|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Nov 30, 2006 8:56:55 GMT -5
This was posted by a friend of mine on another board. He is a professor at a veterinary school and a lifetime deer hunter..
Your thoughts?...
Which gets into the matter of "quality" in deer management.
The term "Quality Deer Management" so far as I can tell, seems exclusively and absolutely to mean "bucks which have big racks."
As a professional life scientist and member of the animal medical community, I have to say I think that's a very narrow view, and one that's pretty skewed.
A "quality" deer should be defined as one that is healthy, not unbearably burdened by parasites, and capable of normal activity and reproduction, regardless of its sex or antlers. A "quality" deer is one that's a member of a herd that's properly balanced with respect to sex, age classes, and distribution; and moreover, a herd that is not close to stressing the carrying capacity of the land on which it lives.
Big racks are only one visible manifestation of "quality," and there are many others: hair coat, average weight, body fat in winter, survival rate of fawns, twinning rates, etc., etc., etc. We should be thinking of "Quality DEER HERD Management," and not only in terms of what makes bucks grow big antlers. Nice, healthy antlerless deer are "quality" deer too, but they don't sell stuff for Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops. The Fall catalogs never have does on them except as sleek Antler Candy for Old Mossyhorns.
I am not so naive as to think that this is ever going to happen. Antler worship drives the deer hunting industry and makes the purveyors of gear rich; it's what keeps game agencies solvent; it's the way the average hunter is conditioned to think. Hence we will continue to manage herds, whether on public or private land (and most certainly on private land) for large antlers, with any other benefits as purely serendipitous.
It's wrong, it's short-sighted, it's fatuous, but it's going to continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Nov 30, 2006 9:15:15 GMT -5
If you look at all my post on QDM I always say big antlers is a [glow=red,2,300]SIDE EFFECT[/glow] not the goal. The goal for me has been and always will be to have a balanced herd that is below the carrying capacity of the land. Even if this means I do not see a thousand deer every time I go out. I will also do my best to harvest the most mature buck that I can. I wish more people had the same goal. There are too many that want all the big guys for themselves and too many that want to walk out in the woods anywhere and see hundreds of deer. We just need to do the best we can to keep the herd healthy and within the bounds of the resources available.
|
|
|
|
Post by hornharvester on Nov 30, 2006 9:34:23 GMT -5
WW,
I agree with your friends article. QDM and OBR go hand in hand are nothing more than methods to grow big antlers. When is the last time you heard anyone who practices QDM say Im doing all this culling and planting of food plots to grow bigger does? Antlers are and will always be the most important results of QDM. h.h.
|
|
|
|
Post by chicobrownbear on Nov 30, 2006 10:26:19 GMT -5
A perfectly stated post.
|
|
|
|
Post by drs on Nov 30, 2006 10:26:23 GMT -5
Woody, I agree with most of what your friend stated. Especially the above quote from his statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by mbogo on Nov 30, 2006 10:44:38 GMT -5
I agree with your friend Woody, that is the way QDM should be practiced not the corrupted trophy management schemes many try to implement now.
I think that is the right attitude to adopt for keeping the proper perspective on deer management.
I have to disagree with you HH, about the only ones trying to confuse the OBR with QDM are the OBR supporters. The OBR is an attempt at trophy management pure and simple, not the quality herd management that QDM promotes.
|
|
|
|
Post by LawrenceCoBowhunter on Nov 30, 2006 10:56:17 GMT -5
What would some of you guys say should be the carrying cappacity of let's say 250 acres?How many bucks?How many does?How many deer would you consider too many?
|
|
|
|
Post by hoyt1166 on Nov 30, 2006 10:59:36 GMT -5
Just curious here and I know I'll get blasted but when was the last time you saw a buck with a huge rack really unhealthy? I believe that QDM and OBR are two different things altogether. However, a side product of QDM is bigger bodied, bigger racked deer. Even if you're strictly a meat hunter, wouldn't you prefer a B&C rack over a basket rack?
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Nov 30, 2006 11:22:08 GMT -5
... Even if you're strictly a meat hunter, wouldn't you prefer a B&C rack over a basket rack? Not particularly. I don't have anyplace to put it/them and have never been one for "mine is bigger than yours" contests. Most I would ever do with a big rack is give it away. I suppose if it was a recordbreaker, I would give it to the DNR. All I care about is big, healthy bodies. |
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Nov 30, 2006 11:23:26 GMT -5
The carrying capacity in the midwest is 12 to 20 deer per square mile. That is equal to 1 deer per 32 acres.
|
|
|
|
Post by deevee on Nov 30, 2006 11:28:07 GMT -5
Hey all...first time poster, long time reader.
