, then the next year the gun hunters do. Only fair.

Finally, I have never been one to seek a huge rack, so in general I oppose the concept of REQUIRING me or any other law abiding hunter to restrict my take. As I said earlier, if they hold a vote on the subject, and the majority favors QDM, then I'll live with it. But the size of the rack means nothing to me. I took a 15 point buck off of this very Montcalm Co. farm several years ago. But I'd have been just as happy if it had been a nice spike horn. To each his own. Over nearly 35 years of hunting this property, we have taken many nice 8 points, a couple of 10's, the 15, and oodles of big 6's. Why are there so many nice bucks? Simple....great farm country, with lots of brushy escape routes. Ideal for growing nice deer. 

Instituting restrictions such as this when the majority is opposed is unamerican. The analogy I'll use is making portions of trout streams "no-kill". Do you honestly believe that a majority of the trout fisherman favored those regulations? I believe not. What you have is a small faction of citizens who believe in a concept, gain political support, and get their way.....usually in opposition to the view of the majority. I fear that this will be the case in Montcalm Co. When I heard about this movement last night, I immediately got busy. I have enough connections in that county after 35 years of hunting, including some politicians, that I will make my voice heard. 

Sorry to go on and on about this, but as you can see, it's a very sore subject with me. I would feel the same about any new regulation being forced upon the citizens when the majority are not in favor, whether it deals with outdoor issues or not.

Thanks for the time.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Just ducky, if you would take a little time to find out about the DNR`s requirements for antler restrictions you would find that they need a 66% yes vote to be approved. This will not be forced on anyone. Slow down, take a deep breath and find out about the proposal.

As far as 3 points vs. 4 points, that number is decided by the DNR to allow for the survival of at least 80% of yearling bucks. The local QDMA group does not pick the points on a side number, the DNR does.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

> I oppose the concept of REQUIRING me or any other law abiding hunter to restrict my take.


so i guess you oppose the DNR and current game laws?


> First, I am not ashamed to admit that I like to eat venison.





> In nearly 35 years of hunting, I have never shot a doe. I could always get a buck, so never needed to take a doe.


if you like venison so much, you could fill the freezer with doe. if antlers mean nothing to you, then whats the point of shooting a buck? little confusing. or is it because the landowner doesn't want you to shoot does? if that's the case, you should stop hunting on his land because you, "oppose the concept of restricting your take".


if it favors bowhunters so much, pick up a bow. don't whine about bowhunters, when you CHOOSE not to participate in bow season.those hunters who continually harvest large bucks do so because they put in the time to do so, there is a little more to it than sitting in your stand and taking your pick.

the harvest of does is essential to the health of the herd.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Bob S., I didn't know that the DNR made the decision of 3 or 4 pts. per side. I assumed that the whole proposal was put together by the QDM group. 
farmlegend, since PA. has or at least discussed the youth exemption then I assume that the local QDM group at least kicked the idea around a little. 
j.d., thank you for sharing your thoughts and ideas. Switching the gun & bow seasons around every other year....now that would cause quite a stir. 
Maybe next week someone will respond to this thread who has attended a meeting and can give us a first hand account of the mood of those attending.
L & O


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

The minimum points requirement is mandated by the State QDM procedure, which requires protecting at least 50% of the 1 1/2 old bucks (in the case of Montcalm County this minimum requirement is 4-points on one side). I do notice that QDM buck proposals, which require 3-points on one side (Mid-Michigan area north) seem to be received much more favorably by the hunters and landowners.

As a sidebar, I believe that QDM supporters need to be careful that QDM doesn't just become viewed as a buck issue only (these proposals tend to do that). Appropriate deer numbers, and the maintenance and/or improvement of habitat are especially important cornerstones of QDM and are most critical to good deer management.

I will post as a separate topic the State Eco chart and the summary of the protection rate of bucks depending on the minimum number of points and geographic region of the state.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Both feet!

Just Ducky, you said,

"In nearly 35 years of hunting, I have never shot a doe. I could always get a buck, so never needed to take a doe."

Wow...where to begin....

First...do you think it's healthy to the herd to remove just one sex from a mammal population??
Honestly, do you believe that one sex is LESS important than the other?
Obviously, you have targeted males only for the last 35 years, and that tells me you believe that removing just the males in our population is healthy for the herd. 
As a hunter with a wildlife biology degree, I am very interested in hearing how your harvest strategy benefits the herd.

If you've never really thought about the way your harvest affects the herd as a whole, I would be happy to talk with you about the problems that are casued by shooting just males out of any herd of cervids. 

Last year in Michigan, hunters harvested approximately 90,000 more male deer than female deer.
Given the fact that mammal offspring enters this world at close to a 50/50 ratio, it is easy to see that these extra 90,000 harvested males will be replaced by 45,000 males and 45,000 females the following spring.

The state loses 45,000 bucks and gains 45,000 extra females per year!!!

Your buck only hunting strategy, multiplied by all the hunters that harvest as you do, is the reason why we have 1.3 million females, and 600,000 males.(males!~not just antlered deer) This cycle has been perpetuated for years.

This lopsided ratio of females to males causes more problems than this web page will hold...

This lopsided ratio is what causes me, as a wildlife biologist, to spend MY deer season doing nothing but removing excess females.
I did not shoot a buck last year, I will not shoot one this year. My entire deer season will be spent harvesting doe.

I need to spend my season removing doe because I care about the health, heirarchy, social structure and disease resistance, of our herd, as well as the needed habitat regeneration caused by less deer.

I ask you to read the article on the home page of this site called "MIchigan Hunters, it's Time for Change"

I implore you to harvest a few doe's this year. 

