Quality Deer Management 2014 Whitetail Report

WhitetailReport 2014
An annual report on the status of white-tailed deer, the foundation of the hunting industry in North America.
Compiled and Written by: Kip Adams, certified wildlife biologist, QDMA Director of Education and Outreach Matt Ross, certified wildlife biologist and licensed forester, QDMA Certification Programs Manager With contributions from QDMA Founder and Director of Development Joe Hamilton, QDMA Wildlife Management Cooperative Specialist Brian Towe, QDMA Communications Manager Tanner Tedeschi, and QDMA Youth Education and Outreach Manager Hank Forester.
qdmas
WhitetailReport
QDMA Mission:
QDMA is dedicated to ensuring the future of white-tailed deer, wildlife habitat and our hunting heritage.
TABLE
OF
CONtENtS
Part 2 Subsection: Public Involvement Does Your State Have a Deer Management Plan?..........41 Public Input on Deer Regulations..................................42 Whos Keeping an Eye on Deer?.....................................43 Communication & Science vs. Public Desire...................44
Part 1: Deer Harvest Trends
QDMA National Staff

CHIEF EXEcUTIVE OFFIcER Brian Murphy CHIEF OPERATING OFFIcER Bob Mazgaj DIREcToR oF EdUcATIoN & OUTREAcH Kip Adams DIREcToR oF CoMMUNIcATIoNS Lindsay Thomas Jr. DIREcToR oF DEVELoPMENT Joe Hamilton CERTIFIcATIoN PRoGRAMS MANAGER Matt Ross WILdLIFE MANAGEMENT CooPERATIVE SPEcIALIST Brian Towe CoMMUNIcATIoNS MANAGER Tanner Tedeschi YoUTH EdUcATIoN ANd OUTREAcH MANAGER Hank Forester ART & DESIGN MANAGER Cindy Compton DATA ANALyST Danielle Riley MEMBERSHIP MANAGER Tori Andrews AccoUNTING ANd FINANcE SENIoR MANAGER Lisa Stevens
Antlered Buck Harvest.....................................................4 Age Structure of the Buck Harvest...................................6 Deer Harvest by Weapon Type.........................................8 Pre-Firearms Season Harvest........................................10 Antlerless Deer Harvest.................................................12 2012 Antlerless Harvest Breakdown..............................14
Part 3: QDMA Mission & Annual Report
Part 2: Current Issues & Trends
North American Whitetail Summit................................16 Increased Hunter Approval Rating.................................18 Increased Desire to Hunt for Meat.................................19 Deer Tagging Requirements & Reporting Options.........22 Oklahoma Educates Hunters.........................................23 Online Hunter Education & Permit Sales.......................24 Deer Management Assistance Programs.......................26 Lease Rates...................................................................27 Private Land & Forested Percentages............................28 Impacts of Record 2012 Hemorrhagic Disease Outbreak.................................29 Increased CWD Prevalence Rate....................................30 Seeing & Killing Mature Bucks......................................32 Poachers Suck...............................................................34 Buck Harvest Regulations.............................................36
QDMA: Ensuring the Future of Deer Hunting.................46 QDMA Research Update................................................47 2013 QDMA Branch Highlights......................................48 Special Branch Events in 2013.......................................49 QDMAs Wildlife Management Cooperative Specialist Brian Towe.............................................50 QDMA Website Resources..............................................51 QDMA Certification Programs........................................52 The Rack Pack QDMAs Youth Program........................54 2012 Honor Roll of Donors............................................56 How to Donate to QDMA...............................................57 QDMAs 2013 Conservation Awards...............................58 QDMA Branch Directory.................................................60 Deer Project Leader Directory........................................63
INFORMAtiON & ASSiStANcE

Members of the media who have questions about the Whitetail Report, need additional information, or need sources for stories on whitetail biology or management, can contact QDMAs Education & Outreach staff at any time using the information below, or contact the National Office at (800) 209-3337. KIP ADaMS, Knoxville, Pennsylvania QDMA Director of Education & Outreach Certified wildlife biologist Certified taxidermist Bachelors: Penn State University Masters: University of New Hampshire e-mail: kadams@qdma.com office: (814) 326-4023 cell: (570) 439-5696 MaTT ROSS, Clifton Park, New York QDMA Certification Programs Manager Certified wildlife biologist Licensed forester Bachelors: University of Massachusetts Masters: University of New Hampshire e-mail: mross@qdma.com office: (518) 280-3714 cell: (518) 391-8414
National Board of Directors

Louis Batson III, Chairman (S.C.) Leon Hank, Vice Chairman (Mich.) Jimmy Bullock (Miss.) Craig Dougherty, Ph.D., (N.Y.) Bill Eikenhorst, DVM (Texas) Nicole Garris (S.C.) Dave Guynn, Ph.D. (S.C.) Brian Linneman (Neb.) Robert Manning (S.C.) Jerry Martin (Mo.) John Paul Morris (Mo.) Fred Pape (Ky.) Mark Thomas (Ala.)
National Headquarters
170 Whitetail Way P.O. Box 160 Bogart, GA 30622
(800) 209-3337 www.QDMA.com

facebook.com/TheQDMA @TheQDMA
2 QDMAs Whitetail Report
2014
INtRODUctiON
White-tailed deer are the most important game species in North America. More hunters pursue whitetails than any other species, and whitetail hunters contribute more financially than any other hunter segment. Collectively speaking, whitetails are the foundation of the entire hunting industry. But, how are whitetails doing in your state, province or region? How did your last hunting season compare to the previous years or to your neighbors? Read Part 1 of the Whitetail Report to learn about state/provincial antlered buck and antlerless harvests during the past three seasons and the buck harvest by age class. See how the deer harvest by weapon type has changed over the past decade, how much of the harvest now occurs before the firearms season even starts, and learn how many buck and doe fawns are included in the antlerless harvest for each state and province. Finally, find which states are shooting the most bucks and does (in total and on a per square mile basis), and see that the percentage of 1-year-old bucks in the harvest is currently at the lowest national percentage ever reported! In Part 2 learn about recent trends and the most pressing issues facing whitetails. View information on the inaugural North American Whitetail Summit. The QDMA is hosting this event in partnership with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Bass Pro Shops. The Summit is a first-of-its-kind gathering of representatives from all sectors of the deer hunting and management community to address the current challenges and threats facing white-tailed deer. The Summit will be a landmark in the history of white-tailed deer management, and QDMA is proud to be spearheading the effort. See the trends in increased hunter approval ratings and increased hunter desires to hunt for meat. Learn how the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservations strong educational campaign to protect young bucks has dramatically reduced the number of yearling bucks harvested annually in their state. Protecting young bucks is a pillar of the herd management cornerstone of QDM and something QDMA has promoted since our inception. QDMA has an excellent working relationship with the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation and we applaud them and Oklahomas sportsmen and women for their efforts and deer management success. Take a state-by-state and provinceby-province look at the amount of private vs. public land and the amount that is forested. Youll be amazed at the amount of public land in some states. This is directly related to hunter access issues, and QDMA continues to work to enhance access and opportunities for sportsmen and women. Learn how the record 2012 hemorrhagic disease outbreak affected deer herds in 2013 and what you likely saw (or didnt see) during this past hunting season. Compare which states and provinces have DMAP programs and online services, and see how lease rates vary throughout North America. See the latest science on mature buck movement patterns, and learn how to increase your odds of crossing paths with them during the hunting season. View how state and provincial wildlife agencies regulate their buck harvest. QDMA and our members work with numerous states and provinces annually to help enhance deer management programs, and youll see how its not a one-size-fits-all recipe. Finally, learn about deer tagging requirements, the increasing spread of CWD, and why poachers suck! One of QDMAs big initiatives in 2014 is to work with states and legislators to dramatically increase the fees and penalties associated with poaching whitetails. See which states have already done so and which ones QDMA is currently working with on this important initiative. Part 2 also contains a special subsection on Public Involvement in Deer Management. See which states and provinces have a published deer management plan, how the public can engage on deer management and hunting issues, and whos keeping their eye on our deer herds. Youll be surprised at how many (or few) deer staff some agencies employ. QDMA staff have provided input to numerous states management plans, served on some states steering committees, and will work closely with states and provinces on future plans. This special subsection also includes information on the degree that science and public desire impact deer hunting regulations. Many hunters will be shocked and amazed at what this data suggests. Part 3 provides an overview of QDMAs mission, updates for many exciting projects, information on QDMA Branches and special events, and more. It also includes valuable directories for QDMA Branches and state/provincial deer project leaders. Prior Whitetail Reports have been quoted, cited, and used as research and reference material by numerous publications, communicators, and deer hunters. Due to the response, QDMA enjoys producing this annual report, and we hope you find it helpful and informative.
PREViOUS EDitiONS
OF tHE
WHitEtAiL REpORt
In various sections of this report, you will find references to previous editions of the Whitetail Report, which has been published annually since 2009. Every edition of the Whitetail Report is available as a free PDF on QDMA.com under the Resources menu. Cover photo by Linda Arndt
WhitetailReport
ABOUt
tHE
DEER HARVESt DAtA
iN
THiS REpORt
mile figures presented in the following pages is that some states use total area for these statistics while others use deer habitat (and some differ on what is included in deer habitat). Therefore, we calculated per square mile estimates using each state/ provinces total area (including water bodies, urban areas, etc.). This will allow future estimates to be very comparable across years for a given state/province, but not always across states/provinces.
The 2013-14 deer season is closed or nearing so for states/provinces across the whitetails range, and biologists will be crunching data in the coming months to assess the outcome of this past season. For the 2014 Whitetail Report, QDMA compared harvest data from the three most recent seasons available: 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. We acquired harvest data from 36 of 37 states in the Midwest, Northeast and Southeast (see map) that comprise the majority of whitetail habitat
in the U.S. We also acquired data from four of eight Canadian provinces. The following data are from each state and/or provincial wildlife agency. Agencies use different techniques to collect this data, and some collect more data than others. Analyses among agencies may not always compare apples to apples, but each state/ province provided their best possible data. Also, analyses across years should provide valid comparisons for individual agencies. An important note about the per square
ANtLERED BUcK HARVESt

With respect to antlered buck harvest (those bucks 1 years or older), the 201213 season was a great one for many hunters in the U.S. and Canada. Twenty of 36 states (56 percent) in the Midwest, Northeast and Southeast shot more antlered bucks in 2012 than in 2011. All three (100 percent) Canadian provinces that provided harvest data for the last two years shot more antlered bucks in 2012. In total, the Midwest, Northeast and Southeast (not counting Alabama) regions tagged over 2.7 million bucks, and another 96,210 bucks were taken in four provinces in Canada. We were unable to attain Ontarios harvest, and Ontario typically ranks near the top in Canada in this statistic. Texas continued its tradition of harvesting the most with 304,035 antlered bucks. This was more than all of the bucks harvested from Maine to Maryland! For the second year in a row, Michigan was next with 222,640, and Wisconsin was third with 165,457 antlered bucks. Texas shot fewer bucks than the previous year, but Michigan and Wisconsin both shot more. In the Midwest, hunters shot 1,038,301 antlered bucks, 2 percent above the number in 2011. Minnesota hunters shot 14 percent more bucks in 2012, and Wisconsin hunters shot 10 percent more. On the flip side, South Dakota hunters shot 25 percent fewer bucks than in 2011, and Nebraska shot 29 percent fewer. Parts of the Midwest were hit hard with hemorrhagic disease during summer 2012, and that had a major impact on the seasons deer harvest. Numerically, Michigan shot the most bucks (222,640), while Wisconsin
(2.5) and Michigan (2.3) reported the antlered bucks. This was 1 percent higher most bucks per square mile. Surprisingly, than in 2011, as eight of 13 states shot more Michigan harvested more bucks per square bucks in 2012. Maryland and West Virginia hunters each shot 8 permile than during the Of the 36 states we cent fewer bucks in previous year even with 2012, while Vermont significant losses to hem- received data from for and Maine hunters shot orrhagic disease during the past two seasons, 9 and 18 percent more, summer 2012. These are respectively. Numerically, incredible buck harvest 56 percent of them shot rates and are nearly doushot the more antlered bucks in Pennsylvania ble the Midwest average most bucks (133,860), 2012 than in 2011. of 1.2 bucks per square followed by New York mile. The Midwest (118,993) and Virginia ranged from harvesting 0.3 bucks per (96,853). The Northeast averaged shooting square mile in Nebraska and North Dakota 2.0 bucks per square mile and ranged from to 2.5 per square mile in Wisconsin. 0.4 bucks in Maine to 2.9 in Pennsylvania, In the Northeast, hunters shot 517,310 3.0 in West Virginia and 3.1 per square
British Columbia
Alberta
Saskatchewan Manitoba
New Brunswick Quebec
Ontario
WEST
MIDWEST
NORTHEAST
Nova Scotia
SOUTHEAST
Whitetail Report Regions
PART 1: DEER HARVEST TRENdS
2014
range, and they experience severe winters and short growing seasons. Maine and North Dakota both border Canada and have similar per square mile buck harvest rates.
mile in Maryland. In the Southeast, hunters shot 1,178,840 antlered bucks (excluding Alabama). This was 2 percent more than in 2011 when using data from states that could provide it for both years. Six of 10 states shot more bucks in 2012 than 2011, and their increases ranged from less than 1 percent in Florida to 19 percent in Louisiana. Conversely, four states shot fewer and their decreases ranged from -2 percent in Texas to -6 percent in Oklahoma. Numerically, Texas shot the most bucks (304,035) with Georgia (130,115), Mississippi (123,000), and South Carolina (116,673) also surpassing the 100,000 mark. The Southeast averaged shooting 1.7 bucks per square mile and ranged from 0.9 bucks in Oklahoma to a nation-high of 3.9 per square mile in South Carolina. Unfortunately, South Carolina does not collect age data on the deer harvest so it couldnt estimate the percentage of the buck harvest that was yearlings. In Canada, hunters shot 96,210 antlered bucks in 2012 in the four provinces we received data from. British Columbia shot the most (48,627), followed by Quebec (36,220), Nova Scotia (6,219) and New Brunswick (5,144). From 2011 to 2012, Nova Scotia shot 13 percent more bucks, Quebec shot 29 percent more and New Brunswick shot 30 percent more. Nova Scotia shot the most bucks per square mile (0.3), and this was approximately double
the Canadian average. While bucks killed per square mile in Canada is much lower than each U.S. region, it is important to remember that provinces are at the northern limit of whitetail range, large portions of the provinces are north of the whitetails
ESTIMATeD BUCK HARVeST

% Change Bucks State/Province 2010 2011 2012 11 to 12 PSM** Illinois 69,139 70,513 69,681 -1 1.2 Indiana 53,007 50,717 45,936 -9 1.3 Iowa 48,749 46,212 47,927 4 0.9 Kansas 43,047 45,025 43,321 -4 0.5 Kentucky 59,170 65,932 64,183 -3 1.6 Michigan 212,341 212,791 222,640 5 2.3 Minnesota 88,000 85,500 97,136 14 1.1 Missouri 104,607 114,031 120,549 6 1.7 Nebraska 37,967 37,160 26,309 -29 0.3 North Dakota 30,900 22,688 24,727 9 0.3 Ohio 86,017 81,721 81,149 -1 1.8 South Dakota 36,377 38,960 29,286 -25 0.4 Wisconsin 148,378 150,839 165,457 10 2.5 Midwest Total 1,017,699 1,022,089 1,038,301 2 1.2 Connecticut 5,299 6,256 6,442 3 Delaware 3,993 3,948 3,703 -6 Maine 12,230 13,056 15,385 18 Maryland 32,062 33,104 30,493 -8 Massachusetts 5,703 6,190 6,402 3 New Hampshire 6,015 6,548 6,659 2 New Jersey 19,925 18,575 17,752 -4 New York 106,960 110,002 118,993 8 Pennsylvania 122,930 127,540 133,860 5 Rhode Island 1,394 1,039 1,067 3 Vermont 8,430 7,374 8,073 9 Virginia 95,831 98,874 96,853 -2 West Virginia 58,416 78,081 71,628 -8 Northeast Total 479,188 510,587 517,310 1 1.2 1.9 0.4 3.1 0.6 0.7 2.0 2.2 2.9 0.9 0.8 2.4 3.0 2.0
Antlered Bucks 1 Years and Older
2012 Antlered Buck Harvest
Top-5 States
Texas 304,035 Michigan 222,640 Wisconsin 165,457 Pennsylvania 133,860 Georgia 130,115
2012 Buck Harvest/Square Mile
Top-5 States
South Carolina 3.9 Maryland 3.1 West Virginia 3.0 Pennsylvania 2.9 Mississippi 2.6
Alabama 129,000 130,500 * * * Arkansas 82,973 85,284 96,956 14 1.8 Florida 102,862 88,912 89,025 0 1.7 Georgia 155,255 133,520 130,115 -3 2.3 Louisiana 84,425 73,425 87,210 19 2.1 Mississippi 142,671 127,416 123,000 -3 2.6 North Carolina 80,430 80,014 80,883 1 1.7 Oklahoma 63,314 66,320 62,394 -6 0.9 South Carolina 116,755 108,907 116,673 7 3.9 Tennessee 79,859 85,676 88,549 3 2.1 Texas 357,378 309,207 304,035 -2 1.2 Southeast Total 1,394,922 1,289,181 1,178,840 2 1.7 U.S. Total 2,708,053 2,891,809 2,821,857 -2 1.7 Alberta * 19,840 * * * British Columbia * * 48,627 * 0.1 Manitoba 16,769 * * * * New Brunswick 3,914 3,972 5,144 30 0.2 Nova Scotia 5,938 5,485 6,219 13 0.3 Ontario 35,000 35,350 * * * Quebec 29,726 28,124 36,220 29 0.1 Saskatchewan 24,800 25,700 * * * Canada Total 116147 118471 96,210 24 0.2 * data not available/provided **PSM: Per Square Mile in 2012
WhitetailReport
AGE StRUctURE
OF tHE
BUcK HARVESt
bucks for four of the past five years! Kudos to Arkansas hunters and the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Other notables include Kansas and Texas (14 percent), Oklahoma (15 percent) and Louisiana (17 percent from DMAP areas). It is important to note that Kansas and Oklahoma both achieve such great harvest age structure without any antler restrictions. A strong educational program helps immensely (see page 20 to see how the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation achieves this). Finally, Texas shot over 300,000 bucks and amazingly less than one in five was 1 years old. Oklahoma (25 to 15 percent) and Texas (21 to 14 percent) had the biggest declines in percentage of yearlings from 2011 to 2012. Rhode Island (31 to 37 percent), Missouri (48 to 55 percent in non-APR counties), and Maine (54 to 62 percent) reported the largest increases in yearling buck harvest percentage from 2011 to 2012. Rhode Island has nearly doubled its percentage of yearling bucks harvested from 2010 to 2012, but still ranks at the top in the Northeast for the lowest percentage of yearlings. Other notables include Michigans drop from 59 to 53 percent yearlings, New Hampshires drop from 49 to 43 percent and New Jerseys decline from 62 to 56 percent yearlings in the buck harvest. Each state dropped six percentage points to get closer to the national average. Arkansas led the Southeast and the nation with less than one in 10 bucks being 1 years old! Finally, for the second time in three years over half of the bucks harvested in Pennsylvania were 2 years or older. The Southeast also maintained its regionwide average at 25 percent yearling bucks. Three of four bucks shot in the Southeast are 2 years or older. Nationally, the average percentage of the antlered buck harvest that was 2 years old was similar in 2011 (29 percent) and 2012 (30 percent). In 2012, this statistic ranged from 16 percent in Louisiana (DMAP areas) to 44 percent in Missouris APR counties and 45 percent in Vermont. Twenty-four of 28 states (86 percent) that we received age structure data from were able to also provide the percentage of bucks 3 years and older in the harvest; kudos to these states for their data collec-
QDMA also acquired the age structure of the buck harvest data for most states and provinces. Twenty-eight states reported the percentage of their antlered buck harvest that was 1 years old, and 24 states reported the percentage that was also 2 and 3 years or older. In Canada only New Brunswick and Nova Scotia reported age structure data so this analysis will be limited to the Midwest, Northeast and Southeast U.S. In 2012, the average percentage of the antlered buck harvest that was 1 years old was 37 percent, which is the lowest national percentage ever reported! The line graph below shows how the yearling percentage of the antlered buck harvest in the U.S. has changed during the past 24 years. In 2012, Arkansas averaged the fewest yearlings (8 percent of antlered buck harvest) and Maine reported the most (62 percent of antlered buck harvest). Importantly, Arkansas number is the lowest yearling harvest percentage ever reported for any state. Arkansas implemented a statewide antler point restriction in 1998, and the state continues with an antler point or antler point/main beam restriction today. Notably, Arkansas has led the U.S. in harvesting the lowest percentage of yearling
With Lowest Yearling-Buck Harvest Rates
Top-5 States
State 2012 Percentage Arkansas 8 Kansas 14 Texas 14 Oklahoma 15 Louisiana * 17

With Highest Harvest of 3-year-old and Older Bucks
Top-5 States
State 2012 Percentage Texas 67 Oklahoma 66 Arkansas 65 Louisiana * 59 Kansas 45 * DMAP areas
tion efforts. The average percentage of the antlered buck harvest that was 3 years and older was 32 percent in 2012, similar to the 32 percent in 2010 and 33 percent in 2011. This is higher than the percentage of 2-year-olds and not much lower than the percentage of yearlings. This is a testament to how far weve come as hunters and managers in the past decade. This statistic ranged from 7 percent in New Jersey to 65 percent in Arkansas, 66 percent in Oklahoma and 67 percent in Texas. Talk about a Golden Triangle for deer hunting! Other notables included Louisiana (59 percent in DMAP areas) and Kansas (45 percent), making the south-central United States an apparent hot zone of activity for mature bucks in the harvest last year. Only five of 22 states (23 percent) with comparable data for 2011 and 2012 realized a decline of 5 percent (by percentage) or more in harvested bucks that were 3 years and older in 2012. Amazingly, Oklahoma increased the percentage of bucks 3 years and older in the harvest from 51 to 66 percent! Regionally, the Southeast averaged the highest percentage of bucks 3 years and older (49 percent), followed by the Midwest (27 percent) and Northeast (20 percent). Approximately half of the 1.2 million bucks shot in the Southeast in 2012 were 3 years or older.
Percent Yearling Bucks in the U.S. Buck Harvest

70
60
62%
1989:
50
40
30
20
37%
2012:
10
19 89 19 94 19 99 20 01 20 03 20 05 20 07 20 09 20 11 20 12
2014
BUCK HARVeST bY AGe CLASS
2 Years Old 3 Years Old
1 Years Old
State/Province 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 2010 2011 2012 Illinois 39 41 40 * * * * * * Indiana 40 39 41 38 38 38 22 23 21 Iowa * * * * * * * * * Kansas 9 14 35 41 56 45 Kentucky 33 32 41 39 26 29 Michigan 57 59 53 25 24 28 18 17 19 Minnesota * * * * * * * * * Missouri 17(45)** 25(48) 25(55) 50(35)** 37(25) 44(24) 33(20)** 38(27) 31(22) Nebraska 25 23 28 * 43 38 * 34 34 North Dakota * * * * * * * * * Ohio 47 47 46 31 31 31 22 22 23 South Dakota * * * * * * * * * Wisconsin 47 54 54 30 30 27 23 16 19 Midwest Average 38 43 39 34 33 35 28 24 27 Connecticut 40 44 40 * * * * * * Delaware * * * * * * * * * Maine 48 54 62 25 25 23 27 21 15 Maryland 53 57 55 * * * * * * Massachusetts 40 44 45 31 29 28 29 27 27 New Hampshire 46 49 43 26 22 28 28 29 29 New Jersey 59 62 56 32 30 37 9 8 7 New York 55 54 56 28 28 29 17 18 15 Pennsylvania 48 50 48 * * * * * * Rhode Island 22 31 37 37 37 28 41 32 25 Vermont * 40 37 * 35 45 * 25 18 Virginia 49*** 48*** 47 31*** 31*** 31 20*** 21*** 21 West Virginia * 38 43 * 33 34 * 29 23 Northeast Average 49 48 47 29 30 31 22 23 20 Alabama 27*** 23*** 28*** 30*** 30*** 29*** 43*** 47*** 43*** Arkansas 10 10 8 22 23 27 68 67 65 Florida * * * * * * * * * Georgia 47 44 44 33 30 28 20 26 28 Louisiana 17*** 18*** 17*** 19*** 18*** 16*** 65*** 64*** 59*** Mississippi 13 13 17 17 70 70 North Carolina * * * * * * * * * Oklahoma 23 25 15 26 24 19 51 51 66 South Carolina * * * * * * * * * Tennessee 42 43 44 38 36 38 20 21 18 Texas 22 21 14 19 19 19 59 60 67 Southeast Average 27 25 25 27 25 25 47 51 49 U.S. Average 38 39 37 30 29 30 32 33 32 Alberta * * * * * * * * * British Columbia * * * * * * * * * Manitoba * * * * * * * * * New Brunswick 54 60 63 15 14 18 31 26 19 Nova Scotia * 51 39 * 20 30 * 29 31 Ontario * * * * * * * * * Quebec * * * * * * * * * Saskatchewan * * * * * * * * * Canada Average 54 56 51 15 17 24 31 28 25 * data not provided/available ** data from antler-point-restriction counties (non-antler-point-restriction counties) *** data from check stations and/or DMAP areas
WhitetailReport
DEER HARVESt
BY
WEApON TYpE
ship patterns, fewer hunters can lead to reduced deer sightings as deer dont get pushed among properties. When hunting pressure rises, deer take refuge on unhunted (or lightly hunted) properties, and deer sightings can be low on adjacent properties even with a high local deer density. In the Southeast, firearms reign supreme as nearly three of four deer taken in 2012 (72 percent) were with a rifle or shotgun. Muzzleloading (12 to 13 percent) and bowhunting (10 to 14 percent) only increased slightly from 2002 to 2012. In the Northeast, muzzleloading remained stable from 2002 to 2012 (16 to 17 percent), but bow harvests jumped from 18 to 26 percent of the total harvest. Firearm harvests decreased accordingly from 64 to 54 percent. Muzzleloading was least popular in the Midwest at only 7 percent of harvest in 2002 and 8 percent in 2012. Firearm harvests dropped from 76 percent to 67 percent because bow harvests jumped from 16 to 23 percent from 2002 to 2012. In Canada, muzzleloading remained stable from 2002 to 2012 (5 to 6 percent), and archery harvest (by vertical bow) dropped from 4 to 3 percent. Firearm
The average hunter today has much longer seasons and more weapon opportunities than in the past. To assess how the deer harvest has changed in response to these opportunities during the past decade, we surveyed state and provincial wildlife agencies to determine the percentage of the total deer harvest taken with a bow, rifle/ shotgun, muzzleloader, or other weapon (pistol, etc.) last season and 10 years prior. The percentage of the total deer harvest taken by muzzleloaders remained similar from 2002 (12 percent) to 2012 (13 percent), but the percentage taken by bow increased dramatically from 15 percent in 2002 to 21 percent in 2012. This is due to increased bow seasons, expanded crossbow use, and a growing interest in bowhunting. More punched tags from bowhunters means fewer rifle/shotgun harvests as that percentage declined from 73 percent of the total deer harvest in 2002 to 65 percent in 2012. In real numbers that is a difference of about 500,000 deer! Thats a lot of bullets and slugs, and it can also mean fewer hunters in the woods during firearms season. In some cases fewer hunters leads to increased deer sightings as hunter pressure is lower. However, in areas with small landowner-
Percentage of 2012 Harvest by Bow
Top-5 States
State % by Bow New Jersey 52 Connecticut 40 Ohio 39 Massachusetts 36 Illinois 33
Percentage of 2012 Harvest by Rifle/Shotgun
Top-6 States
State % by Rifle/Shotgun South Carolina 89 Maine 87 South Dakota 85 Minnesota 84 Georgia 82 Louisiana 82
Percentage of 2012 Harvest by Muzzleloader
Top-5 States
State % by Muzzleloader Rhode Island 51 Mississippi 26 New Hampshire 26 Virginia 26 Tennessee 24

harvests declined from 2002 to 2012 but still dominated at 86 percent of all deer harvests. Notably, crossbow harvests in Quebec accounted for 18 percent of all harvests in 2012. That explains the sharp decline in Quebecs (vertical) bow harvest from 10 to 2 percent from 2002 to 2012. More hunters take advantage of bows and muzzleloaders today, and thats great for the future of hunting. More seasons to go afield help even occasional hunters stay engaged, and it greatly enhances the opportunities to mentor youth and new hunters. Finally, expanded opportunities help retain aging hunters, and every hunter is critically important to our wildlife management system!
Hunters today have longer seasons and more weapon opportunities than in the past, and these expanded opportunities help keep hunters engaged, enhance the ability to mentor youth and new hunters, and help retain aging hunters.
2014
PeRCeNTAGe OF DeeR HARVeST bY WeApON TYpe, 2002 VS. 2012

