I hunt the area and have hundreds of acres of private property. I found the deer numbers very low. I feel the number of small acreages along with landowner permits have put a real dent in the population. I concur with your take on coyote numbers being down, this from a couple of long time trappers. The population has been on a downward trend since the late 80's early 90's. The numbers needed reduced but not to the degree they have been.

 

My time in mason and lake counties NW area have similar report of population or lack there of.

 

I just finished spending over a dozen days between bow, gun, and muzzleloader seasons deer hunting in the Ruby Creek / Four Corners area of Mason County and neighboring counties. I usually had a person with me on the trips and the deer sightings were minimal to non-existent. I can count them on one hand. I mean count them on one hand for the entire season, most of it the gun season. I had family hunting a remote 10 acre private parcel. I, myself, went to Manistee National Forest areas to see what was out there. The answer is.....Not much. Its been like this for quite a while up there. I asked at the store what the report was and the answer was, "Definitely below average." I've had private land antlerless deer tags for over a half dozen years and couldn't justify killing a doe, knowing that the deer heard was in such poor shape. Anyway, I'm interested in reading what others have seen in the area, possible explanations and remedies, and any other observations germane to the topic.

Here are some factors that play a role which you might like to comment on:

1. DNR management practices.......

I am questioning the DMU system used by the DNR to allocate antlerless permits. It is too broad and ignores deer density differences. If you go to the DNR web sites that discuss their management of Mason County, they acknowledge that the western side of the county holds many more deer, mostly due to more agriculture. Knowing that, they still manage eastern Mason County giving out private land antlerless deer permits at the same rate as the western side of the county. That is not reasonable. I am suggesting that a more specific (smaller regions) DMU set up would help manage the deer herd.

2. Hard winters........

Yes, we've had a couple hard winters in a row. ( I can tell you that turkey sightings have dropped to a trickle the last two springs. We had lots of birds coming in to food plots three and four years ago. Now turkeys are an oddity on my trail camera.) With the mild winter we have experienced this year, no one will be able to use this as an excuse next fall.

3. Coyotes ......

They are a problem that isn't going away anytime soon. For the last 10 years the packs have been heard on most evenings at sunset where we are. We did, however, hear less howling this fall. One person in our group suggested that the low deer count has taken its toll on coyotes as well ..... not enough venison to
support that many packs.............. maybe. I suggest that these fawn-killing machines should have a year round open season on them.

4. Carrying capacity of the land.....

I'm not buying this one. There is plenty of food and cover for many more deer per square mile. In the 80's a hunter couldn't walk through the woods without seeing flags here and there. We always saw deer. The challenge was to get a shot, not see a deer.
(Last year,I talked to hunters from a 30 year deer camp in the MNF. They blamed antlerless permits beginning in the mid-80's on the fact that they used to average 6 or 7 successful of 10 hunters in their camp. Now, if 2 of 6 are successful they are ecstatic; they can't get 10 to come to the camp anymore at the current success rate.)

5. Illegal baiting........

Annually I hear someone in camp suggest that other land owners in the area are putting out massive amounts of bait that is drawing our local deer away during
gun season. I have a hard time buying this. (This year, I saw bushels and bushels of apples lying under their trees on federal ground. There simply weren't enough deer to eat them all.) Those deer don't exist. Does anyone else think large bait piles could be a problem?

6. APR's.........

I was so tired of our low deer density that I applauded the APR program three years ago. Something had to be done. Unfortunately, my plot camera has captured only a couple pics of 2 1/2 year old bucks, nothing older. I noticed that the Michigan Out-of-Doors folks have recently had two shows applauding the APR program. I'm sorry, but I just haven't seen a change yet in SE Mason county.

