Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Michigan Whitetail Deer Hunting' started by jiggin is livin, Nov 24, 2020.
Do u disagree that reducing doe population will also reduce future buck population??
Contact your local QDM representative and they will explain that lower doe numbers will improve the quality of bucks. And I am looking past my own property line. I don’t hunt Public land much at all. I’m happy for the public land hunters who now have almost 3 weeks more opportunity to fill their buck tag if they are that ambitious to go battle the elements with a ML in late December weather! If they get a 4 point on December 20th with a smoke pole on public land, it will be a greater trophy than my 2 yr old 8 point I shot with my bow on a huge chunk of private ground. More power to them!
So they are trying to reduce doe populations, by letting people shoot bucks during doe season?
APR's I am not a fan of, because it focuses on antlers and not age. I understand its a compromise, I don't have any problems with them, I'm just not a fan. In those zones though, why can't people shoot does if they want meat in the freezer? Are they antler obsessed?
The DNR's job IS to manage the herd. A healthy heard, balance in ratios and age structure, will make everyone happy.
I don't see how letting people shoot a doe anywhere in the state, where there are areas that need doe populations to be built up, helps the herd at all.
What about people like me, that almost exclusively hunt private land, but will now be hunting state land to try and shoot a buck? I don't see how that helps the guy who only hunts state land, how it helps the deer herd on the state land, or how it helps the private land I would usually hunt and harvest a few does from?
Dude, I was just.
Hey I'm good with it. I'm going down state and shoot all their deer. I have the week between Xmas and new years off.
Anybody up for some deer drives? Pew pew
Sorry about that...no idea why it attached so many quotes to my response. I wasn’t responding to you!
There has been significant research done that shows that when herd sizes are too large does are not as successful at reproduction and the fawn mortality rate is higher than when deer numbers are appropriate. Considering that fawn mortality is highest in buck fawns, it seems to reason that reducing that mortality rate would actually increase available buck numbers.
From my experience before TB was supposedly found in Mecosta, the doe numbers were ridiculously high. Our 160 acre property had a visible browse line. When the liberal and cheap doe tags were issues we saw a significant reduction in doe group size while actually seeing more and better bucks and the browse line regenerated.
I am not going to try and change your mind on this, just stating what I have observed.
Contact qdm, lmao. Thats the funniest line I've read during my 5 years on this site.
Ya know another way to help balance the herd is by not shooting a buck
If you don't agree with how the DNR is managing the herd, why would you partake in this extra opportunity?
I completely agree with you on the Doe thing and have decided not to shoot one in Allegan this year. I am glad the DNR gives us the tools to manage the herd. We need an education piece now to get people on board
I didn’t anticipate a lot of private land hunters crashing the public land in late December to try to fill a buck tag. I know I won’t. If you are concerned with growing bigger bucks, no need to kill a buck just to “tag out”. If you don’t have a buck, go shoot a public land buck in late December. Post it on LFTS and I’ll give you a “like” and a congrats!
I'm not trying to change your mind but I have observed the more does using my property the more bucks I see. This year was all time highs!!!
Where would you put your buck to doe ratio? In Mecosta I would estimate we were 1:15 -20 bucks per doe pre TB and closer to 1:5 after a few years
My observations are the same. More doe = more bucks.