As for QDM, I don't want to enter a buck debate. Bucks dont mean anything to me anymore. I will pass up every buck I see this year, from spikes on up...
But I am gonna kill more than a few doe.

I wish many many other hunters would join me so one day I can chase bucks again.

But until they do, the biologist in me understands that I need to harvest only doe to make up for everyone else that hunts for only bucks.

My doe only/no bucks strategy comes from my biology background. My want to kill bucks comes from my hunter background.

IMO, with TB and CWD, as well as all the other problems a lopsided overpopulated herd causes, the biologist in me wins.

Hunt


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Lots of good comments here. And as someone said in their post, I have taken a deep breath and am trying to be very logical and rational about this. When I said I have never taken a doe, I should have explained more thoroughly. On the property where I've hunted for 35 years, we do take does. Normally we have 6 to 10 hunters on the property each season, and more than half will and do often take does during the gun season. I have no problem with taking does, and tend to agree that it must be done to maintain the health of the herd. The surrounding farms kill many more does than bucks each year as they have similar beliefs as "Huntnut". So, if we weren't as a whole currently harvesting a decent number of does in my area, I would in all honesty reconsider my approach. Just have never had to. And I'm certainly not disregarding any of your opinions. They are sound ones. My personal situation has always allowed me to consider males first, females second. Yes, I admit this is a carryover mentality passed on to me from previous generations. We've always said that one male can service many females, whether it's deer, pheasants, ducks, turkeys, whatever. But I use the same philosophy in other hunting, such as my true love....ducks. I try very hard to shoot only drakes with the simple thought that the hens do the work to keep the population up. My opinion only, and you certainly have a right to disagree.

My basic philosophical argument with QDM is that I believe the bottom line in the majority of the supporters minds is that "quality" can only be achieved by a massive rack. Why else would we even consider tying the restrictions to number of points? Are we trying to get at age? Where I live, a 1 1/2 yr. old buck can have quite a massive rack, but he's still a young buck just entering his breeding years. So I don't buy that. It's purely and simply the Saturday morning ESPN outdoors crowd that believes a larger racked buck is a better buck, and I think Huntnut you of all people (being trained in biology) would agree that that thought process is BS. If someone has that philosophy, then go to one of the game farms and pay to hunt a massive racked buck.

I hope you all understand that I truly do value everyone's opinion, and I will certainly agree there is a biological aspect to this argument. However, I hope everyone will give me the opportunity to have my opinion as well. I certainly do hope, as someone else posted, that there is a vote on this issue, because I still believe it will be hard to get the majority to go along with this. As I previously posted, our system in America is a democracy, and I will live with what the majority wishes.

Thanks again for allowing me to express my thoughts.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

jd, QDM is much more than big racks. there is a lot more to it than many realize.

before people make a hair trigger reaction, maybe they should do a little checking.

http://www.qdma.com/home/

http://members.tripod.com/~mmbqdm/

PROCEDURE FOR INITIATION, EVALUTATION, AND REVIEW OF MANDATORY QUALITY DEER MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

I see where you are coming from with your reluctance to shoot doe.
Your second post clears up alot. It is good to see that your group as a whole recognizes the need to remove these females.

As for my opinions on QDM, well, QDM has good points and bad points.

I strongly believe in natural predation balancing mammal populations.
I believe the most natural way is the healthiest way, and the way that would benefit the herd most.

If we strived to mimic natural predation our harvest would be comprised of:
60% young of the year.
10% adult mature healthy deer.
30% old or sick deer.

Our hunter population would rise and fall in proportion to the rise and fall of the deer population.
Just like a jump in rabbit population would cause a jump in Fox populations soon after....and then the reverse, less rabbits equals less fox.

But this just isn't possible, because it doesn't support the sport of hunting.

Can you imagine a deer pole with 6 fawns hangin on it??

As for QDM, yes I can see advantages to the deer herd, but I also see disadvantages to the sport of hunting...ie, your original post.

One big aspect of QDM is habitat regeneration, proper carrying capacity, and balanced sex ratios, by removal of doe. This I agree with.
Another big aspect of QDM is to "preserve" many young bucks so they can grow older. Heirarchy, social structure, and competition become much more apparent. IMO, the more competition between the many more males is a huge benefit to the population. (any population). More competition equals fitter offspring......"survival of the fittest".

However, on the flipside, I fear 750,000 hunters attacking nothing but mature bucks. I also fear the resentment of fellow hunters being forced to pass up small bucks when they dont want to.

However, if I had to vote, I would vote for QDM.

I received my biology degree from the University of Alaska....and what many dont realize is, is that most of Alaska is under QMM. (Quality Moose Management).
In most of Alaska, a bull moose is only legal if it has a 50" spread or greater. Do you know how hard it is to guess if that rack is 50 inches wide from 100 yards away thru the willows???? 
When moose hunting in AK, you will see many young illegal bulls. Nobody complains, in fact hunters flock to Alaska to hunt the legendary AK moose. That legendary moose exists because of QDM principles and antler restrictions. Have you ever heard a hunter complain about a moose hunt in AK?
Alaska has employed QDM principles for years, and it has worked with great success. In fact, many of my school hours were spent learning why it works with such success.

However, Michigan is different. 

I think there is a different way other than traditional management or QDM.
I feel if hunters in this state trained their sights on many more doe, we would see many more buck.
example: If we harvest 100,000 more female than male deer, these extra doe would be replaced by 50,000 males and 50,000 females.(exactly the opposite of what we have now.) We just added 50,000 more males than we had the year before.
It's a start, and reverses the stagnant trend we have been in for so long.
If we could remove 200,000 more doe than buck, we would gain an additional 100,000 males next year.

Basically, we could add as many more bucks as we wanted.

Imagine this: 2 million deer in our state. 1 million males, 1 million females.

