bwiltse
06-22-2000, 06:29 PM
Summary of MUCC/MSU-E Public Deer Management Forums held April, 2000.
Prepared by
Michigan State University Extension
Introduction
Eight forums addressing public concerns towards the State of Michigan’s current deer management policies were held during April, 2000. The meetings were conducted in Kalamazoo, Livonia, Okemos, Stanwood, Saginaw, Newberry, Crystal Falls and Gaylord. Approximately 668 people attended the meetings statewide. Citizens were invited to state their ideas publicly and nearly 25% of the attendees chose to exercise this option. Those attending the forums were also asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their personal opinions of the State’s deer management practices. 81% completed and returned their questionnaire. The subsequent report is a summary based on all public testimony, written comments, and survey findings compiled from these meetings. Supplemental documents, including a report on the questionnaire, transcripts and questionnaire comments, are available at www.msue.msu.edu/wildlife. (http://www.msue.msu.edu/wildlife.) Data from the surveys are presented with acknowledgement to the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University.
It is important to remember that the remarks and ideas identified in this report represent only those that chose to speak and/or return their survey. It does not represent the opinions of all interested parties in Michigan. For example, comparisons between those that returned the forum questionnaire and opinions gathered from statewide surveys conducted by the DNR and Michigan State University, revealed:
Attendees were almost three times as likely to check a deer with the DNR (34% of attendees versus 13% statewide).
Attendees were more likely to purchase an antlerless permit and more likely to purchase multiple antlerless permits (purchasing 1 or more: 65% of attendees versus 50% statewide; purchasing 2 or more: 32% of attendees versus 19% statewide).
Attendees were more likely to approve of the 1999 no-bait restrictions in the Bovine tuberculosis (TB) area and more likely to disapprove of the 1999 restrictions throughout the rest of the state (approve in TB area: 68% of attendees versus 57% statewide; disapprove in the rest of state: 41% of attendees versus 36% statewide).
Attendees were more likely to want baiting banned (36% of attendees versus 24% statewide).
The forum surveys revealed that the attendees ranged in age from 15 to 86 and had a mean age of 50. The attendees had hunted an average of 32 years. 31 respondents indicated that they did not hunt deer. Only 15% of the respondents derived some or all of their income from farming. Respondents to the survey also indicated where they preferred to hunt. 26% reported hunting in the Upper Peninsula, 52% reported hunting in the northern Lower Peninsula, and 22% reported hunting in the southern Lower Peninsula.
General Findings
Numerous diverse opinions and ideas were presented during the forums. Certain issues were mentioned with much greater frequency than were others. We have focused on the most prevalent ones in this summary.
All the concerns and ideas were compiled into categories and compared statewide. They are presented in the order in which they most often occurred. The relevant survey data is also presented when a direct comparison is available.
The items presented statewide during the public testimony portion of the forums appear in the following section. Speakers were not limited to expressing only one opinion or suggestion. The number in parentheses indicates the percentage of the 163 speakers that mentioned each particular topic.
"Mandatory check of harvested deer." (18%) It was felt a mandatory check of all deer would result in more accurate harvest numbers than are produced by the current methods; i.e. this would provide an actual count as opposed to the current estimated figures.
This topic was the top issue during public comments at the northern Lower Peninsula meetings with 19% of the speakers bringing it up. It was the second most common item addressed at the southern Lower Peninsula forums with 22% of the speakers mentioning it. Mandatory check was not an issue at the Upper Peninsula meetings.
Although it was advocated by some speakers, 62% of those surveyed had at least some questions concerning the advantages and disadvantages of a mandatory check. An approximately equal number of written comments on the survey supported or opposed mandatory check. Mandatory check was mentioned only 8 times as one of the most important deer management issues for the next ten years, compared to baiting and disease control which were mentioned 94 and 85 times respectively on the survey.
"Limit antlerless permits/no unlimited permits." (17%) Speakers believed people were taking more than their share, that the system is being abused and that unlimited permits could lead to the decimation of the deer herd.
