# QDM Proposal Survey Results



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

"A survey was completed to determine whether hunters and landowners
supported mandatory QDM regulations in Deer Management Unit (DMU) 045.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) supports the voluntary
implementation of QDM practices on private land in Michigan. However,
mandatory regulations should be imposed in a DMU only when it can be shown
that a clear majority (>66%) of hunters and landowners support implementation.
Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of landowners and hunters; 74%
of the landowners and 86% of hunters returned their questionnaire. About 66%
of landowners owning land in DMU 045 and 64% of people hunting deer in DMU
045 supported implementing mandatory QDM regulations. The margins of error
associated with the estimates of support for the QDM regulations were plus or
minus 3-5%. Thus, these estimates were too close to 66% to determine whether
the levels of support were sufficient or insufficient to recommend implementation.


After the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) had reviewed the results of this
survey, they requested that the Wildlife Division prepare a Wildlife Conservation
Order recommending implementation of the proposed QDM regulations in DMU
045. Before implementing QDM regulations, however, the existing sex and age
structure of the deer herd must be assessed so that the effects of QDM
regulations can be evaluated. Currently, insufficient data has been collected to
describe the existing conditions of the deer herd; thus, the Wildlife Division will
recommend that the QDM regulations be delayed until 2003, or until sufficient
data has been collected."


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Thank the Lord! Gather data for a specific area before you make a decision. Someone must be listening eh? <----<<<


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

But is one year of data enough to make a decision on the condition of a deer herd?-h$ll no! 


""""Currently, insufficient data has been collected to 
describe the existing conditions of the deer herd;""""" 


This is just the kind of hidden crap these QDM people pushed. Did THEY have any data themselves on their own deer herd?-obviously not! How did they know, scientifically/biologically whatever, that their herd was in such bad "condidition" that they started to implement a QDM plan?-they didn't, they made it up based more than likely on observation alone! Remember, QDM is about the health of the herd!?!? Once again, its just another reason to vote no on any QDM plan, because its not about the mumbo-jumbo "health of the herd", it all comes down to producing big racks for themselves and forcing people around them to hunt like them.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

B & N, below is the proceedure to be followed to gather base line data taken for implementing a change in regulations for mandatory QDM proposals. 


"Evaluation of the effectiveness of the regulation change:

Evaluation must begin prior to the establishment of the regulation. During hunting seasons of
the year prior to proposal implementation, the sponsor will be required to collect baseline
information on herd age and sex structure. Evaluation of local area regulations will require
intensive data collection and will be the burden of the sponsoring organization. A minimum of
100 bucks and 200 antlerless deer (or all harvested antlerless deer if expected antlerless harvest
is less than 200 animals) will be required for the year prior to season implementation and each
year of the proposed regulation implementation. Deer checked at MDNR-operated check
stations would be included in the sample to increase sample sizes for evaluation. A sample of
this size is needed to assess whether the regulation is having the desired impact on herd age and
sex structure. Details of data collection will be worked out cooperatively between the
sponsoring organization and the Wildlife Bureau staff. Failure to collect the pre-regulation data
(in the year prior to anticipated implementation) will halt the process until this requirement is
satisfied."

The low deer kill last year might have something to do with the shortage of data. But I'm only guessing. Boyd?


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Who is the sponsoring organization? What changes would be instituted (exactly) if it is decided that QDM may be beneficial? Can someone spell it out and be specific? 

I also think that thresholds for change need to be set and agreed upon BEFORE the data is analyzed. For example if the sex ratio is 20:1, and deer numbers are 100/sq mile, average 1.5 year old deer are 75 pounds....etc... This area may benefit from QDM. Set and define your parameters, collect your data, and evaluate based on the standards that are defined. 

Beer and Nuts, If they collect scientific data on herds in areas that are in consideration for QDM, they may find adequate sex ratios and acceptable overall numbers in many areas? I am assuming in such areas QDM would not be considered? I decision based on sound scientific examination is closer to the direction that I can live with. <----<<<


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

The sponsoring organization is Leelanau Whitetails. 

