# 2010 Michigan deer harvest survey report



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> broom_jm said:
> 
> 
> > T -
> > This will probably get me flamed for being an "antlerfile" but I can't help wondering what would be walking the woods and fields of Michigan 3 years from now, if more of those baby-bucks were allowed to grow up a little? Fewer does, fewer overall deer, and a few more braggin'-size bucks...is that too much to hope for? :smile-mad


Well one thing is for certain...there would be more bucks, period. And if the numbers that are reflected in the survey are correct...then that's something that Michigan's hunters would be interested in.:lol::lol:


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

QDMAMAN said:


> PWood,
> I don't see any "flaw" associated with what you stated. What I surmise is that because many hunters are satified with 1-2 deer that some may have filled a buck tag, or both and didn't feel a need to use/purchase their antlerless tag. Of course there's still some of the old guard around that apply for them to keep them from being used. It may be interesting to see what % of antlerless tags from DMUs with limited quotas, like 051, also didn't get purchased.
> While 280 represents less than 10% of the total tags available it may be noteworthy to point out that, statewide, antlerless harvest was down 10% from 2009. I don't know if that relevant or not.
> 
> Big T


56% of hunters did not harvest a deer of any sort, and 53% of hunters were disatisfied.

I wonder if there is a connection?


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

It continues to be a sad result in the SLP regarding antlerless harvest, in my opinion. 

We continue to have less than 30% of hunters harvesting even one antlerless deer, as mentioned earlier, I believe the number I heard from Brent Rudolph was that we have a continuing trend of around 17% button bucks among these antlerless deer, which makes the number of does harvested smaller, as discussed above.

Here is a trend chart I drew up from 2006-2010. Even though the number of hunters is going down, the percentage of those remaining hunters shooting an antlerless deer is also declining, which is alarming, because it is an additive affect:










Worse yet is that we had been having an improvement of the buck to doe ratio killed, but it has gone back up a bit this year:


----------



## Rainman68 (Apr 29, 2011)

QDMAMAN said:


> And high deer densities increase the previlance in all age classes. So what's your point?
> The Turtle Lake Club (TLC) is proving that lowering numbers while increasing buck age structure is having a profound effect on lowering/maintaining acceptibly LOW rates of btb.
> I might remind everyone that out of over 300 deer harvested on the TLC, and some surrounding properties (the heart of the "hot zone"), that only 1 deer tested positive AND EVERY SINGLE DEER WAS TESTED!!!
> 
> Big T


1 in 300....... 3+ in 1000...... Acceptable?


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Rainman68 said:
> 
> 
> > 1 in 300....... 3+ in 1000...... Acceptable?


Manageable would be a better description.
All the experts say that btb is here to stay so managing it is the best we can hope for and TLC's program is showing promising results.

Big T


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

[pinefarm] it's only a few arm chair online biologists looking out the window at their birdfeeder who prolifically have some other crackpot theory




Nocturnal Ghost said:


> so true!


 
Considering that the crackpot theory came from Mason and Schmidt and is clearly written in the WCO as intending to lower the number of mature bucks..........

I absoulutely agree that the source of the MDNR proposal are armchair biologist's with crackpot theorys.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dn...9_318670_7.pdf


*From the proposal:*

A self sustained infection of bovine tuberculosis (TB) continues to persist within deer in northeast Michigan. While the long term trend in TB still demonstrates a decline, the trend from 2005-2009 indicates no change. Establishing an antler point restriction for DMU 487 will focus harvest of antlered deer on animals at greater risk of being TB positive. Date indicate at ages 2 years and older, males are increasingly more likely to be TB positive than females of the same age class. Furthermore, the risk of bucks being TB positive continuously increases with age, while the risk for does levels off at ages 4 years and up. 
__________________


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

You are aware that this is year one, right? Any possible slight shift in age class harvest can't come from deer that don't much exist.

The main key again, is lowering overall herd numbers. This is being attempted in the NELP using several tactics combined, that had had pretty good success elsewhere, individually.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

:lol: Wow, some of the people who have been pushing APR's are certainly spinning their hearts out trying to make these numbers from the NELP look good. 

The fact of the matter is that the APR's did not bring about the desired result, an overall increase in harvest. They did not appreciably increase the antlerless harvest and they will result in a lot more high prevalence older age bucks in the herd. A 12% reduction in total harvest is going to result in another population increase, the exact opposite of the desired direction. Contrary to what some say, the population has not decreased in the last couple of years, it's increased by roughly 20%, so any claim that no change in the harvest rate with a lower population density is proof of positive movement is a joke.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

And of the 21% decrease in BUCK harvest, A good number of those were 1 1/2 y.o. bucks that have now moved into into the 2 1/2 y.o. class.....That has a 4X higher prevalance than any other group except older bucks, At 4 y.o its 12X prevalance. And those stats are from Schmidt.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

This is from the Minnesota research and why they just went to APR's. Over the next few years, we'll see what the data shows. In the NELP, APR's may only result in stopping a 15% reduction and keeping harvest static.

Restricting hunters to bucks with at least three or four antler points on one side was more popular, but *that regulation increased the antlerless harvest by only 10 to 15 percent*, Grund says. The regulation also successfully increased the number of adult bucks with large antlers. At Itasca State Park, the percentage of 4½-year-old buckstrophy deer with large, heavy beamed antlersincreased from 4 percent of the deer population to more than 10 percent during the five-year study.

*Cornicelli says antler-point restrictions work on the principle that most hunters harvest only one deer each season, no matter the bag limit. "If a hunter doesn't think they are going to get an opportunity at a mature buck, some of them will harvest a doe because they want the venison," he says.*

The study showed that both regulations increased the antlerless harvest and protected bucks. Antler-point restrictions didn't increase the antlerless harvest as much as Earn-A-Buck regulations did, but the former received more support from hunters.

"Deer densities aren't that far out of goal in southeast Minnesota, and a 60 to 70 percent increase in the doe harvest isn't required," Grund says. "Antler-point restrictions are a better fit than Earn-A-Buck right now. We would consider Earn-A-Buck in situations where we need to quickly increase the antlerless deer harvest in a specific area."

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/sepoct10/bluffland_bucks.html


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

It's funny because it's those against APR's who are doing anything to spin. :lol:


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

The scarecrow cometh. You guys do remember that MDNR didn't get APR's in the NELP, right? Remember the NRC stuck the UP rules there instead? 
There are no mandatory APR's there. 

Here's the rules...
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10905-29620--,00.html


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> This is from the Minnesota research and why they just went to APR's. Over the next few years, we'll see what the data shows. In the NELP, APR's may only result in stopping a 15% reduction and keeping harvest static.
> 
> Restricting hunters to bucks with at least three or four antler points on one side was more popular, but *that regulation increased the antlerless harvest by only 10 to 15 percent*, Grund says. The regulation also successfully increased the number of adult bucks with large antlers. At Itasca State Park, the percentage of 4½-year-old buckstrophy deer with large, heavy beamed antlersincreased from 4 percent of the deer population to more than 10 percent during the five-year study.
> 
> ...


Remember Steve Schmidt stated that 4 1/2 yo bucks have 12X the prevalance rate.

Maybe thats why Wayne Sittons cooperative that pushed the MDNR to adopt antler restrictions, Wanted the Boone and Crockett score recorded with the check in data......What the hell does B&C score have to do with TB control.


----------



## Nocturnal Ghost (May 26, 2011)

swampbuck said:


> [pinefarm] it's only a few arm chair online biologists looking out the window at their birdfeeder who prolifically have some other crackpot theory
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have you ever seen a glass 1/2 full?


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

What I see in this case is deer management hijacked by special interest, with the involvement of wildlife management. It is my opinion and many others that they have put the deer herd at risk with the APR's.

