# PA ups antlerless permits



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Game Commission ups doe license allocation, drops number of elk tags

By Bob Frye
TRIBUNE-REVIEW OUTDOORS EDITOR
Sunday, April 25, 2004 

Deer and elk may both be part of one family, but the Pennsylvania Game Commission -- for one year, at least -- will manage them two different ways. 
Commissioners increased the antlerless deer license allocation and cut the elk license allocation by more than half at their meeting in Harrisburg Tuesday. 

A total of 1,039,000 doe licenses will be available for 2004-2005. That's 66,000, or about seven percent, more than last year, and represents the most licenses ever offered. 

The extra licenses are not distributed uniformly across the state. Five wildlife management units (1B, 2E, 3C, 4C and 4D) will actually have fewer doe licenses and six units (2D, 2F, 2G, 3D, 4E, 5D) will have the same number as last year. The other 11 units will see increases. 

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/sports/outdoors/s_190875.html


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

The anterless allocations are a prime example of just how silly Alt plan is. 


"The extra licenses are not distributed uniformly across the state. Five wildlife management units (1B, 2E, 3C, 4C and 4D) will actually have fewer doe licenses and six units (2D, 2F, 2G, 3D, 4E, 5D) will have the same number as last year. The other 11 units will see increases. "

All of the units where allocations were reduced are way over their density goals. In Jan. 2003 1B was at 25 DPSM and the goal is 12 DPSM.. 2 E was at 24 DPSM and the goal was 14 DPSM, and 4 C was at 26 DPSM with a goal of 12 DPSM. In stark contrast , 2 G was at 12 DPSM and the goal density is 15 DPSM , yet the allocations remained the same which means the herd will be reduced even further beyond their goal density.

Therefore, it is obvious that Alt isn't following his own density goals that were just formulated in 2003!!!


----------



## Archer212 (Mar 15, 2004)

Being from PA, I think the allocation is great. I especially like that private landowners starting in 2004 will also be able to give out applications for DMAP permits (deer management assistance program) at a rate of one per hunter. The number of applications a landowner receives will be based on agriculture land or forested land.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

DMAP for private landowners started in 2003 and they are a joke that were only intended to stop the complaints from farmers and orchard growers . Before DMAP, any landowner that would open his land could get all the anterless hunters he wanted. This sysyem just allows landowners to get more tags for family and friends and will do little to control the herd in farming areas since so few farmers participate.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

jeez HH - are you actually "happy" about anything?


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

As muchas HH is getting pounded, could it be possible that his figures are right AND if they are, what does that say about Alt's plan for PA and what really is the main goal in his plan????

Can anybody discredit his numbers??? I mean if HH numbers/goals figures are correct, what does that say about this great plan of PA???


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Lot's of facts and figures are being thrown around here, but it's all second and third hand. I've been watching this "discussion"  , but I have to agree what was said here and on another post....go to the session and ask him in person.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

The numbers I have posted are not second or third hand. They can all be documented on the PGC web page. Unlike Mich. ,PA posts lots of data regarding the harvests, density goals, the antler buck study, the fawn mortality study, and much more. If you would like a link to any of the data just ask.


----------



## Archer212 (Mar 15, 2004)

Happy Hunter:

You are correct in there were DMAP licenses before but DMAP allocations were very restricted due to how you had to have your property enrolled in the Farm Game Program (open to hunting for everyone). The BIG change this year is that people that have posted property can obtain the tags. It will be a big help to reducing the deer herd.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

HH, as with nature nothing is constant, it appears that the PCG are hitting the high spots and are doing so with plenty of research and bio's in the field to back up their decisions. Plans change, it's nice to see that PA isn't managed with a cookie cutter.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

PA is still in the dark ages of deer management. There are using density goals developed from reseasrch in the 1970's when they thought deer only lived in the forests. For this reason the over population problem is grossly exaggerated . no modern deer manager would manage the herd at 13 DPSm ,which is the goal in PA.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

From a deer density perspective, the Commission has a lot of deer goal options that will fulfill our stewardship responsibilities. At the low end there is a minimum viable population, making certain that there were sufficient deer on the landscape to continue breeding and be genetically viable. Speaking very generally, the average range of a deer is about a square mile, so a minimum number might be one doe and one buck, two deer per square mile. The goal could go all the way up to and exceed (at least for a short time) the "biological carrying capacity," another term thrown around creating endless debate. You should know that in a recent deer hunter survey one fourth of all the respondents said that they feel we dont have enough deer in Pennsylvania until some are starving to death every winter. That is a very different set of values when compared with minimum viable population or balancing deer populations with forest regeneration goals. And the Commission is in the middle, trying to manage deer around these differing values.

Commission goals, established in 1979, are set at the maximum number of deer that the forest can support over winter without adversely affecting tree regeneration. An over-winter density is used because winter is the most critical time of year and foods for deer are most limited at that time. So, how did we determine that goal? We did several things. We conducted deer enclosure studies, as others have discussed, over a period of several decades, in differing forest types and size classes. We looked at known deer densities and measured habitat impacts. From this research we came up with average carrying capacity recommendations for different forest classes. Seedling-sapling support 60 deer per square miles, pole timber 5 deer per square mile (some debate zero per square mile!), and saw timber 20 deer per square mile, which also is applied to non-commercial forest habitat. 

Where do we get habitat inventory information to which we apply these numbers? We use the US Forest Service forest inventory, collected every ten years. I understand that in the future this data will be collected more frequently, every 3-5 years. We have forest inventory data for each deer management unit, whether a county or habitat-based unit. We take this information and calculate a population or density goal for each county. 

For a hypothetical management unit of 1,000 square miles of forest, with seedling-sapling making up ten percent, pole timber 50% and sawtimber 40% of the forest, we apply these carrying capacities and come up with the total number of deer that can be supported. This sets the target density. Given the area of this hypothetical county, our target would be 16,500 deer in that management unit, or 16.5 deer per forested square mile. 

Different counties can have different goals, even with the same amount of forestland. The goals are the product of the amount of forest and the distribution in the various size classes. Goals are radically different, for example, between Cameron, Erie and Forest counties even though they have similar amounts of forestland because of differences in size-class distribution.

COUNTY DEER DENSITY GOALS

based on the amount of seedlings/saplings, pole timber, and sawtimber psm.

Cameron 19 DPSm
Erie 29 DPSm
Forest 23 DPSm
~Calvin W. DuBrock
http://www.audubon.org/chapter/pa/pa/DuBrock.htm

Yep, 13 DPSm. I guess it averages out differently in PA.?.

"Kathy Frank, information specialist with the Allegheny National Forest, Warren, said average deer density across the state is 30 per square mile. In the the four-county area surrounding the Allegheny National Forest, county-wide densities range from 26 in McKean County to 36 in Forest County (1995 figures). All three figures, she said, are significantly higher than the 5-15 deer per square mile estimated to have lived in the Allegheny Forest area prior to settlement by white men in the 18th and early 19th centuries."

"As settlers moved into Pennsylvania hunting, especially of large mammals such as white-tailed deer and its predators, became common and white-tailed deer were nearly eliminated by the turn of the century. The Pennsylvania Game Commission, established in 1895 for the protection of the Pennsylvania's wild birds and mammals, began a concerted effort in the early 1900s to save the state's deer. Hunting was controlled or eliminated and deer were imported fro other states. This effort, in combination with the lack of predators and creation of vast amounts of forage, allowed the deer herd to recover."

"She said the game commission's program to re-establish a deer herd coincided with an increase in timber harvesting in Pennsylvania. By the 1930s nearly all of Pennsylvania's forests had been cut. Millions of acres of forest were regenerating - and that meant millions of acres of forage. The deer herd in Pennsylvania grew dramatically, from almost no deer at the turn of the century to more than 40 deer per square mile by the mid-1930s."

