JSW's Link
Not that long ago over 50% of antlered bucks killed nationwide were 1 1/2 year old deer. in 2019 that number has dropped to 28% and a whopping 39% of all bucks killed were over 3 1/2 years old. More than a third of all bucks killed are mature, older deer. By any measure, the nationwide acceptance of Quality Deer Management has allowed us to kill older, which means bigger, bucks. Oh, and bigger bucks means more meat in the freezer too.
Is QDM worth the effort? Yes it is.
Here in Ohio I would never question QDM. I practice it and all my neighbors have demonstrated they practice it too.
I am committed to QDM. My only point to my previous thread is: are there places where it really is pointless?
QDM is fine if you want to practice it on your own land. QDM can be a challenge where you have checker-boarded public/private sections of land. There was a BS discussion last year about who gets to shoot "their" deer.
QDM is not fine when special interest groups, like QDMA.... attempt to force it up on others via regulation. I'm speaking specifically about MAPR's. Unless there is a scientific reason to implement MAPR's....it is not needed for herd health. It's also contrary to CWD mitigation. There is current data in Michigan now that shows this.
""Not that long ago over 50% of antlered bucks killed nationwide were 1 1/2 year old deer. in 2019 that number has dropped to 28% and a whopping 39% of all bucks killed were over 3 1/2 years old. More than a third of all bucks killed are mature, older deer.""
^....The other problem I have seen is the TOTAL buck harvest drops under MAPR regs. That gets often overlooked...or glossed over when talking MAPR's.
We know from the Mississippi Study the long term use of MAPR's can result in high-grading problems in the buck herd.
Again...QDM is fine if someone wants to do on their own place. We voluntarily practice some elements of it on the private land I hunt on. Folks have been practicing some elements of it long before it became fashionable or en vogue. I suppose we can say TV hunting shows and vids created the desire for big horns we see today. That of course is another topic.
There were several people who said, "yes it is a waste of time and money". That's why I used your post as a reference.
I suppose it could be a waste of time and money in some areas,but the statistics show that it has been a huge benefit to those of us who want to hunt bigger, older bucks.
As long as you own property in NY, you shouldn't give up on QDM. One of these years, things could turn around and a big buck could show up simply because you went the extra mile to make him welcome.
Matt
I’m a huge supporter of QDM, I also agree that QDMA is about education and advocacy for a healthy deer herd. Any claim to the contrary is not accurate.
Passing on immature bucks is one small part of QDM and that’s the part that I feel may result in extreme frustration in areas where it will never work - due to horrendous deer seasons or a lack of cooperation between smaller landowners. But all the other aspects of QDM like food plots, TSI, habitat improvement, etc are really not debatable IMO.
Gene and Barry Wensel said it first and it can’t be stressed enough; if you want to kill big bucks you have to hunt where big bucks live.
https://wafwa.org/wpdm-package/fact-sheet-6-understanding-mule-deer-and-antler-point-restrictions/
WRT to muleys and APR's. If you're familiar WAFWA (Western Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies), they've done some research on this topic. In 2013, WAFWA, along with support from the Mule Deer Foundation, put out a fact sheet on their collective experiences with MAPR's on the mule deer. It was pretty eye opening when I first read it years ago. Take a look at it and see what ya think. They list the Good, the Bads and the Uglies with using APR's on muleys. This from their Fact Sheet #6. I don't know if they changed their thinking since, so take it for what it's worth. I also think folks need to keep in mind the differences in the deer, where they live and how they are managed differently
""UNDERSTANDING MULE DEER AND ANTLER POINT RESTRICTIONS Fact Sheet #6
Antler restrictions are harvest restrictions that limit buck harvest to animals that meet specific antler criteria. The most common type of antler restriction is a point restriction. Antler point restrictions have been used as a harvest strategy with the hope they will increase the number of large-antlered bucks in a mule deer population. Experience of many states and provinces with antler point restrictions suggest this harvest strategy has very limited potential to produce more trophy bucks and could result in other unintended challenges.
