A Kentucky QDM Program

[Suthrn]

Show of hands...What do you guys think about a quality deer management program in our state? Check out this link and look over the results.http://www.qdma.com/articles/details.asp?id=40 I think that the minimum rack rule would be a great thing for everyone in the state. Sure seemed to help out the area described in the above link in their deer herds buck to doe ratio and numbers of older bucks killed.

Ive often thought of this when im in peoples houses around my area whos walls sport tons of basket racked bucks mounted home made style because otherwise they would have had to spend thousands of dollars to mount all 23 of them.

"If Id known you were gonna be here id worn hunter orange!"

[GSP]

I've said it several times and I will not support a state wide "Score card" being placed on hunting. I am a supporter of managing for a Healthy Deer Herd but I will not support a Big Antler Management system.
I'll throw you a couple of reasons. What is a trophey? Should it not be the one that a hunter decides to legally take? So what if it is a small basket 8 pointer and a guy wants to try a bow he carved himself? What if it's a kid that's never shot a deer? What if it a guy that just wants to shot a deer on the land that he owns and it is DEER season?
My bottom line is the day I hunt just for a "Score Card", I'll stop hunting.
BTW, my dad killed a 8 buck in 1991, has 24 & 25" beams, 2 largest tines are 13 & 12 1/2. He saw this buck in velvet and hunted all season, passed several bucks, he wanted this one and he got it.
He nailed the the antlers to a board.

[Rob]

I am all for statewide Quality Deer Management - if that is taken to mean balanced sex ratios, natural age structure, & balancing the herd to the habitat, as long as everyone understands that QDM is site specific. I am completely against statewide Trophy Deer Management.

So, basically I agree with GSP, which is hard for me to admit because he always gets the big head when everyone agrees with him.



It's hard to dance with the devil on your back...

[Suthrn]

I really wasnt stating that i disagreed with "nailing antlers to a board" i just think that having 20 or 30 of these around seems a bit pointless, unrewarding and disrespectful in my opinion. Buck hunters are a different breed ill agree and im not saying im soley a buck hunter. (killed 10 does in the past 2 years with my bow) However when i take my buck this season id rather not shoot one smaller than the bucks i currently have on the wall for the better of the bucks in my area.

As far as a youngster and an old man with a handcarved bow in his hand... if there were more big bucks in the area they would more likely bag one nearly as easily as the VERY plentiful yearling bucks in the area and wouldnt they enjoy such a trophy a bit more? Yes a trophy is a trophy and is such in the eye of the beholder but that dosent mean you shoot the 4 pointer instead of the 10 next to him! Anyone who says theyd rather is most likely full of it.

Really i wasnt trying to start a trophy debate and wasnt trying to offend anyone. Sry if i did.

"If Id known you were gonna be here id worn hunter orange!"

[ky_great_white_bowhunter]

When it comes to QDM I am for it but I do see where GSP is coming from. I hunt areas that have the QDM practices in place. I enjoy hunting there. It gives me a challege to hunt for a bigger buck. And I enjoy the challege, but the trophy is in the eye of the beholder. Some people might view a hunt as being the hunt that gives them a challege and they might decide to take a buck that other hunters would pass on. And this is fine. The problem comes to play (just an example) when in the same area five different hunters take five bucks of the same size and then the deer herd begins to suffer because of careless management practices. QDM should start at a educational level, we should enstill to the youth hunters what exactly QDM is and how it will better the herd. Maybe we not only should talk about deer management but game management in general. Its not always about scores sometimes it is about the quality of the deer. And QDM will help in the long run with over all quality of the deer. All hunters should strive to have better quality animals because that is what we are going to pass on.

[Suthrn]

Well put Ky and i see where GSP is coming from as well. Id just like the opportunity to see a deer herd with better ratios and such which i thought that this practice would do. Main problem with any program would be poached deer i guess. Actually if the poaching were to halt no one would probably even have to think about a QDM program. Guess theres just not much way around that one.

"If Id known you were gonna be here id worn hunter orange!"

[GSP]

No offense taken in any way. I hope you re-read the two things you wrote and you'll see why I replied as I did about the QDM.
QDM and big buck-hunters are two totally different things. IMO QDM is a Healty Herd not Big Bucks.
I agree with you that I would not shoot a 4 pointer every year just to say I killed a buck. I have shot several small deer before and I'm not saying I won't again.
I just hate the fostering of the Big Buck Management statewide. I promise it will change the way we all hunt in a way that I truly believe to be NEGATIVE. If every buck that someone sees is a "monster", average Joe will no longer be allowed to hunt. Every piece of land in this state will be leased. Also, where do you draw the line as to what is a "nice" deer?(That deer you shot is a very nice buck, if all bucks were this size, is it still a nice buck?)
Please don't take offense to my replies. Just some food for thought.
It seems to me that a trophey is something of rarity, not the normal.

[P. Beyer]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by GSP</i>
<br /> IMO QDM is a Healty Herd not Big Bucks.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

[:D]I'm inclined to agree <b>100%.</b>

Not to swell any egos![:D][:p] QDM should be about total herd health, not just Bruiser antlers. Sure there nice but a good healty balanced herd provides a true <b>QUALITY</b> hunting experience and ensures there will be Deer to hunt long after were gone!

"It makes no difference whether I got anything; it has to do with how the day was spent"

Fred Bear

[GSP]

Would help if I could spell tonight![:D]

[P. Beyer]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by GSP</i>
<br />Would help if I could spell tonight![:D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

[B)]Even worse, I didn't notice!

"It makes no difference whether I got anything; it has to do with how the day was spent"

Fred Bear

[Multidigits]

Ky. already has QDM statewide and has had for 14 years now. It's called the "one buck, multiple does bag limit". Killing just 50-60,000 bucks per year should leave plenty for the following years. the problem is that we are killing many more than what the tele-chek system shows us. Until a proper, working check system is in place, nothing will work any better than what we have now.

