Antlerless Permits

[Munsterlndr]

Ok, I’ve asked this question before in several other posts but have never gotten a good answer. In a recent article posted by Ferg, it said that the DNR is recommending not issuing any anterlerless permits in Lake & Wexford Counties next year but that archers would still be able to take does with their archery license. This begs the question why does the DNR continue to make archery licenses either sex?

I realize that when archery first became popular and archers were using traditional equipment that the either sex option was used to encourage participation and increase the likelihood of success for archers. But in this day and age of high-tech compound bows and 3 month archery seasons it seems to me that archers no longer need this added advantage. Gun-only hunters are getting the short end of the stick with this preferential treatment.

I own property and hunt in Leelanau and Lake counties. In Leelanau they have imposed mandatory antler restrictions and reduced the number of antlerless permits down to the point where you are lucky to get one private land permit per year (there are no public land permits available, at all) As a result, the chances of putting some venison in the freezer is getting more and more remote. With no antlerless permits available in Lake County it’s going to be that much tougher to get a deer next year. I can understand the need for limiting antlerless permits in Lake County, as AW can attest to the herd there has taken a major beating in the last several years. But if you want to rebuild the herd then nobody should be harvesting does there.

I understand limiting antlerless permits for management reasons and this makes good sense to me; but what I don’t understand is continuing to make archery licenses either sex. It can’t be for management purposes because the DNR has no idea of how many archery licenses are going to be used to take does and how many for bucks. It seems only fair to me that archers and gun hunters should have the same opportunities to harvest antlerless deer and that one group should not be given preference over another. I am also bothered by the disparity between public land and private land permits. These inequities seem to create divisions between hunters that over the long term will have an increasingly negative impact on our sport.

Sorry for the rant

_____________________________

Munsterlndr

Curmudgeon in Training

[boehr]

Might be best to ask the local Wildlife biologist that question verses a bunch of hunters that can only guess at an answer.

[Adam Waszak]

I hadn't heard about no permits for Lake Cty. I am just south of Lake in Newaygo cty and the deer sure have taken a beating and I hope the number of permits for Newaygo is significantly reduced as well. As far as the gun/bow rules and laws I would say Bowhunt! if you are not now whay not it is a tremendous sport and you have that much more time in the field ;)

AW

[Pinefarm]

The reasoning is that the number of archers shooting a doe with one of their combo tags isn't going to put that much of a dent into the population either way, like 10,000-15,000 antlerless only tags would do in any given county. Don't forget, antlerless only tags are good in gun season also. Gun season is the air force, tanks, and artillery of the deer manager. And, since we have no county by county system, you couldn't say that an archery or combo tag is good for an archery antlerless deer anywhere in the state, except for county XYZ that changes every year. Too confusing of changes from year to year. Keeping the archery seasons either sex is just fine IMHO. It's how the "bonus" antlerless only tag quota's (that can be used in gun season too) are set that will make the difference on whether a local population decreases, increases or stays the same. Keep in mind, our statewide deer populations continually grew in the 1970's and 1980's, even with archery hunters shooting does and a few "doe permits" issued every year. It wasn't until the introduction of the large quota's and often unlimited antlerless tags did the population start to move the other way. If anything, our deer managers now have a better sense of how effective large antlerless quota's are and have more experience to use them accordingly. Which, is a good thing.

[Moron]

I think you expressed the situation very well Bob.
I'm hoping the number of private land permits is greatly reduced in Missaukee county this coming season. There's probably more of a need for them in the farming areas of the county. But since the dnr doesn't micro manage, there are portions of the county where the herd has gotten decimated in recent years.

[Adam Waszak]

I hope they do have a better idea on how the permits can drastically affect the deer herd in areas where they issue a ton of them (14,000). I have seen 5 deer on our property since last July :yikes: So I know what it can do as well and I hope we can get some of the population back although I agree there were too many for a few years when you would see 18 to 20 every night. Lets hope for the landowners in these areas to take it easy and pass on a few so they have a chance to breed and get a few more.

