# WZZM-Michigan's firearm deer season ends, leaving many hunters disappointed



## Pinefarm2015 (Nov 29, 2015)

Link has video clip too...
http://www.wzzm13.com/news/local/mi...y-unsucessful-hunters-dissappointed/359592445


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

Pinefarm2015 said:


> Link has video clip too...
> http://www.wzzm13.com/news/local/mi...y-unsucessful-hunters-dissappointed/359592445


There just isn't the number of deer that most hunters are used to or want.
So they will continue to complain.


----------



## thegospelisgood (Dec 30, 2012)

I didn't hunt the firearm season - but I saw more deer than I ever do this season. Anecdotal, but was my experience.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Downstate hunters did much better this year. More than likely the result of a midweek opener.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

The weather was great! A bonus that extended my hunting season this year.
The deer were deer , and did most of the things deer do,except shake off snow or migrate ect.
What were hunters dissapointed with then ?
Not seeing , or not killing , or simply not gazing at a winter landscape?


Claims of the majority happy with recreating and watching vs killing has to figure in the dissapointment but then so too will location of activities in relation to other hunters and deer.
Ratio of hunter success in killing is not the only figure to guage with,but a good oldie for certain factions.


----------



## miruss (Apr 18, 2003)

*MBA Deer Count Numbers*
Posted on December 7th, 2015

*MBA Deer Count Numbers*

The deer count for 2015 is the lowest ever reported by the Mackinac Bridge Authority. There were 1500 deer counted in 2015, which is down from 2233 deer in 2014. This is a 32.8% drop from the previous all time low, which was in 2014.

 
In 1958 there were 13,065 deer counted followed by 1959 where hunters carted 16,056 deer home and the numbers continued to be good throughout the 1960s, but the 1970 figures show a 57.5 percent drop to a mere 3,084. It appeared things were on the upswing in 1971 with 4,251 showing a 37.8 percent increase only to be followed by what was the previous all-time low in 1972 with 2,466.

While 1995 was the high-water mark, the 10,000 figure was also broken in 1996 and 2000 with 10,900 and 14,445, respectively.

There were 4,207 deer counted in 2013 and 6,460 in 2012.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

The season SUCKED for me as well. Not many deer around on public land that I hunt ( use to hunt). And all the pics I got were at night. Even then , not many. Every year I hear, it's to warm, it's to cold, there were to many acorns, the corn was still standing. How about we shot to many off ? But we will never hear that, because the DNR doesn't want to fess up. Nobody would buy a license if they were told the truth. You don't have a prayer in Hell killing a deer much less seeing any , That will be Forty dollars for your license please. Oh yea, Good luck.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

I seen deer, no good shots. Missed one. 

Activity was not what it should have been. The full moon is not a good time to hunt to start with and this full moon was a "Super Moon". It was too warm as well, there is something wrong, in Michigan, when mosquitoes are a problem on the 15th of November. Too many frogs out too.


----------



## thegospelisgood (Dec 30, 2012)

Yeh. I did notice the extra frogs. Maybe deer are scared of gettin warts?


----------



## DEDGOOSE (Jan 19, 2007)

Weather sucked, but saw deer all day, most days. Can't complain


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

I saw 4 deer in 3 days. FAR better than the NO deer in 3 years I had just went through! Hunting in an area that has deer really makes a difference.


----------



## MichMatt (Oct 24, 2008)

Saw zero for me. Hunting federal lands. And moved to several spots.


----------



## Boardman Brookies (Dec 20, 2007)

I saw the most deer ever during archery and also rifle. Shot a buck, passed a small one and had multiple sightings per site. I think I got out 25 times all season and didn't see deer twice. All stateland.


----------



## slabstar (Feb 25, 2009)

stickbow shooter said:


> The season SUCKED for me as well. Not many deer around on public land that I hunt ( use to hunt). And all the pics I got were at night. Even then , not many. Every year I hear, it's to warm, it's to cold, there were to many acorns, the corn was still standing. How about we shot to many off ? But we will never hear that, because the DNR doesn't want to fess up. Nobody would buy a license if they were told the truth. You don't have a prayer in Hell killing a deer much less seeing any , That will be Forty dollars for your license please. Oh yea, Good luck.