[ky_great_white_bowhunter]

I would have to agree that the telecheck is a source of a lot of problems.

[Suthrn]

im sure your right guys... the system or the hunters one need to get a little better i think. Hopefully the latter as it would solve all of it cheap! lol. ok ok but i can dream cant i?

"If Id known you were gonna be here id worn hunter orange!"

[kyscout]

Multi your wrong on this one. Ky hasn't had QDM for 14 yrs. Your only looking at one part of the picture. Which is the buck side of it. Quality deer is what its all about. Meaning both bucks and does reach a mature age not just bucks. Its about having a balanced age structure of deer. The age structure thru out this state is out of balance. Its about a healthy herd.
Everbody hears QDM and thinks of bucks which is wrong. Bucks ain't QDM thats throphy management which there is a difference.
That why i beleive its important for this state to start a QDM chapter to learn what QDM is,not what people believe it to be.




Take a kid hunting today cause they will be deciding our future.

[Multidigits]

Nope, I'm not wrong. Look at the numbers. The Dept. tells us we have somewhere between 650,000-850,000 deer depending on when you count them. The larger number is after fawn drop, which most bioligist won't even count until the following spring. At any rate, we only kill about 200,000 a year or so. The kill is roughly 50/50 male/female. Even at the post hunt number of 650,000, you'll have plenty of deer left over for the following year. The age structure is very good as it is, that's why we have trophy bucks. The fact that you can kill all the does you want in most places makes it a quality deer managed state. The overall herd is as close to 1:1 ratio as any place in the world, unless you consider someplace behind a fence. So, yes, Kentucky does have a QDM management plan.

[BSK]

KY is about as close to true QDM practices as a state is going to get. The only thing different from KY's regulations and QDM is the harvest of young bucks. KDFWR still estimates that 50% of the bucks harvested in KY each year are yearlings. In a true QDM program, yearling males would not be harvested.

[Remington12]

I agree with you Multi and remember that there are several quota hunts that are trophy managed for several years now. You can still bowhunt for anything, but the gun hunt is controlled for antler minimums. I just don't know how they are going to balance the doe ratio properly.

[Multidigits]

In a wild herd, it's rare to have a buck/doe ratio better that 1:3. We have that now in Ky.(according to Dr. Gassett). The herd has good balance as it is. Remington you are corrct, antler restrictions are "trophy deer management", not QDM.

[BSK]

Originally posted by Multidigits
<b>In a wild herd, it's rare to have a buck/doe ratio better that 1:3.</b>

Say what? In a natural deer herd--one managed only by natural predators (including sustenance human hunting)--the adult sex ratio will be very close to being balanced.


<b>Remington you are corrct, antler restrictions are "trophy deer management", not QDM.</b>

That is an incorrect statement.

[Multidigits]

I challenge yo to show me one state out of all that have whitetail deer where the sex ratio is better than 1:2.5 to 1:3 that we have here???? Where is this natural deer herd that is balanced at a 1 to 1 or 1.2 to 1 ratio????

"That is an incorrect statement" Is it really??? In a true trophy deer management program, you will have a focus on only older, mature bucks. Those normally over 5.5 years of age are normally considered trophys. Ky. uses a 15" spread limit, which by design targets deer older than yearlings, normally most will be older than 3.5 years of age. So, this target two years worth of bucks that a true trophy deer program wouldn't target. And no culling is allowed, so it is different, but it's still
trophy management.

[jeffd34006]

Couldnt prove QDM where i hunt. I see 10-20 deer per day, all are does or button bucks. But, better than a sharp stick in the eye..

"A hunting license is a ticket to the ultimate health spa. It will cleanse the soul. It has never failed me." Ted Nugent

[BSK]

Multidigits,

You and I are talking about two different situations. You are talking about what adult sex ratios are <i>given modern hunting as the primary form of deer mortality</i>. Modern hunters are selective and have skewed the adult sex ratio by selectively harvesting more males than females for many years. I was talking about what the sex ratio <i>should be, if the selective harvest pressure of modern hunters were removed</i>. In that situation--the deer herd managed by natural predators, disease, etc. the adult sex ratio would be very near to balanced. In the unhunted (by modern hunters) deer herds we have studied, the sex ratio is right around 1.2 to 1.3 adult does per adult buck. The slightly lower number of bucks is probably due to the higher natural mortality rate of males (due to rutting activity).

I said your statement about antler restrictions being a part of TDM instead of QDM was incorrect because QDM programs often use antler restrictions to protect the youngest age-classes of bucks. What antler restriction is used depends on what age-classes need protecting. The antler restriction will be different if the managers are trying to protect just yearlings (managing for 2 1/2 or older bucks) or yearlings and 2 1/2 year-olds (managing for 3 1/2 or older bucks). A well-designed system will have used local data to determine what antler restriction will best protect the desired age-classes while allowing the harvest of the target age-classes.

In the mid-South, a 15" spread limit rarely protects more than a small to moderate percentage of 2 1/2s (usually around 1/3) and a very small percentage of bucks 3 1/2 or older.

Trophy Deer Management (TDM) is a completely different form of management than Quality Deer Management (QDM). Quite often I hear hunters incorrectly define QDM as managing for bucks 3 1/2 or older and TDM as managing for bucks 5 1/2 or older. Actually, QDM can be practiced to protect any level of age-classes, from 2 1/2 to 5 1/2. TDM is a completely different game with completely different goals than QDM.

[BSK]

Multidigits,

Here is a real-world example from a property in NE Alabama. Before designing a "buck limit" system for this particular property, we collected all of the antler data from all known-age bucks that had been harvested previous to any specific management program. These bucks were harvested under a "shoot anything with antlers" harvest system, hence should be a pretty good "sample" of what is on the property (hunters weren't passing small bucks and only gunning for the biggest antlers, so data should be somewhat "random" samples of each age-class).

