Measures of QDM "success"

[BSK]

This is a topic I've wanted to discuss for some time, but didn't really have the data to prove my point. However, as more detailed GPS-collar data is becoming available, I think I can post this with some conviction.

What should be used as a measure of QDM success for a given property? In the traditional sense, herd health indicators, especially deer body weights by age and buck antler development by age has been used, as well as fawn recruitment numbers, buck age structure numbers, sex ratio numbers, etc.

However, all of this is based on the idea that you are looking at the same group of deer that live on a given property from year to year. Now this very well may be the case on very large properties, say of several thousand acres. But what about the small properties, such as those of 1,000 acres or less? And more importantly, what about properties of a square mile (640 acres) or less? How many individual deer are you actually "raising" from birth to death on a property of 640 acres or less? I'll bet the answer is very, very few.

From what I've been seeing of the more detailed long-term GPS-collar information that is becoming available, there appears to be a lot more "shifting" of ranges from birth to death than was originally assumed. This is especially true of bucks. When you consider the Yearling Buck Dispersal (YBD) process, shifting seasonal ranges, and highly variable rut-season ranges for individual bucks, how many of the mature bucks that might be photographed on a 640 acre or smaller property in a given fall season were actually born on that property? I'll bet the answer is near zero. The vast, vast majority of those bucks come from "somewhere else." If that is the case, does the condition of those bucks mean anything about the management of the property? Nope, at least not health-wise.

And although does are more "home-bodies" than bucks, often living their entire lives in their birth range, on smaller properties that have implemented intense doe harvests, from year to year how many of the does seen and harvested from the property have actually lived their entire lives on that property? When small properties hit the doe population hard, reproduction does increase, but if does are not being hit hard on surrounding properties, doe groups from those surrounding properties will shift their range into the managed property to take advantage of the "gaps" in habitat utilization produced by the doe harvests. This means you do have "resident" does born on the managed property, but you also have a considerable number of "immigrant" does that have shifted into the property from surrounding properties as adults. So health conditions of the immigrant does do not provide a measure of herd health from the managed property, and there is no way to tell the difference between a resident doe and an immigrant doe.

So now we have this established "paradigm" of QDM success based on improvements in herd structure and health that may simply not be true on smaller properties. The deer using a particular smaller property during the hunting season--especially the mature deer of both sexes--may not be the product of the local habitat. Many of those deer spent at least some of their life, if not the majority, "somewhere else."

If this is the case, what should be used as a measure of success on smaller properties?

 

[TheLBLman]

Very good and interesting post, BSK.

What should be used as a measure of QDM success for a given property? In the traditional sense, herd health indicators, especially deer body weights by age and buck antler development by age has been used, as well as fawn recruitment numbers, buck age structure numbers, sex ratio numbers, etc.

However, all of this is based on the idea that you are looking at the same group of deer that live on a given property from year to year. But what about the small properties, such as those of 1,000 acres or less? And more importantly, what about properties of a square mile (640 acres) or less? How many individual deer are you actually "raising" from birth to death on a property of 640 acres or less? I'll bet the answer is very, very few.

I'll guarantee you the answer is almost none on properties of 640 acres of less; and less than 1% of male deer that live past 18 months of age. (Saying this as an average across the Southeast, although there will be some exceptions, say where you have a smaller patch of habitat surrounded by industry & subdivisions. In this case, don't think you could really call these "free-roaming" deer as the surrounding development acts much like a high fence?)

If this is the case, what should be used as a measure of success on smaller properties?

I wise man once told me,
"Seldom ask a question for which you don't already know the answer."

So, I assume you have at least part of the answer to this question?

 

[TheLBLman]

BSK,

Really glad you made this post, as it's of particular interest to me, since most hunters who are able to do any "management" at all are in fact doing it on properties of 640 acres or less.

One thing not mentioned above that also comes into play:
Male deer (somewhere between 6 months & 18 months of age) typically disperse over 1 mile from their birthplace, which would cause most male fawns born on any square mile to nearly always establish a new "home" range outside the square mile (640 acres area) in which they were born.

