# Doe Harvest too much in the north????



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Related to QDM or not I place this opinion and question here.

LOTS of reports from other camps, buddies, etc.... of very few deer being sighted. These reports come from the UP to much of an area around Rosco. Grayling region. To put it in a nutshell-where did the deer go? Good hunters seeing very few deer to none at all for much of opening weekend. Why? I believe its the killing of too many does in the last five years. I believe the doe harvest has been way to high for alot of these northern regions. My suggestion to some of you QDM people is easy off of the suggestion of killing does will some how benefit the herd, I believe its back firing up north. Yes, at one time there was too many does but now we need to back off and quick being so liberal in issueing them. Anybody else huntin in these areas that has seen this?


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

In eastern Mason county where I hunt I agree, total deer numbers are way down. If we go too it will take years to rebound.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

> _Originally posted by beer and nuts _
> *My suggestion to some of you QDM people is easy off of the suggestion of killing does will some how benefit the herd, *


 My suggestion to some of the non-QDM people to stop baiting and the deer will not be so nocturnal. Then we will all see more deer during daylight hours.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)




----------



## Hunt4Ever (Sep 9, 2000)

I think the unlimited doe tags in some areas, including private land, one a day until they are gone is having a bad impact on deer hunting.

I think we might be shooting the "deer" right out of deer hunting.

I don't like the trend I'm seeing. I'm seeing less deer, less does, few bucks, very few big bucks (haven't seen one yet this year bigger than a 6 point), and guys shooting anything thing that comes in.

Lots of button buck being shot and tagged anterless. I agree that a certain amount of anterless deer need to be taken to balance the herd. 

The Michigan DNR has left it up to us to balance the herd with the way they hand out anterless tags. I think we have proven we can't do it very well. 

Remember the old days? One bow tag, buck or doe. One rifle tag, buck only. Anterless tags were a lottery done by the State and you were the envy of camp when you got one. Farmers that had crop damage had to prove the damage, then were issued permits after that.

I think we should take a new look at what we are doing to the herd. I think some new regulations are in order. 

Think about it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 19, 2002)

It was too warm. The deer weren't moving.


----------



## tubejig (Jan 21, 2002)

I do not hunt in the UP but I have seen the same thing going 
on in my area the last few years. I am not against the taking 
of a doe, but when it comes down to taking mutiple anterless
animals the ending result is not good. Anyone can show me 
all of the stats that they want but it will not change what I have
seen with my own eyes. I am looking forward to the end result 
which will supply 1 lonely buck and 2 does for every square mile
around. i hope the hell that nobody shoots that last male or the
reproductive cycle will stop with out daddy. But he probably will 
get it since a "Trophy Hunt" is what everybody wants.


----------



## trapstercarl (Oct 2, 2001)

the UP and northern lower can not produce as many deer as the southern lower can. its simple we have swamp bottoms next to huge corn,bean,hay fields. and our deer can get away from the pressure easier (smaller private property with no tresspassing signs) I saw at least 40 deer opening day in swampland next to a cornfield in barry county.30 or so were does/fawns.up north there a huge tracts on pines and other woods.the deer aren't saved as much by no tresspassing signs or standing cornfields. carl


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Bob S,
Yeah you must be right. Those 2 gallons of bait a day must be making all the deer nocturnal. I am not sure why all of the hay fields, winter wheat & rye fields, corn fields, acorns, wild apples, and the hundreds of food plots around our county don't seem to affect deer movement. My apologies if you were being facetious, but it didn't sound like it. 
L & O


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

When deer hunters gripe, they often miss the mark  

Want to know an e-mail or phone call I never get? 

"This is a really crappy deer season because I only saw one deer, an eight-point buck, and I killed it." 

A story about Friday's opening day of the firearms season produced the usual predictable complaints from people who didn't see a deer, never mind shoot one, and who are convinced that no Bambis are left in their hunting areas. But no hunters complained about the quality of the deer they did shoot. 

While deer numbers have been reduced greatly in some places, there are still a ton of deer statewide. And even in the areas where deer numbers have been brought down, there probably are 20 or more per square mile. 

That is considerably less than the 40-50 per square mile that was the norm in those places a few years ago, but many people refuse to believe that there can be even 20 per square mile. They no longer see the 20, 30 or 50 deer a day they used to see on the season opener as they sat over their bait piles. 

We've drastically curtailed baiting in the last couple of years, and that presents a problem for many hunters. They can't just toss a big pile of rotting vegetables out in the woods, set up shop nearby and wait for deer to show up. 

In many places, deer are acting more like deer again. With the numbers down and baiting restricted, they aren't as likely to wander just anywhere. They now spend more time in cover, and they will concentrate more on places where they find natural foods. 

A couple of years ago a man called to complain bitterly that the state Department of Natural Resources had issued so many antlerless permits that no deer were left on his 120-acre hunting property near Mio. He asked me to meet him there and showed me the blind from which he had hunted for 14 years. When he had been allowed to use bait, he said, deer by the dozens came out of the nearby woods to feed in front of his blind. 

When I asked him where the deer came from, he gave me a funny look and said he didn't know. It turned out that a creek ran through the property about 150 yards behind the blind, and he hadn't been across it for years. 

I put on some waders, slogged across the creek and found a deer runway about the size of I-75 on the far side of the woods not 200 yards from the blind where the hunter had sat all those years. The deer had to cross the creek to get to the blind, and they would do so when there was a promise of carrots or beets as a reward. But they wouldn't cross once the reason to do so had been eliminated. 

The man hadn't been to the back of his property for a long time, and the idea of getting out and scouting apparently never occurred to him. 

Another camp I visited has been in the same place for 50 years, and the hunters were still using the same blinds in which they had been sitting for 20. They, too, complained that they no longer saw many deer, which should have been the trigger to move. Instead, they stayed stubbornly in the same places and blamed the DNR. 

God knows that agency is far from perfect, and its top management has alienated many hunters and anglers who should be its strongest supporters. But the truth is, we could make an even bigger reduction in the deer herd and still have more bucks to shoot. 

Many hunters have fallen into a logic trap that equates seeing a lot of deer with a healthy deer herd. But when you have doe-to-buck ratios of 5-1 or 6-1 in many areas, you will see deer you can look at but not shoot. 

We should have learned the danger of an overpopulated deer herd from the bovine tuberculosis outbreak in Deer Management Unit 452 in the northeast Lower Peninsula. The herd in that area is down to about 30-35 per square mile from a peak level of 50 or more. Dr. Steve Schmitt, a DNR veterinarian, said reducing the numbers has dropped the prevalence of TB in unit 452 to about 2-3 percent, although it is still around 7 percent in a couple of townships. 

A computer model for the Michigan herd was developed by a biologist from New Zealand, where bovine TB has been a problem for a century. It shows that the disease can be brought down to zero by maintaining the herd in the TB area at the present level for a few decades, or by getting 100 percent enforcement of the baiting ban there, Schmitt said. 

Of course, if chronic wasting disease shows up in Michigan deer, we probably won't worry as much about bovine tuberculosis. TB will seem about as threatening as a cold compared to a disease that has the potential to decimate the Michigan herd the way bubonic plague went through 14th Century Europe.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

L & O, I will use the closest baiters to my property as an example. On the second property to the south of my place there are four vehicles. Don`t know how many hunters, but I will use one per vehicle to keep it simple. 

Four hunters using two gallons each per day. If they hunt Friday evening, Saturday and Sunday, that is 2 gallons per hunter per day. 6 gallons per hunter per weekend or 18 gallons per weekend. 13 weekends from October 1- January 1. 18 gallons times 13 weekends is 234 gallons of feed. This is on one piece of property. If this property has more than just the four hunters then the bait totals would be even higher.

With this much bait on two or three properties along a two mile stretch of road, yes it could make the deer nocturnal. The bait totals will be even higher if any of these hunters have permanent bait piles rather than the two gallon limit. 

The deer are there, I see them all year long. But after about the second week of October they become mostly nocturnal. 

My neighbor has been on his property for over 50 years. It was his grandfathers. He says that he used to be able to sit all day long during rifle season and see deer. Now he only sees them dawn and dusk going to and from the baiters property. He is anti-QDM and blames the baiters, not the doe shooters.

Just an opinion, we all have one. I just see too many deer the rest of the year in my area to believe they are wiped out.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Bob,
Using your number...234 gallons of feed in a 3 month period. Which means about 2 1/2 gallons of feed are eaten each day by something. That's not much food Bob. Take a 5 gallon bucket and fill it half way up with a mixture of corn, apples, & carrots. Now spread that around your front yard in an area 10' X 10'. Now do you think that piddly amount of food on that piece of property is going to cause deer to change their behavior ? Now of course there could be more than 4 hunters on that property, but do you really think those guys are really going to hunt & carry in bait every weekend for 3 months ?
Some deer become more nocturnal after sharing the woods with hunters. 50 years ago you could have put all of the bow hunters in Michigan in a small gymnasium. Now we have a couple of hundred thousand hunting with bows. By the time gun season rolls around its pretty likely that many of the deer have had an incounter with a hunter. That might make me nocturnal too if I were a deer. 
In my 40 years of hunting I haven't seen much behavior change in deer, I have seen a change in hunting attitudes.
L & O


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

jamie, Bob S,

Extremely well said!

