# QDM on Public Land?



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I believe that QDM can be more effectively implemented on PUBLIC land, than private! 

Looking at the core biological principles of QDM, including:

*Balanced buck age structure
*A population in balance with the habitat
*Balanced sex ratios

QDM can most likely be more effectively implemented on public land, than private. Simply, the state has more control of effecting population dynamics on public land, than private. Populations on public land are most often in balance with carrying capacities...there are exceptions, but most of the time they are. At the same time, protection of yearling buck harvest is just as easy to implement on public land, as it is on private. With large areas of private land contributing greatly to the highest whitetail populations across the state, public land already has an advantage at reaching a population that is in balance with the habitat. At the same time, public land is open to anyone, and everyone, so populations can be easier to maintane at levels in balance with the carrying capacity.

So, because carrying capacity concerns are more easily addressed on public land, than private, and yearling buck protection is just as easy to implement on public, as it is on private, public land has the advantage. Public land will most likely be more in line with respect to balance in carrying capacity, and when you add in the fact that yearling buck protection can be just as successfully regulated, the resulting population is one of lower doe numbers, higher buck numbers, and improved sex ratios, which is basically a successful implementation of each of the 3 core biological principles of QDM.

Remember, you CAN have QDM without food plots and habitat improvement, but you CAN'T have QDM without having a population in balance with the habitat.

So, the 3 biological necessities of QDM can most likely be easier to regulate on public land, and at the same time, there is another large positive to an effective QDM program on public land.....Public Land has so much more room to improve! With effective yearling buck protection, as well as adequate doe harvest to insure an adequate sex ratio, the habitat can be improved to actually raise the carrying capacity, and offer even more of an increase in hunter satisfaction, than just the increase in age and quantity of bucks! So, basically, you protect the young bucks and have adequate doe harvest measures, which already improves hunter satisfaction, then you can improve the habitat to further increase hunter satisfaction by allowing for an increase in population.

That is why QDM can be more effective on public land. Doe harvest and yearling buck protection can be just as easily addressed as on private land, while at the same time public land has much more of an ability to improve, than private does! At the same time though, even if habitat improvement is not carried out on public land, the 3 core principles of QDM can still be met, just as easily, if not easier, than private land.

1.Balance in buck age structure....easily achieved by an adequate protection of yearling bucks

2.Balance in carrying capacities....easily achieved on public land with adequate doe harvest

3.Balance in sex ratios....easily achieved with adequate yearling buck protection and adequate doe harvest.

QDM works anywhere it is used, and public land is no exception.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

GREAT POST!

I agree that public land hunters likely have more to gain from QDM, on a relative basis, than private land hunters.

You are so correct, in that QDM can happen without food plots or habitat improvement, but NEVER unless the population is in balance with the habitat.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

NorthJeff

Good post and some good points.

Hunter management is harder than deer management.  Maybe someday it won't be. 

Typically speaking public land has land features that did not allow it to become agricultural land 100s of years ago. Be it swamps, sand or topography. The best dirt was turned into farms. 

Public land is the crown jewel of Michigan. Most eastern & southern states don't have what Michigan does has in terms of accessable public land. Habitat improvements on public land would go along way to increasing the carrying capacity. 

Lack of winter habitat is the limiting factor in the UP in terms of more deer. It will take decades to do it but it can be done if hunters demand it and want to fund it.

Every piece of land put under some type of QDM rules helps our state to become a better place for future generations.


----------



## Hunt_n_Fish (Jul 30, 2003)

ditto what they said. Great Post


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

NorthJeff, unfortunately you are preaching to the choir. The guys that need to read your post are the "if I don`t shoot that buck the guy behind the next tree will" crowd.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Bob,

I'd have to respectfully disagree....for a few reasons.

1. I have seen many QDM members make the statement that QDM will not work as well on public land....this is false.

2. I have also seen evidence habitat improvement and food plots are a necessity for QDM, or the most important aspect...this is false. In fact, neither are even part of the founding biological principles of QDM, at all.