Heres where it started.....http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mda/NLPANR_Stew_Coop_Pilot_Project_Manag_TB__325355_7.pdf


----------



## Nocturnal Ghost (May 26, 2011)

swampbuck said:


> What I see in this case is deer management hijacked by special interest, with the involvement of wildlife management. It is my opinion and many others that they have put the deer herd at risk with the APR's.
> 
> Heres where it started.....http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mda/NLPANR_Stew_Coop_Pilot_Project_Manag_TB__325355_7.pdf


. Makes me think your real issue is you don't like to be told what to do, especially by some college educated suit in down state Lansing. :evilsmile


----------



## Bloodrunner (Feb 3, 2011)

I forgot to report all the deer I killed, those numbers are off


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Really I am sick of corruption and a** kissing to special interest groups.




> We would encourage the DNRE, MDA, and Natural Resources Commission (NRC) to accept this pilot proposal in its entirety and to form a working relationship with the Cooperative to implement this plan by March 31, 2010. Inaction by the state will have a very negative effect in DMU 487, and the result will complicate any further efforts proposed by the DNRE, MDA, USDA and other agencies.
> 
> 
> > _
> > _


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

What I find most disturbing in all of the "noise" going on in this thread is how the old-school, "leave-it-alone" crowd continues to ignore the predominantly buck-centric harvest behavior. They are quick to seek out a potential flaw in any management effort, while offering little or nothing to address the root of the problem. Regardless of whether you are discussing the TB problem in the NELP, the profound over-abundance in the SLP, or the overall dissatisfaction expressed statewide, _more does need to be harvested_, in relation to the number of bucks being harvested. Simple as that. Any other rhetoric only distracts from the real problem.

Michigan has an embarrassment of riches, where their deer herd is concerned, but the lack of hunter discretion, coupled with gutless management initiatives, leaves us with an annual harvest of predominantly juvenile deer and a relative dearth of mature animals, buck or doe. It all starts with each person CHOOSING to adopt selective harvest practices, but that has to include, indeed EMPHASIZE, shooting more does! 

Until the population is brought under control, it would be responsible and effective for each hunter to harvest 1 buck and 3-5 does, over a 3 year period. Sadly, what is likely to happen is people will go on harvesting 2-4 bucks and 1 doe, over the next 3 years...and we'll be no closer to a well-managed herd than we are today. We'll only have ourselves to blame because old habits die hard. That's why I am in favor of a simple one-buck rule and all of the benefits it has to offer. Where the human condition thwarts logic and the efforts of well-intentioned biologists, IMPOSE meaningful change for the good of the resource and the benefit of even the most reluctant hunters.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

broom_jm said:


> Until the population is brought under control, it would be responsible and effective for each hunter to harvest 1 buck and 3-5 does, over a 3 year period.


Only 0.5% of hunters killed four or more antlerless deer last year. That is slightly better than previous years.

I killed five does this year (one buck), which makes 13 does for the last three seasons. If only half the hunters killed at least one doe, goals would be met in most areas.

We could get rid of both antlerless seasons.

By the way, archery hunters are the worst offenders. I made it a goal to kill two does--ended up arrowing three this year during archery season--one of which was actually during the late gun antlerless season.

If only, if only, each archer would try to take one doe, they would find their seasons expanding rather than being encroached on by gun seasons.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

broom_jm said:


> What I find most disturbing in all of the "noise" going on in this thread is how the old-school, "leave-it-alone" crowd continues to ignore the predominantly buck-centric harvest behavior. They are quick to seek out a potential flaw in any management effort, while offering little or nothing to address the root of the problem. Regardless of whether you are discussing the TB problem in the NELP, the profound over-abundance in the SLP, or the overall dissatisfaction expressed statewide, _more does need to be harvested_, in relation to the number of bucks being harvested. Simple as that. Any other rhetoric only distracts from the real problem.
> 
> Michigan has an embarrassment of riches, where their deer herd is concerned, but the lack of hunter discretion, coupled with gutless management initiatives, leaves us with an annual harvest of predominantly juvenile deer and a relative dearth of mature animals, buck or doe. It all starts with each person CHOOSING to adopt selective harvest practices, but that has to include, indeed EMPHASIZE, shooting more does!
> 
> Until the population is brought under control, it would be responsible and effective for each hunter to harvest 1 buck and 3-5 does, over a 3 year period. Sadly, what is likely to happen is people will go on harvesting 2-4 bucks and 1 doe, over the next 3 years...and we'll be no closer to a well-managed herd than we are today. We'll only have ourselves to blame because old habits die hard. That's why I am in favor of a simple one-buck rule and all of the benefits it has to offer. Where the human condition thwarts logic and the efforts of well-intentioned biologists, IMPOSE meaningful change for the good of the resource and the benefit of even the most reluctant hunters.


I agree in realation to the SLP and WUP(maybe). In the bulk of the NLP and EUP there is no overpopulation, in many areas just the opposite and yearling buck harvest was 48% and falling a couple years ago.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

swampbuck said:


> I agree in realation to the SLP and WUP(maybe). In the bulk of the NLP and EUP there is no overpopulation, in many areas just the opposite and yearling buck harvest was 48% and falling a couple years ago.


My frustration is not isolated to areas where the doe population is too high, it is mostly driven by the statewide predilection for harvesting a buck...any buck! The harvest model in Michigan is basically 60/40, bucks-to-does, which results in a very high turnover in the herd, a relatively young age structure, an over-population (in some areas) and most notably to hunters who care about such things, relatively few mature deer, buck or doe.

Imagine you had a sizable, high-fenced area to work with. For simple math, let's say it has a fairly high deer density of 40/mi2. Initially, the population is split 50/50, with a fairly young average age...in other words, a fairly normal herd for Michigan. Now, reverse the typical harvest trend, so that 60% of the deer you take are does and 40% are bucks. By selectively and aggressively harvesting more does, and with normal fawn recruitment, within 3 years there would be fewer deer, reducing the impact on the land and mitigating the potential for wide-spread disease. There would continue to be a fairly evenly split herd, but the average buck harvested would have a larger body size and greater antler growth. This would take a concerted effort, and require harvesting far more deer per square mile than is typically seen, but the effect is really pretty amazing.

I was part of a 600 acre hunting camp in north-central Wisconsin for 10 years and during that time the doe:buck ratio was gradually improved from about 12:1, down to about 5:1. At the same time, the average buck harvested went from a respectable 8-pointer to much larger-bodied, heavier-beamed, older bucks, including one monster of a 13-pt that took two guys to load on the back of the quad. It was not a scientific experiment, but it was certainly not entirely anecdotal. It was also incredibly rewarding to see, first-hand, how the combination of habitat improvement and selective harvest can have incredible results.

When you manage your herd for lower total numbers AND an older age structure, the results are not hard to imagine, in this day and age. The science has been done; it's pretty much all documented by this point. I just wish the hunters and DNR would get on the same page in Michigan, so we can all enjoy the same experience folks throughout the Midwest have, each fall. Plenty of deer and more mature bucks.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

IMHO, archers are the worst offenders due only to the combo tag.

With archers, the season is young, bucks are everywhere and even when they shoot one buck, they can nock another arrow without even getting down to look for blood on the buck they just hit and look for another buck.

All the more reason to change the wording of the combo tag and make it good for only 2 antlerless deer in archery season or one buck in firearms season and one antlerless in archery season.

From there, basically guide hunters into buying our present archery tag and present firearms tag.

If hunters know that when they kill a buck in a given weapons season, that they're done buck hunting until the next weapons season opens, they'll be less buck centric and more open to killing antlerless deer. 

Sure, some area's don't offer antlerless tags, but in this day and age, not that many people are hunting in those area's. The vast majority of our hunters are hunting in area's with available antlerless tags. 

And has always occured with hunting, people can get in their truck and drive to where there's better hunting, more deer and more tags. 

Basically, go to what Wisconsin has for tags.

Come Oct. 1, archers get one buck tag. They can choose their one "trophy" from there. But if they kill a 4pt on Oct. 10, they need to wait until firearms opener until they can kill another buck. It's "one buck and done" for any weapon type.

I believe other than the deep south, Michigan is the only state in the area that allows such a thing as the combo tag, where hunters in any given season can kill two bucks. 

If someone claims to be a meat hunter, then the combo offering two antlerless deer in archery is right up their alley.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Pinefarm said:


> IMHO, archers are the worst offenders due only to the combo tag.
> 
> With archers, the season is young, bucks are everywhere and even when they shoot one buck, they can nock another arrow without even getting down to look for blood on the buck they just hit and look for another buck.
> 
> ...


This would be a good plan.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Pinefarm said:


> IMHO, archers are the worst offenders due only to the combo tag.
> 
> With archers, the season is young, bucks are everywhere and even when they shoot one buck, they can nock another arrow without even getting down to look for blood on the buck they just hit and look for another buck.
> 
> ...


Yep, this would be an improvement for sure, and I would vote for it in a heartbeat, if it was offered, but a simple one-buck rule would be easier to administer and considerably more effective. It's a given that the best hunters can, and do, take 2 bucks per year with their bow and/or rifle. Under any system that allows harvesting 2 bucks in a year, these guys would have every right to do so. If they didn't also choose to harvest 3-5 does, where legal, they would be contributing to the problem, not helping reduce population or improve the age structure of the herd. 

If MI had an OBR for a trial period of 5 years, I can just about guarantee the vast majority of hunters would vote to keep it that way, indefinitely. The results are that impressive. Barring that, I'm all for ANY change that results in a higher doe harvest and letting a few more bucks walk, each year.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

broom_jm said:


> I was part of a 600 acre hunting camp in north-central Wisconsin for 10 years and during that time the doe:buck ratio was gradually improved from about 12:1, down to about 5:1.


broom;

If you are talking about post hunt numbers, then 5:1 is certainly possible. Typically biologists only discuss doe to buck ratios pre-hunt, and excluding juveniles. In Michigan, the DNR statewide numbers indicate that the doe to buck ratio is roughly around 2:1. That is probably true in most regions of our state, although may not be the case in regions of declining deer populations. My own observation (while hunting) each year put the ratio of adult does to antlered bucks at roughly between 1.7 to 1 and 2 to 1. 2010 was a bit high at 2.26 to one. I saw 206 adult does and 91 antlered bucks. But keep in mind, I am counting all the way from October 1 to January 1, so much of the counting is done after the bulk of the harvest occurs on November 15th and 16th. Oct 1 to Nov 14th the ratio was 2.0:1. From Nov 17th to Jan 1 it was 2.86:1. Now anecdotal observation is fairly unreliable. But in my case, I am putting myself in areas where bucks tend to gravitate to under pressure, which purposely skews me towards seeing more bucks. In contrast, most hunters are counting deer from field edges, which skews them away from seeing many bucks (if any after November 16th). 

One mistake that is often made in hunting camps is that hunters can't distinguish juveniles from adults, so count all antlerless deer as does. If you see what is usually called a group of "does" in MI, half or more are likely to be juveniles (and the juveniles will be about 50% male and about 50% female). In southern MI, by gun season these juveniles are almost indistinguishable from the adults from a distance. Moreover, most observation is done after hunting season starts, when bucks become more reclusive (especially in states like MI and WI), and doe groups continue to be more visible, because they have to move in daylight (to feed the young) and are easier to spot in these larger groups, and maintain patterns of behavior that are easier to predict. What you end up with is scientifically impossible numbers.

In a herd that is stable or growing (fawn recruitment rate greater than 0.8) it is mathematically impossible to have greater than a 3:1 ratio of adult does to antlered bucks, even if you kill 100% of the antlered bucks every year! Since 25% or more of our bucks do survive every year, it makes it much harder to exceed that extreme 3:1 ratio pre-season. 

Most people fail to see these bucks because of how and where they choose to hunt, and how they count deer, not because the bucks are not there. If the harvest of juvenile males vs. females is extremely skewed, you can get numbers higher than 3:1 even in a stable or growing herd, but the imbalance has to be quite a bit.

I have written an article on this subject here--keep oin mind, this model is extreme, in which 100% of antlered bucks are killed every year during hunting season: http://www.scentbuster.com/Doe-Buck_Ratio.html

For an extensive discussion of this topic, in classic MSF give and take form, go here: http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=215254

There is also a thread that narrows the discussion down to the dynamics of increasing the age structure of bucks here: http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=271559


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

We're never going to get OBR. No point in wasting any more time on it.

The legislature makes that law. The legislature is never going to tell voters that they're going to cut the buck limit in half and then double the price and then more to adjust for inflation. 

Michigan hunters won't stand for a $30-50 single buck tag.

We're stuck with the present tags. From here, all we can do is perhaps change the wording on some, like the combo, and work with other options such as antler regs and playing with season dates when buck tags can be filled and/or making more antlerless only seasons in september and/or january.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Pinefarm said:


> We're never going to get OBR. No point in wasting any more time on it.
> 
> The legislature makes that law. The legislature is never going to tell voters that they're going to cut the buck limit in half and then double the price and then more to adjust for inflation.
> 
> ...


You say that MI hunters won't stand for a $30, single buck tag, and I don't really dispute that, but I can tell you that each individual tag here in Indiana costs $24. Considering the quality of hunting seen here, and the higher overall satisfaction rate, most folks feel that is a fair price. Maybe this is a classic case of getting what you pay for? 

Still, you're 100% correct: The easier thing to do is change the nature of the combo tag by making it good for one buck and one doe, any season. Any additional buck tags should be an additional cost, and ONLY available after the first two tags are filled. Doe tags, where the population calls for it, to be sold as appropriate. Pie in the sky stuff, but I think most of us agree, _something_ has to change. Doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result... ?


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Pinefarm said:


> We're never going to get OBR. No point in wasting any more time on it.


The word "never" is a bit extreme here; I could perhaps buy "unlikely in the near term".

A few years ago, it was easy to find experts who would opine that the Greeks would "never" reduce government pensions and public sector compensation by 20+% across the board. 
I had a political science professor with a PhD lecture myself and my classmates that Ronald Reagan would "never" be elected president.
Practically everyone thought the USA olympic hockey team would "never" win a gold medal in 1980.
In my growing up years in metro Detroit, it was commonly believed that General Motors would "never" go bankrupt.

I'm "never" giving up on an OBR for Michigan; I remain convinced it would be the most effective strategy we could employ, especially in the SLP.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

farmlegend said:


> The word "never" is a bit extreme here; I could perhaps buy "unlikely in the near term".
> 
> I'm "never" giving up on an OBR for Michigan; I remain convinced it would be the most effective strategy we could employ, especially in the SLP.


Having been there, done that, just a couple hundred miles to the south...


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Broom,

The national average for getting one antlered buck tag is $38. Many states require a $15-20 "hunting tag" before you can even buy the $15-20 "deer tag". 

Michigan has a long tradition that cheap tags are akin to work benefits. The demand from many is that expense to the individual is less than the real cost.

Farm,

Never say never. I get that. Maybe someday MDNR can be funded by a part of an increased sales tax, like other states do, since ALL residents benefit from the natural resources.

But at least for the relative near term, say decade, the political/economic situation in this state isn't going to allow for it.

Now, maybe some state bankruptcy panel will mandate that Michigan increase fee's for such and such. 

IMHO, OBR in Michigan is about as likely as a 7-9 day firearms season.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

After briefly reading through some of the posts I can say a lot of good ideas being thrown around. What I see though for the most part is a lot of good ideas that would work mostly in the slp. Being a slp hunter I welcome just about any change that could do both reduce population via doe harvest and increase buck age structure. I like these ideas because they sit well with the area I hunt and work together with my goals as a hunter. 
What about the rest? Unless the dnr stops trying to manage on such a large scale the resistance to any changes will always be high and that makes implimenting these changes a difficult process. Make the necessary changes per location to match with the local deer herds and I think the future of Michigans deer management will greatly improve for all hunters across the state.

