# Scientific Evidence or Hunter Opinion?



## Kevin

"increase leasing and further reduce access to private lands"

Swamp Ghost you mentioned this before in reply to my question/statement about making case with private success stories, before making it mandatory for all. Could you clarify the 'leasing' issue? 

If private is private, what does leasing have to do with access, and why is leasing a bad thing? 

Thanks


----------



## Swamp Ghost

You increase the animosity between the percieved "have and have nots"

You see as clear as day on these very boards. Accusations that people who lease/own land, improve existing habitat, plant food plots, harvest a few more does and pass on immature bucks are deer hogs and greedy.

Leasing is not all bad, I do it myself as a way to manage the area around our farm. With a similar state-wide management scheme, access will not have to become a bidding war.

Access to private lands is become increasingly difficult for the very reasons stated in the above article. There are more deer on private lands, thus it becomes much more desirable. There is no reason the state lands in Michigan cannot be made as desirable as surrounding private lands.

My .02. 

Something I really have been thinking about.


----------



## Kevin

Well I am just a learning observer here, but to the degree that I have observed rancor, it is not primarily envy, or accusations of greed. From my observation, animosity seems most related to a perceived imposition as opposed to persuasion of a philosophy.

Private property will always become more scarce, and competition for leases will increase. Property managed for a good deer population will be one of many factors adding to that competition. 

The question becomes, what is the acceptable trade-off between the animosity created by that competition for private property, versus the animosity created by an attempt to mandate a given deer management approach to public lands; as opposed to building acceptance over time, in many different areas, through smaller scale (private) examples.


----------



## Swamp Ghost

In my opinion, it is.

Because everyone is under the umbrella of equal regulations, that being said, this "animosity" will fade due to their very nature. Land ownership will never go away and as long as there are two sets of standards it will do nothing but fuel the fire.

Not that the stigma that private land is better will ever go away but you can greatly reduce that perception by taking steps to improve the habitat and aggressively manage the deer herd to produce a hunt on par with private lands.

One can say that the hunting will never be equal because of the hunting pressure that public ground recieves, but the hunting pressure on both public and private lands is remarkably similar. You just have public land hunters hunting a much smaller portion of the deer herd resulting in understandable frustration.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

You can find many areas of public land that is great hunting due to limited and or difficult access/distance. 

Some of the worst hunting can be on private land parcels of 40 acres or less that are surrounded by similar sized properties. Everyone wants a buck, everyone wants to have a shot, but the numbers don't add up. It's why I sold my 40 in the thumb and moved north. We didn't own our 120 the first year, and I was able to have a wonderful time hunting public land within 10 miles of my house. Harvested a great 2.5 year old 8-point, saw does(not more than 2 at a time) 1 out of every 4 times I hunted, and saw no other hunters-just what I was looking for: A chance at a decent buck-not a trophy, but decent-peace and quiet, and no other hunters to mess with.

Public land hunting gets a bad rap. You can have a great time hunting on public land, whether it's habitat is good, or not.

Add in Protection of yearling bucks

Populations maintained below the carrying capacity of the land, and

Adequate sex ratios, 

and you've got yourself a great place to hunt....for free.


----------



## Swamp Ghost

Exactly!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

I choose to live where I do because of the price of land and the lack of people, let alone hunters for 51 weeks of the year. I can have my little piece of "heaven"-bad soils, few deer, poor habitat, but it's the management that's the fun part, I still hunt primarily on public land.

For my quality hunting though, I go to WI for private land, and PA for public. We have to pay $12 an acre in WI for a good chunk of land, but I hear prices of $40 per in IL, so $12 isn't too bad-it's actually less than the property taxes. With PA's new guidelines, it's now becoming one of the best public land hunts in the country. Plenty of 2.5 year old bucks, and a few older. Great mix.

It's amazing what quality opportunities there are outside of MI- WI,IL,IA,KY,PA,OH,IN,MN, just to name a few. It doens't mean I'd want to live there though!


----------



## Shoeman




----------



## Ferg

Nice work slipshot - but I wonder - if there indeed is not some actual merrit to at least the 'idea' - not necessarly to 'hunt over' but as a nutritional benifit to the heard in general - the 'road side' claims are very valid - there is an attraction to the road sids - and for the reasons stated - 

I suppose it does get back to the orignal premis that if there is a reduced herd size, managed for a particular area or combonation of areas - then the antler size would, over time, increase. 

But, and I'll ask out to the highly educated on this, is the habitat condusive to 'large racks'? Are the necessary minerals available and in proper supply (assuming heard size is ok) to, over time, for Michigan to produce some mounters? In any quanity? - 

Lacking a natrual supply, can minerals be supplied in an artifical way to help? Short of public land food plots, how would you accomplish this? 

There was once upon a time - some very large racks out in state land in NE Mi - 

I do think that passing on the 'little ones' is a choice we all have to make - and make it we do - for better or worse - 

 

ferg...


