Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

1 - 20 of 91 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,460 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Bob, do you really think the people who hold that shooting every 3" spike is their birth right will give a hoot about even more facts and evidence pointing out how much better the hunting will be with some management? I don't. I think they've got their minds made up that we're trying to somehow take something away from them, instead of realizing that management GIVES them everything, not takes away. It's like the Michael Moore Bush haters. No amount of evidence will ever disuade them from thinking that Cheney is the real President and Bush only went to Iraq for Haliburton because Cheney told him to go. That or Bush was a deserter. It's pointless to discuss the reality. We just need to convince the people in charge in Lansing that management isn't a popularity contest. Science should be the most important factor, not politics.
 

·
Say My Name.
Joined
·
14,731 Posts
I encourage folks to study Bob's link.

And keep in mind, that the 3-pt. per side provides the barest minimum performance standard; in DMU 118, it protects no more than 50% of the yearling bucks. A standard which would protect 75-80% of the yearlings, (4 a side in that area) would produce even more dramatic results.

Higher sustained yield, higher proportion of older age-class bucks, improved doe:buck ratio, hunters now paying so much attention to their targets that button buck harvest is way below the state average, a more productive deer herd with improved recruitment rates. A win-win-win.:cool:
 

·
Britt Homer
Joined
·
996 Posts
I find the data compelling to say the least…..I posted some of the pre 2003 data in a graphical format sometime ago.

Total harvest up, total antlered harvest up (with the exception of 2001), % of 1.5 yo bucks harvested down dramatically with a significant increase in harvest of the older age classes.

Wow, Mature bucks roaming the woods in Michigan and a more balanced sex and age structure, What a concept!

Hard to argue against the data but, unfortunately, I think [email protected] is correct in that many fail to see the forest through the trees.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Farm, I sure have studied it.
1 1/2 year old bucks went from 78% of the harvest down to a 5 year average of 50.4% of the harvest.
2 1/2 year old bucks went up from 16% to an average of 30%
3 1/2 year old bucks went up from 5% to an average of 16.7%
4 1/2 year old bucks went up from 1% to an average of 2.9%

That there is one big bowl of pudding chocked full of extra proof!
I sent that link out to Rod Clute, Eric Sharp, Bob Gwidz, Bob Garner, Bill Parker (editor of MOOD), MUDH and my local MDNR biologist. I asked them if this is the type of evidence they're looking for to make this a statewide standard or if they think this tells us nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,460 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
It is pretty interesting. You can shoot more does. Pass on the 1 1/2 year old bucks. Improve the sex ratio and age structure. And overall shoot more deer than you were shooting before the antler restrictions went into effect.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,359 Posts
As some of our "esteemed" journalists have stated, they already have the facts, they just don't want to take the time to research them for fear of "overwhelming" MI hunters and "upsetting" the non-hunting public that look down upon "trophy" hunting. They just want to sell papers.

I took a little "journalistic liberty" with the above paraphrase. LOL!

And remember Rod Clute's responce to the success in PA.
Michigan has 9 QDM areas and those will be evaluated after five years of QDM regulations. It is only fair to give PA 5 yrs before evaluating their regulations.
Hmmmmmmm, wonder what he's going to do? Any bets?

Garner, politcal prostitute, I would like to send him a nutmeg sandwich.

Sharp, might take a look.

MUDH's 75% super majority made that organization a lame duck before it signed up one member. We want improvement but cannot agree on or even form a plan for it.

Bill Parker has the above journalists working on his paper.

The evidence is crystal clear and was well before DMU 118 was even in existence. MI deer hunters will never voluntarily change, it's their right, because their great grandpa's did it that way. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,478 Posts
These are good numbers, but don't tell everybody. . . .I wouldn't want every Michigan hunter to have as much fun in the woods as I do in DMU 118.;)

Of course, to some people passing on 9 different bucks until a nice one comes along in one day might not be fun to them. . . . or better yet, passing on some small bucks and then taking a nice doe might just seem silly to others.

I am hoping and praying every day that we can keep our area QDM. . . and have made my opinion clear to the "powers that be." Even if it doesn't stay QDM. . . we will still practice. . . .just don't know if our neighbors will do the same. IT COULD GET REALLY UGLY WITHOUT QDM NEXT YEAR!! :mad: :mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,116 Posts
Love the facts! I don't know how legislators can decide without them.

Great results!:) Whatever happens, it is something for the MI QDMA to be very proud of, and can always be used as further proof of the effectiveness of a proper QDM plan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,920 Posts
Originally posted by [email protected]
Bob, do you really think the people who hold that shooting every 3" spike is their birth right will give a hoot about even more facts and evidence pointing out how much better the hunting will be with some management? I don't. I think they've got their minds made up
Well, just keep throwing in the arrogant, condescending attitude like that and you will never change anyone's mind.

The facts may sell QDM to the average hunter, but the attitudes of the QDM'ers are a little unpallatable and will turn people away.

You guys should try and work on that.

