Report from the South Central MI deer meeting

[EdB]

Just got back from tonight's meeting on the deer population goals for south central MI. It was packed with a standing room only crowd. The DNR made a good presentation on how they set deer population goals. Then the public comment period began. I guess I wasn't in the minority at least at this forum.

There were overwhelming comments that the DNR's deer herd population estimates for south central MI are way too high. These comments came from hunters who spent considerable time forming their opinions based on in the field observations. Some reported on their logs from prior years compared to recent years. Some debunked statements made in the DNR's draft proposals. It was very clear that all felt our herd is much lower than the DNR reports and the population trend is downward in the last 2 years. One key point made is that reducing the deer herd is not about crop damage but more so about the insurance industry's desire to increase their profits. They have the big money to influence the policy makers in Lansing to do things their way, regardless if it is good for our deer herd. That speaker presented good data I wish I wrote down to support their statements.

There was not one single person who made a comment in support of the DNR's goal to reduce the deer herd by 50% in Jackson county or in any of the other DMU's this meeting covered. Farmlegend, we missed you there. All the QDM folks who spoke felt the DNR's population estimates are not accurate. I counted 32 comments against the DNR's proposal and 2 comments who felt things were ok as is but they did not express a desire to reduce the herd further. There were many more people there and from applause, it was clear those who didn't speak felt the same way. Trophy Specialist brought forth some good comments. I liked your point on lack of leadership from the DNR on the bucks in our herd.

Now, I will be following this very closely to see if the draft proposals are changed to reflect the input expressed at this meeting. The DNR will be holding these meetings throughout the state and I encourage you to get involved in your local areas.

[fairfax1]

I appreciate the fresh news and I'm looking forward to the meeting for my DMU's.

Let me ask this: Was it civil?
I'm concerned, given the 'over-the-top' comments I often hear amongst hunters, that some in the audience will try to make this public meeting into a pie-throwing-event......with the DNR guys wearing the bullseyes. I've seen it before in such meetings where a couple of semi-literate jerks give us hunters a bad name when they approach deer and/or DNR issues as if they are still fighting Communism.

I read your comments on the popular sentiment about insurance companies. Your observations on audience reaction is credible. Blaming insurance companies for not seeing deer is so often heard in hunter discussions it's become a cliche'. It runs a real close second to blaming the DNR.

Personally, I think it is a myth, just a convenient scapegoat to blame something on. Hell, who likes insurance companies anyway?

Page 2. EDB......I read your post ---on another thread--- about hunter money financing the DNR and therefore we should have a large voice in DNR policies. You make good points, and I can agree. But, I also believe we DO have a large voice in DNR policies. But, I simply don't believe that ours should be the only voice. There are many "user-groups" of our deer resource: hunters, of course, but also, farmers, landscapers, auto-drivers, insurance companies, gardners, orchard-operators, recreational-viewers, etc.

I hold a belief that if deer populations were solely regulated by hunters we'd be overrun with deer to the great degradation of the habitat. News reports have hinted that that lies at the heart of much of the controversey in Pennsylvania. Hunters have...and firmly believe they should have....the dominant voice in deer issues. And that has led to too many deer in many areas.

[Erik]

.

It was nice seeing you there Ed. Was hoping to meet the legend there too. Maybe next time.

[EdB]

Erik, good to see you again, now that hunting is done, we gotta chase steel.

The meeting was very civil although a couple folks missed the objective, which was providing feedback to the DNR on proposed population goals, and rambled a bit. A couple people were a bit rude to the DNR Biologists and directed frustration at them. They did not represent hunters well but fortunately there were very few of them. I think it is clear the final decisions are made in Lansing. The biologists make recommendations and the politicians(NRC) make the final call. I felt the DNR conducted the meeting well. I had respect for them, they were polite and took lots of notes. Our comments were recorded. A question and answer period would have been nice but the biologists provided contact information to reach them and encouraged people to contact them with any questions. They spent time one on one with people before and after the meeting.

I think most of the hunters there were receptive to the idea of shooting does to control the herd. I agree too. I don't want an overly large deer herd but I don't want it reduced a lot farther than where it is at today. But a main concern from a lot of people there was that they are observing less and less deer each of the last few years and the population trend is down not up. It was clear the group did not want lower population goals.

[Trophy Specialist]

To say it was a “standing room only” crowd would be an understatement. They were only expecting a dozen or so people, so I’m sure the DNR folks were shocked by the turnout. I didn’t count how many people were there, but the place was packed with people. The meeting was limited to discussions about Washtenaw, Jackson, Hillsdale and Lenawee Counties. Jackson County has the highest car/deer rate I the state and a “DNR estimated” deer population of around 75 DPSM and the DNR wants to cut that herd in half. The other three counties are above target levels and they want the deer herd cut there as well, but not so drastically. I took notes of all the comments made and 37 people voiced their concerns. You had to sign up before the meeting to speak. There were a couple people that I couldn’t discern what point they were trying to get across, so I didn’t consider them as being relevant. All but a couple people thought that the DNR was way off with their herd estimates. Just about everybody complained that there were not enough deer. Just about everybody does not want the herd cut further. Most everyone said they were far fewer deer and the sizes of the bucks are getting smaller. A lot of people asked how the DNR came up with their herd size estimates, but the DNR basically refused to answer most any questions including that important one that was on everybody’s minds. I chastised them for that because that information should have been explained in advance. They told people to call their area biologists if they had questions or wanted details on how herd levels were calculated, however they didn’t provide any phone numbers, but they did give out email addresses. A half dozen or so pro-QDM or MARS comments were made. A couple people wanted a one-buck limit. One person called for a split opener between the U.P. and L.P. A half dozen or so wanted mandatory check-ins. One guy wanted bounties on predators. A bunch of people said that crop damage complaints were B.S. and should not be a factor in deer management decisions. Lots of people blamed the insurance industry and farm industry for the current deer management strategy and that brought about the loudest applause from the crowd. Two people wanted crossbows liberalized. A few people were concerned about a lack of deer and what that means for the recruitment of new hunters. My last comment to them was a direct question concerning whether they were actually going to use the comments made by hunters in their decision making process and I brought up how they did the same type of public comment stuff with DNR QDM policies and then ignored all those comments with their final decisions. They did answer that one question and said they would present a summary of the comments to the DNR decision makers. Only time will tell if we hunters have any weight in these decisions. If they persist with their goals as planned, then the meetings and comments people made or will make will be worthless. If you want to voice your concerns by email, send your comments to:
deer_goals@michigan.gov

Mike Veine

[EdB]

Mike, you took great notes. I thought the e-address had an underscore between deer and goals?

deer_goals@michigan.gov

[EdB]

Opps, you can't see the underscore _ on the link but it is needed

[Whit1]

Thanks guys for the report on your meeting. The comments sound about the same as at the Cadillac meeting for the NW region of the LP.

I couldn't stay at our meeting until the end, but the audience was led to belief there would be a question/answer period. That may have been in small groups with the biologists that were there. Bob F. can you give us any insight as to whether or not this was done at the Cadillac meeting after I left?

