Do you have a link for this? I would like to read it.

It is in the latest DNR management press release the emailed out a couple of week ago. The one where you can click on each individual DMU and it gives the management for that particular DMU. Internet sucks here right now (comes and goes ) and my email wont open up like it should so no link at the moment but it shouldn't be hard to look up an the DNR page.

EDIT : http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MIDNR/bulletins/ddc720

 

The DNR seems to think the antlerless quotas are consistent with the QDM goals you guys set out to achieve . The DNR felt those goals were important enough to single them out as a factor in their current management strategy for Leelanau .
So you should be happy the DNR is trying to achieve your QDM goals

Consistent goals don't get obtained from 6 fold increases in antlerless permits in one year. The DNR's original populaiton goal under APR's was 5-7k deer. We are certainly under that number now.

Clearly our population goal wasn't supposed look like a yo yo. Now they won't even give you a number. Different biologist, different NRC, different Director, more influence from Farm Bureau. Perhaps one sided social managment, but certainly not management based on the majority of the population. I'm all for keeping the population under control, and within carrying capacity(whatever that may mean in the north), but no way can you justify a 6 fold increase in anlterless permits in one year, for a three year period. I beleive our 2012 populaition was to high, but now its back at 2005 - 2006 levels, with no bottom in sight, if they continue on with the antlerless quoats they have now.

 

Empire,

If my understanding of your definition of the problem is even remotely correct....You are stating that, as people still want to kill a deer, but can't shoot what was once a legal buck, they are resorting to killing does.

And if deer are becoming more scarce, it appears as though the "if I don't shoot it my neighbor will, has shifted from bucks to does.


Regardless, it should be interesting to see what the harvest data shows for 2014, both in the NW13, and statewide.

 

Double post deleted

 

What you do to have more bucks and a lower population is to limit the buck harvest and increase the doe harvest.

Quite simple really.

You can accomplish it through programs like mandatory APRs, or a one buck rule, or a buck quota or lottery system, combined with increased antlerless harvest, while working to minimize button buck harvest.

And in other situations, where the herd is clearly overpopulated, you can simply increase doe harvest, as the population declines recruitment of buck fawns will increase.

Have a read:

LINK: "Taking does can increase buck fawn production."

The reason for this has to do with the relationship of the population to carrying capacity. When the population exceeds 1/2 the carrying capacity, fawn production (recruitment) goes down as the population increases. So decreasing the population can increase buck fawn production under those conditions.

You can also increase buck fawn production by targeting older does. Older does tend to have more doe fawns and younger does tend to have more buck fawns.

If you understand the biology you will realize that populations of animals are more complex than most people realize.

At 1/2 carrying capacity or less, what most people think is true is true, increasing doe numbers increases buck fawn production. But above 1/2 carrying capacity, reducing doe number increases buck fawn production.

But of course, I know you won't let the facts influence your thinking. I only write this in case there are others who actually want to know some of the underlying biology. I know this is just a game of gotcha for you. :lol:

Live on in bliss.

Lots of conflicting information out there when it comes to trying to manipulate offspring sex. IMO, QDMA will use any tidbit of infomation to push their agenda. That agenda has long been fixed on pushing hunters to kill more does. With shrinking herds, the QDMA would be better served to put a sock in it concerning their continuous push for further reducing deer populations.

Here is a study by Ozoga and some other whitetail biologist. Their study suggest a balanced buck:doe ratio and a herd made up with a high number of adult bucks can actually produce more doe fawns.

A complete understanding of deer biology might be good for everyone concerned.

Link- http://outdoorchannel.com/article.a...icle&key=using-advanced-doe-management-strategies-to-manipulate-fawn-sex-ratios
The theory behind these findings is based on impacts to deerherd health.Within a deer population, time of copulation within the estrus period is determined largely by the adult sex ratio (number of adult does to adult bucks)and the age structure of the buck population (older bucks are more experienced breeders than younger bucks).Thus, does in herds with balanced sex ratios and abundant adult bucks would tend to breed early in their estrus cycle and produce more female offspring.In contrast, does in populations with skewed sex ratios favoring does, or those with insufficient numbers of adult bucks, would tend to breed later and produce more male offspring.The production of males when they are in short supply could be nature’s way of restoring balance.

