# dnr YOU LIE, LIE, LIE



## Cobra (Jan 19, 2000)

Trout, you could see it coming. I wrote a paper in college during the mid 70s that dealt with a noticable local increase in goose numbers due to changes in their nesting habits from field observations that I'd kept track of since high school. The Prof. naturally rejected it, he believed that I only wrote it in hopes of expanding the season limit and that my observations were made up. Man was he ever wrong ,but then again he had the PHD, power and influence. Also mentioned it to some CO's during that period, they thought the same thing. Bureaucrats rule


----------



## trout (Jan 17, 2000)

I know it happened but I can't pin point when at least here.
Seems like it was over 5 years and then whamo


----------



## Bowhunter30 (Nov 8, 2004)

> Those crops are good for summer and fall. But what are the deer eating in January and February when all of the crops and fruit are gone? If the winter browse is in poor condition. Then you do have habitat that is lacking, and too many deer. Bob S


For starters, I was just stating we have a lot of crops that aid in their fatting up for the winter. Myself and my father spend time in the spring/summer planting trees that would be good food for them in the winter months. We also continue to have our timed feeders distributing food all year long, so we don't just stop feeding at the end of the season. 

Some of the trees we plant that are recommended are Cedars, White Pines, Maples and of course the acorn bearing oak trees, which there are plenty of those on our land. So, they do have good habitat all year round. 

I have also seen on these forums guys telling others to take matters into their own hands, by practicing deer management. I do this also, but isn't that part of the reason we have a Department of Natural Resources? Hey, don't get me wrong, I am all for each individual practicing what they want.

I had posted a message explaining some of the things I felt should change or be implemented. I left out one more thing, do away with the youth hunt. If a kid is going to get into hunting, they are going to like it whether or not they kill a deer. I tell you what, it would of been more of a let down for me as a kid to shoot a nice buck my first time out and then have to hunt like the rest of us. Instead my first two years I hunted state land and seen not one single deer and you know what? I am still hunting today. All I am saying is that is another reason the herd has changed to, but I don't feel that has as a significant impact as the other things I have pointed out in earlier posts.


----------



## Jacob Huffman (Sep 13, 2004)

A friend of mine tells me his dad,who lives just north of Lansing ,in Dewitt, can remember as a child seeing his first deer in sourthern MI.That was back in the late 40's or early 50's.I remeber back in the mid 80's sitting in the woods by LeRoy and seeing 200 deer in a weekend.Mind you they were probably the same group more or less walking around the woods.But these days I will still see on average 4 or 5 deer a day up there.Down here,Clinton county, I see regularly 15-20 deer a day gun hunting.Of course most of them are on the neighbors property but at least I see some.I did not get a buck off this land this year but I still say there are plenty of deer just didnt come my way this year...yet...


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Bmac said:


> The deer numbers in Central Michigan are about where they have been for the last few years. I see several every time out and dozens on my way to work in the morning. One stretch of road has had a car-killed deer about every other day for two weeks. The only problem where I hunt is the idiots to my east that spent the weekend before season sighting in their guns and building blinds. They hunted the opening Monday and couldn't figure out why they didn't see deer.


DITTO!!! I can only speak from our experience. We've owned our property for 13 years, and we have more deer than you can shake a stick at. This is due pure and simple to habitat improvement, and quality food sources....namely good farm country. And that's just here where I live, about 10 miles northeast of Lansing. Where we do most of our deer hunting is on a private chunk of just over 400 acres in Montcalm County.  This is family owned property that our family has hunted for generations, and the deer are out of control! This again is due to habitat improvements...clearings, selective timbering, food plots, but also excellent farm country with high quality food sources. So as I've said before in posts I've made here, I have ZERO complaints about the deer herd. In fact, I think we have way too many, at least in central lower Michigan.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Early deer results are down
Sunday, November 28, 2004
By Bob Gwizdz

Deer season still has ways to go, but results so far are apparently less than what state wildlife managers had hoped.

"Right now, it looks like it's going to be down across the board," said Department of Natural Resources big game specialist Rod Clute.

Regionally, hunters in northern Michigan appear to be taking fewer deer than they did last year, while southern Michigan hunters are showing similar results as last year.

