We’ll oppose the bill (HB 990), but that doesn’t necessarily mean we’re opposed to QDM as a concept.
We just believe that it’s better managed in our regulatory process, particularly since the regulation process allows for time to gather all of the stakeholders and ensures we have the latest deer population data to work with when the time comes.
We also prefer the reg process since it affords greater flexibility in the event that we need to make adjustments or ‘tweaks’ in the future. Once it’s in law then any change would require new legislation to adjust/adapt to new conditions.
Finally, we think it’s important that all hunters, landowners, farmers, etc. understand that traditional QDM will no-doubt result in an increased take of antlerless deer. We’re not sure every location can handle an increase in antlerless harvest and/or that every stakeholder would embrace that outcome — so we’d like the time to deliberate the options and potential outcomes with the stakeholders and in our deer management framework.
Paul Peditto, Director
Wildlife & Heritage Service