# QDMA Editorial on Mandatory Antler Restrictions



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

I've attached below the editorial by Brian Murphy, QDMA Executive Director, regarding mandatory antler restrictions that appeared in the June 2004 Quality Whitetails. Hopefully, this will help you to better understand QDMA's current position on the subject.


Editorial
By Brian Murphy
Quality Whitetails, June 2004

It should come as no surprise that as Quality Deer Management (QDM) has increased in popularity, so, too, has the interest in mandatory antler restrictions at the state, regional and county level. However, in some areas, the QDMA mistakenly has become synonymous with the push for such regulations. In fact, some hunters who support voluntary QDM are not associating with or joining the QDMA because of the perception that we are solely about mandatory antler restrictions, which is clearly not the case.

In an effort to clarify this issue, on pages 1422 we have outlined many of the mandatory antler restriction programs being tried at the state, regional and county level. As you will read, many approaches are being tried with varying degrees of success. While most wildlife biologists support QDM, many are divided on the best way to achieve it over a broad area. All agree that no single approach is perfect, and each has limitations. Most, however, do not support antler-point restrictions due to the potential for high-grading (taking the larger-antlered yearling bucks while leaving the smaller-antlered yearling bucks). Instead, they generally advocate buck harvest by age followed in no particular order by spread, beam length and gross Boone & Crockett score.

Despite this, antler-point restrictions are most commonly used because they are easier for hunters to follow and more enforceable. Antler-point restrictions can be effective in areas where the vast majority of yearling bucks do not meet the established antler-point minimum. For example, in the poor soils of Florida, a simple fork-antlered rule protects the majority of yearling bucks. However, in the agricultural belt of the Midwest, this approach would protect very few yearling bucks and be counterproductive. The key to any antler restriction is that it is established on a site-specific basis. An innovative slot limit approach is being tested in six counties in Texas where the smallest yearling bucks are eligible for harvest as are those meeting at least one of several more stringent requirements, with the bucks in between being protected. This approach, or some variation of it, may prove most effective over the long run for most whitetail herds.

So where does that leave the QDMAs position on mandatory antler restrictions? The bottom line is that the history of mandatory antler restrictions is still too brief for us to objectively determine which approach (or approaches) is most effective. In some areas we have supported mandatory antler restrictions, while in others we have not. In general, we would prefer QDM to be voluntarily adopted throughout the whitetails range and ingrained as the modern deer hunting ethic. Evidence suggests this is happening, albeit more quickly in some areas than others. Over the long run, voluntary adoption, we believe, has the best chance of being sustainable and successful, because participants understand and actively support the approach. We recognize, however, that mandatory antler restrictions can achieve population changes more quickly than voluntary adoption. We also recognize that some deer herds need more immediate and drastic measures than others. For this reason, we will continue to objectively assess each mandatory antler proposal to determine our level of support.

To date, the QDMA has considered three primary factors when gauging support for a mandatory antler restriction. First, the restriction selected should be biologically sound. This means that it protects a high percentage of yearling bucks while not protecting a significant percentage of bucks two years old or older. Second, the restriction should be supported by a majority of those affected. Many states have adopted a two-thirds level of support for this determination, which may be optimistic because its difficult to get this percentage of hunters to agree on anything. Our decisions are based on a minimum level of support of 50 percent, with consideration given to how well the program meets the two other criteria. Our third requirement is that a comprehensive monitoring program is implemented in the affected area. Without such a program, there is no way to objectively determine the effectiveness of the strategy. 

It must also be pointed out that mandatory antler restrictions alone are not QDM. In addition to protection of young bucks, comprehensive QDM programs involve active doe harvests, habitat management and record keeping. Another important consideration regarding mandatory antler restrictions is their perception of permanency. Many hunters mistakenly believe that once an antler restriction is in place it should remain in place forever without change. Deer management should be viewed as an adaptive process that will require changes over time as more biological information becomes available and hunter attitudes and abilities change. Clearly, we live in a dynamic era of whitetail management. It is my personal hope and belief that as the QDM philosophy becomes more ingrained in North Americas deer hunting culture, mandatory antler restrictions will become unnecessary and even cumbersome to managing whitetails at a higher level.

