NorthJeff
01-16-2006, 11:18 AM
I believe I wrote this back in 2003, but with the public meetings and deer numbers currently in focus at this time of the year, there seems to still be a continual misunderstanding of what QDM is, and how it applies to the U.P. I just wanted to throw this out there to aid in someone's understanding if possible. This article was edited for accuracy by John Ozoga, as well as Mark Thomas, who is the current co-chairman of the national QDMA...sorry for the length!
There are many misunderstandings concerning white-tailed deer management, in particular, Quality Deer Management, or “QDM”. The various principles of QDM are promoted by the Quality Deer Management Association, or “QDMA”, and their mission statement is clear: “The Quality Deer Management Association is a non-profit wildlife conservation organization dedicated to promoting sustainable, high quality white-tailed deer populations, wildlife habitats, and ethical hunting experiences through education, research, and management in partnership with hunters, landowners, natural resource professionals, and the public”. From outdoor enthusiasts, to seasoned hunters, to some local Department of Natural Resource (DNR) officials, there is a general display of misunderstanding pertaining to the basic principles of QDM. All of us who share a passion for the understanding or improvement of local wildlife populations, from hikers to hunters, should question why our natural resources are managed the way they are. We should also continuously educate ourselves as to what actually comprise the components of a healthy wildlife population. Too often we arrive at uninformed conclusions about the management methods utilized by or our wildlife professionals, while at the same time we allow personal bias or tradition to shape our opinions. These uninformed conclusions and misguided opinions are often at the heart of the misunderstandings of QDM. So what really is the truth surrounding QDM?
QDM is not trophy management or an unlimited doe harvest, but is instead a scientifically proven method of white-tailed deer population management that is applicable across the entire whitetail range. From Texas, to the U.P. of Michigan, QDM addresses the basic needs of a healthy herd with three proven necessities; adequate buck age structure, populations maintained in balance with the carrying capacity of the habitat, and adequate sex ratios achieved by appropriate doe harvest strategies. Across the country habitats may differ, as do topography, cover, food, and availability, but those three simple principles are the constant necessities of a healthy herd, and that’s QDM. Higher body weights, increased rutting activity, less habitat degradation, improved quality habitat, increased fawn production, and an older aged buck class with larger antlers are all some of the benefits of a QDM program, but they are only some of the results of a successful management plan, not individual objectives of QDM. QDM is about health; health of the herd and health of the habitat, and by protecting our yearling bucks and striving to insure a naturally balanced herd, we are one step closer to reaching our goals.
An adequate buck age structure is often the first focus of a successful management plan and is fairly easy to achieve by significantly limiting the harvest of yearling bucks. But, by protecting bucks with their first set of antlers, is QDM promoting “Trophy Management”? Absolutely not! Trophy Management differs in many ways, but one great difference is that Trophy Management not only strives to protect yearling bucks, but 2½ year olds, 3½, 4½, 5½, and even up to 8½ year olds or older in some cases. Trophy Management also selectively removes bucks from the herd at 3½ to 4½ years of age when they show any signs of inferiority, such as below average weight or antler development. In statewide management plans, both of these methods are not only inappropriate, but are not a part of QDM. On the other hand, these methods do have their places in deer management, typically in large, private tracts of 1000 or more acres or some enclosed properties that offer fee hunts. On a statewide level, protection of yearling bucks will achieve many of the benefits of a healthy herd.
Protection of yearling bucks allows for natural selection, in that only the strongest, most dominant bucks compete for breading rights. Currently DNR management strategies in Michigan encourage a system in which most yearling bucks never see their second birthday, and the majority of the breeding process is dominated by yearling bucks, which is a very unnatural occurrence. A breeding process dominated by yearling bucks is one of chaos and wasted energy, and this wasted energy is often a significant loss when approaching the eminent perils of the oncoming winter. Even just an additional one-year increase in age contributes greatly to the survival rates and breeding experience of a buck. The QDMA promotes the voluntary protection of yearling bucks to achieve these goals, but the harsh reality is that we as Michigan hunters have proven every year that we continue to participate in just the opposite. Instead of the voluntary protection of yearling bucks, we continually participate in the annual over-harvest of the vast majority of available yearling bucks. So what do we do?