_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't MDNR planning on moving to bigger, regional WMU's in the next few years vs county DMU's? 

I thought they were first going to use WMU's for antlerless tags, then possibly different buck rules, per region, after people get used to the concept.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Pinefarm said:


> Broom,
> 
> The national average for getting one antlered buck tag is $38. Many states require a $15-20 "hunting tag" before you can even buy the $15-20 "deer tag".
> 
> ...


I guess if I count the half the cost of my annual hunting/fishing license ($25), then my one-and-only buck tag DOES cost $36.50...but I don't really see that as a problem. I accept the idea that inflation, along with a greatly improved "product", has resulted in a higher participation fee. I'm fine with it, as are the largely satisfied hunters throughout the Midwest who pay more for their tags than MI hunters do. (Heck, I paid over $500 in out-of-state tag fee to hunt my land in MI last fall, so there's no way I'd sweat $30/tag as a resident  )

Michigan has no shortage of long-standing hunting traditions...many of which contribute greatly to the myriad of problems facing the biologists trying to manage the deer herd. A calendar date opener, buck-centric harvest, and apparently tag fees that don't even cover the cost of allocating them, are all "traditions", but none of them benefit the resource or the people hoping to enjoy them.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

broom_jm said:


> Michigan has no shortage of long-standing hunting traditions...many of which contribute greatly to the myriad of problems facing the biologists trying to manage the deer herd. A calendar date opener, buck-centric harvest, and apparently tag fees that don't even cover the cost of allocating them, are all "traditions", but none of them benefit the resource or the people hoping to enjoy them.


This is your opinion and you are welcome to it but I disagree. The only "tradition here is the opener and it has benefited the resource. A buck-centric harvest can describe any state and tag fees are not a tradition. They are nothing but political. No one wants to be the guy to raise it.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Justin said:


> This is your opinion and you are welcome to it but I disagree. The only "tradition here is the opener and it has benefited the resource. A buck-centric harvest can describe any state and tag fees are not a tradition. They are nothing but political. No one wants to be the guy to raise it.


IMHO, and in this I am unanimous, the 11/15 opener does not benefit the deer herd in any way. It makes it far more difficult for biologists to count on opening day/weekend harvest for the enormous impact it has on the total annual harvest, because it changes every year. In what way would you suggest the 11/15 opener benefits the deer herd? At best, it's an antiquated tradition that is still around based largely on inertia, certainly not science.

Show me another whitetail deer hunting state where 60% of the total annual harvest is bucks and I'll concede that point...having hunted in more than a few of them, I can tell you right now, you'll be wasting your time.

As far as tag costs being a tradition, that's just something a previous poster was pointing out as a reason why MI won't go to a one-buck rule: He was saying hunters in Michigan expect to get 2 tags for $30 and if you ask them to pay that much for one tag, they'll get pretty ticked off. You're probably right about it being more of a political issue than one of "tradition", but both come down to what is a reasonable cost for the product offered? If a politician had some magic way of dramatically improving the quality of the average buck in Michigan, but it would double the cost of tags to a "whopping" $30/ea, I'm gonna say he'd be about the most popular guy in the state!

Let me put it more succinctly: Would YOU pay $30 per tag, if you knew the odds of seeing a bigger-bodied, larger-antlered buck were much greater, as a result? 

The way I've always seen it, my tag fees go to pay a biologist who is largely over-worked, under-funded and almost entirely unappreciated, despite the fact that he makes the best scientific recommendations he can, only to have them ignored, for the most part. I'll gladly pay whatever the tag fees are and be grateful to have fish to catch, turkeys to scare (I'm terrible with a diaphragm call) and especially, deer to hunt.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Nov. 15th was chosen to grow the herd. It did just that! It continues to work in the NLP. It's true that it is now a tradition...one that the majority still enjoy. Now, show me a state where the hunters focus isn't bucks. Regulations control them, they still love their bucks. I would pay $30 for a single tag now. I look at it as paying for the opportunity to hunt, not buying big antlers.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Growing herds was why they went to the "buck law". 

From MDNR...

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

November 15 was chosen because most of the LP was closed down to deer hunting, most deer and hunting was in the UP and, according to MDNR, the peak rut rifle opener of Nov. 15 was chosen so..."Season dates were changed several times until 1925, when November 15 through 30 was determined to be the best time for hunting deer".

In 1925, when 95% of the hunting was in the UP and with rifles only, with only one tag, Nov. 15 made perfect sense. It's not 1925 anymore.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Seems to work fine in the northern 2/3rds of the state. As I said before...change the slp if need be, that's where the problems are. Most of northern Mich. has proven that they can control populations just fine.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

broom_jm said:


> You say that MI hunters won't stand for a $30, single buck tag, and I don't really dispute that, but I can tell you that each individual tag here in Indiana costs $24. Considering the quality of hunting seen here, and the higher overall satisfaction rate, most folks feel that is a fair price. Maybe this is a classic case of getting what you pay for?


IN 2006, the "Hunting and Fishing License Package Development Work Group" issued a report available here http://www.miresourcestewards.org/PriorityTopics/final_report_177934_7.pdf. 

In it, they proposed that the cost for a single buck license should move from 15 to $30. Same with the archery license and doe permit. Here is a figure from page 23 of that document. 










In fact, this data indicates that people did pay more for licenses back in 1971. It cost $7.50 for a single buck license then. Inflation adjustment should have it at $36 now.

This report was ignored, of course.

The recent loss in numbers of hunters has nothing to do with costs of licenses. The inflation adjusted cost for a license has gone down by more than 50% since 1971. I believe the reduction in numbers of hunters is a social issue, not a financial one. Farm kids come home from college, where 95% of the professors are liberals, as Vegans. City kids are taught that it is evil to kill for food. Effort and costs to obtain food is a fraction of what it was in 1971. Meat hunters are an anachronism. I prove that every year when some bozo gets on here and begs for a place to hunt so he can kill a doe. I offer them a dead, gutted, dragged and hung doe every year and have never once been taken up on it. I give all my does away to non-hunters:rant:. 

It is my personal opinion that doubling the fee would have virtually no impact on the number of hunters that buy licenses. People who want to hunt will hunt whether it costs $15 or $30. In fact, it is hilarious that most hunters pay the $30 anyway for the combo when only 5% of hunters kill two bucks. THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING $30 AND USUALLY ONLY GETTING ONE BUCK! They will continue to pay $30 for a single buck tag.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Justin said:


> Nov. 15th was chosen to grow the herd. It did just that! It continues to work in the NLP. It's true that it is now a tradition...one that the majority still enjoy. Now, show me a state where the hunters focus isn't bucks. Regulations control them, they still love their bucks. I would pay $30 for a single tag now. I look at it as paying for the opportunity to hunt, not buying big antlers.


Just for the sake of argument, let's say that the 11/15 has something to do with growing the herd. If that's the case, please explain to me how the herd, both north and south, has grown, collapsed, grown again, had long periods of stability, reversals of fortune, etc, etc, ad nauseum, for the last 40 years, or so. How can that be, if the Nov. 15th opening day helps the herd grow? 

The only thing that continues to "grow the herd" is the failure to selectively harvest does, where it is biologically indicated that we should do so. I love tradition, I really do, as long as it does not preclude logic and/or science. In the case of the 11/15 opener, it precludes both and should be changed to a Saturday, as all other states have done.

The hunters in every state are most focused on bucks. On that, we totally agree! The BIG difference is that the respective game agencies, and the hunters themselves, are conscientious enough to know that in order to see large, mature bucks, they need to take a good number of does while letting baby deer walk. If you spent a week in the woods with some serious Hoosier hunters, you'd begin to see how much more attention guys down here pay to which deer should be harvested. In Michigan, it's all about tagging "a buck", whereas in places like Iowa, Kansas, Montana...heck just about everywhere else, it's about tagging "THE buck"! Guys are fine with going a year or two w/o shooting a buck, especially when they know the odds are pretty good they'll tag a good one, when the time comes. 