This issue was the number one issue at the southern Lower Peninsula forums with 23% of the speakers addressing it. It was one of the top items at the northern Lower Peninsula meetings with 13% speaking about it. It was a minor issue in the Upper Peninsula.
The survey did not directly ask about the number of antlerless permits that should be given out. The only question pertaining to antlerless permits was what they should cost. The mean of the responses between 0 and $13.00 was $7.35 with 19% of the responders indicating that it should stay at $3.50 and 22% indicating that it should be $13.00. Just over one-tenth of the people indicated a cost greater than $13.00 and 16% had no opinion on the price of antlerless permits. Concerns about antlerless permits were mentioned 14 times on the survey as one of the most important deer management issues during the next 10 years.
"Ban baiting." (15%) Speakers felt baiting should be banned, especially if it contributes to the spread of TB. It was also stated that baiting wasn’t a good hunting practice and could lead to a negative public image of hunting.
The elimination of baiting was a prevalent issue in each region. In the northern Lower and southern Lower Peninsula 14% and 13% of the speakers, respectively, opposed baiting which was comparable to the percentage that wanted baiting to continue. In the Upper Peninsula 12% of the speakers wanted to discontinue baiting which was much less than those who wanted to allow baiting.
34% percent of those surveyed felt that baiting should be banned with support being greatest among those that hunted in the southern Lower Peninsula (48%) and least among those that hunted in the Upper Peninsula (20%). In the northern Lower Peninsula 35% felt that it should be banned.
"Allow baiting." (15%) In the opinion of those that spoke, baiting is a valid hunting method and it allows a hunter to attract deer. If baiting is eliminated a lot of hunters will stop hunting. The ban of baiting will cause economic hardship for produce farms.
A majority of the speakers in the Upper Peninsula (52%) wanted to allow baiting. In the northern Lower and southern Lower Peninsula 14% and 10%, respectively, wished for baiting to continue.
51% of the survey respondents believed baiting should be regulated while 11% felt that baiting should never be restricted. Support for both regulated and unrestricted baiting was strongest among those that hunted in the Upper Peninsula (61%,16%) and lowest among those that hunted in the southern Lower Peninsula (38%,4%). In the northern Lower Peninsula 51% felt baiting should be regulated and 12% felt it should be unrestricted.
The questionnaire also asked respondents their opinions of the 1999 baiting restrictions. 68% of the respondents approved of the "no-bait" restrictions in the TB management area although this approval was not as great from those hunters who hunt in the northern Lower Peninsula. 51% of the respondents approved of the 1999 baiting restrictions in place for the rest of the state. Baiting was the top issue mentioned (94 comments) as the most important deer management issue during the next 10 years. Baiting and disease control were by far the most frequently mentioned issues, with 94 and 85 comments respectively, while the next closest issue garnered only 26 comments.
"A buck is a buck." (14%) Speakers argued that any male deer harvested should be tagged as a buck. The shooting of button bucks reduces the number of bucks for next year’s hunt.
A top issue in northern Lower and southern Lower Peninsula, 9% and 20% of the speakers, respectively, wanted all bucks harvested to be tagged with a buck tag. This was a minor issue in the Upper Peninsula.
The survey did not specifically address the tagging of "button" or fawn bucks with a buck tag. It did, however, ask about the protection of yearling bucks with 71% of the respondents believing they should be protected.
"Move towards quality deer management (QDM)." (12%) Adopting QDM was a desire of a portion of the speakers. QDM emphasizes the protection of young bucks to allow them to grow into larger animals. This will result in bigger bucks and a better hunting experience.
QDM was a major issue in southern Lower Peninsula with 14% of the speakers addressing it. It was a minor item in both the northern Lower Peninsula and the Upper Peninsula.
71% of the respondents to the survey agreed that DNR should restrict the harvest of yearling bucks. Quality deer management was one of the notable concerns for the most important deer management issues over the next ten years with 25 comments.
The survey also posed a question on the current regulations, which allows two bucks to be taken per year with one of those bucks having at least 4 antler points on a side. 34% of the respondents would like to maintain the 1999 antler restrictions while 50% preferred a more restrictive buck harvest.
