693,400 Doe permits available in 2004 for MI

[Zakker]

Just did a quick calculation on the "available" doe permits in 04. They estimate the herd at 1.7 million and had available 693,400 doe permits? Along with this, (another possible estimate)~700,000 hunters buying a minimum of one buck license and most often two. If you use the DNR fuzzy math and consider every hunter buys 2 license, that puts roughly 2.1 million "opportunities" for kill out there on a herd of 1.7 million deer. Now I know success ratios, but the opportunity is still there to desimate the herd................... :yikes:

[farmlegend]

Relax. Apply an average hunter success rate and the number drops big time.

Incidentally, when all seasons ended, 74,000 private land antlerless tags were never sold.

[Adam Waszak]

Opportunity to decimate? Hey my areas has been decimated trust me I know with the fuzzy math or without the fuzzy math.

aW

[Zakker]

Relax. Apply an average hunter success rate and the number drops big time.

Incidentally, when all seasons ended, 74,000 private land antlerless tags were never sold.

Cant relax, as only ~10% of the available permits went unsold? Take a look at some of the counties with regards to what was available. For example, counties that were likely "marauded" by insurance companies such as, say Livingston @ 16300 or Lapeer @ 18500 is absurd. The list goes on. It's pretty apparent that, at least in Southern Lower the DNR has no idea what the numbers could be. No idea.

[Bwana]

Just did a quick calculation on the "available" doe permits in 04. They estimate the herd at 1.7 million and had available 693,400 doe permits? Along with this, (another possible estimate)~700,000 hunters buying a minimum of one buck license and most often two. If you use the DNR fuzzy math and consider every hunter buys 2 license, that puts roughly 2.1 million "opportunities" for kill out there on a herd of 1.7 million deer. Now I know success ratios, but the opportunity is still there to desimate the herd................... :yikes:
With as unorganized a group as hunters are complete eradication is highly unlikely. Since the 1970's they have been issueing enough "Buck Licenses" to decimate the Buck population but they have not even come close to killing them out yet. It is because we are only organized on a personal/individual level but highly unorganized as a group. Now, if there was a bounty on the Whitetail and we as hunters organized by grids and hunted the grids via cooridinated methods...then I would get worried....but not now.

As for deer numbers, there are areas of the state that there are too many deer. And there are areas where the herd has been reduced too much. The total number of licenses awarded is as useless as looking at the total population number IMO. You need to increase the numbers of DMU's and manage each individual DMU accordingly while improveing and/or increaseing habitat as necessary (think North of Saginaw:) ).

[farmlegend]

Funny, how little concern there is for the buck "decimation" that has been going on for the past 75 years.

[Swamp Monster]

:yeahthat:

Yeah, with a possible 1.4 million buck licenses sold and the ability to tag a button buck with a doe tag, you'd think, using the logic in the first post, that deer in this state would be darn near extinct!!!

We didn't see a lot of deer during the gun season down here in Cass Cty as well, but all be darned if we didn't have a large number of bucks on film (deer overall) and a tremendous amount of sign and sightings during the late season. If one would have just hunted the gun season, they'd think there were no deer (I know folks on this site for the most part anyway hunt all seasons) as well. The deer were there, and yes weather and pressure had some to do with it, even if some refuse to believe it.
I know one guy that saw 14 deer in one sitting and saw deer almost ever outing and still thinks there are no deer.....so I take this no deer thing with a grain of salt. I do understand there are areas that are way, way down, no question, but overall, the hunting is only gonna get better imo in most of the state.

[Swamp Monster]

Cant relax, as only ~10% of the available permits went unsold? .

And factor in the success ratio...how many were actually used....like FL said, the number available is basically meaningless. Even if the success ratio was 50% - 60% of those purchased, thats still a lot of unused tags.

Theres no way that all those tags would ever be filled.....in all actuality it would probably take three seasons to kill that many does....maybe four!

[bluedevil]

I bought a combo license and 2 doe tags (different dmus) and I used one doe tag this year. The other tags were just a donation for the DNR. Not that I could'nt have used those tags but just ended up passing up the smaller bucks and missed my opporunity for a larger one.

[Randy Kidd]

I had a private land tag, I drew a tag for State land and I had the combo tag..Didn't use a single one..Deer were either too far, or they were too small for me to take..although I should have taken one doe, I let time run out on me and the last day I didn't see a thing..

[Swamp Monster]

Add my combo license and two doe tags and only one doe tag filled.
So for the last three posts, 6 buck tags and 6 doe tags, 12 overall and just 2 deer taken. 0% success on Antlered, 33% success on doe, 16% overall. Nice to see some of those Antlered deer getting another year!

