# Interesting Article



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

A very interesting article titled "It's Management But Is It Quality" by Raymond Schofield starting on page 42 of June 2004 issue of Michigan Out-Of-Doors magazine.

I personally like most of this individuals thoughts. I might have to keep this article in mind. :evil:


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Schofield's thinking is at odds with the much of current deer management thinking.

The Kerr Wildlife Msanagement Area study was of not one of free-ranging deer. More recent studies, based on free-ranging deer, have indicated that there is little, if any, relationship of the antler potential of bucks based on the size of their antlers at 1.5 years of age.

He also repeatedly mis-casts QDM as being focused on antler size, rather than balance. 

He does not mention the propensity of hunters to move from antler point restrictions to harvesting based on age class, a method that could not be assailed as promoting high-grading.

He failed to mention that the Mississipi study was based on a total of four antler points (that's right, forkhorns were legal). The lower the percentage of bucks protected by an antler point restriction, the greater the likelihood of high-grading.

I'm curious how this article happened to appear in the MUCC magazine. My guess is that Sam Washington or someone else in MUCC who is antagonistic toward antler point restrictions conducted a search to find someone holding Mr. Schofield's views. I'm particularly suspicious because I've seen no favorable articles about QDM appearing in this magazine for quite a long time, in spite of the fact that QDM-positive articles by qualified professionals are substantially easier to find.

I've tried to do some bird-dogging on Schofield, but there weren't a lot of Google hits to be found on him.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"He failed to mention that the Mississipi study was based on a total of four antler points (that's right, forkhorns were legal). The lower the percentage of bucks protected by an antler point restriction, the greater the likelihood of high-grading."


Miss. has the most effective AR plan of any state. Yearling buck comprise only 17% of their antlered buck harvest ,which means they are saving 80-90% of their 1.5 buck and almost 50% of their 2.5 buck. In order to save that many bucks, most northern states would need to apply a 4 pt. one side restriction, but that would protect too many bucks and lower hunter success rates to a point where their wouldn't be enough hunters to to control the anterless population.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I let my subscription to MOOD slide a couple of years ago and don't miss it a bit. I now spend my $ on North American Whitetail, Deer and Deer Hunting, Bowhunter, Petersen's Bowhunting, etc. Other than the letter's to the editor in MOOD, most articles seemed like spin to put the best face on everything. Or "smiles people, smiles..."


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Well I find it interesting even if it doesn't support a pro mandatory QDM thread. People calling a published writer/biologist a liar, shame, shame. Gosh, where did I hear that before.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Who called someone a liar?


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I'll stick with the strong majority of the experts on this one.  

There is always someone who comes along to go against the grain, scientific evidence, peer support, etc. but, Liar though?....where did that come from? Misinformed,...maybe, but liar?!?

I too let my MOOD subscription of approximately 8 years slip a few years ago.


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

I too got rid of MOOD!!


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Short memories.

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66718&page=4&pp=15&highlight=published


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

I also let my MUCC subscription go several years ago over philosophical differences with the management there over several different issues. I get to browse through it at a buddies house once in a while, and I also don't miss it. But I'll have to look this article up....you've peaked my interest. :yikes:


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

How dare you Boehr bring up an article like that. Banish this man, I found nothing on Google about Boehr either, Boehr can not be real, its a hoax, he is not a retired biologist getting paid by food plot seed companies and antler growth mineral companies in support of QDM so I don't believe him!!! :lol:


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Now that's what I call a stretch.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Do you know why? That's because Boehr, like you, me and the rest of us here, including Raymond Schofield, aren't among the top deer biologists in the world. That title goes to the likes of John Ozaga, Gary Alt, Charles Alsheimer, etc. (maybe Rod Clute?) If I get a chance to see MOOD, I'll read the article Boehr mentioned. Why not. But I already know what the experts say and have been saying. If I wrote a story about deer biology, would you put much weight on it? (I know, I know. I'll add the punchline for you..."yeah, I'd ploop something down on it Bob, but I can't mention it here!". LOL :lol:


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Nice try!  

"retired biologist getting paid by food plot seed companies and antler growth mineral companies in support of QDM so I don't believe him!!!"

What QDM national board member or research biologist is ?!?

One on hand you have Mr. Schofield, and the other you have the most noted a peer-reviewed research biologists, professors, and professional game and habitat managers in the world...hmmm, which way do I go.....


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

For example, if you do a google search on MDNR law enforcement, then Boehr is truely a go to expert...look just for fun. Good job Ray! What do you charge for your autograph now? LOL :lol: 
But I still can't find the author of this article.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Lt.+Raymond+Boehringer&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab=


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Hey! I just did a search on myself. I'm famous! :lol: I don't know about Ray, but my autograph just went up in price from zero to .02 cents! :lol: 
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=bo...ckle&ei=UTF-8&fr=fp-tab-web-t&n=20&fl=0&x=wrt


----------



## Dawg (Jan 17, 2003)

I found the article interesting as well. I don't require 'good reading' to be a positive affirmation of accepted dogma. Science is the continuous challenging of the bounding box. MUCC may not re-repeat the tenets of QDM a monthly basis, but to me that would not be 'interesting' journalism.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Accuracy is the basis for the credibility of any research article. That's why a research article does not get printed in Deer and Deer Hunting unless it is reviewed by Mr. John Ozoga, Research Editor.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

MI out of doors magazine is for the common folk like myself and many others in this forum. The types who enjoy reading stories about memories of hunts where maybe a doe or spike was taken (if a deer at all), stories about the deer camp memories, etc...not all stories about monster bucks or food plots or attracting deer with the latest technology such as deer caine. It is the magazine for the commom person, the backbone of hunting in the state of MI. You won't find many stories written by high priced "experts" who make their living off touting the benefits of QDM or some overpriced deer clover turning your bucks into biological wonders. I am proud to be a member of MI out of doors even living here in Europe temporarily. My hat is off to Sam Washington.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"You won't find many stories written by high priced "experts" who make their living off touting the benefits of QDM or some overpriced deer clover turning your bucks into biological wonders."