----------



## Swamp Ghost

In the wild very few plants have more than 10 percent protein and for a whitetail deer to fully express their antler potential, they need a diet that offers them more than 16 percent crude protein. Many of the food plots available average over 22 percent crude protein with some reaching the 38 percent range when the soil is prepared properly. By providing food sources with increased palatability and high in total digestible nutrients, deer will grow larger and have bigger racks.

The above is to illustrate what is necessary for a deer to reach it's "full potential" in respect to it's given age, from fawns to the most mature of bucks. Given optimum food sources fawns will be born bigger, grow faster and larger, and the rest of the deer will benefit from these increased sources of nutrition.

As far as body weights and rack size the overall determing factor is age. A 5 year old doe will always weigh more than 2 year old doe under the same conditions. A 5 year old buck will be larger in every aspect compared to a 2 year old buck under similar conditions. These same deer will be smaller than deer that have been provided "optimum" food sources.

Soil conditions are a limiting factor to achieving "full-potential" but not a factor in achieving a more balanced and mature herd structure.


----------



## Deer_Babe

Splitshot: Thanks for the chuckle!!! 
Shoeman: I want your icon...


----------



## Brian S

Maybe the DNR should focus their efforts on genetic research. Maybe come up with a geneticly re-engineered deer that can reach its full potential on only 10% protein. Kinda like a Bionic Buck program.


----------



## Shoeman

> _Originally posted by Brian S _
> *Maybe the DNR should focus their efforts on genetic research. Maybe come up with a geneticly re-engineered deer that can reach its full potential on only 10% protein. Kinda like a Bionic Buck program.
> 
> *


Now that's science


----------



## Swamp Ghost

That may take more than the $750.00 license increase Splitshot envisions.


----------



## Ferg

Stupid me - fingers didn't type what they thought my eyes read - Sorry man - 'Splitshot' - :-( I'll be more carefull in the future - 

firg...
aka ferg...


----------



## Shoeman

After watching and participating in this thread, I've come to the conclusion that QDM isn't as radical as once perceived. Sharing a few laughs doesn't hurt either. I'm glad we can at least enjoy the discussions and joke around a bit.

A major break-through


----------



## Swamp Ghost

I agree, when we eliminate the cheap shots from both sides, it can be down right constructive! Go figure!


----------



## johnhunter

I've been thinking, that the closure, continued closure, then re-opening of the QDM forum may be the most brilliant marketing maneuver since the "New Coke" introduction back in the 1980's.

Remember how the original Coca Cola was taken off the market? How the marketplace shunned New Coke? How the public groused that they missed the "Real Thing"? And then, when "Coca Cola Classic" was finally "re-introduced", its sales exploded, and the company immediately left its arch-rival, Pepsico, in the dust. The Coca Cola brand has ever-since been one of the strongest brand names in the world of consumer products.

Just idle thoughts!


----------



## chromium

But, It still tasted the same didn't it.


----------



## Bob S

> _Originally posted by Shoeman _
> *After watching and participating in this thread, I've come to the conclusion that QDM isn't as radical as once perceived. *


 You can even join on-line, 

http://www.qdma.com/store/stores_ap...41461520&Store_id=133&page_id=23&Item_ID=1081


----------



## Shoeman

I guess this is the part where I admit being a member for last 3 years.


----------



## plugger

Reading these posts written such passion to change the look of the deer in michigan makes me realize how lucky I am. I will be quite content to hunt my farms with my wife and son and daughter, we will be happy to harvest a few small bucks. My daughter, always the compettive person will hunt for a large buck long after the rest of us have moved on to steelhead. Even with her time being limited by sports she has killed 1 older buck 4 out of the last 5 years. The older I get the less I care about the trophy aspect and the more about the quality of the hunt. Human nature too often wont let us be satisfied, good is never good enough. My deer may not be large horned, but there fat and tasty. For people who crave large antlers. in ten to fifteen genetics and breeding are going to produce some racks like we have never seen. Got to go now and get the drift boat ready to go get skunked on the 
PM.


----------



## Steve

> We have millions of acres of forests and many companies who want to cut those forest down. Besides charging them, we should make some rules on what they have to plant instead of just leaving the land to let nature take her course.


Ray, I couldn't agree with this statement more. These companies come in and rape the land basically for what little they pay to log. Then they either leave a wasteland of downed timber lying around (usually the pines they "accidentally" knock down on the way to oaks), or a bunch of woodchips. How wonderful would it be to see some bio-diverse pro-habitat re-plants!


