fairchaser
Well-Known Member
BSK said:
BSK, what is the biggest difference in what Ames does and QDM as it is defined? It seems they are seeking to meet the objectives of QDM.
Deer Hunting Ames Plantation
- Thread starter 280longshot
- Start date
BSK, what is the biggest difference in what Ames does and QDM as it is defined? It seems they are seeking to meet the objectives of QDM.
BSK
Well-Known Member
fairchaser,
What are the goals of Ames? To produce large-antlered mature bucks. That's much closer to the definition of Trophy Management than QDM. If you have antler size as a harvest criteria--especially high antler requirements like Ames--you are practicing more Trophy Management than Quality Management. The buck harvest guidelines of Quality Management are simply to protect yearling and SOME 2 1/2 year-old bucks. That isn't the criteria for Ames.
What are the goals of Ames? To produce large-antlered mature bucks. That's much closer to the definition of Trophy Management than QDM. If you have antler size as a harvest criteria--especially high antler requirements like Ames--you are practicing more Trophy Management than Quality Management. The buck harvest guidelines of Quality Management are simply to protect yearling and SOME 2 1/2 year-old bucks. That isn't the criteria for Ames.
fairchaser
Well-Known Member
BSK said:
The goals of Ames as I understand them include:
Hunter satisfaction.
Protect younger age class bucks primarily 1 and 2 year old bucks.
Control the buck to doe ratio through harvest of a specific number of does.
Maintain a healthy deer herd.
The method they have chosen to protect younger age class bucks is a minimum B&C score or 4.5 years old.
They realize that some younger bucks will be harvested through error or because they are exceptional bucks in the top of their antler class for their age. For the most part, 1 and 2 year old bucks are protected.
BSK
Well-Known Member
fairchaser said:
"Protect younger age class bucks primarily 1 and 2 year old bucks."
That is BY NO MEANS their goal. Their goal is bucks grossing 125+ (a score that probably 50% of mature bucks won't reach) and/or bucks 4 1/2+. That is NOT QDM. That is also no true Trophy Management either, but it is MUCH closer to Trophy Management than Quality Management.
woodsman87
Well-Known Member
I have no means in joining Ames, too far and too expensive. But I have enjoyed reading this thread and learned alot about Ames. I never really knew what it was until I read this entire thread.
fairchaser
Well-Known Member
BSK said:
Well you need to come to their meetings is all I can say. You may disagree with their methodology for protecting younger age classes. Some criteria must be used. If you believe their goal is simply trophy management, then I would expect their minimum scores to continue to increase. But, I believe they will never increase past 125. This was their ultimate goal when they started with a 110 minimum. It took several years to get there. Only time will tell if it goes down but it will never increase. I hope I don't have to eat my words.
BSK
Well-Known Member
fairchaser,
I know some of the biologists who have worked with Ames to develop their rules. I agree with their attempt to create something special with Ames, but I STRONGLY and COMPLETELY DISAGREE with anyone who says Ames is just practicing QDM. They are not. They are practicing a modified version of Trophy Management.
I know some of the biologists who have worked with Ames to develop their rules. I agree with their attempt to create something special with Ames, but I STRONGLY and COMPLETELY DISAGREE with anyone who says Ames is just practicing QDM. They are not. They are practicing a modified version of Trophy Management.
fairchaser
Well-Known Member
BSK said:
BSK,
I have been to 5 meetings at Ames including this last meeting where Kip Adams of QDMA spoke. Our local chapter of QDMA presented at Ames last fall which I also attended. I have never seen any discontent or differences of opinions between the groups. All I have heard have been praises of how Ames is the posture child for QDM. No doubt Ames management and biologists have their own ideas on how to implement QDM. Every situation is unique. As I understand it, QDM are goals and guidelines, not hard and fast rules.
To be honest, I don't care what they call it. Trophy management, QDM. But, I can tell you they would be offended because they preach QDM in and through their rules. In fact rule 19 states as follows:
Consistently follow and exceed game management needs and specifications to maintain a sense of trust among fellow hunters and the goals of QDM.
The thing that bothers me is that you are saying they are being dishonest.
Mike Belt
Well-Known Member
It could also be said that Ames is practicing a modified version of QDM. The only difference in the QDM and TDM at Ames is a restriction on size and age limits on the buck segment. Otherwise the goals are the same. The only disagreement I have with our past biologist guest speakers is their estimate of our average buck sizes. I think they're 5-8 inches over what we actually average (based on living and dead bucks).
fairchaser
Well-Known Member
Mike Belt said:
I agree Mike. I don't know where they get their stats but I think they are high on their average score per age class. I think they are basing their numbers on harvested bucks. Otherwise, how would they know? They aren't netting them that I know of.
Mike Belt
Well-Known Member
I don't really see how ANY inventory on the deer at Ames could be done let alone the more solitary buck segment. That includes ANY camera, headlight, or thermal imaging. There are just too many too big inaccessible places that provide the ultimate cover for deer. I also don't think there's a predictable accurate way to project an "average" size of our buck population aside from dead deer checked in.