[Zakker]

And factor in the success ratio...how many were actually used....like FL said, the number available is basically meaningless. Even if the success ratio was 50% - 60% of those purchased, thats still a lot of unused tags.

Theres no way that all those tags would ever be filled.....in all actuality it would probably take three seasons to kill that many does....maybe four!

Yeah I totally understand that. There are still, however, parties who shoot quite a few doe, and worse, button bucks (under the pretense of being does) that account for a great deal of loss within the herd. Just the issuance of the excessive numbers allow for excessive numbers to be killed. For example, I had one doe permit and a combo this year. If I wanted, I could have purchased one a day. Overall, I feel that I could have taken at least 9 doe over the course of the season. Naturally, I did not (nor take any doe) , because where I hunt, those 9 doe were the only doe I had throughout the year. However, over 9000 permits were available in my county.

What this whole excessive doe permit thing is, is a $$ maker for the DNR. That would be alright if the $$ got turned back into the wildlife and habitat. By attempting to reduce a large number of deer (excess doe permits), it not only makes huge revenue for the dnr, but also appeases the insurance companies that are applying ample force to make the dnr buckle.

I totally understand the unorganization of alot of the hunting community. And I am not opposed to taking does. As it was mentioned above, each area should be THOROUGHLY investigated for "carrying capacity" and other sound management criteria. That does not currently happen, regardless of the absurd statements they make in what they call their managment techniques.

[Swamp Monster]

I wouldn't mind seeing DMU set up differently instead of the county lines we have today...not sure how much harder if any it is to manage from the DNR's stand point, maybe some issues I'm not aware of. There can be vast differences in deer densities in many of our counties, but at this point, they have to issue x amount of tags in hopes of meeting their overall quota in that county. Ofcourse, what most have issue with is how they determine that quota.
Then you have the far more difficult issue to deal with and that is hunter satisfaction. How many deer is acceptable? To many that enjoyed the heyday of the early 90's, they feel they need to see dozens upon dozens on each outing. And that may be exagerating a bit, but I still hear it. And with lower overall numbers, hunting will be more challenging and habitat will be far more important, some just aren't ready to accept this. And yet others (like Bob@BBT) who have spent time and money on habitat and sound management practices still aren't seeing any progress so what are they to do? Obviously pleasing everybody is just not an option. And I certainly don't have the answers, though that will nto stop me from making suggestions.

[One Eye]

That is why I have a new strategy for next year. I will no longer buy nor apply for anterless tags in Michigan until I see a recovery of the deer numbers in the areas that I hunt. It has never been the money or cost of those, but rather the negligence with which this resource is being (I hate to even use this word, but . . .) "managed".

I know many people that buy 8-10 doe tags, and they would shoot every deer they see. Button bucks make no difference to them. Funny thing this year though. Many of those folks ate a bunch of tags. Must be the weather :rolleyes: :rolleyes: , as there are still way too many deer :rolleyes: :rolleyes: !

Dan

[Zakker]

That is why I have a new strategy for next year. I will no longer buy nor apply for anterless tags in Michigan until I see a recovery of the deer numbers in the areas that I hunt. It has never been the money or cost of those, but rather the negligence with which this resource is being (I hate to even use this word, but . . .) "managed".

I know many people that buy 8-10 doe tags, and they would shoot every deer they see. Button bucks make no difference to them. Funny thing this year though. Many of those folks ate a bunch of tags. Must be the weather :rolleyes: :rolleyes: , as there are still way too many deer :rolleyes: :rolleyes: !

Dan
Good point Dan, but its a damned if you do damned i you don't thing. If you buy those permits, you take them out of those "losers" hands that don't practice any morals (by shooting everything). But also if you buy the permits, the dnr sees the almighty green, and they will continue to provide the excessive numbers. So, where do you go.

[campblujay]

Just did a quick calculation on the "available" doe permits in 04. They estimate the herd at 1.7 million and had available 693,400 doe permits? Along with this, (another possible estimate)~700,000 hunters buying a minimum of one buck license and most often two. If you use the DNR fuzzy math and consider every hunter buys 2 license, that puts roughly 2.1 million "opportunities" for kill out there on a herd of 1.7 million deer. Now I know success ratios, but the opportunity is still there to desimate the herd................... :yikes:


I'm pretty pleased with only 690,000 - the 74000 unsold for a herd of 1.7 million. Thats not bad at all. In my home state of Pa where I used to go home to hunt they had a herd of 1.6 million and issued 1,040,000 doe tags.
Anyone who buy a license gets a buck tag.

