FREEP: Upset hunters shouldn't blame DNR

[Pinefarm]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060128/SPORTS10/601280369/1058

Outdoors
ERIC SHARP: Upset hunters shouldn't blame DNR

January 28, 2006

The state Department of Natural Resources has held meetings around the state to explain its deer management plan, prompting a lot of e-mails and phone calls from hunters. They say they don't believe the DNR's estimate that the state deer herd is 1.6 million to 1.7 million.

Most of those hunters think the DNR has vastly overestimated the herd, especially in the places those hunters hunt. And that got me thinking:

Why weren't those complaints made in 1989-90, when the DNR was estimating the herd at 1.9 million to 2 million?

The method the DNR used to count deer then was the same one it uses now. And though a few people in 1990 said they didn't think the DNR's method was really accurate, no one questioned whether the DNR was right when it said there were an awful lot of deer in the state.

I have to figure that even if the DNR's raw numbers are wrong now, the accuracy of its estimates hasn't changed because its methodology for counting deer hasn't changed.

And if the biologists figure the statewide herd is down by 15% to 20%, that's probably about right. But that doesn't mean the numbers might not be down a lot more on the little patch where you hunt.

For the southern half of the Lower Peninsula, the DNR estimates the average is roughly 40 deer per square mile, with some places a bit higher, others a bit lower. In the northern Lower, there are roughly 20-25 deer per square mile, and in the Upper Peninsula about 15 per square mile.

Whether those numbers are on the money really doesn't matter much. The key is how they compare in ratio to the numbers of deer we had in 1990. Back then, the DNR figured the northern Lower Peninsula held about 800,000 deer, or 40 per square mile. The southern Lower had about 15-20 per square mile and the UP about 30 per square mile.

In other words, no matter how many deer there really were, we had twice as many in the woods of northern Michigan as we did last fall. Any experienced hunter knows that if you cut the number of deer in an area by 50%, your chances of seeing one decrease by 75% to 90%.

That's because the deer no longer have to fill every inch of their habitat to find food and breeding areas. So if you're hunting in marginal deer habitat, and the overall herd in your area has decreased 20, that might mean the guy next door with the good habitat draws all the deer in the area while your place has none.

Many hunters are accustomed to putting out bait and waiting for deer to come within easy shooting range. That worked when deer were superabundant, but not when their numbers are fewer and they can find more natural food.

I doubt the DNR can put an exact figure on the number of deer in the state, but it does a pretty good job of estimating how the numbers fluctuate as a percentage year to year. I also think the agency has made mistakes and allowed too many deer to be killed in some areas. When experienced hunters don't see deer in places where they used to see a lot, that's pretty evident.

But like it or not, what you see is likely what you will get for years to come.

Contact ERIC SHARP at 313-222-2511 or esharp@freepress.com.

[GVDocHoliday]

Wwwow. What a great article.

[Luv2hunteup]

Thanks for posting Bob.

The opinion of the writer mirrors that of Clute and others in the DNR/NRC.
That's because the deer no longer have to fill every inch of their habitat to find food and breeding areas. So if you're hunting in marginal deer habitat, and the overall herd in your area has decreased 20, that might mean the guy next door with the good habitat draws all the deer in the area while your place has none.
Many hunters are accustomed to putting out bait and waiting for deer to come within easy shooting range. That worked when deer were superabundant, but not when their numbers are fewer and they can find more natural food.

I agree. The private land owner with the best habitat will have Quality Deer Hunting while the surrounding private or public land owners won't. If this doesn't give the private land owner enough incentive to get out and improve what he has nothing else will. Hundreds of ideas for the do it yourselfer are buried in the threads of the habitat forum on this site. Just go do it or be ready for another season that falls short of your expectations. Nobody else will do it for you so decide if you want to be part of the problem or part of the solution. You don't hear NorthJeff, Leon, Ed Spin, farmlegend,myself and other regular habitat forum posters complain, I wonder why that is?

[November Sunrise]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060128/SPORTS10/601280369/1058


Any experienced hunter knows that if you cut the number of deer in an area by 50%, your chances of seeing one decrease by 75% to 90%.

