vtbuckrulrss

hi guys, i know that most people here are for qdm, but i need some help/opinions. our commissener has just proposed trying qdm in some wmu' s. now, here is the problem with that, statewide, we already hit, or close to it, the requirements/definition of qdm. our f&w has produced a report stating that at this time, qdm is not something that the dept. wishes to enact, nor is it needed as a tool for control. the commish thinks people want it, but as of yet has no proof of it. he also used to be on a board, before taking the job, looking into qdm and vt. now, the problem is that he appears to not be listening to his own biologists recommendations against it, people say they aren' t seeing deer, yet he wants to reduce the herd in proposed qdm wmu' s zones. all changes to herd management must go through our legislature. how do i get him to listen to his own biologists recommendations, and not cave into specialized interests, amoung other things? i have more questions about this, but will wait for some of your responses.

vtbuckrulrss

forgot to add this in, my biggest beef is if the head of f&w won' t listen to his own biologists recommendations, how can we trust him on any issues?

Rob in VT

I personally think it' s a great idea. I don' t think it' s an accurate statement to say " the commish thinks people want it, but as of yet has no proof of it." . There is a group of folks wanting to start a QDMA branch in Vermont. They had a survey at the Sportsman show in Essex and various gun shows around the state asking if Vermont hunters where satisfied with the current deer management and if they would be in favor of QDM. Over 800 people signed the survey (I know for a fact because I saw the list) saying they weren' t satisfied with the current deer situation in Vermont and want a change. There was also a tremendous show of support at the various deer management meeting across the state last spring.

I am curious what documentation you have which suggest that Vermont biologist (John Buck I' m assuming) is opposed to QDM? What are his reasons?

I know Vermont is deep in tradition and change is hard to come by. Let' s not forget that it wasn' t too long ago that it was frowned upon by " traditional Vermont hunters" to shoot a doe. We all now know that taking a doe is a good practice with many benefits to the herd. Change isn' t always a bad thing and we all need to keep an open mind.

. . . Rob

S.Texas

Wildlife management is the interplay of wildlife populations, habitat and people.

The best managment stradegy ever devised will not succed if it does not have public support.

The head of your states fish and game needs to produce objective and subjective information before he even produces his managment plan.

Get the guy on the phone and ASK!! There are strength in numbers!!

Are his desired levels BCC or SCC?
What are his population recontruction theories?
Ask if you can look at each managment units harvest history.
If he is just trying to increase animal population - ask him how this will affect bcc.

Without a population growth objective there can be no harvest managment objective. The public need to know where this programis headed - if there is no logic - there will be no public acceptance.

vtbuckrulrss

hey rob, i too saw the " survey" , have a copy of it right here. survey? what a joke, ask the right questions, get the answer that you want, polititions do it all of the time. this " survey" also had a fair amount of respondents that say they want to see more deer. under strict qdm defintions, your herd must be knocked down to about 50-60%, or less, of carrying capacity. how are you going to see more deer that way? with qdm, hunter opportunity to harvest a legal buck will decrease, does by defintion, in the montpelier meeting, someone said that hunters may go 7 years between buck harvests, this will increase under qdm. from the meeting that i attended, i think people have the wrong idea about qdm, yes, it may increase the sightings of larger deer, and the harvest of them, but the overall buck kill will decrease, there will be fewer opportunities to harvest these deer. the report that i recieved, unfortunately( trying to find out right now) did not have an author. however, it does state quite a few things, including that in a sense, qdm already exists in vermont. sorry, but it didn' t have a title, either, or i' d give it to you to see. the dept. is conducting it' s own survey right now to see how everyone feels about it. i have been sending e-mails to john buck, and if you read between the lines, laroche is pushing this in house in response to a few select hunters wants, not for a biological need. don' t forget, he was on h.a.t.' s advisory committee about qdm and vt, this has to be a private adjenda issuer with him, using this " survey" as a stepping stone to furthering qdm here. i would be curiuos to know how many people that signed this paper were members of h.a.t.
s. texas, i have been writing to our head of f&w, but can get no straight answers from him i asked many of the questions i brought up in the original post, but all he said was that a group of people have done a survey which suggests wqdm in some form is wanted, not NEEDED, here. there lies the problem. if qdm, as a tool is needed, by god, use it, more power to you, like penn. but, our herd is not in dire straights needing it. they are healthy, have a good ratio, habitat, and age balance. that is what the season ending report says, and the untitled document says. he is coming awful close to violating, as i understand it, public doctrine, by catering to the will of a few, and not looking out for the wildlife over which he has been entrusted.