We were trying to design a system that would protect all of the yearling bucks but would allow the harvest of most 2 1/2 year-old and older bucks. We graphed each antler measurement, smallest to largest, for each age-class (in this example yearlings and 2 1/2s because that is what we wanted to separate). When looking at outside antler spread, we came up with this graph:

http://blkinkel.home.mindspring.com/AgeSpread2.jpg

From this example, if an outside antler spread restriction of 15" had been used, it would have protected all of the yearlings, and 1/3 (5 of 15) 2 1/2 year-olds. And this is data from AL, which will have smaller antler development in the earliest age-classes than KY does. I strongly suspect a 15" outside spread limit would protect a smaller percentage of 2 1/2s in KY because 2 1/2s in KY--on average--would have larger antler dimensions than northern AL.

[Multidigits]

BSK--First of all, on the sex ratio--the senario that you describe is irrelevant, because it doesn't happen in the wild anywhere. Name a sate that doesn't hunt their deer????? We both know they can't and don't. The sex ratio of a so called "natural herd" is a myth, and can't really be studied, because it can never exist, especially in the wild. You'd have a hard time eliminating death by cars or poachers from any herd, and in reality, never in time was there ever a "natural herd" that wasn't hunted.

Second, you said my statement wasn't true, but your wrong. Everything you say is true, but that's not how the Ky. program works. On the 15 WMA's that use the 15" spread, it doesn't work "text book" like the QDM manual says it should. First off, button bucks are not protected, second the doe harvest is not considered or even managed on most of the areas.

While I'll agree it's not a true TDM deal, it's a lot farther from a QDM deal also, judging solely on the results, not the aims. I'm sure it's growing trophies, but not many have been killed since it started. but they are popuar hunts and always fill to capacity.

[BSK]

Pretty hard to say unhunted herds are a myth when we've studied several. There are unhunted wild deer herds all over America. Check out some of the large state and national parks that are not hunted. Is there some poaching? A little, but some of those national parks are <i>intensively</i> patrolled by law inforcement. Some of the "unhunted" herds exist in vast areas of privately owned property that have no road network, hence vehicluar kills are non-existant. There are vast tracts of privately owned land across America that are not hunted, nor have they been hunted anytime in the recent past. These areas provide excellent examples of what a deer herd looks like unhunted by <i>modern</i> hunting practices.

As I said in my previous post, subsistence hunters are natural predators. They take deer of opportunity. When you are feeding your family/tribe, you don't care whether it is a buck, doe or fawn; they are all food, and the harvest from subsistence hunters is very similar to natural mortality (there are numerous anthropological studies showing this).

I wasn't saying that KY was true QDM. Close, but not really QDM. I was saying antler restrictions (especially 15" spread) is not <i>by any means</i> trophy management and they are often part of QDM.

[Multidigits]

LEt's say your correct, where is one of these natural herds, that is the same as what it was in the orgin???? One that has wolves as predetors and grizzley bears, cougars, etc. to do the natural predatation that humans are doing now. I don't think they exist, with all of those factors in the same poportions as they when they were created. I also don't see many blocks of land like your talking about east of the Mississippi, and none in Ky. The closest would be Manmouth Cave N.P. Wasn't too many years ago that they had to use birth control on that herd because they were not keep in check with predators.

As for subsistence hunting, I've seen some of it in action in Northern Alaska. Those subsistance hunters kill the biggest and the best they can. Seen it done on several occasions, on moose mainly but also caribou. Most of this meat is feed to sled dogs, and the antlers are sold. The males are worth more than skin heads, so that's what they shoot. There may be other states that have subsistance hunting, but I'm not aware of it. In Alaska, it's a way of life, not a need.

[BSK]

I'm not sure what your point is Multidigits. If you are saying we don't know what a "natural" deer herd structure (a herd before the influence of modern hunting) looked like, then you are mistaken. Using archeological remains of deer killed and utilized by American Indians and by examining unhunted herds today, we have a pretty good idea what deer herd structure was like before European man's influence. I have participated in both types of research and the results are published in our new book.

I wasn't referring to modern tribal hunting practices when I mentioned subsistence hunting (which as you mentioned, by no means ressembles subsistance hunting). I was referring to the style/harvests of early tribal man or non-modern, technologically advanced man, i.e. the hunting style of American Indians.

[BSK]

<b>One that has wolves as predetors and grizzley bears, cougars, etc.</b>

Yes.


<b>The closest would be Manmouth Cave N.P. Wasn't too many years ago that they had to use birth control on that herd because they were not keep in check with predators.</b>

Ummm, you must be under the mistaken impression (an old idea we were all incorrectly taught) that predators "control" prey species populations. Predators certainly do influence prey species populations, but food sources are the true controlling factors of all animal species, both predator and prey. Predators are not the primary contolling influence of the prey species' population. The prey species' food sources are the limiting factor to their population, and in turn the population of the predatory species is controlled by their food sources--the prey species' population.

And that is one aspect of QDM that is not completely "natural." A totally "natural" deer herd would constantly be wavering near maximum capacity for their particular environment. Predators help keep the population from rapidly expanding beyond capacity, but the deer herds would still have been fairly close to capacity before modern hunters arrived.

QDM can't possibly produce a totally natural herd structure. It is designed to produce a more natural-like herd structure.

[Multidigits]

BSK, the point is you're talking about the past, I'm talking about now, now in Ky. The discussion was on Ky. and it's need of or lack of a QDM program. My point was that we already have one of the best available on a statewide basis. You want to steer the conversation away to something that may have happened before Columbus?? Who knows, maybe your right, but those conditions can't be duplicated in todays times.

Now your saying that a natural herd is best, and QDM will be as close as you can get to a natural herd. Then you shoot yourself in the foot talking about capacities. When not long ago, you said we don't want to manage at capacity, because it's not good QDM. I agree with that, but disagree that we also need to manage at very low levels also.