Hunting in dmu 001 (next to 452), for me this year was excellent! Even though baiting is banned, yet still happening, I seen deer on my foodplot all day long!

I didn't see many deer in those 3 days, but they were definately there! The totals are as follows for hunting over a 1/4 acre foodplot on 40 acres total for 3 days:

3 bucks - 4, 6 and 8points ( I shot the 2.5 year old 8 point)
5 does
3 doe fawns
3 buck fawns

Again, not alot of deer, but they were there!


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Jaime, didn't that article come from the Free press(Ritchie?). It does depict some hunters and is true, but baiting has gone on for plenty of years with hunters seeing deer all day during that time, but now in parts there just isn't any deer. Baiting also is not just for anti-QDM hunters, plenty of QDM people bait up here. Also, deer don't turn nocturnal just because people bait they turn nocturnal because of the pressures of hunting, THAT is proven during Sept and Oct. when deer frequent bait piles at all times during the day up here. Weak reasoning. If some of you guys don't beleive the hunters up here and the lack of deer numbers, then continue to believe the DNR numbers but for us hunters that see it and hear it first hand know its a big problem and most believe its the killing of too many does. Bob S. your neighbor MIGHT be one of those guys that Jaime's article he copied and pasted talks about. Hunted the property for 50 years and I'm sure hunts in the same blind location as well...just a thought.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Letmgro,

Just a quick question. You have been a big supporter of QDM on here, but it seems funny that you harvested a 2.5 year old deer. Just the thing QDM is trying to NOT to do. I'm sure you have a good reason for shooting that 2.5 year old, but please tell me what the difference in you shooting the 2.5 year old 8-point and somebody up here shooting a 2.5 year old 5 point?


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

you guys read the FREEP up there? or did you just follow my hyperlink to the article? 

i believe the DNR, if you don't want to shoot a doe, don't buy a permit.

just like i choose to let immature bucks walk

you wouldn't want to deny someone a chance to legally harvest a deer, based on an opinion would you? i hope you provide an exemption for the elderly and youth hunters in your no-doe kill zone. LOL!


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Bait or no bait, hunting pressure or not, I shot my second doe of the season Saturday evening on my property in Missaukee county. 

I have baited in the past and I have shot deer over bait. But my observations over 25 years of huntiing is that over all I saw less deer over bait. I have hunted the past two years without baiting and by moving around my property hunting different trails. I see more deer than I did sitting over a bait pile.

I won`t tell you guys to stop baiting in northern Michigan if you don`t tell me to not shoot does.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

"If you don't want to shoot a doe don't by a permit"-great, I hope thats not the answer I get from the DNR. I have two doe permits, and as of right now in the many places I hunt, I cannot justify shooting one. BUT, that will not stop "joe-downstater" or "local weekend hunter" form taking one or two....Alot of hunters feel that if they have the permit it must be filled. I assume this is exactly what the DNR wants, very low deer numbers for the insurance companies and such. I also realize we are the fringe county of the TB area but that is a different story as well. This does not give excuse for areas in the UP that have too many doe permits and now are seeing drastic declines in numbers. 

Bob S. I'm not saying to totally due without doe permits, hell your area might be an area that needs them, but the way they are "handing" them out is totally non-management, its downright careless and without merit.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

> but the way they are "handing" them out is totally non-management, its downright careless and without merit.


kinda like i feel about buck licenses and combo tags

are you trying to say michigan hunters have no self control?



> "If you don't want to shoot a doe don't by a permit"-great, I hope thats not the answer I get from the DNR.


get used to it.



> I have two doe permits, and as of right now in the many places I hunt, I cannot justify shooting one. BUT, that will not stop "joe-downstater" or "local weekend hunter" form taking one or two....Alot of hunters feel that if they have the permit it must be filled.


how many bucks have you seen?
would you hesitate to shoot one?
if you only had seen one buck would you shoot it?

did you ever think that the deer herd in N. MI is finally within it's carrying capacity? 

that's it's not being held high above natural levels from baiting and supplemental feeding.

when is the last time the DNR/Federal gov. conducted widespread clearcuts/habitat improvements or when is the last time N. MI had a rip roaring forest fire? looks like the herd in N. MI is right where it belongs due to a number of factors.


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

Without a doubt, they are giving away too many doe tags up north.

I hunt on public land in Gladwin. Opening day was very quiet. Deer sightings were very low.