Brian Murphy,
Executive Director


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Thanks for posting Boyd.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Very interesting!

Those that are against QDM because they relate the use of AR's as the only goal of the QDMA, should now be able to see for theirselves that we're not just trying to grow monster bucks for trophy hunters. 

AR's are only a tool, not the only option, not needed at all in some areas, limited use in others, and definately not a one-size-fits-all program.

This comes directly from the top of the QDMA.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Yup, I would say Brian's editorial covers the topic well.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Then my question to all of you QDMers' that have come on here pushing/defending AR's from Clare to SW Michigan to SE Michigan to NW Lower Peninsula to finally the whole UP--why were you knocking us anti-AR's people when we argued against AR in all these proposals??? "Do not condemn the judgment of another because it differs from your own. You may both be wrong!"

Letmgo - "Those that are against QDM because they relate the use of AR's as the only goal of the QDMA, should now be able to see for theirselves that we're not just trying to grow monster bucks for trophy hunters. """

Then why isn't QDM organizations pushing harder for those "other goals" then just AR's areas across the state. I understand some chapters do alot of habitat work but I think its on the minority side when you compare how much effort is into trying to pass AR proposals.

With the above said from QDMA, what are the "conditions" or "standards" used to determine when AR's shoudl be used or NOT used? Also, has there been studies done in the Michigan AR's areas that say "YES" this area needs AR's because..???????


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

beer and nuts - 
ar's can be useful. you can statistically determine how many bucks you save based on an area, based on a certain number of points.

in my opinion, a large part of the opposition to ar's is 1) hunter sentiment 2) establishing proper ar's for the area.

those are tough sells on both fronts.

i agree with the stance of this article. but don't take it to mean that there is no validity or usefulness of ar's.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

beer and nuts said:


> Then why isn't QDM organizations pushing harder for those "other goals" then just AR's areas across the state. I understand some chapters do alot of habitat work but I think its on the minority side when you compare how much effort is into trying to pass AR proposals.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I think they are promoting the other goals B&N. It's just that AR's are such a hot topic, that many overlook all the other efforts by these QDMA branches that go into trying to achieve a more balanced deer herd.
> ...


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

You might want to read this article about the recent research from PA that states that it is soil fertility,climate , farm crops and habitat that controls the breeding rates and length of the breeding period ,rather than the B/D ratio or the age structure of the buck herd.

http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?Q=162347&A=11


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

""QDM co-ops with voluntary AR's are springing up all over Michigan. Hunters see and hear about the results, and become interested in participating at the level they feel comfortable with.""" Thats a one way street! Lots of co-ops that implement AR spring up every day and say they practice QDM, but alot continue their old harvest techniques/results. Wouldn't a better QDM co-op be one that has nothing to do with AR, but co-ops with voluntary "more does than bucks harvest ratio". I mean, that would get you a balanced herd not AR's?!? But I guess that doesn't sell memberships and clover seeds.

Keep it voluntary and everybody will be happy!!!


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Now wait a minute B&N, that's an unfair assessment of QDM co-ops. Less than 20% of the people in our co-op are QDMA members, and there's absolutely nothing in writing that says you have to harvest a certain quality of buck. A gentlemen's agreement if you will. And we don't sell anything either.

We harvested 23 does and 26 bucks last year. Not bad. Room for improvement, but not bad.

I don't forsee any of the 80% that aren't QDMA members dropping out due to discontent over their own voluntary AR rules, and I have no reason to believe that the many other QDM co-ops would be different than ours.

They, (we) derserve credit for managing for a better deer herd, not rediculed because we use QDM management guidelines.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

I'm not ridiculing anybody BUT you prove my point when you say ""we use QDM management guidelines"", NO YOU DON"T! When a group harvests more bucks than does, you just failed QDM as it stands. BUT I will give you credit for trying, but you are not practicing QDM, you are just trying to practice QDM. Now with that said, I'm sure you are the minority when it comes to putting a better effort forward in trying to implement a balanced herd(being who YOU are and your dedication from this site, is where I would draw this conclusion from).