"In 1979 the game commission took a new approach to managing the herd," said Frank. "It was based on the availability of woodland habitat for food and the number of deer the habitat could support through the winter. This new approach included greater harvests of antlerless deer. Today there are about 1.1 million deer in Pennsylvania. Each year about 400,000 are harvested through hunting, 40,000 are reported killed in deer/car collisions and an unknown number die of natural causes, leaving nearly 650,000 to overwinter each year"

"Frank described the recent history of the area around Heart's Content to explain the effects of deer hunting on the forest. She noted that at Hearts Content there was a rich understory of hobblebush and some 100 other species before the deer herd exploded. In 1929 woody stems over one foot tall averaged over 1,600 stems per acre in 1929. By 1979 they numbered only 13 stems per acre."

""Today, new tree seedlings, shrubs and wildflowers are reappearing at Hearts Content," said Frank. "What made the difference? Since 1979 the Pennsylvania Game Commission has been working to bring the deer population down to densities the habitat can support, an average of 21 deer per square mile across the state, through increased antlerless hunting. At Hearts Content, deer densities were 19 per square mile in 1995."

"Allegheny National Forest officials support the game commission's goal of 19 deer per square mile for the entire four-county ANF area. Said Frank, "f this goal is realized, a diversity of species will be ensured, survival and growth of new tree seedlings will ensure renewal of the forest, a diverse forest plant community will provide habitat for a diverse community of wildlife, the area will be able to support a healthy, reproducing herd of deer, and the deer in that herd will be larger and healthier." 
http://www.allegheny-online.com/toodeer.html

"Try this: drive down the road for a mile, then turn right or left and continue on for another mile. Now try to envision 21 deer within the square mile you've just outlined. That's the Game Commission's deer density goal for the state as a whole. Imagine that square mile covered with tree and shrubs. Imagine how hard it's likely to be to cross paths with a wary, fleet-of-foot mammal roughly the same color as its surroundings.

Ask a disgruntled hunter what the deer density is in his neck of the woods after he's been hunting all day without seeing a tail and he'll probably say zero. He didn't see the over-browsed stump sprouts or the deer droppings, either.
If hunters knew what to look for, they might be able to see the deer for the trees. And, more importantly, if hunters knew what to look for, they might be able to help manage the herd.

That's the premise behind a Bureau of Forestry initiative aimed at improving wildlife habitat and bringing deer populations in line with food supplies on the bureau's 2.1 million acres of state forest land."
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/polycomm/pressrel/hubley/JH06022.htm

13 DPSm for a winter deer density goal statewide average is a possibility but add in a 1.10 embryos/doe average and your looking at a very conservative figure of 20.15 DPSm pre-season statewide. Pretty darn close to the PGC clearly stated pre-season goal of 21 DPSm as a statewide average.

Only in the dark ages!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"13 DPSm for a winter deer density goal statewide average is a possibility but add in a 1.10 embryos/doe average and your looking at a very conservative figure of 20.15 DPSm pre-season statewide. Pretty darn close to the PGC clearly stated pre-season goal of 21 DPSM as a statewide average."


You are confusing the new goals that are expressed in DPSM versus the old goals that were expressed in DPFSM. The old goal of 21 DPFSM was an overwintering(OW ) goal just as the 13 DPSM is an OW goal. IN the WMU that is currently at 12 DPSM the recruitment rate is 38% which produces 16.6 PS deer.

The problem is that the two WMU's with the worst habitat have the highests OW goals ,while the WMU's with the best habitat have the lowest OW goals. That is why we are in the dark ages of deer management. If they would establish reasonable OW goals for the WMU's that have good habitat ,there would be no need to reduce the herd by 50%. Furthermore, implementing AR while trying to reduce the herd by 50% is another example of failed management. Since there is no way to protect BB while reducing the herd we are harvesting more of our buck as BB than we ever have before. That is why our buck harvest dropped 30% in just two years.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

beer and nuts said:


> As muchas HH is getting pounded, could it be possible that his figures are right AND if they are, what does that say about Alt's plan for PA and what really is the main goal in his plan????
> 
> Can anybody discredit his numbers??? I mean if HH numbers/goals figures are correct, what does that say about this great plan of PA???


beer and nuts - The problem I have with HH's posts is that he uses those numbers (which many times are contradictory) to REFUTE everything. Not to mention - much of his arguments are based on opinion - "WMU XX has the worst habitat and the highest OW and WMU YY has the best habitat and the lowest OW". Is HH a biologist/forestry/habitat expert? When your basis for the statement "Alt's plan is all wrong" is based on subjective information, then yes, I'd tend to doubt that.

Not to mention - I don't accept much from someone who never concedes ANYTHING, as well as claiming credit for things that haven't happend. I'm still going back to his post in which he states that "he got Alt to admit that he was wrong ".. yeah right.

watch, I'll get a reply to this post that doesn't directly address things, but puts some additional statistics out there whose relevance is questionable.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

". Not to mention - much of his arguments are based on opinion - "WMU XX has the worst habitat and the highest OW and WMU YY has the best habitat and the lowest OW". Is HH a biologist/forestry/habitat expert? When your basis for the statement "Alt's plan is all wrong" is based on subjective information, then yes, I'd tend to doubt that."

The PGC biologist evaluated the habitat and established the deer density goals. You don't have to be a biologist to know that mixed farmland and forests have a much higher carrying capacity than contiguous forests, but our density goals assign the highest carrying capacity to contiguous forests and the lowest to mixed farmland and forests.


If I did a little research I am sure I can find a quote where Alt said mixed farmland and forests can support more deer than contiguous forests, but you wouldn't believe it anyway. All you have to do is compare the density goals to a topograhic map of PA and anyone that is the least bit objective can see the deer density goals make no sense.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

no, i think you have to dig further than a topographical map. that doesn't tell you nearly enough.

the question was never which habitat supports more deer - but the the fact that you fault Alt's plan based on information that we don't have ready access to. Therefore, I'm left with assumptions - which when talking about hunting, are as biased as it gets.

sure, all I've asked for is evidence. So go ahead and assume that I wouldn't believe evidence if it was provided. You said that if you look around you could find a quote stating that Alt specified that mixed forest/farmland could support more deer... that's great, because he probably did - he'd be right. but you said before that "you got Alt to admit that he was wrong". big difference.

Look, QDM is controversial enough. Alt obviously has implemented a QDM flavor of management. By stating that his density goals are not correct for the habitat, without evidence, you cast not only Alt in a bad light, but QDM in general. (right or wrong.) If his density goals are so wrong, someone (an independent group) must have done a study showing that they are wrong, and why. That's what I'm looking for. I'm sorry, but I just can't take one person's "personal knowledge" of the area for fact. Without evidence otherwise, I'm inclined to believe that, from the support he's getting, he's doing more things right than wrong, and discrepencies in his plan can be attributed to the dynamic nature of herd management.

you can find fault with anything if you look hard enough.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"but the the fact that you fault Alt's plan based on information that we don't have ready access to. "

That is not true. You have access to the information if you would take the time to avail yourself of that information. i posted the link to the density goals , the recruitment rates and the antler buck survey. All the information you neeed is on the PGC web site.

The deer density goals were just released in Feb. and most PA hunters have no idea that we have new goals that are lower than the old goals. If you need a group to tell you that a goal of 6 DPSM for 5C is wrong, that is your problem not mine. If you think the pole timber stands in the northern tier can support twice as many deer as the farmlands in the southern tier then you simply don't understand how the carrying capacity is established and why the current goals make no sense.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

sure, we have access to that. But you're missing my point. I understand how carrying capacity works.
But what is "5c" to me? the information that you posted tells me nothing about the land. I'm supposed to believe YOU that the land is fit for a higher density. Don't you even read my posts? Address what I post, instead of just serving your agenda!
I never said that pole timber could support more deer than farmlands! But you're expecting me to agree that Alt's density goals are wrong based on YOUR knowledge of the land. I'm sorry, I need more than that.