And Pa has been issuing over a million doe tags for 3 years now..... :rolleyes:

So you should feel good that we show some feelings for what hunters like in Michigan, if you were in other states you would not get such restraint.

Michigan - herd 1.7 mil, doe tags 620,000, small DMU's, and private land vs pulic land .... no problem

Penna. - herd 1.6 million and dropping, doe tags 1,040,000, thrown into only 22 DMU's, NO public vs private you can shoot them all on public ifn' ya want!!!!! :dizzy:

We are doing well, just pray it stays this way with reasonable alloments for doe.

btw, I did not go home to Pa for this season. The harvest of buck in 2000 was 203,000. This years estimated harvest (not final) is 110,000 buck.

hmmmmmm.... I love Mich. :piparty:

[Luv2hunteup]

I kind find the math here a little fuzzy myself. Roughly 600,000 anlterless tags were sold plus each half of a combo tag allows the hunter to take a doe with archery equipment so it almost appears as if there are enough tags out there to shoot every doe in the state times several times over, assuming the buck to doe ratio is 1-3.

That's not the fuzzy part. With all the doe tags available how come only 40% of the kill was anlerless? Remember those antlerless figures include button bucks and bucks with antlers less than 3" so the true number of does is even lower.

From the DNR's Website (http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10371_10402-106465--M_2004_12,00.html)
__________________________________________________ _______________
2004 firearm deer season harvest estimates announced
Contact: Rodney Clute 517-373-1263
Agency: Natural Resources

December 10, 2004

The Department of Natural Resources today announced preliminary estimates of the 2004 Michigan firearm deer season harvest which indicate approximately 285,000 deer were taken, of which an estimated 60-percent were antlered and 40-percent were antlerless.
__________________________________________________ _______________

Michigan hunters are responsible for making the determination on what sex and size of deer they shoot. Doe management is simple if not seeing many don't shoot them is you are seeing them and you have a tag shoot the number you does you feel keeps the deer herd below the carrying capacity of your land. I think Michigan's hunters do a good job of keeping deer numbers in check.

I had a neighboring land owner ask me why I shot 3 does when there are none. Just because he wasn't seeing them doesn't mean that there are none around. I had to bite my tongue when he showed me the mighty 4pt he shot the day before. It might have had a gross BC score of 10.

[fairfax1]

...if you hunt in Southern Michigan there are plenty of deer for you.

Your numbers in your premise on too many doe permits being issued and we therefore overharvest female deer doesn't support your thinking. Several have already pointed that out, and why. Still, I'm gonna pile on:

In 2003 in the DMU where I do most of my hunting the biologist based out of the local DNR office recommended and the DNR 'authorized' 15,500 antlerless permits, about 12,000 of them were actually sold, and only about 5,500 antlerless deer were killed, or approximatley 50% of the total harvest.

That same biologist also said he "can't get the hunters to kill enough does regarless of how many permits I authorize". It's sort of like the market gets saturated and there are no more 'customers' out there......everybody who wants a permit, or wants a doe, has one. So, he resorts to 'block permits' or 'nuisance permits' to help keep the herd in check.

Second, ---and I've posted on this before---the constant bashing of insurance companies vis-a-vis the deer herd is juvenile. If I was president of an insurance company and it cost my organization $4,000 everytime a deer got hit...and we all know they get hit a lot....then I'd be negligent if I didn't exert what influence I could to control that cost. Business 101.

In some counties..DMU's...in Southern Michigan there are just too many deer. Too many for the amount of vehicle traffic for that area, too many damaging agricultural crops. So the DNR as the responsible government agency over managing those animals must, should, and does make available a lot of antlerless permits for counties like Montcalm, Berry, Livingston, Jackson, Clinton, Ionia, Kent, etc.

We hunters must remember that there are other 'constituencies' with very legitimate interests in the deer herd...not just us.

[Zakker]

...if you hunt in Southern Michigan there are plenty of deer for you.

Your numbers in your premise on too many doe permits being issued and we therefore overharvest female deer doesn't support your thinking. Several have already pointed that out, and why. Still, I'm gonna pile on:

In 2003 in the DMU where I do most of my hunting the biologist based out of the local DNR office recommended and the DNR 'authorized' 15,500 antlerless permits, about 12,000 of them were actually sold, and only about 5,500 antlerless deer were killed, or approximatley 50% of the total harvest.

- How would one know that number? Or any other numbers for that matter?


