# QDM clarification



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I get the sense that some don't have the true sense of what QDM is as a whole. I think many have the incorrect notion that QDM is only about huge racked, 6 year old bucks. While 6 year old bucks is a dream, in truth, getting better quality is going to be subjective in each area. For example, in my area, the goal isn't Boone and Crocket racked, 250 lb giants bucks. Far from it. In fact, I'm willing to bet that my goal is the small end of the spectrum of what many of you who are against QDM already have and take for granted. Right now, 70-80% of our bucks are 1.5 year old, spikes, forks and basket 6pt's that score well under 100 B&C and weigh about 90-120 lbs. We have a few 2.5 year old bucks that are 13-15" wide basket 8pt's that score 90-120 B&C (tops) and weigh 120-160 lbs. But that's where it ends. What we'd like to see is another 20-25% of bucks making it to 2.5 years old and maybe 5-7% total making it to 3.5 years old. Then, there's the realistic chance that 1% could make it to 4.5 years old. I think that is a realistic goal and an obtainable goal for around here. But I bet some who don't like QDM live in a different area and don't want others to have what they already do have. Or at least don't understand how much worse our local herd was compared to where they hunt. I gurantee that due to 70 years of TDM in our area, our local deer were among the smallest racked in the nation. In years past, we saw and killed more one spiked bucks with the spike being barely 3" than I care to mention. But sometimes that's all that was out there. A 8" spike was note worthy. The old saying of "if I don't shoot it someone will" held water back then because it was true. But that's changing fast now as more hunters are standing up and fighting that "old way". 
Anyways, what I'm saying is that many of us aren't looking to be called "rich". My God! Far from it. In reality, we're trying to crawl above the poverty line. Getting from "poor" to "average" is the goal for some of us. Getting to "good" or "great" is years off IMHO.
So don't think QDM is about landed gentry who try to hoard mammoth bucks for themselves. In a recent survey in the Texas counties where they had antler regs, 70% of hunters said that their hunting experience is now better AFTER AR's. And isn't that what it's all about?


----------



## MoneyMan11 (Jan 8, 2004)

Bob, great post. The TDM certainly did not work to produce results in the goals that you outlined around Clare in 118. When QDM was present, I was certainly not in favor of it to begin with, but with time and education really appreciated it and it made me a much better hunter. Easy to kill a buck, not easy to take a nice mature one. After last year with no AR's and lots of bucks being taken, it's a shame to look in the fields and not see any racks to speak of. One year of no AR's and in most parts of the county, it's all over and back to the "if I don't shoot it, someone else will."


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Good post Bob, my dad said he was watching a buck this morning at the cabin and I asked how big? He said oh it will be a nice spike or 4 point :lol: Thats it, it is July 8th and that deer has 3 to 4 inch antler and not ver thick either. Pretty pathetic when I am seeing trail cam pictures of other guys who have nice 8 and 10 pointers now and still growing. Bob is right if I had a dollar every time I heard "nice spike man" up in Northern Newaygo I'd have a fistfull. I think a lot of people confuse QDM with trophy deer management. I just want a chance at a decent 8 pointer which I have only had 1 chance there in 10 years. My issues in Newaygo cty are nothing to do with QDM because QDM isn't being practiced wide enough up there to make a significant county wide difference. I think that is why NorthJeff keeps repeating the QDM mantra because he wants people to truly know what the heck it is. We need balance and it would be nice not to go intop the woods hoping a spike walks by or sit there with the scope trying to make those spikes grow as you look at them. I am not a big AR guy and those who have read my posts know that but I have been in favor of a no spike rule but I am starting to feel that without AR's we may never get ahead of the game. It is like habitat improvement, I am kicking myself that I didn't start something or that I was not educated enough to start something years ago so I coule enjoy it now  It takes time for everything that is worth while what is the right answer? Who knows but we need to do something.

AW


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Great post Bob, you just explained a good portion of the 3 biological necessities of QDM:

1. Adequate buck age structure...of which you explained very well
2. Populations maintained in balance with the habit...no more, and certainly if you enjoy hunting...no need to have less!
3. Appropriate sex ratios

You can have those 3 aspects of QDM take place anywhere a whitetail roams and it is literally that basic.

Enjoyed the post Bob!!


----------



## bogwalker (Aug 5, 2002)

Hey...you know your elitist group of "educated and enlightened" trophy hunters who keep insisting your desire is NOT large racks cant help talking about how terrible it is that you arent getting the bucks of YOUR dreams.Yet with your back slapping ego bolstering posts it seems to me you prove nothing else but,and insist in trying to push your methods on me.Did any of you read Richard Smiths article on his take on Q,D.M? He said in that article what more people need to be aware of in my opinion.Its a shame you people put so much time effort and money into a sport that apparently dissapoints you season after season.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Bog, trust me, I'm more aware than you know about the cottage industries of authors and assorted snake oil salesmen who hit the deer circuit trying to make a buck. They're all over. TV fishing personalities aren't any better. And some of the TV hunting personalities are the biggest pitchmen ever.
I'm very optimistic about the future for my area. The only thing that dissappoints me is posts like your last one. Be it Middle East policy or deer management, I hate to realize that we've made huge mistakes about policy for the last 50 years and decide that it's such a large task that we shouldn't even bother to fix it. Instead, just let things remain the same and resign ourselves to that fate that's chosen for us. Not in my America. I don't work that way. When there's a problem, that I myself can have a huge hand in fixing, I'm rolling up my sleeves. All my life I've heard from naysayers about "things that can't be done". I've proven them wrong everytime. You know the old line about hard work..."Question...Do you know how you eat an elephant? Answer...One bite at a time". That's what's at work here.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Bob -

While I agree that QDM is not only about producing big racks, the common perception out there in the sporting community, rightly or wrongly, is that producing big racks is the primary benefit of practicing QDM. 

I think this is due primarily to the types of cable outdoors shows, like Buckmasters or Realtree Outdoors, that focus on footage of monster bucks. They do this because that is where the big endorsement money is. These shows make it look like trophy bucks are running around all over the place and cause the average hunter to think " Man, I wish I was seeing those kind of bucks when I go hunting, the hunting around here must really suck." Those shows breed hunter dissatisfaction.
Then an organization like QDM comes along and talks about how much their management policy can improve the hunting experience and your average hunter says "Bingo, if I practice QDM then I can see big bucks like Jackie Bushman and Bill Jordan are shooting every week." Then they go to the QDMA website and see videos for sale like *"Aging and judging trophy whitetails"* or *"Let him go so he can grow"* and they say, " Yep, QDM is the way to get bigger bucks."



Then the public sees QDM proponents lobbying for passing Mandatory ARs. Now to the dedicated QDM member ARs may be a means to an end, but to the public, restricting antler size solely so that in the future hunters can harvest deer with bigger racks smacks of trophy hunting. 

As a result of these two factors, the common perception of QDM has become intrinsically linked to the production of trophy deer. Overcoming that PR hurdle will take some doing. One of the best ways to accomplish this would be for the organization to distance itself from Mandatory ARs.
_______________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

bogwalker said:


> Hey...you know your elitist group of "educated and enlightened" trophy hunters who keep insisting your desire is NOT large racks cant help talking about how terrible it is that you arent getting the bucks of YOUR dreams.Yet with your back slapping ego bolstering posts it seems to me you prove nothing else but,and insist in trying to push your methods on me.Did any of you read Richard Smiths article on his take on Q,D.M? He said in that article what more people need to be aware of in my opinion.Its a shame you people put so much time effort and money into a sport that apparently dissapoints you season after season.