You know, Happy hunter, I think there are hunters out there that will never be happy with any plan. You've twisted words, distorted facts, flamed threads, and I'm done responding to your posts.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Happy Hunter said:


> IN the WMU that is currently at 12 DPSM the recruitment rate is 38%


Is 38% an acceptable recruitment rate?


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

That depends on how you define acceptable and what you are willing to do to change the recruitment rate. The WMU in question is 3 DPSM below its density goal ,so one can't blame overpopulation for the low recruitment rate. The B/D ratio in this WMu is much better than 1:2.0 so one can't blame the low recruitment on the B/D ratio and they have a good buck age structure since over 35% of the buck harvested before AR were 2.5+ buck.


However ,fawn predation is a problem since there are so few adult doe producing fawns and Alt is encouraging hunters to shoot adult doe ,whch also decreases recruitment.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Thanks for making my point HH. 

"_Abandoned farmland may take 20-30 years before it reverts back to woodland and in the mean time_" IN the mean time? Pretty scientific. In the mean time what, it gets contiually plowed under, mowed, put back into production, turned into a subdivision.

I wonder how many deer a pile of limestone and shale can support (reclaimed strip mine)? Wouldn't this also be extremely variable?

These types of "habitat" shouldn't be included based on the many variables involved.

Clear cut or log woods and you know whats going to happen, let it mature and you know what's going to happen, like clock work.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Reclaimed strip mines are not piles of shale and linestone. Reclaimed mines are topped with a layer of soil, limed,fertilized and reseeded. Some are even replanted in pines ,but all eventally devlop into a mix of bursh, briars and seedlings and sappling that provide excellent habitat.

Abandoned farmland by definition doesn't get plowed and mowed. Some farmland does in fact get developed ,but in PA we also have had thousands of acres of forestland that has also been developed. These developed woodlands are where the real overpopulation problems occur in PA and the PGC is unable to solve the probem.


----------



## campblujay (Jan 21, 2004)

Swamp Ghost said:


> Thanks for making my point HH.
> 
> "_Abandoned farmland may take 20-30 years before it reverts back to woodland and in the mean time_" IN the mean time? Pretty scientific. In the mean time what, it gets contiually plowed under, mowed, put back into production, turned into a subdivision.
> 
> ...



You assign values to non forested lands if you want accurate deer density goals. Most states I am familiar with do, Arkansas, Mich, Wis, ontario even the USFWS want to know down to how many miles of snowmodile trails are in a given DMU or in Pennsylvania's case WMU. 

Having hunted in the past in pennsylvania I can attest to Happy Hunters frustration with thier crazy low DD goals. They make no sense, they are so low. But I am not an expert at any state, I know recently in the last couple years Pa changed from dpfsm to dpsm and I remember what the area I hunted used to be, but now I couldn't tell you. 

It is common though for states to factor farmland, powerlines, reverting unused fields, in thier dd goals. I think if you search you will see Michigan assigns 'farmland units' in thier habitat calculations. And keep in mind in Pa abandoned coal mines and reclaimed coal mines are all over the place. You can't fling a dead cat without it landing in one.... :evil: 

Some of the best hunting in my cousins area is a reclaimed mine sight, and yet the DNR there does not even allow it to be factored into thier calculations for habitat. (These mines reclamations are $$$ in that part of the country, tax dollars) 

So I have to agree with Happy Hunter, Pa's failure to list anything except forests is not in line with the majority of other states I know of, and it makes thier numbers skewed for deer densities. They could support more deer there, but they also have another industry in Pa that is king to a degree. 

TIMBER, means big $$$ also in parts of Pa. And in my opinion big business does more to run wildlife in Pennsylvania than Gary Alt does. 

Learn more about Pa, compare it to what we have in our 2million deer herd, and you may be surprised. A lotta hype going on down there...


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

I'm learning alot in this thread, based on true facts and not on "should happens" and "what ifs". I guarantee Michigan hunters will be real happy in playing the "wait-n-see" game in seeing how PA turns out throughout the years. Alot of question marks in PA?????


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

PA has been hitting the doe numbers hard for the past 5 or 6 years. In the past 30+ years of our camp, of which I have participated the past 11 seasons, we have had our best years in the past 5, in number of bucks per year, number of bucks per hunter, and overall age and size of bucks. Also, each year body weights have increased per age class for the past several years and the number of bucks seen has increased each year.....all while at the same time guys are getting older and don't hunt as hard anymore. Simply, the hunting is getting easier, and better. 

This is all on public land. Can't wait til hunting season this year!

Also, this management system has been completed on various private and public lands across the country for over 30 years, with the same success...coincidence?!? Not likely.

QDM works wherever it is given a chance......no surprises.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

The data from the PGC doesn't support you claims. The buck harvest has declined by 30% in just two years since AR was implemented ,but the statewide herd has increased by over 20% since 2000. In PA we have been hammering the doe since 2000 when we harvested 245K anterless with only 806K anterless tags and a 3 day season and that harvest was from a much smaller herd than we had in 2001 when we harvested 283 K doe with a 12 day concurrent season..


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I'm just going by what we have experienced at our camp over the past 30 years...much less deer, but more and bigger bucks on the public land west of Bradford. 10 and 11 years ago I would see 30-40 deer per day, with 0 bucks to a spike or two. Now I'll see several racked bucks a day, for 15-20 deer. The guys that walk a lot from camp and try to walk up on deer see much less than they used too.

One of the factors that will skew the harvest is that until people become experienced at harvesting 2.5 year old deer and older, their will be a definate learning curve. Hunters that have continually harvested yearlings for many years will find that there traditional young buck harvest practices will not be very successful.

A 2.5 year old and older deer is a completely different animal and much harder to harvest than the traditional yearling. You will not have the same percentages of success on older deer that PA hunters had with the yearlings. You simply don't regularily harvest a 2.5 year old or older just because they are there and you show up on opening day.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Once again the official PGC stats do not support your claims. The harvest rate for 2.5+ buck almost doubled the first year of AR ,even though not one of those bucks were saved by AR. Hunters didn't improve their hunting skills, they simply were forced to to pass on smaller bucks.

Here are te Bradford CO. harvest stats and they don't support your claims.

arvest Statistics
YEAR	BEAR	ANTLERED DEER	ANTLERLESS DEER
1993	
26	
5,044	
8,258
1994	
26	
4,180	
6,208
1995	
41	
4,850	
6,831
1996	
15	
4,927	
6,632
1997	35	5,451	6,866
1998	35	6,078	6,903
1999	30	6,056	6,353
2000	48	6,416	10,181
2001	47	6,631	9,889
2002	70	5,505	10,875
2003 4,550 9,730

As you can see buck harvests have dropped dramatically since 2001.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I guess I'm proud to be a part of a camp with hunters who consitantly are above the averages!  

At the same time, do you think the blizzard conditions of the 2nd day of both the past 2 seasons made a difference?!?

We had 14" of snow and zero degrees on the morning of the 2nd day in 2002...4 guys went home and didn't return, and we still harvested 7 bucks for the remaining 10 guys.

Last year we had white-out conditions on the 2nd day and the tracks of an 8 point I was tracking were being completely covered within 5 minutes at times. I tracked him for 4 hours, saw him 3 times, didn't get a shot, and saw 1 hunter. I also saw 4 more bucks that day, but only 1 more hunter, for a total of 2 guys, on public land, while walking from daylight to dark and stopping less than an hour total.

Can't wait to hunt in PA this year, in fact I'll be out there scouting on vacation in just a few weeks, while eating dinner at the Beefeaters in downtown Bradford...can't wait for that either!

