check stations for deer harvest

[82roadster]

I'm new to this site so possibly this ground that has been already covered, but here goes....

What does the community think about deer check stations.

I personally would like to see each county in the state have it's own DNR field office/check station.

I think it would not only give the DNR better feedback on the area herd population, age structure, health, ect...but it would also give the hunters a place check out what's been harvested in their area.

I also think that it would cut down on a lot of the "shared" licenses. By that I mean that an effective hunter who fills tags (usually young bucks) for everyone in their family and friends, too.

I hope to draw Boehr into this string and get the official DNR position on check stations and also his personal views.

What do you say Boehr?

Ps. I'm taking my 12 year old Daughter up to hunters safety at Fishing Memories this Sunday. Does the DNR participate in these?

[NEMichsportsman]

I think the Deer Check Stations serve a useful purpose, but I am guessing that the limited number of sites is in direct relation to funding and manpower. I know I will probably get blasted, but in a perfect world I would like to see manditory registration of kills much in the same fashion as required for certain other species (I realize that this would be a hassle for us sportsmen, and that there is no possible way the DNR could have ample resources to do such a thing) however it would take the guesswork out of the annual deer harvest, resulting in a much more accurate and beneficial deer management program for the next hunt.

The only other scenario that I could see a a realistic possibility to better track the #'s- How would you feel if you were required to informally give the result of your previous years hunt when you get your tags for the current season?? Seems as though that would be a minimal amount of BS and probably give a real insight to the actual kill #s?

jp

[boehr]

There has been a lot (bunches) of discussion on this subject in previous posts.

My opinion, I don't care if they have mandatory or not. I don't think the kill will be much different. Mandatory has been required before and it was found that the estimates were not much different that the registration. Even when it was mandatory the was not even close to 100% participation.

There is not enough man power to have mandatory registration with a deer check in every county. even with a check station in every county you will have many hunters who do not want to drive the distance, even if it's on 10 to 20 miles away.

My opinion as a hunter is I don't care how many deer are shot. I didn't shot them all, don't even know the thousands of hunters that were successful. I care about having a great outdoor experience which doesn't hinge on if I get a deer or not. I care about how many deer are still alive, a healthy herd free of disease much more than how many died the past season.

Those live deer just won't return those census cards either.:)

Also, CO's do attend Hunter Safety Classes when they are asked and know there is a class. I used to attend 5 to 10 every year when I worked in the field, never refused to attend one that I knew about.

[Youper]

I bring my deer by everytime, but I am opposed to mandatory check stations. The State doesn't need to keep that close of an account on us and the deer. It would affect me much like the seat belt law, in that I have always worn my seat belt, but I resent the law saying I must. It is none of the State's business if I where one or not.

[82roadster]

What is the state's take on QDM. Is their any interest in taking the QDM up a knotch so that more Bucks make it to 2 1/2 year olds before they're legal to harvest? Like the antler point restiction on the 2nd tag now only making any buck taken must meet this minmuim.

Or is the state satififed at this point that the current req's keep the herd no.s in check and provide a good enough quality outdoor experiance for most hunters?

My thought is that if hunters could see just how much difference it makes to quality of bucks in the herd to excercise some self control for 1 to 2 years they'd be amazed at size and numbers of bucks they'd have the opportunity to harvest. I've seen it work my my peice of land and on others in SW MI.

Only pitfall I can see would be the taxidermist bills.

[islaysteelies]

Youper,

I agree. I have always stopped and always will. I like to show off my kill, but if I have to stop...I will not be happy.

[Brock]

I just want one of those Successful Hunter patches! I wish there was a check station near me so I could take my deer to the check station. But, we are probably better off spending the money on CO's in the field rather then counting deer kill.

[3006]

Think outside of the box!! I agree with mandatory check in. You don't have to have DNR people do the checks either. Works well here in Ohio where there are several local businesses you can stop by to have your deer checked. Sure it is a little hassle, but well worth it.

[Youper]

3006: What box is your thinking outside of?

[3006]

Not sure why everyone is so opposed to having their deer checked just because it would be the law. Wait a second, I think I understand why everyone is opposed: It is a way for the government to confirm that we have firearms/weapons, so when they want to confiscate them, they know who to look up first. That is definately not the "box" I am in.

[boehr]

If the government wants info on you, they either already have it or it's very easy to get! For me, my personal opinion, my life's an open book and they can have any info they want, be more than happy to supply it for them if they don't have it. But, I think we are getting off the subject. I thought the purpose of this discussion was deer check stations for the purpose of deer management:confused: . Not information for the government which is where this topic is going. Lets re-direct the topic to hunting and why there should be or shouldn't be mandatory deer check.

[Youper]

Hunters can now show their support for deer management by checking in their deer. We don't need another law to comply with. That was my point, not imformation about who is and isn't hunting deer. The current system garners data directly propotional to the support that data gathering enjoys.

[boehr]

Originally posted by Youper
Hunters can now show their support for deer management by checking in their deer. We don't need another law to comply with

You know what Youper...there is a statement that makes one heck of a lot of sense as to the discussion of deer checks. If anyone really cares, it would not have to be mandatory. Those that don't care likely won't care or do it even if it was mandatory. I like your way of thinking!

[goose hunter]

I own a deer camp in the tb area and have for most of my life. We have been going to have our deer checked to get the patch for our wall as long as they have been given away. I dont have a problem doing so. I take great pride in my patches that the dnr gives. I would do it if it is the law or not. I know several trophy hunters that almost hide their deer from anyone. They are the ones that dont want to let others know how well their hunting spot is. Then the outlaws will never go for any law. Take your deer in if you chose but lets not make any new law. we are governed enough already I believe.

[farmlegend]

Boehr, I agree with you that we really don't have a need to go to a mandatory carcass check in this state.

However, I think that it is important that the DNR do something to change the geographic distribution of its check stations, so as to obtain a representative sample of deer in all regions in proportion to prevailing deer populations and harvest levels.

If you look at the 2000 season results, you'll see that far more total deer were harvested in southern lower Michigan than in either the northern lower or the U.P. At the same time, FAR fewer carcasses were examined from the southern lower counties than either of the other two zones. I understand the high numbers of carcasses checked in the northern lower, where we have the serious bovine TB threat, but, hey, I seem to recall that there were even more carcasses checked in the U.P. than in the southern lower.

In fact, in some southern lower counties that are loaded with deer and have high harvests, practically no deer were checked at all (see the numbers for Branch, Lenawee and Hillsdale counties).

I believe the carcass sampling methodology has not kept pace with changes in the geographic distribution of both deer populations and hunting activity, and raises the possibility that we have our lowest quality data in some areas with the greatest numbers of deer and deer hunting activity.

[Winterover]

I sent an e-mail to the DNR about the issue of them closing a check station in zone 3. I got a nice reply from M. Bailey who works out of the Plainwell office. In his response he mentioned that sometimes they will set up a time with a local sportsmans club to do a deer check. It is up to the club to get the time and place in the paper or other means of advertising with the hopes of having the people from the area come to get their deer checked. All a person would need to bring would be the head & not the whole body.
Perhaps some of the people who are members of a club & concerned aoubt this issue could contact the DNR's regional office in your area and see if this would be a possibility.

Hey boehr, I lost Mr. Bailey's e-mail address. Could you tell him thanks for me?