# Northern Lower, deer numbers ARE down



## Bob S

I have to admit it. Deer numbers in the NLP are down. After shooting a nice fat doe this evening. Deer numbers are now lower than they were this afternoon. She field dressed at 116 lbs. Pretty good size doe for my area. Haven`t had her aged yet.

Deer sightings and harvests are both up on my QDM managed property over last year.


----------



## Grouse Hunter

Yes, numbers are way down. Individual health is way up. Doe I took in Southern Alpena county was 137 dressed. Saw 2 button bucks with more than 2" of bone. Sightings are way down, even over last year.


----------



## Adam Waszak

Down huh? Understatement of the year. I think in Baldwin they will start having deer contests not buck contests. I hope the southern boys are following this I hate to see the entire state end up with very few deer overall as the northern lower has.

AW


----------



## Ferg

Week of Nov 21-27 - 18 Car/Deer crashes Alcona county.

ferg....


----------



## Bob S

When I had my deer at the DNR office in Bay City this morning. There was a hunter there with a 2 1/2 year old 6pt and a 4 1/2 year old doe. Both were taken in Ogemaw County. Another NLP county with obviously no deer.

My doe was aged at 3 1/2.


----------



## Liver and Onions

Bob,
I hope that you were finally able to kill that final doe on your property...your hunting should be much improved come next year.

L & O


----------



## Swamp Ghost

Liver and Onions said:


> Bob,
> I hope that you were finally able to kill that final doe on your property...your hunting should be much improved come next year.
> 
> L & O


LOL! Plenty of room for the displaced bucks in the area.


----------



## bigmike

boy real surprise the # are down. I told people that oct. 15!!! car/deer crash is no way to tell deer #. I hunt deep state land and no deer here. WAKE UP PEOPLE SOMETHING IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! :sad:


----------



## Bob S

Liver and Onions said:


> Bob,
> I hope that you were finally able to kill that final doe on your property


I hope you realize I was being facetious with the deer numbers are down comment. In my first post in this thread I said deer sightings are up on my place this year. I will be back out this weekend. With any luck I`ll have a chance at getting another eating machine out of the population before winter.

The deer have not been wiped out in *ALL* areas of the NLP.


----------



## WILDCATWICK

We had one of our best deer camps in Emmett county that we ever had. I had seen more deer than in recent years. I guesse the deer just like me. I hunt state land that has an incredible amount of pressure. We do know where several of the major travle routs to their "sanctuaries" are. This really helps in seeing more deer. Doesn't mean theres more deer to see but they sure do get funneled right to us.


----------



## Letmgro

I would definately agree that the deer numbers are down within our co-op, in NE Alcona county. BUT, by no means are they gone. I feel that the numbers are probably close to where they actually should be in relation to the habitat, maybe a little less.

*...and this is a good thing!*

Finally, after years and years of inflated herd numbers, we've made progress. Now is the time for habitat improvements, while the deer numbers are in check, not a few years from now when the DNR once again will drop the ball in managing our herd, and forget all about the need for doe harvest.

Strange year; saw the fewest deer ever, yet I've seen more bucks than ever before. 

QDM working?


----------



## QDMAMAN

Strange year; saw the fewest deer ever, yet I've seen more bucks than ever before. 

Rob,
I had a simular experience seeing more bucks than does. I know QDM is working.
Check out the Malcuit buck on the virtual buck pole page. It came out of our co-op less than 1/2 mile north of my house. It green scored 180 7/8" gross.:yikes: 
I hunted that farm last weekend and saw 4 bucks Sat. a.m.
Big T


----------



## Buck Rogers

It was a strange year for us as well. Number of deer sightings were about the same or a little better than last year but last year we passed on over 30 bucks that were 1 1/2. This year we harvested 4 deer that were 3 1/2 or better (10, 9 and 2-8 points). But we saw very few 1 1/2 old bucks. Most were bigger deer. Not sure what to attribute this too. We have managed the property and put in several food plots over the last couple of years. Is it possible the all the big bucks have chased the small guys out of the county? Maybe the Winter Kill or Coyote's got many of last years fawns. Very Strange. Oh ya, this is in Presque Isle county where there isn't suppose to be any big bucks. Deer Managment does work. Let the small ones go and they will grow. Even in Northern Michigan. Fortunately for us all the neighbor's buy into the same philosophy.


----------



## Guest

Adam Waszak said:


> Down huh? Understatement of the year. I think in Baldwin they will start having deer contests not buck contests. I hope the southern boys are following this I hate to see the entire state end up with very few deer overall as the northern lower has.


You may have some problems in your particular area, but I don't think that the Baldwin area as a whole is too bad. I'm only a few miles from you and everybody by us is seeing a lot of deer. I also found out this week that a group that hunts 120 acres about a mile from us took 7 bucks opening morning. Kind of hard to say there are no deer in the area when you see what's going on around my camp. If there are ANY problems in the area I would say it has to do with camps taking 7 bucks in 120 acres in 1/2 of a day.


----------



## Luv2hunteup

I guess all areas of NE Michigan are not created equal. I hunted the Long Rapids area on 12/11. This is the first time since '96 that I hunted the area.

I saw deer off and on from noon time until dark. The most I had in front of me at one time was 17. The number of deer I saw did not amaze me but it was the size of these deer I found amazing. I was seeing mature does that were about the same size as some of the fawns that I see in the UP.

Too many deer are not a good thing. I hunted in farm land where you would think there would be an endless supply of food. Even though I had many deer sightings I did not see a single buck. I would much sooner hunt the UP where the deer numbers are lower but the size of the animals are larger.


----------



## Letmgro

QDMAMAN said:


> Check out the Malcuit buck on the virtual buck pole page. It came out of our co-op less than 1/2 mile north of my house. It green scored 180 7/8" gross.:yikes:
> I hunted that farm last weekend and saw 4 bucks Sat. a.m.
> Big T


I saw that buck, really impressive!

I firmly believe in QDM, but this year we've definately identified a problem in our 3000 acre co-op. We saw very, very few spikes, and forks. Most of the 6 points were yearlings, and got shot, because most follow the 3 pts to one side rule.

Why did we see so few spikes a forks? 

Less late born fawns one-and-a-half years ago, due to lower "doe" numbers, and much better food sources, (foodplots).

So the problem is; our yearling bucks are producing antlers with too many points, and we're shooting them.


----------



## Grouse Hunter

luv2,

That sounds like club country to me. They still have not got their numbers in check. I drove through a couple of these clubs and there are still lots of deer, but they look sickly.


----------



## Luv2hunteup

Grouse Hunter

No, it's not club country but it's private farmland where not too many people shoot does. To my knowledge there is not too many clubs in the Long Rapids area. I think most the clubs start south of 32 along 65.

Looking at the plat book it appears that a half section is a large parcel with many private 40s and 80s. From what I have seen they grow rocks. :lol: Seriously corn, beans and hay is what is being grown on most farms but to the north it's potatos.


----------



## johnhunter

...there are now no more deer living in Missaukee County. :lol: 

Good shooting, Bob.


----------



## johnhunter

Bob S said:


> The deer have not been wiped out in *ALL* areas of the NLP.


I personally know only two guys that hunted public land in the northern lower this season.

Surprise, surprise: they both tagged deer.


----------



## Sib

BSK said:


> Whoa! I knew I shouldn't have brought this topic up...
> 
> I'm just saying, what hunters see is *NOT* a good indicator of deer density.


Actually, I'm glad you brought this up. It's not everyday you get to have a question and answer session with someone who's job is to work with deer year round. BSK, your insight makes it easier to understand some of the moves our DNR has made. I appreciate you taking your time and presenting us with the management side of this highly emotional issue.  

Now I have a question for you BSK. If a sportsman had a hunch that deer numbers are down in his area and it's understandable that lack of sightings created this hunch, what would be the best way to confirm or dispel the sportsman's hunch in a scientific manner? What is the best way to ascertain an actual density from the layman's perspective? Or is this something that is a bit too complicated for the average nonprofessional to accomplish without proper training? 

Or, to look at it from yet a different perspective, how does the DNR get hunters to accept the DNR herd estimates when hunter observations don't _appear_ to support DNR numbers? I've always looked at the particular deer I hunt as falling under the 'Iceberg principal,' that is we only see the tip of the iceberg and the majority of the iceberg lies under the surface, so your comments about the deer's ability to conceal themselves made perfect sense. But something has changed for some of these people they're seeing even less of that visible part of the iceberg, I think that's the source of frustration. What evidence can the DNR offer to these hunters to support the DNR numbers when personal observations seem to conflict with DNR numbers? I'm hearing a lot of distrust, I think if we overcome this distrust we could all be on the same page. I think the best way to remove the distrust would be to work with hunters on deer numbers and try and educate hunters on the difference in deer sightings and deer numbers.