That's because the deer no longer have to fill every inch of their habitat to find food and breeding areas. So if you're hunting in marginal deer habitat, and the overall herd in your area has decreased 20, that might mean the guy next door with the good habitat draws all the deer in the area while your place has none.

To the contrary, very few experienced hunters understand this fact. The vast majority of individuals who've hunted their whole life wouldn't grasp the fact that 50% less deer will result in 75-90% fewer sightings. While the writer is correct in his explanation, his point isn't currently widely understood at all. Those of us that are thinking about whitetaill deer hunting 365 days a year grasp basic concepts like this, but we're not representative of the majority of hunters.

There are so many opportunities for better education of the deer hunting masses. Stories like this are helpful, certainly the efforts of the QDMA are powerful, but to really begin to develop stronger understandings with the masses the DNR needs to begin to communicate proactively, clearly, and consistently. It's been a mistake for them to remain hunkered down all of these past years and neglect to provide information in their handbooks, on their website, etc. that teach about the accuracy of their harvest estimates, that teach concepts about habitat such as the one discussed in this article, etc.

I've purchases licenses online in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. I receive regular emails from the state of Indiana regarding game management issues, forestry issues, etc. Ohio also communicates throughout the year, including sending each of my sons who've previously hunted there a letter encouraging them to participate in the Ohio youth hunt. From our MI DNR to date I've received nothing. Maybe communication is being sent and I'm just not getting it- but if as I suspect they collect email addresses and then remain largely uncommunicative with those individuals, it's a classic example of a very easy opportunity for education being missed.

[huntingfool43]

"So if you're hunting in marginal deer habitat, and the overall herd in your area has decreased 20, that might mean the guy next door with the good habitat draws all the deer in the area while your place has none."


How much revenue do you think the DNR will loose because more people will drop out of the sport. Why would someone pay 30 bucks for a combo tag to sit in the woods and see no deer. They better come up with a better answer than that if they want hunter numbers to increase instead of decreasing. What happened to the deer belonging to every one, not just the rich that can afford a big piece of land they can manage the way they want.

[luv 2 bowhunt]

huntingfool43
"What happened to the deer belonging to every one, not just the rich that can afford a big piece of land they can manage the way they want."

Most intelligent statement that I have read on hear in over a year.

[Pinefarm]

Actually, the deer belong to the state, not hunters. And the state only wants 1.4 million of them. Fairness or parity among all recreational hunters isn't at the top of the list, when the biologists get in a room to decide what is best for the state as a whole.
The state, and now this article, have been pretty clear in expressing what the new reality is to be for the foreseeable future. The simple alternatives are:
1. Improve your land if you hunt private land.
2. Gain access to private land, through leasing or permission, if you have none.
3. Hunt public land but expect to see fewer deer than you may have in the past.
4. Hunt out of state if you are unhappy.

As the article clearly states "but like it or not, what you see is likely what you will get for years to come."
The old days of 50 deer per mile and plentiful deer sightings on marginal habitat are either over in your area or will be ending soon. Everyone may as well get used to that fact and adapt accordingly.

[Liver and Onions]

With the right plan & financial backing, there is no reason that the carrying capacity of State land in the NLP & UP can't be improved. I don't hunt in either of those areas, but I am willing to play more for any license or permit to improve the habitat on State land. Not so long ago Ed Spin gave an example what could be done for deer. Turkey, grouse, etc. also need to be figured into the plan.
I don't recall any of the reports from any deer management meeting that hunters were asking what can be done to improve the carrying capacity.

L & O

[username]

In the area I hunt the DNR says they want to increase the deer numbers. But what are they going to do? They say it and it sounds good but what do they do beyond that?

[huntingfool43]

Actually, the deer belong to the state, not hunters. And the state only wants 1.4 million of them. Fairness or parity among all recreational hunters isn't at the top of the list, when the biologists get in a room to decide what is best for the state as a whole.
The state, and now this article, have been pretty clear in expressing what the new reality is to be for the foreseeable future. The simple alternatives are:
1. Improve your land if you hunt private land.
2. Gain access to private land, through leasing or permission, if you have none.
3. Hunt public land but expect to see fewer deer than you may have in the past.
4. Hunt out of state if you are unhappy.

