Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

Ag Policy Weekly Michigan Farm Bureau

10K views 138 replies 30 participants last post by  QDMAMAN 
#1 ·
#3 · (Edited by Moderator)
Antler-less harvest controls the deer population.
Not according to the DNR


Because more yearling deer survive the season, a population spike occurs the
following year. Autenrieth said that levels off once the harvest of older bucks
increases.

The DNR also considers making more doe tags available in those
areas to stabilize harvest levels and keep crop damage and car-deer accidents
down.
 
#5 ·
The FB is clearly being fed lies and mis-information by the Concerned SportsmAn. Speaking of the Concerned SportsmAn, why has he stopped posting? Is it a coincidence that Kosh's first post was an article quoting Jim Sweeney, and it was posted a few days after Jim Sweeney stop posting here? :16suspect
 
#6 ·
The FB is clearly being fed lies and mis-information by the Concerned SportsmAn. Speaking of the Concerned SportsmAn, why has he stopped posting? Is it a coincidence that Kosh's first post was an article quoting Jim Sweeney, and it was posted a few days after Jim Sweeney stop posting here? :16suspect
Why did he quit posting?

Sent from my LG-P769 using Ohub Campfire mobile app
 
#7 ·
The LPDMI strongly supports the maintenance of deer herds at levels well below both the physical and social carrying capacity of any region in our state. We strongly support a balanced management strategy that is good for both farmers and hunters.

A big risk to farmers right now is the downturn in the number of hunters across much of our state. Hunters are the main predators of deer. We strongly believe that high hunter satisfaction is a key factor, and that it is enhanced by APRs. High satisfaction keeps hunters in the woods and increases the likelihood that those hunters will participate in antlerless harvest.

We believe the goals of the LPDMI, and the outcomes from properly managed APR regulations combined with sufficient antlerless harvest, are in the best interest of hunters and that farmers will be better off under APRs than under traditional management, which focuses hunter attention on antlered buck harvest rather than antlerless harvest
 
#9 ·
The LPDMI strongly supports the maintenance of deer herds at levels well below both the physical and social carrying capacity of any region in our state. We strongly support a balanced management strategy that is good for both farmers and hunters.

A big risk to farmers right now is the downturn in the number of hunters across much of our state. Hunters are the main predators of deer. We strongly believe that high hunter satisfaction is a key factor, and that it is enhanced by APRs. High satisfaction keeps hunters in the woods and increases the likelihood that those hunters will participate in antlerless harvest.

We believe the goals of the LPDMI, and the outcomes from properly managed APR regulations combined with sufficient antlerless harvest, are in the best interest of hunters and that farmers will be better off under APRs than under traditional management, which focuses hunter attention on antlered buck harvest rather than antlerless harvest
That dont seem to be working in Leelanau co.
 
#10 ·
The LPDMI strongly supports the maintenance of deer herds at levels well below both the physical and social carrying capacity of any region in our state. We strongly support a balanced management strategy that is good for both farmers and hunters.

A big risk to farmers right now is the downturn in the number of hunters across much of our state. Hunters are the main predators of deer. We strongly believe that high hunter satisfaction is a key factor, and that it is enhanced by APRs. High satisfaction keeps hunters in the woods and increases the likelihood that those hunters will participate in antlerless harvest.

We believe the goals of the LPDMI, and the outcomes from properly managed APR regulations combined with sufficient antlerless harvest, are in the best interest of hunters and that farmers will be better off under APRs than under traditional management, which focuses hunter attention on antlered buck harvest rather than antlerless harvest
I hope you don't think you're going to get all that on the survey? Past practices suggest you might need pare that down a bit before it heads to printing. :lol:
 
#11 ·
That dont seem to be working in Leelanau co.
Swampy,

You must be just trying to stoke the fire because you know darn well population levels are controlled by the harvest of antler less deer. However you cast a blind eye at the fact antler less permits were significantly reduced in dmu045 shortly after APRs were initiated. For various reasons the Dnr neglected to increase these permits during a time where population levels increased due to higher recruitment levels over a period of three easy winters. You will likely see population levels reduced to a more manageable level this year due to the issuance of some 1400 more permits this season.

If you want to be taken serious then please portray the issue in a factual nature.
 
#12 ·
Swampy,

You must be just trying to stoke the fire because you know darn well population levels are controlled by the harvest of antler less deer. However you cast a blind eye at the fact antler less permits were significantly reduced in dmu045 shortly after APRs were initiated. For various reasons the Dnr neglected to increase these permits during a time where population levels increased due to higher recruitment levels over a period of three easy winters. You will likely see population levels reduced to a more manageable level this year due to the issuance of some 1400 more permits this season.

If you want to be taken serious then please portray the issue in a factual nature.
What are the "various reasons" alluded to?
 
#13 ·
That dont seem to be working in Leelanau co.
On the contrary. Even thought the DNR reduced the antlerless quota in Leelanau County from 1000-1250 in the two years before APRs down to 2-400 over the last several years, antlerless harvest has remained remarkably stable.

This is because more hunters have taken up archery hunting, and more hunters have chosen to use their combo tag to harvest an antlerless deer in leelanau County.

Leelanau County serves as a stunning example of maintenance of antlerless harvest in the face of the decline in antlerless quotas.

This chart shows the amazing stability of antlerless harvest (blue) even in the face of substantial reduction in quotas (red). During the last 3 years, the harvest has been double the quota. The two highest years since 2001 have occurred in the last 3 years. Why? Antlerless harvest by archery hunters has gone up 45% whereas harvest by firearms hunters has fallen by 55% due to low availability of antlerless tags.

 
#14 ·
The LPDMI strongly supports the maintenance of deer herds at levels well below both the physical and social carrying capacity of any region in our state. We strongly support a balanced management strategy that is good for both farmers and hunters.

A big risk to farmers right now is the downturn in the number of hunters across much of our state. Hunters are the main predators of deer. We strongly believe that high hunter satisfaction is a key factor, and that it is enhanced by APRs. High satisfaction keeps hunters in the woods and increases the likelihood that those hunters will participate in antlerless harvest.

We believe the goals of the LPDMI, and the outcomes from properly managed APR regulations combined with sufficient antlerless harvest, are in the best interest of hunters and that farmers will be better off under APRs than under traditional management, which focuses hunter attention on antlered buck harvest rather than antlerless harvest
So getting 25% 50% or whatever the % of hunters all bent out of shape helps how? The MDNR cannot afford any more decrease in hunter #'s This ain't a magic bullet these MAPR's
 
#15 ·
On the contrary. Even thought the DNR reduced the antlerless quota in Leelanau County from 1000-1250 in the two years before APRs down to 2-400 over the last several years, antlerless harvest has remained remarkably stable.

This is because more hunters have taken up archery hunting, and more hunters have chosen to use their combo tag to harvest an antlerless deer in leelanau County.

Leelanau County serves as a stunning example of maintenance of antlerless harvest in the face of the decline in antlerless quotas.

This chart shows the amazing stability of antlerless harvest (blue) even in the face of substantial reduction in quotas (red). During the last 3 years, the harvest has been double the quota. The two highest years since 2001 have occurred in the last 3 years. Why? Antlerless harvest by archery hunters has gone up 45% whereas harvest by firearms hunters has fallen by 55% due to low availability of antlerless tags.

Crossbows!!
 
#16 ·
So getting 25% 50% or whatever the % of hunters all bent out of shape helps how? The MDNR cannot afford any more decrease in hunter #'s This ain't a magic bullet these MAPR's
There are probably few topics that are less divisive among hunters than APRs. The survey in Leelanau County showed 72% were in favor, 68.5% were in favor in the NW 12.

Do you think you could get over 68% of hunters to agree on baiting or antlerless quotas?

Playing the divisiveness card makes no sense in the face of super-majority support in several areas.
 
#17 ·
Did the DNR lower the available antler less permits in 045 during that time because they were led to believe that bow hunters could/would use their combo tags on antler less deer?


_____________________________________________________
 
#18 ·
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Antler-less harvest controls the deer population.

Gotta love the misinformation.
well.. they tried the tree rubbing excuse, The disease card.. hey what do they gotta lose. Might as well try the "controlling the population with buck harvest excuse".:yikes:
 
#20 ·
That dont seem to be working in Leelanau co.
Nor is it working in Grand Traverse, or Benzie, or Antrim, or Kalkaska, or Manistee, or Mason, or any other number of counties that have had population rises due to the past several years mild winters and resulting
increases in antlerless permits.

Swampy, I figured you were intelligent enough to figure that out?:sad:
 
#21 ·
#22 ·
There are probably few topics that are less divisive among hunters than APRs. The survey in Leelanau County showed 72% were in favor, 68.5% were in favor in the NW 12.

Do you think you could get over 68% of hunters to agree on baiting or antlerless quotas?

Playing the divisiveness card makes no sense in the face of super-majority support in several areas.
I guess not in my area, I didn't play the MAPR card LPDMI did. And it has resulted in divisiveness. Got a chart to measure that divisiveness? I did not see 68% for at the Ogemaw meeting.
 
#23 ·
Nor is it working in Grand Traverse, or Benzie, or Antrim, or Kalkaska, or Manistee, or Mason, or any other number of counties that have had population rises due to the past several years mild winters and resulting
increases in antlerless permits.
Just so everybody is clear on this, YOU agree with swampbuck that it is not working in Leelan. County!?
 
#24 ·
Heres the problem with reducing the deer density as Bio's SLPDMI groups wishlist proposes........

Hunters WILL NOT reduce the herd size below what they consider acceptable for their recreational activity's. Despite the desire to increase the amount of bucks available, If you decrease the amount of doe's you will also decrease the amount of available bucks (dead doe's dont have fawns).

Now granted, Hunters may be tricked into reducing the deer herd in the short term, but eventually when their hunting expierience suffers, they will on their own make decisions to rebuild the herd. It took the hunters in the TB zone a while to catch on.....but they got it now.

What hunters want may not be the same as what farmers want.

What is the DPSM on you hunting property Bio ?
 
#25 ·
I did not see 68% for at the Ogemaw meeting.
Tom,
The LPDMI Public Information Meeting crowds were hardly a representative sample of the hunting public. But if you want to believe it...feel free!:)
 
#26 ·
How about that! No need for a new chart as its already displayed. Full inclusion of crossbows started in 2009 and the number of crossbow users double through the 2012 season.

http://greatlakesecho.org/2013/03/14/crossbows-gain-popularity-with-michigan-deer-hunters/

According to the department, the legalization of crossbow hunting was meant to expand opportunities and better manage the deer herd.

Bio is not going to let facts get in the way of one of his charts or graphs.......if the data can be manipulated to say it is a result of QDM regulations he will finds a way to show that even when the big picture is full of data that shows a different story.......:dizzy:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top