QDM continuation…. EAB thoughts????

I know this will open a(nother) can of worms, and maybe draw a few jeers, but let me put this out there….

Seems like a ton of guys out there on this forum love QDM. But it seems like a ton of guys HATE EAB regulations.

When it comes down to it, the general purpose behind EAB is one (if not THE) key messages of QDM. Shoot more does. Let bucks walk (to a point). Bring the herd nearer to that 1:1 ratio, reduce the number of mouths at the table, etc… Even a lot of private QDM managements have rules saying that you must shoot 1 or 2 (or more) does before you can tag a buck. (Keep in mind that the hunters themselves in these QDM cooperatives make thier own rules)

Sooooo… We love QDM, but why do so many hunters despise EAB? Is it because you are being “forced” into following “the man’s” (DNR) plan? Is it just becuase you don’t want to miss out on a shootable buck opportunity simply because you have not yet qualified???

Either way, the intentions of EAB are very much at the heart of QDM philosophy. I don’t know exact numbers, but after a few years of EAB in many WI units, all of a sudden mature buck harvest levels increased substantially above average(i.e. bigger bucks… Shouldn’t we be thrilled with this result??)… Proof that EAB was indeed helping to promote QDM to some extent. Voluntary or forced passing of young bucks (by those pre-qualified hunters) was really all that was missing, but even given that those hunters could shoot any deer they chose, the mean age and antler size of bucks shot still increased. Proof that giving the bucks more opportunity to survive (while taking out more does/extra mouths and stomachs) did nothing but help the (mature) buck harvest. Isn’t this what QDM is all about? Shouldn’t QDM’ers drool when they see that their units are EAB??? Besides, if you are doing QDM (at least in these overpopulated places), shooting a doe or 10 should already be priorty one for you and your hunting group. Shouldn’t be tough to whack one early if you are already into the QDM philosophy.

Well, I guess I wasn’t going to say this, but I figure you can guess my feeling about EAB, so I might as well. I love EAB for those zones where it is needed (deer populations way above goal). Its like a forced QDM without being that blatant. Obviously not the right option where populations are been kept down by hunting, bears, and wolves. I hunt in 59A. This year they had something like 20,000 bonus tags. Why they didn’t make it a herd control zone, I have no idea (ok, one idea –$$). But I would love to see this zone EAB. Lots of deer (at least in the part that I hunt), lots of doe opportunity, definately QDM and big buck potential. To be honest, though, I don’t care (as much as some hunters anyway) if I shoot a buck or doe. I am definately willing to pass small ones for mature deer, though. I would be willing to let a mature buck walk if I haven’t yet shot my doe. Small antlers would sit in a worthless pile at my house (i.e., might as well shoot a doe instead), whereas mature bucks go on the wall. EAB rules don’t bother me in the slightest. After all, the driving force behind EAB is all about the QDM philosophy. And I love QDM. I just don’t get why so many people hate it when it is so intertwined with QDM, and yet so many people claim to love QDM.

I suppose I’ll get some tongue lashings for this, but I think EAB is a great tool when hunters/”privatized deer herds”/less public land/whatever just isn’t keeping the population down. Certainly argueable is what the population goal is to begin with, but thats a much bigger issue than I wish to get into here…

Anyway, I’m sure some of my thinking is flawed, whatever. Maybe my data is too. Don’t care, I guess. Feel free to pick it apart if you must. For those guys who promote/follow/applaud QDM practices yet despise EAB — why?? (or maybe there are less poeople like this than I think there are??). Why the negativity towards EAB (especially from QDM guys) when it, being so laced with QDM philosphy, has shown it is a proven winner…????

I have no problem with EAB. I do have a problem with people shooting a doe in a neighboring unit not in EAB and then registering it as an EAB doe. I know this does not happen everywhere but I know for a fact is happens around here (Black River Falls). It’s a very touchy subject that is discussed constantly here. For example: Guys in unit 55 (mostly private) sit opening weekend and shoot their buck. Then go to unit 59c (non EAB and mostly public hunting) and drive deer the next 7 days, and register every doe as unit 55 so they have their sticker for the next year.