You mean like John Ozoga...with his article featured on the page right next to Mr. Scholfields? 

The "common folks" as you refer to, need accurate information even more than the more impassioned individual for the simple reason they really aren't going to dig deep for the truth and find out for themselves.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

> _by NorthJeff_ You mean like John Ozoga...with his article featured on the page right next to Mr. Scholfields?


I'm glad to see you choose to look at the article even if *"I too let my MOOD subscription of approximately 8 years slip a few years ago."*

I'm glad I have waders because the BS is getting deep in this thread. I post about an interesting article and some knock the author because his view is different. Talk about a hi-jacked thread, or are there short memories on that accusation too.

This is a prime reason that it will be years before the pro mandatory QDM supporters get it statewide because the cramp that is spread and how others are attacked. The crap is good for your food plots but not good for QDM. Some QDM'ers just don't get it. You jump on people and you think you sound good but you turn people off. You should try to support QDM the way the QDMA wants it supported.

Well, I have said enough here, time to pack as I'm off to Florida and the Bahamas tomorrow.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

Boehr - 

this is from the thread you quoted:

*[from HH to NorthJeff]
If you are going to make up a story, at least make it believeable!*

that's calling someone a liar. no one used any language of that sort in their evaluation of the article you posted. and no one has 'hijacked' the thread in the fashion that others have done in the past..

that's a pretty big stretch, and quite frankly, i'm surprised that it came from you.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Raymond Schofield must be a Mcafferey prodigy, traditional deer manager's messiah or someone looking for a job. LOL!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

boehr,

I was getting my haircut and it was either that or Oprah, and although I'm not sure I made the right choice...I read it.  Just like when I listen to Bill Moore on the radio on Saturdays, I don't agree with his DNR bashing views, his anti-QDM stance, or his swaring and beligerant attitude, but I listen to just be informed, whether I agree or not.

You know as well as anybody the beliefs and truths that are the foundation of many of our passions towards QDM. The beliefs and truths have not been formed from just an article, or a couple of articles, or even a few, but literally hundreds of articles and books from the most qualified individuals in the country, as well as for many of us, literally years of experience in the joys of the entire QDM experience.

To bring up an article that goes against the beliefs and proven principles of decades of researched QDM, and to lend credibility to it, is to say that there must be earth-shattering researched truth....and frankly there isn't. It's filled with the biased and unsubstantiated myths associated with most negatively slanted QDM publications, nothing new.

The article is so full of holes I won't even waste the time to break it down and comment on the falicies of it. This is exactly the reason why most credible publications have a research editor...like Deer and Deer Hunting does with John Ozoga.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Swamper said:


> MI out of doors magazine is for the common folk like myself and many others in this forum. The types who enjoy reading stories about memories of hunts where maybe a doe or spike was taken (if a deer at all), stories about the deer camp memories, etc...not all stories about monster bucks or food plots or attracting deer with the latest technology such as deer caine. It is the magazine for the commom person, the backbone of hunting in the state of MI. You won't find many stories written by high priced "experts" who make their living off touting the benefits of QDM or some overpriced deer clover turning your bucks into biological wonders. I am proud to be a member of MI out of doors even living here in Europe temporarily. My hat is off to Sam Washington.


Hat's off to MUCC, king of waffling, back tracking, and not wanting to upset the "common folk" of MI by not standing by their NO BAITING stance.

Aren't these the same "common folk" hunters you called


> the baiter disguised as a hunter?


Yep, good thing I put on my chest waders.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"You mean like John Ozoga...with his article featured on the page right next to Mr. Scholfields? 

The "common folks" as you refer to, need accurate information even more than the more impassioned individual for the simple reason they really aren't going to dig deep for the truth and find out for themselves."


Unfortunately ,the so called experts such as Ozaga and Alt are just as biased and manipulate the data to support their position. Ozoga ,in his letter to DNR regarding WMU 111 said the harvest of male fawns declined with AR ,when in fact it increased from the base line of 20 /yr. to 27 in the fifth year of AR. He also claimed the size of the herd decreased but provided no data to support that claim. The increase in the BB harvest would indicate the the herd was increasing ,not decreasing.



Alt's claims have been proven to be wrong over and over again. he claimed AR would protect 75-80K buck ,but in the first year it only protected 38K. He said AR woud double the number of 2.5+ buck ,but the harvest of 2.5 + buck only increased by 9 K. He said after the first year of AR buck harvests would return to normal ,but they declined by another 23K. Alt has in fact provided more misinformation and propaganda than I have ever seen before from the PGC. He can hardly be considered an expert when he is wrong so consistently.
__________________


----------



## campblujay (Jan 21, 2004)

Hey, anytime your in a QDM forum you gotta' have chest waders on... :lol:


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

[email protected] wrote:
*That's because Boehr, like you, me and the rest of us here, including Raymond Schofield, aren't among the top deer biologists in the world. That title goes to the likes of John Ozaga, Gary Alt, Charles Alsheimer, etc. (maybe Rod Clute?)*

Just a slight correction. Charlie Alsheimer is not a biologist. He is an outdoor photographer and writer who is knowledgable about QDM. Not to put him down; I know and like Charlie and we have shared data, and much of his writings about QDM come from personal experience. But from time to time he prints something in Deer & Deer Hunting that makes me cringe. Nothing major, just minor technical/biological mistatements or errors.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Charles Alshiemer is just another one of us "armchair" biologists.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

What a QDMer not getting the facts straight, Charles is not a nationally known deer biologist but a photagrapher/writer?!?!?    