Nice to have you in the DM forum - please watch the 'name calling' we 'try' to keep a civil discusson going - thanks for your help.  

This is actually for everyone - let's ease up on the 'name calling' we can get our points across without the bs....

ferg....


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"Did any of you read Richard Smiths article on his take on Q,D.M?"

Was this in a credible national publication with a research editor...just curious. Richard P. Smith loves to go to Canada and shoot large bucks in a QDM setting, or even in places in the U.P., but then thinks you or I shouldn't partake in what he personally enjoys?


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Munster, the whole point of this thread was that QDM isn't about big racks. It's that many of us are attempting to get even with where many area's all ready are at. In a way, it's like when Congress has vouchers for private schools and their own health care, but when we suggest something like that for us, Congress comes up with many reasons why we can't do it but does it for themselves. Going to Canada to chase only huge bucks and then standing in the way of slightly improving things at home is...is...hypo-something, is what I think that's called. There's nothing wrong with traveling to hunt. I suggest everyone do it. But what is wrong is when you see things that work everywhere else and you see serious problems in your our neighborhood and you just stand there and do nothing. Or worse, stand in the way.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Bob-

I realize that you were trying to make the case that QDM is not about big racks. I was just pointing out that in the minds of many hunters, including many QDM proponents, that the primary goal of QDM is to produce deer with big racks. While I am sure that many QDMA members are more interested in balancing the herd and creating habitat, I would also bet that an equal number are primarily interested in increasing the odds that they are going to be able to harvest a large racked buck.

I think the word you were looking for is hypocritical. I dont disagree that some changes need to be made to improve the hunting in various areas of the State. What I dont agree with you on is that Traditional deer management is the primary cause of these problems and that qdm is the only solution. The situation around your area and in Lake Co. where I own some property was not due to TDM. It is due to the DNR issuing way too many doe permits for a couple of years, as a means to eradicate TB. To a great extent they accomplished their goal of greatly reducing the herd. Now they are implementing a different policy of limiting or eliminating doe permits to compensate for the TB policy. I see that as a good thing and I applaud the DNR for taking that step. So I dont think that the DNR is doing nothing or standing in the way of improving the quality of the hunting experience in that area.

Regarding hunting in Canada, if you think that solely by implementing ARs, which to date in Michigan is the only aspect of QDM that has been mandated, that you are going to create a hunting experience such as is found in Alberta or Saskatchewan, it just aint gonna happen.

QDM can improve the quality of hunting on parcels of private land, particularly if they are large contiguous parcels, such as co-ops. It will have a negligible impact, however, when applied to public land in the form of ARs. At least it has in the DMU I hunt in that has had Mandatory AR's for the past three years.
________________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon In Training


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

I don't quite understand the people who want to fight QDM all of the time and are 100% against it all of the time but yet they come here to bash it all of the time instead of staying clear of it. I was against it 100% because i thought it was trophy management not Quality Deer Man. Learn what it is first then criticize. I don't agree with all of the QDMers here because I hunt a different situation than they do If Bob S can shot every doe he see's and not negatively affect the hunting in his area, fine thats sound fun but i can't do that and there are others who can only make decisions appropriate for their land or area which is different from me. The point is QDM is about the habitat and the deer "herd" not the bucks only. Read and learn then bash if you disagree. I have learned more in the past 2 weeks about QDM and what it is from one issue of QW than I have learned in the past 2 years of talking about it. Take a moment to learn not all QDMers are in your face telling you what to do but if a guy in my area practices it and shoots 120 class deer year after year I know I want to listen to what he is doing. It isn't about what you shoot that makes it quality.

AW


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> QDM can improve the quality of hunting on parcels of private land, particularly if they are large contiguous parcels, such as co-ops. It will have a negligible impact, however, when applied to public land in the form of ARs. At least it has in the DMU I hunt in that has had Mandatory AR's for the past three years.
> ________________________________
> Munsterlndr
> Curmudgeon In Training



QDM could make the hunting here like in Canada but i don't think we want that because in Canada you sit and sit and sit and don't see deer very often. It is similar to the UP where you may not see a deer for 4 days but when you do the odds of it being a monster is good. I don't want that extreme here I like seeing deer on a regular basis and enjoying them rather I shoot one of them or not. Yes big racked bucks are great in every hunters eyes and nobody can deny that fact but they are more of a by product of a healthy well balanced herd. Otherwise you are TDM only concerned about the trophy bucks. GOD LISTEN TO ME I GOTTA STOP!!!!  

AW


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

AW-
This is the management forum, not the QDM forum. People visit here with many different opinions, that is what makes it interesting. As far as bashing QDM, some people do 100% of the time but a far greater number just question certain aspects of it. Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with QDM that they have not researched it. Maybe they just decided that it is not their cup of tea. As for myself, I am a vocal opponent of Mandatory antler restictions because I think they are the wrong way to go. Because many QDM proponents are advocates of AR's this often puts us on opposite sides of the table and as a result I have been accused of bashing QDM. Ironically, I happen to agree with many aspects of the QDM philosophy, probably 80%. Many of the habitat improvement practices that I use on my own hunting property are totally in line with QDM. I just don't think that it's the right manangement philosophy to be adopted on a Statewide basis.
_____________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

For what it is worth I wasn't referring to you Musterlander  I don't agree with all of it but there are a few who come here just to close threads it seems like ya know? 

AW


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Adam -

I'd agree that there are some negative posters who end up closing threads an unfortunate amount of the time but they come from both sides of the aisle. :sad: 
__________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Munsterlndr said:


> Adam -
> 
> I'd agree that there are some negative posters who end up closing threads an unfortunate amount of the time but they come from both sides of the aisle. :sad:
> __________________________
> ...



I take that as a complement  I like to consider myself an 'equal opportunity' thread closer - :yikes: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

I have been PM'd from both sides of the management debate that I'm on this side or that side - my personal opinion doesn't count worth a hoot around here - I take my marching orders from Steve - and civility is the rule of the day - so to speak - and of course - 

Staying on topic 

We are all adults and intellgent debate is a healthy thing - but - anyone who come to this forum often - KNOWS who the culprets are :16suspect 


ferg....
Good thread BTW -


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Oh Ferg you always side with them :yikes: :lol: 

AW


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Let me correct myself...Going up to Canada, like Mr. Smith does and 1000's of other hunters is more along the lines of Trophy Management, not Quality Deer Management. Basically, when you hear a guy badmouth QDM it means one of 3 things, or possibly all 3, if they trully understand and believe what they are saying:

1. They do not care if 75% of the buck harvest is made up of yearling bucks and because of this a 2.5 year old buck is typically the most mature buck in the woods...if they even exist.

2. They do not want populations in balance with the habitat..they want more deer than the land will support.

3. They do not want appropriate sex ratios....say 3 does for every buck in the extreme northern regions, to around 2 does for every buck.