The DNR had predicted a season similar to last year statewide. But Clute noted that there could be several factors involved and "there's still a lot of deer season to go (beyond the firearms season)."

Both highway check stations (at Clio and Big Rapids) reported checking fewer deer than last year and the Mackinaw Bridge count was off slightly. Northern Michigan field offices report checking fewer deer than expected, too.

"You've got a lot of things going into play in that," Clute said. "Number one, we have attempted to reduce the number of deer in northern Michigan and we have been successful. So hunters could be seeing and shooting fewer deer.

"And weather conditions the first week of deer season have not been prime. Rainy, foggy, warm weather. One day it hit 65. The (deer are) wearing their winter coats. They're not going to be real active if they don't have to be."

Clute said there's always a chance that hunters took deer immediately to the processors, instead of to check stations, because of the warm weather.

Early reports from southern Michigan field offices showed results were about the same as last year, perhaps a little bit down, but hunting pressure seemed to be off. Seasons with Monday openers often start slowly, Clute said.

"Some deer management units are holding their own," Clute said. "Others are down. Biologists are not ready to say the deer are down. Hunting conditions may be playing into it."

Aside from the warm weather, there is still plenty of standing corn, Clute said. The harvest could pick up as the corn comes down, he noted.

But there are a few characteristics of the deer that have been taken that have biologists scratching their heads. The number of bucks with spike antlers or sublegal (less than 3 inches in length) antlers seems to be up this year. That's an indication of overpopulation or poor food supply.

The food supply, following the wet spring, has been outstanding.

"Did that wet spring put additional stress on the deer? Clute asked. "I can't say."

Clute said he still thinks preseason population estimates were correct and that means there could be excellent hunting during December for archery hunters and muzzleloaders.

"Hunters are saying they're seeing fewer deer," Clute said. "We think they're there, they're just being uncooperative."



© 2004 Booth Newspapers.


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> It seems we have a profound disagreement.
> 
> I believe we have a much bigger problem with UNDERharvest of does than overharvest in Michigan; the numbers say we do a poorer job of taking does than any surrounding state. At the same time, we pass out two buck tags to anyone who can reach the counter with 28 dollars in their pocket.


farmlegend, I think the disagreement in management practices that is arising may be that each are in diffrent areas of the state. Your in Hillsdale if I remember correctly, what needs to be done in your area is far diffrent than what needs to be done in the Northern L.P.

I will be the first to admit that habitat is a major problem up there. The forest is matureing regularly as the number of cuts, in my area at least, is almost non-existant (the last was 10 years ago). Also, there seems to be fewer operating farms in the area NE of Glennie (simply an eyeball survey). The deer herd numbers seem rather poor in our area. 

My point, while an increased doe harvest may be exactley what Hillsdale needs. In Glennie, I wish I could just see a doe. No argument here on the stupidity of the two buck license.

-We need to limit ourselves to one buck only.
-We need to change our anterless licenses to doe permits...not anterless permits; let the youngsters grow!
-We need more DMU's to manage the herd better for the local area.
-There seems to merit in the requirement to check your deer; to help the DNR manage better.
-We need to encourage habitat improvement on our public forests (frustrated Northern guys descending on the Southern L.P. will have a negative impact on your hunting as well...something to think about).
-We, as hunters, need to educate ourselves on the principles of QDM (there is more to QDM than those nasty A/R's...guys).
-We need to do a batter job of making our opinions heard at the DNR.
-This would be a great start.


----------



## bigmike (Oct 21, 2004)

Bwana this is right on habitat, 1 buck,limit doe permits, manage a area for that areas problems, let them grow etc. i like it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 28, 2004)

Bob S said:


> I don`t know what your post has to do with QDM. Other than it gives you another forum to bash the DNR.....


I am not sure why a lot of people feel it necessary to defend the DNR. We pour alot of money into that agency and from what I have seen, only the farmers and insurance companies benefit. Maybe if more people get on the DNR (in numbers) WE HUNTERS could reap the benefit of our dollars. Seems as though too many want to do/say the "right" thing and defend the DNR, which as any agency goes, could use some improvement.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

I can't blame the DNR for me not seeing many deer at the begining of rifle season. I can blame the federal government for letting wolf numbers get out of control.