----------



## wild bill

shoemans coming out of the closet.

i myself just recently joined at outdoor rama


----------



## Ferg

Plugger makes a good point - sometimes we forget about the 'hunt' itself - being in the woods with our children - even if we see nothing is important - nothing compairs to that time - as we go round and round - pros and cons - Pluggers post made me think - And I say this not for comments of sympathy or anything like that - but in retrospect of importance - just before Christmas this past year - my son (19) was killed in a car accident - I think back about times we spent together - working on cars - proms - a ton of things - BUT the times we spent together in the woods together shooting, those where THE BEST times - for him as well as me - 

The quality of the deer, the quality of the habitat, the quality of the hunt are all things we should be good stewards of - but - the time spent with our children in the woods - thats QUALITY!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Actually, when timber companies come in and "rape" the land, it is the best for habitat. Clearcut's always provide the most abundant food sources, ie:20X more than a mature pine stand, and 10X more than a mature hardwood stand. 

For beautification of the forest, a select cut, brushless, park-looking woods is the most beautiful, but it depends on if you are managing for beauty and future timber growth, or wildlife. For wildlife, cut it and let the tops lay!

The best thing a lot of these logging companies can do is just leave it alone! We have vast wastelands of jack and red pine plantations around here that the "tourist" think is great for wildlife. They are actually forage deserts, with little to no value for wildlife. Grouse studies in MN found that pines planted in rows, although best for future "boards per foot", increased disease, warfare, and predation among the brids. Populations were increased by 10X with variety and staggered plantings. It's no different with other wildlife, especially deer, that thrive on "edge habitat".

Fertalizing and liming, leaving the tops lay, and letting it grow natural is the best for wildlife.

A comprimise can be as follows. I have a friend with a 40 acre, park-like hardwood stand with no screening, bedding, water, or significant food sources. His best avenue would be to select-cut the entire woods, removing the undesirables and harvestable qualty trees, and leaving future trees for another cutting in several years. He could clearcut a 100 x 300 yard strip along the back that is out of way of neighbors and hard to access, while at the same time clearcutting a few "pockets" of 1 acre areas within the remaining select-cut area to allow for further screening, food, and bedding sources on the property. The pockets could be cleaned of harvestable timber, and the rest is left to lay and provide further screening and wildlife cover. For the "complete" package, he could locate a wildlife pond and a small amount of 1/4 to 1/2 acre "harvest" food plots located in strategic locations adjacent to the clearcut "bedding" area, and other pocket clearcut and pond. In this type of property management he leaving a good portion of future harestable timber trees, while at the same time providing bedding, food, screening cover, and water, situated in a way to allow for an increased carrying capacity of the land, and increased viewing and harvest opportunities. For further enhancement he could fertalize and lime the clearcut openings to allow for increased protein levels and increased palatibility. Woody browse is especially tough for the digestive system of fawns, so the establishment of a few small food plots and native plant enhancement would be encouraged.

Many times, when a property is planted up here, they replace a decent habitat, with a poor "rows of pines" habitat that is worse than when they started.

The best thing they can do is just let it lay. As our UP forest continue to grow and age, coupled with the plantings of additional pine plantations, we lose more diverse quality habitat every year. Our deer yards are cut and replaced with pine, our hardwoods, and even our spruce, is most often replaced with pine. Great for future "boards per foot", but terrible for wildlife.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Amen Ferg!

Thanks for the perspective, it's great you were able to spend those years together in a great passion for the outdoors. Some of my favorite times in the woods have been with my 6 year old nephew and 2+ year daughter-quality times!


----------



## Shoeman

Drummond Island is a perfect example of the benefits of logging. I have hunted mostly small game on the Island. The pats, rabbits and deer seem to zero in on those areas. Wildlife is abundant at or near these areas. Even the first season after the cut attracts a diversity of critters.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Shoeman,

Did they plant them in pines, or let it grow "natural". What about the "tops". Some of the best grouse places around here are those aspen and hardwood cuts where the tops were left, and it creates a jungle of fresh growth and brush. It's also nice when the tear it all up and expose quite a bit of fresh dirt. Lots of buried seeds in that dirt that grows and is eaten by wildlife.

One of the best blueberry spots by my house is a new clearcut of 2 years ago. It was a spruce swamp that was clearcut. Within 2 years it is just absolutely full of blueberries and other browse. The problem is the jack pines are almost 3' tall already and will eventually take over the entire 40.


----------



## Shoeman

Most of the areas I hunt are in the "Plains" and around Sheep Ranch. I try to concentrate my efforts in the re-growth of aspen/poplar. Yeah, there's a few small pines in the mix, but I believe most of the cuts are taking place in the poplars. They leave some of the tops and some of the lumber. It makes for interesting walking, but man does it hold game. The entire Plains area is a mixture of swamp, mature pines, cuttings, aspen/poplar stands and open plains. The majority of it is private, but according to the signs on the biggest portion, hunting and hiking is permitted.

Very diverse


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Probably pretty ugly at first, but it turns beautiful quick!!

I can imagine how to the "untrained" eye passing buy, it could look like a ravaged wasteland at first.