Second, ---and I've posted on this before---the constant bashing of insurance companies vis-a-vis the deer herd is juvenile. If I was president of an insurance company and it cost my organization $4,000 everytime a deer got hit...and we all know they get hit a lot....then I'd be negligent if I didn't exert what influence I could to control that cost. Business 101.

- Yes it is business 101. Insurance companies are in business to make money. And they do. I, along with thousands of others have never hit deer or even made a claim. So, if you do the math, they are making a considerable amount of money. Every business takes "their" form of a hit now and then, that's what happens when one is in business. I agree with your idea on the duties of a president of an insurance company. I am just saying that they seem to apply an "undue" amount of pressure to the dnr.

In some counties..DMU's...in Southern Michigan there are just too many deer. Too many for the amount of vehicle traffic for that area, too many damaging agricultural crops. So the DNR as the responsible government agency over managing those animals must, should, and does make available a lot of antlerless permits for counties like Montcalm, Berry, Livingston, Jackson, Clinton, Ionia, Kent, etc.

- Yes, could be true. BUT, I am concerned about making the number counts more accurate (per area). I can attest that in my area (southern MI), the deer numbers are down considerably. My expectations are not to see 50 deer a sitting. Thats absurd. However, if a biologist were to query the hunters in our area, they would get the same response. Considerably low. I have talked with the landowners, farmers and hunters around and they have seen the decline as well. I'd even invite a dnr official to come out a do a pellet count in my area, and offer him/her a $5 bill for every pile they found. Would'nt cost me much.

Lastly, my experience is what has caused my alarm. I am not making my concerns from "others" opionions. I miss very few days afield, along with many scouting many hours in the off season. I keep a very accurate logbook of all outings and have done so for 10 years. So accurate data does not lie. Nor does direct evidence. For example, 2 years ago there were a group of hunters idiots that took over a dozen doe (it was 13 or 14 I believe) in the surrounding properties. I asked them, why so many? Their answer was "because we can" (legally). I then asked if they bothered to check them in and they said no. Hence my concern. The dnr made it AVAILABLE and people siezed on it. Irregardless if "some of the permits" went unsold in this area, there was a large impact brought on by these gluttons. And there are some gluttons that exist everywhere in this state. The dnr simply provides them with a "license to steal".

Pile on if you wish, I simply am speaking with experience, not opinion.

[One Eye]

That same biologist also said he "can't get the hunters to kill enough does regarless of how many permits I authorize". It's sort of like the market gets saturated and there are no more 'customers' out there......everybody who wants a permit, or wants a doe, has one. So, he resorts to 'block permits' or 'nuisance permits' to help keep the herd in check.

Second, ---and I've posted on this before---the constant bashing of insurance companies vis-a-vis the deer herd is juvenile. If I was president of an insurance company and it cost my organization $4,000 everytime a deer got hit...and we all know they get hit a lot....then I'd be negligent if I didn't exert what influence I could to control that cost. Business 101.

In some counties..DMU's...in Southern Michigan there are just too many deer. Too many for the amount of vehicle traffic for that area, too many damaging agricultural crops. So the DNR as the responsible government agency over managing those animals must, should, and does make available a lot of antlerless permits for counties like Montcalm, Berry, Livingston, Jackson, Clinton, Ionia, Kent, etc.

We hunters must remember that there are other 'constituencies' with very legitimate interests in the deer herd...not just us.

I have never stated that the insurance companies are doing anything "wrong" with their lobbying. What I have stated is twofold. #1, the time has come for hunters to be heard (along with the other economic interests in this state that benefit from the tremendous economic boom that hunting provides. #2, I am sick and tired of hearing DNR officials seem "surprised" and upset when hunters (constituents, to use your word) actually speak up and express their dissatisfaction. Please show me where those other lobbies share in the funding of the DNR's budget. When you can show me that, then perhaps they could actually "earn" a say with DNR. I would like to hear why the DNR is actually swayed and pressured by groups who have very little input into their budget. I know this is politics, but the time for us to play in the political game is here!

That is what I am doing, I am speaking out and wanting to be heard. If they want to ignore me (us) after that, then we have other audiences that we can speak, which include ELECTED officials, not hired or appointed officials.

Dan

[farmlegend]

- Insurance companies... I am just saying that they seem to apply an "undue" amount of pressure to the dnr.

I simply am speaking with experience, not opinion.

Hard to reconcile. There is not a shred of evidence that insurers exert influence on deer management policy in this state. Every one that has researched this has come up empty. The insurers are a bogeyman, a scapegoat.

Could it simply be that our leaders are trying to best manage the resource?