"Need more accurate counts." (9%) The accuracy of DNR’s counts was called into question especially since personal observations seemed to differ from the DNR’s numbers.
This top was a major issue at the southern Lower Peninsula forums with 17% of the speakers mentioning it. More accurate counts were a minor issue in the other two regions.
62% of the survey respondents had "little" or "no confidence" in the DNR’s estimates of the deer herd status in Michigan. 53% of the respondents did not think that a sample of 60,000 hunters is adequate to estimate the deer harvest each year.
"Winter feeding should be allowed." (8%) Speakers felt that winter feeding of deer allows them to survive during the winter and helps keep deer numbers high.
Winter feeding was the second most important issue expressed in the Upper Peninsula with 40% of those speaking addressing the subject. It was a minor issue in the southern Lower Peninsula and was not mentioned at the meetings held in the northern Lower Peninsula region.
The survey did not address winter feeding and winter feeding was not identified as a notable comment among the most important deer management issues for the next ten years.
"The DNR needs to provide better education on deer and deer hunting." (7%) It was the opinion of the speakers that the public needs more education on deer biology and habits as well as hunting methods.
10% of the speakers at the southern Lower Peninsula forums thought this was an important issue. This was a minor issue in the northern Lower Peninsula region. It was not mentioned in the Upper Peninsula.
The survey did not address education directly. It did inquire what the sources were that people use to acquire information on deer hunting. The most frequently used source is hunting magazines while the most credible sources were reported to be DNR biologists and the DNR website.
"Disapproval of the extended antlerless season." (6%) Speakers were of the belief that too many bucks are being killed because they have already shed their antlers and it is difficult to identify them.
In the southern Lower Peninsula 10% of the speakers indicated their disapproval of the extended antlerless season. It was a minor issue in the northern Lower Peninsula. The issue was not discussed in the Upper Peninsula.
The survey did not address the extended antlerless season.
"Eliminate the second buck tag." (5%) Speakers thought that having two buck tags leads to hunters harvesting too many young bucks instead of just waiting for the big buck.
This was a top issue in the Upper Peninsula with 12% of the speakers talking about it. It was a minor issue in the other two regions although it was addressed more often at the northern Lower Peninsula meeting.
In response to the survey question on antler and buck restrictions, 30% of the respondents indicated that the DNR should allow only one buck, with no antler restrictions, per hunter per year.
"Improve habitat on State land." (5%) Speakers expressed that improvement of habitat on State land will increase the numbers of deer and hunting opportunities on public land. It will also help to reduce the pressure on private land, especially farms.
Improving habitat was a major issue in the Upper Peninsula with 12% of the speakers voicing their concern. It was also addressed at the northern Lower Peninsula and southern Lower Peninsula forums but with less emphasis than in the U.P.
The survey did not directly address the improvement of habitat on State land. Overall, habitat loss and urban sprawl were identified as one of the most important issues affecting deer management over the next ten years. 77% of the respondents indicated the destruction of habitat and/or forest regeneration by deer in the area that they hunt in was either "very low and acceptable" or "moderate and acceptable".
"Manage by Deer Management Unit (DMU) or smaller-sized units." (5%) Speakers mentioned that since deer aren’t distributed equally on the landscape, broad-scale management techniques can lead to issues of local underpopulation or overpopulation.
9% of the speakers in the southern Lower Peninsula thought this was a major issue. This topic was also mentioned at the other two meetings.
This issue was not directly addressed in the survey.
"Postcard that is mailed in to report hunting results." (5%) An idea suggested by some speakers was that as an incentive, a discount on the next year’s license is given to those who return the card. As opposed to a mandatory check that requires too much time and effort for the hunter, a postcard would be an easier way to obtain a report from all hunters.
In the southern Lower Peninsula 9% of the speakers suggested this idea. It was mentioned during the northern Lower Peninsula forums, but not addressed at all in the Upper Peninsula.