Happy Hunter...try coming up here in the U.P. of Michigan and hunting for a few days during rifle on public land...I'll bet you'll appreciate where you are at a little more.

PA public land is a much, much, better than MI. Take it from a guy who travels 13 hours just to hunt 2 days. I wouldn't do it if it wasn't worth it.  I have a friend from up here that has been out there with me 3 years in a row and shot 2 8-points the last 2 years and can't wait to go back out there this year. I don't think you realize how good you have it, I wish everyone on this site could hunt out there for a season or two on public land and see what it's like.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

" Last year we had white-out conditions on the 2nd day and the tracks of an 8 point I was tracking were being completely covered within 5 minutes at times."

If the tracks were completely covered within 5 minutes ,how did you track him for 4 hrs.? Did he have a radio collar on him or did you uncover his tracks while you were tracking him? If you are going to make up a story ,at least make it believeable!


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

> If you are going to make up a story, at least make it believeable!


HH, you are something else.

NJ, looks like someone can't handle success stories from somebody coming out of state and hunting in his own backyard. That in itself is the story, drives 13 hours to hunt 2 days in PA, telling. Not to mention the overwhelming support of these progressive regulations from the majority of PA hunters in newspapers, the internet and PGC surveys.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

> If you are going to make up a story, at least make it believeable!


HH, you are something else.

NJ, looks like someone can't handle success stories from somebody coming out of state and hunting in his own backyard. That in itself is the story, drives 13 hours to hunt 2 days in PA, telling. Not to mention the overwhelming support of these progressive regulations from the majority of PA hunters in newspapers, the internet and PGC surveys.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

> If you are going to make up a story, at least make it believeable!


HH, you are something else.

NJ, looks like someone can't handle success stories from somebody coming out of state and hunting in his own backyard. That in itself is the story, drives 13 hours to hunt 2 days in PA, telling. Not to mention the overwhelming support of these progressive regulations from the majority of PA hunters in newspapers, the internet and PGC surveys.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

In 2003 142K buck hunters were successfull in PA . I have no problem with NJ's success ,but I will point out that he is hunting in a WMU that is way above it's desinty goal the the success rate for his group will drop as the OWDD is decreased and the buck harvest rate drops to 2 buck PSM.


----------



## rzdrmh (Dec 30, 2003)

hmm.. its funny how some of the most respected (published, no less) people on this board have essentially been called liars. can't we do something about this?


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Happy Hunter,

We shoot deer because we know what we are doing!  Our deer numbers have already dropped considerably from what they used to. The guys that hunt by the road see very few deer, and I am amazed at the reports at the road of guys seeing less than 5 deer in a day, when I saw over 20 with 6 bucks at the same time. The difference...I walk in an hour and a half, sit mostly the entire day, in pre-scouted rub lines and funnels.

Also, with the 8-point I was following, I would hunker down for a few minutes when I couldn't see, and then re-find the track in a funnel, draw, or bench the buck was headed to with his doe he was with. Anybody with experience should be able to pick up the same tracks you've been following, especially when you know the sex and characteristics of what you are following. For example, the buck kept dogging the doe, but would always go over to eat when they slowed down. When the doe would move away, he would leave his browse and follow. It was the same pattern, except when they bedded twice, for 4 hours, and then they got mixed up with 5-6 other deer on top and in white-out conditions and I lossed them...oh well, it was still fun. I stayed on him hard for a long time, losing the tracks at times, but finding it when the snow settled down a few minutes later and re-tracking. Knowing the lay of the land for several miles square and 11 years experience hunting in the same area helps a lot, not to mention yearly scouting trips while on vacation.

We'll keep getting bucks in camp, as long as there are bucks in the woods. It's actually relatively easy hunting in PA, compared to many public land areas in MI. I can't say the same for the guys that easy-hunt along the road, but for the guys that want to walk back in and work a little, the numbers will have to go much, much, lower in order to hurt the percentages. Guys in camp still remember the days of 50+ deer coming through the hollow with 1 racked buck or two, and so many does you couldn't pick out a spike to shoot. Gone are those days, thankfully, they have been replaced with 6 deer coming through the hollow, with 2 racked bucks.

Again, I don't think you realize how good you have it. For goodness sake, last year on the eve before opening day you could watch 2 8 points feed on the side of the burm on public land next to the Walmart parking lot while we were getting our license in Bradford...less than 80 yards away! Wouldn't see that in MI!

Stay a Happy Hunter and be thankful for how good you have it...again, I wouldn't drive 13 hours 1 way to hunt for 2 days(sometimes 1 day), if it wasn't worth it. In fact, 6 out of the last 11 years my hunting season in PA was done by 11:00 opening day, another year by 2:00 in the afternoon, and 1 year took until 1 the next day.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

rzdrmh said:


> hmm.. its funny how some of the most respected (published, no less) people on this board have essentially been called liars. can't we do something about this?


*Moderators???*


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Easyyyyy Fellas!

NorthJeff, kinda unfair comparing yourself with normal state land hunters ofMichigan and than saying how great it is in PA, cause I can name you half dozen people that hunt hard just like yourself(walking back inthe middle of nowhere, scouting etc.....) here in Michigan that are extremely successful right here in Michigan that take very nice bucks about every year and yes on STATE LAND!!! And I'm sure I'm not the only one that can name guys like this from all across the UP to northen Michigan, I know its hard for you private property guys to realize but State land produces some great bucks here in Michigan from guys that just like NorthJeff in PA that know what they are doing!


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

I don't believe it! On state land! Not possible.  
_ 
*Big bucks are being taken yearly even on public land, so why change a rule that isnt broke.*​_

_*
*_​_*
*_



It certainly is true, big bucks have been taken recently. Yes, and the magic word is recently with almost all being taken on private land. The UP is a good barometer to gauge results of changing conditions. The UP prior to the early 1970s had a mature buck harvest that represented over 65 % of the total buck harvest, which means few yearling bucks were taken. Today the yearling buck harvest is at or near 65% of the total buck harvest. All one needs to do is look at the MDNR biological harvest data and see that the mature bucks in the UP in the last 35 year period are degrading in antler sizeas an average. The state DNR does not officially record weights of deer but many private clubs do and in this time period the weights of mature deer have dropped and significantly.

​

Again, all one needs to do is look at the state DNR biological harvest records and the Commemorative Bucks of Michigan, CBM big game record book and you will find that the big increase in the trophy bucks is a recent phenomenon. One example is Clare County where the fiveyear DMU 118 QDM demonstration is located. The first organized move to protect young bucks started in 1994 by two different groups with a total of around 6000 committed acres. In 1999 the Natural Resources Commission, NRC allowed a five-year QDM experimental demonstration for DMU 118, which totals 173,000 acres or 270 square miles and approximately a third of the county. In DMU 118 the antler restriction is three points on one side minimum.​
Prior to 1995 the CBM record book averaged less than two record bucks per​year for all of Clare County. In 1999 there were eleven record bucks recorded in Clare County and almost all from this one-third area. This isnt due to the five-year QDM demonstration because 1999 is the year it started. The recent change in bigger deer weight and antler size is primarily due to serious consideration by hunters and landowners to be stewards of their resources, from improving the habitat, harvesting an adequate number of does, putting in food plots for year round forage and protecting young bucks.​​By allowing the young bucks to maturethe natural selection process is allowed to take place. When there are a sizeable number of mature bucks present the more aggressive and dominant ones will take charge and this dominance suppresses the breeding instincts of the lesser bucks. This natural phenomenon insures that the best do the bulk of the breeding. It is that simple. If you want to join this progressive group of stewards who have elected to manage their resources in a sound and scientific manner dont shoot a young buck.​​http://members.tripod.com/~mmbqdm/newsletter/2003winter.pdf​


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"Today the yearling buck harvest is at or near 65% of the total buck harvest."

