# Listen UP DNR



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Ok, enough of this over and over agian stuff. Lets decide on a few things. For one, as we know we all don't agree n this QDM stuff, but from what I have read, most agree on a few matters. I think we need to start on these, so here is my take on them. Now remember I'm trying to meet in the middle on this.

1. Restrict buck harvest. Only way to do this is limit buck tags. Looks like a majority likes the one for bow, one for gun suggestion. One thing I believe will happen with this is that a good majority will be more selective in their harvest(plus QDM) and on the other hand you still give an individual the opportunity to harvest whatever that hunter wants. This will also leave a good more percentage of bucks in the woods for next year.

2. Button buck issue. No doubt this is the biggest one 90% agree on. Somethig needs to be done to "save" these guys. Suggestion: If you shoot one and you have a buck tag, the button must be tagged with it. Now if you only have a doe tag left and you shoot a button, tag it with the doe tag and you must "register" it at a DNR check station to receive a special button tag along with your doe tag, this must be done within a 24 hour period after the kill. 

3. Better doe management. This a tough one due to restraints on DNR personal. This will only get accomplished if the DNR can get more personal in the field. Frankly, I believe doe permits are way to liberal and lots of areas have suffered because of it(an dareas that are vice versa). Best way, is to limit the number of permits an individual can purchase, period. I believe two(2) is a good number. I also believe us hunters need to manage our hunting areas better as individuals, this is where QDMA can play a better role. 

These are three issues that the majority of hunter agree on and should be a starting argument for alot of the organizations that have the influence on the DNR. Its a start....... 



4.


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2002)

Throw in the license increase for habitat improvement and it's perfect.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Some good ideas. I'll limit my current comments to buck fawns, which I agree with B&Ns comments that a significant majority of hunters agree on tagging as bucks.

Over the years, several people and groups have made proposals to the NRC that buck fawns / button bucks be tagged as a buck. And it has been countered that this could make violators out of hunters. With this in mind, I testified before the NRC in 2000 that buck fawns should be tagged as a buck, and if the hunter didn't have a buck tag, then tag the deer with their antlerless license tag (no penalties involved period). This type of reg would leave hunters with very little incentive to violate, and I believe there would be a significant amount of peer support / pressure to comply with the law. There would be no risk to the deer resource. 

From the posts here and comments by others, it may be time to revisit this issue. 

Final note / opinion: there are way too few COs to cover the state, and it's up to us hunters to enforce ethics.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

B&N,

I'd happily go along with a 1 buck tag, but since hunters have proven they are happy to include yearlings as over 80% of the annual buck harvest, it really doesn't solve the problem. Out of around 40 hunters within 2 miles of my house, I know of 10 bucks shot, and no one shot more than 1 each, so a 1 buck tag would have been ineffective.

Also, believe it or not, there are areas that are srceaming to have the does shot, and not enough are being harvested. In Menominee county we have up to 105 deer per square mile-stunted, malnourished, single-fawned, underweight,( but healthy otherwise)deer. Also, just because they sell doe tags doesn't mean you have to use them. Kind of like the checkbook theory-they'll give you more checks, but that doesn't mean you have any more money in the bank, if you don't have the money, don't write a check.

I think it's a great idea to have someone use a buck tag on a BB.

So we limit bucks tags to 1, now the 1 has to cost $26(or whatever they cost nowdays x 2), add in money for the habitat improvement-say roughly $10, that's $36, now add in the millions of dollars the loggers, large paper corp, the feds, state, and private intrest groups will loose because the state is managing for wildlife, and not "boards per foot", and timber production, and I probably couldn't afford my house payment.

I understand what you are saying, but some things we can control, some things we can't.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

jimbos43 suggested to throw in the license increase for habitat improvement and it's perfect. Can someone bring me up-to-date on what ever happened to the $1.50 from the deer license that was earmarked for the DRIP (Deer Range Improvement Program)? Is the program still active?


----------



## leon (Jan 23, 2000)

Hey North Jeff, 

Great to have you on this forum. We need some more Yoopers throwing in their two cents worth. Welcome aboard....