7. National Forest Restrictions

This is a little off topic, but I wanted to educate you about National Forest use maps. The current restrictions have made some good MNF hunting areas less accessible to hunters. It, therefore, has negatively affected my deer hunting . I'm not physically able to walk a mile to a hunting stand, much less drag a deer that far. The map system has closed perfectly good trails to the point that the areas are impractical to hunt. Anyway, if you enter any National Forest land be sure to have an access map. They are free to have mailed to you and can also be downloaded from the Federal website too. A number of years ago the Feds instituted this system of " roads closed unless marked as open on the map" policy. The Feds also use a trail number sign system, but the map reigns supreme since "bozos" sometimes destroy the signs with numbers. If you go into a National Forest, have a map. Use it. If the Federal CO finds you on a trail not shown as open on the map, you will get a ticket with a $180 fine(One of my uninformed relatives had to pay the fine.) No debate, no discussion. If you have a map when stopped and can show him where you think you are on the map, you may avoid the ticket. Good Luck.

This is the way it is because many (most ) hunters will not do as you did and pass on does when they know there are very few left where they are hunting .Read the (should you shoot that doe thread ) .and you can see why .Plus some of the other issues you mention .I do not see it changing any time soon its boom or bust for deer hunters now .

 

I hunt southeast of Fountain on national forest property. During bow season I seen does every time I was out. Usually between 3 to 7 does in the morning. Evenings hunt were pretty slow. Seen 2 small bucks and 1 shooter buck. Gun and muzzle loader was 8 deer. Seen lots of sign but for the amount of deer I seen was not to impressed.

 

I am only a few miles from Ruby Creek. The hunting around here is very rough. I seen a few small bucks and some does. I have found that the pig farms take a big chunk of the herd. In my area the neighbors apply a lot of pressure. I don't see it getting any better anytime soon, the doe permits keep getting sold. I love this area and will keep hunting up here but I do make more trips south.

 

Where are the pig farms? Are you suggesting that they are getting crop damage type permits or what?

 

Having fished the area for years, my impression is that much of the public land in the Big South area was wide open, mature forest with diminishing deer potential, getting worse every year. The conflict may be that much of the public land isn't going to be cut, as it's considered buffer habitat for the river and creek. Knowing that, deer numbers will likely continue to decrease.

 

As soon as you get east of the river the land on the edge of ag ground has almost all been cut and is some beautiful habitat. Part of the problem attracting deer is they have so much prime habitat. There are some larger chunks of private in the ag but most of the cover is on smaller heavily hunted properties.

 

Telescopic cross bows, high tech rifles, trail cameras, baiting, disease, shooting from trees and now drones with cameras all play a part in the diminishing deer herd.

Yesterday, I read an article where the state has authorized the killing of deer in our park systems as they are considered a nuisance to the local populace, Why not relocate problem deer to a less populated area? Where are the sportsman's groups, they could help?

Let the flames began.

 

Telescopic cross bows, high tech rifles, trail cameras, baiting, disease, shooting from trees and now drones with cameras all play a part in the diminishing deer herd.

Yesterday, I read an article where the state has authorized the killing of deer in our park systems as they are considered a nuisance to the local populace, Why not relocate problem deer to a less populated area? Where are the sportsman's groups, they could help?

Let the flames began.

Do you think that anyone within 10 miles of the Ruby Creek store is killing a buck legally and annually? The store now has a buck pole. Did anyone go by to see what was hanging this year?

 

Relocate them to public land forests that may be too mature to support that many deer? At what cost? $5000 a deer?

 

Yea, not too practical. A local sportsmen's club with cannon nets sounds spooky dangerous. I know the DNR does that with turkeys, but what a job to try to do it with large numbers of deer.
Tranquilizers in their hands, probably not going to happen either.

I think I'm done applying for a private land antlerless permit in DMU 053. At one point they were like $4.00. Now they are $20. I feel as if I'm wasting my money. I used to consider it a donation to the cause; now I'm disgusted that there is an obvious problem and no solution in sight.
Is anyone else ready to opt out of the DNR antlerless deer permit / general fund subsidy program
in these low deer density areas?

 

I hunt the area and have hundreds of acres of private property. I found the deer numbers very low. I feel the number of small acreages along with landowner permits have put a real dent in the population. I concur with your take on coyote numbers being down, this from a couple of long time trappers. The population has been on a downward trend since the late 80's early 90's. The numbers needed reduced but not to the degree they have been.

