letting bucks get to torphy size before you shot them . i wish QDM was more like ducks unlimited and NWTF
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?
ORIGINAL: Everyday Hunter
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.
My beef with Quality is in how folks tend to implement it, not in the theory. As an old quality guy, I'd be the last one to knock the philosophy. Where it runs afoul is usually from upper management not buying in, or somebody trying to deliberately skew it or derail it. True, True. I never thought you were knocking it either. I think it is somewhat applicable to the situation here though. Good points thats for sure.
I also agree that Quality should not be seen as the center of the enterprise. It's just a tool to get you where you want to go. My thoughts exactly However, I'm not sure we've peeled back far enough in this discussion to what really is a common core. That is why I encourage him to state his vision, mission statement, and core competencies (which he did in OP) I'm sure JPH sees these 10 points at the core, but I think there is a deeper process at work. To me, this new program should be able to work for any deer hunter: anyone from the landed, antler addict all the way to that New Jersey Jor Bagodonuts we were discussing last week in another thread. If you have a goal for deer hunting, you should be able to plug it into this process and get what you want out of it.
Mature bucks are not going to be everyone's cup of tea. I remember a guy on here recently who was railing over not enough attention being paid to meat hunters. I would think that if you wanted to maximize yield per acre or yield per deer, you could.
Let's say you want want optimize for bowhunter shooting opportunities or shotgun opportunities or rifle opportunities. Each has its own path due to the range of the weapon, the timing of the season, and various other factors. That should be a goal that can be plugged into this.
I had an opportunity about 20 years ago to hunt a large plot that was mostly used for a family of dirt bikers. They would have loved to have someone come in and exterminate the deer, but they never stopped riding on it for me to hunt it successfully. I passed. A hunter with this sort of mixed goals and mixed landuse (ATV/dirtbike and deer) should be able to figure out a way to cover both.
Let's say your party is a mixed bag of adults and kids, and you've got a very limited budget, but you've gotten a lease. What's the best way to optimize the property for your hunting party to fill their tags? Nobody is really a trophy hunter, but everyone is into the hunting experience.
These are things that are not covered by QDM in a meaningful way, however, they are all doable goals once you break the big rack fixation. Stating those goals are crucial at inception.
Lastly, I would think that this can be done without the knowledge of a Six-Sigma blackbelt. How did you know I was a Blackbelt? I never mentioned that here.[&:] That aside, I agree too, overkill is not necessary. The tools and techniques I've used in the past can be adapted. If only . . . The hard part I see is adapting from a mentality of ridding the system of defect to enhancing the system's strengths. Improving some of those faulty components of the current system is necessary though, no? That is what JPH is trying for here as well as enhancing QDM strengths. I don't necessarily agree with you on this point. Ridding the system of it will not fix the problem I'm afraid. Joe Bagadonuts plugs in his inputs from an online questionaire and gets an analysis of what can be improved. Oooh Aaaah, I like where your going with this thought you practically read my mind.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests