DMAP Saga

[farmlegend]

It has been discussed here, ad nauseum, that the three antlerless tag per hunter limit in Michigan, adopted in 2006, is biologically indefensible and opposed by not only every serious deer manager in this state but also, off the record, by every wildlife biologist within the Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

It has been pointed out that landowners have the simple option of getting Deer Management Assistance Permits, commonly known as "DMAP tags". This has been used as either an ameliorant from the authorities, as in "well, you can't buy as many antlerless tags as you used to, but you can get DMAP's and still accomplish your management objectives", or, by others, as in, "what's the big deal, quit complaining, just go get yourself some DMAP tags".

Here's the problem - because the procurement of DMAP tags is less convenient than showing up at the counter and buying a private land antlerless tag, at the end of the day, fewer antlerless deer are going to get killed. And that, fellas, is not in the best interest of those who care about getting deer numbers in the SLP to desired levels.

Now, as to the specifics of actually getting DMAP tags, I humbly submit my 2007 DMAP procurement saga.

July 7(the first day that DMAPs can be requested is July 1): Called Grass Lake field office, no answer, left voice mail message.
July 13: Called field office again, no answer, left another voice mail message. Then called regional office in Rose Lake, and spoke to an employee, a woman who appeared to be a veteran staffer at this office. It did not appear that she was having a good day.

I got what I regarded as a snippy "third degree" sort of interrogation from this person as to why I wanted DMAPs. Must have asked 15 questions, such as, "why do you need them, what kind of damage are you experiencing, what crops have you planted, how much damage is there, what do you mean by damage?", and my personal favorite, "sir, do you even know what a DMAP is?"
Some questions were repeated more than once. It was clear to me that this woman was negatively disposed toward me getting my DMAPs. Of course, I was at all times polite and respectful. She took down my contact information so that my regional biologist (a recently-hired young woman) could contact me, and specified that a site visit would be likely. She was not happy with the fact that my hunting property had no mail address.

July 18: Having received no call from the biologist, I left a message for her.

July 19: Received call from biologist, very cordial, and we discussed my request. Being new, she was inexperienced with the process. She called back with some followup questions for me.

July 20: Performed a telephone "walk-thru" application with the biologist, and the form was mailed to me.

July 24: Received application for DMAPs in mail.

July 25: Signed and returned application.

August 2: Received approved DMAP package in mail, containing approved application, landowner worksheet to be filled out and submitted in January, instructions, logs, and letter signed by unit supervisor. All I had to do now was wait until September 1, the first day which DMAPs can be purchased.

September 19: Visited Gander Mountain's largest Michigan store in Novi. Store manager assisted in the transaction; no one there had ever processed DMAPs before, and, in spite of the fact that I provided them with my entire package of stuff, it wasn't happening. A phone call to Lansing was made, and soon (within 20 minutes), my yellow DMAP tags came spitting out of the machine. In the retailer's defense, they shared with me their three-ring bindered Michigan Hunting and Fishing License manual, and it contained nothing regarding DMAPs.

Now, there are guys like me that are prepared to see this through and get their DMAPs. And there are guys that will get them with less difficulty than I experienced. But the unfortunate thing is, that guys that previously would have bought more than three antlerless tags will not do so because of the hassle, real or perceived, of procuring DMAP tags. And heck, next season, depending on my schedule, that could include me.

We really need to go back to the one-per-day system. Cheaper, more efficient, and more in line with our management needs.

[Swamp Ghost]

Looks like my mom and grandma will be harvesting alot more does :evil:

[QDMAMAN]

Looks like my mom and grandma will be harvesting alot more does :evil:


:lol::lol::lol: Is Granny still packin the side by side 16 ga. with the 00 buck?

[QDMAMAN]

my regional biologist (a recently-hired young woman)


FL,
I think this is the root of your issue with the process. You didn't get a site visit from the "recently-hire young woman".:mad::lol:

[Swamp Ghost]

:lol::lol::lol: Is Granny still packin the side by side 16 ga. with the 00 buck?

She upgraded to a Benellli SBE with 3.5" #4 buck ;)

[beer and nuts]

Why don't you invite friends/neighbors/relatives and/or other hunters to help in your harvest of does??

Serious question: Why do you continue to improve and better your property to hold and attract more and more deer, but complain you can not get enough doe permits to reduce the your herd on your property???

[farmlegend]

B&N, to me, this isn't about my hunting property. My concern is about the policy which has been established, which is detrimental to deer management across the SLP.

On your "serious" question, I do have guests that hunt my property, and they do a good job of harvesting does. The deer density at my farm is pretty well in line. One of my guests, who usually hunts the M/L or late antlerless season at my place, was hamstrung last season by the new regs - he had previously taken two does in another DMU, and had already purchased an antlerless tag for that DMU, rendering him ineligible to hunt at my place in December. I big part of my motivation for getting the DMAPs was to make sure something like that doesn't happen this year.

[Swamp Ghost]

Why don't you invite friends/neighbors/relatives and/or other hunters to help in your harvest of does??

I do



Serious question: Why do you continue to improve and better your property to hold and attract more and more deer, but complain you can not get enough doe permits to reduce the your herd on your property???

The improvements are fun and make deer hunting a year round activity. Some call it complaining, others call it pointing out the absurdity in the DNR's rationale in reducing the OTC antlerless permits and DMAP process.

[Brian S]

Isn't the DMAP supposed to be used by farmers whose crops are being damaged by deer?

[Michihunter]

Not sure I understand the complaint. If someone WANTS to shoot more does, they can. I understand your frustrations, but until people regularly use their already legally obtainable 3rd doe tag on a regular basis, (which is very very far from happening- I believe it's less than 2% of those eligible) and the few that want more does can obtain DMAPs, why is this a problem? How many people actually fit the description of yourself FL? You are asking regulations to be changed for a VERY minimal amount of hunters. I find it odd that the best deer available in this state are from the same area that people continually spout that the health of the herd is failing. To say the health of the herd is concerning seems to be contradictory to the visible evidence to the contrary. There are more deer in the SLP but a lot of hunters that like it that way.

[farmlegend]

Isn't the DMAP supposed to be used by farmers whose crops are being damaged by deer?

I am actively engaged in agriculture, and have the determination letter from the USDA to prove it. There are agricultural crops on my land which are being damaged by deer.

BTW, the purpose of DMAPs is slightly broader than what you described.

[farmlegend]

Not sure I understand the complaint.
Go back and re-read post #7. My objection is to the inappropriate policy.

until people regularly use their already legally obtainable 3rd doe tag on a regular basis, (which is very very far from happening- I believe it's less than 2% of those eligible) and the few that want more does can obtain DMAPs, why is this a problem?
Because it is inappropriate to achieving the stated population objectives of the MIDNR for the SLP. The old policy was more appropriate, and a step backward was taken.


How many people actually fit the description of yourself FL?
As in, those that are desirous of achieving appropriate deer densities in the SLP? Quite of few, I'd guess, and many of them are not even deer hunters. If that's not what you're getting at, you are off-topic and I suggest you start a new thread.

I find it odd that the best deer available in this state are from the same area that people continually spout that the health of the herd is failing. To say the health of the herd is concerning seems to be contradictory to the visible evidence to the contrary.
Seriously off-topic.


There are more deer in the SLP but a lot of hunters that like it that way.
Of course a lot of hunters like it that way. To most hunters, the problem of having too many deer is analgous to the problem of having too much money. But what hunters frequently desire (in this case, more deer) is entirely contrary to the public interest, and this is not disputed. There is a reason why the Department of Natural Resources is not called the Department of Deer Hunter Satisfaction.

[Swamp Ghost]

There is a reason why the Department of Natural Resources is not called the Department of Deer Hunter Satisfaction.

Good stuff, too bad they often forget that.

[Brian S]

There are agricultural crops on my land which are being damaged by deer.

.

Just curious.

What crops are those?

[beer and nuts]

There are agricultural crops on my land which are being damaged by deer If this is true, then again I'll ask you....WHYdo you continue to improve and better your property to hold and attract more and more deer, but complain you can not get enough doe permits to reduce the your herd on your property??? Makes no sense to me what so ever...your contradicting yourself...

Seems to me your making your own trouble that your complaining about...improve habitat, plant food plots, attract more deer, hold more deer...complain that you cannot get more doe permits because there are too many deer on the property causing crop damage..what the heck!?!?! Is anybody else following this....

[November Sunrise]

Isn't the DMAP supposed to be used by farmers whose crops are being damaged by deer?

Up in the right hand corner of the DMAP form is a box that states "FOR DNR USE ONLY".

There are then three options that the biologist can check in terms of why they're approving DMAP'S for a given landowner:

1) Agricultural damage
2) Safety concerns
3) Population Control

My take on this is that the program is administered as it should be, in the sense that a field biologist has the autonomy to make a good decision based on the appropriateness of the request as it applies to each specific landowner's property.