We seem to have an information gap here. There would seem to be two ways to bridge the gap, 1) we could educate hunters to better grasp deer densities beyond personal observations, or 2) the DNR could spend more effort to educate hunters on how the DNR numbers are arrived and support their numbers in a way the average hunter understands. But somehow we need to reconcile the differences between what hunters are seeing and what the DNR is saying.


----------



## Swamp Ghost

> We seem to have an information gap here. There would seem to be two ways to bridge the gap, 1) we could educate hunters to better grasp deer densities beyond personal observations, or 2) the DNR could spend more effort to educate hunters on how the DNR numbers are arrived and support their numbers in a way the average hunter understands. But somehow we need to reconcile the differences between what hunters are seeing and what the DNR is saying.


Excellent point, Sib.

The DNR is a public relations disaster.


----------



## TnRidge

Getting actual harvest data through mandatory check in , instead of estimates would be a step in the right direction for the DNR and hunters . This would show downward trends in deer harvest and antlerless permits could be adjusted accordingly . It works .


----------



## Whit1




----------



## Luv2hunteup

Numbers are even lower in NE Michigan since Saturday evening. Our group took 2 does, lost one the coyotes and I managed to get a nice 8pt, all Sunday morning. 

The wind was howling out of the north with tons of wind blown snow. Air temps were well below zero and the deer were on the move. Everyone saw deer but not all were able to get a shot. It was the coldest day of the season but it was like opening day all over again. We had a blast in more ways than one.

I'll post a pic of two when I get time.


----------



## BSK

Sib,

Great post and thanks for the vote of confidence (really!). Photo censusing is currently the most accepted way of censusing deer herds in local conditions. Unfortunately, state wildlife agencies don't have the man-power or money to be conducting a lot of these.

If they really wanted to try, I would recommend they use a random generator to prode several lat/long coordinates across a given area then run square mile photo censuses (requiring 4 cameras for each census) each year at those locations at exactly the same time of year using exactly the same methodology each time. This wouldn't produce accurate deer density numbers for the entire state but it would be good *hard evidence* of what _trends_ are going on out there.

I still personally question the deer *density* numbers collected by photo censusing, but at least those numbers are very accurate _trend_ indicators (i.e. I don't trust the exact number of deer counted as a real measure of the true deer density figure, but I feel the trend values are very accurate).


----------



## BSK

BuckBass said:


> Sorry, I should have explained that better. I agreed with the fact that there is a perception in my area that numbers are down, but what I have personally observed (first-hand and camara survey) is that the deer have simply turned nocturnal. I was NOT agreeing that my camara surveys have shown a lowered density. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> Brad


Well, there ya' go. Deer observation rates down, but trail cameras showing about the same number of deer.

I see that all the time.

As for those who still say I'm nuts, the one set of conditions under which I do give creadance to deer observation rates is when *nothing* has changed for a number of years. There have been no changes in the local habitat. There have been no changes in season dates, lengths or bag limits. There has been no change in hunter density or hunting style. If nothing has changed over the past few years, then deer observation rates may track actual deer numbers. But rarely do you find that situation. The one constant of Nature is change.


----------



## Grouse Hunter

Gotta love armchair biologists.

The state already has a ton of indices it uses to monitor TRENDS in populations. Car/deer crashes are an example of an index. These are corrected for increases in traffic. There are many others.


----------



## madmike

I would have to agree with you guys on overall deer numbers in my area (Western U.P.). Last year it was not uncommon for me to count 25 deer between my hunting property and my uncle's cabin about six miles. This year I often saw none or only one or two. Although on the flip side I did a lot of habitat improvoment on my land and saw three bucks two of which I shot. A lot of guys up there were complainig about the wolves so maybe that played a role.


----------



## Bluegill Bob

Thanks guys
By reading this thread I have learned a lot about the deer and myself in my area. I have learned even though I have hunted for deer in MI for the last 47 yrs and only got skunked one year. I am retired and I actually live in a log house in the middle of the woods surrounded by lakes and more woods and swamps but I know virtually nothing about deer because I only spend 365 days a year in their habitat instead of being in an office in Lansing or living in another state and read a lot of books written by other pencil pushers of how to make phony statistics with real HARD EVIDENCE. I find that even though I used to be able to hunt and see 30 or often more a day and now I very seldom see one at all, and I could look out my window everyday and see deer eating my clover & other food I plant for them (plus my garden) and now I very seldom see any or their sign, its not that there are less deer its just that I am just to bad of a hunter and to stupid to learn their ways. 
Now I understand that they only come out at night and then they fly so they dont leave tracks and they dont eat anymore either so naturally they dont poop. How could I have been so uninformed? Thank you very much for the knowledge you people who dont hunt here or most likely have not been within miles of my area, but are experts on it, letting me know that when I go out in my back yard tomorrow I better wear my hard hat because I may be trampled by the many herds of invisible deer stampeding in my woods. 
I also now understand that even though I don't hunt the UP I am now qualified to tell the residents of the UP that the wolf is their deer's best friend.


----------



## pacer88220

Of all threads that should be closed this is open? hmmmm
Seeing it is think of this. When it rains it pours when it's dry it's usually hot.
When deer sighting's are down we blame everything......


----------



## Whit1

This thread is still open because, while there is disagreement, the conversations have been quite civil, even humorous from time to time. For the most part it has remained on topic as well which is very unusual for a thread of this length.

Bill and I read this, and other threads in this forum every day, keeping up with what's going on.

Bluegill Bob, your sentiments express mine as well. Your post, while strongly disagreeing with some others in this thread was well written, all beit sarcastic, and I found humor in it.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Bluegill Bob said:


> I have learned even though I have hunted for deer in MI for the last 47 yrs


Rookie! :lol:


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

I can relate to what BSK is saying...not that hunters don't have a good handle of what is going on, but the part about sex ratios and number of bucks is almost always going to off...sometimes way off! Like I said, I range from seeing about 1/3 to 2/3 of the local bucks while hunting, that I have photos of from the 1000 or so photos I get for around 8 months of the year. 2.5 year old bucks or older are even less of a percentage when you just look at that age class. After harvesting around 20, 2.5 year old bucks or older in several states-ALWAYS unguided on do-it-yourself hunts, I'd like to think I'm no rookie myself in patterning and successfully havesting mature/older bucks. Yet, I still only see roughly 1/2 the bucks in the area with my own eyes while hunting.

Yes, the deer herd is down, yes there are many areas that should not have additional doe harvest, yes there are probably many areas under state DNR, "guesstimates", but in general there are usually many more bucks out there than you see, not matter who the hunter, and sex ratios are usually much better than they appear, on just about any property of any size. I'm not saying there is a mature buck around every tree....but there can be a lot more even yearlings than you think if cameras are not being used.


----------



## TnRidge

Maybe the unsuccessfull hunters should be hunting for new ground ,or trying new tactics instead of relying on traditional areas that were good 20 years ago . If the herd density is lower were you hunt ,get off your butts and find a new place to hunt with a herd density that satisfies you !
Deer aren't everywhere ,and they places that produced deer years ago ,may not be worth a crap now . Don't rely on tradition and what worked in the past ,get out there and scout some new ground where the deer are ,even if it requires a drive of an hour or more to get there .
You can sit in front of a computer all day long and over analize the deer herd size ,or you can get out and find a new place to hunt .

I might live out of state now ,but I grew up in lower Mi. back in the 70's and 80's . After Thanksgiving , I swore there wern't any deer left were I hunted due to the intense gun hunting pressure . Were they there ? Yes , but they became nocturnal very quickly and changed locations to avoid the hunting pressure .

In Tn. we have areas in East Tn. with very low deer density levels . Many of the hunters travel to middle Tn. where the density is higher along with the success rate ,and liberalized doe harvest that the area can support .

If the hunting is that bad in the U.P. ,you can bet that many hunters won't bother hunting up there anymore ,and will focus their efforts in the L.P. 
Eventually ,the deer herd should increase in size due to the lack of hunting pressure .