Actually, very little of what you posted pertains to Ky. We have hardly no areas in the state that are at capacity, we have only coyotes for predators other than man and cars, and we don't have vast areas that don't get hunted.

On the 15" WMA areas, in retrospect, it's not TDM but it sure isn't QDM either. As most people consider a buck with 15"+ antlers a trophy, and BB's are not protected, and very little doe harvest takes place because of the one deer limit on these areas, then it's closer to TDM than it is QDM. If you look at the QDMA website, there is reference on there about TDM and QDM and the difference. You'll see that they are very close to being the same, as you already know, I'm sure.

[BSK]

Multidigits,

Why don't you just be truthful and say you hate QDM? Your arguments don't hold any water. I was pointing out what QDM <b>IS</b> and you were trying to say that is not what it is.

QDM is a management practice designed to produce a more natural herd structure--a herd structure similar to what whitetailed deer evolved under. That is the way Nature designed deer herds to work best. Deer herds are healthier and work more as Nature intended under a QDM scheme compared to the other forms of management.

It's a sad state of affairs if hunters consider a buck with a 15" spread to be a "trophy" when most 2 1/2 year-old bucks meet that criteria. A 2 1/2 year-old buck should not be considered a trophy and managing for only 2 1/2 year-old bucks is not Trophy Management--plain and simple. Trying to protect yearling bucks is part of QDM practices. In Trophy Management, bucks are protected to full maturity. Only when KY has a WMA or county that requires bucks to be 5 1/2 years-old would it be even partially accurate to consider any state rules to be "Trophy Management."

Ky has areas with very liberal doe harvest, put in place to control herd growth. Liberal doe harvests are often a part of a QDM program. KY tries to protect some young bucks by having a low buck limit (1). That can be considered sort of QDM, but a much less effective one than what a state like PA is doing (statewide antler restrictions intended to protect most yearling bucks).

So is KY practicing QDM? Close...

[BSK]

Multidigits,

You said you didn't believe there was any place with sex ratios better than 1:3. That depends on how large of an area you're talking about. Entire states? You're probably right. Few would have a statewide ratio better than 1:2.5 or 1:3. But there are portions of states and individual counties with sex ratios better than that, and certainly individual properties--some of them quiet large (the size of a WMA)--with balanced sex ratios or even sex ratios favoring males.

Most hunters in several counties in westcentral TN report observed sex ratios of 1:2 to 1:2.5. These counties have the longest history in the state of doe harvests equalling or exceeding the buck harvest (over the last 10 years). We will see what PA produces on a statewide basis. Their rules will be the best test of statewide management. We have individual properties exceeding 15,000 acres with observed adult sex ratios exceeding 2.5 bucks per doe.

[Multidigits]

"Why don't you just be truthful and say you hate QDM? Your arguments don't hold any water. I was pointing out what QDM <b>IS</b> and you were trying to say that is not what it is"

<b>Wrong again. I stated that in Ky., which is whee we were talking about until you took the deal to pre-historic times, that we have a QDM program, that it is working fine, and that it is in good shape--hence no new program needed. We have a legal limit of one buck, multiple does, and manage well below the carrying capacity to allow for a healthy herd. Is that not what QDM is about??? In the past, you have said it was.</b>

"QDM is a management practice designed to produce a more natural herd structure--a herd structure similar to what whitetailed deer evolved under. That is the way Nature designed deer herds to work best. Deer herds are healthier and work more as Nature intended under a QDM scheme compared to the other forms of management"

<b>I agree, but in reality, it won't be any better than 1:2 in a wild herd. This is on average, and we're not talking about specific small tracts that maybe closer to 1:1</b>

It's a sad state of affairs if hunters consider a buck with a 15" spread to be a "trophy" when most 2 1/2 year-old bucks meet that criteria. A 2 1/2 year-old buck should not be considered a trophy and managing for only 2 1/2 year-old bucks is not Trophy Management--plain and simple.

<b>Equally sad is that over half of the legal buck kill in most states are yearling bucks and buttons, but it's a fact of life. Some people don't buy into the big antler deal, and because of peer pressure, just want to shoot a buck. Any buck. Again, you throw in something that wasn't said by me. 2 1/2 year old bucks are not the only deer shot on these hunts. Some are older, some are younger and left to rot, and buttons are not protected. So it's not QDM. But is a poor form of TDM.</b>

"Trying to protect yearling bucks is part of QDM practices. In Trophy Management, bucks are protected to full maturity. Only when KY has a WMA or county that requires bucks to be 5 1/2 years-old would it be even partially accurate to consider any state rules to be "Trophy Management."

<b>I agree, but it is closer to TD than it is QDM, which you said it was. Those bucks taken are trophies to the shooter, who SELECTED this hunt in hopes of shooting a trophy buck. You also know that no TDM program would ever work on Public Hunts. This the closest you can get with uneducated hunters.</b>

"Ky has areas with very liberal doe harvest, put in place to control herd growth. Liberal doe harvests are often a part of a QDM program. KY tries to protect some young bucks by having a low buck limit (1). That can be considered sort of QDM, but a much less effective one than what a state like PA is doing (statewide antler restrictions intended to protect most yearling bucks).

So is KY practicing QDM? Close..."

<b>Does PA protect button bucks??? You'll see in a few years that antler restrictions won't work well in Public Hunting situations. Been tried in other places and haven't worked well there either. Restrictions on what hunters shoot work best on a private scale.</b>

You can have the last word, I'm done with it. Good luck with your book.

[BSK]

Multidigits wrote:
<b>I stated that in Ky., which is whee we were talking about until you took the deal to pre-historic times, that we have a QDM program, that it is working fine, and that it is in good shape--hence no new program needed. We have a legal limit of one buck, multiple does, and manage well below the carrying capacity to allow for a healthy herd. Is that not what QDM is about???</b>

Yes and no. KY uses a 1 buck limit to <i>reduce</i> the harvest of yearling bucks. In a true QDM program, regulations are used to <i>eliminate</i> the harvest of yearling bucks (or even 2 1/2 year-old bucks, depending upon the desired goal). The only state that is close to that type of regulation is PA. They used good research to determine the best possible restrictions--that are easy to understand--that will protect the vast majority of yearling bucks.

