vtbuckrulrss

hey guys, how many of you have heard of the proposed qdm restrictions here? it is rather foolish when one considers that we are already almost at the defintitions of qdm( 47% off all bucks shot are considered qdm bucks, a 1:3 sex ratio, and a habitat near it' s carrying capacity in some parts of the state) the state biologists have said that qdm is not a good thing for us, nor is it to be considered, yet laroche has a personal adjenda pushing for qdm. the spikehorn law would have increased posting in a part of the state that already accounts for 25% of all legal posting in the state, which generally increases under qdm. the antler restrictions he is proposing have been proven since the 1960" s not to work, that is why the states that have had them had dropped them. hunter success rates for bucks will decrease under qdm rules, will do so by qdm guidelines. if you are in an area proposed for qdm, more does will have to be taken. are you comfortable with the amount of deer seen in your area? if so, how many will be taken under qdm in that area, reducing sightings. have more information on this, can' t wait for some feedback from you.

jf5

47% of buck taken in VT are considered QDM bucks??? From what I understand, well over 60% of bucks taken are 1.5yr spikes. Is that not the case??? Also, is the doe/buck 3:1 ratio the same statewide??? I cannot see SW VT with that ratio, as there are way more than 3 does to a buck there. I also understand that the propossed QDM is not statewide either, as they certainly do not want to cull excess does in the Kingdom.

vtbuckrulrss

jf5, looking at two reports that i am reading right now,, the 2002 deer hunting seasons report, and an untitled document from the state, it says on the report " biologists estimated the age distribution of the examined bucks(2002) to be 53% yearlings, 29% 2.5 years, 15% 3.5, and 3% 4.5+ years or greater. this is consistent for vermont for the last 50 years." the ratio came from an e-mail from a state biologist. as of yet, the wmu' s affected have not been made public. the ratio was a blanket statement meant for the entire state. also, it is mathematically to be much more than a 1:3 adult ratio.

jf5

Well, I cannot see the reports, but I get your point. The thing is there are certain zones that can benefit from QDM. Particularly in SW VT where the buck to do ratio is way out of wack, and very few bucks are taken above 4pts. Now I understand the want for sheer numbers of deer. I love seeing as many deer possible too. But the long term benefits of QDM in specific areas of the state will only make the hunting better. The 55% yearlings could be nice 6 or 8 pointers in the following 2 years, and the venison lovers can still harvest does to fill the freezer.

That being said, I would still agree with you that the QDM is not so valid for other areas of the state with low density and low hunter pressure. Areas of the Kingdom especially.

The good thing for Vermonters is that the F & G is giving out the survey allowing resident only participation. VT folks will have there say on future managment and leave the flatlanders like me out of the discussion!! It just seems alot of folks are waiting for the return of VT' s deer heyday' s of the 50' s and 60' s. But in reality, the current habitat just cannot handle that anymore.

vtbuckrulrss

i just went throught he report again, to see how s.w. vt stacked up against the rest of the state, overall, there wer only 4 counties that had more bucks per square mile than bennington, and 4 above them in total deer killed, must be good hunting, or a lot of people down there. i asked my postman today id he has delivered one of the surveys yet, so far he hasn' t seen one come through; we wonder if there will be more sent to the southern part of the state than the rest, that' s where the people are crying the loudest for a qdm plan. depending upon how you veiw hunting, it won' t get any better, just go down hill. think of it this way,yes, those 1.5 could get bigger, but your odds of getting one under qdm will decrease, just ask anyone involved in qdm, the buck harvest always has to decrease from current levels. shoot more does? people are yelling right now that there aren' t enough deer around( not me, i seem to see quite a few), and the dept. wants to take more deer(doe) out of their backyards? someone' s head will roll if that happens. i do agree with you on one thing, though, i think that many would like to see the herds that we used to have, i get jealous looking at the backwall of my grandmothers house, i think there has to be close to 70 racks up there from my grandfather and uncles. but, today we don' t have the habitat, in part because of the excess deer 20, 30 years ago.

jf5

Well you are right on both accounts about SW VT. There are alot of deer and hunters. A lot of does!! I fish in Bennington County and see does moving around mid day frequenly. In fact, when I fish there I see deer more often than not!!

No doubt QDM will cut the buck harvest. Thats what it is designed to do, reduce the number of young males taken. I think you hit the nail on the head about QDM. Its all about your expectations. If you want more deer vs better deer, than QDM antler restrictions and doe culling are not for you. That still dosn' t excuse not culling does to balance the herd with the habitat though. As we know that that played the biggest part in the herd decline in the 70' s. And yes, I know that that culling does is not a very popular concept with alot of Vermonters. Some still claim the doe season ruined the hunting! The sad truth is that even if VT doubled or tripled the herd, there will always be people wanting more deer.

Now with all that aside. QDM or not, if Vermont' s herd was like it was in say 1965, guess where I would do all my hunting??? Am I jelous of that era??? You bet !! My father hunted VT in the Groton/ Marshfield/Plainfield area from 1957-1983. Sometimes he would hunt around Rutland area as well. He took a buck every year from 1959-1978, and a few after. In the 50' s and 60' s, he would see 20-40 deer daily, mostly does. By the early 70' s, things got tough, and by the 80' s he gave up and started hunting other states. His rack collection is impressive in number, especially for a guy like me who works hard just to see deer, let alone take a buck!!

Either way, I hope for the best for the herd. I love going to Vermont, and fish there all the time. (Was just up in Maidstone area last weekend) It would only be my pleasure to hunt there over a decent herd with a few nice bucks!!

