glew22

Steel...First I want to say thank you for your input, the way you handled this conversation allowed it to become constructive not confrentational.

I just want to take a minute to explain why I got into QDM. It started because when I was in high school I would hunt every night of archery season. For my first 4 years of hunting I got a buck. When I didn't get a buck my 5th year and the streak was broken, I started to consider passing yearling bucks (it helped that I had a lot of time to hunt). So I passed yearling bucks and shot a doe here and there for 2-3 years, and I thought I was practicing qdm. Then about a year ago I started talking regularly with the founder of the PA state chapter of qdma. What I was failing to incorporate into my version of "qdm" was habitat management (one of the four cornerstones). Sidenote: there's two fundamental principles of qdma 1) pass yearling bucks to promote a balanced buck age structure, and 2) harvesting enough female deer to balance the herd with the available habitat. Everyone wants to see more deer, so how do you do so without negatively impacting the habitat (and the associated wildlife)...the answer is habitat management. Such management IS NOT limited to food plots, in fact it aggravates me how much emphasis is placed on them. Under qdm, habitat management first and foremost promotes enhancing native vegetation, also, timber management, soft mast manegement, and invasive control are employed. The most important thing to remember is that if you don't control deer numbers, nothing you do to the habitat will work as intended.

Once I started laying out habitat management plans for propertys I found a whole new arena of enjoyment. Just like an architect envisions a blueprint, I look at topos/aerials and determine what changes I can make to the landscape that will increase nutritional productivity, increase cover, increase diversity, increase habitat for non game species, and increase regeneration of preferred species. I like to think of it as an art form. Now you could argue that these habitat projects are not "natural" and therefore they shouldnt be done. But I would ask the question what is natural? If you look around the woods today, ask yourself why oaks are so dominant. They're dominant because for hundreds (if not thousands) of years native americans burned the forest of PA relentlessly. This distrubance regime (coupled with other factors) are what determined the composition of the forests we see today. In essence, I really feel that I'm doing something positive by managing the habitat (provided I manage it to benefit the ecosystem not just deer). One last thing about food plots, there's a lot of species besides deer that benefit from them...namely small mammals and predatory birds.

In regards to your last post about qdm driving a wedge between hunters I think you made some valid points. However, I look at is from a different perspective. I think qdm can bridge the gap between hunter's and non-hunters, ensuring our sport continues. There's a lot of people who like birds, and guess what, most of them want the deer gone because they're destroying the bird habitat. However, they don't really want the deer gone, they want (they may not know it) the deer population to be balanced with the habitat so that the negative effects of deer are minimized. There's no other organization that can bridge the gap the way qdm can because it truly operates with "harvesting enough does to balance the population with the available habitat." Does everyone who practices qdm do this effectively, of course not; however, I highly doubt that those you mentioned getting bad vibes from are active whatsoever in the organization.

I'm gonna post a new thread discussing a deer management meeting I went to last weekend. There were 62 hunters in attendance. I know for a fact that if the mgt program was tweaked to incorporate qdm it would be 10x further ahead than it is today. I hope you have time to read and reply.

Sorry for it being so longwinded...I hope there were some coherent thoughts.

Cornelius08

We dont have to bend over to the whims of "birdwatchers" at audubon etc. to "ensure our sport continues". We are the management tool and polls have been taken in the past that show the overwhelming majority of society supports us being used as the management tool. We dont need to cater to extremist agendas to be "accepted". To "bridge that gap" is a politically correct way of saying give them whatever they want. I dont agree with that at all. Compromise is one thing. Well im fresh compromised out. Its way over crossed the line from compromising to us being flat out tread upon. And there is absolutely NOTHING they have to offer us that WE need in that "compromise". Some interests your not gonna appease and everyones not gonna be happy. Im not supporting selling out myself and my hunting brethren for those nuts at audubon etc. who call us everything in the book except men anyway.

So if reasonable responsible deer densities and "normal to the eastern usa" forest conditions arent good enough even with the attempts we are currently making at getting them even better...then im sorry but im not gonna shed a tear.

And as long as thats qdmas position, then i have no respect for that stance and a big problem with that organization and would suggest to anyone thinking of joining, not to. Just another self serving politcally motivated group. Sincerely not trying to be confrontational either, and nothing against any individual. I find that sentiment very damaging to our sport because it causes division, and it also strengthens our enemies voice. Some gaps arent meant to be bridged.

bluebird2

The QDMA will get no respect from me until the leaders of PA QDMA admit they were wrong for supporting the plan and start to criticize the PGC for managing the herd on SGLs at the same level as most SFL. Or ,they can start managing their land at 8 OW DPSM!!!!

glew22

If qdm is based on balancing the herd with the habitat...which it is...then why would they admit they were wrong for supporting the plan??? One of the 5 biologists who did the audit said he feels the 25% herd reduction that has taken place was not enough to get desired regeneration (judging by the fact that the forest have yet to respond he's right), what's more, he said not only would the herd need to be further reduced, but that it would have to be held at that level for another 15-20 yrs. So why would qdma "admit they were wrong" when the dmp has made progress towards the organization's goals?