I discussed pre-European herd structures because that is the whole idea behind QDM--to produce herd structures similar to what they were before modern management skewed herd dynamics away from the way Nature designed them.


<b>I agree, but in reality, it won't be any better than 1:2 in a wild herd.</b>

Why couldn't it be better? With nearly unlimited doe harvest opportunities, hunters could balance the adult sex ratio in short order, <i>if they wanted to</i>. But that is the problem. Most don't want to. It is simply too much trouble.


<b>Equally sad is that over half of the legal buck kill in most states are yearling bucks and buttons, but it's a fact of life.</b>

No, it is not "a fact of life", it is a fact of management practices. If regulations do not allow the harvest of yearling bucks, they won't make up much of the harvest.


<b>2 1/2 year old bucks are not the only deer shot on these hunts. Some are older, some are younger and left to rot, and buttons are not protected. So it's not QDM. But is a poor form of TDM.</b>

Restrictions protecting button bucks are not a regularly practiced aspect of QDM. Some areas do so and others don't. Of the bucks harvested, you said "some are younger and some are older." Well that in no way resembles trophy management. You are just dead wrong on that one. Those WMAs are much closer to QDM and show no resemblence to trophy management what-so-ever.


<b>Does PA protect button bucks???</b>

No, and many very successful QDM programs don't either, outside of just asking hunters to try not to shoot button bucks. But some harvested button are just the reality of high doe harvests. It can't be avoided.


<b>You'll see in a few years that antler restrictions won't work well in Public Hunting situations.</b>

I guess we'll see. Personally, I'm not in favor of statewide antler restrictions. I prefer a system like KY has now or GA uses. That allows more freedom of choice. For those that want, they can practice QDM, and the state regulations are helpful in doing so. For those that just want to shoot a buck, any buck, they can do that too. No antler restrictions limiting their buck of choice. There is a place for both kinds of hunters in the deer woods.


<b>Restrictions on what hunters shoot work best on a private scale.</b>

That is ABSOLUTELY true. But I give credit to those sates that are at least experimenting with other ideas at least on a few public areas. Shouldn't hunters without land of their own have somewhere to hunt where QDM-like rules are practiced? Why not have public hunting opportunities for both types of hunters--some managed for quality, and some managed for quantity?

[Suthrn]

BSK Quote
"Restrictions on what hunters shoot work best on a private scale.

That is ABSOLUTELY true. But I give credit to those sates that are at least experimenting with other ideas at least on a few public areas. Shouldn't hunters without land of their own have somewhere to hunt where QDM-like rules are practiced? Why not have public hunting opportunities for both types of hunters--some managed for quality, and some managed for quantity?"

I totally agree!


"If Id known you were gonna be here id worn hunter orange!"

[Suthrn]

There as well i think a totally balanced QDM program would actually include TDM... Why not? If both were included,The biggest survive and carry on their genes, the buck to doe ratio would be better, a better age structured herd would have to be positive so in my opinion the two should really walk hand in hand. Honestly i see little difference in the two as both should be maintained for each other. When you say TDM it automatically includes QDM because if not the entire herd suffers including those trophies your wanting on the wall. I just wish there was a way to half way educate these morons i see season after season pluggin away at 12 bucks a year and even braggin about it and none of these morons bother to think in the long run about QDM or TDM which again i think should be the same. In fact in the areas i hunt its not uncommon to go by my neighbors on opening morning and see 7 6 pointers hanging from 3 trees in their camp, none big enough to do anything but cut the tiny pencil racks off and then at the same time i have to hear them complain about not seein a big deer this season!!! The whole time im sittin here thinkin geeze.. your upset??? What about all of us playin it by the "QDM" as BSK wrote set forth by our state? What a joke. First off id guess youd have to figure out a way to get the laws to actually do something and thats possibly the biggest hurdle in preventing poaching which should also be accounted for in any program wether it be QDM or TDM. So.. no i dont think at all that this state has anything close to a QDM program ANYWHERE or at least not anywhere i hunt! Amazing how carelessly most hunters in my area pull the trigger and joke about it later! Guys i surely hope that you dont consider that QDM and think that by our state having a few laws set forth that it means this state truly has a QDM program! Yes i realize all of what im saying would come to the expense of the ethical hunter and he would be the one footing the bill.. Ask any ethical hunter on here if he would object to seeing licences double this year for the benefit of actually catching and prosecuting poachers and ill bet your mail box will be empty. I know id pay triple! But thats just my experience in the woods compared to yours possibly. (On private lands only btw...) This is actually the reason im considering hunting some public land this year which i may be nieve but i figured they would be much better regulated and controlled than the 4 200 acre private farms that i currently hunt. Pretty bad when ya start thinkin about tradin up on your private lands!

"If Id known you were gonna be here id worn hunter orange!"

[BSK]

Suthrn,

Basically the problem is one of definition and understanding. Hunters casually call certain management objectives "Trophy Management" without know what Trophy Deer Management (TDM) actually entails. If they ever had to a chance to see a real TDM program, they would understand why I am so ademant about saying what states are doing is NOT TDM. TDM is nearly impossible to conduct outside of a high-fence, and requires <b>extreme</b> control of the deer herd, including selective removal of specific animals--something the average hunter doesn't have the experience to do.

[Rob]

In my opinion, one of QDM's biggest selling points is the fact that, for it to work, an increased number of deer are harvested, in comparison to traditional management. An increase in the number of deer harvested equals more hunting opportunity. That is why I favor QDM on SOME public land.

It's hard to dance with the devil on your back...

