QDMA Email

[landman]

First I was asked by another member in another post if I would post this email

I didn't ask for the information from QDMA, I have never worked for QDMA nor have I ever received any income from QDMA

So Here's the latest post from the Liberal Trophyism Landman....did I leave something out guys?

http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com ... ae527547e4

 

[Shed Hunter]

Thanks Jimmy

 

[TN Whitetail Freak]

why are there numbers on harvest of 1.5 yr olds way higher than TWRAs numbers and why are their harvest for 2.5 yr olds way lower than TWRAs? I dont know who do believe anymore....

 

[landman]

Thanks Jimmy

No Problem sorry for the delay

 

[AT Hiker]

why are there numbers on harvest of 1.5 yr olds way higher than TWRAs numbers and why are their harvest for 2.5 yr olds way lower than TWRAs? I dont know who do believe anymore....

Good question! I havent double checked TWRAs numbers but that qdma email does make it sound like the age structure on kills is not very good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[8 POINTS OR BETTER]

why are there numbers on harvest of 1.5 yr olds way higher than TWRAs numbers and why are their harvest for 2.5 yr olds way lower than TWRAs? I dont know who do believe anymore....

Because a lot of times TWRA use numbers from the other states that are two to three years older than TWRA's data, (i.e. 2012 data from other states compared to 2014 data from TN). Also in the email TWRA sent out they rounded up their data to make it look better (half truths). A lot of the other states keep improving on their age structure while TN has trended to a lower age structure since going to a 3 buck limit statewide.

 

[BSK]

That QDMA email is shocking in its misuse of data. And just when I thought my opinion of an organization I spent a good 15 years helping to build couldn't get any lower, it did.

 

[8 POINTS OR BETTER]

That QDMA email is shocking in its misuse of data. And just when I thought my opinion of an organization I spent a good 15 years helping to build couldn't get any lower, it did.

No lower than TWRA's email.

And the data they used is data the other states correct data that you and every one else have used to compare TN's data to. Only they use same year data. So what's low about it?

 

[BSK]

That QDMA email is shocking in its misuse of data. And just when I thought my opinion of an organization I spent a good 15 years helping to build couldn't get any lower, it did.

No lower than TWRA's email.

The "intent" of the TWRA email is a matter of interpretation. The QDMA's email is not.

 

[Southern Sportsman]

It seems pretty clear to me that the TWRA email was attempting to point the public in one direction and the QDMA email was attempting to point them in the other direction. I've got a pretty low opinion of both groups of them at this point, but I very much want to know where this "southeast" is that kills 50% 3.5 year old+ deer. I'd like to go hunt there someday.

 

[Shed Hunter]

Can someone post the TWRA email as well.

I need to get on these email subscriptions

 

[PickettSFHunter]

It seems pretty clear to me that the TWRA email was attempting to point the public in one direction and the QDMA email was attempting to point them in the other direction. I've got a pretty low opinion of both groups of them at this point, but I very much want to know where this "southeast" is that kills 50% 3.5 year old+ deer. I'd like to go hunt there someday.

According to the Whitetail Report, Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas are at 68, 58, and 67 percent respectively 3.5 yr old plus bucks in the harvest. That's 3/5 being in the Southeast in the top 5 in that category. How good is the data? I don't know nor do I have the time to look, I have to much biologyin to do at work lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[landman]

It seems pretty clear to me that the TWRA email was attempting to point the public in one direction and the QDMA email was attempting to point them in the other direction. I've got a pretty low opinion of both groups of them at this point, but I very much want to know where this "southeast" is that kills 50% 3.5 year old+ deer. I'd like to go hunt there someday.

According to the Whitetail Report, Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas are at 68, 58, and 67 percent respectively 3.5 yr old plus bucks in the harvest. That's 3/5 being in the Southeast in the top 5 in that category. How good is the data? I don't know nor do I have the time to look, I have to much biologyin to do at work lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well out at it this way the QDMA report usually
depends on the states to past it on to them
Now that's not always the case but most states try to
make them selfs look better than their neighbors
TN isnt above doing the same thing

 

[ROUGH COUNTRY HUNTER]

That QDMA email is shocking in its misuse of data. And just when I thought my opinion of an organization I spent a good 15 years helping to build couldn't get any lower, it did.

I didn't have 15 years as a member,but after 5 years I took a different path.

 

[deerchaser007]

It seems pretty clear to me that the TWRA email was attempting to point the public in one direction and the QDMA email was attempting to point them in the other direction. I've got a pretty low opinion of both groups of them at this point, but I very much want to know where this "southeast" is that kills 50% 3.5 year old+ deer. I'd like to go hunt there someday.