BSK
Well-Known Member
fairchaser,
First let me clearly state I have MAJOR issues with what many in the QDMA leadership are pushing the QDMA to become. In my opinion, once the organization turned over much of its board membership to people in the hunting industry--those who make their livings selling hunting gear--the QDMA has drifted strongly towards just another "monster buck" organization. I realize why they did this (financial), but I STRONGLY disagree with the shift in emphasis and education (a discontent many early members and supporters of the organization have voiced to the leadership). And I will say that a few early members still in leadership roles are trying to keep the organization walking the shaky line between what the organization used to stand for and what it is becoming, such as Lindsay Thomas, Jr., the editor of Quality Whitetails, who I believe does a fantastic job trying to balance the dissenting voices against the financial needs and direction of the organization. However, I think it's a losing battle. Big "bucks" always win out.
So with that in mind, knowing I used to be a major supporter of the organization--someone who has conducted more public meetings and talks at hunting shows for the QDMA, and written more articles for their magazine, than I can count, let me say that I have some major disagreements with those who currently represent the organization. I will gladly debate with Kip Adams or anyone else from the organization, including the president Brian Murphy, as to whether Ames is closer to Quality or Trophy Management. The answer is simple. If the goal of a program is to produce large-antlered mature bucks, as Ames is, it is far closer to Trophy Management than Quality Management. If your buck harvest criteria involves an antler score that many (if not the majority) of mature bucks in the area won't reach, you're practicing more Trophy Management than Quality Management.
Quality Deer Management's biological goals are simple:
Produce a more natural buck age structure
Produce a more natural adult sex ratio
Keep the deer density well within the biological and social restrictions of the habitat
Two of those goals (density and sex ratio) are primarily achieved through does harvests. The first goal--buck age structure--is achieved through protecting the youngest age-classes of bucks. From the QDMA's own website:
"Quality Deer Management (QDM) is a management philosophy/practice that unites landowners, hunters, and managers in a common goal of producing biologically and socially balanced deer herds within existing environmental, social, and legal constraints. This approach typically involves the protection of young bucks (yearlings and some 2.5 year-olds) combined with an adequate harvest of female deer to maintain a healthy population in balance with existing habitat conditions and landowner desires"
Once again, the buck harvest goals involve the "protection of young bucks (yearlings and SOME 2.5 year-olds)." That is NOT what Ames is doing. Ames has buck harvest goals that will protect all yearling, 2 1/2s, and most 3 1/2s from harvest, and involves an antler restriction intended to only allow the largest antlered bucks to be harvested. That is NOT QDM. As I posted before, that is not true Trophy Management either, but it is much closer to Trophy Management than Quality Management.
Let me state emphatically (and I can see another nasty email from the QDMA in my future, just like the last time I criticized Ames and the QDMA on this site), if you are being told by ANYBODY, including Brian Murphy or Kip Adams or any other QDMA representative, or even Dr. Craig Harper from UT (who I like and admire greatly) that what Ames is doing is just QDM, you are being misinformed and they are being disingenuous.
First let me clearly state I have MAJOR issues with what many in the QDMA leadership are pushing the QDMA to become. In my opinion, once the organization turned over much of its board membership to people in the hunting industry--those who make their livings selling hunting gear--the QDMA has drifted strongly towards just another "monster buck" organization. I realize why they did this (financial), but I STRONGLY disagree with the shift in emphasis and education (a discontent many early members and supporters of the organization have voiced to the leadership). And I will say that a few early members still in leadership roles are trying to keep the organization walking the shaky line between what the organization used to stand for and what it is becoming, such as Lindsay Thomas, Jr., the editor of Quality Whitetails, who I believe does a fantastic job trying to balance the dissenting voices against the financial needs and direction of the organization. However, I think it's a losing battle. Big "bucks" always win out.
So with that in mind, knowing I used to be a major supporter of the organization--someone who has conducted more public meetings and talks at hunting shows for the QDMA, and written more articles for their magazine, than I can count, let me say that I have some major disagreements with those who currently represent the organization. I will gladly debate with Kip Adams or anyone else from the organization, including the president Brian Murphy, as to whether Ames is closer to Quality or Trophy Management. The answer is simple. If the goal of a program is to produce large-antlered mature bucks, as Ames is, it is far closer to Trophy Management than Quality Management. If your buck harvest criteria involves an antler score that many (if not the majority) of mature bucks in the area won't reach, you're practicing more Trophy Management than Quality Management.
Quality Deer Management's biological goals are simple:
Produce a more natural buck age structure
Produce a more natural adult sex ratio
Keep the deer density well within the biological and social restrictions of the habitat
Two of those goals (density and sex ratio) are primarily achieved through does harvests. The first goal--buck age structure--is achieved through protecting the youngest age-classes of bucks. From the QDMA's own website:
"Quality Deer Management (QDM) is a management philosophy/practice that unites landowners, hunters, and managers in a common goal of producing biologically and socially balanced deer herds within existing environmental, social, and legal constraints. This approach typically involves the protection of young bucks (yearlings and some 2.5 year-olds) combined with an adequate harvest of female deer to maintain a healthy population in balance with existing habitat conditions and landowner desires"
Once again, the buck harvest goals involve the "protection of young bucks (yearlings and SOME 2.5 year-olds)." That is NOT what Ames is doing. Ames has buck harvest goals that will protect all yearling, 2 1/2s, and most 3 1/2s from harvest, and involves an antler restriction intended to only allow the largest antlered bucks to be harvested. That is NOT QDM. As I posted before, that is not true Trophy Management either, but it is much closer to Trophy Management than Quality Management.