First of all I work with some whitetail researchers, and from working with them it seems true QDM isn't about antlers at all....it's only perversions of that which seem to upset some folks. But I can't type out all the different methods and terms here. True QDM cannot be performed by a state agency though....that's a local thing....county or typically a single landowner.
As far as the OBR....it has improved the age class of bucks where I'm at. Whether that matters to you is personal opinion. I am a deer meat junkie, but I do like the chance of seeing a more mature buck....for years it was basket 6's and average 8's here.
I think it'd be an improvement to allow 1 archery buck and 1 gun buck, but maybe not 2 gun buck's. I think the variation in opinion on the OBR has a lot to do with local conditions. Size of herd, hunting opportunities, hunting pressure, etc. Where I'm at all the boys around are efficient killing machines and it seems they will kill every deer law allows and probably more.
Having said that, I've also come to realize the damage deer can do to a forest and how it impacts other critters that are getting more and more attention these days...as a wildlife researcher its hard for me to deny that the ideal deer herd is smaller than the hunter in me wants to accept. My hunting side likes to see plentiful deer. I hope these two different viewpoints don't split and give me multiple personality disorder :-)
Sorry to get a little off topic w/ that but got all these thigns floating round my head these days
|
|
|
|
Post by LawrenceCoBowhunter on Nov 30, 2006 11:28:12 GMT -5
Thanks!so if I have 12-15 does and 7-8 bucks running around,I could take my limit on does and take more than one buck with out hurting anything?Right?
|
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Nov 30, 2006 11:29:33 GMT -5
I think your friends post is a well stated, articulate OPINION. Nothing more and nothing less.
QDM is a system that manages the health of an entire deer population. Age structure, nutrition, gender ratio, genetics and habitat all benefit as part of a QDM program.
Results are a healthy, balanced herd ....... Healthy, mature bucks with proper nutrition naturally grow larger racks.
|
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Nov 30, 2006 11:31:06 GMT -5
It takes healthy does to reproduce them Big Boys. It goes hand in hand...
|
|
|
|
Post by larryhagmansliver on Nov 30, 2006 11:37:28 GMT -5
Ok let me take the otherside at least somewhat. I don't think it is possible to not agree with most of whats in the article. We've all heard of the old ladies with like a billion cats in their house. She's not happy nor any of the cats. That's obvious. Translation is we need to keep the herd to a healthy number. I don't know what that has to do with letting a few basket racks grow up. It seems we are talking about two different subjects and just putting the word "quality" into each of them.
I think there is a third topic about what sells gear in the article as well, but nothing really newsworthy.
|
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Nov 30, 2006 11:42:16 GMT -5
You should be fine taking as many does and a few more bucks.
|
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Nov 30, 2006 11:45:14 GMT -5
Having said that, I've also come to realize the damage deer can do to a forest and how it impacts other critters that are getting more and more attention these days...as a wildlife researcher its hard for me to deny that the ideal deer herd is smaller than the hunter in me wants to accept. My hunting side likes to see plentiful deer. I hope these two different viewpoints don't split and give me multiple personality disorder :-) Most people that Practice QDM do so until they stop seeing as many deer. |
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Nov 30, 2006 11:54:05 GMT -5
It's wrong, it's short-sighted, it's fatuous, but it's going to continue.
That last enstence in the article said everything-like so many other things that man has control over, even knowing it`s wrong, we allow it to continue because we can`t help ourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by ridgerunner on Nov 30, 2006 12:00:36 GMT -5
I take 3-5 does max off of my 80 acres a year and usually between my son and I we take one buck each a year, that's it. This has worked really well for our herd. In the past four years there has been a significant increase in big buck sightings/harvest on the property we've take two trophy animals in the past two years. One scored Pope and Young and one will make the HRBP. In the past four years we've harvested 3 other deer that were 130's class. Prior to that we seldom saw over a 2 1/2 year old buck with 100-125" rack. Every year we pass several nice bucks and only shoot 3-5 does per 80 acre. I also plant one acre of brassica or clover every year for nutrition. This system has worked for us. I agree though QDM stresses deer herd management and does play a big part in the scheme of things. If my son and I would shoot our limit of does every year (8) it would definately put a damper on things in just a couple years. Hunters have to discipline theirselves, just because the State allow you to shoot 8 deer a season doesn't mean thats what your hunting property will handle to optimize a healthy deer herd and trophy buck opportunities...
|
|
|
|
Post by semisneak on Nov 30, 2006 13:37:11 GMT -5
The carrying capacity in the midwest is 12 to 20 deer per square mile. That is equal to 1 deer per 32 acres. These numbers sound more like it . A previous thread about deer numbers someone posted 50 deer per square mile. That sounded a little high to me. No reason we cant have healthy deer and big racks. The big racks should be secondary though. |
|
