# Just the facts.....a letter of truth.



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

As many of you know, and for those that don't, John Ozoga is one of the most respected and quoted whitetail research biologists in the country. In fact, it has been said he is THE most quoted research biologists in the country. Mr. Ozoga is the author of many books, and many, many magazine articles. Mr. Ozoga is also the research editor for Deer and Deer Hunting magazine and is in his position of respect basically because among his 40 years of experience, Mr. Ozoga is known to only write or communicate fact. Mr. Ozoga does not embelish, or assume, but merely attemps to convey the facts, and only the facts. Mr. Ozoga is a U.P. resident and arguably the state's leading authourity in whitetail research.

Here is a letter that Mr. Ozoga has recently written to each of the 7 NRC commissioners in the state of MI in regards to the upcoming vote concerning DMU 118. This letter is a typed copy of the original, so please excuse any errors.

RE: Quality Deer Management (QDM) in Deer Management Unit (DMU) 118

Dear Mr. Wheatlake:

Its my understanding that recent survey results did not meet the required 66 percent approval rate for continuation of QDM in DMU 118. Unfortunately, this survey was conducted after only four years under QDM instead of five years.

Given the available data, and other considerations, I encourage the Michigan Natural Resources Commission (MNRC) to extend QDM in DMU 118 for the 2004 deer season, change the antler restrictions to four points on a side and revamp the hunter and land owner survey. Please consider the following:

Traditional Deer Management

Traditionally, We have managed Michigan whitetails to maximize recreational opportunities and economic benefits. Weve permitted, and even encouraged excessive buck harvesting, but minimal doe harvesting in order to maintain high density herds. Needless to say, this strategy has resulted in numerous consequences.

In short, hunter demands and economics have dictated deer management policyresulting in a farming-type operation.

On the surface, traditional deer management sounds like an OK system. Unfortunately, every one involved tends to want more and more from the white-tailed resource, without putting much back into it. Such a strategy ultimately becomes a political football, with little regard the whitetails long term welfare.

The antis say we are more concerned with creating living targets than we are with maintaining healthy deer populations.

Quality Deer Management

In the most liberal sense o the definition, Quality Deer Management is the use of restraint in harvesting (young) bucks, combined with an adequate harvest of antlerless deer to maintain the healthy (natural) population that is in balance with the existing habitat conditions.

The goal of QDM is to produce and maintain healthy and productive deer herds with natural sex and age structure. And I emphasize natural. This is the way the white-tailed evolved and existed prior to modern mans intervention.

Keep in mid, the goal of QDM is not to produce big bucks with trophy-sized antlers, theyre merely by products of a healthy, naturally structured deer population. Also, with QDM, deer hunters become true deer managers.

The Future

Ive been involved, as a professional, with deer and deer hunting for over 40 years. Ive seen some changes during that time. But I can assure you, the change will be immense in the next couple of decades, as deer management shifts from an emphasis on quantity to one of quality.

In the future, managers will be require to place greater emphasis on creating and maintaining smaller deer herds that are not only nutritionally balanced, but also socially balanced.

Most hunters probably are unaware, but there is a strong naturalism movement in progress. In the future, greater emphasis will be placed on such things as biodiversity, old growth forest stands, an ecological approach to resource management, and general trend toward producing plant and animal communities more like those that existed prior to the white mans arrival on this continent. These changes will greatly impact whitetailed deer populations, especially on public land.

Depending upon where you get your figures, roughly 10 percent of the American populus are hunters, 10 percent are antihunters, and 80 percent are nonhunters. Most nonhunters are not against hunting, but they are concerned about the welfare of wild species. Well never convert antihunters to hunters, but if we as hunters offend nonhunters, many could become antihunters.

Public concern for animal welfare, and the debate over hunting impacts, more than likely will intensify in the future. (More states are having to amend their constitutions to protect hunting rights. That should tell you something.) This trend, often with a greater emphasis on a hands-off or nonlethal approach to deer management, will take center stage. As a result, the nonhunting public will be more prominent in deciding deer management policies. These nonhunters will ultimately decide whether we hunt deer.