I theory I can see your reasoning, but in the area I hunt, people are just shooting more young bucks to go witht he does, not just taking more does. I saw a couple of years where guys came to the stations with the whole bed of there trucks filled with deer, over the sides. Nothing good about that. Not sure how even a couple of families could eat all that meat. Anyway, it it was one buck per multiple does, I could see it, but that is not how the law is written and it did little for the ratios by us, just gutted the total numbers, both buck and doe.

Darin

Quote:

---

I have no problem with EAB. I do have a problem with people shooting a doe in a neighboring unit not in EAB and then registering it as an EAB doe.

---

Happens everywhere, I think. I aggree, not the optimal situtation. Also hate it when guys register a doe, then pass it to 10 other guys to also register. Happens a lot, I’m sure. Ears need to be clipped or something….

Quote:

---

I theory I can see your reasoning, but in the area I hunt, people are just shooting more young bucks to go witht he does, not just taking more does. I saw a couple of years where guys came to the stations with the whole bed of there trucks filled with deer, over the sides. Nothing good about that. Not sure how even a couple of families could eat all that meat. Anyway, it it was one buck per multiple does, I could see it, but that is not how the law is written and it did little for the ratios by us, just gutted the total numbers, both buck and doe.

Darin

---

Its all part of reducing the herd, providing more food for the herd in general. QDM philosophy argues to not shoot the nubs. I aggree with you here. Optimally we’d pass on any immature buck. But I might argue that reducing the overally herd is priority number one. EAB gets this done where it otherwise wouldn’t without EAB. Maybe not preferable to voluntary means, but it works

Trucks filled to the sides with deer. Why isn’t that good? I’m sure since the area was EAB, populations were way above goal. I would think taking those deer out would be a great thing. I highly doubt it extirpated the deer popultaion from that area…. Left more browse for the smarter mature bucks that surved the season = bigger, healthier deer next season.

I don’t like EAB because the deer numbers are already too low where we hunt. In the past we (the land owners) managed the number of deer we shot, we took a couple does per group for the food and that was it. Now everyone has to shoot their own doe in order to be able to take a buck. It has hurt the deer herd numbers where I and many others hunt.

I have a problem with EAB because it is based on the DNR’s overwinter management goals for a unit, not any kind of QDM principle of a balanced herd. It is about reducing the herd, plain and simple.

In my unit, it is my opinion these are WAYYYYYYYYYYY too low.

According to this document,

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/HUNT/deer/Deerbook.pdf

the goal for my unit (Unit 61) is 15 deer per square mile. That’s 15 deer per 640 acres. 7.5 deer per 320 acres. 3.75 deer per 160 acres. That means on the 55 acres we own, there should be 1.25 deer overwintering there. I know the biological carrying capacity of bluff farm country is WAYYYY above that, IMO it doesn’t seem like the goals of the hunter are very aligned with the goals of the DNR. I would LOVE to know their reasoning for the low goals. EAB was their way to try and whack the herd down towards these goals, it had NOTHING to do with a balanced herd.

It must be EAB for a reason… That reason being the numbers in the zone as a whole are too high. I undersand there could be pockets of less dense deer density. But not seeing deer doesn’t mean they aren’t in the area. Ways to help the situation – habitat improvement, food sources, minimize human disturbance, (stop baiting?? (oh boy, yet another can of worms!!) etc…

I know everyone loves to question the DNR… but do we really think that the number of deer that we (as individuals) see each year is an accurate representation of the general deer population in the section/area/region/county/zone/state? Doesn’t get much less scientific than that….

