Increasing the proportion of bucks in the population resulted in declining harvests (from
6-26%) and decreased production as the relative proportions of does declined in the
populations (Table 3). Concurrently, buck age-structure was shifted upward, resulting in
increased numbers of older (age 4.5 and up) age-class bucks and hence greater "trophy
buck" production from the population (Tables 4-5). Managing for increased proportions
of adult bucks in the population can result in increased trophy buck production, but at the
expense of reduced overall deer harvest and hunting opportunity.
CONCLUSIONS
Buck harvest strategies aimed at increasing buck:doe ratios can result in increased proportions of older age-class bucks, but only at the expense of decreased population production and hunting opportunity. Despite popular belief, yearling buck harvest percentages tell little about the age structure of the buck population being harvested, especially as the proportion of bucks in the population increases. Harvest strategies
aimed solely at providing certain yearling buck harvest percentages, without concurrent evaluation of hunter selectivity, have little biological basis as a legitimate white-tailed
deer population management tool.
The above quote is from the first link that Sylvan posted.
I agree with this conclusion. It is basically saying that you can not rely soley on yearling buck harvests to tell you the number of bucks in your population. TRUE. It is also saying that you need hunters to be selective in the bucks they harvest to obtain a more balanced herd, with more trophy class animals. TRUE.
The other mortality rate link wouldnt open, so I cant comment on it.
What you have posted here is in argument against QDM?
I only ask because it clearly shows that a balanced herd will produce larger healthier deer. Unless Im mistaken, thats what QDM is all about. Antler restrictions, are clearly not the way to produce "trophy class" deer, I wont argue that. I also wont argue that basing models off of yearling harvest percentages is an inaccurate measure of age structure.
I also have to point out that you acknowledge and cite literature from a fish and wildlife division, and then turn around and state that most divisions are politically driven. So should we use the data that our biologists give us, or dismiss it as political heresay?
Having worked closely and having spoken with members of the division of F&W in NJ, I can guarantee you that there is NO "political" persuasion in their data. The research they do is based soley on science. However, you are correct in the other sense. Their job is not only to manage deer herds to the proper carrying capacities of the habitat, but more importantly to manage the herd to an acceptable social capacity. If this number is lower than the carrying capacity, so be it, we will have to reduce the numbers to the social limit. That is where the politics come in, keeping their jobs, and the sport of hunting alive.
You can rely on your states wildlife biologists to provide you with sound, rather accurate, scientific data though.
To put it in simpler terms; Its very difficult for the divisions to please everyone.
The majority of citizens want less deer.
The majority of hunters want more deer.
The carrying capacity of the land can only sustain a certain number as well.
How do you go about making everyone happy then?
First you find out what the social limit is, next figure out the carrying capacity of the land. Take the lower of those two numbers, and set it as your goal. Hunters are left out of the picture for the most part due to the fact, we are simply managers of the herd. Sheer numbers of deer are not accepted by the people, nor can they be sustained by the habitat. However as mentioned hunter numbers will decline if our goals arent met either.
Yes it seems unfair in most cases, we pay to enjoy hunting, yet the public takes priority over us. This is why I favor QDM. If we cant have sheer numbers of deer, then we might as well have the best quality deer we can have. With a more selective buck harvest, and the proper amount of does removed from the herd, we can further balance the age structure, and sex ratios of the deer. This provides the most fair outcome for everyone, from the public to the hunters, to the deer and surrounding wildlife.
Throw the antler restrictions out the window! If we as hunters want to keep the sport alive, we either have to indiscriminately harvest as many deer as we can to keep deer at socially acceptable numbers. Focusing on shooting bucks, like most hunters want, and NOT focusing on the quality of the deer left in the herd.
OR we can become selective in the harvesting of young bucks, and increase our doe harvests. Thereby keeping the herds at a level that is acceptable to the general public, but also increasing the quality of our deer. Eventually seeing and having more opportunities at larger bucks.
I choose the latter management plan, because it allows us to reap some benefits.
To answer bawana's question; I am a QDM supporter, I hunt 1000s of acres.....ALL PUBLIC. I cant plant food plots, or keep others from harvesting young bucks because its all state land. Yet I still plug along, trying to convince the others in my area, that if they want to see bigger bucks, which all of them do, they need to pass the young bucks. We are over-run with does, and I do my part every year to take at least one doe, many years taking two or three. I also pass any buck that I field-age at less than 3.5, because of this I havent harvested a buck in the past six years. However, due to my efforts, I have already begun to see a rise in the quality of the bucks in a few of the areas I hunt. This past year I passed approximately 15 slam dunk shots on young bucks <2.5. I also saw three bucks that were p&y, one of which I recognized as a buck I had passed two years ago, as a basket rack eight point. He was now a very VERY large ten point. Unfortunately I also had the misfortune of losing the second largest buck I have ever shot. Till this year, I hadnt drawn back on a buck in about four years. People can not claim I don't have self-discipline. I think most the hunters pushing for QDM are public land hunters. If I owned 100 acres of my own, I could care less what the others did. I would live in my own little hog heaven. We are pushing for this change in attitude, called QDM, so that we, actually ALL hunters can benefit. Like I said before, we will never be allowed to manage for sheer numbers of deer! So WHY NOT manage for QUALITY?!!??!?!?!
Have a good one---Matt