We've been hunting our 10 acre parcel and adjoining lots for over 30 years. Our whole section has these type of parcels, but to be honest with you there isn't that much hunting pressure in our area and there have never been many deer taken annually. I'm talking about a 150 acre area or so. We've never harvested more than one deer a year and that deer only every few years. Talking to one of my neighbors last year, a man of the land local for these 30 + years, he had no idea why the deer density was so low nor where the 2 1/2 year old bucks were. I was glad when they opened the antlerless permits to those with less than 40 acres, but I haven't used a permit yet. I think any remedy for this low deer density will come from DNR policy changes like changing the sizes of DMU's for better management or limiting doe permits in general. Unfortunately, I don't see either of these happening in the near future.

 

My time in mason and lake counties NW area have similar report of population or lack there of.

I hunted and scouted NE Oceana County and NW Newaygo County on federal land. Pitiful!
As I walked to my car in Oceana Co , a local lady stopped to ask if I had seen anything. She said her husband hadn't been able to fill his tag or doe permit yet on their private land. She was also asking where the deer are.
BTW The DNR email recently said that the harvest was up 14% over last year in zone 2.
Right.

 

Is there anything going on at the Ruby Creek Sportsmen's Club? I went to a dinner years ago, but I don't know if they are very active now. They might be a force to help with deer density; I don't know if they are currently doing anything to help the local deer herd. I understand they have a presence / influence at the old rearing pond on the creek.
Does anyone have a contact number or email address to contact them? I Googled the club and nothing came up.

 

Is there anything going on at the Ruby Creek Sportsmen's Club? I went to a dinner years ago, but I don't know if they are very active now. They might be a force to help with deer density; I don't know if they are currently doing anything to help the local deer herd. I understand they have a presence / influence at the old rearing pond on the creek.
Does anyone have a contact number or email address to contact them? I Googled the club and nothing came up.

When you say "help the local deer herd", what do you mean? If the habitat is poor, one strategy is to keep the herd low for 20-30 years so native browse can return. But then it would likely be shade tolerant species, that deer don't necessary like. Are you talking about incentives for more private land cutting? Or are you talking abut cutting on USFS or State of Michigan land? Keep in mind, in a trout fishery like the Ruby Creek and the Big South, wildlife agencies usually aren't too keen about cutting anything on public land that's remotely close to the water, that could cause warming or more sand, both top issues with the watershed.

 

I grew up hunting the big oak forests of the Manistee forest north of Ruby Creek. These forests are capable of holding good populations of deer. First, they have areas of browse within them. It may be pocketed, but a swamp, river bottom and swale is never to far away. It was simply amazing the amount of deer these mature oak stands could sustain from the acorn crops.These forests are barren for one reason, deer population. Not a sustainability issue. This doesn't mean we need to go to the population of the late 80's early 90's, but what we have today is a herd managed to ridiculously low population. Has to be hard to manage to some mean with deer though. Seems like the mean would only be reached in passing on the way to underpopulated, or overpopulated.

 

It's hard to believe how low it's gotten. Management wise permits are slim for public land but the lack of restriction on landowners permits and people misusing those permits on public land makes me very pessimistic for a recovery in the foreseeable future.

 

I've been hunting 75 acres about 5 miles north of Ruby Creek for 25+ years. The deer population overall is down, but there are still hunt able numbers in the area. The winter of 08'-09' was harsh and knocked the herd back a bit. Then the winter of 13'-14' came along and knocked them back some more! Hopefully we get a couple mild winters in a row.

The deer flock to the areas with the best habitat (mostly private Ag lands). As the population becomes lower, the areas with less than ideal habitat (mature national forest) will be very tough hunting. I did find some very good buck sign on a few different public parcels this season, but the sign was concentrated in small pockets. There was also a lot of gun season pressure up there this year. Finding deer after the first few days of gun season was tough.

I shot this guy on 10/23 in our swamp (5 miles from Ruby Creek store)

My aunt got this guy 2 days later from their 40 acres (3 miles from the store)

 

I've been hunting 75 acres about 5 miles north of Ruby Creek for 25+ years. The deer population overall is down, but there are still hunt able numbers in the area. The winter of 08'-09' was harsh and knocked the herd back a bit. Then the winter of 13'-14' came along and knocked them back some more! Hopefully we get a couple mild winters in a row.

