# QDMA and Antler Restrictions.



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Since Bryan Kinkel`s name was brought into this discussion. I couldn`t resist pulling this quote out of my files.

_"NONE of the current so-called QDM programs implemented by state agencies are actually QDM. NONE. NOT A SINGLE ONE. They are only slightly modified versions of MDHM. None of them will produce the full range of herd dynamics necessary to create a natural herd. They are only attempts to increase the buck age structure without addressing the other equally important herd issues. My greatest fears are realized in some of these programs. In fact, some of the "buck limiting" harvest guidelines will actually be detrimental to the herd in the long run. Since these programs are being touted as "QDM" (when they are not), their eventual failure will give true QDM a huge black eye."_
Bryan Kinkel, Woods and Associates, Inc.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

NJ,

The above Bryan Kinkel quote is foresight in its finest and is the absolute truth. I'm sorry that we'll continue to disagree on AR's, but I refuse to accept that they are the only solution.

The number one goal of the QDMA is education; it's not easy and sometimes it can be a real challenge telling people why it's beneficial to let little bucks go...but they are listening, and as long as there is creativity we'll get the message across.

It's working and even without MARS you will see positive change sometime in your life time.

For the benefit of Michigan QDM and the future of the QDMA in Michigan.....let MARS die.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

In January, Bryan/BSK and I were exchanging emails about some of his remarks in a thread in this forum. I had jumped on him, unfairly, for some of his comments concerning the tools and methods used to accurately determine the deer population in a given area. He concluded his remarks with the following. 

I quote:


_"As for the whole state-mandated QDM thing, I've really made a 180 degree turn on that topic. I used to be whole-heartedly in favor of states doing all they can to protect young bucks (for biological reasons, not just "hunter experience"). But after watching the truly ugly battles between hunter factions during these debates, I have to say that state-mandated QDM-type regulations may be doing more harm than good--at least for hunting's future. The "battles" in PA are a prime example._

_I now feel states altering regulations to "promote" or "encourage" QDM is a good thing, but requiring QDM harvest guidelines? I no longer support that. QDM is not for everyone, especially in northern states with their short gun seasons and astronomical hunter densities. Forcing QDM down hunters throats is not going to win any supporters. I prefer "helpful" regulations and lots of education."_


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

NorthJeff said:


> 400 members out of what, 200,000 people in the U.P.?


Out of the 105,966 who hunted the UP during the 2004 rifle season.

-na


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Whit1 said:


> In January, Bryan/BSK and I were exchanging emails about some of his remarks in a thread in this forum. I had jumped on him, unfairly, for some of his comments concerning the tools and methods used to accurately determine the deer population in a given area. He concluded his remarks with the following.
> 
> I quote:
> 
> ...


The most sound wisdom that I've heard concerning AR's thus far.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

""NONE of the current so-called QDM programs implemented by state agencies are actually QDM. NONE. NOT A SINGLE ONE. They are only slightly modified versions of MDHM. None of them will produce the full range of herd dynamics necessary to create a natural herd."

This statement by Bryan is an example of his lack of knowledge and experience with QDM in the U.P. What Bryan fails to recognize in the U.P. is that we ALREADY have populations maintained in balance with the habitat in the QDM test area, as we do in 15/19 DMU's U.P. wide, along with appropriate sex ratios. So, the missing ingredient is the promotion of an adequate buck age structure and the 3pt on a side AR, as supported by John Ozoga who I believe does carry a little more weight around here than Bryan, addresses this problem. I have great respect for Bryan, but he has shown he does not fully understand the U.P....as many QDM people would not because we are so vastly different up here. Again, Bryan is one of the best in the country doing what he does and has helped many to better understand QDM,including myself...but the U.P. is not his area of expertise. 

You guys say education will work up here...I say it will not and I challenge anyone to show me other than getting rid of baiting or limiting licenses or hunting, how the buck age structure will improve on U.P. public lands without an AR. QDM can work on public land and the more we attempt to set ourselves apart as private land elitists the more folks get the impression that QDM will not work on public land and that the QDMA is not for them. In my opinion we can not focus soley on educational efforts that largely include on private land owners and this would in my opinion be highly negligent in the U.P. considering that 70-80% of the land is public. We need to focus on what QDM actually is, and how it can be applied to all lands..public or private, large or small, wolves or bad weather, QDM will work anywhere it is applied correctly and that includes the public lands of the U.P.

This is not negotiable.

Also, as someone who is the "trenches" over the last AR and literally out in the public to take shots, accusations, and critisism, this issue of being "forced" was never part of the disagreement. Truthfully, the list of disagreements had much, much more to do with a lack of understanding of QDM than anything else. THE #1 ISSUE was the thought that with QDM we would have to shoot more does and with 11/19 DMU's between 5 and 50% under stated DNR goals....this would have been a valid concern, if true. But, it wasn't true. This was by far the biggest issue and it was just was not valid but if you looked at some of the posts from guys in the south or general statements regarding QDM and taking does, I cas see how this was misunderstood...but again it was not accurate and demonstrates a lack of knowledge of what QDM really is. It was never about being "Forced", but instead a basic lack of understanding of what QDM really is.

We need to focus on the basics of what QDM really is:

1. Adequate buck age structure
2. Populations maintained in balance with the habitat
3. Appropriate sex ratios

Get it, it's QDM....work towards it, it's a QDM plan. The basics apply everywhere and all this talk of doe harvest and food plots cloud what true QDM is sometimes. I gave a talk at the Marquette Rotary Club a couple weeks ago and those 3 points are what I started with, and what I ended with. Those principles are the foundation for understanding, we have #2 and #3 covered in the majority of the U.P....we only need to work on #1.