Would QDM or Traditional Management even be a debate???

Hunt


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

nope, you exactly right, hunt.

thanks for clearing that up, jd.

i believe QDM has it's place in many areas of the state, like hunt mandatory QDM has both good and bad points, just like everything else in life.

the good points far outweigh the bad.

1-2 years of sacrifice and the herd would be well on it's way to balance.

the DNR/NRC has done everything possible to increase doe harvest, yet the harvest has steadily decreased over the years. mandatory QDM is much more likely to increase doe harvest with the "meat hunters", than anything else the DNR/NRC has put on the table.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Call me a "meat hunter" all you want. Doesn't phase me because as I said, I love venison, and other than the simple enjoyment of being in the woods, I'm there for meat. I admit that. This is an argument that there is clearly no right answer for everyone. All I ask is that we allow the majority to speak by a vote of some kind, and not be forced to take something that is not for everyone. Let me ask you this....how do I tell my 77 year old Dad, who's been hunting since he grew up on the farm, that he now has to look for 4 points on a side before he shoots? He can barely see horns, let alone 4 points, and may never get another chance at a buck like that. Again, it's fine for a bowhunter to count points. The deer are often undisturbed and moving slowly in October. Typically the first few days of gun season, the deer are running full out and are difficult to study for long. I know that's not a good excuse, but it's reality where I hunt. Just another thought that crossed my mind.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Just Ducky...

I dont think anyone here would consider the term "meat hunter" as being offensive.

Heck, all I want to shoot is doe, so I'm a meat hunter 100%. I love venison, and eat it by the ton! Good stuff!

Also, your 77 year old Dad is exactly the reason I dont like mandatory antler restrictions. 

How do I say it? 

I like what QDM does for the herd, but don't like what QDM does to the sport of deer hunting.

I truly believe the top priority, and most beneficial strategy to appease both camps, is a sweeping doe kill in all of our high deer density areas.

For so many reasons I cannot list, a large scale doe cull would move our herd, as well as our sport satisfaction, to a much higher state of well being.

I am talking about removing 30-40% of our doe herd, and replacing half of these doe with new additional males next spring.

I believe this step should be accomplished first before we start discussing how to grow larger antlered males.

Hunt

Gone for a few days, scoutin and fishin and such.......catch ya next week.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a meat hunter, venison is simply the best!!!!!

being a true meat hunter is the most admirable pursuit when it comes to hunting, it's truest intent.

the problem i have is with someone who claims to be a "meat hunter" and gives us many reasons why one is and refuses to shoot doe, because they" fail to see the need" or simply refuse to on the grounds of "carry over mentality". it doesn't carry water and has no place with current deer numbers and herd make up.

don't classify yourself as something your clearly not.



> how do I tell my 77 year old Dad, who's been hunting since he grew up on the farm, that he now has to look for 4 points on a side before he shoots?


the same way the DNR asks him and other hunters to see 3" of antler before he harvests a buck. if he can see 3" of antler, he can count 3-4 points.

sh*t happens, nobody is going to be crucified over a mistake in a mandatory QDM area. i personally havevn't heard of anyone being ticketed for such a mistake, i could be wrong. 

bwiltse, have you?

but many positive things are occuring in and around these QDM areas.

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99757&highlight=dmu+118#post99757


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

a quick response to the young hunters being frustrated by not being able to take any buck, if mandatory point restrictions are established. i went my first three years of hunting( buckless) and many years afterward. it did not deter me from my pursuit of harvesting a deer, it happened to be a nice doe during bow season. hunting is not a guarentee of harvest. that is the problem with the majority of young hunters they become impatient and think they will be instantly successfull, waiting for a nice buck to come along will make that buck even more special. looking back on it i wish i had been forced to wait out for a nice buck, deer hunting is not as easy as it appears and it is hunting, not harvesting/shooting. what better way to teach self control and patience. would you say it was ok for a young hunter to harvest a buck without a license or harvest a doe without an antlerless permit just because it was his/her first deer. what would be the difference if a minimum spread or point limit were put into effect? just a different set of rules for a much different time.

many young hunters really have no feelings on mandatory point restrictions, one way or another. they are simply happy to be in the woods with the oppurtunity/possibility to harvest a deer. it is the parents or mentors who try and shape their opinions. 

i love to poll kids taking a hunter safety class after explaining traditional deer management and QDM and get their responses. it would suprise many.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Okay guys, I've tried to keep an open mind about this concept. So much so that I now have reviewed the nice full color QDM brochure that they published in an attempt to learn more about the organization. With all due respect, I still can't help but feel this group of individuals has watched way too many Saturday morning outdoor tv shows where they are on a ranch somewhere in Texas and can glass the deer all day before taking one. This just is not reality in the first day or two of gun deer season in typical Montcalm Co. You can't study them like on those tv shows. If we were all bait pile hunters, we could. If we were all bowhunters, we could. This just is not reality based. I also have gotten the leaflets that the "Montcalm Branch QDMA handed out at the informational sessions. I'm sure some of you on this web site have your name at the bottom of the letter. Some of this does disturb me, as you can probably imagine based upon my past posts. For instance, it states "For those of us who understand QDM principles, and would like to share in the responsibility of managing this wonderful renewable resource called deer....." For those of us who understand?...... Talk about a conceited statement. As a responsible hunter for many years, I AM SHARING IN THE RESPONSIBILITY! I am also chair of a local Ducks Unlimited chapter and have been for 15 years during which time I have helped raise several hundred thousand dollars to preserve and create wetlands......I think I have shared the responsibility of protecting resources. I don't need to be a QDM member to prove that. What also disturbs me is that the DNR seems to be very much behind the efforts long before this has been discussed thoroughly. Last I knew, the charge of the DNR was to protect the interests of all sportsman, not just a select few. I understand at one of the recent Montcalm meetings, it was very apparent by the comments of the DNR staff that they are all for this proposal passing. Again, a premature position for them to be taking. The information states that the DNR will survey a "representative" group of both hunters and property owners in a reportedly random method. It goes on to say they will use the antlerless deer license data base to conduct the survey, "so make sure you buy one this fall even if you do not use it". Stacking the deck? Call me paranoid, but will this be truly random if the agency supports the proposal so strongly? We in the opposition party are now circulating your own literature to our side in order to educate them on your viewpoints. I hate to break it to you, but the opposition is now awake.