This has to be true because that's all QDM is. Bob described very passionately and accurately what an adequate QDM buck age structure is. It's not necessarily what they have in Canada, or even on my lease in WI...but it's more than we currently have, which is a strong percentage of 2.5 year olds, a few 3.5 year olds, and maybe an occasional older buck. Right now our herd is mostly yearling, a few 2.5 year olds, and very, very few older or none in most cases. 

With respect to rack size, or age which is more accurate relative to QDM, it really isn't much more than we have...just one step more. It's a crying shame and a sad testament to our state of hunting in MI to hear guys referring to 2.5 year old bucks as "trophys of a lifetime". No, trophies of a lifetime are what many guys, including Mr. Smith, travel to Canada for.


----------



## Ogre (Mar 21, 2003)

My personal opinion is to you have every right to practice QDM so go ahead. However, I guess I don't understand the point trying to me made. In other word, no I am also not satisfied with an eighty pound yearling deer but I'm also not satisfied with a tough stringy five year old buck, big rack or not. The thought process that says that deer that gain weight as they age are superior looses me. I would much rather have a hundred and forty pound yearling then a hundred and forty pound five year old deer any day of the week. If the deer in the area are all spikes as yearlings I fail to see why in subsequent years as larger racks appear these deer suddenly are considered superior. If all of the yearling deer are spikes in an area then I would say that the gene pool is bad in the area and letting inferior deer age doesn't in my mind equate to a quality herd. I guess this one needs to be explained to me.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Bob -

I could live with that compromise. What I don't want is AR's that restrict someone from taking a smaller buck if they so desire.

Regarding, one buck a year. My understanding is that the NRC could mandate one buck a year. They cannot eliminate the COMBO license without approval from the legislature but the law creating the combo license does not stipulate that it be for two bucks, just that it is a combination license. The NRC could make the combo good for one buck and one doe without legislative approval. I think the biggest obsticle to this happening is that they would be worried about loss of revenue, although I think this could be taken care of through some fee increases.
__________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

It's my understanding that, by law, MDNR has to offer an archery tag and a firearms tag. The only way around that is if both were to still be offered, but one would have to be made antlerless only. Nobody wants that. I guess what I'm asking is just to keep an open mind and do a little thinking out of the box. There's more than enough room within the combo tag to play with. I mean, we already have a restriction. Why not merely raise it a bit to protect male segments of the herd 5% at a time until we find a better fit? One could always lower it, from year to year also. Management regulations shouldn't be carved in stone.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Munsterlndr,

There are many ways to reach an improved buck age structure.
1. AR's. That includes point and spread restrictions. Areas of extremely good production and antler growth such as southern MI may benifit more from a spread restriction such as the width of the ears and that will protect 85% of all yearling bucks. On the other hand, in the U.P. a 3 pt. on a side rule will protect 82% of all yearlings, and a spread restriction would be both overkill and unecessary to achieve QDM results. Also, in some areas a spread criteria was "proven" the best method, but these were also in study areas with hunters hunting over food plots where the deer was observed for longer length of times so that "proven" theory is not necessarily true for most hunting areas, unless most hunt over food plots.

2. No baiting. Many feel that the elimination of baiting in the U.P.(not necessarily in ag areas in the U.P. or anywhere else) would accomplish maybe even better results than an AR of some type, not to mention positive social implecations. Take the baiting away around here and buck harvest is left to more random chance as opposed to targeting the young and imature.

3. Buck Quotas/limited licenses
4. Voluntary restraint...which is promoted by the QDMA
5. Hunting Co-ops. These actually work tremendously well on large blocks of private land. In fact, many co-ops actually raise the bar much higher than AR's would allow for. It just takes time, energy from a few positive people, and semi-annual to annual meetings and record keeping. Great for private land, but a "non-factor" on public land.

"Populations maintained in balance with the habitat"
Generally that means more harvest on quite a bit of private land, and less harvest than we have on most public land. In fact, the DNR must agree because there are significant antlerless permit cuts across much of the northern lower and U.P....in my area there are none this year. So, a little more on a lot of private, a little less on public. A more progressive way to address this issue on private land problem areas is an earn-a-buck program, or strong "hunters feeding the hungry" campaigns that encourage hunters to drop of their doe at a local butcher for free from monies raised by non-profiit groups to help suppor the cause.

"Appropriate sex ratios"
Again, as herd goes from high production to low production, that ratio changes. For example, 2 does per buck in the lower high production areas to 3 does per buck in the northern sustainment areas of the U.P.

Sex ratios are often perceived to be "way out of wack", but studies show that due to buck fawn recruitment it can never be more than 1 doe to every 4-5 bucks at worst. But, for most of the U.P., especially public land areas, the ratio is actually quite good, ranging from 2-3 does for every buck. Hunter observation is an extremely poor indication of sex ratio. The only way to accurately assess ratios is with the aid of an intensive camera census, which has proven time and time again that hunters only observe roughly 50% of all bucks. So, that 6-7 does for every buck ratio is actually 3-3.5.

What does all that mean. Well, in the U.P. it means that in 15/19 DMU's are herd is in balance with habitat, in fact, some DMU's could actually be DOUBLED just to hit DNR goals. Also, sex ratios are good. So, in most of the U.P. it's easy...just protect a strong percentage of yearling bucks and that's about it...the other 2 aspects of QDM are already taken care of.

The rest of the state, same thing. If herds are high, shoot some does, but still protect bucks....improves buck age structure, population density, and sex ratios.

If herds are low, most of the time ratios are not as bad, so work on protecting young bucks and that's about it.

In areas of extreme high density, hunters feeding the hungry and earn-a-buck programs are about the only way. Some feel that eliminating buck hunting is an option, but I feel this is a major mistake. Many hunt to shoot a buck, and that's it, but are glad to take a doe while buck hunting when needed. A "no-buck" hunting year or two could really backfire in that many hunters wouldn't hunt, or would hunt elsewhere, and populations could actually significantly increase. Also, any improvement in buck age structure would be temporary unless long-term management practices and solutions were added to the mix. So, "no-buck hunting" would product temporary results on buck age structure, could easily backfire and produce and INCREASE in herd numbers, and is a non-research based management technique that could have much more downside, than upside.

Bottom line, in areas where deer numbers are low...there should not be additional doe harvest with QDM. Certainly in areas that are high, but certainly not in areas that are low. So, QDM would not lower the deer herd in areas already to low, in fact it would actually raise populations with the protection of yearling bucks. In our U.P. AR meetings we had 2 district wildlife biologists and the head wildlife biologist tell hunters attending our public meetings that the antlerless harvest would not increase just because there was a QDM plan. In fact, one said in his area, north of M-28, there would probable NEVER be antlerless permits, QDM or not.

Again though, a lot less effort that most think, in most areas and much of it only centers around buck age structure.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> Munsterlndr,
> 
> There are many ways to reach an improved buck age structure.
> 1. AR's. That includes point and spread restrictions.


I have already voiced my opinion of why I think AR's are a mistake so I won't bore people with repeating them.



NorthJeff said:


> 2. No baiting. Many feel that the elimination of baiting in the U.P.(not necessarily in ag areas in the U.P. or anywhere else) would accomplish maybe even better results than an AR of some type, not to mention positive social implecations. Take the baiting away around here and buck harvest is left to more random chance as opposed to targeting the young and imature.


 Let's not open that can of worms! :lol: I will restrict my comments on baiting to saying that I don't have strong feelings about it but that it does seem mildly hypocritical to stop public land hunters from putting out a bucket of apples and then to allow the private land hunter to hunt over the windfall apples from his orchard. 



NorthJeff said:


> 3. Buck Quotas/limited licenses
> 4. Voluntary restraint...which is promoted by the QDMA
> 5. Hunting Co-ops. These actually work tremendously well on large blocks of private land. In fact, many co-ops actually raise the bar much higher than AR's would allow for. It just takes time, energy from a few positive people, and semi-annual to annual meetings and record keeping. Great for private land, but a "non-factor" on public land.


I am fine with any or all of these methods.



NorthJeff said:


> Some feel that eliminating buck hunting is an option, but I feel this is a major mistake. Many hunt to shoot a buck, and that's it, but are glad to take a doe while buck hunting when needed. A "no-buck" hunting year or two could really backfire in that many hunters wouldn't hunt, or would hunt elsewhere, and populations could actually significantly increase. Also, any improvement in buck age structure would be temporary unless long-term management practices and solutions were added to the mix. So, "no-buck hunting" would product temporary results on buck age structure, could easily backfire and produce and INCREASE in herd numbers, and is a non-research based management technique that could have much more downside, than upside.


 The same concerns that you have about eliminating buck hunting for a year I have about AR's. AR's will result in hunter dissatisfaction and can potentially increase herd numbers. Some of the hunters that would be forced to pass on smaller bucks due to AR's may quit hunting completely. I have seen this happen with my own eyes, this is not a hypothetical. At least if there was a one year moritorium on bucks, hunters would know that the next year they would again have a chance of taking one. If you enact AR's in perpetuity, how many public land hunters that have no time to scout and only 1 weekend to hunt are going to give up and not even bother going out?
In areas of the State such as the SLP, where there are a lot of excess doe's, at least hunters have the option of taking a doe if they don't see a buck. But in other areas of the State where there are few or no doe permits available, by imposing AR's you are greatly increasing the odds that an individual hunter will go without venison that year. It only takes a few years of that before he will say, why bother, I think I'll go fishing instead.
_________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

We were't discussing the values of each method, although all are highly debatable and there is much on public input and support percentages, but the methods available to achieve QDM. Just like in baiting you could easily say that 20 years ago everone did fine without baiting...and did for decades, but that's not the point, it's just another method that could be employed to achieve QDM results...that's the point of the discussion and what you asked.

Just a side comment though, are you honestly saying that buck license quotas and limits in which a susbstantial portion of hunters could not even hunt, would be better than an AR? Take for example the entire U.P. of Michigan, there are very few doe permits, and in much of the U.P. does should not even be shot, so take away the buck permits by a draw or quota system, and hunters could not even go into the woods. That's like saying we need to not allow fishing in most of the U.P. for a year or two to get the pike age structure better. I guess I'm more O.K. for ways to keep hunters in the field if they choose, instead of eliminating hunters from entering the woods because they can't buy a tag...but again, this has nothing to do with what QDM is, the clarification of QDM, it's just another tool of how to achieve it. 

We will never agree 100% on how many deer to shoot, what size, what sex..you just have to hit the majority while implementing sounding biological priniciples that are rearch and science based and move forward. With that thought, take a look at any regulation. Ask yourself, are we managing for the minority, or majority, and what do you base your information on.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

We should be managing what is best for all of our wildlife, not just the deer and while we should let the professionals know how we feel, we should leave the decisions to them.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> Just a side comment though, are you honestly saying that buck license quotas and limits in which a susbstantial portion of hunters could not even hunt, would be better than an AR? Take for example the entire U.P. of Michigan, there are very few doe permits, and in much of the U.P. does should not even be shot, so take away the buck permits by a draw or quota system, and hunters could not even go into the woods. That's like saying we need to not allow fishing in most of the U.P. for a year or two to get the pike age structure better. I guess I'm more O.K. for ways to keep hunters in the field if they choose, instead of eliminating hunters from entering the woods because they can't buy a tag...but again, this has nothing to do with what QDM is, the clarification of QDM, it's just another tool of how to achieve it.
> 
> We will never agree 100% on how many deer to shoot, what size, what sex..you just have to hit the majority while implementing sounding biological priniciples that are rearch and science based and move forward. With that thought, take a look at any regulation. Ask yourself, are we managing for the minority, or majority, and what do you base your information on.


If the DNR biologists determine that in a certain area the deer herd is so underpopulated to warrant using a draw or quota system on bucks is required to remedy the situation, then yes I would be Ok with this. We use quota systems in turkey, beer & elk hunting so this is nothing new. I have not seen any areas of the State that would warrant this neccessity, however. 

As far as managing for the majority, I would guess that a majority of deer hunters would rather take a deer than not take a deer and that is what traditional management techniques manage for is quantity, not quality. This opinion is based on pure surmise. A certain segment of the hunting population is always going to hold out for large antlers, and that is their privledge. If an overwhelming majority of hunters agreed with the need for bigger bucks than there would be no need for mandatory AR's since the concerned hunters would be implementing their own size restrictions, voluntarily.

Also, much of the concern about deer hunting in Michigan currently is about lack of deer in certain areas. This is not the result of TDM. It results from an agressive herd reduction policy enacted by the DNR to curb the spread of TB, a markedly different policy than TDM.

Managing the herd to be in balance with existing habitat, fine.

Increasing the Buck/Doe ratio to 1:2, fine.

I just don't see the need to limit the hunting experience of all hunters just so some hunters can shoot bigger bucks. 

But hey Jeff, 2 out of 3 ain't bad, you just have to convince me of the reason for the third goal of QDM, increasing buck age structure.  
__________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

How about this thought on buck age structure....

In totalling all AR initiatives across the entire state, for the past several years, including the votes for the most recent U.P. AR initiative, roughly 59% of all respondents wanted an AR. In fact, in the U.P. the votes were basically 2:1. Also, these numbers mirror the numbers by the Peyton Bell survey as well. So, hunters want AR's by a 2:1 majority...but we still manage for the minority 1/3? Those who have returned a ballot have said they want an older age structure by a 2:1 margin. Aside from any other reason...don't those percentages count for something?

Again though, you can have QDM without AR's....I just wouldn't be open to any regulation that would keep hunters out of the woods because they can not buy a license. 

It's not about how many are shot, it's what age they are shot at. I'm all for shooting the same number of bucks(or even more in low density areas that could stand and increase of populations), but just 1 year older. It's a sad fact in MI that a 2.5 year old buck is considered a "trophy of a lifetime".


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Munsterlndr - I started a new thread with your last post - as much as I hate to open that can of worms - I thought it necessary - so let the AR debate begin - and we'll let this one run as it was or die if everyone is done and moves on to the new thread.

Thanks for a great run on this one 

ferg....


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"

"We suggest a QDM herd should have 30 percent of the bucks in the 3 1/2-year-old or older category"
Dr Grant Woods, et al."


That statement illustrates the problem with implementing QDM statewide. While having 30% 3.5 buck may be possible on a QDM lease with a limited number of hunters who all agree on the goal , it is not possible in a statewide program with an unlimited number of hunters.

Now,one may ask how can I make that statement . As an example let's say we have a statewide herd with 200K buck. If 30 % were 3.5 buck, then 60K would be 3.5 buck. In order to produce 60K 3.5 buck at least 68 K 2.5+ buck have to be carried over. So out of the 200K total buck 128K would be 2.5 and 3.5 buck, which leaves only 72 K 1.5 buck. That means all of the 1.5 buck and the 2.5 buck would have to be protected and only the 60K 3.5+ buck would be available to be harvested. The result would be a sustainable harvest of less than 60K buck out of a total buck population of 200K.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Happy, 
I'd settle for 15% of the bucks being 3.5 years old by me.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> Happy,
> I'd settle for 15% of the bucks being 3.5 years old by me.


 Then you would have been happy to hunt PA way back in 1963 ,when 13% of the buck harvested were 3.5+ buck. here is the link to support my claim.

http://www.fortgrundsow.com/WhyCheckDeer2.jpg


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Liver and Onions said:


> boehr,
> Check the DNR web site. I did about a year ago and total up all of the QDM votes. Both hunters & land owners favored raising antler restrictions about 57-58 %. Since then the UP vote was "defeated" when it only got around 62 %.
> No spikes in the UP. 3 points on one side in the LP. 16 & under exemption. I'd bet the farm that would be passed by both land owners & hunters by 55 % or more. Probably not 66 %. Not many ideas could get 66 %.
> 
> L & O





[email protected] said:


> Since we're working on the premise that MDNR survey data is accurate, the latest data from the 2004 survey showed that support is growing more every year.
> Of landowners in the UP...
> 63% for QDM regulations
> 32% against
> ...


As I said in my post, I disagree because the sampleing does not include *"ALL"* hunters.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Gotcha. Maybe a MDNR survey on their web site that's promoted heavily in the newspapers and outdoor mags may be an idea? Give it 3 months during the Fall, you enter your drivers license number and birthday, they ask if you bought a deer license within the last 2 years and you get to vote only once. Ask several options of what hunters may be willing to consider. Things like "no spikes", "fork or above", "determine by management zone" etc. and you can pick more than one. Find the threshold of what hunters are willing to consider. Hmmm...


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

The problem with some QDM authorities is that they wont admit they dont know the answer so they try to statistically fog their way through any question they cant answer. 

I agree with Ray and I wonder what the survey would show in DM118 if it included all hunters opinions across the board.

But then what does it matter! Back in the 60's 99% of the hunters were against shooting does. They all lived under the belief that shooting does would destroy the deer herd. The DNR was much less political back then and made decisions based on science in spite of all the protest and not surprisingly they were right. The DNR is much more political these days and some in the movement are trying to influence the DNR through political means. It is clear to me that decisions about our wildlife should be left to the professionals who have the responsibility for managing our wildlife, all our wildlife. It isnt just a matter of what is best for the deer.

If you noticed, I made a point in a different thread that raised the idea that maybe imposing antler restrictions would add to the over population of our deer. Did I get an answer? Just silence! Happens all the time which is why I dont get involved in many of these threads. 

It makes sense to me the most important part of the deer equation is reducing the herd below the carrying capacity before even thinking about balancing the herd. It will take years to re-establish the fauna but it is never a consideration with some. Antler restrictions and the rest will take care of itself. A balanced eco-system is more important than a balanced deer herd the way I see it.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> Gotcha. Maybe a MDNR survey on their web site that's promoted heavily in the newspapers and outdoor mags may be an idea? Give it 3 months during the Fall, you enter your drivers license number and birthday, they ask if you bought a deer license within the last 2 years and you get to vote only once. Ask several options of what hunters may be willing to consider. Things like "no spikes", "fork or above", "determine by management zone" etc. and you can pick more than one. Find the threshold of what hunters are willing to consider. Hmmm...


How about they just ask you to choose which of several options you would support when you buy the license. They already ask you how many waterfowl you shoot when you get your duck stamps, this could be the same thing. The license seller would just have to input your response (like 1,2,or 3) and then the State could extract and tabulate the results. That way there is no added paperwork, overhead, hassle, etc., and you are getting input from all license holders not just a sample. Btw, this is just a suggestion for if the DNR decided they wanted some input from the license buying customer. personally I still am not in favor of deer policy by ballot.
___________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## luv 2 bowhunt (Mar 27, 2005)

I know a guy that has over 3,000 signatures on a petition AGAINST mandatory qdm.

Also I asked this very question at North Jeff's qdm, food plot seminar in Menominee.

"Why don't we question EVERY HUNTER about qdm? When you go and buy your license, the ticket agent can ask either for or against mandatory qdm. It would automatically be loaded into the states computer and every person buying a deer license would be polled."

The response from one of North Jeff's followers at the meeting was.
"We can't let everyone vote, 'cause there are too many uneducated hunters out there!"
Again I will say, telling someone that you are uneducated if disagree with qdm. Really doesn't win many people over to your side.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Splitshot said:


> It makes sense to me the most important part of the deer equation is reducing the herd below the carrying capacity before even thinking about balancing the herd. It will take years to re-establish the fauna but it is never a consideration with some. Antler restrictions and the rest will take care of itself. A balanced eco-system is more important than a balanced deer herd the way I see it.


Absolutely correct, Splitshot. Good deer herd management is good ecosystem management, and it ALL begins with getting deer numbers to where they ought to be, even before considering other elements which we deem as desireable (sex ratio, age structure). 

Unfortunately, with the highly-politicized nature of deer management being what it is, population management is one hot potato, and I believe our professionals in the DNR are spooked by the uber-political (and getting more that way with each appointment) NRC. The fact is, to many Michigan hunters, having too many deer is a lot like having too much money - not possible, in their view. And the NRC, being now comprised mostly by folks with a political background, is fearful of doing anything that may be considered "unpopular".

For many years (over a decade, I believe), we have had a professed goal of a statewide deer herd of 1.3 million deer, pre-harvest. We're still a long way from it. My personal opinion is that the authorities (especially the NRC) pay lip service to this objective; I don't believe they have any intention of really achieving it. Far better to have it both ways - they can say to the environmental/eco crowd that they are working toward a smaller deer herd in harmony with our ecosystems, without incurring too much wrath from vocal hunters who are seldom satisfied with the number of deer they see(remember, even in the days of 2.2+ million deer, it was not difficult to find hunters complaining about the lack of deer, eager to blame the DNR for issuing too many antlerless permits and fostering a "slaugher", a "massacre", "wiping out all the deer", etc.).


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

luv 2 bowhunt said:


> ...When you go and buy your license, the ticket agent can ask either for or against mandatory qdm...


That would be a much better idea because the further north the less computer access so the internet thing wouldn't come close to "all" hunters. Unfortunately though, there is so much paranoia out there even a survey when you buy your license wouldn't be perfect, Just look a the HIP Survey or even the discussion on this site in refusal to participate or be honest but I believe this is the best alternative if a poll was going to be done.

Then again, are we getting back to managing the herd for what hunters want? Lets face it, we all have our own little things that vary from the other guy.


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

boehr said:


> Just look a the HIP Survey or even the discussion on this site in refusal to participate or be honest but I believe this is the best alternative if a poll was going to be done.


boehr, if we start polling for this issue shouldn't we start polling for other issues like the amount fines should be; what offenses hunters can be cited for; how long seasons should be; bag limits; etc????? It seems to me that polling is a bad idea and raises the question: Where does it stop?. We live in a Republic not a direct Democracy. In Republics you elect Representatives to make the decisions! Lets do what is biologically right for the herd, not what is politically popular.

Btw farmlegend, I think your assessment of the NRC is right-on!


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Bwana, I agree with you which is like I stated in the last sentence in my post above yours. My polling comment was in response to the internet poll comment by Bob and *"if"* a poll was done what would be best which I believe was tounched on by luv 2 bowhunt.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Can't we even agree if the conference table for talks should be round or square, large or small? :lol:  
Personally, I wouldn't be as concerned if it was a POS survey or a mail survey or an internet survey. A mail survey is just fine, as long as it's a larger than normal pool sent out. I'm for a survey because I'm confident of the outcome. But what I would be very concerned about is the phrasing of the question. For example, a month or so ago, a major newspaper asked average Americans if the wanted President Bush's Social Security plan. The numbers were not a majority. However, when those same people were asked "do you want A,B or C to be done with SS", (essentially the exact Bush but with the Bush name being completely omittted) about 75% said they were for it. So, people want change, but not if questioned a certain way. 
If there's to be a statewide survey, the question cannot be phrased "are you in favor or against mandatory regulations prohibiting anyone from harvesting any buck smaller than 3pts on one side." That could fail. A harsh wording probably fails. 
But, if the question is phrased (accurately phrased IMHO) "are you in favor of possibly raising the standards of what is a legal buck, in order to allow for a better balanced herd with more older, larger bucks? MDNR could change the buck size rule from year to year and vary it from region to region. Would you be in favor of this? Yes/No.
That's what I think a majority of us are asking for and goes full circle back to my intent in my origional post. And, that second question passes with 70% plus approval. IMHO


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Luv 2 Bowhunt,

"The response from one of North Jeff's followers at the meeting was.
"We can't let everyone vote, 'cause there are too many uneducated hunters out there!"
Again I will say, telling someone that you are uneducated if disagree with qdm. Really doesn't win many people over to your side."

As far as the 3000 people that signed some petition, I bet if I could get all of them in a room give them the facts of QDM and how it related to the U.P., over 1/2 would take back their signature.

Sorry if you missed the point, everyone else got it in the room. The point is not about being "educated" or "uneducated", but making an informed opinion and conclusing about a topic. Many in the U.P. have only been exposed to one negative side, whether it be misinformation from Al Ettenhoffer from U.P. Whitetails, a newspaper, Richard P. Smith, Bill Moore on the radio, or whoever else. So, many have not been exposed to the truth of QDM. Those that attended the fall meetings to explain how QDM related to the U.P. and to hear the actual facts of QDM had an opportunity to then make an informed decision. No, you are not "undecutated" if you do not agree with QDM and that was never said, what was said is that too many hunters can not make an informed decision if they have only ever heard one side of the equation. For example, there were about 25 people in that meeting you refer to and you were obviously the only one against what was said, or did not agree, and I'll take those percentages anyday. I feel confident if we could get all the folks in the U.P. in one room and explain what QDM actually is, and how it applies to the U.P.....we'd get 75% approval or higher no matter what negativity they were exposed to after or before. The problem is that most did not get both sides of the issue. We had 12 meetings across the entire U.P. and everyone had a chance to hear, but even in Escanabe, where we had 80 people turn out for the meeting and many negative people, we still only had...80 people. Just a side note, even with the negativity we still had over 70% approval at the meeting.

Making an educated decision is about making an informed decision. If you haven't had the opportunity to hear both sides you are not making an informed decision...EITHER side. However, if you hear both sides, and are for or against...that is great! That's how it is supposed to work and I have absolutely no problem with any individual that takes the time to weigh both sides, make an iformed decision, and is against QDM. I've found QDM is not for everyone, and never will be, but what I've also found is that if people have the opportunity to hear both sides, they will choose QDM 75-80% of the time. Try and get those numbers with Traditional Deer Management.


----------



## Alibi (Jan 31, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> ...I feel confident if we could get all the folks in the U.P. in one room and explain what QDM actually is, and how it applies to the U.P.....we'd get 75% approval or higher no matter what negativity they were exposed to after or before...


Gosh, no reason to make it mandatory then, everyone must be doing it on a voluntary bases.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Alibi,
The survey was very clear in the results. Every year we continue to shoot 75% of our yearling bucks, and that's what apparently most will choose to do. With 70-80% of the U.P. as public land...Feds, State, Corporate, the majority of hunters will not pass on a young buck when the guy on the next ridge will shoot it. Works great for private land where you can pursue the cooperation with your neighbors, but not on public.

So, what the results of the survey showed, is that hunters are willing and understand the value of passing on young bucks by a 2:1 margin...but only if mandated. If it's not mandated, they won't do it. Now on large tracts of private land it works great and mandatory isn't needed as much, but when you consider the U.P. is 70-80% public land, voluntary just doesn't work.

Again though, just understand what QDM is:

1. Adequate buck age structure...that means older than shooting 75% of all yearling bucks, but not as old as Trophy Management where bucks reach full maturity before being selectively removed with the exception of "cull" bucks at the 2.5 to 3.5 years of age.

2. Populations maintained in balance with the habitat...if someone tells you that means increased doe harvest in the U.P. you are being misinformed, as we all know that 11/19 DMU's are below carrying capacity as high as 50% and in the other DMU's that are at or above we have been at our saturation point for doe harvest for years. Just because you have QDM does not mean more doe harvest...only when needed and when you have much of the U.P. below DNR population goals increased doe harvest would not be QDM.

3. Appropriate sex ratios..for example, 2 does for every buck in the southern portions of MI in high production areas, to 3 does for every buck in the northern portions in low production areas.

Again though, it's about understanding the concept. You have to understand the concept of the QDM first, before you can make an informed decision. Get both sides. Now, that doesn't mean that you even support AR's, but at least understand what QDM is. I know a few people that do not support AR's, but they support QDM because afterall, if you understand QDM you will know that you can have QDM without AR's. 

People continually show that they support AR's if mandated, but will not partake if only voluntary....or we wouldn't still be harvesting so many young bucks.


----------



## Ogre (Mar 21, 2003)

I have made this point before and I'm going to make it again. Only the stake holders of a community should be allowed to change the rules of the community. Simply hunting in the UP does not make you a stake holder. Only registered voters of the community should be allowed to make or change community rules. It sounds fine to say let's take a pole of every hunter but this could potentially result in absentee rules and rulers which I believe was an underlaying theme at the Boston Tea Party. Thousands of people make a several day swing into the UP to deer hunt and do not have to live the other 360 days a year with the consequences of the decisions they imposed upon the local residents. I believe that the imposition of antler restrictions would be such an overwhelming change in our laws and regulations that it would mandate a vote by the local community and my personal belief is that the vote would turn down antler restriction by probably an eighty-five percent majority. 

The poles sited on the DNR WEB site I believe came from the UP QDM initiative which sent out, from memory, two thousand questionnaires to land owners and two thousand questionnaires to hunters. The four thousand questionnaires were not all returned and in all probability the responders had little to no ties to the UP. Remember liars figure and figure lie. The majority of the UP voters, local residents, and/or property owners were not given the opinion of deciding their own fate and it's abundantly clear that they would have overwhelmingly rejected the initiative as evidenced by poles by local media.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Was that the same local media that wanted it to fail and misinformed readers or listeners? 

"Simply hunting in the UP does not make you a stake holder. Only registered voters of the community should be allowed to make or change community rules."

So, the vast majority of state and federal land hunters who do not live in the areas they hunt but hunt on public land paid for by their taxes...shouldn't have a say? Or the folks that own land in the U.P., pay taxes, and have a vested interest in the value of their land which is heavily influenced by the qulality of the hunting in the area shouldn't have a say? Again, I've found that if people had the opportunity to hear both sides, they voted overwhelmingly for it....didn't matter where they lived. The problem was all the lies out there..."We'll have to shoot all our does", or "the population will be lower".

These are the same arguments all over again. Find out what QDM really is, and then make and informed decision. In fact, that principle works well in life for any thing....get the facts, hear both sides, and make and informed decision. That's all you can do...but many people did not get to have that opportunity because they only listened to a few negative local media outlets. That's not being informed, but instead being led.


----------



## Alibi (Jan 31, 2004)

The bottom line is everyone has their own little opinion based on what their own little desires are. It doesn't matter if it is two people that are both pro QDM, two people opposed to QDM or two people on each side of the issue; there will *always* be different desires that's a fact. Nobody ever agrees on everything, compromises are sometimes made and sometimes we have to live with some things we don't like. Oh well, life goes on.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I agree fully with you Alibi...all I ask is that people make informed decisions. I know that doesn't always happen, but it's a benifit to everyone involved when people do. If you have been listening or reading the same opinion for years...look outside the box if nothing else to strengthen your own beliefs. It's not about being educated or not, but it IS about making a fully informed decision. 

What QDM is isn't open for interpretation....QDM has been QDM for over 30 years. You may not like it, may not agree, but at least know what it is before making a decision and if you only listen to one source you have done yourself and others a disservice.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Ogre said:


> I have made this point before and I'm going to make it again. Only the stake holders of a community should be allowed to change the rules of the community. Simply hunting in the UP does not make you a stake holder.


Well, I've made the following point before, and will do so again, in all likelihood. It is preposterous to limit "stakeholders" to those that happen to reside in a given area. A non-local landowner who invests time, blood, money, and toil certainly has as much stake in local deer management matters as a local vagrant who resides in an abandoned bus.

To say that you are a "stakeholder" if and only if you reside in the subject area completely disenfranchises MOST Michigan deer hunters, who happen to hunt in a DMU other than where they reside.


----------



## Ogre (Mar 21, 2003)

Let's use that logic about stakeholders and non residents because I've decided that I'm putting a Walmart in the adjacent property to you after all I spent a weekend or two in your area every year and that gives me the right to make the decision.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

Ogre said:


> I have made this point before and I'm going to make it again. Only the stake holders of a community should be allowed to change the rules of the community. Simply hunting in the UP does not make you a stake holder. Only registered voters of the community should be allowed to make or change community rules.


Hey no sweat, maybe you stake holders should handle all the taxes in the community and let the nonresident landowners off the hook since you don't want them to have a say in the community? That sounds fair doesn't it?

Man, just when you think you've seen it all. :sad:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> What QDM is isn't open for interpretation....QDM has been QDM for over 30 years. You may not like it, may not agree, but at least know what it is before making a decision and if you only listen to one source you have done yourself and others a disservice.


I have said it before but it bears repeating, QDM as practiced voluntarily on Private land is *NOT* the same as QDM imposed on public land and on private land owners involuntarily.

The argument about QDM is not about the underlying philosophy of QDM and is not about private land owners practicing it voluntarily. It is about forcing QDM as the only management policy for everyone. When you point to all of the success resulting from QDM on private land it is somewhat misleading to imply that the results on public land will be the same.

QDM is a great management policy for Private land owners to practice voluntarily.
_________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmusgeon inTraining


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

If we want to debate that issue - lets move it to sound off - and get this one back where it belongs - 

thanks

ferg....
Beside - my tax money is as green as any 'voter'


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

Ogre said:


> I have made this point before and I'm going to make it again. Only the stake holders of a community should be allowed to change the rules of the community.


So does this mean that SE Michiganders that provide the bulk of the funds that pay for the forests in your area; build your roads; fund your schools; fund your libraries; pay for the States University system; fund your law enforcement; etc.... can stop subsidizing your way of life (not to mention the dollars brought in by the hunters and travelers)?

I'll agree to your proposal once a provision is passed that stipulates that economic aid must stay in the county of origin.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

How did the Fed's do their survey to weigh hunter opinion when lead shot was changed to steel for waterfowl? Did MDNR survey hunters when they made unlimited antlerless permits? Did MDNR survey hunters when they changed baiting rules from truckload to 2 gallons? Do other Midwest states survey their hunters when they modify rules? If so, how did they do it? How come it seems like we have to have a Phil Donahue like approach on many deer management decisions? Just wondering why this is different than how other game animals are managed. Do you think there's a fear of rocking the boat when the Lansing financial situation is so shakey? Just wondering.
__________________


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> It is about forcing QDM as the only management policy for everyone.


Traditional Deer Management has been forced on us for how long? Why is this ok when you consider applying one tool, that aids in a single goal of QDM, is so bad? 



Munsterlndr said:


> When you point to all of the success resulting from QDM on private land it is somewhat misleading to imply that the results on public land will be the same.


Actually it is not. Because the "improvement of habitat" issue you keep raising to defend you argument is not even part of QDM.



Munsterlndr said:


> QDM is a great management policy for Private land owners to practice voluntarily.


It would also be a great policy to practice on public land as well!


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Bwana said:


> Traditional Deer Management has been forced on us for how long? Why is this ok when you consider applying one tool, that aids in a single goal of QDM, is so bad?


I think for the most part TDM has served us pretty well over the last 70 years. Before you start some radical new policy you better think long and hard because it may have an unintended impact. For example, the TB management policy in Michigan. I think that the huge herd reduction that resulted from this policy is what has many of the hunters in Michigan upset, not TDM as portrayed by many QDM supporters. TB management is not TDM. Another example is the drastic herd reduction coupled with AR's in PA. By making a radical shift in management policy an awful lot of hunters are unhappy. We will see how it eventually plays out there but I'm glad it's them undergoing this grand experiment and not us in Michigan.



Bwana said:


> Actually it is not. Because the "improvement of habitat" issue you keep raising to defend you argument is not even part of QDM.


In order to keep the herd in balance with the existing environment, one of the tenants of QDM, you have two choices: you either improve the habitat to increase or maintain the carrying capacity or you whack a bunch of does until the herd is in balance with the existing habitat. Most private land QDM advocates choose to supplement the existing habitat. That is why there is an entire forum here dedicated to habitat improvement and food plots are so popular. This is not an option for the most part on public land. The alternative is to whack does. That is what they chose to do in PA. Not particularily popular with most hunters in PA and I doubt it would be real popular in Michigan. Those are the choices. Please explain to me what other method you are going to use to keep the herd in balance? 



Bwana said:


> It would also be a great policy to practice on public land as well!