[huntingfool43]

If this is true, then again I'll ask you....WHYdo you continue to improve and better your property to hold and attract more and more deer, but complain you can not get enough doe permits to reduce the your herd on your property??? Makes no sense to me what so ever...your contradicting yourself...

Seems to me your making your own trouble that your complaining about...improve habitat, plant food plots, attract more deer, hold more deer...complain that you cannot get more doe permits because there are too many deer on the property causing crop damage..what the heck!?!?! Is anybody else following this....

beer and nuts

You hit the nail on the head. Anyone who wants to make the improvements and the complain about crop damage do not deserve any help from the DNR.

[Michihunter]

Up in the right hand corner of the DMAP form is a box that states "FOR DNR USE ONLY".

There are then three options that the biologist can check in terms of why they're approving DMAP'S for a given landowner:

1) Agricultural damage
2) Safety concerns
3) Population Control

My take on this is that the program is administered as it should be, in the sense that a field biologist has the autonomy to make a good decision based on the appropriateness of the request as it applies to each specific landowner's property.

I would agree with you NS. This is Micro Management at its finest. ;)

[QDMAMAN]

Here's the problem - because the procurement of DMAP tags is less convenient than showing up at the counter and buying a private land antlerless tag, at the end of the day, fewer antlerless deer are going to get killed. And that, fellas, is not in the best interest of those who care about getting deer numbers in the SLP to desired levels.

Now, there are guys like me that are prepared to see this through and get their DMAPs. And there are guys that will get them with less difficulty than I experienced. But the unfortunate thing is, that guys that previously would have bought more than three antlerless tags will not do so because of the hassle, real or perceived, of procuring DMAP tags. And heck, next season, depending on my schedule, that could include me.

We really need to go back to the one-per-day system. Cheaper, more efficient, and more in line with our management needs.


I think this sums up what farmlegend is trying to get across, and I agree.
The 3 antlerless limit was purely a political move to oil the squeeky wheel of those that claimed the MDNR was trying to wipe out the deer herd and that there were guys that could buy 100 antlerless tags/year. NO FAIR THEY SAID, DO SOMETHING THEY SAID! So the NRC inquires as to how many hunters actually buy more than 3 antlerless tags/year and are informed its around 2-3%. Violet then lets limit everybody to 3 tags to give the impression that we've heard the cry of the people and totally ignore the responsible hunters that are doing their part to alieviate the burgeoning deer herd in this state...makes sense to me.

Big T

[QDMAMAN]

beer and nuts

You hit the nail on the head. Anyone who wants to make the improvements and the complain about crop damage do not deserve any help from the DNR.


Why are you guys concerned with what FL does or doesn't do with his property?
Heck he could lease all the tillable ground he has to a farmer and it won't make a bit of difference in controling his deer population. He's only pointing out the inconvient nature of the DMAP program and how those that are less commited than him may choose to opt out and add to the problem of high deer numbers when the old permit-a-day-till-they're-gone system dealt more adequetly with the problem.

Big T

[Swamp Ghost]

If this is true, then again I'll ask you....WHYdo you continue to improve and better your property to hold and attract more and more deer, but complain you can not get enough doe permits to reduce the your herd on your property??? Makes no sense to me what so ever...your contradicting yourself...

Seems to me your making your own trouble that your complaining about...improve habitat, plant food plots, attract more deer, hold more deer...complain that you cannot get more doe permits because there are too many deer on the property causing crop damage..what the heck!?!?! Is anybody else following this....

Farmlegend's place makes it easier to balance the surrounding area's buck slaughter with an increased antlerless harvest on his. Farmlegend and other's like him adhere to the "Moths to a flame" habitat mantra, without it you would never come close to making a dent in the area doe population.;)

Anyone who wants to make the improvements and the complain about crop damage do not deserve any help from the DNR.

How is the DNR helping? :lol::lol::lol:

[swoosh]

If this is true, then again I'll ask you....WHYdo you continue to improve and better your property to hold and attract more and more deer, but complain you can not get enough doe permits to reduce the your herd on your property??? Makes no sense to me what so ever...your contradicting yourself...

Seems to me your making your own trouble that your complaining about...improve habitat, plant food plots, attract more deer, hold more deer...complain that you cannot get more doe permits because there are too many deer on the property causing crop damage..what the heck!?!?! Is anybody else following this....

Because he owns it and he can;)

[November Sunrise]

Until people regularly use their already legally obtainable 3rd doe tag on a regular basis, (which is very very far from happening- I believe it's less than 2% of those eligible) and the few that want more does can obtain DMAPs, why is this a problem?

The significance of the 2% relates back to the Perrato Principle, also known as the 80/20 rule. In sales organizations it means that 20% of the salespeople will make approximately 80% of the sales. In a capitalist society it means that around 80% of the wealth will be held by 20% of the population, etc. Within the top 20% there is also another major distinction between the top 20% of that group as related to the remaining 80%. In essence the Perrato Principle points to the fact that in any endeavor there is a small core group of achievers who have a large influence on the aggregrate.

In the world of deer hunting, it means that there are a small group of prolific doe shooters who are being hampered with these current regulations. They are a tiny percentage of the entire hunting population, but with the tag structure of that was in effect through '05 they did account for a relevant percentage of the entire doe harvest in their respective areas.

Also, keep in mind that while 80% of SLP hunters hunt on private land, less than 25% of those individuals are hunting on their own land. The majority of private land hunters are guests (usually family or friends) of the landowner. This means that they would not be able to get DMAP permits on their own, and many of the landowners would not be interested in filing and then fulfilling the paperwork requirements that go with DMAP's. DMAP's require a full listing of everyone who was issued a tag, including their name, address, DNR customer ID #, # of deer tagged per season (archery, firearm, muzzleloader, etc.) and reports have to be completed and returned to the appropriate biologist by January 15th in order to be eligible to apply for permits the following year. The landowner also has to collect the unfilled tags back from hunters.

There is no science behind the antlerless tag limitations in the SLP. It was a political move by the NRC and it is not supported by leadership or field biologists within the DNR.

The net result is that for some us it ties our hands. I hunt five counties. In my primary area of Calhoun County I get DMAP's and for my other main spot in Ingham County I buy my three tag limit. As a result, I'm forced to be a buck only hunter in Jackson, Eaton, and Hillsdale counties. It is the height of absurdity that I have to pass up does in high density deer areas in Jackson County. Meanwhile, Jackson County will end the year with 5,000-10,000 unsold tags.

[SgtSlaughter]

beer and nuts

You hit the nail on the head. Anyone who wants to make the improvements and the complain about crop damage do not deserve any help from the DNR.

Why?

They are two separate issues. Just because their is an over population of deer doesn't mean you should be faulted for improving your hunting property.

[farmlegend]

If this is true, then again I'll ask you....WHYdo you continue to improve and better your property to hold and attract more and more deer, but complain you can not get enough doe permits to reduce the your herd on your property???


As Ayn Rand used to say, there are no contradictions in the universe; if you believe you have found one, check your premises, and you will find that one of them is false.
In this case, you have suggested that I have made habitat changes designed to hold and attract more and more deer. I'm not interested in that. The habitat work I have performed is directed at creating a diverse landscape for the benefit of tons of wildlife species other than deer. Indeed, some of the projects I've conducted may be considered contrary to creating a landscape favorable to deer. Off the top of my head, I've now flooded two woodlands, taking several acres each out of forest and putting them under water; how many deer hunters in farm country, where woods are at a premium, take steps to reduce their woodland acreage?. Also, when I did a timber harvest in 2003, I intentionally left a few spots in old growth - not exactly a strategy that a serious deer hunter would suggest.

[Ferg]

Please keep this on topic - what is growing on FL's property is of no interest to this topic - nor should it be - this is about the DMAP process - lets stick with that -

ferg....

[November Sunrise]

The DMAP process - lets stick with that

My experience with DMAP's has been through the Plainwell office. Last year the NRC waited until August to define antlerless regulations, so the DMAP process in '06 ran into late September. This year everything went very smooth and I received all my paperwork back well before the youth season.

The license agent that I purchased from this year had never sold any DMAP's so it took a few minutes for him to determine the appropriate code, but once he found the right code there were no additional problems.

[farmlegend]

Farmlegend's place makes it easier to balance the surrounding area's buck slaughter with an increased antlerless harvest on his. Farmlegend and other's like him adhere to the "Moths to a flame" habitat mantra, without it you would never come close to making a dent in the area doe population.;)

Good point; in an area of below-average deer densities by SLP standards (DNR says I have 32 dpsm, pre-harvest; the target is around 28 dpsm), we take 8-10 does a year off my place. Given that neighboring hunters take far fewer does, it could be said that without my harvest, local deer numbers would quickly explode out of control.

Brian S, for what it's worth, there's 78 acres of active cropland on my farm, all of it in a combination of soybeans and corn each year.