Voluntary restraint is the best way to protect yearling bucks, but the bottom line is that protection of yearling bucks is an integral piece of a successful management program. In Michigan, however, voluntary restraint has proven ineffective and it is because of this ineffectiveness that antler restriction may be the only solution. Antler restrictions are typically based on antler spread or number of points, and are used in both voluntary and mandatory methods of protection of yearling bucks. The Superior Deer Management group of the U.P. of Michigan has passed three-point side restrictions, and in other areas of Michigan four-point side restrictions may be more appropriate. The three-point side restriction in the U.P. protects roughly 80% of all yearling bucks, where as the same three-point rule used in the southern half of lower Michigan protects only 39%. On the other hand, a four point side rule in the southern half of lower Michigan protects 69%. Basically, a three-point rule in the U.P. is more effective at protecting yearling bucks than a four-point rule used in many other areas of MI. It could be argued that the proposals implemented by the Superior Deer Management group resembles more of a “Trophy Management” philosophy in that they protect a larger percentage of yearling bucks. That argument is false though in that a yearling protection rate of 80% is a common QDM goal throughout the country. However, restrictions that produce lower percentages may need to be altered to produce the “magical” 80% protection rate, such as a 15” spread minimum in southern lower Michigan as opposed to the four-point side rule. So which is right, a three-point side rule in the U.P., or a 15” spread restriction (commonly measured by the width of the ears) in the southern half of lower Michigan? Both are actually appropriate for their respective areas, and that flexibility is an example of the philosophy of QDM, taking the three proven principles and doing what is necessary to attain those principles in your particular area. That flexibility is especially needed in the next proven necessity of herd management, “Populations maintained below the carrying capacity of the land”.
When some hear “Populations maintained below the carrying capacity of the land”, the second principle of QDM, they think of unlimited doe harvest, and that thought could not be further from the truth. In fact, in most of the northern half of the U.P. of Michigan, doe harvest is rarely needed due to the severity of the winters. In particular, populations along the Lake Superior shoreline are usually kept well below the carrying capacity of the land due to the harshness of winter, with populations below 5 deer per square mile in some areas. During an average winter, we can loose up to 50% of our U.P. fawns, and up to 90% in severe winters. On the other hand, parts of Menominee County have contained populations in excess of 100 deer per square mile and were the highest in the state. Looking back to “Populations maintained below the carrying capacity of the land”, no doe harvest is needed in northern portions of U.P., but in some southern portions doe harvest is desperately needed with populations spiraling virtually out of control. That again is QDM, with a population that is in balance with the habitat being the goal, and implementing effective harvest strategies within your area to reach that goal. Some of the dangers of high populations can be devastating, including: Increased disease threats such as the TB and Chronic Wasting Disease (a disease that part of the “Mad Cow” strain and is knocking on our doorstep with the outbreak in WI), decreased body weights, poor fawn survival rates, and severe habitat degradation. Inadequate sex ratios are also evident within populations that exceed the carrying capacity of the habitat, and because of these poor ratios our U.P. bucks can be at an extreme disadvantage when entering a typical U.P. winter.
“Improved sex ratios”, is the third piece of the puzzle. Does it really matter if there is one buck to every five does? During our brief breeding picture of a few weeks, our U.P. bucks may actually enjoy the odds, but at what cost? U.P. yearling bucks can be run to near exhaustion during a typical breeding period, and can be at a grave disadvantage when entering a severe winter. Add into the mix a poor U.P. buck age structure, resulting in the majority of bucks participating in the breeding process being that of yearling bucks lacking maturity, in body size or experience, and our U.P. bucks can experience unnecessarily high mortality rates. In poor ratio areas, especially when coupled with a poor buck age structure, any buck is allowed to breed, not just the most dominant and strongest, again diminishing the process of natural selection, a process in which only the strongest should survive and breed.
For some of you who hunt regularly, have you noticed a lack of rutting sign, rubs, and scrapes in your area? What about a lack of bucks chasing, seeking, and fighting? Some blame it on the weather, but it is really a combination of the lack of the above three necessities of QDM. Yearling bucks do very little rubbing and scraping, bucks have little to no competition in overpopulated areas, and without appropriate sex ratios, a buck does not need to wander too far to find another doe.