This issue truly has raised my blood pressure, and I've said about all I can about this topic on this web site. Again, all I'm looking for is an honest and fair majority vote of the people. I am taking the next step, and I urge all those in oposition to this proposal to do so as well. I am personally contacting the Director of the DNR K.L. Cool to voice my opinions, including the fact that his staff should not be supporting this issue prematurely. I have also made contact with my legislators, one of whom is a strong supporter of sportsman. Flooding these people with letters, phone calls, emails, etc. will get the point across. There is strong opposition out there, and we must make our voices heard before it's too late.

To quote Huntnut from a previous post, "I like what QDM does for the herd, but don't like what QDM does to the sport of deer hunting". Enough said!


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

just ducky, I can assure you the levels of DNR support or non-support vary, depending on who you talk to, and their official position is neutral. As far as the deck being stacked in favor of QDM, the state procedure requires a 66% yes vote with not sure votes counting as a no, in order for a proposal to pass - this sounds more like the deck being stacked against QDM.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

"this group of individuals has watched way too many Saturday morning outdoor tv shows where they are on a ranch somewhere in Texas and can glass the deer all day before taking one. This just is not reality in the first day or two of gun deer season in typical Montcalm Co. You can't study them like on those tv shows."

I'm not sure what you mean by this, ducky. One could speculate that you are suggesting, under Montcalm County field conditions (incidentally, it's among the highest deer density counties in MI), with deer racing throughout the woods in the firearms season, that hunters cannot study deer befor they shoot, to make sure of what they are, their gender, their size, body characteristics, relative position of vital organs, etc., and rather, must shoot first and investigate later.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Bwiltse,

Out of pure curiosity, why aren't QDM proposals voted on?

Along with the random surveys sent to doe applicants and property owners? 

I imagine that surveys are sent to the doe applicants in that GMU, because that is the best way to identify and survey the actual hunters of that DMU.

But I don't know why volunteers cant conduct a voting station for one day, to all residents of that GMU that werent sent a survey.

Seems to be a hunters issue, and I imagine most attending would be the hunters that cared enough to vote. Maybe even limit it to people that have a deer license or something.

It would give the DNR, NRC, and the QDMA a better grasp on how much support there is for this program. It would also let everyone have their vote on state owned resources.

I have seen this on a few different websites now, seems many people are furious that they dont get a say in such a sensitive topic. 

Hard enough to get people to accept antler restrictions, twice as difficult to do it when people are angry at the group promoting them.

Just having a vote, would relieve alot of anger. What stands in the way?

Hunt


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

farmlegend,
No matter what county you are in, it can be difficult to tell whether a buck has 6 pts. or 7-8 pts. when he is walking along 50 + yards away. You are right in saying that Montcalm Co. has a very high deer density, traditional hunters would point out that they had something to with providing the kind of habitat necessary to have high deer numbers. QDM had no hand in changing Montcalm Co. from an area of no or few deer (50's)to what we have today. When you have a good thing going, it is only natural to wonder why we should change.
L & O


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Hunt or anyone interested, I'd recommend that you take a look at the State QDM procedure details on surveying hunters and landowners for the total rational and methodology on voting for a QDM proposal. Go to http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/deer_qdm_procedures.pdf

Hunt, what the DNR does now is conduct a statistical survey, that has a high degree of accuracy. Any attempt at open voting for a QDM proposal would probably be a nightmare, and the results would probably not be near as representative of the total population for that DMU as the current statistical survey sampling method.

Depending on whether you want a QDM proposal to pass or not, you certainly could argue for changes. For example, why count "undecided" as a no or why require 66% yes votes in order for a proposal to pass, etc.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Thanks for the link Bwiltse,

I read the entire thing...

Wow, sure likes like an uphill battle to get antler restrictions implemented!

Hunt


----------



## countryboy (Nov 9, 2000)

I rifle hunt on my in-laws place in the eastern part of montcalm
co.In the 9 years I've hunted there, I've never seen anything
bigger than a 6 point. Last year there was only one buck taken,
my 6 point. This is on 78 acres , with 1/2 woods. I really don't like the thought of having to pass on a
buck, because it doesn't have 4 pts. on a side.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

If you want assurance that you'll continue to never see anything larger than a 1.5 year old 6-pointer, just keep right on shooting them. Dead deer have a tendency not to grow.

One downside of antler point restrictions is that we can get hung up on 3 pts to a side, 4 pts to a side, difficulty of counting points in the field, etc. What I believe IS important is that we, as hunters, exercise some restraint in harvesting bucks in the 1.5 year old age class, regardless of what kind of antlers they carry. That's where hunter education is important. It really is not difficult, with some practice, to identify yearling bucks (1.5 years old) by body characteristics. It's certainly easier in the field to distinguish between a 1.5 vs. a 2.5 year old buck than it is to count antler points on a basket rack.