[Michihunter]

The significance of the 2% relates back to the Perrato Principle, also known as the 80/20 rule. In sales organizations it means that 20% of the salespeople will make approximately 80% of the sales. In a capitalist society it means that around 80% of the wealth will be held by 20% of the population, etc. Within the top 20% there is also another major distinction between the top 20% of that group as related to the remaining 80%. In essence the Perrato Principle points to the fact that in any endeavor there is a small core group of achievers who have a large influence on the aggregrate.

In the world of deer hunting, it means that there are a small group of prolific doe shooters who are being hampered with these current regulations. They are a tiny percentage of the entire hunting population, but with the tag structure of that was in effect through '05 they did account for a relevant percentage of the entire doe harvest in their respective areas.

Also, keep in mind that while 80% of SLP hunters hunt on private land, less than 25% of those individuals are hunting on their own land. The majority of private land hunters are guests (usually family or friends) of the landowner. This means that they would not be able to get DMAP permits on their own, and many of the landowners would not be interested in filing and then fulfilling the paperwork requirements that go with DMAP's. DMAP's require a full listing of everyone who was issued a tag, including their name, address, DNR customer ID #, # of deer tagged per season (archery, firearm, muzzleloader, etc.) and reports have to be completed and returned to the appropriate biologist by January 15th in order to be eligible to apply for permits the following year. The landowner also has to collect the unfilled tags back from hunters.

There is no science behind the antlerless tag limitations in the SLP. It was a political move by the NRC and it is not supported by leadership or field biologists within the DNR.

The net result is that for some us it ties our hands. I hunt five counties. In my primary area of Calhoun County I get DMAP's and for my other main spot in Ingham County I buy my three tag limit. As a result, I'm forced to be a buck only hunter in Jackson, Eaton, and Hillsdale counties. It is the height of absurdity that I have to pass up does in high density deer areas in Jackson County. Meanwhile, Jackson County will end the year with 5,000-10,000 unsold tags.

NS- I'm not sure I understand completely what you are trying to say here? If there are 10k antlerless tags STILL unsold in Jackson County and yet Jackson County has a doe problem, why aren't they sold? Could it be that people do not have the access to private land in that area and as such have no need to obtain one? And if a person owns land there and there's a doe problem, can't he apply for DMAP's? I still can't see how this is all the DNR's fault. They have available to all the tools necessary for US to do the job. Force feeding a principle that isn't agreed on by the MAJORITY of hunters in a given area isn't something I would particularly want. Although I'm not an anarchist, I still believe that the Government has already got their hands in to too many things they don't belong in.

[farmlegend]

NS- I'm not sure I understand completely what you are trying to say here? If there are 10k antlerless tags STILL unsold in Jackson County and yet Jackson County has a doe problem, why aren't they sold? Could it be that people do not have the access to private land in that area and as such have no need to obtain one? And if a person owns land there and there's a doe problem, can't he apply for DMAP's? I still can't see how this is all the DNR's fault. They have available to all the tools necessary for US to do the job.

Re-read post #23. NS explained it well.

Only LANDOWNERS can apply for DMAPs. Most deer hunters in Jackson county are not landowners. And DMAPs are inconvenient for landowners to apply for, manage, and report upon.

As to deer health, once again, I invite you to start a new thread.

[Swamp Ghost]

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1248432

[Ferg]

Force feeding a principle that isn't agreed on by the MAJORITY of hunters in a given area isn't something I would particularly want. Although I'm not an anarchist, I still believe that the Government has already got their hands in to too many things they don't belong in.

I've said this a million times on these boards - you DO NOT want to put hunting regulations to a vote of any body, ever, you won't be happy with the results - deer management regulations are just that regulations and the DNR needs the freedom to make them on the fly from year to year without being hindered by 'votes' - ask the dove hunters how they feel about a majority votiing on hunting regulations - :yikes:

back to the topic please -

ferg....

[Michihunter]

I've said this a million times on these boards - you DO NOT want to put hunting regulations to a vote of any body, ever, you won't be happy with the results - deer management regulations are just that regulations and the DNR needs the freedom to make them on the fly from year to year without being hindered by 'votes' - ask the dove hunters how they feel about a majority votiing on hunting regulations - :yikes:

back to the topic please -

ferg....