QDM looks to manage what can be controlled within the Natural Resources Commission and other management authorities. Although there are always concerns of wolf populations, second buck tags, baiting, supplemental feeding, and other “hot topics”, QDM is most concerned with white-tailed deer management aspects that pose a direct threat to the overall health of the herd. Areas of yearling buck protection, buck age structure, sex ratios, habitat management and carrying capacities of the land are areas of the greatest importance as opposed to areas that offer little more than unnecessary distractions. For some perspective, in the past 15 years in the U.P. hunters have killed 1.1 million deer, while winter severity has claimed 900,000. During the past 15 years, if the U.P. averaged 350 wolves per year, than wolves could have eaten approximately 100,000 deer, many of which had been, or would have been victim to winter severity. Obviously, overall deer numbers relative to quality winter habitat should be a top concern in the U.P. of Michigan. QDM also seeks to promote the increase in hunter knowledge and skill level, as well as providing greater viewing opportunities for the enjoyment of the white-tailed deer. QDM looks to maintain a population of strong, healthy, disease resistant deer that are in tune with their natural habitat. Hopefully when you hear Quality Deer Management, you can think of the positive, scientifically proven facts that are the result, including: Higher body weights, improved fawn production, natural sex ratios, decreased habitat degradation, natural selection, increased rut intensity, and yes, an older aged buck class with larger antlers.
With the anniversary of the five-year antler restriction period within the Rock area initiated by Superior Deer Management, as well as the recent U.P. wide survey process, we here in the U.P. have actually had a voice in the management of our deer herd. What kind of say have we had in the past? What has it accomplished? Don’t take my word for what QDM stands for, take some time and look up the QDMA web-site at www.qdma.com, or call 800-209-DEER and see for yourself what the QDMA truly believes in. You won’t find anywhere where the combination of the top whitetail research scientists in the country, including Munising’s own John Ozoga, are advocating unlimited doe harvest or managing for trophy bucks.
The U.P. is a great place to live, hike, hunt, observe wildlife, and enjoy our natural resources, and QDM is just as applicable here as it is in anywhere else in the country. QDM is just basic biology, desperately needed by unhealthy deer herds across much of the country. If we are to resist the current and potential problems of habitat destruction, disease, and poor health it probably all comes down to making a choice: Do we do what is best for the overall health of the deer, or ourselves? Surprisingly, I think we will find that if we concentrate on what QDM is, instead of what it’s not, we will not only accomplish what’s best for the health of the deer, but we will also accomplish what’s best for ourselves and the future of hunting.
There are many misunderstandings concerning white-tailed deer management, in particular, Quality Deer Management, or “QDM”. The various principles of QDM are promoted by the Quality Deer Management Association, or “QDMA”, and their mission statement is clear: “The Quality Deer Management Association is a non-profit wildlife conservation organization dedicated to promoting sustainable, high quality white-tailed deer populations, wildlife habitats, and ethical hunting experiences through education, research, and management in partnership with hunters, landowners, natural resource professionals, and the public”. From outdoor enthusiasts, to seasoned hunters, to some local Department of Natural Resource (DNR) officials, there is a general display of misunderstanding pertaining to the basic principles of QDM. All of us who share a passion for the understanding or improvement of local wildlife populations, from hikers to hunters, should question why our natural resources are managed the way they are. We should also continuously educate ourselves as to what actually comprise the components of a healthy wildlife population. Too often we arrive at uninformed conclusions about the management methods utilized by or our wildlife professionals, while at the same time we allow personal bias or tradition to shape our opinions. These uninformed conclusions and misguided opinions are often at the heart of the misunderstandings of QDM. So what really is the truth surrounding QDM?
QDM is not trophy management or an unlimited doe harvest, but is instead a scientifically proven method of white-tailed deer population management that is applicable across the entire whitetail range. From Texas, to the U.P. of Michigan, QDM addresses the basic needs of a healthy herd with three proven necessities; adequate buck age structure, populations maintained in balance with the carrying capacity of the habitat, and adequate sex ratios achieved by appropriate doe harvest strategies. Across the country habitats may differ, as do topography, cover, food, and availability, but those three simple principles are the constant necessities of a healthy herd, and that’s QDM. Higher body weights, increased rutting activity, less habitat degradation, improved quality habitat, increased fawn production, and an older aged buck class with larger antlers are all some of the benefits of a QDM program, but they are only some of the results of a successful management plan, not individual objectives of QDM. QDM is about health; health of the herd and health of the habitat, and by protecting our yearling bucks and striving to insure a naturally balanced herd, we are one step closer to reaching our goals.