Not to mention that hunters are not the only group who desire to control populations at certain levels. Non-hunters, farmers, insurance companys, etc also have thier input. While as a hunter I would love to see tons of deer, I know that those levels are not healthy for the deer nor for humans. We forget that deer populations (at least in WI) absolutely soared for so many years.. Record kills each year for a while it seemed. Hunters got used to it, and now expect to see deer behind every tree. But goals are to get the populations down much further than what they recently have been. Its a tough transition going from great hunting but socially unnacceptable herd levels to a more balanced system…

Quote:

---

EAB was their way to try and whack the herd down towards these goals, it had NOTHING to do with a balanced herd.

---

Doesn’t mean its not dripping with QDM principles, nor does it mean that it doesn’t in some way help in that respect, even if it wasn’t the initial intent. Again – herd reduction and bringing more food to the table for a healthier herd is generally priority one with QDM. Growing bigger bucks is a side effect of QDM, not the end result. Healthier deer herds is the first matter of business. This generally means herd reduction.

So basically what I’m hearing so far is that people either don’t like population goals or they think the DNR population estimates are incorrect. Very fair answers, we are all entitled to out oppinions.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

EAB was their way to try and whack the herd down towards these goals, it had NOTHING to do with a balanced herd.

---

Doesn’t mean its not dripping with QDM principles, nor does it mean that it doesn’t in some way help in that respect, even if it wasn’t the initial intent. Again – herd reduction and bringing more food to the table for a healthier herd is generally priority one with QDM. Growing bigger bucks is a side effect of QDM, not the end result. Healthier deer herds is the first matter of business. This generally means herd reduction.

So basically what I’m hearing so far is that people either don’t like population goals or they think the DNR population estimates are incorrect. Very fair answers, we are all entitled to out oppinions.

---

So who said the goal of 15 is a healthier herd than the a goal of 30? or 60? What I want to know is if the reasons for the management goals are BIOLOGICAL or SOCIAL? I know the answer already, it is SOCIAL. Who says the herd was not healthy to begin with?

I kinda understand what you are trying to say, but I don’t think QDM calls for cutting the herd below any BIOLOGICAL limit right? I mean is there anything in QDM about car-deer collison’s and crop damage?

My point is, I guess EAB would be fine if the goal were do reduce the buck-doe ratio, but that ISN’T it’s intent, and my point is it is likely taking the herd below (maybe far below) what would BIOLOGICALLY be a healthy herd.

Can’t the same be done with free anterless permits, which would allow the taking of possibly more than one doe per buck, but not REQUIRING a doe (many of which shot just happen to be yearling bucks) be harversted in all areas? I just think EAB is a stupid tool applied to a huge area overwhich some parts may be at a healthy level, some may be way over. Generally the DNR is fighting a losing battle trying to have regulations that will manage across public, large tract private, and small tract privately owned chunks of land.

Here’s the only thing I don’t like about Earn a Buck.

When under normal hunting conditions (without EAB) I can selectively take a doe out once in a while, picking my doe out of a group by looking at the size and or who she’s with. But it’s a Doe

When EAB comes along and you have the majority of the folks needing to drop an antlerless deer before shooting a buck, alot of nubbin bucks are dropped do to desperation to get the kill permit on the buck. Here it becomes brown it’s down. Then 3 years later folks visit on the fact they are not seeing many bucks that year and wonder what’s up

Just my opinion

Quote:

---

IMO it doesn’t seem like the goals of the hunter are very aligned with the goals of the DNR.

---

I’m sure they aren’t!!! The DNR is not just a hunter’s organization (unfortunately!!). They must balance all interests/opinions, not just hunter’s opinions. I believe that they even have or had a known “anti” member of board a few years ago. (We are lucky there aren’t more anti’s with decsision making authority!) I don’t think that it helps that the director is still appointed by the Governor (am I correct on this?) which means he is pretty much under the governor’s thumb. With hunter’s rights lobbyists, things could probably change. But there will still be more sides to it than just the hunting side.

Very interesting link, Moss, thanks for posting that!! I’ll have to give it a read soon when I get some time.. Thanks!

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

IMO it doesn’t seem like the goals of the hunter are very aligned with the goals of the DNR.

---

I’m sure they aren’t!!! The DNR is not just a hunter’s organization (unfortunately!!). They must balance all interests/opinions, not just hunter’s opinions.
Very interesting link, Moss, thanks for posting that!! I’ll have to give it a read soon when I get some time.. Thanks!

---

I feel like the hunter is the guy who does the dirty work, but at times seems to have the LEAST input as to why or how much.

Doe numbers are also downn all over the state of MN so no eab, but antler point restictions for sure!!!

Certainly agree its not the optimal situation. The DNR implimented them becuase years of free or near free tags didn’t work. T-zones gave all sorts of free tags, but it obviously didn’t reduce the levels to the DNR’s likings. So I’m sure they don’t believe that going back to optional doe harvest will magically be viable again.

Great points about carrying capacity vs DNR acceptable levels. If thats the end issue, action could certainly be taken by individuals and hunting groups to hopefully bring about change to increase those goal populations. I’m not saying the DNR is correct on thier goals, but there are certainly those social considerations (mentioned previously) that come into play, not just hunter priorities.

Nubbins are going to get shot, regardless, until we get a full voluntary QDM system, and even then a good number of them will go down. DNR harvest data has shown they are consistantly within a given percentage of the antlerless take, regardless of forced or unforced managment style.

Great points, guys, I like the discussion that we have going…!

I do like the anter restriction, but many will argue if we really need MORE laws, the regs are complicated enough. But personally, I agree! 4 aside would be fine with me!!

EDIT – although, its certainly not the end-all solution. there are plenty of 3 or 4 points per side deer out there that are 1.5 year olds. Doesn’t make much sense to take these out, just becuase they happen to meet legal criteria.

Moss- I agree. I guess the best we can do is support proactive hunting groups, talk to our law makers, and reduce the infighting (between hunting groups) to an acceptable minimum.

Would be nice if many of the groups with clout pulled together and promoted QDM principles. Everyone adopt “QDM bylaws” so to speak, or at least the major ones… This in itself brings up known issues, though, such as bait/no bait issues (QDM principles I assume would ban baiting; however food plot implimentation would obviously be tremendously encouraged)…

Quote:

---

So who said the goal of 15 is a healthier herd than the a goal of 30? or 60? What I want to know is if the reasons for the management goals are BIOLOGICAL or SOCIAL? I know the answer already, it is SOCIAL. Who says the herd was not healthy to begin with?

I kinda understand what you are trying to say, but I don’t think QDM calls for cutting the herd below any BIOLOGICAL limit right? I mean is there anything in QDM about car-deer collison’s and crop damage?

---

Good questions, I either don’t fully know the answers or can only offer an opinion, which is not necessarily the same as an answer…. DNR, I guess, [is who sets the goal / has the authority] but like you said their decisions are certainly not all based solely on hunter input. There are very many social considerations that go into that decision, I’m sure. Certainly we as hunters shouldn’t pretend that we are the only group who has a vested interest in deer population goals.

As far as QDM culling BELOW carrying capacity of the land… Short answer is “yes”, in some cases. Long answer is I don’t fully know how to answer that question either; however, here is something that is cut and pasted straight out of the QDMA.ORG website, which I think will point us in the right direction. “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.” I think their philosophy certainly doesn’t want goal to be above carrying capacity, but they also allow for social factors to influence herd control. The word “social” was acutally used twice in QDMA’s definition of QDM. Just becuase land can support X number of deer doesn’t mean that we should necessarily have X as our population goal. I think its obvious that us hunters are not the only kid in the candystore when it comes to herd management… Many more interests involved, unfortunately.

BTW, if anyone on this site has NOT checked out QDMA.ORG, please take a peek!!! Its a great site, with incredible resources. If you are not a member, take a look at joining. I have been a member for a few years – thier publications are top notch, and some of their books are incredibly informative. If nothing else, just check out the site for more info about the QDM philosophy. It makes SO much sense, and is all scientifically based and backed up. There is no doubt in my mind that much, MUCH more quality deer hunting experiences would be created if more people were aware and/or subscribed to this way of thinking. Plus, we could get rid of EAB, I’m sure!!!