----------



## Steve

> We have vast wastelands of jack and red pine plantations around here that the "tourist" think is great for wildlife. They are actually forage deserts, with little to no value for wildlife.


Also a good point. There are some of these stands of row planted jack pine near where I hunt. What a wasteland! Useless trees for timber, firewood, and for most wildlife except kirtland's warbler. Man those trees are always brittle and dry too!


----------



## Deer_Babe

Just a FYI and clarification on aspen (poplar): aspen must be clear cut in order to regenerate because it needs full sunlight and regeneration will be minimal to none in shaded areas. Selective cutting won't work with aspen for the same reason. In troll land, selective cut aspen will turn into maples, other hardwoods, etc. Whatever is in the understory. Jeff, I'm sure you know this, I just wanted to make sure others were aware. I was anti-clear cut anything, until I grew up and became a wildlife biologist


----------



## Deer_Babe

Actually, I'm in favor of jack pine plantings on public land. They are great for wildlife other than KWs. Usually KWs will use them from years 10-20. If the planting is over 20 years and up to 30, it needs to be cut and replanted. The thick cover provided is excellent for different species at different growth stages. Low ground cover...great for ground nesting birds, including game species. Plus, think of the abundance of insects for food. Mio is another area with JP plantations. Guess where the abundance of car deer crashes occur...yep, M-18 with JP on both sides! I slow down to 45mph going through deer alley. *Of course, most of the time I'm gawking at wildlife.* Deer will browse on JP, especially when stands are young. Also, excellent fawning and hiding cover.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Deerbabe,
I'm actually in favor of JP, but not as the only tree in the woods. The young JP on my property is great for my snowshoes, but it is very low quality browse for deer-close to starvation food. I see browsing very occasionally on WP, but not JP. 

My beef with the pine plantations are that they take a somewhat diverse habitat, and turn it into a 1 dimensional, rowed planting that increases predation and disease among certain wildlife. The stands are very usefull for the first few years, but as they grow older they are allowed to grow to reach a harvestable age. It is in these stages where they are at their worst, or quickly reaching their worst. The main problem is that the entire National Forest in my area is turning into this type of woods.

I know there has to be balance, but I see that in general, the public lands and even paper company lands are being managed for "boards per foot" and timber production, as opposed to wildlife restoration. I've had a park forester tell me this is their priority, as well as 2 state foresters-timber production, over wildlife, and it shows.

I guess I'd rather see it grow natural, then planted in pine.

You're right, the only select cutting they do around here are red pine plantations, and hardwoods.


----------



## Whit1

Hmmm! Are my eyes decieving me? Bio-diversity, eco-system, forage deserts????? You guys are sounding like, let me see if I get this right.......flaming whacko liberal environmental nuttos!!!...or words to that effect.

I've been gone for a day or two and see that this thread has grown and prospered. The discussion, albeit a tad complicated at times, has been polite, courteous, points are being made, disagreement is expressed, and yet it is civil. No one has laid claim to be the holder of the unalterable truth.........LOL!

You know, at the end of it all we'll find that we agree more than we disagree.

Jeff,
While I have no knowledge about the age of the deer from Lake County whose antlers that I've seen, I have seen 100's of antler mounts over the years and it is a rare one indeed that has 8 or more points on a well formed rack. On my basement wall are about 33 sets of antlers and most of them would be a "trophy" as compared to the Lake County racks that I've seen mounted in homes, cabins, bars, garages, etc. Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying as a "knock" on the hunters who harvested those deer, it is merely an observation.


----------



## sadocf1

We are all self proclaimed deer management "experts.We argue the pro's and con's of baiting, feeding, overpopulation, not enough deer, buck/doe ratios, spare the little bucks, shoot more does, have more open seasons, the merits of QDM, the ability/inability of our DNR to manage our deer, or to count our deer, or to control disease in our deer, but there is one item that we as 'sportsmen'' and "violators'' alike hold dear, seldom question its effects on our seeing and shooting more and bigger bucks and that the DNR experts who assure us that "less deer better buck/doe ratio= better hunting'' hold dear as it sells more licenses, the QDM people seem to favor it, and of course it is the fact that we can legally shoot 2 bucks. We choose to ignore the fact that a 1 buck limit would theoretically result in a better buck/doe ratio - we want to have our cake and eat it too


----------



## sadocf1

If there is "scientific evidence'' to prove that a 2 buck limit will result in a better buck/doe ratio I will retract my supposition (we want to have our cake and eat it too'').
With regard to Habitat- if 80% of our deer are found in farming areas - perhaps if farmers were given a monetary incentive to provide improvements-federal and state funding- like Ducks Unlimited


----------



## sadocf1

As a veterinarian much of my life has been spent working w/farm animals. Livestock breeders must keep their best breeding stock,rather than killing it every year, as we do w/our deer.
The successful livestock breeder keeps the best females, breeds them to superior sires, sells most of the increase plus any older animals that are no longer productive- replaces those w/superior animls where possible. The long term goal is to use selective breeding to produce superior animals. 
We are apparently advocating a policy that is the direct opposit for our deer. QDM to shoot the best sires, more doe tags to dispose of the best females.
We call this scientific wildlife management.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Sad,

QDM is:
1.Adequate buck age structure

2.Populations maintained below the carrying capacity of the land

3.Adequate buck to doe ratios.

