Dear Mr. Wheatlake:
ItÂ’s my understanding that recent survey results did not meet the required 66 percent approval rate for continuation of QDM in DMU 118. Unfortunately, this survey was conducted after only four years under QDM instead of five years.
Given the available data, and other considerations, I encourage the Michigan Natural Resources Commission (MNRC) to extend QDM in DMU 118 for the 2004 deer season, change the antler restrictions to four points on a side and revamp the hunter and land owner survey. Please consider the following:
Traditional Deer Management
Traditionally, We have managed Michigan whitetails to maximize recreational opportunities and economic benefits. WeÂ’ve permitted, and even encouraged excessive buck harvesting, but minimal doe harvesting in order to maintain high density herds. Needless to say, this strategy has resulted in numerous consequences.
In short, hunter demands and economics have dictated deer management policy—resulting in a farming-type operation.
On the surface, traditional deer management sounds like an OK system. Unfortunately, every one involved tends to want more and more from the white-tailed resource, without putting much back into it. Such a strategy ultimately becomes a political football, with little regard the whitetailÂ’s long term welfare.
The antis say we are more concerned with creating living targets than we are with maintaining healthy deer populations.
Quality Deer Management
In the most liberal sense of the definition, Quality Deer Management is the use of restraint in harvesting (young) bucks, combined with an adequate harvest of antlerless deer to maintain the healthy (natural) population that is in balance with the existing habitat conditions.
The goal of QDM is to produce and maintain healthy and productive deer herds with natural sex and age structure. And I emphasize natural. This is the way the white-tailed evolved and existed prior to modern manÂ’s intervention.
Keep in mind, the goal of QDM is not to produce big bucks with trophy-sized antlers, theyÂ’re merely byproducts of a healthy, naturally structured deer population. Also, with QDM, deer hunters become true deer managers.
The Future
IÂ’ve been involved, as a professional, with deer and deer hunting for over 40 years. IÂ’ve seen some changes during that time. But I can assure you, the change will be immense in the next couple of decades, as deer management shifts from an emphasis on quantity to one of quality.
In the future, managers will be required to place greater emphasis on creating and maintaining smaller deer herds that are not only nutritionally balanced, but also socially balanced.
Most hunters probably are unaware, but there is a strong “naturalism” movement in progress. In the future, greater emphasis will be placed on such things as biodiversity, old growth forest stands, an ecological approach to resource management, and general trend toward producing plant and animal communities more like those that existed prior to the white man’s arrival on this continent. These changes will greatly impact whitetailed deer populations, especially on public land.
Depending upon where you get your figures, roughly 10 percent of the American populus are hunters, 10 percent are antihunters, and 80 percent are nonhunters. Most nonhunters are not against hunting, but they are concerned about the welfare of wild species. WeÂ’ll never convert antihunters to hunters, but if we as hunters offend nonhunters, many could become antihunters.
Public concern for animal welfare, and the debate over hunting impacts, more than likely will intensify in the future. (More states are having to amend their constitutions to protect hunting rights. That should tell you something.) This trend, often with a greater emphasis on a “hands-off or nonlethal” approach to deer management, will take center stage. As a result, the nonhunting public will be more prominent in deciding deer management policies. These nonhunters will ultimately decide whether we hunt deer.
I also think hunters should emulate natural predators whenever possible, by becoming more selective harvesters and inflicting mortality that more closely mimics natural predation. This means holding peer populations in numerical balance with existing food and cover. It also means maintaining deer populations that are in social harmony with proper sex and age structure. This is what QDM is all about.
QDM in DMU 118
There are no cook book rules for QDM that apply nationwide. Each are requires different measures, depending upon a host of factors. This is especially true here in Michigan with the highly variable environmental conditions that prevail.
Unfortunately, the QDM philosophy is based primarily upon experience in southern states. In fact, given our immense hunting army and northern environment, there are those who doubt QDM can be accomplished in Michigan. Therefore, itÂ’s essential we continue to monitor QDM efforts throughout the state to determine how to implement the strategy under contrasting environmental conditions.
Contrary to the expectations of some, QDM is working in DMU 118, largely because hunters are willing to play a more responsible role in deer management.
Deer hunters in DMU 118 have demonstrated that they can be selective harvesters in order to benefit the species they hunt. Under QDM, harvesting of young bucks (including buck fawns) has decreased sharply and harvesting of female deer has increased. The net results include a smaller deer population that has more natural sex and age structure, including more older bucks in the population. Even antler quality among older bucks has improved, indicating that deer numbers are in better balance with available food and cover resources. All this has taken place without compromising recreational benefits.
Antler Restrictions
None of us like to see mandated antler restrictions. Currently, however, there seems no other way to save young bucks from harvest so that more of them reach maturity. In time, as the buck population becomes more structured, and hunters become more experienced, voluntary compliance is more likely.
DMU 118 provides rich deer habitat. As a result, even a large proportion of yearling bucks tend to grow respectable antlers with six or more points. Therefore, protecting young bucks with fewer that three points on one side will only protect a modest proportion of the yearling bucks, in this case about 50 percent. Also, as the beneficial effects of QDM become more evident, yearling buck antler size will improve, and the three point rule will protect fewer of them.
For these reasons, I would recommend that the antler restriction rule in DMU 118 be changed to a minimum of four points on one side.
The Survey
Any resource manager will tell you, youÂ’re doing well whenever you can satisfy more that one-half of those involved in any deer management issue. Hoping to satisfy 66 percent of them, as required to implement QDM in Michigan, is nothing short of ridiculous.
The survey currently being used here is modeled after that used in Georgia. (I might add, the Georgia DNR was not initially sympathetic with QDM philosophy, and in my view attempted to roadblock such change.) Face facts, this is not Georgia, and we are not dealing with Georgia Deer Hunters. As you well know, Michigan deer hunters are notoriously traditional and disagreeable—if you can satisfy more than 50 percent, that’s great.
IÂ’m disappointed that the Michigan DNR could not be more original in designing a survey that was better suited to their clientele. They do have the expertise, donÂ’t they?
Also, each person surveyed should be provided with pertinent data (scientific facts) concerning sex and age of deer harvested prior to and during QDM. Without such information, the respondent has no sound basis for making an intelligent decision.
Conclusions
Nearly 60 percent of the hunters and land owners involved recognize that QDM is working in DMU 118. Th MNRC and MDNR should do likewise, and acknowledge that the QDM experience in DMU 118 is too valuable to abandon.
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that hunting is a wildlife management tool—not an end in itself. Deer shouldn’t be managed soled for recreational and economic benefits. Instead, we should be managing deer as they evolved—socially and nutritionally balanced. This means we as hunters should be more concerned about our role as deer predators, and how our actions benefit the species we hunt, not the other way around.
QDM will not resolve all issues concerning the hunting debate or deer-human conflicts, but itÂ’s the best weÂ’ve got. It certainly will complement a natural approach to deer management much better than traditional practices that emphasize human interests, recreational benefits, and economics. And, in the long-run, QDM should prove much more palatable to a critical nonhunting public who are deeply concerned about the welfare of wild creatures.
Generally speaking, we have a choice. We hunters (and decision makers) can either lead the way with progressive QDM, in an effort to create more natural deer populations, and show our true concern for the long-term welfare of the white-tailed, or we can wait until we’ve literally forced into action—just to save our sport
Sincerely,
John J. Ozoga
Wildlife Research Biol., MDNR (ret.)
Research Editor, Deer & Deer Hunting Magazine