Talk to you later...."gone hunting". If you have adequate buck age structure, populations maintained in balance with the habitat, and appropriate sex ratios (and I do where I hunt in the U.P., WI, and PA) there are new scrapes on the ground, new rubs in the trees, bucks are getting excited, does are nervous and now is the time for sitting in a treestand..not at a computer.  I wonder sometimes if I'm going into rut this time of year...or the bucks!

Talk to you in late November..December-the woods are calling, I truly hope all too can one day experience the joys of hunting on property managed with QDM principles.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

;........... ........edited by Swamper completely. 
Swamper


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

In life there is that 10% you can never please, who will never understand, who don't try. My philosophy has always been to work on the 90%...and leave the 10% behind.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

You're absolutely correct NJ, I don't know SQUAT about the UP deer herd. But listening to you I have learned alot...But fortunately this forum isn't called NJ's Deer Management forum, where the only opinion that counts is yours. You've done a wonderful job at promoting the core values of QDM on this site as well as across the UP, but unfortunately the manner in which you defend MAR's is quite devisive. Bryan Kinkel if not already, will be a world class wildlife biologist and deer researcher, comparable someday to Mr. Ozoga. Many folks enjoyed BSK's perspective, and quite frankly I would much rather listen to his nation wide perspective than just your opinions.

NJ, the UP deer herd is in good hands with you and John Ozoga leading the way, but I will not stand for one more minute of talk about MAR's in this state. I will fight to the end to kill any new proposals, and I'll make absolutely sure that people understand that MAR's is NOT supported by the QDMA.

They have done enough damage to our name already! At what cost are you willing to continue with these?


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

I want to leave this open - but knock off the 'attacks' - 

It is possible that there are parts of the country and even this state that MARS is the last peg in the hole so to speak? The last leg of what may make or will let us meet the final goal in a particular region?

Is the problem, now, that we want to divorce MARS and QDMA? And that is more important than achiving the ultimate goal ? At any cost?

What, if, say, MARS in the UP were being pushed by, NRC? DNR? Would then, they be supported by QDMA?

This quote from the first post in this thread:

Quote Bob S on the QDMA " *We would however probably support any such proposals that were initiated by the DNR." * Unquote 

This leads me to believe that it's not MARS in the UP we are fighting over, it's MARS in the UP 'lead by QDMA UP branch' - that is the problem.

Yes? No?

ferg....


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Yes Ferg... that is the problem.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"Bryan Kinkel if not already, will be a world class wildlife biologist and deer researcher, comparable someday to Mr. Ozoga."

He already is...or close, but not in the U.P. Most noted research biologists would not have a very good handle on the U.P...and there is nothing wrong with that. I remember when Bryan used a study from upstate NY to say that winter mortality was even through-out the age classes. That is just not true in the U.P. and you can not use a study in NY to explain conditions in the U.P. Experience is the best teacher and those that live it...learn it. Bryan lives more deer research than probably most all the guys on this site put together and is one of the brilliant minds in the nations deer research, but again, every area is different. 

I'll break it down very simple: Other than getting rid of baiting, limiting number of hunters, or having buck quotas, we will not get an adequate buck age structure up here unless it is mandated. That's my experience..not opinion and it was great to have John Ozoga at various meetings to promote the AR initiative and to offer his experience and opinions on the subject as well. Rob, I have a lot of respect for who you are and what you have done and continue to do but when you tell me we have to do it through education, you are telling me we can't have an adequate buck age structure. You know, the funny thing is I already have an adequat buck age structure on my property. I work very well with my neighbors and have worked very well with guys on the public land around me to the point some pass on young bucks and go along with the program. In fact, I probably have more cooperation around here than many private land areas and that's why I choose to stay. But this is not about me. This is about all the public land hunters around here that continue to have nothing and have seen our age structure decline in the past 20 years to the point you can walk a mile in most directions and not find a rub. I can help the guys around me, and can go and talk to guys in camps around me...but how do we reach the average guy that comes up here for 3 days and hunts, and then goes home? It just doesn't happen on public land...never will.

I truly wish you could spend some time up here and see for yourself. Spend a year or two hunting up here. Go into peoples homes, talk buck stories, talk about the "good old days" not too long ago. It's not that your opinion would change, it's that your knowledge would change through experience...big differance and you won't learn squat about a particular region until you live and breath it.

As far as being devisive..as I've written to the Mods on this site and others, this thread should have never been started. But, when this stuff is thrown out and my deep rooted experiences, beliefs, and teaching from local noted experts tell me otherwise..I can't sit back and let it go. 

Hey, we might never start another antler initiative and to be honest I bet AR talk hasn't taken up 1% of our board meetings this year other than to support the continuation of the one we already have...but you have to face the facts that unless we eliminate baiting or severely restrict hunters in number or buck licenses our age structure will not improve.

I see all these guys on here that agree with the 3 QDM principles. They agree with balance, agree there should be an adequate buck age structure and that's all fine and dandy and it's real neat we are all on the same page..but agreeing it should be one way, and actually doing something about it are two totally seperate things. I don't like wasting my time. I will not work a lifetime to educate in futility. I will however work towards workable solutions in an appropriate time frame with measured results. So you think AR's are not for you? What are you proposing we do? What are the options? What can you show me that will protect 80% of our yearling bucks? What can you show me that will get public support by a 2:1 margin.