Mike, could you give an estimate of the response to any suggestions for MARS and/or the desire to bring our buck/doe ratio into a better balance? At the Cadillac meeting this was greeted with some of the loudest applause of the evening. The loudest applause and laughter from everyone who was there was directed at the guy who compared the DNR's deer management with that of the Detroit Lions. Everyone had a good chuckle over that.

As was your meeting the one in Cadillac was fairly civil with hunters representing themselves well.

[weatherby]

Tanx for the reports. It seems like everybody is on the same boat as me so it'll be interesting to see what the DNR does

[fairfax1]

Were there any other constituencies offering comment? Such as - farmers, orchadist, landscapers, etc.? I know better than to ask if any insurance execs stood up to demand less deer.

Was there anybody there who advocated less deer?
or even keeping the herd size as is?

[Ferg]

Good Data thanks for posting and passing it on - we look forward to reports from the other meetings as well -

Thanks guys !

ferg....

[just ducky]

A couple of thoughts...

...but the DNR basically refused to answer most any questions including that important one that was on everybody’s minds. I chastised them for that because that information should have been explained in advance. They told people to call their area biologists if they had questions or wanted details on how herd levels were calculated, however they didn’t provide any phone numbers, but they did give out email addresses....

First, understand that there are varying types of meetings that state agencies hold. Public forums such as these are just that...a place for the public to express their opinions. That's part of the reason they are normally taped so that appropriate staff can review comments made, and when you get to the formal public hearing formats, a court recorder is required to transcribe. But the staffers that attend these forums typically do not have the answers to those questions because they are not the policy makers...just staffers, who are there to provide general information. I've been the person behind that table (not for DNR though), and trust me it ain't an easy thing. But it's no different than asking a policy question of a field biologist...they can offer their opinion (if they dare), but they refuse to answer broad policy issues.

...My last comment to them was a direct question concerning whether they were actually going to use the comments made by hunters in their decision making process and I brought up how they did the same type of public comment stuff with DNR QDM policies and then ignored all those comments with their final decisions. They did answer that one question and said they would present a summary of the comments to the DNR decision makers...

My point exactly. This public forum is a chance to express your thoughts in a public setting instead of sending comments to Lansing...nothing more. The staff in attendance normally aren't ducking your specific policy questions...they won't answer the questions simply because they usually don't know.

Regarding the specifics of what was reportedly discussed, and the fact that so many voiced their opinions that the DNR population estimates were way too high, I guess if I were the staffer behind the table I would want to say "our estimates may be high, but where does the typical hunter get his/her population estimates?" We hunters know that just because we aren't seeing a lot of deer doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't there. I would offer that car/deer accidents, averaged over several years (not just during the rut) would be a pretty reasonable population estimate. Hunter observations, while a good piece of the puzzle, wouldn't to me be all that pertinent. JMO :hide:

[Swamp Ghost]

Only time will tell if we hunters have any weight in these decisions. If they persist with their goals as planned, then the meetings and comments people made or will make will be worthless.
Mike Veine

Mike I couldn't agree more.

I got news for all the attendee's, your words won't make one bit of difference......

Sorry to be the one to say it

But I sent an email anyways :) :

"Until the DNR comes to the realization that SLP hunters are going to need some sort of incentive in order to reduce the DOE population, the SLP herd numbers will remain UNCHANGED.

Your (MIDNR/NRC) plee's have gone unanswered in the SLP since when 1988?

Don't you (MIDNR/NRC) think it's time for a change in tactics?

Year in and year out SLP hunters overharvest the 1.5 year old buck population across the board (archery/firearms seasons).

If you show SLP hunters that you are working to increase the buck population and buck age structures across the SLP then and only then will you see a willingness to harvest and reduce the DOE population.

Let the Peyton/Bull study be your guide, MI hunters want the MIDNR/NRC to manage towards an older buck age structure. Let MI hunters experience a Quality hunt instead of basing their experiences on Quantity."

[Trophy Specialist]

Mike, could you give an estimate of the response to any suggestions for MARS and/or the desire to bring our buck/doe ratio into a better balance? At the Cadillac meeting this was greeted with some of the loudest applause of the evening. The loudest applause and laughter from everyone who was there was directed at the guy who compared the DNR's deer management with that of the Detroit Lions. Everyone had a good chuckle over that.
When I took notes from everybody’s comments, I also noted the reaction from the crowd. When people mentioned QDM it was met with plenty of applause. I didn’t write down notes on my own comments, but I don’t remember hearing any booing.

The most laughter came when someone asked if the biologists were hunters or tree huggers. Brent Rudolph didn’t answer, but David Domine the supervising biologist for the area responded by saying that he was a full blood Indian and member of the TC Band of Ottawa. To prove his point that he was a hunter h went on to say that he once mistakenly put two charges and bullets in his muzzle loader and realized it by the making on his ram-rod. He then put the gun on the opposite side of a big tree, wrapped his arms around it and then pulled the trigger with the tree blocking any explosion, which didn’t not happen. He then said that that was the only time he has ever been a tree-hugger and that got a big laugh from everyone.

I was a little disappointed that the DNR brass was not in attendance at the meetings. In my opinion, the DNR Director and the wildlife chief and at least one NRC member should have been present at each meeting to learn first hand what people are thinking of deer management in Michigan.

[Trophy Specialist]

Were there any other constituencies offering comment? Such as - farmers, orchadist, landscapers, etc.? I know better than to ask if any insurance execs stood up to demand less deer.

Was there anybody there who advocated less deer?
or even keeping the herd size as is?
There were several farmers that spoke, a couple were full-time farmers too, but none wanted more of a reduction in herd size, not one spreaker wanted further deer herd reductions. Lots of people addressed the car/deer and crop damage issues and everbody that spoke was against using it as a reason to reduce the herd further.

Besides myself, there were two other writers (that I know of) in attendance, so you should see some articles on this subject in papers and magazines.

[beer and nuts]

Hey Trophy, kinda makes me wonder on the education poeple had on QDM with their applause because theses are same poeple that think the doe population does not need to be reduced by 50% and sounds like some want the herd as is or more but yet any QDM program would most likely require a huge reduction in does and the increase in doe permits. Was there any mention or feel on people complaining about "buck hunting" being bad or the quality of bucks AND WHY they feel that way?

[Trophy Specialist]

I would offer that car/deer accidents, averaged over several years (not just during the rut) would be a pretty reasonable population estimate. Hunter observations, while a good piece of the puzzle, wouldn't to me be all that pertinent. JMO :hide:
Jackson County leads the state in car/deer accidents and Washtinaw County also has number of car/deer accidents. Both of those counties have increasing human populations; some of the highest growth rates in the state. The Jackson County growth is due to people finding work in the Lansing and Ann Arbor (and further east) areas. That means lots of cummuting going on which means lots of people driving as fast as possible, which means more car/deer accidents. Estimating the deer population based on car/deer accidents would not be very accurate. If the DNR would have taken a few minutes at the beginning fo the meeting to explain how they counted the deer, it would have answered a lot of questions, but it is my opinion that they did not want to reveal that info because it would have caused even more questions and comments on their methods.

