Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Whitetail Deer Disease' started by Luv2hunteup, Apr 29, 2020.
As many as possible
Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman mobile app
On the surface, that seems like an extremely weak goal. So, you're advocating targeting yearling bucks to the exclusion of any other? I think it could be useful to identify a specific goal for this, in order to keep harvest totals for other categories in balance. There must be a ceiling here that would redirect effort towards other targets for greatest impact, don't you think?
Doesn't Wisconsin kill a lot of yearling bucks each year, as a percentage of total? What am I missing?
For someone that complains that the Stay at Home order for Covid is over the top and killing the economy unnecessarily, your “go to any extreme to mitigate the spread of CWD” stance is a bit nauseating.
How many are you going to shoot?
You r missing that we are talking about a certain article/area. These guys target 5-6 year old bucks, they killed 40 deer then the following year 26. Probably safe to assume most of those kills were does, considering they are complaining about not seeing any older bucks.
I say shoot what u want but these guys are a perfect example of what NOT to do if your concern is cwd spreading. Hard to argue that unless u feel the article is not truthful.
I appreciate the article. It is providing evidence to counter the belief that CWD is not a problem. I get that these hunters are on the far extreme in terms of targeting an upper age class. But it's not all or nothing. There is a middle ground that needs to be found as a starting point.
It's the same question I've asked the MAPR supporters and largely received no response: "What is an acceptable level of yearlings in the harvest?"
It's not that difficult. Identifying the number might allow us to get past all the posturing and move towards something useful.
If the number is 40%, we are probably there in some DMUs.
If the number is 80%, then I'm not sure we can get there in some/your DMU without a mandate to kill yearling bucks. That seems complicated. How would you approach that?
100% is not realistic.
20% might be too risky.
If everyone can agree a number, then we can better determine how far we are from it and how drastic the measures need to be to realign. Maybe we would find that us hunters aren't doing that bad of a job in some areas, despite the DNR's permissions. Is that possible?
Way to go killjoy. Taking the steam right out of this debate with a common sense approach. Good post.
We MI hunters are doing an excellent job at slowing cwd. Even in areas with maprs most 2.5s are getting shot & 3.5s a trophy.
I love the 10 antlerless tags, if anyone feels shooting does is the answer then have at it. If it passes how can any group go to the DNR complaining about to many deer?? Unless everyone in that group filled their 10 tags each they wont have a leg to stand on. Genius move
My area is too young in mandatory A.P.R. to decree success or failure in C.W.D. spread or control effect.
We (well some of us) accept that yearlings are as capable as any deer of acquiring it.
And that yearling bucks (well , some of them) relocate from their natal range.
And , others meander as bucks do when seeking doe.
I'll leave buck age out of the argument for the most part. With age comes more time for exposure. Which leads to eyeing doe with age on them too.
A.P.R. is less a contention here now.
While reducing the herd further is.
It really is a "pick an acceptable number" of herd size and dynamics/age and sex.
With the trend of reduction there are fewer buck fawns due to fewer doe.
When a hunter is facing few deer , (I know it's hard to imagine , until it happens) a yearling buck is (my opinion) more expendable than a doe.
Please don't take that as an affront against A.P.R.'s.
I dislike C.W.D. in the local herd here. Yet need to manage for the future of my personal hunting interests , or else eliminate all deer possible and move on.
Can I live with A.P.R.'s and C.W.D. together? Of course.
But not if reduction continues to trend the way it has.
For decent private habitat surrounding , there is also plenty of hunters still.
All are welcome to target older bucks , but they also outnumber more than just older bucks.
For C.W.D.concerns , the yearling bucks are less in number per annual class (and were pre A.P.R. due to herd reduction) than pre C.W.D..
That is with many (sorry I don't have a percentage) hunters historically passing yearlings.
They are not going to see the o.p.'s articles age in any appreciable number.
Hunter restraint more than regulations has caused the herd we have here today.
But the herd continues to be low in number , due to those willing to keep filling tags.
