Michigan-Sportsman.com banner

41 - 60 of 101 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,650 Posts
Education is a value system. Those whom place value on education and learning will drink from the well of knowledge, those who do not place value on it, will summarily walk away.

We have a long way to go in this state before we see a cultural change in hunters who place high value on education. Most view it as a recreational past time and take it or leave it.

Guys and gals are seemingly having a tough time understanding the current regs in the digest, or summarily choose to ignore certain ones. Look at the weekly CO reports.
Prime example is what I saw yesterday in Sharonville State Game area chasing rabbits. We counted up 10 treestands still up, 2 pop up blinds, and collected 15 empty plastic bait bags stuffed into brush at the bottoms of trees with treestands in them.
Folks like these are not going to be interested in education, they won't even follow the rules.
 

·
Smells like, Victory!
Joined
·
27,437 Posts
Folks like these are not going to be interested in education, they won't even follow the rules.
Thanks for making my point. Its why there are paid professionals to manage our game. One assumes they manage with the good of all in mind, not an idiology.

We have Munster and Pinefarm, two people fairly educated in deer management statistics, that have an absolute different view on how to go about managing. Who's "education" you going to use? :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,457 Posts
Another prime example might also be someone accusing another of Not knowing the rules while complaining about stands that don't have to be removed until March 1st. lol
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Again, the spinners don't understand the point.

The question was asked...
" If there is a lack of responsible hunters than let’s educate them accordingly."

I'm saying that is a false premise. Leadership means leadership. A plan is a plan. You can have neither when it's every man for himself.

There's simply too many management objectives out there to leave it up to voluntary rules that we hope to achieve by crossing our fingers and hoping we somehow educate everyone.

I forget the exact stat, but it's someything like 20-30% of license buyers who bought a license this year will not buy one 3 years from now and 3 years from now, something like 20-30% will be "new to the sport".

The stats on deer hunter turnover are stunning. The Michigan deer hunting is not a static group of people.

These are all the "friends and co-workers" that get invited to deer camp, go for a year or three then fade out, only to be replaced by new friends and co-workers at camp. Trying to "educate" these folks on the finer points of deer management is futile and a waste of resources. They are very casual deer hunters who don't even grasp the concept of a browse line and they don't want to invest the time to learn.

When duck and goose regs are set, and then followed, the fed's don't say "let's try to educate the public on why we're using these dates and these bag limits". The same with fishing rules. MDNR didn't wring it's hands when they changed walleye rules in Lake Erie years back. They made a statement of needed changes to help the resource then the changes were made.

Somehow, many deer hunters feel they're special or different from all the other sportsmen out there. They believe that their input is paramount.

There are simply too many verging objectives, that change from year to year, for MDNR to waste precious financial resources on in the attempt to education 650,000 deer hunters on the finer points of deer management.

Many seem to be incapable of grasping that MDNR doesn't just manage deer for the 650,000 of us, but for all 9,000,000 of us. Many think MDNR is there to provide "good hunting" and nothing more.

Many haven't even educated themselves on that fact. How can they go any farther if their whole wrong assumption is that MDNR is there to provide them with lots of deer targets?

The burden to education about deer management is on the deer hunter. And if the deer hunters doesn't care to educate himself, then he can just follow the plan put forth.

I swear, some of you guys live here just to divide hunters and bash MDNR and QDM. Where's your group? Where's your plan?

This forum is a perfect example of rudderless complaining. Go start your own group and set forth your objectives. I think what you'll find is, just like education, most guys are all talk and won't invest any time in starting their own deer organization as a counter balance to proper deer management.

There's a core legion of Michigan deer hunters who don't want to cooperate on anything. All rules are written in the stone of "tradition", they've been taught to bash MDNR from their fathers and grandfathers, they see anyone who wants to work with MDNR as traitors and they simply don't want to bend on any plan that seems to work better in the other states it's been established.

As you'll read, it's simply impossible for small landowners voluntarily doing things to have the major impact that regulations bring.


Here's a read from WV that explains the need of regulations...