[Trophy Specialist]

Hey Trophy, kinda makes me wonder on the education poeple had on QDM with their applause because theses are same poeple that think the doe population does not need to be reduced by 50% and sounds like some want the herd as is or more but yet any QDM program would most likely require a huge reduction in does and the increase in doe permits. Was there any mention or feel on people complaining about "buck hunting" being bad or the quality of bucks AND WHY they feel that way?
There were several complaints about the size of bucks going down and most blamed it on eithor shooting button bucks or shooting too many yearlings. If the buck to doe ratio was evened out I doubt that people would be complaining nearly as much. Forinstance, if there is now 100 deer per square mile and that herd now is composed of a buck to doe ratio of 1 to 9 or 10 bucks and 90 does. If that herd was balanced to say 1 to 1 and the herd was also cut in half then you would have 50 dpsm composed of 25 bucks and 25 does, which would be a drastic increase in the number of bucks in the herd. By balancing the sex ratio you can have fewer deer, more bucks and much beter quality bucks.

[farmlegend]

I got there right at 6pm(only minutes after my truck narrowly missed an antlerless deer which ran across Pierce Road), the place was packed, and I left before my name was called to speak. The small room was overflowing, and I spent most of the time listening in from outside the main room. Recognized a few good friends in the audience, and none of them spoke, either. Today, I've submitted my comments in writing.

I found the meeting mostly disheartening. To me, this event resembled an episode of The Jerry Springer Show.

Of all the folks that spoke, you could count the ones that appeared to have done their homework on the fingers of your hand. Maybe I live a sheltered life, but I was surprised at how many uninformed, inarticulate folks were there speaking on behalf of the hunting community. The audience gave hearty approval to passionate comments which reflected their own beliefs.

The two minute time limit on individual's comments was not enforced.

Darn near everyone opined that the DNR's herd estimates were inflated. Many comments about their not being as many deer as there used to be. Fears were expressed that our kids would become video-game junkies unless there were enough deer around for them to hunt.

There was frequent outrage expressed that the DNR had established a goal of reducing the deer herd in Jackson County by 50%.

The insurance industry bogeyman was a frequent refrain. Whenever a speaker punctuated his remarks about this industry's desire to wipe out our deer, the comments were accompanied by enthusiastic applause. If folks only understood how politically impotent property and casualty insurers truly are in this state, they'd be embarrassed. One guy made the wild and fatuous claim that Farm Bureau spends $680 million a year on political activities in this state.

Another fellow, who badly violated the two minute time limit, educated the audience on the exponential effect of doe harvest, whereby, in a single season, we're really killing 6 million deer, based on all the does we kill and all the unborn offspring and their respective unborn offspring over the ten-year life of a doe.

A number of speakers were obviously negatively-disposed toward the need for doe harvest.

Antipathy was commonly directed at those who complained of car/deer accidents, crop damage, and damage to shrubbery/gardens. It was apparent that many participants regarded deer hunters as the DNR's most legitimate constituency.

Sometimes it was hard to hear the speakers (even the DNR staff) because of all the folks busy whispering to their buddies.

If I were the DNR, I'd be reluctant to hold these type of public forum bitchfests in the future. Just not productive. Thank goodness there wasn't a video camera rolling; the 93% of Michiganders that don't purchase deer tags would not have been impressed.

Before composing this post, I compared notes with another attendee, just to make sure I wasn't overboard with my impressions. We had a good chuckle, as his impressions were identical.

[beer and nuts]

:grouphug: :bash: :help: :gaga:

""Recognized a few good friends in the audience, and none of them spoke, either."""

""""..and I left before my name was called to speak..."""

Thats too bad, the meetings are set up to voice ones opinion...must of felt you might get mobbed! Funny how different opinions and perspectives come about from these meetings. Interesting and enlightening stuff....hopefully this will open some eyes up...

[just ducky]

...That means lots of cummuting going on which means lots of people driving as fast as possible, which means more car/deer accidents...

Agreed in general terms, but then how do you account for Montcalm Co., which has a pretty high car/deer accident rate, and where I also do quite a bit of deer hunting....high deer density, but relatively low human population. I guess my point was statistics of car/deer accidents, with some obvious adjustment for human population, is at least as accurate as the typical hunter observation would be.

..my opinion that they did not want to reveal that info because it would have caused even more questions and comments on their methods...

Could be...think about what I said before, these guys aren't the decision makers, and opening up that can of worms in a public forum without any honest answer for why it's done the way it's done would be suicide!

[FREEPOP]

So Farmlegend you did as your signature says:

It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

Just kidding and sorry, I couldn't resist. :D

[riverman]

=. Lots of people blamed the insurance industry and farm industry for the current deer management strategy and that brought about the loudest applause from the crowd.


Lots of people addressed the car/deer and crop damage issues and everbody that spoke was against using it as a reason to reduce the herd further.


;) :) :)

[eddiemq1]

How can they obtain the goal of reducing the herd by 50%? This area has basically unlimited antlerless tags available for private land now, are they gonna put a bounty on antlerless deer to encourage more harvest? The biggest problem is that the bulk of this "deer infestation" is in areas that are off limits to hunting, I see it everyday, deer within city limits, in parks, country clubs, small acreage, etc. protected from us, so it is up to automobiles to manage them. guess I just don't understand how they plan on achieving their goals.

[tenring]

Having read the way farmlegend exhibits his ideas on deer managment in some posts, I would have highly recommended that farmlegend had someone waiting in a running car outside the nearest door had he addressed the audience. With that crowd, a noose or two might have been tied before farmlegend was done speaking.:lol:

[Whit1]

Thanks Mike! Your report is valuable and appreciated.

[Whit1]

There were several complaints about the size of bucks going down and most blamed it on eithor shooting button bucks or shooting too many yearlings. If the buck to doe ratio was evened out I doubt that people would be complaining nearly as much.


This was also expressed my many hunters at the Cadillac meeting. I was quite surprised by this as there was no mention of QDM and not much (1 or 2 speakers) of MARS. I got the feeling that these guys and gals would take a herd reduction (does) in stride IF they had a chance to see more and older (use bigger antlered if you like) bucks.

[RedHead]

DNR meeting update and my response to Farmlegends post.

I also attended last nights meeting and was very discouraged to read Farmledgends comments. You really don't have to look very far to find people that will never see a glass of water half full instead of half empty. Unlike Mr. Farmlegend I considered the meeting important enough to arrive early and low and behold I found an empty seat. I did not find the meeting disheartening at all. I found several of my fellow hunting brothers gathered together to express a passion for hunting and quality deer management. Several of these people drove long distances and sacrificed valuable time with their families and work schedules. But I guess you were just too busy judging how uninformed or articulate everyone was to notice.