Actually that was my point Ferg. In fact its one that I've made on this particular board several dozen times. But the issue is this, if we cannot agree at the "hunter" level, than we sure as heck aren't going to get any sympathy from the general public level. I will reiterate this one last time, the TOOLS are already out there for hunters to accomplish the goals that the FEW want to accomplish. Forcing mandates are only going to cause an uproar and in so doing you will be guaranteed to wake up a sleeping giant. As the old adage goes, Be careful what you wish for!! Isn't this more than evident by what the "squeaky" congressman accomplished? Or the dove hunt proposals? How bout bear hunting? Do you think that the implementation of the mandates you suggest will be met with open arms by the almost 1 million hunters in this state? Is it not POSSIBLE that something as conflicting as these implementations could see us at a legislative level eventually due to hunter dismay? To say that it couldn't or wouldn't is extremely foolish in my opinion. So as you guys cast your cynical eye towards the DNR and its practices, perhaps you might look a little beyond what you "want" and see the potential effects on hunting as a whole.

[farmlegend]

But the issue is this, if we cannot agree at the "hunter" level, than we sure as heck aren't going to get any sympathy from the general public level.

I think it would be healthy if we could reconcile ourselves to the fact that there never will be agreement at the "hunter" level. Probably not even a consensus. And that's okay. Hunters comprise no more than 7% of Michigan's population, anyway, and they issues of deer management are ultimately larger than the parochial desires of deer hunters.

Just like Dr. Alt has openly postulated, as public awareness of the problems facing modern deer management increase, (ecosystem damage, car/deer accidents, diseases associated with excess deer populations, suburban deer problems, etc.)we are rapidly approaching the day when the silent 93% will demand fundamental changes in how we manage this resource. And they'll steamroll deer hunters like a truck tire does a pregnant bug. The future of recreational deer hunting depends heavily, if not entirely, upon the ability of hunters to sell themselves to the public as performing a free environmental and ecological service to society. Many here do not seem to grasp this, and our deer management leaders, at least here in Michigan, are reluctant to shoulder a role in leading us in the right direction, for fear of antagonizing hunters and also with an eye on license revenue(that old self-corrupting construct of financing our DNR with these fees inhibits their desire to act on issues like this).

Expect to see effective means of deer contraception. Expect to see private firms engaged to kill deer in an efficient and "professional" manner. Expect to see landowners economically incentivized to severely reduce deer numbers. When that day comes, we may look back at astonishment at how our leaders behaved as recently as 2007, when the writing was all but on the wall.

[jperry8]

I think it would be healthy if we could reconcile ourselves to the fact that there never will be agreement at the "hunter" level. Probably not even a consensus. And that's okay. Hunters comprise no more than 7% of Michigan's population, anyway, and they issues of deer management are ultimately larger than the parochial desires of deer hunters.

Just like Dr. Alt has openly postulated, as public awareness of the problems facing modern deer management increase, (ecosystem damage, car/deer accidents, diseases associated with excess deer populations, suburban deer problems, etc.)we are rapidly approaching the day when the silent 93% will demand fundamental changes in how we manage this resource. And they'll steamroll deer hunters like a truck tire does a pregnant bug. The future of recreational deer hunting depends heavily, if not entirely, upon the ability of hunters to sell themselves to the public as performing a free environmental and ecological service to society. Many here do not seem to grasp this, and our deer management leaders, at least here in Michigan, are reluctant to shoulder a role in leading us in the right direction, for fear of antagonizing hunters and also with an eye on license revenue(that old self-corrupting construct of financing our DNR with these fees inhibits their desire to act on issues like this).

Expect to see effective means of deer contraception. Expect to see private firms engaged to kill deer in an efficient and "professional" manner. Expect to see landowners economically incentivized to severely reduce deer numbers. When that day comes, we may look back at astonishment at how our leaders behaved as recently as 2007, when the writing was all but on the wall.

Excellent post! My thoughts and comments exactly.

[Tink]

Not sure I understand the complaint. If someone WANTS to shoot more does, they can. I understand your frustrations, but until people regularly use their already legally obtainable 3rd doe tag on a regular basis, (which is very very far from happening- I believe it's less than 2% of those eligible) and the few that want more does can obtain DMAPs, why is this a problem? How many people actually fit the description of yourself FL? You are asking regulations to be changed for a VERY minimal amount of hunters. I find it odd that the best deer available in this state are from the same area that people continually spout that the health of the herd is failing. To say the health of the herd is concerning seems to be contradictory to the visible evidence to the contrary. There are more deer in the SLP but a lot of hunters that like it that way.

What was the problem with letting people decide if they wanted a fourth tag. You contradict yourself by stating that the government needs to limit the tags being used, but then state in another post that you want the government involvement limited. What was the problem with the previous system. If only 2% of hunters were using more than 3 tags why did you have a problem with that. That system was not hurting the hunters whom used less tags.