Fundamentals of Deer Management

THE BASIC CONSIDERATIONS

The first step in deer management, and one often overlooked, is the establishment of a clear, well defined objective. Deciding on what is to be
accomplished is essential because there is no single ideal deer management program. Different objectives may require totally different management actions.
For example, if the objective is to increase the number of deer in an area where there are few or no deer, absolute protection from all causes of mortality is the most important management action. If the objective is to produce trophy quality bucks, important management
actions are to keep the herd in balance with food supplies through adequate harvest of antlerless deer, to protect yearling bucks until they reach an older age when antler development is maximum, and possibly to
initiate habitat improvements that increase available food. Where the objective is to reduce serious damage in agricultural crops, important management actions are to increase harvest of antlerless deer and to
arrange for adequate hunter access to insure that enough deer are harvested.

All of the examples cited are simplified versions of basic deer management programs. Each has a definite objective and each requires different management actions. Thus, the proper management activities are dependent solely on the objective or objectives.

Different deer management objectives, such as crop damage control and trophy management, at times may be compatible. Key elements of both are to have high antlerless harvest rates and to maintain relatively low
deer population levels. Other potential objectives, such as crop damage reduction and providing maximum opportunity for the public to view or
photograph deer, would not be as compatible.

The aforementioned examples also contain the three major components of deer management programs. These are 1) deer population regulation, 2) habitat manipulation, and 3) people management. Almost all deer management programs contain some aspect of each of these three components. The most troublesome component is the latter, people management, since different people have different objectives and
differing attitudes toward deer. Some want more deer, some want fewer deer, some are opposed to deer hunting, and so forth. On a biologic basis, enough is known about deer to successfully achieve various management objectives; however, on a sociologic basis conflicts can arise. Solution of the sociologic aspects of deer management can come only from understanding the opposing viewpoint and cooperation.

THE PRINCIPAL TOOL

The major component of most deer management programs is deer population regulation, and the only economically practical method of population regulation is hunting. The number and type of deer harvested by hunting can be adjusted through imposition of various hunting regulations including restrictions on the sex of deer harvested, types of legal equipment, season starting dates, and season lengths.

Historically in all states, including West Virginia, hunting regulations have been restrictive during the period of deer restoration with mainly short buck-only seasons to protect does and encourage deer population growth. As deer become more abundant, more liberal hunting regulations including antlerless harvests are required to limit population growth.

THE FACTS AND FIGURES

To understand why not only the number but more importantly the sex of deer harvested is critical to population regulation, some basic facts of deer
population dynamics must be examined. First, bucks are polygamous and will mate with many does. Unless they are malnourished, virtually every doe two years old or older will produce offspring each year of their
lives. Older does more often have twins and younger does more often have single fawns. Average fawn production for healthy adult does is approximately 1.7 fawns per doe per year. Does rarely breed during their
first fall, with no more than one in every 4 producing a fawn at one year of age. Male and female fawns are born in equal numbers, and thus, the ratio of bucks to does in the fawn segment of the population begins at 1 to 1. The ratio of adult bucks to adult does tends to remain near 1 to 1 in unhunted populations. In contrast, does predominate in most hunted populations, especially those with heavy buck-only hunting. Ratios commonly range from 1 adult buck to 2 to 4 adult does. If fawns are taken into consideration, the ratio of antlered to antlerless deer will range from 1 to 2 or 3 in non- or lightly hunted populations to as high as 1 to 8 in populations receiving heavy buck onlyhunting pressure.

Since it is virtually impossible to harvest enough bucks to prevent nearly all does from being bred, then from a practical standpoint, population growth is
dependent primarily on the number of does in the population. Under normal conditions, deer populations have the potential to increase at a rate approaching 40 percent per year. Clearly buck-only hunting, which usually removes only about 10 to 15 percent of the population, will not control population growth. Harvest of antlerless deer, therefore, is mandatory to stabilize or reduce populations.

To stabilize a deer population at any particular level, the total number of deaths each year from all causes must equal the number of births. Herds generally can be stabilized by harvesting equal numbers of antlered
and antlerless deer so long as total annual mortality approaches the number of fawns born. Removal of more antlerless than antlered deer is required to reduce population levels.