Nice job downplaying the importance of encouraging our youth to become excited about our sport. I felt the comment was straight from a father or grandfathers heart. How can we possibly keep our youth interested in deer hunting when most people hunt for several days without seeing a single deer? History has shown our sport will die without them.

I think you should be embarrassed at the notion our insurance agencies don't have any influence regarding this issue. Give me a break.

Sorry you didn't feel the meeting was productive. Your probably right, it was a
waste of time showing our solidarity and voicing our opinions. We should just let the DNR continue slaughtering our deer until they reach a point of no return.

Just remember you are in the minority.

Key points made:

The DNR's estimated deer population isn't supported by our field observations. Not even close.

The deer population on state lands is at extremely low levels per our field observations.

If the reduction in deer harvesting continues people will stop purchasing hunting licenses.
Not only will the state of Michigan feel the economic impact but so will our small business owners.

As the demand for hunting land diminishes so will the value of non tillable land. Many farmers complain about crop damage - but are real happy to sell you swamp for a premium.

If you yell loud enough and long enough even the DNR must listen.

Peace.

[Ferg]

State your opinions and observations and DO NOT get personal - everyone herer is entitled to their own opinions and they don't make anyone a lessor person on either side of the issues -

this is a good thread and I don't want it to 'fall' into the toilet of personal attacks and name calling -

Thanks

ferg....

[riverman]

Some good points RedHead, but a let's look at a couple points thru the water glass. Farmers and insurance companies would never had to apply the pressure they did if the state had not LET the southern herd get so out of control in the first place. Blame them all you want for a declining deer herd, or praise them for standing up to the state and voicing their opinion. The bottom line is the state failed to manage the southern herd and is now trying to right a wrong. Tough to do and keep everyone happy.

2nd, the price of land will not diminish because of less hunting pressure. The price of land will diminish when folks quit buying land and building homes. I don't see that happening anytime soon!!!

3rd, yes some farmers do cash out before death or sell a little land, why not, they can do what they want with it, it's theirs. When I see large chunks or chunks broke up into smaller parcals up for auction, a good many times it's their children that live in the cities getting every penny they can, without a care in the world to what it will do to the neighborhood or the habitat.

4th, I'd gladly pay a premium for a good piece of swampland in southern MI if I was a deer hunter. Having a good bedding area is the key to good hunting.

[farmlegend]

I was a little disappointed that the DNR brass was not in attendance at the meetings. In my opinion, the DNR Director and the wildlife chief and at least one NRC member should have been present.

Bill Moritz (Wildlife Chief) was in attendance. I visited with him briefly.

[Trophy Specialist]

Bill Moritz (Wildlife Chief) was in attendance. I visited with him briefly.
That's good to hear. He was never introduced and I didn't know what he looked like. It would have been nice if he had addressed the crowd if only to introduce himself.

[Trophy Specialist]

Just for the record, I will admit that there are some hot zones in the south central L.P. where deer numbers are well above what they should be. However, there are many more locations where deer numbers are depressed below DNR goals. Overall, the problem is not nearly as bad on private lands as it is on state land in the area. I live in the middle of the Waterloo Recreation Area and spend countless hours every year running my dog, hiking, skiing, small game hunting and just relaxing on that state land. When I first moved to Washtenaw County in the mid-80s (I live a half mile from the Jackson County line) the state land in the area provided some pretty good deer hunting. Over the last 10 years though deer numbers on most of the state land in the area has plummeted. It can be argued that the DNR needs to reduce the deer herd on some private lands, but deer levels on public lands are pitiful in my area and that is my main complaint about deer management in the area. I’d estimate deer numbers to be around 5-10 DPSM in most of the Waterloo and Pinckney Recreation Areas and the DNR is to blame for those low numbers by issuing too many state land antlerless permits in that area. I’d like to see a moratorium on state land antlerless permits in both Washtenaw and Jackson Counties to give the deer a chance to bounce back a little on public lands. Bowhunting pressure is so intense there that I’d also like to see antlerless archery harvests halted for a few years too. The guys that hunt state land in south central Michigan are getting the short end of the stick and by the way, I don’t deer hunt on state land in the area anymore. If anybody doubts my state land herd size estimates, I’d be glad to walk a few sections with you after a snow fall.

[Lenaweebowhunter]

I also was at the MDNR South Central Michigan deer herd reduction public comment meeting last night. I do think that everyone of us regarless of there education and experiances has the right to say whatever they belive there postion is on the proposed deer herd reduction plan. The one thing I find fasinating about people is the fact that often times we all see the world through a different set of glasses. Perception is deffinately in the eye of the beholder from deer hunting obsevations to numbers of deer in a given square mile or section.

I found the meeting informative, the MDNR personal were very personable and welcomed everyone with open arms I saw no defensive posturing from any of them.

I found the public comment form was also quite informative, I personaly have felt that the deer numbers in my area have been on a steady incline for the past 6 or more years. I drive all over southern michigan seeing strong deer numbers in all of the counties that were included in this proposal. I also get an oppertunity to talk to 250- 300 deer hunters each fall through my taxidermy and food plot business. But it was clear that many that atteneded last nights meeting do not have the same perception on deer numbers that I personlay belive there are in South Central Michigan.

Yes there were some emotional clapping and amens from the croud......lets face it deer hunting in southern Michigan has become a major recreational sport for lots of us....and we all get emotiuonal about our "passion's" Pheasants, small game and other hunting has tappered off dramatical due to the emerging deer population here in our wonderful southern Michigan habitat.

All of us have a different take on what makes our deer hunting here a "quality experiance" Our MDNR has a huge undertaking ahead of them to try and please all the social, economic and ecological agendas presented to them from the landowners, hunters, farmers, citizens and the special interest groups.

I'll summerise that I left last nights meeting with new peices of information that will stimulate my thoughts over the next few months, Sure some of the attendies possably exagerated the low numbers but most there were there for same reason all of us that atteneded were; to seek out new information relitive to the MDNR's plans and goals and compare those to how we feel that will affect our own hunting experiances in the future.

[Erik]

Was this meeting a smokescreen? A joke? I don't know. Maybe people like me weren't even supposed to be there let alone voice our "uneducated" opinions. I would be lying if I said I wanted to go to this meeting. I am uncomfortable in crowded places. Not to mention I had the distinct feeling from reading some of the post here that I would be amoung the minority. I aksed some of my friends if they would go with me and they all said "no way". The only reason I went was because after reading posts like "put up or shut up" I felt like I ought to do my part. So I went. Low and behold I found out I'm not so all alone. There were others there who were outside of their comfort zones too. I could tell. And I got a major sense from talking with some of them that they were apprehensive about coming for the very same reasons as me. Imagine that?
Some of what I got from the meeting.
-The graphs they presented, with the exclusion of human population expansion, all showed downward trends since their last marking periods.
-Many people who hunt in jackson cty honestly believe there are less deer in that area than there used to be. Even some in the farming industry agreed with that assessment.
-No evidence was supplied to show an increase in crop damage or the browse lines we've been hearing so much about. Seems like there could have been at least one picture of it so we could all see what it looks like.
-No evidence was supplied that would indicate an unhealthy deer herd. In fact I thought the evidence presented showed just the opposite.
-There was some evidence presented of car deer accidents, but as mentioned previously the graphs showing car/deer accident rates all indicated a decrease during their most recent marking periods.
-Many people think the DNRs deer estimates are in error.
-And finally if I didn't get anything else I got the impression people believe there are too many bucks period being killed every year. And I agree!