3. There are many readers in the present, or future, that will perform searches on various topics, such as "public land QDM", or whatever, and will read through posts of various authors. You never know who may be reading these posts. At the same time, most any post I make like this is from a result of someone, at some point, on some thread, on this site, expressing a misunderstanding of QDM.

4. QDM is extremely basic, yet many non-QDMers point only to AR's, Unlimited doe harvest, or trophy management. Some even practice every necessity of QDM, yet disagree with QDM....

To those who already understand these concepts...great, this thread isn't for you, but for the 1 person that reads and understands QDM further....that's the entire point. You have to work on people 1 person at a time. I willl continue to stress the actual principles of QDM in an effort to further the understanding and acceptance of QDM. I try to do it patiently, persistantly, stubbornly, and accurately, but in the end if each thread results in 1 person with a greater understanding, it makes it all worth it. I find the greatest stumbling block to a person accepting QDM is due to misunderstandings and mistruths.....I will continue to try to make sure that happens as little as possible with threads like this.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

I want to know where this unlimited doe harvest bunk came from?

Increased and adequate are far from unlimited. Increased and adequate doe harvest apply to the entire state, the entire country for that matter.

If you have a buck harvest your doe harvest should meet or exceed it.

Even with "unlimited" permits we don't even come close to an equal harvest. 

Even with "unlimited" permits we don't even come close to quota in many, many areas of MI.

I also find it quite funny that people who criticize QDM for being about 'trophies' and 'big bucks' only focus on the reduced buck harvest aspect of QDM and nothing more.

QDM is a complete chain, you can't take out a link and call it QDM.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Swamp Ghost _
> *I want to know where this unlimited doe harvest bunk came from?
> *


Could it be from the "GDKC" from last year?


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I've run into the unlimited doe harvest up here quite a bit, even a guy yelling as a drove away at a gas station in Marquette at a Commemerative Bucks of MI guy with a trailer he mistakingly thought was from the QDMA. I've even heard that QDM wants to shoot all the does from our local DNR officer, which he heard from his district wildlife biologist from Shingleton, Terry Menzie. Also, I've been a part of conversations where people have complained loudly about drastically reduced deer sightings on their property, attributing this problem to the QDMA raising antlerless permits in areas....the QDMA? 

Bottom line though, if you are familiar with the basics of QDM, you have to agree that QDM will work just as well on public land, as private.

With the new QDM initiative taking place in the U.P. this year, it will be extremely important to get the truth out there about QDM in the U.P. There will be many lies and mistruths reported, by some who don't even know they are doing it. It is so important to get the truth out, especially in the area of doe harvest in the northern 1/2 of the U.P. It can be detrimental to the herd to harvest mature does in this area, and people need to hear the truth before making a decision. I honestly feel that if people hear only the truth and facts of QDM, they will overwhelmingly approve...it just all depends on how much truth they hear.


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

I think you are correct NJ, my impressions of the habitat on public lands has increased greatly over the past year. 

I just moved up to the NLP last year, always hunted private land, still do primarily during rifle season. I now live adjacent to State forest (new back yard) and weekly travel and hike trough 100s to 1000s of square miles of state, federal and private lands as part of my job every week over 3 counties.

My previous impression of Northern public land was the barren red pine plantations that kind of stick out as you travel through the northern lower.

Overall, I have found the public land to support much more diversity and overall better deer habitat than private lands I travel (agricultural areas not considered here) . I have seen some areas of LARGE scale habitat improvements on public land (including food plots / rye fields), whereas the predominant private land habitat improvement may be a small 1 acre or less food plot on 80 acres that really may not have any benefit to the long term health of the deer, perhaps a fall draw though. These small plots certainly will not draw deer from miles around from public land. I have not seen much in the way of timber management on smaller, private parcels either, some, but not much. I also notice many more browse lines on private than public land where cedars are prevalant.