Less deer, lower license sales. 
More deer, higher license sales. 
Dnr shoot themselves in the foot with mega antlerless tags/money.

I did tag out on November 9th so I had a good season. 
Deer numbers definitely seem lower the past few years. ...


----------



## fishnpbr (Dec 2, 2007)

I spent 11 hrs a day, 0630 to 1730, 17 ft in the air for the first 5 days of firearms season. Saw very few deer and did no shooting. It was definitely to warm. In recent years there have not been very many deer where we hunt and this year was no exception. We could move but we like the public land area we hunt.

I also spent those days with my sons, a cousin, and a close friend of the family. There were no phones, television, or internet. I wasn't at work and was totally relaxed and at peace. We ate good, played cards, had a few pops, a lot of laughs, and otherwise enjoyed a fantastic time in Michigan's great northern woods.

I realize we all want to see and shoot deer with our hunting pursuits. I'm no different and always hope to shoot a deer. Certainly parts of the state are better than others regarding deer numbers. For me personally, I'll never complain about deer season with the overall enjoyment it brings. YMMV


----------



## Joel/AK (Jan 12, 2013)

On our property in Ottawa county, it was a desert for the last couple of weeks. Talked to quite a few landowners in our area and they said the same thing.

I know they are in there but they seemed to go nocturnal or something.

I'm not complaining, that's why it's called hunting. Plus, early bow was decent for my wife and I with 3 does in the freezer. Plus our nephew got a decent 8 point for his first deer.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

Hunters complaining about deer sightings is as old as time itself. In some cases they're in fact hunting where there aren't many deer and in other cases they just aren't very skilled hunters. 

A guy who hunts on a square mile section where there are without a doubt 50+ deer right now was complaining last week about low numbers. In all endeavors, including hunting, there are some participants who are oblivious.


----------



## Groundsize (Aug 29, 2006)

I hunted private land in Kalamazoo and overall this was the worst season in a long long time. Saw very few deer for the area I'm in. Only saw a 3pt opening day in a stand i usually see 30 and a handful of bucks. Total is saw 6 bucks almost all tiny except for the bucks I shot which now I'm surprised I even saw with the poor deer numbers. Friends in the area has similar results. 

I believe the DNR needs to lesson doe permits and crop damage permits.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

Groundsize said:


> I hunted private land in Kalamazoo and overall this was the worst season in a long long time. Saw very few deer for the area I'm in. Only saw a 3pt opening day in a stand i usually see 30 and a handful of bucks. Total is saw 6 bucks almost all tiny except for the bucks I shot which now I'm surprised I even saw with the poor deer numbers. Friends in the area has similar results.
> 
> I believe the DNR needs to lesson doe permits and crop damage permits.


Let's pretend you were responsible for antlerless deer quotas in Kalamazoo county. 

Let's say the hunter kill in 2016 was down 4%, car deer accidents were up 5% and requests for crop damage permits were flat as compared to the previous year. 

On a percentage basis, how many more or less antlerless permits should be issued in 2017?


----------



## uptracker (Jul 27, 2004)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Downstate hunters did much better this year. More than likely the result of a midweek opener.
> 
> View attachment 235471


I hear ya, but we gotta remember that 2015 was the lowest on record for the bridge count. It's only a couple hundred up from last year.


----------



## Namrock (Apr 12, 2016)

Since June My trail camera's on 3 different farms in Jackson county were telling me that overall deer #s were down, WAY down on 2 of them. My bow season sits confirmed that. Saw ZERO bucks over yr & half old during archery. Doe#s also down though not as bad as I anticipated. Gun season was what gun season always is around here. A lot of deer running 4 their life on the 15th, then movement came 2 a halt. About a week or so later started seeing more daytime doe movement. Only saw 1 buck over a 2yr old, & that was just last Sunday. Ain't complaining just reporting


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

November Sunrise said:


> Let's pretend you were responsible for antlerless deer quotas in Kalamazoo county.
> 
> Let's say the hunter kill in 2016 was down 4%, car deer accidents were up 5% and requests for crop damage permits were flat as compared to the previous year.
> 
> On a percentage basis, how many more or less antlerless permits should be issued in 2017?


Well according to what other states do. They set quotas to about 10-15% of the herd harvest to maintain the herd. Iowa for example has maintained their herd in their top 10 counties to about 30 dpsm. In these counties they shoot a total Average of 4.3 dpsm. That includes bucks and does. one hunter can harvest that alone in an slp county. In Lake county has about 30 dpsm. They shoot close to 12-14 dpsm according to the DNR. That could be why the hunters are complaining about low deer numbers. 
It's simple, if you follow the model of other states. If you want to increase your population don't shoot any does, maintain it, shoot about 10 to 15% of the deer population per square mile. Decrease the population, shoot more. 
But you can't expect to see more deer in the future if hunters keep taking 30-50% of the total dpsm every year.


----------



## slabstar (Feb 25, 2009)

November Sunrise said:


> Let's pretend you were responsible for antlerless deer quotas in Kalamazoo county.
> 
> Let's say the hunter kill in 2016 was down 4%, car deer accidents were up 5% and requests for crop damage permits were flat as compared to the previous year.
> 
> On a percentage basis, how many more or less antlerless permits should be issued in 2017?


Numbers don't always work. Observation is more important. 

Look at where the numbers game got the UP deer herd. ......


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

poz said:


> Well according to what other states do. They set quotas to about 10-15% of the herd harvest to maintain the herd. Iowa for example has maintained their herd in their top 10 counties to about 30 dpsm. In these counties they shoot a total Average of 4.3 dpsm. That includes bucks and does. one hunter can harvest that alone in an slp county. In Lake county has about 30 dpsm. They shoot close to 12-14 dpsm according to the DNR. That could be why the hunters are complaining about low deer numbers.
> It's simple, if you follow the model of other states. If you want to increase your population don't shoot any does, maintain it, shoot about 10 to 15% of the deer population per square mile. Decrease the population, shoot more.
> But you can't expect to see more deer in the future if hunters keep taking 30-50% of the total dpsm every year.


There isn't anything you're describing in the realm of deer management, herd dynamics and population control that isn't highly familiar to the individual's in the MI DNR.

Hunters by and large confuse personal desires with being equivalent to how a statewide deer herd should be managed. One of the key things hunters fail to grasp is the MI DNR isn't trying to grow the deer herd in most areas.

There isn't a state game department in existence who has a tight grasp on DPSM. At best what you have are estimates with margins of error that could exceed 30+%. And the number they do throw out is based on a broad area of tens of thousands of acres - a state agency doesn't have the interest or ability to manage on an actual per square mile basis.

And so what exists in reality for an individual hunter can wildly vary within even a township. The hunter who thinks that a reduction in their personal sightings is evidence that something should be done on a countywide basis isn't grasping the big picture.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

slabstar said:


> Numbers don't always work. Observation is more important.
> 
> Look at where the numbers game got the UP deer herd. ......


Observation of an individual hunter is irrelevant to managing a state deer herd. Hunters understand what's happening in their little slice of acreage. There are 35 million acres statewide and the average hunter would be hard pressed to know how many deer there are on the 640 acres which constitute a square mile from where they hunt. 

The status of the UP deer herd has nothing to do with a numbers game. If hunters didn't kill a single deer per year in the UP the herd would still be facing major challenges in much of the UP.


----------



## jatc (Oct 24, 2008)

slabstar said:


> Numbers don't always work. Observation is more important.
> 
> Look at where the numbers game got the UP deer herd. ......


You mean observations like the UP wolf count from spotting planes that many hunters feel is bogus because "no way they saw all of them"?

Or could you mean observations like 10 guys hunting on a square mile section in the central LP where nine of them saw zero deer and the tenth guy saw 30 on a particular day because he was hunting a bedding area and the others were hunting stubble fields where the pressured deer won't be during daylight? Nine guys will say "end the friggin doe tags!" and the tenth guy would say "geez I have too many deer stunting my woods. Better take a few out."


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

November Sunrise said:


> There isn't anything you're describing in the realm of deer management, herd dynamics and population control that isn't highly familiar to the individual's in the MI DNR.
> 
> Hunters by and large confuse personal desires with being equivalent to how a statewide deer herd should be managed. One of the key things hunters fail to grasp is the MI DNR isn't trying to grow the deer herd in most areas.
> 
> ...


A long time ago a bunch of pheasant hunters started complaining about low bird numbers in Michigan. Look what happened to them when the DNR didn't listen. Oct. 20th is just another day in Michigan


----------



## jatc (Oct 24, 2008)

poz said:


> A long time ago a bunch of pheasant hunters started complaining about low bird numbers in Michigan. Look what happened to them when the DNR didn't listen. Oct. 20th is just another day in Michigan


Are you being serious? Just what exactly was the DNR going to do about farmers starting to make pool table fields tilling from ditch to ditch, putting into production every ounce of dirt available and instituting the widespread use of the biggest pheasant killer of all, Roundup?


----------



## Pinefarm2015 (Nov 29, 2015)

slabstar said:


> Numbers don't always work. Observation is more important.
> 
> Look at where the numbers game got the UP deer herd. ......


Having too many deer on limited habitat in marginal deer territory for far too long is what got the UP deer herd to where it is now. The UP deer herd situation in the modern era, meaning 1880 to present has all been a bubble and an anomaly. The UP was on the fringe of the whitetails range for 1000's of years. The white man showed up, cut the whole place down, lush growth came in for 100 years and you had the deer bubble. That bubble burst in the 1990's.

Had numbers been kept low in the 1980's and 1990's, there may be a few more deer in the UP now. But the apparent Winter yard damage done 20-30 years ago from gross UP herd over population is still a nagging problem today and it sounds like it will be for at least another generation of deer hunters.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

From my limited experience, hunters were positive, they saw many young deer.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

jatc said:


> Are you being serious? Just what exactly was the DNR going to do about farmers starting to make pool table fields tilling from ditch to ditch, putting into production every ounce of dirt available and instituting the widespread use of the biggest pheasant killer of all, Roundup?


Exactly, what did the DNR do. now people mostly hunt on preserves. But again, hunters observations were not taken seriously.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

November Sunrise said:


> There isn't anything you're describing in the realm of deer management, herd dynamics and population control that isn't highly familiar to the individual's in the MI DNR.
> 
> Hunters by and large confuse personal desires with being equivalent to how a statewide deer herd should be managed. One of the key things hunters fail to grasp is the MI DNR isn't trying to grow the deer herd in most areas.
> 
> ...


Our DNR does a piss poor job of it !


----------



## jatc (Oct 24, 2008)

T


poz said:


> Exactly, what did the DNR do. now people mostly hunt on preserves. But again, hunters observations were not taken seriously.


The DNR does not have any control over the ag industry. It wasn't that they couldn't see the precipitous drop in the bird population, it was the fact that there was nothing they could do about it. You think the Iowa Game and Fish Dept is oblivious to the fact their birds are down 60% in the last five years? They can't do anything about the habitat loss any more than our DNR could.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

jatc said:


> T
> 
> 
> The DNR does not have any control over the ag industry. It wasn't that they couldn't see the precipitous drop in the bird population, it was the fact that there was nothing they could do about it. You think the Iowa Game and Fish Dept is oblivious to the fact their birds are down 60% in the last five years? They can't do anything about the habitat loss any more than our DNR could.


CRP promotion saved some numbers out west , and benifited other ( like deer) critters.
When pheasants were declining in my trapping grounds in the early eighties(already in conflict with predators) fur prices fell and the birds were really ruduced in the following years. " clean" farming practices followed ,but the area had cover long after the decline in birds. 
Nightime assaults on nests and hens by a variety of predators were ,in my opinion, the most obvious cause.


----------



## Groundsize (Aug 29, 2006)

November Sunrise said:


> Let's pretend you were responsible for antlerless deer quotas in Kalamazoo county.
> 
> Let's say the hunter kill in 2016 was down 4%, car deer accidents were up 5% and requests for crop damage permits were flat as compared to the previous year.
> 
> On a percentage basis, how many more or less antlerless permits should be issued in 2017?


Kalamazoo and van buren were hit hard like many other counties a few years back with EHD as you know. During that year I could still purchase an antlerless tag in that county and time I wanted one. Yes the DNR changed there doe harvest quotas a bit but not much. See doing so cuts into the cash flowing in. I also know the DNR receives federal grants and all that. 
Hunting that year and the next war horrible. I hear what your preaching but you and I both know the Michigan DNR still wants pockets full of cash and we both know they love selling doe tags.
Ok so here is a quick story.
Land owner two properties Dow sells vegetables in from of his house. To do so he plants everything on his land to sell including corn, pumpkins and anything else you can eat. His land is all field and fence row. He asks me the other day since I was talking to him if I like eating deer and I said yes of course. He then asked me if I wanted to come shoot as many does as I wanted in august next year on his crop permits. He owns 20 acres of field and fence row are you kidding me. Issued crop damage permits over vegetable gardens.... 

I'm no deer biologist, but I am a die hard hunter that hunts the top block in Kalamazoo and deer numbers are down there.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

jatc said:


> T
> 
> 
> The DNR does not have any control over the ag industry. It wasn't that they couldn't see the precipitous drop in the bird population, it was the fact that there was nothing they could do about it. You think the Iowa Game and Fish Dept is oblivious to the fact their birds are down 60% in the last five years? They can't do anything about the habitat loss any more than our DNR could.


Again guys the point I was trying to make is that at one time pheasant hunting was the biggest thing in Michigan. Oct 20 was way bigger than Nov 15th. But as the population of pheasant declined so did the number of hunters hunting them. There were hunters complaining then about pheasant numbers getting lower. 
Last year was a mild winter. In the NW 12 there should be more deer this year. Sightings should be up. due to MAPRs saving young bucks and a mild winter. But it seems people are seeing less deer. How long should we wait until they start taking hunters seriously? Should they wait as long as they did for the pheasant hunters.


----------



## Groundsize (Aug 29, 2006)

slabstar said:


> Numbers don't always work. Observation is more important.
> 
> Look at where the numbers game got the UP deer herd. ......


why is it that the bridge counts most deer crossing to the lower but most people don't report there deer in the lower Michigan?
Michigan needs a reporting law for reporting deer killed by hunters.
How can you honestly keep track and or estimate harvest totals when no one I know even reports there deer at a check station? 
Heard size and harvest numbers can't be accurate at all. How could they be?


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

Anecdotally, people buying multiple doe permits and knocking down every deer that they see doesn't help either.

I know of a person that shot three doe off of the same 40 acre property in 1 morning. Was it legal? Sure.

However, he must realize that he has now removed 7-9 deer from next year's pool (including the three that were shot this year).

The point I am trying to make is that just because it is legal, doesn't make it right, and now next year I will hear him complain that "there just aren't any deer around".

Self control plays a big role in our fortunes.


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

motdean said:


> Anecdotally, people buying multiple doe permits and knocking down every deer that they see doesn't help either.
> 
> I know of a person that shot three doe off of the same 40 acre property in 1 morning. Was it legal? Sure.
> 
> ...


Yes, we as Hunters are horrible at controlling our trigger fingers. The guy who complains he isn't seeing any deer at all, then shoots the first doe he sees because he "needs meat for the freezer" is a total idiot.. and there are a bunch of them out there.
-


----------



## Scout 2 (Dec 31, 2004)

Groundsize said:


> why is it that the bridge counts most deer crossing to the lower but most people don't report there deer in the lower Michigan?
> Michigan needs a reporting law for reporting deer killed by hunters.
> How can you honestly keep track and or estimate harvest totals when no one I know even reports there deer at a check station?
> Heard size and harvest numbers can't be accurate at all. How could they be?


That might be because there are no check stations. If I shot a deer on my land here and tagged it to get it checked it would mean a drive of at least 25 to 30 miles one way. All I do now is bring them to the house and hang them n the pole barn. By my sighting n the summer and on camera I have a general idea of how many deer are here most of the time and it changes big time come fall. These sightings are what I use to tell me if I should take a doe or not I figure if I see 1 deer there are probable 2 or more that I havn't seen


----------



## slabstar (Feb 25, 2009)

November Sunrise said:


> Those aren't population inaccuracies Slabstar. They're population impossibilities - there's simply no way to know exactly how many deer there are. When a biologist is pressed to come up with a number they can use their various tools to come up with an estimate but it's only just an estimate.
> 
> The key to understanding SLP deer management is in the 80's they were trying to grow the deer herd. It grew beyond their wildest dreams and created also sorts of problems for drivers, farmers, etc.
> 
> The stated purpose over the past decade plus has been to reduce and then maintain a reduced herd. What hunters are concerned about in terms of less deer than a decade ago is seen as a success by those responsible for managing the deer herd.