AW

[single shot]

I think that Baldwin has been severly effected by the amount of Anterless permits the past couple of years. Hunting Baldwing for the last 10 years, this past season was absolutely horrible. Many very little deer during firearms season, with only 2 large deer taken out of 6 people hunting the property the entire firearm season. Even the bow season was disappointing. Saw 2 from the tree nothing to shoot at. I hope things change.

[One Eye]

Things will only change when we DEMAND change. Right now, we are not being heard because we are too splintered and too worried about our own little slice of the pie.

Dan

[jimmyboy]

:yeahthat:

[mal]

Things will only change when we DEMAND change. Right now, we are not being heard because we are too splintered and too worried about our own little slice of the pie.

Dan

as long as hunters continue to buy them, the dnr will continue to issue them. i would love to see a united statewide movement to just let these permits go unused or even better unpurchased in areas where hunters know, despite what a wildlife biologist might say, that the deer herd is suffering.

i laugh when i read people suggest that hunters don't know better than wildlife biologists. first, i've never run into a wildlife biologist in the woods doing research, i mean how many wildlife people do we have for the entire state? second, the dnr (and state govt. in general) has their heads so far up the hiney of special interest groups, that getting a true representation from them on any topic, is unlikely.

as long as you can plunk down your $7 and shoot anything that moves, many hunters will do just that. you see government rarely reduces its spending, and it always appropriates (spends) all it collects in taxes/fees and then some (it's called a deficit, sound familiar?). so once the govt. gets used to hunting license revenue, or any revenue for that matter, coming in at a certain level, they have a hard time backtracking because they have either spent the money already, or transferred it to another arm of the govt. that needs the cash.

so you end up in this perpetual quest to raise revenue to help account for areas where revenue has gone down...the state has decide to use special hunts and generous permits to generate some revenue to make up for what isn't coming in as taxes.

[single shot]

I agree, I think the quotas we've seen sell out are huge, statewide. Is this a push from the insurance agency's as well? I have to think so. At dusk and dawn I use to see large amounts of deer in Lake County and now you might see some fawns and yearlings. I just hope that people don't shoot just to shoot, let them grow up. Let's see what the State will do for 2005

[jimmyboy]

2005? Same song,umpteenth verse - Could be better,but it's gonna stay worse! Nothing changes until deer hunters MAKE it change. Mal,you got it right. I've been hunting MI for neigh on 50 yrs now,and like you,I've yet to see a wildlife bio,let alone one gathering data. S'pose they only come out on stormy nites??

[marty]

I've been hunting MI for neigh on 50 yrs now,and like you,I've yet to see a wildlife bio,let alone one gathering data. S'pose they only come out on stormy nites??

Hey Jimmy Boy haven't you ever seen those black helicopters flying around. Why do you think down the road from you they have that giant airport....m

[jimmyboy]

An airport for giants? I didn't even know that they had their own airline! How can they fit into a chopper,or do they make choppers for giants too? :yikes:

[rzdrmh]

i have never heard of a single archer that has used one of his combo tags to harvest a doe.

i'm sure its happened, but i don't think it happens often - probably pretty rare. then again, that's just my personal experience in shiawassee county, so, take it for what it's worth.

[Munsterlndr]

Unfortunately we don't know how many archers use their combo tags on doe's because the DNR does not track this statistic. We do know, according to DNR data, that archers harvested approx. 24% of the does taken (2003 data). We also know that approx. 50% of Michigan hunters purchase an antlerless tag. We also know that there are a lot omany DMU's where there are zero or very few antlerless tags issued. Based on this information, I would surmise that quite a few archers may use thier combo tags on doe's or button bucks, but it's just a guess. I would also guess that the number of archers who take doe's with a combo tag will go up dramatically in DMU's where there are no antlerless permits issued.

As I mentioned in the original post, the DNR has no idea how many doe's are being harvested by archers with the combo tag. If culling doe's is an important management tool, and I think most would agree that it is, then it seems to me that the DNR should have a much better handle on how many does are taken with which license. The easiest way to do this is to eliminate the either sex option from the combo tag and then just issue a specific number of antlerless permits in a given DMU, depending on how many doe's you want to remove. If, as mentioned above, very few archers use thier combo tag on doe's, then there should be no outcry if this option is removed.