[Pinefarm]

Or it could simply be that a cripplingly punitive lawsuit was threatened by a powerful farming lobby against the state after the TB outbreak and the terms/deal to drop the lawsuit were that the statewide deer herd would be drastically and dramatically cut by any means necessary, to an arbitrary statewide number. ;)
It's one of the two. ;)

[Zakker]

Hard to reconcile. There is not a shred of evidence that insurers exert influence on deer management policy in this state. Every one that has researched this has come up empty. The insurers are a bogeyman, a scapegoat.

Could it simply be that our leaders are trying to best manage the resource?

Am wondering if you are employed by either the dnr or an insurance company. Following the leader without voicing opinions can be dangerous. :)

[Pinefarm]

Farmlegend is correct. It's not the insurance companies. The insurance companies have nothing to do with it. That is an urban legend.
Hopefully this sheds a bit of light on the history of how we got to here...

http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/sw108093_20041202.htm

Lawsuit threat fades, but farmers still complain about deer
December 2, 2004, 5:39 PM


ACME, Mich. (AP) -- Eight years ago, Michigan's largest farm organization got so fed up with deer gobbling crops and spreading disease that it threatened to sue the Department of Natural Resources to get the herd reduced.

But when DNR Director Rebecca Humphries dropped by the annual meeting of the Michigan Farm Bureau on Thursday, she was cordially applauded.

Problem solved? Not by a long shot, judging from the impassioned tone of the farmers' debate over baiting and other sore points. But at least they're no longer talking about going to court.

"We still have challenges ... but the DNR and the Farm Bureau have developed a good working relationship," said Rob Anderson, legislative counsel for the farm group.

Farmers praise the agency for taking steps such as making it easier for landowners to get permits to take deer on their property. But some say further action is needed.

"It's a year-round problem," said fruit producer Dan Hill, who struggles to keep deer away from his orchards in northern Genessee County. "By the time hunting season comes, they're so dang fat I can almost strangle them with my bare hands."

Cattle producers blame deer for spreading bovine tuberculosis to beef and dairy herds in the northern Lower Peninsula, causing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to revoke Michigan's status as TB-free and depressing out-of-state markets for the livestock.

"We have taken a severe beating -- it's cost us millions of dollars," said Monte Bordner of St. Joseph County, past president of the Michigan Cattlemen's Association.

When the Farm Bureau approved a resolution threatening a lawsuit in 1996, the whitetail deer population was around 2 million. The DNR estimated this year's herd at 1.7 million before hunting season began.

The agency goal is to get the number down to about 1.5 million, Humphries said. But as farmers push for a smaller population, the DNR also draws complaints from hunters about too few deer in many locations.

"People in Michigan are used to higher deer numbers," she said. "We allowed them to creep up above the goal, and now we're bringing them down incrementally and that's painful for people who like to go out and pursue deer."

The Farm Bureau on Thursday renewed its plea for a ban on baiting during hunting season and artificial feeding over the winter, contending that deer spread diseases when congregating at feed piles.

"You cannot find one person with good, scientific data who will tell you it's a good idea to bait or feed wildlife," Bordner said.

The DNR has prohibited feeding and baiting in the TB zone and curtailed the practices elsewhere.

Humphries made clear the DNR had no appetite for additional restrictions, but said the agency would continue looking for ways to help, such as encouraging hunters to break the longstanding taboo on killing antlerless deer.

"Only about half of our licensed hunters buy an antlerless deer license, and what we really need to do is build that tradition ... and that takes time," she said.

The Farm Bureau delegates debated -- and rejected -- other proposals, such as allowing deer hunting with dogs or boosting hunting license fees to defray costs of building fences around fruit and vegetable farms.


Some see a Senate bid for Miller

State failing to inspect health-care facilities




Comments? Questions? You can reach us at The Freep

[BuckBass]

Am wondering if you are employed by either the dnr or an insurance company. Following the leader without voicing opinions can be dangerous. :)
Dreaming up conspiracy theories can be equally or even more dangerous.

[Alibi]

Dreaming up conspiracy theories can be equally or even more dangerous. :yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat:

[Zakker]

Dreaming up conspiracy theories can be equally or even more dangerous.

Buckbass and Alilbi, good, well thought out response! :woohoo1:

I guess (for the most part on these forums) one should "go with the flow" with regards to opionions? Or better yet, somebody should not say anything to the contrary about our illustrious DNR.

[farmlegend]

Am wondering if you are employed by either the dnr or an insurance company. Following the leader without voicing opinions can be dangerous. :)


I am neither. Just a self-employed businessman, to whom all matters pertaining to a healthy deer herd constitute my #1 hobby.