QDM Splinter Group?

Discuss Quality Deer Management issues here!
User avatar
ranwin33
 
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 2:12 pm
Location: Kansas and Missouri

RE: QDM Splinter Group?

Postby ranwin33 » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:44 am

Hunters Helping Hunters Improving Deer Herds and Habitat.
“There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace.”
Aldo Leopold

User avatar
ranwin33
 
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 2:12 pm
Location: Kansas and Missouri

RE: QDM Splinter Group?

Postby ranwin33 » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:46 am

Quality Habitat Management for Deer and Deer Hunters.
“There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace.”
Aldo Leopold

User avatar
ranwin33
 
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 2:12 pm
Location: Kansas and Missouri

RE: QDM Splinter Group?

Postby ranwin33 » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:48 am

Conservation Management for Deer and Deer Hunters.
“There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace.”
Aldo Leopold

User avatar
ranwin33
 
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 2:12 pm
Location: Kansas and Missouri

RE: QDM Splinter Group?

Postby ranwin33 » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:49 am

Quality Conservation Practices for Deer and Deer Hunters
“There are two spiritual dangers in not owning a farm. One is the danger of supposing that breakfast comes from the grocery, and the other that heat comes from the furnace.”
Aldo Leopold

willseyville
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun May 10, 2009 1:47 am

RE: QDM Splinter Group?

Postby willseyville » Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:31 pm

everyday may have a point that QDM is about improving habitat but the one meeting i went to all they kept going back to was letting bucks get to torphy size before you shot them . i wish QDM was more like ducks unlimited and NWTF  and the like whos goal is to improve habitat for public hunting and then maybe would could bring more hunters back into the fold [:)] wayne

User avatar
Goose
 
Posts: 2804
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:36 pm

RE: QDM Splinter Group?

Postby Goose » Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:01 pm

This is interesting, and have no regrets JPH, this is a good thread.
 
I believe that QDM is a good program. I think in its most bare form, all of the op's points are addressed.
However, I also believe that people take QDM to another level and think that what THEY are doing is true QDM and thats what everybody else should be doing, but going back to the cornerstones you will see that this should not be the case.
I honestly believe that a small number of people ruin the image of QDM because of their "must do" attitude.
Unfortunately these people are also the ones that are seen or heard the most, at least it seems that way.
 
I think what JPH is getting at and targeting (correct me if I am wrong) is the attitude that goes with QDM.
QDM is a great starting point to address your individual property, you can take the cornerstones and apply them to your land and more or less go from there. I think all too often, people feel that what they are doing is the right thing, and whoever isn't doing it that way is not a true QDM'er.
I personally think that it is a great idea and starting point. After that, there really aren't any set rules that say you are a true practitioner or not. If you are using and going by the cornerstones you are practicing QDM. No where does it say that you have to shoot 4.5's or even 3.5's.
From the education part of it, you should learn how to guesstimate a deers age and use that with everything else you have learned to make the best management decision. It does not say that because you live in IOWA (the greatest state for deer hunting) that you should only shoot 4.5's. No, thats not QDM, thats one persons opinion. A true QDM'er will know his property, what it holds, what it could hold, and what should be done to get there.
 
JPH, you are on to something here, but I believe that the biggest issue with QDM is peoples attitude or arrogance on what they are doing. Maybe thats all that needs to be addressed? Maybe a splinter program will solve that and even expose that issue with the QDM movement?
Jake

Genesis 27:3 Take your bow and quiver full of arrows out into the open country, and hunt some wild game.....

User avatar
Everyday Hunter
 
Posts: 1632
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:12 am

RE: QDM Splinter Group?

Postby Everyday Hunter » Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:06 pm

ORIGINAL: JPH

Everyday Hunter, did you read the OP? I ask because it, and the subsequent conversation address many of the points you have made.

I go back and forth between really enjoying this thread and regretting that I ever started it.

Yes, I read it. And I'm sure that I've seen all 10 of those points in the things I've read about QDM.

Where I think the danger is in QDM is in making deer hunting into a sport where a hunter must either own his own land, or have enough means to join a co-op, or enough time to travel to hunt. It can lose sight of the hunter who has lots of limitations -- limitations of time, money, access to property, location, no hunting comrades who have the same goals, the age structure of bucks in a local herd, and/or a few more things. It doesn't make sense to hold out for a 140" 3½ year old buck, when you can hunt only for a few days, with lots of hunting pressure, and maybe one buck of that size exists for every 100 or so hunters.

While I support the aims and principles of QDM, I own 1 acre in the middle of a 20-house development. I'm fortunate that I can hunt the property out back, but so does every other Tom, Dick and Harry. I am never likely to own hunting property. I will never be a part of a land co-op, I have enough other commitments that I can't always make hunting my top priority. I hunt alone most of the time.

Despite all that, I believe in the QDMA and QDM principles. The danger I see is that it could lead to deer hunting becoming about land ownership, farm equipment, and total control of a property just to be able to hunt. I think the problem you're seeing is that the people who are most heavily into QDM, with land and the means to tailor it for deer, are the ones who are getting the most ink. I probably don't have to tell you that the reason so much is said about antlers is that everyone likes antlers and antlers are the only practical way we select for older deer.

In my opinion, that's not the fault of the QDMA, whether QDM principles are being practiced or not, or the fact that people talk more about antlers than they do habitat. It's just a fact of life. The principles are right. It is built on science. I hope the QDMA is able to take steps so that in 10 or 20 years those guys are not the only ones left hunting. It's the social stuff (including both hunter management and the perceptions of the non-hunting public) that are the real challenges.

Often, the QDMA is compared to the NWTF. Both deal with very popular game species. Both rely heavily on science. They're structured similarly. But deer are very different from turkeys in the way they relate to the habitat.