An adequate buck age structure is often the first focus of a successful management plan and is fairly easy to achieve by significantly limiting the harvest of yearling bucks. But, by protecting bucks with their first set of antlers, is QDM promoting “Trophy Management”? Absolutely not! Trophy Management differs in many ways, but one great difference is that Trophy Management not only strives to protect yearling bucks, but 2½ year olds, 3½, 4½, 5½, and even up to 8½ year olds or older in some cases. Trophy Management also selectively removes bucks from the herd at 3½ to 4½ years of age when they show any signs of inferiority, such as below average weight or antler development. In statewide management plans, both of these methods are not only inappropriate, but are not a part of QDM. On the other hand, these methods do have their places in deer management, typically in large, private tracts of 1000 or more acres or some enclosed properties that offer fee hunts. On a statewide level, protection of yearling bucks will achieve many of the benefits of a healthy herd.
Protection of yearling bucks allows for natural selection, in that only the strongest, most dominant bucks compete for breading rights. Currently DNR management strategies in Michigan encourage a system in which most yearling bucks never see their second birthday, and the majority of the breeding process is dominated by yearling bucks, which is a very unnatural occurrence. A breeding process dominated by yearling bucks is one of chaos and wasted energy, and this wasted energy is often a significant loss when approaching the eminent perils of the oncoming winter. Even just an additional one-year increase in age contributes greatly to the survival rates and breeding experience of a buck. The QDMA promotes the voluntary protection of yearling bucks to achieve these goals, but the harsh reality is that we as Michigan hunters have proven every year that we continue to participate in just the opposite. Instead of the voluntary protection of yearling bucks, we continually participate in the annual over-harvest of the vast majority of available yearling bucks. So what do we do?
Voluntary restraint is the best way to protect yearling bucks, but the bottom line is that protection of yearling bucks is an integral piece of a successful management program. In Michigan, however, voluntary restraint has proven ineffective and it is because of this ineffectiveness that antler restriction may be the only solution. Antler restrictions are typically based on antler spread or number of points, and are used in both voluntary and mandatory methods of protection of yearling bucks. The Superior Deer Management group of the U.P. of Michigan has passed three-point side restrictions, and in other areas of Michigan four-point side restrictions may be more appropriate. The three-point side restriction in the U.P. protects roughly 80% of all yearling bucks, where as the same three-point rule used in the southern half of lower Michigan protects only 39%. On the other hand, a four point side rule in the southern half of lower Michigan protects 69%. Basically, a three-point rule in the U.P. is more effective at protecting yearling bucks than a four-point rule used in many other areas of MI. It could be argued that the proposals implemented by the Superior Deer Management group resembles more of a “Trophy Management” philosophy in that they protect a larger percentage of yearling bucks. That argument is false though in that a yearling protection rate of 80% is a common QDM goal throughout the country. However, restrictions that produce lower percentages may need to be altered to produce the “magical” 80% protection rate, such as a 15” spread minimum in southern lower Michigan as opposed to the four-point side rule. So which is right, a three-point side rule in the U.P., or a 15” spread restriction (commonly measured by the width of the ears) in the southern half of lower Michigan? Both are actually appropriate for their respective areas, and that flexibility is an example of the philosophy of QDM, taking the three proven principles and doing what is necessary to attain those principles in your particular area. That flexibility is especially needed in the next proven necessity of herd management, “Populations maintained below the carrying capacity of the land”.
When some hear “Populations maintained below the carrying capacity of the land”, the second principle of QDM, they think of unlimited doe harvest, and that thought could not be further from the truth. In fact, in most of the northern half of the U.P. of Michigan, doe harvest is rarely needed due to the severity of the winters. In particular, populations along the Lake Superior shoreline are usually kept well below the carrying capacity of the land due to the harshness of winter, with populations below 5 deer per square mile in some areas. During an average winter, we can loose up to 50% of our U.P. fawns, and up to 90% in severe winters. On the other hand, parts of Menominee County have contained populations in excess of 100 deer per square mile and were the highest in the state. Looking back to “Populations maintained below the carrying capacity of the land”, no doe harvest is needed in northern portions of U.P., but in some southern portions doe harvest is desperately needed with populations spiraling virtually out of control. That again is QDM, with a population that is in balance with the habitat being the goal, and implementing effective harvest strategies within your area to reach that goal. Some of the dangers of high populations can be devastating, including: Increased disease threats such as the TB and Chronic Wasting Disease (a disease that part of the “Mad Cow” strain and is knocking on our doorstep with the outbreak in WI), decreased body weights, poor fawn survival rates, and severe habitat degradation. Inadequate sex ratios are also evident within populations that exceed the carrying capacity of the habitat, and because of these poor ratios our U.P. bucks can be at an extreme disadvantage when entering a typical U.P. winter.
