Deer density vs Quality Deer Management?

[SmellEsox]

I totally disagree that the DNR is managing for quantity! Are you kidding? If they were managing for high deer numbers they wouldn't give 5-8 tags for every antlerless deer out there. They are managing for low numbers, and because of all the antlerless tags and liberalized seasons, low quality also. There management philosophy since the early 2000's has been suppression.

Also, I agree that QDMA supports adequate doe harvest and healthy populations. BUT, for the last 15 years that has meant almost unlimited doe harvest. It is only now that midwest hunters are starting to say Whoa! So it is only now that QDMA might have to change there mindset on what adequate doe harvest is.

[PurpleFloyd]

I've sparred with many pro-APR guys on this site, but I understand APR is just one component of a QDM plan. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with QDM and in fact has many benefits. If I owned hunting land I'm sure I would embrace many of its concepts.

I don't think dividing hunters into various "camps" at this point does anyone much good. QDMJoe and JoePublic will be in the same boat for the next few years dealing with a smaller herd state-wide. Might as well all row in one direction.

I would agree with the original premise though. The greater emphasis on "mature bucks" does seem to have changed the broader mindset of the hunting community. One of the main tenants of APR is to put more pressure on does. And you'll see it in almost every thread, "if you need meat just shoot a doe." Although I have no data, I'm fairly confident that many of the guys who hunt multiple seasons wait for the big buck, and shoot does for the table. In the past that pressure would have been a little more evenly dispersed among does and lesser bucks.

Also, in the past, not as many guys hunted multiple seasons, so if they didn't get one during the rifle/shot-gun season they went without that year. Now many guys have already spent hundreds of hours in the stand by the time the rifle season opens, and they spend hundreds more after it closes if they need to.

Good point.

I would guess that if there is one area that everyone could get together and agree it would be in regards to the need to improve habitat. But Habitat is tough to on a large scale when individuals own fairly small parcels of land. In states like Texas and Kansas where people own larger tracts of land it is more feasible to do on a wide spread basis. Habitat is the one determining factor that can sustain a "Quality" and "Dense" herd.

The Density issue was something that sprouted up very quickly after the last season and it got a decent push until Mother Nature stepped in and reminded us that she has more control over nature than we do whether we like it or not. We can limit the number of hunters and limit the amount of deer taken but she can take them away even with the best laid plans.

[slimngrizzly]

I totally disagree that the DNR is managing for quantity! Are you kidding? If they were managing for high deer numbers they wouldn't give 5-8 tags for every antlerless deer out there. They are managing for low numbers, and because of all the antlerless tags and liberalized seasons, low quality also. There management philosophy since the early 2000's has been suppression.

Also, I agree that QDMA supports adequate doe harvest and healthy populations. BUT, for the last 15 years that has meant almost unlimited doe harvest. It is only now that midwest hunters are starting to say Whoa! So it is only now that QDMA might have to change there mindset on what adequate doe harvest is.

First of all, QUANTITY is QUANTITY.... I don't understand what your saying? Managing for Low numbers or high.... its still quantity.

Second, QDM does not support or encourage overharvesting does. I don't know who is finding any thing that suggests that the Quality Deer Management Assn. is encouraging the overharvesting of does? Simply not the case. Encouraging the harvest of does over immature bucks in areas where the buck/doe ratio is already skewed is entirely different that saying " shoot all the does so little bucks can live at any cost."

Lastly, BLACKJACK, Im not a member of the QDMA, but I DO support, practice and strongly believe in QDM. APR IS NOT QDM! It is a step the DNR has taken to increase the number of trophy bucks. I don't care for APR's and I don't think the QDMA fully supports APR's as well. Its not "the answer". APR's promote the harvest of the young bucks with the highest potential, its not a great system. But for some of us, it is a "step" in the right direction.

I think a lot of people have a misunderstanding of what Quality Deer Management is. When you see a deer herd being mis-managed, that's not QDM.