I do see deer all over the place too, and have not noticed much difference in population densities between public and private over the last year. Im guessing the browse lines Ive noticed were probably developed through the 90s when higher deer densities where in the area.

Just my observations and from those I have concluded that on the public land I cover one ingredient in NJs formula has been achieved already:

*A population in balance with the habitat 

To get the other two ingredients in place will take some time and effort, but it is certainly do-able.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

GDKC, what a great thread!

Alot of truth in that thread.

It appears that the doe "slaughter" that occurs in MI every fall is one giant 3 headed myth.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

By the way NJ you are abosuletly correct, public land hunters would be the biggest beneficiaries of a QDM program.

They are already sitting in the cat bird seat!


----------



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

I disagree with some of the points, I agree that QDM can work on public land but you need to remember that on private land you can limit the number of deer taken or not taken, but on public land you may have areas that have unbelievable hunting pressure on them, now you have created a lot of enthusiasim in shooting doe's by a lot of QDM hopefulls, and if the area your hunting is at or below the carrying capacity your only hurting the herd. The only way is Micro Management in certain areas.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

The DNR already severely limits the number of antlerless permits on many areas of public lands as compared to private.

As has been stated most SGA's, state and federal lands are already below carrying capacity. Combine that with protection of immature bucks and you have a recipe for some dynamite hunting.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

The problem with private land is that some landowners hord considerable deer herds on their property and do not harvest near enough does. That is not a problem on public land, because the available permits are usually used in full. Basically, the population of deer on public land is easier to maintain due to large number of willing participants. In no way does QDM dictate an overharvest of does though, in fact QDM would instead dictate that scientific data, and only scientific data be used to support any population maintainance regulations. 

Most public land areas could probably even stand an little increase in population without adverse effects on habitat. Basically, adequate yearling restraint, with appropriate doe maintainance could possible yeild higher buck numbers, as DMU118 data suggests, with an increase in the number of bucks harvested, as DMU118 suggests.

The DMU 118 is an awesome testimony to the validity and appropriateness of QDM.


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

Up here in the NW, there were very few public land antlerless permits issued last year (Zero in Wexford and many other COs).

Follow the link below to see where the permits where issued, I think it is a good reflection of where populations need further reduction (i.e. mainly private land).


2003 Antlerless Quotas


----------



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

Okay, I stand corrected on the doe permits for public land, but I would also just like to make this point, why do you think they need 20,000 doe permits for some private land in specific counties. Well I believe it is corn, food plots, forest management,etc. They have a long way to go if they want to improve public land habitat in my area because it is just not happening.


----------



## jme (Aug 26, 2003)

Great thread.

Luv2Hunt made the insightful comment that "..hunter management is a lot harder than deer management.." I couldn't agree more. My experience is limited to state land in SE Michigan. This area is some of the closest hunting land available to guys in metro-Detroit and it gets a LOT of pressure. Most of these guys are probably weekend warriors who only get out November 15th and 16th. They'd probably love to see more and bigger bucks. Given the limited time they choose to hunt, however, "if it's brown it's down" is the war cry. Deer harvest isn't the question, selective harvest is. IMHO the only way to allow bucks to reach even 2 1/2 years is to totally protect youngsters. This means no shooting a deer with less than X points on one beam. And, if you have an anterless permit and take a button buck, it must be tagged with a buck license. Most guys would probably be happy with a doe - but will take whatever legal deer comes along first even if it's a spike or forkhorn. I also believe that a huge majority of hunters are honest and law-abiding. If we simply make young bucks illegal they won't take 'em. 

Good luck,
John E.
Ypsi


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

But, points don't equal age. I have seen many 8 and one 10 point 1 1/2 year olds in southern Michigan.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Protecting 90% of the immature MI bucks with a 4 point to a side restriction has to be better than protecting 10% with a 3" restriction, wouldn't you say?


----------