[Multidigits]

Not true Rob--it doesn't work that good. Look for the satistics of the WMA's that have the 15" spread limit. The quota kill is very small. Two years ago, at Green, 400 hunters killed 76 deer, almost all bucks. At least that was what was brought out. At Yellowbank, one hunt a couple of years ago killed 15 deer total. These places are getting hammered during bow season, by double or triple the hunters that hunted them before. The kill is probably up on the archery side of it, but there's no records being kept on that. Believe me, these hunts are not QDM by any means. Call it what you want, but hunters that hunted these areas BEFORE the change pretty much hate the concept.

[BSK]

Mutlidigits,

And that is the difference between QDM-like regulations on public land versus real QDM practiced on whatever type land. There can be regulations put in place that <i>look like</i> QDM, but if the hunters aren't <i>practicing</i> QDM, then it isn't QDM.

Perhaps that is the crux of the problem. Hunters hear a particular area, or even their state regulations are "QDM", but what they see being practiced is not QDM. Then when they don't like the results they automatically assume QDM sucks.

In a real QDM program, hunters are actively trying to havest more does than bucks. If they are not, they're not practicing QDM (unless their sex ratio is so balanced they don't need to havest more does, which would be a rare occurance). Just saying "you can shoot a bunch of does <i>if you want to</i>" is not QDM.

If hunters aren't actively trying to balance the adult sex ratio through protection of young bucks and harvesting more females than males, then they aren't practicing QDM. If hunters aren't protecting yearling bucks from harvest, they aren't practicing QDM. If hunters are not actively trying to keep the herd density well-below the food resource limitations of the habitat through doe harvests, they are not practicing QDM.

[Multidigits]

In reality, a majority of hunters are still brown and downers, and the liberal doe harvest regs. have really killed a lot of areas in the state that used to have good, healthy, numbers of deer. One are we have that the "qdm" regs. are producing better bucks is at Ft. Knox. Poaching extra deer is controlled better there, and there do seem to be some better bucks being taken. The down side is that hunter satisfaction is dropping through the floor. Some hunters hunting the 2nd and 3rd weekends of the 3 weekend hunts, don't even see a deer. Areas that used to produce kills of 20 or more a weekend, kill ZERO. I suspect that before long, revenues to the base will force a different route to be taken.

Statewide, hunters can't balance the herd, if they don't know what the herd structure is or the herd density. The zones are too broad for a qdm type program to work well. Micro-management would work, but we can't afford it. Simply saying shoot ever doe you see and only one buck isn't the way to go. Hunters need more specific goals to do what the really need to do.

[BSK]

Good management is ALWAYS site-specifically designed. And that is one of my worries about attempts at statwide QDM. I would hate to be the one to have to design such a program without sufficient data. First, no state has such detailed data, and it would be impossible to collect on a statewide basis since herd dynamics can vary dramatically across very short distances. Second, you aren't dealing with a single-minded group of hunters that all want the same results. Everybody wants something different.

However, I would very much like having KY's liberal doe harvest policies instituted in my area of TN. It sure would make managing my local area easier. I would very much like to see regulations that allow and promote the practice of QDM, but "requiring" it? That's a tough one.

On a side note, just because hunters aren't seeing deer doesn't mean they aren't there. I can't tell you how many times I've heard hunters complain "we've killed all the deer" even when the deer density is extremely high. The deer have just stopped moving in open areas during daylight.

[Multidigits]

We are now back to where we've been before. When a deer moves at night, he leaves tracks, when a deer craps, there's a pile of it on the ground somewhere.

[Highbow]

Multi makes some good points that our wma's have not proven out the spread limit is working, first you need enforcement for any regulations to work, having been able to be apart of some of the quota hunt check points or hunted on these wma's in the eastern end of Ky , I have seen the small bucks left laying in the hill,TOO SMALLof a Spread, button bucks killed by the dozen and way too many does harvested. You must have does for the gene pool to carry on and too many 8-9-10 point bucks of 1 1/2 yrs to 2 1/2 yrs are being shot or left laying. Will the point limit work any better?? In my opinion not without a better way to enforce the regulations. The archery hunters on these WMA's don't seem to care about the spread limits so much as the gun hunters, I know that our harvest numbers for the quota hunts are down very much from the past , WHEN ONLY BUCKS could be harvested by firearm. Poaching is a huge problem throughout the WMA's and this has a big effect on the success of the Trophy Deer Program, as for QDM , I think there needs to be a more selective habitat program , less doe harvest till huntable herds are visible again and better law enforcement in place on our WMA's.
The practice of TDM or QDM on private properties should remain by the choice of the landowners, not a state controlled rule.

Member-United Bowhunters of KY, ASA, IBO, East KY Archery, Cyberhunters of KY

[Rob]

I still think the biggest challenge of QDM is to get folks to kill enough does. My perception is that while antler restrictions can play a significant role is getting folks to pass on small bucks, that is the easy part in KY because we have had the One Buck rule for years & ethical hunters are already conditioned to wait for a "good" buck. However, many people still want to harvest that buck, so a doe just won't do.

Multi, what I might have said would be that in order to be properly practiced, QDM requires an overall increase in the number of deer harvested per year, therefore increased hunter opportunity to take a deer. But, with QDM, fewer of the overall deer harvested will be yearling bucks & more of them will be does.



It's hard to dance with the devil on your back...

[Multidigits]

Rob, in theory, your right. But it isn't working for most of us. A lot of the state does not have the excess number of deer to choose from any longer. They are shot down in the places where people can hunt. Last year was a first indicater that we'll see more of this year. People couldn't kill any more because they didn't see anything to shoot. In the end, frustration and peer pressure causes them to abandon any hopes of following a QDM principal and shoot anything they see. You see it all the time on these forums. And in the wild, it's worse. At Ft. Knox, which is under QDM, it's magnified. Each hunter now gets two tags because they didn't want the doe harvest to suffer because of the antler restriction. Hunter staisfaction is at an all time low from hunters using the post. Most hunt the two days without seeing any deer to shoot, and leave discusted by the QDM rules. A few do kill nice bucks and those guys are happy, for sure. Over all, I see only one of two hunters a year that WON'T shoot a doe if they have the chance. It's a long season, and there's plenty of chances to kill extra does, if the hunters get the chance. Some don't. Although I'm a fan of Tele-chek, I do think it's the problem. Every thing we see is the result of wrong number sent in to the check-in system. Zones are set with wrong numbers, and hunter denisty in certain areas is never considered.