S.Texas

See if you can find any info on the Institute for Participatory Planning and the development of substantial effective agreement on a course of action (SEACA)

Effective agreement is reached when people affected by a management decisions are willing to allow implementataioneven if they do not totally agree.

Maybe you can find out why QDM is being implemented from the states point of view.

vtbuckrulrss

hey s. texas, couple of things for you, from what i understand, they are thinking of qdm because certain people are putting pressure on the dept. for more deer, larger bucks. i don' t think they understand what they have to go through to get the larger bucks. but first, they have to get a proposal from the f&w dept, which then brings it in front of the f&w board, which, if it passes them, presents it to the legislature. i have been in contact with the board, and of the 7, it looks like 4 are against, 2 for, and 1 on the fence. i think once the board is presented with the facts of how healthy the herd is, etc( by me, of course), the 3, hopefully will realize that we do not have a situation calling for qdm. still waiting for the wildlife society to weigh in on the public trust doctrine, i feel it may be violated becasue the dept. will be caving into specialized interest instead of focusing on the good of the herd.

farm hunter

v............. what' s the worst scenario you can envision from a QDM managment program?

I see it evening out the buck:doe ratio and embracing the already inherent (in Vermont) age structure of the deer herd. Even playing devil' s advocate - I cannot see where a QDM standpoint would hurt Vermont. Really - alot of it is de facto already in place.

I' m curious why one might be against a limited buck harvest - increased doe harvest - to maintain a population at least 25% below the carrying capacity.

Thanks.........

vtbuckrulrss

well farm, a couple of things i can see coming from the qdm ...first, i don' t like any kind of restrictions being forced upon us, which is what the dept is trying to do. also, we already have a great deal of posted land here, and even among pro-qdm people, while not so in every case, it is well documented(from what i have read, no personal experience) that the amount of land posted will increase. as an example of my worry, a bill was introduced this spring that would have had the no shooting of spikehorns below a certain route. i found out that the amount of land legally posted below that line already equaled 25% of legal posted land in the state. now, if posted land increases with qdm, where are we going to have those people, who don' t own land hunt near their homes? we don' t have, nor want, hunt clubs/leases here. the privitazation of deer herds increases with qdm( supposedly proven, saw it in qdma lit.), again, the little guy gets screwed out of hunting. one less person, possibly, in the woods, headed out of state to hunt. also, in many places, people are screaming that they don' t see deer, yet with the proposed qdm, the does will need to be reduced. i am comfortable with the amount of deer we have, but that is me personally. but, say you take joe, who says he doesn' t see any deer, how will he handle the further reduction of deer in his area? i think he will be p.o., if you ask me. we have a herd that currently is almost equaly split between mature bucks and yearlings, why fool with it? and from what i have seen, to even think of qdm, we need to reduce the herd to about 50-60% of c.c., not have it around 75. one line you said gets me, " it' s already in place" . now for the vermont saying( yes, it started here first) if it ain' t broke, why fix it?

farm hunter

I see your point vtbuckrulrss - but you are basing your argument on the assumption that more people will Post their land if QDM is mandated. I would not agree with this statement - in fact I' d argue that more land gets posted by landowners that are actively practicing a managment plan - that is different than what the state mandates. It doen' t matter if its QDM, TQM - or a NO Doe policy - the reason is becuase TOO MANY people want to hunt the " managed land" . The posting would decrease if the whole state was similarly managed.

Look, you seem to be the type of Person that DOES NOT LIKE the establishment telling people what is right and not right. Your veiw is very similar to mine, and is probably very indicative of most people in Vermont - in that respect. More power to you and I both!! HOWEVER, you must agree that some guidelines (laws) are needed when it comes to game management (eg. all states have a " bag limit" ). My feeling with QDM is....... wouldn' t you rather the laws were based on real information - as far as herd health goes????? QDM, is not restrictive as it might seem, especially after a couple years go by - Its geared around duplicating the dynamics (or coming closer than most places are now) of a naturally occuring deer herd.

Honestly, I am a little suprised the Vermont might be looking at legislating QDM - I don' t disagree - I' m just a little surprised, and pleased if its true. In NY, especially the Adirondak Region, QDM is just in its infancy - it just isn' t needed because of low hunter density and deer density being low. In the more populated areas - QDM is coming on strong - likely because it promises to reduce the herd size in overpopulated areas, and correct the buck::doe ratio in heavily hunted areas.