Cornelius08

Now you just professed to believe exactly everything said word for word by the audit member, use it as evidence to support further reduction because habitat hasnt improved..

Then turn around and say you support the plan because its made progress towards the goal.

Thats contradiction.

The piece said that the habitat DIDNT improve, and in fact ever so slightly regressed.

That tells me the plan was a complete failure. Excessive reductions did nothing to aid the habitat, the herd health or much of anything else and thats been proven. We can go even more "extreme" and do more mad scientist experimenting to "see what happens" and screw the hunters over in the process even more, or we can start managing like we have some sense like most other states in the nation with reasonable deer density goals who somehow find a way to survive and prosper.

Might also wanna note dcnr etc. involvement in the "fact finding mission" of wmi. If we wanted an audit of our regeneration done by Pa dcnr, all we had to do is ask them and save ourselves 90k. We already knew their ridiculous goals and thoughts on having wall to wall stands of money trees,and despite rock bottom densities....too many deer eating their profits.

But hey, qdma just keep right on supporting everything told to them. Its the politically correct thing to do. Especially when none of their hunting on private managed lands are effected anyway.

bluebird2

Because the PGC's DMP is not about balancing the herd with the habitat. the PGC data shows the herd was in balance with the habitat when we had 1.6M PS deer in 2000. The current PGC DMP is about balancing the herd based on the regeneration of commercially valuable timber and nothing more.



When we had 1.6M deer in the herd was much closer to a QDMA herd then what we have today. The B/D ratio was 1:2,breeding rates were high , the herd was healthy and the herd was below the MSY CC of the habitat

glew22

Well blue, I know your all about your stats, so please post some references.

Now let me break this down real simple...DD was too high for regeneration of prefferred species, pgc apparently reduced the herd 25%, no regeneration, hmmm didn't Gary Alt say you would need to bring the numbers down and keep them there for 20-30 years, 3rd party auditor says you haven't reduced the herd enough for regeneration, foresters say you haven't reduced it enough, wildlife biologists say the same....Seeing a pattern??? All these "qualified" people are just bird-lovin, deer-hatin, tree-huggin, eco-terrorists....Don't worry though guys, the truly qualified ones (B&C) have uncovered the conspiracy, its all good once the pgc goes.

So blue let me make this very very clear, your knowledge of qdm and the qdma is equivalent to a 1yr old entering kindergarten. I say it's more than likely that a 25% herd reduction was not large enough to meet the goal of balancing deer with the habitat. And you say, "them there qdm'ers liked it much better when there were 1.6 million deers." Dude, come on.

glew22

That tells me that in most areas the herd wasn't reduced enough to allow regeneration and aid the habitat. You say the harvests were excessive, I say in most cases they weren't enough. But hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion, right? One question, if the reduction was excessive and we've killed way too many deer, why didn't the forests respond?

Screamin Steel

Keep in minds Glew, that there are many areas with owdd below 10 dpsm, if regeneration is still failing after roughly 7 years of HR, we must ask ourselves how much lower will these numbers have to go in order to achieve regeneration? Which leads us to the next question...Is it worth driving the deer herd dangerously close to the point of eradication for the sake of biodiversity? In all seriousness, if there was one deer left, affecting regeneration on a survey plot, would killling that last remaining deer be justified? The current political climtate in PA has doen a stellar job of painting deer as a varmint, or worse yet, an invasive species in the eyes of the public, thanks to eco extremist gropups like Audubon. What if even temporary eradication proved to be insufficient? i think there are is a certain pont where you have to take a step back and realize that the foundation of the DMP was laid based on predictions which have failed to happen. Alt and others predicted improved herd health, a shorter breeding window, "more and bigger bucks" than ever before, and that sharp reduction would achieve sufficient regeneration. Nearly a decade into the plan, NONE of those predictions have been realized. Granted there seem to be some issues uncovered in the audit concerning lacking of data in these fields, but you have to belive that if they had the data supporting or vindicating the plans effectiveness they would have been shouting it from the rooftops by now. All the audit has shown is that from a scientific standpoint, it apears to be sound. Not that it is accomplishing its goals.

bluebird2

What references would you like to see? A good start would be reading the AWRs on the PGC site.

[QUOTE]didn't Gary Alt say you would need to bring the numbers down and keep them there for 20-30 years, 3rd party auditor says you haven't reduced the herd enough for regeneration, foresters say you haven't reduced it enough, wildlife biologists say the same[QUOTE]

Alt said the buck harvest would return to normal after the first year of ARs and that increased breeding and better recruitment would make up for the decrease in the overwintering herd.

The 25% decrease in the herd was the statewide average. The fact is the herd in 2G has been reduced from 40 DPSM in the 70s to around 8 DPSM now ,which is a decrease of 80% ,not 25% and forest health is still only 38%. Furthermore , if you had read the DMAP Enrollment Reports you would know that even DCNR foresters admitted that further HR would not result in increased regeneration in many areas because of other environmental conditions.

You can say whatever you want ,but you can't back it up with facts. I can back up my position with independent data and quotes from DCNR, the PGC and other qualified professionals.