On the other hand, most adult bucks that have a home range or seasonal core area within any particular square mile were not born on that area. This means that most of your adult bucks on a small property did not have the healthy start on life that would be given by very healthy female deer to their fawns.

 

[TheLBLman]

I'm hoping your discussion topic becomes many pages of critical thinking and discussion from many hunter/managers as well at the many TWRA and other game agency and private deer managers who are reading these forums (yet seldom post).

I'll interject one more thought, and then just sit back and listen for a while.

The fact that on smaller properties there are so many deer "coming & going" means that even a small documented improvement by the traditional herd health indicators could mean the impact of your "deer management" on a small property is profound and much more dramatic than can be easily measured.

In fact, many of those deer migrating in from surrounding properties have in some way benefited from your property's management. So one of the standards for comparison (the herd health outside your boundaries) is also improving, thus maybe causing your comparative data to appear little better than the surrounding property. Or maybe, if you're surrounded by poor management, your improvements may be hard to measure at all.

In my case, I like to compare my property's management to the surrounding county. But as TWRA's countywide deer management has become more sound (biologically), some of the standards for comparison are changing, too. And along this line of thought, if you were surrounded by very poor deer management, someone could successfully argue that your management makes little difference, as their management overrides it?

For example, if you have a perfect square of one square mile (640 acres), then in every direction from your perimeter boundaries and going exactly 1 mile, the surrounding 1 mile consists of over 3,000 acres. Or looking another way, if you stand in the very middle of your 640-acre property and draw a circle around you, going 1.5 miles in every direction, your property accounts for less than 25% of the acreage in that circle.

So is it worth your efforts to do anything better at all on a small property?

 

[BSK]

Wes,

I'm not sure biological "health" indicators will be useful at all for small-land management. Too much of individual animal health on a given small property are the product of habitat "somewhere else."

I believe other factors will have to be looked at, although those other factors will still have a link to the habitat of the managed property. And I say that because I still believe deer "choose" to utilize a given area during the fall and early winter (hunting season) because of local habitat conditions.

 

[Kirk]

It will be interesting to see the results around my home over the next few years. Last year our 1300 acre Bowater lease was sold.

We had lobbied all the adjoining large landholders to set similar restrictions as we had on the lease. I estimate we had around 3,500 acres under our very archaic form of QDM. It worked well for five years. The rack sizes steadily increased as did the deer numbers. We hammered does for the final three years and almost completely eliminated daylight doe activity. The cameras revealed a lot of does were still present and we awere able to show the naysayers. On the flip side we saw lots of bucks during daylight hours. It was the golden days of deer hunting around here.

Since the core area has been sold, bulldozed and lotted off I suspect we will see a steady decline in quality and numbers over the next two seasons due to the uncontrolled areas. I hope I am wrong.

So to me, the measure of our QDM success was in the stories told by local hunters and farmers. The smiles and gleaming eyes as they told about seeing really big bucks for the first time in their lives.

 

[BigGameGuy]

If this is the case, what should be used as a measure of success on smaller properties?

If at the end of the year you say to yourself, "Man that was a good year," your QDM program was 100% success.

(Not the scientific answer you want to hear Bryan but it may be the most applicable.)

 

[UPSman]

If this is the case, what should be used as a measure of success on smaller properties?

If at the end of the year you say to yourself, "Man that was a good year," your QDM program was 100% success.

(Not the scientific answer you want to hear Bryan but it may be the most applicable.)

Then we had an awesome year at Cathole last season!

 

[richmanbarbeque]

If this is the case, what should be used as a measure of success on smaller properties?

If at the end of the year you say to yourself, "Man that was a good year," your QDM program was 100% success.

(Not the scientific answer you want to hear Bryan but it may be the most applicable.)

Then we had an awesome year at Cathole last season!

I agree. QDM for me has changed. It started as the deer I can't shoot, Now it is the deer I get to shoot. If given the oppurtunity. Because of QDM I have passed to many bucks in the last 2 years to count. I have learned from observation, a very valuable tool.

 

[deerchaser007]

If this is the case, what should be used as a measure of success on smaller properties

answer,..... the pride and joy you feel inside knowing you have done something good for the wildlife that does come across your place and the wildlife into the future for hunting of those after us.

I know i only have 85 acres and that i am not accomplishing a great deal ,.. but i enjoy doing it. AND,.. hopefully as i keep going, i will encourage others in my area to do the same,.. in turn ,. over time,.. as a whole,.. many hunters and myself will benefit from the work we have done and keep the wildlife and the hunting tradition going strong into the future.

Thats how i would measure success.

Off topic of deer,... i can tell i have ( just on 85 acres) had a positive effect on other wildlife. Especially turkey. 6 years ago it was a battle just even getting to see a turkey. NOW,... i see turkey EVERY time i enter the farm. As a avid turkey hunter ,.. i could not be more pleased. The plots and the habitat improvements alone created more food and especially better nesting for hens. In turn,. has made for more birds in the area.
Thats a measure of success.

Very informative post and will get alot of folks to thinking if what they are doing is helping in any way for deer. The way i see it,.. someone has to set the example and soon ,.. others will follow. Maybe not all,.. but enough to have a impact. So, for all you small property managers out there,.. don't give up hope. This is just another reason the QDMA expresses the need for cooperatives between land owners. Work with your neighbors ,.. and change can occur.

Just my opinion though........Its not science,.. but a honest opinion.

 

[TheLBLman]

Deerchaser007,

I think you are under-crediting your personal contributions.
It matters not whether you are making those personal decisions on 85 acres or 8,500 acres ---- what you do as an individual is the same actions. In fact, your individual contributions may be of greater value on 85 acres than those same actions might be on a larger tract.

All changes start with the decision and actions of one person, who leads others into seeing the benefits.

I know i only have 85 acres and that i am not accomplishing a great deal ,.. but i enjoy doing it. AND,.. hopefully as i keep going, i will encourage others in my area to do the same,.. in turn ,. over time,.. as a whole,.. many hunters and myself will benefit from the work we have done and keep the wildlife and the hunting tradition going strong into the future.

 

[BSK]

If this is the case, what should be used as a measure of success on smaller properties?

If at the end of the year you say to yourself, "Man that was a good year," your QDM program was 100% success.

(Not the scientific answer you want to hear Bryan but it may be the most applicable.)

Actually, that's exactly the answer I'm looking for. The only difference I would want is a numerical way of measuring this.

I honestly believe simply "impression" of the hunting experience is critical. Was the season good or bad? Did you see/experience things you probably never would have under your previous form of management?

But when it comes to numerical measurement, I think we will have to take a second look at observation data (and some harvest data). In the recent past, observation data has kind of fallen out of "biological" favor, since it's been found that observation data often does not track herd density and composition numbers generated by more accurate methods (with the exception of fawn recruitment numbers). However, what observation data does track accurately is "results per unit effort," such as deer/bucks/shooter bucks observed per hunting hour (or per hunt). For "meat-pole" results, harvests per unit effort (does/bucks harvested per hunting hour or per hunt) is useful data.

Basically, are you seeing measureable improvements in what you want? Are you seeing more shooter bucks per unit effort? Are you shooting more bucks per unit effort? Are you seeing and/or harvesting more total deer per unit effort? These may be the critical factors for tracking success on small properties.

I would also throw in, "What are you photographing on the property with trail cams?" I keep very close track of the number of unique bucks photographed using my property from late summer through mid-winter (August through January). I estimate each photographed bucks age. I also keep track of which bucks were "harvestable" and which were not (a harvestable buck is a buck that is photographed repeatedly on the property during the hunting season). I can then track the age structure of harvestable bucks from year to year. I think this is extremely valuable information. I may have had absolutely nothing to do with "growing" most of the these bucks, but the fact that our habitat work may be influencing these bucks to use our property during the hunting season is a critical aspect to small-land success.

 

[BSK]

Great post deerchaser007.

Can we "control" deer herds on small acreages? No. But I'm becoming a stronger believer that we can infuence their decisions of where they spend most of their time. I've seen too many cases of dramatic differences in management results once specific habitat alterations are made on smaller properties.