We obviously disagree. I have had the pleasure of experiencing "the public land version of QDM" for the last three years in the DMU I hunt in. How long have you hunted under those conditions, Bwana?
________________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudeon in Training


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"This is not an option for the most part on public land. The alternative is to whack does. That is what they chose to do in PA. Not particularily popular with most hunters in PA and I doubt it would be real popular in Michigan."

Not true. I'd bet they did not raise permits on public land in your area when the AR was inacted...just because of the AR. I've hunted in PA over the past 12 years and what they have done there with the doe herd has been excessive on some public lands....but it is still a better hunt than MI public land and I'd happily trade 2 weeks of MI rifle for a day in PA. Also, we had 2 district wildlife biologists and a chief wildlife biologist state in public that doe permits would not be increased due to an AR so what you are saying just isn't true.

Take some time and read this letter from John Ozoga on the subject that he sent to each NRC commisioner...there is no other deer authority in MI that will give you more of a straight and knowledgable answer on the subject than John:


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

Dear Mr. Wheatlake:

It&#8217;s my understanding that recent survey results did not meet the required 66 percent approval rate for continuation of QDM in DMU 118. Unfortunately, this survey was conducted after only four years under QDM instead of five years.

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

Traditional Deer Management

Traditionally, We have managed Michigan whitetails to maximize recreational opportunities and economic benefits. We&#8217;ve permitted, and even encouraged excessive buck harvesting, but minimal doe harvesting in order to maintain high density herds. Needless to say, this strategy has resulted in numerous consequences.

In short, hunter demands and economics have dictated deer management policy&#8212;resulting in a farming-type operation.

On the surface, traditional deer management sounds like an OK system. Unfortunately, every one involved tends to want more and more from the white-tailed resource, without putting much back into it. Such a strategy ultimately becomes a political football, with little regard the whitetail&#8217;s long term welfare.

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

Quality Deer Management

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

The goal of QDM is to produce and maintain healthy and productive deer herds with natural sex and age structure. And I emphasize natural. This is the way the white-tailed evolved and existed prior to modern man&#8217;s intervention.

Keep in mid, the goal of QDM is not to produce big bucks with trophy-sized antlers, they&#8217;re merely by products of a healthy, naturally structured deer population. Also, with QDM, deer hunters become true deer managers.

The Future

I&#8217;ve been involved, as a professional, with deer and deer hunting for over 40 years. I&#8217;ve seen some changes during that time. But I can assure you, the change will be immense in the next couple of decades, as deer management shifts from an emphasis on quantity to one of quality.

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

Most hunters probably are unaware, but there is a strong &#8220;naturalism&#8221; movement in progress. In the future, greater emphasis will be placed on such things as biodiversity, old growth forest stands, an ecological approach to resource management, and general trend toward producing plant and animal communities more like those that existed prior to the white man&#8217;s arrival on this continent. These changes will greatly impact whitetailed deer populations, especially on public land.

Depending upon where you get your figures, roughly 10 percent of the American populus are hunters, 10 percent are antihunters, and 80 percent are nonhunters. Most nonhunters are not against hunting, but they are concerned about the welfare of wild species. We&#8217;ll never convert antihunters to hunters, but if we as hunters offend nonhunters, many could become antihunters.

Public concern for animal welfare, and the debate over hunting impacts, more than likely will intensify in the future. (More states are having to amend their constitutions to protect hunting rights. That should tell you something.) This trend, often with a greater emphasis on a &#8220;hands-off or nonlethal&#8221; approach to deer management, will take center stage. As a result, the nonhunting public will be more prominent in deciding deer management policies. These nonhunters will ultimately decide whether we hunt deer.

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

QDM in DMU 118

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

Unfortunately, the QDM philosophy is based primarily upon experience in southern states. In fact, given our immense hunting army and northern environment, there are those who doubt QDM can be accomplished in Michigan. Therefore, it&#8217;s essential we continue to monitor QDM efforts throughout the state to determine how to implement the strategy under contrasting environmental conditions.

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

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

Antler Restrictions

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

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

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




The Survey

Any resource manager will tell you, you&#8217;re doing well whenever you can satisfy more that one-half of those involved in any deer management issue. Hoping to satisfy 66 percent of them, as required to implement QDM in Michigan, is nothing short of ridiculous.

The survey currently being used here is modeled after that used in Georgia. (I might add, the Georgia DNR was not initially sympathetic with QDM philosophy, and in my view attempted to roadblock such change.) Face facts, this is not Georgia, and we are not dealing with Georgia Deer Hunters. As you well know, Michigan deer hunters are notoriously traditional and disagreeable&#8212;if you can satisfy more than 50 percent, that&#8217;s great.

I&#8217;m disappointed that the Michigan DNR could not be more original in designing a survey that was better suited to their clientele. They do have the expertise, don&#8217;t they?

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

Conclusions

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

Let&#8217;s not lose sight of the fact that hunting is a wildlife management tool&#8212;not an end in itself. Deer shouldn&#8217;t be managed soled for recreational and economic benefits. Instead, we should be managing deer as they evolved&#8212;socially and nutritionally balanced. This means we as hunters should be more concerned about our role as deer predators, and how our actions benefit the species we hunt, not the other way around. 

QDM will not resolve all issues concerning the hunting debate or deer-human conflicts, but it&#8217;s the best we&#8217;ve got. It certainly will complement a natural approach to deer management much better than traditional practices that emphasize human interests, recreational benefits, and economics. And, in the long-run, QDM should prove much more palatable to a critical nonhunting public who are deeply concerned about the welfare of wild creatures.

Generally speaking, we have a choice. We hunters (and decision makers) can either lead the way with progressive QDM, in an effort to create more natural deer populations, and show our true concern for the long-term welfare of the white-tailed, or we can wait until we&#8217;ve literally forced into action&#8212;just to save our sport

Sincerely,



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


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Jeff - 
I took the time to read Ozogas letter and it is not my intent to bash him. Based on his careeer he is obviously a well qualified biologist and it's also my understanding that he is a heck of a nice guy.

But having said that, if you take an honest look at what he wrote it has almost nothing to do with hard biological facts.

His main points are, that while TDM has been an ok system it has become too politicized. This is hardly a scientific refutation of TDM. Believe me, in our political climate any established policy is going to become politicized and this includes QDM.

Secondly, he says we have to create a more natural herd and that we should hunt more like predators. So he wants us to kill fawns, the injured and the old animals? That is what natural predators prey on and I will admit that it is beneficial to the overall health of the herd, but come on, do really think that most hunters want to harvest a 30 Lb. fawn?

Thirdly, he seems consumed with the fear that the image of hunting will turn the public against us and that they will rise up and ban hunting. I gotta tell you, from the non-hunters standpoint there are a lot of similarities between QDM and trophy management. I actually see the emphasis that QDM places on big racks as being a lot more potentially harmful to the image of hunting that the traditional form of deer hunting that has always occurred in Michigan. So if you are really concerned about public image you may want to suggest to the QDMA that they stop selling video's like *"Aging and judging trophy whitetails".* I don't personally feel that we should base deer management policy on percieved appearances.

So in reading his letter I saw very little in terms of scientific support for his point of view and primarily an emotional appeal for a cause that he believes in.

Once again, it is not my intent to bash Ozoga. But if you are holding his letter up as a credible defense of AR's/QDM , I guess I'm going to remain unconvinced.
_____________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------