Every farm and camp around my place either herd or saw wolves the first week of rifle season. Most had multiple sightings. We are not talking wilderness but farmland or woodlots surrounded by farmland.

I don't practice triple S but something has to be done real soon. Make no mistake, wolves do push deer out the area. If it happens a little later in the season the deer are gone from my land for up to 5 months.

The deer are returning since the wolves have moved on but since the yarding migration has started my sightings will remain low for 2004.

Back to the original topic fo this thread. Don't blame the DNR for everything. They don't shoot deer, they don't shoot button bucks, they are being held up by other interests who want old growth forests. Michigan hunters have to take alot of the blame. They don't shoot enough does where needed, shoot too many if they are not seeing many deer and shoot 2 bucks just because the rules allow it and don't turn in many poachers. 

The list can go on but the fact remains that the DNR/NRC just makes the rules. Hunters are the ones doing the shooting.


----------



## Alibi (Jan 31, 2004)

Zakker said:


> I am not sure why a lot of people feel it necessary to defend the DNR.


I don't think anyone is defending the DNR. What I see is those that spend the time and enjoy their hunt putting the blame where some of the blame should be, on those that want to blame everyone else except themselves for their unhappiness and their own mistakes and some of them not knowing how to hunt on top of it.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Bob S said:


> Those crops are good for summer and fall. But what are the deer eating in January and February when all of the crops and fruit are gone?


An all too often disregarded fact in the life span of a whitetail deer here in MI. Late spring, summer, and early autumn forage and browse may be excellent, but what is there for the deer to eat in the bitter cold of Nov-April when they are confined to the deer yards in N. MI?


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Zakker said:


> I am not sure why a lot of people feel it necessary to defend the DNR.


I've done my share of bashing some aspects of the DNR on these boards. However, I also keep in mind that I don't "walk in their shoes". I do give credit to the difficult job they do, especially the field officers who are expected to:

Take care of poachers of deer, salmon,....arresting EVERY snaggers in sight....pheasants, ducks, geese, and other assorted species of fish and game no matter where they are or what time of day or night it happens to be.

Use their travel and field time to observe the population of all the above species and always do in in MY territory so the info relates to me and my experiences.

Present demonstrations at schools, group meetings, sport clubs, etc......always with pertinent up to the minute data/info and with humor.

Did I mention the times the law enforcement officers must deal with those carrying guns? Need I mention the double dipping of guns and alcohol as well as other drugs?

Defend the DNR? Certainly! At all times? No!, Those guys and gals have a tough job to do. Have you ever tried to satisfy a large and diverse group? Look at what we have just in regards to deer management. There are far too many who hold to "I'm right and you're wrong!"........me included at times.......

And while I'm at it, why can't those officers and field biologists pick up all the litter that lies about MY favorite fishing spot???....."Hrumph!".........  :lol:


----------



## phantastick fish (Jun 8, 2004)

the deer arnt even a dent in the real problem man. try the huron fishery.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

I think when people refer to the DNR, they are not referring to the CO's. I have nothing but respect for those men and women it is the Rod Clutes of the DNR that people are mad at. I see people on here saying there are tons of deer on their property, well that is fine although most who have said that are on huge parcels or in southern lower Michigan. All I have to say is go to Baldwin that is my area where I hunt. I also hunt St Johns area and yes there are deer there now?????? But for how long because deer use to thrive in Baldwin now they are gone. I just want it clear I support the CO'S but the decision makers in the DNR in terms of antlerless harvest quotas etc are concerned have really dropped the ball in northerm Michigan :sad:. Remember, you say habitat is the key, well not all people own 200 acres of land a lot of guys go to state and fed forests to enjoy the pastime of hunting and I think they ought to have a shot at harvesting and animal once in awhile. This kind of management will kill hunter numbers, influence people votes on issues concerning wildlife, and could ultimately be the downfall of our wonderful sport in this state that I love so much. Thanks ROD!