Rob, you obviously feel very differently than the majority of our 400 members up here in the U.P. and have you ever stopped to ask yourself "why?" Is it that we up here in the U.P. all know less, and have experienced less than those below the bridge...or could you at least give us a little bit of credibility that just maybe, some of us have a very good handle of what is going on and live and breath this stuff everyday and maybe those experiences..not "opinions", have led us to believe the way we do?

Hey, none of us do this for the money..there is none, but this post was not about teaching, not even about preaching, it's been about division right from the start and once the can was opened, it's stayed open and without that initial division we wouldn't have, and shouldn't have been having this conversation.

As far as a "QDMA U.P. Branch" starting an AR initiative. Take a look at the scenerio. On one hand, you have 40-50 members in Menominee that are more than eager to have their own initiative. You have more than a 100 members on the east side that are most all members because of the initiatives and hard work of Leon Hank and those involved in that process. Then, you have 200 members centered in the Rock area from Superior Deer Management that came from a converted club started to initiate an AR restriction. Now, I can't say that I speak for every single member in the U.P. and say that 100% of them want AR's...but it's safe to say that it's pretty darn close. What are you saying I should do...attempt to convince them all that they are wrong, and were wrong, and that their hundreds of hours of thankless efforts were a waste and we now need to cast all those ideas and convictions aside because some guys from the south on mostly large blocks of private land think it would be "PC"? You can imagine if I went back to the board of our branch and told them the QDMA wouldn't allow us to start an AR initiative ever again what their response would be. Thankfully I've found that this isn't the case...but I'm hoping we don't have to cross that bridge because of my close personal ties to the QDMA family. You never know, we may never initiate another AR and the state may even take away the privelage to do so and all this talk, and the results of the initial post would have just been unecessary damage to the QDMA....but the QDMA is about science, and limiting options is neither appropriate, or scientific. We should be leaders..not hide quietly in the corner.

Rob, I appreciate your convictions and the way it is presented by you..but I don't think your realize who we are up here, what we do, what we have experienced, and what we've learned. This isn't opinion, this is life. I'm sorry but I don't see the start of this thread as being "educational", but instead as only adding fuel to fire that had been somewhat tempered and demished over the past year.


----------



## olliek (Nov 11, 2003)

I was at the NE Mi. foodplot program put on by the local QDMA and must agree that of 500 people there, not one word was mentioned of ARs.
Ed Spin presented 2 programs outlining improving improving habitat and all the other things that could be done to improve buck age structure and balance with harvesting does as needed, but never a word about MARs.
The Sucker Creek Coop has over 1000 acres of voluntary acreage and the Sanborn Twp. has at least that much and yet thier programs are voluntary!
I have talked to many neighbors and am trying to reach an agreement in my area (NWAlpena Co), to try some of this around here. Most agree, as long as it`s not MANDITORY! 
You have to start somewhere! This is called EDUCATION.
If QDMA talks to people instead of hollering at people, perhaps more will listen. 
It took me 1-1/2 yrs to convince me. 
The UP is still part of the State of MI. and although thier problems are unique to the area, so is N.E. Mi when it comes to TB, Unlimited doe permits and So. MI. with it`s ever increasing herd numbers.
I am suprised this thread lasted as long at it has. Goes to show we can disagree and still have a civil discussion on a subject as volitile as this can be.
We must reach the average hunter that only cares about deer hunting in the late fall and wants to spend his 4 or 5 days in the woods and hope to see some critters. This hunter represents probably 60 to 65 percent of a the license buyers in this state. Those are the people we must EDUCATE!!


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Something amazed me recently about the Whitetail Deer Hunting Forum. There was a thread about what hunters would shoot. Many stated they would impose some sort of antler/age restrictions on themselves, their hunting pals would also and it was all voluntary. 

There was no discord to speak of (even when....dare I say it??...QDM was mentioned....:lol and the discussion flowed freely, with the members accepting what each other said whether they would take a 1 and 1/2 year old deer with a small rack or were waiting for a buster.

Looking at the names of the members who were imposing voluntary ARs on themself I quickly noticed that few of them participated in this forum. I feel that many of them would have a ton to offer in here, but don't want to get into the controversy that stirs from time to time in these threads. 

Certainly things have improved over the past couple of years, but that has been due to some heavy duty moderating and the cooperation of most of the members who frequent this forum.

I truly believe that we are at a crossroads in these discussions. Which road shall you choose to take?

As members of MS we can let the "same ol'..same ol'" go on or we can take the next step. If you really believe in QDM and QDMA, like several of you have repeatidly stated over the years, you can give this management program and association a huge boost by moving from MARS to VARS..........Voluntary Antler Restrictions (leading to separating by age class).

QDMA is about education not confrontation!


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Amen to that too Whit!


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Ferg said:


> What, if, say, MARS in the UP were being pushed by, NRC? DNR? Would then, they be supported by QDMA?
> 
> This quote from the first post in this thread:
> 
> ...


Yes, you`ve got it ferg. My original post had nothing at all to do with the pros or cons of antler restrictions. But rather my interpretations of our Regional Director`s position on QDMA sponsored proposals.


----------



## Lew (Jun 8, 2003)

We have restrictions on shooting does, on shooting just hen turkeys in the spring, on shooting hen pheasants, on shooting young bears etc. the list is very long. WHY do we have all the restriction ???? Because it is good game management !!!!. AR is also good game management,(IMO) but we all know the politics of the situation and the DNR is affraid to do the right thing. What other game management policy is put to a vote of hunters ??? NONE. I support AR for my DMU because I belive it is good deer management. However, I am just one vote. Time to go hunting. Lew


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

NJ, feel free to keep proposing all the MARS inititives that you want. Do NOT however propose them under the guise that they are supported by the membership of the Michigan QDMA. There is a silent majority that is sick of these proposals because they have pitted Michigan hunter against Michigan hunter. Now...they're pitting Michigan QDMer anainst Michigan QDMer.