According to the Whitetail Report, Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas are at 68, 58, and 67 percent respectively 3.5 yr old plus bucks in the harvest. That's 3/5 being in the Southeast in the top 5 in that category. How good is the data? I don't know nor do I have the time to look, I have to much biologyin to do at work lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote.
Best I remember GA is above 50% now also. The TN numbers in that email are accurate. I agree a lot of unit L counties are lower than 43% yearling and doing really well, but as a total state the yearling harvest could be better.Sorry, but the antler restricted states are saving more yearlings and their states have that data.

 

[BSK]

You have to look at each state and see where they get their harvest data from. TN is one of the few Southeastern states that still attempts to take a random sample of all bucks harvested. Many other Southeastern states now get their data just from DMAP type properties--properties under intensive private management. If TN were to collect their harvest data only from intensively managed private clubs, I'm sure their numbers would be very different, and quite comparable to the other states that collect data that way. Heck, probably 80+% of bucks harvested from clubs I work with are 3 1/2+.

 

[tn droptine]

It seems pretty clear to me that the TWRA email was attempting to point the public in one direction and the QDMA email was attempting to point them in the other direction. I've got a pretty low opinion of both groups of them at this point, but I very much want to know where this "southeast" is that kills 50% 3.5 year old+ deer. I'd like to go hunt there someday.

According to the Whitetail Report, Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas are at 68, 58, and 67 percent respectively 3.5 yr old plus bucks in the harvest. That's 3/5 being in the Southeast in the top 5 in that category. How good is the data? I don't know nor do I have the time to look, I have to much biologyin to do at work lol


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote.
Best I remember GA is above 50% now also. The TN numbers in that email are accurate. I agree a lot of unit L counties are lower than 43% yearling and doing really well, but as a total state the yearling harvest could be better.Sorry, but the antler restricted states are saving more yearlings and their states have that data.

True, but how many of these antler restricting states also kill a higher percentage of younger bucks that meet the antler "requirement"? I was shocked to see how many young deer with plenty of potential were killed while the older, more mature deer that were able to walk free were sub-par in the antler size department while I was hunting under antler restrictions

 

[TX300mag]

I'd like to know where Texas gets its data as there is not even a check system of any kind. They might be using Co-Op data, which wouldn't be representative of hunting as a whole.

QDMA seems to be transitioning into TDMA, which follows the same pattern Texas as a whole has. I hope TN stalls as long as possible.

With the regulations encouraging spike harvest, I'd say spike vs trophy kills are MINIMUM 5:1. True, many hunters will pass off the spikes as older bucks, but everybody knows better.

 

[deerchaser007]

Sorry, but the antler restricted states are saving more yearlings and their states have that data[/color].

True, but how many of these antler restricting states also kill a higher percentage of younger bucks that meet the antler "requirement"? I was shocked to see how many young deer with plenty of potential were killed while the older, more mature deer that were able to walk free were sub-par in the antler size department while I was hunting under antler restrictions[/quote .
The better question might be what percent of yearling bucks reach that potential in those states in the first place? Just like TN, the southeast is a poor soil area. Everyone knows this! For the same reason we cannot produce trophy bucks like the northern states when mature, we cannot produce a high percentage of high potential yearlings, 4 on one side, the soil and the habitat just can't do it. In 12 years of trail cams data I have total 8% yearlings that have 4 on one side. By 2.5 year old, I average 45% with 4 on one side. By 3.5 I average 78% with 4 on one side. I am on the eastern highland rim. So, what are we doing now to protect any high potential yearling with a 3 buck limit? And on average those high potential yearlings are maybe 5 to 15 % of the total yearling population. I guarantee you that the same percentage of high potential yearling bucks are killed now as what would be harvested under a antler restriction. But, we could save thousands of yearlings with fork horn and 6 point, which by the time they reach 2.5 they are in the 4 point one side rule. GA data indicates a 20 inch increase in antlers per age class since they went with restrictions over 15 years ago. Everyone here when talks about restrictions goes to this issue, killing high potential yearlings. Antler characteristics can not always be determined by what they are as a yearling, and if put to much emphasis on it hunters will think culling spikes and fork horns are the way to go. That is just wrong! Wrong, wrong, wrong! Read studies done in TX by helicopter that capture deer at each age and tag them and return them to the wild. A spike is not always a spike! In most of those studies, the spike yearling was almost or equal to a 8 point counterpart yearling by 4.5 years of age. IMO, with TN soil and habitat it is area specific to what a yearling will grow into. Points as a yearling is a very small part of the equation. But, a dead yearling will never grow nothing! The yearling harvest should be in the 20 to 25% percent range of a total states harvest to maintain quality.