Bow Rifle/Shotgun Muzzleloader Other State/Province 2002 2012 2002 2012 2002 2012 2002 2012 Illinois 32 33 62 55 4 12 1 1 Indiana 18 26 61 51 19 22 2 1 Iowa 15 20 76 67 9 13 0 0 Kansas * 28 * 67 * 5 * 0 Kentucky 10 14 76 73 14 11 0 2 Michigan 25 31 60 54 6 7 9 8 Minnesota 7 12 92 84 2 4 0 0 Missouri 10 16 87 76 3 6 0 0 Nebraska * * * * * * * * North Dakota * 16 * 73 * 1 * 3 Ohio 24 39 65 46 11 10 0 5 South Dakota 6 12 92 85 2 3 0 0 Wisconsin 15 26 84 72 1 2 0 0 Midwest Total 16 23 76 67 7 8 1 2 Connecticut 24 40 60 43 7 7 10 10 Delaware * 17 * 62 * 19 * 1 Maine 8 8 89 87 3 4 0 1 Maryland 20 31 55 51 25 18 0 0 Massachusetts 23 26 66 45 11 19 0 0 New Hampshire 16 27 57 43 26 26 1 4 New Jersey 33 52 51 35 16 13 0 0 New York 7 21 83 67 9 11 2 1 Pennsylvania 12 26 84 66 4 8 0 0 Rhode Island 29 31 26 18 45 51 0 0 Vermont 23 24 52 49 16 18 9 (youth) 13 (youth) Virginia 8 12 68 62 23 26 0 0 West Virginia 14 19 79 77 7 4 0 0 Northeast Total 18 26 64 54 16 17 2 2 Alabama 10 * 90 * 0 * 0 * Arkansas 8 14 76 73 16 13 0 0 Florida * 27 * 64 * 9 0 0 Georgia 11 16 84 82 6 3 0 0 Louisiana * 8 * 82 * 10 * 0 Mississippi 15 17 70 57 15 26 0 0 North Carolina 6 7 85 79 9 11 0 3 (crossbow) Oklahoma 15 22 60 58 25 20 0 0 South Carolina 6 7 91 89 3 3 1 2 Tennessee 12 11 67 64 21 24 0 0 Texas * * * * * * * * Southeast Total 10 14 78 72 12 13 0 0 U.S. Average 15 21 73 65 12 13 1 1 Alberta * * * * * * * * British Columbia * * * * * * * * Manitoba * * * * * * * * New Brunswick 0 3 99 96 0 0 0 1 Nova Scoita 2 4 98 97 0 0 0 0 Ontario * * * * * * * * Quebec 10 2 73 64 16 17 1 18 (crossbow) Saskatchewan 2 * 93 * 5 * 0 * Canada Average 4 3 91 86 5 6 0 6 * data not provided/available
WhitetailReport
PRE-FiREARMS SEASON HARVESt
photo by tes randle jolly
Looking at the deer harvest by weapon type provides some insight to hunter motivations but not always to harvest timing. For example, in most states hunters can use a bow or muzzleloader during the firearms season. Thus, we surveyed state and
Highest Percentage of 2012 Pre-Firearms Deer Harvest
Top-5 States
State Percentage New Hampshire 52 New Jersey 50 Maryland 43 Tennessee 39 Ohio 38

Lowest Percentage of 2012 Pre-Firearms Deer Harvest
Top-5 States
State Percentage Minnesota 9 Nebraska 9 Maine 11 Mississippi 17 North Carolina 17

provincial wildlife agencies to determine the percentage of the total deer harvest that occurred prior to opening day of the primary firearms season, and to see how that percentage changed during the past decade. In 2002, 23 percent of the harvest occurred before the firearms season, and this increased to 27 percent in 2007 and 28 percent in 2012. In real numbers, the change from 2002 to 2012 was over 300,000 more deer being tagged pre-firearms! That equates to a lot of hunters taking advantage of earlier and warmer hunting seasons. In the Southeast the pre-firearm harvest jumped from 21 to 30 percent from 2002 to 2007 and then declined to 26 percent in 2012. Most Southeastern states percentages remained similar during this 10-year span except for Tennessee where nearly three of four deer (74 percent) were taken pre-firearms in 2007 while only 39 percent were in 2012. In the Northeast, the pre-firearms harvest climbed steadily from 27 to 29 to 35 percent from 2002 to 2007 to 2012. A full one third of the deer taken in the Northeast are now tagged pre-firearms. New Jersey (50 percent) and New Hampshire (52 percent) top the list. This is no surprise as New Jersey leads the U.S. with over half their
total harvest taken by archers, and much of New Hampshire has no antlerless harvest opportunity during firearms season, so many hunters must score with a bow or muzzleloader if they want to tag an antlerless deer. In the Midwest, the pre-firearms harvest climbed slightly from 20 to 22 to 24 percent from 2002 to 2007 to 2012. These percentages place them below the Southeast and Northeast with respect to pre-firearms harvest and highlight the importance of firearms season in the Heartland. Nebraska and Minnesota shot the fewest pre-firearms (9 percent) while Ohio shot the most (38 percent). In our 2011 Whitetail Report we reported that Minnesota led the U.S. by taking 29 percent of the total deer harvest on the opening day of firearms season. Nearly one in three deer shot in Minnesota throughout the entire season were taken on opening day that would be a fun place to be for a deer hunter! In Canada the pre-firearms harvest was much lower than in the U.S., across all years. It ranged from less than 1 percent in New Brunswick to 8 percent in Saskatchewan.
2014
2002 2007 2012 Illinois 28 26 28 Indiana * * * Iowa 19 25 27 Kansas 18 21 37 Kentucky 19 17 19 Michigan * * * Minnesota <7 10 9 Missouri * * * Nebraska * * 9 North Dakota * * * Ohio 23 33 38 South Dakota * * * Wisconsin 15 22 26 Midwest Total 20 22 24 Connecticut * * * Delaware 28 28 29 Maine 7 12 11 Maryland 38 35 43 Massachusetts 23 29 36 New Hampshire 44 48 52 New Jersey * 41 50 New York * 19 22 Pennsylvania * 24 31 Rhode Island * * * Vermont 31 32 37 Virginia * 28 34 West Virginia 15 19 22 Northeast Total 27 29 33 Alabama * * * Arkansas * * 30 Florida * * * Georgia 16 14 18 Louisiana * * * Mississippi 15 12 17 North Carolina 15 15 17 Oklahoma 38 34 36 South Carolina * * * Tennessee * 74 39 Texas * * * Southeast Total 21 30 26 U.S. Total 23 27 28 Alberta * * * British Columbia * * * Manitoba * * * New Brunswick <1 2 2 Nova Scotia * * * Ontario * * * Quebec * * * Saskatchewan 7 8 * Canada Total 4 5 2
PeRCeNTAGe OF DeeR HARVeST PRIOR TO OpeNING DAY OF PRIMARY FIReARMS SeASON
In 2002, 23 percent of the harvest occurred before the rearm season, and this increased to 27 percent in 2007 and 28 percent in 2012. In real numbers, the change from 2002 to 2012 was over 300,000 more deer being tagged pre-rearms! That equates to a lot of hunters taking advantage of earlier and warmer hunting seasons.
Much of New Hampshire has no antlerless harvest opportunity during rearm season, so many hunters must score with a bow or muzzleloader if they want to tag an antlerless deer.
WhitetailReport
ANtLERLESS HARVESt
Antlerless harvests vary widely among states/provinces and years due to differences in deer density, productivity, a state/ provinces goals (reducing, stabilizing, or increasing the deer population), weather and other factors. However, we can learn much about an agencys management program by comparing the antlerless and antlered buck harvest. Continuing with the analysis of states in the Midwest, Northeast and Southeast (excluding Alabama), hunters from these regions harvested 3,109,569 antlerless deer in 2012. This was 3 percent below 2011 and 6 percent below the 2010 antlerless harvests for comparable states. Overall, Georgia topped the list with 255,294 antlerless deer; Texas followed with 242,325, Pennsylvania was third with 209,250, Wisconsin was fourth with 199,830, and Michigan was fifth with 191,364 antlerless deer. These five states alone shot nearly 1.1 million antlerless deer, and that equaled 35 percent of the entire U.S. antlerless harvest! While the top two antlerless harvests were in the Southeast, the region that has recently expressed the most concern regarding additive impacts by coyote predation, both states reduced their antlerless harvest from 2011 to 2012. Maryland harvested the most antlerless deer per square mile (5.8), followed by Delaware (4.9), Pennsylvania (4.5) and Georgia (4.4). These are astounding harvest rates, and as stated earlier, these states are shooting more antlerless deer per square mile than some areas have for a standing crop of bucks, does and fawns combined! Regionally, the Northeast (2.5) averaged shooting the most antlerless deer per square mile, followed by the Southeast (1.7) and the Midwest (1.5). This is at least the fourth year in a row where the productive Midwest shot fewer antlerless deer per square mile than the Northeast or Southeast. Also regionally, the Midwest shot 2 percent fewer antlerless deer in 2012 (1,268,240) than in 2011 (1,300,733). Numerically, North Dakota (19,280) shot the fewest antlerless deer and Wisconsin (199,830) shot the most. Other notables included Indiana increased its antlerless harvest 15 percent from 2011, and Kentucky increased it 25 percent. South Dakota (-31
percent), North Dakota (-35 percent) and Nebraska (-36 percent) all felt the impacts of a record hemorrhagic disease outbreak in 2012 and had significantly reduced antlerless harvests. Ohio and Wisconsin shot the most per square mile (3.1) followed by Missouri (2.7). Nebraska and North Dakota harvested the fewest per square mile (0.3), followed by South Dakota (0.4).
Georgia, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan combined to shoot nearly 1.1 million antlerless deer in 2012, and that equaled 35 percent of the entire U.S. antlerless harvest!
had the largest increases, while Virginia (-12 percent) and Rhode Island (-16 percent) had the largest declines from 2011 to 2012. Maryland shot the most antlerless deer per square mile (5.8), followed by Delaware (4.9) and Pennsylvania (4.5). Northern New England averaged the fewest at 0.2 in Maine, 0.4 in Massachusetts and 0.5 antlerless deer per square mile in New Hampshire; a testament to the differences in deer management programs in states with severe winters. Nine of 13 (69 percent) Northeastern states shot more antlerless deer than antlered bucks. However, four of five states that shot more bucks are in New England. For the fourth year in a row, West Virginia was the only Northeastern state not in the extreme northeast portion of this region that harvested fewer antlerless deer than antlered bucks. The Northeast averaged shooting 1.2 antlerless deer per antlered buck, and this ranged from 0.4 in Maine to 2.6 antlerless deer per antlered buck in Delaware. The Southeast (excluding Alabama) shot 1,201,651 antlerless deer in 2012. Numerically, Oklahoma (45,454) took the fewest while Georgia (255,294) took the most antlerless deer. Florida had the largest percentage increase (+13 percent) from 2011 while South Carolina had the largest decline (-14 percent). Five of 10 southeastern states shot fewer antlerless deer in 2012 than 2011. Only Mississippi (+1 percent), Arkansas and Tennessee (+8 percent), Louisiana (+10 percent), and Florida (+13 percent) shot more antlerless deer in 2012. Georgia shot the most antlerless deer per square mile (4.4), followed by South Carolina (3.3) and Mississippi (3.1). Oklahoma (0.7) and Texas (0.9) averaged
2012 Antlerless Harvest
Top-5 States
Georgia 255,294 Texas 242,325 Pennsylvania 209,250 Wisconsin 199,830 Michigan 191,364
2012 Antlerless Harvest Per Square Mile
Top-5 States
Maryland 5.8 Delaware 4.9 Pennsylvania 4.5 Georgia 4.4 New Jersey 3.7
2012 Antlerless Deer Per Antlered Buck Harvested
Top-5 States
Delaware 2.6 Georgia 2.0 Indiana 2.0 Maryland 1.9 New Jersey 1.8
Nine of 13 (69 percent) Midwest states shot more antlerless deer than antlered bucks. Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska and North Dakota shot more antlered bucks than antlerless deer. The Midwest averaged shooting 1.2 antlerless deer per antlered buck, and this ranged from 0.8 in North Dakota to 2.0 in Indiana. The Northeast shot 639,678 antlerless deer in 2012, 3 percent fewer than in 2011. Numerically, Rhode Island (1,154) took the fewest while Pennsylvania (209,250) took the most antlerless deer. New Hampshire (+9 percent) and Vermont (+19 percent)
2014
the fewest antlerless deer harvested per square mile. Only four of 10 Southeastern states (40 percent) shot more antlerless deer than antlered bucks in 2012. The Southeast averaged shooting 1.0 antlerless deer per antlered buck, and this ranged from 0.6 in Florida to 2.0 antlerless deer per antlered buck in Georgia. Canada shot 41,566 antlerless deer in four provinces in 2012. For the three provinces that provided data in 2011 and 2012, this was 2 percent more antlerless deer. Numerically, New Brunswick (919) took the fewest while Quebec (22,323) took the most antlerless deer. Two of 3 provinces shot more antlerless deer in 2012 while Nova Scotia shot 23 percent fewer. Nova Scotia shot the most antlerless deer per square mile (0.1), while British Columbia, New Brunswick, and Quebec all shot less than 0.1 per square mile. All provinces shot more antlered bucks than antlerless deer, and the numbers ranged from 0.2 antlerless deer per antlered buck in New Brunswick to 0.6 in Quebec. In general, provincial harvest statistics are similar to those in New England and upper Great Plains states. Reduced antlerless harvests are necessary in areas where deer herds have been balanced with the habitat and/or when other mortality factors (such as predation or disease) are increasing. However, most states should harvest more antlerless deer than antlered bucks on a regular basis. In 2012, only 22 of 36 states (61 percent) shot more antlerless deer than antlered bucks; down from 73 percent in 2011 and matching the percentage in 2010.
ESTIMATeD ANTLeRLeSS DeeR HARVeST

% Change Antlerless Antlerless State/Province 2010 2011 2012 11 to 12 PSM** Per Antlered Illinois 113,131 110,938 111,130 0 1.9 1.6 Indiana 80,997 78,301 90,312 15 2.5 2.0 Iowa 78,345 75,195 67,681 -10 1.2 1.4 Kansas 42,806 49,788 48,036 -4 0.6 1.1 Kentucky 51,206 53,731 67,212 25 1.7 1.0 Michigan 205,509 203,930 191,364 -6 2.0 0.9 Minnesota 78,500 107,000 89,498 -16 1.0 0.9 Missouri 170,592 174,563 189,380 8 2.7 1.6 Nebraska 39,198 39,283 24,974 -36 0.3 0.9 North Dakota 38,400 29,823 19,280 -35 0.3 0.8 Ohio 153,458 138,027 137,761 0 3.1 1.7 South Dakota 44,068 46,200 31,782 -31 0.4 1.1 Wisconsin 185,211 193,954 199,830 3 3.1 1.2 Midwest Total 1,281,421 1,300,733 1,268,240 -2 1.5 1.2 Connecticut 6,813 6,641 6,979 5 1.3 1.1 Delaware 10,190 9,611 9,599 0 4.9 2.6 Maine 5,204 6,100 6,118 0 0.2 0.4 Maryland 63,821 62,268 57,048 -8 5.8 1.9 Massachusetts 5,090 4,943 4,606 -7 0.4 0.7 New Hampshire 3,744 4,561 4,953 9 0.5 0.7 New Jersey 35,479 31,533 32,190 2 3.7 1.8 New York 123,140 118,357 123,964 5 2.3 1.0 Pennsylvania 193,310 208,660 209,250 0 4.5 1.6 Rhode Island 1,104 1,379 1,154 -16 1.0 1.1 Vermont 7,051 4,758 5,684 19 0.6 0.7 Virginia 126,243 134,114 118,345 -12 3.0 1.2 West Virginia 47,637 65,615 59,788 -9 2.5 0.8 Northeast Total 628,826 658,540 639,678 -3 2.5 1.2 Alabama 208,000 206,500 * * * * Arkansas 103,192 107,464 116,531 8 2.2 1.2 Florida 75,683 47,276 53,300 13 1.0 0.6 Georgia 308,747 277,961 255,294 -8 4.4 2.0 Louisiana 69,075 60,075 65,790 10 1.6 0.8 Mississippi 179,616 144,859 147,000 1 3.1 1.2 North Carolina 94,727 93,539 86,366 -8 1.8 1.1 Oklahoma 46,000 46,543 45,454 -2 0.7 0.7 South Carolina 105,894 117,551 101,181 -14 3.3 0.9 Tennessee 82,950 82,026 88,410 8 2.1 1.0 Texas 330,698 265,601 242,325 -9 0.9 0.8 Southeast Total 1,604,582 1,449,395 1,201,651 -3 1.7 1.0 U.S. Total 3,514,829 3,408,668 3,109,569 -3 1.9 1.1 Alberta * 19,290 * * * * British Columbia * * 15,588 * * * Manitoba 9,030 * * * * * New Brunswick 1,179 717 919 28 0.0 0.2 Nova Scotia 4,034 3,575 2,736 -23 0.1 0.4 Ontario 30,000 30,775 * * * * Quebec 22,744 21,147 22,323 6 0.0 0.6 Saskatchewan 13,600 7,600 * * * * Canada Total 80,587 83,104 41,566 2 <1 0.4 * data not available/provided **Per Square Mile in 2012
Most states should harvest more antlerless deer than antlered bucks on a regular basis.
WhitetailReport
2012 ANtLERLESS HARVESt BREAKDOwN
Knowing how many antlerless deer your state/province harvests is important, but being able to separate the total antlerless harvest into adult does, doe fawns and buck fawns is even more meaningful for a deer manager. Namely, because the most critical tenet of Quality Deer Management (QDM) is to balance the deer herd with the habitats ability to support it; to do so hunters are routinely tasked with manipulating the percentage of adult does in the antlerless harvest. Nationally speaking, the three regions analyzed in this report averaged 72 percent adult does, 14 percent doe fawns and 14 percent buck fawns. Regionally, the Southeast harvested a much higher percentage of adult does (83 percent) than the Midwest (67 percent) or Northeast (66 percent). The Southeast also harvested a smaller percentage of doe fawns (10 percent) than the Midwest (15 percent) and Northeast (15 percent), and less than half the percentage of buck fawns (8 percent) than the Midwest (18 percent) and Northeast (17 percent). In the Southeast, four of five states (80 percent) that provided comparable data ranged from 82 to 88 percent adult does in
the total antlerless harvest. Only one other state in the U.S. (Kansas) matched those numbers. With respect to fawn harvest, QDMA recommends bucks fawns constitute 10 percent or less of the total antlerless harvest (for more info on why, refer to page 35 of the 2010 Whitetail Report). Five of six states (83 percent) in the Southeast met this recommendation. Only North Carolina harvested a higher percentage of buck fawns (17 percent). In the Northeast, states ranged from 59 percent (Delaware and Massachusetts) to 79 percent (Vermont) adult does. The Northeast averaged 15 percent doe fawns and 17 percent buck fawns. Vermont shot the fewest buck fawns (11 percent) while Massachusetts and Pennsylvania shot the most (22 percent). In the Midwest, states ranged from 55 percent (Ohio and Wisconsin) to 85 percent (Kansas) adult does. The Midwest averaged 15 percent doe fawns and 18 percent buck fawns. Kansas shot the fewest buck fawns (7 percent) and Ohio (25 percent) shot the most. Outside of the Southeast, Kansas is the only state to report a buck fawn harvest of less than 10 percent of the total antlerless
Highest Percentage of Adult Does in 2012 Antlerless Harvest
Top-5 States
Oklahoma 88 Arkansas 86 Kansas 85 Alabama 82 Georgia 82
Lowest Percentage of Buck Fawns in 2012 Antlerless Harvest
Top-5 States
Arkansas 4 Oklahoma 5 Alabama 7 Kansas 7 Georgia 9
Highest Percentage of Buck Fawns in 2012 Antlerless Harvest
Top-5 States
Ohio 25 Wisconsin 24 Massachusetts 22 Missouri 22 Pennsylvania 22
2014
PeRCeNTAGe OF ANTLeRLeSS HARVeST, 2012
Reduced deer populations, increasing predator numbers, and recent severe winters and disease outbreaks all highlight the need to critically review target antlerless harvest recommendations.
harvest. In Canada, Quebec (68 percent) and New Brunswick (70 percent) harvested similar percentages of adult does to the Midwest and Northeast. Hunters are increasingly answering the call to harvest antlerless deer. However, reduced deer populations, increasing predator numbers, and recent severe winters and disease outbreaks all highlight the need to critically review target antlerless harvest recommendations. Assessing the sex and age structure of prior antlerless harvests is a key component to prescribing appropriate future antlerless targets. So, who has the best numbers? Every state and province that monitors the sex and age structure of their antlerless harvest deserves credit. Other than having buck fawns constitute less than 10 percent of the total antlerless harvest there is no ideal breakdown for the percentage of fawn and adult does in the harvest. It is more important to monitor how these percentages change over time in any given state or province because differences can result from increasing or decreasing fawn production and mortality rates, adult survival rates, harvest pressure and other factors.
State/Province Adult Doe Doe Fawn Buck Fawn Other^ Illinois 63 16 21 0 Indiana 61 22 18 0 Iowa * * 17 0 Kansas 85 6 7 2 Kentucky 73 13 14 0 Michigan 68 14 14 4 Minnesota 67 14 19 0 Missouri * * 22 0 Nebraska 73 14 13 0 North Dakota * * * * Ohio 55 20 25 * South Dakota * * * * Wisconsin 55 20 24 1 Midwest Total 67 15 18 1 Connecticut * * * * Delaware 59 13 20 8 Maine 70 14 16 0 Maryland 63 18 19 0 Massachusetts 59 19 22 0 New Hampshire 68 15 17 0 New Jersey * * 15 0 New York 70 14 16 0 Pennsylvania 61 18 22 0 Rhode Island 72 13 15 0 Vermont 79 10 11 0 Virginia 61 22 18 0 West Virginia 69 14 17 0 Northeast Total 66 15 17 1 Alabama 82 11 7 Arkansas 86 10 4 Florida * * * Georgia 82 9 9 Louisiana * * * Mississippi * * * North Carolina * * 17 Oklahoma 88 8 5 South Carolina 76 15 10 Tennessee * * * Texas * * * Southeast Total 83 10 8 U.S. Total 72 14 14 Alberta * * * British Columbia * * * Manitoba * * * New Brunswick 70 10 20 Nova Scotia * * * Ontario * * * Quebec 68 * * Saskatchewan * * * Canada Total 69 10 20 0 0 * 0 * * 0 0 0 * * 0 <1 * * * 0 * * 0 * 0
* data not available ^ category includes bucks with antlers less than 3 inches long and bucks with shed antlers
With respect to fawn harvest, QDMA recommends buck fawns constitute 10 percent or less of the total antlerless harvest.
WhitetailReport
NORTH AMERICan WHITETaIL SUMMIT
On March 3-6, 2014, QDMA will host the inaugural North American Whitetail Summit at Bass Pros Big Cedar Lodge and Conference Center in Branson, Missouri. White-tailed deer are the most hunted and economically important big game species in North America and the backbone of the North American hunting heritage. Yet today whitetails face many challenges and threats. The Whitetail Summit is a first-of-its-kind gathering of representatives from all sectors of the deer hunting and management community to address the current challenges and threats facing white-tailed deer. The Summit format is designed to spark discussion and identify opportunities for all sectors to work cooperatively toward solutions that will ensure the future of white-tailed deer and our hunting heritage. The Summit will include direct participation by hunters and hunting associations, state and provincial wildlife agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, numerous wildlife conservation organizations, timber companies, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service, universities, the National Shooting Sports Foundation and Archery Trade Association, wildlife consultants, numerous hunting industry representatives and companies, and the media. The Summit includes two and a half days of interactive general and breakout sessions, lunch and evening presentations, and it concludes with an official press conference. Presentations will focus on the importance of whitetails to the hunting industry and our wildlife management system, and highlight the key issues impacting whitetail hunting and management. A snapshot of presentations includes: Public, Hunter and Landowner Attitudes Toward Deer and Deer Management Issues An Overview by Mark Duda, Executive Director of Responsive Management State of the Whitetail: Trends in Harvest and Management Programs by Kip Adams, Director of Education and Outreach for QDMA Key Issues Impacting Whitetail Hunting and Management: Hunter/Land Access by Dr. Brett Wright, Clemson University Landscape/Habitat Change by Matt Ross, QDMA Political Influences and Funding by Carter Smith, Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. Hunter Recruitment and Retention by Melissa Shilling and Jim Curcuruto, NSSF Diseases and Captive Cervids by Kip Adams, QDMA Lack of University Trained Deer Biologists by Dr. Dave Guynn, Clemson University Urban Deer Management and Bowhunting Opportunities by Dr. Marrett Grund, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Following the presentations, interactive sessions will allow all attendees to participate and help impact the future of deer hunting and management in North America. For additional information about the Summit or to inquire about receiving an invitation, contact Kip Adams by e-mail at kadams@qdma.com or by phone at (814) 326-4023.
Special message from Congressman Paul Ryan
Shane Mahoney Internationally Acclaimed Conservationist
Dan Ashe Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mark Duda
Executive Director, Responsive Management
Dan Forster
President, AFWA Director, Georgia DNR
Johnny Morris
Founder, Bass Pro Shops
Will Primos
Founder & President, Primos Hunting
Carter Smith
Executive Director, Texas Parks and Wildlife
PART 2: CURRENT ISSUES & TRENDS
2014
NORTH AMERICan WHITETaIL SUMMIT SPOnsORs