[SmellEsox]

First of all, QUANTITY is QUANTITY.... I don't understand what your saying? Managing for Low numbers or high.... its still quantity.

Second, QDM does not support or encourage overharvesting does. I don't know who is finding any thing that suggests that the Quality Deer Management Assn. is encouraging the overharvesting of does? Simply not the case. Encouraging the harvest of does over immature bucks in areas where the buck/doe ratio is already skewed is entirely different that saying " shoot all the does so little bucks can live at any cost."

Lastly, BLACKJACK, Im not a member of the QDMA, but I DO support, practice and strongly believe in QDM. APR IS NOT QDM! It is a step the DNR has taken to increase the number of trophy bucks. I don't care for APR's and I don't think the QDMA fully supports APR's as well. Its not "the answer". APR's promote the harvest of the young bucks with the highest potential, its not a great system. But for some of us, it is a "step" in the right direction.

I think a lot of people have a misunderstanding of what Quality Deer Management is. When you see a deer herd being mis-managed, that's not QDM.

Oh, sorry, by saying quantity, I thought you meant high numbers. My bad!

And I didn't mean QDMA was encouraging overharvest. I just think that QDMA was encouraging doe harvest during a time when deer populations were quite a bit higher and now that the pendulum has swung in the other direction, they maybe don't know how, or haven't really reacted to the low deer numbers issue. I'm not a member either, so I don't really know for sure.

Maybe I need to take a class in how to be more clear. LOL. Sorry!

[jentz]

Whose theory is quality deer management (QDM) is that right?) A organization of some sort? What is their theory? I'd like to read it. Is it for save part of the herd and take the others without horns? I don't keep up with so many different opinions, theories and associations.So I am courious.Hope it dont make texas or the pay to hunt states as comparison!

[hockeybc69]

QDMA promotes 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. Membership in the QDMA is open to anyone with an interest in the wise management of white-tailed deer. The time has come for all deer hunting enthusiasts, regardless of their choice of weapon or hunting technique, to unite and focus on the common thread that binds them all together – the love of deer hunting and the desire that future generations will be able to experience the great tradition of deer hunting.

What is Quality Deer Management?

Quality Deer Management (QDM) is a management philosophy/practice that unites landowners, hunters, and managers in a common goal of producing biologically and socially balanced deer herds within existing environmental, social, and legal constraints. This approach typically involves the protection of young bucks (yearlings and some 2.5 year-olds) combined with an adequate harvest of female deer to maintain a healthy population in balance with existing habitat conditions and landowner desires. This level of deer management involves the production of quality deer (bucks, does, and fawns), quality habitat, quality hunting experiences, and, most importantly, quality hunters.

A successful QDM program requires an increased knowledge of deer biology and active participation in management. This level of involvement extends the role of the hunter from mere consumer to manager. The progression from education to understanding, and finally, to respect; bestows an ethical obligation upon the hunter to practice sound deer management. Consequently, to an increasing number of landowners and hunters, QDM is a desirable alternative to traditional management, which allows the harvest of any legal buck and few, if any, does.

QDM guidelines are formulated according to property-specific objectives, goals, and limitations. Participating hunters enjoy both the tangible and intangible benefits of this approach. Pleasure can be derived from each hunting experience, regardless if a shot is fired. What is important is the chance to interact with a well-managed deer herd that is in balance with its habitat. A side benefit is the knowledge that mature bucks are present in the herd – something lacking on many areas under traditional deer management. When a quality buck is taken on a QDM area, the pride can be shared by all property hunters because it was they who produced it by allowing it to reach the older age classes which are necessary for large bodies and antlers.

[slimngrizzly]

Hockey, its like you took the words right out of my mouth!

I truly don't think anyone would argue that QDM isn't a great concept. But when it comes down to it, most hunters don't have the self-discipline or simply don't care enough, to NOT pull the trigger.

Not saying its right or wrong, that's just how it is.