----------



## BSK

NorthJeff,

After looking at my own data and having talked to others that are running long-term photo censuses, your experiences with photographed bucks versus what you see while hunting is very common. Most report seeing approximately 50% of the bucks they have photographed on their property. And as you mentioned, the older the age-class of buck, the lower the percentage of that population that will be observed. Generally hunters will see the majority of yearling bucks photographed, but very few of the near mature or mature bucks photographed. On average, the older the buck, the harder he is too see and harvest.

A question, have your deer sighting rates perfectly matched the change in population density and herd structure you have experienced on your property?

As I mentioned, we have been trying to triple the deer density on my place. And at that we have been very successful. In fact, the density is a bit more than tripled. Yet our over-all deer sighting rates have *declined* slightly from when we had three times fewer deer. If I was to go by my impressions, I would say we had slightly fewer deer. During that herd explosion, our doe sighting rates have been on a steady decline, last year hitting all time lows at the same time that the actual doe density hit all-time highs. If I went by my perceptions, I would say our unrelenting harvest pressure on the does had finally wiped them out. Yet the reality is they are at all-time highs.

I'm not trying to say hunters are idiots or don't know what they're talking about when it comes to deer densities. I'm just relating my experiences having worked with hunters and deer herds all across the Eastern U.S. Time and again I talk to hunters that have incorrect impressions about what is going on with their deer herds (after I have had the opportunity to really look at or study the habitat/deer herd they are hunting). That doesn't mean I haven't worked with hunters that had a very good handle on the local deer herd. I have.

But what am I to do? Lie and say, "Oh yes, if you are seeing less deer then you certainly have less deer." It doesn't work that way, and if I didn't relate my experiences truthfully I would be doing a disservice to this topic, even though I *know* my comments will piss a lot of people off.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

BSK,

I'd say my bowhunting observations have mirrored very well the changes in population. For example, when I started hunting the property and there were very, very few deer, I'd see closer to a sighting every 4 sits(around 25%)...about the same as hunting public land nearby. Now, I have more like 2 sightings for every 3 sits (around 67%), with a huge increase in number of bucks the last 2 years. I also see more deer while walking around, even though the property is full of cover. In fact, this year I saw bucks several times...basically more this year than all the other years combined. I also had several close incounters with multi-tined yearling bucks...good 4-pts., 5's, and 6's that makes me wonder if more yearling bucks are growing up on the property and benifiting from the high quality forage...hope so.

Gun season...well, that's a different story...but I believe strongly there are other issues for that.


----------



## SR-Mechead

TnRidge said:


> Maybe the unsuccessfull hunters should be hunting for new ground ,or trying new tactics instead of relying on traditional areas that were good 20 years ago . If the herd density is lower were you hunt ,get off your butts and find a new place to hunt with a herd density that satisfies you !
> Deer aren't everywhere ,and they places that produced deer years ago ,may not be worth a crap now . Don't rely on tradition and what worked in the past ,get out there and scout some new ground where the deer are ,even if it requires a drive of an hour or more to get there .
> You can sit in front of a computer all day long and over analize the deer herd size ,or you can get out and find a new place to hunt .
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with what you are saying ,but hunting state land can be a hazard to your health. Look where I live now. I would love to go and find new land in Wisconsin to hunt ,but it would be my luck on openng day I would screw someone up who has been hunting the area for 30 years . Not my style of hunting. I have done my homework in Mich and hopefully someone from Lansing will start to take action and help bring the herd back a little bit. I don't think that the hunters want to see a 100 deer a day, but a few would not be asking to much. I"m going home over Christmas and I hope to get out and see if something walks by.
> 
> .


----------



## TnRidge

SR-Mechead , It doesn't have to be State Land . There are far better opportunities on private land , if hunters will just get out there ,do their homework and knock on some doors in the offseason ,and not wait untill the last minute to find new ground .
Leasing is also an option ,and may allow a group to manage the habitat ,along with the harvest on a larger tract , better than public land or a small private tract .


----------



## SR-Mechead

TnRidge said:


> SR-Mechead , It doesn't have to be State Land . There are far better opportunities on private land , if hunters will just get out there ,do their homework and knock on some doors in the offseason ,and not wait untill the last minute to find new ground .
> Leasing is also an option ,and may allow a group to manage the habitat ,along with the harvest on a larger tract , better than public land or a small private tract .



I can agree with your statement and I will look into it this coming year because its retirement time in May and I'm going home :lol:


----------



## BSK

*...but I believe strongly there are other issues for that.*

And that's the point. "Other issues" can effect what deer you see, and often what you see is not representative of what is out there.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

Exactly right BSK, but I went an entire year and bowseason knowing what was there, so it makes it even more evident as to what is going on when they aren't.

Bottom line, though, U.P. deer harvest is down several years in a row now...it's not that the deer are hiding from everybody...numbers are indeed down and the proof is in the harvest. Not on my property...but on many others.


----------



## BSK

In my state, harvest numbers are driven by food sources. If there is a good acorn crop, deer are in the woods and harvest numbers decline. If there is a poor acorn crop, deer move to open fields ringed by hunters, and harvest numbers go up.


----------



## Guest

BSK said:


> In my state, harvest numbers are driven by food sources. If there is a good acorn crop, deer are in the woods and harvest numbers decline. If there is a poor acorn crop, deer move to open fields ringed by hunters, and harvest numbers go up.


So what would you say if I told you that this year Michigan had the biggest acorn crop I have seen in the past 12-15 years? Maybe that explains some of the low observation numbers this year...


----------



## Sib

BuckBass said:


> So what would you say if I told you that this year Michigan had the biggest acorn crop I have seen in the past 12-15 years? Maybe that explains some of the low observation numbers this year...


This maybe true where you hunt, but acorn production was way down compared to the 2003 season in my area. Infact, it was a fraction compared to 2003.


----------



## TnRidge

BuckBass said:


> So what would you say if I told you that this year Michigan had the biggest acorn crop I have seen in the past 12-15 years? Maybe that explains some of the low observation numbers this year...


 A heavy mast crop of acorns will produce the lowest deer sightings and deer harvest numbers because the deer do not have to travel far to feed . In some areas ,deer can feed and bed in the same area without moving at all .


----------



## Guest

Sib said:


> This maybe true where you hunt, but acorn production was way down compared to the 2003 season in my area. Infact, it was a fraction compared to 2003.


We have never seen anywhere near this number of acorns. There are *still* several trees on my property in Newaygo county that have acorns hanging from them. There was also a heavy crop here in Ottawa county where I live.


----------



## BSK

In addition, acorns digest very slowly. Deer are "triggered" to feed (feel hungry) as their stomachs empty. If they are eat in cut-over ag. fields, the food digests faster and they feed and move more often and usually longer distances (depending on habitat layout). When they are feeding on acorns, they feed less frequently, move less often, and usually have to move shorter distances, all reducing observability and harvestability.


----------



## QDMAMAN

BSK,

I never new that about the digestability of acorns. Thanks for the info! 

Big T


----------



## SR-Mechead

TnRidge said:


> A heavy mast crop of acorns will produce the lowest deer sightings and deer harvest numbers because the deer do not have to travel far to feed . In some areas ,deer can feed and bed in the same area without moving at all .



That may be true but with the amount of bird hunters and bow hunters in the woods you would think they would beable to move the deer and someone would see them, or you would see tracks crossing the road. The area where I have hunted in past years you would see rubs and scraps all over . Not this past year. The area had a good acorn crop. Where my cottage is when we had acorns the deer would be in the front yard, again not this year. Point blank the numbers are down from other years.


----------



## TnRidge

BSK said:


> In addition, acorns digest very slowly. Deer are "triggered" to feed (feel hungry) as their stomachs empty. If they are eat in cut-over ag. fields, the food digests faster and they feed and move more often and usually longer distances (depending on habitat layout). When they are feeding on acorns, they feed less frequently, move less often, and usually have to move shorter distances, all reducing observability and harvestability.


 Good info .BSK, I'm wondering if the slow digesting of acorns is why I see fewer deer feeding on acorns in the evening compared to the morning hours ? They spend all night and part of the morning feeding on acorns ,and they are still digesting them in the afternoon .


----------



## Buckmaster Flash

Some here might be extremely knowledgeable about deer biology, but do these people realize how arrogant they come accross when they try to tell someone what the state of the deer herd is in his or her particular area, when more than likely they have no clue what the carry capacity or deer numbers are in that area. Because you planted a couple food plots, read a couple books, and shot a couple does in your area, doesn't make you an expert in my area. Hate to break it to yah fellas. It really makes it difficult to take you guys seriously. 

