Illinois Outdoors at PrairiestateOutdoors.com
RulesIllinois Outdoors at PrairiestateOutdoors.com

Prairie State Outdoors Categories

Top Story :: Opinion :: Illinois Outdoor News :: Fishing News :: Hunting News :: Birding News :: Nature Stories :: Miscellaneous News :: Fishing :: Big Fish Fridays :: Big Fish Stories :: State Fishing Reports :: Other Fishing Reports :: Fishing Tips, Tactics & Tales :: Where to Fish :: Fishing Calendar :: Hunting :: Hunting Reports :: Hunting Tips, Tactics & Tales :: Where to Hunt :: Tales from the Timber :: Turkey Tales :: Hunting Calendar :: Big Game Stories :: Nature and Birding :: Birding Bits :: Nature Newsbits :: Critter Corner :: Birding Calendar :: Stargazing :: In the Wild :: Miscellaneous Reports and Shorts :: Links :: Hunting Links :: Birding Links :: Video ::

Big Buck Stories

1960s :: 1980s :: 1991-92 :: 1992-93 :: 1993-94 :: 1994-95 :: 1995-96 :: 1997-98 :: 1998-99 :: 1999-2000 :: 2000-01 :: 2001-02 :: 2003-04 :: 2004-05 :: 2005-06 :: 2006-07 :: 2007-08 :: 2008-09 :: 2009-10 :: 2010-11 :: 2011-12 :: 2012-13 ::

Scattershooting

Flathead's Picture of the Week :: Big bucks :: Birdwatching :: Cougars :: Dogs :: Critters :: Fishing :: Asian carp :: Bass :: Catfish :: Crappie :: Ice :: Muskie :: Humor :: Hunting :: Deer :: Ducks :: Geese :: Turkey :: Upland game :: Misc. :: Mushrooms :: Open Blog Thursday :: Picture A Day 2010 :: Plants and trees :: Politics :: Prairie :: Scattershooting :: Tales from the Trail Cams :: Wild Things ::


Print

Illinois not tops in QDMA deer report

January 25, 2010 at 08:11 AM

While Illinois continues to produce plenty of big bucks each hunting season, the Prairie State doesn’t rank all that well in the latest assessment by the Quality Deer Management Association.

Writes QDMA:

“In discussions about the ‘I’ states, Indiana often takes a back seat to neighboring Illinois and Iowa, but the Hoosier state outranked them in our analysis.”

In assessing deer management through the 2008 season, QDMA did not rank Illinois in the top five in the Midwest,Illinois hunting and fishing opting instead for: 1. Kansas, 2. Missouri, 3. Indiana, 4. Nebraska, 5. Wisconsin.

Analysis was based on how well a state was achieving desired deer population levels, what percentage of the harvest was 1.5-year-old bucks or 3.5-year-old bucks and what percentage was antlerless deer. QDMA explains its rankings as follows:

(The) rating system is meant to commend states that are doing well, rather than point a finger at states ranking lower. It’s also an arbitrary system, but one that addresses QDM principles. Our rating system used four variables:

1) percentage of a state’s WMUs at the desired deer goals
2) percentage of 2008 antlered buck harvest that was 1.5 years old
3) percentage of 2008 antlered buck harvest that was 3.5 years or older
4) percentage of 2008 total harvest that was antlerless deer

Number 1 above is an index to the percentage of a state’s WMUs where the deer herd is in balance with the habitat. Higher percentages are obviously preferred over lower numbers.

Numbers 2 and 3 are indices to having a balanced age structure for bucks. The QDMA promotes protecting the majority of yearling bucks (1.5 years old), so states with lower percentages of yearlings ranked higher than those with higher percentages. Conversely, states with higher percentages of 3.5 years and older bucks ranked above those with lower numbers.

Number 4 is an index to having a balanced adult sex ratio, and in many cases, to balancing the deer herd with the habitat. Higher percentages for this variable are generally preferred over lower numbers.

Click here to see the full report.