Alt is now considered a deer biologist, I thought he was brought up on being a nationally known bear biologist and just recently in the past years he has gotten into the deer management, kinda like hopping on the band wagon!!! 

""""But from time to time he prints something in Deer & Deer Hunting that makes me cringe. Nothing major, just minor technical/biological mistatements or errors.""""""" Isn't this the same magazine that Ozaga is editor and nothing gets past him and is reviewed etc.....?!?!?


----------



## campblujay (Jan 21, 2004)

B&N, good to see someone catching on to the hype that is sometimes associated with QDM. My own experience is more in Pa than Mich, but I listened to Dr. Alt speak back in my hometown in 2000 and he will be quick to tell you he is NOT knowledable in Pa deer issues. His very opening statement in his canned speech he gives everywhere is that he is not the most knowledgable person on deer in the Pa deer team. He spent his 30 years on bears and he does not know deer well.

"What Id like to do this evening is share with you some of what Ive been able to put together about the natural history of white-tailed deer. Im not here to pretend to be the most knowledgeable person on deer in this room. But I do care about deer. I love deer and have this new responsibility with the Game Commission as heading their deer project. The only thing I can tell you is that I will do the best I can with that job. I am not sent here on divine intervention! Im not the great savior. If anyone thinks I am, its way out of line! Im going to do the best I can. But I need your help" - Gary Alt 2000

AND from the the same speech...

"Nothing has moved me so much as to have these people like Susan or John Dzimian or Tim Carr take me out and walk me around the forest and show me what the impacts of deer are. I am so apologetic, I cant believe that I could be a research biologist and spend 25 years of my life in the field almost every day and not realize this problem was as bad as it was. I cant believe it."

As you can see, anyone who is quoting Dr. Alt is not well informed on his background and his reputation. In Pennsylvania at least Dr. ALt is in charge of one thing, helping cut the herd in half to help the forestry industry maintain its profit level in a very high profile business, Hardwood Timber. 
Pa has nothing close to QDM, as they do not work on thier habitat. All they did was try and cut the herd by half to placate farmers and timbermen and hunters screamed over the low harvests so they decided to implement a antler restriction as a carrot to get hunters to continue to does. (they actually told hunters they would see 'more and bigger bucks' !!!) You cannot see more bucks when you are cutting an OW herd from 1.3 million down to 700,000. No matter how you spin the story, Pa. and Gary Alt are not about better deer, they are about LESS deer for big business. Hunters take a back seat in Pa. 

Gary didn't have a clue about overbrowsing or deer numbers or recruitment or birthing reates. He had to have Susan Stoudt (a federal forestry beauracrat) lead him around by the hand to show him overbrowsing!

If you were such an expert, how could you spend 25 years in the woods and not notice that some areas are heavily browsed??? 

Expert smexpert.... he was put in place due to his popularity working with bears and nothing more (he made a video). They needed a charismatic person to be the one to cut the herd in half and smile while he was doing it so hunters would not notice what is going on. In Pa they started AR and HR then a year later they started some studies to look at the both. ??? talk about cart before the horse. 

The signs that the fad of QDM are fading are all around us. DMU118, Pa's failing deer plan, Arkansas reduced harvests and reduced seasons and bag limits. QDM is not for everyone, and time has shown that. It will go the way of the 5mm and the cabage patch doll. Fading away with little fanfare. 

Oh, and by the way. In Pennsylvania sportsman did not pay for the studies to reduce thier herd and to implement AR. The game commission got a 1.3 million dollar donation from Pa Audubon Society to look into herd reductions to help benefit the forests. The money was collected 'anonymously' thru straw donors??? Now if QDM in Pa really had some merit, why would nonhunters have to pay to have the plan implemented and studied? 

Theresa Heinz's conseravation group was rumored to be one of the donors, but the Pa Game Commission refuses to divulge the names of the big business's that contibuted the money to cut the hunters deer herd in half. 

So just a warning guys, here in Michigan if you start hearing about The Sand County Foundation preaching sustainable forestry, Audubon and Sierra Club telling your group they know what is best for deer managment. Or people saying they are going to 'help' your deer hunting by cutting the size and impelementing AR, RUN!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"The signs that the fad of QDM are fading are all around us. DMU118, Pa's failing deer plan, Arkansas reduced harvests and reduced seasons and bag limits. QDM is not for everyone, and time has shown that. It will go the way of the 5mm and the cabage patch doll. Fading away with little fanfare." 

As membership continues to grow at 30% a year and will be approaching 40,000 by the end of the year.....nice try!

QDM has been around for over 30 years, is made up of the nations top research deer biologists and managers, and today is at it's best and strongest ever. It's great to be a part!

Only 39-40% disagreed with QDM in DMU 118. 10 years ago 99% wouldn't have even known what it stood for. Great to be a part of such a successful organization.


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

That is too bad to hear about 118, but I still am ALL for QDM!!!!!


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

QDM is not going away.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Campbluejay - Wow!

Its nice to see another side of the PA story. I'm sure there is more to come inthe next few years. Yours is just another reason why Michigan needs to stand back, watch and learn. I love it when the QDMer's do damage control.