The health of the herd cannot be described as good right now in the counties with overpopulation. What we are seeing is the limited potential of a herd. It appears to be good because some large deer are taken from these areas. What would be the case if we a had a herd in balance? The potential is great but it appears that settling for less is acceptable to most. I own land, I am eligible for DMAP's, I do not have the drive to go through that entire process to get them. Without having dealt with the Department of Ag. or the DNR first hand you cannot understand the frustration.

Crop damage is not caused by Habitat improvement, it is caused by an overpopulation of hungry animals. If the population was in check the limited "good Habitat" would sustain the herd. Good Habitat draws a lot of deer because there are too many deer in SLP. The good habitat enables us to more efficiently control the populations.
It is wrong to believe that because you don't see enough deer, eat enough venison, or have a population problem, that everyone is in the same boat.

[Michihunter]

Tink- I have NO problem whatsoever with more doe tags being available if the DNR so chose. But is it truly going to have ANY effect in the end? People are not using them now as was stated by the 10k leftover tags in Jackson County. For those that want more, they can go through a DMAP program that for some may seem frustrating, but for others not so bad. My issue is with additional mandates placed on hunters, not with LESS restrictions as would be the case if more antlerless permits were available. Hope that clears up my stance.;)

[farmlegend]

The health of the herd cannot be described as good right now in the counties with overpopulation. What we are seeing is the limited potential of a herd. It appears to be good because some large deer are taken from these areas. What would be the case if we a had a herd in balance? The potential is great but it appears that settling for less is acceptable to most. I own land, I am eligible for DMAP's, I do not have the drive to go through that entire process to get them. Without having dealt with the Department of Ag. or the DNR first hand you cannot understand the frustration.

Crop damage is not caused by Habitat improvement, it is caused by an overpopulation of hungry animals. If the population was in check the limited "good Habitat" would sustain the herd. Good Habitat draws a lot of deer because there are too many deer in SLP. The good habitat enables us to more efficiently control the populations.
It is wrong to believe that because you don't see enough deer, eat enough venison, or have a population problem, that everyone is in the same boat.

Great post, Tink. Wish I was in Osseo today!
Hope to be out your way tomorrow morning...real early!

[fairfax1]

I have read with keen interest FL's experience with the process of buying the DMAP's ....AFTER he's already been approved for them. I, too, have been approved for DMAP's....10 permits. I haven't gone to Meijer's yet to buy a single one, yet. I intend to do so this coming weekend....and will let you know how it goes.

But, as far as the process of getting approved....I would offer this advice: Make the effort to know and cultivate the local DNR biologist assigned to your area. I have worked with the man responsible for this county on other issues for the last several years. When it came to requesting approval for the DMAP's he could not have been more accomodating. From start to finish it was less than 3 weeks before I had the signed approval sheet in the mail.

Now, to be sure, he was not pleased (off-the-record) with the new limit of three for regular SLP private land hunters, but, he is a professional and supports the organization that pays his salary. Nonetheless he was receptive to my request. After all, his own 'Population' report indicates that this county is at least 70% 'over goal' in terms of the number of deer he feels is appropriate.

(To answer the unasked question: yes, I do farm; and yes, we have had extensive damage to soybean crops --- have the insurance adjuster's report to prove it).

I'm no longer sure what the deadlines are for applying for DMAP's....but, if you have deer-dirt in a SLP county with a high deer population I would suspect that --with a little perseverance---you can get enough DMAP's to begin reducing the population on your property. And, once you do it this year I'm pretty sure it will go smoother next year.

I liked the old way better.....going into Meijer's whenever I had to get milk and then buying a doe permit while there.....but, I'll take this alternative as an adequate substitute.

[Michihunter]

I have read with keen interest FL's experience with the process of buying the DMAP's ....AFTER he's already been approved for them. I, too, have been approved for DMAP's....10 permits. I haven't gone to Meijer's yet to buy a single one, yet. I intend to do so this coming weekend....and will let you know how it goes.

But, as far as the process of getting approved....I would offer this advice: Make the effort to know and cultivate the local DNR biologist assigned to your area. I have worked with the man responsible for this county on other issues for the last several years. When it came to requesting approval for the DMAP's he could not have been more accomodating. From start to finish it was less than 3 weeks before I had the signed approval sheet in the mail.

Now, to be sure, he was not pleased (off-the-record) with the new limit of three for regular SLP private land hunters, but, he is a professional and supports the organization that pays his salary. Nonetheless he was receptive to my request. After all, his own 'Population' report indicates that this county is at least 70% 'over goal' in terms of the number of deer he feels is appropriate.