LH


----------



## multibeard (Mar 3, 2002)

Ear marked money never gets heard. When I was on the board of the Southen Michigan Trappers Assn. We had money earmarked for trapper education when we OKed a big raise in our trappers licence. I have never seen any trapper education come out of the DNR. Where did that money go? Do you guys really think only one buck licence law will be followed. There are plenty of hunters now that don't stop at 2 bucks. Just buy somebody who doesn't hunt a tag and use that. It's just that easy and has been going on for years. What is your chance of getting caught with as few CO's as we have. Seems that there was money earmarked for more CO's in one bunch of licence increases and I don't think that came about either. Must be in the EAR FUND!!!!


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

> _Originally posted by bwiltse _
> *With this in mind, I testified before the NRC in 2000 that buck fawns should be tagged as a buck, and if the hunter didn't have a buck tag, then tag the deer with their antlerless license tag (no penalties involved period).*


I could agree with that one! It leaves an option, it does permit an honest mistake by an honest hunter. I would add to increase education of button bucks too.


----------



## Guest (Mar 29, 2002)

You mean to tell me were all going to agree on something? 

After all of these months of bantering back and forth (to put it mildly) what did we do wear each other out?

Boehr, how and the heck would we go about getting the DNR to make changes on anything anyway?

Do you ever make any suggestions to the higher ups on the what the sportsmen in the state would like to see?


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Boehr,

Thats a great idea with the hunter education for BB's. Down in KY they actually have info regarding this matter, as well as QDM and why it works an why they follow it. They print it right in the rules and regs, in the middle of the pamplet-basically a magazine article. 

I talked to Terry Menzie, a District Wildlife Biologist about that up here in the U.P., and he said they wouldn't print something like that in the rules and regs, and that it was up to groups like the QDMA to educate the hunters, instead of the DNR. He said the DNR is not into education.

If we could get them to print an article in the rules and regs about bb's, I feel that would at least open some eyes and save a few. My brother and I had to teach my dad only to shoot the biggest doe in a group of 3 or more, to not shoot lone does, tips on basic BB anatomy, and if he had time(such as people do with bait piles, food plots, farm fields), to really scope the head, even if it was much larger than the rest of the deer-just to try and make sure. Even in areas of experienced, trained hunters, in managed herds, BB hunting mortality can still be around 10% if there is heavy doe harvest needed. It would be nice if we could at least get it down to 15-20%, if it's not already.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Jeff, final numbers have not yet been compiled for the past hunting season, but should be available in a few months. I've heard a lot of good comments on the MDNR hunting guide inclusion of a page on how to identify button bucks. That's only been a couple of years ago and it usually takes some time to see the actual results / benefits. I agree and believe there's no question/doubt as to the importance of education.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Boyd,

What have the BB numbers traditionally been in the past-weren't they up in the 30's in some areas for percentage of doe harvest?


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

> _Originally posted by jimbos43 _
> *You mean to tell me were all going to agree on something?
> 
> After all of these months of bantering back and forth (to put it mildly) what did we do wear each other out?
> ...


 I haven't worn out but on the button buck, that's the first time, and I don't read every post, that I have seen an idea that I as a hunter and a CO can agree with and I believe it's a good idea. It's still voluntary of sorts, it allows a mistake, it puts deer management on the hunter, it provides for a period of learning and experience, it doesn't take away from any first time hunter, a hunter that has never shoot any buck etc., etc.

I have often offered ideas about hunting and fishing management, law changes etc. Law changes are listened to with greater interest by Lansing because that's the buisness I'm in. I won't say management ideas are listened to with as great of interest because I am not a biologist. As far as management issues, I take them to the District Biologist and let him take them up the ladder because that's the buisness he/she is in. It also gives me a chance, when discussing ideas with the biologist to get input from someone that is much more of an expert in management then I am, I'm just a novice like most of us in that field. After that discussion I sometimes find out that my idea isn't so great after all. But that is done by discussion and looking at all the pros and cons involved, the big picture so to speak.

To answer your question how to take it up to the higher ups, I would invite your local biologist to your sportsmen club. Be nice as we all know the local guy doesn't make the rules but if you want to sell your idea do it with some credability. Get MUCC involved. Once you get those two involved and get support from them, then it's ready for Lansing. Clubs can show a better representation of hunters in general than individuals saying they represent hunters.

I believe that change could be accomplished by the NRC if they were sold on the idea and the backing of the hunters. At this point I would recommend not going to legislators with it unless you want politics involved early on and in my opinion that would not be wise. That's a last resort.


----------



## Guest (Mar 29, 2002)

That's very interesting Boehr, thanks for the detailed reply.

What would be nice is if the DNR had some sort of polling section on it's web-site to get a feel for hunters opinions. It at least would give the impresion that someone was listening to us.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Jeff, as far as I know, they haven't made it into the 30's statewide. In recent years, its been running in the low to mid 20s, still leaving plenty of room for improvement.

Boehr has good thoughts on how best to get it a change. And I definitely wouldn't want to get legislators involved. A great way / place to involve other organizations is to attend the NRC meetings, which gives you a great opportunity to informally talk with the commissioners, MDNR reps, sportsmen groups, etc.

While I'm seeing more and more support for tagging a button buck with a buck tag, there's still a great deal of leg work to get complete buy-in from the various organizations. And as Boehr said we need to clearly demonstrate that the support is there, while generating significant credibility.

Also, discuss with your local biologist as Boehr suggested. I plan on it, and let's revisit this item in a few months and discuss what the reaction has been of other organizations and what support and progress has been made on this issue.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

boehr,

I see you don't believe in AR, or Mandatory QDM.

Must be conflict of principles then when you have to hand out those citations for sub-legal inch violations for fish.

Why not just catch anything you want, with little regard to re-production, effective spawing, increased meat , or a viable population of mature species? like we currently do with the deer herd?

Seriously, I just want you to think about this.

You'll hear this from me over and over again, but QDM just takes basic, biological principles and implements them in an appropriate management plan that can fit any area of the country. It's also so basic it can fit with many different game species.

See what this sound like: We take a species, limit the number harvested, encourage a structured age class in both sexes, encourage healthy reproducton rates, a population in balance with nature, and size limits in accordance with healthy growth patterns. 

Did I desribe QDM, or the way we manage the various fish populations within the state?

Whats the difference? Why is basic biology applied to fish, but not deer?

QDM isn't just an organization or a theory, it's representation of population dynamics in tune with nature, from fish, to deer, to elk.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

To answer your question, if I catch a fish and it is undersize I can let it go and it's still alive. I can't bring a deer back to life if I shoot it.Nope, I have no problem at all with giving those tickets because QDM is not mandatory or a violation of law. 

When we talk QDM and I oppose mandatory not for myself but in the big picture of things. In my opinion, it is a radical change from something that has also proven to have worked for a hundred years and we have had some of the largest herd sizes in recent years. To make something that radical of a change after years of doing it one way we need to go slowly and educate. As much as I was always opposed to snagging when we started it, we even slowly made that illegal, it wasn't one day it's legal, the next day it was illegal, that took place slowly of the course of years.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I can see your point boehr, but with a deer you can always decide to pull the trigger or not, and when a fish is hooked, it's hooked, then you see what size it is-sometimes they even die when too small.

I guess part of the problem is the mindset of the kill. I really don't think people for the most part look at a deer when they are about to pull the trigger and view themselves as managers, and that they are making a management decision.

The Superior Deer Management group over in Rock recently pulled junior highers in the urban area(about as urban as it gets in the U.P. anyways) of Gladstone/Escanaba. Over 95% supported antler restriction, even though most had never shot a deer, and over 90% of high schoolers supported antler restrictions. 

Do those numbers suggest that teenagers are easily duped, or that they are open to doing what's right when presented with the facts, without the many experienced years of tradition and complacency to blur their foresight?

I agree, old habits are hard to break. Luckily I also hunt in a state like PA every year in which they are bucking the tradition of old habits and making the entire state one big QDM unit. They might burn Dr. Alts house down, but it's great to see someone doing the right thing for once, at the possible expense of his own career, instead of pacifying tradition and old habits.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Jeff, I can understand your point but I feel that I must also think about the majority of hunters in Michigan. I don't care what they do in other states as there are many different laws in other states that deal with more than just deer. If I felt, or if someone could show me that the majority of all deer hunters were for mandatory QDM then I would say fine, let's change it tomorrow. Mandatory QDM would not effect me as a hunter. Even this forum on QDM has a very divided group of hunters who really have a passion for hunting or they would not obviously be here talking about hunting at this time of the year. Maybe at some point we can go mandatory but it will not happen right away because too many hunters are still learning about it and opposed to it. Franky some of the pro QDM mandatory people do not provide educational answers, they want to resort to put downs. That's my opinion.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

boehr,

I guess that's where we differ the most. Other states are very applicable! PA has just as many hunters as MI, with similiar deer numbers, and just as stong as traditions and attitudes. The commisioners in PA consider QDM so important that the entire state will be 3pts on a side minimum, with 25% actually being 4 pts on a side-pursued and lobbied BEFORE the hunters approved. Doe harvest will also be greatly improved, and clearcut's will still also be fenced for 3 or 4 years to allow for habitat re-generation. 