Fad or not - the hula hoop, slinky, and rubics cube are still around as well(just not the popularity they were at the peak of their fad!).


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Campbluejay,

How much time have spent hunting MI's public land?

I wouldn't have driven 12-13 hours one way just to hunt an average of 1 day of PA's public land rifle opener if the hunting wasn't substantially better than we have hear in MI.

You guys deserve a treat...go hunt the public land of PA and see what MI is missing. Looking forward to my 12th trip this year, Lord Willing, and my friend from up here is looking forward to his 4th.

I'm not saying MI's public land is terrible, but it's a whole lot better in PA for many reasons and our camp has had it's best years in the past 5, out of over 30 years.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Signs of QDM fading away? Ha! Wishful think by traditionalists. That's not to say that *state-mandated* QDM might not fade away--it just might. But as it was designed and originally practiced--on private lands--it is growing by leaps and bounds.

Again, I have to state that I am *NOT* a fan of state-mandated QDM. I believe it should be voluntary. This certainly doesn't help the small landowner/manager, but if that small landowner can show his neighbors positive results, he/she just might be able to convince some of them to join the effort.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Anytime you QDM bashers want a pissing match over which is a better approach for the ecosystem, ESPECIALLY as seen by the non-hunting majority, bring it on. :corkysm55


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

NorthJeff, this is just the kind of crap you guys spread to convey to the general public into thinking ALL PA public land is great hunting. You obviously have a great piece of public land to hunt, thats it, no more no less. That is, you have hunted every part of PA public land south to north east to west but considering it sounds like you have hunted the same general area for 30 years now(or at least 5 for sure), I'm not sure you can generalize PA public hunting like you do. I too can name you and show you same great camps that hunt on state land in Michigan and take some dandy bucks every year, I actually have a state land spot that has taken some big bucks. 

Do yourself a favor and save some gas money and stay home put some money into Michigans economy, scout around the UP and northern Michigan I guarantee you, you will find a spot just like any PA public hunting.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Farmlegend,

What the heck does Antler Restrictions have to do with saving the ecosystem??????


Plus your last comment sure makes me wonder which side of the hunting fence you really are on?!!?!?


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

I dont understand how people cannot understand that QDM WORKS!!!!

IT IS PROVEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Go back and read cblujay's post.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

what gets me is that there are so many traditionalists out there that are un-informed about QDM, and then look for every reason to come out against it. why is it that TDM people are so unwilling to TRY it? we've tried TDM for sooo long.
again, QDM sets objectives. there are many different policies that could be used to acheive those objectives. appropriate sex ratios, appropriate age structures, period. can anyone argue that those primary objectives are wrong, or bad? that's QDM - think about it before you bash it. AR's are one way of achieving one of those objectives, but there's other ways, many have been posted here before.

oh wait, it would take some thought to come up with alternate, palatable ways to achieve sound objectives. easier just to label people as QDM'ers and slam away.


----------



## campblujay (Jan 21, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> Campbluejay,
> 
> How much time have spent hunting MI's public land?
> 
> ...


Jeff... with all due respect, I have read your spin of Pennsylvania for many months and have respectfully stayed away from directly debating anything about pa vs mich (for one thing I've only hunted in Mich 2 years). Pa. like Michigan has areas of great deer opportunity and areas with sparse populations, all states probably do. So you have found a honey hole in Bradford Co. (one of pa's better producers in deer numbers), but Pa has 67 counties not just one. I do not doubt your stories of success and skill, or your love of pa's public land. But just as your camp has had success in recent years, my families camp has taken a terrible downturn since 2001. (I posted about it on 4-19-04) seven hunters hunted a straight week everyday and nobody saw a buck and only two does were spotted! 

Again, much of pa has felt the crunch of Dr. Alts deer plan and its declining buck harvests. Three straight years 203k down to 165k down to 142k, I am glad for you your honey hole in Bradford has not dried up, but it does not represent the picture of hunting in Pa statewide, nor does it address the wide margin and disparity between public and private land hunters in pa. 

In Pa, many farm owners limit doe take to keep numbers up. Dr. ALts plan does nothing to gain hunters any access to private holdings and never will, so public lands bear the brunt of the reductions. Our family for many decades has been able to hunt with some success over a 20 -30 mile radius of our homes. Moving to new places in lean years and scouting new locations when deer patterns shifted, but under the current deer program deer densities have been set obscenely low for my county and doe tags increased to over a million+ for several years. It has taken its toll in hunter sucess and satisfaction in my opinion. 


Sure there are places in Pa where you can find a secluded public area and be successfull, there are many many many that are down to minimum numbers and you can hunt a week straight and never see a deer. This is true in Michigan also... 

Guys, Penna is not the Mississippi river delta region of Ark and Miss. we are talking about the rocky ridges of Penna appalachians with pole timber and mature timber stands that produce and hold minimal deer numbers on minimum habitat. QDM is not for every area, and applying statewide in pa in a one size fits all approach to 18 DMU's (yes, only 18) is not working well at all. It has not produced any measurable changes in buck other than do reduce the herd and in 5 years reduce the buck harvest as well. Bigger bucks? Certainly not yet. 

One camp in Bradford being successfull does not a QDM program make. Not everyone is a rack hunter, especially in pa and not everyone likes the current management. 

I respect everyones opinions on deer issues, but I cannot look the other way while people are trying to make Pa look like some wonderment of deer hunting. I have not seen hunting worse in pa in my 29 years. A camp near us this year closed up and went home mid-week, they pulled in our driveway and we were stunned to see them packed up. The owner said that it was the first year since 1938 (his dad built it) that the camp had closed up before the end of the first week. 12 hunters had not seen a deer and they were packing up and heading home. 

