Do You Think the QDM Bubble has Burst?

[Everyday Hunter]

You're not alone. Lots of people think the doe shooting part of QDM is overboard. In fact, I've made that argument here in PA. But what QDM actually recommends is going heavy on the doe harvest only where the herd is over the land's carrying capacity. In practice that has been true in most places because deer populations grow rapidly and harvests generally have not been enough to keep the herd from growing. We can all have different opinions on how many deer the land can sustain, but QDM is first and foremost about habitat (land), and many, many articles about QDM have said exactly that.

Incidentally, here in Pennsylvania many hunters have complained about the heavy doe harvests since the new herd management policy was implemented around 2002. I, for one, think we've reduced the herd more than we've needed to. But deer managers in PA are not just deer managers. They're also land managers and hunter managers. Today, the PGC announced the antlerless allocations for the 2010 season. In the total of 22 WMUs, they've decreased the antlerless allocation in 19, kept it the same in 2, and increased it in 1.

What that says is not that they've changed their views on deer management, but that they are transitioning from a need for herd reduction to a herd maintenance mode precisely because the land has recovered adequately from years of overbrowsing. Even though I think we reduced the herd more than was necessary, the land will recover more rapidly by a deer reduction in population and then a gradual increase to the real carrying capacity. I see only the area where I hunt. (Besides, I'm not a wildlife scientist, and I mostly see only the area where I hunt.)

While a full-fledged QDM program cannot be conducted on a state-wide basis (due to private property rights, hunter distribution, the lack of control over natural foods, and the impossibility of providing year 'round nutrition, and maybe other things as well), the idea of herd reduction to carrying capacity is one strategy that game departments everywhere must implement if they are going to make sure the land will sustain a healthy, huntable population of deer.

So, you and I aren't far apart on this.

Steve

[msbadger]

 JPH...in all honesty ..I was only attempting to answer your ?...I just happen to skim through the QDM forum and randomly picked those...actually there were if I recall some heated discussions concerning this else where as well...I also noticed a couple where you and I agreed...imagine that![;)]

EverydayHunter eek carrying capacity ...well you know I have opinions on that as well..I love the buzz words browse line and over browse ...no under story.....In my little corner of the word thats the insurance companies schpeel...Let the timber prices recover a bit more and the tree huggers start to manage the woods they're buying up...realize timber needs cutting.... then we'll see about the buzz words[;)]

[Goose]

I will step down and agree that a truly natural herd may not be exactly 1 to 1...I guess its safe to say that it is one that will never be known, so, it goes both ways.

Shouldrnuke, I may be misunderstanding your posts and if I am I apologize.
I am in line with the last couple of posts in regards to herd health and control.

It is my belief that a doe population should be kept in check to keep the overall population down which in turn makes the herd compatible with the land which in turn is best for both the deer and land.
Yes, you can throw in a bunch of food plots and support more deer, but what happens when you have a bad winter or your foodplots fail for some reason? Your herd will struggle and there will be casualties because the "natural" state of the land cannot support the herd, therefore, in my opinion, you are not doing what is right for the deer or land.

If you keep the does in check, naturally you will be keeping the population in check with the forest, and in the process, you will be keeping the herd healthier because there will be more natural forage to sustain the deer and other wildlife in time of need.

I have been fortunate enough to experience and hunt both overpopulated and "managed" property's. It has been my experience and others who I have talked to, that if you have an overpopulated property with too many does, you will more than likely not have a older buck living on your property. You will have lots of does and 1.5 old bucks and thats it. When the rut comes around, you will draw in the older bucks because you have the girls and that is what they are after, then when the rut is over, the bucks move on again.
With a "managed" property, you will see older bucks living or frequenting your property all year long. You seem to get does and every age class of bucks using your property a lot more. This seems more "natural" to me and in the end, this scenario is my goal.

I think we all are trying to get to the same place, we are just going down different roads.

[msbadger]

 As with all things concerning deer it's experience...and location...as you "older" posters know I do shoot doe and have taken as many as 5 in a year...but I'm fortunate enough to have more than one property to hunt in different parts of the state and am VERY careful of what I shoot where..I am also very fortunate in having the ability to be on the land daily or weekly...I know the importance of having what I refer to as hard plantings as well as plots...and knowing the difference between "over browse" and under cutting...never mentioned is the competition of small game on the land...not just predators ...ppl aren't out there taking the over populated ground hogs...squirrel...rabbits....not all deer hunters turkey hunt ..raccoons...possum...ect..ect...from what I observe on many bb only a fraction of the pic. is ever viewed...or at least spoken of 

[Goose]

ORIGINAL: Goose


If you keep the does in check, naturally you will be keeping the population in check with the forest, and in the process, you will be keeping the herd healthier because there will be more natural forage to sustain the deer and other wildlife in time of need.

It is my belief that most conservationists are concerned with all wildlife affected.

[Gulfcapt]

Thanks msbadger for the welcome. Im a firm believer of (Quality managment) in general! You can call it QDM or QLM can't have one without the other! I don't believe in shooting any Doe that comes into sight nor do I believe one should be shot during the rutting periods just because you have a pocket full of doe tags. Kill a doe that has possibly mated or might mate with lets say a 150 to a 200 class buck you just killed a future unborn boone&crocket , or the Genetics of a great doe that will birth great deer down the road! I do and will keep letting the younger bucks walk, inhopes they will mature. Quastion to all: you got a deer that has reach its full potential (180) class and is now on the down size of his life (130)class should that buck be culled out of the herd? yes/no? My answer is no I believe he still holds good genetics to give to a reseptive doe no matter how old he might get! mike.haglund@gmail.com

[JPH]

ORIGINAL: Gulfcapt
Quastion to all: you got a deer that has reach its full potential (180) class and is now on the down size of his life (130)class should that buck be culled out of the herd? yes/no?

I do not believe in the idea of "culling" free ranging deer. That being said, I'm going to shoot that deer. Not because I'm culling for genetic or trophy reasons, but because I am solely concerned with age. Any buck appearing to be 3.5 or older is on my list.  

[Goose]

I agree with JPH on free range culling.
Yes, I would be happy to shoot him at 130.

Maybe I am taking your post/question wrong, but it seems as though you are hinting to TDM.

IMO, genetics is the most overused term in conservation talk.

[Gulfcapt]

like I've said before Im no Biologist. But the word GENETIC Is by far not overused.. just not UNDERSTOOD by alot of people. My choice of the word culling was wrong? ok lets say.... take him out of the social herd group! That deer that at one time was a 180class buck. on the down size of 130class. (Still a great deer to me too, at 130) ANY doe that buck might of mated with has a potential of reaching180 or better, especialy if that doe he mated with had a sir/father that was the same caliber/or better. (every year that buck mates, gives you a nother "chance" at a 180class or better deer) Then again does size really matter. lol My wife made me say that! Jph/Goose Thanks for the reply I enjoy reading everyones personal apinions/thoughts

[Everyday Hunter]

ORIGINAL: Gulfcapt

like I've said before Im no Biologist. But the word GENETIC Is by far not overused.. just not UNDERSTOOD by alot of people.

You're exactly right, and I've said the same thing here more than once. Few people who talk about genetics on hunting message boards understand much about genetics. It's even tough for the geneticists.

Steve