BACKGROUND
Increasing the number of big-antlered bucks is typically the basis for hunter demands to implement antler point restrictions. The idea seems straightforward and promising; if we just don’t allow hunters to harvest young bucks, they will grow older and bigger and be available for harvest later. Most western states and provinces have, at one point in time, employed some type of antler point restriction attempting to increase the number of “trophy” bucks in their herds.
THE GOOD
• Decreases hunter pressure and total buck harvest by discouraging some hunters who do not want to be restricted to a particular antler-sized buck. This can be beneficial when harvest is heavy in relation to the number of available bucks, but not heavy enough to warrant changing to limited quota seasons. • In some cases, antler point restrictions have increased the proportion of bucks in the population, but this effect may not be long-lasting. • In remote areas with limited access, antler point restrictions have been used in combination with general seasons to maintain hunter opportunity.
THE BAD
• Antler point restrictions focus all the hunting pressure on the oldest age classes of bucks, gradually decrease the average age of the buck segment of the population, and make it more difficult for bucks to reach the older age classes due to the displaced harvest pressure. • Antler point restrictions have been shown to reduce the number of trophy bucks over time by protecting only the smaller-antlered young bucks. • Antler point restrictions do not increase fawn production or population size. Even in herds with very low buck:doe ratios (<10:100), pregnancy rates are well over 90%. Large increases in buck ratios result in relatively few, or no, additional fawns.
THE UGLY
• Antler point restrictions dramatically reduce hunter participation, harvest success, and total harvest. • Antler point restrictions increase the number of deer shot and illegally left in the field; this can be significant, and has been documented in Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Nevada, and Montana. • Antler point restrictions can cheapen the value of young bucks by changing the threshold for success from “a buck” to a quest where only a big buck will do. • Antler point restrictions may discourage hunters (especially beginning and young hunters) by increasing the difficulty of locating and identifying legal deer.
CONCLUSIONS
After decades of use and many evaluations reporting disappointing results, most western states and provinces have discontinued statewide antler point restrictions. The two main reasons for abandoning widespread antler point restrictions are (1) unacceptable accidental-illegal kill, and (2) harvest mortality was increased (focused) on the very age classes they intended to promote. Available data and experience suggest antler point restrictions result in no long-term increase in either the proportion or number of mature bucks, or the total deer population. A few jurisdictions still have limited areas with antler point restrictions, due to hunter preference. The use of antler point restrictions in a combined strategy with general seasons is used in at least one case to maximize hunting opportunity. There are additional reasons why the widespread use of antler point restrictions has not been successful. Research has shown buck fawns born to does in poor body condition have difficulty outgrowing the effects of poor body condition at birth, and may never reach their genetic potential for antler growth. Regulations protecting these bucks from harvest are counterproductive to the intended benefit. Most western states and provinces have concluded that sustainable improvements in buck:doe ratios and the number of mature bucks can only be realized by reducing harvest through 1) a limited-quota license system that decreases overall total buck harvest while allowing some level of doe harvest, or 2) setting a very short hunting season in early fall when more mature bucks are less vulnerable. It has been suggested while antler point restrictions may increase the proportion of bucks in certain populations with low buck:doe ratios, there is no evidence they substantially increase the total number of adult (mature) bucks.
The 50% plus figure has been undisputed for many many decades. Even higher has been the norm. Indisputable.
To have that reduced by 50% or more to only 28% is absolutely astounding if even close to accurate. For a national number that was consistent across the country essentially forever to see that kind of change is shocking.
The national change in human behavior and hunting demographics / cultural mindset changes that would have to take hold for that to happen on a significant sample size is astronomical from a statistical standpoint
I personally can’t believe that people have shifted their basic core motivations and behaviors to that degree. If you said it was down 5% in a decade I would say we are making major progress. Down to only 28%, a 50% decline................ No way
A. I only get one buck tag and want my season to last. That's the principle reason.
B. A 2.5 has about 35% more meat than a 1.5. I'm sure this will be challenged and it's an observation from weighing what we get over the years and it's been a number of years since I did a 1.5.