Let's see, we have the DNR which in last weeks Detroit Free Press was quoted as saying the deer densities in the NLP and UP have declined drastically. "Drastically" is the word used in the article, not my word, but I would agree with that given what I have heard from numerous NLP and UP hunters. Also, the majority of hunters in the NLP have expressed concerns about the deer herd being down rather significantly. Ok, so you have the DNR saying the deer numbers are down drastically, and more importantly, a large percentage of the people that actually hunt these lands saying the numbers are down rather signifcantly in recent years, but you have some guys on this site that are so arrogant that they continue to imply that hunters havn't a clue how many deer there are on the land they have hunted for decades. One guy went as far as to say a game cam picture of a mature book that was never seen by the landowner actually proved some point. No kidding a lot of the deer in a given area are rarely or never seen by hunters or landowners. That has always been the case. It is not a recent phenomenon. That's hunting 101. We all realize that. 

Quote from BSK I believe.
"I still personally question the deer density numbers collected by photo censusing, but at least those numbers are very accurate trend indicators (i.e. I don't trust the exact number of deer counted as a real measure of the true deer density figure, but I feel the trend values are very accurate)."

Exactly, the trend is the best indicator. In any given day, week, month, season, various factors can possibly affect the absolute figures observed by people in the field. The numbers from one year are somewhat irrelevant. The trend is the key and I totally agree. YOU FEEL THAT TREND VALUES ARE VERY ACCURATE, and so do the NLP and UP hunters, because the low deer numbers reported in the many areas didn't just show themselves in 2004, this decline in the deer herd has been happening for more than just a couple years now. For the last however many years, many in the NLP and the UP have seen a rather steady decline in their yearly deer observations, being from hunting, looking out there back window in the summer, driving the country roads in the off season etc, but yet you some of you guys still insist that the NLP and UP hunters and the DNR are mistake despite overwhelming evidence. Yeah, I realize some guys still have a lot of deer on there properties in the NLP and UP, but generally speaking the deer densities as a whole are way down, and in many cases, what appears to be below the carrying capacity of the land. I have more to say. maybe later, but I got to go right now.


----------



## Guest

Buckmaster Flash said:


> Some here might be extremely knowledgeable about deer biology, but do these people realize how arrogant they come accross when they try to tell someone what the state of the deer herd is in his or her particular area, when more than likely they have no clue what the carry capacity or deer numbers are in that area.





Buckmaster Flash said:


> Yeah, I realize some guys still have a lot of deer on there properties in the NLP and UP, but generally speaking the deer densities as a whole are way down, and in many cases, what appears to be below the carrying capacity of the land.


Don't you see how the last statement contridicts the first statement? You say that some folks come across as arrogant when they try to say what the state of the deer herd is in a particular area but that they have no clue what the carrying capacity or deer numbers actually are. Yet you say that "generally speaking" and "in many cases" the herd appears to be below the carrying capacity of the land. Does that mean that you have the skills to determine herd numbers and carrying capacities in areas you aren't familiar with? Isn't that what you were complaining about in the first statement?




Buckmaster Flash said:


> Because you planted a couple food plots, read a couple books, and shot a couple does in your area, doesn't make you an expert


Speaking of arrogant! Wow. I suppose that you are much more qualified than the rest of us. There are several people who participate on this forum that have impressive credentials relating to deer management priciples. Also, it isn't the food plots and doe kills that make experts. BUT, the priciples of QDM are supported by reams and reams of experimental data, not emotion and tradition like other management strategies rely on.


----------



## Bob S

Buckmaster Flash said:


> No kidding a lot of the deer in a given area are rarely or never seen by hunters or landowners. That has always been the case. It is not a recent phenomenon. That's hunting 101.


But yet you want us to believe the deer numbers are down because the guys who hunt in those areas don`t see the deer. You even admit there are a lot of deer in those areas that are not seen by hunters. "A lot of deer", those are your exact words.


----------



## Buckmaster Flash

I'll have to keep this short for now. Buckbass, when I referred to "they" I meant the people that are trying to tell (yourself, etc) everyone else how many deer that they have on land, land that you or your your ilk has never stepped foot on. Can you tell me how you know what the vast majority of hunters in the NLP and UP are experiencing as far as deer numbers and carrying capacity are concerned given that you have never stepped foot on their property? You must be like santa with an infrared camera endlessly cruising through the night over the NLP and UP taking a census. You better get those reindeer back to santa by friday or there are going to be a lot of unhappy kids out there. I'm just curious how you have gained this vast knowlegdge, especially considering it is contrary to what most are experiencing.


----------



## Buckmaster Flash

Bob S said:


> But yet you want us to believe the deer numbers are down because the guys who hunt in those areas don`t see the deer. You even admit there are a lot of deer in those areas that are not seen by hunters. "A lot of deer", those are your exact words.


Your missing the point. There have always been a good amount of deer that people don't see, that is the way of the wily whitetail. There have always been some deer that people don't see, but people still saw a fair amount of the deer until the essentially unlimited doe permit intiative undertaken in many parts of the NLP and UP that has decimated the herd in many areas.

Please tell me fellas, why is it that you guys see so many deer and the vast majority of the NLP and UP don't. Oh, I forgot, your hunting skills, which obviously the majority of us lack. Can you please let me know when you will be holding your next seminar. You guys should be happy about what you have (an area will good deer number) rather than telling the rest of us we are a bunch of imbeciles.

I see that you conveniently didn't address the trend issue. Hmm, I wonder why?


----------



## Buckmaster Flash

Almost forgot, if your going to do a census santa, you better watch out for those deer, cause they must have gone airborn. Given that many havn't seen any deer sign or tracks in areas that used to have a lot of both, and if the deer numbers are still high like you claim, they clearly have adapted and have taken to the skies. I wonder if they fly in a V formation like a migratory waterfowl species. Hmm.... That's one for the experts. Be careful out there.


----------



## Bob S

Buckmaster Flash said:


> Please tell me fellas, why is it that you guys see so many deer and the vast majority of the NLP and UP don't. Oh, I forgot, your hunting skills, which obviously the majority of us lack.


I hunt in the NLP and deer sightings and harvests were up on my property this year. Maybe you are right about our hunting skills.


----------



## Luv2hunteup

Click Here For Pic 

btw, this was a last day picture and not all the hunters were here at this time.


----------



## TnRidge

WOW ! nice bucks Luv2huntup ! It's nice to know that some of you guys can still whack a few nice uns' up there !


----------



## Luv2hunteup

*Quote by Buckmaster Flash*


> Can you please let me know when you will be holding your next seminar.


Keep tabs on the deer management forum or the mid Michigan QDMA website. Ed Spin will be putting on another food plot seminar. He has a great food plot book out right now and plans on another one in the not too distant future. I'll be buying that one too.

Other good reads include "Grow 'Em Right" and "Deer Management 101". 

It's no accident that we have some good years while others don't. Better habitats will almost always contain more deer. My signature includes a big hint.


----------



## TnRidge

BSK also does a few seminars ,and has also co-authored a book with Dr. Grant Woods on Deer management . Maybe I'll be able to pick up an autographed copy at the Tndeer rendevous .


----------



## Guest

Buckmaster Flash said:


> I'll have to keep this short for now. Buckbass, when I referred to "they" I meant the people that are trying to tell (yourself, etc) everyone else how many deer that they have on land, land that you or your your ilk has never stepped foot on. Can you tell me how you know what the vast majority of hunters in the NLP and UP are experiencing as far as deer numbers and carrying capacity are concerned given that you have never stepped foot on their property? You must be like santa with an infrared camera endlessly cruising through the night over the NLP and UP taking a census. You better get those reindeer back to santa by friday or there are going to be a lot of unhappy kids out there. I'm just curious how you have gained this vast knowlegdge, especially considering it is contrary to what most are experiencing.


I have never claimed to know about any property other than the land included in a 2-3 mile radius from my own property. What my peeve is when people like you make bold statements about the status of the deer herd in the majority of the state when you yourself know nothing about the carrying capacities and density numbers for the majority of that region. Are you the one taking infrared surveys from Santa's sleigh? If not how can claim to know the deer number across the NLP and UP? And you can't cite example of other hunters claiming the numbers are down because for everyone you find to say that I can find one that say the numbers are the same or higher.