When considering a deer management program, the size of the area or the “management unit” is important. The typical home range for does is slightly under 1 square mile, while it is usually 2 to 3 square miles for
bucks. This means that population regulation cannot be accomplished effectively on a single small tract of land because of the interchange of deer from adjoining properties. Generally, the management unit needs to be at least 5,000 acres for effective population regulation. Neighboring landowners with common deer management objectives can form larger
“management units.”


A second important consideration is the amount of hunting pressure. For hunting to be an effective tool for population regulation, there must be sufficient hunting pressure and hunter access to reach desired harvest
levels. Normally one hunter per 20 acres will produce adequate buck harvests. Hunter success rates for modern firearms hunting average 1 in 6 for buck-only seasons and 1 in 3 for antlerless seasons. Many hunters
are willing to pay for hunting privileges, and this should be considered a potential source of income by landowners.

A final aspect of a successful deer management program, and one which is all too often neglected, is the compilation of records on harvests. These records provide the data required to make future harvest recommendations and are essential in gauging the success of the program.

GUIDELINES FOR APPLICATION

Provided that adequate hunting pressure is applied to an area, the following harvest ratios can be used as a rule of thumb for achieving population regulation goals through hunting. For every 10 antlered bucks
harvested, if the goal is for the population to:

1) increase rapidly then harvest no antlerless deer;
2) increase slowly then harvest 5 antlerless deer;
3) stabilize at current level then harvest 10 antlerless deer;
4) decrease slowly then harvest 12 antlerless deer;
5) decrease rapidly then harvest 15 antlerless deer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Another prime example might also be someone accusing another of Not knowing the rules while complaining about stands that don't have to be removed until March 1st. lol
Posted via Mobile Device
Go stand by a license counter in early November and watch all the people in line to to explain the combo tag to other people in line. Rarely do they ever get it right. It's more like a "who's on first" Abbott and Costello routine.

When we do change the rules, they must be more simple than the current combo tag.

In order for rules in a mass hunter state like Michigan to be most effective, they must be very simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,457 Posts
Go stand by a license counter in early November and watch all the people in line to to explain the combo tag to other people in line. Rarely do they ever get it right. It's more like a "who's on first" Abbott and Costello routine.

When we do change the rules, they must be more simple than the current combo tag.
If a person has a difficult time understanding the combo regs I personally feel they aren"t smart enough to be carrying a lethal weapon in public. There is nothing overly difficult about the regulations behind the combo.
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,650 Posts
Another prime example might also be someone accusing another of Not knowing the rules while complaining about stands that don't have to be removed until March 1st. lol
Posted via Mobile Device
Yeah and March first falls during the work week. How many of those stands are gonna get pulled down before then? One is not supposed to litter either, right?
Typical answer from an individual that has a problem following societies rules.
There were no names on the stands either.


OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,457 Posts
Give it a rest Dean. Your halo is far from being polished. The only difference between us is my transgressions are public knowledge. And of course the fact that I dont hide from them. When you begin to walk a perfect path let us know. Until that time keep your own house in order and stay the hell out of mine.
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,154 Posts
When we do change the rules, they must be more simple than the current combo tag.

In order for rules in a mass hunter state like Michigan to be most effective, they must be very simple.
Good, then you must agree that if we have so many "uneducated deer hunters", the uneducated deer hunter should not have to take on the extra burden of counting points!:evilsmile. As you might think some of us may not be able to count past 2.:lol::lol:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,176 Posts
You are not going to have much success educating people who do not want the information.
L & O
To be honest I spend an enormous amount of time throughout the year educating hunters, but the majority of them come to me so that's easy.
Pez
Education is a value system. Those whom place value on education and learning will drink from the well of knowledge, those who do not place value on it, will summarily walk away.

I'n my opinionm, the above quotes shed a lot of light on the (perceived) problem of "education," as it pertains to deer management in MI.

In my experience, when a person wants information or education on a given subject, he or she will move mountains to get that information. They will stop at nothing to gain as much information and education as they can on that subject. On the other hand, when they are simply not interested, they won't as much as pick up a magazine to read an article.