That's it, that's all it it is. It isn't doe tags, # of buck tags, or shooting the best buck, in fact it's allowing the best bucks to show and breed and keeping the carrying capacity in line with the habitat. Get the above 3 to happen, and you have a scientifically proven management plan, leave even just 1 of the above 3 out of the equation.....an you have what we currently have.

On a larger scale, the QDMA also supports education, working with wildlife officials, habitat improvement, hunter ethics, and youth involvement. But the above 3 are the biological necessaties of white-tailed population dynamics.


----------



## sadocf1

"Population at or below the natural carrying capacity of the land''
Habitat is the native environment. Can we assume that food plots are part of the native environment ? In the UP and northern lower, where these food plots freeze and may be covered w/ 2-3 feet of snow for at least 4 to 5 months of the year can we say that we plant food plots to improve habitat, or should we admit that this practice is primarily to attract more deer to our property?
If there are no deer on our property during the winter months do these food plots improve habitat or do they concentrate deer which can be detrimental to native habitat?
These are but observations of a native northern Michigander who has hunted and observed deer for lo these many (70) years.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Habitat management, including native vegitation management, total vegitation management, and even including or not including food plots, can either increase of decrease the carrying capacity of a piece of ground.

If you attract too many deer to a particular piece of ground to cause habitat degredation, then you have exceeded your carrying capacity of the land. As the 2nd point states, your property must be MAINTAINED at or below the carrying capacity of the land. You attract more, you shoot more. This is were the education comes in. You should be working with a local biologist to determine proper carrying capacity for your property, and to set realistic harvest goals. Populations census, of which the use of cameras are probably the best, is needed to determine harvest objectives.

My current property has not reached it's carrying capacity, so therefore, I plant food plots, clearcut, and fertalize/lime native vegitation to not only increase and improve the habitat, but to see more deer. My yearly camera census of 600 to 700 photos will let me know what harvest objectives I will have in the fall.

Populations maintained at or below the carrying capacity of the land. It doesn't matter what you do, or don't do to your habitat, the bottom line is your population needs to be maintained.


----------



## Ed Spin

Sad:

You hit on a very important point about food plots. 

They can be an integral part of the natural habitat, but as you point out what about a freeze and/or covered up with 2-3 feet of snow that renders its use as a winter carry-over food source nil. This shows that too many food plots are planted as an attractant for hunting or as a late summer and fall food source with the big picture not being considered.

Food plots also fail due to a drought, poorly managed, and not enough planted to help get those deer into prime shape prior to the onset of winter. It takes a very tough winter to bring down deer, even fawns, if they had the summer and fall with access to unlimited nutritious food and well planed food plots can fill the bill.

The main emphasis should always be on the natural habitat for a drought affects it much less than a planted food plot. So how do we adjust for the possible drought and severe winter.

Food plots can be planned to address that issue. If you have the space and the soil type is adequate or built up through the years corn planted in fairly large plots, 5-15 acres and left standing for the winter and just corn alone even with no other food plots can make it happen. A supplement to corn that can take a hit in a drought is the brassica family, rape, canola, turnips, kale, rutabaga, swede, cabbage and kolrabi. Brassicas have deep roots, very high in protein (30-38%) can and will grow in temperatures as low as 30, stays green under the snow all winter long and can grow to heights of 4 feet or more and stay standing throghout the winter. Sounds like corn and brassicas are the ticket and believe me they are the ticket to help carry deer through the winter and througout the state of Michigan. To the above add a lequme mix food plot and the going gets easy.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## sadocf1

Us old people are set in our ways, it is difficult for us to grasp the more recent "scientific'' advances in deer management, we lack the "knowlege'' to manage our property.
We must realize that it isnt "deer hunting'' anymore, its "deer farming'' 
I have seen the light !!


----------



## johnhunter

Deer Farming? 

You must be talking about Traditional Deer Management, with its emphasis on targeting bucks and protection of does. As we have learned, TDM gives us high deer populations, poor adult doe:buck ratios, and no age structure in the buck population. In other words, an out-of-balance, unnatural deer population. 

TDM much more closely approximates "farming" than does QDM, which emphasizes restoration of balanced age/sex structure, and population in balance with habitat.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Just like Farmlegend said...."Deer Farming"???

Unfortunately, "deer farming" was the way of the past: Numbers of deer taking precedence over quality, structure, health, and balance.