This particular method of checking deer was not addressed in the survey.
"Support of antlerless hunting, unlimited permits." (5%) Some speakers expressed support for the current system. The current system allows landowners a chance to manage deer on their property.
9% of the speakers supported antlerless hunting and unlimited permits in the southern Lower Peninsula. It was not addressed at the northern Lower Peninsula meetings. In the Upper Peninsula, this topic was considered a minor issue.
This issue was not addressed in the survey.
Two top issues which were expressed in the Upper Peninsula forums equally with 12% of the speakers discussing it, but did not make the statewide list were:
$1.50 from each antlerless deer permit should be allocated towards the Deer Range Improvement Program (DRIP).
Antlerless deer permits should be valid on public land.
Many other ideas were discussed at the forums. If you wish to review these they can be found in the forum summaries included among the supplementary documentation.
Other issues addressed in the survey that were not one among the top issues conveyed during public commentary included:
Approximately half of the respondents were dissatisfied with the DNR’s: "appropriate use of science to manage deer"; "effort to make decisions that are fair to all interests"; "amount of opportunities given to the public to provide input on deer hunting.
The majority of respondents thought that crop losses, car-deer accidents, destruction of habitat, and threat of disease among the deer in the area that they hunt in to be either "very low and acceptable" or "moderate and acceptable".
48% of respondents thought that the harvest success rate was low in the county they hunted in, while 34% thought it was about right.
49% of respondents would like more deer in the county they hunt in compared to the number of deer that were there prior to the 1999 deer season.
The buck-to-doe ratio and anti-hunting were also identified as important deer management issues during the next 10 years.
Conclusion
The eight public forums identified a diversity of concerns and preferences among the state’s deer hunters. According to the survey, participants found the meetings to be more worthwhile than worthless, more interesting than boring, and more fair than biased.
The role of Michigan State University Extension in this project was to organize the proceedings from each meeting and organize the data in a detailed report. It is not Extension’s position to interpret the input from the meetings, but instead to summarize and present the information in such a manner that it may be used as a tool for helping establish future deer management policy.
------------------
Boyd
Prepared by
Michigan State University Extension
Introduction
Eight forums addressing public concerns towards the State of Michigan’s current deer management policies were held during April, 2000. The meetings were conducted in Kalamazoo, Livonia, Okemos, Stanwood, Saginaw, Newberry, Crystal Falls and Gaylord. Approximately 668 people attended the meetings statewide. Citizens were invited to state their ideas publicly and nearly 25% of the attendees chose to exercise this option. Those attending the forums were also asked to complete a questionnaire regarding their personal opinions of the State’s deer management practices. 81% completed and returned their questionnaire. The subsequent report is a summary based on all public testimony, written comments, and survey findings compiled from these meetings. Supplemental documents, including a report on the questionnaire, transcripts and questionnaire comments, are available at www.msue.msu.edu/wildlife. (http://www.msue.msu.edu/wildlife.) Data from the surveys are presented with acknowledgement to the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University.
It is important to remember that the remarks and ideas identified in this report represent only those that chose to speak and/or return their survey. It does not represent the opinions of all interested parties in Michigan. For example, comparisons between those that returned the forum questionnaire and opinions gathered from statewide surveys conducted by the DNR and Michigan State University, revealed:
Attendees were almost three times as likely to check a deer with the DNR (34% of attendees versus 13% statewide).
Attendees were more likely to purchase an antlerless permit and more likely to purchase multiple antlerless permits (purchasing 1 or more: 65% of attendees versus 50% statewide; purchasing 2 or more: 32% of attendees versus 19% statewide).
Attendees were more likely to approve of the 1999 no-bait restrictions in the Bovine tuberculosis (TB) area and more likely to disapprove of the 1999 restrictions throughout the rest of the state (approve in TB area: 68% of attendees versus 57% statewide; disapprove in the rest of state: 41% of attendees versus 36% statewide).
Attendees were more likely to want baiting banned (36% of attendees versus 24% statewide).