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Some folks just don't have much better to do.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

beer and nuts said:


> When a group harvests more bucks than does, you just failed QDM as it stands. BUT I will give you credit for trying, but you are not practicing QDM, you are just trying to practice QDM. QUOTE]
> 
> Again I disagree with your assessment.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ogre (Mar 21, 2003)

The editorial states that antler restrictions are not a QDM goal. Everyone agrees and yet the topic will not die and it is obviously a contentious inflammatory point. It is certainly not the average Joe that keeps the topic in the news or thinks or even talks about the issue. If antler restrictions are keeping the message from being received then why not drop the subject. I will say this on my behalf, and also with every one of the people that I have this conversion with (100%), antler restrictions are not well received. In fact, antler restrictions typically invoke expletive deleted types of retorts and in some case actions and I'm not into self destruction. When alternatives have been presented for discussion within some of the recent threads they always get knocked down and the threads always come back to restrictions. No one is opposed to taking more doe but I am vehemently opposed to antler restrictions. There was a recent proposal for example of simply one buck per year and then the thread morphed into what about button bucks and then what about this and what about that and then antler restrictions came into the picture and became the accepted answer. Understand that antler restriction verbiage becomes a flash point, it will not sell, however, goals about balancing herd demographics are valid. There is no one right method to achieve these balanced demographics so my suggestion is to move the discussion along and forget antler restrictions. Next, keep an open mind and try not to find fault with every idea presented as some are making an attempt to meet many of you half way.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Letmgro,
Just curious, what county is your co-op in ? 23 does & 26 bucks aren't very impressive numbers for 2600 acres if you're in Midland Co. 

L & O


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

L&O, Those figures are based on last years total of 2111 acres in Alcona county. This year it is at 2600 acres. Alot less deer than what there use to be, but still more than some (not all) would like.

ogre- I think for the most part, those who come to this forum need to just learn to agree to disagree. It's o.k. to discuss AR's, and it's O.k. to disagree with those that take a different position than yourself.

As I said, I'm not in favor of pushing for manditory AR's anymore. BUT, you need to understand that the use of AR's have been very successful in many areas, and the topic should continue to be debated.

AR's (both voluntary and manditory), are an effective tool in many areas, and in many private co-ops, hunt clubs, and consolidations, and they'll probably be around for a long time.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Those numbers are pretty good for Alcona Co. Do you think most members report all of the deer that they take ? For example, how many report taking a button buck ?
How many years has it taken to get your members ?
L & O


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Letmgro said:


> AR's (both voluntary and manditory), are an effective tool in many areas, and in many private co-ops, hunt clubs, and consolidations, and they'll probably be around for a long time.


I suspect that Antler Restrictions will indeed be around, and be discussed, for a long time; 
probably until we reach the point where the majority of deer hunters can successfully age deer on the hoof before making a harvest decision, and then are able to pass on the yearling (1.5 year old) bucks they see REGARDLESS of what the hell their antlers look like.

Until then, it would appear that AR's are the coming thing, with states other than Michigan leading the way.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

L&O-Yes I've had people report taking button bucks and spikes and 3 and 4 points. Some accidents, some not.

I believe that people are honest, and if they wanted to lie, then they probably wouldn't have wanted to participate in the first place.

This past season was the 3rd year, and the first season of 100% harvest reporting.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

""Why B&N do you believe that QDM co-ops are not a good thing for any given area?"" Yes-much like AR's have been proven not good for given areas! 

If designated QDM co-ops are only practicing AR with the same harvest technique as in their past, than yes, they are not a good thing. At this point your co-op is harvesting more bucks than does, absolutely do different than state wide numbers/averages and your co-op is harvesting small bucks/button bucks, but yet I'm sure you have QDM signs all over that 2100 acre co-op(maybe not I don't know). Again, I know your educating and trying but no way are you practcing QDM, maybe on your property but not the co-op. I think you would be surprised how many "co-ops" are practicing AR's(and calling it QDM) and nothing more than that, and that is not a good thing for the herd and balance(as stated what QDM is suppose to be about!).


----------