No matter how you spin the story pa has not embraced the smaller herd with less deer being seen and taken. Does' are now offered as a consolation, but it has not met up with hunters desires and wishes, at least in the circles I hunt. Looking to 2004 season we are possibly going to go from 203k buck harvested in 2001 down to 2004 possibly at 120k? .... :bloos: 

That means we are sending 80,000 more hunters than normal, home without a buck (they have about 800,000 deer hunters). You don't do that and not have a drop in morale and confidence. 

And yes Jeff I have hunted in Michigans public land and its not much differerent to Pa, and one year hunting a private farm with a coworker was really not much different from Pa either. 

Do we see bigger racks in PA? Not in our area. Of the 60-70 hunters on the road down to camp only one 5 point was hung in a week of hunting. It was no bigger than any other 150lb 5 point you've all seen a million times. 

What your hearing out of pa is alot of hype. Look at the numbers and they tell the tale. Declining buck harvests for 3 years and declining hunter satisfaction. 

Idealism is what precedes experience; cynicism is what follows.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

campblujay - thanks for the insightful post.. you make very good points - i think the science behind qdm is sound, but statewide applications may be difficult without some micro-management. ultimately, since license sales mean $$, hunter sentiment has to be considered.

i believe in the fundamentals of QDM.. but your post has be thinking.. sorry i don't have a good response or solution - i think there's a way to do it, but maybe not the way pa has.. we need to procede slowly.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Oh, and by the way. In Pennsylvania sportsman did not pay for the studies to reduce thier herd and to implement AR. The game commission got a 1.3 million dollar donation from Pa Audubon Society to look into herd reductions to help benefit the forests. The money was collected 'anonymously' thru straw donors??? Now if QDM in Pa really had some merit, why would nonhunters have to pay to have the plan implemented and studied? 

Thanks, Camp Bluejay. Very insightful information that is telling. I just sent it to eleven of my good buddies back in MI and asked each of them to forward the whole article to eleven each. Cascading this type of information is our obligation, and I think we can nip this QDM stuff in the bud.

Swamper


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Campblujay wrote:
*One camp in Bradford being successfull does not a QDM program make. Not everyone is a rack hunter,...

...That means we are sending 80,000 more hunters than normal, home without a buck...*

Sent home without an antlered deer. Hmmm... Let's see now, who are the real "rack" hunters? Sorry campblujay, but ever time I see a traditionalist post that tired and inaccurate stereotype of QDMers being rack/horn/trophy hunters, I'm going to jump all over it.

Traditionalists are the REAL horn hunters. They want to shoot a *buck* every year or they aren't satisfied. Many QDMers go home without a buck, even when they had the opportunity to shoot several young bucks. Who is it that values antlers above all else again? Which group has to "bring home antlers" to be satisfied?


----------



## izzalaker (May 6, 2004)

Jump if you must, BSK. Remember though that these are the people you need to convince of a better way, if QDM is going to suceed. Funny how where AR's are not in effect QDM pushers feel they get no empathy from those who support the status quo and how where they are in effect they show little empathy to those who do not support the status quo.

My interpretaion of his post was that PA was promised not only more satisfaction from the hunting experience, but larger antlers as well. (Neither are actual missions from QDM, but were aledgedly used as selling points) His opinion, as I read it, was that neither has happened to a sufficient degree given what was given up by sportsman. Luckly Michigan has created a lemon law of sorts defining an end to these programs for instances that the bill of sale has not met with appropriate satisfaction.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

izzalaker,

I'm tryin to "convince" no one. I gave that up years ago. I *do not want* state's to try and practice artificial QDM. All that does is divide hunters and lead to ugly arguments and wrongly give QDM a bad name (because states aren't practicing QDM).

Those who want to practice traditional management are free to do so. More power to them. If that is what provides satisfaction with the hunting experience, I'm happy for them. Read our book; we talk a great deal about how to practice traditional management in as biologically sound manner as possible.

But I will jump all over those traditionalists that use stereotyping or false information to cast other forms of management in a bad light. Let's argue/debate each form of management on their REAL merits and shortcomings. They all have them.

Many of the anti-QDMers are right. QDM--as practiced by state agencies, or even private managers--will NOT make all hunters happy. It simply isn't for everybody. One more reason I'm very leary of state mandates.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"Traditionalists are the REAL horn hunters. They want to shoot a buck every year or they aren't satisfied. Many QDMers go home without a buck, even when they had the opportunity to shoot several young bucks. Who is it that values antlers above all else again? Which group has to "bring home antlers" to be satisfied?"


That simply is not true when applied to hunters in PA. The success rate for antlered deer has been less than 1 out of 5 hunters for many years. We have consistently harvested more anterless deer than antlered deer for many years. If herd reduction is successful the buck harvest rate with AR will drop to 1 buck for every ten years of hunting. No QDM lease would survive with such low buck harvest rates and no state will retain enough hunters to control the herd with such low buck harvest rates.