 

 

Your CommentsComments :: Terms :: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Illinois will never score well with QDMA as they no longer collect data on the “age” of antlered animals.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 01:38 PM

Well then why are you supposed to give a measurement of the antler circumference and the length of eye to nostril then? I assumed this was for some age determination.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 03:39 PM

Antler length/circumference can be dependent on a number of variables, not just age.
I have always assumed that the length of eye to nostril was used in some way to determine age. I have never read anything as to the accuracy of such measurements. Maybe it is accurate….Maybe it isn’t.

I question how “accurate” self reporting data can be. I would not be surprised if many hunters just “estimate” the measurement when self reporting.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 03:51 PM

Circumference and Nose Length only determine a fawn from an “adult”-That’s all they get/want-“Accurate”???????? Who Knows-

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 04:24 PM

This just goes back to the basic data collected at a deer check station.  Inspect the teeth and age the deer.  Collect a tooth from a certain percentage of individual deer to analyze the “annular” rings to ascertain the correct age.  Apply that to your sample and presto, you have the data you need to manage the herd correctly.  Or,not….........let hunters call in over the phone and internet and collect data, guestimate the age of the bucks being killed, and manage your herd accordingly.  Hey it’s cheaper that way.  Who cares if the “#1 White-tail State in the U.S.” deer management program is ranked at the bottom of the pile by QDMA. It doesn’t change the fact that 25% of the Boone & Crockett entries in the last ten years are from the State of Illinois.  Of course, the QDMA guys are looking beyond their noses and projecting what the quality of the herd is going to be in the future, not what it has been in the past.  As well they should.  Remember 94% of land in Illinois is in private hands…..that means that the management of the Illinois herd is in private hands.  So, I’m not sure that the rating by QDMA is either warranted or justified.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 05:11 PM

Hey maybe not being listed so high will help the people in here who dont want non residents to hunt. maybe if were listed lower in the QDMA then people will go elsewhere and hour herds will get massive and every buck will be a trophy worthy of hanging on any outhouse wall

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 05:39 PM

hour=our just a typo not a sign of my intellect

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 05:40 PM

I agree Big D, seems like alot of questions towards this report. Information N/A on numbers doesnt seem to help the cause. Johnh, Im not sure that bringing in the converstations from other threads that the site closed, is in the best interest of talking about this situation. I’m not out to pick fights but I like to read positive feedback.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 05:59 PM

sheesh i thought that was positive. i wasnt trying to rehash arguements but rather trying to state how a low ranking in the QDMA might help the herd overall and maybe keep some non wanted people out of here

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 06:04 PM

QDMA, a non-profit, educational organization,  yes, non-profit, educational organization tries to help people, and people are bashing them!!!! QDMA is trying to help!!

  Several states went to the online network/license system before Illinois did, 4 years ago. I guided hunts in Kansas 5 years ago; the first year Kansas went to the same system, and others have changed since. So what I’m saying is we have the same date for the most part!! You can’t say, we don’t know the ages of bucks shot!! Most states are going to the same system. So they are comparing similar data.
  This just shows people, ALL WE HAVE IS POTENTIAL in Illinois!! It’s up to you to make a difference!! Look at Indiana; they will surpass us if we don’t make changes!! The best thing was, the blessing in disguise …. the corn in late, keeping all the 3.5 year olds 150s+ that made it despite the hunters’ best efforts, Making for hopefully many nice mature deer next year.    But in Indiana where you can only shot 1 buck you don’t get people just shooting bucks because they can, “well I got 2 tags ill just shoot this buck and save my other tag for a good buck!” I know people shoot 3 bucks or more.. ” oh my dad has a tag”, so they shoot another buck, which is a. illegal and b. they wonder why there’s no mature bucks, well you just shot 3 bucks off 1 farm, prolly all under 3.5… you just think, why there’s now big ones?!??! …..Their dead you killed them, when they were young!
  You laugh!!! but I hear it all the time. people are mad their not seeing mature deer on their farms, but they aren’t doing what they need to do!!
I don’t know about you, but I think Illinois should be #1 deer state in the world, hands down!!! But we will never see that unless the hunters change!! You can’t blame the DNR or anyone but yourselves…. Ignorance is not an excuse; a kid can understand deer management, people should be taking this opportunity to spend time with family and friends and teach our kids about this!! If you don’t know where to look, Contact me anytime!! I would love to talk; I have a seminar coming up!! At Elmwood March 6, it’s a Saturday @ 3.

  Now BigD, I care that Illinois is in the bottom, we have the most potential but are doing nothing about it!!!!  because managing a deer herd takes time. most people wont see the problem until its too late!! And I’m telling you 25% it should be a lot more!!!! AND “Of course, the QDMA guys are looking beyond their noses and projecting what the quality of the herd is going to be in the future, not what it has been in the past. “   what do you want them to do?!?? that’s their job, we can easily see what it had been in the past!! (you have to have #’s to compare!!)
I’m willing to bet they took at the past and present and make en educated guess at the future.. We can change the future we cant chance the past!!

FoodplotPHIL

Posted by food plot phil on 01/25 at 06:34 PM

i think the whole QDMA is a crock really, all i see on there page is them trying to sell stuff, just like every other organization that uses conservation and such as a front to sell either magazines or addspace. if it is so non profit why does the QDMA home page have a shopping cart on the top of the page? go figure,no wonder phil pushes the QDMA in every post. even if it was legit it wouldnt be the answer to everything yet he really pushes it as the end all to everythng. QDMA is a crock and you heard it hear first, just another way of people trying to make a buck off our bucks

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 07:28 PM

guess illinois didnt donate enough to get a high ranking eh?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 07:31 PM

If QDMA was such a “crock” then how can you explain how it has helped management practices across the United States and Canada? If your not manageing then your not hunting, and shouldnt be hunting. Everyone has to make there money to function, nothings free, and its not cheap to run something that is as expanded as QDMA, their earnings go towards the function of their Association. You show me another association that is so informational and helpful towards the deer herds. Who knows, maybe you have created an association that does a better job? Cudos to Phil, on sticking up for something, and an association that wants to help.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 07:56 PM

GoHunt88, you’re correct. Even St.Judes accept money but they are most definatey a non-profit organization. It takes money to keep organizations running.

Posted by Marc Anthony on 01/25 at 08:23 PM

Its no shock why we are ranked low.  If we werent Last i would be shocked.  We have 0 management here except for a few scattered land owners.  The state makes the fewest decisions focusing on a quality deer herd than ANY state.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 08:36 PM

just a little devil in the details..on page 7 in the 2010 report..I find IN and IL basically tied, if not in favor of IL.  We have more units in ‘population control’.  Same percent for 1.5 year olds and antlerless harvest.  That leaves the trophy rank.

Bear with me…If our harvest average for antlerless is the same, and our 1.5 ratio is the same, I think that means we are over penalized for not aging our harvest.  So not knowing our 3.5 harvest rate takes us down - a lot.  Makes me think the scoring is weighted to 3.5 category and not Column 1 like indicated.

Trying to take a wild guess at the risk of publishing(‘vacuus numeros’)...I would say that if 59 percent of the IL buck harvest is not 1.5 but older, and if you guess 40 percent of the buck harves is 2.5 year olds(that would equal IN’s 20 percent 3.5 or better).  I think we are as good as Indiana or even better. 

I just read IN’s deer seasons.  They run longer for gun and muzzle(16 days each - if I can remember that long).  Seem as liberal for bow.  One big difference is one antlered deer per year, except special management units/areas.  They do make you make up your mind in buying your permits.  None of this you can sit on an E/S and use it in LWS opportunities there.  But in IL’s DNR defense, using QDMA numbers seems to make a case that the seasons here are doing just fine.  The report tells me we need to age our harvest better if we truly want a better QDMA score.  Well at least to beat the Hoosiers anyway…

QDMA is certainly not a crock…Its a force…

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 08:44 PM

If you read the report in its entirety, you find an exception for Illinois - Johnh’s land is managed to
perfection - the guy can do no wrong and help nobody in return!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 09:59 PM

The link provides a very comprehensive report.  While I am not agreeing with every part, it certainly is worth one’s time.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 10:01 PM

Johnh, QDMA has to sell stuff; most of it is educational stuff to help people manage deer, and yes they have t-shirts and apparel, videos, etc.!!
  NOW THEN, if you are trying to get a rise out of me, which I think you are, then you SHOULD be kicked off this site, this site isn’t your playground. This site is an opportunity for us to voice our educated opinions, not play around!!! I am trying to learn from people, and help Illinois!!!! And johnh I haven’t learned much from you.
  This just tells us about you, you looked at the page with a negative mindset!! You didn’t look, and try to educate yourself!! 
  Or, if you truly think that QDMA is a crock, read about it, seek out the facts! You seem like a smart man, and if you still think it’s a crock, hey you are entitled to your opinion!  Johnh I hope the best for you!! Have a great day

FoodplotPHIL

Posted by food plot phil on 01/25 at 11:06 PM

virtualsniper

hey i would like to know what parts you dont agree with?? just curious, i always like hearing educated opinions!! thanks

foodplotPHIL

Posted by food plot phil on 01/25 at 11:09 PM

st judes doesnt have a big ole shopping cart on its front page or sell 1,000 dollar memberships or qdma credit cards, its just a club to get money like BASS or NAFC which are owned by ad adjencies. im sure the owners of QDMA are pulling down a hefty salary.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 11:43 PM

food plot phil, your not trying to help illinois your trying to get more people to join your club and pay 1 grand for membership so they can get a 5 dollar gun sling and a pin. that 1000 dollars somepays for membership doesnt go anywhere but in the owners pocket since your so called association basically makes the government pay for rehabing the land or better yet outfitting the land so it is better for hunting.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 11:49 PM

phil your branch of the QDMA is less then 2 years old the deer here have done fine without you and your hunting club which is all the QDMA is. everything on there sight and about the club is about hunting not managing the deer. hunting should be a tool of management not the goal of managment and for you to suggest the QDMA is more then a hunting club is shameful cause trust me i know better, been there done that.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/25 at 11:56 PM

Phil: “The QDMA guys are looking beyond their noses and projecting what the quality of the herd is going to be in the future, not what it has been in the past.  As well they should.”  The QDMA was originally formed by various State’s deer biologists to collect and disseminate data gathered by various State wildlife Divisions on deer biology, research, and deer management.  It has only been fairly recently, that the organization has opened up to anyone interested in deer management.  I have been a practicing member of QDMA for several years, and have seen with my own eyes what a little careful management can do on deer properties.  The problem with managing deer on private properties is two-fold.  You cannot control what your neighbors do on their property, and, two, you have very little control over where the deer are likely to wander.  So you try and get your neighbors to join you in forming a cooperative deer management area so that they also practice quality deer management.  Which may include: improving grassland and forest habitats, planting year around food plots to improve nutrition for lactating does as well as exhausted bucks and pregnant does at the end of the rut season, modifying your hunting on your managed properties by passing on the 1.5 and 2.5 year old bucks so that age classes can be maintained and mature deer can be harvested, and last but not least, doe harvest to maintain population control.  It only takes two to three years before you see major changes in what you see in the hunting woods. A quality deer herd is based upon four things: genetics, nutrition, habitat quality, and hunting for population control.  Al Brothers, a noted deer biologist from Texas put it best when he said: “Quality deer management involves quality bucks, does, and fawns, quality habitat, and thus quality hunting experiences.” How could anyone be against that and maintain that they are a hunter, sportsman, or conservationist?  My point was that QDM is lost on our existing Statewide deer management program.  The report heralds Mississippi as the up and coming deer management State, and cites several examples of forward thinking in their Statewide deer management program.  This is great for the hunters in Mississippi and all of the U.S., if enough States get there deer herds under quality management, it will take some of the pressure off of Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Kansas, Missouri, Indiana, and Kentucky.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 12:35 AM

First you have no idea my heart condition on this!! I don’t care if anyone joins QDMA, I want people to be educated!! It’s not my fault some people don’t seek the truth…so I bring it to them!!  And it’s only like $30, not $1000!!! I am a volunteer, I do this to help!! I’m a wildlife consultant johnH, so yeah I use QDM principles quit a bit!!  You assume too much… tell me facts; don’t bash what you don’t know!!! What QDMA says is the truth, as far a deer management goes, I know!! I have seen it!! I have visited the king ranch, I’ve seen farms all over the country; I have worked for outfitters and hunting clubs!!! This is what I study deer, and I am still learning!!! 
  Before you bash them, read and understand what they are talking about, all you have, are stereotypes, give me something….stop reaching in the dark for something!  I could talk crap about you now, but what does that prove… nothing, I don’t know you, or what you’re about, that’s not me anyways.
I’m not saying you have to believe in everything QDMA says… yeah its backed by scientific studies and research, but you are entitled to your own opinion.
foodplotPHIL

Posted by food plot phil on 01/26 at 12:39 AM

Phil, i would stop conversation with him now before he posts your name on the internet and threatens you or sends you nasty emails.  Anyone that cares about deer and the future of hunting that talks to him about 5 minutes gets so mad they cant see straight for a week…

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 12:55 AM

“All royalties from sales will be donated to the Quality Deer Management
Association, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting hunter education, proper
deer management, and hunter ethics”

What does that nonprofit organization line there mean john? And why do i find 150 articles relating to them in peer reviewed research engines if what they do is garbage?  Your the one who makes up what you want.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 01:32 AM

The Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) is a non-profit wildlife conservation organization dedicated… 

This is from their own website.  So you are saying they are lying about everything and doing it all for money.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 01:35 AM

yeah all proceeds are donated to there own organization..duhhhh very simple way of saying they keep all the money they get from any crap they sell. im saying what there doing is based on money not conservation. if it was about conservation they wouldnt mention hunters 2 times in the sentence you posted. “a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting hunter education, proper
deer management, and hunter ethics? that states right there its all about the hunter and not the deer. they want to manage deer for the hunt not for the healt of the deer itself

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 01:46 AM

its just a artistic way of saying there a hunting club and if they are donating all the money back to themselves what are they using it on besides hunting trips to africa for there leaders?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 01:48 AM

John, thats not even their book.  Any explaination to you is pointless… Phil good luck

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 02:06 AM

What? You mean to tell me that using DVAs as our primary management driver is not QDM?  I’m befuddled. LOL.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 06:51 AM

Always saying he has a First Amendment right that covers his right to free speech…......... some days I wish he would read down a little more to the Fifth Amendment. “You have a right to remain silent, if you give up that right to remain silent you will annoy everyone around you”.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 06:59 AM

Boys and girls johnboy just likes pulling most of our chains. I’ll bet when he posts he sits back and giggles. One thing for sure we all want a good deer herd So like Rodney King said, can’t just get along.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 08:28 AM

Phil - I am new to QDMA - I am finding it informative and useful.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 08:32 AM

like i stated before, the deer have done fine before these fancy schmancy clubs with there 1000 dollar memberships and so called scientists and there outfitting planners, there is no need for these charltons and i feel sorry if any of you are duped into it

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 08:40 AM

thanks for your positive comments!! you cant please everyone!! the info is out there!! do with it what you like! hopefully to help your deer herd!!have a great day!!
foodplotPHIL