Where I think it’s failing is the understanding of habitat. Let me clarify they I think the WDMA is 100% correct. I think the failing cones from the hunters.
Must guys can’t get past timber harvest. They talk like it’s a good thing. But, let the state it feds sell timber on grounds that they hunt and, it becomes a free bash session. In other words, thick young succession hides the deer more often then the hunter sees them. So, it’s a “The timber cutting run off all the deer”, kinda thing.
Therefore, I believe it’s influences belong in state wide management based solely on state statistics saying killing less bucks is a change that’s needed. In other words, it’s not a one shoe fits all. And, you can’t stockpile game. It’s more important in my mind to offer quality hunting habitat before any real changes to deer harvests are made. If you build it, they will come.
Rupe's Link
MAPR worked in Pennsylvania.
The time, money, and sweat invested will lead to burn-out if your neighbors are not on board. I’ll never practice it again.
JL's Link
""The effectiveness of an antler restriction designed to protect smaller-antlered young bucks within an age class can be a source of problems. Are the protected bucks the ones you want growing older? The answer depends on your harvest goals. Remember that just about any sample of older bucks will have larger antlers, on average, than a similar sample of younger bucks. So if you are interested only in harvesting deer with larger antlers, a simple antler restriction protecting younger bucks, even if they are of lower antler quality, can be effective. But if your goal is to improve antler quality in older age classes, such an antler restriction may not be the best long-term approach. Protecting smaller-antlered bucks and harvesting larger- antlered bucks within an age class reduces average antler size in older age classes – if antler development in younger bucks predicts future antler development. This is called “high grading” and is similar to removing better quality timber and leaving lower-quality timber for later harvest (Photo 1). High-grading effects can be documented by measuring antler size of surviving bucks at older ages. In contrast, population-level genetic effects take longer to develop and are more difficult to document because of a lack of reliable markers to gauge antler genetics within a population. We do know antler size and shape are heritable, so it does matter which bucks are breeding. Measuring the genetic effect at the population level, though, will be a limitation for the foreseeable future. Mississippi’s statewide 4-point antler restriction was established by legislative action in 1995. Although the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks had experimented with antler point restrictions on some of its public wildlife management areas (WMAs), they did not recommend creating the statewide 4-point antler restriction.""
WRT to your PGC link.....that document was out around 2008/9. I've looked at PA quite a bit over the years and have done a lot of number crunching. Anything the PGC puts out you have use with caution. They're in deep on MAPR's and if they said they didn't work it would make them look foolish. You can locate all of their hunter surveys on the PGC site. You can also get other reports containing information that allows you piece things together. I have the most recent 2016/17 hunter survey published in 2018. Since beginning MAPR's, PA hunter success rates on antlered bucks runs between 17% to 19%. That means 81% to 83% of respondents did not get a buck. Is that good?? I guess folks can decide that. Prior to MAPR's their success rates were quite a bit higher. The 2018 survey respondents report 23% got an antlerless deer......77% didn't get one. Is that good?? 66% of the respondents support APR's, 16% don't know and 19% do not like them. However.....hunter satisfaction with what they see and the experience always runs low. 39% were satisfied, 28% didn't know and 33% were dissatisfied with their hunting experience.
I have some crunched numbers in my files somewhere. Of their TOTAL buck harvest....it was something like 87-something percent are 2.5's and below. 3.5's and up make up the rest of the total buck harvest.....12% to 13%. 4.5's and up are a very, very small percentage of the total buck harvest. So in essence.....the 2.5's became the old 1.5's in the total buck harvest of those 17% - 19% who do harvest a buck. All of this info is public info and anyone can get it to study.
Keep in mind this is across both public and private land. Some folks swear by MAPR's....others not so. This is why you have to judge MAPR across the whole private/public spectrum and not just on private land. The things you can do on private land to grow big horns is illegal on public land and will get you a ticket. That's one of the reasons I do not like MAPR's.....there is no parity between private and public. The public land folks are at a disadvantage in that respect.