“Improved sex ratios”, is the third piece of the puzzle. Does it really matter if there is one buck to every five does? During our brief breeding picture of a few weeks, our U.P. bucks may actually enjoy the odds, but at what cost? U.P. yearling bucks can be run to near exhaustion during a typical breeding period, and can be at a grave disadvantage when entering a severe winter. Add into the mix a poor U.P. buck age structure, resulting in the majority of bucks participating in the breeding process being that of yearling bucks lacking maturity, in body size or experience, and our U.P. bucks can experience unnecessarily high mortality rates. In poor ratio areas, especially when coupled with a poor buck age structure, any buck is allowed to breed, not just the most dominant and strongest, again diminishing the process of natural selection, a process in which only the strongest should survive and breed.
For some of you who hunt regularly, have you noticed a lack of rutting sign, rubs, and scrapes in your area? What about a lack of bucks chasing, seeking, and fighting? Some blame it on the weather, but it is really a combination of the lack of the above three necessities of QDM. Yearling bucks do very little rubbing and scraping, bucks have little to no competition in overpopulated areas, and without appropriate sex ratios, a buck does not need to wander too far to find another doe.
QDM looks to manage what can be controlled within the Natural Resources Commission and other management authorities. Although there are always concerns of wolf populations, second buck tags, baiting, supplemental feeding, and other “hot topics”, QDM is most concerned with white-tailed deer management aspects that pose a direct threat to the overall health of the herd. Areas of yearling buck protection, buck age structure, sex ratios, habitat management and carrying capacities of the land are areas of the greatest importance as opposed to areas that offer little more than unnecessary distractions. For some perspective, in the past 15 years in the U.P. hunters have killed 1.1 million deer, while winter severity has claimed 900,000. During the past 15 years, if the U.P. averaged 350 wolves per year, than wolves could have eaten approximately 100,000 deer, many of which had been, or would have been victim to winter severity. Obviously, overall deer numbers relative to quality winter habitat should be a top concern in the U.P. of Michigan. QDM also seeks to promote the increase in hunter knowledge and skill level, as well as providing greater viewing opportunities for the enjoyment of the white-tailed deer. QDM looks to maintain a population of strong, healthy, disease resistant deer that are in tune with their natural habitat. Hopefully when you hear Quality Deer Management, you can think of the positive, scientifically proven facts that are the result, including: Higher body weights, improved fawn production, natural sex ratios, decreased habitat degradation, natural selection, increased rut intensity, and yes, an older aged buck class with larger antlers.
With the anniversary of the five-year antler restriction period within the Rock area initiated by Superior Deer Management, as well as the recent U.P. wide survey process, we here in the U.P. have actually had a voice in the management of our deer herd. What kind of say have we had in the past? What has it accomplished? Don’t take my word for what QDM stands for, take some time and look up the QDMA web-site at www.qdma.com, or call 800-209-DEER and see for yourself what the QDMA truly believes in. You won’t find anywhere where the combination of the top whitetail research scientists in the country, including Munising’s own John Ozoga, are advocating unlimited doe harvest or managing for trophy bucks.
The U.P. is a great place to live, hike, hunt, observe wildlife, and enjoy our natural resources, and QDM is just as applicable here as it is in anywhere else in the country. QDM is just basic biology, desperately needed by unhealthy deer herds across much of the country. If we are to resist the current and potential problems of habitat destruction, disease, and poor health it probably all comes down to making a choice: Do we do what is best for the overall health of the deer, or ourselves? Surprisingly, I think we will find that if we concentrate on what QDM is, instead of what it’s not, we will not only accomplish what’s best for the health of the deer, but we will also accomplish what’s best for ourselves and the future of hunting.