NJ, I'll stand shoulder to shoulder with the traditional deer hunter to keep these proposals from coming to fruition, just so that you can protect your "unique" deer herd. 

Fortunately or unfortunately (you choose) the UP and the LP fall under the same Michigan QDMA umbrella. More proposals will stiffle the hard work that has already been put forth in this great state by way too many people (yourself included). I will NOT defend QDMA lead MARS proposals ever again. Denounce them and our ranks will explode, propose them and I'll make sure the "Michigan Sportsman" is absolutely clear that this is NOT supported by the majority of QDMers. 

I am developing a list of Michigan QDMers who are against any more Michigan QDMA initiated Mandatory Antler Restrictions. If you are against these, and prefer that the "tool" we use is EDUCATION to establish a better buck age structure, then please email me at [email protected] and I'll add your name to the "Petition". 

NJ, if you just keep plugging away at educating the "yooper" about the benefits of real QDM, I'll keep plugging away at educating the "trolls". Someday we'll all win...and your unique deer herd will win too.

If you are not a QDMA member, and have withheld from joining because of the devisiveness of MARs, then please know that we hear you. Please join the QDMA, and send your name to me to be added to the petition, and understand that there are "many" QDMers who will stand up against these.

Regards


----------



## Lew (Jun 8, 2003)

Letmgro, Why not have voluntary hunting licenses and voluntary bag limits voluntary hunting seasons??? If all that is needed is to educate hunter on good game management, then no mandatory regulation are required. If you really think that will work, then you are intitled to your opinion. One thing for sure, is voluntary antler restrictions for the last hundred years has not worked, if you believe in scientific deer management. Have a great season. Lew


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Lew said:


> Letmgro, Why not have voluntary hunting licenses and voluntary bag limits voluntary hunting seasons??? If all that is needed is to educate hunter on good game management, then no mandatory regulation are required. If you really think that will work, then you are intitled to your opinion. One thing for sure, is voluntary antler restrictions for the last hundred years has not worked, if you believe in scientific deer management. Have a great season. Lew


Well Lew, I grew up in a traditional deer management family. It was instilled in me to shoot the first buck I saw. Today, we all let the little ones go because we found out that it makes for good management. If my 60 year old dad can see the light, then there are plenty more that will too. I've heard of 5 year old kids that can tell the difference between a young buck and a mature buck. Somebody taught them.

There's no need to count antler points. Educating hunters on the differences between 1.5 years and 2.5 year old bucks is all that needs to be done. 

And we're going to do it!


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

congrats to all participants an AR thread actually made it to 4 pages plus. Amazing maybe people are coming around :lol: This is a hot topic but the politics run deep 

AW


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Adam Waszak said:


> congrats to all participants an AR thread actually made it to 4 pages plus. Amazing maybe people are coming around :lol: This is a hot topic but the politics run deep
> 
> AW


but, Adam, if you notice one thing that run true in this thead - the 'usual' suspects are absent - this thread hasn't been sniped - and that's a good thing. 

Thanks Guys, good dialog - I think Whit1 is correct - there is a new day a dawning ....

ferg....


----------



## Tracker83 (Jun 21, 2005)

Let me start off by saying that I am a QDMA member (Greater GR Branch), and that I'm not a big fan of MARs. But I am, however, somewhat concerned about this "new tone" from a large number of the QDMA members on this site. Not promoting MARs because non-QDMA members don't like it and won't join our organization if we push them? What is this? In my mind QDM = scientific DM. We should be basing our management strategy on scientific priciples. We should NOT be basing our beliefs of deer management on what our public image will be. It seems to me that some MI QDMA branches are more concerned with recruiting members then they are with promoting scientific deer management. This is not a contest to see how many members can be added. As I said I don't really like MARs, but this is due to the science of MARs, not its public image. So obviously I have no problem with QDMA members disliking MARs, but I think the "PR image" reasoning behind it is leading the entire organization down a slippery slope.

I just wanted to stick up for the "other side" in this argument. I know that there are many other QDMA members on this site who feel the same way that I do, but have remained quiet due to the explosive nature of AR discussions on this site.


----------



## Lew (Jun 8, 2003)

Letmgro, One point I don't understand, why is it so important to shoot a 1.5 yr old buck ???? Second, if you take the protection of young bucks out of deer mangement, then you might as well throw QDM on the scrape heap of deer management history, because it is dead. Michigan has suffered from poor deer management for the last 100 years with 20 to 1, 30 to 1, 40 to 1 doe/buck ratios. Without regulation changes, that won't change. I believe that if we had AR state wide for ten years, that very few hunter would want to go back to the way things are now. Lew


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

Lew said:


> Michigan has suffered from poor deer management for the last 100 years *with 20 to 1, 30 to 1, 40 to 1 doe/buck ratios.*
> Lew


Care to support this claim (buck to doe ratios) with some facts, or research? Because I'm having a real hard time believing this and before I disregard this statement as an absurd exaggeration I want to give you the opportunity to support it.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

My understanding is that the worst a buck/doe ratio could be would be around 1:4 or 1:5. Someone wrote a really good article on this - I believe it may have been Ed Spin.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Sib said:


> Care to support this claim (buck to doe ratios) with some facts, or research? Because I'm having a real hard time believing this and before I disregard this statement as an absurd exaggeration I want to give you the opportunity to support it.