If we don't learn from other areas, and other states, we will never reach our potential. It's the same with corporations, in business, life, and of course, game management.

I think another area we disagree on is hunter opinion. Do you believe as a hole, that the average hunter is informed enough to make management decisions for the deer herd? It is a very complicated issue. PA didn't think the public did, so they went with their program, but at the same time sent Dr. Alt to enough meetings to reach every person in the state of PA, within 20 miles of their home. He's done this over a 2 year period, over 200 meetings, and the people of PA have responded very well, and have been educated in the process. He's getting approval numbers at most meetings now in the 90% range.

MI could be very similiar to PA, if we chose to be open to that.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Jeff...first I will say I am enjoying this conversation with you because it is being done in a civil manner so far and I hope it continues to be. During our discussion I will try to keep an open mind as I hope you do to.

As far as PA, I will agree that state being somewhat like MI because of deer numbers, size of the state, hunter numbers and climate. One of the differences that I understand from your post is that this educational process has went on for 2 years in PA and at best we are only into the process for 1 year and even that has not reached many hunters. I would also state that WI would be a state very much like MI but there are many states that don't compare either in being a lot like MI, PA or WI. For example Mississippi is not even close in hunter numbers herd size, climate or habitat although I have seen that state used. So as long as your comparisons are close to what MI is like, I would be happy to take those into consideration. But please don't use states like Mississippi that don't compare.

The average hunter I also agree doesn't have enough knowledge to make management decisions. Unlike many of the hunters on this site who I feel do have information to share and have been in different areas of this state.

Much of the debate I have been involved in on this thread involves button bucks. I don't know what PA plans on in that regard but I will check the PA DNR Site and attempt to educate myself in that regard.

As far as different type of QDM and the 3 & 4-point rule that PA is going to, MI has been half-way there with the regs on the second buck and some of the special regulations in certain areas on the first buck so I don't believe it's not like MI is doing nothing.
My personal view on management and I have stated a long time ago on site that back in the 80's I tried to sell an idea for Huron County to make it a draw for bucks and sell antlerless deer over the counter more or less. I thought Huron County would be an excellent place to attempt this experiment because it would have little effect on any other part of the state if for some reason it failed miserably. Huron County in the late 60's was an area with no deer and by the mid to late 80's it was crawling with deer. Highway killed deer number were way up, complaints of crop damage were terrible and what a better place to have a small number of deer but quality deer. Hunters wanted to listen to it but I could not sell my idea outside the county, to the DNR or anywhere else. So quality deer is not something I am against. I have practiced it myself since 1982 when I shot my last button buck.

Along with quality deer we must also have proper habitat. This is something that I also believe has been a hidden agenda to many hunters and professionals at the same time. We must reduce the herd and we must get the buck to doe ratio better. In order to do that we must lower the overall herd size and maintain a herd size to match the habitat. I am not 100% opposed to the baiting but abnormal amounts and continuous feeding throughout the year does provide for an artificial herd size that the habitat cannot support. As with having older bucks and older deer with a way to take out those older deer and have them restocked with the younger deer, as they get older we must come to a consensus of the total size of the herd. Obviously the herd size will differ from county to county. Of course TB is an issue even though some believe it's always been there and has been blown out of proportion and maybe it has, I can't say for sure but now we also have to watch for CWD and who knows what else might come along. All great reasons for getting the herd under control and doing what's best.

I will agree with you that deer management is a very, very complicated issue and it is difficult to focus in on one specific issue without taking everything into consideration. As we take these things into consideration we must also know what is our overall goal for achieving everything we want to achieve, something that has been left out of many discussions for QDM. It is unfortunate that many debates settle on one item so maybe between you and me, along with anyone else that may want to participate we can educate each other, educate others and make compromises that will put us all on a path to do whats best for the deer herd and maintain a great recreational opportunity for those that participate in it.

I look forward to our continuing discussion.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Thanks boehr and Jeff for the excellent posts and discussion.