 

[BSK]

Sorry, but the antler restricted states are saving more yearlings and their states have that data.

Well of course they are! When you make killing yearlings illegal, your yearling harvest will be pretty low! But I sure would hate to see TN ever consider that. Nature produces an oversupply of yearlings bucks every year. Their population can certainly handle harvest. Yearling bucks provide a great deal of entertainment/harvest opportunities for the non-hard-core hunters--who also happen to be the majority of hunters. Unless absolutely biologically necessary (so many hunters in the woods that even a 1 buck limit wipes out the yearling age-class, like in PA), making the killing of yearling bucks illegal is a terrible idea. It ABSOLUTELY drives hunters out of the sport. Of course, that's EXACTLY what the trophyists would LOVE to see happen.

 

[BSK]

QDMA seems to be transitioning into TDMA...

Not "seems to be." "Has transitioned" is more accurate.

 

[BSK]

The better question might be what percent of yearling bucks reach that potential in those states in the first place? Just like TN, the southeast is a poor soil area. Everyone knows this! For the same reason we cannot produce trophy bucks like the northern states when mature, we cannot produce a high percentage of high potential yearlings, 4 on one side, the soil and the habitat just can't do it. In 12 years of trail cams data I have total 8% yearlings that have 4 on one side. By 2.5 year old, I average 45% with 4 on one side. By 3.5 I average 78% with 4 on one side. I am on the eastern highland rim.

EXCELLENT data deerchaser007. From what I've seen in various studies, problems from antler "high grading" are primarily concentrated in the best habitat regions. This is especially true in the Southeast. Mississippi found antler high grading from their 4-total-points AR was primarily concentrated into their best habitat regions, where a high percentage of yearling bucks had the resources to grow 4 total antler points. In their poorest habitat areas, a very high percentage of yearlings were only spikes, protecting them from harvest. They found little signs of high-grading in these low-quality habitat regions. In fact, in some VERY poor habitat areas, simple "no spikes" harvest rules may protect 100% of yearlings, as was the case in a military reservation study conducted in coastal Florida.

But another aspect to consider is the protection of low-end older bucks when Antler Restrictions are used. As you mentioned, in your area, only 55% of 2 1/2 year-old bucks in your area have 4 points on one side, and 22% of 3 1/2s have 4 points on one side. Although it's true that in many areas--especially poorer habitat areas--yearling antler size says little about their future potential, antler quality at 2 1/2, and certainly 3 1/2, DOES say something about a buck's ultimate potential. Protecting the lowest antler quality 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 year-old bucks would do even more "high-grading" harm than shooting the best yearlings.

So, what are we doing now to protect any high potential yearling with a 3 buck limit?

Nothing. But in many areas of TN, yearling harvests are not a problem. However, in some parts of the state, yearling harvests ARE a problem, and lowering the buck bag limit in those areas has merit. But ARs, in a state that ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT NEED THEM, is a bad idea. Now what GA does--2 bucks with ARs on only 1 of those bucks--is a decent compromise. I could honestly live with that compromise. But ARs for all bucks is a bad idea. We still don't know what the long-term consequences of that would be, but I guarantee there will be negative consequences.

GA data indicates a 20 inch increase in antlers per age class since they went with restrictions over 15 years ago.

And how much of that increase is due to the ARs and how much is due to the massive decrease in total deer population the state implemented over the last 15 years? I would put 100% on the reduction in deer density.

 

[landman]

The better question might be what percent of yearling bucks reach that potential in those states in the first place? Just like TN, the southeast is a poor soil area. Everyone knows this! For the same reason we cannot produce trophy bucks like the northern states when mature, we cannot produce a high percentage of high potential yearlings, 4 on one side, the soil and the habitat just can't do it. In 12 years of trail cams data I have total 8% yearlings that have 4 on one side. By 2.5 year old, I average 45% with 4 on one side. By 3.5 I average 78% with 4 on one side. I am on the eastern highland rim.

But in Stewart and Montgomery counties you seen 60-70%
Yearlings with 7-8 points
Just like all states aren't the same all counties
in TN aren't the same, you really biologically
can't make or back up your statement for
"TN"

EXCELLENT data deerchaser007. From what I've seen in various studies, problems from antler "high grading" are primarily concentrated in the best habitat regions. This is especially true in the Southeast. Mississippi found antler high grading from their 4-total-points AR was primarily concentrated into their best habitat regions, where a high percentage of yearling bucks had the resources to grow 4 total antler points. In their poorest habitat areas, a very high percentage of yearlings were only spikes, protecting them from harvest. They found little signs of high-grading in these low-quality habitat regions. In fact, in some VERY poor habitat areas, simple "no spikes" harvest rules may protect 100% of yearlings, as was the case in a military reservation study conducted in coastal Florida.