The forum surveys revealed that the attendees ranged in age from 15 to 86 and had a mean age of 50. The attendees had hunted an average of 32 years. 31 respondents indicated that they did not hunt deer. Only 15% of the respondents derived some or all of their income from farming. Respondents to the survey also indicated where they preferred to hunt. 26% reported hunting in the Upper Peninsula, 52% reported hunting in the northern Lower Peninsula, and 22% reported hunting in the southern Lower Peninsula.
General Findings
Numerous diverse opinions and ideas were presented during the forums. Certain issues were mentioned with much greater frequency than were others. We have focused on the most prevalent ones in this summary.
All the concerns and ideas were compiled into categories and compared statewide. They are presented in the order in which they most often occurred. The relevant survey data is also presented when a direct comparison is available.
The items presented statewide during the public testimony portion of the forums appear in the following section. Speakers were not limited to expressing only one opinion or suggestion. The number in parentheses indicates the percentage of the 163 speakers that mentioned each particular topic.
"Mandatory check of harvested deer." (18%) It was felt a mandatory check of all deer would result in more accurate harvest numbers than are produced by the current methods; i.e. this would provide an actual count as opposed to the current estimated figures.
This topic was the top issue during public comments at the northern Lower Peninsula meetings with 19% of the speakers bringing it up. It was the second most common item addressed at the southern Lower Peninsula forums with 22% of the speakers mentioning it. Mandatory check was not an issue at the Upper Peninsula meetings.
Although it was advocated by some speakers, 62% of those surveyed had at least some questions concerning the advantages and disadvantages of a mandatory check. An approximately equal number of written comments on the survey supported or opposed mandatory check. Mandatory check was mentioned only 8 times as one of the most important deer management issues for the next ten years, compared to baiting and disease control which were mentioned 94 and 85 times respectively on the survey.
"Limit antlerless permits/no unlimited permits." (17%) Speakers believed people were taking more than their share, that the system is being abused and that unlimited permits could lead to the decimation of the deer herd.
This issue was the number one issue at the southern Lower Peninsula forums with 23% of the speakers addressing it. It was one of the top items at the northern Lower Peninsula meetings with 13% speaking about it. It was a minor issue in the Upper Peninsula.
The survey did not directly ask about the number of antlerless permits that should be given out. The only question pertaining to antlerless permits was what they should cost. The mean of the responses between 0 and $13.00 was $7.35 with 19% of the responders indicating that it should stay at $3.50 and 22% indicating that it should be $13.00. Just over one-tenth of the people indicated a cost greater than $13.00 and 16% had no opinion on the price of antlerless permits. Concerns about antlerless permits were mentioned 14 times on the survey as one of the most important deer management issues during the next 10 years.
"Ban baiting." (15%) Speakers felt baiting should be banned, especially if it contributes to the spread of TB. It was also stated that baiting wasn’t a good hunting practice and could lead to a negative public image of hunting.
The elimination of baiting was a prevalent issue in each region. In the northern Lower and southern Lower Peninsula 14% and 13% of the speakers, respectively, opposed baiting which was comparable to the percentage that wanted baiting to continue. In the Upper Peninsula 12% of the speakers wanted to discontinue baiting which was much less than those who wanted to allow baiting.
34% percent of those surveyed felt that baiting should be banned with support being greatest among those that hunted in the southern Lower Peninsula (48%) and least among those that hunted in the Upper Peninsula (20%). In the northern Lower Peninsula 35% felt that it should be banned.
"Allow baiting." (15%) In the opinion of those that spoke, baiting is a valid hunting method and it allows a hunter to attract deer. If baiting is eliminated a lot of hunters will stop hunting. The ban of baiting will cause economic hardship for produce farms.
A majority of the speakers in the Upper Peninsula (52%) wanted to allow baiting. In the northern Lower and southern Lower Peninsula 14% and 10%, respectively, wished for baiting to continue.