In MI you get put down if you don't get a buck, while in IA, IL, IN, WI, KS, OH, KY...you get put down if you take a little 1-1/2 year-old 6-pointer that had great potential until you shot him. The hunting culture in Michigan is geared toward taking a buck, ANY BUCK. In places where there are far more quality bucks, it's because guys show some discretion for a few years and then they start to see a lot of the kind of deer every hunter would like to see, given the chance.

To put it in perspective for ya: My wife shot her first buck 2 years ago, here in Indiana. It is bigger than any buck I've ever personally seen while hunting in Michigan. More importantly, it was a mature, full-bodied animal, taken from a herd with at least some semblance of a normal age structure. It's hard to even grasp if all you've hunted is Michigan, but trust me when I tell you: There ARE other ways to go about managing your deer herd and they have results you basically have to see to believe.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Pinefarm said:


> You are aware that this is year one, right? Any possible slight shift in age class harvest can't come from deer that don't much exist.
> 
> The main key again, is lowering overall herd numbers. This is being attempted in the NELP using several tactics combined, that had had pretty good success elsewhere, individually.


This is an illogical theory for several reasons. In year one when legal buck numbers are at their lowest, the number of antlerless deer taken should be at their highest. Unfortunately the numbers do not reflect this. Next year there will obviously be more legal bucks available making it even less likely that more antlerless deer are taken.

Reason number two is the fact that next year we will have more deer that are more likely to have and spread the bTb virus. This is exactly what most of us so called arm chair biologists feared when this proposal was requested.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

bioactive said:


> It is my personal opinion that doubling the fee would have virtually no impact on the number of hunters that buy licenses. People who want to hunt will hunt whether it costs $15 or $30. In fact, it is hilarious that most hunters pay the $30 anyway for the combo when only 5% of hunters kill two bucks. THEY ARE ALREADY PAYING $30 AND USUALLY ONLY GETTING ONE BUCK! They will continue to pay $30 for a single buck tag.


Fantastic insight, Jim! You can't give away doe meat, yet we have to keep tag prices down because some hunters are so poor and that meat helps 'em survive the winter...yeah, right! If all the money a guy has is $30 he might buy a box of 22 ammo to poach a deer with, but he's NOT buying a combo tag. I know, because some of the protein that helped me grow from a wee tot was obtained thusly.

You make perhaps the most salient point in ALL of the various herd management threads I've read on this forum! Indeed, the entirety of Michigan's plethora of deer dilemmas could be resolved with but a single change, and it's a change that would _benefit 95% of the hunters who buy a combo tag!_ All they need to do is change the combo tag to be good for 1 buck and 1 doe, archery or firearms, period. Sell any subsequent BUCK tags for $50/ea and any subsequent doe tags (where harvest is needed) for $10, resident OR non-resident. Heck, give 'em away!

To reiterate, because it's that important: *Change the combo tag to be good for 1 buck, 1 doe. It will give 95% of those who purchase it a "free" doe tag; it will lower the doe numbers and overall herd size; it will balance the buck:doe harvest ratio; it will eventually result in more large bucks in the herd, which is something almost all hunters want to see. *This one, simple change would have a huge impact on the deer herd in Michigan, and it might be the easiest, most likely legislation to pass.

Keep the price the same, or raise it, but put an either/or tag in a guy's pocket so we start down the path toward better overall management of the resource.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

And in those areas that are at or below goal? What type of great management is it that you would be accomplishing?:16suspect


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Michihunter said:


> And in those areas that are at or below goal? What type of great management is it that you would be accomplishing?:16suspect


Well, if I have to spell it out for you...

In those DMU's where no doe tags are sold to help keep the herd in check, a hunter with only one buck tag could hunt as usual. 95% of those who purchase a combo-tag only harvest one buck anyway, but if the second half of their tag was only good for a doe, they would have a range of choices available. They would be able to hunt does in their DMU, if such is indicated, or they could travel to where the population needs to be thinned. They would not need to purchase a separate tag to do so. This concentrates doe hunting where it is most needed and takes a little heat off a buck population that gets over-harvested every year.

And perhaps what should be obvious, but you are overlooking; a few years of harvesting more DOES than BUCKS (instead of having it the other way around) will result in the improved opportunity for that single buck tag to be hung on some rather impressive antlers. 

Personally, I don't care how big the antlers are, but I have learned to hold out for a mature, full-bodied animal, buck or doe. That's no different than holding out for 8" bluegill instead of keeping every 5" 'gill you catch. It's all a matter of choice, but too many are choosing to shoot the 1-1/2 year-old 6-point, year after year, so IMHO it's time to let regulations lead the way to better herd management.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

broom_jm said:


> Well, if I have to spell it out for you...
> 
> In those DMU's where no doe tags are sold to help keep the herd in check, a hunter with only one buck tag could hunt as usual. 95% of those who purchase a combo-tag only harvest one buck anyway, but if the second half of their tag was only good for a doe, they would have a range of choices available. They would be able to hunt does in their DMU, if such is indicated, or they could travel to where the population needs to be thinned. They would not need to purchase a separate tag to do so. This concentrates doe hunting where it is most needed and takes a little heat off a buck population that gets over-harvested every year.
> 
> ...


So the doe portion of the combo would only be good in DMU's that previously allowed for antlerless permits? How would you go about enforcing it?


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Michihunter said:


> So the doe portion of the combo would only be good in DMU's that previously allowed for antlerless permits? How would you go about enforcing it?


How are doe permits that are issued for a specific DMU controlled, currently? By the honor system, mostly. In all of these herd management discussions, one has to _presume_ that all game laws will be observed, even though we know that is not very realistic. It doesn't matter what regulations are in place if you start arguing that they will simply be ignored by law-breakers. Using this sad reality as an argument against sound game management policies is like saying we shouldn't have any speed limits since so many people break them, anyway.

For those conscientious hunters who do the right thing, they would be all set. For those who break the law and fill their wife's tag or hunt however and whenever they see fit, I'm not sure there is anything we can do to stop them. The DNR doesn't have the resources to do so...that's for sure. All that biologists, or ethical, law-abiding hunters, can do is make the right decision based on the available science, and go from there. 

What we're doing now results in a 60/40 split of bucks to does being harvested. This is not a good ratio in ANY DMU, let alone in the SLP. Changing the combo tag to one buck and one doe would start to reverse the long-standing trends of over-harvesting bucks in all DMU's.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

broom_jm said:


> How are doe permits that are issued for a specific DMU controlled, currently? By the honor system, mostly. In all of these herd management discussions, one has to _presume_ that all game laws will be observed, even though we know that is not very realistic. It doesn't matter what regulations are in place if you start arguing that they will simply be ignored by law-breakers. Using this sad reality as an argument against sound game management policies is like saying we shouldn't have any speed limits since so many people break them, anyway.
> 
> For those conscientious hunters who do the right thing, they would be all set. For those who break the law and fill their wife's tag or hunt however and whenever they see fit, I'm not sure there is anything we can do to stop them. The DNR doesn't have the resources to do so...that's for sure. All that biologists, or ethical, law-abiding hunters, can do is make the right decision based on the available science, and go from there.
> 
> What we're doing now results in a 60/40 split of bucks to does being harvested. This is not a good ratio in ANY DMU, let alone in the SLP. Changing the combo tag to one buck and one doe would start to reverse the long-standing trends of over-harvesting bucks in all DMU's.


The problem you would encounter is the reduction in the most revenue positive sales the DNR currently has available. You not only would be reducing combo sales due to the 'doe' portion of the tag possibly not being available in someones current hunt area but also reducing antlerless sales due to it being part of the combo. Lose lose situation revenue wise. sorry but I don't see that decision ever happening in an already cash strapped agency such as the DNR.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

broom_jm said:


> What we're doing now results in a 60/40 split of bucks to does being harvested. This is not a good ratio in ANY DMU, let alone in the SLP. Changing the combo tag to one buck and one doe would start to reverse the long-standing trends of over-harvesting bucks in all DMU's.