[LandDr]

When you see 5 deer in 7 days...or less from some reports...it is hard not to pull the trigger to put something in the freezer. I would shoot it too not knowing if I was going to see another deer the entire season.

When you see 10 to 30 deer during one sitting, it makes it really easy to not pull the trigger because you know there is always be deer to harvest when it get's towards the end or the season if you haven't had a chance yet at the one you area after...whatever size or kind that may be.

[BLACKJACK]

I've sparred with many pro-APR guys on this site, but I understand APR is just one component of a QDM plan. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with QDM and in fact has many benefits. If I owned hunting land I'm sure I would embrace many of its concepts.

I don't think dividing hunters into various "camps" at this point does anyone much good. QDMJoe and JoePublic will be in the same boat for the next few years dealing with a smaller herd state-wide. Might as well all row in one direction.

I would agree with the original premise though. The greater emphasis on "mature bucks" does seem to have changed the broader mindset of the hunting community. One of the main tenants of APR is to put more pressure on does. And you'll see it in almost every thread, "if you need meat just shoot a doe." Although I have no data, I'm fairly confident that many of the guys who hunt multiple seasons wait for the big buck, and shoot does for the table. In the past that pressure would have been a little more evenly dispersed among does and lesser bucks.

Also, in the past, not as many guys hunted multiple seasons, so if they didn't get one during the rifle/shot-gun season they went without that year. Now many guys have already spent hundreds of hours in the stand by the time the rifle season opens, and they spend hundreds more after it closes if they need to.

Good post!! It echos what I've been trying to say, especially the parts that I've bolded.

I've lumped QDM and APR's together, that may not be right, but sooner or later the guys that practice QDM want to shoot bigger bucks and then the APR drum starts getting beat. When deer populations come back, it won't be long and the APR drum will start up again. I just hope hunters realize that for every doe they shoot instead of a small buck, thats two less fawns on the ground.

[BLACKJACK]

Hockeybc, good post on QDM!! If there were more habitat managers like you we wouldn't be having this discussion!!

[PurpleFloyd]

Any thoughts that all the focus on QDM – “shoot more does”, “balance the herd” – treating does like vermin, is what got us into the lack of deer problem?? Dead does in the freezer don’t produce fawns!! I’m not talking about the northern third of Minnesota; I’m talking about the parts of the state where winter mortality is not an issue.

Not a peep from the QDM advocates now.

[delcecchi]

A "hunt club" in S Carolina would indeed be different than public boreal forest in Minnesota. Very interesting post, thanks.

[Jameson]

So, if we would of have APR's with the added doe harvest we would be ok right now because we would have more bucks running around to add more deer to the low densities, but since we didn't get APR's back when people started shooting more does we ended up with what we have now. And notice how the complaining is lowest from the SE part of the state, the part of the state that has APR's and has been shooting does just like the rest of the state.

I guess maybe the message is that you can't go shooting too many does and too many bucks or you get what we have here. If you are going to shoot too many does then control the buck harvest with APR's.

[mntatonka]

So, if we would of have APR's with the added doe harvest we would be ok right now because we would have more bucks running around to add more deer to the low densities, but since we didn't get APR's back when people started shooting more does we ended up with what we have now. And notice how the complaining is lowest from the SE part of the state, the part of the state that has APR's and has been shooting does just like the rest of the state.

I guess maybe the message is that you can't go shooting too many does and too many bucks or you get what we have here. If you are going to shoot too many does then control the buck harvest with APR's.

there's plenty of complaining in the SE, mostly about how much APR isn't as nice as people thought it was. There's no complaining about low deer numbers because the numbers there had a LOT farther to fall than the rest of the state. It also helps that there's generally better wintering habitat in the southeast, and the winters have been bad, but not as bad as the rest of the state.

[zepman]

What most of you are forgetting is that the "average" Mn. deer hunter buys a "tag" the Friday before the deer hunting opener. They could care less about the deer herd #'s, wolves, harsh winters, etc....