And that is exactly what I said. “ you have no idea of the genetic potential of a young buck”!
As to Pennsylvania there could be other factors in play you have avoided mentioning. First off there are less hunters, loss of habitat, loss of hunting permission, antler restrictions mean hunters have to be careful before shooting. But harvest numbers have actually increased.
https://apnews.com/article/e395dd3321f84f75927a1e88c3621131
And the age structure of harvested bucks has increased dramatically.
https://www.media.pa.gov/Pages/Game-Commission-Details.aspx?newsid=169
As to everyone knowing MARP don’t work and don’t want to admit it, I’m calling BS. That’s your opinion. I don’t think any biologists secretly believes that but are too cowardly to admit it.
when hunters start to think about wild animals as "my inventory" its harder to get cooperation from the neighbors. at least around here that kind of attitude doesn't get you far.
It took a while but nobody can convince me that it doesn’t work. These pics were taken the last three years.
This was after nearly 20 years of spikes and forks. So ask yourself, what changed?
There is an Area in Central Illinois where a good friend lives and hunts with a few Die Hards. They have a Herd that has NO BROW TINEs on their Mature Bucks. Been that way for years. Im talking ZERO growth on the Brows.
Too many here are missing the point. QDM is QUALITY DEER MANAGEMENT. Increasing the health of any deer herd is always a good thing. Growing more deer is good. Killing bigger older bucks is good.
There are a few on here who have given up on spending the extra time that it takes to improve your properties saying it's just not worth it. It's sad that your hunting experience is that bad.
None of my friends in Kansas, Nebraska or Iowa would ever make that statement, though. To a man, the more they work at it, the bigger bucks they kill and the more they enjoy the hunt. Not only that, we turn whitetail hunting into a year round adventure. Not just a few days in a tree stand every fall.
PA took an incredibly difficult position in 2002 to implement a massive sea-change in deer management. They were, and still are experiencing resistance by hunters who don't want to be restricted or feel it has not worked. My post above is to provide a small sliver of evidence as to why many, including me, believe it does in fact work, and it's a model that I feel should be considered in other states with poor deer quality.
The 50% plus figure has been undisputed for many many decades. Even higher has been the norm. Indisputable.
To have that reduced by 50% or more to only 28% is absolutely astounding if even close to accurate. For a national number that was consistent across the country essentially forever to see that kind of change is shocking.
The national change in human behavior and hunting demographics / cultural mindset changes that would have to take hold for that to happen on a significant sample size is astronomical from a statistical standpoint
I personally can’t believe that people have shifted their basic core motivations and behaviors to that degree. If you said it was down 5% in a decade I would say we are making major progress. 50%. No way
Are your neighbors selective with what they shoot? Are your results similar across the state due to newer regulations?
Is the .5 acre plot your only habitat improvement? Obviously pictures don’t lie, but just on the info you shared your results seem atypical, and I say that being a proponent of QDM.
EDIT: Did not see the part about the new regulations, my apology.
As for me, I like to help the wildlife and still just enjoy bow hunting for deer while not being concerned about measurements. To each their own!
By the time I went bow hunting there about 1983/4 there were a bunch of 2 and 3 points that were scary big. Real hogs and only bow hunters could hunt them. We didn't make a dent.
It's long gone now.
He he he he he. Great rebuttal, I’m still laughing. “Superbuck.” LMAO
Thanks, Molson!
In 1989 62% of bucks killed were 1 1/2 year old. In 2019 that number was 28%. Some states don't collect that data, many do. If you have 100,000 deer killed, you can survey only a few hundred hunters and have a very close number. Once you've surveyed the first 100 people, those numbers don't change much even if you survey 50,000. If 30 states collect data and they all trend the same way, you can safely assume the other 20 states will trend the same. That's the way statistics work.