 

[TheLBLman]

If this is the case, what should be used as a measure of success on smaller properties?

If at the end of the year you say to yourself, "Man that was a good year," your QDM program was 100% success.

Actually, that's exactly the answer I'm looking for. The only difference I would want is a numerical way of measuring this.

I honestly believe simply "impression" of the hunting experience is critical. Was the season good or bad? Did you see/experience things you probably never would have under your previous form of management?

IMO, the trail cam has become the best way of numerically measuring the success of practicing QDM on small properties.

 

[BSK]

If this is the case, what should be used as a measure of success on smaller properties?

If at the end of the year you say to yourself, "Man that was a good year," your QDM program was 100% success.

Actually, that's exactly the answer I'm looking for. The only difference I would want is a numerical way of measuring this.

I honestly believe simply "impression" of the hunting experience is critical. Was the season good or bad? Did you see/experience things you probably never would have under your previous form of management?

IMO, the trail cam has become the best way of numerically measuring the success of practicing QDM on small properties.

And to measure your hunting "skills" it can be very interesting to look at what percent of the photographed, harvestable bucks you and other hunters see while hunting. I track these numbers very closely.

We must be doing something right because we regularly see 50% or more of the photographed, harvestable 3 1/2+ year-old bucks.

 

[JWW4]

I don't like the term QDM. I feel it is too limiting.

My father-in-law owns 40+/- acers and this year let me put in a small food plot and do some minor develpoment. There are deer that pass through the property, but I don't think the term "herd density" could even apply. I put it in hoping to increase the number of deer that move through the area to increase my chances come fall. Since working the area I like the term habitat management or improvement much better. The number of deer moving through the area has not improved greatly if at all, but I have noticed other things. A lot more squirls, and healthier looking. I have seen other animals (turkey)in the area that I (or my father-in-law) have never seen. Turtles and frogs are moving in to eat the bugs that are eating the plots crops. Hopfully the snakes will not follow. Now why does all this matter? No one is impressed by a box turtle or a frog unless your a 4 year old who has never seen one before. I use to be annoyed by the squirls and crows that ate the corn I put out until I saw the look on my sons face when a crow with 5 foot wing span took off as we approached the field. Now I understand why it is called QDM and I want bigger and better deer come fall, and I am not on a mission to change anything, but consider what I have done from the end of last hunting season till now to already be a success.

 

[Radar]

I don't think I can put a big enough dent in the doe population on the small 175 acre tract I hunt , but I have seen a noticable improvement in the buck age structure since I have been letting 1 1/2 year old bucks walk .
It has shown up in my trail cam results and harvest results .

 

[Mike Belt]

On the surface it would seem that QDM minded efforts would benefit "all" deer irregardless of whether they are permanant residents of your property or not. The female segment of the herd doesn't disperse near as much as the male segment thus they may be the primary benefactors. Those resident/semi-resident does are often in better shape than those on surrounding properties not being "managed". This is turn dictates fawns that are probably better "started" than those on those surrounding properties. Those buck fawns that eventually disperse do so with a jump start on the first 1-1.5 years of their life. The influx of dispersing bucks from surrounding properties benefit as well. Those that seasonalably shift onto managed properties through the summer benefit from the typical spring planted food plots. To a greater degree those shifting onto a managed property through the fall/winter months benefit from the more typical fall planted food plots; especially beneficial through the leaner winter months. For whatever reasons, a buck surviving several hunting seasons that has chosen your managed property as a fall/winter haven will generally return yearly provided things remain equal on that property.

 

[BigGameGuy]

Bryan -

You up for an open "theoretical" discussion on small property management? If so, give me your thoughts on this and let me know what you think. I think it�s the heart of your quandary.

Take two 500 acres properties, one is a well-managed QDM-type property that passes up 1-1/2 and 2-1/2 year old bucks and also has a well thought out habitat management plan that provides ample food and cover on a year-round basis. We�ll call this �Property A� The other property is the �if it�s brown it�s down� type of management with no habitat improvements what-so-ever. This will be �Property B�. Doe harvest is relatively equal between the two properties considering the first property focuses their harvest on does while the second property shoots everything that walks. Assume these two properties are adjacent.