51% of the survey respondents believed baiting should be regulated while 11% felt that baiting should never be restricted. Support for both regulated and unrestricted baiting was strongest among those that hunted in the Upper Peninsula (61%,16%) and lowest among those that hunted in the southern Lower Peninsula (38%,4%). In the northern Lower Peninsula 51% felt baiting should be regulated and 12% felt it should be unrestricted.
The questionnaire also asked respondents their opinions of the 1999 baiting restrictions. 68% of the respondents approved of the "no-bait" restrictions in the TB management area although this approval was not as great from those hunters who hunt in the northern Lower Peninsula. 51% of the respondents approved of the 1999 baiting restrictions in place for the rest of the state. Baiting was the top issue mentioned (94 comments) as the most important deer management issue during the next 10 years. Baiting and disease control were by far the most frequently mentioned issues, with 94 and 85 comments respectively, while the next closest issue garnered only 26 comments.
"A buck is a buck." (14%) Speakers argued that any male deer harvested should be tagged as a buck. The shooting of button bucks reduces the number of bucks for next year’s hunt.
A top issue in northern Lower and southern Lower Peninsula, 9% and 20% of the speakers, respectively, wanted all bucks harvested to be tagged with a buck tag. This was a minor issue in the Upper Peninsula.
The survey did not specifically address the tagging of "button" or fawn bucks with a buck tag. It did, however, ask about the protection of yearling bucks with 71% of the respondents believing they should be protected.
"Move towards quality deer management (QDM)." (12%) Adopting QDM was a desire of a portion of the speakers. QDM emphasizes the protection of young bucks to allow them to grow into larger animals. This will result in bigger bucks and a better hunting experience.
QDM was a major issue in southern Lower Peninsula with 14% of the speakers addressing it. It was a minor item in both the northern Lower Peninsula and the Upper Peninsula.
71% of the respondents to the survey agreed that DNR should restrict the harvest of yearling bucks. Quality deer management was one of the notable concerns for the most important deer management issues over the next ten years with 25 comments.
The survey also posed a question on the current regulations, which allows two bucks to be taken per year with one of those bucks having at least 4 antler points on a side. 34% of the respondents would like to maintain the 1999 antler restrictions while 50% preferred a more restrictive buck harvest.
"Need more accurate counts." (9%) The accuracy of DNR’s counts was called into question especially since personal observations seemed to differ from the DNR’s numbers.
This top was a major issue at the southern Lower Peninsula forums with 17% of the speakers mentioning it. More accurate counts were a minor issue in the other two regions.
62% of the survey respondents had "little" or "no confidence" in the DNR’s estimates of the deer herd status in Michigan. 53% of the respondents did not think that a sample of 60,000 hunters is adequate to estimate the deer harvest each year.
"Winter feeding should be allowed." (8%) Speakers felt that winter feeding of deer allows them to survive during the winter and helps keep deer numbers high.
Winter feeding was the second most important issue expressed in the Upper Peninsula with 40% of those speaking addressing the subject. It was a minor issue in the southern Lower Peninsula and was not mentioned at the meetings held in the northern Lower Peninsula region.
The survey did not address winter feeding and winter feeding was not identified as a notable comment among the most important deer management issues for the next ten years.
"The DNR needs to provide better education on deer and deer hunting." (7%) It was the opinion of the speakers that the public needs more education on deer biology and habits as well as hunting methods.
10% of the speakers at the southern Lower Peninsula forums thought this was an important issue. This was a minor issue in the northern Lower Peninsula region. It was not mentioned in the Upper Peninsula.
The survey did not address education directly. It did inquire what the sources were that people use to acquire information on deer hunting. The most frequently used source is hunting magazines while the most credible sources were reported to be DNR biologists and the DNR website.
"Disapproval of the extended antlerless season." (6%) Speakers were of the belief that too many bucks are being killed because they have already shed their antlers and it is difficult to identify them.
In the southern Lower Peninsula 10% of the speakers indicated their disapproval of the extended antlerless season. It was a minor issue in the northern Lower Peninsula. The issue was not discussed in the Upper Peninsula.
The survey did not address the extended antlerless season.