----------



## countryboy (Nov 9, 2000)

If I pass on a smaller buck, someone else will shoot it.I just want a buck, I've gone 3-4 years without getting one.Where I hunt, 
the bow hunter's have taken most of the bigger bucks.I say shoot 4pts. & smaller, let the bigger ones go.I'm not a trophy
hunter, I deer hunt for the meat.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Doe is meat.

If you're a meat hunter, why the quest for antlers?

Antler restrictions stop your neighbors from shootin em just like it would stop you.

Let me ask you this question,

If you've never seen anything bigger than a 6 point, do you think your herd is what mother nature intended a deer herd to be?


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

It is interesting to note that those that actually live or hunt in Montcalm Co. have yet to speak of QDM in a positive way. I'm sure that there are many, however they have yet to voice their opinion here. Like just ducky, I've read the QDM full color booklet from cover to cover. About the only difference between what is happening in Montcalm Co. now with traditional hunters and the QDM proposal is that the smaller bucks are not protected by law. Many Montcalm Co. hunters already choose to pass on smaller bucks because that's their choice. We started habitat improvemnt & protecting button bucks 35 years ago. We started controlling the population of deer by shooting does about 20 years ago. These are not new ideas. Many Montcalm Co. hunters like most of the ideas that QDM proposes, however the only idea that is new the proposal to protect the smaller bucks. I can not support this proposal, however if the proposal were 3pts. on a side and included a youth exemption (and maybe an old guy exemption) then maybe I would change my mind. 
L & O


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Liver,
Very good points. I also would be willing to be involved in an OPEN forum of all interested parties. I think based on all of the posts we've seen on this that we all have at least one goal in common.....we are all interested in protecting the resource. Let's all agree on that point anyway. True, many of us have different end goals (i.e. some just want meat, some want large racks, some want a healthy herd). We just can't agree on how to get there. I would suggest, as Liver and Onions did, that if we discuss this in a truly open fashion and come up with a majority opinion on what would be palatable, it may be that a minimum 3 pts. on a side would be the majority's favorite idea. Or maybe require the combination license to be filled with one buck with 3 or better on a side, and one doe? Countryboy echoed what I have said in previous posts....that the bowhunters have a true advantage in taking the larger racked bucks because 1) their season comes first; 2) the deer must be close in and moving slowly for an effective kill - i.e. easier ID of 4 pts. on a side. Hear me out here....I'M NOT TRYING TO OFFEND THE BOWHUNTERS! I used to be one and it is a wonderful sport and a wonderful time to be in the woods. But the bowhunters honestly have to admit that what I said in # 1 & 2 above are facts! Yes I can take up bowhunting again. But what's wrong with what I said in an earlier post about the possibility of rotating which season starts first? If the gun hunters had a chance at an October season, you have to admit there would be more 4 pt. on a side bucks around to pick from. Wouldn't that be fair for all deer hunters? Just more food for thought.


----------



## rb1 (Jun 24, 2002)

Didn't make it to the meeting in Stanton or Lakeview. Going to the one at my club tonight at 6:30; Flat River Conservation Club.
10 miles N. of Greenville.
Heard the one at Lakeview got very heated. Hope it don't happen tonight, can't get nothing accomplished if it does.RB1


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

> If the gun hunters had a chance at an October season, you have to admit there would be more 4 pt. on a side bucks around to pick from.


i respectfully disagree.

there could not be a statement further from the truth.

look no further than the harvest estimates, check station data and surveys.

michigan hunters as a group target ANY buck reguardless of weapon type or season.

you can't hold one a portion of the group accountable, the whole group is the problem when it come to proper deer management. you cannot take 80% of the 1.5 year old bucks, 69% of the total antlered buck population and only 31% of the antlerless population and expect improvement or believe that this continued practice will not be detrimental to the herd in the long run. add in button bucks to the buck harvest and things are much worse than they appear.

michigan hunters refuse to take does, everything the DNR has done to increase the doe harvest has failed, by protecting immature bucks, the "meat hunters" will be forced to be true to their word, "of not caring about antlers" and taking a doe or a mature buck to fill the freezer. the odds are in favor of filling the freezer with a doe due to the sheer number of them.

the harvest numbers tell the true story, talk is cheap.

hunters are hunters reguardless of age or experience, they all impact the resource one way or another.

having to be close to your quarry in order to make a kill is hardly an advantage.

michigan's bow season reflects this reasoning. it is much more difficult to harvest a deer with a bow, hence, the date, length of season. reguardless of technological improvements bow hunting is still and will remain a 30 yard effective range harvest tool. however, the same thought process (overharvest of immature bucks and underharvest of does) dominates michigan's bow season.


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

As usual Jamie, hit the target right in the middle, because he took time to learn about deer, he knows what he is talking about. 
I must add he did all he could to share all the fruits of his large and diserving investigations. 

Also I feel he is very rightly entitled to write : 

" The harvest numbers tell the true story." 

In your Country, as in mine, and all over the Planet, as long as hunters will behave in the most selfisfh short term manner, without any true concern about the long term future of their preys, they will not deserve to be called the "wildlife managers" they should be.

Obviously, even outside of TB and CWD, Wildlife Conservation already needs a lot, in all its respects. 
Furtermore and evidently, for anybody who try to see further than the tip of his nose, this need will necessarily become more and more severe with time.

To manage deer, to manage a SPECIFIC deer herd, for its best renewal and perpetuation, amounts to think deer FIRST , which may be summarized by :
"The users must be useful to the used " ( A.B. BUBENIK).

I cannot understand why, in such a wealthy and pragmatic Country as yours, in all respects, this very fundamental principle cannot easily prevail ... because of what I feel to be insignificant
selfish details ( including such small amounts of $ )... 