 

Sorry for the double post. My app is acting up.

A shorter more intense rut has the potential of producing less bucks, who'da thunk!

 

Lots of conflicting information out there when it comes to trying to manipulate offspring sex. IMO, QDMA will use any tidbit of infomation to push their agenda. That agenda has long been fixed on pushing hunters to kill more does. With shrinking herds, the QDMA would be better served to put a sock in it concerning their continuous push for further reducing deer populations.

Here is a study by Ozoga and some other whitetail biologist. Their study suggest a balanced buck:doe ratio and a herd made up with a high number of adult bucks can actually produce more doe fawns.

A complete understanding of deer biology might be good for everyone concerned.

Link- http://outdoorchannel.com/article.a...icle&key=using-advanced-doe-management-strategies-to-manipulate-fawn-sex-ratios
The theory behind these findings is based on impacts to deerherd health.Within a deer population, time of copulation within the estrus period is determined largely by the adult sex ratio (number of adult does to adult bucks)and the age structure of the buck population (older bucks are more experienced breeders than younger bucks).Thus, does in herds with balanced sex ratios and abundant adult bucks would tend to breed early in their estrus cycle and produce more female offspring.In contrast, does in populations with skewed sex ratios favoring does, or those with insufficient numbers of adult bucks, would tend to breed later and produce more male offspring.The production of males when they are in short supply could be nature’s way of restoring balance.

The information you are talking about is not necessarily conflicting. It seems conflicting only if you do not carefully examine things closely and want it to be an either/or explanation. But the information you posted and the information I posted can be resolved with an AND statement rather than an OR statement.

Young does tend to have more buck fawns.

Older does tend to have more doe fawns.

Stressed deer tend to have more buck fawns.

Heathy, unstressed deer tend to have more doe fawns.

These things are true, but they are expressed as proportional data.

AND...it is also true that the higher the population as you go above 1/2 carrying capacity, the fewer fawns being produced.

When it gets very high, the percentage of buck fawns born may be increased, but the overall number of fawns recruited is way down so the net number of buck fawns produced is lower.

Example:

Let's suppose you start with a herd of 100 does in a pen like the Cusino enclosure where Ozoga did the studies you cited and it is at 1/2 carrying capacity.

Fawn recruitment is high, let's say 1 fawn per doe (recruitment means fawns that make it to their first hunting season, not how many are born).

Let's suppose an excess of doe fawns are being born, (say 60% doe fawns and 40% buck fawns). That means, there are 60 doe fawns and 40 buck fawns recruited.

Now let's double the population--according to population theory it should take recruitment to zero, but lets suppose recruitment is now 0.2 fawns per doe, but 60% of those fawns are buck fawns because of the stress.

Now 40 fawns make it to the fall, that's 24 buck fawns and 16 doe fawns.

So fewer buck fawns are produced even though a higher percentage of fawns are bucks.

By the way, under the latter conditions, the herd size is plummeting each year because too few doe fawns are being replaced. I am showing what the first year might look like, but in fact, buck fawn recruitment would go to near zero in subsequent years. So things get a lot worse than what I just showed as the population gets too high.

Again, it is not an either or situation, it is a dynamic situation and there are counteracting forces at work.

these charts describe the relationship between fawn production and doe population. LINK

Most biologists, whether they be QDM managers, trophy managers, or traditional managers, will agree that a herd should be kept near or below maximum sustained yield (QDMA recommends 60% of carrying capacity).

QDMA did not make up these models, they are basic population biology.

 

From post #256 above: ( re QDMA’s ‘agenda’):

“That agenda has long been fixed on pushing hunters to kill more does. With shrinking herds, the QDMA would be better served to put a sock in it concerning their continuous push for further reducing deer populations.”

That poster must have a geographical version of QDMA that is not available in my area. Leastwise, I don’t see the type of emphasis that he claims he is experiencing.

MY local version of QD-think emphasizes a ‘right-sized’ herd to the local wild habitat and to the tolerance of those of us with agricultural interests. That may mean killing more does. It may mean killing fewer. It depends.

One of the appeals of the QD-think I’ve been exposed to is its flexibility; and its rational approach to controlling a herd’s size while exercising harvest tactics on males that ---so far----have energized hunters and non-hunters.

I’m sorry to hear the version the poster adopted is so markedly different. Or too, there is the possibility he is simply misinterpreting any expression of favoring killing a doe as ‘pushing hunters to kill more…”

 

I agree, I believe your reasoning to be sound, but only for localized applications. I think all can agree that our DNR does not have the will or the ability to manage the deer herd this QD way? Or the need to for that matter.

Generalizations as specific as those being tossed around by others in this and other threads generally don't add up very well.

In my opinion the QD think really isn't thinking , it's knowing. Everything I've read QD wise, points to the necessity of obtaining an as accurate as possible census of overall population numbers in addition to, fawn recruitment, live, dressed weights and age, sex ratios to determine doe harvest goals.

I'm seeing less, or I've seen more doesn't a calculation make. Trends, sure. Algebraic expressions, not so much.

 

Empire,

If my understanding of your definition of the problem is even remotely correct....You are stating that, as people still want to kill a deer, but can't shoot what was once a legal buck, they are resorting to killing does.

And if deer are becoming more scarce, it appears as though the "if I don't shoot it my neighbor will, has shifted from bucks to does.


Regardless, it should be interesting to see what the harvest data shows for 2014, both in the NW13, and statewide.

No, my problem is that the DNR has issued a very large amount of antlerless permits back to back years even after we have had a very substantial winter kill. We had over 260 inches of snow last year, with record cold temperatures, and no winter thaws. In my opinion after this years harvest, our population will be well below what the goal should be, and was onset of the APR's.

It's not a issue of hunters deiciding to shoot does if they can't shoot a buck. If the antlerless tags are issued, hunters will continue to kill does regardless. It's not the numbers of antlered bucks driving the doe harvest, it's the number of antlered tags issued. Continue on at this pace, and we won't have any deer to harverst bucks or does.

There will always be some pockets that have decent populations, but much of the public land, and park ground is pretty void of deer after last years winter kill. We are a small land mass, another year of 1400 antlerless tags will decimate whats left of our population.

I don't have issues finding legal bucks to shoot, it's simply time to layoff the antlerless tags a bit. And in the future, they need to find some balance, without reducing the deer herd by 50% in one or two years.

They need to have a population goal, and try to maintain it. Regardless of APR's. Leelanau has been under APR's going on 12 years, this isn't a new issue because of APR's. It's just poor management in my opinion.

 

^^You can bet your a** there will still be a bunch of people on here ignoring all common sense and placing the blame solely on APR's.

 

From post #256 above: ( re QDMA’s ‘agenda’):

“That agenda has long been fixed on pushing hunters to kill more does. With shrinking herds, the QDMA would be better served to put a sock in it concerning their continuous push for further reducing deer populations.”

That poster must have a geographical version of QDMA that is not available in my area. Leastwise, I don’t see the type of emphasis that he claims he is experiencing.

MY local version of QD-think emphasizes a ‘right-sized’ herd to the local wild habitat and to the tolerance of those of us with agricultural interests. That may mean killing more does. It may mean killing fewer. It depends.

One of the appeals of the QD-think I’ve been exposed to is its flexibility; and its rational approach to controlling a herd’s size while exercising harvest tactics on males that ---so far----have energized hunters and non-hunters.

I’m sorry to hear the version the poster adopted is so markedly different. Or too, there is the possibility he is simply misinterpreting any expression of favoring killing a doe as ‘pushing hunters to kill more…”

Before I posted, some posters were expressing concern over an increase in antlerless permits. Even the DNR stated they should be decreasing them for that area, but due to a lack of buck targets, they would increase antlerless permits..

I believe those posters have good reason to be concerned. Now, look at what Bio posted. He used QD think to address valid concerns.

Lots of conversations around here about carrying capacity, too many deer for farmers or too few for hunters.. The DNR deer management plan. What is the managemnt plan or what is the DNR's desired density? They used to have a goal per SQ mile, do they even have a goal today?

Do farmers or FB have a desired density?

 

Before I posted, some posters were expressing concern over an increase in antlerless permits. Even the DNR stated they should be decreasing them for that area, but due to a lack of buck targets, they would increase antlerless permits..

I believe those posters have good reason to be concerned. Now, look at what Bio posted. He used QD think to address valid concerns.