As the article clearly states "but like it or not, what you see is likely what you will get for years to come."
The old days of 50 deer per mile and plentiful deer sightings on marginal habitat are either over in your area or will be ending soon. Everyone may as well get used to that fact and adapt accordingly.

Bob
Hit one with your car and see what they tell ya, "They belong to everyone and we just manage them". LOL The fact is if they want less deer then they better expect fewer hunters and that equals less revenue. Back in the early 70's they estimated the heard at something like 750,000 I think. Back then you didn't have people tring to hord them to their property like they were personal property. The DNR is in for trouble if they don't come up with some answers to make all hunters happy, not just the rich ones.

[glen sible]

Bob,
I would ask what is your definition of 'the state' ? I thought it was supposed to be all of US, not the DNR nor a room full of biologists. I also know that I perhaps need a heavy impact reality check.

Just a quick note: MUDH now reports over 14,000 members and growing. Could well be a future gateway to express the 'recreational hunters' concerns.


Thanks for reading and carry on.

glen

[double trouble]

the insurance industry and farm bureau would be happy with 0 deer. they have the money to push deer hunters out of this state.as hunting declines (fishing too) we will see less money pushed into these sports.so get used to it boys.the reel bad times are yet to come. fact!!

[trailsend]

[quote=BOB@BBT]Actually, the deer belong to the state, not hunters. And the state only wants 1.4 million of them. Fairness or parity among all recreational hunters isn't at the top of the list, when the biologists get in a room to decide what is best for the state as a whole.
The state, and now this article, have been pretty clear in expressing what the new reality is to be for the foreseeable future. The simple alternatives are:
1. Improve your land if you hunt private land.
2. Gain access to private land, through leasing or permission, if you have none.
3. Hunt public land but expect to see fewer deer than you may have in the past.
4. Hunt out of state if you are unhappy.

As the article clearly states "but like it or not, what you see is likely what you will get for years to come."
The old days of 50 deer per mile and plentiful deer sightings on marginal habitat are either over in your area or will be ending soon. Everyone may as well get used to that fact and adapt accordingly.[/quote)

I have read and reread this over and over and left only to return because it has just made me see red. The state of michigan, wich is really all the people of michigan is telling us to lump it or leave it? I do not argue that deer populations need fixin in areas.Fairness and parity among hunters and residents of the state should be there number one concern.

[Nimrod1]

I have read and reread this over and over and left only to return because it has just made me see red. The state of michigan, wich is really all the people of michigan is telling us to lump it or leave it? I do not argue that deer populations need fixin in areas.Fairness and parity among hunters and residents of the state should be there number one concern.

As I see it, the health of the herd and the health of the habitat should be their #1 concern.

[farmlegend]

The DNR is in for trouble if they don't come up with some answers to make all hunters happy, not just the rich ones.

Making hunters happy is not even a part of the DNR's mission statement.

Making all hunters happy is an impossibility, for anyone, anywhere, anytime.

Fairness and parity among hunters and residents of the state should be there number one concern.

Why is that? Again, not part of their mission.

[trailsend]

FL, Good question. Here is my reply take it as you will. If the DNR has no mission to make the hunters of michigan happy, then why waste our time and tax money on info meetings that ask for our opinions?

[Swamper]

Great article and thanks for posting.

The DNR manages our natural resources, they are not responsible for making any group "happy" (hunters, fisherman, hikers, bikers, etc). Its great that they ask hunters for feedback and input to be included in their policy making. But I certainly don't expect their mission is to make me happy, nor would I want it to be such a mission.

Swamper

[huntingfool43]

So it makes no difference that the state loses all the revenue generated from deer hunting either? They do have a responsability to keep the hunters interest in mind when making their polices, the deer belong to everyone not the DNR or just a select few but everone in the state and to manage the herd for a select few is irresopsible to put it mildly.

[Due51]

Why weren't those complaints made in 1989-90, when the DNR was estimating the herd at 1.9 million to 2 million?
We weren't complaining because we were seeing deer and bagging them.