Is the harvest rate for yearling buck in the UP, different than the statewide average?


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2004)

Someone is purposely not looking at the DMU 118 harvest data. There was more than a fourfold increase in the harvest of 4 1/2 year old bucks or older. Dick shellenbarger does check deer from DMU 118 but his field office is located in Gladwin, while 118 is located in Clare County. There is a deer check station in Harrison City Clare County, where most DMU 118 taken deer are checked. 

So long, good bye, adious B&N an the fun in d keephunting!


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

North Jeff, I did see the data from DMU118. Maybe you see more but all I see is you make people pass on 1.5 year old bucks, of course you get more 2.5 year olds the next year, pretty simple stuff and you might get more 3.5 year olds(but I think that has alot to do with hunters sitting in the woods longer etc.. much like Bob S. said and you see an increase in 3.5 year olds). What I see is why no increase in 4.5 year olds like there statistically should have been in 2003(can anybody give us a reason why there was no increase in 4.5 year olds in 2003, thats a big question mark for me, red flag if you will). I have a problem with harvesting your best 1.5 year olds and for that matter your best 2.5 year olds. Is the herd healthier, did we see an increase in weight and antler mass year after year and is the weight and mass of antler the highest at the 5th year like it should be(of course I know other factors play a role in both, acorn drop winters, etc.. but I think 2002-2003 was pretty normal in those factors). Is the herd size the same? I thought I read the herd size was the same now as when it started?? Any "browse" data improvements? Habitat improvement data? Increase/decrease in hunter participation data in that area?(hunting is a social thing too and that needs to be addressed whether you like it or not) 

Quit pushing the increase in more 2.5 years old deer data, thats simple stuff, you pass on 1.5 years old you get more 2.5 year olds, duh! From what I read all your doing is shooting the deer 1 year later and you guys call that QDM.


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

> to what I see as only an attempt by a minority group of people trying to push an elite way of trophy hunting(antler restrictions) on the majority of Michigan hunters.


B & N, Where do you derive your data that the majority is against antler restrictions?

Neal


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Just ask them. Majority of hunters are against 3 point or more restrictions and overwhelming when 4 point or more. "Derive my data" from other hunters.


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

beer and nuts said:


> Just ask them. Majority of hunters are against 3 point or more restrictions and overwhelming when 4 point or more. "Derive my data" from other hunters.


I just asked 2 guys in my office......so 100% support antler restrictions. :lol: 

I think this site represents a good sample of the sportsmen in michigan. In a recent poll on this site HERE The result were pretty much split down the middle at 3 points per side state wide. I would imagine that 2 pts per side would be even accepted more, and what about a "no spike" rule? As a matter of fact isn't accepting the 3" spike rule an "antler restriction"? 

I don't think it is accurate to say the majority of michigan hunters are against AR's.

Neal


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Neal, thats an open end discussion/debate until you get to the specifics(3 point, 4 point, spike only etc...) and actually ask a good number of hunters from north to south, I say(personal opinion) a majority would would say no to a 3 pint or more AR. 

Ed, your fourfold is compared to the 3 year baseline(when you say 4.5 year old+ increased fourfold since QDM thats called spinning the data for your needs) . I actually see the 1999 to 2003 stats as much more beneficial. 4.5 year olds+ taken- 1999(3), 2000(4), 2001(5), 2002(5), 2003(4). That is not an increase at all. 1999 they pass on a majority of 1 1/2 year olds and again in the 2000 season, now you would think that by 2003 one would see a pretty good increase in 4.5 and 5.5 year old deer-at least that is what you guys are preaching shoud happen, but it DID NOT, only (4) 4.5 year old plus deer were taken in 2003. To me that is a question mark and thats all I'm asking- WHY??? And frankly, QDMer or non-QDM I would think this should be a pretty up front question that deserves some sort of explanation.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Here is the answer I got from Ed Spin ,when I ask the same question.

"The first year, 1999, the yearling percentage dropped to 68% and that is
exactly what trained deer professional would expect, considering that there
are few older bucks in the pipeline. OK, the percentages are reasonable, but
why was the deer harvest (bucks and does) so high in 1999. We have in
Michigan a TB problem and the MDNR starting in 1999 went to an aggressive
gathering of deer harvest bio data. There was a full time MDNR employee
gathering bio data (including deer heads) in Clare County, which DMU 118 is
located. This employee had a goal of collecting 300 deer heads and went to
hunt camps and deer processing shops. This is why there is a larger than
expected deer harvest. This employee became pregnant and did not work in
2000. Her job was given to another employee who spent some time in DMU 118 in 2000 but also had to take care of her old responsibility of gathering
harvest data for another county. I hope this explains the strange numbers in
the first two years.'




In other words ,we can only use the data that supports AR and we have to ignore the data from 1999 because they checked too many deer and we have to ignore the data from the second year because a DNR employee got pregnant. Now to me that is a highly scientific evaluation of the data that will certainly set a new standard for evaluating deer data and managing our herds.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

B&N,

So far, I think just about every area that has had a QDM vote for landowners and hunters has passed with a majority....across the entire state. It would seem that those that DON'T want AR's are in the minority, according to the votes. In fact, up here in the U.P., it was passed with around 70%. I challenge anyone to get that type of approval rating with our current system.  

Also, I also thought the DMU 118 data showed that antler size and diameter increased while under QDM regulations. Isn't that true?

At the same time, a protection rate of around 80% for yearlings is the goal of QDM. In DMU 118 only around 50% were protected, but antler size and diameter still increased by age class, just showing how effective even following a partial QDM plan could be! That's why John Ozoga urged 4-points on a side for that area.

It would be interesting to get a combined figure for the historacal voting for landowners and hunters including the averages for all the votes, for all the areas, combined. I bet it's in the low 60's, which when you compare to most demcratic processes, that would certainly be counted as a "landslide".


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Why all of this talk about 4.5 and 5.5 year olds? I thought the whole driving force behind most QDM is to save the deer till they reach 2.5 years of age. 4.5,5.5 who cares at that point you should have a big ole deer there by then anyways and you are going to kill him given the chance right? So why bother with the older deer argument. The AR's is a tough issue though for me too and the majority of who I talk to (no scientific study) are against 3 or 4 point restrictions; however, I support and my friends all would support the no-spike rule statewide. That would save a lot of the deer in my area for sure but with AR being a lot larger there would be no deer taken on our proprerty. JMO

AW


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

NorthJeff.

"""Also, I also thought the DMU 118 data showed that antler size and diameter increased while under QDM regulations. Isn't that true?"""" I don;t know I have never seen a study or any data, just word of mouth. But its a good question, I'm not sure if the 3 year baseline came up with any data on this either to compare. Sure would like to see the data in this for each year and see what the results would be. I would assume 2003 should have the best antler growth and mass, of course we only had 4 deer(4.5 years olds plus) to gather data from for the older bucks. 

"""In DMU 118 only around 50% were protected, but antler size and diameter still increased by age class, just showing how effective even following a partial QDM plan could be!"""""" HOW do you know antler size and diameter increased??????? You just got done asking me 'Isn't that true?" Show me with some figures. 

Happy Hunter seems the explanations for the no increased 4.5 year olds by 2003 in DMU 118 are few and far between. Ed's explanation on the 1999 harvest to you was a tad different to me, cause his explanation was something like 'it was a great year of hunting all around Michigan with the most CBM entries for that year'(see a couple posts back for that).