Sad, you are right too, in 1 respect, this sure ain't deer hunting anymore. In fact, many who get into the scientific management of their property find that the management aspect takes a much higher presedence over just "deer hunting".

Although new to MI, QDM has been around for close to 30 years. 

Stewardship, personal responsibility, Total Vegitation Management, education, population balance, cooperation with local wildlife officials, involvement of youth, health of the habitat---are these bad things? Are these really "scientific advancements"?

Habitat improvement, increased health, increased production, benifit to the majority of all wildlife(especially my rabbits, woodcock, and grouse!!), property value increase, increased personal knowledge, stewardship, responsibility, and fun. If this is what it is called "deer farming", then count me in!!


----------



## Ferg

Count me in - 'deer farming' 

Now I'm I reading correctly the part about - if I wanted to provide quality food plot for a wintering over - then say 5 acres of standing corn is a good thing? I thought it was mostly carbs and not very nutrious? - or - was it meant to be a combonation of 1 from column 'corn' and 1 from column 'brassica family'??

Thanks

ferg...


----------



## bwiltse

Ferg, deer get much needed value from carbs for making it through the winter. Protein becomes more critical once spring arrives.


----------



## Luv2hunteup

Sad

To help clear up a few things that have been said here:

There a lots of programs ($$$) available for the farmer or any other landowner out there who chooses. Visit the site below for just one example.

http://www.mi.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

DU monies are from private contributions not state or federal tax dollars. It may be utilized on public land or private.

If you do'nt think the farmers are getting enough of our tax dollars visit the site below to see some of the subsidies our farmers in our state are receiving. Some receive millions in subsidies, I'm not complaining because I have received some money via the Stewardship Incentive Program (great program).

http://www.ewg.org/farm 

As for deer farming, I know I would buy and plant the best deer seed possible if that's all there was to it. For habitat improvement I'll bet I put in 10 hours or more to every 1 hunting. I get personal satisfaction from my stewardship practices. My land will be there long after I'm dead and gone. I'm striving to have the best habitat available in my geographic area and yes I'm also doing it to improve my deer hunting. My land will be my legacy to my family and well beyond.

I am well aware of the fact that the deer have gone to the yards for 4 months now and that the snow has covered the ground for at least 5 months. I'm am also aware of the fact that when they left and when they return they will find high quality high protien food.
If the deer wintered in my area I know I wood plant whatever would hold the over the best.

I do this on a voluntary basis. I try to limit myself to 3 1/2 year or older bucks. Just because they are older does not make them genetically superior. If I do'nt take does my neighbors will have too many deer in their hay causing the economic impact. Winter, wolves, bear,coyotes and poachers kill more deer than hunters ever do in our area.

I do agree with you that 1 buck tag would help improve the buck to doe ratio. It would also limit the monies spent by hunters. That is money spent on tags, gas lodging, food, beer and so on. Hunting takes place in rural areas and this influx of hunter dollars has impact on the local economies. I feel that the second buck tag is also based on economic reasons, but isn't that what keeps our country strong, people spending money?


----------



## sadocf1

Webster defines farming as using a piece of land to grow crops and animals. We should all agree on this definition, whether we want to grow livestock, trees, fish, fruit and nuts, any kind of wildlife. In northern Michigan deer farming is the wave of the future.We are steadily losing habitat, what is left has been severly degraded. Rabbits, partrige, squirrels, frogs, snakes, turtles, songbirds are disappearing. Varmints are on the increase. John Ozaga tells us that the requirement for a healthy herd is not habitat improvement, but populations maintained below carrying capacity. This be true. Tree farming has become well established. Very few farms keep livestock. Brush and weeds are taking over many fields that used to grow crops and pasture cattle. Here in Presque Isle county we have already lost 3 of our taverns as a result of scientific deer management (TB Eradication). The DNR admits that 80% of our deer are in the farming areas. They are semi-domesticated, we have taught them to prefer farm crops by our practice of baiting and supplemental feeding in the past. The buck poles in our deer camps hung full in them days. We practiced Quantity Deer Management, everybody took home a buck. With Quality Deer Management the buck poles dont get much use.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

According to the DMU118 #'s, with QDM, the buck pole is not only getting the same use, but more use, and heavier!

EX:
TDM:45 does psm, 6 bucks.

QDM:25 does psm, 12 bucks.

Also, deer farming is "wave of the future"? That's entirely what TDM has been in the past. The record winter kills of through the winters of 95 and 96 were a direct result of TDM, or "Deer Farming", where quantity outweighed quality and protection of habitat.

My property management efforts have improved a lot more habitat than just deer habitat. This is evident by the many, many, grouse and snowshoes on the property. Of course, one big difference though about the grouse and snowshoe...I don't shoot them. Along with the predators as a problem, I also find that most don't have the sense of responsibility that they should when harvesting rabbits and grouse. Many areas around my house are completely depleted of game during the season, with hunters returning until every last animal is shot. The next year they go back, and no game. They don't come back for a few years, and low and behold, there are rabbits and grouse again. They do the same again. They shoot until gone. They call this a "cycle". They simply explain, "The grouse are down this year".