But another aspect to consider is the protection of low-end older bucks when Antler Restrictions are used. As you mentioned, in your area, only 55% of 2 1/2 year-old bucks in your area have 4 points on one side, and 22% of 3 1/2s have 4 points on one side. Although it's true that in many areas--especially poorer habitat areas--yearling antler size says little about their future potential, antler quality at 2 1/2, and certainly 3 1/2, DOES say something about a buck's ultimate potential. Protecting the lowest antler quality 2 1/2 and 3 1/2 year-old bucks would do even more "high-grading" harm than shooting the best yearlings.

So, what are we doing now to protect any high potential yearling with a 3 buck limit?

Nothing. But in many areas of TN, yearling harvests are not a problem. However, in some parts of the state, yearling harvests ARE a problem, and lowering the buck bag limit in those areas has merit. But ARs, in a state that ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT NEED THEM, is a bad idea. Now what GA does--2 bucks with ARs on only 1 of those bucks--is a decent compromise. I could honestly live with that compromise. But ARs for all bucks is a bad idea. We still don't know what the long-term consequences of that would be, but I guarantee there will be negative consequences.

GA data indicates a 20 inch increase in antlers per age class since they went with restrictions over 15 years ago.

And how much of that increase is due to the ARs and how much is due to the massive decrease in total deer population the state implemented over the last 15 years? I would put 100% on the reduction in deer density.

 

[deerchaser007]

BSK, I fully agree. I never got a chance to fully complete my post cause I was work on break. But yes, I would never fully support a total AR for every buck. Hope no one thought I was incenuating that either. You can reduce yearling total harvest and still allow yearlings in the harvest. It just needs to be in the 20 to 25 % range. I would support AR on 2nd buck for my area. Thanks again for the compliment on my data collection. I fully agree about QDMA too, I dropped them when they went to 3.5 harvest guidelines. Not realistic for southeastern states IMO.
Landman, are saying Stewart and Montgomery counties harvest 60 to 70% yearlings with 4 on one side or your data reflects that preseason? Those %'s trump any data I've ever seen including data from Pike county IL under tremendous trophy management and habitat management.

 

[landman]

Not harvest numbers
Based of TC's Photo counts and living and hunting
these counties for 42 years 60-70% of the yearling
bucks are 7 point or better

 

[deerchaser007]

Also BSK, I agree about the decrease in population adding those inches. That what I was talking about with more to the equation than antler characteristics of yearlings, and 2.5 year old for that matter.I also agree that with AR' s you are protecting the lowest quality 2.5-3.5's. But in many cases, by maturity, those bucks catch up. Some dont , some do. Antler characteristics can change from year to the next. I've had a great potential 8 point 3.5 go to a massive 6 at 4.5. I knew him from a scar on back left leg. I thought he was killed as a 3.5, but showed up on can during rut after Thanksgiving in 2010. Got 1 pic of him on a doe. Smart bugger he was! But, depending on habitat changes depends on antler quality. All it takes is a drought or a terrible acorn crop or double whammy of both to scew a bucks quality of horn its next year of life.

 

[deerchaser007]

Not harvest numbers
Based of TC's Photo counts and living and hunting
these counties for 42 years 60-70% of the yearling
bucks are 7 point or better

Considering biological data for those counties reflect a 4.5 point average, with over 20% in spikes, you dont have to worry with high grading then. Those 2 counties should produce boomers every year with those percentages!

 

[BSK]

BSK, I fully agree. I never got a chance to fully complete my post cause I was work on break. But yes, I would never fully support a total AR for every buck. Hope no one thought I was incenuating that either. You can reduce yearling total harvest and still allow yearlings in the harvest. It just needs to be in the 20 to 25 % range.

Honestly, considering that even in an area with good buck age structure, nearly 50% of all antlered bucks are yearlings, I'm happy on a county or regional basis with 30-35% yearlings in the harvest. Even at that level, hunters are showing considerable restraint. Because yearlings are so less wary than older bucks, at near 50% of the population, they will make up around 60-65% of buck sightings by hunters. If only 30-35% of the buck harvest is yearlings, hunters are probably passing up half the yearlings they see.

Thanks again for the compliment on my data collection.

It was warranted. It's rare I get to see hunter-managers collecting that quality of data. A VERY important and interesting data point for assessing local deer performance.