(To answer the unasked question: yes, I do farm; and yes, we have had extensive damage to soybean crops --- have the insurance adjuster's report to prove it).

I'm no longer sure what the deadlines are for applying for DMAP's....but, if you have deer-dirt in a SLP county with a high deer population I would suspect that --with a little perseverance---you can get enough DMAP's to begin reducing the population on your property. And, once you do it this year I'm pretty sure it will go smoother next year.

I liked the old way better.....going into Meijer's whenever I had to get milk and then buying a doe permit while there.....but, I'll take this alternative as an adequate substitute.

Isn't the DMAP alternative cheaper as well?

[fairfax1]

Nope, you need to buy each permit as if it was a doe license.

[Critter]

If you buy 4 or more at a time do you get the 15% discount like regular tags?

[November Sunrise]

If you buy 4 or more at a time do you get the 15% discount like regular tags?

No.

[Critter]

Thanks for the info.

[jpa]

So if I have a friend who farms and lives in a county with no doe permits, and still obviously has an overabundance of deer it may be possible to get DMAP tags? Are the steps to follow posted anywhere? I tried to search them on the DNR site earlier this year with no success. If someone knows a link that would be great. I assume it would be too late for this year?????

Also I thought bowhunters were never just Buck Hunting. Can't both of the combo tags be used on a doe with a bow? Then a person in the SLP could still shoot 5 does a year if they are that concerned with the "buck slaughter" and the over-abundance of deer in their area.

[Shop Rat]

We really need to go back to the one-per-day system. Cheaper, more efficient, and more in line with our management needs.

The one per day system works, in my opinion. For someone who only wants one or two tags, that is what they buy. I might buy up to 5 in my area (t.b.)

[marty]

I'm no expert but the early oct anterless season seems to me is needed is southern MI. It worked real well in the north.. Five years of this and you won't have to worry about special permits:D

[William H Bonney]

Please keep this on topic - what is growing on FL's property is of no interest to this topic - ,,,,
ferg....

Actually,, I think it is and is probably the root of the problem......... seems as though these deer are having a case of the "munchies",,,, if FL would eliminate one of those "plots";),, those deer would eat half as much.:lol:

Problem solved.:D

[fairfax1]

In my earlier post to this thread I stated I would share my experience with purchasing the DMA permits. Here it is:

First, it went about as fast as any other time I have bought multiple licenses. T'weren't no bother, really.

Yesterday, Saturday, I called the sporting goods department of my local Meijer's to inquire if they were familiar with issuing DMAPs. The woman was tentative in responding...a bit hesitant and hardly confident. She said "is that where we run a whole string of 'em at one time?" I said "that's probably what I'm looking for."

When I got there one of the older male clerks helped me. He read the DNR paperwork I had authorizing such permits. He then began on the terminal and within minutes ran out a "string of 'em".........5 DMAPs, a PL antlerless permit, and my fall turkey permit. Then the woman who I had spoken to on the phone came up.....and now she was all business. She knew exactly what needed to be done and she reviewed my paperwork and the permits that her colleague had printed and said 'yup, that's what I thought you were asking about'. They charged me $50 for the 5 DMAPs I'll need between now and November 14th.
I'll be back there in December to get the other 5 that were authorized.

A bit of puzzlement though: (Maybe someone from the DNR will read this.)
Why not let us buy all 3 allowed private land permits at one time.....instead of the 1 a day limit? I mean, now that the quota has been so drastically cut.....just let us buy all we are allowed to buy on one single transaction.

..............................................

Then, I'll try to answer this post from above: "Can't both of the combo tags be used on does with a bow? Then a person in the SLP could still shoot 5 does a year if they are that concerned with the "buck slaughter" and the over-abundance of deer in their area."

Yes indeed. If you bowhunt in the SLP where the allowed limit is 3 antlerless tags ( and this can be a combination of 1 Public Land & 2 Private Land; or, 3 Private Land) AND you buy the combo license .....you could indeed kill 5 does. I did exactly that last year.

Hope that helps.

[Nick Adams]

Why not let us buy all 3 allowed private land permits at one time.....instead of the 1 a day limit? I mean, now that the quota has been so drastically cut.....just let us buy all we are allowed to buy on one single transaction.

There are places in the northern half of the state where the DMU wide Private Land Antlerless Quota is significantly less than the demand for the tags. In those DMUs 'one per day' provides a larger number of the people who qualify for a private land tag a chance to get one.

-na

[fairfax1]

Thanx Nick. That makes sense.