[Rob]

I think you are correct in that hunter density isn't considered. What I don't see is the hunter dissatisfaction you speak of. What I see a lot of is folks from other states saying how they would love to see the deer herd in their state managed like KY's. What I also still see plenty of is deer, almost all of whom are does. If we've shot them all out, someone has forgotten to tell them!



It's hard to dance with the devil on your back...

[Highbow]

Rob, I think you are still missing the point that Multi & myself are making, the whole state doesn't have a high population of deer and the does do not need to thinned in a lot of the eastern Ky counties.

Member-United Bowhunters of KY, ASA, IBO, East KY Archery, Cyberhunters of KY

[Multidigits]

Rob, I'm talking mostly hunters in the central part of Kentucky. Also, hunters hunting at Ft. Knox. Almost every hunter that I know has said that the past year was their worst ever for seeing deer. As for folks in other states, what do they know about what we have???? Let's see, i've got hunters from Pa., Tenn., Ind., and Ark. hunting on my two leases, and they aren't saying what your hearing. We're working hard on our deer herds, but it's hard with the brown and downers on the outside with a fist full of doe tags.

[Rob]

Highbow & Multi,

I see exactly where you're coming from & I'm not advocating the taking of unlimited does in areas where there are too few deer already. However, I also don't agree with doing away with the extra antlerless tags in areas with an oversupply of does. In the words of BSK: The best deer management is site specific.



It's hard to dance with the devil on your back...

[Highbow]

Rob, you are right with your last statement but that's the problem we aren't managing deer according to specific needs of each county. Somehow the idea has come through the legislation that if our deer herds are kept at a very reduced level you won't be able to drive without hitting one, THAT COMES STRAIGHT FROM A STATE REP, this was spread from KDFWLR and it is meant for the good of the deer herds-not the hunters. I would rather see more habitat work and allow the deer herds to again become a good huntable number and provide public hunting land for the tax paying hunters.

Member-United Bowhunters of KY, ASA, IBO, East KY Archery, Cyberhunters of KY

[Multidigits]

Exactly, the first shot was fired this year. Before, we were told that neither Farm Bureau nor the Insurance Lobby had anything to do with deer zoning. That's been changed. This year, in Hardin Co., the local CO asked that the county be moved from a 2 to a 3(last year it was moved from 1 to 3), but his request was denied because of what Highbow says--influence from Frankfort legislature because of deer/car colisions. So now we have another year or two of over zoning in Hardin, because of factors not related to the number of deer in that county. It's not that the zones are wrong or bad, it's that they don't get adjusted fast enough or correctly before it's to late.

[BSK]

<b>They are shot down in the places where people can hunt. Last year was a first indicater that we'll see more of this year. People couldn't kill any more because they didn't see anything to shoot.</b>

I wouldn't judge what you saw last year as having anything to do with the local management. Deer sightings were way down in almost every Southeastern state. Hunters everywhere, regardless of their management practices, were complaining about low deer sightings, even in very high deer density areas. I don't know what was driving the lack of movement, but it was certainly something environmental (weather-related).

[Wildcat]

I've got a few things to say here. Most of you know we manage our farms under QDM and that incues shooting does since we are in Western Ky, we also have a good number of game cameras set out all over the farms. Ever though we've hit the does good the past 4 years and our deer sightings are down the cameras show they are still there in good numbers, in fact last spring/early summer we counted more fawns than ever before. My cousin has his house on the top of a hill where he can see over 90 acres of cattle pasture from his front porch, every evening he can set outside and see anywhere from 40 to 100 deer moving in the pasture yet come hunting season we don't see anywhere that number.

The Land Between the Lakes sets their own seasons and limits. For three years they cut back on the number of gun permits to raise the population of deer in the Ky side, last year they brought the number of permits back. Yet the number of deer checked out was far below the number they thought it would be and they do NOT have unlimited doe tags. I've hunted LBL since 1965, last year I spend 46 days hunting in LBL and checking my hunters logs it was the third worst year I ever had there in seeing the number of deer while hunting. There were some days the only deer I saw all day was while driving in the dark to where my stand was.


As for the insurance companies, the higher the deer numbers the more they make, its a gold mine for them. I lived in the city limits Memphis, Tn for 27 years and thought I paid high insurance rates because of the crime and so many uninsuranced motorest. The only city in the state of Ky that could match the crime and wrecks would be Louisville. I lept the same insurance company all those years and had three different vehicles my last year there. The year I moved to Ledbetter,Ky (population 200) I sold two of them and when I tried to get insurance for my ONE truck the rate was three times what I paid in Memphis. Calling around I found out it was because of a high deer population and everybody in the same county paid the same high rates.

I was at the service station one morning last week and we were talking about this very thing, I told the guys there it was a gold mine for the insurance companies. Sure we had all seen or heard of the number of deer/auto colisions and how much they cost but not EVERYBODY was having a wreck by the deer. I told them to count the autos driving west toward Paducah that morning on their way to work. In 15 minutes we counted over 100 autos and I told them every one of those autos were paying the higher rates every month and MAYBE one of them hit a deer last year, it's a gold mine for the insurance companies. If the Legislature wants the number of deer down it's not because of the insurance companies, it's that the people want lower rates. The fewer deer the lower rates, I made that very point last year on my post about the non-hunters, they get what they want.

