JPH...Great post. I think you hit the nail on the head. I feel that most people who start QDM programs intend to follow every letter of the script. But soon find out that not everything works for their area.
And eventually change or modify it to work for there individual goals.
Alsheimer's article accurately reflects what I've been observing. He gave five reasons why the rate of growth of QDM will slow, and in the next to last paragraph said there are more reasons.
One additional reason is this, and Swandog009's post relates to it: Many people think completely in black and white terms so they think QDM is an all or nothing issue. When people find out that they can't follow every letter of the QDM script and they can't be "all in," they may see the whole program breaking down, fail to consider the benefits of partial investment in QDM, and become unwilling to pay any of the costs. An all-or-nothing view will be one more drag on the growth of quality deer management philosophy.
Maybe another problem is that when we seen an acronym such as QDM, people tend to think it's some kind of organization, and people don't like being dictated to by an organization. Lots of people confuse QDM with QDMA. QDMA is the organization; QDM is a philosophy of deer management. QDMA doesn't own QDM philosophy, and the practice of QDM changes as deer scientists learn more about what works, what doesn't, and how the practices should be applied on a case-by-case basis. Scientists may differ on some of the principles, so QDM is not a monolithic standard by which all deer management should be judged. It's a good thing it isn't, because if it were that would mean deer managers would stop learning.
Any movement in its infancy is just like a baby -- it grows rapidly. As it matures, the growth slows down. Let's hope that the QDM bubble never completely bursts because better deer management benefits all wildlife.