Jack. : confused:


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Jaime,
Most of the hunters that I know, which is a large number in various portions of the state, do not shoot "any" buck. Of course it depends on where they hunt. One friend who is in the western UP will shoot most any buck because the habitat just will not sustain a large amount of deer, and seeing a single buck may be a rare occasion all year. However, on the property I own, we glassed 14 seperate bucks in a bean field one night in August. They ranged from a 4 pt. to a massive 11 pt. This is pretty common when we scout each summer as I have worked very hard to create habitat and food plots that benefit all wildlife. As I have said in previous posts, I no longer bowhunt....too busy duck hunting in October and November. But I have 2 close friends who do bowhunt my property. They pass up numerous bucks early in October simply waiting for one of the larger ones. They tell me every day "it's a long season, and I can wait until the rut if I need to." They have self-imposed a 4 pt. or better strategy before they even attempt a shot. Although they consider themselves "meat hunters", they know that if they're patient, there is a great chance that they will be successful. I truly can't say the same in gun season. Due to pressure on surrounding farms, I believe if I let a 6 pt. go, the neighboring property owners would take it. So what difference have I made? Now it sounds like I'm supporting a mandatory point restriction so that the neighboring property hunters could not take the 6 pt. Many of you have made some strong points about the taking of does, and maybe I will change my philosophy and start shooting does only. It really will take a change in thinking on my personal part because my impression after all these years is that does are just not as elusive, or intelligent, as bucks, and where I hunt I could take a doe most any day of the week. As I said in a previous post, we take a lot of does already, but I personally don't. Who knows.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

I should've said they have a self-imposed minimum of 4 pt. or more ON A SIDE. When I re-read my post I realized it sounded like they were shooting at every 4 pt. that walks in.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

"and maybe I will change my philosophy and start shooting does only."

Now you're talkin my language!!!!

YES, even though a single buck may be able to fertilize many doe, COMPETITION should be deciding this!! The deciding factor should not be because all the competition has been killed off!

Our female population is OUTRAGEOUSLY over populated and out of balance.

We have 2 million deer, we can grow as many bucks within this that we choose.

1.2 million females : 800,000 males would be about perfect IMO.

Why argue about preserving a few little bucks when we can grow a buck herd large enough to satisfy everyone's wants by removing all the excess doe that currently occupies the habitat??

If I had a deer herd that held 300 doe, and 100 males, 
And I remove 100 females during deer season. 
The next spring fawning replaces these removed females with 50 males and 50 females.
I now have 250 doe, and 150 males in my herd.
I remove another 100 females,
and next spring I have 200 females and 200 males.

Competition will dictate who breeds, and if a single buck breeds 25 females, then you know poppa is a king of the highest magnitude. The herds offspring will be better off being fathered by kings!

Shoot doe! It's voluntary, healthy, and doesn't require counting points!!

For every 2 doe you shoot, you'll add an extra buck for next year!!

Hunt

Achieve a 50/50 herd, and then harvest 50/50.......everything natural will become apparent!


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

jd, i hear what you are saying. i'm glad that now you'll consider shooting does. start shooting them and see how wary they become.LOL!

you say that hunters you know don't shoot just any buck and i believe you but, like i have said before they are few and far between.

the most disturbing aspect of these numbers is the fact that even though antlerless deer account for more than 1.5 million animals only 228,000 were harvested (11% decline) and the buck population of around 450 - 500,000 animals, an astounding 235,000 bucks were harvested. it doesn't look like michigan bucks are all that elusive. at least the immature ones. 

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deer_01harvest_28218_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/deer_01deercheck_26674_7.pdf


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Jaime,
Yeah, true. We all have stories where a buck does some pretty stupid things, especially during the rut (for which there are many other reasons other than intelligence). As someone else posted earlier, it really almost turns my stomach to put the crosshairs on that little doe out in the field who typically is not nearly as wary as a buck. But you are all right, for the health of the herd, many of us need to change our way of thinking, including myself. Before he retired, I used to talk regularly with one of the lead DNR biologists for southern Michigan, who always preached that we should be shooting the young of the year doe, not the adult. He had a lot of reasons such as health of the herd, better eating, cutting down competition for food, etc. However, some of us brought up the problem of accidentally shooting young of the year button bucks, which does happen. Although the hunters in our group do take quite a few does in the gun season, based on many of the good arguments that have been voiced here, I will certainly take a hard look at taking one myself this year. Still have a problem with the mandatory minimum point thing, and I don't see my position on that changing. But I think with some open discussion, we can all come up with some reasonable options that both sides will be able to live with.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

well jd, it's a start.

rule of thumb (for myself): don't shoot a lone doe, wait for a group of does and shoot one of the larger ones. cut's down on mistaken button buck harvest.

we really shouldn't worry about which does to shoot. in all reality, who eats more? a fully mature doe or a yearling? does it matter? increased doe harvest will help the herd immensily, no matter which one you take. the more important thing is to do is to just take one or maybe two!  

get the word out jd, harvest doe. it seems you are already letting bucks go so they can grow. 

feel proud about your doe harvest, your doing the resource a favor and taking an important step to improve herd dynamics and hunting on your property. 

happy hunting!


----------



## countryboy (Nov 9, 2000)

Back to the QDM in Montcalm co., what has the response been
at these meetings? I work 2nd shift , so I havn't been able to attend the meetings. I would be more in favor of a 3pt. rule than the 4pt. on one side.I try to take 2 deer a year, either 1 buck & doe or 2 does.I don't buy the 2 buck tags, since I usually see only one buck.How about the bowhunter's shooting a doe first, than get a buck tag, or going back to 1 buck per season?