Well you and jatc flamed everyone in this thread for saying we don't need this many antlerless tags anymore. The fact that we're seeing less deer. 
And YEAH, what deer hunter would be happy with less deer?!
Like I said, three bad winters down here, you'll hear 600k hunters saying the same things you've heard me say. ....
For the future, catering to other constituencies will only diminish Hunter participation and recruitment.


----------



## kroppe (May 7, 2000)

Here is some data. It shows total deer related crashes in Michigan for the years 2004-2015, which is all of the data that is available on michigantrafficcrashfacts.org









Personally I have no complaints with number or quality of deer. I am generally happy with things as they are.

An argument can be made that the peak number of monthly crashes in 2015 was the lowest in the 11 year dataset. For conversation's sake, if the peak months of 2013 and 2014 are removed from the data, peak monthly deer related crashes seem to be noticeably lower in the 2010-2015 period, compared to the 2004-2009 period.


















Deer harvest is down, and so are number of hunters.

Vehicle miles driven has been on the decline until 2016. Please excuse the national data, I couldn't find Michigan data quickly. So please assume for the moment that Michigan vehicle miles driven has a similar trend as the nation. 










So the pressure from hunters and vehicle crashes has generally been lower in the 2010-2015 time frame. Harvest is also down. What is the meaning of all of this? 

The 2016 hunter and harvest numbers will be interesting, considering 2016 vehicle miles driven is up.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

slabstar said:


> Well you and jatc flamed everyone in this thread for saying we don't need this many antlerless tags anymore. The fact that we're seeing less deer.
> And YEAH, what deer hunter would be happy with less deer?!
> Like I said, three bad winters down here, you'll hear 600k hunters saying the same things you've heard me say. ....
> For the future, catering to other constituencies will only diminish Hunter participation and recruitment.


I haven't flamed anybody. This topic of deer management, how the department uses data and what goes into the decision making process is one I have some understanding of and I'm simply sharing some of my understanding.

If, for example, someone suggests that their reduced sightings is evidence that antlerless tags should be reduced for the entire county, it is reasonable to mention that personal experience isn't evidence of how a county should be addressed. 

And unless you know how many antlerless tags go unfilled, how many hunters fill one, how many hunters fill two, etc. then making suggestions about how many tags should be available is akin to running around in a dark room bouncing off the walls. A person has to have some basis of what is before they assert what should be.

Only in a pretend world are other constituencies not factored into decisions. For example, a hunter who believes deer numbers should be increased in a SLP county, but who fails to recognize that increasing numbers may lead to another 300 car/deer accidents in that county, is failing to recognize that in the real world decision makers don't have the luxury of catering to only one constituency.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

kroppe said:


> Here is some data. It shows total deer related crashes in Michigan for the years 2004-2015, which is all of the data that is available on michigantrafficcrashfacts.org
> [
> 
> So the pressure from hunters and vehicle crashes has generally been lower in the 2010-2015 time frame. Harvest is also down. What is the meaning of all of this?
> ...


You are 100% correct Kroppe in your observations of the trend in numbers. The SLP herd is most definitely smaller than it once was. It's not small but it's smaller.

This is a thread speaking to that from about five years ago:

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/f...ill-car-deer-accidents-and-eas-impact.427325/


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

kroppe said:


> Here is some data. It shows total deer related crashes in Michigan for the years 2004-2015, which is all of the data that is available on michigantrafficcrashfacts.org
> View attachment 235670
> 
> 
> ...


One thing that you're not taking into account is that there are more deer crashes in Suburban areas now than there were back in those years. for instance in the last month there were deer crashes in the city of Fraser. 10 years ago you never saw deer. Now they're all over the city. There's even deer crashes in Detroit.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

November Sunrise said:


> I haven't flamed anybody. This topic of deer management, how the department uses data and what goes into the decision making process is one I have some understanding of and I'm simply sharing some of my understanding.
> 
> If, for example, someone suggests that their reduced sightings is evidence that antlerless tags should be reduced for the entire county, it is reasonable to mention that personal experience isn't evidence of how a county should be addressed.
> 
> ...