   

It's amazing what some guys think is true.


----------



## BDL (Dec 17, 2004)

How would it even be possible to have a ratio of such high numbers? The average 2.5+ year old buck only breeds up to 10 does a year (or so the researchers say).


Tracker83 - 
The year PR and politics isn't involved with state management decisions will be the year you know what freezes over. Being a non-member of QDM, I'm more inclined to support these practices when I not pressured to via AR. As my brother and I were talking this weekend, can you imagine any law abiding citizen being nailed because they shot an undersized buck by accident? The buck had 7 points instead of 8 points? C'mon....

I can support QDM through most situations, but I'm not going to support it if I have the chance of violating Michigan's game laws through an honest mistake.


----------



## Tracker83 (Jun 21, 2005)

BDL said:


> The year PR and politics isn't involved with state management decisions will be the year you know what freezes over. Being a non-member of QDM, I'm more inclined to support these practices when I not pressured to via AR.


True, but I certainly don't want the QDMA run like state management. The day that the QDMA tailors its viewpoints based on PR and politics is the day that I will not renew my membership.




BDL said:


> As my brother and I were talking this weekend, can you imagine any law abiding citizen being nailed because they shot an undersized buck by accident? The buck had 7 points instead of 8 points?


As I said, I do not support MARs but doesn't this scenario already exist under todays Michigan regulations? We have the 3" spike rule and we have the 4 points on a side rule for the restricted combo tag. Both of these rules leave the door open for mistakes. If this happens by honest mistake then you call the DNR and handle it just like you would today if a mistake is made.


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

Maybe a little off topic, just an FYI

Sex Ratios


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Tracker,
Like it or dislike it, public perception plays a cruticial role in the life, death, or stagnation of any organization. Just as Whitetails Unlimited is having a hard time giving away a membership because it is a slowly dwindling organization, the Michigan QDMA is slowly stagnating because all of us pro-AR QDMers filled up the bandwagon. If we don't allow for the opinions of those that are "on-the-fence", and give them a positive reason for supporting our "other" stuff that we preach, then we'll stay stagnant in Michigan. 

Yes, it will always be about perception. Take for example all the good info we supply about habitat improvement, identifying BB's, what doe to shoot, what buck to shoot, foodplots, etc, this means nothing if hunters are in a frenzy over something as trivial as AR's. The good stuff is forgotten when you're constantly trying to defend your MARS position.

I agree 100% that AR's make a difference in the buck age structure of any given area. To me there is irrefutable evidence...But at what cost? Don't expect to change 100 years of TDM overnight....But I promise you it will change without MARS if we put just as much effort (and funding) into education as we did those proposals.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Lew said:


> Letmgro, One point I don't understand, why is it so important to shoot a 1.5 yr old buck ???? Second, if you take the protection of young bucks out of deer mangement, then you might as well throw QDM on the scrape heap of deer management history, because it is dead. . Lew


I guess I don't understand. Every hunter should have enough skill to identify a 1.5 yo buck. If you can't, then maybe the QDMA can supply the tools for you to be able to through education. If you choose to harvest that 1.5 yo then that is the choice you make. Hopefully the QDMA can also supply to you the information that you need to understand the effect you are having on the deer herd if you decide to harvest that 1.5 yo buck.

Education is the key. Mandating MARS is not.

The second part of your question is just your opinion. Many states have successful deer management programs without offering any special protection for young bucks. It's mostly the hunters attitude and understanding of proper deer management. Some other hunters in certain states are more receptive to some type of MARS program.

Are you saying the hunters are smarter in other states?
No...just more in tune with the challenges of sound deer management.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

I think Whit1 hit the nail on the head - VARS - should be the new 'buzz word'.

I believe that more people will utilize VARS as time goes on and they obtain a full understanding of the end result of actually becoming a deer manager.

I 'think' that we have all 'thought' the DNR/NRC was actually managing the heard, when in fact it has been us hunters all along. Guided by DNR/NRC regulations for sure. However, it's not politicaly enhancing to insitute MARS so it wont be 'dictated' any farther than it already is.

However, I think Rob's point or gest of his argument is that with enough education in the job of hands on deer management from the hunters prespective that VARS will in fact work.

It actualy does work - I see it here every day - 

But there has to be an understanding of WHY your practicing VARS.

ferg....


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

Just received a letter today from Brian Murphy, executive director of the QDMA. Paragraph 2 reads as follows

_As you know, the mission of the Association is to promote hunter ethics, sound deer management practices, and better relationships among hunters, non-hunters, landowners and biologists through *education*. The QDMA exists to *educate*, inform and encourage others to practice QDM and to offer a forum for our membership to communicate._

Not a word about MARS, only *education*. With limited financial resources available in MI, I think efforts toward *education* should be a priority. 

Once you *educate*, VARS may follow. MARS are nearly impossible as the current DNR/ NRC system is set up. I guess I would support MARS proposals if the sponsoring organization has the time and cash to pursue such an endeavor, more power to them!

Olliek, mark July 22 on your calendar, Food Plot Day 2006 in NE MI is shaping up to be a great *educational * event.

*Educate * & Communicate!


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

During the course of the last month some of us mods have been helping out in the Whitetail Deer Hunting Forum due to the volume of traffic as we moved toward and into deer seasons.

There was a thread asking hunters what kind of deer would they shoot. I was amazed at the number of members who said they planned on taking a doe or two and wait for a buck with 3 or 4 points per side and/or a buck older than a yearling (yearling defined as a 1.5 year old deer). 