----------



## BSK

Buckmaster Flash wrote:
*Some here might be extremely knowledgeable about deer biology, but do these people realize how arrogant they come accross when they try to tell someone what the state of the deer herd is in his or her particular area, when more than likely they have no clue what the carry capacity or deer numbers are in that area.*

Buckmaster,

I don't know if that comment was intended for me or not, but once again let me clarify my point. I'm not saying the herd density is or isn't up or down. If the DNR has data indicating the herd density is way down in some areas, so be it.

The point I'm trying to make is that deer sightings are not a good indicator of deer density, and that's *ALL* I'm trying to say. I'm just giving other hunters/managers the "heads up" that deer sightings are a poor indicator of herd density. Just through personal experience, as well as data from other managers, I see so many instances of deer sightings declining that had no relationship to herd density. At the same time I see instances when deer sighting increased but there was no real increase in herd density. I can also show examples of increasing deer sightings in a declining herd, and declining deer sightings in a increasing herd.

That's the only point I'm trying to make is--what you see is not *necessarily* representative of what is out there. I'm just trying to warn other hunters/managers not to use sighting rates as a measure of herd density because plenty of hard data proves that deer sighting rates don't always track herd density. It just isn't a good "indicator."


----------



## BSK

TnRidge said:


> Good info .BSK, I'm wondering if the slow digesting of acorns is why I see fewer deer feeding on acorns in the evening compared to the morning hours ? They spend all night and part of the morning feeding on acorns ,and they are still digesting them in the afternoon .


TnRidge,

That is a general pattern. When deer are feeding on acorns, it commonplace to see the highest deer sighting rates in the morning, and when deer are feeding on browse or agricultural crops to see the highest sighting rates in the evening. Not an absolute, but a general pattern.


----------



## Bob S

*Ed Spin will be putting on another food plot seminar.*

Ed will have food plot seminars at the following outdoor shows.

Huntin` Time Expo, Birch Run. February 4,5,6.

Deer & Turkey Spectacular, Lansing. February 11,12,13.

Huntin` Time Expo, Grand Rapids, February 18,19,20.

MUCC Outdoorama, Novi. February 23-27.

Michigan State University has also asked us(QDMA) to help them with a food plot day. We are working on the details now. If this happens, it would most likely be sometime in August.


----------



## Buckmaster Flash

Bob S said:


> I hunt in the NLP and deer sightings and harvests were up on my property this year. Maybe you are right about our hunting skills.


Wow, the arrogance of some of you guys will certainly not help you win converts to QDM. You guys come accross more like a cult rather than an organized group. Don't drink to much kool-aid. Tell yah what, I have thought the state might do well to start a QDM/antler restriction type program, but you guys scare me. BSK is the only one that even attempts to present a reasonable arguement of the whole bunch of yah. That said, BSK is still hypothesizing on deer densities and the trend in deer densities in the NLP and UP of in recent years, when BSK has probably never set foot on Michgian soil. 

Contrary to to what Buckbass indicates, those that have experienced a dramatic downward trend in deer sightings in recent years appears to far outnumber those that have seen stable or increasing deer densities. Talk to various shop owners, tackle shops, butchers, people that live up there year round all over the UP and NLP. Most will tell you that the deer numbers have been trending down rather signifcantly in recent years, These people far outnumber those that indicate the densities are stable or up. 

Heck, you guys were the one's that always use the 1.7 to 1.8 million deer herd estimate used by the DNR for the past several years to prove that the deer numbers are not down in Michigan. Well since you have so much faith in the DNR, you guys must certainly believe that the deer densities are down DRASTICALLY in the NLP and UP because that is what the DNR is now saying. They finally acknowledged what most of us knew was rather obvious, buy buckbass and bobs still insist that because the deer numbers are not down in there area, they can't be down anywhere else. Gotta love that logic.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis

This is a pretty generalized statement, but this will be fairly reflective of why some people see lots of deer, and others don't.

For the most part, if you own your own land and practice at least moderate habitat improvement activities, you will be much more likely to see more deer. 
If you own your own land and do very little habitat improvement, or hunt on public land, deer numbers may be pretty poor. 84% of the U.P. is public land, and no not every area has a low deer populations, in fact most in the southern U.P. are probably too high, but the rest can be pretty lean at times and if harvest numbers have any meaning, then the deer herd has been shrinking for several years in a row in most of the U.P....maybe not on Luv2's property or mine, but on most.

Another thing...maybe the problem with low deer numbers is because that is where all the skilled hunters hunt...they shot them all!


----------



## Guest

Buckmaster Flash said:


> buy buckbass and bobs still insist that because the deer numbers are not down in there area, they can't be down anywhere else. Gotta love that logic.


Buckmaster Flash still insists that because the deer numbers are down in his area, that they must be down everywhere else. Gotta love that logic.


----------



## Buckmaster Flash

NorthJeff said:


> Another thing...maybe the problem with low deer numbers is because that is where all the skilled hunters hunt...they shot them all!


Right on. I was going to make that very point, but I forgot. That is the problem, most NLP and UP hunters are to darn good for their own good. 
I wonder what that says about the hunting skills of guys in the NLP and UP that still have high deer numbers. So, I guess that means if you still have 


Buckbass, the big difference is you are giving me your opinion. I am largely basing my point on what countless NLP deer hunters have been stating for several years now, and that your Michigan DNR has finally acknowledged it (the drastic reduction in deer densities in the NLP and UP). How can you be so arrogant as to sit here and say that the vast majority of NLP hunter and your Michigan DNR are wrong, but you are right because you got a couple to many does on your property. WHY ARE YOU SO MUCH SMARTER THAN THE MAJORITY OF NLP HUNTERS AND MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE ABOUT THE NLP THAN YOUR OWN MICHIGAN DNR. Its hard to take you guys seriously.


----------



## Bob S

Buckmaster Flash said:


> when BSK has probably never set foot on Michgian soil.


Actually he has. His boss, Dr. Grant Woods, was also on a QDM managed property in the NE lower peninsula this fall. So, maybe BSK knows more about Michigan hunters and NLP deer than you give him credit.


----------



## Sib

Buckmaster Flash said:


> BSK is the only one that even attempts to present a reasonable arguement of the whole bunch of yah. That said, BSK is still hypothesizing on deer densities and the trend in deer densities in the NLP and UP of in recent years, when BSK has probably never set foot on Michgian soil.


I agree that BSK is one of the best advocates for QDM I've read around here and he does so in an inclusive manner, which is the best approach from a PR standpoint. But I think your being a little unfair by putting words into his mouth when you say he's _'hypothesizing on deer densities and the trend in deer densities'_ I think he's been very clear in this thread about what he is saying. This pretty much summed up his contribution to this thread:


BSK said:


> That's the only point I'm trying to make is--what you see is not *necessarily* representative of what is out there.


Whether he's stepped foot in this state our not is irrelevant, as he's not assessing property, or habitat. What he's shared is only that certain observations are not the best indicator to determine deer density.

Here's an analogy: we may not know the temperature in Phoenix today, but we all know how the metorologist is going to determine the temperature in Phoenix, he's going to use a thermometer. BSK isn't saying he knows the temp, he's only commenting what the best tools are for determining that temperature.


----------



## Whit1

This thread has had 131 replies and 2,522 views. The mods have only had to do a bit of moderating during all of this discussion.

The input of all you guys and gals is valuable to this and any other thread on the site. I may agree with some of what is said and I may disagree, even having to count to "ten" now and then.........  :lol:, but that doesn't make what I think "right" or what someone else things "wrong". This is a healthy discussion.

Joe mentioned the word "compromise" and I agree with him. The "My way or the highway" attitude is what divides us when we need to come together.

Thanks again to all the members who have posted in this thread, expressing your ideas, and disagreeing in a civil, for the most part, manner.

My hat is off to you all.


----------



## Bob S

Whit1 said:


> This thread has had 131 replies


This is the only thread I have ever started that has surpassed 100 posts. COOL! Thanks to the moderators for allowing it to continue.



Whit1 said:


> Joe mentioned the word "compromise" and I agree with him. The "My way or the highway" attitude is what divides us when we need to come together.


Kind of like the compromise I have with my neighbors. We let the spikes go, and they shoot them. They let the does pass, and we shoot them. Funny thing is. We put more deer in the freezer every year than they do.


----------



## Whit1

BobS started this thread? Heck, if I'd known that (remembered actually) I'd have shut it down a long time ago............  :lol: ...........kidding of course!! This has been a real "keeper" Bob.


----------



## BSK

Buckmaster Flash wrote:
*That said, BSK is still hypothesizing on deer densities and the trend in deer densities in the NLP and UP of in recent years, when BSK has probably never set foot on Michgian soil.*

Buckmaster,

I have to hypothesize. Even if I had detailed data from 50 projects in MI (and I don't), due to "why" I would have that data (privately managed property--the herd dynamics and density would be different on the privately managed properties than on Traditionally managed properties) that data would not be representative of the whole state, nor would it be representative of just down the road. Herd dynamics and density can vary dramatically across very short geographic distances. In fact, I've seen it vary dramatically from one end to the other on the same property.

I'm just trying to point out what *is* and *is not* a good indicator to use for tracking herd density and composition. Photo censuses are very good. Observation rates are not.

By the way, I have been in MI recently, but I haven't set foot in the UP since I was a kid (my family is all from WI).


----------



## Buckmaster Flash

BSK, I realize that you are extremely knowlegeable about deer biology. Your point is well taken. On a site by site or property by property basis deer sightings may not necessarily be a good indicator of herd densities. I see how that can apply to the individual property owner(s)/hunter(s). I just don't see how that point applies when you are talking about an area as large as the NLP or UP, given that this threads topic is the discussion of whether deer numbers are down or not in the NLP, not on one particular property.

My point is this, we are not talking about one site or one property, we are talking about vast expanses of the NLP. Were not talking about John Doe saying the deer numbers are trending down on his back 40, we are talking about a large majority of John Does saying the deer numbers have trended down signicantly in recent years. To me, that many people saying the same thing means something. Its a statistical impossibility that they all underestimated their deer densities. Even if only half of the people that said deer densities were down were right, it would still represent a rather noticeable decline in deer densities. I guess my final point is this, the fact that some landowners or deer hunters underestimate deer densities on there own property doesn't indicate anything about the state of NLP deer densities. What one or 100 deer hunters say about the deer densities on their land means nothing in relation to overall NLP deer densities, but what the the majority of NLP hunters are saying indicates a lot about the trend in deer densities in the NLP. 

Despite what some here have indicated, the majority of NLP hunters have experienced a signicant downward trend in deer densities and the DNR acknowleges the drastic reduction in deer densities in the NLP. Seems like every year for the past few, the general theme of any article written about deer hunting season in Michigan is about deer hunters complaining about low deer numbers in the NLP and how the SLP is the place to be. It didn't always used to be this way. That said, I still know there are some places with decent deer densities in the NLP, but a heck of a lot less than their used to be.


----------



## Letmgro

Buckmaster Flash said:


> Seems like every year for the past few, the general theme of any article written about deer hunting season in Michigan is about deer hunters complaining about low deer numbers in the NLP and how the SLP is the place to be. It didn't always used to be this way. That said, I still know there are some places with decent deer densities in the NLP, but a heck of a lot less than their used to be.


You're right BMF, the numbers are lower. But the ONLY reason hunters are complaining is because they can't let go of the 90's! Way too many deer back then, and many hunters feel that that's the way it's always suppose to be...WRONG!

Ten + years of habitat destruction!

Get use to the lower numbers, hopefully we never see that kind of destruction again!


----------



## Buckmaster Flash

Luv2hunteup said:


> Click Here For Pic
> 
> btw, this was a last day picture and not all the hunters were here at this time.


Meant to respond to that picture. Wow, that is truly impressive. I don't care if that is the SLP, NLP, or UP, that is one impressive harvest. It may have no relationship to what is happening in the rest of the UP, but it sure indicates you are doing something right. Very cool pics of bears also. Looks like you have a pretty awesome spread over there.


----------



## Grouse Hunter

Letmgro said:


> You're right BMF, the numbers are lower. But the ONLY reason hunters are complaining is because they can't let go of the 90's! Way too many deer back then, and many hunters feel that that's the way it's always suppose to be...WRONG!
> 
> Ten + years of habitat destruction!
> 
> Get use to the lower numbers, hopefully we never see that kind of destruction again!


Thank you, I can still see the browse line on my cedars!!!


----------



## Buckmaster Flash

Letmgro said:


> You're right BMF, the numbers are lower. But the ONLY reason hunters are complaining is because they can't let go of the 90's! Way too many deer back then, and many hunters feel that that's the way it's always suppose to be...WRONG!
> 
> Ten + years of habitat destruction!
> 
> Get use to the lower numbers, hopefully we never see that kind of destruction again!


The main point of this thread was whether or not there has been a decline in deer densities in the NLP. Some still claim there hasn't been a decline at all in the NLP. I never gave any opinion as to what I thought the right deer density figure should be, because it obviously can vary based on carrying capacity. I personally do not know how to determine the carrying capacity of a given area. I assume the DNR makes some assumptions about carrying capacity and deer densities when they issue antlerless quotas (or maybe not). Problem is, what is the easiest method to prevent overbrowsing? Trying to find the nice equalizing point where deer density and carrying capacity are in harmony, or just take the kill em all approach, since that is the easiest approach and the surest way to acheive your objective the quickest. It seems like the DNR has taken the kill em all approach in many areas. Not saying they are wrong or right, but it sounds like they may have gone to far in some areas from what many are saying in those areas, and I don't think they feel this way because they expect to see deer every time they go out.


----------



## Benelli

> Actually he has. His boss, Dr. Grant Woods, was also on a QDM managed property in the NE lower peninsula this fall. So, maybe BSK knows more about Michigan hunters and NLP deer than you give him credit.



Yep, Bob S is correct, BSKs boss spent a few days on our property in October.

Our camp is at the SW edge of DMU 452 (the TB Zone) so unlimited doe permits have been available since approx 1998. Observation data from ours and neighboring camps show a *TREND * in a decreasing deer herd which would be anticipated with liberal doe harvest.

I am still compiling observation data, etc. from this past season. Preliminary estimates show that 2 trail cameras covering roughly 40 square feet saw more deer than several hunters in the woods covering several hundred acres. To date, only 3 or 4 photos were recorded during daylight hours, still have some film to be developed. 

Advantage cameras as far as population guesstimates go. 

I have noted for several years the *TREND * in habitat, primarily the under story in the more mature hardwood stands. In an effort to establish a QDM coop in the area, I posed the following challenge / question in a mailing I sent to neighboring landowners:

_*Can you find a 10 to 30 year old oak, ash or maple tree on your property?? * They should be approximately 1 to 4 in diameter or better. If you start to look closely, you may be surprised what you find! If you find an abundance of Ostrya Virginiana (a.k.a. hop horn beam or ironwood) in that age class, it is a good of indication of habitat degradation due to the high deer numbers and over browsing that had occurred in the past, or may be occurring right now._

Most landowners were very surprised when they started to look. Heck, I can probably find more maple saplings (preferred deer browse) growing in my gutters than I can on 600 acres of our property.

The bottom line is that there has long been too many deer for the habitat to support, not only on our properties (in 452), but across much of the NLP and it has had a significant impact on our forests. 

Get on your knees and see what is growing on both public and private lands and see what the deer are eating. This is a good time of year to see all of the beech saplings that exist as they are still holding their leaves.

I engaged the services of Woods & Associates to help me more clearly define / quantify my perceived habitat situation. Grant Woods summed it up pretty good when he said Bob, your deer are living on a starvation diet. Grant also did a great job of conveying that message to neighboring landowners.

I suspect that +/-90% of MI hunters would consider our property as some sort of deer hunting Meccawhich it is to an extent, but I see the habitat situation as dire despite our recent (over the last 10 years) efforts in forest management, etc. We still have too many deer for the available habitat and if we thin a hardwood stand or clearcut an aspen stand we have very little hardwood regeneration due to intense overbrowsing to this day.

Many preach about passing on the hunting tradition to future generations as a reason to keep current deer management practices status quo (i.e. gotta see lotsa deer to keep the kids or myself interested). 

I look at it a bit differently in that I would rather pass along a healthy, well managed forest that benefits all species to future generations. In order to achieve that objective, we will have to further lower the deer herd and/or further improve the habitat in the area. Trying to strike that balance is difficult, especially when hunter satisfaction is highly tied to number of deer seen. 

A QDM management style is the way I choose to proceed toward the future.

I have accepted the fact that the hunting may be boring in terms of the number of deer seen as compared to the past. But having one doe, and one mature buck literally blowing snot into your stand in the pre dawn hours of 11/16/04 from a few feet away makes my season! Looking forward to next year!