Steve
When the Everyday Hunter isn't hunting, he's thinking about hunting, talking about hunting, dreaming about hunting, writing about hunting, or wishing he were hunting.
Image

User avatar
JPH
 
Posts: 3416
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:28 am

RE: QDM Splinter Group?

Postby JPH » Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:58 pm

Goose and Everyday Hunter, those are a couple of really, really great posts!

Okay, I'm back to liking this thread.

The splinter group thing was pretty tongue in cheek. I was looking to spark the exact kind of discussion we're having.

User avatar
shaman
 
Posts: 2501
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 12:38 am

RE: QDM Splinter Group?

Postby shaman » Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:26 am

If I was facillitating this quality circle, right about this time, I would be trying to get us all to do an exercise to focus our discussion.  It might be something like:

1)  Each person take time and write down the five things they want to get out of deer hunting. 
2)  At a specified time, say after tomorrow AM, publish your list of five things
3)  We'd combine these into a master list, discuss and prioritize the items and then set about formulating a strategy to accomplish those items.

. . . and out of that process showing the group:
a)  How different the process can be for each person
b)  How to apply quality principles to the process
c)  How to build a quality program for a unique circumstance.


What keeps swirling around in my head is that we really are sort of talking about this in terms of "Quality."  We want a structure for creating improvements.  The core beef here seems to be that QDM is too rooted in managing for A) big racks  B) Deer in general  C) really big racks.      Remember the definition of Quality:  Conforms to specification. 

1)  We need to help the consumer  specify what he wants to optimize for. 
[ul][*]It can be  an optimized environment for deer and turkey.  Deer and dove.  Deer and . . .?
[*]It might be ATV and dirt bike use and deer[*]It might be early season bowhunting[*]It might be public land use.
[*]It might be ease of use-- serious slack. [*]The important thing is it does not have to be about big racks.
[/ul]2)  We need to create a framework for him to set a specification for his goals
[ul][*]What are the options[*]What are the paths to get there[*]What are the tradeoffs[/ul]3)  We need to facillitate a path to get to those goals
[ul][*]Provide information[*]Provide services[*]Provide tools[/ul]4)  Provide a path towards measurement and evaluation

5)  Create a path to evaluate the consumer's progress and re-evaluate his program. Point him back towards Step 1 and keep the process going.

I see this as a Quality Program of One,  with this program (whatever you call it) backing up the consumer.  QDM does all this, but no matter what you plug in at the top, you end up with Big Racks as the driving factor.  That's why I've never been a huge fan of QDM.  On the other hand  "Quality" as a general concept is rooted in identification and reduction of defect.  It always looks at what's wrong and tries to correct it.  The end result is that we always look at the negative side of the situation.  Frankly, if I had to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_Chart]Pareto
[/url]all the defects in my deer hunting experience, I'd probably end up opening up my wrists. My suggestion to you all is that there is a middle ground.
Genesis 9:2-4 Ministries of SW Bracken County, KY
Confessions of a Cervid Serial Killer
Image

User avatar
dmcianfa
 
Posts: 547
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:17 am

RE: QDM Splinter Group?

Postby dmcianfa » Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:19 am

ORIGINAL: Everyday Hunter

I don't think the term "Principled Deer Management" will work unless your aim is to fire a new salvo in the deer wars -- and I don't think that's your intention.

If the word "Quality" is loaded, so is the word "Principled," perhaps more so. "Principled" implies ethics, so the name implies that all other types of deer management (quality deer management  or QDM, traditional deer management or TDM, and trophy deer management) are unethical, and that is a battle you don't want to fight. (By the way, if we're going to know what quality deer management is, we also need to know what traditional deer management and trophy deer management are.)

Apparently not enough of us know that quality deer management is not focused on what is harvested. It is focused on habitat. Of course, critics will be quick to say that too many QDM advocates focus on antler size. I can't deny that, but ANY deer management "doctrine" will produce hunters whose practice is not in line with their doctrine. That will be true of Principled Deer Management as much as it is QDM, because people are people.

When I first became acquainted with the QDMA, I quickly came to realize that quality deer managers actually manage habitat through a variety of means including managing harvest numbers (both doe and buck), and various efforts to produce healthy habitat. QDM is actually quality deer habitat management, and it benefits every species that shares habitat with whitetails.

It's unfortunate if Quality Deer Management implies to some that the emphasis is on harvesting "quality deer," because it isn't, just as Principled Deer Management does not place an emphasis on harvesting "principled deer." What you really mean when you're talking about "principled deer management" is "principled management of deer." So, also, "quality deer management" means "quality management of deer," and it has principles too.

Finally, I fail to see how the term "principled deer management" helps, because it doesn't say anything about habitat management. On that point, it isn't any better than the term "quality deer management."

I think the best we can do is continue teaching and informing about what quality deer management is. "It's about habitat," as Charles Alsheimer once (probably many times) wrote in an article in the magazine we love so much. 

Steve


Very well put and thought out.  Antler size is a by-product of habitat management.  It may be a goal one wants to achieve, but you can't get one without the other, IMO. 

Whitetail Conservation Association is what we call our hunting group.  But, you can't steal that, I've got a copyright.[:)]  But I think it applies well.  There are items I did not particularly like about the rules or individuals in the QDM meeting I went to to get a feel way back when, so I think a bunch of us agreed to kind of have our own set of goals and guidelines within our own hunting party.  I think shaman was along those lines earlier.
"I enjoy and become completely immersed in the challenge and the increased opportunity to become for a time a part of nature. Deer hunting is a classical exercise in freedom. It�s a return to fundamentals that I distinctly feel are basic and right"-F.B.

PreviousNext

Return to QDM • Quality Deer Management

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


cron