When I (and I'm selfish about filling a tag myself) go a season without a kill of any type , something is up with the herd. At least the hunt-ability of it going forward.
Regardless of what is desired for a kill , without recruitment through fawns ,it will be hit or miss. With doe reductions in a low numbered herd, reductions in fawn recruitment follows.
A cautionary tale of decent private habitat here that can be transferred elsewhere.
I'm still enjoying my hunting. But it's far from what it was or could be.
IF C.W.D. concerns mean keeping deer at low numbers ,(and yes there are areas in need of reduction still) kills of prime specimens might not seem as glorious when considering the rarity of getting them to that point , and what remains after.
Hunters will be the cause of what is left after a season.
The wrong regulation will enable them to repeat what has been done in the past.
And those two lines should be what regulations are based on.
But what is the state managing for?
When the state refuses a property and it's hunters buck tags due to doe numbers , you'll know the state is managing.
Meanwhile , same o same o...It's others , not me/us that is the problem.
The state manages by reaction. Nevermind herd management by design.
It's not all that often Dish & I agree... but that is an excellent post!! Well done LtL.
Off the cuff, the simple answer might be if MAPR's are intended to protect at least 50%... 50% is built into the MAPR equation. In 2018, the MI harvest survey noted yearling % of harvest at historic lows across the state. 14.7% UP - 22.2% NLP - 44.2% SLP The quality culture shift has already moved yearlings as a % of harvest steadily downward. Looks like this isn’t a big issue anymore, right?!?
But will targeting a greater or lessor % of yearlings on its’ own contribute significantly in the CWD challenge? I’m not convinced it will. MAPR restricts buck harvest across age classes, advances buck age structure, and overall buck population. Shifting toward doe harvest creates space for more bucks within the same habitat. The net result is an increase of CWD susceptibility in the herd, removing fewer positives and increasing CWD contact/shedding (frequency, duration & distance).
So the question is what strategy will remove the greatest percentage of CWD positive deer to reduce prevalence and geographic spread? Allowing science, not preference or convenient theory, to drive response we might have had a prayer in reducing broader impact across the state. Consider the following for CWD & defined buffer areas:
Allow (vs restrict) broad opportunity to remove the greatest number of CWD positive animals regardless of age or physical characteristics. Balance harvest goals based on science documented infection rates (buck:doe) across age classes and support representative test sampling. Reduce density and rate of population growth, through appropriate doe harvest, in addition to, not as an alternative to sustained buck harvest.
Without choosing to forgo the science defying APR/CWD experiment, Michigan is solidly on a path to achieve the same dismal future as Wisconsin, and in record time. If we don’t want this to be our future, it’s time to demand the DNR/NRC stop treating Michigan as a CWD petri-dish.
There isn't and can't be a one size fits all percentage but we can start by setting the floor at 50%. 50% of the yearling cohort, not their percentage of overall harvest. 50% would be treading water.
How are you going to measure success?
I think targeting the oldest candidates of either sex is a good plan. The recruitment rate would increase with lower population density (all else being equal), wouldn't it?
I get that it's undesirable to reduce the population to a point that can't withstand a few freak incidents without total crash, but if the habitat is reasonable, I can't see that happening. On the other hand, reduce the population too much and you'll encourage diffusion, which is tantamount to another dispersal event.
Quite the conundrum.
If you grow the population towards K, then you could slow the recruitment rate, but that doesn't seem like a good idea. Overpopulation is a stressor. I would think it best to stay somewhere below MSY and try to keep the overall herd on the younger side.
What maximum age would you suggest?
How would one model the age structure of a population?
Would you trust trail cam data? I don't think I would, unless you're strictly talking 0, 1 and 2+.
Do you think we could reconstruct it based on harvest data?
Seems pretty specific and probably -- as you said -- unreliable across a range of DMUs. Labor intensive. Complex regs and frequently changing quotas. Maybe too much annual variability to be sustainable?