I've said this before, and have been told that I am wrong, but at the end of the day, when it comes to deer management, the "majority" of the people will usually end up getting what they want, as long as it is biologically sound. People are very adept and convincing when it comes to getting others to see things their way. Science be damned, biology be damned, good or bad, if the majority wants it, eventually it is going go happen, and a case is going to be made for why it is a good thing for the herd.

I don't buy the notion that "Those whom place value on education and learning will drink from the well of knowledge..." . People will drink from the well, only when they are thirsty. When they have no interest in the subject, or at lease enough interest to warrant them going to the well, they simply don't care.

Simply put, if enough people (the "majority") were truly on board for what some on this site want to advance, then trying to get those people educated would not be a problem, nor would change of regulations be needed.

One person even went as far as to say that we operate under what he calls "low common denominator rules." This is true to a certain extent, and in my opinion it is as it should be. The DNR sets the minimum rules for sustaining a healthy, huntable resource, in numbers that can satisfy the majority of all hunters, not just the die hard, hard core, live/eat/breathe whitetails type hunter. Beyond the "minimum" every hunter has the choice to make the experience exactly what he or she wants it to be. In my opinion, the DNR does a pretty good job of doing just that. They make the largest amount of people happy, all the while knowing that those on the fringes (both sides) are going to be rabidly unhappy.


Where the problem comes is when a minority wants/tries to convince the majority to that they really should do it their way. Furthermore, they can't understand why the average person won't walk a mile to the "well" in order to drink Perrier, when A. they aren't thirsty, and B. even if they were, they are quite satisfied with the what comes out of the tap at home.

KPC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,457 Posts
650,000 people let their opinions be heard every year and the results of those opinions are posted the following May. The education is being given by each of those individuals through their actions. Unfortunately very few are drinking from that well that speaks louder than any message that could be delivered to them through words.
Posted via Mobile Device
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,650 Posts
I don't disagree with most of what you have said KPC. We are, for the most part as a group, better versed than we were say a generation ago or two and certainly three. However, we are a far cry away from where we could be, and perhaps should be.
Believe it or not, I am not a fan of further regulation on anything in out lives, including hunting. But, you and I have, and the rest have seen where things go in the absence of regulation or mediocre enforcement of already established rules or regs.

It boils down to education versus regulation in certain venues. It also very much includes the motivations behind why, when it comes to a change. It's pretty clear that most would be thrilled with better chances at a crack at some better bucks and better overall numbers in places like the NLP and the UP, just no one agrees, and in some cases the DNR doesn't agree.


OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,154 Posts
Go stand by a license counter in early November and watch all the people in line to to explain the combo tag to other people in line. Rarely do they ever get it right. It's more like a "who's on first" Abbott and Costello routine.

When we do change the rules, they must be more simple than the current combo tag.

In order for rules in a mass hunter state like Michigan to be most effective, they must be very simple.

If you really believe in what you posted then why are you the author of this thread???????:dizzy:.....:help:

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=410507
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,176 Posts
The only thing irresponsible is leaving complex management decisions up to ignorant laymen whose very desires are usually counter to what's needed. That's why you don't give out free beer and condoms at high school dances.
I couldn't agree more. Giving free beer and condoms at HS dances is a lot like giving eveyone at a wild game dinner the impression that they are now deer breeders, wildlife biologists, and nutrition experts.

KPC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,027 Posts
.......

Typical answer from an individual that has a problem following societies rules.
..............
I am happy to share the outdoors with all who respect nature regardless of the errors that they have made in the past.

EDIT: I deleted 2 sentences after learning more details.

L & O
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,465 Posts
The reality is that passing regulations that either don't make sense or that aren't understood will not be followed. The state doesn't have the manpower to force anyone to do anything. Like it or not, education is the only hope. Some just don't have the patience to wait for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,023 Posts
Better check again, some have over 60 days firearms season. With multiple bucks allowed, but that's for another thread.
Not in the Midwest they don't which is what l assumed you were referring since that's where we live. And those southern states that I think you're referring to are lucky to have anything close to the number of deer hunters we have and that makes a big difference.....but agreed topic for another th re ad
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,770 Posts
The problem is no matter how well you educate people their goals may not aling with yours.
 
41 - 60 of 101 Posts
Top