Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

What do you think of the proposal to make the entire U.P. a QDM zone?

  • Like the Idea and think it will pass

    Votes: 12 14.5%
  • Don't Like the Idea but think it will pass

    Votes: 1 1.2%
  • Like the idea but don't think it will pass

    Votes: 38 45.8%
  • Don't like the idea and don't think it will pass

    Votes: 29 34.9%
  • Don't care

    Votes: 3 3.6%
1 - 20 of 113 Posts
Joined
·
10,812 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
There's a new proposal in the works now that will make the entire U.P. an experimental QDM area restricting the harvest of antlered bucks to three points on one side. Superior Deer Management, a group that was highly successful in getting a similar measure passed three years ago in the Central U.P, is driving spearheading this measure with help from many other groups and associations. I hunt extensively in the Central U.P. in the middle of the current QDM zone and have seen some positive results from the current measures all ready. There have also been some sacrifices. I've had to pass up some shots that I otherwise would have taken, but I've also seen more big bucks in my hunting areas. Perhaps the biggest benefit I've seen is a buck to doe ratio that used to be 1 to 10 that is now 1 to 2 with about the same number of overall deer. We now see many times more bucks and it's a rare day when I don't see at least one antlered buck during a days hunt. Unless the DNR stops the measure, it will likely go up for a vote of hunters/landowners late next year (2004).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,379 Posts
Has to 'start' someplace might as well be in the UP. I hope it work well and is widely accepted - I'd vote for it - but I'm not int he UP.

ferg....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,738 Posts
I would vote for it.

Hopefully the voting method is not stacked in favor of failure as it has been in the past.

I would like to see voting only by UP land owner's or hunters who bought their deer license in the UP or applied for a UP antlerless tag in 2003.

I know that would exclude many hunters from voting but it would be a fair way to get a representation of people who hunt in the UP. Using historical data would prevent the pro or anti QDM groups from stacking the deck. I would feel better with having the issue voted down with a fair vote than what is currently being done to defeat the QDM movement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
308 Posts
If it does pass I will start hunting the U.P. I am excited that someone is at least getting it off the ground.

I moved back form pennsylvania to michigan 4 years ago and I wish I was still there to hunt. I hunted there for 3 years and was very frustrated, but now it looks like things are really turned around.

We need these regulations. Our potential is too great to not at least try.
 
Joined
·
10,812 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Originally posted by Luv2hunteup
I would like to see voting only by UP land owner's or hunters who bought their deer license in the UP or applied for a UP antlerless tag in 2003.
That's how the voting was conducted in the past, but it has required a 66% majority, or close to it, to be enacted into law.
 

·
Say My Name.
Joined
·
14,731 Posts
Originally posted by Trophy Specialist
I hunt extensively in the Central U.P. in the middle of the current QDM zone and have seen some positive results from the current measures all ready...
I've also seen more big bucks in my hunting areas. Perhaps the biggest benefit I've seen is a buck to doe ratio that used to be 1 to 10 that is now 1 to 2 with about the same number of overall deer. We now see many times more bucks and it's a rare day when I don't see at least one antlered buck during a days hunt.
Wow. That IS impressive, and good news. Guys that hunt the U.P. deserve this.:cool:

Boy, would I be happy to see results like this in my neck of the woods. Don't know about my doe:buck ratio precisely, but I can report, from reviewing my hunting logs, that sightings of antlerless deer have outnumbered antlered deer over the last 3 hunting seasons combined by more than 25:1.
 

·
*********
Joined
·
592 Posts
I would vote for that. Right now I try to shoot something with 4pt on a side anyway, But then again the seat I have has been very productive for "Nice" bucks.. The only down fall that I can see (And it's a personal one) would be the influx of down state hunters, I don't much care for most of the ones that hunt state and Federal land ..
 

·
Say My Name.
Joined
·
14,731 Posts
Originally posted by yoda
The only down fall that I can see (And it's a personal one) would be the influx of down state hunters..
My guess (hope?) is that such an influx would be temporary. If hunter satisfaction is such that U.P. hunting pressure is increased, there would surely be a statewide clamor for similar measures down below.:cool:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,594 Posts
Our club near Naubinway has had a "no spike" rule for about 5 or 6 years now. This protects about 80% of the year and a half old bucks from our records. The majority of the bucks taken in a given year are two and a half year olds. So basically, we are shooting a year older class of animals for the most part every year.

These two and a half year old bucks are almost all 6 or 8 points. So, in a round about way, a "three points to a side rule" would do the same thing. To see even more bucks make it to three years old and beyond, I think it should be four to a side.