[Liver and Onions]

We weren't complaining because we were seeing deer and bagging them.

So what have you done besides complain & whine ? There are certainly a lot of "welfare hunters" in Michigan......hunters who expect the State to hold their hand and lead them to the deer. They don't want to actually have to do any work....that's someone elses job. Are you one of them ?

L & O

[jimmyboy]

The DNR's job is to keep the deer happy?

[NEMichsportsman]

So what have you done besides complain & whine ? There are certainly a lot of "welfare hunters" in Michigan......hunters who expect the State to hold their hand and lead them to the deer. They don't want to actually have to do any work....that's someone elses job. Are you one of them ?
L & O

Kinda harsh isn't it?

Welfare Hunters? I am guessing this is some demeaning term referring to a State Land Hunter. If so I guess I rely on "Welfare" 75% of the time I hunt..........

Assuming Due51 is a state land hunter what are his options quit hunting altogether, hunt with a camera and not his rifle or bow, or find a way to be appointed as a NRC Commisioner the next time there is an opening?

[Scout 2]

It is posts like the one that calls names such as welfare hunters that the antis love to read. I think before anyone posts on here or anywhere they should choose their words a little more carefully. Your statement probably applies to 2/3's of the hunters in this state as they hunt on state land or as a guest on someone elses land.

[Ranger Ray]

Now hear this! Now hear this! Will all deer please distribute yourself equally throughout the state. I think everyone miss uses the total population goal in wrong context. The goal is 1.4 million deer hopefully spread out thru the whole state. We get all exited because we think that if the 1.4 million is in zone 3 then to bad for everyone else. The real goal is to manage for carrying capacity per DMU. Population swings will always be part of the management of our deer. When correcting for a high population of deer in an area you will correct to a population under that goal. When correcting for a under population the herd will have grown to over that goal before the correction is made.
Hunt public land but expect to see fewer deer than you may have in the past.
We have seen this DMU population correction in Mason, Lake and other counties this year with no public land doe permits. I only expect my public land hunting in Mason to slowly get better from here on out. I wouldn't doubt if we see the population hit 1.9 to 2 million again before the overpopulation in the southern zone and underpopulation in the northern get corrected, unless of course it could coincide exactly at the same time.

[GVDocHoliday]

FL, Good question. Here is my reply take it as you will. If the DNR has no mission to make the hunters of michigan happy, then why waste our time and tax money on info meetings that ask for our opinions?

I'm not too sure that the goal of these meetings were to get hunters opinions. They were more informational hearings to inform the public of how they, the DNR, plan to manage the herd and what their goals our for the deer herd in this state.

[Due51]

So what have you done besides complain & whine ? There are certainly a lot of "welfare hunters" in Michigan......hunters who expect the State to hold their hand and lead them to the deer. They don't want to actually have to do any work....that's someone elses job. Are you one of them ?

L & O

What are you talking about? If you took my post as a complaint or a whine, then you need to re-read. I don't expect the state to do anything for me. I do all my own work which includes asking questions on this site. Obviously, I'll never ask you for help.

[huntingfool43]

I'm not too sure that the goal of these meetings were to get hunters opinions. They were more informational hearings to inform the public of how they, the DNR, plan to manage the herd and what their goals our for the deer herd in this state.

If they were not interested in what we had to say then why allow hunters to speak at the meetings.

[trailsend]

I'm not too sure that the goal of these meetings were to get hunters opinions. They were more informational hearings to inform the public of how they, the DNR, plan to manage the herd and what their goals our for the deer herd in this state.


If you have realplayer go to this website http://wluctv6.com/ and download the discovery program show. You will then see and hear Natural Resourse Commisioner John Madigan tell us he intends to go to lansing and do just that.