_____________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training

[fairfax1]

RZ.....I'm an archer that uses one-half of my combo for taking does. Have for years. I take one antlered animal a year but I buy a combo with the dream of that long-hoped-for whopper who may walk into range after I've taken by annual buck. By the time I give up on that annually re-occurring dream it is late December and a mature doe sure seems worthy enough for that tag.

So, hopefully, that completes your day.

Now for the rants against 'special interests', 'insurance industry' and 'biologists'. I'm sure you guys are sincere and well meaning. I just happen to think you are wrong-headed in your stated criticisms.

First, I'll bet on the biologist knowing more about deer than you....or me. Consider, a college education in wildlife science ..BS minimum, often an MS...living and breathing the topic at least 8 hrs a day 5 days a week, probably a great deal more than the 8/5. Plus, near daily contact with many diverse 'users' of wildlife: hunters, farmers, watchers, processors, insurance executives, landscape managers, nurserymen, highway maintenance, orchard operators, and so on. Most of the DNR biologist are gonna know more simply because their head is in it all day every day. Mine isn't. I doubt yours' is either. So, in my opinion, it is simply silly to dismiss DNR biologist because you haven't "seen one in the woods".

Next, the "insurance industry" as the villain in keeping the deer herd down. Again, in my opinion, the thinking is wrong. First, why would the insurance industry cause Lake County's apparent herd reduction and yet not be more effective in getting the herd reduced in Jackson, Washtenaw, Kent, and Ingham counties? Those are counties where the deer/car crash statistics are out of sight.

And then, so what is wrong with an industry that is negatively effected by high deer populations lobbying for changes? As I've posted before, if I was responsible for running an insurance company that suffered a $4,000 'accident' many times a month....hell, in some counties in October & November, many times a day.I'd be remiss if I didn't do what I could to minimize those 'accidents'.

I'll go out on a limb (no pun intended) and bet the reference to other "special interest" may include orchardist, nurserymen, and farmers. Businessmen whose business is negatively effected by too many deer.
Gee, what a surprise! those guys actually want to keep their costs down and make their operations successful. Think about your own business or job....if there were threats to it out there, and no doubt there are, then it's a safe bet that you will do all you can to minimize them. So be it with growers.

The problem that I have with the too frequent rants against 'others' preventing hunters from seeing -or shooting- more deer is that there seems to exists a dominant sense that hobby hunting is the primary reason deer should exist. That it is their entertainment value to sport hunters that is their highest and best value.

I think the often expressed assumption of superior knowledge of man/deer dynamics by part-time hobby hunters is a hindrance to better cooperation.

[Adam Waszak]

First, I'll bet on the biologist knowing more about deer than you....or me. Consider, a college education in wildlife science ..BS minimum, often an MS...living and breathing the topic at least 8 hrs a day 5 days a week, probably a great deal more than the 8/5. Plus, near daily contact with many diverse 'users' of wildlife: hunters, farmers, watchers, processors, insurance executives, landscape managers, nurserymen, highway maintenance, orchard operators, and so on. Most of the DNR biologist are gonna know more simply because their head is in it all day every day. Mine isn't. I doubt yours' is either. So, in my opinion, it is simply silly to dismiss DNR biologist because you haven't "seen one in the woods".




I agree with your statements about the biologists knowing more than the average hunter but you must also remember the antlerless tags and their quotas are determined after the recomendations of the biologists are considered. I say "recommendations" because that is what they are. In Lake or Newaygo the permit quots set by the DNR guys in Lansing were in excess of what the local biologists recommended. It is not the local biologists who have the last word on quotas but it probably should be. I won't address the insurance issue as they are crooks and it will get us nowhere quickly.

AW

[fairfax1]

Let me re-visit a statement by another frequent poster on this forum who has called the belief that the insurance companies control the DNR an "urban legend."

Well said.

[rzdrmh]

i come in contact with many, many hunters in my area. sure, they take doe, but tag them with a doe tag. never do they use a combo tag.

maybe its unique to shiawassee county. depending on your location in the county, there are big numbers. had a friend shoot 5 doe last year, the last one came out of a group of 18 doe. just seems like poor economics to me - in our area, where there area where there are plenty of doe tags.

i certainly don't question you fairfax.