Presenting Sponsors
Platinum Sponsors
Gold Sponsors
Silver Sponsors
Bronze Sponsors
WhitetailReport
InCREasED HUnTER APPROVaL RaTInG
Hunting supports the lions share of wildlife management in North America, and hunters are the backbone of the entire system. Thus, public support of hunting is important, and a recent nationwide survey indicates 79 percent of Americans approve of hunting, marking a 5 percent increase from 2011 and the highest level since 1995. Responsive Management, a public opinion research organization focusing on natural resource and outdoor recreation issues, began to scientifically track nationwide hunting approval trends in 1995. The most recent finding of 79 percent is the highest percentage to date. Trends remain relatively steady over the years: 73 percent in 1995, 75 percent in 2003, 78 percent in 2006, 74 percent in 2011 and 79 percent in 2013. The survey also found that more than half of Americans (52 percent) strongly approve of hunting (79 percent strongly or moderately approve), while 12 percent disapprove (strongly or moderately) of hunting. Another 9 percent gave a neutral answer. The increase in acceptance may, in fact, be linked to results from the most recent (2011) National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which shows hunting participation increased by 9 percent since 2006 while shooting participation increased 18 percent since 2009 (see page 20 of the
100 80 60 40 20 0
Trends in Approval and Disapproval of Hunting (Adult Americans Nationwide)

75 78 74 79
73
Percent
22
17
16
20
12 2013
1995
2003
2006
2011
Overall Approval
Overall Disapproval
Source: Responsive Management, 2013
2013 Whitetail Report). Other Responsive Management studies on public opinion on hunting show the strongest correlation with the approval of hunting is when the person asked actually knows a hunter. Conducted in February 2013, the Responsive Management survey randomly surveyed over 1,300 Americans 18 years of age and older. Hunting directly accounts for more than a million jobs in the United States and creates an overall economy of $87 billion
per year. Hunters provide the vast majority of funding that allows state wildlife agencies to successfully manage our wildlife resources through license sales and excise taxes on hunting equipment. QDMAs Recommendations By virtue of QDMAs Code of Conduct, practitioners of the QDM philosophy work hard every year at leaving land and wildlife in better condition than they found it. QDMA recommends sportsmen and women strive to be the best stewards they can, to never stop learning, and to lead by example for hunters and non-hunters alike; approval ratings of hunting should continue to increase alongside growth of the QDMA.
In general, do you approve or disapprove of legal hunting? (Adult Americans Nationwide, 2013)
Strongly Approve Moderately Approve Neither Approve Nor Disapprove Moderately Disapprove Strongly Disapprove Dont Know 0 1 20 40 60 80 100 5 7 8 27 52
79%
12%
A recent nationwide survey indicates 79 percent of Americans approve of hunting, marking a 5 percent increase from 2011 and the highest level percentage to date!
Percent (n=1306)
2014
InCREasED DEsIRE
TO
HUnT
FOR
MEaT
Do you enjoy the table fare provided by the deer you or your family harvest? We do too, and apparently more and more folks feel the same way. Recent research by Responsive Management, a public opinion survey group focusing on natural resource and outdoor recreation issues, has revealed that obtaining meat is an increasingly important motivation for hunters going afield. There are numerous reasons for growth in the segment of hunters who engage in hunting for practical reasons, and several new studies make it clear this trend is widespread and unmistakable.
In a 2013 nationwide scientific telephone survey measuring hunting participation among Americans ages 18 years old and older, a question asked hunters about their single most important reason for hunting. Respondents were asked to choose from a list of potential reasons, including being with family and friends, being close to nature, for the sport/recreation, for the meat, or for a trophy. In response, more than a third of hunters (35 percent) chose for meat as the most important reason for their recent hunting participation. However, what is most
60
The Changing Face of Hunting Participation (Adult Americans Nationwide)

35 22 9 1
To be with family & friends To be close to nature For sport/ recreation For meat For a trophy
Percent
40 27 20 0 21 16
33
31
2006
2013
noteworthy is the substantial increase (13 percent) in the percentage of hunters giving the same answer since the last time the question was asked; in a similar nationwide survey conducted in 2006, just 22 percent of American adult hunters named for the meat as their most important reason for going hunting. The percentages of hunters naming one of the other reasons either remained stable or declined between 2006 and 2013. Other recent research from the same firm confirms this motivation. With the 9 percent increase in national hunting participation between 2006 to 2011 (see page 20 of the 2013 Whitetail Report), Responsive Management initiated and coordinated a study with the American Sportfishing Association, Southwick Associates, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to better understand the factors correlated with the increase in hunting and determine how these factors may have contributed to the uptick in participation. One of the key components of the study was a telephone survey of hunters in seven of the top states (Alabama, Alaska, Indiana, Idaho, Mississippi, New York, and South Dakota) that experienced an increase in resident hunting participation between 2006 and 2011. >>>
WhitetailReport
Results from this survey further highlight the degree to which hunters today are focusing on meat as a primary reason for their participation. When hunters were read a list of factors that potentially influenced them to go hunting, the top factor rated as a major or minor influence was interest in hunting as a local, natural, or green food source, with 68 percent of hunters saying this was an influence. Moreover, in an open-ended question (where no answer set was read, but respondents could simply name anything that came to mind) 56 percent said that they hunted for food or meat. The growing importance of meat as hunters foremost reason for hunting has even been observed at the state level. One of the most dramatic examples can be seen in Georgia, where Responsive Management recently completed a survey of deer hunters as part of an overall project examining opinions on deer management and deer hunting regulations. A similar version of the survey was last conducted in 2004. Georgia deer hunters that are motivated by meat saw a remarkable increase of 25 percent between 2004 and 2013; as with the national survey discussed earlier, all other reasons in the list either remained stable or declined. Several factors appear to have contributed to this pronounced motivational shift in favor of meat among American hunters. Perhaps the single most important factor is the recession that began at the end of 2008/early 2009. As households throughout the United States started to feel the effects of significant financial pressures (including frozen or reduced salaries and/or prolonged unemployment), more people likely turned to hunting as a way of acquiring relatively inexpensive venison and other meat to put food on the table. It is also important to note that nearly
Percent of respondents who indicated that each of the following was a major or minor influence on their decision to go hunting, in the years that they went hunting:
Interest in hunting as a local, natural, or green food source Increased game populations Availability of private lands The weather Availability of public lands Less crowding in the field Better access To save money in a bad or declining state economy Improvements in personal finances that have allowed you to hunt more often Youth Hunting Programs 0 20 62 58 56 54 49 48 48 46 43 40 60 80 Percent (n=722) 100
What are the main reasons you went hunting in your state in the past five years?
For the sport, recreation, relaxation, or fun For the food/meat To be with family and friends To be close to nature For a trophy Other 2 5 18 17 Multiple Responses Allowed 56 63
68
Have more time Less than 0.5% License changes Less than 0.5% Regulation changes Less than 0.5% Special event or program Less than 0.5% Recently moved/relocated Less than 0.5% the state 0 20 40 60 80 Percent (n=722)
100

2014
half (48 percent) of the hunters surveyed in the seven top states mentioned above said that hunting to save money in a bad or declining state economy was a reason for their 60 decision to go hunting during that time period. 40 Another factor contributing to an emphasis on hunting for utilitarian reasons appears 20 to be the natural, green or locavore food movement 0 which encourages food procured locally and sustainably over foods produced industrially that must be shipped across oceans or continents to reach your plate. This philosophy has been gaining ground over the past few years, and hunting is certainly a key source of such foods. A final factor that provides insight into the recent emphasis on hunting for meat relates to the gender of hunters: Female hunters appear to be substantially more likely to choose for the meat as their most important reason for hunting. To see why, lets draw on additional findings from two of the studies mentioned earlier. The aforementioned 2013 survey that explored recent increases in hunting participation between 2006 and 2011 cat-
What was your most important reason for hunting deer in Georgia in the past 2 years? (Asked of those who hunted deer in the past 2 years)
Multiple Responses Allowed
51 26 7
For the meat
Percent
28 20 3 11 9
To be with family and friends For the sport and recreation
9 6
To be close to nature
10 7
For relaxation
2 3
Other
Opportunity to harvest a buck
Dont know
2004
2013
egorized all hunters from the same seven states as either established hunters or new/returning hunters. We also have a breakdown of gender from the original national survey that revealed the increase in participation. Apparently, by comparing the results, it is this latter group that may have both contributed to the increase in participation of hunting (among established hunters, 9 percent were female; among new/returning hunters, 14 percent were female) as well as to the increased motivation to hunt for meat (55 percent
of female hunters tend to choose for the meat as a primary reason, compared to just 27 percent of male hunters). Together, these studies suggest that gender may in fact play a role in the shift toward hunting for the meat. With more, new women hunters in the field (see page 31 of the 2012 Whitetail Report) and the greater emphasis women place on the importance of hunting for the meat, it can be deduced that this is also an additional explanation for more hunters hunting for food rather than for other reasons. QDMAs Recommendations We must capitalize on this surge in hunting popularity and motivation to hunt for meat and do everything we can to extend its impact. We can do this by reaching out to non-hunters and offering a helping hand with getting started; by speaking up for ethical hunting standards while doing all we can to suppress bad deeds associated with hunting (poaching, etc.); by promoting stewardship and pursuit of wild deer. Most of all, recognize the natural fit between this renewed motivation and QDM deer huntings original sustainability movement. Deer hunting should not be reckless consumption. It should be wise stewardship of precious resources. That QDM message will resonate with new hunters of all kinds. Help them hunt, and encourage them to join QDMA; you will be fostering a stronger future for deer hunting by doing so!
What was your most important reason for hunting in the past year? Would you say it was ... ? (Among adult hunters nationwide)
For the meat For a trophy To be with family and friends For the sport and recreation To be close to nature None of these 0 2 0 20 40 60 80 100 10 12 1 0 9 22 27 35 Male Female 27 55
Percent (n=811)
WhitetailReport
DEER TaGGInG REQUIREMEnTs
Weve all seen photos of harvested deer tagged in various locations. Some tags are placed around an antler, others are in an ear, and some are through a back leg. Ever wonder how many states and provinces require tagging? We did, so we surveyed state and provincial wildlife agencies to determine whether deer have to be physically tagged and also what options are available to hunters for registering or reporting their harvest. Twenty-seven of 37 states (73 percent) require physical tagging. Tagging is most prominent in the Midwest where 12 of 13 states (92 percent) require it. Only Kentucky does not require tagging. The Northeast is a close second as 11 of 13 states (85 percent) require it. Only Connecticut and New Jersey do not require tagging. The Southeast is much more lenient as only four of 11 states (36 percent) require tagging. In Canada, four of five provinces (80 percent) require tagging. Only British Columbia does not require it. With respect to registering or reporting a harvested deer, online (54 percent of states) and tele-check (51 percent of states) are the most popular options for registering harvested deer. Most states offer multiple options. In the Southeast over half of the states (55 percent) do not require harvested deer to be registered. For states with reporting requirements, online and tele-check are the most popular options. All states in the Northeast require harvested deer to be registered with the most popular options being tele-check, online, and check stations that are not manned by wildlife agency staff, respectively. Nine of 13 states (69 percent) in the Midwest require harvested deer to be registered. Kansas, Michigan, North Dakota and South Dakota do not require registration, although successful Kansas hunters can register their deer with a photo of the deers head and completed tag. This is used to allow field processing to help reduce the potential to spread CWD and to allow hunters to transport a deer without its head attached. The most popular options for reporting deer in the Midwest are tele-check and on-line reporting. In Canada, four of five provinces (80 percent) require harvested deer to be registered. Only Saskatchewan does not require it. The
anD
REPORTInG OPTIOns
QDMAs Recommendations The days of agency-manned check stations are behind us as less than one third of states and only one of five provinces employ them. Agency-manned check stations are great for data collection and agency engagement with sportsmen and women, but longer seasons with widely distributed harvests and declining agency budgets reduce their efficiency. Fortunately most states and provinces require registration and offer multiple options for sportsmen and women to comply with reporting requirements. Be sure to do your part and report your harvest where mandatory! Its painless, quick and the data is important to help your state or province manage the deer that reside within its boundaries.
most popular option is a check station that is not manned by agency staff. No other reporting option is used by more than one province. Do states and provinces that dont require tagging or reporting have any idea how many deer are harvested during the hunting season? Some sportsmen and women say no, but the reality is these states and provinces collect a sample of the harvest by surveying hunters and/ or visiting meat processors. By collecting enough of this data, wildlife agencies can accurately estimate the total number taken by hunters even without requiring tagging or reporting.
Manned Unmanned Registration Tagging Tele- Mail Check Check Not State/Province Required check Online Card Station Station Other Required Illinois YES X X X Indiana YES X X X Iowa YES X X X Kansas YES X X Kentucky NO X X Michigan YES X X Minnesota YES X X X X Missouri YES X X Nebraska YES X X X X North Dakota YES X Ohio YES X X X South Dakota YES X Wisconsin YES X X Midwest Total 12 of 13 8 of 13 8 of 13 0 of 13 5 of 13 4 of 13 3 of 13 4 of 13 Connecticut Delaware Maine Maryland Massachusetts New Hampshire New Jersey New York Pennsylvania Rhode Island Vermont Virginia West Virginia Northeast Total NO YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES 11 of 13 X X X X X X X X 8 of 13 X X X X X X X 7 of 13 X X 2 of 13 X X X X X 5 of 13 X 1 of 11 11 of 37 X 1 of 5 X X X X X X 6 of 13 X X 2 of 11 12 of 37 X X X 3 of 5 0 of 13 X X 2 of 11 5 of 37 0 of 5
0 of 13 X X X X X X 6 of 11 10 of 37
Alabama NO Arkansas YES X X Florida NO Georgia NO Louisiana YES X X Mississippi NO North Carolina NO X X Oklahoma YES X South Carolina NO Tennessee NO X Texas YES Southeast Total 4 of 11 3 of 11 5 of 11 0 of 11 U.S. Total 27 of 37 19 of 37 20 of 37 2 of 37 Alberta * British Columbia NO X Manitoba * New Brunswick YES Nova Scotia YES X Ontario * Quebec YES Saskatchewan YES Canada Total 4 of 5 0 of 5 1 of 5 1 of 5 * data not available
X 1 of 5
2014
OKLaHOMa EDUCaTEs HUnTERs

Over the past two decades, the amount of whitetail information readily available to hunters has steadily increased. There are more magazines, more television shows and more Internet sites talking about deer hunting, whitetail biology and wildlife in general. Add in the boom of social media over recent years, and it can easily be argued that theres more information available to todays hunter than ever before. That increased knowledge is leading hunters to become more than simply consumers, they are learning to be Deer Management Assistance Program untary nature of the strategy, which does wildlife managers. (DMAP). not force hunters into a management One state agency that is doing We wanted hunters to understand paradigm, serves both those interested an excellent job of promoting proper that each pull of the trigger or each deer in improving buck quality and the large deer management is the Oklahoma they let pass was having an impact on the portion of hunters looking at maximized Department of Wildlife Conservation states deer herd, said Erik. We made opportunity to take any deer, regardless (ODWC). In Oklahoma, the percentage of sure we put out information about the of size. yearling bucks (1 years old) in the adult benefits of tighter buck:doe ratios, tighter Another factor in Oklahomas sucbuck harvest dropped to just 15 percent in rut timing, increased forage availability cess of reducing yearling buck harvest 2012, which is ranked third-best nationand so on. And those messages resonated comes from changes in hunter attitudes. ally behind Arkansas (8 percent) and with a large portion of our hunters. Hunters are sharing success stories from Kansas (14 percent) and ahead of Texas Recently, ODWC has doubled their their management practices, and because and Louisiana (17 percent) see pages 6-7 efforts, keeping in mind that deer manof this, more people are of the mindset to for more on the age structure of the 2012 agement is more than antlerless harvest. protect young bucks. buck harvest. But what Trail-camera photos really makes Oklahomas are being traded like baseball 15 percent standout is that cards, said Erik. Age Structure of the it was achieved without Lastly, Erik warned that Oklahoma Buck Harvest mandatory antler point Oklahoma experienced three Year 1 Years Old 2 Years Old 3 Years Old & Older restrictions. According to years of drought resulting 2010 23% 26% 51% ODWC big game biologist in lower fawn recruitment 2011 25% 24% 51% Erik Bartholomew, there in areas of the state. With 2012 15% 19% 66% are several factors working better moisture and fawn in synergy to achieve this recruitment this past year, with the most important Oklahoma will have to being increased antlerless opportunity, They have updated their educational sloclosely watch to make sure its yearling increased deer management education gan to Hunters in the know... let young buck harvest numbers do not rebound to and changing hunter attitudes. bucks grow! Once again, the department higher levels as more yearlings become Approximately 20 years ago, is pushing the slogan at every public available to hunters. Oklahoma began promoting antleropportunity. In addition, they have put an less harvest as a management tool with emphasis on deer management themed QDMAs Recommendations the educational slogan, Hunters in the news releases, television show segments, QDMA congratulates Oklahoma know... take a doe! That phrase was put bumper/window stickers and social media hunters and the ODWC on protecting before the public at every opportunity campaigns including YouTube videos. more yearling bucks through voluntary including ODWC publications and news We are promoting voluntary restraint. This is a perfect example of how releases. Behind the powerful phrase, restraint on the harvest of young bucks, a strong educational campaign from the Oklahoma also began increasing doe Erik noted. By giving hunters the educastate wildlife agency can pay huge divihunting opportunities across the state tion that they need to make informed dends. QDMA recommends all state and larger bag limits, added youth and special management decisions, and then giving provincial wildlife agencies actively engage antlerless holiday seasons and expanded them the opportunity to choose to follow the public and promote the benefits of doe days to encompass most of the that strategy or not, we are getting very protecting yearling bucks. season. They also lengthened the rifle good buy-in for the message. season and promoted their private lands Erik also pointed out that the vol23 QDMAs Whitetail Report
WhitetailReport
OnLInE HUnTER EDUCaTIOn
anD
PERMIT SaLEs
The Midwest follows with 12 of 13 states (92 percent) offering online hunter education and all offering online permit sales. Only Ohio does not provide online hunter education. The Northeast is a distant third as only eight of 13 states (62 percent) offer online hunter education and 11 (85 percent) offer online permit sales. In Canada, two of five provinces (40 percent) offer online hunter education and one (20 percent) has online permit sales. Saskatchewan gets the tech savvy award for Canada. QDMAs Recommendations Online hunter education allows more potential hunters to get training, and that is good for the future of hunting. Online permit sales make it easier for hunters, and especially non-resident hunters, to become properly licensed, and that is also good for hunting. QDMA supports both initiatives and encourages non-participating states and provinces to get online.
Nearly everyone has a computer, tablet or smart phone today, and conducting business online is now necessary for most companies to survive. State and provincial agencies are no exception, so we surveyed them to determine whether they offer an online hunter education program and have
online permit sales. Thirty-one of 37 states (84 percent) offer online hunter education and 35 (95 percent) offer online permit sales. The Southeast is the most tech savvy as all states offer online hunter education and permit sales. Who says the South is backward?
ONLINE HUNTER EDUCATIoN BY STATE/PRoVINCE
ONLINE PERMIT SALEs BY STATE/PRoVINCE
Yes
No
Data not available/provided
Yes
No
2014
2014 QDMA NaTIOnaL YOUTH HUnT NOmInaTIOnS
QDMA will hold its 10th annual National Hunt in October 2014. The nomination period is currently open and will run until May 31, 2014, with those being selected for the hunt being announced at the 2014 QDMA National Convention in Athens, Georgia, July 24-27. Nomination forms are available online at www.qdma.com/corporate/national-youth-hunt and can also be obtained by e-mailing Hank Forester at hforester@qdma.com. Instructions are included on the form for submitting the completed nomination. Important details to keep in mind as you prepare your nomination: Nominations must be submitted by a QDMA member or Branch. Nominees MUST be between the ages of 12-17 by October 2014. QDMA will pay travel expenses for each youngster. A parent/guardian may accompany the youth hunter, but their travel expenses will be their own responsibility (unless driving is a reasonable option and arranged by QDMA). QDMA will not be able to accommodate additional parents/adults for youngsters. The property used for the hunt has wonderful facilities, but only enough to accommodate the hunters and one parent/guardian for each. The attendees will need to miss two days of school to participate. Please clear this BEFORE you file nominations. All nominations MUST BE RECEIVED at the QDMA National Office by the last day of the nomination period. Important Consideration for Your Nomination: To be consistent with the spirit and intent of the QDMA National Youth Hunt, please do your best to nominate a youngster who is NEW to hunting, interested in hunting, and, preferably, who would otherwise not have the opportunity to participate in the outdoor sports. Please nominate those youngsters you believe will benefit the most from participating in the National Youth Hunt. Please keep in mind that the youth hunter will be hunting with a property guide. Although we try to involve the guardian in as much of the deer harvesting process as possible, in most cases, the parents/guardians will not accompany the youngster while hunting.
WhitetailReport
DEER ManaGEMEnT AssIsTanCE PROGRaMs
Deer Management Assistance Programs (DMAP) are administered by some state wildlife agencies to allow landowners more flexibility to conduct site specific deer management actions. In general DMAP provides additional antlerless tags/ permits to meet site-specific density goals, and some DMAP programs also require additional data collection and reporting efforts. To assess the use of DMAP programs we surveyed state and provincial wildlife agencies and asked whether their jurisdiction offered a DMAP program to landowners, and if so, if leased lands were eligible for participation. Fourteen of 37 states (38 percent) have DMAP programs, and 13 (93 percent) allow leased lands to participate. Pennsylvania is the only state in the U.S. with a DMAP program that does not allow leased lands to participate. Regionally, DMAP is most used in the Southeast as nine of 11 states (82 percent) employ this program. Only Florida and Georgia do not use DMAP, and Florida landowners currently have many opportunities for site-specific management options. Five of 13 states (38 percent) in the Northeast have DMAP programs, and they are all centered in the Mid-Atlantic region. None of the 13 states in the Midwest had a DMAP program, although Wisconsin will be implementing one in Fall 2014. This may be partially
related to why the Midwest harvests fewer antlerless deer per square mile (see pages 10-11) than the Northeast and Southeast. In Canada, none of the five provinces that provided data have a DMAP program.
QDMAs Recommendations DMAP programs engage landowners and lessees with wildlife agency biologists, and they allow site-specific management options which can benefit deer herds and hunting opportunities. The QDMA supports DMAP programs and encourages states and provinces that do not have them to consider their use.
DEER MANAGEMENT AssIsTANCE PRoGRAMs BY STATE/PRoVINCE
Yes
No
2014
access programs at the state and national levels, even if hunting license fees are increased as a result. Educational programs designed for hunters and landowners alike will become increasingly important in ensuring hunter access to hunting lands in the future.
LEasE RaTEs
LEAsE RATEs BY STATE/PRoVINCE

Low High State/Province $/acre $/acre Illinois 10 80 Indiana * * Iowa * 20+ Kansas * * Kentucky 1 30 Michigan * * Minnesota * * Missouri 5 40 Nebraska * * North Dakota * * Ohio 10 80 South Dakota * * Wisconsin 15 100 Midwest Total $8.20 $58.33 Connecticut * * Delaware * * Maine * * Maryland 10 30 Massachusetts * * New Hampshire * * New Jersey * * New York 5 100 Pennsylvania * * Rhode Island * * Vermont * * Virginia * * West Virginia 3 7 Northeast Total $6.00 $45.67
Hunting leases are a common land access strategy, especially in the Southern U.S. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, less than 11 percent of hunters in the U.S. leased land for hunting in 2011, but they still leased 420 million acres. Hunter involvement in leases varies considerably by region and is inversely related to availability of public land. To compare lease rates across states, provinces and regions we surveyed state and provincial wildlife agencies and asked them for the estimated range of rates to lease hunting land in their jurisdiction. Some reported there was no leasing in their state (Rhode Island), some reported unknown lease rates, and 18 states and 1 province provided their low and high lease values. Overall, lease rates ranged from $1 to $100 per acre in the U.S. Leasing was most common in the Southeast as 10 of 11 states provided values. Leases averaged $4.20 to $25.60 per acre and ranged from $2 (Florida and North Carolina) to $35 (Mississippi and Texas) per acre. Five of 13 Midwestern states provided values and they ranged from $1 (Kentucky) to
Highest Per Acre Lease Rates
Top-6 States
$100 (Wisconsin) per acre. Leases averaged $8.20 to $58.33 per acre in the Midwest, and this was twice the average rate for leases in the Southeast. Leasing is relatively uncommon in the Northeast and only three of 13 states provided estimated values. Lease rates there were between the Midwest and Southeast and ranged from $3 (West Virginia) to $100 (New York) per acre. They averaged $6.00 to $45.67 per acre with New Yorks high value, or $6.00 to $18.50 per acre without it. Leasing is also uncommon in Canada and only one of five provinces provided a rate. Quebec reported lease rates range from $1.45 to $4.35 per acre. Land ownership patterns have changed more in the last 10 years than in the previous 20 or more. In fact, the US Fish and Wildlife Service survey reports growth of leasing by 410,000 more individuals and on over 200 million additional acres in the past five years alone. The number of sportsmen and women owning land for outdoor recreation is also on the rise, thus reducing the availability of leased and/ or open land for hunting. Our society is becoming more litigious each year, and landowners will continue to face challenges with regard to the liability of leasing their lands or simply allowing hunter access. QDMAs Recommendations Given current trends, it is likely that social, economic and legal barriers will make accessing private land for hunting more difficult and costly in the future. Hunters should be encouraged to support legislative actions to strengthen hunting
New York $100 Wisconsin $100 Illinois $80 Ohio $80 Louisiana $40 Missouri $40
Alabama 5 25+ Arkansas * * Florida 2 30+ Georgia 5 25 Louisiana 4 40 Mississippi 5 35 North Carolina 2 6 Oklahoma 3 25 South Carolina 7 20 Tennessee 5 15 Texas 4 35 Southeast Total $4.20 $25.60 U.S. Total $6.13 $43.20 Alberta * * British Columbia * * Manitoba * * New Brunswick * * Nova Scotia * * Ontario * * Quebec 1.45 4.35 Saskatchewan * * Canada Total $1.45 $4.35 * data not available/provided
WhitetailReport
PRIVaTE LanD
anD
FOREsTED PERCEnTaGEs
Alabama and Texas. The Midwest followed with an average of 90 percent private land. Nine of 13 states (69 percent) in the Heartland had more than 90 percent private land, and it ranged from 77 percent in Minnesota to a national high 98 percent in Kansas. The Northeast was close behind with an average of 87 percent private land, and it ranged from 79 percent in New Jersey to 95 percent in Maine. Unlike the Southeast and Midwest, only five of 13 states (38 percent) in the Northeast had at least 90 percent private land. With respect to trees, the Northeast led the U.S. with 64 percent forested land. This ranged from 30 percent in Delaware to 90 percent in Maine, and eight of 12 states (67 percent) were at least 60 percent forested. The Southeast followed with 55 percent forested land. This ranged from 28 percent in Oklahoma to 70 percent in Mississippi, and five of 10 states (50 percent) were at least 60 percent forested. No surprise, the Midwest averaged only 22 percent forested land. This ranged from 3 percent in Nebraska to 54 percent in Michigan, and no states were at least 60 percent forested. In fact, the majority (7 of 12) were 20 percent or less forested. Not so great for producing boards or maple syrup, but excellent for growing corn, soybeans and big deer. In Canada, provinces averaged 47 percent private land and 64 percent forested land. This ranged from 5 percent (British Columbia) to 70 percent (Nova Scotia) private land and 51 percent (New Brunswick) to 75 percent (Nova Scotia) forested land. QDMAs Recommendations According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hunter surveys, whitetails in the East and Midwest are largely a private-land issue and our survey showed 90 percent of the land in these regions is privately owned. Wildlife managers and hunters must establish landowner education and outreach programs that emphasize safety and promote ethical hunting behavior to improve private land access for deer hunting and management. QDM Cooperatives can also help with this effort (for more information see page 44 of the 2013 Whitetail Report).
PERCENTAGE oF PRIVATE & FoREsTED LAND

