KQDC info

Author
Post
Essentials Only Full Version
MuskyMastr
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3032
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2005/06/30 17:39:29
  • Location: Valley of the Crazy Woman
  • Status: offline
2010/05/19 12:11:14 (permalink)

KQDC info

Doc,

Still trying to get the original data link. Here is a copy of the synopsis printed in the Erie County times earlier this year.....

http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100214/NWPAOUT10/302149879/-1/RSS21

Better too far back, than too far forward.
#1

3 Replies Related Threads
    wayne c
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 3473
    • Reward points: 0
    • Status: offline
    RE: KQDC info 2010/05/19 12:51:42 (permalink)
    "Although plots with no deer impact increased greatly as deer density declined, forest regeneration has been disappointing. One unanswered question is whether results would be different with less forest canopy blocking light to the ground."

    Hmmmm Interesting. Sounds familiar.

    "The most important result of the KQDC Project would be applying the things learned here elsewhere. This hunter distribution information can be used as a valuable tool for large-scale deer harvest strategy. Apparently the only effective way to control deer harvest is by micro management, though on an unreasonable scale. Some means of distributing deer hunters should be devised."

    Hmmmm. You dont say.

    "The most notable impact on the forest has been the percentage of plots that show no impact by browsing deer. However, forest regeneration has not improved accordingly. The percentage of plots with no regeneration has improved only slightly."

    Now where have i heard that before???

    "However, the number of does produced per fawn has not met expectations, probably because of increased influence of predation. The KQDC has high numbers of deer, bear and bobcats."

    Uh-huh.

    "Of course, many hunters are dissatisfied with lower deer density."

    Gee, who'da thunk it.


    Good post. Sounds like their results mirror the bigger picture perfectly.
    post edited by wayne c - 2010/05/19 12:55:25
    #2
    S-10
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 5185
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2005/01/21 21:22:55
    • Status: offline
    RE: KQDC info 2010/05/19 14:01:44 (permalink)
    I've followed the KQDA experiment from the start, and aside from them claiming some earlier success with weights and antlers which were actually just a function of the first year of AR they seem to be forthcoming with the results. For the most part they don't try to hide the bad or twist the possible reasons for the failures as some other agencys do. They have voiced concerns about coyotes having a serious impact on fawns for several years and also admitted to being surprised about low deer numbers not leading to anticipated regeneration.
    #3
    deerfly
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 1271
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2010/05/03 16:06:32
    • Status: offline
    RE: KQDC info 2010/05/19 17:52:16 (permalink)
    KQDC claims weight and antler size continued to increase at least until 2005. However, the increases really weren't that impressive and the average hunter would not be able to notice the increase while hunting. Also , the data is not scientifically valid since the check stations were voluntary , so hunters with bigger deer would be more likely to stop at a check station than a hunter who harvested a smaller deer. Another factor to consider is that ARs protected a percentage of 2.5+, so the results do not represent the quality of the entire class of 2.5+ buck, so they have no way of knowing if the average rack size of all 2.5+ buck ,increased or decreased.

    Here is a link to their 2006 Report.

    http://www.kqdc.com/Annual%20Report%202005%20part%20I.pdf

    Here is another link with data to 2008. The Annual Report is listed on their homepage , but it doesn't come up when you click on it.

    http://www.kqdc.com/Deer%20FAQs%20on%20the%20KQDC%202008%20revised%20to%20include%20harvest%2
    post edited by deerfly - 2010/05/19 18:08:40
    #4
    Jump to: