Trad Gang

Hello fellow stick and stringers of the mitten. No offense to any non residents this topic actusl could use your help to. i am 29 years old and have been bow hunting for 16 years and have harvested 11 bucks all with wheels unfortunately because i didnt sell mine until 2 years ago. anyhow where i grew up i was lucky to see 5 deer a season so u better believe if i saw horn i was shootin. well i now live in better deer area atleast i would think. theres crops bedding all tbey need and weve been doin QDMA for 4 years all around but i only saw 4 bucks and only one that had the 4 on one side rule but he was to far for my recurve. i ask u as fellow bow hunters what to do. do i continue to do my part and follow these rules or start releasing arrows because to me any deer is a trophy,but i see what you guys get in ohio kansas iowa wiscobnsin ect. and wonder if our herd will reach tht potential. i do want to add i am a hunter who does hisvresearch cameras, scouting yr round. i jyst want to be able to hunt mature deer. thanks for any input

I live and hunt in the northern lower michigan, where this year was the first year for point restrictions by the state and my first year going traditional, I took a small doe, and had to pass on a spike buck less than ten yards, because those are the rules, I think everyone needs to play by the rules or laws set for the property their on or they should find some place else to go. that said I've seen good things from the antler restrictions on the east side of the northern lower that have been in effect for 4 or 5 years, so maybe just be patient.

I think you can get the wrong impression of how many big deer are shot by us or anyone else.  Of course, magazine covers and archery gear marketers always print pix of big deer, and a number of folks on here periodically, sometimes regularly, take big deer and post pix.  However, that's a small percentage of the folks who are hunting deer.  There are about 40,000 trad bowhunters on this site. 50 pix of big bucks seems like a lot, but it's only .1% of the bowhunters on this site, for example.

Regardless, to kill big deer, you need to pass up little deer. But most importantly, you need to hunt where they are. The hunting pressure may be too great to allow deer to mature in your area.  Maybe nutrition is a problem.  Difficult to say.  

I'm not a fan of QDM.  It and its associated "deer and habitat enhancement efforts" domesticates and dumbs down the deer,  and has about the same effect on hunters.  Regardless, for it to work, it needs to be practiced over large areas.  If your neighbors shoot the first bucks they see, including those you're trying to nurse to maturity, you're never going to have a lot of big bucks on the area that you hunt.

Taking mature bucks isn't easy.  If it were, everyone would be doing it. All you can do is keep at it, be selective, and, most importantly, hunt where mature bucks live. That may involve some travel.  Good luck.

X2..what Orion said.

The Michigan deer herd will never reach its potential. Too many people, to many rifles with a Nov. 15 opener, too many cheaters, and a DNR that only cares about maximizing revenue.

X2 ..What Steve O said.

X3.

I agree with Orion 100%
I grew up and still hunt in Pa. which adopted an antler restriction 10 years ago.  I feel it has been a detriment to deer hunting in general. In Pa. junior hunters (under 16) can still shoot smaller buck. The habitat in the deep forrest/ Mtn. areas is only capable of producing a certain size and a certain number of what is now a "legal buck".

How do you really feel Steve?

I agree that as stated above there are many factors working against our growing of big bucks consistently.  That being said there are pockets that seem to produce more regularly than others and probably will require paying a lease or buying some ground.

Personally, I am not as concerned with huge bucks as a great experience.  I have leased a great farm in southern Michigan for a few years and I am taking a new approach next year.  I should close on my own piece of ground in the northern lower peninsula at the end of January.  There are fewer deer and the bucks are smaller, but it was set up by one of the top habitat people in the Midwest with access trails, food plots and a plan for other improvements. I will now have a place to hunt deer and turkeys as I see fit until I can't anymore.  The first 100 inch deer I take will be a monumental day.

D.P.

At least you saw deer.  The last two years for us have been the worst.

Need to put an end to the early/youth seasons and early gun doe seasons and get back to the basics BUT it is pretty obvious the DNR is more concerned about  the dollar.  The seem to come up with a new scheme every year to get funds and the deer herds are getting worse and worse.

I didnt mean there are tonz of big bucks shot out of state I understand it takes effort and time I just meant you dont see guys comein from iowa or kansas to book a hunt in michigsn or to hunt our overcrowded trigger happy state land its just a observation of mine i appologize if thats how i came across. With that said we have the nutrition and numbers of guys doin qdm but just not much results maybe it id all these doe seasons and youth hunts and nov 15.

Michigan, as a whole, will never match other states in antler size. The biggest reason is our poor sandy soils, statewide. We also have tougher winters.

However,, Michigan can produce very large bodied trophy deer, if they are allowed to reach maturity. A 120" class rack on a 200lb deer is a trophy is anyone's eyes.

With that said, soils aren't Michigan's main issue. Our problems are man made. Michigan typically/traditionally kills both more yearling bucks and a higher percentage of yearling bucks than any other state in the nation. That is due to several factors, two main ones being we open firearms season at peak rut and we have a tag system that allows anyone, anywhere to kill two bucks in any season.

Here's the numbers...
States With Highest % of Yearling Bucks Harvested

1. Michigan – 64%

2. New Jersey – 59%

3. New York – 55%

4. Maryland – 53%

5. Virginia – 49%

So, what the majority of Michigan hunters is looking for isn't trying to be like Ohio or Iowa, we'd like to be more like even Virginia, where there's a better chance of seeing a basket rack, 2 year old 100 class 8pt.

Take my property for example. I have 160 acres and my buddy has 40, but we're in the Big Rapids/Bitely/White Cloud triangle. While it's an agriculture area, it's mostly poor sands planted with field corn and hay for the local dairy farms. Anyone familiar with the area knows that hunting pressure is intense, where up to 80% of the harvest is yearling bucks some years.

This past year, I never set eyes on a 2 year old buck. That's this past YEAR, not season. I never saw a 2 year old buck driving around in summer, scouting, in the headlights, all the time hunting, nothing.

We still have lots of deer. I saw 6 yearling bucks on rifle opener, although 3 of those 6 never survived opening day, since I know my neighbors shot them from talking to them and I assume the others probably didn't survive the season either.

So, Michigan will never be like the low pressure states with great soil. But Michigan should at least be as good as Michigan can be. Our present deer hunting situation is man made, thru decades of squeezing the stone for another drop of blood. The DNR has bent to public pressure for decades and tried to keep hunters happy with quantity over quality and now we seem to have neither in many area's.

In a state with some 300,000 bow hunters and some 650,000 firearms hunters, where baiting is legal to boot, the days of allowing anyone and everyone to kill two bucks is so 1980's and 1990's.

Our problem is the DNR is funded thru license dollars, so the 2 buck limit is here to stay. Since the 2 buck limit is here to stay, the only way to lower yearling buck harvest is to set antler restrictions to try and protect 50% of yearlings.

What else is here to stay is that deer numbers will never again be allowed to explode like they did in the 1980's and 90's. If we're going to have less deer, then manage for quality instead of a small herd, still with only a few small, young bucks.

If people don't like APR's, the best bet is to change how DNR is funded. I suggest that ALL Michigan residents should pay for our natural resources. So, instead of license sales being the funding mechanism for MDNR, the setup should be that everyone who has a drivers license and license plate pay $5 to $10 for each one and all that money funds MDNR. That way, even if hunter numbers fall, and that appears inevitable, the state still has stable funds coming in to fund the DNR.

well put. thank you for that response i have hunted that ares over in kent city area

Here's a list of some Michigan numbers posted on another site. While the numbers of yearling buck harvest are falling, they still remain very high compared to other states. Oddly enough, it's bow hunters who really put the heat on yearling bucks, percentage wise...

Statewide yearling buck % of harvest by season


Year   Firearms    Archery

2003     64%         74%
2004     61%         70%
2005     61%         72%
2006     66%         72%
2007     61%         68%
2008     59%         67%
2009     49%         64%
2010     55%         64%

It's a personal choice on which bucks to shoot or pass, you need to do what makes you happy if your happy with any legal buck shoot that one or if your only going to be happy with a big one wait for that one.  The most important thing is to have fun.  I'm not a big fan of the way Michigan's deer herd is managed but all is not lost there is still great hunting to be had you just have to work harder than everyone else.  We have lots of public hunting ground and even though we have many hunters you can still find solitude and deer if your willing to work for it.  I hunt state land in a heavily hunted northern Michigan county (missaukee)and have only seen 3 other hunters during gun and bow season other than those with me in the last 17 years.  The spots I hunt require extra work to get to (walking over a mile, canoeing, portage over beaver dams ect..) and most hunters won't go through the work to get there.  Some years I see a lot of deer and some years very few but most years I am able to get an opportunity and a buck and quite a few of those have been mature deer.  My point is that while Michigan might not be perfect we do have the opportunity to have the hunt we want if you have access to large private tracts that are managed you can have a reasonable chance at a big deer most years and if like me your looking for solitude you just have to go find it.

Here is our deer management plan, in case some missed it...
 http://michigan.gov/documents/dnre/WLD_Deer_Management_Plan_FINAL_5.8_320639_7.pdf  

The key goals of the plan are below...(Notice it does not say "To provide lots of deer on all habitats to keep hunter satisfaction high." The plan mentions quality and nearly every goal is counter to quantity and the ill effects of quantity/high deer herd numbers.)

1.Manage Deer Populations at Levels that do not Degrade the Vegetation Upon Which Deer and Other Wildlife Depend.

2.Promote Deer Hunting to Provide Quality Recreational Opportunities, as the Primary Tool to Achieve Population Goals, and as an Important
Social and Cultural Activity.

3.Manage Habitat to Provide for the Long-term Viability of White-tailed Deer in Michigan While Limiting Negative Impacts to the Habitats of
Other Wildlife Species.

4.Reduce Conflict Between Humans and Deer.

5.Reduce the Threats and Impacts of Disease on the Wild Deer Population and on Michigan's Economy.

6.Enhance Public Engagement in and Awareness of Deer Management Issues and Knowledge of Deer Ecology and Management.

If you read the plan, this action suggested pretty much spells out the future...

Action: Continually evaluate and implement deer hunting season structures, regulations, and outreach programs to improve recreational
opportunities associated with deer hunting, achieve appropriate harvest of antlerless deer, and shift harvest pressure from antlered to antlerless deer.

I think as a group hunting and killing are the operative words. Remember when you went to the woods with a bow and a knife ? A gun and a knife ? We as a population have developed an awful hate for the whitetail. We have compund bows, cross bows, treestands, cameras, scent elimination, muzzleloaders that shoot a mile, so to speak, we have legalized baiting, we have greatly encroached on the habitat, no one farms any more, we have that senseless youth hunt, we also live in a welfare state with a whacked budget and a DNR that thinks... I don't really know if they think at all. Other than that it's a great place to walk in the woods. I think people have turned our sport from deer hunting to deer killing. I'll shut up now.

I'd rather eat tag soup than start flinging arrows.  Every deer with a stick is a trophy...however I'm still not going to shoot a young buck.  

The hunting in MI can only get better now that APR's have been implemented in the NW 25% of the lower peninsula.  Had several exciting encounters this year with legal bucks all within 10yds, all on public land.  Next year those same deer will still be legal and hopefully less educated as they received very little pressure.  

I did not end up releasing an arrow until December 31st this year.  Filled a private land tag on a 1.5yo doe.  

 (http://i249.photobucket.com/albums/gg209/gvdocholiday/3bbc995a-3289-4d84-a778-3ab5452a4bbb_zps765fe25f.jpg) (http://s249.photobucket.com/user/gvdocholiday/media/3bbc995a-3289-4d84-a778-3ab5452a4bbb_zps765fe25f.jpg.html)

Now there's a reason to raise a glass on New Years Eve!

nice work happy new year!

Captured all in High Def as well. Deer was no more than 18' away and I was only 10' up in a tree.  Standing in the crotch of a big old oak.  I've shot a lot of deer and cut the heart...but this deer was my first through and through heart shot.  Nice perfect hole right through the heart and she expired 60yds away also on film.  This is only my second deer with a trad bow....likewise shooting a doe last year on public land in early season.  That was a 2 mile drag through the dunes...not fun.

do you have the video posted anywhere?

;)
Can't show it yet.  Not until after it airs on TV this summer.

There is the option to purchase one archery license, and then you can shoot any buck.

I get a little surprised at how many people take the figures the DNR puts forth as the gospel.

Michigan DNR has absolutely no idea what the heck is going on in the deer woods...NONE!

They have no clue how many deer are killed anywhere in the state, let alone percentages of a specific age class. The figures put forth are estimates devised by formulas put forth by the same people giving you the estimates.

If a business owner ran their business the way the DNR manages whitetails in Michigan, you would soon be looking for work.

They do know if there is a drop in revenue.

All you can do is follow the law and take your common sense with you when you hunt.

If you want any kind of quality deer hunting in Michigan, it is gonna require MONEY to travel within the state to the few good areas that exist, OR travel out of state. I have been a very successful deer hunter in Michigan all of my life. EVERY year the same QUALITY of hunting from one year to the next becomes more and more difficult to find...and MUCH more expensive!

A "trophy" deer in Michigan is one that is broadside and twelve yards away.

Its the same in most states. Jersey did away with deer check in stations and now its online check in( the majority of scrubs wont even do it), and thats what they do the statistics from at a desk. They dont go into the field anymore.

As it goes on the days of people in government who cared about wildlife retire or are put in places where they dont matter and so does the wildlife. No checks and balances anymore for the wildlife. Teddy Roosevelt it rolling over in his Grave!

Those formulas are actually quite accurate.  Ohio ran Michigan's survey formulas along side their mandatory check for a few years.  Found the survey to be statistically identical to the mandatory check numbers.  On a scale of one to ten in cost, the survey is one, and the mandatory check is 10.  

Ohio has changed theirs now to a phone check.  They'd rather do the survey, but for PR reasons they still have somewhat of a mandatory check.  So their cost now is at about a 6.  

When those numbers come back, they'll look at the number of license hunters, the percent success rate, and compare those numbers to years past.  Basically you can determine a species population by hunter success rate in an area.  If hunter numbers and success rate begin to decline, all predator/prey relationship graphs follow the same trend.  That means, prey(deer) are down.  If there's a 5 year trend that shows this, then license availability will be limited a bit and the goal will be to have a 5 year trend of success rate stability.  License availability isn't just some random number that is thrown out every year, they're based on very solid data collected from hunters.  

The problem is, that target population goals are still above what many areas can support and these levels are already below what a stereotypical MI hunter will tolerate.  

One of the benefits of not owning any property...I'm not tied to any one area.  I hunted public land in Manistee, Wexford, Lake, and Mason counties this year and private land in Newaygo and Montcalm counties.  I had deer inside 10yds ready to be shot in all of these counties.  Of 83 counties I'd say that over 70 are managed properly.  Hunters just need to be used deer numbers just under carrying capacity.

Their kill stats are pretty right on. Over 90% buck babies killed each year...

I don't know if they know much else. I haven't reported a deer ever, because how would I? And I have killed up to 7 deer in a season. I can't imagine their numbers reflect anything close to reality.

Illinois is cool, it's self checked and measured via an automated line. That can't cost much.  Why can't we just copy their software?

Great deer BTW

I have spoken to a couple out of state sources and they really think that not haveing a firearm season in the middle of the rut somewhat helps them. It will never change i know because of tradition but imagine if it did.

QuoteOriginally posted by Steve O:
The Michigan deer herd will never reach its potential. Too many people, to many rifles with a Nov. 15 opener, too many cheaters, and a DNR that only cares about maximizing revenue.

Bingo. Our DNR is all about hunter opportunity, as in offering as many man hours afield as possible. They are also under threat of lawsuit by farm and auto insurance companies to cut down on deer accidents/damage.

What do you get? The old October 1st opener is gone.Prior to that  2 weekends (or weeks?) of "Special Hunts", that include firearms and crossbows. A late doe season. A firearms lobby that will not allow the change to gun season required (our gun season is peak of the rut).

Michigan has the genetics to produce great bucks. They just aren't willing to change.

And by the way, Antler Point Restrictions ARE NOT the answer. Only a small part of the equation.

There's a good read on page 54 in the March 2014 Deer and Deer Hunting mag titled "The Disgruntled Deer Hunter". I suggest everyone give it a read.

We cultivate immediate gratification for these so called hunters with the youth season,and with baiting. Why do we have a statewide rifle season start on the same day and at the peak of the rut. Other states with alot more acres open to hunting have multiple staggered seasons for rifle hunting.
Crossbows being used in regular archery season seems pretty stupid to me also. I have hunted in other states and provinces and they all mange their resources better than we do. We could do a lot better. We need to work on hunting, not killing.

Thank you for bringing the point up of other states manageing better which produces better deer. I was tskein some heat for my comment about better deer in other states I dont think they got what I was trying to say

Thank you for bringing the point up of other states manageing better which produces better deer. I was tskein some heat for my comment about better deer in other states I dont think they got what I was trying to say

For those banging on the youth hunt, grow up and take a good look in the mirror. It's one weekend and I'd rather see my kids or any kid for that matter make a kill before me.  I don't have high regards for anyone that would think otherwise. Are you that in need of a dead deer that you would take it away from a kid? It's not like every deer in the wood is dead after the youth hunt and if you think it changes deer movement well that happens every fall as guy start stomping around in the woods bird hunting, scouting and dumping bait regardless of the youth hunt. Life as a kid is not like it was when I was in school. Our high school has kids coming and going for all kinds of activities 7 days a week from 6am til 9pm. My son and daughters lives are non stop with school, sports and band so just trying to find an afternoon to hunt is not easy for them or me nowadays. The youth hunt gives a kid a chance to be in the woods and a chance to kill a deer in this busy life.

For 35 years now I've heard how the DNR is inept at everything they do as far as managing the fish and game in Michigan, through the good years and the bad. Game numbers go up and down like the tides and folks need to just go with it. It's called carrying capacity. This was a bad year no doubt but the 10 year before it were pretty dang good because the deer population was high and out of balance.  We are closer to balance than we have been in a long time. We also have a lot of hunters in this state and they all have a different goal and method to meet that goal. So be it. I'll never be one to worry about the other guy. You can do it your way, no one is taking that away. If someone else wants to kill things their way, that's fine with me, it's not a team sport. I hunt my way by myself for an animal and I can't blame anyone but me for not filling a tag.

Now I don't like the fact that I'll pass on a spike knowing full well that the next guy that sees it will more than likely kill it so I'm thankful for APR. I know how a lot of other guys feel about it and I'm sorry they disagree but I want to see what happens and I'm willing to not eat deer for a year to be able to see more bucks down the road.  Aim small when you talk about other states it's all about the number of hunters compared to the number of deer. If we want to be in that conversation we either need fewer hunters or more deer, both of which are not a viable answer.

Yes this is true about the hunters, but you have to consider most "big buck" states have a 1 buck limit in my opinion makeing hunters be more cautious on what deer they do shoot.

In 2012, hunters in the "regular" seasons killed 191,000 antlerless deer and 223,000 antlered bucks, for roughly 414,000 deer combined.

In 2012, youth and disabled hunters killed about 5000 antlerless deer and about 8000 antlered bucks, for roughly 13,000 deer combined.


In 2012, about 40,000 youth hunters were out on the 3rd weekend of September. On that same weekend, about 300,000 adults were small game hunting, scouting for deer/bumping deer, hanging stands, trimming stands, dumping bait piles and generally beating up the woods with human pressure. And if you're by my property, you may have had some 3 different groups of slob bear dog hunters running their dogs all over my land after they've repeated been asked and warned by CO's to stay off.

So in the grand scheme, it's adults who put the most pressure on the woods, prior to Oct. 1.

Here's a better idea than eliminating the youth/disabled hunt. Instead, open "regular" archery season on September 1 and run it thru Sept. 14. Then the traditional small game season can open on Sept. 15 and we can have the youth/disabled hunt and then "regular" archery can re-open back on Oct. 1.

This is a perfect compromise for those who get worked into a lather worrying that the kids or disabled vets may get a weekend crack at a deer before them. If they want to get out before the 2 day youth and disabled vet hunt, hunters would have 2 full weeks, from Sept. 1-14.

For those who don't understand why these Michigan "complaint" threads keep popping up, I suggest you watch "Escanaba in da Moonlight".    ;)

Is there really a difference between those that complain about youth and disabled hunters shooting a buck before someone else gets a chance and those that complain about another hunter shooting a buck before it's big enough?

Both are just whiners cut from the same cloth if you ask me.

It all boils down to someone thinking someone else is taking something they deserve.

Mojo,

You crack me up. You have all kinds of great numbers. The only trouble is they are coming from th DNR. I pulled some quick numbers too:

1998 was a record kill of 597,988. And mind you this was up   TWENTY FIVE PERCENT INCREASE  over the record kill in 1997.

Anybody remember how the hunting was in 1997?

The kill had dropped to 476,000 in 2002 five years later and essentially the same as 1997 and the decade before it.  Anybody remember how the deer hunting was in MI in 2002?

Now we go to your 2012 numbers of 418,000 and essentially the same 418,000 for 2011.

That says the 2012 (and 2011) harvest are 12% below 1997 and 2002.

That is the funniest thing I have ever heard!

BTW hunter numbers show in the same time period are down 16%.  A similar number less hunters taking less deer.

There are a very few pockets of Michigan that have good deer hunting, but I would wager 95% of us would give anything to go back to either 1997 OR 2002 and get that 12% back. I laugh just typing that.

I will have to look up the population estimates; that should be good for another laugh. We probably just got worse as hunter during the decade of the 2000s!

The DNRs numbers are B.S. They put out what they have to in order to sell the maximum number of licenses.

I wonder if the auto insurance companies car/deer collision payouts showed a similar drop of 12% in the last 12 years...

BTW, I am still the only one who answered the guy's original question on if the Michigan deer herd can ever reach it's potential    :D

Signed--Steve Osminski, disgruntled MI deer hunter

(But fortunately a gruntled Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio deer hunter!)


Oh, and by the way to the original poster. If you want to see what the POTENTIAL of Michigan deer is, look up the high fence ranch "The Sanctuary". Those were deer that were wild and native to the property and paid for when the enclosure was established that were fed an optimum diet and allowed to mature. Not now, go back to a few years after it started. There were lots of "hunts" filmed in there long ago before it was the craze it is now.

QuoteOriginally posted by Steve O:
Oh, and by the way to the original poster. If you want to see what the POTENTIAL of Michigan deer is, look up the high fence ranch "The Sanctuary". Those were deer that were wild and native to the property and paid for when the enclosure was established that were fed an optimum diet and allowed to mature. Not now, go back to a few years after it started. There were lots of "hunts" filmed in there long ago before it was the craze it is now.

Yeah, if we could just get the state of MI to supply the entire deer herd with unlimited supplies of Purina Deer Chow and AntlerMax supplements like the Sanctuary does, we'd be all set.

From their website:

THE SECRET OF SANCTUARY  


For almost 20 years, the researchers at Purina Mills have been working with The Sanctuary to provide world-class nutrition to grow world-class deer. And because nutrition is such an integral part of growing big deer, Purina Mills¨ Deer Chow¨ truly is the secret to their amazing animals.

What makes Purina Deer Chow better than any deer feed on the market? It starts with unequalled Purina Mills Research - the foundation of their newly formulated Deer Chow diets. And the results speak for themselves: optimal antler growth speed, size and mass in bucks, high fertility in does and low mortality in fawns. All levels no other form of nutrition can produce.

Purina Mills devotion to product excellence and innovation continues today, with their AntlerMax Technology.

ANTLERMAX TECHNOLOGY  

AntlerMax is actually a protein technology. This patented nutritional delivery system provides a substantially higher quality protein to growing deer antlers. Simply put, feeding Deer Chow with AntlerMax will result in antler growth of unprecedented speed, size and mass. But there's more to the story than bigger, faster. AntlerMax delivers proprietary types and ratios of essential trace minerals that specifically target the needs of growing antler tissues, resulting in optimal antler density and strength."


Freak shows like the Sanctuary are what is ruining REAL deer hunting, and should be despised by all hunters for being the abomination it is.

The bottom line is we are listening to the fox tell us how many chickens we have.

It`s good for the fox to tell us how awesome the chickens are doing.

The fox gets paid pretty good to watch the chickens.

Us idiot disgruntled Michigan deer hunters should just go brush our tooth and shut up.

Tooner, you missed the whole point.

Go back to 3 years after it started. That is the POTENTIAL Michigan deer have. There are great genetics here.

We will never have deer like that because there are too many people, too many rifles on Nov 15, too many cheaters, a DNR that thinks we as hunters in the field believe the were 12% less deer have sets in 2011 and 2012 than in 1997 and 2002 respectively, and a DNR which only cares what is good for their pocketbooks via licenses sold and keeping the Farm Bureau and auto insurance companies from suing them.

Tooner, opening day for archery deer is/was October 1st.  There is zero reason to have a bunch of early seasons for anyone, young, old abled or disabled. EXCEPT the DNR found another way to raise extra funds.

I have 6 grandkids and have helped more disabled vets than most so I will not except those excuses that you use.  It is about the rules, not changing the rules for financial reasons.

I have NOT shot a deer the last two seasons by choice.  My grandkids come first in the woods.

If you don't believe the DNR check station and survey data, which numbers are you using?

You asked about deer crash stats. Well, those numbers have drastically dropped along with the deer herd numbers. In the 1990's, our deer herd grew to about 2.2 million deer, now it's roughly 1.7 million. Deer/auto accidents have gone from 67,000 in 2001 to 49,000 last year. Do you believe those numbers from the state? Why or why not?

Don't confuse post season harvest numbers with pre-season total herd numbers. Todays hunter, with all the gadgets, can kill lots of deer, even with a smaller herd. That's the point. We can kill lots of deer without having a bloated herd. You may not see nearly as many, but deer are big game animals not small game, exactly how many do you think you should see a day? Should you see deer every sit? If you only see 10 deer a season, but kill one, is that a bad season?

In 2002, the "hunting" in the much of the SLP was incredible. I know guys were seeing over a dozen bucks a sit back then. Then again, there were so many deer they were hard to miss. The hunting came at the expense of more deer crashes and crop damage.

You do recall that TB was found in the NELP in 1997 and in 1998 there was UNLIMITED antlerless tags in 63 DMU's and the combo tag was created the same year, so many of the single tag buyers now bought 2 tags, right? In 1998, with the unlimited tags, we shot 32 does at my place. It's amazing the kill only went up 25% that year. Unlimited tags was a crazy time. I lost track of the deer I killed in those years.

The reality is, back then the deer herd was wildly over-populated. Hunters on poor habitat with sand and jack pine shouldn't see 30 deer a sit.

I really must suggest the Deer and Deer Hunting article again. There's a CO with 32 years of experience that really sums up the problem. He says that "a lot of hunters haven't learned the basics of biology and deer populations...if you think the state ought to be supplying fodder for your gun (or bow), I guess you're going to be very unhappy."

From my experience in this arena, there are two area's where I'd say many hunters still lack knowledge. First is tracking a wounded deer. Many guys make poor choices when tracking deer with otherwise fatal liver and gut hits. The other aspect that some still haven't gotten the grasp of is big picture/long term deer management. They don't understand why we had what we had in the past, they don't understand the present and, likely, they really won't understand the future and they are likely to get frustrated and lash out at fellow hunters and the deer biologists, who are actually on our side.

The days of the Michigan deer herd having 2.2 million deer are as over as a guy building cars on the line making $100,000 with overtime. They are never coming back.

I get it, some guys are frustrated. But the old days aren't coming back. I've kept camp records for a long time. In 1989, I saw 67 deer on opening day of firearms and 3 were bucks. In 2013 I saw 12 deer and 6 were bucks on rifle opener. In 1989, I saw 43 bucks in the month of October. In 2012 I only saw 4 bucks in the month of October. But in the 1990's, we'd find 50 dead fawns in the Spring and we were lucky to see a buck much over a 3" tall spike. We don't find many dead deer now and our yearling buck racks are 3 times the size. We're moving in the right direction. It's easy to forget sometimes, but deer are big game animals, we can't manage them to be like small game.

Here's a good history lesson from Michigan State University (future 2014 NCAA basketball champs!)

It's been posted before, but some have missed it. Good stuff.

http://deer.fw.msu.edu/management/mgthistory.php/


ELIMINATION OF MARKET HUNTING


Prior to settlement, Michigan had an abundant deer herd in the south. The mixture of hardwoods, wetlands, bogs and forest openings was perfect for deer. There were few deer in the virgin forests of the north, which were inhabited mostly by elk and moose. The mature trees were so dense that sunlight could not reach the forest floor. Little deer food was available in these virgin forests. As farmers and settlers moved into southern Michigan, deer were exterminated by removal of cover and by unregulated shooting. Deer were mostly gone by 1870. Logging of forests in the north produced an opposite effect--more openings, brush, and young forests. As the northern herd climbed to estimated 1 million deer in the 1880s, the abundance fostered a public attitude that this resource was inexhaustible.

Logging camps of 100 to 200 men used venison as the primary source of meat for months at a time. Railroads that had been developed to facilitate the timber market also provided transportation of game meat to Eastern markets. Railroads also provided access for hunters into the wilderness. Market hunters slaughtered hundreds of thousands of deer for the sale of venison. Usually, the hindquarters and legs (saddles) were shipped during the fall of the year with the rest of the deer discarded. In summer, market hunters sometimes killed deer for just the hides. Hunting methods commonly involved the use of dog packs, the killing of deer at night by shining (deer are momentarily blinded with lights), and the shooting of deer while they were swimming in the water.

Early measures to control market hunting were not very successful. The first deer law of 1859 eliminated year-round killing and set a seven-month season for taking deer. However, there was no bag limit or restriction of the method of take. Sporting clubs became outraged at the slaughter of game by the market hunting industry. They realized the need to form a statewide group with sufficient membership to lobby against commercial hunting interests. In 1875, the first meeting of the Michigan Sportsmen's Association (MSA) was held in Detroit.

The MSA lobbied for a bill to make it illegal to sell game out of state, as modeled after a bill in Illinois. Debate from commercial hunting interests was intense. The Legislature sided with industry against the "kid-gloved sportsmen." The formal legislative conclusion was that there was insufficient data on the extent of market hunting to document a need for legislation. Mr. Roney, Secretary of the MSA, spent the next three years collecting data from hunters, railroads, and restaurants. He reported in 1880 that 70,000 deer were killed in Michigan. Sportsmen took a reported 4,000, compared to 66,000 by market hunters. About half of the venison (an estimated 5 million pounds) was shipped out of state. As a result of this analysis, a bill restricting sale of Michigan game meat in other states became law in 1881.

The MSA had other successes in affecting game policies and laws by working with state government. The length of the hunting season was shortened to five months in 1881, at which time it was also made illegal to kill deer in the red or spotted coat or while in water. It was also unlawful to use pits, pitfalls, or traps in the taking of deer. In 1887, a law was passed making it illegal to use dogs or lights for taking deer. Also, the state's first game warden was hired in 1887.

Legislative activity to control market hunting culminated with an 1895 law, which really marked the beginning of deer management in Michigan. The open deer hunting season was established to be November 1 through 25. A bag limit of five deer was set. A license was also required to hunt deer.

Probably more important than the law itself was the public demand for regulation and conservation of deer. Public compliance with regulation was enhanced with better laws and better prosecution of game violators. The attitude that people could work through their state government to conserve deer led to many rule changes decreasing the bag limit and indiscriminate hunting methods. Ultimately, though, it took a federal law (the Lacey Act of 1900) to put an end to the market hunting industry by making it a federal violation to ship game across state lines.


PROTECTION


An early approach to deer regulation was complete closure of specific counties to deer hunting for a period of three to ten years. This extreme method of increasing deer numbers was common in the late 1890s until the early 1920s, at which time deer hunting was illegal in almost 1/3 of Michigan counties. One can imagine the legislative debates about closing of a county to deer hunting for several years.

There was also a reduction in the number of days that hunters could take deer. Season dates were changed several times until 1925, when November 15 through 30 was determined to be the best time for hunting deer. It is interesting to note that except for failed experiments with Saturday openers and split seasons between 1962 and 1967, the firearm season of November 15 through 30 has remained the same for more than half a century.

Although there were few deer hunters at the turn of the century (from 14,499 licenses sold in 1895 to 21,239 in 1915 ), many of these hunters were very efficient at taking deer. The deer harvest during these years averaged about 12,000. Thus, there was interest in reducing the bag limit of successful hunters as a method to manage deer. The Legislature reduced the bag limit from five deer in 1895 to three in 1901, two in 1905, and to one deer in 1915. But then, there was a serious debate over the Department recommendation that hunters should be allowed to take only one buck. Game Commissioner William R. Oates argued that a "buck law" was needed because the deer herd was not increasing even with the elimination of market hunting The Commissioner estimated that there were only 45,000 deer in Michigan in 1914. Rather than provide for complete county closures to deer hunting for up to ten years, it was recommended that regulations be changed so that only antlered deer could be taken by hunters.

Mr. George Shiras III, a wildlife expert of the times, wrote an article supporting the "buck law" which appeared in the Marquette Mining Journal. Regardless of the opinions of Commissioner Oates or Deer Biologist Shiras, the Legislature did not, at first, accept the recommendation for a "buck law." The decade-long debate continued until the "buck law" became effective in 1921. As we shall see, the Department sold the "buck law" so well that it would result in the destruction of deer range and create serious deer population and public education problems for many years to come.


ADVENT OF SCIENTIFIC DEER MANAGEMENT


Hunters in Michigan had also lobbied for discretionary authority to be provided to the Public Domain Commission (precursor to the DNR) by the Legislature. The lack of a timely response to the serious drop in ruffed grouse in the Upper Peninsula was used as a case study to show the need for discretionary authority. The Michigan Legislature did even more than provide discretionary authority. Act 17, P.A. 1921, created a State Department of Conservation to include the former Michigan State Parks Commission, Board of Geological Survey, State Board of Fish Commissioners, State Game, Fish, and Forest Fire Commission, and the Public Domain Commission.

In 1928, the Game Division was established within the Department of Conservation. With technical personnel in a special organization, scientific data began to form much of the basis for decision-making. Our basic knowledge of the white-tailed deer and its habitat expanded as Michigan made a major contribution to the scientific literature on deer.

Studies were begun on conducting drives to census deer. Sighting rates of bucks, does, and fawns seen per 100 hours were recorded by conservation officers while on patrol in deer territory. Studies were completed to correlate skull and antler characteristics with age of deer. Browse surveys were done in deeryards to estimate winter food and cover. Diseases and parasitism were researched to monitor herd health. Hunter surveys were started to obtain better data on the annual harvest.

Scientific game management expanded even more in 1937 with the passage of the Pittman-Robertson Act for Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration. This act collected a federal excise tax on hunting arms and ammunition to be returned to the state for research, land acquisition, and habitat development. Full-time wildlife research biologists were hired by the Department and housed at research stations. Some of these researchers, like Mr. Louis .1. Verme and Mr. John J. Ozoga, became international experts in the nutrition, physiology, and behavior of white-tailed deer.

At the same time scientific studies were being done, the deer herd began to rebound. Some of the increase was due to habitat changes as logged-over areas produced deer browse. Shrubs and other deer foods developed in many areas that had been cleared for agriculture but abandoned. There was also an impact of the no-dog rule, the "buck law", and what was known to hunters as the "Shiras gun law" (this law prohibited the carrying of firearms in deer territory during the closed season.)

By 1930, the abundance of deer was recognized. The first discussion of deer-vehicle accidents began. Hunters complained that the "woods was full of dry does", and that maybe the "buck law,' should be changed. There was also a significant amount of winter starvation and over-browsing in cedar swamps where field investigators reported a shortage of food and cover for the growing herd. By 1936, hunters were complaining about low buck-to-doe ratios.

A crop damage committee was formed in the late 1930s to include representatives of hunting and agricultural groups. Mr. Ilo Bartlett, the state's first deer biologist, reported that there were 1.125 million deer in the state in 1937 (about 1/3 of which were in the Upper Peninsula and 2/3 in the northern Lower Peninsula- only a very few deer were present in southern Michigan). He began to talk about the "Deer Problem."

DEER HABITAT ACQUISITION


The Department of Conservation recognized that there were two solutions to the deer problem of the late 1930s:
•Reduce deer numbers to balance the herd with the range, and
•Provide more and better deer range to sustain habitat on a long-range basis.

There were many discussions about changing the "buck law" and also about ways to provide more hunting lands for deer. In 1931 a law was passed to earmark $1.50 for land acquisition from each deer license sold. These funds were often used to purchase tax-reverted lands because of farming failures or hardships of the Great Depression. About 700,000 of the 3.8 million acres of state forest lands were purchased with funds from hunting licenses. In the early years of the Pittman-Robertson Program, a large share of federal aid money was used to purchase game lands in southern Michigan.

Despite the state's attempt to provide more hunting lands and to place more deer habitat in public ownership, the deer problem continued until the herd peaked at about 1.5 million deer in the late 1940s.


REINSTATEMENT OF ANTLERLESS DEER HUNTING


A decade of carrying more than 1 million animals with bucks-only hunting severely damaged the habitat. Deeryards became death traps for deer, where they came for cover but had no food. The reproductive rate of nutritionally stressed does was poor, as was the survival rate of fawns born in late May and early June.

In 1941, for the first time since the "buck law" of 1921, antlerless deer were taken in an experimental hunt in a 37-square-mile parcel in Allegan County after the regular season. Hunters were selected by drawing.

Also in 1941, the camp deer license was liberalized. Before that time, four or more hunters could apply to take an extra buck for use as camp meat. The 1941 rule allowed that camp deer be either sex. The number of camp deer taken increased from several hundred to 17,100 in 1941. Sportsmen and nonhunters reacted so negatively that the either-sex camp deer law was repealed.

Small antlerless hunts were also held after the regular seasons in a few deer damage areas in 1949, 1950, and 1951. A major antlerless season was held in 1952 in the northern Lower Peninsula north of Highway M-20. No permit was required. Any licensed hunter could take a deer of either sex during the last three days of the season (November 28 through 30). A total of 95,810 antlerless deer was taken, which many hunters considered to be too many. There is still talk in northern Lower Peninsula deer camps about the "slaughter of 1952." It was reported that a truckload of letters came to Lansing, one of which was signed in doe blood.

After the public reaction, the Department changed to an area and quota system to take antlerless deer, which has been maintained today. For example, in 1956, Deer Management Unit 2 included parts of Mason, Lake, and Newaygo counties. A total of 4,270 Hunter's Choice (either sex) permits was issued in Unit 2 for use during the regular November 15 through 30 season. The Department and public liked the idea of focusing the antlerless harvest by specific numbers of permits issued for specific units, rather than the open season for any hunter across the entire region, as was done in 1952. In 1956, the first antlerless deer hunting since 1920 was opened in the Upper Peninsula in four small deer management units. Mr. David A. Arnold and Mr. Joseph E. Vogt, deer management experts with the Department, worked diligently to gain support for antlerless deer hunting. By 1965, almost all of the land in the Upper and northern Lower peninsulas and about 1/3 of the land in southern Michigan was open to antlerless deer hunting. A total of 227,314 permits was made available in 58 units.

During this time of increased antlerless deer hunting, the habitat for deer collapsed. Some of this was due to heavy browsing of deer between 1940 and 1960. Most habitat deterioration was due to forest succession. Mature stands of timber began to appear on lands that had been formerly logged. The heavy leaf cover in the canopies of the mature trees prevented sunlight from reaching the forest floor. Thus, there was little food for deer to eat in the mature forests. Also, there was not much logging to produce browse for deer.

This combination of decreasing deer numbers due to habitat change, along with significant antlerless deer harvests, sent a confusing message to the public. Many individuals attributed the decreasing herd to the antlerless hunting because they were unaware or did not believe information concerning the habitat crash. Habitat was not much of a problem in southern Michigan. All deer hunting had been closed in southern Michigan from 1930 to 1941, when Allegan County was opened. By 1943, for the first time in 70 years, deer could be found in every county. The southern herd increased from 15,000 deer in 1949 to 85,000 by 1972. Even the increased presence of deer in southern Michigan did not affect a major decline in the herd from 1.5 million in 1949 to 0.5 million in 1972. Two generations of deer hunters reacted as they had been taught by the Department-return to a "buck law." A few hunters, however, understood the real problem in the 1970s and pursued a more important solution.


DEER RANGE IMPROVEMENT


Due to the leadership skills of Wildlife Division Chief Merrill (Pete) Petoskey and the technical knowledge of Staff Biologist John Byelich, the Department of Conservation developed a Deer Range Improvement Program (DRIP). Act 106, P.A. 1971, provided that $1.50 be earmarked from each deer hunting license "for the purpose of improving and maintaining habitat for deer, for the acquisition of land required for an effective program of deer habitat management, and for payment of ad valorem taxes on lands acquired under this section." A goal of 1 million deer was established for spring 1981.

Priority townships were identified with the most potential for deer habitat improvement. Forest cover guidelines were established to outline ideal mixtures of tree species, age classes of trees, forest openings, and winter cover. At first, the Department invested heavily in bulldozers and field personnel to complete on-the-ground projects because the timber market was weak in most areas. With the increased opportunity to complete deer range work through commercial forestry, more Department money was provided for salaries of wildlife personnel to work with state and federal foresters to plan forest treatments.

About $20 million was invested in habitat improvements for deer from 1972 to 1987. Specific impacts included the creation, seeding, cultivation, and maintenance of more than 70,000 acres of forest openings. A total of 5,113 acres of critical deer range was purchased with DRIP funds. More than 137,292 acres of land were improved through direct cuttings or residual treatments of timber stands to benefit deer and other species. Wildlife personnel evaluated and planned forest treatments on more than 550,000 acres during this time.

Deer range improvement was also accelerated by an increase in the timber market in northern Michigan and increased agriculture in deer territory. A series of mild winters in the 1980s and artificial feeding of deer by the public further propelled the herd to a new peak of 2 million deer in 1989. Signs of distress in the herd appeared again. The percentage of spikes among yearling bucks in the Upper Peninsula exceeded 50 percent. Many yearling bucks had dressed-weights of less than 100 pounds. Survivorship of fawns from June to October was as low as 40 percent in some areas. A hard winter of 1985/86 resulted in the winter loss of an estimated 125,000 deer. Deer-vehicle accidents exceeded 40,000 per year with an average of 5 people killed and 1,500 injured each year. Crop damage reappeared, and an ad hoc committee of agricultural and hunting interests was formed once again. Also, hunters once again began complaining about the low buck-to-doe ratio.


A SMALLER DEER HERD WITH A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF BUCKS


In the late 1980s, the Department of Natural Resources reaffirmed its goal of 1.3 million deer in the fall herd (which was biologically the same as the 1971 goal of 1 million deer in the spring herd). However, a new dimension was added by specifying that 35 percent of this fall herd should ideally be antlered bucks. Increased hunting of antlerless deer was encouraged by quota and area to thin adult doe herds. In 1989' the Hunter's Choice license was changed to a bonus Antlerless-only license. The number of antlerless deer hunting licenses was increased from the tens of thousands issued annually in the 1970s to a peak of 322,890 in 1990. The herd responded as was intended-there were 20 percent fewer deer in fall 1993 as there were in 1989.

The heightened opportunity to take antlerless deer reduced the hunting pressure exclusively devoted to bucks. Thinning the herd also increased fawn survival so that more 1½-year-old bucks were recruited into the fall herd in the 1990s, compared to the 1960s. In 1991, the bag limit for bucks was reduced from four (two in archery plus two in firearm or muzzleloading seasons) to two bucks in all seasons combined. Many hunters thought that the buck harvest should be restricted even more, and proposals were developed to drop the second buck license or to make it illegal to tag a spikehorn with a buck license. There was much discussion about application of "quality deer management" from the Southeastern states to Michigan.

Some tough choices are ahead if we continue to aspire to a herd with 35 percent antlered bucks in the fall population. We have reached the point where further increases in antlerless deer harvest will not have much impact on the buck-to-doe ratio. To further improve the percentage of bucks in the fall herd, we will have to find acceptable ways to reduce the buck harvest.

Continued bucks-only hunting to rebuild herds may complicate the problem by placing all of the hunting pressure on antlered deer. That will decrease the buck-to-doe ratio and eventually return us to the situation where we started in the mid-1980s. Now, we should evaluate regulations that will allow the careful taking of specified numbers of antlerless deer in areas with smaller herds. We need to consider the advantages and disadvantages of regulations to reduce buck harvest in ways that are acceptable to hunters and landowners.

Methods of handling deer crop damage were also changed in the late 1980s as a result of recommendations from Department field personnel and from the Ad Hoc Deer Damage Committee. The Legislature and Commission have repeatedly concluded that the best solution to crop damage is recreational hunting, rather than trapping, compensation, or birth control.

In keeping with this policy, a "block permit program" was tested in 1987 and initiated statewide in 1989. This program allowed landowners, with a history of significant deer damage documented by the Department, to receive by for distribution to licensed hunters. Thus, nuisance deer could be taken during the regular season from areas with known crop damage instead of from anywhere within a deer management unit of several hundred square miles.

Out-of-season killing of deer, illegal kill, and "gut shooting" were reduced by providing opportunities to take deer with block permits during the regular season. Block permits also allowed the state to have more deer in problem areas instead of reducing the herd in a large deer management unit. Problem "hot spots" could be handled with block permits. Although the number of deer taken on these licenses was small (10,000 to 15,000 annually) from a statewide perspective, landowners with damage were pleased with the ability to control local economic losses from deer. Block permits were used to encourage hunting in some metropolitan areas and nature centers where it was difficult to obtain enough antlerless licenses at specific sites. The 1980s and 1990s have also provided some new technologies and new policy issues for deer range improvement. The reduction of thermal cover in cedar and hemlock deeryards, especially on private land in the Upper Peninsula, increased winter losses of deer and reduced deer numbers in several local sites. The Department initiated a lowland conifer regeneration program in 1991 to encourage regeneration in yards where deer were scare, but the yard once held large numbers of deer. An inventory of lowland conifers was completed in 1994 by the Department, through a contract with Maclean Consultants Ltd. This work involved mapping of deer thermal cover by satellite imagery on all lands (private, state, and federal) in the Upper Peninsula. This information will provide direction for deer habitat improvements during the next decade.

Completion of state forest plans in the Escanaba and Pere Marquette forests and for the three federal forests in Michigan also provided some new opportunities to place deer range improvement in a larger context of landscape planning, conservation of biodiversity, and ecosystem management. The Department's experience in deer range improvement during the past 20 years has taught us the importance of managing vegetative communities, rather than just deer. Deer management has also taught us that the hardest species to include in ecosystem management is Homo sapiens. The recreationist and concerned citizen must not be excluded from the landscape planning process.

The build-up of deer in urban and suburban areas had also been a challenge in the past decade. These deer herds were often in places like airports or golf courses or subdivisions where lethal control was unpopular. The constituents who got involved in these issues were often subdivision residents or others with little hunting experience. As a result, local decision-makers often ignored the problem or selected trapping, birth control, or other nonlethal solutions to pursue. Other than fencing, these nonlethal control methods were usually unsuccessful or impractical, and lethal controls were eventually applied. Management of deer in urban and suburban settings will provide many future opportunities for public education and involvement.

One final issue of the past decade has involved the management of social conflicts between hunting groups with different characteristics, hunting methods, or values. For example, deer hunters that do not bowhunt expressed a concern about the fairness of allocation in the harvest. Deer hunters that do bait complained about the territoriality of baiters or ethics of baiting or the image of hunting being tarnished by those using that method. Muzzleloaders questioned the use of scopes on firearms that they felt should be primitive. Hunters without access to private land complained about the increased opportunities that some hunters had to take antlerless deer or large bucks.

These kinds of social issues were by no means new in deer management. What was new, though, was the attitudes of people that state government should intervene in matters beyond the biology of deer or management of habitat. To date, there is a feeling in the Department that hunters need to discuss and resolve these issues among themselves and then ask their government to act accordingly. However, biological and ecological issues are perceived differently. State government has a legal mandate and moral responsibility to act, even if contrary to public will, where the integrity of the resource is threatened. Thus, the real challenge of the future of deer management will be to carefully sort out the social from biological, to respond to the will of the public for the former, and to take leadership, even if unpopular, for the latter.


SUMMARY


This brochure has shown the dedication of Michigan hunters in supporting deer management during the past century.

Michigan hunters have supplied millions of dollars for the development of hunting regulations based on scientific data. They have also provided funds to enforce those rules in the field. Millions of dollars have been contributed for the acquisition of land and for the improvement of deer habitat on those lands. In many cases, legislative action to protect deer, acquire land, and improve deer range has been initiated by hunters themselves. This partnership among the Michigan deer hunter, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Michigan Legislature speaks well of our ability as citizens to work together through state government to manage wildlife. There is no question that the Michigan deer herd will generate considerable discussion and debate in the future. Such debate is essential to develop management procedures to keep our deer herd and deer range in good condition.

2012 and 2013 worst back to back hunting seasons in the 23 years,I have hunted the 120 acres that I lease. With that said I hunt in what was some pretty good Tuscola Co. deer property. Youth season is B.S. and so is the early doe season. Now that we have cross bows and the amount of doe's private land owners can take, it sure did wipe out the heard. 2012 two deer taken by 5 hunters on our property. 2013 no deer taken not even a shot opertunty. The DNR needs to wake up and relise that they work for the hunters not the farmers and insurance companies. If we as hunters don't start to speak up deer hunting will be just like pheasant hunting----gone.I better stop here or I will have my blood boil over.   :mad:    :banghead:    :mad:

These conspiracy's are getting harder to follow. Exactly how does a youth hunt or early antlerless hunt raise a dollar more in license revenue? The same tags that are used in other seasons can be used in the early hunts. The only difference is more opportunity for the kids with the youth hunt. If anything, it's a money drain for MDNR.

The kids will still buy the same tags. Or are you saying that dad's won't take the kids out unless there's a youth season, thus justifying the youth hunt. Which is it?

The same is true for the early antlerless season. Those are just regular antlerless tags the hunter was going to buy anyway. But the early hunt allows hunters to fill their freezers early and keep the woods more quiet come the rut. Why shoot a doe in the prime rut days when you can kill a couple in September, stack your freezer and enjoy the season? And if you don't want to shoot a doe in the early season, then wait until it gets cold if you like.

QuoteOriginally posted by Steve O:
The Michigan deer herd will never reach its potential. Too many people, to many rifles with a Nov. 15 opener, too many cheaters, and a DNR that only cares about maximizing revenue.

VERY WELL SAID STEVE O! Sounds like PA

Jon how does the state make extra funds off the early hunts?  I buy small game and deer tags for the kids no matter what and early season is not an added cost.

Another quote from the CO in the D&DH article...

"I think a lot of hunters see themselves as customers, they're the guys with the money, buying the licenses and the guns and the gear. The state or game agency is supposed to do it's part and supply the deer."

He follows "I don't think it's sustainable or good for our wildlife, it makes hunters forget that they are supposed to be part of something larger: a conservation ethic."

  (http://i846.photobucket.com/albums/ab28/miklvines/1505272_776817588999240_1279797808_n.jpg) (http://s846.photobucket.com/user/miklvines/media/1505272_776817588999240_1279797808_n.jpg.html)

I can copy and paste a bunch of junk too.

Another large problem with a lot of Michigan hunters it they only want to shoot a deer that have some sort of antler showing. If you could reduce the number of deer. You can Improve the health of the deer and help increase the size of the deer. The best way at this point would be similar to Wisconsin's earn a buck by taking a doe. If you have three or more bucks to a doe ratio you can increase the genetic potential of the deer population. I am not sure what the population is now, when I lived in Michigan it was 1.9 million estimated in the lower peninsula. That is a whole lot of deer in the area and if I was to guess 70% or better were does. I would go hunting and maybe see 3 bucks to every 20 does. That is a big problem with a deer herd. That means any buck's genes could be passed not the strong or larger animals genes only.

There is one tag system that the DNR has mentioned that they need for money, and in not the youth hunt but that's the combination tag that most of us probably buy. In 2012, only 4% of Michigan bowhunters bought only a single archery tag. The rest all bought the combo tag-the cash cow of deer tags.

Since our license fees are still low, even after the increase, the state needs to keep the 2 buck limit instead of going to a one buck a year limit. If we went to a $50 single buck tag, there'd be no need for antler point restrictions in Michigan. APR's in Michigan are a product of the combo tag, which always had one APR tag from the start. After nearly 20 years, it's clear that most hunters want both combo tags to be APR tags, instead of the initial trial of one APR tag.

What's funny is, those crying about the DNR only being about money likely bought the combo tag, which is all about the money. If it was revenue neutral, the biologists would jump all over a one buck only rule.

im sorry if i offended anyone by starting this post. Just a young hunter trying to get a better deer herd in my area and wondered what everyone thought lol boy did i open a can.

Mojo,

I don't believe any of the DNR numbers, ESPECIALLY  the population ESTIMATES!  According to your DNR numbers we are down 23% in population from the record numbers...give me a break. I was throwing out some of your DNR numbers with specific years guys would remember and see those numbers do not match our field experiences then and now.

I remember a lot. I also have hunted all over this country and Canada. We are a sad state    :(

The research from some of the best deer biologists in the country is now "junk?"

Might I remind you of the MLA bylaws...

F. To cooperate with public and private organizations, associations, and individuals in
fostering and perpetuating the use of the longbow in accordance with its finest traditions and as an activity of human endeavor worthy of study, respect, and dignity.

The deer biologists who dedicate their life to the study are from a public organization. Perhaps MLA might gain some members if they worked with MDNR? I'll leave your Morgan Freeman paste open to interpretation whether it was out of respect or dignity.    :rolleyes:  

The future is up to us. We can sit and do nothing but complain or we can do something pro-active and work with our deer biologists.

But I'll leave that for each to decide. I'm very excited about the future of Michigan deer hunting.

Don't need to remind me of anything.  I read the By-Laws quite often and nowhere does it stipulate that any member MUST agree with everything that is copy and pasted (that can be edited BEFORE posting, NOT saying you would do that.  I'll "leave that open to interpritation" as you said.

Morgan Freeman was ment for laughter.  That's what I do, I try to make laughter from the simplist things in life.  People need to smile More often.

I will leave you with a quote from Abraham Lincoln..."Never Believe everything you read on the internet".

Mike your funny!   :thumbsup:  

Aim small,

I don't think you offended anyone Michigan deer hunting is just one of those topics with some people with some very strong varied opinions who like to try to out type or out talk each other.  Michigan does still have some very good hunting you just need to work at it if you have access to private ground the best thing you can do is habitat improvement and if you hunt public land you need to do some good old fashion leg work and find areas with good numbers of deer and that most hunters won't go through the work to get to, also learn to predict how the deer will react to the other hunters in the woods and place your self in the areas the deer head to get away.

Good luck and shoot straight
Jordan

Mike-

I got to admit that Morgan Freeman thing was pretty funny...Thanks for putting some COMMON SENSE back into the discussion.

I remember 1997 and I remember 2013.  Morgan Freeman that was just good timing.   :)

How do we "work" with biologists?

I am NOT a "biologist"...BUT, I am a LIFELONG deer hunter...I put HOURS and HOURS into scouting every chance I get. I put MILES and MILES on foot every chance I get. I KNOW what deer eat in EVERY season, I KNOW what cover they require in winter. I know why fawns grow faster in the womb in spring than in January, and I know why. I can recognize habitat under stress because of overpopulation, and I can SEE habitat that has deer numbers WAY under carrying capacity.

So when I hunt a piece of ground and I see that realistically killing ANY deer is BAD for the resident deer I KNOW it.

As a citizen, how do I "Work" with a biologist when I KNOW the REAL motivation is MONEY? When they REPEATEDLY tell us the opposite of what we see with our eyes, HOW do we work with that?

I was at several meetings through the years concerning Tuberculosis and also one concerning crossbows and I can tell you, the DNR has NO interest in ANYTHING the stupid public has to offer EXCEPT MONEY!!!!!

The whitetail has been taken to the bank by the DNR one antlerless tag at a time...all the average guy CAN do is complain and NOT shoot a deer.

I would like to see realistic, HONEST numbers of exactly how many people in the workings of the DNR are actually sportsman of any kind.

Thanks JT i will continue the hard work as ive done year on end and i hope it will soon repay me for my efforts even more so rewarding with the long bow

QuoteOriginally posted by Bonebuster:
As a citizen, how do I "Work" with a biologist when I KNOW the REAL motivation is MONEY? When they REPEATEDLY tell us the opposite of what we see with our eyes, HOW do we work with that?

I was at several meetings through the years concerning Tuberculosis and also one concerning crossbows and I can tell you, the DNR has NO interest in ANYTHING the stupid public has to offer EXCEPT MONEY!!!!!

The whitetail has been taken to the bank by the DNR one antlerless tag at a time...all the average guy CAN do is complain and NOT shoot a deer.

I would like to see realistic, HONEST numbers of exactly how many people in the workings of the DNR are actually sportsman of any kind.

X2 You absolutely nailed it Bonebuster.

Our DNR is made up of politicians and ecologists now days, not biologists. Every single employee from the top down are professionals at telling you exactly what you want to hear, making you feel as though your concerns and opinions really matter but as one who was fully engaged for many years, I can tell you without reservation - they don't.

I spent years and years working on DNR committees, attending forums and appearing and speaking at the NRC every single month. I actually got to know several of the NRC commissioners fairly well. For a long time, I have to admit, I bought the DNR/NRC's story hook, line and sinker. But after a while it became clear ... almost without exception, all of them are politicians first, ecologists second and biologists last. It's a joke. They hold forums and community meetings all designed to make the participants think they have a say in the outcome, knowing full well the outcomes have been predetermined. I watched state bowhunting orgs unequivocally and without reservation support the DNR and NRC all in the hopes of keeping crossbows out of archery seasons and APR's off the table. While the crossbow thing ended up being a threat via legislation, we all see where we ended up.

IMO, the two biggest factors in destroying deer hunting (at least in the NLP) were going to DMU's that are based on geographical borders (counties) instead of DMU's that were based on habitat and land ownership patterns and then sticking with the SAK method of determining deer numbers. The SAK model simply did not work with this type of DMU set up. I've had VERY well respected biologists/employees of the DNR tell me flat out the DNR truly has NO idea of how many deer there really are in MI. At best, it's a guess. Those two things absolutely destroyed deer hunting in the NLP. For the most part, the DMU's stayed the same in southern MI but in the northern lower, it changed drastically. Frustrating as it was, MANY of the local biologists at the time almost begged Lansing NOT to implement this change but alas, the new age ecologists in charge went ahead with it and now, deer hunting in northern MI is what it is.

Back then, in the late 80's, 90's and early 00's if Lansing didn't listen to their own biologists in the field – people who KNEW what was going on – do you really think they are interested in what YOU have to say? Someone asked, "How do you 'work' with the DNR?". News flash – LOL, you don't.

I've bowhunted deer in the NLP for almost 40 years. The past two years I haven't even bothered to buy tags. For those who claim that the habitat doesn't support a better herd then what we see now, LOL, c'mon. Who do you think you're kidding? Do I expect to see the numbers we saw in the 80's and 90's? Of course not. But I don't think its at all unreasonable to expect and hope to at least see more than a 1/2 dozen does/fawns per season of hard hunting. Our cabin is situated right in the middle of literally 1000's and 1000's of acres of oak ridges, rye fields, varying stages of cutovers and cedar swamps. I know what the habitat will support. You can post all the DNR documents you want – frankly, it's jibberish built upon and formulated upon formulas and theories that do not add up scientifically or biologically.

About the only people now days who buy into the DNR/NRC's program are those who are behind and support the new culture of APR's and those who own larger tracts of private land. That's totally fine - I understand it but I'm not a trophy deer hunter. Never have been and we've always hunted public land. But for the sake of my kids and especially my grandkids, it sure would be nice to be able to show them a quality deer hunting experience. That's probably not going to happen in MI again if you're a public land hunter. I spend my springs turkey and bear hunting, summers trout fishing and the fall doing other types of hunting up north at the cabin. It's just not worth the effort anymore. Am I sad about that? Yup... a little because my grandkids will never be able to experience the joy of deer hunting in the NLP. Yet, with that said, MI still offers a multitude of things to do "up north" at the cabin in the fall and we still have a great time up there every fall.    ;)

Chuck, I will give all that  ^^^^^^^ a big     AMEN!  

In the early 2000's you could see it happening...I kept going "up North" out of habit and basically to visit with family at "deer camp". Fortunately for me, hunting is more important to me than "deer camp", so I have seen what good management is and have hunted some of the wildest and most incredible places on this continent.  It is very hard to see what else is out there and not be disappointed in what we have here in Michigan.

What it hurts is our kids and the future of hunting...

    :(


1.7 million deer in Michigan.  Rrrrhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiigghht    :laughing:

Ibow has pretty much nailed it.  Just to be clear we have never met, even though we live in the same town.  I am a government worker in this state of Michigan and am a biologist.  I know all about carrying capacity and other factors figured into our great ecosystem.  I am not going to air that stuff out here BECAUSE...Bottom line and sadly it is not about science to the ones making the decisions.  

I and most of my coworkers have a passion for doing our jobs and SERVING the public as government was first designed to do.  However, We are in the midst of a change in State and Local governments.  I see books about running government like a business going around the desks of upper management as the trend is changing. As the old school veterans of 30 plus years retire their replacements are being "picked and groomed" by the people above them that are just trying to keep their jobs. The problem is most who get hired in have good intentions but due to the economy here need the job so they are stuck and also have to worry about losing their job if they don't accommodate the agenda of Boards and lobbyist above them.  

As scientist, we have years of education, great teachers passing on their knowledge learned from great teachers before them. However, this becomes trumped by the almighty dollar.  What do we do?  It's government being run like a business....  Our demands must impact their jobs more than the others or we will continue to be ignored.  Other states have been able to do it.  It just takes the right people at the top.  

Remember:  You can try to tell me a duck is not a duck...But my mind KNOWS if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it still is a duck.

Meanwhile, using survey methods that the head of the Ohio DNR says are better than mandatory check in's (we know how guys hate anything mandatory), in the NLP in 2012, 128,000 bowhunters managed to kill 45,000 deer. That's a little better than 1 out of every 3 bowhunters in the NLP killing a deer. In my neck of the woods and from talking to neighbors, my opinion is it's about 50% success at least, but that probably averages out with some of the other counties with lesser deer hunting habitats.

This past rifle opener, we had more hunters at more neighboring camps than I've seen in 20 years. There were like 15 trucks lined up on the public land near me and it's only 320 acres. Granted, it was a Friday opener, but either way, hunters sure aren't leaving my area. The 2 private land camps on my east line had guys lined up and they killed 3 bucks within 30 yards of leaving my property. I talked to and congratulated each of them, even though I passed the bucks myself. DNR license sales, by way of the point of sale computer system, was showing that license sales were up this year.

Chuck, I'll try to find you at the K-Zoo show and we'll chat. I feel bad for some of you guys that thought xbows would be kept out. All the DNR people I talked to, along with state rep's on the committee's involved all said xbows were inevitable, just as they are in every other state east of the Mississippi. As the owner of a sport shop back then, I knew they'd be legal by the shear demand of opinion from guys at the counter. While the tiny minority of traditional archers were dead against, the majority of the majority really wanted xbows. My guess is, trad guys talking mainly talking to only other trad guys had the impression that xbows were unpopular. Trust me, demand for xbows was high. The same is likely with APR's. My guess is a room full of traditional guys will show that 80% are against APR. But go to a room of compound and firearms guys and you'll find about 80% for APR. And the compound/firearms room is 900% bigger than the trad room. Group Think on display. It reminds me of the famous quote from a NYC liberal film critic living on Manhattan's upper east side after Nixon won in 1972..."I can't believe Nixon won. I don't know anyone who voted for him."


Chuck, the invitation to come to my place for turkey or deer stands. I can also show you some public land that's primo-but if you tell anyone I'll have to kill you. LOL I'm also close by in Rockford and I'm setting up a big neighborhood archery range in the back yard. I'm bringing a bunch of neighbor kids with me to K-Zoo to buy some kids bows. You'll puke when you see how my Bear collection has gotten out of control.

The county wide DMU's were made for the every man deer hunter who couldn't identify exactly where they were hunting. I sold licenses for years. Most every guy knows what county he's hunting in, but when Nov.15 rolls around, about 30% of the opening day only crowd doesn't have a clue other than having directions to a friends cabin. So, the county DMU system wasn't made for biologists, it was dumbed down and simplified for hunters.

My guess is, in the future, we're going to see even bigger zones, not smaller. Notice with the APR debate that hunters say they want to be the decider and choose what deer they want to shoot. Well, in the future, expect large antlerless DMU's, like the whole NWLP being one large unit where hunters can buy an antlerless tag and use it where they see fit. So expect hunter choice to increase in the future. But the increase in choice will be on antlerless deer vs. antlered deer.

Go back and re-read what's in the management plan. It's hiding in plain site...

"Some tough choices are ahead if we continue to aspire to a herd with 35 percent antlered bucks in the fall population. We have reached the point where further increases in antlerless deer harvest will not have much impact on the buck-to-doe ratio. To further improve the percentage of bucks in the fall herd, we will have to find acceptable ways to reduce the buck harvest.

Continued bucks-only hunting to rebuild herds may complicate the problem by placing all of the hunting pressure on antlered deer. That will decrease the buck-to-doe ratio and eventually return us to the situation where we started in the mid-1980s. Now, we should evaluate regulations that will allow the careful taking of specified numbers of antlerless deer in areas with smaller herds. We need to consider the advantages and disadvantages of regulations to reduce buck harvest in ways that are acceptable to hunters and landowners.

Killinstuff, I am not "banging" on the youth hunt. I am "banging" on the DNR for creating all these special early hunts to raise funds.

An example: The mentoring season.  The age limit for the mentoring license is "up to 9 years old" giving your 2 two old the ability to buy a license and hunt. The 21 year old who sits/mentors with that 2 year old also has to buy a valid hunting license, "why". Raise funds.  

Then you have the apprentice license: age 10 to 16.  Same thing, the mentor needs a valid license to sit with the hunter, "why". Raise funds.

Having a hunting license does not make the 21 year old a better mentor. My wife used to hunt and has killed deer with a longbow. She no longer hunts but likes to sit in a stand and read or photograph.  She would not be able to sit with one of the grandkids unless she buys a license.

I have been in this archery game a long time.  Been shooting a bow for almost 60 years so I have seen just about everything.  I am as strong supporter as there is when it comes to getting the kids in the woods.  I have 6 grandkids and all but one hunts.  I want them in the woods because if they are in the woods they are not in jail. But who says that all kids can't learn how to hunt with an Oct 1 and Nov 15 start date and with out the mentor being required to "BUY" a license to sit with them.

NEW for 2014 is the $11.00 base license which will be required for all hunters.  Add that with the new $20.00 deer hunting license and that means that is costs a mentor $31.00 to sit in the woods with their kids or grandkids whether they hunt or not.

Convenience will be a factor if/when we go to larger DMU's. From MDNR...

"Antlerless licenses for these areas will be valid for much larger areas. This will enable hunters to hunt in multiple counties without the necessity of purchasing an antlerless deer hunting license for each county they hunt in."

My opinion is that we'll see greater hunter choice with larger DMU's. What else larger DMU's gives us is the option for doing future buck regs by unit. Say the NWLP was one big unit or the NEUP was one big unit. Each could, and should, have completely different rules/bag limits/dates, etc.

Just to show I can copy and paste too, we are not the only ones with issues.  Iowa has some as well...

The whole article with some pretty inspiring photos can be found here:

http://www.midwestwhitetail.com/publish/posts/3238/the-recipe-for-collapse.html


While not common, hunters in the area were dropping bucks like this regularly in the
mid-2000s  Pictured here is Steve Hanson with a giant early muzzleloader buck.If I told you what it looked like around here back in 2003 and 2004 you would not believe me.  I sure would like to show you on video, but unfortunately, it is no more.  Maybe that quality of hunting can return - I suppose it is possible.  But either way, I thought you might find it interesting to learn what it was like at its best and what it is like now and how we got here. It is a study in human nature, deer biology, politics and even weather. 
THE PAST

I started hunting in this area in 1995.  I grew up in NE Iowa where I hunted the bluff country of the Mississippi River and the drainages of many cold water trout streams and small rivers.  It is beautiful country but back then there was very little deer management taking place and I rarely saw mature bucks. 


The world record hunter-killed buck shot
about 7 miles away in 2003 by Tony
Lovstuen.  There were big deer all over
the place.I learned of a big 3,600 acre property (a corporate farm) that was selling some shares of ownership.  My wife and I mortgaged everything we had to buy half a share of that stock.  My sister put up her Ford Explorer as collateral to help us with the loan.  It was "only" $40,000, which in today's world of land prices is nothing, but to us it was a fortune. 
There we lots of deer and quite a few mature bucks.  I had a ball hunting that property for 9 seasons.  It got me into the neighborhood, but eventually I grew weary of owning land with 13 other men.  There was always some kind of drama.  I was able to start buying land privately nearby and in 2004 I sold my ownership, which by then had grown into a full share worth quite a bit of money.  Land prices were on the rise.  I used the money to buy even more land nearby.  That was my start.

By all measures, the hunting on the land I bought was phenomenal.  There were lots of deer and within a short time I was shooting many does each fall .  (I had saved up enough to own 600 acres by that time).  My goal was to try to bring the herd down slightly so I could more easily grow food plots and my farmer neighbors could grow a better crop.  This was right at the start of the Iowa DNR's efforts to bring the herd down by issuing a high number of antlerless tags for hunters to use.  It was the best of times. 

Hunting pressure in the neighborhood had been low in that area and many bucks had grown to full maturity.  There were giant bucks everywhere.  In 2004, for example, there were two bucks over 200 inches and one big clean typical over 190 net on the farm.  That was before I began running trail cameras. There is no telling what was really here hiding in the bushes!  I am sure it would be scary what I could have killed if I had known then what I know now.  I don't even want to think about it.


Our daughter with the giant four year old that was on our farm in 2004.  I actually had a
shot at him on Nov. 6, 2004 - but that is another story.  The neighbors found him dead
in December that year.  He grossed around 225.  There was one on the farm that year
that was even bigger!  My neighbor has the sheds from him.
I didn't kill any of those giants, but plenty of nice 160 to 170 inch bucks that did find their way into the back of my truck. 
With all the doe shooting, (my neighbors were doing it too) we actually reversed the buck to doe ratio until there were way more bucks than does!  During the rut, there were mature bucks running everywhere - no lull.   Nearly all the bucks were beat up after the rut from fighting. I remember one season (2005, I think) when I averaged seeing more than 1.5 different mature bucks per day (on their feet in daylight) throughout the entire season!  Wow!

Of course, the population eventually did have to come down.  That was the goal by all involved.  But we never saw it dropping as fast as it did.  It actually imploded throughout the neighborhood as hunters took full advantage of the doe permits and really socked it to them.  By 2008, I was probably down about 25% from the deer density I had here in 2002 - when I started buying land. By 2010, it was down another half. I was still seeing decent numbers of deer and some very good bucks, but there were obviously less deer and less sign.  Things actually looked pretty well balanced at that time (both in terms of overall number of deer and buck to doe ratio).


A party of happy shed hunters on our farm in the mid-2000s.  Now that pile would
be about one-fifth that size. 
If we could have stayed at the 2010 numbers and ratios, I think most everyone would have been happy, but that is when the politics stepped in. 
From what I have been told, the DNR started recommending that the antlerless quotas be reduced at about that time - to put a floor under the deer herd.  But the recommendation was ignored in favor of politics. It was our chance to keep things on a solid footing, but the opportunity slipped by and that brings us to where we are now. 

THE PRESENT

Right now I would say we are at about 20 % of the number of deer we had in 2004.  Think about it.  That means five times less bucks!.  That means that you have fewer bucks to reach maturity and fewer bucks to potentially display the ideal genetic potential to get big. 

There is definitely a balance in the number of deer you can support in a very healthy way, and there is a limit in the number of deer your neighbors will endure if they are primarily farmers.  So I am not an advocate for high deer numbers, but I would like to see roughly twice as many deer here so the genetic dice can come up snake-eyes a few more times each year. 

We don't have any truly big deer on the farm now, that I am aware of, even though the farm is now 400 acre bigger.  More land, less big deer.  Not a good formula. 

THE REASON


As deer hunters we did our job of reducing deer numbers very well.
There is no question that over-harvesting the does has caused the herd to hit low levels and then you throw EHD on top of that and potentially some predation from coyotes on fawns and you have an implosion.  There are still deer here, but it is not like it was - not even close. 
It is not all about the numbers. The habits of the local hunters also changed.  In the 90s, local hunters didn't target bucks.  A doe was just fine.  There was very little "trophy" hunting.  However, as deer hunting became popular, more people wanted to shoot a big buck. 

The easiest of all "big" bucks to kill are the genetically superior 3 year olds. They cover a lot of ground and are not particularly hard to kill.  Plus they can look really big.  We had one here in 2003 that scored 185 inches (measured from one of his sheds). That was one of the bucks that scored over 200 inches here in 2004.  He was a gross 225 as a 4 year old. 

As hunters increasingly targeted "trophy" deer, they were putting a lot of pressure on those high genetic quality 3 year olds to the point that few survived.  That is another reason why the number of truly giant bucks in the population has dropped. 


I believe it will be at least four years before we start to see any significant
numbers of big antlered bucks in the population again.

THE FUTURE
The ideal herd is one with decent deer numbers - well within the overall carrying capacity of both the available food sources and within the tolerance band of local farmers, but with enough deer that occassionally a genetic freak shows up with the potential to grow really big.  Then we need the hunters with the restraint to let them reach full maturity.

Of the two, it is going to be much easier to get the deer numbers up than to expect hunters to pass up great looking young bucks on any kind of wide scale. 

I think we will see the number of giant bucks in Iowa come back, maybe not to 2003/2004 levels, but much better than today.  We are going to have less hunters because the opportunists in the sport will drop out as deer numbers decline.  It is already in the works.  When the bucks are everywhere, everyone is buck hunter.  When they are scarce, people find other things to do. 

The hunter numbers are way down in Iowa from their highs in 2006/2007.  People are giving up because the hunting has been declining in most areas.  I am guessing that we will see even less hunters next year.  While it is not good for the strength of our industry, it will signal the rebound in both the deer numbers and the size (maturity) of the bucks. 

Unless something unforeseen happens, I am expecting to see some very impressive hunting in many parts of Iowa again in about four years.  Next year may not be great (should be better than this year) but it should keep improving slightly every year after that for a while - until the numbers bring in a fresh batch of opportunistic hunters and a fresh batch of legislation to reduce the population again. 

It is a cycle, we are just on the bottom of it now.


And Mojo...until the "management plan" says "we are going to get as much money in our coffers and keep the farm bureau and insurance companies from suing us" I will not believe it or any of the numbers that come with it.

You just had a BIOLOGIST tell you here that they are NOT ALLOWED TO DO THEIR JOB PROPERLY FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE DEER HERD OR HUNTERS!

Why keep spewing out bogus numbers and "plans".

I will say this does break up the work of tearing out the kitchen floor!    :)  

I also want to say I don't have anything against you and hopefully Chuck will bring you by at Kzoo and we can all chat in person.

Could it be that a licensed mentor is thought to have experience they can pass on, where as an unlicensed mentor is probably a non-hunter with little to no experience to pass on?

Could be selfbow and for the most part you are correct but as I wrote, my wife is an experienced hunter and archer.  As a matter of fact a very good archer but she no longer wants to hunt but has the "hunter" experience but would have to spend the mentioned $31.00 to sit and mentor one of the grandkids.

To add to another point being made by Steve O, Mojo, Chuck and others is: if getting bigger bucks is so important to the powers that be why did they go, any deer can be shot by the 9 and under hunter. Wouldn't it be just as important to teach all hunters restraint when shooting a deer and the ability to identify the deer before shooting it?

Jon,

No slight intended toward your wife.  With rare exceptions, laws/regulations are written in generalities, not specifics.

Phil, offense taken but the powers that be could have written the law that says, current or prior hunting license holder, BUT then they would not have been able to raise extra funds.

Here in Delaware, I've taken the kids of friends out on Youth Day because I had a license and the parents didn't want to buy one.  Your thought about "current or prior license holder" sounds like a good suggestion for an amendment to the existing law.  Be sure to add that the lack of a license can't be because of revocation.

I grew up in MI. Have lived in KS for 20 years now.  Have hunted n other Midwest and western states.  I would say "Do not even try to compare."  They are completely different worlds.  

And as most posted already- I doubt you will ever see the MI herd or hunting become like it is in other places/states.  

If it were me and based on my experience and many hunting friendships/discussions across the Midwest- 1) I would lower my expectations (and use of resources) in MI and enjoy shooting small game, fishing and perhaps a doe or a yearling buck.  2) I would save my time/money and develop hunting opps out-of-state. I realize it does not work for everyone, but an 8-12 hour drive will put you in hunting ground that would ruin your MI hunting perception forever! Give me 5-7 days in Nov in many states on public ground and you will see more 2/3 yr old deer (not to mention real opps at mature deer) in that one week than you would in a decade of hunting in MI. For example: You could get to MO in 8-10 hrs (no need for a truck or 4 x).  $200 license for deer and turkeys.  Lots of public ground.  Camp out of your vehicle/maybe small tent.  It may take a 2-3 years (and a couple 3 day weekend scout trips per year), but you may be far productive and resourceful than trying to win the lightening-strike-big-buck-lottery in MI.  

My 2C
Dan in KS

Great post KSdan.

This past fall I spent enough time and money driving PAST all the areas I used to hunt in search of deer that I COULD have gone and spent a week in another state.

It is MY KIDS that are losing out with what is going on.

We do NOT need big bucks for our hunting...we need encounters with game. The deer population is so poor in some areas of public land that it has to be experienced to be believed.

Even with this, the number of antlerless tags available EXCEEDS the lottery...there are ALWAYS leftover licenses.

Hard to believe it has come to this.

Yep, there is no way I am promoting big mature deer in Michigan.  I'd be plenty happy with having 1.7 million deer like the DNR says there is.  If there are .7 million deer ledt in this state I would be SHOCKED,  there are very, VERY few deer north of US-10...I drive 80-90,000 miless a year all over the midwest.  There are NOT many deer left in Michigan!

Here's a nice buck pole from Mancelona in 2013, a NLP area not known for older bucks...

   (http://wwtv.images.worldnow.com/images/24043223_BG1.jpg)

More Mancelona...

  (http://bucsfishingreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/mancelona-1024x682.jpg)

A nice Roscommon buck pole...

(http://direct.theweeklyonline.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/buck-pole-4.jpg)

Here's some deer from northern Michigan...
http://www.9and10news.com/category/246026/virtual-buck-pole

That's awesome Mojo, but you did not show the other dozen or two buck poles in the area that no longer EXIST along with the business' that sponsored them.  Every LITTLE town had one; they are all almost all gone...I wonder why?

EXCELLENT POINT Steve0!

Mojo- Not sure of the recent internal MI debate. . . so I am not entering that.  

However- your pic makes my point!  While your pic here shows some decent bucks FOR MI; Consider this is a MI BIG BUCK contest with who knows how many hunters in the area, probably during rifle season, probably majority on private deer feeding areas- and (not making light of anyone's harvest) ALL those deer look like the ones I actually PASSED UP (the one would have got a second look) this year in 1-3 sits here in KS! And believe me- I do NOT hunt special/managed private grounds.

As I said in my previous post on this thread- "Do not even try to compare."  For a MI hunter this pic may seem really grand (as a 4th generation MI serious deer hunter there was a time I would have) but to many of us who have tasted undisturbed mature deer in other states, this pic is really not compelling.

Dan in KS

The key is, lots of area's in the NLP still have really good deer hunting and some area's don't.

We're not taking about large parts of Michigan producing "big bucks" or "trophy bucks", we're talking about Michigan producing a more natural age class of otherwise run of the mill 100 class basket 8pt's, which were common in the NLP prior to the 1970's and are common in most other states with similar less than great soils for antler growth. They only are uncommon in much of northern Michigan because of hunter attitude and regulations. We've made the bucks unnaturally "small" in the NLP. The problem is, so many have only that experience in their lifetime that they think it's normal. It's not. We've stunted the NLP herd. The problem is man made.

I'm sorry that some of you are in pockets with such poor deer hunting. I just did a random search and quickly found some nice buck poles. The main reason small town buck poles don't exist much anymore is because guys don't have time to hang a deer in a public space and hang out for a day. In todays go-go world, when a guy kills a deer he's usually headed home. I owned a store with a buck pole, I speak from experience. Anyone else here own a northern sport shop with a buck pole? Time is among today's biggest problems with hunter participation. It's also why we need Saturday openers for everything, fish, small game, deer, turkey, etc. But that's for another thread. LOL

Some don't want to accept the data, but that's their cross to bear. The reality is, lots and lots of deer are still being killed in the NLP. More now than just a few years ago. Now, sightings may be down more than 50% in some places, but that was by design. The bottom line is, we have to grasp that the days of seeing 50 deer a week are over in much of the NLP and we may only see a dozen deer in a week. But as far as killing deer, we're still killing a pile of them.

How many here have actually spent time or volunteered at a deer check station?

One can stomp their feet and pretend the numbers are way off, but they aren't. I'm sorry for those who'd rather live in a fantasy world, but they are flat out wrong if they think the data has no merit.

In the giant year of 1998 and 2.2 million deer, we had our first year of unlimited antlerless tags and the first year of the combo tag, where lots of guys bought two tags for the first time.

In 1998, NLP archery hunters killed 32,000 antlerless deer. However, by 1999, that number fell to 23,000 antlerless deer. In 1998, NLP archers killed 27,000 bucks and kept up the pressure in 1999 and also killed 27,000 bucks. However, by 2002, those numbers in the NLP fell to 18,000 antlerless deer killed by archers and 18,000 bucks.

Now bear with me here.

In 2005, as antlerless quota's were lowered, NLP archers killed only 13,000 antlerless deer and 17,000 bucks. In 2006, NLP archers killed 16,000 antlerless deer and 21,000 bucks.

In 2010, NLP archers killed 15,000 antlerless deer and 15,000 bucks.

Anyone starting to notice that on average years, the ratio of antlerless to bucks killed is in the 1:1 ballpark?

Now, here's where the tinfoil hat is going blow off of some heads, in 2012, NLP archers killed 22,000 antlerless deer and 23,000 bucks.

This internet notion that all the deer in the NLP of Michigan are gone is completely nuts.

Now, if we want to talk about parts of the UP being nearly void of deer, that's a whole other subject. With the forest reverting back to old growth status in many places of the UP, the deer herd in the UP is going to get really thin over the next 30 years in many places.

From the Deer and Deer Hunting article, here's another quote from a top biologist that sums up what many are experiencing in the NLP. He's discussing how states manage by larger deer units...

"Well, as hunters, we don't hunt at the unit level. We hunt at the property level. Within a unit, you can have very good numbers of deer. But on specific properties within that unit, that can equal lots of deer, few deer or zero deer. So in the very same unit, you'll have hunters who are very happy to down-right upset."

My uncle USED to own a bait and tackle shop in St. Helen (1 of the 2 there).  Neither of the businesses are open anymore.  The town has regressed from the Haydays of the 80's and 90's.  Now the majority of the people who recreate there are all on dirt bikes or ATV's.  I have hunted there for YEARS.  Not worth the drive up there anymore unless I am going hunting for squirrels or porcupine.  

I'm not saying your right or wrong Mojo, it's not my style to point fingers, BUT, I will say there are some very good hunters and people I personally hold in high requard speaking in this thread of their experiences, and they mostly mirror my same findings.  Maybe I've been hunting one of those "Bad" areas mentioned since we lost our hunting lease where seeing 30 deer a day were common, to where I hunt 3 weeks straight this past season and only saw other hunters and plenty of left out tree/ladder stands.

I hunted Wyoming last September and by 9 am the 2nd day of the hunt, I stopped counting deer at 100, which included 21 DIFFERENT bucks.  I killed #22 on day 5, and he was a dandy.

I honestly have no idea how many deer I saw (I quit counting), but there were deer everywhere I went and NO Hunters.  It was heaven on earth.  Getting up close and personal with Moose and Elk were an added bonus.

I took my oldest son to Texas 2 years ago because Michigan said he was to young to hunt (He was 8).  He killed 3 deer while there.  Michigan has now agreed there should be no limit on age.  That's a good thing, but once again, it shows how far Michigan is behind other States.  

Don't get me wrong, I have an 80 acre swamp behind my home which happens to be a 1/2 mile from my hunting spot.  I cannot hunt the swamp behind my home because of Township Ordnances, but a 1/2 mile away I can.  I understand their reasoning, but my wife kept sending me pictures the entire 3 weeks I was hunting a 1/2 mile from home and seeing no deer.  Those pictures she was sending were of all the bucks and does in the back yard and swamp.  Yeah, it's a little frustrating, but being an honest ethical hunter, I did the right thing and kept hoping they wouldn't notice all the hunter activity where I was (and they were obviously pushed from).  Same scenario as last year except I saw plenty of deer while hunting the same area.  Hard to explain that one I know.

Now I would like to add one more thing, It's the weekend, let's all agree to disagree on this subject for the sake of sanity and respect for the Weekend and save this discussion for Monday.

I'm extreamly happy you take the MDNR for their word (I'm just assuming you agree with them, for all I know, you might just be stirring the pot to get guys agitated.  I have no clue and hope the latter isn't the case).  

Please look me up in Kzoo and I'd love to talk hunting with you, AS LONG AS YOU AGREE TO LEAVE POLITICS OUT OF THE DISCUSSION.  It will be the weekend and I would like to enjoy it.

Mike

If you're talking about Roscommon county, I personally wouldn't ever pick Roscommon as a county to deer hunt, unless I was stuck with property there. Given it's habitat and close proximity to TB, the boot will be keeping Roscommon deer herds to be just large enough for recreational hunting and it's never going to be allowed to be a big herd again in our lifetimes.

Here's the latest assessment for Roscommon...

"The deer population goal has been set with consideration of the habitat quality in Roscommon County. The habitat quality is limited in most areas of the county by the nutrient-poor soils of the outwash plains region but is ameliorated by active timber harvesting, which occurs on approximately 2000 acres of State Forest land annually. The near absence of agricultural lands, the adjacency of the county to the bTB zone, and the potential for deer impact on lowland and upland forest vegetation suggest maintaining conservative goals."

The term conservative goals means keeping the herd on the low side of low.

Now compare that to the goals of the NLP area I hunt and the goal for my area is over TWICE as many deer per DMU in Roscommon.

Basically, in today's age, one has to do his research if possible and find out where the deer herds have higher density, if seeing more deer is what a hunter is looking for.

I hear ya on other states. I used to hunt Texas every year for about a decade. I saw over 50 bucks one day in the Hill Country. That's 50, five zero, in one day! Granted, most were from glassing on a big bluff overlooking a huge valley, but still. And on one Illinois hunt, I passed up 9 bucks in 3 days that were bigger than anything I'd ever seen in Michigan over 35 seasons.

QuoteOriginally posted by Steve O:
What it hurts is our kids and the future of hunting...

Absolutely Steve. That's the reason so many of us invested so much time in trying to maintain what we had at one point. I started hunting up there when I was a kid and my own kids also enjoyed some great hunting when they were very young. Did they shoot a lot of monster bucks? No, but it was the NLP, we didn't expect to. But there was always a chance for the kids to at least SEE a few deer and if we ended our season with a deer or two between all of us, it was a great year.

Not so much anymore. It saddens me that our three grandsons who are just now starting to show some interest in bows and in hunting won't have that same opportunity.    :(

Mojo,

You are THE numbers guy...

There are 200,000 Michigan hunters who have just plain QUIT deer hunting. They aren't all on poor properties within a county. How many states surrounding us have had their hunter numbers drop 30% in the last decade?  Maybe the all got out because we could use crossbows    :laughing:  

You spout all the numbers you want, they come from the DNR and they say exactly what the DNR wants them to say.

It is amazing to me; I can travel 300-1500 miles year after year to state after state and find good numbers or deer AND mature deer, yet within my own state I am a putz that can't find his way in the woods or onto one of the "good" pieces of property within a unit. Heck, I can even go into other states and kill species I have never hunted in areas I've never hunted better than I can hunt deer here in Michigan. You are right, it must be me, and it must be the same with a dozen other friends of mine that leave the state to hunt (and do very well).  They are not very capable in Michigan either.

I'll end my involvement here repeating what somebody earlier said;  "The fox is watching the henhouse..."

QuoteOriginally posted by Mojostick:
Chuck, I'll try to find you at the K-Zoo show and we'll chat... the invitation to come to my place for turkey or deer stands. I can also show you some public land that's primo-but if you tell anyone I'll have to kill you.

The county wide DMU's were made for the every man deer hunter who couldn't identify exactly where they were hunting...So, the county DMU system wasn't made for biologists, it was dumbed down and simplified for hunters.

Bob - I will try to let you know into next week when I am going. Not sure yet. It will either be Friday night or Saturday. After all the emails we've exchanged over the years, we really do need to meet and chat. The times I've stopped over at your "place of employment" there in Grandville, I've asked for you and you weren't there.

Re the DMU's, you no doubt know at least one of the biologists I'm talking about who had an absolute fit about going to the county DMU set up. There were quite a few others. And that's my point ... the decision to go about changing the DMU's had nothing to do with science, it had to do with expediency. Good grief, guys can't go to the "trouble" of figuring out which DMU they were in??? I heard that same excuse back in 98-00 and it was just as ridiculous then as it is now. If a gun hunter could figure out what caliber shell to buy for his deer rifle, was it too much to ask that he know what DMU he was hunting in???     :(    

Bob, I think you know the REAL reason why they went to county wide DMU's as much as I do ... it was because the Wildlife Chief at the time, wrote his doctoral thesis on the SAK model and he was an advocate of county wide DMU's because he felt his model worked better with county borders as opposed to what we had. And wow - guess what happened.     :rolleyes:    Despite the outcry of just about every single biologist in the NLP, they adopted it. It had NOTHING to do with guys not knowing where they were in terms of DMU's. That was a handy excuse. Good grief, we lived with DMUs for decades that were habitat based.

And just to underscore why I feel the way I do about the DNR ... I think the WC at the time was a good guy, a good biologist. Very intelligent. Yet, he came from a state where they did use the SAK and county DMU's but it was a state where the land ownership patterns and habitat was similar THROUGHOUT the state - much UNLIKE MI when you compare the SLP to the NLP/UP. And again, despite the outcry from about every single biologist they had in the NLP and even several from UP, they went ahead and implemented it. And you know as well as I do that from that point on, they've NEVER had a handle on how many deer there really are here. The math just doesn't work with the county set up.

That's just one example Bob ... I've got dozens of them.     :p    And people wonder why nobody trusts the DNR???     :rolleyes:

Chuck,

I'd mentioned in a couple posts that I had to leave Cabela's. I didn't want to, but my wife is doing global stuff for work and our nanny left us. Seeing that we were crazy enough to have 4 kids later in life, even twins when I was 44 (ouch!) I have 4 young kids and people confuse me for their grandpa at the grocery store. LOL
So I'm back to stay at home dad status for the short term.
So anyhow, against my wishes, I took a leave from Cabela's. I hope to return next Fall.

I, like you, know that Bill M. wanted the county DMU's and based his thesis on it. However, we still have them long after he left and other biologists have told me that the simplicity is a good thing. As a former license agent, I agree.

The problem with micro-DMU's is that they really don't work because so many hunters hunt several DMU's and a hodge-podge of rules using side roads and the like is uber confusing for the average hunter. Keep in mind, those reading this right now are not the average hunter. We're discussing deer management in January on a website for traditional bowhunters. We're the extreme. The typical Michigan deer hunter buys his tag on Nov. 13-14, with Nov.13-14 accounting for over 50% of all deer license sales, and then that guy hunts a couple days, puts his gear away and doesn't bring it back out until next Nov.13-14.

Anyhow, this is always easier to do in person. What we should do is plan a little tradgang weekend hunt at my place next Fall. There's a couple guys from MTB and MBH that I've shared PM's with and it'd be nice to do a nice hunt and kill a deer or two with those guys rather than come across as arguing with them online.

In the next post, I'll juxtapose what a confusing Michigan boundary line description looks like compared to the simple Ohio lines.

Michigan description...

Michigan is divided into Hunting and Trapping Zones 1-2-3. Zone 1 includes all of the Upper Peninsula. The dividing line between Zones 2 and 3 is: From the Lake Michigan shoreline north of Muskegon Lake easterly on Memorial Drive to Ruddiman Drive to Lake Avenue , easterly on Lake Avenue to M-120 in North Muskegon, northeasterly on M-120 to M-20, easterly on M-20 to US-10, easterly on US-10 to Garfield Road in Bay County , northerly on Garfield Road to Pinconning Road , easterly on Pinconning Road to Seven Mile Road , northerly on Seven Mile Road to Lincoln School Road ( County Road 25) in Arenac County , northerly on Lincoln School Road to M-61, easterly on M-61 to US-23, easterly on US-23 to center line of AuGres River, southerly along center line of AuGres River to Saginaw Bay , easterly 90 degrees east for 7 miles into Saginaw Bay , then northerly 78 degrees east to the International Boundary.       :help:    

Ohio boundary lines...

    (http://www.ohiodnr.com/Portals/19/nov05/images/deermap.png)

Which is more simple for the casual hunter who just wants to sit for a couple days and maybe shoot something every 5-10 years or so? Believe it or not, there's about 300,000 of those types in Michigan. That's also why a one buck limit or even 3pt's on one side are simple compared to the combo tag.

Here's some recent news about potential changes in the UP. Personally, I wish we'd figure out a way to fund MDNR and still do one buck a year, with no restrictions.

http://www.sooeveningnews.com/article/20140115/NEWS/140119436/-1/obituaries

Sault Ste. Marie  
Changes will be made in Upper Peninsula deer hunting regulations in 2014 and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources is encouraging hunters to voice their suggestions and concerns to the Upper Peninsula Deer Advisory Team (UPDAT).


Deer Program Biologist Ashley Autentrieth welcomed dozens of hunters to Tuesday's open house in Sault Ste. Marie, the first of eight scheduled for the Upper Peninsula in the coming weeks.


In what she called a "perfect storm," license restructuring will require at least some change for the upcoming deer season as one of the popular options appears to be no longer on the table.


Since 2008, hunters had the choice of purchasing one license which allowed them to harvest any buck with an antler of at least three inches or they could opt for a combination tag which would allow for two bucks with a minimum of 3-points on a side for one license and 4-points on a side for the second.


"With license restructuring," Autenrieth explained, "that is no longer an option."


The list of potential regulations for 2014 includes one buck per year with no restriction beyond a single antler of 3-inches or more; a no spike rule which would allow for the harvest of two deer with the second license good for animals with 4-points or more on a side; a 3-point minimum for the first buck and a 4-point minimum on a second buck; and the final option calls for reverting back to the pre-2008 regulations allowing for one buck with a minimum of one 3-inch antler and a second with at least 4-points on a side.


Michigan Department of Natural Resources personnel also indicated that whatever path was chosen for 2014 would remain in place for three years. With that said, however, the DNR provided assurances that antlerless quotas could change in the event of a severe winter.


While the purpose of the meeting was to encourage hunters to share their opinions with Deer Advisory Team members to guide the future regulation, many in the audience voiced concerns on a wide range of topics outside the scope of Tuesday's session including falling deer numbers, declining habitat, tribal hunting rights and wolf predation.


Public comment will continue to be accepted leading up to the final UPDAT recommendations to the Natural Resources Commission before the 2014 regulations are finalized. Visit  www.michigan.gov/deer (http://www.michigan.gov/deer)  for more information on the DNR's Deer Advisory Teams and deer management in Michigan.


Read more:  http://www.sooeveningnews.com/article/20140115/NEWS/140119436/-1/obituaries#ixzz2qrNT2tqi

Well, all this discussion has been a great motivator in my house.

Almost $2000.00 in property taxes to be paid in Iosco county, and we will be heading to OHIO to do our deer hunting!

It is true that hunting deer in Michigan will continue to decline...therefore, I truly think we have no choice. Every year has been worse than the year before.

Flip over to the Michigan Traditional Bowhunters in the State bowhunting organizations, and look closely at what we call the "Deer Diary"...and you will see a SERIOUS pattern of DECLINE in the past several years, of BOTH quantity AND quality of deer hunting here in Michigan. The number of posts is down by about 90%.

It is NOTHING short of sad and demoralizing. It is CRIMINAL as far as I am concerned and I personally feel there are those in the DNR guilty of a dereliction of duty. I am now certain I am not alone.

It was said early in this thread how the DNR is funded by the sales of hunting licenses...the more tags sold, the more money available to the DNR. WOW..."absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Eventually, this over allocation of deer tags IS going to come around and bite them in the rear.

We went from having a group of guys at deer camp with ONE or TWO coveted antlerless tags drawn by lottery between them, to having EVERY MAN there with the possibility of having MULTIPLE tags over the counter!

Acorns go uneaten, alfalfa fields are almost empty at dusk in August, and runways are disappearing. All the while it is being POUNDED into our heads that the deer herd is still ABOVE carrying capacity in many areas.

I am proud of the intimate knowledge I have of vast areas in several counties here in Michigan. The AuSable River valley from Oscoda county all the way to where it drains into Lake Huron has some EXCELLENT deer country. The habitat is in excellent condition.

Of all the statistics the DNR supposedly keeps, a VERY important one for them just MIGHT be to track how many people are leaving to hunt elsewhere.

I feel the youth hunt is set up to sell a few more hunting licences. Back in the day a young hunter was actually a young man or woman. They were someone who could actually handle a big game weapon. They could be trusted to find there spot, sit alone and make there way out. Now it is more for the parent to get another deer through there kid. I watched a T.V. program where a guy took his kid out hunting and the kid shot a deer. The kid could hardly talk let alone cunduct himself like a young hunter. The kid did know that if you put the crosshairs on the deer and pull the trigger, the deer will die.

QuoteOriginally posted by Mojostick:
...wanted the county DMU's and based his thesis on it. However, we still have them long after he left...

That's my point Bob. They didn't work then and they continue to not work now. Everybody knew it then and they know it now. The math with the SAK and county borders just does not work when it's implemented in areas where the land ownership patterns or habitat vary so much. They have absolutely NO idea how many deer they have in any given area (DMU/county) at any given time in the NLP. That's the frustration ... good grief ... CHANGE IT BACK!!!


The point is, you simply cannot get an accurate calculation of what's going on in a DMU (county) when half of it is public land/swamp/oak ridges/cutovers and the other half of it is farmland. (like Lake or Newaygo Counties - counties that both of us are familiar with) And the argument that they don't have enough biologists to go around to "manage" DMU's like they did prior to 00' is a crock. The DNR has more techs working for them now then ever. It's a matter of math and observation. They don't need certified biologists to tell them how many deer they have no matter how they do the DMU thing.

I could go on and on Bob. There's not much point in it. You can bang your head up against the wall just so many times. If you're a public land hunter in the NLP, you are essentially screwed. It's a shame because it doesn't have to be that way. Yet, it is what it is. There's still lots of things to do in the NLP and we'll never surrender our cabin or for that matter, our "heritage" of spending lots of time "up north".

Re the kids and so on, LOL, we have our grandkids overnight all the time (including one set of twins) and I have to admit, we're tired when they leave. But we wouldn't change a thing!!! We love those boys!!!    ;)

Best wishes ... hope to see you at the Expo!

I guess I better explain my youth hunt position. I'm not against a kid killing a deer, any deer, but in my mind I think they shouldn't get a special weekend to do it. I think they should experience the hunt as a whole, weather conditions, hunting pressure, deer behavior etc. in my opinion the youth hunt is part of the immediate gratification theme that is ruining our sport. It's an easier time and an easier way to kill. We as hunters and mentors should give the young hunters all the advantage they need without a special early season. We kill enough animals before they are allowed to breed now. Take a kid hunting, give up your opener(s). Teach them under real hunting conditions.

I know in Jersey and a lot of other states the lack of land preservation for wildlife has helped in the decline of the numbers. When land is built upon the animals end up moving into smaller pieces of woods and the fish and wildlife guys see a large number of deer in that area(not judging the size of the area and the packed in deer) they unleash the open season and unlimited tags.

 That allows every yahoo of a hunter to over harvest the bucks in that small piece of property that the deer were pushed into by development of housing. This in return wipes out all the mature buck and 1-2 years old bucks in a matter of a season or two.

 Then the following season the younger bucks get wiped out. after that the population is crippled and bucks cant replenish or grow to their potential.

  There is more money in Residential growth than in wildlife preservation. and this society runs on the money first.

Thing is Jim the hunting landscape has changed so much in the last 5, 10, 20 years, what's "real hunting conditions" these days?  My first deer camp was up by Sears about 1979 when I was 14. No bait, no blind, just a 14 year old sitting on a sandy hill with a Marlin lever action with plenty of deer crossing the powerline in the morning.  No crossbows, no inline 200 yard shooting ML's and very few hardcore bowhunters back then. Rifle season was the the big deal to everyone I knew.  Guys didn't talk about "shooter bucks" just bucks.  And doe's, well you just didn't shoot a doe no matter what.  Somehow deer became targets and a way to generate money and baiting to only way 90% of the guys could kill a deer. Youth for us is time alone with out the pressure I have to deal with Oct 1 to Dec 31.  My kids still hunt during rifle season for a buck of 3 points or better on a side (a rare deer around here) but youth giving them a little better chance. We look at it as quality time in the woods not instant gratification.  Neither of my kids ended up killing a deer this year by the way because we never saw a buck. The landscape has changed for sure and we are trying to roll with it. Good thing I like to travel out of state to hunt

Kill shot and Chain2--I definitely agree with you. I am a 5th grade teacher, and the stories I hear from my kids are amazingly sad. Most of these kids are only getting licenses because dad wants to shoot/poach a deer. What is wrong with kids tagging along with  grandpas or dads during the regular season? The answer--most dads and grandpas want that time for themselves, sadly. Hunting isn't for everyone. Now a days, people want instant gratification, bigger bucks, and perfect conditions to hunt in. People watch Michael Waddell shoot an ear-tagged and collared deer and think that is cool. I have hunted for many years and I do not believe I have ever seen a live buck with a collar on and its ear tagged. Crossbows, bait, scents, cameras, etc--are still not enough. Thank God--hunting, real hunting, isn't for everyone. Unfortunately, a vast number of guys in our woods don't know it.  Peace!

Bluemoon,
You know of poaching and didn't report them to the anonymous RAP line? Sportsmen can't tolerate poaching. Silence=tactic approval.

I think your last post may have been a little harsh.
 
 Im sure if he actually saw the poaching he would have reported it, but hearsay from a child and probably whats happening in reality is just an assumption. No need to make a label of him approving it.

Not trying to be harsh. But lots of people make claims of all these parents poaching deer during the youth hunt, when in fact poaching is just as common as every other season. In the grand scheme, there aren't many parents poaching deer in the youth hunt. But, since it gives the youth hunt a bad name, and if a child is sitting there learning that behavior, if someone knows of it happening, it's a duty to report the poacher, don't you think?

I think many guys poach because they think their neighbor won't report them. There's the "snitch" label. Well, when I hear the word "snitch", I think if gangbangers in the hood not working with police. How's that working out for their community? People end up with exactly what they will tolerate. Tolerate poaching and you'll get poaching. I've made it real clear with my neighbors. If I hear a centerfire rifle shot at dusk during bow season, the CO's will get a call to at least give them a heads up.

Personally, it seems most the rumors of parents killing deer during the youth hunt typically come from people that just don't like the youth hunt. While the CO reports do have some cases of it happening, they are the great exception, not the rule.

I also think it'd be worse for a guy to be out posing as a disabled vet. If a guy was poaching during the disabled vet hunt, that's a case for public flogging. LOL

Anyhow, not trying to be harsh. I just hope if he hears about something like that next year, that he let's the CO's know. When CO's get several reports about a certain landowner, they can then get a pretty good sense of who the violators are. And from dealing with CO's professionally, one group of guys poaching can do a ton of damage to a small local area.

Mojo-Yes, poaching goes on all year, every year around my area and probably throughout the state. All I'm saying is that this extra season isn't really for the half-interested kids, but for pops. If dad would really want jr to go hunting, he would make a big blind and sit with him for a few hunts during the "regular" season in all types of weather/conditions. But wait, that would men pops would have to be spending real woods time with his boy/girl.

Also, since I see 10 and 11 year old kids not responsible enough to come to class with their books, paper, and even pencils,  I really don't believe many are ready to be carrying a weapon. So, yes, I don't really want the extra season(s).  Let them sit with daddy and begin to learn about being a true woodsman.

Mojo---This year from one of my students: 1. his first hunt--yeah. 2. Sees a bachelor group of bucks--neat. 3. The young man shoots one and feels someone pulling the gun out of his hands. 4. His dad just, just wanted to shoot one, too. Luckily, the other bucks got away. So, do I report him???

Finally-I want kids in the woods. Heck, over the years I have brought  bows and arrows to school so the kids can shoot. I have helped design an archery course at a camp my kids go to every year. I just believe young kids with weapons need to have responsible mentors sitting next to them.
Peace!

Killinstuff, it sounds like we grew up the same. We should have coffe some time. I am in TC usually one a week.Let me know what your schedule is. What about making the youth hunt later ? What about changing ML season, to more of a primitive firearms season? No optics, no pellets, no super duper ignition systems, no smokeless powder ? What about using your local license fees for improvement in your area. We should get together.

Here's a super read on much of what is discussed here...

The Whitetail Depression

Deer hunters have never had it so good. But a number of leading indicators suggest whitetail numbers are heading toward a game-changing decline. Is it a correction? Or a crash?

Article by Andrew McKean
 http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/hunting/2011/08/whitetail-recession  

Dr. Grant Woods likes to assess the health of Deer Country from three different altitudes: what he calls the "satellite view," a broad look at macroscopic trends across entire regions; the "helicopter view" that can evaluate conditions on a specific property; and the view from the ground—his "shoelace view"—where he can count animals and inventory forage.

Woods is a consulting wildlife biologist whose land-management work takes him around the nation. And any way he looks at it, from almost any region or perspective, he says America's deer herd is in trouble.

"I think we're nearing a crisis mode," says Dr. Woods, who isn't given to hyperbole either by profession or personality. "The best-case scenario is that deer populations drop 10 to 25 percent over the next couple years."

He's not alone. The director of a Southeastern state game-and-fish agency, who didn't want us to use his name, notes that biologists in his state are seeing what he calls "pockets of poverty," whole townships with few deer. A couple of counties away, though, whitetails are above long-term populations.

"I can't draw conclusions about what's driving either declines or increases," he says. "But I've personally been telling hunters for 20 years that you can't kill enough does. Now I'm starting to say maybe it's time to put on the brakes."