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

What QDmers will argue is that if you save enough 1.5 year sold to live till 2.5 year olds there will be a trickle down effect into the 3.5 year old, 4.5 year olds and 5.5 year olds plus. BUT the DMU 118 data shows that this did not happen and that should throw up a red flag to everybody. 
I believe the answer is quite simple, all your doing is shooting the majority of bucks when they are 2.5 years old and also shooting your "best" 1.5 year olds and what you will see is a reduction in antler size and mass, you continue to take your best bucks out of the herd by 2.5 years of age. QDM has tried to take the trophy ranch philsophy(monitor and shoot only the 4.5 plus year old bucks, large racks for paying clients) and reduce it by 2 years and because they can not control every hunter(most hunts on ranches are with guides that tell them which buck to shoot based on the amount of money payed!) they have come up with Antler Restrictions. First they started with 3 point AR and now they see that there was not an increase in the 4.5 year old plus, they now will push for the 4 point on one side AR. When will the first proposal be for 5 points on one side????


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

beer and nuts said:


> What QDmers will argue is that if you save enough 1.5 year sold to live till 2.5 year olds there will be a trickle down effect into the 3.5 year old, 4.5 year olds and 5.5 year olds plus. BUT the DMU 118 data shows that this did not happen and that should throw up a red flag to everybody.


Incorrect. The data, to those that have studied it, clearly shows an improvement in buck age structure. And the MIDNR, in their analysis of the 5 years of data, has concluded as much.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I don't think anybody can defend the results of DMU better than John Ozoga did......

"QDM in DMU 118

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

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

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

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

Antler Restrictions

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

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

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


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

In the second year of AR ,when there were no 2.5 's resulting from AR there were 53 2.5 buck harvested . But ,in the fifth year there were only 42 ,2.5 buck harvested. Therefore ,after five years of AR there were actually fewer 2.5 buck harvested than in the second year of AR. In 2002 there were 89 ,2.5+ buck harvested and in 2003 there were 82 ,2.5+ buck harvested .

Therefore, there was absolutely no improvement in age structure ,due to AR ,based on the data presented.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

beer and nuts wrote:
*What QDmers will argue is that if you save enough 1.5 year sold to live till 2.5 year olds there will be a trickle down effect into the 3.5 year old, 4.5 year olds and 5.5 year olds plus. BUT the DMU 118 data shows that this did not happen and that should throw up a red flag to everybody.*

You've asked some great questions beer and nuts. The question is, does hunter harvest represent "what is out there in the woods (age and sex-wise)." The answer--especially for region-wide data--is usually no. Just because older bucks exist doesn't mean hunters will harvest them, nor does what hunters harvest represent what is in the woods (from a buck age-structure perspective). The only way to really know if the population of fully matute bucks has increased is through hard data, such as photo censuses conducted in the same areas starting from before the AR program was begun up until present. But I bet that data doesn't exist.

It's one of those glass half-empty or half-full things. There is no hard data proving there are more older bucks in the herd. There is also no hard data proving there isn't.

When we have been able to conduct long-term photo censuses of managed properties, we *do* see increases in older bucks. But sometimes that isn't reflected in hunter harvest. One of the hardest concepts to get hunters to understand (when discussing the implementation of a QDM program) is that older bucks in the herd may not result in older bucks on the meat-pole, especially when the hunters have grown up on traditional management (shooting mainly yearling bucks). Older bucks, especially those in the 4 1/2+ age-classes, are extremely difficult creatures to successfully harvest.

I'm not posting this as an "excuse" for more older bucks not being in the harvest. It is just the reality of hunting. Perhaps there are more 4 1/2+ year-old bucks in DMU 118. Perhaps there are not. But without hard data, no one will know. Hunter harvest is generally not a good measure of "what exists."

Without hard data, my best advice is to talk to the best hunters you know from the area (not the ones with the most years of experience, but the ones who have a knack for killing older bucks every year). Ask them if they are seeing more fully mature bucks. That's he closest you're going to get to usable information.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

beer and nuts wrote:
*QDM has tried to take the trophy ranch philsophy(monitor and shoot only the 4.5 plus year old bucks, large racks for paying clients) and reduce it by 2 years and because they can not control every hunter(most hunts on ranches are with guides that tell them which buck to shoot based on the amount of money payed!)*

I've worked on Trophy Managed Texas ranches and that is not how it is done. I'm not defending Trophy Management, as I'm not a big fan of it. However, having practiced it at it's maximum intensity, I can say that Texas Trophy Management has nothing to do with QDM. They are two very different management programs with very different goals.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

""""Under QDM, harvesting of young bucks (including buck fawns) has decreased sharply and harvesting of female deer has increased."""" No kidding, because you can not harvest young bucks because of AR. What a statement!

"""""The net results include a smaller deer population that has more natural sex and age structure, including more older bucks in the population""""" Does the data show more older bucks? Last I checked (3) 4.5 year old plus were harvested in 1999 and (4) in 2000 and only (4) were harvested in 2003. How does that show more older bucks in the population? This is what I'm trying to stop is blatant non-truth in statements like this and basing it all on what? I think someone is purposely not looking at the data. Smaller deer population?? Last I heard/saw it was the same in 1999 as in 2003.

Happy Hunter- """Therefore, there was absolutely no improvement in age structure ,due to AR ,based on the data presented."""" Thats is clearly shown in the numbers of 4.5 years olds+ having the same harvest numbers as 2000 and one less in 1999. Clearly.....

"""""For these reasons, I would recommend that the antler restriction rule in DMU 118 be changed to a minimum of four points on one side."""""" Trophy hunting/management no more no less.....


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Again, an realistic older buck population is a good representation of 1.5,2.5, and 3.5....that's it, anything else is called TDM, not QDM....Huge difference!

So, as the results from DMU 118 show, there was cleary, an increase in the older aged class for all to see and harvest...and they did!  

Awesome, awesome results and a pure testament to the success of even a halfway QDM plan.

Keep up the good work ED!!

Again, 3 points on a side only protects 50% of the bucks, and 4 points would protect close to 80%...that's what needs to happen for the best promotion of an older age class, and what is interestion is the drastic improvement with just a 50% protection rate. 

Since the average 2.5 year old has more than 8 points, a 4-point rule is hardly trophy deer management, since TDM trys to harvest bucks at the highest potential...5.5+ years of age. That is hardly QDM.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

BSK, can you tell me what the difference is?

Do trophy ranches, improve habitat?, manage the doe and buck ration?, shoot only mature bucks?(where ranches can shoot based on age of a buck where AR are used because most hunters can not age a buck). The only difference I see is ranches cull out bucks that do not fit the profile of a trophy, trying to produce the best "genes" if you will.

I've had a guy that worked for us that guides on one of Michigans biggest trophy ranches and he said that QDM is really no different than the way they are trying to run the ranch except with better monitoring and culling of "inferior" bucks.


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2004)

I'm sure everone knows that you only get out what you put in.

Prior to the first year of antler restrictions of 1999 very few yearlings made it through the next year, (maybe 20%). The three year base data (1996-1998) produced just under one 4 /2 year old buck per year. Sounds logical to me, if you are not protecting very many yearling bucks there will be very few older bucks in the herd. A quick check of the nine year data (1990-1998) data I was given by the MDNR to establish the base showed exactly the same number of 4 1/2 year old bucks or older being taken, which was a little less than one per year as an average for the nine year period. 

With three on one side antler restriction 50% of the yearlings are protected, which logically should advance more bucks into older age classes. Just like Grandma's recipe for her blue ribbon german chocolate cake, (what you put in you get out). Sure enough we advanced more bucks into an older age class. Based on historic bio harvest data three on one side should protect 50% of the yearlings. Son of a gun ,darned if that's not exactly what happened.

The 4 1/2 yearolds went from under one per year to more than four per year. One needs to be stubborn to facts to not see the obvious. The number of older bucks taken per year is directly proportional to the buck harvest standard. In the nine year data prior to 1999 not more than one buck was taken in any one year that was 4 1/2 years old. 

The buck harvest standard was changed and lo and behold, it inched up to 4+ per year. Note how steady the number was the last four years (it is either 4 or 5) for the 4 1/2 year old or older bucks taken. 