The early 80's was boom, with lots of dumb, uneducated deer coming into bait piles. Now, 20 years later, the deer have wised up, but a generation of hunters havn't. Although most of the hunters around here continue to be successful if not using bait, the vast majority rely on baiting to harvest their bucks, and are becoming frustrated because 20 years of shooting deer over bait has wised up the deer.

Hopefully gone are the days when a hunter could get away with zero scouting, zero effort, and drive to the end of a 2-track and dump a truck-load of bait to shoot a buck on opening day.

If it takes "scientific management" to cure these cycles, than so be it.

We have 11 taverns in Munising for a town of 3000. To lose a few wouldn't really be much of a loss. And if their sole-profitability is based on the over population of tame deer in the area, it sounds like "risky business" to me.


----------



## sadocf1

Farming- farmers- ? Those people who plant crops on a piece of land to feed animals ?? Farmers and ranchers have always cleared land, limed and fertilized and planted crops to feed livestock. If I clear land, lime and fertilize and plant crops to entice more deer, to draw deer away from neighboring property I am not farming ?? The primary reason for planting, etc, is to harvest something off a piece of land, whether it be the crop or the animals that pastured there. I would be proud to be called a farmer, they are the salt of the earth, there would be damn little food available without them. Could many of the opinions of farmers voiced on this forum contribute to farmers opinions regarding ''SPORTSMEN'' ?


----------



## Ed Spin

Sad:

I was born in 1935, raised on a farm in mid Michigan and either farmed full or part time until 1996 when I retired.

Most farmers that I know hunt and even most that don't love wildlife. Some may complain about those pesky deer eating all of their crops, but take away those deer and you'll really hear some complaining. 

There are many farmers who are concerned about the health of wildlife, particularly deer and plant or leave some crops to help carry them through the winter. Very few farmers complain about the crop damage when it is held to a senible amount, this is their contribution. 

there are farmers like myself who go a bit overboard to improve the condition of all wildlife and not only leave corn standing but plant extra forage of many types for year round food and maximum health. 

I and many other farmers who raise crops and livestock know that all wildlife are also crops and you only get out what you put in. I consider the above described type of stewardship of wildlife an integral and very important part of true sportmanship. They are our animals and it is our responsibility to care for them the best that we can. Harvesting this crop is part of our reward.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Sad,

Farmers are an awesome group of people! 

In many cases hard working and underpaid, with a multitudes of skills and abilities. No argement there.

But, to me, a farmer is to habitat improvement, or total vegitation management, as an electrition or plumber is to a construction project. Part of the process, but there is a bigger picture.

To say simply "deer farming" is to show a lack of understanding of the "big picture", and the overall improvement to habitat and wildlife.

I can't speak for others, but to me, what I do, is a little more involved than just farming, conventionally speaking anyways.

Farming is part of the process sometimes, but not always, at least as described, "farming to plant crops on a piece of land to feed animals". Along with that comes many other aspects, including:

1. Understanding of quality native vegitation and enhancement practices.

2. Understanding of carrying capacity of local populations

3. Ability to recognize habitat degredation

4. Sustainable forestry practices, where applicable

5. Effective yearly census counts

6. Timber production, ie: clearcutting, selectcutting, etc.

7. The study of vegitation management, biology, traditional game movements and necesseties, and how each is related to improve both habitat and wildlife.

8. Effective harvest strategies in-tune with the biological and social needs of your local population.

There is a much bigger picture in scientific management than just to "plant crops on a piece of land to feed animals".

You are right, farming is part of it, and I'd be proud too to be associated with farmers, but there is a much larger aspect to scientific management.

Not to mention social/hunter management, cooperation with law enforcement, education, etc..


----------



## Ed Spin

Correction:

My post should of read that I farmed full or part time TILL 1996, that's when i retired.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## sadocf1

Would it be safe to say that we have the real farmers to thank for their contributions with regard not only to deer but to all wildlife ? 80% of our deer are found in farming areas, farm crops supply most of their nutrition. Turkeys, geese, ducks, pheasants, rabbits, squirrels, all find much of their food on real farms.
Scientific Management has its place and its adherents, but from a practical standpoint, Mother Nature and the real farmers ( to whom I owe an apology for referring to "food plotters'' as farmers) will continue to play a major part in maintaining our deer and other wildlife

"Many of the opinions of farmers expressed on this Forum in the recent past were not very complimentary, were they ?''


----------



## mechanical head

sadocf1, the only thing I would say is safe to say is how far off base you are on your thoughts of deer management, farming, and the farming community. You only hear what You want to hear, and the same goes for reading, you are in your own Little world, and its had to tell most of the time which stance you are taking ??? I personally feel youve seen to much light..