[Whit1]

Erik,
Thanks for your very candid remarks. One of the purposes of attending such a meeting is to discover just what you discovered......that you are not alone. You've made a valuable discovery my little chipmunk!........:lol:

We are only alone if we act alone, think alone, and remain alone. That's one of the problems we have.

I believe the MDNR has done a creditable job with managing our resources with the drastically limited funds they've been experiencing over the course of the past five (at least) years. However, I also believe that we've reached a point of possible seminal changes in the management of our whitetail deer herd.

We've got to begin thinking "outside the box", searching for change and compromise between competing ideas. The old way and especially the "my way or the highway" sounds great to the macho crowd of "stand up guys", but it's all too easy for those "stand up guys" to remain seated in the background when change that can be implemented is needed.

[Pinefarm]

Hmm, this meeting seems like it would have been the perfect time to take a stand and stand for the cause of better management. :rolleyes:
This was the forum. :sad:

[huntingfool43]

So Farmlegend you did as your signature says:

It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."



Good one John. Talked with a meat cutter tonight and over the last 2 years the number of deer they cut up droped by 300. From 2003 to 2004 they did 180 fewer and from 2004 to 2005 the number was 120 less. The 120 number is not accurate either because a processor right in Springport didn't open in 05 and she said they had alot of new customers from Springport that were not repeats because of this closing. You tell me the numbers are not way down.

[just ducky]

...Talked with a meat cutter tonight and over the last 2 years the number of deer they cut up droped by 300. ...You tell me the numbers are not way down.

Be careful when using meat cutter statistics to make correlations to deer populations. The cutter in my area that we have used for years also saw reductions in the number of deer he cut, but he was quick to point out that his regular customers told him this was mainly due to two things....first, poor weather and hunting conditions early in the gun hunt, leading to fewer deer taken, and second, many more people in my area have turned to cutting their own deer due to the increasing cost of commercial processing. Yes, I think fewer deer were taken in the gun season. But that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't deer in the woods.

[just ducky]

Just for the record, I will admit that there are some hot zones in the south central L.P. where deer numbers are well above what they should be. However, there are many more locations where deer numbers are depressed below DNR goals. Overall, the problem is not nearly as bad on private lands as it is on state land in the area...

Agree completely. And that's why I continue to say "blanket" regulations are not the answer whether we're talking about the entire LP, or just the SLP. Way too many variables.

[Trophy Specialist]

One thing that the DNR emphasized at the meeting was that two of the four south central counties were showing habitat damage with a visible “browse line”. That was refuted several times at the meeting, but now that I look at the statistics, the DNR contradicted itself with that tidbit. They said that Jackson and Washtenaw Counties had a browse line but Hillsdale and Lenawee Counties did not show over browsing. The DNR claims that there are some 70 dpsm whereas the other three counties were had similar deer densities at 27-35 dpsm and similar habitats. Why is it that Washtenaw County has a browse line and Hillsdale and Lenawee with similar deer densities does not? Either the DNR’s deer density estimates are off, the “browse line” observations were inaccurate or the DNR is just trying manufacture reasons to justify reducing the herd more in Washtenaw County.

In my opinion, the “browse lines” the DNR claims to exist in Jackson and Washtenaw Counties are pure BS. I would challenge the DNR to show me a browse line anywhere in the South Central LP. I bet that I have at least 75 dpsm on my land and there is no browse line there. There is certainly no browse line on state land in the area either. I have hunted on a bunch of private properties in both Jackson and Washtenaw Counties and have never seen a browse line. Now on my U.P. property there is a browse line from past years of deer overpopulation. Browse lines are very common up there. The difference is that in southern Michigan the winters are very mild. In the 20 years that I’ve lived here bare ground persists for much of the winter, so the deer are not forced to browse exclusively for nutrition. My food plots are still green and lush right now as are much nature ground forage. There are still lots of acorns. My front yard is full of acorns and my apple orchard is still dropping some fruit. My neighbor’s alfalfa fields are green too and he still has some standing corn. Why would the deer eat a bunch of brose with that kind of food available? Has anybody seen a browse line in southern Michigan?

In my opinion further reductions in the south central's deer herd can be boiled down to crop damage complaints and deer/vehicle/human problems.

[Sib]

I guess if I felt I have an abundance of deer and my property was in need of serious deer reduction the last thing I'd be doing is planting food plots. Yeah, I understand that foot plots aren't exclusive for deer to use, but if a species was damaging my habitat and way out of balance as some have said, I sure wouldn't be sweetening that habitat and increasing my properties ability to host even more of this 'invasive' species.

I'd probably work to bring the species in control and then worry about improving my habitat for a healty density and the other species that benefit...after the offending species is brought under control.

Improving the lands ability to hold more deer, whether intentional or not and then being dissatisfied with the numbers sounds like self inflicted wounds, imo.

The hunters that feel that deer numbers are too low maybe uneducated in the view of some, but they aren't increasing deer densities while saying we have too many deer. Their's is a consistant stance at least, imo.

Caveat - My comments should not be construed as a debate about food plots, the issue here is whether or not deer numbers are too high, too low, or about right. I have no problem with food plots and feel they offer wildlife many benefits.

[FREEPOP]

Has anybody seen a browse line in southern Michigan?

Nope, have seen them in upper MI and the ones I've seen In Colorado stand out like the perverbial sore thumb.

There is quite the browse line in my clover plot and winter wheat :lol:

[just ducky]

... I would challenge the DNR to show me a browse line anywhere in the South Central LP...

Actually, believe it or not I have a browse line on my arborvitae bushes around my house :yikes: :yikes: Yeah serious here! The #$&! things seem to love our bushes :confused: I'll see if I can get a picture a post it up......But I'm not arguing with you, and I would agree that outside of maybe a couple orchards in our area, browse lines are practically non-existent in this part of the state. Further, I'm shocked that the DNR staff would claim that an entire "county" has visible browse lines, not just a specific area or maybe even a specific township. If I look at my own county, habitat varies widely from one end to the other, and even from township to township. Making blanket statements about a particular county is just asking for criticism in my opinion. :bash:

[Trophy Specialist]

Actually, believe it or not I have a browse line on my arborvitae bushes around my house
I have a hedge of arborvitaes near my house and they have never hit it at all. I planted a different strain of arborvitae in the corner of my wife's flower garden last year and the deer ate every bit of green off it within weeks while ignoring the other 30 arborvitaes just 20 feet away. I've had a garden in my back for many years and the deer never bothered it until I planted a certain strain of broccoli and they devoured it and never touched anything else. Deer can be strange eaters.