I also think hunters should emulate natural predators whenever possible, by becoming more selective harvesters and inflicting mortality that more closely mimics natural predation. This means holding peer populations in numerical balance with existing food and cover. It also means maintaining deer populations that are in social harmony with proper sex and age structure. This is what QDM is all about.

QDM in DMU 118

There are no cook book rules for QDM that apply nationwide. Each are requires different measures, depending upon a host of factors. This is especially true here in Michigan with the highly variable environmental conditions that prevail.

Unfortunately, the QDM philosophy is based primarily upon experience in southern states. In fact, given our immense hunting army and northern environment, there are those who doubt QDM can be accomplished in Michigan. Therefore, its essential we continue to monitor QDM efforts throughout the state to determine how to implement the strategy under contrasting environmental conditions.

Contrary to the expectations of some, QDM is working in DMU 118, largely because hunters are willing to play a more responsible role in deer management.

Deer hunters in DMU 118 have demonstrated that they can be selective harvesters in order to benefit the species they hunt. Under QDM, harvesting of young bucks (including buck fawns) has decreased sharply and harvesting of female deer has increased. The net results include a smaller deer population that has more natural sex and age structure, including more older bucks in the population. Even antler quality among older bucks has improved, indicating that deer numbers are in better balance with available food and cover resources. All this has taken place without compromising recreational benefits.

Antler Restrictions

None of us like to see mandated antler restrictions. Currently, however, there seems no other way to save young bucks from harvest so that more of them reach maturity. In time, as the buck population becomes more structured, and hunters become more experienced, voluntary compliance is more likely.

DMU 118 provides rich deer habitat. As a result, even a large proportion of yearling bucks tend to grow respectable antlers with six or more points. Therefore, protecting young bucks with fewer that three points on one side will only protect a modest proportion of the yearling bucks, in this case about 50 percent. Also, as the beneficial effects of QDM become more evident, yearling buck antler size will improve, and the three point rule will protect fewer of them.

For these reasons, I would recommend that the antler restriction rule in DMU 118 be changed to a minimum of four points on one side.




The Survey

Any resource manager will tell you, youre doing well whenever you can satisfy more that one-half of those involved in any deer management issue. Hoping to satisfy 66 percent of them, as required to implement QDM in Michigan, is nothing short of ridiculous.

The survey currently being used here is modeled after that used in Georgia. (I might add, the Georgia DNR was not initially sympathetic with QDM philosophy, and in my view attempted to roadblock such change.) Face facts, this is not Georgia, and we are not dealing with Georgia Deer Hunters. As you well know, Michigan deer hunters are notoriously traditional and disagreeableif you can satisfy more than 50 percent, thats great.

Im disappointed that the Michigan DNR could not be more original in designing a survey that was better suited to their clientele. They do have the expertise, dont they?

Also, each person surveyed should be provided with pertinent data (scientific facts) concerning sex and age of deer harvested prior to and during QDM. Without such information, the respondent has no sound basis for making an intelligent decision.

Conclusions

Nearly 60 percent of the hunters and land owners involved recognize that QDM is working in DMU 118. Th MNRC and MDNR should do likewise, and acknowledge that the QDM experience in DMU 118 is too valuable to abandon. 

Lets not lose sight of the fact that hunting is a wildlife management toolnot an end in itself. Deer shouldnt be managed soled for recreational and economic benefits. Instead, we should be managing deer as they evolvedsocially and nutritionally balanced. This means we as hunters should be more concerned about our role as deer predators, and how our actions benefit the species we hunt, not the other way around. 

QDM will not resolve all issues concerning the hunting debate or deer-human conflicts, but its the best weve got. It certainly will complement a natural approach to deer management much better than traditional practices that emphasize human interests, recreational benefits, and economics. And, in the long-run, QDM should prove much more palatable to a critical nonhunting public who are deeply concerned about the welfare of wild creatures.

Generally speaking, we have a choice. We hunters (and decision makers) can either lead the way with progressive QDM, in an effort to create more natural deer populations, and show our true concern for the long-term welfare of the white-tailed, or we can wait until weve literally forced into actionjust to save our sport

Sincerely,



John J. Ozoga
Wildlife Research Biol., MDNR (ret.)
Research Editor, Deer & Deer Hunting Magazine


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Wow. Really powerful stuff, coming from one of the most highly-respected names in all of deer management. 

Nothing to add! 

Thanks for sharing, Jeff.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Awesome.


ferg...


----------



## tgafish (Jan 19, 2001)

"This means we as hunters should be more concerned about our role as deer predators, and how our actions benefit the species we hunt, not the other way around"

I found that quote very thought provoking.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Thanks for doing all of the typing to post the letter here NorthJeff. I don`t think there is a person north of Mason-Dixon that knows as much about white-tailed deer as John Ozoga does. If the NRC fails to heed John`s recommendations it only serves to prove how out of touch with sound scientific management they really are.


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

Very Nice!!


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

I hope this is readable it's the best I could do.


----------



## funebonz880 (Feb 17, 2004)

no i cant see it.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

This gets e-mailed to all those who may have a say. Maybe the best post ever, especially considering the source.


----------



## mike hartges (Jun 9, 2003)

That's a great post! I also think the 66% requirement is wrong. That needs to be changed.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

I'm coming in here for now, where it's safe!!!!

That's a very impressive letter by J.O.

As most of your QDM Forum regulars know, I have not been a stalwart supporter of QDM implementation, over the course of the past two years. However, I can tell you that I have been slowly nudged towards support of QDM and have come to the conclusion that it is worthy of implementation, state wide for five years, if for no other reason than to see if it will work here in Michigan. Yes or no! Will it work? Let's find out!!

This forum used to be the bane of the administrators/moderators of this site. Through the efforts of the many people, that has changed. You all must be thanked and commended for your efforts in toning down the rhetoric and passion. It used to get very ugly in here, due to both sides of the issue jumping on each other. Some of those folks, on both sides, are no longer associated with the site, and others have learned.

Thanks guys for the civil, knowledgable, and forthcoming way in which you have discussed QDM in this forum for the past year.


----------



## Lenaweebowhunter (Sep 15, 2003)

Wow!!

I have been a long time undersudent of Johns' for many years, reading his numberus articles in deer mag's and his books.

He is sending a powerfull message that cant be disagreed upon from a scientific managment position.

If our states NRC goes against this then I will asuume they are sending a powerfull message to all deer hunters here in this state, that they not only will not consider a positve change for our deer herds sake; but are willing to put it on record!


----------



## fishandhunt (Dec 14, 2000)

Snopes  ........Just Kidding!


The letter is great. The concepts are great and the requirement for 66% is BS.

Give it a chance and let the results speak for themselves.

I am still in favor of an "any buck" lottery and then a general sale of restricted licenses.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fishandhunt _
> *Snopes  ........Just Kidding!
> 
> *


too funny F&H

ferg....


----------



## davidshane (Feb 29, 2004)

I like many have concidered J.O. the supreme knowledgeable one when it comes to knowing whitetails. When I read articals about scrapes, rubs, rut, moon phases, ete, etc, I often found conflicting information. I always had to make sure I got his opinion on matters. I will say this with the utmost certaincy, J.O's statements of topics have always been based of fact that he concluded from field research.

These days, politicians makes all the dicission. Normally, there discissions are based on vote getting and not what is right. I am proud that John Ozoga is here to champion a cause that needs a champion badly. 

Thanks NJ for posting his letter. When will we know if the NRC heard him or not?


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

They've heard him....I can just about guarentee They'll probably be sick of that letter by the end of April.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

The most difficult part of wildlife management is not managing the wildlife, but managing people.

Because I believe this to be the case I also think the NRC and DNR is obligated to base decisions on more than natural science. They must also consider the political and social science available or the decisions they make would be hard for anyone to live with.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Tom,

Your exactly right. And here they have a management philosophy that not only has improved the quality of the hunt, and hunted, but is supported by nearly 60% of the hunters in the area.

So, you have the best of science, supported by 5 years of local data and 30+ years of national data, and it's supported by the hunters. Thats got to be a slam dunk decision for them. There jobs couldn't get much easier.


----------