Lots of conversations around here about carrying capacity, too many deer for farmers or too few for hunters.. The DNR deer management plan. What is the managemnt plan or what is the DNR's desired density? They used to have a goal per SQ mile, do they even have a goal today?

Do farmers or FB have a desired density?

Is dead a density?

 

Is dead a density?

That's my point.

 

As posed in an above post:

"The DNR deer management plan. What is the management plan or what is the DNR's desired density? They used to have a goal per SQ mile, do they even have a goal today?

Do farmers or FB have a desired density?"

The DNR does have a management plan. Their interim deer ‘guru’ at the time, John Niewoonder, spent a year developing and articulating it. It is likely in their website somewhere. Prior to that work, you could garner their thinking via the population goals published for each DMU around 2005.

And much has happened around and after that report: CWD, EHD, new bosses, new ideas, new politicos who have their own ideas.

In short these things are always evolving. Which won’t surprise anyone. After all, counting ---as some expect them to do ---- a million and a half head of wary, elusive, highly mobile animals spread over 37,200,000 acres ….can be, well, it can be challenge.
But, that is part of their responsibility. So we should expect something.

But how finite can we expect the number to be? My local biologist with one full time assistant and a part-timer is responsible for about 2,700 square miles of land…..that he monitors for deer, turkey, geese, all sorts of small game, and probably fishing too for all I know.
If he tells me he believes ---based on what he is seeing and the field contacts he has developed over many years ---- that it is trending this way or that way, well, I think that’s enough for me.
…………………………………………..

As far as what the MFB or “farmers” expect. Well, that’s a question that is sorta akin to the old saw about what one looks for in real estate, i.e. ‘location, location, location’. It depends on where you are.

The corn & soy farmers of Gratiot county will have a different 'density goal' for deer than the orchard operators along the Fruit Ridge of Kent who will be different than the small parcels farmer of Montcalm where deer are the crop.

As far as MFB? …..Well, MFB wants what it’s most vocal an influential members want. Period.

Finally, I will add this as a personal observation……OK, a personal opinion: Farmers are over-represented in the ranks of hunters. I mean, on a proportional basis, or per capita, or whatever metric applies…..there are more farmers as a percentage of their population that are deer-hunters than in any other occupation. Farmers hunt. Many hunters are farmers. So vilifying all of them because some complain loudly and effectively over damage is, in my view, a tad imprudent.

 

"
The corn & soy farmers of Gratiot county will have a different 'density goal' for deer than the orchard operators along the Fruit Ridge of Kent who will be different than the small parcels farmer of Montcalm where deer are the crop.


Finally, I will add this as a personal observation……OK, a personal opinion: Farmers are over-represented in the ranks of hunters. I mean, on a proportional basis, or per capita, or whatever metric applies…..there are more farmers as a percentage of their population that are deer-hunters than in any other occupation. Farmers hunt. Many hunters are farmers. So vilifying all of them because some complain loudly and effectively over damage is, in my view, a tad imprudent.

If you could tell the farmers in Gratiot to cut the corn a bit earlier next year, it would make one Gratiot hunter a bit less stressed. :lol:

Also, your peronsal opinion is well noted and I could not agree more. Well stated and much appreciated...and I am not a farmer.

 

As posed in an above post:

"The DNR deer management plan. What is the management plan or what is the DNR's desired density? They used to have a goal per SQ mile, do they even have a goal today?

Do farmers or FB have a desired density?"

The DNR does have a management plan. Their interim deer ‘guru’ at the time, John Niewoonder, spent a year developing and articulating it. It is likely in their website somewhere. Prior to that work, you could garner their thinking via the population goals published for each DMU around 2005.

And much has happened around and after that report: CWD, EHD, new bosses, new ideas, new politicos who have their own ideas.

In short these things are always evolving. Which won’t surprise anyone. After all, counting ---as some expect them to do ---- a million and a half head of wary, elusive, highly mobile animals spread over 37,200,000 acres ….can be, well, it can be challenge.
But, that is part of their responsibility. So we should expect something.

But how finite can we expect the number to be? My local biologist with one full time assistant and a part-timer is responsible for about 2,700 square miles of land…..that he monitors for deer, turkey, geese, all sorts of small game, and probably fishing too for all I know.
If he tells me he believes ---based on what he is seeing and the field contacts he has developed over many years ---- that it is trending this way or that way, well, I think that’s enough for me.
…………………………………………..