You clearly have no idea of the biological consequences of overharvesting does in DMU's that are at or under stated population goals. Your plan would be a disaster for 2/3rd's of the state, both from a herd management standpoint and from a revenue standpoint. You seem to be so blinded by a desire for bigger antlered bucks that you ignore reality. 

Why don't you share some details about yourself, I'm starting to get the feeling that this new arrival is one of our regular posters assuming a new persona just for the purposes of stirring the pot. :16suspect


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Munsterlndr said:


> You clearly have no idea of the biological consequences of overharvesting does in DMU's that are at or under stated population goals. Your plan would be a disaster for 2/3rd's of the state, both from a herd management standpoint and from a revenue standpoint. You seem to be so blinded by a desire for bigger antlered bucks that you ignore reality.
> 
> Why don't you share some details about yourself, I'm starting to get the feeling that this new arrival is one of our regular posters assuming a new persona just for the purposes of stirring the pot. :16suspect


I don't advocate any harvest not encouraged by the DNR biologists, so I don't know where your unfounded fear about this "disaster" comes from. As far as revenue goes, Michigan hunters are getting one heckuva bargain on their tags, I can tell ya that much. Maybe it's time to step up to the plate, fiscally and socially, by paying more than $10-$15 per actual tag?? While we're at it, how about using those tags to help manage the resource more progressively? Crazy talk?! If 1/3 of the state's hunters are dissatisfied, are you suggesting we ignore that and carry on with the status quo, or should we at least TRY to make some improvements?

Reality, my friend, is that Michigan SHOULD have the same high-quality deer hunting enjoyed by all of its neighbors, but it doesn't because selective harvest is not part of the culture, or the policy, of deer hunting in this state. What the Michigan deer herd is, today, is largely analogous to a managed pine plantation in the southern US. The herd is overwhelmingly comprised of relatively young deer that are harvested indiscriminately, just as soon as they have reached legal status. In other words, when the spots are gone or there's enough antler showing, the preponderance of deer in the herd are in serious jeopardy. Tell me I'm wrong...

A few words about myself:

My name is Jason Broom. I was born in Saginaw General (long since renamed), lived in SMB for a few years, then moved up to East Jordan, Charlevoix, and that general area until I was six years old. My parents decided to relocate to California, where I lived for 22 years, with many entire summers, and later, vacations spent in the NWLP. I harvested my first deer at the age of 13, just southeast of the town of Mancelona, on state land. It was an old buck with a long spike on the right and 3 on the left. I shot it with my dad's 243 and he fell over backwards. Dad's buddy, Dave Smith, who owns a towing company in Bellaire has a picture of it, somewhere. My family and I own land tracts of land just north of Bellaire, south of EJ and also near Alba. Dad is on his way up there to put in a BW crop as I type this little blurb.

I currently live just south of Indianapolis, and have for the last 12 years, or so. I have hunted in CA, IN, WI and MI, mostly for deer, but also for wild hogs, ducks, geese, varmints, etc. I bowhunt, rifle hunt, pistol hunt, ML hunt and am quite passionate about it all, as my posts may tend to reflect. Professionally speaking, I am in the IT industry, supporting a global Citrix environment for a large pharmaceutical company. I have a loving wife, who also hunts, a son who loves to shoot but does not hunt, a daughter who hunts, and two more that I'm still working on! 

I make it a point to introduce as many people as possible to the shooting and hunting sports, each year. I don't like "No Hunting" signs, even on my land. I believe every hunter has an obligation to not just enjoy the renewable resources we are blessed with, but to IMPROVE UPON THEM, consistently. I'm told I can be both vociferous and eloquent, but I endeavor to be self-effacing, as much as I can. Some people are put off by the fact that I state my opinion authoritatively, as opposed to the politically-correct notion of being ambiguous or benign. Frankly, I just calls 'em as I sees 'em...and I don't much care who likes that and who doesn't.

I started reading posts in the Whitetail Habitat sub-forum a few months back, lurking until I got the lay of the land, so to speak. I have never been a member of this forum previously, nor would I misrepresent myself in that manner. I am simply another voice from the darkness; I'm glad to know I'm not alone, and that I'm ruffling a few feathers.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Well, so far you have been wrong about mature bucks improving the genetic qualities of the herd and about there being buck/doe ratio's in the 1:12 range, so it certainly begs the question, what else are you wrong about? 

Manage the resource more progressively? Oh, wait, that's politically correct for manage the herd for increased trophy production, tight? For someone that says he does not care about the size of antlers, I have to say that your concern for the "health" of the herd is certainly impressive.

The Michigan herd has plenty of older deer in it, they just don't have the type of head gear that you are looking for. Tell us why Michigan SHOULD be managed for increase trophy production? So that you have a better chance at a bigger buck? 

There are some changes that need to be made to the Michigan herd but they don't include trophy management, particularly if we are going to be facing disease issues in the years to come.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

> Change the combo tag to be good for 1 buck, 1 doe. It will give 95% of those who purchase it a "free" doe tag; it will lower the doe numbers and overall herd size; it will balance the buck:doe harvest ratio; it will eventually result in more large bucks in the herd, which is something almost all hunters want to see.


This is a terrible idea; it does not account for a majority of the state that does not have public let alone private land doe tags available. Maybe it's appropriate for zone 3 but surely not the rest of the state. About the only thing that I agree with is that Michigan hunters have cheap tags and older bucks which we already have.

Michigan is way too diverse for one type of tag system. Think about it should the tag system in Indiana be the same as Georgia or even Kansas? No; but what you are suggesting is that it should be; actually it's a shorter drive to either place from Indy so maybe it should be. Heck the UP alone is 350 miles wide and nearly 600 miles from Detroit to Ironwood.


----------



## twodogsphil (Apr 16, 2002)

Michi, when did the TB bacteria evolve into a virus?


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Luv2hunteup said:


> This is a terrible idea; it does not account for a majority of the state that does not have public let alone private land doe tags available. Maybe it's appropriate for zone 3 but surely not the rest of the state. About the only thing that I agree with is that Michigan hunters have cheap tags and older bucks which we already have.
> 
> *So, what you're saying is you hunt the UP and want to go on shooting two bucks each year? Well, you hunt where a good hunter can find and harvest two bucks, and if you're patient, maybe even find mature bucks. I think that's great, but as you point out, the UP is not the SLP, or NLP. Maybe you're right and they all three need to be managed differently. I'm not opposed to that idea; never said I was. However, what you enjoy in the UP is partially a result of nature doing what man is failing to do in many parts of the lower peninsula. Much harsher winters keep deer densities lower and "selectively harvests" smaller, weaker deer from the gene pool. You see and hunt a more modest population of bigger deer. With all of that being said, if hunters in the UP went in the woods each fall, knowing they only had 1 buck tag...just think of how many smaller bucks would be given the chance to reach their potential. Given that only 5% of hunters shoot two bucks anyway, doesn't it just make sense to let the little guys walk so that the one buck MOST guys shoot, is a mature animal? I'm just asking questions, here.*
> 
> Michigan is way too diverse for one type of tag system. Think about it should the tag system in Indiana be the same as Georgia or even Kansas? No; but what you are suggesting is that it should be; actually it's a shorter drive to either place from Indy so maybe it should be. Heck the UP alone is 350 miles wide and nearly 600 miles from Detroit to Ironwood.


*To be accurate, I am NOT proposing Michigan adopt the same tag policy as Indiana, or any other state of which I am aware. Presently, Indiana does not offer a combo tag, although the idea has been considered. The current policy requires that you buy a separate $24 tag for each season; archery, firearm and muzzle-loader. Doe tags are extra for gun season, although your archery tag is good for either/or. I regularly spend in excess of $100 on various tags during the season and rarely harvest more than 2 animals. Do a little research on the cost of buying two resident tags for any state in the Midwest and let me know what you find. In addition to a buck-centric harvest culture, Michigan enjoys the most economical tag system of just about any state out there, especially if all you plan to shoot are bucks. If you're satisfied with the deer you see, then I suggest you go right on doing that.*


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

No; what I am saying is that I want to shoot a 3 1/2 or older buck on my combo tag and keep hunting for another one that age or older for the remainder of the season. I've only taken two 3 1/2 year olds in one season and that was in '96. Since that time I've taken 11 more Michigan bucks that were aged by the DNR at 3 1/2 years old. We don't have antlerless tags in my DMU so that option is out.