[scott kavanaugh]

I'm not posting here to try and argue with the elitest ideas in the prior posts, it wouldn't do any good. But, for everyone else it would truly be unfortunate and a sad time for our sport if the elitest are basically all that is left to represent our sport against the antis because we've allowed hunting to be structured for that minority. Hunters right now represent something like 10% of Michigan's population.
The bottom line is we can not allow vast tracts of 0 - low and patches of ok - high deer populations in the State be the norm. The DNR regulates natural resources so they are being asked by the majority of the hunting constituents to account for the job they are doing and make improvements
to help perpetuate the sport that contributes hugely to wildlife, the DNR's operational income, and Michigan's economy. We can't allow ourselves to lose sight of this and sacrifice the State's rich hunting heritage.
People being upset with the DNR over bogus deer estimations or the equations or schematics of how lots of people are going a week without
seeing a deer (valid or not) is not going to keep or entice people to our sport.

[marty]

If they were not interested in what we had to say then why allow hunters to speak at the meetings.

Also at roscoomom we were given flyers with questions and scales to rate issues about the DNR . They probably didn't care for the results but I'd sure like to know the grade they got:yikes: . I bet they didn't make the honor roll with michigan hunters at that meeting :lol: ........m;)

[brdhntr]

Actually, the deer belong to the state, not hunters. And the state only wants 1.4 million of them. Fairness or parity among all recreational hunters isn't at the top of the list, when the biologists get in a room to decide what is best for the state as a whole.
The state, and now this article, have been pretty clear in expressing what the new reality is to be for the foreseeable future. The simple alternatives are:
1. Improve your land if you hunt private land.
2. Gain access to private land, through leasing or permission, if you have none.
3. Hunt public land but expect to see fewer deer than you may have in the past.
4. Hunt out of state if you are unhappy.

As the article clearly states "but like it or not, what you see is likely what you will get for years to come."
The old days of 50 deer per mile and plentiful deer sightings on marginal habitat are either over in your area or will be ending soon. Everyone may as well get used to that fact and adapt accordingly.

Bob,
You forgot to mention that the state land hunters can provide input to help the state manage the forests to provide better deer habitat. The Compartment Reviews are an ongoing project. If the deer hunters unhappy with the way things are going spent half the time pushing for habitat improvement at these Reviews instead of griping here, we could possibly turn the tide on the Sierra Club and get some habitat improvement. As it stands now, the "old growth" crowd is getting what they want, and simply that equates to fewer deer (and grouse) in our state forests.

[NorthJeff]

Great post Bob, thanks for sharing!

[Sib]

Why weren't those complaints made in 1989-90, when the DNR was estimating the herd at 1.9 million to 2 million?

I think a lot has to do with the growth of the deer hunting industry. Look at how big deer hunting is as a business compared to 16 years ago. We had a few mags and a few tapes back then vs dozens upon dozens of mags and thousands of video offerings today. Cable has hunts on regularly, when you hardly saw a hunt 16 years ago. We also have the internet to share stories and photos. Peoples expectations have changed because of the images they see. You used to have to really search to see a pic of the "hole in the horn" buck, today we supposedly know the story of Romplola and have seen the pic hundreds of times.

What's changed? Or expectations, we see so many pics of great deer, we actually expect to see those great deer, even though the pics we see are the best of the best. Our attitudes, we think we know more because the internet gives us instant access, see any DNR deer goal thread for proof.

Basically, we've allowed the graven image of awesome bucks distort our expectations and then we are arrogant enough to actually feel we know more about the species than those who've spent their life studying and researching.

All offered as opinion, but that's the major difference I see between then and now, the disconnect between what people see on paper and what they see in the woods accounts for the complaints.

[yooperkenny]

With the right plan & financial backing, there is no reason that the carrying capacity of State land in the NLP & UP can't be improved... I am willing to pay more for any license or permit to improve the habitat on State land...I don't recall any of the reports from any deer management meeting that hunters were asking what can be done to improve the carrying capacity...

In case you weren't aware, you already ARE paying to improve habitat in the NLP and UP - it's called the DRIP fund and $1.50 from each deer license sold since 1971 has gone into it. Millions of dollars unavailable to the DNR for its intended purpose because our state legislature has not appropriated the money. We all need to call or write our state reps!

Also FYI There was discussion at the Marquette DNR meeting 1/17 regarding improving carrying capacity through habitat management including DRIP $$ and protecting yarding areas.