As far as what the MFB or “farmers” expect. Well, that’s a question that is sorta akin to the old saw about what one looks for in real estate, i.e. ‘location, location, location’. It depends on where you are.

The corn & soy farmers of Gratiot county will have a different 'density goal' for deer than the orchard operators along the Fruit Ridge of Kent who will be different than the small parcels farmer of Montcalm where deer are the crop.

As far as MFB? …..Well, MFB wants what it’s most vocal an influential members want. Period.

Finally, I will add this as a personal observation……OK, a personal opinion: Farmers are over-represented in the ranks of hunters. I mean, on a proportional basis, or per capita, or whatever metric applies…..there are more farmers as a percentage of their population that are deer-hunters than in any other occupation. Farmers hunt. Many hunters are farmers. So vilifying all of them because some complain loudly and effectively over damage is, in my view, a tad imprudent.

I'm sure 2005s goals are a bit outdated.

I don't believe they have a present day management plan for most areas. A quick search of google will show 2013 car deer crashes were low around the state last year.

I will not vilify farmers. I know a good number of farmers and I can only think of two that continue complaining about wildlife each year. Coincidentally, they're both FB members. Not sure if FBs newsletters get em all cranked up believing those evil deer need to all die or what. Many other farmers are deer hunters who are content with a herd that even some hunters may think is bloated. IMO, FB is not a good representation for most farmers concerning wildlife.

 

So now the FB is involved...... from a tactical standpoint, is it better to work cooperatively with an organization that wields substantial influence and attempt to steer policy in a direction that has the least negative impact on hunters or is it better to go toe to toe with them in a confrontational manner and hope that you can win a pissing contest?

 

Since the other thread was closed, and we started to discuss the MFB and LPDMI, and now the MFB is brought into this thread, I am hopeful that this is a good place for my questions ..

It appears that on June 27th, 2013 that Michigan Farm News reported a story on APR's and indicates that the LPDMI did not respond to requests.

Then on September 5th 2013, Tony sent a letter to the MFB stating the LPDMI's position and that they were never contacted.

It is odd that the email states that the LPDMI was never contacted by the MFB, but Michigan Farm News states that the LPDMI did not respond to their requests. What is the story here? Did the MFN have the wrong contact info for the LPDMI? Did they ever respond back to Tony's email?

I will have to say that the email sent by Tony gives an ever so slight of a glimpse as to the amount of work that he poured into the LPDMI. It does not matter which side of the APR debate you stand, one has to at least acknowledge that he worked extremely hard on this.

 

Since the other thread was closed, and we started to discuss the MFB and LPDMI, and now the MFB is brought into this thread, I am hopeful that this is a good place for my questions ..

It appears that on June 27th, 2013 that Michigan Farm News reported a story on APR's and indicates that the LPDMI did not respond to requests.

Then on September 5th 2013, Tony sent a letter to the MFB stating the LPDMI's position and that they were never contacted.

It is odd that the email states that the LPDMI was never contacted by the MFB, but Michigan Farm News states that the LPDMI did not respond to their requests. What is the story here? Did the MFN have the wrong contact info for the LPDMI? Did they ever respond back to Tony's email?

I will have to say that the email sent by Tony gives an ever so slight of a glimpse as to the amount of work that he poured into the LPDMI. It does not matter which side of the APR debate you stand, one has to at least acknowledge that he worked extremely hard on this.