% % State/Province Private Land Forested Illinois 95 14 Indiana 95 20 Iowa 97 8 Kansas 98 10 Kentucky 92 48 Michigan 79 54 Minnesota 77 34 Missouri 93 35 Nebraska 97 3 North Dakota 95 4 Ohio 95 30 South Dakota 80 4 Wisconsin 80 * Midwest Total 90 22 Connecticut 85 68 Delaware 90 30 Maine 95 90 Maryland 92 40 Massachusetts 94 62 New Hampshire 80 84 New Jersey 79 42 New York 85-90 53 Pennsylvania 85 * Rhode Island 80 60 Vermont 80 85 Virginia 89 66 West Virginia 91 79 Northeast Total 87 63 Alabama 97 66 Arkansas 89 56 Florida * * Georgia 95 65 Louisiana 90 51 Mississippi 85 70 North Carolina 90 62 Oklahoma 93 28 South Carolina 93 67 Tennessee 90+ 50 Texas 97 35 Southeast Total 92 55 U.S. Total 90 47 Alberta * * British Columbia 5 57 Manitoba * * New Brunswick 49 51 Nova Scotia 70 75 Ontario * * Quebec 62 71 Saskatchewan * * Canada Total 47 64 * data not available/provided
Ever wonder how much public land your state or province contains? How about the percentage of your state or province that is forested? Some folks couldnt care less about these values, but those folks arent deer hunters! We surveyed state and provincial wildlife agencies to determine the percentage of each state and province that was privately owned and the percentage that was forested. The Southeast leads the U.S. with an average of 92 percent private land. Eight of 10 states (80 percent) had at least 90 percent private land, and it ranged from 85 percent in Mississippi to 97 percent in
Kansas 98 Alabama 97 Iowa 97 Nebraska 97 Texas 97
Highest % Private Land
Top-5 States
Highest % Forested Land
Top-5 States
Maine 90 Vermont 85 New Hampshire 84 West Virginia 79 Mississippi 70
2014
IMPaCTs
OF
RECORD 2012 HEMORRHaGIC DIsEasE OUTBREaK

in the western half of the state may have lost 70 percent or more of their deer! Sixteen states (47 percent) reported losing 1 to 5 percent of their deer herd, and 14 states (41 percent) estimated no measurable reduction from HD. In Canada all five reporting provinces estimated no population declines due to HD. QDMAs Recommendations Even though 30 of 34 states (88 percent) This Michigan buck found dead from suspected EHD in 2012 was estimated losing 0 to photographed by QDMAs Great Lakes Regional Director Bob DuCharme. 5 percent of their deer herds, it is important to realize HDs impact can be locally severe itself or deer herd monitoring programs, especially in areas where the disease is QDMA offers multiple educational opporrelatively new. QDMA recommends hunt- tunities at QDMA.com, within previous ers monitor population indicators via editions of the Whitetail Report, books for trail-camera and/or observation surveys sale in The Shed and our advanced educaand alter antlerless harvests as necessary. tion/certification programs. For more information about the disease
The summer of 2012 had the worst or second worst hemorrhagic disease (HD) outbreak of all time. Hemorrhagic disease was confirmed in nearly 30 states and tens of thousands of deer succumbed to the disease (see page 16 in the 2013 Whitetail Report). To assess impacts of the HD outbreak we surveyed state and provincial wildlife agencies and asked them to estimate how much the disease reduced the deer population in their jurisdiction in 2013. Nationally, only two of 34 states (6 percent; Louisiana and Nebraska) reported more than 10 percent declines. Two others (Indiana and North Carolina) reported losses from 6 to 10 percent, and North Carolina noted that while this decline was at the statewide level, some localized areas
Highest Percentage of HD Losses
Top-5 States
Louisiana >10 % Nebraska >10% Indiana 6-10% North Carolina 6-10% 16 states 1-5%
EsTIMATED PERCENTAGE oF DECLINE IN DEER PopULATIoNs DUE To HEMoRRhAGIC DIsEAsE, 2012
>10% Decline
6-10% Decline
1-5% Decline
No Measurable Decline
WhitetailReport
InCREasED CWD PREVaLEnCE RaTE
At this point in time, you would have to be living under a rock (or possibly have been hit with one and unconscious for a few years) to not have heard of CWD or Chronic Wasting Disease an infectious, neurodegenerative disease found in most deer species, including elk, moose, mule and white-tailed deer. Black-tailed deer are also susceptible. Possibly the only native, North American cervid yet to be affected is caribou (woodland or barren ground varieties), perhaps only because they have yet to be exposed. Following an incubation period lasting one to five years, clinical CWD is considered 100 percent fatal, and epidemics are self-sustaining in both captive and free-ranging populations. Around since its initial discovery in the 1960s in Colorado, CWD has now been identified in 22 U.S. states, two Canadian provinces and Korea (from an elk imported from Canada in 1997). Contagions spread through urine, feces, saliva, and blood and possibly even through plants (research ongoing). There is no vaccine or cure. The scary thing is, after 40 plus years of talking about this disease, all the jabbering seems to be going unheard. Whats worse is that its getting worse. And not just in captivity. Yes, CWD can reach remarkably high prevalence in captive populations. At Buckhorn Flats, near Mount Horeb, Wisconsin, a population of penned whitetails went from one to 60 (of 76; or 77 percent prevalence) in just five years. That entire facility was depopulated as a result. In another example, more than 90 percent of the residents (those that were present for more than two years) within an infected mule deer research facility either died or were euthanized while suffering from CWD. However, up until now prevalence in wild, free-ranging populations of deer didnt even come close to percentages in captivity. But that has changed. To estimate prevalence in infected freeranging populations, tissues from deer and elk harvested by hunters in CWD-endemic areas have to be collected and examined at random. Within endemic areas, prevalence of preclinical CWD, has historically been estimated at less than 1 to as high as 15 percent; preclinical deer have the disease but havent shown the symptoms yet so they appear to be disease-free. But recent findings in Wyoming and Wisconsin show that prevalence, at least in some areas (seemingly where the disease has been around longest), is starting to climb. In Wyoming, prevalence rates in all infected areas typically measure on average less than or equal to 10 percent; but more than 25 percent of animals in a few localized wild deer herds in the Cowboy State are now CWD-positive. Moreover, in a mule deer herd in Converse County, Wyoming, CWD prevalence among hunter-harvested animals increased from 15 percent in 2001 to 57 percent in 2011. Wisconsin takes it a step further: After finding CWD in white-tailed deer in 2002, the states Department of Natural Resources sought complete eradication by killing thousands of white-tailed deer with special hunts and culling programs designed to reduce deer densities. That effort was met with limited success, particularly within their western monitoring area. During the past 11 years, the trend in prevalence in adult males from that area of the CWD Management Zone has risen from 8 to 10 percent to over 20 percent, and in adult females from about 3 to 4 percent to approximately 9 percent today (see graphs at the bottom of the page). During that same time, the prevalence trend in yearling males has increased from about 2 percent to about 6 percent, and in yearling females from roughly 2 percent to about 5 percent. This complicates control measures since the yearling cohort is the age class most likely to disperse from their birth range to a distant territory (typically within 1 to 5 miles) to set up a new home, thereby increasing spread risk. In a small region of Iowa County, Wisconsin, its worse. A 144-square mile area that abuts the CWD core area, where the disease was first discovered in 2002, is now experiencing unprecedented prevalence growth rates (see map on the facing page). In this localized 12-by-12 mile area, according to Pat Durkin, Wisconsin resident and outdoor writer covering CWD over the past decade, the following has been recently documented: CWDs annual growth rate for all deer (both sexes combined) 2 years and older is now 27 percent Annual disease rates for adult bucks
CWD Prevalence - Core Area - Males

25%
l
CWD Prevalence - Core Area - Females

12%
N l l
Adult Males Adult Trend
Yearling Males Yearling Trend
20% Portion Positive
10% 8%
Adult Females Adult Trend
Yearling Females Yearling Trend
15%
Portion Positive
N N N
n n
6%
N
N
n
10%
l l
l 1 1 1 1 1
4% 2% 0
N N
N
n
N
n n n
5%
1 1 1 1 1 1
n n
2002
2004
2006 Year
2008
2010
2012
2002
2004
2006 Year
2008
2010
2012
Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

2014
! (
82
Prevalence of CWD in the CWD Management Zone

! (
33
Monroe Co
! (
131
! (
71
Mauston
! (
82
! (
82
Montello
Green Lake Co
! (
44
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
! (
23
! (
162
! (
33
Elroy
! (
27
! (
80
( /
12

90
Adams Co
Marquette Co
! (
73

39
! (
44
( /
14
! (
33
Westby
! (
131
Hillsboro
! (
33
! (
58
Juneau Co
! (
13
! (
22
Markesan
Legend
2
! (
26
Fond du Lac Co
Fond du Lac
( /
151
! (
23
( /
151
Sheboygan Co
Plymouth
( /
14
Vernon Co
! (
33
! (
23
! (
44
41 ( / Section with Cumulative Positive
! (
49
! (
175
( /
45
! (
67
! ( Sheboygan ! (! ( ! (
23 32 28 28
Median Prevalence* of CWD 2002-2009 < 1%
! (
28
Wisconsin Dells
! (
82
! (
82
( /
12
Viroqua
! (
33
! (
23
! (
56
! (
131
Reedsburg
! (
23

90 12
! ( ! (
127 16

39
Waupun of CWD Positives through 2009 Number 49 ! (

43
! (
57
! (
32
Portage
! (
33
! (
33
! ( ! (
73 33
! ( CWD Management Zone

68
( /
41
! (
67
Fox Lake
! (
27
! (
58
( /
14
! (
131
! (
56
1
! ( ! (
23 154
! (
33
! (
33
( /
51
! (
27
( /
14
Richland Co
! (
154
1 1
Sauk Co
1
/ ! ( ( Baraboo ! (
136
2 4 3
! (
33
1 1 1 1 1
! (
16
! ( ! (
44 22
County! Boundary 26
Columbia Co (
146
! ! (
73
113 1
! (
78
! (
22
! (
16
! ( ( /
131 61
! (
171
! (
171
! (
171
Richland Center
1
( ( /!
14 80
! (
154
( /
12
! (
78
1

39
1 1 1 1
( /
51
! (
16
! ( ! Beaver Dam ( PLSS Township Horicon ! ( ! ( ( / Juneau ! ( ! (

28 67 33 151 26 26 115
! ( Municipality
33
( /
151
( /
45 28
144 1 - 2% ! (
! ( Mayville ! (
33
! (
28 144
2 - 4% 4 - 8%
( / ! (
41 175

43 33 57
Washington Co
! ( 8 - 12% Ozaukee Co ! ( ! ! ( West Bend12 - 23% (

33
Port Washington
! (
32
! (
58
1 1
! (
130
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 3 4 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 1 1 4 3 1 1 7 1 3 3 8 2 2 8 8 4 2 4 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 2 2 2 1 3 5 4 1 1 4 6 4 1 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 4 2 3 2 2 1 4 4 7 1 9 2 2 6 5 5 1 2 1 1 4 6 8 5 7 3 1 6 1 1 1 2 5 7 3 2 2 9 1 3 1 5 2 4 4 9 2 1 5 7 5 6 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
! (
23
! (
78
1
! (
113
1 1 Lodi
! (
60
! (
60
Dodge Co
Columbus
! (
16
! (
60
! ( ! (
83 175
Hartford
( /
41
! (
60
! (
60
1 1 1
! (
27
Crawford Co
! (
80
! (
60
1 1
( /
14
3
( /
61
! (
78 60
1 2 2 2 1 4 4 2 6 4 6 2 2 1 2 7 6 8 9 8 13 3 4 1 1 7 8 4 4 1 1 4 3 1 1 10 4 5 5 3 3 3 1 3 5 5 2 3 1 1 7 3 2 1 1
! (
113
( /
51
! (
89
! (
16
! (
60
! (
60
1
1 1
! (
179
! (
133
/ ! ( ! ( (
133 130 14
2 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
! (
1 7 16 11 6 3 6 3 2 2
( /
12 19
2
( /
151
1 1 2 1 1 7 5 3 7 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 5 2
! (
2 1
! (
19
! (
73
! (
131
! (
60
Boscobel
( /
12
! (
113

39
Sun Prairie 19
! (
Waterloo
! (
19 89
! (
67
Watertown
3 13 7 7
7 11 5
9 13 13
( /
14
1
Middleton
! (
60
! (
133
( /
61 1
1
1 2
9 14 6 16 6 11 6
! (
80
1 1 1
8 14 32 11 5 14 6 4 4 1 1 3 9 4 6
Madison
2 3
Dane Co
( / ! ( ( /
151 30 51
! (
Lake Mills
! (
16

94

94
Oconomowoc
1 1
2 4 2
! (
23
1 10
4 16 13 7
( /
12
Monona
! (
73
Jefferson Co
( /
12
( /
18
( /
18
Fennimore
( /
18
Iowa Co
1 1
! (
78
1 1 1
Verona 18
( /
18
( / Fitchburg ( /
14

39
! (
134
! (
26
! (
67

94 18
! ( ! ( Mequon ( ! ( ( /! ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Glendale ( / ! ! ( (( ( ! ( Waukesha Co ! (! Delafield Pewaukee Brookfield Wauwatosa Milwaukee! ( ! (

167
! (
164
Cedarburg
! (
167
! ( ! (
145 175 74
181
43
167
41
145
57
100
83
164
181
32
145
16
100 41
43
190
57
190
32
( /
12
! (
89 26
Jefferson
( /
! (
83
Waukesha
( ( / !
18 94 59
Dodgeville
! (
35
Grant Co
( /
61
! (
39
( /
151
! (
191
1 1 2 3 2 1 1 4
! (
78
1 1 2 1 1 1
! (
92
( /
51
! (
59
! (
59
West Allis
100
New Berlin
! ( ! ( ! (
59 24
( /
18
! (! (
32 32 241
! (
69
! (
138
Stoughton
! (
73
1
! ( Fort Atkinson ! (
106
1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 6 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
! (
106
! (
67

43
Greenfield
45 36
St. Francis Cudahy

32
! (
59
! (South Milwaukee ( ( ! ( / !
Oak Creek ( / Franklin ! ( ! ( ( /
45 241 32 45
! (
35
! (
35
Lancaster
Mineral Point
! (
39
1 1
! (
39
1 1
! ( ! (
133 81
! (
80
( /
151
! (
39
1 1
! (
69
! (
69
! (
138
! (
26
1
( /
12
! (
59
! (
59
1 2
! (
67
! ( ! (
43 83 164
Muskego
Milwaukee Co
! (
92
! (
59
Edgerton
Whitewater 1
! (
81
! (
78
3 1 2 1
! (
104
( /
51
! (
59
! (
23
Evansville
! (
59
Platteville 151
! (
133
( /
61
! (
80
( /
! (
81
! (
126
! (
69
! (
59
( /
14 51

39
! (
59
1 2 1
Milton
26
( /
12 1 1
! (
20
! (
83
1 120
! (
36
! (
! (
89
2 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1
( /
Walworth Co
1
12 1
Racine Co
( !
43 11
! (
20
! (
20
( /
151
! (
81
Darlington
! (
81
! (
104
! (
23
! (
81
Green Co
( / ( / Janesville
14
1
! (
59
Cuba City
Lafayette Co
! (
78
Brodhead
! ( ! (
213 11
Rock Co
1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
! (
351 39
1 1 2
( /
14
1 1 1
2 1 1 1 2
! (
11
1 1
Elkhorn
! (
67
! ( ! (
120
1
Delavan
1
( /
61
! (
11
! (
11
! (
11
Shullsburg
! (
11
! (
11
Monroe
! (
11
! (
140
! (
69
! (
213
( /
51
1 1
! (
78
! (
81
! (
140
2 5 2 2 1

43
1 1
1 2
( /
14
2 1 1 1 1 1
! ( ! (Lake Geneva ! (
120 1 50 120
3 1
( /
12
! ( ( Burlington ! ! ( ( ! ( !
36 11 36 83 142
! (
75
/ ! ((
11 45