[huntnbrush]

I have many questions about the goals vs. the report and the browse line was definately one of them. The report states that agricultural crops are the deers main food and with standing winter crops, forested areas and brushy swamps their food sources are unlimited. Unlimited food! Tell me again why is there a county wide browse line? A couple other questions I have are how is there more forest and cropland than in 1996 especially with all of the urbar sprawl (much of the cropland is being turned into subdivisions) and from those same charts, How can the make-up of the possibly have more than doubled in water? Must be they are now counting swimming pools.
Here's is a good read though that has some good info on how the numbers are reached.

http://forestry.msu.edu/msaf/Tours/Deer2005/02-Rudolph.pdf

[huntingfool43]

Be careful when using meat cutter statistics to make correlations to deer populations. The cutter in my area that we have used for years also saw reductions in the number of deer he cut, but he was quick to point out that his regular customers told him this was mainly due to two things....first, poor weather and hunting conditions early in the gun hunt, leading to fewer deer taken, and second, many more people in my area have turned to cutting their own deer due to the increasing cost of commercial processing. Yes, I think fewer deer were taken in the gun season. But that doesn't necessarily mean there aren't deer in the woods.

I would not blame the steady decrease over the last two years on weather or more people cutting their own. They are one of the cheapest around with a good reputation and have been cutting deer for years. As I stated even with one place not open any longer the numbers still dropped. Living in the cornerof Jackson county and enjoy taking drives in the evening, you can see the decrease in numbers. The DNR wants to wack it another 50 percent just seems unreal.

[farmlegend]

I can understand where the DNR gets a little weary of hunter complaints about "low" deer numbers.

I've hunted deer since the early 70's, and every single year since then, without exception, regardless of how many deer got harvested that season, it was not hard to find hunters who angrily complained "it's not as good as it used to be", "the Amish shot 'em all off", "the herd is down, way down", "never been this bad", etc. I heard a lot of this anger expressed Wednesday night.

My processor, a really high-volume shop, reports that his numbers are sharply up for the 2005 season. Not surprising to me; my sighting logs indicated a materially increased deer sighting rate over last year. And I'm not in a high-density area, either (DNR says 32 dpsm, less than half the density those lucky Jackson County hunters get to hunt).

[huntnbrush]

I don't personally know any hunters here in Jackson county who are complaining about deer numbers being low. But, what I do keep hearing is that the numbers are lower now than they have been in several years. And the DNR estimates we have 50% more deer now than just 2 years ago. Although the harvest numbers have remained the same the deer car accidents dropped and crop damage permits dropped. I think the problem is, as has been stated already, that the numbers don't add up and there is no explanation as to why, just here's what we say, here's our goal, now get out there and start shootin' or we'll have to come up with a more creative way to reach our goals.

[JBIV]

I would not blame the steady decrease over the last two years on weather or more people cutting their own. They are one of the cheapest around with a good reputation and have been cutting deer for years. As I stated even with one place not open any longer the numbers still dropped.

Being the cheapest and having a good reputation rarely go together. :16suspect What about the new guy in Parma, his numbers are way up. I think the only way to know your deer numbers is to spend the time outside. In Jackson co. I just don't see the decrease.

[Trophy Specialist]

I just had a thought: I wonder what the hunters in the NE Lower are thinking of people complaining about low deer numbers in Jackson County.:lol:

[Whit1]

I just had a thought: I wonder what the hunters in the NE Lower are thinking of people complaining about low deer numbers in Jackson County.:lol:

Great question Mike! Off topic, but it's a thought.

[Erik]

I didn't really get the feeling people were complaining so much about there not being any deer. They just thought the numbers have been going down noticeably and it made them concerned that the DNR now wants to bring the numbers down even more. Seems like no one wants another DMU 452. Especially in jackson cty.
At least that was my impression.

[huntingfool43]

Being the cheapest and having a good reputation rarely go together. :16suspect What about the new guy in Parma, his numbers are way up. I think the only way to know your deer numbers is to spend the time outside. In Jackson co. I just don't see the decrease.

JBIV
I don't know what part of the county you hunt but in the Springport area I have heard several complaints. I do not hunt Jackson county but do like takeing a drive in the evening to see what is there and over the last few years the sightings have gone down. There are hot spots that will always hold lots of deer but the whole county can not be judged by that.

[walleyechaser]

Its JMO but I don't believe that the number of car/deer accidents can be taken as any clear indication of deer numbers for several reasons.
1) There are more drivers on the road than ever before.
2) In general, people are driving faster on the average than at other points in time.
3) I feel that studies would probably reflect the fact that the average driving distance to work has increased over the years.
4) Last but not least is the population density increase in certain counties. One has to ask where the increases are coming from to really grasp the issue at hand.
Much of the increase in population densities is the result of "city" folks moving to rural areas to enjoy the "Good Life" as some might put it. The reality is that many of these transplants want the country but bring the city with them. What I'm referring to is the destruction of valuable habitat which forces wildlife into constricted areas. Why one would move to the country on 8 or 10 acres of land and proceed to turn that acreage into one large lawn is beyond me. Now, compound this problem with drivers who insist on going 60 to 70 miles per hour on rural roads having 50 mph speed limits or less and its easy to see where the problem lies.
To blame the number of car/deer accidents on overpopulation alone becomes ludicrous but to the uninformed it may make sense.
This having been said, common sense says that the insurance industry has much at stake and much to gain by reducing deer numbers in any way possible. Real Boogey Men do exist!
By the same token, using the number of car/deer accidents in these constricted areas as an indication of real numbers becomes just as ludicrous. Here's a case in point. Livingston County has an ALLEGDED deer population of 46.5 deer psm if I recall and as I asked in another thread, Which Square Mile?
The DNR is understaffed and they're to first to admit it so how in the world can they have the staff to come up with accurate herd assessments when thousands of hunters afield each year cannot agree on numbers?
I'd love to go into the concept of Browse Lines in the SLP but that is just as ludicrous and I've taken up enough space already.
Just my .02 cents worth.

[Erik]

WC, your not alone. Those points were brought up at the meeting the other night.

Something I don't know if everyone is understanding about these deer per square mile estimates. These are the DNRs estimates for this coming sept. Not right now. Their numbers include all the fawns that will be born this coming spring.
Like I've said before I can't really make an estimate of how many deer are in jackson cty. I pretty much only hunt state land over there and we all know that theres not alot of deer on any state land in MI.
I can make an estimate for the DMU where I live and do most of my hunting though. DMU 031 calhoun cty. And it is my opinion that come sept there are more deer here than the DNR thinks there are. I also believe there are far more deer killed each season than the DNR estimates. So in a way it evens out a bit. The problem as I see it is of the surviving deer after the hunting seasons are over probably 95% of them are females. So come the following sept the herd has more than doubled in size. It's a vicious cycle.
I think it time the DNR puts a limit on how many bucks a person can shoot in one season. I've been saying that for a long time now. If a person wants to hunt for trophies fine. But when you finally do shoot one thats it. Thats your buck for the season. If you want to keep on hunting you'll have to hunt for does. At least until things begin to get back in balance.

