[BruceBruce1959]

I'm a little concerned with the garbage information QDMA has posted with regard to how they rated Vermont as #1 in the Northeast.

I'm not speaking about any of the other states mentioned or rated in their report but when it comes to what they're reporting about Vermont they aren't even CLOSE to being the least bit accurate with their ratings.
As a Vermont resident hunter I can say without hesitation they are nuts and I'm sure I could easily get a long list of other hunters that would agree with me.

Their report could cause hunters to flock to Vermont to hunt the Northeasts #1 QDMA State (Vermont) and if they did they'd be in for one heck of a huge disappointment.

according to the QDMA website, "Quality Deer Management is about having the right number of deer for what the habitat can support,
having bucks and does in all age classes, and having balanced numbers of adult bucks and does." Vermont doesn't even come close to those requirements. :crazy:

I don't know what they were thinking when they compiled this garbage data but here's a link to the 2010 QDMA Whitetail Report

 

[ronn]

i'll have to read it, and will later i'm head out the door. but maybe they are saying vt is the best of the worst? how did nh, me, ma, conn, ri, fare?
thanks for posting it. don't know just asking cause i'm incline to agree with you from hunters i know that hunt vt.

 

[BruceBruce1959]

Ronn I could spend hours commenting on all of it, so at this point all I can say is I think you're going to be shaking your head like I was when you read it.

 

[onehorse]

Bruce,
I lived in Vermont from 1970 until 1991, and hunted there before and after that time. During all those years and in the following ones right up to now, I don't believe that Vermont, for a variety of reasons, ever had quality deer hunting and a balanced herd.(If it had, I might not be living in Montana today!) There may be small areas that have some nice deer and a few good ones show up in different places every years, but as for accross the board, state-wide quality, that just isn't the case. Here's may take on this: Severe winters, changing habitat (overgrown farmland turning into mature forests), bad management - is the herd still at the mercy of the legislature or are the biologist and Fish and Game making the calls these days? Anyway, I hope things get straight there, but I, for one, just couldn't wait them out. Hope you live to be old enough to see it happen.

 

[BruceBruce1959]

onehorse your input on Vermont hunting speaks volumes to me, your opinions have more of my respect than any of those boggus reports these organizations try to fabricate to me.
You know (very well) just like I do that those sort of reports don't do a thing to help Vermonts poor hunting conditions in fact reports like that could do more harm than good.

The part that really gets me ticked off is, Matt Ross from Bennington, Vt. who is also a Vermont Biologist is contributing and supporting the garbage they're reporting. That's just wrong, totally wrong.

I guess there are reasons why this garbage is being reported but I sure can't figure out why.
It's so far from accurate it should almost be considered illegal due to false reporting.

 

[wmi]

OK everybody let's all go to Vermont to hunt with Bruce! I can tell he is trying to hind something! ROTFLMAO!:ibtl:ickle::yes:

 

[Hunting Man]

BB, the area that I hunt in PA is turning into the same thing. Seeing deer has become a rare event???? This isn't true in all parts of PA but is is happening in many areas. I never thought I'd wittness this in my lifetime. When the state instituted the 3-4 point restriction and issued thousands of doe tags things seemed to come under control with regards to doe/buck ratio. Now some 7-8 years later all deer (in our area)are sparce. The state never cut back doe permits!

 

[ronn]

i'm not sure i understood it all but this is what i got out of it. first vt nh me had about 15% fewer deer shot and it was expected due to the sever winter. vt has reduced the % of 1.5 year old bucks shot but increased the 2.5 and the 3.5 year old bucks shot. they also increased the % of antlerless. now here's the point i take from it vt is doing a good job because fewer % 1.5 and higher % older, this is a good thing. i'm sure the antler restriction had a lot to do with that. now the taking of does % is up as well. does this mean the older bucks aren't locked down with does as tight because there are fewer and therefore being taken? i don't know.

the biggest thing i got out of it was the total was down in 08 over 07 because of the bad winter from pa to me. so i would suspect 09 will be down for 08 for the same reason. if we continue this weather pattern i would suspect the numbers to go up in 10.

the numbers don't lie but keep in mind its dealing with % not totals and is based on the number of deer taken to the check in stations.

Now I'm hearing that nh is going to go bucks only this year due to the very low numbers caused by the 2 bad winters. it also would not surprise me if they go with that 3 point rule across the state. from what i've seen both are good with me. the last number i saw from the f&g was 77,000 deer in nh taken from their website. i would expect to see the doe tags in most all the "northeast" states lowered.

WMI, i cutting out a week to hunt with you this year so be looking for me. grin

 

[wmi]

Ronn you know where I live and you know which room is yours---come on down.

 

[BruceBruce1959]

Yup Ronn I understand it's percentages not totals and I'm not questioning the accuracy of the report's percentages or totals from Vermont.

The report comes from the QDMA website, This is a report that should be making us aware of areas that are producing quality hunting conditions in well managed ares,, the QDMA's management ideals are to establish Quality Deer hunting in area's that maintain QDM according to their guidelines, this report is trying to convince me that hunting conditions here in Vermont are better than Pa.'s and that's not even close to the truth. (and I only use Pa. as an Example)
Let me try to explain better the Whole problem with the report, the parts that go totally against Quality Deer Management Associations Ideal guidelines
their own statement which reads....