After they changed EAB so you could get a sticker for next year by shooting a doe this year it didnt affect me at all since I shoot 2 does a year. I did notice after the EAB years there seemed to be more mature bucks out and about during daylight hours. I believe with less does the big boys have to look a little harder to find cooperative does during the rut.

Quote:

---

After they changed EAB so you could get a sticker for next year by shooting a doe this year it didnt affect me at all since I shoot 2 does a year. I did notice after the EAB years there seemed to be more mature bucks out and about during daylight hours. I believe with less does the big boys have to look a little harder to find cooperative does during the rut.

---

Exactly the idea of QDM. Makes for a better rut, better hunting, see more deer, more mature deer, better overall quality hunting experience, etc… The benefits go on and on for those willing to subscribe. I definately like the “shoot ahead for next year” EAB rule.

To be fair, though, the zone I hunt in has never been EAB, so I’ve never “been forced to” hunt in one. (I hope every year when the regs come out to be in the herd reduction or EAB, but herd reduction has been the best I’ve gotten)… EAB for a few years in a row would be AWESOME for my area (I can’t speak for all of 59A, but for the area I hunt anyway), I would fully expect to see more mature bucks and have a better rut after a few seasons of EAB.

Quote:

---

So who said the goal of 15 is a healthier herd than the a goal of 30? or 60? What I want to know is if the reasons for the management goals are BIOLOGICAL or SOCIAL? I know the answer already, it is SOCIAL. Who says the herd was not healthy to begin with?

---

Just started reading that DNR article. Starts out answering that question with stating some of the players involved….

“hunter who loves deer season more than any
other time of year
photographer who stalks deer with a camera
family who depends on deer for food
small business owner who depends on hunting
season for a living
forester whose tree seedlings cannot grow due
to deer browsing
botanist who sees grazed wildflowers disappear
from the forest
farmer who wants the deer out of the corn field
motorist whose car has been totaled in a collision
with a deer.”

Again, it always has to be about compromise, I suppose.

Where I hunt in SE MN there are huge numbers of does. I would be all for EAB. I can see where many of you might be coming from if your area would not supposrt that though. I am suprised its not in full effect here.

Quote:

---

After they changed EAB so you could get a sticker for next year by shooting a doe this year it didnt affect me at all since I shoot 2 does a year.

---

Same here. I hated it before that change.

no eab! My area has far less does then in the past. We have seen a major decline in dos over the past 8-10 yers!! Most the corn was out where i was huntin and i saw 3 does from stand in 5 days of hunting. But i did see About 8 bucks all to small to shoot. Very similar numbers for the rest of my hunting party as well. 5 of us shot 3 deer. one good 10 point. ! small 10 point And 1 doe. we all could have been done opening day if we wanted to shoot 2 1/2 yr old bucks.

I would prefer antler restrictions over EAB! Some areas do not have alot of does. And i do hunt southeast mn.

I personally liked EAB. I think Mossboss touched on the fact that it’s just too hard to make statements about a whole units’ deer herd. I live and hunt in 59C, I primarily hunt 3 different farms all within 15 miles of each other. Each property has a huge difference in herd #’s. There are areas where EAB kills too many does, primarily where the land is broken into small chunks (80 ac. and less) and having high hunter density. Then you still have large land holdings where EAB doesn’t accomplish herd reduction unless the people managing the large parcels make their own decision to knock the does down, which requires way more than one doe for every buck.

59C encompasses everything from driftless area farm country to pine barrons and swamp on the east side….how can the DNR effectively make a population overwinter goal for a unit with such diversity in habitat??? They can’t it’s impossible, even if their SAK method of pop. estimates was remotely accurate they still couldn’t make an inteligent estimation of what a healthy herd population would be in my unit. In my opinion the best managers are the ones in the field(and that’s us), I don’t really care what the DNR implements as long as they keep providing ample antlerless tags so land owners can make their own management decisions based on their own particular piece of property.

