Michigan-Sportsman.com banner

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,584 Posts
SCOOTERBUM - I believe he is questioning your data. "With mother nature producing at a 1:1 ratio" Where did you get this data from? Are you just assuming this? I have read conflicting data on this subject. Are we sure mother nature produces at a 1:1 ratio, and under what circumstances?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
You are free to post your data. The real topic, though, is artificial manipulation of the deer herd. Is it really necessary?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
You are free to post your data. The real topic, though, is artificial manipulation of the deer herd. Is it really necessary?
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Managing the doe population is how to manage the quantity of the renewable natural resource for the benefit of the people who are the society of Michigan. Too many does is bad and too few does is bad. The does are the buck factory. The buck harvest is the income engine for the state to a greater extent than the doe harvest.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,584 Posts
I apologize. I am having a hard time following the thought process? Please define artificial manipulation of the deer herd.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I am wondering if there is not some formula that could be used to maintain the herd without the heavy handed approach we have been using in recent times. Multiple doe, multiple buck, poaching, and all of the special seasons have had a dramatic effect on decimating the herd in many areas of the state. And yet, the heavy handedness continues, even with low harvest.

In other words, could not the herd be allowed to flourish without an extreme amount of government intervention? Forget the buck/doe targeting, allow hunters to harvest what they will with their license allocation for the area they are hunting.

If things get out of sorts in an area, then the gov't can increase or decrease the season for that area.

Obviously, the micro management, or lack thereof, currently administered seems to be leaving a lot to be desired.

That is why I am thinking there just might be a better management plan. This would need to include a smaller footprint with the DNR.

As an aside, baiting, tree stands, cameras, excessive woods traffic, lack of actual "hunting" definition is having a profound negative effect on the ethical fair chase hunting that some desire. Not to mention that some cameras can now relay info in real time to a cell phone, giving unfair advantage to the users of such technology.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
I am wondering if there is not some formula that could be used to maintain the herd without the heavy handed approach we have been using in recent times. Multiple doe, multiple buck, poaching, and all of the special seasons have had a dramatic effect on decimating the herd in many areas of the state. And yet, the heavy handedness continues, even with low harvest.

In other words, could not the herd be allowed to flourish without an extreme amount of government intervention? Forget the buck/doe targeting, allow hunters to harvest what they will with their license allocation for the area they are hunting.

If things get out of sorts in an area, then the gov't can increase or decrease the season for that area.

Obviously, the micro management, or lack thereof, currently administered seems to be leaving a lot to be desired.

That is why I am thinking there just might be a better management plan. This would need to include a smaller footprint with the DNR.

As an aside, baiting, tree stands, cameras, excessive woods traffic, lack of actual "hunting" definition is having a profound negative effect on the ethical fair chase hunting that some desire. Not to mention that some cameras can now relay info in real time to a cell phone, giving unfair advantage to the users of such technology.
It sounds like you just want to substitute heavy handed season length setting for whatever you don't like about the way things are done now. One of the problems with using fluctuating season lengths is the effects it can have on everything from planning vacations to income of mom and pop motels.

But then you start in on how people actually hunt with terms like "ethical fair chase" and "giving unfair advantage". Nobody gave me my cameras. I bought them. I helped the economy by doing that. It would only be unfair for me to use mine where I hunt if I somehow prevented other hunters from using cameras where they hunt. I don't plan on doing that. As for "ethical fair chase", that sounds like the kind of term someone would use when they're fixin' to get heavy handed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Yes. It would appear that the herd has an inner mechanism for balancing the sex ratio, without the assistance of human intervention.

Now, what would be the parameters of the hunt to allow either sex hunting, while at the same time maintaining substantial numbers along with a healthy herd.

Perhaps we could have the best of both worlds with a somewhat hands off approach in deer management.

Buck tags, along with the poaching of buck deer, make for a need to permit for doe harvest to balance numbers. If hunters would be allowed choice in their hunt, less doe permitting would be necessary, and more bucks would still be on the hoof.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,045 Posts
Yes. It would appear that the herd has an inner mechanism for balancing the sex ratio, without the assistance of human intervention.

Now, what would be the parameters of the hunt to allow either sex hunting, while at the same time maintaining substantial numbers along with a healthy herd.

Perhaps we could have the best of both worlds with a somewhat hands off approach in deer management.

Buck tags, along with the poaching of buck deer, make for a need to permit for doe harvest to balance numbers. If hunters would be allowed choice in their hunt, less doe permitting would be necessary, and more bucks would still be on the hoof.
In some New England states, you can use your one kill tag for does during the first few days of the firearm season, then it changes to bucks only. That creates the necessary amount of doe harvest, because they don't have the "gotta get a buck mentality". They have a "gotta get a deer mentality".
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,975 Posts
You are free to post your data. The real topic, though, is artificial manipulation of the deer herd. Is it really necessary?
It is absolutely necessary.

The herd only exists because of artificial manipulation.

There is one reason and only one reason to have a population of deer as high as it is even in low population areas, and that is to maintain an artificial recreational hunting opportunity.
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,975 Posts
As an aside, baiting, tree stands, cameras, excessive woods traffic, lack of actual "hunting" definition is having a profound negative effect on the ethical fair chase hunting that some desire. Not to mention that some cameras can now relay info in real time to a cell phone, giving unfair advantage to the users of such technology.
Unfair to whom?
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,975 Posts
Buck tags, along with the poaching of buck deer, make for a need to permit for doe harvest to balance numbers. If hunters would be allowed choice in their hunt, less doe permitting would be necessary, and more bucks would still be on the hoof.
Huh? Did you actually read that presentation? The whole point of it was that skewed ratios are caused by over-harvest of bucks, which is exactly what we do currently in Michigan.

The state does not issue doe permits to control the sex ratios. They issue them to control the population. There are few things more destructive to hunting than allowing a population to get too big (just look at what happened in the TB zone). It is much, much better to have it managed to be smaller (better for hunters and for everyone else in the state).
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,975 Posts
With mother nature producing at a 1:1 ratio, are we on the wrong footing with numbers manipulation management?
By the way, you do realize we kill more bucks than does each year, correct?

I hope?

Here are the ratios of bucks to does legally killed last year.

UP 2.56 bucks per doe.

NLP 1 buck per doe.

SLP 1 buck per doe.

Statewide: 1.15 bucks per doe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
555 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
bio,

Your posts are disingenuous in their presentation, and do not provide any serious or factual rebuttal.
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top