The deer flock to the areas with the best habitat (mostly private Ag lands). As the population becomes lower, the areas with less than ideal habitat (mature national forest) will be very tough hunting. I did find some very good buck sign on a few different public parcels this season, but the sign was concentrated in small pockets. There was also a lot of gun season pressure up there this year. Finding deer after the first few days of gun season was tough.

The deer flock to the areas with the best habitat (mostly private Ag lands). As the population becomes lower, the areas with less than ideal habitat (mature national forest) will be very tough hunting.

And there is the plain truth summed up in 2 sentences.

 

I live in the northwest corner of NEWAYGO co. Not far from Ruby Creek. I have only lived up here for a little over a year, I have had many encounters with people in the area hinting that people poach. I have not witnessed it. I do believe it happens on a regular basis with all the dirt roads and dead ends and low income residents. I don't think poaching is the main issue but one to consider for sure.

 

Wow! Looks like APR's are working for you. Both of those look like the ones guys get in Montcalm County. I've been hunting 2 1/2 year olds down there for years. I think both of those may be better than any of my 2 1/2 yr. Montcalm Co. bucks.
I'm so close to the Oceana Co. line that the APRs may never show up around me.
I drive to the north a lot going to Walhalla; I've never seen anything like those boys cross the road on my trips. As a matter of fact, I see few if any crossing those roads.

 

This year was our best year in a long time near ruby creek. 5 bucks killed and two does. I saw 15 different bucks the two rut weekends I hunted. Only sat twice without seeing deer. All public.
It took some scouting, but we were all on deer.
I saw 15 Sunday morning... I was squirrel hunting, I'm tagged out.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Ohub Campfire mobile app

 

We used to hunt this area every year 20-35 years ago. Lots of great memories camping on Federal land during bow & gun seasons. We took/saw alot of big bucks back then. I hope to get reaquanted with the Ruby Creek area again some day.

 

An sign of EHD in the area?

 

I doubt it, I personally haven't seen any dead deer for no reason near Ruby creek or Crystal Valley in the past 4 or 5 years. I don't think ehd made it up this far when it was happening. If we could stop opening day on the Fourth of July, that would help the herd.

 

I doubt it, I personally haven't seen any dead deer for no reason near Ruby creek or Crystal Valley in the past 4 or 5 years. I don't think ehd made it up this far when it was happening. If we could stop opening day on the Fourth of July, that would help the herd.

I agree; I had a lease in Ionia Co. a few yeas ago when EHD was so bad there. A serious outbreak is very obvious. Land owners in the RC area would know, and hunters would have found carcasses on public land too.( BTW...Ionia county has still not recovered from that outbreak according to land owners I know.) Poor management of the herd is the major problem, and coyotes are probably the number two problem. Hunters in this thread have cited a number of severe winters as an issue. I agree, but then should not the DNR have eliminated antlerless permits the season after each of the hard winters? .... Poor management I say.
If you read Kenny Darwin's article, Calling Coyotes Kissin Close (p. 12 -13.), in the January 2016 issue of Woods n Water, he agrees with me.
He says there are areas where deer are " fast becoming extinct". He cites " over-selling" (antlerless) licenses at the top of his list. He follows that with "disease" since he had already discussed those areas affected by EHD. His last culprit is "poor fawn recruitment" from coyote predation which leads back into the theme of his article on coyote hunting with electronic calls. So, one of our hunters on the thread has reported the coyote population down in the RC area. I agree. Also, this winter is as mild as they get. So, what can stop the deer density from making a big recovery in 2016?............MDNR and its antlerless deer permits and policies.