Also in dealing with the topic of antler restrictions, I would strongly oppose any kind of regulation of what a legal buck is. Last season I shot a 7 point that weighed 230 lbs field dressed. He was at least 4 1/2 years old. Not all bucks grow trophy racks and I see 4 point side restrictions as just a really great way of “highgrading” the buck population. AR’s are on a completely different topic anyway since it has more to do with quality than quantitiy. If it’s quality that the state is looking for they need look no further than Iowa’s regs….copy and paste them for quality. Just my .02 cents

great idea everyone should harvest 1-3 slick domes per year. especially with the venison donation programs available, if your family won’t consume the meat.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I theory I can see your reasoning, but in the area I hunt, people are just shooting more young bucks to go witht he does, not just taking more does. I saw a couple of years where guys came to the stations with the whole bed of there trucks filled with deer, over the sides. Nothing good about that. Not sure how even a couple of families could eat all that meat. Anyway, it it was one buck per multiple does, I could see it, but that is not how the law is written and it did little for the ratios by us, just gutted the total numbers, both buck and doe.

Darin

---

Its all part of reducing the herd, providing more food for the herd in general. QDM philosophy argues to not shoot the nubs. I aggree with you here. Optimally we’d pass on any immature buck. But I might argue that reducing the overally herd is priority number one. EAB gets this done where it otherwise wouldn’t without EAB. Maybe not preferable to voluntary means, but it works

Trucks filled to the sides with deer. Why isn’t that good? I’m sure since the area was EAB, populations were way above goal. I would think taking those deer out would be a great thing. I highly doubt it extirpated the deer popultaion from that area…. Left more browse for the smarter mature bucks that surved the season = bigger, healthier deer next season.

---

Problem is, this happened for three years straight. People wood drive the woods and shoot everything they saw. Now, we do not see hardly anything in the woods, during the season, or on the cameras. Three of us on our woods shot one doe last year and saw just a couple of other deer and only had 2-3 does on our cameras total that were out for 6 weeks. There has to be balance, and that did not happen. DNR should have looked at the #’s being taken from that area an should have known what was happeneing, but they let it continue…just WRONG. Last year I only heard maybe 10 shots all day on the opener. Maybe another 10 the next day. Second weekend maybe 10 from Fri-Sunday

Darin

Couldn’t agree more. I know that EAB didn’t hurt everywhere equally. That is the main problem.

We hunt public land in Bayfield county. Our particular camp doesn’t shoot any does up there because the herd is very weak and has been for 10 years. We need the reproduction. Needless to say we haven’t harvested a deer from that area for 4 years I don’t think. I passed on a 2-3 year old six pointer last year… hopefully he made it through.

The old-timers at our camp are disgusted to the point of not even coming any more. The woods are spewing with acorns and beautiful cover… but the deer just arent there anymore. So if that is the goal of the Wisconsin DNR – maybe I need to hunt in another state and not grace their bank account with my $$.

Shednut – great points, good reply!! I highly agree that is very difficult to generalize a whole DMU when there is such highly varied habitat inside that DMU. That DNR article that was linked a few posts back was highly interesting and states that the more you try to micromanage the units, the harder it gets. And the more changes that they make, the less historical data they have to base thier decisions on. It stated that once a DMU change is made, it takes 5-10 years of data to see how that change is working out. So basically they were saying changing DMU’s is not very logical, nor is micromanaging into smaller and smaller DMU’s. In fact, after reading the article, it seemed like it would just be easier to manage the state in about 3 to 5 different DMU’s instead of the current 130 or so.