QDM was mentioned a few times and when I read that I thought to myself, "Oh boy! Here it comes, the heated discussion about QDM is on the way and this thread is about to explode."

Well, my friends, no such thing ever happened. The thred remained calm, going on as if were a casual stroll in the park.

One thing struck me. Of all the posters who said they were implementing (and had been doing so) some sort of antler restriction, the vast majority of them do not participate in this forum.

I asked myself why that was so and I beleive it is due to the fact that they are practicing VARS rather than MARS. They have educated themselves as to the benefits of antler restrictions for one reason or another.

Education is the key and I believe QDMA recognizes this. Rather than cause irrepairable rift between hunters, hunter groups, landowners, and organizations, they have found it is far more effective to educate. 

Education rather than confrontation.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Ferg...Benelli...Whit...Farmlegend

You're all QDM Visionaries!


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Letmgro said:


> Ferg...Benelli...Whit...Farmlegend
> 
> You're all QDM Visionaries!


Now don't be getting nasty and putting in with that crowd!!!!!!!!!!.............:lol:


----------



## Lew (Jun 8, 2003)

Letmgro, I agree that we need to deal in facts not just off hand statements. My understanding of QDM is that is what it all about. There are several facts we need to take into consideration whan talking about Michigan deer management that is not true of many other states. One is the number of deer hunters, 700,000 gun hunters and 350,000 bow hunters This puts a lot of pressure on our herd, especially on public land. I tried to find references on the DNR web site giving actual buck to doe ratios and I didn't see any. A couple of facts that have been mentioned is, in Michigan we take 50% to 90% of legal bucks each year depending upon the area. The areas that fall in to the 90% figure are the areas of public land where opening day pressure can be as high as 100 hunters/sq. mile. Another fact that is mentioned is that in Michigan, our does produce .5 to 1.5 fawns a year again depending upon the area of the state we are talking about. When I mentined 1/20, 1/30, 1/40 buck to doe ratio, I should have also said, I was talking about heavily hunted public land at the end of the deer hunting season and talking about legal bucks to antlerless deer. Private land numbers are largely up to the management of the land owner. So lets do a little math to see if the ratios I talked about are realistic. Lets say that we are on public land with heavy pressure and 90% of the legal bucks are taken each year and the does produce an average of one fawn. For discussion, lets say that this area has an ideal buck to doe ratio of 1 to 1 and 20 deer per sq mile. At the end of the first hunting season with a 90% buck kill, we would have 1 legal buck and 10 does( antlerless deer) a 1 to 10 ratio. After fawn drop of year two we would have 20 antlerless deer and one legal buck. If that buck survives the season, at the end of season two, we would have a ratio of 1 to 20 of legal bucks to antlerless deer. After fawn drop of season three, we would have 6 legal buck and 30 antlerless deer. At the end of the hunting season we would have a ratio of 1 legal buck to 30 antlerless deer. At the end of year four the ratio would go to 1 to 44 etc. Granted if you count the button bucks the same as legal bucks, then the ratios would be much lower. However, when I was making the original statement, I was thinking about what a hunter actual sees when in the woods hunting. I hope this clarifies what I was tlking about. Lew


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

Lew,

Buck to doe ratios are calculated pre season, and in general you would assume that half of the fawns are does, and half are bucks.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Generally, professional deer managers only count adult(1 1/2 yrs old and older) deer in buck to doe ratios, not fawns.

The Peyton/Bull survey indicated that less than 18% of Michigan hunters hunted public land. That puts about 125,000 firearm hunters on public land. Not all public land is over hunted and devoid of deer.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Bob S said:


> The Peyton/Bull survey indicated that less than 18% of Michigan hunters hunted public land. That puts about 125,000 firearm hunters on public land. Not all public land is over hunted and devoid of deer.


125,000 hunters/9,000,000 acres = 8.9 hunters/sq mile on public land

(9M acres is a rough approximation, including CFA lands)

-na


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

I have avoided all deer management threads for the past few months because of their contentious nature. Contrary to what some people think, I am a QDM advocate all the way up until mandatory antler restrictions become integral. 

It couldnt be clearer that even if you could prove that mandatory antler restrictions were the best way to accomplish the other goals of QDM, it is doomed to failure because it is so divisive. I know that some of the strongest advocates have questioned mandatory path but didnt speak out against it for solidarity reasons. It is refreshing to see that for some at least it is time to consider a new path.

I have hunted for years in the UP and have see the boom and bust cycles throughout the years. I can even remember waiting for hours to take the ferry across the Straights of Mackinaw so I guess I have a little experienced as UP hunter myself.

There is little doubt that the UP is a unique deer management area but I believe weather is the great equalizer in many counties in the UP and that is why I support guys like Richard Smith. In most cases I wouldnt support supplemental feeding to maintain a deer population but since one bad winter can undo 5, 10 or even 15 years of natural herd building, it makes sense to do it on a limited basis.

For what its worth, the best way to protect the big bucks in my opinion in the UP is to outlaw ATVs. Since I was a kid, I loved maps and used to draw them for each of my hunting and fishing areas. Since that time, I have revisited all that I could and with the help of a gps I have mapped them onto a computer map. I just took a look at it and my records show a couple hundred UP deer hot spots. Some of them it used to take hours to walk into. I have seen some huge bucks in that back country, but last time I hiked back in to one of my deepest stands, I followed an ATV trail and found a blind within 100 yards of my stand site. Its the same story all across the UP.