To view the official QDM surveys done by the DNR click on the link below. All three recent surveys are on the top of the list........tm


http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/Wildlife.asp?sublinkid=48&Link=Sub&Linkid=46&imageID=4#


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Joe, some of your questions can be answered by looking at the surveys I mentioned above. I think each proposal has it's own individual recommendations based on herd data in the area and the desires of the sponsoring group with input from the local biologists. Some proposals aim for a 1:1 buck to doe ratio others may ask for 1:2, etc. Each area proposal seems to be slightly different.


The procedures used are nothing new Joe. They were adopted in 1999 and are the benchmard used to implement changes in mandatory QDM regulations. You can find them on the following page. Scoll Down.

http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/Game.asp?Animal=52&LinkID=4&sec=hunt&aPage=3#


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

My mistake! They are not collecting baseline data in Leelanaw to see IF mandatory QDM should be implemented. They are collecting data to measure the effect of QDM WHEN it is mandatory. A couple problems, first off they lowered the bar. They set the limit at 66 percent, didnt meet that limit, but said, "Close enough". If challenged in court they would lose.

Another problem I see is QDM being defined as the limit of buck harvest to 3 points or better on one side. There should also be an educational tool to help protect buttons. Historically, 25% of antlerless harvest will be buttons. Every increase of 100 antleress animals, will lead to the culling of 25 future bucks. We know this to be fact. I thought hunter education was a big part of QDM? They dropped the ball here big time. 

I didn't see one proponent of mandatory QDM that addressed habitat, or heard health (other than age structure)...when is this going to take place? When are they going to assess the herd to decide what should be done BEFORE implementing mandatory QDM. Shouldn't that be the goal? <----<<<


----------



## Captain (Feb 11, 2000)

Anyone know what happen to Neal? Wasn't he defending QDM to the end up in the thumb? Just interested in what he thought of the results....


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

"They set the limit at 66 percent, didnt meet that limit, but said, "Close enough". If challenged in court they would lose."

Who is they?

This kind of irritates and worries me.

We live in a Democracy. The leader of our country was voted in with less than 50% support. But he did get the most votes.

Such an important vote....and Bush sure didnt need 66% of all total votes to be in office.

How enormous a 66% majority is.

Who set this bar? 

As an American, and a lover of democracy, 50.1% approval should meet the bar and the requirements of democracy.

I cringe when I see people say "hey, you guys only achieved a 65% approval vote....obviously a huge majority (65-35), but still not enough votes for you to get ANYTHING AT ALL.

Obviously, the overwhelming majority wants antler restrictions in Leelanau.

The overwhelming majority(2/3) of your fellow hunters and landowners in this area want QDM.

What do you traditional folks hope to gain by telling the 65% majority they cant have mpr's? (because they didnt get 1 more percent)

Are you hoping to have their support and understanding when your MINORITY wants some form of help or compromise? 

Should we as Americans really jump all over the NEED for a 66% approval on anything???

Regardless of the 66% approval, why are you guys so willing to can antler restrictions when the obvious majority of your fellow hunters want them?

Where is the UNITED in the United Sportsmans Alliance?

Heck, it appears that you guys ignore the 65% of hunters that want something different than you.

If 65% cant achieve what they want, the remaining 35% doesnt have a chance. 

If this is a comfortable bar....then it should work both ways.

To sustain traditional management techniques...it should require a 66% approval rate.

I look forward to that vote.

Never the less, I would support traditional management for the next 5 years if 50.1% of our hunters voted for it, it wouldnt take a 66% approval to show me what we should do.

Hunt


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

My point Ed Zachary! Set the bar BEFORE you analyze so we don't have to have this discussion. If it were set at 50.1, that would be cool. I didn't look into the rationale for 66%, but hopefully someone did?

Huntnut, what about mandatory "QDM" only involving antler restrictions? Shouldn't mandatory QDM be a bit more, and address buck to doe ratio, population of the area, and herd health characteristics? <----<<<


----------



## Beagle (Dec 27, 2001)

Just so that everyone is aware.

USA (United Sportsman Alliance) was only active in the Thumb area. And was only formed shortly before the surveys went out. 

To my knowledge this was the only Organized group formed to oppose MPR's in any of the proposed areas. Correct me if I am wrong here.