That is why you are 100% correct that QDM has to be limited to willing participants to be effective.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Oh boy! Another I say (I'm right) and you say (you're wrong) discussion.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

So far, the only states I believe are handling bag limits "right" for those interested in improving herd dynamics would be KY and GA. They do not use ARs for all bucks. What these states do use is low buck limits. KY has a 1 buck limit, and in the best habitat areas, unlimited doe harvests. GA has a 2 buck limit and very liberal doe limits (10 per hunter). TN is approaching these with a 3 buck limit (only 2 during any one weapon season) and in 20 counties, 3 does per day for 6 weeks. GA *does* use ARs for the second buck (4 points on a side). Why do I believe these states are more successful? Because there is not the incredible divisiveness seen in states that are using strict ARs for every buck, plus herd dynamics *are* improving in these states. There is a reason KY is taking over the B&C record book. The state agency wants to hold deer densities low even in very productive habitat. This keeps herd health very high. Producing record-book deer isn't the goal of QDM but seeing these bucks is proof buck age structures are improving and herd health is high.

These systems don't make everybody happy, but the majority are happy. There will always be those who complain about anything. You still hear hunters in KY complaining they can't shoot more bucks, or arguing too many does have been killed. But the majority of hunters are happy, and the arguments are more "grumblings" than all-out wars like you see in PA and MI.

Would systems like those in GA, KY and TN work in MI? Hard to say. You have such high hunter densities that even restricting hunters to just one buck may not produce huge results. But there has to be a better way than what is currently going on in PA and MI.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

B&N,

Sorry, but you just don't know have any experience comparing the two states, and most don't. I've had at least 1 buck to shoot, opening day of rifle, for the past 6 seasons hunting public land in MI. But there are huge, huge differences between the two:

1. I work my tail off and know the woods like the back of my hand within a few miles of my house. Others will sit an entire 2 weeks in their heated shack and not see a single deer...not 1!, Not 1 buck, not one doe, nothing.

2. Baiting. Extremely big difference. The average guy up here doesn's see a deer, if he sees a deer, until the last 1/2 hour of light, or even few minutes of light. Bait piles are everywhere, and the deer know it. The deer are very likely to just sit all day, and cruise through several piles in an entire night. The average guy though, has to use bait to see a deer, or they have to work extremely hard and be experienced to hunt without. In PA...NO BAIT.

3. Road access. In the part of the forest I hunt, most little dead-end 2 tracks are shut down with gates. You just don't have guys driving a 1/2 mile into the woods on their ATV's like you do in MI. The chunk of land I hunt is about 2.5 x 10 miles...no roads! Around here in the U.P., even in "wilderness" areas, it's hard to find a spot you can walk a mile without running into a 2-track someone is using to access their stand by ATV.

4. 1 Buck rule. That's it, 1 buck. 1 buck for bow, or 1 for rifle...you pick.

5. Tradition. The guys I hunt with in PA hunt the entire day. We start early, and end around dark. We are in the woods the entire day, with most walking and hunting in pairs to help each other drag a deer out. Here is the schedule around here in the U.P....play cards until 12,1,2 whatever in the morning, sleep in, have a great brunch, and then go out with the remaining 2-3 hours of light and sit in a shack until the last 5 minutes of light and see if a deer comes in. I know guys like the U.P. schedule, and more power to them, but I just like hunting with the guys in PA.

Notice I didn't even mention AR's! PA has hunting opportunity beat hands down for their hunters, whether you agree with AR's or not, for many other reasons besides just how they manage their deer herds. I go to PA just because it's refreshing...the hunting is the icing on the cake.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Once again Jeff, I will tell you--"You have a great place to hunt in PA"--no more no less. Your place does not represent all public land in PA..period!

You need to cover more of the UP than if you think every road has a hunter down it. I'll give you the fact Michigan has way to many two tracks and the convience(if one wants) to access way to much public land. But you just described about 2-3 guys in our camp in Drummond Island that hunt all day, some walk all day some hunt a blind(no bait) and some hunt all day with bait.

The real answer is when you said "the average guy" in your #2 point, I don't believe yourself and others in your camp would want to compare yourself to the "average guy" hunter in either MI or PA, sadly the type of hunter you are is in the low percentile. 

Frankly, you are not giving Michigan a fair shake and its probably cause you have such a great spot in PA and you try and compare that to every situation in MI. I can point you to spots very similiar in Michigan that you have in PA(Just to name a few, Seney Wilderness-UP, Dead Stream Swamp-LP, and yes there are guys that see 2-5 bucks a day)


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

B&N,

There are great place in the U.P. to hunt, but it's no PA, and the rules are mighty different. There are also exceptional hunters up here, that walk and stalk bucks every year...I'm lazy I guess, I like to sit. Also, I have friends that hunt in other parts of PA every year, and have much better hunting than I do in my area.

Even in my area in PA, I'll come out of the woods with a buck in my pack after a 3 hour walk and rest out, and a guy at the parking lot will say where did you get him....and I'll tell him about 3 hours that way. They'll say they only saw 8 deer, and couldn't get a shot at the 1 buck, and the hunting wasn't any good, and I'm thinking if you saw 8 deer and a buck in one day in lots of areas in MI, while only hunting a 1/2 mile from the road that's great. In PA it was just another bad day, in MI it might be a seasons worth of deer for the same guy, given the same effort. In PA though, anyone on this board could go into most roadless areas of PA public land, get in a hour off the road in a thick funnel somewhere pre-scouted for a couple hours the day before, and have reasonable chance at success. In PA your efforts seem to definately be rewarded, and it has nothing to do with AR's.

That's also why I go to WI now every year, and will most likely add MN to the list this year as well. KY was a great place to hunt, and I've been to public land areas in IL I wouldn't mind hunting, and have friends that make annual treks to IA public land every year and do quite well.

Believe it or not, I actually enjoy hunting MI, but I feel, in my experience PA has more to offer for the average guy due to many factors.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Interesting infomation.