Invade these core areas in large numbers and the outcome is obvious. Im not saying that is the only reason, but one of the main ones. I wonder how many people will try to change the ATV law to make it the same as in the lower or even consider it as a problem. I dont see it happening anytime soon and I can just imagine the outrage toward those who would even attempt to change this rule lol.

I have mentioned before that the MAR argument, game ranches, antler envy (Mitch Rampola) and the idea that deer hunting should be easy has turned me off to deer hunting. I suppose that no one really cares, but if I drop out of the hunting ranks it probably means others will too and that can not be a good thing except to the guys that think this means more deer for him. 

Having said that and after reading some of the comments in this thread, I am feeling better about deer hunting again since some of the QDM people are moving away from MARs. On top of that, MUCC and the Resource Stewards are calling for an end to game farms and that gives me hope for the future. For what its worth!


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2005)

Just a little history as I have experienced it on this subject. I have suggested to the MDNR and the NRC FOREVER, that they should make the decisions in any change in the harvesting of bucks and does, not the hunters. They have the experience, the training and the education to make the right call. 

Their answer was, "We will have a guideline for mandatory antler restrictions for any group that has the interest in their DMU and we will call it, QDM Mandatory Guidelines". They set it up for almost sure failure and the hit of dissension, if any, to be on the QDMA and their supporters. 

I was on the so called work group that designed these guidelines and not a single suggestion by me or any one else from the public representatives was accepted by the DNR. It was completely designed by them as it is being presently redesigned completely by them. 

It is obvious at least to me that our DNR had no interst in looking for differant methods in manageing our deer and did their darndest to prevent it.

If the MDNR made a bold move back then to have a few differant deer management methods to find out what worked best and what methods were accepted by the hunters we would not have this silly hunter against hunter dialogue and attitude. There may have been a bit of DNR bashing, but I expect not even too much of that. 

If you want to place the blame on this subject on somebody, think of our decision makers, they created the mess and only they can undo it by taking the responsibility of manageing our deer. 

I respect our DNR and see much talent there but not much testosterone.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Ed Spin04 said:


> If the MDNR made a bold move back then to have a few differant deer management methods to find out what worked best and what methods were accepted by the hunters we would not have this silly hunter against hunter dialogue and attitude.


 Was that not the point of the Peyton-Bull 2001 Survey?

http://www.fw.msu.edu/people/PeytonRBen/Documents/SubmittedPublicQDMreport.pdf

_"This study was undertaken to sort through the perceptions of Michigan hunters to provide a baseline understanding of hunter support for QDM-related restrictions as well as assess their understanding of the range of goals and strategies involved in quality deer management.

_-na


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2005)

No, Nick, my suggestions to the MDNR and the NRC for many years was that they initiate deer management demonstrations (not us) of differant approaches to manageing the deer. I recently suggested last summer to the MDNR and the NRC, "Get rid of the QDM Mandatory Guidelines and you create a few DMU demonstrations in the UP, and a dozen or more in the lower. Choose two adjoining DMU's with similar habitats but have differant styles of deer management in each one. Do this throuhout Michigan and after a few years, take a survey to determine hunter satisfaction plus take extensive deer harvest data and include it in the survey for the recipients to make an informed decision".

I suggested point restrictions of four on one side for a DMU along our southern border and a antler spread of 15 inches minimum in an adjoining DMU. I also suggested a third option of using a slot system where all spikes would be legal but protect bucks with two or three on one side and any buck above that would be legal. I suggested other deer management methods, and that's about as far as they went. I also suggested in the past that the DNR get into the education of hunters in manageing their deer. The response I recieved is "The DNR is not into education, our mandate is making wildlife and other natural resources management decisions and enforcing them. We have the Michigan State University and their extension service for the education role".

Other states all around us are involved in education and are having major changes in deer management as you posted Nick, (the recent foresters convention in the UP, with DR Alt giving his spiel). No Nick, that Peyton Bull survey was just that a lot of bull with no direction taken even with a 60% support for changes. Our MDNR will not make a move untill we make them do it, sad isn't it, since they know more than us what is best?

Nick, you are more informed than the average and seem pro DNR, are you one of them?


----------



## Lew (Jun 8, 2003)

Ed, I don't know why there is such strong support for shooting spike bucks but, from this thread you can see it is there. The problem with the DNR goes beyond the Department. The DNR reports to the Governor and legislature and their interest is getting elected. Therefore, if they think they will get more votes from hunters by allowing any buck with 3" antlers to be legal, that is the way the law will read. Proposal G and scientific deer management is brought out only when it is to their benefit, it certainly has no real impact on how game management decisions are made. If we are opperating on scientific deer management principals, why would AR be put to a vote. Also by needing a 60% yes vote to get it implemented, it isn't even democratic. At this point the only weapon we have is education, to change the minds of hunters, which will change our politicians and final change policy. We are making progress, but it is very slow. Have a great season. Lew


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Ed Spin04 said:


> that Peyton Bull survey was just that a lot of bull with no direction taken even with a 60% support for changes. Our MDNR will not make a move untill we make them do it, sad isn't it, since they know more than us what is best?


You are overlooking the fact that they have a much broader consituency than just deer hunters, or QDM advocates. They are tasked with managing all public resources for the benefit of all residents of the state. In that context, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt with respect to what is best.

Michigan deer hunters make up about 7% of the state population (713,000/10,112,000).
QDMA membership in Michigan consists of less than 0.5% of the deer hunting population.