When both sides of the story was spread (as in the Thumb) the support for MPR's was nearly half of the other two places. 

The procedure was developed in the 1999 jointly with many groups including Ed Spinazzola from the QDMA. I am sure there was a rational behind 66%. Maybe it has to do with needing more than 50% of the hunters to participate in the increased doe kill


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Of course Joe.

I could sit here and name 50 things that could be done in the name of QDM.

Better habitat, better research, more data, buck preservation....

The list goes on and on.

You cant really believe I dont want EVERYTHING possible to be scrutinized and examined!

But there are roadblocks and realities. Our choices were limited from the start.

The DNR and NRC already determined that much of what we would like to see will never happen....buck tag on a button, 1 buck/year, etc....

Also, The state is the biggest hinderance in stateland habitat improvement.

I very much feel that the state has told QDM advocates that: "Out of everything in your game plan, the only thing we will allow you to do is set mandatory antler restrictions, IF, you get 66% approval on them."

This is all we have to work with.

Out of the dozens and dozens of things that would be beneficial to the QDM idea.....mpr's were the only thing we were allowed to try.

If the state allowed me to grab my chainsaw and make better deer habitat in the Manistee forest....I would be there today.

The state said "You get antler restrictions, or nothing".

I dont like antler restrictions!! And they are not part of QDM!

It is the only bone that we are thrown.

Do we pass it up?

No, we have to try..........

And boy have we taken heat for it!

I want studies! I want solid numbers! I want great habitat! 

But you know what? People now look at the QDMA to provide these things.

And blame us when we can not convince the state alone.

I have never seen a hunter say they dont want better habitat and better studies....

The state stops these things and ties the hands of everybody including the QDMA!

Antler restriction blow! But how else do you preserve some bucks when the state mandates that mpr's are the only way you can try?

People say education, education, education..and voluntary. voluntary, voluntary......but do you really believe Jimbo's will ever change his stance? Or Beagle? Or some others in here that have read basically everything there is to read?

They say habitat....we dont have the power.
They say more studies....we dont have the power.
They say vote....we dont have the power.
They say 1 buck/year....we dont have the power.

Most hunters say they agree with qdm...just not antler restrictions....WELL- we dont have the power to try anything OTHER then point restrictions.

Should we quit? Give up? 65% of the hunters and landowners in Leelanau say no!

Are you guys putting pressure on the state to allow the QDMA to implement what you want? Like habitat improvement, more studies, micro-management, etc...?

We take the heat for not providing these things when in all reality WE CANT. Mandated by the STATE.

This is not our fault....and we are trying to change it, even with so much criticism because we cant.

Why cant hunters file a lawsuit against the state like the sierra club did to provide better deer habitat???

Because, I believe, hunters are too busy bashing the QDM over the antler restrictions that are the only thing they have to work with.

The state ,imo, has set us up to fail with only mpr's to work with.

Hunters are falling for it, and slamming the QDMA, even when these hunters agree with most of the QDM idea.

What is stopping you guys from joining the QDMA and taking the state on together to improve habitat, and to improve data?

MPR's wasn't our idea, it was mandated as the only thing we can try. 

Why cant we group up together, and never mumble the words antler restrictions, and take on the state to get the other issues we do agree on implemented????

Why cant we form a huge force and demand more options from the state?

Cant we turn our pointed fingers at the ones who have tied our hands and caused this division?????

No we can't...because it is easier to tell me that all I want is bigger antlers....because I dont address the issues that the STATE SAYS WE CANT.

They are our deer, we paid for them, and paid for the habitat they live in.

The state should NOT have a monopoly on management issues.

The QDMA is the first org in Michigan that I see trying to break up the states monopoly on our deer.

The state likes their monopoly, and gave us mpr's that were doomed to fail to KEEP their monopoly and money.

It is working, because I see more hunters bash the QDMA then I see bash the state.

Why are we falling for it???????????????????????????

Hunt


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

If it is hunters against the state then let us unite? But not under the pretence that we want mandatory QDM. Let us unite and say "we want to know the truth". Lets not try to sell QDM with herd health, ratios, and population characteristics. 