That downbeat assessment seems inconsistent with a generation of euphoric news about America's favorite game animal—after all, we're used to repeating the mantra that the nation's greatest conservation accomplishment was the restoration of whitetails from the brink of extinction to a current population of more than 20 million. Managed hunting has increased deer populations, expanded hunting opportunity and given rise to an American original: the hunter/conservationist who pays for the opportunity to manage a public resource and who cherishes the very quarry he intends to kill.

But Woods claims a troubling combination of habitat loss, escalating numbers of predators, underfunded wildlife agencies and even hunters' behavior and expectations are stressing America's deer herd. And instead of gently declining to a sustainable level, Woods and others are suggesting whitetail populations are poised to experience a steep drop, somewhere between a significant correction and a catastrophic crash.

Before you go out and sell your ground blind and grunt tube, understand that deer are not in decline everywhere, and where they are hurting, some of the maladies are reversible.

But if the slide is as widespread and as steep as Woods predicts, then we could be headed toward a crisis that has the potential to reshape the culture and economy of conservation in America.

"If whitetail populations are off more than 10 percent for a couple of years, then I expect up to 50 percent of our hunters will stop hunting," predicts Woods.   "Sometime over the last generation, hunters became fickle. They'll participate when opportunity is good, but give them a couple of poor years (of hunting) and they'll stop buying licenses and gear. They'll take up golfing instead."  "Sometime over the last generation, hunters became fickle. They'll participate when opportunity is good, but give them a couple of poor years (of hunting) and they'll stop buying licenses and gear. They'll take up golfing instead."

That sort of talk sends shivers through the hunting community. Whitetails drive the industry, not only in terms of numbers of participants (more than 11 million), but also with the hunting licenses that fund state wildlife agencies (nearly $600 million annually) and the gear we buy ($12.4 billion).

"The whitetail deer is the backbone of the hunting industry in America," says John L. Morris, founder and owner of Bass Pro Shops. "And not just in the fall, prior to hunting season. In the last decade we've seen deer hunters become year-round customers as they develop land and intensively manage their property."

End of Part I

Part II

AGING FORESTS

None of us like reductions in hunting opportunity, but isn't it true that whitetail numbers have been at historic highs for over a decade? Like the inflated housing market or the "irrational exuberance" of the stock market, maybe we've been living in a whitetail bubble that was bound to burst.

Not so fast, says Kip Adams of the Quality Deer Management Association.

"The fact that we have fewer deer is by design," he says. "We have been way over (population) objective in many places, and a number of states wanted to drop herd numbers by increasing doe harvest. But it's also true that predators—wolves, coyotes, black bears, mountain lions, bobcats, even raccoons—caused some of these drops to be sharper than intended the last couple years."

But more worrisome than predators is the maturation of America's forests, says Adams.

 "If I'm scared about a single trend, it's how little game our forests can support," he says. "A young hardwood forest can easily produce 1,000 pounds of available food per acre. A mature forest produces 50 to 100 pounds. We have the same number of acres covered in trees now that we did 50 years ago, but it can't come close to carrying the same number of deer."  
 And Adams says the discrepancy in quality between habitats on private versus public land is widening at an alarming pace.  

"Historically, the private and public habitat was approximately the same. But today, the average private land is far higher in quality than the adjacent public land. You have private landowners actively managing their land for wildlife. But on public land, you have a forest that hasn't been logged and habitat that hasn't been managed. Most of our deer hunters hunt public land, and they're starting to notice that quality gap. It's going to get even wider."
(Note-In Michigan, the majority of deer hunters hunt private land.)


A GATHERING STORM?

Distilled to its essence, what Woods, Adams and other biologists are really seeking is more active deer management. Aggressive predator control. Better disease monitoring. More proactive habitat and population assessment.

Will those things counter what appears to be a slow decline in whitetail numbers?

"Probably not," admits Woods, who thinks predator populations are poised to explode from Maine to Florida. "I think the only thing that's going to control coyotes is that their densities will get so great that they get a devastating mange or distemper outbreak that will go through their populations like wildfire."

Readily adaptable, whitetails may also alter their behavior to avoid predation. They may respond as wildebeests do in lion country, by synchronous breeding, an evolutionary strategy that swamps predators by ensuring that all the fawns are born at the same time. Or deer may seek habitats where predators are less effective.

Even with these adjustments, Woods thinks rough days are ahead for American whitetail hunters.

"We will never lose our deer herd," he says. "They're too adaptable. Whitetails are generalists able to make a living in a variety of places. But I do think we should be prepared to return to the days when you might have to drive 100 miles to find a place to hunt, or consider it a good day when you saw one or two deer, or even just a track."

Part III

Quantifying Risk

Are whitetails really in trouble? We assigned a risk index to a number of identified threats (10 is the most catastrophic and least solvable).

Maturing Forests

Symptom: Your family has hunted the same woodlot for 30 years, but you're just not seeing the same number of deer you used to.
Problem: From the Northeast through the Ohio Valley, the nation's forests are uniformly old, and even intact hardwoods habitats simply can't provide the same amount of wildlife forage and cover that they could when they were younger and more diverse.
Solution: Develop wood-products economy that promotes managed timber harvest, encourage private landowners to thin woods as part of deer-friendly habitat management
Risk Index: 8

Predators

Symptom: You're seeing whopper bucks, but for the last couple of years you haven't seen younger bucks or any fawns.
Problem: Wolves in the Upper Midwest, mountain lions in the Midwest, black bears in the East, bobcats and coyotes everywhere. We haven't had a predator mix this diverse or dense since the first settlers scattered along Daniel Boone's Wilderness Trace. Commercial trapping is no longer an effective predator management tool.
Solution: Every deer hunter needs to become a predator hunter, and wildlife managers must acknowledge that predation can be a significant factor in deer mortality. States should liberalize regulations to allow year-round recreational pursuit of coyotes and raccoons.
Risk Index: 7

Baiting


Symptom: You see tons of deer when you're scouting, but the minute the season opens, the deer disappear.
Problem: Michigan this year restored what some Wolverine State hunters think is a birthright: The ability to bait deer during hunting season. Georgia also legalized baiting. It's legal in all or parts of 22 states. Baiting unnaturally concentrates deer, which can be a factor in transmission of disease like chronic wasting disease, EHD, Lyme disease and tuberculosis. It's also a violation of fair-chase principles. Plus, a single bucket of corn dumped by your neighbor can negate all the deer-attracting habitat work you might have done on your property.
Solution: Abolish baiting
Risk Index: 3

Habitat Loss


Symptom: You don't see any deer until farmers harvest their corn. Then deer are everywhere, including your front yard.
Problem: Expansion of rural subdivisions and urban fringe combined with a sharp increase in corn and soybean production. Carrying capacity—security cover and year-round food sources—for deer and other wildlife is declining at an alarming rate. Predators tend to thrive in fractured habitats.
Solution: Encourage the maintenance of wildlife cover, whether through subdivision planning or Farm Bill incentives.
Risk Index: 9

Intolerance


Symptom: My neighbor can't understand why I love to hunt deer. She calls them "woods rats" and asked our homeowner's association for permission to poison them.
Problem: Among non-hunters, whitetails have an image problem. Over the past two decades, their stature has declined from nobility to nuisance. They're traffic hazards, petunia munchers, tick carriers, habituated pests. If tolerance for deer is eroding for the general public, it's all but gone for farmers and residents of rural subdivisions, for whom deer have become vermin.
Solution: Promote use of regulated hunting—not sharpshooters or birth control—to manage nuisance numbers of deer
Risk Index: 9


Inadequate Population Monitoring


Symptom: Our local biologist says we have tons of deer, and he's asked the commission to increase doe tags. But I'm scouting all the time and I don't see any does or fawns.
Problem: How many deer do we really have? How many do hunters actually kill? State game agencies increasingly are relying on telephone or internet reporting to determine hunter harvest. And budget cuts have reduced the amount and intensity of population surveys. Without better surveys, how will we know a deer crash is occurring?
Solution: Actually, studies have found that telecheck harvest reporting is just as valid as mandatory game-check stations. The bigger problem is population monitoring. When EHD roared through the nation's heartland, biologists didn't know the full extent until they started getting lower-than-expected harvest reports in the fall. Instead of inadequate statewide surveys, make better use of intensive spot monitoring.
Risk Index: 3

Hunters' Unrealistic Expectations


Symptom: Last year I saw an average of 75 deer a day from my tree stand. This year I've only seen about 30 a day. We've gotta cut back on doe tags.
Problem: We have become so accustomed to getting "our deer" that it feels like a seasonal entitlement, so a year or two of decline can seem like the End Time. We forget all the seasons our father got excited when he saw a single doe, and all the years he tucked his unfilled tag in his gun cabinet.
Solution: Game managers must reinforce the forgotten notion that whitetail populations are dynamic, and that too many deer are just as problematic as not enough. We need to be reminded that one outcome of killing lots of deer this year is that there will be fewer next year.
Risk Index: 2


Leadership Vacuum

Symptom: I go to fundraising banquets for turkeys and quail, but I'm a deer hunter. I'd like to join a group that really fights for whitetail habitat and sticks up for hunters.
Problem: Pheasants have Pheasants Forever. Elk have the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Turkeys have the NWTF. Even ruffed grouse have their own conservation alliance. The two leading whitetail groups, Quality Deer Management Association and Whitetails Unlimited, are smart and scrappy, but they're also small and struggling.
Solution: Creation of a truly national whitetail conservation organization, one that is confident enough to address the wedge issues that divide deer hunters (baiting, high-fence operations, escalating use of technology) while advocating for habitat conservation, access, responsive management and research.
Risk Index: 4

Part IV

Harvest Trends

Whitetail harvest trends are both highly regional and highly "guesstimable." Last year, for example, harvest dropped in the coal country of West Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio, but Great Lakes hunters enjoyed a good year. Missouri hunters shot 10 percent fewer whitetails than the year before, but Nebraska was up 11 percent. Pennsylvania posted a 2 percent increase. New Hampshire's harvest was off more than 6 percent, but nearby New York's was up more than 3 percent. Instead of providing clarity, harvest data—typically based on a statistically valid sample—frustrate attempts to draw conclusions about the health of America's deer herd on a national scale. If a state isn't colored, harvest data was unavailable.

Row-Crop Conversion

Whitetails crave corn, right? A map of trophy buck zones matches neatly with America's Corn Belt. Beans, too, have been good for deer. The replacement of cotton and tobacco with soybeans has allowed whitetail populations to skyrocket in Kentucky, Virginia and Arkansas.

But the world's insatiable appetite for American corn and soybeans is troubling news for deer. Those marginal habitats—upland pastures and corner woodlots—that provide critical cover for whitetails are being plowed up and planted to small grains at a dizzying pace. These industrial-scale monocultures may provide food during the crop season, but once grains are harvested, forage and cover disappear, making whitetails especially vulnerable during lean winters.

"Those places that didn't make sense to farm with $5 beans and $3 corn are being plowed up with $14 beans and $10 corn," says biologist Dr. Grant Woods. "We cannot farm fencerow to fencerow and have adequate cover for wildlife."


Death by Fangs

A 5-year study on fawn survival on the Savannah River Site suggests that less than a quarter of whitetail fawns born in the spring live until autumn. Coyotes kill the vast majority of the three-quarters that die, often within hours of their birth.

The study, led by Forest Service researcher Dr. John Kilgo, is as fascinating as it is gory. Radio transmitters implanted in the vaginas of adult does are pushed out at birth and emit a signal. Researchers race to the site, often reaching it within a few hours of birth, and then search for the fawn. If it's alive, they fit it with a GPS collar. If it's dead, they determine the cause of death.

"When we have a carcass, we're looking first if it was a predator responsible, and if so, then was it a coyote or a bobcat," says Kilgo. "This is such a remote area we don't have domestic dogs to worry about. There are characteristics of how predators cache their prey. A bobcat often scratches leaf litter over the fawn. Coyotes often dig a hole to bury the remains. Then, so we left nothing to doubt, we evaluate the bite wounds for cause of death, then swab the wounds in an effort to collect predators' saliva."

Nearly 80 percent of the predation was by coyotes. The researchers' conclusions is that the Savannah River deer herd can sustain itself with 75 percent predation, but only if hunter opportunity is diminished.

"Any prey base can only take so much mortality before it starts to decline," says Kilgo. "Here, we had a double whammy (of coyotes and human hunters) and the only variable we could control was to reduce some of the hunter harvest."

Is the Savannah River predation aberrant, or can we expect to lose the same percentage of fawns elsewhere in the Southeast? And if so, will states start to reduce hunter opportunity to balance prey with predation?

"Based on a number of studies that are being conducted right now, it appears that the level of predation we detected is being seen elsewhere," says Kilgo. "It's definitely a new dynamic. We didn't have coyotes in South Carolina 20-25 years ago. Not only are they established now, but they are abundant."

Map...

  (http://www.outdoorlife.com/files/photo/1001335546/deermap333.jpg)
  (http://www.outdoorlife.com/files/photo/1001335546/deer2.png)

Make sure you all fill out the post season survey. There's a comments link too.
https://secure1.state.mi.us/deersurvey/

Well said J.T..most people wanna part and walk in 50-100 yards expept to kill something..thats not how it works..u need to get well beyond where the average guy goes..go deeper into the woods.. there is so much state land that doesn't even get hunted because they don't wanna put in the leg work..take a compass or GPS and go exploring..you'll be amazed at what u will find..and besides like my Dad always said "its not the kill its the hunt"..the kill is just a bonus..

I've been hunting for over thirty years now and seen the number of hunters increase over this time frame. Not to mention the Outhouse channel on cable was invented and all hunters now have to become farmers and have equipment to get this years food plot in. Knocking on doors and getting permission to hunt is a thing of the past unless you have deep pockets you can lease some ground. Growing up in Wisconsin and hunting is no different than Michigan, overcrowded woods, few deer, baiting. When I was in the military just so happen that I got stationed in Kansas. Awesome place to hunt folks, if you haven't been there you should give it try. Bowhunting pressure is non existent. You can hunt an entire season and not see another hunter. Why? because there aren't the number of hunters in the woods that's why. And I'm talking public land too. Resident archery permits sold annually in Kansas are around 22,000 that is it! You don't have to be a wildlife biologist or mathematician to figure this one out. Number of bowhunters per acre in KS is approximately .29 second to NE with approximately .19 per acre as compared to MI which has approximately 7.35 per acre again you figure it out. We moved to MI last Feb because when Dad passed away I told my Mom that I'd move back to WI but ended up here in MI couldn't find work in WI surely not for the hunting. The bottom line is with the sheer number of hunters in the woods to sustain a deer population as large as what the dnr says it is, is impossible. Several years ago the WI dnr actually admitted to fudging the number/size of the deer herd. If you like to deer hunt there are plenty of choices out there and not just in your own state.

The most recent survey released by the Mighigan DNR shows that state wide, hunters overwhelmingly (67%) prefer to keep regulations as they are in much of the state under the current combo tag. (one buck any antler over 3", one buck with 4 points on one side)

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Deer_Hunter_Opinion_Survey_2012_448233_7.pdf

Antler point restrictions can have a reverse affect too.  Something called survival of the fittest.

Sure, in a normal world a buck's rack gets bigger and badder as it matures.  But when there is a 8 point restriction, having an "inferior" 6 point rack is a huge advantage.  With enough help from Joe hunter, pretty soon 6 point will be the gene pool choice.  Ask Darwin...

ChuckC