As I see it, it basically comes down to the different habitats/latitudes/environments and what they can support. Nothing can be changed to make them equal. Comparing them, shows nothing to me. If you don't like one, move or don't hunt there.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"Believe it or not, I actually enjoy hunting MI, but I feel, in my experience PA has more to offer for the average guy due to many factors."

PA has more to offer because the area you are hunting is double its goal deer density. You are repeating the benefits ot TDM which was based on MSY. If Alt succeeds in reducing the herd , hunting in PA will be a lot worse than in MI.

Remember, the buck harvest increased in WMU 118 after AR was implemented . However, in PA our buck harvest declined by 30% in just two years and based on the number of yearling buck harvest in 2003 ,there is no reason to believe the harvest will increase in 2004.
__________________


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Here is the schedule around here in the U.P....play cards until 12,1,2 whatever in the morning, sleep in, have a great brunch, and then go out with the remaining 2-3 hours of light and sit in a shack until the last 5 minutes of light and see if a deer comes in. I know guys like the U.P. schedule, and more power to them, but I just like hunting with the guys in PA.

North Jeff - your stereotyping of UP hunters being lazy duffs while PA hunters is a bit thin. As someone just before me mentioned, hunt where you like and not where you don't like it...

And in the meantime, don't bash MI hunters!!!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Swamper,

Just calling it like I see it. No, it's not the way all MI hunters are, and not the way all U.P. hunters are, it's just he average routine around here. 

Fact: a vast majority of the hunters around here bait. It's even hard to find those that don't....  
Fact: you will spend hours and hours of hunting by going to your blind at staring at your pile for hours...so why go out early when you don't have to?

If that's the way you want to hunt, more power to you. Actually, if most people didn't hunt that way, it would make my success rate lower than it is. If everyone hunted like me, I'd have a much harder time finding a good spot and getting by myself. My hunting would suffer! Apparently, many, many hunters like doing what they are doing up here, or they wouldn't come back each year, so that's great. But for me, I'd rather hunt a different way, and hang around camp with those that hunt that way too. You just can't hunt the way most do in MI, whether you want to or not, and that's why I like to go to PA for a day or two. The laws are just completely different from PA to MI. I took a friend out the past 3 years to PA...a very avid hunter that has taken deer from the time he was 12. The past 3 years in PA are the first hunts he has ever hunted without a bait pile...in 10 years of hunting! He's had such a great time he keeps coming back, and has a standing invitation to attend PA deer camp. He also shot 2 8-points the past 2 years while still hunting. Not saying he couldn't do it in MI, but it's pretty hard when you keep running into shacks and piles. Just different laws and different opportunities. 

As I said, I like hunting in MI, and in MI more than most on this site, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate hunting somewhere else more, and recognize the differences. At the same time, I feel bad for the average guy on MI's public land and the lack of quality hunting they can find or partake in....for the average guy. For the average guy, in my experience PA is a better hunt, with more opportunity available.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

I'm a Michigan hunter, and I grew up in a Michigan hunting family, and I'll be the first to bash those I grew up hunting with here in Michigan! Why? Because after 20 years, nothing has changed other than the fact my brother and I don't hunt with them any more.

They shoot indiscriminately at deer, 
They pollute the deer woods and deer stands,
They drive their quads along the property lines at any hour,
They wake up late after a hard night of drinking and playing cards,
They get booted off other people's property regularly, 
and worse of all,.. they refuse to ever change their habits.

Fortunately, I've found a small peice of N.E. lower Mi. that has proven to be a pleasant place to hunt, or else i'd be spending alot of money to go elsewhere!


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Quote from North Jeff on 21 May
&#8220;Here is the schedule around here in the U.P....play cards until 12,1,2 whatever in the morning, sleep in, have a great brunch, and then go out with the remaining 2-3 hours of light and sit in a shack until the last 5 minutes of light and see if a deer comes in.&#8221;

Post by Letemgro on 21 May
&#8220;I'm a Michigan hunter, and I grew up in a Michigan hunting family, and I'll be the first to bash those I grew up hunting with here in Michigan! Why? Because after 20 years, nothing has changed other than the fact my brother and I don't hunt with them any more.&#8221;

I fear these attitudes are driving QDM and deer registration. Change the average MI hunter into "better hunters". I am one of those "average hunters" who enjoys the heck out being in the outdoors, seeing friends and family, shooting legal bucks and does, etc. I call a successful season one that is (1) safe (2) spent with family and friends (3) enjoyed nature and the animals and (4) took a buck or doe. Those are memories that fill me til the next deer season. I wish that you guys could find more enjoyment hunting in MI and sorry that you have had such negative experiences. Best of luck.
As always,
Swamper


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Amen Swamper!

NorthJeff, _I'm told_(took this one from Farmlegend in another post) that if you brought that attitude and statement to 3/4 of the camps in the UP you would be driven out of the UP and forced to hunt in Wisconsin :lol: . 

Also, I know you like to hunt and hunt hard, but you just aliened about 99% of the poeple on this board cause most would be lieing if """"....play cards until 12,1,2 whatever in the morning, sleep in, have a great brunch, and then go out with the remaining 2-3 hours of light and sit....""""" didn't sound like a real nice schedule. But don't forget to had the same people that sit in their shacks looking at a wide open rye field, staring just staring till the last hour of daylight too!!! Its all relative. Also I'll take a quote from Ed Spin. and say these poeple also are just "keeping the fun in hunting" but its THEIR way not yours...