94
! (
142
1
! (! ( ! ( ! ( Racine ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (
31 32 31 20 11 11 31 32
! (
38
! (
50
! (
158
Kenosha Co
5 1 5
( /
12
! (
83
Beloit
5 2
! (
67
( /
45
( ! ( ! ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! (
50 50 32 165 165 31 32
Kenosha
10 1:650,000
20
Miles
aged. Though this has yet to be realized, increasing prevalence rates in wild, freeranging populations may be just the snowball that gets things going. Its possible we simply havent been able to observe this disease long enough to see it come to fruition. What does increasing CWD prevalence mean for the individual hunter in these areas? Or for the future of hunting as a whole? Well, when prevalence of an always fatal disease reaches almost 30 percent of adults (male and female) 2 years old or older in an area, hunters there can expect more than a quarter of their herd will be gone soon. This will directly impact what hunters see when they go afield, the annual harvest and ultimately hunter participation and retention. It will in effect change the hunting tradition locally. What about for their neighbors? Dispersing younger deer will ensure the neighbors experience the same thing down the road. For you and us as deer hunters at large? Inclusive of topics such as health risks and population control, it can potentially mean a change in how deer and deer hunting are perceived by the non-hunting public. Hunting will be trivialized, and this could begin to unravel
* Prevalence is an estimate based on a specific statistical model and data from 2002-2009; a change in either the statistical model or inclusion of new data may change the estimated prevalence.
(18 months and older) are doubling every 2 to 3 years Roughly every third buck 2 years and older is infected, as is one in every six yearling bucks (18 months old). Infected deer typically live two years or less Although the number of diseased females is lower, the infection rate for does 2 years and older is growing 38 percent annually, faster than for males Unfortunately, even as infection rates increase, testing of Wisconsin deer for CWD is on the decline; this is not unique to the Badger state, with increasing costs associated with testing, control/prevention and outreach (see page 44 of the 2010 Whitetail Report) and decreasing agency budgets (page 17 of same report), a break has to come at some point. In 2002, over 40,000 deer were tested in Wisconsin, and 0.51 percent tested positive. In 2012, 6,611 deer were tested, and 5.13 percent tested positive. It makes you wonder what were missing. Modeled CWD epidemics have failed to achieve a steady-state equilibrium in infected deer populations, suggesting that CWD may lead to local extinctions of infected deer populations if left unman-
the fabric of a long-standing deer hunting culture in North America. QDMAs Recommendations Disease transmission from captive to free-ranging cervids is a major threat to the future of wildlife management and hunting in North America. The QDMA recommends a continued and strengthened effort by wildlife professionals to study, monitor and evaluate solutions for minimizing the spread of CWD and not take a learn to live with it attitude, as appears to have settled among the hunting and professional community. The QDMA also recommends maintaining or enhancing strict movement restrictions (like border closings, etc.) and testing protocols on captive cervids, as well as returning/maintaining full authority over captive cervid facilities and regulations with the state/provincial wildlife agencies. Currently, some state/provinces have this authority while the Department of Agriculture shares it or maintains sole possession in others.
WhitetailReport
SEEInG & KILLInG MaTURE BUCKs
an area we can hunt, and you can find many of these in the Habitat Improvement area at QDMA.com. Home Range Size by Age The next tip current research is providing is home range size by age of adult bucks. It is important to realize each buck is an individual, but there are some trends with regard to age and home range size that we can use to our benefit. In general, 2-year-old bucks home ranges are much larger than bucks 3 years and older; and the home ranges of bucks 3 to 6 years are larger than bucks that are 7 years and older. Therefore, the old adage that a bucks homerange size increases as he ages photo by cody altizer is not true. Some older bucks have big home ranges, but it our hunting strategies. For example, studies in Louisiana, is highly likely they are smaller than when Maryland and Pennsylvania show adult they were young, and as a rule older bucks buck home ranges average 269 to 559 acres. have smaller home ranges than younger These are much smaller than the square bucks. Again we can use this to our advanmile estimate of 640 acres that is often tage this fall. Having an idea of how old a discussed as a bucks home range. A similar specific buck is can help understand the study in Texas showed an average home size of the area he may be using, and it can range of 2,271 acres! Obviously the vegeta- also help understand how many chances tion type and amount of cover has a large you may get at hunting him prior to affecting his behavior or movement patterns. influence on home range size. More importantly though from a More on that later. hunters perspective was the core area of the home ranges. Core area is the portion Core Area Shifts Were also learning that bucks can of a bucks home range where he spends 50 percent of his time. So, while a buck may shift their core areas seasonally to take travel over several hundred or thousands of advantage of specific cover or forage. For acres, he spends half of his time in a much example, deer with access to acorns will smaller portion of it. The same studies often spend far more time in oak stands in Louisiana, Maryland and Pennsylvania during fall in good mast years versus poor showed bucks core areas were only 59 to mast years or during other seasons. Also, 86 acres! Now were getting somewhere deer in extreme northern environments with the ability to pattern specific bucks. spend much more time in closed canopy Even if a bucks home range is 250 to 550 evergreen stands during winter than other acres, if he spends 50 percent of his time in seasons. Or at least they do so if they want about 60 to 85 acres of it, our odds of see- to survive. As managers we try to provide a divering him increase dramatically. That is, as long as we can identify and hunt his core sity of preferred cover and forages for every area. There are numerous habitat enhance- season to ensure were giving whitetails ment strategies we can employ to increase everything they need to thrive. As hunters the chance a bucks core area incorporates we try to use the knowledge of those habi-
Whats the first step to seeing an adult buck where you hunt? The answer is simple a buck must survive his first couple of hunting seasons and then spend time on the land you hunt. That seems easy enough especially given that more than ever before hunters are passing yearling bucks. In fact, more than 60 percent of antlered bucks shot nationally are at least 2 years old, and in some states that percentage is 80 to 90 percent. An adult buck can be described in a variety of ways, and for this article we are talking about bucks 2 to 7 years of age because those are the ages used in the research well be describing. Okay, once youve seen him/them, either in person or (more likely) in a trail-camera picture, whats the next step to tagging them? Unless you flat out get lucky, the answer is it is not simple at all. Matching wits with an adult buck can be extremely challenging, but fortunately current research is providing insights into travel and behavioral patterns that can tip the odds in our favor of crossing paths with one of these majestic creatures this season. Home Range Size Research from Pennsylvania to Texas and many points between involving GPS collars and adult bucks can help sharpen
2014
hunters complain that all the deer are gone (or dead) after the first few days of the season? Weve all heard that, but the deer arent gone, theyre simply responding to the pressure weve applied. Jim Stickles found similar results. For his research he shot deer with dart guns to capture and radio-collar them. This is essentially catch and release hunting, and Jim found stands were only productive for three to five sits. After that, deer reacted to the pressure and avoided those stands. Keep those numbers in mind this season to keep deer from avoiding you. QDMAs Recommendations Forget Hunting 101. Some bucks are killed by pure luck, but most of us need to use some advanced knowledge to tip the odds in our favor. Heres what the current research suggests. Enhance the habitat where you hunt to provide preferred forage and cover. Do you hunt public land or you dont have the ability to improve habitat where you hunt? Thats fine, just be sure to pay extra attention to the following items. Hunt when deer are most active at dawn, dusk and during the rut. Monitor the bucks using a property to predict both the timing and range of their movement patterns. Understand that food plots are not a panacea to killing deer. In many cases cover is more important, especially if hunting pressure is high. Buck movements, home-range size and excursions all highlight the benefits of being involved in a QDM Cooperative. Finally, the most important thing to remember is do not overhunt your stands. Hunting the same stand(s) over and over is the surest way to see fewer and fewer deer. Its also a nearly guaranteed way to not see a mature buck. We all have our favorite stand, and we can also ensure its our best stand by being disciplined enough to limit the number of times we hunt it, and to only hunt it when the conditions are right to enter, hunt and exit it without alerting deer. Far too many hunters ruin stands by forgetting about the exit part. Hunt smart this season, and we hope this information helps you cross paths with the buck of your dreams!
tat features to predict how a buck will use the property so we can surprise him on a frosty fall morning. Focal Points Aaron Foley and his colleagues at the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute in Texas identified an interesting movement pattern as their research bucks did not wander widely during peak rut. In fact, they only used 30 percent of their home ranges, and most bucks had two or more focal points of activity within their ranges. Even more interesting, during peak rut those focal points were visited frequently roughly every 20 to 28 hours and focal points of several individual bucks overlapped, suggesting numerous bucks visited the exact same spots. If you find one of these areas, hang your stand and hold on. You may have to shoot your way out! Excursions This behavioral trait provides optimism for all hunters and heartache for some. Excursions are defined as long range movements (typically 1 to 4 miles) outside of a deers home range that occur over a short time period (typically less than a day up to 3 days). Bucks and does go on excursions, and theyre well documented in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas. Several studies show excursions during the breeding season, and this is one reason why every fall hunters shoot bucks theyve never seen or photographed before. Its also why some hunters can watch a buck all fall only to have it shot a mile or more away. The take-home message is even if you havent been seeing what youre looking to shoot, keep hunting because that bruiser from down the road may be on an excursion across your hunting land tomorrow. Ongoing research in north-central Pennsylvania by the University of Georgias Andy Olson showed these excursions arent restricted to breeding as all 19 of his collared bucks went on spring excursions. His study area is heavily forested, so it is possible the bucks traveled to locate a limiting mineral or nutritional need. Bucks in another study in the central Appalachians made similar long-range movements to consume runoff from gas wells contain-
ing high concentrations of sodium. This behavioral trait explains why you cant stockpile bucks, and more importantly, why you should join/establish a QDM Cooperative where you hunt. Hunting Pressure How bucks react to hunting pressure is clearly one of the most critical pieces of information we should have as hunters. It allows us to predict how bucks react once the season starts, or more importantly, it provides us the knowledge to alter our hunting strategies to keep bucks from negatively reacting to that pressure. This is extremely important because the first thing bucks do when theyre being pressured is move less during daylight, and there is virtually nothing bucks can do to make it more difficult to harvest them than to go nocturnal. Fortunately researchers are studying this too, and heres what theyre finding. Each buck is an individual, but in general they react to hunting pressure by avoiding it. Jim Stickles, a University of Georgia graduate student, reviewed some of James Tomberlins buck movement data from Chesapeake Farms on Marylands eastern shore. The data clearly showed that as the hunting season progressed, bucks avoided open areas during daylight hours, but they continued using those areas at night. Jims own research in Georgia showed doe use of food plots that were heavily hunted dropped precipitously during daylight, but does continued using them at night. Conversely, during daylight hours they continued using nearby food plots that were not heavily hunted. How much hunting pressure is too much? Mississippi State University graduate student Andy Little assessed this exact question. On his study site in Oklahoma, Andy found one hunter per 250 acres caused minimal effects on deer behavior. However, one hunter per 75 acres caused deer to decrease movements and increase use of heavy cover. Combined, this resulted in decreased hunter observations and decreased harvest susceptibility, or in other words, unhappy hunters. Importantly, in this habitat deer recognized hunting pressure within three days and reacted accordingly. How many times have you heard
WhitetailReport
POaCHERs SUCK
QDMA has a long history of ghting for tougher nes and penalties for poachers. This year, were committing even more resources to the ght.
Poachers suck. Period. No political correctness or apology necessary. Poachers steal from you and us, and they endanger the lives of people in the areas where they perform their hideous deeds. Law enforcement officials often describe poachers as cowards who are too selfish, lazy and unskilled to obtain the trophies they poach in a legal manner. We knew some poachers who were good woodsmen, but they certainly fit the rest of this description. A common thread regarding poaching is nearly every hunter knows at least one. Some know many. Some are related to many. Another common thread is sportsmen and women are becoming increasingly intolerant of this wildlife theft and are pushing for enhanced fines and penalties for poachers. Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas have become especially unfriendly to these criminals by dramatically increasing fines, restitution fees and penalties for illegally killed white-tailed deer. QDMA strongly supported each measure, and was the driving force for the change in Kansas. Tim Donges, QDMAs Bluestem Branch president, worked tirelessly with Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism staff and his legislators to get Senate Bill 314 passed. Governor Brownback signed it into law on May 25, 2012, and Kansas now has one of the toughest poaching penalties for white-tailed deer in the U.S. Kill a whitetail illegally in the Sunflower State and it will cost you a minimum of $1,000. If the deer is a buck scoring over 125 inches, you will also pay a restitution fee that is determined by this formula: (gross score 100)2 x $2.00. So, a 125-inch bucks restitution value would be $1,250. For a 150-inch buck it would be $5,000. Plus, if the buck has an inside spread of at least 16 inches, you would also pay a fine of at least $5,000. So, a 150-inch buck with a 16-inch inside spread would cost you $10,000 in fines and restitution fees in addition to court and other costs!
Each state has its own fee and fine structure, and since 2008 poachers in Ohio pay a restitution fee based on this formula: (gross score 100)2 x $1.65. In March 2011, an Ohio poacher was ordered to pay nearly $24,000 in restitution for poaching a trophy buck. As of September 2010 in Pennsylvania, the potential penalty for poaching a deer includes three months in jail, a $1,000 fine, and a five-year ban on hunting privileges. Poaching five or more deer could result in a felony conviction, three years in prison, a $15,000 fine, and a 15-year hunting license revocation. Finally, since 1999 in Texas poaching deer can get you felony charges and a mandatory jail sentence. First time offenders get 180 days to two years in jail and a fine of $1,500 to $10,000. A second violation is prosecuted as a felony and gets two to 10 years behind bars and a $2,000 to $10,000 fine. Even stiffer penalties are applied if the poacher wastes the carcass of the poached deer. In Michigan, Senate Bill 171 is moving through the legislative process, and at least one additional state, Delaware, is currently discussing increasing their fines at the request of QDMAs Delaware Branch. QDMA hopes more states follow suit, and we are poised to help make that happen. Whats the Big Deal? Some argue poaching a deer is not that big a deal. We completely disagree. Wildlife is held in trust by each state for all of its citizens to enjoy. This public ownership of wildlife is an instrumental component of the successful North American Model for Wildlife Conservation. Ethical sportsmen created and have supported the North American Model for the past century. Unfortunately, unlawful activities with respect to wildlife contrast the Model, and illegally killing wildlife is nothing less than public theft. Plus, whitetails are the most popular big game animal in the United States, and whitetail hunters are
the foundation of the $87 billion hunting industry as approximately three of every four hunters pursue whitetails. Whether for viewing or hunting, white-tailed deer are captivating, and this is especially true for large-antlered bucks. Part of their appeal lies in their relative scarcity. Many of these animals are taken prior to maturity by hunters, are involved in deer-vehicle collisions, or they succumb to disease or other mortality factors. Thus, the investment of time, sweat and monetary resources required to produce a mature deer is substantial. These resources are far greater than the current restitution value of a deer stolen by a poacher in many states. Big Time Poaching Ring Google poaching deer and youll be amazed at the number of hits you receive; over 1 million last time we checked. As recently as November 2013 poachers in Kansas found themselves in federal court appealing their sentencing from a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism law enforcement bust. Wildlife officials confiscated approximately 120 sets of antlers and mounts that amassed 16,600 inches of antlers! This operation dubbed Operation Cimarron - included thousands of manhours of law enforcement time. We are aware of many other undercover operations too. Prior to Kips employment with QDMA he worked for the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission and the New Hampshire Fish & Game Department. He worked with a lot of wildlife officers and knew of many poaching detail stories. In addition to being time consuming and costly, they are also very dangerous. A few years ago a friend was deep undercover in such an operation. He knew Kip would be representing QDMA at an upcoming deer show, and he called to tell him he would be there undercover
2014
September 2013
September 2012
This New York buck, estimated to be 5 years old by the hunters on a 1,700-acre QDM Cooperative in Washington County, was shot by a poacher at night from a public road in late October. The poacher took the head and abandoned the rest of the buck in the ditch. QDMA staff biologist Matt Ross (pictured here) lives nearby and helped start the Cooperative. Television news coverage of the incident and a $1,000 reward offered by QDMAs Upper Hudson River Valley Branch helped produce hundreds of tips, but as of press time no arrest had been made in the case.
with the group of poachers. The reason he called was to tell Kip if he saw him to not say hello or even acknowledge he knew him. He was using a different name and his cover would never be friends with Kip. He ended by saying he was so deep in that if his cover was blown he would likely be killed. He was serious, and Kip was glad he didnt see him at the show. A Long History of Hating Poachers From our early days over 25 years ago, QDMA has detested poaching. Some of the earliest articles in The Signpost (the precursor to Quality Whitetails) dealt with poaching. We even give a presentation on poaching and trespassing in our Deer Steward I course. Joe Hamilton, QDMAs founder and Director of Development, gives that talk and includes a special story for attendees at the in-person Deer Steward class. It is our favorite poaching story, and Joe had a leading role with the notorious poacher the story is about. In fact, Joe has a history of tangling with poachers. He worked nearly 19 years as a wildlife biologist for the South Carolina DNR, and he aggravated and irritated poachers so badly
over the years that one of them burned his car to the ground! An Encounter Too Close to Home In November 2013, we posted a picture and information on our Facebook page about a poaching incident in New York. Matt, our Certification Programs Manager, lives in the Empire State and he helped organize a QDM Cooperative in Washington County near his home. Matts primary hunting area is near that Cooperative, so this story hit close to home. The short version is the Cooperative was following a 5-year-old buck, and hopes were high for the 2013-14 season. Unfortunately, a poacher found the buck first and killed it illegally. To make matters worse, the poacher cut off the bucks head and left the rest behind to rot. As we said at the beginning poachers suck! QDMAs Recommendations Since our inception we have helped educate hundreds of legislators on this crime, and we have fought for tougher fines and penalties for poachers. The millions of law-abiding hunters deserve it, and
we are proud to lead the charge. We will continue educating sportsmen and women on how to combat poaching. We will push this issue with state wildlife agencies that currently have modest fines and penalties for poaching. We will work with key legislators to enact legislation for stricter fines, restitution fees and more. Mostly, we will fight for hunters rights by curbing poaching and making those who still choose to steal from law-abiding hunters pay dearly. You can help by recruiting fellow hunters to join our ranks, because as our numbers grow, so does our influence in this worthy fight.
WhitetailReport
BUCK HaRVEsT REGULaTIOns: OnE SIZE DOEs NOT FIT ALL
Deer hunting rules that work for one state may not t another. Consider the factors that explain the variety of whitetail hunting regulations.
How does your state or province mea- you have for a standing crop of deer. is highly successful in Indiana, Kansas, sure up with respect to buck harvest? Many Kentucky and Ohio as these states do a hunters praise the hunting opportunities Buck Bag Limits great job moving bucks into older age available in a select few states and provBuck bag limits are a hot topic among classes. inces. Iowa and Saskatchewan are com- hunters with many suggesting a one- or So, does a one-buck limit always lead to mon dream whitetail destinations, and two-buck annual limit would allow more success? The answer is a resounding No. many hunters play the we should game. bucks to survive deer seasons and move Pennsylvania has always had a one-buck As in, we should move our season to be into the older age classes. A 2011 QDMA limit, and until antler point restrictions more like Iowa, or we should reduce our national survey showed the Southeast aver- were implemented in 2002, the Keystone buck bag limit to be like Saskatchewan. ages the highest buck bag limit (3.2 bucks States buck harvest routinely included Regardless of where you live or hunt it is per year) followed by the Northeast (3.1), 70- to 80-percent yearling bucks. Less than important to realize there are numerous Midwest (2.7), and eastern Canada (1 buck 1 percent of Pennsylvanias bucks reached variables that affect the deer maturity, and no deer manager herd and buck harvest such would say Pennsylvanias bucks as bag limit, harvest regulahad a healthy age structure. tions and season length and Minnesota also has a one-buck timing. Fortunately, there limit and as recently as 2007 and is not a single recipe for 2008 its buck harvest included success, rather the factors nearly 70 percent yearling bucks. can be mixed, matched and/ Why are the results so or combined to tailor the different in Minnesota and program to specific locales, Pennsylvania than the other environments, conditions one-buck states? The main difand hunting cultures. ference is the sheer number of Hunters today are far hunters. Pennsylvania has over more engaged in deer man900,000 hunters and Minnesota agement, and thats a good has around 500,000 while thing. As a deer hunter you Indiana has less than 400,000, can be most productive in Kentucky has less than 350,000 these discussions by being and Kansas has less than 300,000 as knowledgeable as poshunters. Ohio is the anomaly sible about what factors here as it has over 500,000 huntaffect a program and how ers, indicating other variables in they can be manipulated to combination with the bag limit enhance a program and its are influencing the buck harvest. hunting opportunities. We Pennsylvania leads the nation in No single program is ideal for all locales in the whitetails range. Several factors have the privilege of workhunter density, so even though including climate, hunting culture and hunter population are factors when ing in about 20 states each Keystone State hunters can only states and provinces form their regulations. year, so we see a lot of posishoot one buck per year, there tive and negative impacts are enough of them to still draof management variables on deer herds. per year; see page 36 of the 2011 Whitetail matically over-harvest the yearling segWell share some of these to show why Report for state-by-state and province-by- ment of the buck population without an a one-buck bag limit works extremely province listings). Many states and prov- antler restriction. Indianas hunter density well in some situations but not in others, inces have a one-buck limit, and many is only half of Pennsylvanias, Kentuckys why season length can be a dominating hunters in Michigan, Tennessee and else- is less than half, and Kansas has less than or minimal factor, and why hunter den- where argue their state should adopt this one-fifth of Pennsylvanias hunter density. sity and other factors often dictate what regulation. There is no doubt this limit These states lower hunter densities allow
2014
mile (PSM). Compare those numbers to New York (15.1), Rhode Island (16.5) and Pennsylvania (20.3 hunters PSM) and you start to understand the magnitude of difference in hunter opportunities, expectations and experiences. This doesnt mean you cant have high-quality hunting in states with high hunter densities. Weve been fortunate to hunt whitetails in Illinois, Kentucky, Texas and elsewhere, yet some of our best deer hunting has been in New York and Pennsylvania. Also, how often is Rhode Island described as a trophy deer destination? Well from 1999 to 2009, when viewed on a PSM basis, only six states put more bucks in the Boone and Crockett record book! Those states (in order of appearance) were Illinois, Kentucky, Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana, so wed say Rhode Island is in pretty good company. Antler Restrictions In 2012, at least 22 states had some form of antler restriction implemented by the state wildlife agency (see pages 12-13 in our 2012 Whitetail Report for a complete listing). The restrictions were statewide for at least one buck in the bag limit in eight of those states. Fifteen states used an antler point restriction, three used an antler spread restriction, and four states used a combination restriction such as antler points/antler spread or main beam
>>>
A one-buck bag limit does not always lead to success. It is important to consider bag limits within the context of each state or provinces hunter numbers.
a one-buck limit to be highly successful, while this factor alone in Minnesota and Pennsylvania does not work nearly as well. When hunters discuss the bag limit for their state or province they need to consider it in context with their hunter numbers too. Season Length Our same national survey mentioned earlier also showed the Southeast averages the longest firearms season (68 days), followed by eastern Canada (22 days), the Northeast (21 days), and Midwest (13 days). Some hunters argue season length strongly influences the number of bucks that get harvested. This can be true in situations like South Carolina where the season is 140 days long in the eastern half of the state. Thats not a typo; eastern South Carolinas buck season runs from August 15 to January 1. On top of that, most of South Carolinas coastal counties have no bag limit for bucks and several of the eastern counties along the North Carolina border have a five-buck limit! So, the long season certainly impacts the number of bucks shot annually, but the five-plus bag limit and/or lack of antler restriction in parts of the state likely compounds the effects of season length. For comparison, Pennsylvanias firearms season is short (12 days). However, as weve shown, prior to antler point restrictions the state still overharvested the yearling segment of bucks;
even with a one-buck limit. Conversely, with Pennsylvanias current regulations a lengthened firearms season would likely result in an only minor increase in buck harvest. Hunter Density This factor is rarely discussed by hunters, but it has immense implications for deer hunting on public and private lands. Many hunters recognize Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska and Texas produce more than their share of large bucks. However, few hunters realize these states range from only 1 to 4.5 hunters per square
In 2012, at least 22 states had some form of antler restriction. These restrictions have made an impact on the yearling buck harvest, but results are not consistent due to varying hunter densities and hunting culture.
WhitetailReport
length/antler spread. Antler restrictions in these states have a huge impact on the buck harvest, but the results are not consistent across the board. For example, the percentage of yearling bucks in the harvest is nearly 50 percent in Pennsylvania but less than 10 percent in Arkansas. Why the large difference? Some of it is likely a result of differing hunter densities and hunting culture. On the flip side, Oklahoma has no antler restriction but shot only 15 percent yearling bucks last season! This is due largely to a strong educational component from the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation urging hunters to protect yearling bucks. Their Hunters In The Know Let Young Bucks Grow campaign is highly successful at getting hunters to pass yearling bucks during the hunting season (see page 23). shooting antlerless deer in Monroe, Pickett and Polk counties with a bow or muzzleloader. Our final example is from Kips home state of Pennsylvania. Half of the states WMUs (11 of 22) prohibit antlerless harvest during the first five days of the firearms season, and remember the season is only 12 days long. The lone exception is for landowners enrolled in the deer management assistance program (DMAP). This severe restriction is compounded by limited antlerless tags in many of those 11 WMUs. The end result is many hunters are unable to acquire an antlerless tag in these WMUs, and the hunters who do have a very short window in firearms season to use them. Dont blame Pennsylvanias deer biologists for these restrictions. They neither proposed nor supported them, and their data strongly suggests the regulations are Season Timing unnecessarily restricting hunter Timing of the firearms seaopportunities. son relative to the rut can The result of limited antlergreatly influence the buck harless harvest opportunities durWhile some areas of the country have liberal antlerless tag allocations, vest. For example, Minnesotas ing firearms season is additional other areas have extremely limited antlerless harvest opportunities. firearms season was strategipressure on the buck segment of cally placed to coincide with the the population. This factor may rut to maximize hunter opportunity and Antlerless Harvest Opportunities not impact the buck harvest to the degree buck harvest. This was in the mid 1970s Antlerless harvest opportunities can that bag limits and hunter densities do, but when management programs were aimed also impact the buck harvest. This may it is a real variable and one that must be at recovering deer herds, and the best way seem strange to many hunters today given considered. to do so was to protect antlerless deer and the liberal antlerless tag allocations in some focus harvest pressure on bucks. The need jurisdictions and earn-a-buck programs in QDMAs Recommendations to protect young bucks was a ways off. others. However, some areas have extremeNo management program is ideal for Conversely, Iowas primary firearms season ly limited antlerless harvest opportunities, all locales in the whitetails range. The was strategically placed to occur after the at least for firearms hunters, and here are sheer variance in climates, hunting culrut to minimize harvest pressure on bucks three examples. tures, and human populations necessitates and allow farmers time to harvest their New Hampshire is near the northern differing approaches to deer management. crops. limit of the whitetails range and cant This is good, as a one-size-fits-all approach The timing of firearm seasons sustain similar antlerless harvests as many would make deer management extremely becomes so engrained in our hunting cul- other states. Therefore, proper manage- boring! The key is to become as knowlture that it makes them nearly impos- ment necessitates having no antlerless edgeable as possible about being a good sible to move. Case in point, we can be harvest opportunities during the firearms steward of our natural resources, share that open minded on most deer issues or regu- season in 12 of the states 20 wildlife man- information with others, and then work to lations, but Kip couldnt imagine being agement units (WMUs). Georgia firearm enhance the health of the deer herd and its anywhere except at hunting camp on hunters can shoot up to 10 antlerless deer habitat in your area. Worry less about what Thanksgiving weekend in high anticipa- during a season thats 75 to 89 days long; they do in other states and focus on how tion of Pennsylvanias rifle opener on the imagine how foreign the New Hampshire you can improve things in your neighborMonday following the holiday. It is such regulations must sound to them (and vice hood. That is what being a good steward is an important day in Pennsylvania that versa). Next, some counties in eastern all about, and tremendous hunting oppormany schools are closed so the kids (and Tennessee have no antlerless deer opportunities will follow. teachers) can go hunting. Season timing tunities with a rifle. Hunters are limited to
can certainly impact the harvest, but in reality most other factors can more directly influence the size and age structure of the buck harvest, and moving the season is typically supported by fewer hunters than other more influential variables.
2014
Why Join QDMA?

Your support enables Our Mission: Ensuring the future of white-tailed deer, wildlife habitat and our hunting heritage. But as a QDMA member, youll also gain many hunting benefits:
More Hunting Success As a QDMA member, youll learn how to consistently harvest more quality bucks with the latest information on deer senses, where and when mature bucks travel, expert stand setups, and the food sources that draw and hold them.
More Deer Knowledge Discover how to attract and hold more deer where you hunt, regardless of acreage, with cutting-edge information on food plots, bedding cover, habitat management, strategies to control fawn losses to predators, and more.
More Fun! Quality Deer Management produces a more intense rut, more chasing and grunting, more rubs and scrapes, more bucks seen, resulting in a more enjoyable hunting experience!
Do Your Part to Protect Deer Hunting Your membership supports QDMAs efforts to ensure quality deer herds and hunting opportunities for generations to come, on public and private lands.
Free DVD Your QDMA Membership Kit includes a free gift: QDMAs DVD production, Aging and Scoring Bucks on the Hoof, a $20 value free with your membership!
Six Issues of Quality Whitetails Our award-winning deer hunting magazine, Quality Whitetails, gives you the information and guidance you need to enjoy more success where you hunt deer, from hunting strategies to food plots and habitat improvement. Youll also receive official membership credentials and a vehicle decal.
QDMA.com (800) 209-3337

Join Today!
WhitetailReport
Public Involvement in Deer Management

An important component of the highly successful North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is that wildlife is held in trust by each state and province for its citizens to enjoy. Sportsmen and women are becoming increasingly engaged in deer management programs, and this is important as white-tailed deer are the most popular big game animal in the United States. Approximately three of every four hunters pursue whitetails, and whitetail hunters are the foundation of the $87 billion hunting industry. Given the whitetails importance, we surveyed state and provincial wildlife agencies to determine their level and means for public engagement on their deer management programs.
PART 2: CURRENT ISSUES & TRENDS PUBLic INVOLVEMENT
2014
DOES YOUR STATE HAVE
DEER MANAGEmENT PLAN?

DEER MANAGEmENT PLANS BY STATE/PROVINCE
State/Province Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Michigan Minnesota Missouri Nebraska North Dakota Ohio South Dakota Wisconsin Midwest Total Deer Plan Plan? Duration (Years) NO NO NO YES 10 NO YES 5 NO NO NO YES 5 NO YES 10 YES Indefinite 5 of 13 10 15 10 10 5 10 10 10 5 Plan Public Steering Expiration Input? Committee? 2015 YES YES 2014 YES YES YES YES 2015 * * 2017 YES * YES YES 2019 YES 2015 YES 2018 YES 2015 YES 2016 YES 2018 YES 2020 YES 2015 YES 2015 YES YES * YES YES * YES YES YES NO
Management plans are written documents that establish specific goals, strategies and timelines to achieve desired outcomes. While the written plan is important, the process of stakeholder collaboration and articulation of specific outcomes is often equally if not more important. Thus, plans exist for managing a wide variety of natural resources. Surprisingly, only 18 of 37 states (49 percent) have a published deer management plan. Plans are most prevalent in the Northeast where nine of 13 states (69 percent) have one. Few states in the Midwest (5 of 13; 38 percent) or Southeast (4 of 11; 36 percent) have plans and this is concerning given the importance of deer hunting to those regions. For states with published plans, 10-year and 5-year plans are most common. In Canada one of five provinces (Quebec) have a deer plan, and its duration is eight years. For states with published deer plans, all allow the public to provide input to the plans, and 11 of 14 (79 percent) allow the public to serve on the plans steering committees. Only Arkansas, Mississippi and West Virginia do not allow the public to serve on the plans steering committees. In Quebec, the public can provide input to the deer plan and serve on its steering committee. For sportsmen and women in Georgia and Michigan, your plans expire this year, so you have an immediate opportunity to get engaged and help shape the future of deer hunting in your states. For sportsmen and women in Kansas, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia, your plans expire next year, so youre on deck. QDMAs Recommendations Given the whitetails importance to the entire hunting industry and wildlife management system, QDMA recommends all states and provinces have a published deer management plan created with input from all key deer stakeholder groups. QDMA staff has provided input to numerous states management plans, served on several states steering committees, and we look forward to working closely with states and provinces on future plans.
Connecticut NO Delaware YES Maine YES Maryland YES Massachusetts NO New Hampshire YES New Jersey NO New York YES Pennsylvania YES Rhode Island NO Vermont YES Virginia YES West Virginia YES Northeast Total 9 of 13
Alabama NO Arkansas YES 5 2018 YES Florida YES 10 2018 YES Georgia YES 10 2014 YES Louisiana NO Mississippi YES 5 2017 YES North Carolina NO Oklahoma NO South Carolina NO Tennessee NO Texas NO Southeast Total 4 of 11 U.S. Total 18 of 37 Alberta * British Columbia NO Manitoba * New Brunswick NO Nova Scotia NO Ontario * Quebec YES 8 2017 YES Saskatchewan NO Canada Total 1 of 5 * data not available/provided
NO YES YES NO
YES
WhitetailReport
PUBLIC INpUT
ON
DEER REGULATIONS
PUBLIC INpUT REQUIREmENTS & HOW WILdLIFE AGENCIES GAUGE PUBLIC SENTImENT
Public Input Public Phone Mail Social Traditional Phone State/Province Required? Meetings Surveys Surveys Internet Media Mail Calls E-mails Other Illinois * X X X X X X X Indiana YES X X X X X X X Iowa YES X X X X X Kansas * X X X X X X Kentucky NO X X X X Michigan YES X X X X X X X Minnesota YES X X X X X X Missouri NO X X X X X X Nebraska YES X X X X North Dakota NO X X Ohio YES X X X X X X X South Dakota YES X X X X X X X X Wisconsin YES X X X X X X X X X Midwest Total 8 of 11 10 of 13 4 of 13 10 of 13 9 of 13 7 of 13 12 of 13 12 of 13 10 of 13 2 of 13 Connecticut YES X X X X X Delaware YES X X X X X Maine * X X X Maryland NO X X X X X X X Massachusetts * X X X X X X New Hampshire YES X X X X X X X X New Jersey YES X X X X X X New York YES X X X X Pennsylvania YES X X X X X X Rhode Island YES X X X X Vermont YES X X X X X X X Virginia YES X X X X X X X West Virginia YES X X X X X X X Northeast Total 10 of 11 13 of 13 5 of 13 11 of 13 5 of 13 5 of 13 12 of 13 10 of 13 13 of 13 1 of 13 Alabama YES X X X X X X X X Arkansas * X X X X X X Florida YES X X X X X X X Georgia YES X X X X X X X Louisiana YES X X X X X Mississippi YES X X X North Carolina YES X X X Oklahoma YES X X X X X X X X South Carolina * X X X X Tennessee YES X X X Texas YES X X X Southeast Total 9 of 9 10 of 11 7 of 11 7 of 11 6 of 11 5 of 11 6 of 11 7 of 11 8 of 11 1 of 11 U.S. Total 27 of 31 35 of 37 16 of 37 28 of 37 20 of 37 17 of 37 30 of 37 29 of 37 31 of 37 4 of 37 Alberta * British Columbia NO X X X Manitoba * New Brunswick NO X X X X X Nova Scotia NO X X X X Ontario * Quebec YES X X Saskatchewan NO X X X X Canada Total 1 of 5 3 of 5 0 of 5 3 of 5 1 of 5 1 of 5 3 of 5 4 of 5 3 of 5 0 of 5 * data not available
In addition, we also asked state and provincial wildlife agencies if their agency is required to provide public involvement in regulatory changes involving deer and how they gauge public sentiment or accepted public comment on deer management/regulatory issues. Twenty-seven of 31 states (88 percent) are required to do so. Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and North Dakota are not required to provide public involvement, but fortunately all four of these states do engage the public on deer matters. In Canada, only one of five provinces (Quebec) is required to provide public involvement in regulatory changes for deer. The most popular means for gauging public sentiment or accepting public comment on deer management/regulatory issues are public meetings (35 of 37 states), e-mail (31 states), mail (30 states), and phone calls (29 states). Less popular means are telephone surveys (16 states) and social media (17 states). Notably, North Dakota and Tennessee are the only states that do not host public meetings. Regionally, telephone surveys are more popular in the Southeast (64 percent of states) than other regions, mail surveys are more popular in the Northeast (85 percent of states) than other regions, and internet surveys are more popular in the Midwest (69 percent of states) than the Northeast or Southeast. In Canada, phone calls are the most popular option (four of five provinces), followed by public meetings, mail surveys, traditional mail and e-mail, all of which are used by three of five provinces. QDMAs Recommendations QDMA is a strong proponent for public involvement in deer management, and we were pleased to see all states engage the public, even when not required to do so. We recommend states and provinces engage sportsmen and women at an even higher level in the future to forge strong relationships and maintain open and effective lines of communication. We also recommend more states make use of the Internet and social media for educating and communicating with their constituents, as these channels are used more regularly by younger hunters, who represent the future of deer hunting.
2014
today. However, whitetails are the backbone of the entire hunting industry and wildlife management system in the U.S. and Canada. As such, all states and provinces should make employment of trained deer management professionals a budgetary priority and maintain a competent deer management team appropriate for their states deer herd and hunter numbers.
Whos Keeping
an
Eye
on
Deer?
four states with increased staff are Florida, Kentucky, Maine and Wisconsin. Kudos to these states for adding these important positions. In Canada, all five provinces reported stable deer numbers during the past five years. QDMAs Recommendation QDMA recognizes the budgetary constraints facing many wildlife agencies
One important component of wildlife agency and public engagement is the number of deer-focused staff employed by states and provinces. State and provincial wildlife agencies are responsible for managing all wildlife within their jurisdictions, thus some staff focus on deer, others on turkeys, small game, waterfowl, etc. Whitetails are just one of many responsibilities, but the bulk of funding for most wildlife agencies comes directly or indirectly from this single game species. Thus, we asked state and provincial wildlife agencies how many active deer staff were employed by their agency in 2013 and whether that number had declined, remained stable or increased during the past five years. Thirty-seven states reported 165 deer staff, and this included full-time positions with more than 50 percent of their time dedicated to deer. Numbers ranged from zero staff in South Dakota to 84 in Texas, and most reported one (13 of 37 states) or two (12 of 37 states) deer staff. Regionally, the Southeast averaged the most staff at 9.9 per state, which is skewed by 84 staff focused on deer in Texas alone! The Southeast still averaged the most (2.5 per state) even with Texass high value excluded. The Northeast ranked second at 2.3 deer staff per state, and the Midwest was third with 2.0 deer staff per state. In Canada, deer staff averaged 2.9 per province and ranged from 1.0 in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan to 10 in Quebec. Canadas deer staff outranked the Midwest and Northeast, although it is surprising to see Saskatchewans low number. The number of deer positions has been stable during the past five years in 26 of 37 states (70 percent), increased in four states (11 percent), and declined in seven states (19 percent). The declines are disturbing given the importance of whitetails to the hunting industry and our wildlife management system. Of the seven states with fewer deer staff today, one was in the Southeast (Mississippi), three were in the Northeast (Maryland, Massachusetts and New York), and three were in the Midwest (Illinois, Indiana and Minnesota). Collectively, these states have over 2.8 million hunters and contribute $9.9 billion per year to their states economies! That should be enough to at least maintain their deer staff. The
NUmBER OF DEER-FOCUSEd STAFF* EmpLOYEd BY STATES/PROVINCES IN 2013