I do look forward to seeing older bucks, greater body weights, and better fawn recruitment within the deer herd. After a few short years we are seeing some positive results in that regard! Forest regeneration will take years / decades before there is a noticeable difference IMHO..

Maybe, in my lifetime, I may see healthy forests and healthy deer herds (albeit smaller) than currently exist in the NLP. While a QDM approach may not be applicable to all hunters/managers, I encourage everyone to at least get down on your knees and take a close look at the local habitat conditions and base your decisions about deer harvest from that perspective rather than the amount of tags available at a licensing outlet.

Well I could go on, but this is long already, so I guess I gave my 0,02, or 05

Have a Great Christmas Everyone!


----------



## johnhunter

Great post, Benelli.

Because of decades of overabundant deer, Michigan forests, particularly in the northern lower, have become less diverse. Regeneration has been disproportionately comprised of species that the deer do not eat; hardwood species such as ironwood and blue beech are a couple of examples. Eastern Hemlock, which used to be abundant throughout most of the state, now only rarely regenerates, and the culprit is the whitetail deer. 

When deer managers point out that deer numbers are capable of recovering far faster than damaged habitat, they ain't just 'a blowin' smoke.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Thank God for trail cameras, without them our deer herd would be 50% less. :lol:


----------



## Bob S

*I engaged the services of Woods & Associates to help me more clearly define / quantify my perceived habitat situation. Grant Woods summed it up pretty good when he said Bob, your deer are living on a starvation diet.*

All those years of unlimited antlerless permits, extra antlerless seasons, and there are still too many deer for the available habitat. One of the top deer experts in the country says there are still too many deer in some areas of the NE lower peninsula. A good argument for the DNR to keep printing antlerless permits. Thanks for the post Benelli.


----------



## BSK

Buckmaster Flash wrote:
*My point is this, we are not talking about one site or one property, we are talking about vast expanses of the NLP. Were not talking about John Doe saying the deer numbers are trending down on his back 40, we are talking about a large majority of John Does saying the deer numbers have trended down signicantly in recent years. To me, that many people saying the same thing means something.*

Buckmaster,

I have detailed data from properties as small as 200 acres and as large as 15,000 acres. They all show the same pattern. If you increase antlerless harvests you will see a far more drastic decline in daylight deer sightings than the changes in population. What may be only a small decline in population, or even no decline, turns into far less deer sightings simply due to the increased harvest pressure. If you really start throwing lead at the does, I promise you they will disappear.

I know hunters don't want to hear this, but they have developed much of their hunting knowledge on their past experiences. In higher density herds where does are only occasionally harvested, daylight deer sightings remain high over the years. But if you start seriously targeting does, as MI hunters have been the last few years, the does *will* disappear from view, no matter what the actual density. This is true on a single property, a whole county, or an entire region. Target the does and they will disappear, regardless of the actual population.

Once again, I want to emphasize that I'm *NOT* saying the deer densities aren't down in the NLP or UP. They may very well be. In fact, someone posted that the DNR says they are way down. If that is so, then I accept that. What I'm trying to say is deer observation rates are *highly* effected by changes in harvest pressure. Change which animals are targetted and it will have a profound effect on what deer you see, and those changes in observation rates may have nothing to do with the actual deer population. They are being totally driven by harvest pressure.


*Its a statistical impossibility that they all underestimated their deer densities.*

Oh it is very, VERY statistically possible, and I have the statistics to prove it.


----------



## TnRidge

Good post ,Benelli ! You hit the nail on the head with that one ! I learn something new every day on this site ,and I don't even live in Michigan anymore . This info can be applied here too .


----------



## n.pike

Oh it is very, VERY statistically possible, and I have the statistics to prove it.[/QUOTE]


Problably the most inaccurate statement I have read. Without being here, there is absolutely no statistical data that you can provide that pertains to this region. I believe a hunter that is here much more than a graph or paper census. Ask Marty, or East Bay Ed, they are here.
While many good theories and recommendations have been offered, the facts are still presented by the hunters that spend their time here.Please, dont insult our intelligence by suggesting that our hunting tactics are inferior or out of date, I have the statistice to prove otherwise.


----------



## Buckmaster Flash

I agree with n. pike. 

There were so many contradictions and counter intuitive statements made in that post by BSK that I can't even respond to it. I'm done posting for a while. I need a break and a strong drink. Merry Christmas all.


----------



## BSK

I can't believe how hard some are trying to skew what I'm saying.

Did I not just post: "Once again, I want to emphasize that I'm *NOT* saying the deer densities aren't down in the NLP or UP. They may very well be."?

...and: "What I'm trying to say is deer observation rates are *highly* effected by changes in harvest pressure. Change which animals are targetted and it will have a profound effect on what deer you see, and those changes in observation rates may have nothing to do with the actual deer population."

That's all I'm trying to say. Any change you make--such as what deer are targeted, changes in habitat, changes in hunter density, changes in hunting style, etc.--can strongly influence what and how many deer you see. Those changes in what/how many deer you see can be driven by the change you made, not *necessarily* changes in herd composition or density. That's it. That's all I'm saying.

As to the comment on statistics, I'm referring to this fact. I have statistics showing observation rates are not linked to herd density/composition from all across the country, from TX to FL to the Great Plains to New England. MI will be no different.

Once again and for the last time: I'm not saying deer densities aren't down in parts of MI. I'm saying you can't use what deer you see as a good "measuring stick" of herd density. That's all I'm trying to say.


----------



## TnRidge

I'm not trying to take sides here ,and I don't have a dog in this hunt ,so I could care less about the U.P. numbers ,but BSK ,Benelli ,Bob S. ,North Jeff ,all back up their information with facts . There a few on here like BSK mentioned that like to take quotes out of context ,and skew the information to make a point . If you are going to have a intellegent arguement ,keep the emotion and personal attacks out of the arguements . Stick to the facts and your points can be taken more seriously .

With that being said ,it's no secret that the deer numbers ,and sightings are down . That is obvious to me after all of the imformation I have gathered from these posts and the DNR's information on the estimated harvest .

For those who haven't seen any deer in your traditional areas ,what have you done to improve your hunting without blaming the DNR or QDM ? What do you plan on doing next year ? I know what I would do ! I WOULD FIND A NEW PLACE TO HUNT !!!!

If it's that bad ,why waste time there ? Go where the deer density suits your needs .


----------



## Letmgro

[QUOTEPlease, dont insult our intelligence by suggesting that our hunting tactics are inferior or out of date, I have the statistice to prove otherwise.[/QUOTE]

O.K. If you don't like hearing it from a non-Michigan hunter, then I'll say it; Your, (our), hunting tactics are inferior or out of date!

I've been hunting long enough in the NE Lower to know that the "bait pile" is definately the "perferred" hunting choice on private property. The funny thing is; everybody I know baits. (and I know many hunters with in our 3000 acre co-op). 

It's Illegal....but it doesn't stop the vast majority from doing it. I know a guy that got fined for having a mechanical feeder, as soon as the CO left, he went out and put the battery back in the feeder.

Why?

Because that's the prefered (inferior and out-of-date) hunting technique in the NE Lower.

And hunters can't understand why they're not seeing those four-legged forest eating machines like we used too. Sure, the numbers are lower, but they're there...at night!


----------



## hartman886

Letmgro said:


> You're right BMF, the numbers are lower. But the ONLY reason hunters are complaining is because they can't let go of the 90's! Way too many deer back then, and many hunters feel that that's the way it's always suppose to be...WRONG!
> 
> Ten + years of habitat destruction!
> 
> Get use to the lower numbers, hopefully we never see that kind of destruction again!


WOW WOW WOW What a thread. First let me say deer numbers are down and have been going down since this TB thing started. Probably 50% in my area around and near Pellston . However I think that was the point. BUT BUT BUT there are still deer. The problem is the number of deer to HUNT. Putting deer into a per sq mile number it looks ok. Putting deer into HUNTABLE land is another thing. The majority of deer here(thats near Pellston ) live on a FEW farms. Farms where you will NEVER yes NEVER be able to hunt. So even though there is a number of deer per sq mile . Where people are hunting they are few and far between. I say this to all who are on either side. You can both be right ( no deer or still plenty of deer ). To get to the quote. It is hard to judge (me included )just how many deer is a satisfactory amount when you grew up seeing deer everywhere. It is what you concidered normal. And it is also hard when you base deer numbers on summer habitat. Summer habitat here can and did support many more deer but the limited winter habitat has taken a big hit. chris


----------



## Luv2hunteup

In the latest issue (I think) of Deer & Deer Hunting John Ozoga stated that the winters of the 80s were the warmest in 114 years. Combine this with the booming practice of baiting deer, winter feeding and reluctance of hunters to shoot does Michigan experienced record deer numbers. That's not too hard to figure out.