Anyone expecting an increase does not understand the basics of deer management. If we were to go to four to a side in DMU 118, the 4 1/2+ number would increase and then hold steady at or near that number until there was a change in the buck harvest strategy. 

It's rather basic and I'm sure all who post here understand this, but there are a few who understand but refuse to accept fact.

By the way contary to claims that we are only protecting yearling bucks to be taken wholesale at 2 1/2 years old are mistaken. The data clearly shows there are as many 3 1/2 year olds and older taken as 2 1/2 years old, In fact the 2003 data shows that number to be the same (42 2-1/2 and 42 3-1/2 or older). This would improve if the buck harvest standard was higher, what you put in you get out.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

beer and nuts,

If your buddy says Trophy Management and Quality Management are similar, then either he doesn't know what he is talking about, or the ranch he works with is not really practicing true Trophy Management.

The goal of Trophy Management is to produce the largest antlered bucks possible. This includes dropping and holding the deer density to very low numbers (30-40% of maximum), keeping a minimal number of does on the property (just enough to produce the desired number of male offspring *but no more*, since they eat resources that could be going to the buck population), complete control of the deer herd (high-fence), massive use of supplemental feeding (feeders, not food plots), heavy use of genetic manipulation (culling), and sex ratios heavily favoring bucks (often as many as 3 bucks per doe). "Natural" social dynamics are not a consideration in Trophy Management. Maximum antler size is the primary goal of Trophy Management.

The goals of a QDM program (and I'm not talking statewide or region-wide QDM, but individual property QDM) are to produce a more "natural-like" social structure, with a more balanced buck age structure and adult sex ratio, *regardless* of buck antler scores. More balanced herd structures are the primary goal of QDM.

With Trophy Management, success is measured by the size of antlers harvested. With QDM, success is measured by standing herd structure.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"Prior to the first year of antler restrictions of 1999 very few yearlings made it through the next year, (maybe 20%). The three year base data (1996-1998) produced just under one 4 /2 year old buck per year. Sounds logical to me, if you are not protecting very many yearling bucks there will be very few older bucks in the herd."


Your analysis is not supported by the data you provide. The very first year of AR, the harvest of 2,5 buck increased from the baseline avg. of 21 to 47 ,which is an increase of 120% ,even though not one of those buck were saved by AR If hunters harvested 80% of the 2.5 buck that means there were. 59K PS 2.5 buck. Therefore, 57% of the 1.5 buck weren't harvested prior to AR,not the 20% you claim.

"With three on one side antler restriction 50% of the yearlings are protected, which logically should advance more bucks into older age classes."

In 1999, the first year of AR, not one buck in any age class was saved by AR ,since the harvest for every age class increased in 1999. The most 1.5 buck were saved in 2001 when the harvest of 1.5 buck decreased from the baseline avg. of 102 to 56, which is a reduction of 45 %. But, in the last year of the demonstraion the 1.5 buck harvest was only 23% lower than the baseline. Therefore , AR never saved 50% more 1.5 buck than the pre-AR baseline of 102.

"The 4 1/2 yearolds went from under one per year to more than four per year. One needs to be stubborn to facts to not see the obvious. The number of older bucks taken per year is directly proportional to the buck harvest standard. In the nine year data prior to 1999 not more than one buck was taken in any one year that was 4 1/2 years old. "

In the second year of AR the harvest of 4.5+ buck increased fro the baseline of 1 to 5. Not one, I repeat not one, of those 4.5 buck were bucks that were saved by AR. They were bucks that were produced by the previous management system where hunters were satisfied with harvesting a 1.5 buck rather than waiting for a 2.5 buck. The harvest of 4.5+ buck did not increase when 1.5 buck saved by AR reached 4.5+ year.

"The data clearly shows there are as many 3 1/2 year olds and older taken as 2 1/2 years old, In fact the 2003 data shows that number to be the same (42 2-1/2 and 42 3-1/2 or older). This would improve if the buck harvest standard was higher, what you put in you get out.'


The data also clearly shows there were just as many 4.5+ buck produced by the pre -AR management ,as were produced by after AR was implemented. If that wasn't true the number of 4.5+ buck would have increased ,not decreased in the fifth year of AR.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

People, please look at Happy Hunters numbers and explanations, they a very legit analysis of the data presented. 

An excellent indication of how the numbers can be skewed and presented to look like it changed fourfold is the baseline data only showed (1) 4.5 plus deer per year and unbelievably in 1999 the FIRST YEAR of AR there are (3) taken and Ed claims this is from AR, those deer were already in the herd before AR from the previous management style. That number stays relatively consistent for the next 4 years, a true indication that the age structure in 4.5 year plus deer never changed.

BSK, I understand the extremes of Trophy Management but if you read between the lines the concepts are quite parallel. 

I'm done with this thread as its going in circles but I hope we might have raised some eyebrows on the DMU 118 numbers as I believe there is some number playing going on and it is not all its cracked up to be and what really bothers me is that they are trying to push forward a 4 point on one side which to me only is getting closer to Trophy Management.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

beer and nuts,

No they are not parallel. The goal of one is what is harvested, and "unnatural" conditions are used to acheive that harvest. The goal of the second isn't what is harvested, it is what is living in the herd and how that herd is functioning. It is an attempt to reproduce as natural a system as possible. Very, very different both in theory and in practice.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

B&N,

I don't know who HH is, but I can see the data for myself, and get to have many personal conversations with John Ozoga and have great respect for him....so I'll stick with John on this one.

Also, I think you are confusing the various ages desired for QDM and TDM, not to mention issues of genetic minipulaton, supplemental feeding, high fencing, and unaturally skewed sex ratios towards bucks.

QDM is about balance...balance in age structure, sex ratios, and carrying capacity. The goal of QDM is not to weed out the inferior bucks and have the average age of bucks be 4.5 years of age. The overwhelming evidence shows a huge increase in 2.5 and 3.5 year old bucks. That shows QDM is not only working, but has provided for a structured buck age class. Anything more than that and you are starting to cross the line into TDM...huge difference!

TDM is unnatural
QDM is natural...big, big, difference.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"The overwhelming evidence shows a huge increase in 2.5 and 3.5 year old bucks. That shows QDM is not only working, but has provided for a structured buck age class."


The data from DMU 118 does not show a huge increase of 2.5+ buck that were produced by AR. The only year where the number of 2.5 buck increased significantly was 2002 when 63 ,2.5 buck were harvested ,compared to 53 in 2000 ,when none of those buck were produced by AR. However, in 2001 the hrvest of 3.5 buck declined from the high of 31 in 2000 to 21 ,in 2002. Therefore, there was no net increase in 2.5+ buck harvested over the 2000 harvest.

BSK is right when he says that harvest data may not acuurately reflect the age structure of the herd. From the data presented , it is obvious that prior to AR ,there were alot of 2.5+ buck that weren't being harvested because hunters were satisfied with harvesting 1.5 buck. When AR forced hunters to pass on small buck, the pressure shifted to the older age classes and the harvest of 2.5 + buck increased dramatically, before any 1.5 buck were saved by AR.

OZaga simply defended the concepts of QDM. He offered no explaination for why the number of 4.5+ buck didn't increase. But, Demarias in Miss. did. He said that in order to get more 4.5+ buck, you also have to protect a large number of 2.5 buck and a 3 pt. rule doesn't accomplish that.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

NorthJeff said:


> B&N,
> QDM is about balance...balance in age structure, sex ratios, and carrying capacity. The goal of QDM is not to weed out the inferior bucks and have the average age of bucks be 4.5 years of age. The overwhelming evidence shows a huge increase in 2.5 and 3.5 year old bucks. That shows QDM is not only working, but has provided for a structured buck age class. Anything more than that and you are starting to cross the line into TDM...huge difference!
> TDM is unnatural
> QDM is natural...big, big, difference.