As far as I'm concerned, doe permits should only be used to manage areas that are overpopulated with deer. State land in Gladwin is far from being overpopulated with deer. Manage the buck/doe ratio by reducing the buck kill, not by giving out doe permits.

IMHO, the DNR uses doe permits to manage the $$$, not the deer herd.

As for the last time the DNR had clear cuts? You've got to be kidding me. Drive down any dirt road north of M61, nothing but clear cuts.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

you have to manage the deer herd as a whole.

the doe population is 3X larger, you would think that would be reflected in harvest totals, but it isn't.

i'm glad to hear they are doing some clear cuts, more habitat, more deer.

i would much rather have the deer population reduced by hunters than by mother nature and freeways.

northern MI isn't made to have 30-40 deer per square mile, the habitat will not naturally support it.

the days of going out and seeing a ton of deer are long gone. it was not healthy. the DNR learned a valuable lesson in 452, they managed for what hunters/clubs wanted and not what was beneficial to the herd. we don't want a statewide 452. in order to do this you have to keep the herd under carrying capacity. believe it or not the DNR is acting in the best interest of everyone and everything involved.

you never know the DNR may come out and say that they have the deer herd at their goal of 1.3 million and adjust the permits accordingly, then again they may increase it next year, just have to wait and see. 

i'm curious to see the buck to doe harvest ratio, will we kill more does than bucks? i highly doubt it.


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

I'll agree that 30-40 deer per sq mile is too much, but that is not the reality of the state land around there. Never has and never will be. 

Deer hunters have allways (at least for the last 23 years that I've hunted there) kept the population in check without the need for doe permits.

I saw 5 deer on opening day of rifle season. Two were too far off to identify, one buck and a doe with a fawn. A far cry from seeing a ton of deer. Even during bow season, the most I saw in one day was 4 deer. Out of the three people hunting with me on the rifle opener, one guy saw two tails, the other two saw nothing.

But you can get a doe permit for that area.

Doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

but in order for every deer hunter to see deer you would have to keep the deer population at that 30-40 deer p. sq. mile level of 10-15 years ago.

what is best for the hunter may not be best for the resource.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Ditta on the clear-cuts, never has there been a shortage of them.

Iv'e seen three bucks, six-point(dead), spike, and at least one button. I've seen 6 does in that same area. All on opening morning, private area I hunted this year was about the same and has not changed in 10-15 years. But other areas that I have hunted after the first two days have been dismal at best with most nights seeing zip, where in years past it was common to see your 2-6 deer guaranteed every night, now nothing with little sign. These areas all have had doe permits the last 8 years or so. 

No way is baiting during hunting season keeping Northern Michigan deer over carry-capacity. The only place deer have been kept over the capacity with baiting is the Club country. You guys get stuck on that Club country and think all of northern Michigan is like that when it comes to baiting.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

enter the "hunters" who would buy "bait" not by the truckload but by the semi-load. SEMI-LOADS of "bait" piled sky high in the woods, left to sit in the woods after deer season thereby becoming a source of temporary supplemental feed, leading to a deer herd held over carrying capacity by less than nutrious feed, leading to a herd of deer ripe for disease spread amplified by concentrated "food" sources.

ALL PERFECTLY LEGAL in the not so distant past.

do i care if you bait, absolutely not. 

just don't cry about the possible abolishment of a hunting practice that has been so readily abused. if you can't play by the rules then take the game away, a zero tolerance policy towards baiting.

don't blame other hunters that choose not to bait and voice their concerns about the practice, you have nobody to blame but yourselves for letting the practice of baiting get so out of hand.

baiting should be used as an aid for harvesting deer not as a stand alone hunting method.

750,000 gun hunters, lets say 50% bait with their 2 gallon limit that puts out 700,000 gallons of bait per day and adds up to 10,500,000 gallons of bait for the 15 day firearms season, throw in bow hunters that bait and add in another 10,000,000 gallons enough food to support the entire state's deer herd.

it has been argued that a 2 gallon bait limit will reduce disease spread, a Michigan State University study completed in 2001 refutes this claim (Garner, Mark S. 2001. Movement patterns and behaviour at winter feeding and fall baiting stations in a population of white-tailed deer infected with bovine tuberculosis in the northeastern lower peninsula of Michigan. Michigan State University PhD Dissertation). The study was conducted to observe deer interaction at fall baiting sites to determine how bovine TB could spread between deer. The researchers observed deer feeding at various types of baiting sites for 2 years. These sites consisted of bait placed in piles up to several tons in size, various quantities of bait spread in lines, and several types of mechanical feeders. They found that the number of deer face-to-face contacts that could spread bovine TB were higher at a 5 gallon pile of corn than any other baiting method. They also noted that up to 35 different deer were observed feeding at a single 5 gallon bait pile during a 1 hour observation period. It should also be noted that a USDA study determined that the bacteria causing bovine TB can remain infectious up to 16 weeks on frozen feed (Whipple and Palmer. 2000. Survival of Mycobacterium bovis on feeds. Conference on Bovine Tuberculosis, Proc. 2000. Lansing, Michigan). Thus the conclusion from this extensive study is that any amount of bait can be expected to sustain and spread a disease like bovine TB, but that smaller quantities tended to be worse.The MSU study also included radio collaring 163 deer to study movement and seasonal dispersal patterns when baited. These deer migrated an average of 15 miles with some deer migrating over 53 miles. It seems that even when baited deer will migrate substantial distances. During the 2-year study it was also found that one of the radio-collared deer had actually died from bovine TB.

It has been suggested that supplemental food plots are nothing more than "bait on a stick." Researchers have shown that food plots do not present the disease potential of bait piles. Food plots are dispersed over a much larger area than bait piles, and once they are consumed there is no more. The principle problem cited with baiting sites is they can be replenished over and over in the same location that increases the potential for contaminating residual foods and underlying soil. The Michigan DNR even recommended food plots in the TB area.


Every single MDNR wildlife biologist is opposed to deer baiting based on ecological and disease considerations. That in itself says a lot. These wildlife biologists are dedicated and hard working individuals. They care as much, if not more, about the deer herd than anyone else. Certainly they are the experts on whats right for the resource. Furthermore, the Wildlife Management Institute, an advocate for hunting and professional wildlife management, denounces all wildlife feeding 

It is commonly cited that surveys indicate that support for or against deer baiting in the hunting community is split 50/50. It should be pointed out that none of these surveys were extensive enough to be statistically valid, and thus a true representation of hunter opinion was not gauged. In any event, even if the split is truly 50/50, we should do whats best for the resource and the sport.

Throughout history rules and regulations have been enacted to protect and enhance deer hunting. Take hunting deer at night as an example. At some point this was thought detrimental to the resource and banned. Sure, at the time there were likely protests, but I dont think anyone today would argue that this was necessary. Very often the best resource management is not achieved by popular consensus. The harvest of antlerless deer is another example. It took leadership, even that of Aldo Leopold himself, to institute many of these necessary practices. Deer baiting is another issue that needs to be evaluated under these same circumstances. As it has been pointed out there are many reasons why deer baiting is detrimental to both the resource and the sport. There is very little positive information on deer baiting. And as stated in the beginning this was not from a lack of effort. The desire for many to hunt with bait must be strong to override the underlying conservation morals possessed by many hunters otherwise deer baiting would not be an issue.

The evidence that deer baiting causes the spread of diseases is well documented (McCaffery 2000, Mich. DNR 1999). It is also well known that baiting causes hunter conflicts and that the non-hunting publics view of baiting is not favorable. In addition it
appears baiting also has the following affects:

 Despite the overwhelming perception there is no evidence that deer baiting increases the overall success rate.

 Baiting provides a concentrated source of food thus reducing deer activity. This causes deer to be less vulnerable to hunter harvest which will lower the success rate as it does for other factors, like the weather. Baiting also causes hunters to see less
deer and can explain why so many deer hunters question the MDNR deer population estimates.

 High carbohydrate foods used as bait are known to have harmful effects on deer health under certain circumstances due to lactic acidosis, which also contributes to reduced deer activity.

 The level of baiting in Michigan has likely increased to the point where the amount of bait provided will completely feed the entire deer herd every day of the gun hunting season.

 The cumulative effects of baiting (and feeding) deer are changing natural deer productivity and survival rates to unmanageable levels. This is especially true in the northern forested regions.

 Deer baiting is not as innocuous as some claim. Deer baiting affects the hunting experiences of all hunters, and is increasingly disruptive to hunters who choose not to bait. 

It may seem counter intuitive, but eliminating baiting for deer hunting would result in more deer sightings and increase the deer harvest which can ultimately help in controlling the deer population. It would also reduce conflicts among hunters, help prevent the spread of diseases and improve the public perception of hunting. 

paraphrases of
Deer Baiting Issues
Mark A. Toso
February 18, 2002



for someone to compare "baiting" to farm crops, food plots, natural browse, a doe-in-heat, using a grunt tube, or hunting during the rut is absolutely preposterous.

you want to see the science that frames our hunting regulations, i want to see the poll that shows 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the majority of Michigan's deer hunter's hunt using bait and support the practice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


lets practice what we preach.

i'm not pointing fingers just looking for a potential solution and pointing out some overlooked facts.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

There arer some good points in your last article and I believe some are very true. But I gotta say your estimates in baiting and how much feed is out there is a bit exaggerated. You have to realize how hunting goes up here, and any northern local hunter will agree. Opening weekend there are bait piles everywhere as every joe-hunter goes out and places one in front of them , but what you fail to realize is the dramatic drop off in the number of hunters in the woods after the first two days with a flux on the weekends. Plus I really think you under estimate the amount one puts out for bait, sure there are guys out there with a ton of beets, but overall I've seen a dramatic decline in baiting or at least the size of bait piles in the last two years(rules and regs?). Even this year I've walked many miles on state land during the day and I have seen very few bait piles. Also don't forget how many succesful deer hunters stop hunting after the first couple days when most animals are harvested.

Its funny how last year the DNR allowed baiting in the TB area, because they figured it would increase the kill, wasn't that the reason they gave???? Aren't these the DNR wildlife biologists that ALL agree baiting is bad!!!!

I don't agree that baiting cause them to be less active or make hunters see less deer, has never been that way in the past. And I don't see it in Sept and October hunting. Here is a positive on baiting-creates a better kill shot for gun and especially bow. 

I'm not a big baiter, I do it two-fold. One: as a tool to stop deer(I hunt over trails, scrapes, runways, etc... Two: half the time my son hunts with me and the longer the deer are in front of us the better for him.

Baiting has never been proven has the ONLY reason to spread TB its just another way it CAN be spread. Ever seen deer touch their noses as a way of social order(something like that), happens all the time. 

Baiting will not be blamed on low deer numbers up here, the reason hunters are seeing very few deer is strictly because there are just that -very few deer.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

jamie,
I doubt that 50% of the gun hunters bait. I don't know of anyone that hunt all 15 days...maybe 4-5 days would be average. Probably the DNR has some stats regarding those numbers. Anyways, using your number of 700,000 gals. of bait per day comes out to about 14 gallons of bait per sq. mile or about 1/2 cup per acre (an area about the size of a football field). And you said at the end of your paragraph containing the 700,000 figure that this is "enough food to support the entire state's deer herd". Well, I guess you didn't say how long it would support them...were you thinking about 15-20 minutes ?

For reference....my encyclopedia says Mi. has a land mass of 58,527 sq. miles. I round it off to 50,000 to subtract for lakes and cities. 

In my opinion, legal baiting has no affect on our deer herd. Recreational viewing feeding is much worse I think. The recreational viewers around me put their carrots in a pile and have a trough for the corn. Neither of these foods are spread out. 
L & O


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

> Its funny how last year the DNR allowed baiting in the TB area, because they figured it would increase the kill, wasn't that the reason they gave???? Aren't these the DNR wildlife biologists that ALL agree baiting is bad!!!!



B&N,

If Im not mistaken, NRC pushed that late order through despite lack of support from DNR, it was an experiment gone bad IMHO.

Also, taking a big bodied 8 pt that is only 2.5 yo bodes well for the overall health of the deer herd in a particular area. My brother took one this year from the edge of 452 that we though would be older. Wont bore you with what I passed / chose to harvest so far this year, but I can say we are trying to allow the bucks to mature and if you get a 2.5 yo deer that you think is much older that is very positive reflection on efforts toward habitat improvement, etc. in my opinion. 

On another note, I do not condemn or condone baiting, but in light of the obvious abuses of the privilege and even a remote possibility to further spread disease, I think it is in the best interest of the deer herd to ban the practice of feeding and baiting outright. Wonder if a ban can ever be effectively enforced??

Finally, with respect to the original question Yes and No. Many claim the deer are gone but I see a lot of contradicting info from across fence lines. Deer numbers are definitely down, but in my particular hunting area we could stand to bring the doe numbers down a tad more. Hunters definitely need to exercise good judgement on their harvest practices regardless of how many antlerless permits they can secure. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of brown its down mentality out there. 

Good luck the rest of the way to all!


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

good points Benelli.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Benelli, how about we let Letmgro explain it, instead of assuming it was "big-bodied". Plus what a load of crap and a good excuse you gave to somehow explain that it is alright for Letmgro and your brother to harvest a 2.5 year old but you will condem another hunter for taking a 5 point 2.5 year old and preach to them about letting them grow up-absolute no difference. Seems to me, your just saying everybody else should let young bucks go, but if a QDM supporter or hunter in your party shoots one, its OK because you can give reason for it. Seems to me we have some QDM people not following what they preach, because there is a hell of alot more ways to tell a mature big whitetail from a 2.5 year old than just big-bodied. 

