Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
Had not looked at this before. Very interesting stuff. The DNR did a survey in 2006 (LINK) after instituting the APRs in 2001.

Hunter support was 74%.

Landowner support was 76%.

Unfortunately I do not have data for the years prior to 2001 for individual DMUs, but the data from 2001 to 2011 are pretty striking.

Hunter numbers are up, so is buck harvest. Hunter Success has been virtually flat with year to year variations, which are normal for these types of data.



What is really interesting is the trend in hunter numbers compared to the UP. Looking at the ends of the trend-line, which helps remove year to year variability, hunter numbers are up about 55% in DMU 122. Over the same period, they are down 21% in the whole UP.

The trend from 2008 to 2011 has been flat in DMU 122, whereas we know from another thread a big deal was made about overall 9% decline in hunter numbers in the UP.

It would be interesting to see hunter numbers prior to 2001 because it is not clear if the three low years in 01, 02, and 04 were in response to APRs. If so, and if in prior years the numbers were higher, then the increase in hunter numbers would be artifactual. But still, over that time period, the trend in 122 certainly bucks the trend in the whole UP.



Hunter success rate has been pretty flat in both DMU 122 and the UP as a whole. But on average, hunter success is higher in DMU 122 by about 3 percentage points than the UP as a whole. There was a pretty sharp decline in 122 last year but those kinds of year to year variations are common, as for example in 2009 for the whole UP the number dropped substantially but recovered the next year. Since I do not have baseline data before 2001 I do not know if this hunter success rate has changed since institution of APRs.



This region is predominantly private land so it does not speak to the debate about public vs. private lans and APRs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
29,180 Posts
Hunter numbers are up, so is buck harvest. Hunter Success has been virtually flat with year to year variations, which are normal for these types of data.
Hunter buck success has been relatively flat.

Do you have the data on TOTAL hunter success rates? I suspect they've also stayed relatively flat.
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
Hunter buck success has been relatively flat.

Do you have the data on TOTAL hunter success rates? I suspect they've also stayed relatively flat.
Very good question, and interesting answer. Harvest rates seem to be very high in this DMU--perhaps this is why they tried the APRs there? I don't know much about the DMU except what I can see from the data.

Buck harvest is up, total harvest is up, antlerless harvest is down slightly, but Hunter Success is down by 20 percentage points.

This may seem counterintuitive but when you consider the sharp increase in numbers of hunters it explains things.

I would hazard a guess that the increased hunter numbers have to do with the typical antlerphilic nature of Michigan hunters.

In 2011, hunter success there was 53%. In comparison, 37.6% of hunters in the UP killed 1 or more deer, 6.5% killed 2 or more, and 1.2% killed 3 or more. Now, these numbers cannot be compared directly, because the one from DMU 122 does not break out the number of hunters who killed multiple deer, so the actual hunter success rate, i.e. those who killed 1 or more deer, is lower than 53%. But it is likely considerably higher than for the UP in general.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,760 Posts
The number of hunter's graph really doesn't show an increase, considering dmu 122 is all private, hunter numbers rarely fluctuate that much when your talking hunter numbers on private land. The graph, if you take the highest and lowest points out, really are pretty steady. Not havng 2001 and before data, it really hard to determine how much an increase or decrease the dmu might have seen.From 2009 to 2011 its on a decline..what does that tell you? Maybe nothing, maybe not!?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,760 Posts
Not having prior 2001 data really puts a damper on reading the data and seeing where all this stands. And being all or mostly private sure puts a few factors into play when comparing data to the entire UP.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
29,180 Posts
Very good question, and interesting answer.

Buck harvest is up, total harvest is up, antlerless harvest is down slightly, but Hunter Success is down by 20 percentage points.
Interesting, and somewhat bad - considering this is a DMU that has been over population goals since at least the early 2000's.
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
The number of hunter's graph really doesn't show an increase, considering dmu 122 is all private, hunter numbers rarely fluctuate that much when your talking hunter numbers on private land. The graph, if you take the highest and lowest points out, really are pretty steady. Not havng 2001 and before data, it really hard to determine how much an increase or decrease the dmu might have seen.From 2009 to 2011 its on a decline..what does that tell you? Maybe nothing, maybe not!?
In order to have the slope be fairly flat you would have to remove three low points in 2001, 2002, and 2004. That is a continuous 4 year period where only one point is high. More recently, you have a consistent 4 year stretch where all points are high.

For example, if you remove the lowest (2001), and highest (2009) points, you still get an increase of about 35%.

If instead, you remove the low and high points with the most extreme change year to year (2003 and 2004), you get an increase of about 62%.

There is simply no way you can manipulate this data and not conclude there was an extreme increase in hunter numbers.

But even if you manage to squint your eyes and make the curve flat, it would be a very unusual DMU indeed because most DMUs in our state have gone down considerably over that period.
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
The number of hunter's graph really doesn't show an increase, considering dmu 122 is all private, hunter numbers rarely fluctuate that much when your talking hunter numbers on private land.
When the opportunity to kill a 3.5 year old or older buck is almost doubled in an area, you can bet that there is a lot more chance brothers, nephews, grandkids, cousins and best friends are a whole lot more likely to make the trek to the family farm or hunting cabin.

Here are the age distributions from DMU 122 compared to the whole UP for the years 2008-10. Keep in mind, the UP has the oldest age structure of the 3 zones, but DMU 122 has almost double the number of 3.5 and older bucks in the harvest.