They bought a "tag"...they have a place to hunt...they will shoot the first thing THAT "tag" lets them. There are hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans who take to the woods each Fall...hundreds of thousands. The DNR is more than happy to sell said "tag" to whoever wants to buy one.

This is the imbalance....the DNR needs the "tag" money to survive...the deer herd needs a "big brother" to watch over them when times are tough. We'll see who wins out on this come Fall...my bet, from past experience, is the "tag" $$$$ will win out again.

It's never been about QDM VS Deer Density...it's about how many "tags" this state can sell and get away with. I hope the MN DNR does the right thing this year...let the herd recover.

[B. Amish]

The dnr budget is like 4-500 million a year. The idea that they are surviving off of deer tags is overblown.

[Wanderer]

The DNR doesn't get all the tag money, just a cut. But they also get a slice of the tax money on all the guns, ammo and gear that are sold. I don't think most would argue the cost of one tag is one of the cheaper purchases they make going into the hunting season.

Personally though, I'm one of the many who buys multiple tags and usually spend over $100/yr on them. I'll scout this year and see what's in my typical hunting areas but I may cut way back this year in MN and fish some early ice instead. If I'm cutting back on deer hunting I don't expect to buy much new gear.

[hockeybc69]

The DNR doesnt get all the money from license sales?

If not, where does it go?

[nonteepical]

It goes into a general fund and all divisions write up a budget for the year and they all fight it out for their piece of the pie. Fishing looses money every year in their license sales while divisions like forestry make money in years when lumber prices are up, they log off state lands.

[SmellEsox]

Fishing and hunting licenses all go into the fish and wildlife fund. This revenue is the main source of funding for fisheries and wildlife programs. Many people think of DNR as just wildlife, fisheries, forestry and enforcement. It is much bigger than that and includes eco-waters, mining, lands and minerals, parks, trails and waterways, engineering, fleet, non-game wildlife, etc. Fisheries and wildlife budgets are no where near 4-500 million dollars and are primarily license money. Other divisions get primarily general fund money. I'm sure the breakdown is out there somewhere.

[SmellEsox]

So, if we would of have APR's with the added doe harvest we would be ok right now because we would have more bucks running around to add more deer to the low densities, but since we didn't get APR's back when people started shooting more does we ended up with what we have now. And notice how the complaining is lowest from the SE part of the state, the part of the state that has APR's and has been shooting does just like the rest of the state.

I guess maybe the message is that you can't go shooting too many does and too many bucks or you get what we have here. If you are going to shoot too many does then control the buck harvest with APR's.

Adding APRs and increasing antlerless harvest will give you more bucks for a short time. Eventually you will have fewer. It stands to reason in an already declining population, if you are killing more does and button bucks, eventually you will have fewer of everything. You have to allow the population to increase prior to putting APRs on. You have to have does to produce bucks. APRs puts more pressure on does, button bucks and doe fawns.

[Wanderer]

License funding

This shows a lot.

[Wanderer]

More info

There are a couple more links on the left side bar at the bottom of this page but they wouldn't copy directly so you'll have to browse.

[Redlineracer12]

In a population that is hurting, if you must shoot a deer; the second best deer you can shoot is a 1.5 yr old buck in my opinion. These are typically not the ones breeding, and only reduce the next year population by 1. Probably not even a full 1 if shot early season since it seems yearling bucks are the most likely to be struck by a car around the rut. This is pretty much the exact opposite of what all the die hard QDMA folks will tell you to shoot. I think everyone should have different standards depending where you hunt.

In Central Minnesota where I usually hunt firearm season I don't plan on shooting anything in the next few years (definitely not a doe or fawn). I'll bring my camera along and be happy if I see anything after last season combined with this winter. This past year was the worst year I can remember for number of deer seen by our party.

[hockeybc69]

You said license money doesnt all go to the DNR.

The links you posted are DNR related links.....

So if all license money doesnt go to the DNR, who else gets a slice outside of the DNR?