*More than 50% of employee time spent on deer
1 2
10
3 or more Zero or no employee that dedicates more than 50% of his/her time to deer Data not available/ provided
6 Top 6 states/provinces deer-focused employee numbers shown on the map 84 5
TRENdS IN ThE NUmBER OF DEER-FOCUSEd STAFF* OVER ThE PAST FIVE YEARS
*More than 50% of employee time spent on deer
Declined Remained Stable Increased Data not available/ provided
WhitetailReport
COmmUNICATION
&
SCIENCE
VS.
PUBLIC DESIRE
in each region) felt public desire was as important or more important than science in the outcome of their final deer hunting regulations (this could be a result of political influence and not necessarily the choice of the agency). This shows sportsmen and women may play a larger role than many of them realize, and that we need to better educate our natural resource commissioners regarding the importance of science in these decisions. In Canada science ranked 7.0 and public desire ranked 6.0, and one province ranked public desire equal to science in the final deer hunting regulations. QDMAs Recommendations QDMA is a strong proponent of public involvement in deer management, which necessitates good communication. We recommend that wildlife agencies better inform and engage the public on deer issues and that sportsmen and women better educate themselves on critical deer issues so they can contribute more effectively in these discussions. We are pleased to see the impact of public desire on deer regulations in many states, but we caution against public desire receiving greater importance than science, as it appears to in some states. Proper wildlife management is a mix of science, art and public opinion but science should carry the most weight in this arena.
Communication is key to successful wildlife management. Wildlife agencies need to communicate regularly with their constituents to inform and garner support for their programs, as even the best management programs can fail without such support. Therefore, we asked state and provincial wildlife agencies to rate their own effectiveness at communicating with the public and to rank the impacts of science and public desire in their final deer hunting regulations. These can be touchy questions, and some respondents requested anonymity, so responses are reported by region only. With respect to communication, only three of 33 states (9 percent) reported their communication with the public was excellent. At the other end of the spectrum one state felt theirs was poor. Most states reported their communication with the public was good (61 percent) or fair (27 percent). Collectively, nearly a third (30 percent) reported their communication was poor or fair this shows great opportunity for future agency/public relations. Regionally, in the Southeast, over half of states (60 percent) felt their communication was good. In the Northeast, half of the states reported their communication was only fair. In the Midwest, most states (92 percent) felt their communication was good or excellent. In Canada, three of five provinces ranked their communication as fair and two provinces felt it was good. No provinces ranked their communication with the public as poor or excellent.
With respect to the impacts of science and public desire on deer hunting regulations, science averaged 7.0 and public desire averaged 5.7 on a scale from 1 to 10. Science ranked highest in the Northeast (7.5) and lowest in the Southeast (6.5). Public desire also ranked highest in the Northeast (6.2) and lowest in the Southeast (4.9) which identifies some of the subjectivity in the questions. Importantly, nine of 30 states (30 percent) reported that public desire outranked science in the final deer hunting regulations, and three additional states reported that it equaled science in these decisions. Collectively, 12 states (four
EFFECTIVENESS OF WILdLIFE AGENCIES AT COmmUNICATING WITh ThE PUBLIC

Region Poor Fair Good Excellent Midwest 0 of 13 1 of 13 11 of 13 1 of 13 Northeast 0 of 10 5 of 10 3 of 10 2 of 10 Southeast 1 of 10 3 of 10 6 of 10 0 of 10 U.S. Total 1 of 33 9 of 33 20 of 33 3 of 33 Canada 0 of 5 3 of 5 2 of 5 0 of 5
30 percent of states reported that public desire outranked science in the nal deer (Rated on a scale from 1 to 10, averages listed) hunting regulations, and Region Science Public Desire Midwest 7.1 6.0 three additional Northeast 7.5 6.2 states reported Southeast 6.5 4.9 U.S. Total 7.0 5.7 that it equaled science in Canada 7.0 6.0 these decisions. ImpACT OF SCIENCE & PUBLIC DESIRE ON DEER HUNTING REGULATIONS
2014
Head for the hills, folks, and bring your buckskins we're havin' a rendezvous!
il e s m s d n a s ie r o t s , s k il l s r o o d t u o r u o y g B r in h Annual t 4 1 s A M D Q r o f t o A t h e n s , G e o r g ia yle! t s s u o v z e d n e r . . . n N a t io n a l C o n v e n t io
Mark your calendars for to enjoy the NEW events this year, such as the Outdoorsman Challenge, themed parties and late night bonfires with QDMA friends. And dont forget, just like every rendezvous, there will also be plenty of live music, so be sure to pack your dancing shoes!
N AT I O N A L CONVENTION
J u l y 2 4 - 2 7, 2 0 1 4
(800) 209.DEERQDMA. coM

WhitetailReport
QDMA: ENSURING
THe
FUTURe
Of
DeeR HUNTING
CErTIFY In 2006, QDMA created an individual certification program that includes three levels of potential achievement, and each must be completed in sequence. Deer Steward I provides students with a comprehensive understanding of the key principles of deer and habitat biology, ecology, and management. Deer Steward II teaches students how to apply the principles learned in Level I through hands-on and field experience. Finally, Deer Steward III, the most prestigious, must be earned through an individuals long-term service to whitetailed deer and/or QDMA. QDMA also launched the Land Certification Program in 2012. The goal of these programs is to create more knowledgeable hunters and managers and to have improved deer herds and habitats. HUNT Hunting is an essential tool for sound deer management and part of our sporting heritage. However, in many states hunter numbers have declined, and existing hunter recruitment programs are proving only marginally effective. In response, QDMA developed an innovative youth and new hunter education and outreach program, and it is comprised of two parts: the Mentored Hunting Program and our new membership-based Rack Pack. Unlike most other programs which involve a onetime contact with a young person or new hunter, this outreach program attacks the loss of hunting in a couple of ways. First, it provides a step-by-step guide for individuals to go through the steps of learning to hunt and earning their place in the brotherhood of deer hunting. Second, the Rack Pack allows involved youth members to experience a true feeling of belonging, and it accomplishes this through a ground-breaking supplemental youth-led, multimedia approach. The goal of these programs is to produce more deer hunters and better ambassadors for hunting, not simply to take more kids deer hunting. The following pages are a brief synopsis of what was accomplished in the last 12 months within each of these mission areas.
Ensuring the future of white-tailed deer, wildlife habitat and our hunting heritage: Thats the non-profit mission of QDMA. Our education and outreach efforts impact hunters and our hunting heritage in several ways. In 2006, using input from our members, wildlife agencies and conservation leaders, QDMA organized our mission efforts into five areas, represented by the acronym REACH: Research, Educate, Advocate, Certify, and Hunt. QDMAs goals for all these efforts are ambitious, and they directly benefit all deer hunters, QDMA members or not. Here is a brief look at each area of our mission work. RESEArCH Sound deer management decisions require reliable information, and this information generally comes from research. QDMA is involved in all areas of white-tailed deer research including biology, ecology, management, hunting, diseases and human dimensions. QDMA helps design, coordinate, and fund practical research projects that increase knowledge and improve management. Since 2006, QDMA has contributed more than $500,000 dollars to support important research projects in over 20 states. EDUCATE Since its earliest days, QDMA has been a recognized leader in educating hunters, landowners, wildlife professionals and the
public on all aspects of whitetail biology and management and habitat improvement. However, the types of information desired by these groups as well as the tools available to deliver this information constantly changes, and QDMA is keeping pace. QDMA continues with existing educational activities such as seminars, field days, and the ever popular Quality Whitetails magazine, but outreach also includes delivery methods such as television, DVDs, and Web-based opportunities. ADVOCATE Each year there are countless threats to the future of deer hunting and management at the local, state and national levels. These issues impact everyone that pursues white-tailed deer in the fall. Due to QDMAs growth and strong support from the professional wildlife community, it is considered the most respected and influential whitetail organization in North America. As a result, QDMA serves as the leading advocate for the wise management of white-tailed deer and the protection of our deer-hunting heritage. QDMA also maintains strong ties with its members, other conservation organizations, state/ provincial and federal agencies, and other groups with an interest in whitetail hunting and management. Since 2006, the QDMA has engaged in well over 600 legislative and management issues. Every day QDMA fights for all deer hunters across North America!
PART 3: QDMA MISSION & ANNUaL REPOrT
2014
Here is an update of several ongoing or completed research projects in 2013 that QDMA was directly involved with:
QDMA ReSeaRCH UPdaTe

As stated earlier, QDMA takes pride in its role in designing, influencing, conducting, and funding research on practical projects impacting white-tailed deer biology, ecology, management, and hunting. QDMAs stance on deer management is based on good science, and good science comes from research.
QDM Cooperatives
Wildlife management Cooperatives (WMCs) are groups of neighboring hunters working together to improve wildlife and/or habitat management programs. QDMA helped establish three WMCs in March 2013 two in Oklahoma and one in Michigan that now encompass over 70,000 acres of public and private hunting land. Project Summary: The three cooperatives were established around federal wildlife refuges to unite public and private hunting lands for better deer habitat and hunting. These three WMCs were made possible thanks in part to a $50,000 grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF), and all three were launched in March of 2013. This project is ongoing. The Shiawassee Flats QDM Cooperative, which surrounds the Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Michigan, now includes 27 landowners and over 12,000 acres. The broad interests of the Shiawassee Flats QDM Cooperative include improving wildlife habitat, improving communication between adjoining landowners, increasing hunting participation, educating neighbors about land management, building relationships between neighbors and to provide a platform for education about deer biology and management. The Washita River Deer Management Association, which surrounds the Washita NWR in western Oklahoma, now includes over 30 landowners/members and more than 44,000 acres. The broad interests of the Washita River Deer Management Association include managing the land for deer, turkey and quail. The Deep Fork Deer Management Association, which surrounds the Deep Fork NWR in eastern Oklahoma, now includes over 40 landowners/ members and more than 14,000 acres. The broad interests of the Deep Fork Deer Management Association include managing the land for deer, turkey and waterfowl while also further developing bottomland hardwood and upland prairie habitats. QDMA will oversee each WMC during the first year of establishment to ensure continued success. After year one, QDMA will remain involved as a member and turn oversight of the WMCs over to the respective steering committees.
Prescribed Fire
In 2013, QDMA also funded a project at the University of Tennessee that investigated the effects of prescribed fire on white-tailed deer habitat in hardwood forests. This study is ongoing. Project Summary: This project will determine the long-term and seasonal effects of prescribed fire on white-tailed deer habitat (deer forage and fawning cover) in mixed hardwood forests in eastern Tennessee. Researchers will document the effects of early growing-season fire and late growing-season fire in upland mixed-oak forests. Forage for white-tailed deer and soft mast availability will be measured. Data collected will relate to both wildlife habitat quality (food and cover) and regeneration potential within upland hardwood systems Project Update: Season of fire treatments following two-aged shelterwood harvests were implemented in four mixed hardwood stands (2012-13) and at one early successional site (2011-12). Woody species are resilient to disturbance because root systems store considerable energy; nonetheless, preliminary data collected during 2012 and 2013 suggest late growingseason fire led to an increase in forb coverage and a decrease in woody plant composition after only one treatment. This trend should lead to increased forage for white-tailed deer as forbs represent the majority of the whitetails diet during the growing season It will likely be necessary to implement burning treatments at least one more time before the full effect of timing of burning on plant composition can be distinguished. Vegetation data collected summer and fall (2013) needs to be analyzed and additional burning is scheduled for April 2014.
Rut Dynamics
QDMA funded a project at South Dakota State University that evaluated the possibility that mature bucks in the population may have an influence on the timing and degree of reproductive effort by young bucks. This study was completed in 2013. Project Summary: Young bucks perform an important role in maintaining a deer populations productivity where skewed sex ratios and unbalanced age structures exist; nonetheless, the energetic output (and consequences of that output) of young bucks actively participating in the rut, and how the presence of mature bucks may modify their participation, is poorly understood. Researchers designed an experiment to calculate reproductive effort for young and mature bucks to better understand the reproductive ecology in these situations, with an emphasis on determining the effects of mature bucks (4 years old and older) on the timing and extent of reproductive effort expended by yearling bucks (1 years old). Project Results: In contrast to the researchers predictions, food intake, body mass, and muscle loss during the rut was similar between yearling bucks that interacted with mature bucks, and those that had access to does without the presence (domination) of a mature buck. Reproductive effort by all bucks was greatest during peak estrus, but, also contrary to predictions, the level of decrease in food intake and muscle loss by mature bucks was nearly twice that of yearling bucks. These net and varying costs of reproduction for both age groups support the notion that bucks are strong capital breeders, and suggest that summer nutrition is critical to deposit reserves sufficient to maximize reproductive success in autumn.
QDMA helped establish three wildlife management Cooperatives in March 2013 that now encompass over 70,000 acres of public and private hunting land.
WhitetailReport
2013 QDMA BRaNCH HIGHLIGHTS
No doubt, the heart and soul of QDMA is our volunteers; and, as a grassroots, member-based conservation organization, our network of local volunteers is integral to helping QDMA spread our mission and spread the message about Quality Deer Management (QDM). 2013 Branch Accomplishments QDMA Branches conducted well over 200 educational events (field days, seminars and workshops) in 35 states and 3 Canadian provinces. QDMA Branches hosted 141 fundraising events across the United States and Canada. QDMA Branches raised over $2.4 million for conservation. Branches enrolled over 11,000 QDMA members including nearly 850 youth members and 550 Life and Sponsor members. QDMA Regional Directors formed 20 new Branches.
Regional Directors maintained over 180 active Branches in the United States and Canada. QDMA Branches organized more than 35 youth, military and/or special hunts. QDMA Branches or Branch members started and/or maintained approximately 120 QDM Cooperatives. QDMA Branches or Branch members were directly involved in at least 85 advocacy issues in their locales involving whitetailed deer legislation or regulations QDMA Branches contributed nearly 20 tons of venison - representing over 160,000 meals - to venison donation programs and soup kitchens. The states of Pennsylvania and Michigan contributed a combined 30,000 plus pounds! It was a great year for QDMA Branches and for those impacted by their efforts. Importantly, we look forward to an even better 2014. Would you like to become a volunteer leader in your local hunting community, helping spread QDMAs mes-
sage of sound deer management? Consider starting an official QDMA Branch thats our name for local groups of QDMA members who join together for fellowship, fundraising, and promotion of the philosophy at the grassroots level. By volunteering to help lead a QDMA Branch, you get to know other like-minded deer hunters in your area and have fun working together to grow QDMA membership and QDM knowledge in your community. QDMA Branches host annual banquets and other fundraisers, field days, youth hunts, and other educational and promotional events. QDMA needs volunteer leaders like you! Join the fun by sending an e-mail to backyard@qdma.com and letting us know you would be willing to help form or grow a QDMA Branch in your area. We look forward to working with you to ensure the future of white-tailed deer, wildlife habitat and our hunting heritage!
2014
CANADA: The Southwest Ontario Branch co-hosted the Long Point youth hunter education camp held near Long Point, Ontario. Branch members presented several whitetail facts to the class of 30 students, who participated in discussions about jawbone aging and antler development. The Branch provided each student with a one-year youth QDMA membership and a QDMA Canada hat or sweatshirt.
SPeCIaL BRaNCH EVeNTS
IN
2013
GREAT LAKES: The East Central Ohio Branch held a wildlife management field day with approximately 70 adults and 40 youths in attendance. Attendees listened to presentations by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, the Management Advantage TV Show staff and Branch leaders. These talks included topics on state regulation changes, QDM Cooperatives, food plots, native vegetation, shed dogs and trapping, and the presentations were followed by an excursion into the field to provide live examples. While adults attended the seminars and demos, the youth attendees participated in a shed hunt. The shed hunt culminated in drawings for prizes, and every youth in attendance received a Rack Pack membership courtesy of the Branch.
Many QDMA Branches host phenomenal events. Here is an example from each Regional Directors region to highlight some of the great work performed by QDMA volunteers.
NORTH CENTRAL: The Southwestern Wisconsin Branch aided in building an elevated hunting stand for two local youths/brothers, who were each diagnosed with Leukemia.
MIDWEST: The Southeast Missouri (SEMO) Branch sponsored a youth Rack Pack field day where 60 youth, ages 10 to 17, attended with their guardians. Each youth received a Rack Pack T-shirt and nametag at registration. Six stations, each with two instructors, were set up to teach different aspects of hunting including clay pigeon shooting, archery, blood trailing, tree stand safety, trapping and fish identification. The primary focus at each station was to teach the safety aspects involved.
NORTHEAST: The Jefferson-Lewis Branch of New York State held a youth adventure day with over 70 youth and their parents in attendance; all youths became a Rack Pack member. The attendees participated in archery, fishing, air rifle, and sporting clays interactive events, as well as viewed a taxidermy demonstration, a reptile exhibit, demonstration from fly fishing experts, and the N.Y. Dept of Environmental Conservation. Also the kids planted a food plot where a camera was hung and the pictures were sent to them throughout the year.
MID-SOUTH: Multiple QDMA Branches in Kentucky (Derby City, Kentucky Heartland and Barren River Branches) hosted a youth deer hunt for nearly 40 children from military families (all four branches represented) that had absent parents, who were either lost in combat or still serving overseas. The youth killed 26 deer over a day and a half period, from five different properties across the state. This event involved the KY Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, Kentucky Hunters for the Hungry, Cabelas, YMCA and several other generous groups. Each child was given a Rack Pack membership, the venison was donated (approximately 600 lbs), and The Robert Stallings foundation donated $12,000 dollars for this momentous event.
SOUTHWEST: The Bayou Branch in South Louisiana had the best second year fundraising banquet in the regions history to date. They had over 500 people in attendance and raised $62,700 dollars for whitetail conservation with 427 regular member and 12 Rack Pack members.
CAROLINAS: Multiple QDMA Branches in South Carolina (Foothills, Mid-Carolina, ACE Basin, Lowcountry, and Midlands Branches), along with the South Carolina Forestry Commission, hosted a military appreciation deer hunt at the Niederhof Forestry Center. Six National Guardsmen participated in the hunt along with six auction winners from three QDMA events. Over the three-day hunt, 232 deer were seen, and 11 of the 12 hunters combined to kill 17 deer in addition to a hog. The five Branches chipped in to provide meals, construction of a new lighted skinning shed, memberships and orange QDMA hats to the soldiers, fertilizer for food plots, and general supplies for the hunts. In addition, a $1,000 donation was presented from a portion of the proceeds of a hunt auctioned at the 2013 QDMA National Convention.
SOUTHEAST: The Auburn Toomers Branch held their inaugural fundraising banquet within one month of their formation date, generating 135 annual memberships - making it the single largest membership event in the region last year. An extraordinary accomplishment for any first year branch, especially under the circumstances. The dedication of the student-run volunteer committee is a promising sign for the future of QDMA.
WhitetailReport
QDMAs Wildlife Management Cooperative Specialist Brian Towe
and making them aware of the Conservation Reserve Program and other Natural Resources Conservation Service and DOC conservation programs. Brian Towe, QDMAs Wildlife Management Cooperative Specialist, works throughout the state of Missouri, and in 2013 his assistance impacted 185,000 acres of land! Brian serviced 26 existing cooperatives encompassing 132,000 acres and developed 11 new ones encompassing nearly 53,000 acres. In addition to his Cooperative work, Brian also conducts habitat management training for private landowners, helps coordinate private land assistance programs with Missouri Department of Conservation staff, and participates in projects to promote wildlife conservation, conservation education and Missouris hunting heritage. Hunters and landowners in Missouri interested in forming or becoming part of a Cooperative or in receiving habitat management training can reach Brian at btowe@qdma.com or by calling (573) 397-1664. Those interested in QDM Cooperatives outside of Missouri can contact their local QDMA Branch or reach out to a QDMA Regional Director. Contact information for Regional Directors can be found on the bottom half of this page. Additional resources on Cooperatives are also available at QDMA.com, including the following: Video: How to Organize a QDM Cooperative Articles: Kips Korner: Start a QDM Cooperative 7 Steps to a Successful Cooperative How to Establish a QDM Cooperative Booklet: Developing Successful QDM Cooperatives
In 2013, QDMA worked in partnership with the Missouri Department of Conservation (DOC) to hire a person to engage landowners and establish wildlife management cooperatives (WMCs) in Missouri. This position is responsible for establishing new WMCs, servicing existing WMCs, assisting landowners with wildlife and habitat management programs,
We are here for you!

Our job is to help you and your Branch. Whether you have a question about QDM on your property, you want to know more about Branch events going on in the area, you want to host a Branch event on your land, or you would like to charter a new QDMA Branch, we can help.
Your QDMA Regional Directors
Contact the Regional Director for your state to get more involved!
Ryan Furrer
Vanderbilt, Pa.
rfurrer@qdma.com 724.237.2525
NORTHEAST
Bob DuCharme
Coldwater, Mich.
bducharme@qdma.com 269.635.0322
GREAT LAKES
Dustin Smith
Wausau, Wis.
dsmith@qdma.com 715.314.0849
NORTH CENTRAL
Sam Leatherman
Gravois Mills, Mo.
sleatherman@qdma.com
MIDWEST
Hallsville, Texas
jbwynn@qdma.com 903.910.9588
J.B. Wynn
SOUTHWEST
Justin Lawson
Collierville, Tn.
jlawson@qdma.com 901.233.4021
MID-SOUTH
Josh Hoffman
Milner, Ga.
jhoffman@qdma.com 478.319.7279
SOUTHEAST
Rick Counts
Lexington, S.C.
rcounts@qdma.com 252.886.2633
CAROLINAS
Canadian members should contact Matt Ross for assistance at 518.391.8414

2014
QDMA Website Resources

In the world of deer hunting, knowledge is king. As an addendum to other portions of this years Whitetail Report, our flagship magazine Quality Whitetails, educational material from The Shed, and other benefits QDMA offers its members and non-members alike, below is just an example of the quality free content found on QDMA.com. Visit our website to learn about managing deer, and if youre not a member join today to receive access to other educational resources while at the same time helping to ensure the future of deer hunting!
WHITETAIL BIOLOGY
10 Things We Know About Mature Buck Movements (by Matt Ross): Here, the author compiles, analyzes and summarizes the results from every GPS-based research project he could find that has to do with mature bucks (2 to 7 years old); including studies about resource use, home range, and daily movements, as well as those that investigated influences from age, breeding, weather, the moon and even hunting pressure.
QUALITY DEER MANAGEmENT HERd MONITORING
What Triggers the Whitetail Rut? (by Kip Adams): Whitetails are rutting somewhere in their range from August through February. Amazingly, they breed over this seven-month period just in the state of Florida! In this article the author looks at the factors that lead to widely varying breeding dates across the country, and also how practicing QDM can make the rut more obvious and more exciting where you hunt.
HAbITAT MANAGEmENT
7 Ways to Better Trail Camera Shots (by Matt Pudenz): A proper trail-camera setup is a very important part of scouting and oftentimes the most overlooked. By taking your time and following the steps in this article, you will generate better photos, a more enjoyable scouting experience, and, in turn, will have a better idea of the bucks on the property youre hunting and locations to hunt them.
DEER HUNTING
How to Safely Drop Large Trees with a Chainsaw (by Lindsay Thomas Jr.): A chainsaw is a valuable tool when it comes to improving deer habitat and manipulating a landscape to enhance hunting strategies. It is also a tool that can severely injure or kill you, especially when used improperly. Read this article to be sure youre not risking life and limb next time youre dropping trees to improve your hunting area.
HERd MANAGEmENT
Did I Overhunt This Stand? (by Tanner Tedeschi): Ever wonder if you are placing too much pressure on deer by overusing a specific stand site? Or not enough and youre missing opportunities at deer? The author explains how he figured out when enough was enough and how to plan accordingly.
FOOd PLOTS
Coyote Impacts and Trapping (by Kip Adams): Predators are a hot topic for deer hunters and managers throughout much of the whitetails range. Several recent research projects in the southeastern U.S. have shown significant impacts on fawn survival and recruitment rates, and in many cases the coyote was the main suspect. Read this to learn more about the impacts coyotes may be having on your deer herd and to learn the right and wrong way to remove them.
Try these Warm-Season Food Plot Mixes (by Dr. Craig Harper): There are a myriad of combinations that can be used with warm-season food plots. Here the author shares his top mixtures, after years of testing, and guarantees that they will work well when planted together on your property.
Find these and many more articles at QDMA.com!