[Trophy Specialist]

I think it time the DNR puts a limit on how many bucks a person can shoot in one season. I've been saying that for a long time now. If a person wants to hunt for trophies fine. But when you finally do shoot one thats it. Thats your buck for the season. If you want to keep on hunting you'll have to hunt for does. At least until things begin to get back in balance.
For you young guys (and older folks with poor memories) limiting hunters to one buck was tried in Michigan before and it did nothing to balance the sex ratios of the deer then and it won’t do any better now. The only proven way to balance deer sex ratios on a wide scale is to exclude most young bucks from the harvest or otherwise limit the overall buck kill. To do that there are some choices that would have an impact: Regulations like mandatory antler restrictions have been proven to exclude a good percentage of young bucks from the harvest and balance sex ratios. Although in S. MI it would require a minimum of a 4-pount on one side and/or spread requirement to protect a significant number of bucks. Another choice would be to limit the availability of buck tags in the area though issuance in a lottery or by only issuing a buck tag to someone every other year or something like that. Another choice would be to shorten the buck season. For that to be effective and fair though, the bow season would have to exclude bucks during Nov. and the gun season for bucks would have to be moved to Dec. and last but a few days to have a significant impact on the buck harvest. The DNR could make a bit of a difference by requiring the tagging of button bucks with both a buck tag and an antlerless permit, which would help some, but that would make a significant enough buck savings to get real excited about. I know for a fact the DNR is considering a “earn a buck” program right now for certain DMUs. This would require every hunter in the affected DMUs to first shoot an antlerless deer before they could shoot a buck. Wisconsin has been successfully using that tactic for years now to reduce deer numbers in certain areas, however from what I’ve heard from hunters there, it has not resulted in much better buck/doe ratios, just fewer deer.

If you want to balance the sex ratios, it will require some real sacrifice and the window dressing of a one-buck limit is not going to accomplish much of anything. If you still doubt that then just look at Pennsylvania: I believe that they have had a one buck limit for many years and before MARS were implemented there a few years ago, they’re overall deer sex ratios were horribly skewed towards does. It took MARS to make a differene there, but that took sacrafice and not everybody is willing to do that.

[Liver and Onions]

...The problem as I see it is of the surviving deer after the hunting seasons are over probably 95% of them are females. ..

Erik,
You do know the difference between a button buck & doe don't you ? Had you said that the surviving ADULT deer were 95% does(19-1 ratio) would not have been accurate, but much, much closer.

L & O

[Trophy Specialist]

On my property in S. Central MI I'd estimate that the deer population is about 75 DMSM before the deer seasons start. Of that, I'd guess that there are around 3 percent adult bucks, 15 percent yearling bucks, 30 percent does and the rest are fawns. At this time of the year we have around 30-35 DPSM due to an anual deer kill of about 50 percent of the deer. It is now composed of about 1 percent adult bucks, 2 percent yearling bucks, 20 percent does and the rest are fawns. Yearling bucks and adult does get hit especially hard in my area, but thankfully most hunters are aparantly passing up fawns. In fact I would say that more then 3/4 of the deer I see here now are fawns and since probably more than half of the doe fawns will have fawns of their own this year, even with a 50 percent deer kill every year deer numbers have still remained constant.

[Erik]

ARs will not protect as many 1.5yr olds as some of you think. At least not here in DMU 031. Especially when people are allowed to harvest multiple bucks. I can provide proof of this. I have done so here in the past. Seems like everyone wants to dismiss that proof everytime I present it, but it's here. I still have it.
Last season, (excuse me I meant the season of 04 which was the season before last) 5 out of 6 bucks harvested from our property were 1.5 yr olds. 4 out of 6 were 4pts on one side or better. 1 of the 1.5 yr olds had 10 points!
I have an antler shed from a buck I watched for 3 yrs. He was a 6pt.
Can I tell the difference between a 1.5 yr old and one that is older? Most of the time I can. But that really isn't the issue when you begin to put restrictions on antler points. When you make 8 the magic number most hunters are going to shoot that 8 if they can. If they were only allowed one buck they would be more likely to pass on the young 8pt bucks.
If hunters were only allowed one buck per season they would become very choosy about the buck they shot. And not just in southern MI, but all across the state.
How many hunters go north right now and shoot the first buck they see because they know they still have a tag left to trophy hunt with back home?
As for being too young to remember? I remember when MI allowed one buck with a bow, and one with a gun. There were alot more older class bucks around back then.

[Munsterlndr]

For you young guys (and older folks with poor memories) limiting hunters to one buck was tried in Michigan before and it did nothing to balance the sex ratios of the deer then and it won’t do any better now. ........

If you want to balance the sex ratios, it will require some real sacrifice and the window dressing of a one-buck limit is not going to accomplish much of anything. If you still doubt that then just look at Pennsylvania: I believe that they have had a one buck limit for many years and before MARS were implemented there a few years ago, they’re overall deer sex ratios were horribly skewed towards does. It took MARS to make a differene there, but that took sacrafice and not everybody is willing to do that.

TS -

The climate of hunting has changed dramatically in Michigan since there was a one buck limit. To say that a one buck limit would not protect some yearling bucks is wrong. When I started hunting there was a one buck limit but there were also almost no antlerless permits issued. There was also a long ingrained practice of not shooting does. Things have changed since those days. Antlerless permits are readily available in most areas, most hunters don't have a problem shooting a doe and many will now specifically target does. So to say that because it's been in place in the past and did not have an impact on sex ratios is flawed reasoning.

Also, MARS alone did not have that great an impact on sex ratios in PA. What changed things in PA was four years of almost unlimited antlerless permits and an extension of the antlerless season that resulted in huge numbers of does being shot. This was part of ALT's plan of major herd reductions that in some places have cut the size of the herd in PA by 50%.
MARS was just window dressing to sell the whole herd reduction plan to PA hunters. A lot of hunters in PA now think that they really have shot themselves in the foot by following ALT's plan.

A one buck limit would be a positive first step in Michigan and would be the easiest change to sell to the largest number of hunters.

[Trophy Specialist]

ARs will not protect as many 1.5yr olds as some of you think. At least not here in DMU 031.....
.....I remember when MI allowed one buck with a bow, and one with a gun. There were alot more older class bucks around back then.
Where I hunt in Washtenaw and Jackson Counties I'd estimate from my observations that about 75 percent of yearling bucks have fewer than four points on one side and I do know what a yearling looks like. I'm sure that that percentage will vary from one property to another as genetics and habitat can play a big role in antler size. My guess is that a four point on one side rule in southern MI would certainly protect more than half of the yearling bucks. I have said it before and I'll say it again, I am not a lover of MARS (I could give you a list of things I don’t like about MARS), but when compared to other effective options, they are usually the lesser of the evils and I have seen evidence that they work to reduce the yearling buck kill where ever applied properly.