Posted by food plot phil on 01/26 at 10:45 AM

illinois bone, let me get this straight, you which there were less big deer so that there would actually be more big deer?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 10:53 AM

bone, any hope on that is OVER.  The cat is out of the bag. You can cover up p and y and boone numbers and get bad grades fromm qdma but you cant cover up this site and others like it.  Nor can you shut down all magazines.  Hell just today i checked my facebook and had a buddy from Kansas send me a link to a deer on this very site.  I guess he didnt know i was on it.  And he is far from a hardcore deer hunter.  And as long as there are residents doing management/habitat improvement there will be some world class deer taken in illinois.  There really is no hope left.  If our states population drops alot, you can bet it will be on land the residents are hunting since we are herded into smaller and small tracts, while outfitters are left unaffected.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 02:49 PM

Thanks for that reminder Colonel-IBC- Here, I’ll take some pressure off IL. for ya>—On a County spectrum- Probably no where in the midwest,is the principals of QDMA practiced more than Buffalo County WI> Where land owners basicly dropped allowing their DNR to call the shots, and took matters into their own hands- And how does Buffalo county rank in North America from current BnC numbers-By County??

Typical entries-Above the 170” Min.-2005 into 2010

                  Number of entries

#1-Buffalo county WI           15
#2-Maverick county TX           10
#3-Trempaleau county WI         10
#4-Dubuque county IA           8
#5-Shawano county WI           8
#6-Fillmore county MN           7
#7-Kleberg county TX           7
#8-Pepin county WI             7
#9-Dimmit county TX             6
#10-JoDaviess county IL.        6

And when we talk about people not entering animals, that averages out when comparing counties or states-as in this case- There you have it! TW

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 05:01 PM

QDMA is an absolute JOKE. It’s a freakin joke. Deer were doing just fine in my area before QDMA came here. QDMA is just a organization for trophy hunters who claim to “manage” the herd.  I made the mistake a while back of going to a local QDMA dinner that cost $50 bucks per couple and I felt like I was at an American Idol show with all the posers walking around.


Not long before that, I actually was approached to interview for a QDMA sales job. The job was to go around to communities and try to get QDMA established, to help generate revenues to QDMA. Its a scam. Do you own part on your own land and everything will take care of itself.

You seriously have to be a dorky hunter to join QDMA. You are the type of hunter that is sooo anal about “am i wearing the right camo pattern, did i approach my stand in the correct direction, did someone fart in my woods within 2 weeks before bow season, did the neighbor drive his tractor past my stand last night and thats why there are no deer here today?” ...... you all know the type…..FREAKING DORKS!!!!!!!!!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 05:11 PM

All I can say is,“Jeeesh!” If you have ever passed a small deer(i.e doe, fawn, buck..) in favor of shooting a older deer, then you are practicing QDM. I really enjoy the science and research being done on the whitetail. That is why I joined QDMA. The best publication by far on deer.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 06:50 PM

Man Lungbuster, I think you pretty much copy and pasted everything that johnh has written in here. So what your saying is that the deer herd is so much worse off with QDMA? That makes sense, kinda like having a hospital without doctors? I mean they sure don’t keep a hospital open do they? The deer herds actually were not in good shape 30 years ago, in fact it was rare to see a deer and people came from miles to look at deer tracks. Without oil a engine wont run and without proper manangement and a database for proper management we wont have a deer herd. Fight with me or not, we ignore the herd and dont look for answers through those that give them out we wont have a deer herd. For you to come on here and say that people that try to make a difference in the quality of deer herds are “dorks”, just goes to show how uninformed you really are. Believe what you want, preach alot less to a crowd that supports QDMA.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 08:41 PM

IBC- I Agree with you to an extent- You Mention PnY qualifiers-and 140’s in your above posts-I feel you are right-Many no longer get entered- But I’m quoting BnC all-time record book bucks over 170” net typ—As you probably know, I’ve been around the antler measuring world a long time and can tell you, not very many animals that size go under the radar- they are few and far between to begin with- as the numbers from 5 years above shows-A Very high percentage go into BnC-I do believe you can get an “average” entry rate when comparing whole counties to county- or state to state- Deer Hunters are for the most part- the same-

I’m not saying that most of the landowners in Buffalo county are in QDMA, but I am familiar with landowners there, and as I stated it above, they practice the pricipals of it.