----------



## sadocf1

Just re-read "Late Antlerless-only deer season may be on the way out'' Here we have some prime examples of "Scientific Evidence'' and "Hunter Opinion''
NRC's Bob Garner- "people I run into tend to object to the late season hunt'' "I would just as soon end it''
DNR's Rod Clute- who a few short few month ago promised us more antlerless seasons and permits - "this has nothing to do w/antlerless hunting''
Could it be "Operation Liberation for Little Buck Deer'' ?
Hunters have made some very sensible observations 
Farmers say it's a means to control nuisance deer that do not move onto some properties till after traditional firearms seasons end
Definitely one of the more intelligent discussions on this Forum
Please read it again


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Sad,

What excactly are you trying to say?

As far as I can see, the NRC has never managed with scientific evidence-their is no evidence they have anyways. They listen to which ever wind blows the loudest-either hunter or politacal interest groups, such as the farm Bearau. It's a constant line they try unsuccessfully to walk, moving from whichever side is the loudest, to the other, forever miring themselves in negativity, ineffectiveness, and mediocrity. 

The NRC is a political pawn. Quoting an NRC commissioner is no different than quoting Iraq's information minister. Waste of space. 

As far as "operation liberation for little buck deer", it's a crying shame that hunters in this state our so inept that they can't tell the difference from a mature doe to a button buck. It speaks of our overall skill level.

By the way, most of us don't have to read the intelligent thread you suggested, we were already a part of the intelligant discussion....


----------



## Swamp Ghost

Just a "Food Plotter" putting in my .02, what was your point again sad? It must have been lost somewhere in the incoherent rambling.



> it's a crying shame that hunters in this state our so inept that they can't tell the difference from a mature doe to a button buck. It speaks of our overall skill level.


Ain't that the truth!


----------



## Bob S

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it's a crying shame that hunters in this state our so inept that they can't tell the difference from a mature doe to a button buck. It speaks of our overall skill level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And they also think a 5` browse line, a skewed sex ratio, reliance on 1 1/2 year old bucks to do the breeding and underweight deer is the sign of a healthy deer herd. I guess if they aren`t dropping dead, they must be healthy.


----------



## Jimbos

149 posts and this thread is just starting to get an edge to it? This has to be a new record. It would be a shame to have to close this old fella due to a sinking in the quality of posts......


----------



## FREEPOP

Time to break out the old trusty crystal ball


----------



## Whit1

This is indeed a long lasting QDM forum thread. I agree, it does seem to be getting a bit "edgy" however. Comments that tend to caustically degrade the knowledge and prowess of deer hunters, true or not, are a surefire way to arouse passions that we don't need in here.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

You guys are probably right.

It's a good thread, but it seems to droning on as of late without a very clear or quality discussion pattern, of which I've been a part of.

All good things must come to an end...sometimes.

It isn't too bad yet though, is it?


----------



## Ferg

Everyone just needs to re-group - think about what has been said - breath - and then maybe, just maybe hit it again - 

ferg...


----------



## Whit1

Jeff,
The thread is still moving along. Those of us that have been here for a few years however, have seen discussions in the QDM Forum get bitter and very personal. I know that I've added some rather "stimulating" comments in the past which didn't help matters in this regards. We are merely being cautionary and perhaps a bit gun shy..........so to speak.......pun intended.....LOL!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Maybe another thread topic, but I feel we have a few severe problems that have developed over the past few years that threaten the quality and future of our great Michigan hunting heritage. 

I personally have a hard time holding back with comments that are complacent to the potential threat to promote the mediocrity of we as hunters.

I feel if we raise the quality of the game, the habitat, and the hunter, this is the best way to assure a place to hunt for our future generations.

Complacency breeds mediocrity.

I saw quite a few of the jabs going back and forth around a year ago-pretty bad.

I'll do my best to keep it civil, no matter how tough it gets!


----------



## Steve

Would anyone be opposed if this thread get's shut down? It's one of those endless threads on multiple topics that seem to breed problems.


----------



## ESOX

You could start quite a few new ones on specific topics from what was discussed here.


----------



## FREEPOP

> _Originally posted by FREEPOP _
> *Time to break out the old trusty crystal ball  *


----------



## Ferg

I'm sure that when the urge move someone to or a new piece of evidence is brought forward - that the discussion will rear up once again  

thanks for the opportunity for us to hash this out again - and show that we can be civil 

ferg...


----------



## ESOX

Freepop, you and your crystal ball, I think you missed your calling!


----------



## Whit1

This topic seems to have run its course. I am going to close it down with the hopes that some of the related topics that were brought up in here could germinate a new and fresher thread.

Thanks guys and gals for your input and efforts at making this a long running and enjoyable thread.


----------