Heck Huntnut, if we could get 65% of the hunters to add one dollar to their deer licenses for research purposes, you and I could conduct wildlife research for years. Wildlife research has always been my dream anyway. <----<<<


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Joe said "I didn't look into the rationale for 66%, but hopefully someone did?"

Yes Joe, someone did. That rational is explained in the Proceedures for Initiation, Evaluation, and Review of Mandatory QDM Proposals.

You can find it by clicking on the link and then scroll down for the above title. The rationale for 66% is found near the end of the document.

http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/Game.asp?Animal=52&LinkID=4&sec=hunt&aPage=3#


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Thanks Tom. I read through the Proceedures for Initiation, Evaluation, and Review of Mandatory QDM Proposals. They must've used the "rectal theory" to come up with the 66% requirement. They do not state (or at least I didn't see it) how they arrived at this figure. Is it just "the law" perhaps? <----<<<


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Tom, I read your link thoroughly, and did not see the reason why a 66% approval is necessary.

It just keeps stating that it is a necessary requirement.

I see surveys that read yes, no, don't know, and don't care.

66% have to vote yes to meet requirements.

no's, don't knows, and don't cares are all counted as "no's".

If our presidential elections required the same results, we wouldn't have had a president in a long time!

Can anyone explain the rationale of needing a solid 66% absolute approval vote for something to happen in the United States?

Hunt


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Did you read Appendix E beginning on page 13?


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Huntnut. 

Did you ask anyone in the Department about these things or are you just assuming what their response will be?

I believe that we were told that if we want to see MANDATORY QDM (APR's) that this is the way it will be done after input and discussion from the working group. There were QDM reps in on the procedure inception so why did they choose to make this recommendation? 

I don't see any mention anywhere that says habitat improvement can't be recommended or suggested by a group or individual. Have you tried to start dialogue with anyone in the department in regards to habitat? Are you prepared to help with these habitat improvements either with voluntary labor or some funding of some sort? The NWTF for example works with the Department on projects very often and at the same time has their own educational campaign that is second to none. They just do it. 

Why do you think the state should be burdened with the QDM education process? Isn't that a job for the QDMA?

I don't wish these questions to be taken as being argumentative in any way. I am just looking for some answers. 

Joe, as far as I can see the 66% figure has been based on previous survey work done by well known researchers at MSU. I seriously doubt they just picked the number out of thin air. Please, read the appendix again.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Tom,

I haven't talked to anyone really....and yes I am starting to form assumptions, mostly based on lack of knowledge.

Yes, I would love to help.

But....

I dont have a ton of money, I have a young wife, in a young marriage, in a young house. My time is spread thin by trying to achieve a foothold in this world...careers, house fixin, etc..

I just dont have the resources or the time to form any organizations....

Perhaps when I retire in 30 years or so I can....but priorities and time currently stop me.

But I do have some weekends, a truck with a bed, a few chainsaws, and a willingness to pitch in.

"I don't see any mention anywhere that says habitat improvement can't be recommended or suggested by a group or individual. Have you tried to start dialogue with anyone in the department in regards to habitat? Are you prepared to help with these habitat improvements either with voluntary labor or some funding of some sort?" 

I have talked with Ed Spinnazola about this....according to him and his efforts, implementing habitat improvement on state land is next to impossible.
They are trying, but so far I believe they have only achieved some grass plots on an untraveled fire trail in one area.
I have offered what I could, but have not received any specific requests for help.

Yes I can help, but I cant organize.

Your link leads me to a bunch of publications.....where is appendix E...and page 13 of what???

I just want to know where the figure 66% came from.

The largest factor that stops me from trying anything in this state is this:

Hunters wont agree, wont reach a consensus, wont come together on any idea.
Compromise does not exist, and I see very very few actual hunters out of 750,000 that even give a rip when its not November.
The DNR scams, politics, and money issues stop me as well.

To achieve a 66% approved idea in this state, means that 495,000 hunters must agree on that idea.

We cant even get 12 deer hunters on this forum to agree on any new idea....let alone 495,000.

That, in itself, is the largest reason I choose not to organize.

I am not even a member of the qdma, but I believe in much of what they promote....

Hunt


----------