AW


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Adam Waszak said:


> but the decision makers in the DNR in terms of antlerless harvest quotas etc are concerned have really dropped the ball in northerm Michigan :sad:. Remember, you say habitat is the key, well not all people own 200 acres of land a lot of guys go to state and fed forests to enjoy the pastime of hunting and I think they ought to have a shot at harvesting and animal once in awhile.
> AW


It's not what DNR management IS doing to the anterless animials - it's what the are NOT doing to the habitat in the state and fed forests areas?  

I see a need to reduce the overall heard and when that happens - the deer that are left are going to dump there half asses feeding areas on state/federal land for better habitat WHEREVER they find it.

The fight is not with the DNR as much as it maybe with the Fed's/NRC/tree huggers et.al. for actually supporting a state/federal forest that can/will sustain a very healthy and HUNTABLE deer heard.

ferg....


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

I understand Ferg but dammnit a few years back we saw a ton of deer we didn't shoot them all but it was nice to see them go through and now there is nothing, nothing at all and the DNR issued too many tags plain and simple. Yes there are areas of my region on state and fed land that could be improved but that doesn't mean kill all of the deer first. Instead of 14,000 tags which is pushing 20 tags a sq mile of huntable land :yikes: They should have cut back. I knew it was bad when they did that but they kept saying "trust us" this is the DNR that told us that not the feds or anyone else. As far as the NRC is concerned Ii don't agree with a lot they do either but that is the nature of politics. People hunt and spend money in this state to hunt and they ought to have a chance to "see" a deer. This past weekend my dad saw 3 deer come through.......... the only 3 deer he saw all year on his 90 acres of hardwoods, swamp and river bottom. This is newaygo county! That is not right but I agree with you on the habitat issue however, when a river needs some cleanup effoerts they don't kill all of the fish out before starting to improve the river.

AW


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Researchers have determined that whitetail deer need certain essential elements in order to truly thrive - abundant, varied, and nutritious year-round food sources, rich soils, nearby sources of water, and ample cover of various types, for fawning, escape, sanctuary, and winter/thermal protection.

Absence of ANY of these key components will result in have an effect on the number a deer which a given ecosystem may sustain on a healthy basis. Deer can still do well, and provide quality hunting opportunities, in areas which are missing a key component (except perhaps for water, which is a necessity), but they must be maintained at lesser densities than in more favorable habitat. 

Any attempts to maintain deer numbers at levels greater than roughly 70% of carrying capacity will cause habitat to degrade, reduce the abundance and variety of native browse, and adversely affect the ecosystem. It will furthermore result in lowered body weights, poor fawn productivity and recruitment, and degrade the resistance to disease amongst resident deer.


Here in Michigan, we are paying the price for a great big science project gone wrong. Traditional Deer Management resulted in the sustenance of deer numbers well in excess of safe levels across the wide expanses of this state which provide sub-optimal deer range. It not only degraded habitat and the deer themselves, but inflated hunter expectations of deer numbers. Increasing deer numbers in lesser-quality habitats will not make things better.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

I agree - they shouldn't have given 'card blanc' to killing off all the does - and I agree with others - in the fact that - the system should be localized more - you would think that a 'county by county' would be breaking it down into small enough areas to manage - but apparently that is NOT the case.

There are MANY Things that need to be done - and backing off permits in some areas is one of the first, but, hand in hand with that, there needs to be another 'program' (I hate Govt programs) but something has to been done about 'old growth' areas - or I should say - second term old growth - you can have 900 acres of hardwoods and it might not support 10 deer - if there is nothing growing on the forest floor - someone has to account for that - same for river bottoms - and I wont debate the nature of your dad habitat simply because I have no clue what shape it is in - but you get my point about state/fed land - which is where I was going to start with - anyway - 

I do firmly believe that going to back to a single buck tag is the single most, easiest, smartest, 'right now' thing that should be done - 

ferg....


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Well rich soil, year round food, etc........might as well kill the rest of em in north lower and UP because that is the stuff found south in Michigan. I may be stupid but I don't care if the herd is perfect if 2/3 of the state is void of them. I know the population may have been oout of control till about 95 or 96 but since then it has declined big time and now to non huntable levels in certain areas.

AW


----------