Almost every outfitter where I live claims to do the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Now Do you believe that’s true???!!!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 08:49 PM

After reading this report and seeing the obvious effort to educate and inform, I say THANKS.
Another thank you is order to those dedicating their profession to deer biology and keeping the herd healthy (for eating).
Another thank you to this site for trying to keep the DNR mission focused.

After reading this report, I certainly do not view QDMA as a crock.
But I do not agree with the complete message.

Basically I do not agree with the notion that antler management is any indicator of herd
health.  I fail to see the importance of a 3.5 year over a 2.5 year old, etc.
The genetics of the buck do not change.  As soon as the buck can breed, it’s mature.
I do not see a deer for its antlers or potential growth. 
Waiting until the peak of antler growth doesn’t equate to herd health to me.
 
With dispersal and free ranging animals, small tract management is hardly convincing as effective.
But the report has the answer to that.  Cooperatives…The force is hard to resist.
But some seem to favor the alternative of lets get the DNR to force this cooperation through code.
Moving the A/O season to September is prime example.

This report talks about dispersal with the goal of limiting it.  I thought mixing the gene pool,
was a good thing nature did.  Here it seems a problem.  I read it as I cannot have that buck I am
managing wander off.  This means everyone has to be on the same page, if this is truly to work.

I cannot help but think some in IL and those crafting the QDMA message are making a problem
where one does not exist.  Deer populations, I have read, are more plentiful now then when the early settlers arrived.
How can anyone believe the population is on the edge of collapse.
IL doesn’t have a predator problem, nor typical severe winters.
What should the population be?  That is the nut of deer management.
QDMA dismisses it in my opinion.

If we have a problem, it is one of that is created of success. 
It should be described as problem anyone would love to have.  A true quality problem.
Deer are plentiful, healthy and have great agriculture food base to grow.
The deer are living it up.  The problem is now let’s make every deer an old giant. 
Shame on me or you for shooting a young buck.

For the nut of the management plan, page 71 kind of lets the air out of the balloon.

Whatever your goal is in regards to deer; whether that be hunting, managing, advocating, capitalizing or
even exploiting, as the wise Sponge Bob says, ‘Good Luck with that.’

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 09:16 PM

Jeff, (aka Murdy), does your last post make you a cheese head.  I confess, I am..but from even further north..

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 09:26 PM

Understood-Very tactfully put Murdy2020-That’s True with a lot of things in life- Even with how to interact with people in Chat room sites like this one-

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 09:28 PM

and VS- You are correct-and also well put! Over all herd Health is not the same as a varying age structure in the herd-completetly different-But you can have both!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 09:35 PM

Thanks, TW.  Just offering my view.

Perhaps I am getting tired, but I thought I saw someone said something regarding the cure for cancer.  me hopes, there isn’t a need for 24/7 monitoring, but I can truly understand it.  Was it just me, but yesterday I saw a new story about 200k deer harvested, but can no longer readily see it.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 10:06 PM

Nah VS, you were just dreaming that! HeeHee!

Can’t help ya on the 200k story buddy!

LAMPE??

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 01/26 at 10:12 PM

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

Comment Area Pool Rules

  1. Read our Terms of Service.
  2. You must be a member. :: Register here :: Log In
  3. Keep it clean.
  4. Stay on topic.
  5. Be civil, honest and accurate.
  6. .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Log In

Register as a new member

Next entry: Ind. hunters took 6,300 honkers last Feb.

Previous entry: Ice anglers hope for more cold

Log Out

RSS & Atom Feeds

Prairie State Outdoors
PSO on Facebook
Promote Your Page Too

News Archives

January 2020
S M T W T F S
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Copyright © 2007-2014 GateHouse Media, Inc.
Some Rights Reserved
Original content available for non-commercial use
under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
Creative Commons