----------



## rb1 (Jun 24, 2002)

quote;; under Montcalm County field conditions (incidentally, it's among the highest deer density counties in MI),
This is the reason why I go up to mescosta co. At least there I have a 40% chance of seeing a buck. And the highest deer density in Montcalm co. is on private property. Want to see big bucks the bow hunters seem to find them mostly on private property. Of course they have 45 days to look around. Then you have the youth hunters before them. In my township (Pine) alone we have over 4000 acres of state land! Do I hunt on it! no, I go up to Mescosta co. state land.
At least I have a chance up there; Besides I can get away for awhile. RB1


----------



## wolverinelk93 (Nov 6, 2001)

L/O 
Wow, I get busy and the topic gets hot. Just to add our two cents worth our camp (in Montcalm county) is still 6pts or better and have some nice deer out there this year. I have not been able to attend the meetings but will try and get the minutes or at least find out what is being said.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

During my week of hunting in Montcalm Co. I got to talk with a few more hunters about this topic. None were in favor of the 4 pt. rule for both bucks. All liked the DNR rule of 4 pts. on one side for one of your two bucks. Most would like a 3 pt. rule.....they don't want to shoot the spikes, 3pts, or 4 pt. bucks, but they want the choice of whether or not they want to shoot a 5 pt or 6 pt. buck. All were interested in a youth and old guy exemption. Most felt that the youth hunt should be does only with some additional education on letting the button bucks walk. Only one of hunters that I talked to actually went to a meeting.
L & O


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

Mostly always the same talks : all those who oppose, or are just reluctant to a first exposure to QDM, bring only forwards what they want to get as hunters, without giving a thought to the fact the way they act condition the long term future of the resource !

The users must be useful to the used if they do not wish their preys to slowly but surely vanish !

Jack.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Liver,
Thanks for the update. Interesting. I'll be up there soon myself and will ask some of the folks as well and report back.


----------



## wolverinelk93 (Nov 6, 2001)

Just out of curiosity why are those on this thread opposed to QDM? Is it change? Is it someone telling you that you can only shoot a certain size deer? Logic dictates it will be better for us all in the long run so why the big deal? It is a test to see if it can works lets give it a shot. I for one know that it works.


----------



## rb1 (Jun 24, 2002)

I attended the meeting at the flat river conservation club Montcalm county. Got quite a bit of information about QDM.
First; QDMA is an organization of hunters; with chapters all over the country not just Mich. Its home office is Watkinsville, GA.
They have a web site at www.QDMA.com. The hunters trying trying to put this together is the Montcalm branch of the QDMA.
The four points on one side; is you are suppose to harvest a bigger and more mature buck; while letting the smaller immature bucks grow up. not saying the 1 1/2 to 2 year old bucks don't 
sport 6,8.ect. points. They are just trying to get the deer herd in line they are saying 1/6 ratio is good. And it is working in some of our other counties where they implemented this. The facts and figures are there. Also in some of the other states where it this was started, PA. Ca. ect. it is working. 

The Montcalm chapter has put up $2,000 dollars to even take a poll on this; (DNR guide lines)as such 1,000 farmers 66% yes on the poll; 1,000 hunters 66% yes on the poll before DNR Will even consider it. And the poll will be sent out in either DEC. or Jan.
I have many brochures on this that I got at the meeting.
Out of 18,000 hunters Montcalm country; (DNR census)
There was only 50 to 75 hunters at any one these meetings.
So it goes to show you that not to many people were interested
in it. This was just an informational meeting to let the 18,000
hunters in Montcalm country know more about it. If it is implemented in this Country.( good deal ). You can't argue the pros and cons unless you know the facts.

It has been working in other counties, and other states for many years. its only for four years then they have to take the poll again; All I say is try it you might like it. I bet when you get through four years of it you won't hesitate on voting for it the second time around.
RB1


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

> _Originally posted by rb1 _
> * its only for four years then they have to take the poll again*


 I think this is a part of the proposal that seems to be overlooked the most. Many hunters who are against giving antler restrictions a try make it sound like this will change the way they hunt deer forever. Are there really that many hunters so over joyed with the current deer herd in Michigan that they won`t try something else for four years?


----------



## rb1 (Jun 24, 2002)

BobS; This is the problem not enough people take the time to find out the facts. RB1


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

it will definetly increase their chances for harvesting both bucks and does. i know so. 

more bucks in the woods increase harvest oppurtunities and the harvested bucks will have a larger pool of younger bucks to pull from in the following years. due to the fact that qdm regulations are designed to protect 70-80% of immature bucks unlike now where 80% of the buck harvest is made up of 1.5 year old bucks.

it's a win-win for both hunters and the deer population as a whole.


----------



## wolverinelk93 (Nov 6, 2001)

Doug 
If you hunted in Montcalm, four years and have not taken even a small buck....... Well somthing is wrong with your style. I have hunted there for twenty years + and never had a problem taking a buck if I wanted. As for taking away your freedoms come on almost every time you go hunting or fishing you are regulted by game laws. The DNR is not bringing this to the table these are hunters who want this to happen. And as for buying a trophy hunt we do with taxs and all the money we put into our land and time spent on our stands. I am sorry if I offended you in any way but we have been doing this for about four years on our place and I have seen the results. It works.