Do your own unscientific survey. How many of your friends shoot yearling bucks. It's not that many, unless they are new hunters. As we get older, and most of us are getting up there, we would rather extend the hunt by not shooting the first legal buck that walks by. A few of the guys I talk to have killed 2 year old's to fill the freezer but I don't remember the last time one of my buddies shot a 1 year old.
I really encourage you to click on the link from the OP and look at these stats. With a little effort you can look up the stats from years back and see the trends. It's really interesting.
A lot of hunters won’t forfeit their single tag on a spike or forkhorn.
In contrast in states that have multiple buck tags not much thought goes into first or maybe second buck if you have a 3rd buck tag. Them they usually “trophy hunt” with last tag until they discover the trophies are few and far between because everyone else is doing the same thing and majority of bucks never get the chance to teach maturity
The idea of QDM is to kill as few bucks before maturity as possible. Let natural selection and mortality take what hunters are legislated not to. To leave a higher age structure of deer for remaining hunters
It’s one size all basis is great if you are a landowner participating in habitat improvements. However, It sucks when you apply it to the average hunter that has no where to hunt except public land
Land management in a lot of states, on grounds open to public use, has long drifted away from practices favoring qdm habitat principles. So, applying it to those areas doesn’t make sense for revenue or hunter interests.
I’m not being silly or calling anyone out. But, let’s be realistic. There are reasons landowners generally are on board with the qdm mindset. And, hunters hunting public ground just want to kill a deer.
QDM favors those who have control over their property and generally speaking, at the sacrifice to those who don’t. Because most state agencies aren’t staffed to micro manage a deer herd. They do the best they can with what they got.
So, you are always going to have those on both sides of the fence. The only question remains is the science of harvest data supporting your claims. That should be the determination. And, nothing else.
also could be the Genetically modified Corn that Pat has piled up for the deer finally kicked the Horn growth into gear. Leopards cant change their spots.. or
I’m also confused. Several years ago, studies showed WV buck harvest structure better then most of the country. I don’t know how that can be if we are killing more legislatively defined bucks, then does. As you guys constantly suggest. I don’t know where that claim is coming from. I’ve never found that info. If it’s there, then we’ve got a statistical problem. And, we need to get that fixed. So, our managers can make the best decision. Not one that satisfies a popular idea.
Anyways, I know where you stand. You know where I stand. I’m all for growing as healthy a herd as possible. What I’m not on board with is doing something that changes a very successful management program. Any where. Especially one that has harvest quotas nearly as high as any state in the union. Has the largest bow hunting only zone in the lower 48. And, continually, year in and year out producing the quality of deer we do, statewide. Unless the DNR decides it’s needed for the betterment of herd longevity and health.
I want to kill as big a buck as anyone. I want to hunt with multiple weapons. I want what everyone wants. Just like you, I want to believe my desires are supported by something substantial. But, the truth is, Currently, There is likely no right or wrong on a macro level concerning any states situation.
Kip Adams spoke at a Commission meeting a little over a year ago and with the data provided he said that we weren’t killing enough does in relation to the number of bucks that we kill.
The buck kill to doe kill is even higher in the 4 bow counties. There are several areas that are at or above carrying capacity in the 4 counties . There are other areas that are well below carrying capacity. Pretty much all of Mingo county is below carrying capacity. Other areas around Twin Falls and Chief logan is above carrying capacity. That is not good for the herd in the long run . 25 years ago big mature bucks were being killed around Twin Falls every year, now not so much.
A lot of it has to do with hunters going there from in state and out of state. They’re not going there to kill a doe
Good lawd!!!!
I know several guys who would have their massive 6 pts yanked from a P & Y recordbook if MAPR would have been in place (typically 3-4 points on a side). Plus doesn't take into account new or youth hunters who are just fine with a spike or forkhorn.
I have been very selective hunting what is a basic archery only area (public land), haven't shot a small buck in years. Many still don't grow bigger as they are taken down by old man winter, wolves, coyotes, et. al. My choice not to shot smaller ones, I'd hate to have that choice taken away by someone who doesn't understand the area. If I want to practice QDM fine don't force it on everyone else.