Personal experience does factor in cooperation.
When C.W.D. was declares present mine,and the opinion of some others reflected on the first for our generation slaughter of hundreds of deer when no holds barred unlimited tags were issued in Fremont.
People refusing to retrieve spoiling deer from a proccessor ,people killing more than seventy doe...
Herds of hundreds gone. 
Yes a reduction was needed and hunters cooperated till the second year when locating a single track was the entire sum of our unscientific survey.
Spring told the tale when green field awakening was unattended.


----------



## kroppe (May 7, 2000)

poz, the data is for the whole state, you are correct. On the website for crash data, it shows township level data. You are exactly right that metro area crashes are higher. Generally Detroit, the Grand Rapids metro areas, then it goes down from there. Map below is for the same 2004-2015 data set.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

kroppe said:


> poz, the data is for the whole state, you are correct. On the website for crash data, it shows township level data. You are exactly right that metro area crashes are higher. Generally Detroit, the Grand Rapids metro areas, then it goes down from there. Map below is for the same 2004-2015 data set.
> 
> ]


At one time I was tracking this by county in order to try to influence the thinking of a few NRC commissioners. I haven't updated my charts in recent years but below is an illustration of how a high deer density county has changed over the years. 

This is Jackson County car/deer accidents through 2000-2012.

2000 - 1,938
2001 - 2,051
2002 - 1,985
2003 - 2,326 
2004 - 2,128
2005 - 2,111
2006 - 2,017
2007 - 2,030
2008 - 2,148
2009 - 1,877
2010 - 1,779
2011 - 1,536
2012 - 1,281


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

November Sunrise said:


> At one time I was tracking this by county in order to try to influence the thinking of a few NRC commissioners. I haven't updated my charts in recent years but below is an illustration of how a high deer density county has changed over the years.
> 
> This is Jackson County car/deer accidents through 2000-2012.
> 
> ...


Do you have any data from the 80s & 90s for each county


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

poz said:


> Do you have any data from the 80s & 90s for each county


At the point where I was assembling the data I think there was some organization which had the numbers going way back but I don't recall who it was. I personally never looked into the numbers previous to 2000. 

There was a group of us who used to meet monthly with Rod Clute when he was leading the big game department for the DNR. One time Rod spoke in detail about how the department at one time was on a mission to grow the deer herd statewide and how their efforts exceeded anything they could have imagined. I'm guessing those crash stats were really high starting in the late 80's when deer numbers were high, many more people were still going north on a regular basis, etc.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

Waif said:


> Personal experience does factor in cooperation.
> When C.W.D. was declares present mine,and the opinion of some others reflected on the first for our generation slaughter of hundreds of deer when no holds barred unlimited tags were issued in Fremont.
> People refusing to retrieve spoiling deer from a proccessor ,people killing more than seventy doe...
> Herds of hundreds gone.
> ...


Yep, those scenarios of what to do when disease emerges are at the heart of the deer management challenge. All key groups have strongly held opinions of what the solution is and eventually decision makers have to take action.

If decision makers overreact it creates long term challenges and same if they under react. And the problem is it often takes years before once can look back and say with any level of certainty whether the decisions made at the time constituted an overreaction or an under reaction. 

Some hunters bristle at this thought but in actuality deer management is oftentimes more art than science. Those who think it can be all science are neglecting to take into account all the human variables that can alter or even hijack the results of even the best made decisions.


----------



## slabstar (Feb 25, 2009)

November Sunrise said:


> If you want to talk about game management you can't throw out strawman arguments. There isn't anything the DNR could have done to address the many reasons for the pheasant decline. The UP deer herd would be struggling if hunters didn't kill a single deer, etc.
> 
> In actuality, there aren't plenty of excuses when it comes to deer management. If you plugged into the process closely you'd find that goals are set, regulations support those goals and then there are dozens of variables at work which influence how it actually goes. The individuals who are key within the department all understand and are open about the fact that plans sometimes succeed and sometimes fail because there are so many things that are out of one's control.
> 
> It's the nature of any endeavor for there to be twists and turns and challenges. Case in point would be the now existence of CWD in the SLP. That has huge implications for the future of deer management.