As a forester I do not manage timber solely for the benefit of the loggers, I manage it for the benefit of the landowners. As cooperators in the management process loggers clearly benefit from timber management activity, but they do not set the timber management agenda. What you are asking the MDNR to do with respect to deer management is to ignore the people they are legally obligated to serve (the landowners) and manage public resources for the direct benefit of the small minority of the public that are essentially management cooperators (deer hunters). I think that expectation is unrealistic.

I welcome feedback from my loggers as a means of improving the management process. I tend to ignore them when their feedback is simply self-serving. I don't give any credibility to the comments of those who refuse to cooperate in achieving the organization's over all management goals (in my strained analogy this would be deer hunters who refuse to contribute to the antlerless harvest quota in their DMU).

There are good arguments for adopting principles of QDM at the state level. They need to be sold on the basis of how they will benefit the state as a whole rather than deer hunters in particular.



Ed Spin04 said:


> ...pro DNR, are you one of them?


I am not an employee of the State. I am a natural resources professional in the private sector. I'm also a deer hunter. As such, I do not see my relationship to the MDNR in terms of "one of us" and "one of them". The deer and other resources belong to all of us. The MNDR are the resource professionals we have collectively hired to coordinate management activities. My role as a deer hunter is to assist them in achieving wildlife objectives which benefit the state as a whole.

-na


----------



## Lew (Jun 8, 2003)

Nick, You make some very good points. But let me explain my point on Scientific Deer Management this way. If someone in the WUP had a very good hardwood site and came to you and said I want to cut all the maples over 6" and get as much return as possible this year. You would probably say that is not good forestry management and you can get a much higher return over the long run if just thin this year. The goal should be to protect your best trees and let them reach bolt and saw log size for a healthy forest and much greater returns. I look at the cutting of all the small maples as the way we manage deer now. We get a short term gain but give up good game management and a big long term gain. By the way I hunt in Iron county. Have a great day. Lew


----------



## Alibi (Jan 31, 2004)

But Lew, is that example not making reference to one single individual and not a group of diverse people in the cutting of trees? Nick you make good points. Management deals with all wildlife and the Natural Resources which does include wildlife among other things too and that is supposed to be managed for all the people. All the people include hunters and regardless if one likes it or not, non-hunters. Sometimes, I believe we can all be guilty of believing in something so strongly that we fail to be capable of compromise and realizing that there are others who think differently and that they are not wrong just because they do agree. The DNR cant be doing to bad as I believe we still have plenty of deer out there overall. It seems that if anything will really destroy the deer herd it will be a cause of man from disease or nature and not by management or those participating in the activity of hunting. Do we manage for opportunity or do we manage for type?


----------



## Ogre (Mar 21, 2003)

Quoted: 
"I was on the so called work group that designed these guidelines and not a single suggestion by me or any one else from the public representatives was accepted by the DNR. It was completely designed by them as it is being presently redesigned completely by them.

It is obvious at least to me that our DNR had no interst in looking for differant methods in manageing our deer and did their darndest to prevent it."


This is not intended as a personal affront but sometimes one believes in something so strong that it can affect one's judgement. Did you ever think that maybe they just weren't interested in you or your groups ideas? I can think of many reasons why the DNR can not accept all that is put before them. As it has been pointed out, the DNR manages for all outdoor participants and the deer management portion of their responsibilities has to be weighted against all others. I must say that the tone of the above statement comes across is we're right and everyone else is wrong. While I believe that much has to change within the DNR and NRC, I could see how they could get their hackles up when presented with apparently not very well hidden ill will.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Lew, I encourage you as a citizen of the State of Michigan to advocate for better management of our resources at every opportunity. There is always room for improvement.

As far as I can tell the state is currently pre-occupied with achieving goal population numbers in DMUs across the state - the quantity issue is bigger concern to them than the quality issue. The sooner we as deer hunters help them solve their quantity problem the sooner they will have the resources to redirect into addressing the quality problem.

In the meantime, it can never hurt to keep spreading the concepts of good resource management and hunter harvest choices at the grassroots level.

Have a good hunting season.

-na


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Splitshot said:


> For what its worth, the best way to protect the big bucks in my opinion in the UP is to outlaw ATVs. Since I was a kid, I loved maps and used to draw them for each of my hunting and fishing areas. Since that time, I have revisited all that I could and with the help of a gps I have mapped them onto a computer map. I just took a look at it and my records show a couple hundred UP deer hot spots. Some of them it used to take hours to walk into. I have seen some huge bucks in that back country, but last time I hiked back in to one of my deepest stands, I followed an ATV trail and found a blind within 100 yards of my stand site. Its the same story all across the UP.
> 
> Invade these core areas in large numbers and the outcome is obvious. Im not saying that is the only reason, but one of the main ones. I wonder how many people will try to change the ATV law to make it the same as in the lower or even consider it as a problem. I dont see it happening anytime soon and I can just imagine the outrage toward those who would even attempt to change this rule lol.


That hit the nail right on the head. With the proliferation of ATVs deer hunters are now able to penetrate just about every hidy-hole in the U.P. Combine that with the use of bait and the result has been the demise of the once outstanding trophy buck hunting the U.P. once served up. Incidentally, lawmakers are considering such a change to make U.P. ATV laws similar to those in lower Michigan.


----------



## glikens11 (Nov 20, 2004)

Personally im getting sick of all these scrub pines that are going up where they do clear cuts. I know it has to be done but i miss those big old oaks. Just something about it that depresses me.
Greg


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

This thread is getting way off topic and it's time to close it down. Bring up the off-topic stuff in another thread if you so wish.


----------