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

Jeff, Boehr and Boyd..Thanks for your input, check out the last few posts on the "one simple question" thread, your thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks again


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

JeffI did some research on the Pennsylvania Game Commission Site and I find many things there are still very similar to Michigan. I find that for the third year in a row, Dr. Gary Alt, Pennsylvania Game Commission Deer Management Section supervisor is still going around and continues his education to the hunters. I also find that under PA law their definition of antlerless deer states, Antlerless deerA deer without antlers, or a deer with antlers both of which are less than 3 inches in length. Same as it does in Michigan.

PAs proposed 2002-2003 seasons are what you say basically but it is just starting and I dont see them being any further ahead of MI but in reality they are somewhat behind us because of our second buck regs.

Here are PAs proposals

DEER, ARCHERY (Antlered and Antlerless) Statewide: Oct.5-Nov. 16 and Dec. 26-Jan. 11, 2003. One antlered deer per hunting license year. One antlerless deer with each required antlerless license. Junior hunters may use their general license tag to take an antlerless deer in any county of the state. Legal antlered deer in the counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Crawford, Erie, Indiana, Lawrence, Mercer, Washington and Westmoreland must have a minimum of four points to one antler. In all other counties, legal antlered deer must have a minimum of three points to one antler.
DEER (Antlered and Antlerless) Statewide: Dec. 2-14. One antlered deer per hunting license year. An antlerless deer with each required antlerless license. Junior hunters may use their general license tag to take an antlerless deer in any county of the state. Legal antlered deer in the counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Crawford, Erie, Indiana, Lawrence, Mercer, Washington and Westmoreland must have a minimum of four points to one antler. In all other counties, legal antlered deer must have a minimum of three points to one antler.
ANTLERLESS DEER (Statewide): Oct. 24-26. Junior and Senior License Holders, Disabled Person Permit (to use a vehicle) Holders, and Pennsylvania residents serving on active duty in the U.S. Armed Services or in the U.S. Coast Guard only, with required antlerless license. Also included are persons who have reached or will reach their 65th birthday in the year of the application for a license and hold a valid adult license, or qualify for license and fee exemptions under section 2706. One antlerless deer with each required antlerless license. Junior hunters may use their general license tag to take an antlerless deer in any county of the state.
DEER, ANTLERLESS FLINTLOCK (Statewide): Oct. 19-26. An antlerless deer with each required antlerless license. Junior hunters may use their general license tag to take an antlerless deer in any county of the state.
DEER, ANTLERED OR ANTLERLESS FLINTLOCK (Statewide): Dec. 26-Jan. 11, 2003. One antlered per hunting license year, or one antlerless deer and an additional antlerless deer with each required antlerless license. Junior hunters may use their general license tag to take an antlerless deer in any county of the state. Legal antlered deer in the counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Crawford, Erie, Indiana, Lawrence, Mercer, Washington and Westmoreland must have a minimum of four points to one antler. In all other counties, legal antlered deer must have a minimum of three points to one antler.
DEER, ANTLERLESS (Military Bases): Hunting permitted on days established by the U.S. Department of the Army at Letterkenny Army Depot, Franklin County; New Cumberland Army Depot, York County; and Fort Detrick, Raven Rock Site, Adams County. An antlerless deer with each required antlerless license. Junior hunters may use their general license tag to take an antlerless deer in any county of the state.
DEER, ARCHERY (Bow and arrows only) Antlered and Antlerless (Special Regulations Areas: Allegheny, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties): Oct. 5-Nov. 16, and Dec. 26-Jan. 11, 2003. One antlered deer per hunting license year. An antlerless deer with each required antlerless license. Junior hunters may use their general license tag to take an antlerless deer in any county of the state. Legal antlered deer in the counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Crawford, Erie, Indiana, Lawrence, Mercer, Washington and Westmoreland must have a minimum of four points to one antler. In all other counties, legal antlered deer must have a minimum of three points to one antler.
DEER, Antlered (Special Regulations Areas: Allegheny, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties): Dec. 2-14. One antlered deer per hunting license year. Legal antlered deer in the counties of Allegheny, Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Crawford, Erie, Indiana, Lawrence, Mercer, Washington and Westmoreland must have a minimum of four points to one antler. In all other counties, legal antlered deer must have a minimum of three points to one antler.
DEER, Antlerless (Special Regulations Areas: Allegheny, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties): Dec. 2-14 and Dec. 26 - Jan.11, 2003. An antlerless deer with each required antlerless license. Junior hunters may use their general license tag to take an antlerless deer in any county of the state.