And if planting food plots have a remote possibility to further spread disease, should we ban them too!?!?!


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

B&N, did you ever consider there may be a stable population of 2.5+ year old bucks in his area? How many bucks did he let go before he harvested that particular buck? How did that buck benefit the overall herd by being past over as a 1.5 year old?

let set something straight right now B&N and a few others, not one QDM supporter had "condemned" anyone for harvesting* ANY* deer. 

you on the other hand have gone out of your way to be critic of many QDM supporters, mainly myself. which is fine, but don't put yourself on a pedestal and constantly spread nothing but lies.

let me refresh your memory,


> Hey Jaime, saw that you took out your breeding buck with the 11 point big boy. Wouldn't have been wiser to let him go and harvest one of the many 2.5 year old bucks that you passed on, giving your area a more balanced age structure, hence a healthier herd that you preach??? And the thought of having that 11 point breeeder passing on better/healthier genes. B&N





> Beautiful points Beer and nuts.I kind of thought it was a bit two faced also Jamie. You should be whacking does like hell, and leave those big fellas since their so rare that rules and laws have to be changed to get more to that size. jimbos


i could fill the post with other condemnations, but why?

i guess the true hypocrits even believe their own b*llsh*t.

then they come on to a QDM forum and whine about not seeing any deer, as if it's our fault, and proceed to blast the first 1.5 year old buck that walks in front of them, 9 times out of 10 it's the only one seen.

maybe if there were more bucks around all the does would be breed during the first rut and there would be a few more deer around, ever cross your mind?

you guys may think that a single buck can go around and breed every last doe, i got news for you, it doesn't work that way.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

here is another suggestion for the ones claiming that the DNR is issuing too many antlerless permits and there are no deer left:

let the DNR do their job, they are the experts after all

and

if it's legal and you have the proper license and/or permits what's wrong with taking an animal legally thereby filling your tag, that is what we are out there to do, right?


sound familiar?


put a little garlic salt on that crow and pour yourself a big glass of ripple, it makes it easier to swallow.


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

I think the point we are trying to make is that the DNR are clueless.

Would you want them to manage the private property you hunt on?


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

in effect they do. 

do you think all my neighbors practice QDM? yeah right! do you think i own or have access to enough property to effectivily manage the deer herd in my area? i wish, but it doesn't stop me from doing what i know, in my heart, is right. 


my point is you can't have everything, you can't have a herd of 2 million deer and expect everything to be honky doory. you can't kill 80% of a particular age class of bucks and expect improvement. you can't have a harvest of deer that consists of 70+% males. you can't have a female population that out numbers the male population by 3,4,5 to 1.


at the mere mention mandatory antler restrictions and/or other mandatory QDM practices or QDM in general, people scream bloody murder. who are we to tell them how to hunt, what to harvest, etc., etc. "let the DNR manage the herd, they are the experts" "if QDM is so great, why haven't they instituted already", among other BS.


you wanted it you go it.

they issued a ton of antlerless permits in my area and there are plenty of deer, doesn't make sense, does it.


----------



## Brian S (Apr 5, 2002)

I don't think anyone here is so unreasonable as to "want everything". 

I don't want an overpopulation of deer.

I don't need to see 10 or 20 deer a day.

On the state land I hunt, we have never seen 10 or 20 deer a day, we have never had an overpopulation problem, we don't need to have the amount of doe permits that are available.

I'm concerned that the DNR is going to destroy the deer herd.

I've seen them do it to Oakland Co public land. There use to be a healthy population (NOT overpopulation) of deer there. Walk around there now after a fresh snow fall and you won't find many tracks. All because the DNR got liberal with doe permits.

Think about it for a minute. The state land in Oakland Co use to receive more hunting pressure than just about any state land around. Deer numbers were allready kept low by all the hunting pressure. Then the DNR starts giving out doe permits (started about 5 years ago). Now, there are so few deer that I rarely see hunters out there.

Now they are going to do that to the rest of the state.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

I'm critical, because of all the preaching I see on this QDM forum about how we are suppose to get a healthy herd by passing on young bucks, having a balanced herd and such. Only to find out about how the "preachers" are the ones contradicting themselves on what they harvest. 

Thats right jaime, please explain how you target the breeder buck, when you have a steady dose of 2.5 years running around, only to pass on them and target the one breeder buck on your property(agian I would be assuming its the only one kinda like you assume Letmgro and Bob have an abundance of 2.5 year running around too). Does not seem like a wise choice in order to get a balanced herd..right?!? 