"Eliminate the second buck tag." (5%) Speakers thought that having two buck tags leads to hunters harvesting too many young bucks instead of just waiting for the big buck.
This was a top issue in the Upper Peninsula with 12% of the speakers talking about it. It was a minor issue in the other two regions although it was addressed more often at the northern Lower Peninsula meeting.
In response to the survey question on antler and buck restrictions, 30% of the respondents indicated that the DNR should allow only one buck, with no antler restrictions, per hunter per year.
"Improve habitat on State land." (5%) Speakers expressed that improvement of habitat on State land will increase the numbers of deer and hunting opportunities on public land. It will also help to reduce the pressure on private land, especially farms.
Improving habitat was a major issue in the Upper Peninsula with 12% of the speakers voicing their concern. It was also addressed at the northern Lower Peninsula and southern Lower Peninsula forums but with less emphasis than in the U.P.
The survey did not directly address the improvement of habitat on State land. Overall, habitat loss and urban sprawl were identified as one of the most important issues affecting deer management over the next ten years. 77% of the respondents indicated the destruction of habitat and/or forest regeneration by deer in the area that they hunt in was either "very low and acceptable" or "moderate and acceptable".
"Manage by Deer Management Unit (DMU) or smaller-sized units." (5%) Speakers mentioned that since deer aren’t distributed equally on the landscape, broad-scale management techniques can lead to issues of local underpopulation or overpopulation.
9% of the speakers in the southern Lower Peninsula thought this was a major issue. This topic was also mentioned at the other two meetings.
This issue was not directly addressed in the survey.
"Postcard that is mailed in to report hunting results." (5%) An idea suggested by some speakers was that as an incentive, a discount on the next year’s license is given to those who return the card. As opposed to a mandatory check that requires too much time and effort for the hunter, a postcard would be an easier way to obtain a report from all hunters.
In the southern Lower Peninsula 9% of the speakers suggested this idea. It was mentioned during the northern Lower Peninsula forums, but not addressed at all in the Upper Peninsula.
This particular method of checking deer was not addressed in the survey.
"Support of antlerless hunting, unlimited permits." (5%) Some speakers expressed support for the current system. The current system allows landowners a chance to manage deer on their property.
9% of the speakers supported antlerless hunting and unlimited permits in the southern Lower Peninsula. It was not addressed at the northern Lower Peninsula meetings. In the Upper Peninsula, this topic was considered a minor issue.
This issue was not addressed in the survey.
Two top issues which were expressed in the Upper Peninsula forums equally with 12% of the speakers discussing it, but did not make the statewide list were:
$1.50 from each antlerless deer permit should be allocated towards the Deer Range Improvement Program (DRIP).
Antlerless deer permits should be valid on public land.
Many other ideas were discussed at the forums. If you wish to review these they can be found in the forum summaries included among the supplementary documentation.
Other issues addressed in the survey that were not one among the top issues conveyed during public commentary included:
Approximately half of the respondents were dissatisfied with the DNR’s: "appropriate use of science to manage deer"; "effort to make decisions that are fair to all interests"; "amount of opportunities given to the public to provide input on deer hunting.
The majority of respondents thought that crop losses, car-deer accidents, destruction of habitat, and threat of disease among the deer in the area that they hunt in to be either "very low and acceptable" or "moderate and acceptable".
48% of respondents thought that the harvest success rate was low in the county they hunted in, while 34% thought it was about right.
49% of respondents would like more deer in the county they hunt in compared to the number of deer that were there prior to the 1999 deer season.
The buck-to-doe ratio and anti-hunting were also identified as important deer management issues during the next 10 years.
Conclusion
The eight public forums identified a diversity of concerns and preferences among the state’s deer hunters. According to the survey, participants found the meetings to be more worthwhile than worthless, more interesting than boring, and more fair than biased.
The role of Michigan State University Extension in this project was to organize the proceedings from each meeting and organize the data in a detailed report. It is not Extension’s position to interpret the input from the meetings, but instead to summarize and present the information in such a manner that it may be used as a tool for helping establish future deer management policy.
------------------
Boyd