 

 

Private property is as dismal and is creating the problem as much as public land. I have a neighbor that has five acres and has family and friends that hunt with him. They use to spread out and hunt public land and usually took a couple bucks, mostly with bows and usually 1.5 year olds. With dropping deer numbers he hunts his five acres that has a beautiful area and is a travel corridor being fed from a much larger area. This year they took at least two does during archery season and two button bucks, a doe fawn, and a adult doe with the rifle. They put in a lot of time and baited to accomplish this. They were totally legal and none of them took more than one deer. With aprs they feel their chance at seeing a legal buck is slim so they hunt what ever is legal. The farm across the road started the season with a few deer taken during the veteran's hunt and then to my amazement he found people that would hunt for weeks to shoot a doe during bow season. They get people that do this every year, just not the same people year after year. When deer numbers get low enough some people leave the area but others, like property owners are tied to the area and tend to hunt what's available. The dnr sets quotas over a wide area and pockets of low population are not addressed, the only solution is for hunters to recognize the problem and show restraint. I cant blame the people who are shooting the only legal deer they have seen in two years or the farmer that applies and receives dmap permits. Hunters will slowly disappear, the local public land is lightly hunted. Within the same dmu I have property 20 miles west and see more deer in one evening sit than a week of hunting to the east. I haven't shot a doe at the farm area in a few years, and don't plan to, but others will. It is easy to say just hunt somewhere else, and I do, but when my grandson hunts the one farm he is at least the 6th generation. History like that has to count for something. The solution to the areas problems are elusive because management is tied to hunters resolve and the dnrs bigger picture.

I hate to say it, but it sounds like maybe you and your neighbors are more to blame than MDNR. Others fairly close around you with equal antlerless tag opportunities are seeing and killing lots of deer.

 

To expand on the thought, in my area, we at my camp had much of the blame for our situation because we were once old school brown it's downers. Currently, our neighbors who are mostly downstate residents who own 10's, 20's and 40's are most "to blame" for the relative lack of 3.5 year old bucks in the area. It isn't that they are good or bad people, it's that they don't really know or meet any neighbors and they shoot whatever is legally allowable. One can't blame them and one should understand why they aren't using any voluntary restraint.

The only change the state could make is to change the baiting laws and add antler point restrictions to my area, to have any short term impact. Now, as younger generations replace what I hesitantly call the older, more "greedy/me/mine/don't care about the resource as a whole" hunters of the older generation (for lack of better words), we will see continued long term shifts in attitude.

But without regulation changes aimed at limiting yearling buck harvest, there isn't much impact the state has on our local deer herd. The hunters are the ones making the impact. The problem in my immediate area is small private land owners who, for whatever reason, don't or won't improve their land and cut a lot of mature junk wood and then don't consider the overall localized deer herd when they squeeze the trigger. If one complains about too few deer, don't fill an antlerless tag. I ate my antlerless tag this year, as did 2 other guys at camp because we felt we should wait a year. I didn't shoot a buck either and passed on them. A couple other buddies at camp also didn't shoot a buck this year either, when they could have filled both combo tags on little 4x2 6pt's and spikes. It's dawning on more and more that we don't have to kill a buck every year to have a successful season, as we thought in the past. I hope it's dawning on more and more private land owners that they are the drivers of their destiny, not the DNR scapegoat of old.

 

What kind of tags do you and auntie have on them deer

 

In the area they are hunting tags have never been real popular! They just haven't caught on for some reason.

 

I hunted there in the late 70s and all through the 80s. We always saw plenty of deer. I can remember a herd of 20+ bouncing through the woods. We shot some bucks, but mostly young ones. We also had a number of deer we shot tagged by others. This happened to me twice - one time the guy was literally running to the dead deer. After it happened to my young brothers, we called it quits and moved on. I do miss that area and seeing those kinds of numbers.
What's different is all the doe permits, 24/7 hunting for 60 days, youth hunts, veteran hunts, and on and on. Used to be VERY few bow hunters up there or anywhere for that matter. People got hooked on it, technology changed and pretty soon bow was as big as firearm season. Given the close proximity to larger populations, its an easy drive for a night hunt or even a weekend for a huge amount of the hunting populace. Sad, but the hunters, along with some other environmental and mgmt. impacts, hunted themselves out of the resource.
Someone mentioned not buying doe permits. That's never going to happen. What you do is have everyone apply at $5 a piece and when you find out you're successful just let them sit in the system - effectively 'using up" that quota. My dad tells the story of deer hunters in the UP during the 60s and 70s getting together the night before season and burning all the doe permits they got at a bonfire. They took the mgmt into their own hands.