The one thing I wonder about, though, does this harm the gene pool? If we let a spike walk, but shoot a buck the same age with more points, are we taking the better ones with more potential too early?

None the less, waiting that extra year puts about 20 or 30 pounds on them. As a rule, the racks still lack the size of a buck the same age taken down state.

So, no need to flock to the UP if it passes. ;)
 

·
*********
Joined
·
592 Posts
The way I see it farmlegend it will only make the pressure worse than it already is up here. There is no reason for folks to come up here now , If people want to shoot nice bucks every year, the U.P. is not the place to do it at this time, But it doesn't stop them.. Now let throw visions of "Rudolph" behind every tree and on come the slobs. Don't get me wrong, I have the upmost respect for a few of you folks that come up to enjoy our country up here.. But for the most part , most of the folks I run into into up here in the woods during deer season have not right to be there, let alone be carring a rifle
 

·
*********
Joined
·
592 Posts
Sorry Steve, But you been around this site long enough to know my feelings toward a bunch of the folks that cross the Big Mac. to mess up the Great U.P. :D
 
Joined
·
10,812 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Originally posted by yoda
The only down fall that I can see (And it's a personal one) would be the influx of down state hunters
That is a fact in my hunting area, I did see more deer hunters on public land largely due to the prospects of getting a bigger buck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,738 Posts
The only bigger dream I've heard of lately is the $155 million mega millions jackpot. LOL

I did see more deer hunters on public land largely due to the prospects of getting a bigger buck.
Now let throw visions of "Rudolph" behind every tree
 
Joined
·
10,812 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I should clarify; the areas of public land that I saw increased deer hunting preasure on are those areas with good deer numbers, typically public or CFR lands near large blocks of private lands that have been managed for QDM, which is common in my area. Most of the public land around my area offers poor deer hunting and in these areas, there is not surprisingly little hunting preasure. I bird hunt a lot on public lands within 30 miles of my camp. I often stop by and chat with bowhunters (in camps and by their vehicles) when I see them so I can find out where they are hunting so as not to disrupt their efforts. Many of the folks I spoke to were new to the area and the main reason they were hunting there was to hunt for a mature buck created by QDM. As for non-native Yoopers being slobs, I just don't see it much in the areas I frequent. In fact, I run into far more local Yoopers commiting violations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
Hey...yeah sure lets "use" the U.P. to benefit everyone else whether they like it or not. I agree in some areas we need to kill more does and mine is one of them,but I get so tired of hearing everyone equate a "quality" hunt as a big scorable rack. If size matters so much why not just go to a fenced in hunt then you will have your sure thing and be happy.Some of these posts mention hunting in four or five other states,well if you can afford to do that go ahead and do it and dont interfere in a hunt situation Ive enjoyed for over forty years.Happy new year!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,901 Posts
Okay, I've gotta say it again. Let's have an honest, open vote of all interested parties, including ALL landowners and residents, not just a select few. No super-majorities here, no stacked decks, no hidden agendas.....just a good old-fashioned vote of the people. If it passes by SIMPLE Majority, then so be it.

Oh and yes, Happy New Year to everyone!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
878 Posts
Bogwalker and others who equate QDM and "a 'quality' hunt as a big scorable rack" you are out in left field. QDM is not about big scorable racks. Rather, it is about a healthy herd with a more natural buck to doe ratio with representives in all age classes. However, just because you have bucks in the older age classes does not mean a plethora of "big scorable racks".

Consider a statement made several years ago by Brian Murphy, Executive Director, QDMA, that the average buck, if he reaches the older age classes and has adequate nutrition will be a 130-140 class animal. What his statement means is that the average adult buck at maturity will not make the official record book even as a bowkill which has a lower minimum entry score. Anyone, who believes that by adopting a QDM program, they are on their way to putting a buck in the B&C book, has much to learn.

While I'll agree that their will be bigger racks with older class bucks, a B&C buck will still be a rarity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
My question is why does there need to be a vote? If this is such a good idea and so good for the deer herd why can't the DNR strap a pair on, do what's right and make the changes?
 

·
Say My Name.
Joined
·
14,731 Posts
Originally posted by mjp
My question is why does there need to be a vote? If this is such a good idea and so good for the deer herd why can't the DNR strap a pair on, do what's right and make the changes?
Lotta folks ask the same question. Including me.

Best guess is, fear of some sort of public outcry, and some bureaucrats may lose their jobs.
 
1 - 20 of 113 Posts
Top