WhitetailReport
QDMA CeRTIfICaTION PROGRamS
Nearly 900 Deer Stewards and Counting! QDMAs Deer Steward Certification program is a personal educational experience designed to offer landowners, hunters, and natural resource professionals an opportunity to learn from the Nations top experts about QDM. The first two Levels are courses, Level III is an application; all three need to be taken in succession. By taking Levels I and II, graduates are able to design and implement their personal comprehensive property-specific white-tailed deer management plan. Level III is an honor earned after giving back to the resource over a long period of time, rather than something you obtain from a course. To date, nearly 900 individuals have participated in the Deer Steward program, with 549 Level I, 312 Level II, and 31 Level III graduates, representing 43 states and the Nations capitol, three Canadian provinces, one U.S. Virgin Island and Australia. Since 2007, QDMA has held 17 Level I classes and 12 Level II classes in the following states: Alabama, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York,
In 2013, stars of the reality based outdoor program, The Crush with Lee & Tiffany on the Outdoor Channel, Lee and Tiffany Lakosky gave a rare property tour of their land in Iowa in conjunction with QDMAs in-person Deer Steward Level I course.
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. To learn more about the Deer Steward Certification program, or about registering for an upcoming course, visit www.QDMA.com and navigate to the Deer Steward Courses page under the Advanced Ed menu option.
States with Deer Steward graduates
DUCK/BUCK COMMANdER WAREHOUSE ANd NORTHCOUNTRY WHITETAILS DEMO PROpERTY AMONG 2014 DEER STEwARd LOCATIONS
Level 1
April 11-14 West Monroe, La. Duck/Buck Commander Warehouse Field Trip
Level 2
June 27-30 Tallahassee, Fla. Joe Budd Wildlife Management Area
September 5-8 Hornell, N.Y. NorthCountry Whitetails Demo Property
or more information, visit QDMA.com or contact F QDMA Certification Programs Manager Matt Ross by e-mail at mross@qdma.com or by calling (518) 280-3714.
2014
Online Deer Steward Courses In the seventh year of the Deer Steward Certification program, QDMAs popular educational series continued to offer the option to take the first Level on-line, making it as convenient and affordable as its ever been; and, boy was it popular. After two years of availability, nearly 300 people have registered to participate in the Level I course from the comfort of their home or office. The good news is that it never sells out! All that is required is a high-speed internet connection (and the Mozilla Firefox web browser) and you can enroll in the Level I class online. Once registered, attendees gain access to a digital recording of one of our previous Deer Steward Level I courses (filmed in front of a live audience at Clemson University) and will have up to 180 days to complete the series of six sessions (approximately 16 one-hour topics)
at their own pace. Speakers include Kip Deer Steward Level I can do so at $200 for Adams, Dr. David Guynn, Joe Hamilton, non-members, $175 for QDMA members, Dr. Craig Harper, Dr. Karl V. Miller, Brian and $150 for Life and Sponsor members Murphy, Matt Ross and Dr. Grant Woods. (on-line fees increase $50 with CFEs). Just like the in-person classes, registrants must pass an exam to graduate, and Continuing Forestry Education (CFEs) credits from the Society of American Foresters are available. Graduates of online Deer Steward will be eligible to take one of the in-person Level II courses upon completion. For additional details, visit www.QDMA.com and navigate to the Deer Steward Online page under the QDMA, in partnership with Clemson University, made the online Advanced Ed menu option. Deer Steward course available free-of-charge for active military Those who choose to personnel serving in combat zones in 2013. That offer will once enroll in the online version of again be extended in 2014.
Land Certification Program Update In 2013, QDMA launched its new Land Certification Program (LCP). The LCP was created in response to numerous member and landowner requests. Collectively, these individuals sought a means to: 1) Determine if the property they owned, leased or managed met a baseline QDM standard; 2) receive specific management recommendations on their hunting property from qualified QDM professionals; and 3) promote QDM in their area by displaying a sign that recognizes their efforts. The LCP was developed to recognize the accomplishments of landowners and sportsmen and women implementing the Four Cornerstones of QDM throughout North America, as well as those committed to ethics, conservation and biodiversity through land stewardship. The LCP also encourages management practices on participating lands that enhance deer and other wildlife species, habitat conditions, and hunting experiences by providing incentives and/or assistance. The LCP is a multi-level, voluntary process which evaluates one or more properties against an established list of standards. Three categories of achievement are outlined in the program, including Pledged Lands, Certified Lands and Legacy
Jake Ehlinger of Michigan (right) completes the Land Certification application with QDM LCP Inspector Jim Brauker (left).
Lands. Criteria are established for each level of achievement. Numerous half-day training courses to qualify LCP property inspectors were also conducted over the last three years in the states of Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, South Carolina and in New Brunswick, Canada. Five (Kentucky, Missouri, Minnesota, New York and South Carolina) have been held in cooperation with American Tree Farm System (ATFS) inspector trainings.
To date, nearly 220 LCP inspectors are now available to QDMA members and interested landowners, and can be found online at www.QDMA.com by navigating to the Land Certification page under the Advanced Ed menu option. In addition to the Land Certification website, more information can be obtained by contacting QDMAs Certification Program Manager, Matt Ross by e-mail at mross@QDMA.com or by calling (518) 280-3714.
WhitetailReport
The Rack Pack QDMAs Youth Program
What is most critical to the growth and longevity of our sport? The creation of new hunters! QDMA has made creating and educating new hunters a top priority, and we urge all hunters to do the same. In particular, QDMA launched the Rack Pack in 2012, an outreach and education program targeting youth ages 17 and under. Through Rack Pack programming, thousands of young hunters are learning their responsibilities as young hunters and conservationists. Since this programming is most effective in a grassroots, one-on-one setting, QDMA has urged local Branches to include the Rack Pack in their annual events. Active Branches are also facilitating Rack Pack focused events like shed hunts, educational days, and youth hunts. Here are some of the Rack Packs major accomplishments in 2013:
facebook.com/RackPack
@RackPackQDMA
Mentored over 200 youths on their rst hunt. Inspired and advised countless others.
Partnered on two summer camps that taught extensive deer biology and management, and contributed to the Bass Pro Summer Camp Program, which impacts tens of thousands of youth annually. Partnered with 4-H and Clemson Extension on a Food Plot Program in South Carolina.
Facilitated hundreds of kids shooting air ries and archery at our National Convention and educational days around the country.
2014
Attended the FFA National Convention with 55,000 youth from around the country. Raised awareness for QDMA, the Rack Pack and the Careers in Conservation website. Also sold educational packages for use in classrooms.
Secured sole use of a 500-acre property in South Carolina for youth education, outreach, shooting and hunting for a minimum of three years.
Managed to have a 100% success rate on our National Youth Hunt for deserving youth from around the country.
Developed a newsletter, the Rack Pack Post. Developed a Rack Pack Pro membership for youth 13 and up with the option of receiving Quality Whitetails magazine.
WhitetailReport
2012 HONOR ROLL
Of
DONORS
Donor Recognition Categories FOUNDERS CIRcLE $5,000+ ChaIRmaNS CIRcLE $1,000-$4,999 DIREctORS CLUb $500-$999 LEaDERShIp CLUb $250-$499 QDMA PatRON $100-$249 QDMA FRIEND up to $99 Hallett Hilburn, N.C. Don Holmes, S.C. Robert H Hood Jr., S.C. Thomas Hylden, Md. Tim Jacobson, Wis. Douglas B. James, Mich. Nathan Jenkins, Tenn. Kenneth King, Fla. Paul Knight, S.C. Jon Knochenmus, Minn. Stephen Kroll, Mich. Phillip A. Leach, Ga. David LeRay, La. Bill Love, Tenn. J. Scott Major, N.C. James Mammoser, Ga. Mike Mann, Pa. Michael Marciniak, Fla. Peter S. Martin, Del. Norman Mast, Ohio Rick Merritt, Mo. Ray Mikolajczyk, La. Stanton Mills, Fla. Keith F. Morrison, Va. Daniel Neale, Minn. Dennis Nearing, N.Y. David Ott, Pa. David Parsons, Wis. Ted Petrillo, N.Y. Brady Pierce, Wis. Paul G. Plantinga, Mich. Bruce G. Pratt, S.C. Donald Price, Miss. John Radomski Jr., N.Y. Bradley Ragan, N.C. Stephen C. Ransburg, Wis. Johnny Ray, Ga. Matthew Ross, N.Y. Brian L. Rouse, W. Va. Jeffrey Rozhon, Fla. Matt Sampson, Pa. Larry Savage, La. Dennis Schave, Illinois Brock Scott, Pa. Jon & Belinda Seely, Pa. Shell Castle Farms, LLC, N.C. Jake Shinners, Mich. John Sims, Fla. Peter J. Skrgic Jr., Pa. C. David Smith, N.C. Dean H. Souder, Pa. Tamarack Preserve Ltd., N.Y. Lindsay Thomas Sr., Ga. Roy Torres, La. Turner and Patat, P.C., Ga. Willie Urish, Illinois George D Utley III, Conn. Thomas A. VanDyk, Mich. W. Ferrol Spence Trust, Fla.
QDMA would like to thank and recognize those who were generous donors to QDMA in the 2012 calendar year (the most recent year available as a complete list for this report), including new Life Members who joined in 2012. Through financial support beyond membership and participation in other programs, these donors are securing QDMAs mission: To ensure the future of the white-tailed deer, wildlife habitat and our hunting heritage.
FOUNDERS CIRcLE Rene R. Barrientos, Texas David Bastow, Pa. Camp-Younts Foundation, Va. Ceres Foundation Inc, S.C. Bill DAlonzo, Del. Judge Holford, N.C. Stu Lewis, S.C. Midway USA, Mo. W. Austin Musselman Jr., Ky. Brian Schafer, Mich. ChaIRmaNS CIRcLE Kip & Amy Adams, Pa. Anonymous Donor Edward D. Barnhill Jr., S.C. Bass Pro Shops, Mo. Eugene Bayard, Del. Big Game Hunters Found., Mo. John D. Carswell, S.C. Cason Farm Arlen Cenac Jr., La. Bill Demmer, Mich. Linda Demmer, Mich. Johnny Deville, La. Arthur Dick, N.C. Tom Draper, Del. Draper Holdings Business Trust, Md. John Drummond, Ala. Richard J. Dugas Jr., Mich. Bill Eikenhorst, Texas J. Henry Fair, S.C. Jon Felton, Pa. Mike Grandey, Fla. Scott Griffin, N.C. David C. Guynn Jr., S.C. Joe Hamilton, S.C. Carl T. Haley Jr., Tenn. G. Francis Hills, S.C. Neel Hipp Jr. , S.C. Steven Homyack Jr., Pa. Benjamin A. Jones, Del. David Jones, Del. Robert M. Kellar, Ga. Kenneth E Leonard, Texas Everett Moore Jr., Del. H. Comer Morrison, S.C. Brian P. Murphy, Ga. Robert Nunnally, Ga. Dennis OCallaghan, Ohio Chris Phillips, La. QDMA Southeast PA Branch R. W. Bldg. Consultants Inc., Fla. Charles L. Shields, Ky. Eddie Smith, N.C. Jason Spaeth, Minn. Carlton H. Spence, Fla. Spring Island Trust, S.C. Scott Stephens, Fla. Buddy Temple, Texas Barry Walker, Ga. Charles A Williams, Texas DIREctORS CLUb Louis P. Batson III, S.C. Joel R. Cox Jr., S.C. Robert Dann Sr., Fla. Allen Danos, La. Cy DAquila, La. Glen G. Daves, S.C. DE Wild Lands Inc., Del. Rick Fischer, Del. Nicole Garris, S.C. Groton Land Company, S.C. William A. Martin, S.C. Robert W Masten, Del. David J. Matthews, Vt. Mike McEnany, Fla. Matthew Midgett, Okla. Henry Moree, S.C. Mills Lane Morrison, S.C. QDMA Seven Rivers Branch, Wis. QDMA Skylands Branch, N.J. Safari Club International Stewart Stein, Fla. LEaDERShIp CLUb Bart Arcement, La. Red Armour, Fla. Chris Asplundh Jr., Pa. James O. Banks, Ala. John M. Bills Jr., Tenn. Richard Boitnott, Texas Tim P. Bourgeois, La. S Benjamin Caillouet, La. Louis Decibus, N.J. Douglas Dickey, Texas Clarence W. Earles, Texas Wade Evans Invstmnt Adv, LLC, La. Robert L. Freeman, S.C. Judy Gardner, N.C. Rob Gehman, Va. Grand Coteau LLC, La. John Handy, N.C. Lawton & Nancy Hayes, S.C. Ducote Brown Haynes, Ark. W. Ducote Haynes, Ark. Robert Hering, Wis. Robert Hood, S.C. David A Humes, Del. Marvin D. Infinger, S.C. JJs Enterprise Inc, Mich. Jonathan Jones, Del. Gunnar and Louise Klarr, Mich. Peter MacGaffin, Del. Melanie Markham, Mo. Jeffrey Marsch, Ala. David Marshall, Fla.
Please consider becoming a donor by contributing to QDMA. Your support is taxdeductible and will be greatly appreciated and used wisely to further our mission. Contact Joe Hamilton, Director of Development (jhamilton@qdma.com or 843-844-8610), to learn about several options for Planned Giving.
Andrew Martin, Del. Masten Realty, LLC, Del. Kevin McKenzie, Fla. Melvin A. McQuaig, Fla. David Moreland, La. William Moskoff, Mo. Stacy D Naquin, La. Philip M Neal, La. John C. Oliver III, Pa. Philip J Peltier, La. QDMA Delaware State Chapter QDMA North Central Branch, N.C. Register Family Partnership, Fla. Rizers Pork & Produce, S.C. Francis Robichaux, La. Andrew C Rodrigue, La. S. Douglas Ber, D.D.S., La. John R. Shaskas, Pa. G. Brad Southwell, Fla. James T Truesdale, S.C. QDMA PatRON AFM Land Sales LLC, S.C. Douglas W. Aldridge, Va. Walt Aydlotte, N.J. Bee Rock Outdoor Adventures, Mo. Susan Benedict, Pa. Barry Bernhard, La. Dick Berry, Pa. Al Brothers, Texas Fred Bryant, Texas Carmichael Family Farms LLC, Ga. Matthew D. Carson, S.C. John D. Chalk III, N.C. Maxie Chaplin, S.C. Charles F. & Patricia A. Wright, Pa. Johnny Chilton, Texas Johnny T Clack, Ga. Felton P. Coley, N.C. Richard J. Comer Jr., Ala. Calvin P. Cox, N.C. Steven E. Craig, S.C. David Cross, N.C. Tommy Danos, Ga. R.G. Darby, S.C. Lance DeHart, La. Brian Dillistin, Va. Leon Dionne, Fla. Billy Eason, N.C. Ricky L Eason, N.C. Matthew Farrell, Illinois Jim Fenton, Fla. Charles Fiscella, N.Y. Dennis M. Grimm, Pa. Charlie Grizzle, Ala. Ron Haas, Del. Derek Hardman, Ga. Dwight Harper, Va. David Hewitt, Texas
Brad Walton, Illinois Jim Wappes, Texas Jerry T. Webb, Fla. Mike Welch, S.C. Thomas L. Whaley, Texas James Whitley, N.C. Josiah M. Williams III, S.C. Mark Williams, Ga. Bob Wills, Ala. Richard G. Wolfe, Ga. Wayne H. Wood, Ga. Wordsworth Investment Group, S.C. QDMA FRIEND Alabama Forest Owners Assoc. Lacey Allen, S.C. Harold Anderson, Wis. Louis Andre Jr., Ga. Dudley Bailey, N.Y. Lester Beck, Pa. Bryan Beebe, Mich. Ted Borowski Jr., Fla. Mike Brown, Del. Richard L. Cotton, N.C. Jay Davis, Texas Curtis Dennis, Md. David R. Duval, N.H. Ken Fair, Pa. Thomas J Folk, La. Dale Gaugler, Pa. Robert Goellner, N.J. Matthew Grensavitch, Wis. John Grover, Tenn. Kate Hackett, Del. Tom Hayes, Mich. Bernie Hebert, La. Scott F. Hiott, S.C. Edward & Abbie Holmes, Fla. Jeffrey R. Hyre, W.Va. Earl E. Jackson, S.C. Tony Kilkuskie, Pa. Keith Lee, La. Daniel Leonard, Md. Ryan Lescoe, Mich. Ken Lowden, Mass. Joseph Maggini, Mich. J. Eric Moss, S.C. Shane Niswonger, La. John Owens, Va. Duane T. Pataky, Pa. Connie Popov, Ga. David Price, Md. Kurt Rague, N.H. Steve Ray, Ga. Dave Richards, Texas Freddie M. Rowell, Miss. Amy Schwent, Mo. John Torbert, Illinois Gary Schoonover, Mo.
M. Gordon Vines Jr., Fla. Richard L. Wilgus, La. Wesley Williamson, Ga. Gene Witter, Texas Nicholas Ziegler, Colo. Gunther K. Unflat, Pa. NEw LIfE MEmbERS, 2012 Gene Adams, S.C. Buddy Alsbrook AL Dave J Barrios, III, La. Wim Bauer, S.C. Darren Boudreaux, La. Tim Bradburne, Illinois Rob Brown, S.C. Alan Bruno, Ontario Mac Bullock, Jr., La. Tad Cannon, S.C. William Connor Case, Mich. Robert Dann, Sr., Fla. Gordy Darby, S.C. Cary Dietzmann, Texas Robert Edgell, Del. Michael Edwards, N.Y. John Elliott, Minn. Brian Fiskum, Minn. John Floyd, S.C. David Fort, S.C. Peter Fox, Fla. Stephen P. French, Ky. Nicole Garris, S.C. Jon Glover, Fla. Terry Greenwaldt, Minn. Daryl Griner, S.C. Leon Hank, Mich. Derek Herring, S.C. Chad Kelley, La. Bryant Kroutch, Kan. Andrew Martin, Del. Bob Mazgaj, Ga. Jay McAninch, Va. Kevin Miller, Ind. William Montgomery, S.C. Scott E. Muehlhauser, Mo. Katherine Mull, Kan. Stephen Mullins, Ga. Jeffery Mundy, Texas Walter Oates, S.C. Benjamin Otte, Ind. Chris Patton, La. Tyger Ranch, S.C. Gary H Sayre, Jr., S.C. William C. Shockey, La. Jason Spaeth, Minn. John Stroud, S.C. Jay Tarble, Illinois Christopher Clark Tennyson, Ark. Morgan Vosburg, II, La. Mark Zimmerli, S.C.
2014
How
to
Donate
to
QDMA
HONORING OUR MENTORS

By Joe Hamilton
Al Brothers delivered the keynote address in Charleston, S.C., in 1982 at the 5th annual meeting of the Southeast Deer Study Group. He was chosen for this task based on his experiences in his home state of Texas with transitioning from traditional deer management to what he and his co-author Murphy E. Ray, Jr. labeled Quality Deer Management (QDM) in their 1975 book Producing Quality Whitetails. In his keynote address, Al asked the audience, Isnt it time we began practicing total deer herd management by giving the male segment of the population the degree of protection long afforded the antlerless segment? According to Al, this novel approach toward whitetail management would increase the buck age structure, create a more even adult sex ratio, and bring about a more balanced deer herd in relation to the habitat. These profound words and Als continual enthusiasm and guidance helped several years later with the founding of what has become known as the Quality Deer Management Association. QDMA honored Al Brothers at a tribute dinner in San Antonio, Texas, in September, 2013. Nearly 130 people gathered to honor Al for his lifetime of dedica-
At the Webb Wildlife Center in South Carolina during Al Brothers 1982 visit to attend the fifth annual meeting of the Southeast Deer Study Group. From L-R: Joe Hamilton and Gerald Moore (SCDNR), Al Brothers and Ernie Davis (Texas), Dr. Dave Guynn (Clemson University), and Lewis Rogers (SCDNR).
tion to the wildlife management profession, and particularly the management of Americas number one game animal, the noble whitetail. QDMA founder Joe Hamilton announced that the Al Brothers Pioneer Fund had been created to honor Al and to generate financial support for QDMA. Al will have a voice in deciding which facets of the organizations mission are supported by this special, perpetual fund. Donations to this fund exceeded $15,000 in 2013 and are expected increase in 2014 and beyond as our members con-
tinue honoring our mentor Al Brothers through this fund. We have made it as easy as possible for you to support QDMA. Below are suggested ways to get more involved in the organization and methods of providing financial support. Remember, through a concerted effort among our members QDMA will become better equipped to fulfill its mission: To ensure the future of the white-tailed deer, wildlife habitat and our hunting heritage.
Make a donation to QDMA in memory Involve your children or grandchilor honor of a relative, close friend, dren in the Rack Pack Program. or fellow QDMA member. Include QDMA in your will, or Become a Life Member of QDMA. participate in a variety of other Planned Giving categories. Be an active Branch member by attending all activities. Attend our next National Convention (July 24-27, 2014, in Athens, Ga.). Attend QDMAs Deer Steward Certification courses. Join QDMAs Land Certification Program. Provide gift memberships to family, fellow hunters and neighbors. 800-209-3337 - Call our toll-free number to donate by credit card.
www.QDMA.com - Visit our website to donate through PayPal. Send a personal check to our National Headquarters: P.O. Box 160, Bogart, GA, 30622 Contact Joe Hamilton, Director of Development: jhamilton@qdma.com
WhitetailReport
2013 QDMA Conservation Awards
Robert Manning (left) of South Carolina, member of the QDMA Board of Directors, was named the recipient of the Joe Hamilton Lifetime Achievement Award. A Charter Life Member, Robert has worked tirelessly to make the QDMA the voice of thinking, mature deer hunters across the nation, and to bring interested sportsmen into the company of researchers and biologists.
Dr. Craig Harper (left), professor and Extension Wildlife Specialist at the University of Tennessee, was named the Al Brothers Deer Manager of the Year (professional). A Life Member and certified wildlife biologist, Craig has written hundreds of publications on managing habitat for white-tailed deer including two books that are used as reference materials by several state wildlife agencies.
Chip Vosburg (left) of Louisiana was named the Al Brothers Deer Manager of the Year (nonprofessional). A Life Member, 10-year Board member of the South Louisiana Branch and Deer Steward graduate, Chip owns land in Ponte Coupee Parish enrolled in Louisianas DMAP program for 20 years, and the property has bucks in the 4-7 age classes harvested annually.
The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission was named the Agency of the Year. The Commissions Big Game Programs Manager Kit Hams (right) accepted the award on behalf of the agency, which has funded private land access programs that have opened 272,000 acres and 42 miles of rivers to public hunting and fishing.
Scott Bestul (left) of Field & Streams Whitetail 365 blog was the recipient of the Signpost Communicator of the Year award. Scott, who is an officer with the Southeast Minnesota Branch, has been a QDMA member since 2003 and is a Deer Steward graduate. He has written two books on deer hunting, including The Total Deer Hunter Manual, which hit bookshelves in fall 2013.
Plum Creek, a QDMA Corporate Sponsor, was named the recipient of the Corporate Achievement Award. Plum Creek Director of Recreational Lease Management, Glenn E. Johnson (left), accepted the award on behalf of the company, which owns several million acres of timberland, provides hunting access to nearly 50,000 hunters annually and actively promotes QDM. Read more about Plum Creek on page 60.
Marion Burnside (right) of South Carolina was named the inaugural recipient of the Hunting Heritage Award, which recognizes individuals for their lifetime contributions to deer, deer hunters, deer research and deer management. Marion served over 15 years on the South Carolina DNRs Advisory Board including seven as Chairman of the DNRs Commission.
The inaugural recipient of the Hunting Heritage Award in the corporate category was MidwayUSA, Inc. QDMAs Brian Towe (center) presented the award to MidwayUSA founders Brenda and Larry Potterfield, who believe youth are the future of hunting and shooting and have partnered and donated to numerous hunting and conservation organizations.
Hunter Pruitt of Georgia and Ally Wright of Florida were named the recipients of the inaugural Rack Pack Four-Point Award, created to recognize outstanding service and leadership to youth in the spirit of the QDMA mission, future generations and our hunting heritage. Read more about Hunter and Ally on page 60.
2014
2013 QDMA Branch Achievement Awards
The Tip of the Mitt Branch of Michigan was named the Branch of the Year. In its first full year, the Branch accomplished many goals including hosting the Michigan State Chapter Leadership Summit. (From Left to Right) QDMAs Kip Adams, communications coordinator for the Michigan State Chapter Kevin Gillespie, Tip of the Mitt Branch member Larry Liebler and Branch president Jim Rummer.
The Greater Rochester Southern Tier Branch of New York was named the New Branch of the Year. (From Left to Right) QDMA Board of Directors members Nicole Garris and Leon Hank, Branch president Mike Edwards and Branch member John Wolfe. Highlighting many accomplishments, the Branch held its first banquet in April netting over $25K and recruiting 126 QDMA members.
Chase Burns of the West Central Illinois Branch was named the Branch President of the Year. This is a new award created to recognize the volunteer leader who demonstrates daily the vision, dedication and attitude it demands to be a successful Branch president.
The Event of the Year was the Military Youth Hunt organized by the Derby City Branch of Kentucky. Branch president Pete Blandford (left) and Branch treasurer Steve Daniels (right) accepted the award. Twenty-eight children from families representing all branches of the armed forces participated in the three-day youth hunt that included safety and ethics, wildlife management and outdoor skills instruction. The outdoor skills instruction featured marksmanship as well as archery, fishing, tracking and game calling.
Rick Watts of the Mason-Dixon Branch in Pennsylvania was named the Volunteer of the Year. Fellow Keystone State member Tim Smail, the first-ever recipient of the Volunteer of the Year award in 2003, presented this years award to Rick (above, right). Tims entire speech from the presentation can be found online at www.QDMA.com.
The Mid-Carolina Branch of South Carolina earned the Sponsor Membership Branch of the Year award, which goes to the Branch that recruits the most new QDMA sponsor members in the past year. The MidCarolina Branch netted 65 Sponsor Memberships. The award was accepted by Branch members Alan Brock (center) and Joel Wilson (right)
The Central Louisiana Branch earned the Membership Branch of the Year award, which goes to the Branch that recruits the most new QDMA members in the past year. The Central Louisiana Branch recruited a total of 345 QDMA members. (From Left to Right) Robert Manning of QDMA Board of Directors and Branch members Darren Boudreaux, Tammy Lemoine, Richard Dupuy and Bob Stevens.
WhitetailReport
Contact
a
QDMA Branch Near You