Everything appeared fine except that our winter deer habitat was being destroyed at a record rate. Northern deer habitat was in the later stages of succession meaning it is mature so there is less available food for deer. Prefered winter browse was either in low supply or gone. The habitat has not recovered from those record deer level years.

We might as well leave this thread as a sticky since the problem is not going away. Michigan's winters are back to normal and deer starvation will continue to lower numbers even farther. The does that do make it won't be in that good of shape so many fawns will have low birth weight. Low birth weight=high fawn mortality.

Some of us that hunted in the NE lower still had a pretty good season. The ones that did problably all have something in common, that's a "better than average food source". Low to marginal habitats are hurting and will continue to do so until the food source returns. Those with the means to do something about it will still have good hunting while those that don't will see a continued decline.

DRIP funds have not been increased in many decades and should be increased plus antlerless tags should also include set aside monies. I hope Michigan's leaders + Michigan deer hunters wake up and demand more monies for better habitat programs. I've seen what summer habitat improvements can do so I'm sure over time we can make a difference.


----------



## Bob S

*Putting deer into HUNTABLE land is another thing.*

*Those with the means to do something about it will still have good hunting while those that don't will see a continued decline.*

A couple of very good observations. Those of us with private property have the means to do something. That is why our deer hunting remains good, while for so many other areas the hunting declines. 

Now that muzzleloader season is over. I will be getting out the chainsaw and work to improve that winter cover and browse. Over the next two months I will spend more time on my property with the chainsaw than I did the last two months with a gun. That is why I see deer and my hunting continues to get better.

Every land owner in Michigan who hunts deer on his or her property should read the book Grow `Em Right


----------



## marty

Letmgro said:


> [QUOTE
> The funny thing is; everybody I know baits. (and I know many hunters with in our 3000 acre co-op).
> 
> It's Illegal....but it doesn't stop the vast majority from doing it. I know a guy that got fined for having a mechanical feeder, as soon as the CO left, he went out and put the battery back in the feeder.
> 
> QUOTE]
> Everyone you know baits. So you don't know any of those guys in lost lakes hunting club right??? I'm sure since you know they're baiting you hit the speed dial for the local Co's ........m :lol: :lol: :lol: You guys crack me up. Happy holidays to all and happy new year


----------



## marty

Bob S said:


> Actually he has. His boss, Dr. Grant Woods, was also on a QDM managed property in the NE lower peninsula this fall. So, maybe BSK knows more about Michigan hunters and NLP deer than you give him credit.


Hey bob was that the show on the outdoor channel about legends ranch???........m


----------



## Letmgro

Big difference between LLWC and the Sucker Creek QDM Co-op.

LLWC has a tight control on the hunting population with in its boundries, therefore the use of bait is highly unlikely.

The Sucker Creek co-op is just a bunch of private land-owners that have agreed to let the little bucks walk. If I turned everyone in, then I probably wouldn't have many friends, and no chance at helping to keep everyone sharing their harvest data. 

Basically, they're letting the little bucks live, and that outweighs anything else that may be happening on their property.

The CO's are fully aware of the situation, and little is done to resolve it, and I highly doubt that things will ever change, and I will definately NOT be the one involved with what is going on in such a large scale!


----------



## marty

So rob what you're saying is you know that these people are breaking the law and you close your eyes to it. Hey all you have to do is call the rap line :yikes: . Hey I don't need those type of friends anyway......m


----------



## Letmgro

Yep, I've closed my eyes to it, and it won't do me any good turning everybody in over this issue. Throw a few pounds of bait out....if you get caught, it's your problem, not mine.

I'll draw the line at that, I've got too many other things to worry about, and besides, their hunting practices don't really affect me anyways. 

It's all hear-say anyways... I've never been on these properties and actually seen violations.


----------



## Bob S

marty said:


> Hey bob was that the show on the outdoor channel about legends ranch???........m


No, didn`t you read the previous page?



Benelli said:


> Bob S is correct, BSKs boss spent a few days on our property in October.


----------



## Ferg

I thought for sure when I got back from Christmas break and back to work this thread would have been closed - rarely do they last this long without. Keeping threads civil and non-personal seems to be working - very cool - 

ferg....


----------



## bigmike

I hear alot of people on this site say I saw tons of deer , tons of bucks well that is just a few because most of the people I get reports all over the state all say deer #'s are down. I will tell you I hunt public and private land and my #'s was down. We must come together and make some decisions because it will only get worse. :sad:


----------



## Letmgro

bigmike said:


> I hear alot of people on this site say I saw tons of deer , tons of bucks well that is just a few because most of the people I get reports all over the state all say deer #'s are down. I will tell you I hunt public and private land and my #'s was down. We must come together and make some decisions because it will only get worse. :sad:


Yes, the numbers are lower bigmike, but as I said before this isn't something we should worry about, it's something we should except.

Way more positives will result than negitives.

Positives:
Habitat will recover.
More natural browse.
Heavier body weights on all deer.
Healthier herd over-all because of less social stress.
Better fawn recruitment and survival.
Less late born fawns, resulting in young bucks getting a late start. 
More intensified/pronounced rutting activity.
Less car deer accidents.
Less crop damage.

Negitives:
Hunters see less deer.

What's it suppose to be about, the deer or the hunter?


----------



## Pinefarm

"What's it suppose to be about, the deer or the hunter?"

I would hope both equally. Without us, there's no chance of any management. I don't think hunters should be taken 100% for granted and treated like 19th century factory workers and a "if you don't like it leave" attitude.


----------



## Adam Waszak

Very true, no hunters = no management


----------



## Whit1

Bob S said:


> Now that muzzleloader season is over. I will be getting out the chainsaw and work to improve that winter cover and browse. Over the next two months I will spend more time on my property with the chainsaw than I did the last two months with a gun.


I used to hunt out of a friend's deer camp in Osceola County consisting of 140 acres of field, mixed hardwoods and cedar swamp. Some of my most enjoyable memories involve winter cutting with a chainsaw while wading through knee+ deep snow. We'd drive over on Friday evening, staying at The Cabin, get up the next day, eat a hearty breakfast and then go out with our chainsaws and cut not only browse, but forest openings (firewood) for 6-8 hours. Coming back to the cabin after a day of doing this, eating a great meal, and pouring over deer hunting plans and memories while sipping what we called "Brown Bullets", still brings a quiet satisfaction as I type this fifteen years later.

That part of "deer hunting" on the property (the family sold it in the mid-90s) still brings a smile and the satisfaction of doing our part.


----------



## BSK

*What's it suppose to be about, the deer or the hunter?*

Well Letmgro, you've just asked the biggest question of the new millenium. It is the problem nearly ever state agency is currently dealing with.


----------



## johnhunter

BSK said:


> I can't believe how hard some are trying to skew what I'm saying.
> 
> Did I not just post: "Once again, I want to emphasize that I'm *NOT* saying the deer densities aren't down in the NLP or UP. They may very well be."?
> 
> ...and: "What I'm trying to say is deer observation rates are *highly* effected by changes in harvest pressure. Change which animals are targetted and it will have a profound effect on what deer you see, and those changes in observation rates may have nothing to do with the actual deer population."
> 
> That's all I'm trying to say. Any change you make--such as what deer are targeted, changes in habitat, changes in hunter density, changes in hunting style, etc.--can strongly influence what and how many deer you see. Those changes in what/how many deer you see can be driven by the change you made, not *necessarily* changes in herd composition or density. That's it. That's all I'm saying.
> 
> As to the comment on statistics, I'm referring to this fact. I have statistics showing observation rates are not linked to herd density/composition from all across the country, from TX to FL to the Great Plains to New England. MI will be no different.
> 
> Once again and for the last time: I'm not saying deer densities aren't down in parts of MI. I'm saying you can't use what deer you see as a good "measuring stick" of herd density. That's all I'm trying to say.


Word.


----------



## Rasputin

For a minute I thought pine farm was back, then I saw the date. Pretty sneaky, legend.


----------