Actually we have many older class bucks showing up now in the harvest than back when one buck with a bow and one with a gun was the law. A quick glance through the Commemorative Bucks of Michigan record listings will bare that out, however most big bucks are now coming from S. MI. A one buck limit would only be effective to significantly reduce the buck kill if other measures were combined with it. Again I cite Penselvania as evidence.

I don’t want to get into a MARs or One Buck Limit argument because in my opinion neithor one is ever going to happen in southern MI.

How do you feel about Earn-A-Buck rules? Since the DNR is seriously considering that option it might make for more pertinant discussion.

[just ducky]

...How do you feel about Earn-A-Buck rules? Since the DNR is seriously considering that option it might make for more pertinant discussion.

I just can't see "earn a buck" as a viable option for one big reason...$$$$$$:yikes: . Out of the total number of gun deer hunters in Michigan, what percentage only hunt a day or two, or not at all? Is it 70%? Higher yet? I'm sure it's high. And those casual hunters are out there for the comaradarie as much as anything, not for venison (we all know some of these). And they also prefer to shoot a buck...just a fact with that group. Further, how many of that group would want more than one deer anyway when the venison isn't what's driving them to hunt in the first place? My point is if you make them shoot a doe before they can consider shooting a buck, I believe many of them would give up deer hunting. Could the DNR afford to lose the income if 70% of the hunters don't buy a license? NOT! So although I personally could go along with an "earn a buck" concept, I just don't think the DNR can afford to adopt such an option, unless they drastically raise the cost of a deer license to make up for those who quit. JMO.

[Whit1]

I don't think you'll ever see "earn a buck' implemented. In WI it was a PR disaster and not at all accepted by WI hunters.

The only reason it might be tried is then it would allow the NRC to say, "See, we tried to save bucks like hunters wanted, but they wouldn't accept it." That may sound cynical, but so be it.

One buck per season and that's it. That will save bucks with the least amount of regulatory interference for the vast majority of hunters. I doubt you'd see the uproar over a one buck regulation that you would with MARS.

[Trophy Specialist]

Actually I never heard of WI deer hunter numbers crashing in zones where the Earn a Buck was implemented. I will agree that it was a public relations disaster though as every hunter from the affected areas in WI that I've talked to did not like the law. Despite that, the WI DNR has used it again and again and they have stated that they will use it again should the need arise.

Again, there's no use arguing about the one-buck law because there's basically no way the DNR is going to institute such a measure. First the legislature would have to change the law and the governor would have to sign off and without the DNR's support it stands a snowball's chance in Florida of ever happening. The DNR wants more deer killed, not less, so eliminating a tag is certainly not on their agenda. Besides the DNR knows that if a hunter has a buck tag in his or her pocket, they are much more likely to go hunting and kill more antlerless deer, which is their main objective in most of Michigan. The DNR has gone on record saying that only two or three percent of hunters kill two bucks, which is an insignificant number in their eyes. The argument that more hunters would pass up bucks with a one buck law will get no argument from me. The only flaw with that is that most of the bucks passed up by hunters will still get shot by other hunters who are not as avid. Still other small bucks will get passed up only to get shot later in the season (crunch time) by some of those same hunters that passed them up in the first place. The net gain of bucks at the end of the seasons will be minimal. Again, look at Pennsylvania’s statistics for an example. Damn, I'm arguing about the one-buck law again.:bash:

[Whit1]

Actually I never heard of WI deer hunter numbers crashing in zones where the Earn a Buck was implemented. I will agree that it was a public relations disaster though as every hunter from the affected areas in WI that I've talked to did not like the law. Despite that, the WI DNR has used it again and again and they have stated that they will use it again should the need arise.



WI went to a "earn a buck" program due to CWD. They wanted to drastically lower herd numbers. "Earn a buck" is still in force in the CWD zones, again to keep herd numbers down. The WDNR used "earn a buck" as a method to lower deer numbers in an attempt to stem the tide of CWD.

[Munsterlndr]

Again, there's no use arguing about the one-buck law because there's basically no way the DNR is going to institute such a measure. First the legislature would have to change the law and the governor would have to sign off and without the DNR's support it stands a snowball's chance in Florida of ever happening. The DNR wants more deer killed, not less, so eliminating a tag is certainly not on their agenda. Besides the DNR knows that if a hunter has a buck tag in his or her pocket, they are much more likely to go hunting and kill more antlerless deer, which is their main objective in most of Michigan.

Mike -
This is just not true. The NRC could change the law tomorrow and the legislature and the Governor would have no say in the matter. The combo license is mandated by the legislature but it is up to the NRC to determine what makes up a combo license. They could change the combo license from two bucks to one buck and one doe without getting legislative approval.

I believe that if they eliminated single firearms and archery tags and required that everyone buy a combo license that would be good for one buck and one doe, that it would result in increased revenue, protect more young bucks and cause more does to be taken. All of the above would be a step forward in Michigan deer management. This would be a simple change that I think most hunters could live with, much more so than MAR's

When I have raised the possibility of changing the combo license to one antlered and one antlerless, in the past some yoopers have objected to it on the grounds that they think parts of the UP should be closed to antlerless hunting. This would not be a problem. As you can see the law leaves it up to the NRC to determine what deer are covered under a combo tag and also allows them to restrict hunting in certain geographic areas. That means they could still close some DMU's to antlerless hunting while allowing it in the rest of them. Here is the relevent section:

324.43525a Combination deer license.

Sec. 43525a. (1) The department shall issue a combination deer license that authorizes a person to hunt deer both during the firearm deer seasons and the bow and arrow seasons, in compliance with the rules established for the respective deer hunting season. A combination deer license shall authorize the holder to take 2 deer in compliance with orders issued under part 401.

(3) When advisable in managing deer, an order under part 401 may designate the kind of deer that may be taken and the geographic area in which any license issued under this section is valid.

[Erik]

Actually the states est was like 4% get their second buck. But since when did we start believing the state? Theres alot more deer being killed these days than the state will ever know.
I've never looked through a CBM record book so I couldn't say whether theres more entries now or not. I just know I used to see more larger antlered bucks than I do now. Maybe the reason hunters didn't put as many bucks in the books back then was because hunters shot less bucks back then. Do you suppose?

I don't want to argue either. I swore I'd never enter this portion of the website again just because of the arguing. It always comes down to these points though. Please don't anyone take my comments personally.

[Trophy Specialist]

You guys raised some good points. I'd propose what Ed Spinazzola has suggested in this forum before: We need to try various deer management experiments to see what works the best. Take one DMU in S. MI, a third in the N. Lower and another in the U.P. and disignate it as a one-buck-only experiment. Take three more DMUs, one in each zone, and try point based MARs. You could also test a buck tag lottery, mandatory check ins, spread restrictions an other ideas this way. After the end of the test periods we could then see what worked and what didn't and then go from there. I don't see how anybody could argue with that.

[Trophy Specialist]

The way things are now though if you wanted to try any experiments to try to improve the buck to doe ratios, even a one buck limit, it would have to go though the new QDM guidlines established by the DNR in 2005 making it vertually impossible for any new measures to become reality.