I think we�ll both agree that Property A is going to reflect healthier biological measurements on a year-round basis than Property B (i.e. reproductive rates, fawn survival, weight, antler characteristics, etc.). Property A will also have a much more natural and greater buck density than B since the younger age-classes are protected throughout the hunting season. Property A can be considered a source property since it is a factory for producing older-aged class bucks while property B is considered the sink where all bucks tend to get harvested. Overall, A is much better producer of quality deer than B.

The irony comes when hunting season rolls around.

Buck dispersal is a well-documented process. Bucks often change their home-range with the onset of breeding season triggered by hormonal changes. When the time comes, where will the majority of bucks go to find and compete for does, an area that has an already high density of older bucks or one that is lacking buck competition and also has a high density of available does? I suspect deer respond similarly to most natural processes and take the path of least resistance. Therefore, someone that practices all the proper QDM-type practices may not see, or be able to measure, the gains they have made since their �target� animal is seeking other grounds at the time of harvest. This is true if data collection consists primarily of data collected from harvested deer. This is why pre- and post-season trail-camera data collection is a must for QDM managers.

I personally believe if you are maintaining the number of older-aged class bucks (even though they may be different bucks from your pre-season scouting) or seeing an increased number of older bucks on your property come hunting season, it is not only a reflection of your improved management style but also a refection on the improved quality of the overall herd (i.e. the adjacent properties aren�t over-harvesting their younger bucks either). If you see a decrease in the number of older-aged class bucks from pre-season to mid-season, odds are your property is the source and the surrounding properties are the sinks. In the past three years of reading this forum, I can�t recall anyone saying their sightings of older-aged class bucks has decreased during the hunting season since they began practicing QDM. This defeats the �I can�t practice QDM because my neighbors shoot everything that walks� argument.

Does this make any sense at all?

 

[David J]

A Small property owner cannot affect the makeup of the deer population in an area. How can you numerically quantify something where there is no way to derive a base line. Scientifically it can't be done on a free ranging herd.

That doesn't mean you shouldn't keep records of all the deer you harvest or sightings. Those records can be very helpful years down the road.

While it is very true that a deer can't grow if it is in the back of the truck the very fact that you pass up shooting it does not mean it will be any where near your place come next fall. Most yearlings won't stop traveling until late December. So the deer you pass up are going to be a couple of miles down the road come next hunting season. Your only hope of have 2 1/2 year old deer next fall is if your neighbors pass up a few and they decide to stick around your place. According to Dr. Gary Ault you need around 10,000 acres to "really practice" QDM. That's somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 1/2 sq. miles.

So the real question and the answer to BSK's original question is what and how do you make your place that stopping point for a young buck? The answer lies in habitat management more than any other factor and I am not talking about food plots. They are not really habitat management as much as hunter satisfaction management. The most interesting thing is that most of you died in the wool QDM people are not going to make your place an attractive site for a buck to live in.

The first criteria is that it has to be ugly and it has to be thick. It really needs to be a place that you don't want to hunt in. According to the radio collar studies by Penn DNR it needs to have some type of natural boundary. A road, creek, open pasture all seem to create a boundary where a buck will set up house. If the area has other bucks in the area or if there is a dominant buck in the area seems to be a drawing card for a young buck according to their studies. Most likely that is because of the habitat more than anything else.

Once you have your habitat in place and your divorce is final (because your place looks like a weed factory and the wife couldn't stand looking at the uncut grass) you can then start looking at a way of developing a numerical system to gauge your success. I would throw preseason buck/doe ratios out the window because they are useless. Nice information but useless nonetheless. From the thermal imaging studies I have seen so far the buck doe ration in most counties is going to be around 1:1 and in the worst counties 1:2 would be on the high side. If I were to measure "QDM" success it would be the number of hold over bucks left in January plus the number of harvested bucks thought the season. These numbers tracked from season to season would give you a real set of numbers which show how successful you have been.

But again we are talking Habitat management not really QDM.