Let me state emphatically (and I can see another nasty email from the QDMA in my future, just like the last time I criticized Ames and the QDMA on this site), if you are being told by ANYBODY, including Brian Murphy or Kip Adams or any other QDMA representative, or even Dr. Craig Harper from UT (who I like and admire greatly) that what Ames is doing is just QDM, you are being misinformed and they are being disingenuous.
So you guys are arguing over 1 year of a bucks life to define QDM vs Trophy management? Ames isn't one or the other. Whose to say what its closer to?
You really think it matters, Eddie?
You really think it matters, Eddie?
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
x 2BSK said:
That said, I really like what Ames is doing.
My only disagreement, probably like BSK, is that some are claiming it is "just QDM".
I do not like seeing the QDMA turning into just another commercialized marketer of everything "trophy" buck under the guise of QDM. However, I continue to know of no better single source of good deer-management information than the QDMA, continue to "like" the people involved with the organization, and QUALITY WHITETAILS remains the only deer hunting-management publication I regularly read.
Mike Belt
Well-Known Member
Whether modified QDM or modified TDM it still benefits the deer, the habitat, and the deer hunter. I can't argue against the results...only that those results would be more dramatic if located in another part of the country. That's not the fault of either QDM or TDM practices. I feel sure that with the exception of the very novice, most Ames hunters are aware that the place is a modified version but are still happy to hunt there.
BSK
Well-Known Member
Wes Parrish said:
Exactly Wes. I don't want anyone to think I don't like what Ames is doing. I'm EXTREMELY pleased a place like Ames exists in TN. It gives hunters who want that type of experience, and are willing to pay for it, a place to hunt. That's a very good thing.
I just don't want those who may just becoming interested in deer management the idea that the goals and rules of Ames are a good example of QDM. They are not, because Ames is not practicing QDM. I don't want hunters new to management thinking that emulating Ames' rules would be the best way to implement QDM on their land.
I agree with this as well Wes. I like those involved with and employed by the QDMA. I simply want to see a change in direction for the organization. I also still get and eagerly read every issue of Quality Whitetails. It is the best source of information on deer management available today.
BSK
Well-Known Member
Mike Belt said:
I agree Mike, but let's be honest. The two forms of management may be similar in both practice and results, but the two forms of management also have VERY different public images, and that is important. Once the goals of QDM are explained to them, most of the public, including "greenies," have a fairly positive view of the process. However, besides just a small percentage of hunters, trophy hunting and management have very negative images, often well deserved (but not always).
I tend to agree with you Mike. I'm glad that management/hunting experience is available to hunters in TN, and the experience will definitely appeal to a sizeable number of hunters. And I'm also sure the vast majority of those who hunt Ames couldn't give a rip what the management is called. All they care about is the results.
What a form of management is or isn't primarily only matters to those who teach management and those who are interested in learning/practicing management.
BSK
Well-Known Member
BigAl said:
BigAl, in my opinion, your above statement downplays the difference between what Ames is doing and what QDM is. If a member of Ames practiced QDM on the club, not only would they be heavily fined, they would eventually lose their hunting privileges. If properly practicing QDM gets you kicked out of the club, how could you call what that club is doing QDM? You can't, because it isn't QDM.
What Ames is practicing isn't QDM, but it isn't the strict form of Trophy Management practiced on Texas ranches either, so it can't really be called either. But if forced to make a choice, it is certainly closer to Trophy than Quality management, because of both its rules and goals. Very high (for the region) antler score requirements and the goal of producing large-antlered mature bucks are the realm of Trophy Management.
Those who study, teach, and practice QDM for a living.
T.J.
Well-Known Member
Those who study, teach, and practice QDM for a living.
[/quote]
I hunt at Ames. I would not argue its a slightly modified version of QDM but you above comment is what I'm concerned with. Every speaker from QDM to land managers that I've heard speak at Ames seems to agree that Ames has a great program and that it's a very good example of QDM. Be it modified or whatever. Then there is you. Just you who doesn't agree with it. A lot of these people have resumes just as accomplished as your but it's all of them who are wrong. Sorry. I just don't see it.
TheLBLman
Well-Known Member
Sometimes it's hard to see the forest from the trees.T.J. said:
And like BSK, I find it particularly disturbing that anyone "in the know" is promoting Ames as a "very good example of QDM".
Ames is a very good deer management program, and as others have stated, perhaps most of the members could care less what it is called.
But I have to wonder if Joe Hamilton would consider Ames a "very good example of QDM"?