Town Trinity Auburn Trinity Mobile Goodwater Lake Village Trumann Hope Monticello Mtn View North Haven Millsboro Millsboro Quincy Clewiston Smyrna Augusta Pooler Milledgeville Fortson Spaulding Madison Normal North Henderson Murphysboro North Henderson McCordsville Batesville West Lafayette Granger Dubuque EL Dorado Shawnee Atchison Scandia Louisville East View Owensboro Paducah Martinville Thibodaux Alexandria Pineville New Roads Newellton Benton Baton Rouge Minden South Portland East Machias Palmyra Palmyra Westminster Centreville Walkersville Westminster Swanton Barnesville Hasting Jeddo Tustin Mason Elwell State Alabama Alabama Alabama Alabama Alabama Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Connecticut Delaware Delaware Florida Florida Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Georgia Illinois Illinois Illinois Illinois Indiana Indiana Indiana Iowa Iowa Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Kentucky Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Louisiana Maine Maine Maine Maine Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Maryland Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Branch Contact Philip Hester Clint McNeal Philip Hester Russ Sims Michael Heatherly Joey Williamson David Box Cole Law Brison Reed Mike Engle Ronnie Reaves Chip West Chip West Travis McKinney Marc Proudfoot Ryan Engel John Wallace Hadden Branham Gay Jim Flanders Amanda Woods Cameron Perdichizzi James Ball Ross Fogle Chase Burns Matt Duffy Chase Burns Tom James Tom Grills Weston Schrank Terry Sedivec Dennis Althaus Timothy Donges Sue Brothers Tyler Donaldson Pete Gile Pete Blandford Tony Lawson Brad Hoffman Justin Mason Brett Deshotels Ben Caillouet Bob Stevens Porter Trimble Darren Boudreaux Justin Forsten Sean McKay David Moreland Mitzi Thomas Matthew Snyder Mike Look Jeff Nicholas Jeff Nicholas Barry Harden Temple Rhodes Chris Keiser E.W. Grimes A.J. Fleming Joe Brown Mike Flohr Ryan Morgan Timothy Liponoga Dick Seehase Jarred Waldron Phone (256) 318-2971 (404) 516-8134 (256) 318-2971 (601) 572-7711 (256) 839-5154 (870) 265-1206 (870) 926-8713 (903) 278-7821 (870) 723-5125 (870) 615-2621 (203) 239-1106 (302) 238-0137 (302) 238-0137 (850) 210-5106 (954) 445-9199 (770) 630-5815 (706) 306-2042 (706) 871-6497 (478) 968-2222 (706) 568-8412 (404) 427-3519 (404) 580-7155 (309) 310-7958 (309) 368-0370 (618) 806-1405 (309) 368-0370 (317) 752-5781 (812) 689-5156 (502) 802-8804 (515) 999-2184 (563) 552-2628 (316) 641-0011 (913) 461-5198 (913) 426-6892 (785) 452-0592 (502) 231-2625 (502) 710-1912 (270) 929-9200 (618) 638-5031 (337) 349-9605 (985) 859-6270 (318) 445-9224 (318) 201-3474 (225) 573-2035 (423) 618-8402 (318) 965-4815 (225) 978-6652 (318) 377-3065 (207) 595-2365 (207) 255-4167 (207) 938-2742 (207) 938-2742 (410) 346-0990 (410) 310-8165 (301) 845-6177 (410) 984-3356 (301) 387-5465 (240) 388-0602 (269) 838-6268 (248) 721-2621 (231) 878-9245 (517) 993-8475 (517) 403-9328 E-mail hesterphilipsusa@bellsouth.net czm0039@auburn.edu Hesterphilipsusa@bellsouth.net rsims3006@gmail.com brown3331@bellsouth.net sales@southernaquaculturesupply.com david.h.box@gmail.com wateroak32@yahoo.com huntershed13@yahoo.com mike@injectstar.com crvb-qdma@sbcglobal.net deqdma@gmail.com deqdma@gmail.com travisofaim@yahoo.com marc.proudfoot@gmail.com roly.engel@gmail.com johnwallaceh@phoenixprintinggroup.com bgay@soeagle.net jimflanders@hotmail.com awood@woodlandsandwildife.com cameronp@snjindustrial.com samball@madisonrealtyinc.com rossfogle@gmail.com chase@wciqdma.com matthew.duffy@countryfinancial.com chase@wciqdma.com buck6814@aol.com tom.grills@yahoo.com wschrank@purdue.edu tsedivec@netzero.com dalthaus@yousq.net tim.donges@hotmail.com sbrothers2009@gmail.com bossmedia13@gmail.com pete_gile@yahoo.com pete_blandford@yahoo.com bigdeerhuntertony@gmail.com bustntails@yahoo.com jmason@whitetailproperties.tv deshotelsbrett@yahoo.com qdmabayoubranch@gmail.com stevensb@rapides.k12.la.us porter@honeybrake.com dboudr5@hotmail.com winterquartersmgr@hotmail.com sean@crawfordforesty.com heflinroots@hotmail.com mindenfarmandgar@bellsouth.net prelude8626@aol.com michaellook501@hotmail.com Pres1stmaineqdma@aol.com Pres1stmaineqdma@aol.com bharden@marylandqdma.com chestnutm@verizon.net cakeiser0@frostburg.edu ewgrimes@marylandqdma.com afleming13@verizon.net jbrown@patriotlwm.com mikeflohr@hotmail.com ryanmorgan528@yahoo.com gamehuntrr@gmail.com rjs@cqtpp.com headhunter01jarred@yahoo.com
Branch Name Alabama State Chapter Auburn University Toomers Branch Central Alabama Branch Gulf Coast Branch Lake Martin Branch Delta Droptine Branch Northeast Arkansas Branch Red River Basin Branch Saline-Bartholomew Branch White River Branch Connecticut River Valley Branch Delaware Branch Delaware State Chapter Big Bend Branch Devils Garden Branch Atlanta Branch Augusta Branch Coastal Empire Georgia Lake Country Branch Georgia State Chapter Griffin G2 Branch Morgan County Branch Heart of Illinois Branch Illinois State Chapter Southern Illinois Branch West-Central Branch Indiana Heartland Branch Laughery Valley Branch Purdue University Branch Mid Iowa Branch Tri-State Area Branch Bluestem Branch Greater Kansas City Branch Heartland Whitetails Branch North Central Kansas Branch Derby City Branch Kentucky Heartland Branch Owensboro Branch Purchase Area Branch Acadiana Branch Bayou Branch Central Louisiana Branch Louisiana Delta Branch Louisiana State Advisory Council Northeast Louisiana Branch Red River Branch South Louisiana Branch Webster Parish Branch Casco Bay Branch Downeast Branch First Maine Branch Maine State Chapter Bachman Valley Branch Chester River Branch Frostburg State University Branch Maryland State Chapter Mountain Maryland Branch Western Chesapeake Watershed Branch Barry County Branch Bluewater Branch Cadillac Area Branch Capital Area Branch Central Michigan Branch
2014
Chad Thelen Kasey Thren Aaron Lundy Billy Keiper Eric Wagaman Michael Goyne Bill Brown Mike Myers Irv Timm Todd Johnson Ryan Ratacjazk Dan Malzahn Scott Homrich Mark Lemke Jim Rummer Forrest Couch Don Schwass Tyler Scott Sean Vesel Pat Morstad Brian Knochenmus Brad Smith Mackenzie Perry Jeffrey ODonnell David Peterson Tony Atwood Bradley Roundtree Daniel Barrett Stan Bates Garrett Dismukes David Hall Tommy Foster Jaysen Hogue Bruce Gray Eric Strope David Mosby Jeff Harnden Eric Strope Bruce Archambault Theodore Slinkard Duane Schwent Jeffery Eames Mark Scialla Bob Dillahey Mike Edwards Kevin Haight Chris Phinney Mike Edwards Joseph Ciepiela John Corrao Darrel Whitton Brad Hinman Tony Rainville Chris Benedict Sid Adkins Ryan Decker H.R. Carver Tyler Ross Ryan Decker Curt Yoder Trace Morse Tim Jennings (517) 819-6344 (231) 598-3200 (517) 643-1220 (906) 322-5425 (517) 924-0022 (616) 446-1980 (989) 615-7755 (989) 613-0670 (989) 727-2594 (989) 390-1359 (231) 275-3349 (989) 725-7369 (734) 654-9800 (989) 975-8821 (231) 330-2276 (616) 318-2205 (231) 464-7160 (218) 731-0623 (651) 278-4392 (218) 821-2302 (507) 865-1158 (320) 290-0688 (763) 286-6260 (507) 459-5255 (218) 851-0249 (651) 214-7121 (601) 688-0444 (662) 816-3372 (662) 244-8346 (601) 421-3201 (601) 917-3430 (662) 386-1888 (662) 317-1763 (601) 754-5592 (573) 395-4214 (573) 717-0344 (314) 348-0398 (573) 395-4214 (573) 528-9110 (573) 208-2020 (573) 483-9711 (603) 344-4459 (973) 476-8060 (856) 451-8427 (585) 813-2021 (914) 474-7740 (315) 686-5989 (585) 813-2021 (716) 625-8279 (845) 661-2006 (315) 287-4968 (607) 346-5187 (518) 747-3331 (910) 540-0080 (919) 552-7442 (704) 575-0561 (336) 592-0547 (828) 337-5552 (704) 575-0561 (330) 231-1965 (937) 902-2599 (304) 639-2625 cthelen8@hotmail.com mecostacountyqdma@gmail.com alundy@airliftcompany.com keiperw@mail.gvsu.edu ericwagama@gmail.com mgoyne@comcast.net whitetailchef@gmail.com michaeltmyers1990@yahoo.com vltimm@peoplepc.com todd.johnson@weyerhaeuser.com ryan@northwoodstrailcameras.com crambell@msu.edu scotth@homrich.com markjlemke@yahoo.com rummerj@charemisd.org tyeshack@yahoo.com dschwass@mccschools.com tyler.scott.1@ndsu.edu sav2080@yahoo.com ptmorstad@arvig.net brian@ralconutrition.com bsmith@j-bred.com macperry90@hotmail.com winonaballer@hotmail.com zep71@aol.com bucks4tony@yahoo.com brountree22@gmail.com dbarrett88@gmail.com stan@batestire.com gcd32@msstate.edu David@halltimber.com fmitf@bellsouth.net hogue@mercytreeforestry.com btgray@bellsouth.net estrope@capitalquarries.com d.mosby@hotmail.com jharnden@gatewayqdma.com estrope@capitalquarries.com brucearchambault@juno.com tslinkard@rublinetech.com d_ huntin_pse@yahoo.com jeff@nhforestry.com mscialla@ptd.net bloodtrailer4@yahoo.com caposoprano@hotmail.com khaight1@hvc.rr.com victorian@centralny.twcbc.com grstqdma@gmail.com joeciepiela@yahoo.com putnamqdm@yahoo.com tracker1@dishmail.net bhinman@stny.rr.com arainville@roadrunner.com srbenedict@aol.com sida@capefearriverbranchqdma.org rdecker@choicehealthandlife.com hrcarver@embarqmail.com trickyross@gmail.com rdecker@choicehealthandlife.com cryashery@gmail.com bowhuntertrace@aol.com jenntsmd2003@aol.com
CONTINUED
Clinton/Ionia County Branch Costabella Branch Eaton County Branch Mackinac Branch Michiana Branch Michigan State Chapter Mid-Michigan Branch Montcalm County Branch Northeast Michigan Branch Northern Jack Pine Branch Northwest Michigan Branch Shiawassee River Branch Southeast Michigan Branch Thumb Area Branch Tip of the Mitt Branch West Central Michigan Branch West Shore Branch Heart O Lakes Whitetails Branch Mille Lacs Whitetails Branch Minnesota State Chapter Prairie Highlands Branch Prairie to Woods Whitetails Branch Rum River Branch Southeastern Minnesota Branch Timberline Whitetails Branch Twin City Whitetails Branch Coastal Plain Branch Delta & The Hills Branch Golden Triangle Branch Hail State Student Branch Magnolia State Branch Mississippi State Chapter Northeast Mississippi Branch Southwest Mississippi Branch Central Missouri Branch Delta Whitetails Branch Gateway Branch Missouri State Chapter Ozark Branch SEMO Trail of Tears Branch Southeast Missouri Branch First New Hampshire Branch North Jersey Branch Southern New Jersey Branch Greater Rochester Southern Tier Branch Hudson Valley Branch Jefferson-Lewis Branch New York State Advisory Council North Western Niagara Branch Putnam/Westchester Branch Seaway Valley Branch Southern Tier & Finger Lakes Branch Upper Hudson River Valley Branch Bladen Lake North Carolina Branch Cape Fear River Branch North Carolina State Advisory Council North Central Branch Southern Appalachian Branch Whitestore Branch East Central Ohio Branch Twin Creek Branch Upper Ohio Valley Branch
St. Johns Weidman Potterville Mulliken Coldwater Grand Rapids Clare Sheridan Herron Westbranch Lake Ann Owosso Maybee Ubly Harbor Springs Newaygo Freesoil Pelican Rapids Maplewood Henning Lynd Parkers Prairie Stanchfield Rushford Pequot Lakes Farmington Lumberton Oxford Columbus Starkville Meridian Columbus New Albany Brookhaven Jefferson City Holcomb St. Louis Jefferson City Waynesville Marble Hill Sainte Genevieve Allentown Blairstown Millville Springwater Poughkeepsie Clayton Springwater Lockport Carmel Gouverneur Corning Hudson Falls Harrells Fuquay Varina Marshville Roxboro Leicester Marshville Fredericksburg Englewood Martins Ferry
Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota Mississippi Mississippi Mississippi Mississippi Mississippi Mississippi Mississippi Mississippi Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri New Hampshire New Jersey New Jersey New York New York New York New York New York New York New York New York New York North Carolina North Carolina North Carolina North Carolina North Carolina North Carolina Ohio Ohio Ohio
WhitetailReport
Contact
a
QDMA Branch Near You

djlong_1@live.com drewhutzel@frontier.com steve@bugs-b-gone.net chris_basden@yahoo.com Upatreestand75@yahoo.com easternokqdma@yahoo.com timothy.fincher@flightsafety.com cshank17@yahoo.com hunterbilly@sbcglobal.net bill@acr-corp.com dolphansb99@verizon.net jklingman14@hotmail.com dcreamer2engr.psu.edu bowhawk@comcast.net daveaumen@micro-link.net brian.gillette@mountainenergyservices.com cddeers72@frontier.com jhustosky@zoominternet.net bowhawk@comcast.net shomyackjr@hotmail.com jdovin@nep.net ngarris@lmconsulting.com jcbriggs@hotmail.com billyl2@pbtcomm.net john@jenksincrealty.com vaughnstaxidermy96@gmail.com stlaurentf@comcast.com scandsons@sc.rr.com mccullar_07@bellsouth.net everett.mcmillian@gmail.com carolinafarm.bart@gmail.com jcs@jcsinc.com travisc@southernsalesinc.com eric@bonerushers.com chris@cpanderson.com dannuckolls@epbfi.com ladyturkeyhunter@gmail.com bkirksey@agricenter.org wclay52@netzero.net mlcotcher@gmail.com kevin.fuller@ubs.com richard.rhea@pirtx.com legendarybrand@sbcglobal.net glen_allums@anadarko.com tallthatsall206@yahoo.com rancktransport@gmail.com albertcrigger@aol mjhughes440@msn.com crabcreek30@yahoo.com slimer2425@yahoo.com brianruesch@yahoo.com brunk59@mhtc.net barry.meyers@storaenso.com rcumberland@mcft.ca daniel@nbforestry.com byersfamily@bellaliant.net evan.brokenarrow.lammie@gmail.com sales@backyardwildlife.ca mpsqdma@hotmail.com info@swoqdma.ca multifaune@hotmail.com
Wakatomika Creek Branch Granville Ohio Dan Long (419) 308-8368 Western Reserve Branch Medina Ohio Drew Hutzel (330) 416-5727 ChisholmTrail Branch Enid Oklahoma Steve Lewis (580) 231-2291 Deep Fork Branch Okemah Oklahoma Christopher Basden (918) 623-0870 Dry Creek Branch Chandler Oklahoma Scott Hermann (405) 830-0234 Eastern Oklahoma Branch Tulsa Oklahoma Sam Myers (918) 447-8864 Green Country Branch Coweta Oklahoma Tim Fincher (918) 576-3304 Little River Branch Broken Bow Oklahoma Craig Shank (813) 712-0556 North Central Oklahoma Branch Ponca City Oklahoma Billy Lee (580) 765-9334 Oklahoma State Chapter Seminole Oklahoma Bill Coley (405) 382-3959 Cowanesque Valley Branch Knoxville Pennsylvania Scott Beebe (814) 326-4172 Greater Lehigh Valley Branch Telford Pennsylvania John Klingman (215) 768-5878 Laurel Highlands Branch Berlin Pennsylvania David Creamer (814) 267-4948 Mason-Dixon Branch Dillsburg Pennsylvania Rick Watts (717) 432-3483 North Central Pennsylvania Branch Williamsport Pennsylvania David Aumen (570) 478-2405 North Central Whitetails Branch Emporium Pennsylvania Brian Gillette (814) 512-0900 North Mountain Branch Sweet Valley Pennsylvania Chris Denmon (570) 477-2238 Pennsylvania National Pike Branch Uniontown Pennsylvania John Hustosky Sr. (724) 438-3249 Pennsylvania State Advisory Council Dillsburg Pennsylvania Rick Watts (717) 432-3483 Southeast Pennsylvania Branch Robesonia Pennsylvania Steve Homyack (610) 589-5051 Susquehanna Branch Richmondale Pennsylvania James Dovin (570) 650-5967 ACE Basin Branch Walterboro South Carolina Nicole Garris (843) 562-2577 Broad River Branch Union South Carolina John Briggs (864) 426-6799 Edisto River Branch Orangeburg South Carolina Billy Lander (803) 240-8356 Foothills Branch Greenville South Carolina John Stillwell (864) 414-1879 Lakelands Branch Greenwood South Carolina Eric Vaughn (864) 992-6609 Lowcountry Branch Charleston South Carolina Freddy St. Laurent (843) 330-6517 Mid-Carolina Branch Newberry South Carolina Mike Satterfield (803) 920-2374 Midlands Branch Columbia South Carolina JW Snooky McCullar (803) 917-1882 Palmetto State Advisory Council Columbia South Carolina Everett McMillian (843) 437-3047 Piedmont Branch Spartanburg South Carolina Bart Littlejohn (864) 585-0935 Southeast South Dakota Branch Sioux Falls South Dakota Jim Schaeffer (605) 553-3755 Barren River Branch Portland Tennessee Travis Callis (615) 207-7178 Bone Rushers Branch Knoxville Tennessee Eric Gifford (865) 740-7923 Middle Tennessee Branch Brentwood Tennessee Chris Anderson (615) 479-8594 Tennessee River Valley Branch Chattanooga Tennessee Dan Nuckolls (423) 802-5418 Upper Cumberland Branch Baxter Tennessee Rachel Burchett (423) 618-2064 Wolf River Branch Cordova Tennessee Bruce Kirksey (901) 355-9124 Brazos County Branch College Station Texas Clay Winder (936) 825-3932 Central Texas / Hill Country Austin Texas Matt Cotcher (678) 467-2601 Greater Houston Branch Pearland Texas Kevin Fuller (281) 412-9923 Lone Star Branch Longview Texas Richard Rhea (903) 452-4601 North Texas Branch Tioga Texas Brandon Deal (214) 878-9910 Panola County Branch Carthage Texas Glenn Allums (903) 754-4635 South East Texas Branch Corrigan Texas Ray Stubbs (936) 465-5572 River City Branch Richmond Virginia John Ranck (804) 598-7196 Roanoke Branch Roanoke Virginia Albert Crigger (540) 562-2320 Rockingham Branch Star Tannery Virginia Mike Hughes (540) 465-2670 Inland North West Branch Spokane Washington Josh Potter (509) 994-2186 Mountain State Branch Washington West Virginia Scott Limer (304) 483-8250 Central Wisconsin Branch Wisconsin Rapids Wisconsin Brian Reusch (715) 424-4468 Southwestern Wisconsin Branch Cuba City Wisconsin Matt Andrews (608) 575-9507 Wisconsin State Chapter Wisconsin Rapids Wisconsin Barry Meyers (715) 325-3223 Canada Central New Brunswick Branch Keswick Ridge New Brunswick Rod Cumberland (506) 363-3060 Northern New Brunswick Branch Edmundston New Brunswick Daniel Gautreau (506) 736-3649 Southern New Brunswick Branch Kiersteadville New Brunswick Tom Byers (506) 485-2535 Broken Arrow Branch York Ontario Evan Lammie (905) 772-6164 Eastern Ontario Branch Roslin Ontario Steve Elmy (613) 477-2473 Muskoka Parry Sound Branch Burks Falls Ontario Lee Nilsen (705) 387-1918 Southwest Ontario Branch Mt. Brydges Ontario Alan Bruno (519) 264-3030 Chaudiere-Appalaches Branch Magog Quebec Patrick Mathieu (418) 774-9493
2014
Contact Deer Project Coordinators By State/Province

Region State Deer Project Leader/Contact E-mail Address Canada Alberta Rob Corrigan rob.corrigan@gov.ab.ca British Columbia Stephen MacIver stephen.maciver@gov.bc.ca Manitoba Herman Dettman hdettman@gov.mb.ca New Brunswick Joe Kennedy joe.kennedy@gnb.ca Nova Scotia Peter MacDonald macdonpr@gov.ns.ca Ontario Michael Gatt michael.gatt@ontario.ca Quebec Francois Lebel francois.lebel@mrnf.gouv.qc.ca Saskatchewan Adam Schmidt adam.schmidt@gov.sk.ca Midwest Illinois Tom Micetich tom.micetich@illinois.gov Indiana Chad Stewart cstewart@dnr.in.gov Iowa Tom Litchfield tom.litchfield@dnr.iowa.gov Kansas Lloyd Fox lloyd.fox@ksoutdoors.com Kentucky Tina Brunjes tina.brunjes@ky.gov Michigan Brent Rudolph rudolphb@michigan.gov Minnesota Leslie McInenly leslie.mcinenly@state.mn.us Missouri Jason Sumners jason.sumners@mdc.mo.gov Nebraska Kit Hams kit.hams.@nebraska.gov North Dakota William Jensen bjensen@nd.gov Ohio Mike Tonkovich mike.tonkovich@dnr.state.oh.us South Dakota Andy Lindbloom andy.lindbloom@state.sd.us Wisconsin Kevin Wallenfang kevin.wallenfang@wisconsin.gov Northeast Connecticut Howard Kilpatrick howard.kilpatrick@ct.gov Delaware Joe Rogerson joseph.rogerson@state.de.us Maine Kyle Ravana kyle.ravana@maine.gov Maryland Brian Eyler beyler@dnr.state.md.us Massachusetts David Stainbrook david.stainbrook@state.ma.us New Hampshire Dan Bergeron daniel.bergeron@wildlife.nh.gov New Jersey Carole Stanko carole.stanko@dep.state.nj.us New York Jeremy Hurst jehurst@gw.dec.state.ny.us Pennsylvania Chris Rosenberry ask a deer biologist at www.pgc.state.pa.us Rhode Island Brian Tefft brian.tefft@dem.ri.gov Vermont Adam Murkowski adam.murkowski@state.vt.us Virginia Matt Knox matt.knox@dgif.virginia.gov West Virginia Jim Crum james.m.crum@wv.gov Southeast Alabama Chris Cook chris.cook@dcnr.alabama.gov Arkansas Cory Gray mcgray@agfc.state.ar.us Florida Cory Morea cory.morea@myfwc.com Georgia Charlie Killmaster charlie.killmaster@dnr.state.ga.us Louisiana Scott Durham sdurham@wlf.louisiana.gov Mississippi William McKinley williamm@mdwfp.state.ms.us North Carolina Evin Stanford evin.stanford@ncwildlife.org Oklahoma Erik Bartholomew embartholomew@hotmail.com South Carolina Charles Ruth ruthc@dnr.sc.gov Tennessee Chuck Yoest chuck.yoest@tn.gov Texas Alan Cain alan.cain@tpwd.tx.state.us West Arizona Dustin Darveau ddarveau@azgfd.gov California Craig Stowers cstowers@dfg.ca.gov Colorado Randy Hampton randy.hampton@state.co.us Idaho Toby Boudreau toby.boudreau@idfg.idaho.gov Montana George Pauley gpauley@mt.gov Nevada Tony Wasley twasley@ndow.org New Mexico Ryan Darr ryan.darr@state.nm.us Oregon Don Whittaker don.whittaker@state.or.us Utah Anis Aoude anisaoude@utah.gov Washington Jerry Nelson nelsojpn@dfw.wa.gov Wyoming Grant Frost grant.frost@wgf.state.wy.us Phone Number 780-644-8011 250-387-9767 204-945-7752 506-444-5254 902-679-6140 705-755-3285 418-627-8694 306-728-7487 309-543-3316 812-334-1137 641-774-2958 620-342-0658 502-564-3400 517-641-4903 651-259-5198 573-815-7901 402-471-5442 701-220-5031 740-589-9930 605-223-7652 608-264-6023 860-642-6528 302-735-3600 207-941-4477 301-842-0332 508-389-6320 603-271-2461 908-735-7040 518-402-8867 717-787-5529 401-789-0281 802-786-3860 434-525-7522 304-637-0245 205-339-5716 501-223-6359 850-488-3704 478-825-6354 225-765-2351 662-582-6111 252-940-0218 405-385-1791 803-734-8738 615-781-6615 830-569-1119 480-324-3555 916-445-3553 303-291-7482 208-334-2920 406-444-3940 775-688-1556 505-476-8032 503-947-6325 801-538-4777 360-902-2515 307-777-4589
.com

Quality Deer Management 2014 Whitetail Report

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Quality Deer Management 2014 Whitetail Report

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

WhitetailReport 2014

Part 1: Deer Harvest Trends

QDMA National Staff

Part 3: QDMA Mission & Annual Report

Part 2: Current Issues & Trends

INFORMAtiON & ASSiStANcE

National Board of Directors

(800) 209-3337 www.QDMA.com

2 QDMAs Whitetail Report

DEER HARVESt DAtA

ANtLERED BUcK HARVESt

New Brunswick Quebec

PART 1: DEER HARVEST TRENdS

ESTIMATeD BUCK HARVeST

Antlered Bucks 1 Years and Older

2012 Antlered Buck Harvest

2012 Buck Harvest/Square Mile

With Lowest Yearling-Buck Harvest Rates

State 2012 Percentage Arkansas 8 Kansas 14 Texas 14 Oklahoma 15 Louisiana * 17

Percent Yearling Bucks in the U.S. Buck Harvest

PART 1: DEER HARVEST TRENdS

Percentage of 2012 Harvest by Bow

State % by Bow New Jersey 52 Connecticut 40 Ohio 39 Massachusetts 36 Illinois 33

Percentage of 2012 Harvest by Rifle/Shotgun

Percentage of 2012 Harvest by Muzzleloader

State % by Muzzleloader Rhode Island 51 Mississippi 26 New Hampshire 26 Virginia 26 Tennessee 24

PART 1: DEER HARVEST TRENdS

PeRCeNTAGe OF DeeR HARVeST bY WeApON TYpe, 2002 VS. 2012

9 QDMAs Whitetail Report

photo by tes randle jolly

Highest Percentage of 2012 Pre-Firearms Deer Harvest

State Percentage New Hampshire 52 New Jersey 50 Maryland 43 Tennessee 39 Ohio 38

State Percentage Minnesota 9 Nebraska 9 Maine 11 Mississippi 17 North Carolina 17

PART 1: DEER HARVEST TRENdS

PeRCeNTAGe OF DeeR HARVeST PRIOR TO OpeNING DAY OF PRIMARY FIReARMS SeASON

2012 Antlerless Harvest

2012 Antlerless Harvest Per Square Mile

PART 1: DEER HARVEST TRENdS

ESTIMATeD ANTLeRLeSS DeeR HARVeST

13 QDMAs Whitetail Report

Highest Percentage of Adult Does in 2012 Antlerless Harvest

Oklahoma 88 Arkansas 86 Kansas 85 Alabama 82 Georgia 82

Lowest Percentage of Buck Fawns in 2012 Antlerless Harvest

Arkansas 4 Oklahoma 5 Alabama 7 Kansas 7 Georgia 9

Highest Percentage of Buck Fawns in 2012 Antlerless Harvest

Ohio 25 Wisconsin 24 Massachusetts 22 Missouri 22 Pennsylvania 22

PART 1: DEER HARVEST TRENdS

Special message from Congressman Paul Ryan

Shane Mahoney Internationally Acclaimed Conservationist

Dan Ashe Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

PART 2: CURRENT ISSUES & TRENDS

NORTH AMERICan WHITETaIL SUMMIT SPOnsORs

17 QDMAs Whitetail Report

Trends in Approval and Disapproval of Hunting (Adult Americans Nationwide)

PART 2: CURRENT ISSUES & TRENDS

The Changing Face of Hunting Participation (Adult Americans Nationwide)

Source: Responsive Management, 2013

Source: Responsive Management, 2013

PART 2: CURRENT ISSUES & TRENDS

Opportunity to harvest a buck

21 QDMAs Whitetail Report

PART 2: CURRENT ISSUES & TRENDS

OKLaHOMa EDUCaTEs HUnTERs

ONLINE HUNTER EDUCATIoN BY STATE/PRoVINCE