I just would like a decent answer on why is it so different why they see it has OK to harvest 2.5 years old but preach a different story to others. 

Maybe some come to whine about not seeing deer because we have people like you telling people to whack more does...because its healthy for the herd.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

The idea of a single "breeder buck" is a popular misconception. Deer are not domesticated cattle. The experts will tell you that an adult buck is likely capable of breeding no more than 5 - 7 does during an entire season. That means, in most of Michigan, 1.5 year old bucks actively participate in the breeding process (until they get whacked, that is). 

BeerandNuts, you need to craft a better syllogism if you wish to argue that our QDM supporters are practicing something other than what they advocate. Try again.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

please tell me how harvesting does, passing on immature bucks and harvesting mature bucks is contradictory to QDM philosophy?

how do you know i only have one mature/breeder buck on my property? do you have some sort of satellite? if you do you should probably start using it on your property to locate these Northern deer who mysterioulsy disappear.

your questions have been answered so many times, it's trivial. do you have some sort of comprehension disorder?



> Why not let the young bucks grow-up to be breeders and let the cream come to the top. Jamies buck has already done his job and spread his genes throughout the herd. If he'd been taken out as a 1 1/2 year old, this wouldn't have happened.





> no, i left the 14 around to spread his genes for at least one more year and quess what, there are a couple dandy 8's and 10's just waiting to challenge his dominance. kind of like what is supposed to happen. see that's what happens when you practice QDM.and if you guys have a hard time reading, the doe kill on our property so far is 9, 2 by my gun. 9 does and one buck sounds like trophy hunting? LOL! i have cut down more timber this past winter and spring than i care to remember. but you guys don't want to here it, be honest.the true trophy hunters have already spoken by whacking 80% of the 1.5 year old bucks, actions do truly speak louder than words. say it ain't so!


all i have heard is "I want it to be my choice", "I don't wan't to be told what i can and can't shoot", blah, blah, blah.

you have had your choices now live with 'em.

increased doe harvest and the DNR are the last things you should be blaming, it starts by looking in the mirror. the individual is the one pulling the trigger, making the ultimate management decision.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

I have never seen Jamie slam anybodies particular buck.

I don't believe I have seen a pro-QDM'er flame a picture of someone's fork horn ever on this site.

Sorry, but you guys that are raggin on Jamie for shootin his buck have crossed the line.

It's one thing to debate and argue for fun, it's another thing to slam a fellow hunter and his buck.

bad karma for sure.

I think Jamie's 11 point is one hell of an accomplishment, and he shouldnt feel anything but proud as hell.

Amazing that some of you attempt to minimize and diminish that life accomplishment.

He did it with a bow to. 

Hunt


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

B&Ncouple of points, I never slammed anyone for harvesting a small buck of any age class anywhere on these forums.

2nd, I primarily spoke of my brothers deer, but the big body reference came as a result of Letmgro and I having shared a few photos and statistics like age and weight. Ill let Letmgro tell you what the DNR said when he checked his deer in terms of overall condition.

3rd I indicated a good sized 2.5 y.o. deer bodes well for the health of the deer herd. I do not see how you can surmise that someone like Jamie, letmgro, my bro sharing information about the harvest of 1 buck is somehow evidence that the "preachers are the ones contradicting themselves on what they harvest. We may have had 9 bucks hanging at our camp on opening day that could have been shot. We just took one over the whole opening weekend. Sorry we didnt ask for IDs before shooting, but it looks like we protected an overwhelming number of young bucksa primary goal of a QDM program!!! Through this practice at our place (in its official first year) we will help balance the age structure of the deer herd. Hope we can get the neighbors on board. Take a look at the stats from DMU 118 where the state has implemented their version of QDM over the first 3 years and note the age structure of deer harvested. Good scientific data and certainly impressive.

I do not anticipate instant results of a QDM program nor do I anticipate harvesting 5 year old bucks every year. Im stuck on the edge of 452 so healthy young deer like the one my brother shot this year without a ton of feed on neighboring properties is a very good sign for the future. I will continue to work toward maintaining a healthier and age/sex balanced herd in the area based on sound scientific data and habitat management practices unless I am convinced I am doing something "wrong". 

I wont even touch the food plot reference, then we may get spun in the direction of eliminating forage such as acorns too. But if you can find a good reference that discourages the planting of food plots with respect to disease / documented detriment to wild populations (not just deer), Ill certainly read them very carefully!

Hey, as I said in another thread I think we are on the same page with respect to concerns about management issues and habitat etc. Seems like I started reading somewhere on the bottom and you on the topor vice-versa. Hope we can meet in the middle of the page someday


----------