Grnmtn

I think it is about time. Looking at your numbers alone, harvesting 53% of the yearling 80 pound spikes and forkhorns, make it difficult for many to have even a slight chance to reach matury and potential. Management zones are a must to get this thing started and as quality of the deer improve I see it spreading wider. Look at the CN river valley... along the river bottoms and near towns the deer tend to be smaller, you look into the kingdom or the spine of the Grnmtns and you see deer size grow abit. These guys are a bit more spread out and have access to more security and acorns and other mast crops. I think they need also to look at habitat... Some areas the logging practices have compleately wiped out the oak and beach forest. Our deer need this kind of fuel to handle the harch winters.

There is going to be a loud up roar. Old traditions of any buck is a good buck is hard to over come. I just have to look at what transpired around my boyhood home in PA to say, man it works! We saw more 2 and 3 year old bucks then I ever did this past year. With my wife tipping over a nice 3 year old 10 point. We passed alot of fours and sixes, but man we actually saw almost as many bucks as does. Our deer density here are now where near PA' s but the idea is sound.

vtbuckrulrss

grnmtn, i don' t think it will happen, even with the new survey they are takingt. from a biological standpoint, which is what we need to look at, we have a healthy herd, our 53% percent yearlings, according to lst years results, averaged 112.3 lbs. this age class of bucks, which is the most often measured in the northeast, is on average larger than most yearling deer in surounding states. their deer average dressed at 90-199, with antler beams of 8-11 mill. in diameter. ours have a diameter of 17. the biggest question that i have for you is how are you determining quality? the other 47% are pretty darn impressive for any place. if we are already meet, statewide, the definition of qdm, the next step is tdm, which means even fewer deer shot. do you realize that under a qdm plan, yes we MAY see more bucks, but that does not translate into a better opportunity to harvest a mature deer. this is what people are missing. any kind of research into qdm will tell you the same thing. heck, i had a qdma board member tell me this. logging has hurt us short term, i agree, but go back in a few years, and see how much sign you find. antler restrictions don' t work. it has been proven in article after article since the 1960' s. many states that have had these restrictions, have dropped them.i agree, without a thorough understanding of qdm and its consequences, plus what it will take to achieve the goals, qdm sounds good. bigger deer, sure! larger racks? bring it on! but, this comes at a price, harvest more does, increased competition for older age classed deer, reduced buck harvest in those zones( had wildlife biologists for qdm tell me that one), lesser chance of harvesting a buck in those areas. are you prepared to go through this? you are from the barton area, if i remember( could be someone else i am thinking of). how many guys do you hear stating that they don' t see any deer? for qdm, we have to increase the doe harvest. how do you think those guys are going to feel about that? posting will increase, even those promoting qdm recognize this, whether it is under a state mandated plan, or done privately. are you prepared to be shut out of your favorite area? where will you, and everyone esle shut out of that area, go? on unposted land. now, hunters are more concentrated in the open areas. how hard will it be to get a shooter then? too many people aren' t thinking this through, they see sat. tv programs, think this is how qdm is, looks easy, lets try it. without knowledge, complete knowledge of qdm, people should be patient, listen to both sides, then make a decision not based on horns.

vtbuckrulrss

sorry, average was 90-100, not 199.lol

Grnmtn

I geuss figure can be interpeted to fit anyone logic with the correct spin. So I am not posting to get into a pissing contest. From my experience in the woods... and trust me when I say this I spend alot of time there... there a defiantely swings in the health of the forest. Yep logging does help improve the under brush and give new growth for the deer and critters to enjoy. Yes it is good for the deer to have this additional brouse for their winter feed when the snow is too deep to dig for the nuts. But if they are not getting high calory/quality food before it will be a moot point how many whippits they have to brouse thru the dead of winter. How many years is it before an oak tree yields fruit 7 or so and they are not mature producers till 25. Alot of deer life cycles there. All I am saying is there needs to be alot of thought about habitat. Better habitat will yield healthier deer.

I look at the buck I shot here last fall. It was a 2 plus year old 7 point that went 100 pounds on the offical scale in WRJ, shot in Quchee. Not one lick of fat on him coming into the winter. Only places I was seeing decient sign was on the oak flats that had nuts droping during bow season. Of the other deer our group harvested only one went over 120 pounds... and only by a whisker. Most of these where basket 4' s. Now the bigger deer are around but takes work and patience... I thought for sure mine was going to weight more or I would have let him pass. Now for me again I look at the personal effect I have seen between the antler restrictions in PA and the improvement I have seen in the quanity of mature bucks there. I have been chasing them there for just shy of 35 years. This last season was pretty cool. On one morning alone I had 5 bucks over the 3 pont on a side come thru passing on all because I know there are better one out there. The buck my wife shot was 3 yrs and it tipped the scale at 205. Now this is all broken farms and 200 ac. wood lots with excellent feed/ lighter winters. Not a posted sign around.. But the main thing for me was the number of maturing bucks I was seeing. I can' t wait for this year.

Now take a look across the river into NH. There are alot of areas there that hold big quality animals. Access is an issue due to the big woods nature of these critters... but the food and lighter pressue help these deer live to maturity. Now doesn' t a deer need to live to be at least four to really meet it' s potential for body mass? So by taking over 50% out of the pool before they have seen thier 2nd birthday not to mention how quickly the mortality rate rises from there how are we to know if the deer will flurish. So I geuss in the end I don' t care about the method that we use to help improve the health of the deer.... The numbers you point to say they are doing just fine... I think a 100 pound 2 yr 5 month old is small... but if protecting the buck just one year more to help in wising them up and giving them the potential to put on more body mass, I see it as a plus.

Harvesting does.... I have no problems with it. One usually finds it' s way to my freezer by the end of the first week of archery. I don' t think a wholesale harvst is in order but we have a pretty good source of info with the manditory checking of deer to keeep a handle on what areas are strong in support and healthy animals. Others would and should have the protections.