[fairfax1]

Big bucks....like skinny beautiful women..........are really rare. But you couldn't tell that by the magazine covers or most of the media images. I think Sib gave us a clue here: Expectations are much higher now.

Hence, there is shriller whine in the old complaints of 'not enough big bucks', 'poor gene pool', 'incompetent DNR', 'greedy insurance companies'....blah, blah, blah.

Yup, I agree with Sib. The intensity has ramped up.

15years ago, heck, 10yrs ago........ask about the size of a 'G-2' with your average group of hunters and most of 'em would of thought you were talkin' about trucks. Now, 14-year olds in their first season know about --and talk about ---buck to doe ratios.

.

[GVDocHoliday]

Now, 14-year olds in their first season know about --and talk about ---buck to doe ratios.

I consider that a good thing and the start of a wonderful deer hunting future here in MI.

[Whit1]

I agree with Sib about heightened expectations within a core of deer hunters and that can be a good thing or bad thing.

On the positive side, not only were G-2s a truck topic, but anything dealing with habitat improvement (other than clearcutting aspen and deeryard degradation) was strange fodder to hear as well. Many of today's hunters, whether they stalk private land or public in pursuit of whitetails, have taken it upon themselves to learn about deer and their needs. That is the gift of education.

[Pinefarm]

Fairfax, go to New York, California, Texas, Florida, etc. and you'll see beautiful skinny women virtually everywhere. ;) Seriously.

[farmlegend]

Fairfax, go to New York, California, Texas, Florida, etc. and you'll see beautiful skinny women virtually everywhere. ;) Seriously.

Great point, Bob. What are they doing in those states that we aren't doing in Michigan?

I know, I know, apples and oranges. You cannot compare Michigan to....:cool:

[fairfax1]

How quickly can we get ourselves in trouble nudging the thread in this direction? I've been in trouble for less. Too often.

Snakebit ;)

[GRUNDY]

Sib knows the score.

All the big buck images being pushed on us by all the big money publishing companies. I undrstand and agree with QDM. But what ever happened to the days when you could shoot a 4pt or small 6pt and not be embarassed? Afterall, especially on state land, you probably hunted hard for that deer, probably harder and smarter than the guys in the videos and magazines. Many times I've watched small spikes in lake county act alot smarter than the last big buck I watched get shot in the drury vidoes. Its time alot of guys realize this is not Sasketchewan or southern Illinois, or Iowa. Most QDM handbooks will tell striaght up that some areas may not produce consistently huge deer, or alot of them.

Brian

[Ferg]

How quickly can we get ourselves in trouble nudging the thread in this direction? I've been in trouble for less. Too often.

Snakebit ;)

LOL - Good boy !

:lol:

ferg....

[GVDocHoliday]

Actually in most CCC redpine planted forests you're starting to see regeneration of oaks and whitepine...in other words most redpine forests are aging and not being utilized and the forests are reverting back to their pre settlement state of Oak and Whitepine. Both of which are very tolerant species. As the whitepine and oak continue to grow they'll crowd out the redpines which are an intolerant species when it comes to over crowding. That's why when you see cutting if redpins they only clear out every other row. This increases the growth in diameter of redpines nearly exponentially. But as long as over crowding is taking place then the whitepine and oaks will win out.

[Pinefarm]

TV shows and magazines are only responding to the market. If anything, the popularity of those those and magazines reveals the truth of what most hunters really hope for. If most hunters truely only thought about meat and "you can't eat the horns", then nobody would watch those shows or buy the mag's. But that's not the case, is it? In fact, hunters can't get enough of the hope of seeing more mature animals.

[Nick Adams]

But as long as over crowding is taking place then the whitepine and oaks will win out.

There is unrest in the forest, There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight And the oaks ignore their pleas.
The trouble with the maples, (And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty, And they grab up all the light.

But the oaks can't help their feelings If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples Can't be happy in their shade.
There is trouble in the forest, And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!", And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union, And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy; We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression, For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal, By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Rush, Hemispheres, The Trees


;-)

-na