"Quality Deer Management is about having the right number of deer for what the habitat can support,
having bucks and does in all age classes, and having balanced numbers of adult bucks and does."

Right number of deer that the habitat can support...
Problem #1, I don't care who you ask whether it's the Vt. state Biologists or the hunters they all agree that vermont has a big problem with areas that have
an abundance of deer and other areas where even trying to find a single deer track is a days work.

having balanced numbers of adult bucks and does...
Problem #2, and again If you ask the State Biologists or the hunters again they'll agree that Vermonts deer herd is way out of balance it's been a problem for many many years and I don't see any changes that are going to make it better anytime soon.

Land Access
Problem #3 which is pretty much an area the QDMA even fails to report on which is "Land Access" you can't develop QDM without land access and sadly Vermont falls toward the bottom of the lists that refer to Land Access and again the Biologists and the hunters agree once again on the subject of land access.

As a resident Vermont hunter I'm going to keep hunting Vermont it's just an area I love hunting, it's home, most of us know it isn't about getting the game it's about being at one with nature and enjoying the great outdoors that God has provided for us but this report isn't fair to anyone that reads into what's being reported about Vermont.

I really feel bad for anyone that buys into it, onehorse, a former Vermonter even stated "I don't believe that Vermont, for a variety of reasons, ever had quality deer hunting and a balanced herd.". and he's absolutely right and if you took any one of the problems I pointed out and removed it because it isn't accurately meeting the QDM guidelines than that knocks Vermont right off the report.

I hope I've been able to clearly explain the things I see wrong with this report.

Have a great day all.... :smile:

 

[ronn]

i agree with everything you said except i don't think its saying hunting is better in vt than pa. i read it has vt is doing a better job than pa in management. i think the only reason that vt made #1 is because they are doing the best job even with the trials they face, the ones you mentioned, and doing it better than the other states in the "northeast". coming closest to the goals. land access isn't really a qdm thing its a state law thing or a property owner hunter relation thing. and just how does va fall into the northeast anyway? the severe winters, i'm sure took a higher % in vt, nh, and me, than in va, md, and nj, skewing the % of winter kill here and in vt, as well as all the other states either raising it or lowering it.

i'm planning on going to the deer hearing, here, and bringing up those very things you mentioned except for land access. its really not a problem here, in my opinion.

first, if a very bad winter lowers the pop by 20%, isn't that then, by qdm standards, the number of deer we should have? therefore fooling around with trying to increase the herd size is a mute point without addressing the need to improve the habitat in order to sustain a higher population. I think nh, and probably vt and me, should look at doing something like they did with the turkey. the nwtf brought the turkey pops back working, as the states agent for the first few years, with nwtf money and landowners to make the habitat good for the turkey. why can't they, the states, do the same thing with the deer and the qdma, work on bettering the land so it will support more deer or do like they do in the west with the elk and do a feeding program. qdma works if it is worked. look at all the positive examples across the country. the whole of the bellybutton of the US, iowa, il, ky, ok, mo, texas the leader in qdma. pa, where bucks are now being taken with bigger body weights and bigger antlers than ever before. md, where they are growing and taking deer that will rival those of iowa and il, thats a secret so don't tell anyone. ok, these states have it easier than we do up here because of soil, crops, longer growing seasons, blah blah blah. thats just the trials and tribulations we face. we have to work harder and it takes longer to see the positive results of qdm.

the state will tell you that feeding promotes disease, but thats only with high densities not low ones like we have. I think they should allow feeding and make baiting less of a pain in the butt. you are still only allowed the one with a firearm and two with a bow but wouldn't the feeding/baiting still over all help the deer that get missed or that are left? (maybe thats taking a short cut and those rarely if ever work and must be maintained at an expense. that is open for debate, no pun intended) plus go with an antler restriction and maybe bucks only for a period of time. but one doesn't work without the other.

i agree with onehorse that as long as these issues are controlled by the general legislators, and not a dnr, things will not run as well and needed changes will not happen as quickly as is needed.

having a couple rough hunting seasons doesn't mean the powers that be are doing a bad job. it could mean, as the reports says, they are doing a good job under toughest of conditions. maybe the state needs to do a better job relating the goals and the steps they are taking to the hunting public. in other words more hearings to explain and answer the questions and concerns of those they care about what is going on like you and me.

anyway, thats what i read. kudos to vt to doing the best they can with the hurtles they face.

only my opinion

 

[Buckshot]

Thanks for the link, I can't wait to digest some of the material. I can't speak for what your dealing with in NH but I agree with Onehorse that the DNR can't be effective and be run by politicians.

There are some in TN that would love to Finance the TWRA through the general fund because they want access to to the revenue the agency generates. As it is now even though they are a state agency it is totally self funded. Politics have no place in wildlife decisions.

 

[BruceBruce1959]

Politics have no place in wildlife decisions.

Very Well Said !!! :thumbup:

 

[ronn]

very well said !!! :thumbup:

x2!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!