Bob S, thanks for posting the data.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,379 Posts
Sure wish they do that in DMU 001 :(

Congrats to Ed and others - I hope the NRC - moves in a more proactive positive direction in the near future -

ferg....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,116 Posts
Brian S.,

You'll have to excuse some of us QDM'ers sometimes, but we get awful darn excited and passionate about QDM, have all seen it work and know it works, but are constantly bombarded with folks who plain and simple, have formed a negative opinion, without looking at all the facts. From a passionate QDM advocate, it breaks down even the best of us and some frustration can creap through every once and a while.

You just have to excuse the excitement!;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,651 Posts
I shot a 4.5 year old doe on a heavily hunted part of a SGA.
I'm certain there are 3.5-5 year old bucks these as well, but very few are harvested.
They exist however, I see them each late summer.
The only real way to limit harvests and control sex ratio killing would be to have a permit system.
That system could regulate doe/buck kills.
Many would cringe at the thought.
It has flaws as well, but just think any given area could be governed as to the amount of harvests.
Higher car deer areas could see increased kills if needed.
Hard snow fall areas might need less harvests one or two years.
Validation of kills would help monitor deer kills.
Some areas could be one buck areas others doe only or limited sex kills.
Limit the deer population at the license counter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,099 Posts
The only real way to limit harvests and control sex ratio killing would be to have a permit system.

Sure, a permit system would work, but it would also be a nightmare for the DNR to count bucks in any given area to decide how many permits are needed.

You know how good the DNR is at counting deer?

AR's and doe permits are by far the most logical choice for balancing sex ratios

As jk said, "I would be ecstatic to have consistent opportunities at 3 1/2 year old bucks!"

Most all of us would!

Getting to except that AR's are a change for the good, is what's really hard for some hunters to understand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,651 Posts
Sure, a permit system would work, but it would also be a nightmare for the DNR to count bucks in any given area to decide how many permits are needed.
Based on a birth rate of close to 50/50, the permits could be issued 50 /50
Or even 70 antlerless/30 Antlered.
In order for Ar's to work you need to beef up CO's in the fields writing tickets, that cost money too.
Everything cost money and ultimatly the consumer pays. In this case the hunter would pay slightly more for better hunting oppertunities.
If you knew area ABC only had so many permits of either sex tags issued and mild winters it would be a prime target to hunt.
Same as the turkey permits.
Some areas are better than others and hunter apply for different areas each year.
By monitoring Buck tags you will control the quality of the herd.
Antler restrictions only will create poachers and waste from those who make a mistake and let it lay to rot.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,359 Posts
Bucks will be shot and left in the woods.

This is the biggest unknown and the primary concern we have with the new antler restrictions. What decision will Pennsylvania hunters make when they see a buck this fall? The sum of these decisions will ultimately affect the success or failure of antler restrictions and the public image of our hunters. This is one of the reasons we intend to tag hundreds of bucks over the next three years. Rather than relying on anecdotal reports, we will have survival data on radio-collared bucks. When any is killed, we will know when, where and how, and whether it was a legal buck or not. Sure, mistakes may occur, but regulations have been adopted to handle mistakes with minimal consequences for the hunter.
http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/view.asp?a=465&q=151294


I would love a permit based system. Spreading hunting pressure over a 4-6 week period could be the single biggest improvement to the deer hunting experience we could ask for. But you get what you pay for and I also think the permit system would be far more cost prohibitive than AR's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,651 Posts
But you get what you pay for and I also think the permit system would be far more cost prohibitive than AR's.
I wonder if they would.

Less hunters in the woods at any one time, might ease CO's patrol costs.

And has anyone got actual costs figures?
I enjoy discussing this and if we need to I guess we can start a new thread?
Sorry to side track this one.
I would like a new system but I don't even know what one.
Anything that benifits hunters and wildlife I will look at closely.
 

·
Say My Name.
Joined
·
14,731 Posts
I think a permit system would be a worthwhile experiment. Time for the NRC to exhibit some leadership, pick a DMU, and just IMPLEMENT it. Sure there will be great wailing and gnashing of teeth by the guys who fear losing their chance of slaying Sparky the Wonderbuck each season. But real leadership requires a thick skin.

No matter where such an experiment was performed, if it were done right, there would be some good hunting to be had.

Were it in my area, and I kept drawing doe tags, that would suit me just fine. Something like the last 15 deer I've arrowed have been does.

Come to think of it, how about a preference point system for awarding buck tags? Keep applying, and you'll eventually get one, some day.
Nah, no bureaucrat has skin that thick.:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,099 Posts
Ug.

Again, I feel that a permit system would work, but.....

That's still an awful lot of exspensive micro-managing that would need to occur, not to mention more biologists afield, which almost seams an impossibility in todays budget restraints.

AR's are a heck of alot cheaper.

In the area of our co-op, which now has some pretty impresssive bucks walking around, I don't think anyone would agree that poaching has become an issue.

Impliment AR's statewide, and the poachers would hardly scratch the buck population in a few years.
 
1 - 20 of 91 Posts
Top