 

Maybe it is a good idea to pay $5 in order to block someone else from getting a doe permit. I'll have to think about that one. If the DNR won't protect does in stressed areas like RC, we hunters may have to.

I just got an article about why deer herds are down in the mid-west. Nothing earth shattering but I thought those who have chimed in might like to read the article.

http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/big-game-hunting/deer/why-deer-herds-are-declining/

Another update deals with the Federal Lands we have mentioned here. I have previously commented on this thread about unnecessary closing of good trails in the MNF which in effect closes large blocks of land to hunter access. There may be some relief in sight. I just red an article in the Outdoor News section of the January Mid-West Outdoors Magazine informing that the U.S. House just passed a bill to " improve public access to federal lands, guard against regulations that would ban or limit hunting or angling and protect against laws that would make traditional fishing equipment illegal." The bill is called the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act (SHARE). They go on to explain that the bill is going to the House for approval.

Hopefully, this bill will open up some areas that have been closed to us in the MNF. If you have a couple hours to burn, go to the Fed page that explains the rules for using, camping, traveling, and hunting/fishing on NF lands. Oh, my! Its crazy.

Back during the Clinton Administration there were under-reported anti-hunting moves taking place that still affect access to the MNF .
Back then I called the Feds in Cadillac to complain about berms being placed on trails we had been using for years after they harvested the trees in the MNF near us. The Ranger explained to me that they had a "passive closing policy" to close hunter access to certain areas. He also said their berms didn't work well because hunters just drove around them. I also complained that the trails had been damaged by the logging trucks. He assured me that wasn't the case because the Ranger in charge always made sure trails were left in good shape. I took issue with him, stating I could access the area w/o a 4WD vehicle before the cutting but not now. I still have to usr a 4WD to get back there.
Of course, that "passive closing berm system" changed to the "closed unless marked as open by a trail number sign" system that began, as I recall, back in 2006. This system is also supported with annual maps which are available free and can be down-loaded on line. I've warned MS readers on other threads to read the rules and follow the rules, signs and map while on NF lands.
Another under reported item about the Feds that may interest you... back during that era the Clinton administration abused the money acquired through the Pittman-Robertson act. (For those that don't know about the PRA, it is a hidden Federal tax on outdoor products we all buy that the Federal government is supposed to use to advance outdoor pursuits like hunting and fishing.) Anyway, funds from the PRA were given to anti-hunting groups to oppose outdoor pursuits, instead of advance them.
Enough about spilled milk. Let's hope for some positive changes from SHARE. Maybe we should contact our congressmen about voting in favor of the bill.

 

Personally I like the berms on the 2 tracks. It keeps everyone and their brother from driving down them at all hours of the day.

 

I just started a new thread about SHARE; I urged everyone to contact their congressmen about supporting the bill. The bill will change the trail policy on NF lands to "open unless posted as closed".
Here's the bill:

http://naturalresources.house.gov/legislation/?legislationid=368003

Sorry Boopoo; I'm too old to drag a deer a mile.

 

Right now I use the bike and the cart separately, but I've been thinking about making a hitch to pull the cart with the bike. I've seen some slick setups from other people though. One guy had a custom cart that had a removable sled. He used it for trapping but I'm sure you could make one for deer as well.

Is there any question in your mind about a bike being legal on a closed trail? That was a question in my mind when I thought about using a bike last year. I don't think they would want you riding your bike where there is no trail and technically a closed trail is , in effect, no trail. I've read (on line) the many pages about all the rules on NF lands; I don't remember details about bikes. All the rules are overwhelming. If I get in the mood, I'll have to go back and start reading again.

 

Honestly I'm not sure and I've only tried it twice because I mainly hunt private land or places where a bike wouldn't work. I would think their issue would be with motorized vehicles. I see little difference between a deer cart and a mountain bike and I'm pretty sure there's no rules against deer carts.