Anyway, the problem lies with neighbor X seeing 30 deer on the opener and neighbor Y (on the next property over) seeing 2. Neighbor X is happy, thinks there are tons of deer in his whole unit and wants more kill tags. Neighbor Y is unhappy and thinks there are no deer in his whole unit and wants less doe tags. Odds are that Mr X either baits heavily (not necessarily great QDM technique), has fantastic food plots, bedding area, cover habitat, and doesn’t pressure the deer (which IS great QDM technique) and/or Mr. Y has none of the above. Of course this is over simplified and is not always the case, but you get the idea of how with given variable changes, perceptions about the herd are bound to change. So who is right regarding the size of the herd? Neihgbor X or Y?? I would argue both are, as are niether. But its impossible for the DNR to micromanage tiny parcel sized DMU’s — so great point Shednut in giving the landowners/managers the tags and power to doso… Problem is that when they had a system that did that in place (free tags in “T” zones but not EAB), it wasn’t getting the populations down to the social carrying capacity goals… Thus the forced EAB.

I hear so many people make claims about whole units or areas based on their own personal hunting experience. I certainly empathize with you if you aren’t seeing deer. Thats sucks to hunt when your odds are very poor. But one or a handful of experiences shouldn’t be correlated to the management rules of a whold DMU unit unfortunately. I come from a very scientific background, and I can understand why hunters would want DMU policy change based on thier own experiences… But I can also understand why the DNR needs much broader data to base decisions on….

I heard once at a customer service seminar through my employer that if a person has a good experience they tell 3 people about it. If a person has a bad experience, they tell 17. I know we hear a ton of compaints about not seeing as many deer as we should in certain areas, and I’m not saying that those complaints are unfounded… But I’m sure there are many people in those same units (maybe the next property over, maybe miles away) that are seeing thier fair share of deer and not being as vocal as the group seeing less deer….

I ceratinly could be wrong, its happened once or twice before. Good discussion, nonetheless. Argueing one side always (or at least SHOULD) help to appreciate the flipside….

Quote:

---

Anyway, the problem lies with neighbor X seeing 30 deer on the opener and neighbor Y (on the next property over) seeing 2. Neighbor X is happy, thinks there are tons of deer in his whole unit and wants more kill tags. Neighbor Y is unhappy and thinks there are no deer in his whole unit and wants less doe tags. Odds are that Mr X either baits heavily (not necessarily great QDM technique), has fantastic food plots, bedding area, cover habitat, and doesn’t pressure the deer (which IS great QDM technique) and/or Mr. Y has none of the above. Of course this is over simplified and is not always the case, but you get the idea of how with given variable changes, perceptions about the herd are bound to change. So who is right regarding the size of the herd? Neihgbor X or Y?? I would argue both are, as are niether. But its impossible for the DNR to micromanage tiny parcel sized DMU’s — so great point Shednut in giving the landowners/managers the tags and power to doso… Problem is that when they had a system that did that in place (free tags in “T” zones but not EAB), it wasn’t getting the populations down to the social carrying capacity goals… Thus the forced EAB.

I hear so many people make claims about whole units or areas based on their own personal hunting experience. I certainly empathize with you if you aren’t seeing deer. Thats sucks to hunt when your odds are very poor. But one or a handful of experiences shouldn’t be correlated to the management rules of a whold DMU unit unfortunately. I come from a very scientific background, and I can understand why hunters would want DMU policy change based on thier own experiences… But I can also understand why the DNR needs much broader data to base decisions on….

---

I actually agree with you here on the use of personal observation, but when EVERYONE (or even most everyone) has the same reports of seeing far less deer, you have to think something is up. I also think the SAK model is a decent model for population estimate, except when you enact a rule such as EAB, people are going to whack the snot out of the antlerless deer, so the model won’t recognize the reduction until it is already ruduced to a level where people just can’t shoot any more in a 9 day season.

Quote:

---

There are areas where EAB kills too many does, primarily where the land is broken into small chunks (80 ac. and less) and having high hunter density. Then you still have large land holdings where EAB doesn’t accomplish herd reduction unless the people managing the large parcels make their own decision to knock the does down, which requires way more than one doe for every buck.

---

Excellent points.