----------



## wolverinelk93 (Nov 6, 2001)

Doug 
First this is not a law this is a test to see if the procedure does work in the county. 4 years is a small price to pay to see if we as hunters can do what the DNR has not done. Also this is not being forced on anyone like I stated if you want to shot a smaller buck you can do so (just not in Montcalm). You said this is a narrow minded approach give me a broad one. First thing we have to do is control the deer herd we have now and even with the libreal deer kills we have a hard time doing that. 
You also said there has to be does to be bucks well I will give you a working example we have a 6 point or better rule on our 1/2 square mile we manage in the last four years we take at least 8 to 12 does off that land a year we have a constant deer population on that land of at least 30 to 40 deer. Now I can't give you ratios but I would guess 10 to 1 or more. I also know we have the genetics to grow big deer we see one every year.
As for antler restrictions effecting deer herd. Look at the UP as a massive example after a hard winter only the best are left Mother nature is doing exactly what we are trying to copy here. Now I deffintly am not going to say we can get the best out of the gene pool by doing this but we can see if it works. I am open to other suggestions on managing the deer herd lets hear them.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

woleverine,
You have a 6 pt. rule. I believe that this proposal would stand a good chance of passing if it were 3pts. on a side instead of 4. Who knows, after 4 years hunters might then want to raise it to 4 pts. on a side. Why not take 2 steps instead of one large one ?I realize that the DNR map requires Montcalm Co. to be 4pts. or better to have a QDM program. My critciism here is directed at the DNR, not the QDM group. 
L & O


----------



## wolverinelk93 (Nov 6, 2001)

L/O 
This is my observation on our three point rule we have a lot of year and a half olds. a two year old is hard pressed to make it on our place because he usaully hits the slot size.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Wolverine,
To understand why some oppose the Montcalm proposal, such as myself, go back and re-read the last 3 or 4 weeks of posts on this subject. I won't reiterate it all because we've beaten it to death. Suffice to say that yes I am opposed to the Montcalm proposal because it FORCES everyone to shoot 4 points or better on a side. As someone with almost 500 acres in Montcalm, yes I object to being told how to manage the deer. No they are not "MY" deer, but I've already gone into much depth about our philosophy about shooting more does in our area, and it has worked very well in the last 20 to 30 years. We now have a very good ratio of bucks to does. I will say, after discussing this for the last several weeks with some on this thread (Jamie, Liver and Onions, etc.), I have been educated. I am not necessarily opposed to the principles of QDM as I was originally, but I am strongly opposed to forcing anyone to do something without the concensus of the majority. That's what we hopefully will find out when the poll is taken. If the majority favors it....then so be it.


----------



## rb1 (Jun 24, 2002)

You have to understand! Its not 4 points to a side, its 4 points or more on one side. And its the timing of the moon that puts the 
bucks into rut. What happens to antler growth is this. When the does go into estrus the bucks start running around trying to find the ones that are; this is usually a 24 hour period, the bucks don't eat they don't sleep. all that horny buck doe's is try to find that doe in heat (natures way);; This might go on 30-60 or more days the more does you have the longer it takes. Now that old buck is getting worn out skin and bones. ( you go 30-60 days and see what kind of shape you are in) servicing them does. then comes the second time around, the ones that didn't get serviced the first time around are coming into heat again. ( that is the reason you see a lot of so called yearling the next hunting season a lot of them aren't even a year old yet) and winter is here; woe for the buck where is all that rich grass. all that vitamin enriched food under the snow thats where it is. How does he get his health back? build that massive body and then grow large antlers. THE ANSWER;; he don't! unless he has help, fewer does to service, more bucks to help. 1/6 ratio 
For the hunter that has to shoot a buck with less than 4 points on one side go to another county. I bet you will be back when you find out it works. 
I won't even waste my time or effort shooting a small buck;
I would just as soon shoot a large doe that isn't producing any more. But if a nice good size buck came along I would shoot it. 

If a person would just go out and enjoy nature and learn all that he can about the animal they are hunting. Then he will succeed in his endeavor. Then we can call him a hunter. RB1


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Like there is a huge difference between a 7 point and an 8 point? When you say 4 points or better on a side, just say 60 to 70 percent of them are evenly distributed 8 points, the others 7's. By the way, how many of you gun hunters have ever taken a buck that you swore was an 8 point on the hoof, but it had none or one eye point? We've seen lots over the years.


----------



## leon (Jan 23, 2000)

This is an interesting post, but I believe some are getting too tied up in the details and not trying to do what is best in the big picture for our out-of-balance and over-populated deer herd.

Arguing over whether there should be a three point or four restriction on a side is non-productive. The major focus should be that Montcalm County could easily inplement a 3 or 4 point antler restriction and 'save" the majority of the 1.5 year old bucks that are harvested today. That would allow those deer to grow to 2.5 years old (or older) and you'd have some very large bucks running around for breeding and hunting purposes. Most of these 1.5 year old bucks make up the bulk of the harvested deer today.

Desiring to see and hunt for bigger bucks is something I will not apologize for. I've witnessed first hand the improvements in the quality of hunting when we stopped shooting these little bucks. This simple practice can and should improve the hunting and our deer population all over the state, including remote parts of the UP. QDM gives you a herd much more like nature intended than our current practice of whacking every little buck we see.

Some postings on this thread are long-time anti-QDM people whose goal is to do anything to stop the QDM movement that will dramatically improve the quality of our herd, and also improve our hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities.

I'm in Alaska right now on business and they have had antler restrictions on moose here for a long time. In many parts, you must shoot a mature bull with a 50" antler spread. Some how they manage to get by the barriers the anti-QDM people advance to stop QDM practices in Michigan. Guess what, in Alaska they have immature bulls with small racks running around all over. All their sportsmen and women accept and embrace this management practice as the way to manage their herd. They don't whine about the government telling them how to hunt. Likewise, our hunters shouldn't whine about antler restrictions that protect 1.5 year old deer.

Spare me the responses from the "I'm a meat-hunter and I don't eat horns" guys and the "any deer is a quality deer to me" crowd. Save your breathe and words, please.

For once, why don't you put your selfish and self-centered views aside and join me in wishing the courageous Montcalm County sportsmen and women good luck and god-speed with their initiative. Clearly, they are individuals putting the interests of our herd first and I tip my hat to them.

Leon


----------