NorthJeff,
I hear what you're saying, and I've read enough of your posts to know that that is what your goal is. As you probably know by now, I'm firmly on the fence over QDM, but the well-versed data you and others have provided over the past few months has helped educate me, and I appreciate that. I'm still on the fence, but I'm a lot more open minded about it than a year or two ago.  Understand that I'm not slamming anyone here, but the problem as I see it on what I'll call the "pro QDM" side of this discussion is that there are a lot of people jumping right on the QDM bandwagon because right or wrong they simply associate QDM with large antlers. From my perspective in reading posts and attending some meetings, the pro QDM'ers include more and more of these individuals every day. Then someone throws in a discussion about AR's in relation to QDM, and the conclusion people draw is obvious......QDM.....AR's.....large racks....YEAH, COUNT ME IN! I've seen it time and time again. This sounds bad, and I'd be the last to suggest that you discriminate against anyone, but maybe those of you who are staunch QDM supporters should somehow try to weed these folks out of the field, because from my perspective they aren't helping your cause. Maybe there should be a separate page from QDM titled TDM? Almost every thread discussing AR's heads down this path until many folks are talking about massive racks. That's why some, me included, shudder whenever the AR discussion comes up. :yikes: It did several years ago where I hunt, and was soundly defeated. Probably never had a chance. You said _"Anything more than that and you are starting to cross the line into TDM"_ How true.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

JD,

It's interesting you bring that point up. Now I still think, and I feel the numbers would back me up, that even AR's have still carried a 60%+ approval rating across the entire state. In fact, it's been near 70% here in the U.P. with the voting of landowners and hunters. If a president won with a 62% vote, they'd call it a landslide...here in MI we say it's not enough to pass?!?

On the other hand though, you are exactly right when you talk about AR's. Take AR's out of the equation, and support for QDM probably increases substantially. Funny thing is too, the national QDMA does not push AR's, and those that are on the "inside" such as BSK, do not necessarily support statewide mandatory AR's.

But, with all that being said, when you add up all the votes from all the QDM initiatives that have tried to pass around the state, QDM has passed with at least 60%...really not that bad! Can you imagine if you told President Bush he'd have to get over 60% to be re-elected? :bloos: let alone 66%?


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Jeff, maybe there is something in those numbers, like they know their accuracy is somewhere around 10-16%. Make sense?


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"It's interesting you bring that point up. Now I still think, and I feel the numbers would back me up, that even AR's have still carried a 60%+ approval rating across the entire state. In fact, it's been near 70% here in the U.P. with the voting of landowners and hunters. If a president won with a 62% vote, they'd call it a landslide...here in MI we say it's not enough to pass?!? "


If that is true ,why did only 57% of the hunters surveyed in DMU 118,vote to continue Ar after four years of what you claim were great results ? If the results were so terrific shouldn't 75-80% of the hunters voted to continue AR. Seems to me those that favored AR to begin with still favored AR after 4 years . But, apparently 4 years of AR did not produce results that changed many peoples minds about AR.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Just Ducky,

You make some very valid points. We "QDMers" are always defending against the idea that QDM is about trophy antlers. It isn't. On the other hand, why do the majority of hunters originally become interested in QDM? From my experiences, 90+% *initially* get involved because they want to see and potential harvest bigger bucks. Before all the fence-sitters and anti-QDMers scream "AHA! I told you it was about trophyism!", let me explain a bit further. The vast, vast majority of our clients contact us because they are tired of seeing 10 antlerless deer to each antlered buck. They are also tired of only seeing the occassional little spike, forkhorn or basket 6-point (yearling bucks). They would like to see "bigger" bucks (older bucks). Most aren't asking to see 150+ monsters, they just want to see "better" bucks. Most would be thrilled to see average antler quality 3 1/2 year-old bucks, i.e. bucks in the 115-130 range. By no means is a 115-130 buck a "trophy" by modern trophy hunting standards. A real trophy hunter wouldn't even consider shooting a 130 class buck. They don't even bat an eyelash until bucks start going over 150.

As I mentioned, *initially* these hunters are interested in bigger bucks. But if we do our educational job correctly, eventually these hunters begin considering over-all herd health. Over time, we see these hunters' focus shift from the bucks being produced to the health of the herd. Around the campfire, they begin discussing fawn recruitment rares, body weights by age-class, etc. instead of who saw what buck. It is extremely commonplace for their "measure of success" to shift from buck production to herd performance. Of course, they're always thrilled to acheive their original goal--having some older bucks on the meat pole. But eventually, it becomes more important (and rightfully so) what is out there in the woods of their property and not necessarily what is hanging on the meat pole.

Without question, most QDM practitioners start their program to increase the age, size and number of bucks on their property. But most commonly, their focus changes over time towards more esoteric aspects of deer management. In addition, they usually end up much more knowledgeable about deer and deer management, and with more respect for the animals they pursue/manage.

That is one of the problems I see with statewide or region-wide rules. There is almost no education of the hunting public about *why* these changes are being made. No education exists towards the value of more balanced herd dynamics. No serious feedback is given to the hunting public about the progress of the program. The most important thing we do for our clients--from an educational standpoint--is provide them with the detailed herd/harvest analyses after each deer season, explaining what all those numbers mean and their correlation to herd performance. Without that, I'm not sure they would understand the "big picture."


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

BSK,

Would you agree that with at least 60% approval for AR's...at least some education is getting through?


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

NorthJeff,

Not necessarily. What percent of that 60% only favor ARs because they hope it will increase their chances at a "monster" buck?

Just because someone supports ARs doesn't mean they are fully versed in what QDM is or isn't.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

BSK,
You and NorthJeff understand my statement completely. THIS kind of discussion is exactly why I keep coming back to this page. And regarding the issue of "statewide" regulations, Michigan is such a diverse state with respect to habitat and climate that I just can't ever imagine a "one size fits all" regulation for the state. Heck, county to county can vary drastically here, as it probably does in many states. Very good discussion guys. Thanks.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

just ducky said:


> And regarding the issue of "statewide" regulations, Michigan is such a diverse state with respect to habitat and climate that I just can't ever imagine a "one size fits all" regulation for the state. Heck, county to county can vary drastically here, as it probably does in many states.
> 
> 
> > AMEN!


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

BSK is right again. AR was sold in PA based on a misinformation campaign , not on education.
There was no discussion about adult male mortality or the fact that 20% of the buck saved by AR ,would not be AR legal the next year. Instead Alt said AR would double the number 8+ pt. buck ,which is impossible and he said we would have more and bigger buck than ever before in PA. Instead, our buck harvest dropped from 203K to 142K and in the second year of AR we only harvested 9K more ,2.5+ buck than we did in the first year of AR,even though we carried over 38K more buck.

AR is often sold on the claim that it will save 50% more of the 1.5 buck, when in fact AR protects 50% of the 1.5 buck, including the 20-30% that would be carried over without Ar. That is why hunters are often disappointed with the results of AR.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

BSK said:


> In addition, they usually end up much more knowledgeable about deer and deer management, and with more respect for the animals they pursue/manage.


Don`t say that too loudly. Some on this board don`t think us "armchair biologists" know anything.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I'm glad all agree that we need to eliminate our blanket statewide 3" or better rule. Maybe some counties could be 2pt minimum on a side, 3pt on a side or 4pt on a side.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

I agree Bob. How's the weather?


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Raining and cool, nice but cool for the weekend. The river is still pretty high and dirty. Plus the Blessing of the Bikes is this weekend. 20,000 some bikers, and you! LOL On Sunday, they're even closing down M-37 by the store for bikers only. Who knows how long we'll be open on Sunday, if at all. No bikers come in here. But the bars and restuarants will all have 2 hr waits.


----------