The LPDMI reached out to the MFB the previous year in an effort to gain their endorsement, for our original HC proposal At that time, I believe summer of 2012, they informed us that we fell in between annual meetings to consider such a request and that they'd make it a topic of conversation at their annual meeting in November, if memory serves. Of course that time schedule did nothing for the LPDMI.
In my efforts with the QDMA, there have been numerous efforts by both the Michigan leadership of the QDMA AND the MDNR to establish a working relationship with the MFB. Face to face conversations with Rebecca Park at NRC meetings yielded statements from her that they. MFB, would be happy to meet to discuss solutions to the ongoing issue related to deer.
Rebecca asked that we, QDMA, contact her in the fall when the MFB was establishing policy for the coming year so we could discuss it then. We honored her timeline request only to be told that it was too late in the calendar year when we did contact her, to add anything to their annual list of topics for their policy meetings and that we should consider contacting them earlier "next year". This was repeated on more than one occasion.
The QDMA's track record of reaching out to the MFB goes back to Ed Spin when I was first getting involved with deer politics around 2001.
It's VERY clear to me that the MFB has zero interest in cooperating with hunters, except the SMART or Concerned ones, to find solutions, but rather they feel that a well funded lobby is a preferred method of operation, IMO.
Concerning MFN "efforts" to contact the LPDMI (Me). It never happened. I talked to a MFB representative at the Ag Expo last summer on the campus of MSU. He said he had copies of the emails that included our email address. He assured me that he would be happy to forward those emails to me so that I could verify the MFN's claims. He lied, then and I have no reason to believe the MFN lied about attempting to contact us. Certainly EVERY other news agency, magazine, radio station, radio personality, etc. had zero issue with the contact information that we made available on our web site. Hell, Jim Sweeney could have probably given them my phone number.

As far as my efforts are concerned, I have zero regrets. We simply responded to what we felt was a cry for change in this state by a majority of fellow deer hunters, and we were right. What we weren't confident of was whether or not a super majority would support the options available to us by the system in place. Only going through the process were we able to determine the answer to that question, and it was no.
We worked with what we were given and operated in good faith and were satisfied, though disappointed, in the outcome. Moving on.

 

So now the FB is involved...... from a tactical standpoint, is it better to work cooperatively with an organization that wields substantial influence and attempt to steer policy in a direction that has the least negative impact on hunters or is it better to go toe to toe with them in a confrontational manner and hope that you can win a pissing contest?

As a group, we sportsmen should be making efforts to educate one another to what's going on with deer politics. FB is running the show. Why would I want to be aligned with an organization that plays dirty as evidenced in QMANs post above and in the linked article I will post below. FB blowing off the LPDMI and the new NRC member (long time FB lobbyist) appointed by our govenor are eerily similar to what's going on in other states. K Adams with the QDMA points this out nicely along with DNRs from other states.

I think a better question would be, why would any sportsman want to be a tool for the FB to meet their goal?

For anyone who wants to know what's going on with your declining deer herd, read the linked article.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2013/10/dirty-politics-deer-management

 

Good article

Some of the high lights that I enjoyed:

"Backroom Deer Deals
State agencies are supposed to manage deer herds on behalf of the public. That includes everyone—farmers, insurers, hunters, nonhunters, and even antis. But hunters are unique in this mix. Unlike any other group, we do the actual work—and we pay for it with license fees and excise taxes on equipment. Everyone should have a seat at the table to help bring consensus. But when hunters are left out, there is something fundamentally wrong.

At the same time, legislatures are supposed to hold DNRs accountable for science-based management, which means biologists must have data to justify their proposals. “Things go haywire, however, when the legislature or governor make their own decisions with no scientific data to back them up,” says former New Hampshire deer biologist Kip Adams of the Quality Deer Management Association. “This happens all the time, and it is entirely unjustifiable.”"


I said the same thing and Fairfax chastised me.



"Rather, it is the state’s powerful farm lobby, whose constituents want even fewer deer to prevent crop damage, and whose donors contributed $246,800 to Gov. Branstad’s 2010 campaign (according to followthemoney.org and opensecrets.org), that is standing in the way."


Everyone claims that I don't know what I'm talking about when I say that the farmers want deer dead. Maybe a second source may provoke thought.

 

I find it ironic the QDMA (Kip Adams) would be chastising the AG interest for pushing regs "with no scientific data to back them up" Wile at the same time pushing regs that are also purely social with no scientific data to show other wise:lol:

Also ironic that the QDMA was lying in bed with the AG interest as long as they went along with what they were pushing and as soon as the AG interest didn't agree with the QDMA they become the evil backroom dealmakers bent on destroying deer hunting

 

BTW: We now have our new NRC member ...........:yikes: And you guys called me crazy and that I didn't know what I was talking about and so on...........

 

BTW: We now have our new NRC member ...........:yikes: And you guys called me crazy and that I didn't know what I was talking about and so on...........

I never called you crazy...

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Ohub Campfire mobile app