Past performance is not a strawman argument. All are examples of over harvest. Use some foresight Novembersunrise, if the slp herd in kept at 15 dpsm, three bad winters would leave us with no deer to shoot, emergency cancellation of season. .....sound familiar. ...history repeats itself. ...
Not a question of if, just when. ...
Strawman = flaming others for their observation of less deer and suggesting lowering antlerless tags, then saying because there's no way to measure population. .? 
I was all about lower populations, but over the years, I have come to realize that ppl quit hunting because they don't see anything. ...they didn't observe any deer so it's a waste of time. 
That's also why individual observation shouldn't be minimized.


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

PunyTrout said:


> You might have to ask a spokesperson from AAA, State Farm, Etc. about how many auto accidents, damage and deaths they have to pay for to get an answer to that question. I'm sure the insurance lobby has a voice in the policy making some way, some how.
> 
> *Not necessarily my opinion. I'm speaking on behalf of my neighbor in Charlevoix Co.*


 First you have deductibles, then they jack up your rates. Plush your smashed up car. The hassle of not getting where you are going, late for work, on and on.

Plus the people on bikes.

Little old lady with a flower bed, then the guy with the garden, farmers


Lots of folks don't like deer. Myself I don't want them rampant like you see in farm country. I too want the numbers kept down.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

November Sunrise said:


> Yep, those scenarios of what to do when disease emerges are at the heart of the deer management challenge. All key groups have strongly held opinions of what the solution is and eventually decision makers have to take action.
> 
> If decision makers overreact it creates long term challenges and same if they under react. And the problem is it often takes years before once can look back and say with any level of certainty whether the decisions made at the time constituted an overreaction or an under reaction.
> 
> Some hunters bristle at this thought but in actuality deer management is oftentimes more art than science. Those who think it can be all science are neglecting to take into account all the human variables that can alter or even hijack the results of even the best made decisions.


Reduction was required. And so done. All factions with legitimate concerns of too many deer were relieved.
As was the habitat.
With a near clean slate ,managing by doe permits


----------



## Rounder (Nov 11, 2015)

I was very pro wolf when living in Menominee county. Eat them big rats. That said I do think the wolves need to be managed too.

Maybe some of you folks that only get out of suburbia twice a year don't mind them. But if your wife has to call you to pick her up on the way to little Billy's soccer game, you might.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

managing by doe permits could have dialed in a much more accurate kill rate ,as long as hunters were cooperative to avoid such extremes again in the future.
The CWD hot zone, with hunter cooperation can reduce the herd,if both they and regulators deem it needed.
As in EHD stricken areas ,deer rebound ,but short and long term planning needs hunters and management more accurately measuring herd size and ratio where the herd can be most affected.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

slabstar said:


> Past performance is not a strawman argument. All are examples of over harvest. Use some foresight Novembersunrise, if the slp herd in kept at 15 dpsm, three bad winters would leave us with no deer to shoot, emergency cancellation of season. .....sound familiar. ...history repeats itself. ...
> Not a question of if, just when. ...
> .


Right on Slabstar. 

The pheasant decline and deer herd decline in the UP are clearly both examples of over harvest due to too many females being shot - one can search and high and low and no other explanations will be found.

And with the SLP herd being kept at 15 DPSM it's only a matter of time until the emergency season cancellations begin. 

Pure Michigan.


----------



## slabstar (Feb 25, 2009)

November Sunrise said:


> Right on Slabstar.
> 
> The pheasant decline and deer herd decline in the UP are clearly both examples of over harvest due to too many females being shot - one can search and high and low and no other explanations will be found.
> 
> ...


That's the same type of weak leadership that helped ruin 1/3 of this states deer hunting. Zero accountability and unable to learn from past mistakes.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

slabstar said:


> That's the same type of weak leadership that helped ruin 1/3 of this states deer hunting. Zero accountability and unable to learn from past mistakes.


Which do you consider to be the greater example of weak leadership? 

Is it the decline of the pheasant population due to over harvest or the current status of the SLP deer herd at 15 deer per square mile?


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

The pheasant, and more importantly, the quail declines are 100% due to loss of viable habitat. Nothing can live on a pool table. There is just no cover left in many areas. Today's modern farming practices do not allow for cover.


----------