 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
From 2009 to 2011 its on a decline..what does that tell you? Maybe nothing, maybe not!?
It tells me that numbers sometimes slope up, and sometimes slope down, but that the number for 2011 is still 14% higher than the 11 year average;).

There was a 28% rise from 2007-2009, followed by a fall of 9% over the next couple of years. If you look at all of these graphs of smaller units, you will find year to year variability. You have no idea if a slight 2 year decline is going to continue or not. At the slope it is falling, it would take about 5 more years to get back to 2007 levels, which are 17% higher than the average of the years 2001-4.:lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,760 Posts
Again, we don't have any data from 2001 prior, so your assuming that dmu 122 was the same as the entire UP as far as age distribution, what might look good is just an assumption Also, What your not doing is considering dmu 122 is almost all private, and not comparing private land outside the dmu 122 to the private of 122 is really not comparing all as equal. Also, your taking the entire UP into your data...what should be considered is relative landscape comparisons.

Compare that too the Menominee county sections to the south and east of 122 and just take the private land harvest and one might be surprised the quality of whitetails and the age distribution that come out of there without apr's.

When you have apr's you are no doubt going to have more 2.5 year olds in the harvest and an increase in 3.5 plus. BUT, its not as drastic comparison as the graphs show considering your taking results that really are not apple to apples!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,154 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,909 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
It tells me that numbers sometimes slope up, and sometimes slope down, but that the number for 2011 is still 14% higher than the 11 year average;).

There was a 28% rise from 2007-2009, followed by a fall of 9% over the next couple of years. If you look at all of these graphs of smaller units, you will find year to year variability. You have no idea if a slight 2 year decline is going to continue or not. At the slope it is falling, it would take about 5 more years to get back to 2007 levels, which are 17% higher than the average of the years 2001-4.:lol:
I have been noticing with these graphs, It seems like the year to year harvest's become very unstable with APR's. When you posted graphs for the 12 county area it seemed that the harvest did not have such extreme peaks and vallys.
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
Only someone who knows nothing about mathematical functions and the terminology related to the straight line equation y = mx + b would laugh at that statement.

When m, which is the term known as "slope" = 0, you have a flat line because y = b, or y = the "y-intercept" at all time points.
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
Again, we don't have any data from 2001 prior, so your assuming that dmu 122 was the same as the entire UP as far as age distribution, what might look good is just an assumption Also, What your not doing is considering dmu 122 is almost all private, and not comparing private land outside the dmu 122 to the private of 122 is really not comparing all as equal. Also, your taking the entire UP into your data...what should be considered is relative landscape comparisons.

Compare that too the Menominee county sections to the south and east of 122 and just take the private land harvest and one might be surprised the quality of whitetails and the age distribution that come out of there without apr's.

When you have apr's you are no doubt going to have more 2.5 year olds in the harvest and an increase in 3.5 plus. BUT, its not as drastic comparison as the graphs show considering your taking results that really are not apple to apples!
I'm not making assumptions, you are. I am showing perfectly reasonable comparisons that are readily available. Niether you nor anyone has data broken out for specific areas of private vs. public land--so you requiring it to be convinced of anything creates a straw-man scenario that cannot be achieved by anyone. Junior High Debate Team stuff.

Your assumption that somehow bucks on private land are going to have a better age distribution than bucks on public land is likewise a stretch. The best private land available in the state is in the SLP and age distribution is worse there than it is in the UP. Here is the comparison of age structure from 2008-10 for the SLP vs. DMU 122.



The UP has far more public land than the SLP, yet has a better age structure. Your idea that somehow deer age structure will be better on private than public land makes no sense to me. Here is a chart of the SLP compared to the UP. It makes a lot more sense to suggest that it is the huge amount of public land, much of it remote and difficult to access, that leads to having better age structure there. In contrast to what you say, it is more remarkable that age structure would be better in an area with smaller parcels of private land than areas of public land with thousands of acres of contiguous wilderness.

 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
Again, we don't have any data from 2001 prior, so your assuming that dmu 122 was the same as the entire UP as far as age distribution, what might look good is just an assumption Also, What your not doing is considering dmu 122 is almost all private, and not comparing private land outside the dmu 122 to the private of 122 is really not comparing all as equal. Also, your taking the entire UP into your data...what should be considered is relative landscape comparisons.

Compare that too the Menominee county sections to the south and east of 122 and just take the private land harvest and one might be surprised the quality of whitetails and the age distribution that come out of there without apr's.

When you have apr's you are no doubt going to have more 2.5 year olds in the harvest and an increase in 3.5 plus. BUT, its not as drastic comparison as the graphs show considering your taking results that really are not apple to apples!
So let's have a little quiz. Put on your thinking cap and riddle me this.

Without APRs in place would a buck be more likely to live to an older age here, in DMU 122 on private property?



Or a little ways north, on public land, in DMU 022?



Can they hide better on small private ag properties that are getting hammered by hunters?

Or vast tracts of wilderness, parts of which are getting hammered, but much of which seldom sees human tracks?

Let's not all raise our hands at once:lol:.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,154 Posts
Only someone who knows nothing about mathematical functions and the terminology related to the straight line equation y = mx + b would laugh at that statement.

When m, which is the term known as "slope" = 0, you have a flat line because y = b, or y = the "y-intercept" at all time points.
You must have spent a week there one weekend:lol:
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top