Just for the record, my schedule is somehting like this...wake up to a nice breakfast, get out to blind(some baited sometimes not) at daybreak sit till I feel the need to walk, head back to camp for some chile,sandwiches and a piece of pie, share the morning hunt stories, read or nap, head out for the last 3 hours, return to stories and big dinner. Play cards and be merry till whenever get little sleep, repeat for the next 3 days. Now thats hunt camp..is it the 15th yet!?!?


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

"I call a successful season one that is (1) safe (2) spent with family and friends (3) enjoyed nature and the animals and (4) took a buck or doe. Those are memories that fill me til the next deer season. I wish that you guys could find more enjoyment hunting in MI and sorry that you have had such negative experiences. Best of luck.
As always,
Swamper"

I guess we do have something in common!

These are the exact same feelings I have about hunting, and in fact, everyone on this board probably feels the same way.


----------



## twodogsphil (Apr 16, 2002)

The whole premise of Ray's article is based on research from the Kerr Wildlife Management Area in Texas. In 1974, this 16-acre high-fenced research facility was built on the Kerr Wildlife Management Area to study antler growth in white-tailed deer. It consists of 6, 2/3-acre breeding pens, 3, 4-acre rearing pens, and a series of alleys, chutes, crush, and rotunda to facilitate handling of research animals. The original breeding pens consisted of 7 brood bucks (of which 6 were spikes) and 5-7 does per pen. All deer were native Texas whitetails obtained from various locations throughout the State. No additional deer were added after the fall of 1974 and the herd has been maintained as a closed, pedigreed herd ever since. 

The research Ray cites concluded that yearling antler points reflect the genetic quality of a buck. However, that research has been questioned and discredited over the years. Independent reviews by animal breeding and genetics experts concluded that problems existed with the data used by Kerr, therefore, that no strong evidence exists for the conclusion. The data problems were twofold. First, despite the important role of a buck's mother in his antler characteristics, the Kerr results included no valid estimates of maternal effects on antler growth. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the Kerr data include high levels of inbreeding - no new deer have been introduced to the deer pens since the 1970s -and many of the deer are related to one buck, "Big Charlie". 

Regarding Ray's contention that AR's result in high grading, a recent review of the scientific literature on genetics in hunted populations concluded that there is little evidence available to suggest that hunting, including selective harvests, has long-term genetic consequences. One reason for this conclusion is the combination of genetics and harvest regulations apparently diminish suspected negative impacts. For example, if antler restrictions did selectively harvest "better" bucks, antlerless harvests are generally nonselective in their removal of "better" or "poorer" does. Thus, a continued mixing of "better" and "poorer" genes throughout the deer herd reduces the amount of change.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"Regarding Ray's contention that AR's result in high grading, a recent review of the scientific literature on genetics in hunted populations concluded that there is little evidence available to suggest that hunting, including selective harvests, has long-term genetic consequences."


There has never been a study on genetics of a herd where AR has been implemented statewide and the size of the herd has been decreased significantly at the same time. In a heavily hunted state like PA,with high anterless harvests ,it is possible to replace the entire adult doe population in less than 3 years, which will greatly accelerate the rate of genetic changes. The only study that has been done where AR was implemented state wide was in Miss. and that study showed antler size decreased in the areas with the best soils and the researcher attributed that decrease to the effects of high grading.


----------



## Leon2 (Mar 8, 2004)

I am still a member of MOOD, but I am not happy with how they represent their members on the QDM issue. 

I think Farmlegend has it right: Some MOOD executive or staffer found this author to write this piece of work that masquerades as a scientific article. The piece on high-grading in Mississippi was especially misleading and harmful. To base the article on the Kerr study and then ignore or omit other recent research that refutes the Kerr findings is also very misleading in my book.

I do credit MOOD with publishing articles by John Ozoga on a regular basis. Maybe John Ozoga should write the "other side" of the story to the Scholfield article. Someone needs to respond to MUCC and let them know they need to have higher standards than to publish work like this...


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Do you agree with this representation of the effets of high grading in Miss. ?


"His statistics show a decrease of 19 inches of antlers in the Boone and Crockett (B&C) scores of 3 1/2-year-old bucks taken on the WMA since the 4-point rule was adopted. This is exactly the effect that some biologists forewarned, because the restrictive rule protects smaller antlered yearlings and allows the harvest of larger antlered yearlings.

Graduate student Bronson Strickland, along with Demarais, Castle and others, produced a paper titled Effects of Selective-Harvest Strategies on White-Tailed Deer Antler Size. The study used antler measurements from pen-raised deer to simulate the effects of antler-based selective-harvest strategies on the breeding population for a number of years. Those findings were then compared to antler statistics from bucks harvested on Mississippi's WMAs.

The simulations showed that selectively removing a large proportion of the larger-antlered young bucks and leaving a large proportion of the smaller-antlered young bucks can reduce antler size of bucks at 4 years of age. The researchers found similar results when they compared antler development within ages for the four seasons prior to the antler restrictions (1991-1994 seasons) with those from the first three seasons after the regulations (1996-1998)."


----------



## Dawg (Jan 17, 2003)

Two of the most interesting and informative books I own were written by J. Ozoga. They are essentially based on the Cusino research area which is also a fenced preserve protecting the deer from the alpha predator. Ozoga's research and whitetail knowledge is extraordinary but here it is regarded as biblical truth - beyond reproach and anything else is heresy. I seem to recall Ozoga referencing findings from Kerr?

Research findings are inherently flawed and therefore they are presented as theory. The data of any study is contextual and subjective in value. There are very few laws in nature. Presenting both sides of any issue is responsible journalism and I'm sure MOOD will reiterate the stance of QDMA in the near future for anybody who's somehow missed it.


----------