Also PA determines their harvest data somewhat like MI does for the same reasons. Their web site states; Pennsylvania has had a mandatory deer harvest reporting system in place for decades, but each year many hunters -- about 50 percent statewide -- fail to report taking deer, a violation of law. We know compliance would still be a problem even if mandatory check stations were established. In states currently using check stations, significant numbers of successful hunters are not reporting their harvests.

So, in MI I think we need to address:

Where do we go with button bucks.

Where do we go with buck to doe in combination with habitat, baiting, overall herd size. 

We also need some conversation from others that have been following QDM and QDMA with good discussions and not argumentative. I think there are some good ideas but we still have to educate and form some of these ideas to fit and work in MI.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

I have just joined, for a 1 year membership, Quality Deer Management Association. I did this for 2 reasons. As I said before, I do believe in the principles of QDMA as no where in their web site does it talk about mandatory law changes right now and I want to learn more about QDMA.

Unless I am mistaking or mis-interpeting something I read on the QDMA Web Site, the biggest difference in QDMA members and QDM supporters is QDMA looks at attempting to educate and start individual hunters at practicing QDM along with supporting their states biologists and law enforcement among others. By support of law enforcement I take that to mean report violators etc. I interpet QDM supporters at wanting to change the laws to make things mandatory right now.

So, that's the short version why I join as I have been searching and reading the site ever since a member of this site pointed the site out to me and can't remember who it was for sure without going back a searching but I think it was bwiltse.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Great Boehr, I think you'll really enjoy the membership and Quality Whitetails quarterly publication.

As you mentioned the QDMA emphasizes education as should all QDMA members.


----------



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Boher, There is a wealth of education within the back issues of the "Quality Whitetals" magazines. It would be nice if someone in your area would let you read their back issues to build the foundation of knowledge for the future issues you will receive.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Welcome Boehr! You will not regret joining this outstanding organization. 

If you could post, or PM me the address of your field office, I'd be happy to mail you a few previous issues of "Quality Whitetails".


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

WoW!! Two pages of discussion and no one has piled the sand bags high, raised the flag of QDM to the highest point in the citadel, fired explosive broadsides in order to smite the hated "enemy" or any of that stuff. This has been fun to read gentlemen and ladies (not sure if there are any ladies who posted, I don't think so). What a pleasure it's been to read an intelligent, calm, and well articulated discussion. I may have to follow Boehr's lead and look into this QDM organization just to gain knowledge.

Rats!! Boyd...ya got me again!!!.........LOL!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Boehr,

One of the reasons I like to take a look at other state's studies, such as MS or TX, is that although population densities, harvest goals, and habitat vary greatly, antler development is very similiar. TX is very close to the U.P. in antler development, in that even as of last year 66% of their yearling bucks were spikes, but at 2.5 none where, and 3.5 the bucks caught up to the supposed genetically "superior" multi-tined yearlings. I guess I really don't care about B&C, and P&Y total points, but what I find most interesting with most of the studies, is the fact that there are a very small percentage of 2.5 year olds that are still only spikes-it's very rare to the point of being almost never. Many times hunters use an excuse to shoot a spike saying it was a genetically inferior mature animal that had to be removed. This is not the case in the TX studies, MS, or PA, and I believe it would be the same here.

I'll never advocate that we do something here because it worked in GA, unless it makes sound biological sense and it agrees with the experts in our personal area(my personal favorite expert being John Ozoga). But different studies from various states-even FL in some cases, can apply to even the U.P. of Michigan. Last summer I hired a deer management expert from AL to assist me in the management of my own property, not because he had experience in the U.P., but because he has experience and clients in over 20 other states, on 100's of thousands of acres, and his combined knowledge and experience with multiple deer herds and densities(including Canada), made him a perfect candidate. He was also a forester, and a biologist, with a chemical background in the development and application of wildlife herbacides, with a great amount of experience in native plant restoration and management practices, as well as strategic habitat minipulation. 

I've had personal experience with eperts from around the country, and the basic principles apply everywhere.

By the way, I've also enjoyed the discussion-thanks!


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Hi Whit,
I'll be looking to see your name on the QDMA membership roster. Sounds great!


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Whit1, 

I'm an outdoorswoman, so count one for the ladies on this thread!

B&N


----------