[Multidigits]

Wildcat, a few Legislators have contacted the Dept. about a wreck that involved a deer and where a fatality occured. The Dept. was told to decrease the deer population or the Legislature would do it for them. Indirectly, the Insurance lobby may be behind this,or they might not be behind this, but that's one reason we justify over-zoning near population centers. Zoning has always been done by several factors, one being the area CO was asked for his input. In Hardin, that input was ignored this year. Those are the facts.

As for deer being there, but not being seen--that's bunk! Deer crap and tracks on the ground---where are they??

[BSK]

<b>As for deer being there, but not being seen--that's bunk! Deer crap and tracks on the ground---where are they??</b>

I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that argument only to show the hunters the photo census pictures of their substantial deer herd. Hunter observations (and opinions) are not very good indicators of deer density, especially once antlerless deer are placed under harvest pressure.

[Multidigits]

The problem with most all those who are pro-QDM is that they are always only about killing....mostly more killing of does. We see one guy say kill ever mature doe you see, and another from Tn. tell us the deer density without seeing a single deer. Amazing stuff????

My preception of what QDM should be is different. It's supposed to be about a balanced, healthy herd with good age structure--yet all we hear is "kill more does" from the experts. Why does the herd have to be at rock bottom lows before you start a QDM program? The truth is that it doesn't. You can have QDM at any level of herd denisty, as long as the carrying capacity isn't breached. We know that the maximum carrying capacity is much higher than any of the denisties that we have in any Ky. county. At least that's from Dr. Krolls research and Dr. Gassett's opinion of the deer levels in Ky. Blanket statements that hunters have too many does, that hunters have too many deer, that hunters don't kill enough deer are simply unfounded. A QDM program can never work properly without micro-management, and we don't have it from a Dept. level.

[2hunt]

I don't think it's possible on private land to overkill the does. Not where I am or have been, and that's a lot of country. Most people simply aren't interested in killing them. When you pressure does they are as difficult to hunt as any buck.

I only bowhunt and kill every doe I possibly can, never pass one up. I may see and have shot opportunity at 10 bucks for every doe. I get trailcam pics of plenty of does, and I see lots of fawns. If KY can harvest 50%does, then we have a qdm program, in my opinion. And that's what we're doing.

The QDM on public lands is simply an attempt to protect the 1.5 year old bucks. The does should be impacted too, a one deer limit is ridiculous with a qdm approach. I didn't think we had a 1 deer limit on any qdm area?

Sounds like it's working good at Knox to me. I've hunted there some for the last 8 years, never had a shot opprtunity at a doe, I have passed many bucks and taken a few good ones.

I only hear a very small number of complaints about KY deer management. I mostly hear from hunters in other state's how they'd would love to be in our state. I think we have it real good!

[rlb165]

Originally posted by Wildcat:

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>...40 to 100 deer...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"></b>

I'm sorry, I just can't get used to associating those #'s with that species. My goodness![:0]

[rlb165]

Originally posted by BSK: <blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>As for deer being there, but not being seen--that's bunk! Deer crap and tracks on the ground---where are they??

<u>I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that argument only to show the hunters the photo census pictures of their substantial deer herd.</u> Hunter observations (and opinions) are not very good indicators of deer density, especially once antlerless deer are placed under harvest pressure.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

BSK, what happens after you show the census photos to the hunters?

Let's say a hunter is complaining because he isn't seeing any/many deer in his area. You show him pictures of deer moving/eating <u>at night</u>. The hunter now knows there are more deer in the area than he thought. But, he still has the original problem of not seeing any/many deer during legal hunting times. Now what?

[Highbow]

Deer at night, now that one takes the cake. Off course you can drive by a field at night and see deer in a field if it is the food source for all the deer in an area, they will travel a long distance to get to the main food source, we checked that several times this past season, had three deer come from five different hillsides to get into a field to eat, their tounges were hanging out by the time they got to eat, before daylight they would leave out and go back to the hills, we tracked each bunch back only to find out no other deer were there.
You can hunt by your findings but I perfer the deer that make tracks in the woods.

Member-United Bowhunters of KY, ASA, IBO, East KY Archery, Cyberhunters of KY

[Wildcat]

rib165,
I was there this evening around 7:00pm and the deer were coming and going though the pastures. On the other side of the pasture across from his house there is a big high bluff that is wooded, off to the left there is a saddle and following a line from the top of the saddle down to the pasture there is a draw that goes across the pasture and goes to the pond and the large CRP field on the other side of the pond. Setting on the porch I counted 34 deer coming out of the woods heading to the draw in less than 20 minutes. Over to our right my cousin could hear the turkeys roosting. It's a nice place to be a hunter.

Next time you come to LBL I'll take you and show you the place, it's not that far from LBL.

[BSK]

rlb165,

First, they don't believe the pictures are from their property. I've had hunters demand I show them where the pictures were taken.

After they finally believe the pics came from their property, I talk to them about changing their hunting style (if that is a problem). In most instances, they aren't seeing does during daylight because they're hunting feeding areas. I try to talk them into hunting closer to known bedding areas and hunting in thicker cover. But sometimes even that isn't enough. Does under extreme pressure simply go nocturnal, just like old bucks do.

If seeing those does is critical to their hunting satisfaction, then we usually suggest they back down a little bit on either their hunting time (pressure) or harvest intensity.

[BSK]

2hunt wrote:
<b>I don't think it's possible on private land to overkill the does. Not where I am or have been, and that's a lot of country. Most people simply aren't interested in killing them. When you pressure does they are as difficult to hunt as any buck.</b>

Depending on habitat, that may be correct. In the wide-open agricultural land of the Midwest, with only little, widely scatter wood lots for cover, hunters can knock down a deer herd in short order. That is why those states have such short gun seasons and limited bag limits. The problem is a lack of cover.

In mixed forest and open land, hunters can put a dent in the population, but I don't believe they can knock them out.

In primarily forested habitat, with lots of cover, hunters will have a very difficult time impacting herd density. There are simply too many places to hide, and deer rapidly learn to use them.