UP hunters have to make a choice to either choose between one unrestricted tag or a combo tag where both tags are restricted which pretty much protects a vast majority of 1 1/2 year old plus a good portion of 2 1/2 year olds. Not many guys up here kill two legal bucks in a year. The sportsmen who buy the single tag still legally shoot 1 1/2 year old bucks. This is proof positive that the OBR is not working. I can't blame the guys who want to kill a young buck when they do not have the option of killing a doe.

In the UP mother nature kills more deer than hunters do and it's not limited to just the small/weak. In the winters of '95-'96 & '96-'97 those losses were around 300,000 deer. Since that time we have had another couple of bad winters which have also taken their toll. Some years snow comes early (October) and leaves in mid to late May. Wolves have also killed thousand of deer since the boom years.

Just curious how many 3 1/2 year old or older bucks have you killed in your home state?


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Luv2hunteup,

Whether you realize it or not, you are basically hunting under a one-buck rule. You said yourself you've only taken 1 buck per season in the last 15 years. Since 95% of combo tag holders only shoot 1 buck per year, that means they get a 2nd buck about every 20 years. You're right on pace!

Mother nature keeps the herd numbers in check so there is no need to aggressively harvest does. In your case, whether or not the tag you carry is good for 1 buck or 2 is almost irrelevant, _statistically._ Socially, it is definitely important because it means you can be out in the woods, hunting. I understand your concerns and respect the effort you put into hunting a mature buck, each year.

The UP is under different rules, and should be. Maybe the combo tag, or a 2nd, APR tag makes sense there. The hunting you experience in the UP right now is similar, in some ways, to what it could be like in the rest of the state, if more does were harvested and more young bucks were allowed to walk. In other words, you already practice, out of necessity, the hunter's ethic that is too-often ignored, in other parts of the state.

It's also important to note that the UP is approximately 25% of the total land mass of MI, but has a great deal more traditional deer habitat, and lower harvest. Even without the harsh winters and predators, the land there could never carry the number of deer seen in the agriculture-intensive parts of the SLP. This helps explain why the UP accounted for only ~42,000 of the 412,000 deer harvested last season...just barely over 10%. 

While the one-buck rule would mean you could only legally shoot one buck per year, it wouldn't make a large difference in how many you actually _harvest_ each year. It WOULD mean that you couldn't keep hunting for deer, after harvesting that one buck, which would stink. I totally get that and would not want to see it happen. In other DMU's, guys could either keep hunting for does or drive a little ways to do so in another DMU. I can certainly empathize with why you would not like to see this happen, but can you see how the hunting you currently enjoy is _basically_ already the result of a one-buck rule?

For the record: I've harvested 4 mature bucks in roughly 30 years of hunting. The first was an old, grizzled whitetail, in Michigan; the second was a very nice 3x3 blacktail, in CA; the third was a whitetail from WI; and the fourth was here in Indiana. As I've stated repeatedly, I'm not a horn-hunter. I am happy to take a mature doe, or buck...either one is fine with me. 

Since the implementation of a one-buck rule, the number of quality bucks I have personally seen has gradually crept up. This was true under self-imposed conditions in WI and under DNR regulations, in Indiana. For areas with an over-abundance of does, an OBR forces people to engage in selective harvest, where they would not otherwise do so. Within a few years, it has the happy side-effect of seeing more mature bucks in the herd. If you agree that the doe population should be reduced in the SLP, I can promise you that a one-buck rule is a way to get there.

While a one-buck rule is certainly not the only solution available to the doe problem in the SLP, it is an excellent solution that is too-quickly dismissed by short-sighted hunters who don't really give a damn about the resource. They just want to see 20 or 30 deer, every time they go out. The OBR addresses the core problem, which is too many hunters who gladly pass on mature does to harvest immature bucks. Furthermore, in a relatively short period of time, those same hunters will be happy as clams to shoot a doe or two, because they have seen the trail cam pics and know how well it's all working. They'll gladly pay $30 for a single buck tag, when the odds of putting it on a quality buck have gone way up, and they haven't lost any hunting time, as a result.

I am not pushing one possible solution over another, and in a perfect world, I would MUCH RATHER SEE hunters _choosing_ to engage in selective harvest. The power to better manage the overall herd size, as well as for a more diverse age-class of all deer, including bucks, is entirely within our hands. Maybe Munster is right and the BEST solution is education. If we could get enough guys to make a commitment to QDM, and the aggressive doe harvest it sometimes requires, we'd be a lot better off. I just don't see it happening and I'm tired of MI being the only state left that basically doesn't manage its deer herd. Where social behavior does not meet essential needs, regulation is usually the only solution, and it is rarely the best one.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Broom...Your comments on the UP are very close to the conditions now in many parts of the NLP also. The only remaining problem area as far as deer density and yearling buck harvest is the SLP. (although I dont have a problem with yearling buck harvest) 

So why is it that the only zone that has been left out of the move for further restrictions by the MDNR and qdm groups is the zone that apparently needs it ?

Another thing I wonder is that with all of the OBR and Higher license fees proponets......How many just buy one buck tag and send donations to the MDNR to help them financially ?


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

swampbuck said:


> Broom...Your comments on the UP are very close to the conditions now in many parts of the NLP also. The only remaining problem area as far as deer density and yearling buck harvest is the SLP. (although I dont have a problem with yearling buck harvest)
> 
> So why is it that the only zone that has been left out of the move for further restrictions by the MDNR and qdm groups is the zone that apparently needs it ?
> 
> Another thing I wonder is that with all of the OBR and Higher license fees proponets......How many just buy one buck tag and send donations to the MDNR to help them financially ?


Believe it or not, I don't have a BIG problem with yearling buck harvest, either, as long as it doesn't result in a 60/40 split of bucks-to-does, overall. Sadly, it does...guys shoot mostly yearlings and 1-1/2 year-old bucks while not harvesting enough mature does. Parts of the NLP would still benefit from fewer small bucks being harvested; in a few years, the actual harvest could be split 50/50, with more mature animals being taken. All it would take is a commitment to selective harvest.

You ask a great question! Why is it the SLP doesn't have some serious regulations in place to address the over-population? My guess is, it's politically motivated, but the hunters themselves have the ability, within the current set of reg's, to improve the situation. I'm sure quite a few folks would love to see that happen.

How many folks donate money to the DNR after buying their single or combo tag? Well, probably none, but I spent over $500 on out-of-state fees last year, so nobody can accuse me of not doing MY part to help give the DNR adequate funding. I'm putting my money where my mouth is, and I'm putting my ideas out there to be critiqued. 

Frankly, I don't hear much of anything from the nay-sayers, as far as what THEY think would help. This is a "forum"; and an open one that allows anyone with an idea to step up and contribute. Aside from myself and a few other advocates for change, all I'm really seeing is a whole lot of status quo rhetoric. If the satisfaction rate was higher than two-thirds I wouldn't be barking, but I am NOT the only person who sees the obvious problems or the possible solutions. I'd love to hear more than criticism from guys like Munster...maybe ya'll have some great ideas to improve our hunting culture in Michigan. I'm laying it all out there...let's see some guys on the other side of the fence do the same.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

swampbuck said:


> So why is it that the only zone that has been left out of the move for further restrictions by the MDNR is the zone that apparently needs it ?


There I fixed it for ya!!! No more throwing people under the bus please.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

twodogsphil said:


> Michi, when did the TB bacteria evolve into a virus?


My sources tell me it was approximately 06:37 am July 27th, 1958. Hope that helps.


On a serious note there have been several studies that show a potential morphing of a bacteria into a virus with mycobacterium being suited for just such a change.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> On a serious note there have been several studies that show a potential morphing of a bacteria into a virus with mycobacterium being suited for just such a change.


Huh?

That is sort of like saying there have been several studies that show that "show a potential for a mastodon to turn into a mouse." Yes, mice and mastodons are related under evolutionary time scales, as are mycoplasma and bacteria (viruses are very far removed).

Bacteria, mcyoplasma (similar to bacteria but lacking a cell wall), and viruses are three different critters. There is by no stretch of the imagination any chance that the organism that causes bTB is going to morph into a virus.

You made a slight mental lapse that could have been explained by just admitting you made a mistake. Don't try to create some sort of a scientific sounding support for it.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

As Dr Brauker has taken the effort to point out, I had a simple mental lapse when including the word 'virus' in my response to another posting. I apologize to one and all for whatever impropriety that may have occurred over such a blatantly human mistake. Please forgive me.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Sep 20, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> As Dr Brauker has taken the effort to point out, I had a simple mental lapse when including the word 'virus' in my response to another posting. I apologize to one and all for whatever impropriety that may have occurred over such a blatantly human mistake. Please forgive me.


That's much different then your first response.:lol: Your forgiven for being human.

Have a good day, Pez


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> As Dr Brauker has taken the effort to point out, I had a simple mental lapse when including the word 'virus' in my response to another posting. I apologize to one and all for whatever impropriety that may have occurred over such a blatantly human mistake. Please forgive me.



:lol: and never let it happen again :lol:

Must have had your tinfoil hat on backwards.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Michihunter said:
> 
> 
> > As Dr Brauker has taken the effort to point out, I had a simple mental lapse when including the word 'virus' in my response to another posting. I apologize to one and all for whatever impropriety that may have occurred over such a blatantly human mistake. Please forgive me.


I wonder why the self proclaimed "Jesus" (without sin) of this forum didn't blaze you like he did broom? :lol:



> Well, so far you have been wrong about mature bucks improving the genetic qualities of the herd and about there being buck/doe ratio's in the 1:12 range, *so it certainly begs the question, what else are you wrong about?*


Big T


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

QDMAMAN said:


> I wonder why the self proclaimed "Jesus" (without sin) of this forum didn't blaze you like he did broom? :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> Big T


 I would imagine that he knows me well enough to know that it was indeed a mistake. That or he knows Dr Brauker well enough to know he would already be on the case.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

There's lots of great ideas out there to encourage antlerless harvest in the SLP.
One that would seem easy enough to impliment would be "earn a second buck" in the SLP. This would also help the MDNR with collection of bio data on more antlerless.
Quite simply, a hunter would not have ANY limits on his/her first choice of bucks but the second buck would be restricted and wouldn't be eligable for harvest until an antlerless was harvested. If you hunt ONLY public land and there are limited antlerless tags you would have the option of going where they are available, taking one with archery equipment, or just being satisfied with 1 buck.
I know, I know, this would require a hunter to haul their deer to a check station, but if the opportunity to kill a second buck is of utmost importance, it shouldn't be THAT much of an inconvienence.


Many of the dual buck tag advocates bring up the argument that the 2nd tag provides them with more opportunity to hunt. My question is this. If during the first week of archery season you were fortunate enough to kill 2 mature bucks, would you feel some how "jipped" because you were done buck hunting for the remaining 12+ weeks of the season? What is the "magical" number of days that you require to justify a satisfying and successful season?

Big T


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Michihunter said:
> 
> 
> > I would imagine that he knows me well enough to know that it was indeed a mistake.


Well...this still begs the question Michi! What else have you been wrong about?:16suspect

Of course I'm demenstrating absurdity by being absurd, I just hope Mr. Perfect takes note. Afterall, this forum is so much more interesting with fresh ideas and "faces". I can't help but wonder how many folks lurk here but just aren't willing to post for fear of being called out by the hall monitor.

FWIW, I'm always willing to be wrong. It adds entertainment value...and I learn so much more.

Big T


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

QDMAMAN said:


> Well...this still begs the question Michi! What else have you been wrong about?:16suspect
> 
> Of course I'm demenstrating absurdity by being absurd, I just hope Mr. Perfect takes note. Afterall, this forum is so much more interesting with fresh ideas and "faces". I can't help but wonder how many folks lurk here but just aren't willing to post for fear of being called out by the hall monitor.
> 
> ...


I bring a bunch of entertainment value to the site then.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Nothing like having a resident curmudgeon to quash new ideas and input, eh? Come to think of it, I took a month or two before joining into the discussions and was not surprised at all when the Munster-man took an immediate disliking to me. I consider it a badge of honor. 

This thread probably ran its course 3 pages ago, but folks are passionate about their deer hunting, so it isn't surprising to see lots of input. What I find frustrating is how these threads all boil down to those who want to see some kind of change made, and those who want to see nothing changed. It's trite and cliche (and redundant?) but change truly _is_ the only constant! Deer hunting in Michigan has changed repeatedly, and will continue to change. The only question is whether or not those changes will be intentional, with actual management goals in mind, or if those changes will be largely a result of INACTION, on the part of hunters and/or the DNR. History, and the hall monitor's rhetoric, would certainly suggest the latter.

Contrary to the opinion of some, I would *greatly* prefer a social change amongst us hunters, instead of a regulatory change. Other than singing it from the rooftops, I don't know what else might trigger that social change, and I don't hold out much hope, given how reluctant and stubborn the "status-quo gang" seems to be.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

broom_jm said:


> Nothing like having a resident curmudgeon to quash new ideas and input, eh? Come to think of it, I took a month or two before joining into the discussions and was not surprised at all when the Munster-man took an immediate disliking to me. I consider it a badge of honor.
> 
> This thread probably ran its course 3 pages ago, but folks are passionate about their deer hunting, so it isn't surprising to see lots of input. What I find frustrating is how these threads all boil down to those who want to see some kind of change made, and those who want to see nothing changed. It's trite and cliche (and redundant?) but change truly _is_ the only constant! Deer hunting in Michigan has changed repeatedly, and will continue to change. The only question is whether or not those changes will be intentional, with actual management goals in mind, or if those changes will be largely a result of INACTION, on the part of hunters and/or the DNR. History, and the hall monitor's rhetoric, would certainly suggest the latter.
> 
> Contrary to the opinion of some, I would *greatly* prefer a social change amongst us hunters, instead of a regulatory change. Other than singing it from the rooftops, I don't know what else might trigger that social change, and I don't hold out much hope, given how reluctant and stubborn the "status-quo gang" seems to be.


By your own admission a full 2/3 of MI hunters are not dissatisfied so I would hope that they garner the attention a majority of any group deserves. 

As for social change, one would have to be truly blind not to recognize the social change that has taken place over the last 10 years here in MI. It is with that change that we have seen these harvest reports reflect a substantially higher kill rate of antlerless deer that continues to grow year in and year out. As with any change, something that comes from a voluntary awareness is always stronger in the end than that which is mandated upon us.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

broom_jm said:


> Nothing like having a resident curmudgeon to quash new ideas and input, eh? Come to think of it, I took a month or two before joining into the discussions and was not surprised at all when the Munster-man took an immediate disliking to me. I consider it a badge of honor.
> 
> This thread probably ran its course 3 pages ago, but folks are passionate about their deer hunting, so it isn't surprising to see lots of input. What I find frustrating is how these threads all boil down to those who want to see some kind of change made, and those who want to see nothing changed. It's trite and cliche (and redundant?) but change truly _is_ the only constant! Deer hunting in Michigan has changed repeatedly, and will continue to change. The only question is whether or not those changes will be intentional, with actual management goals in mind, or if those changes will be largely a result of INACTION, on the part of hunters and/or the DNR. History, and the hall monitor's rhetoric, would certainly suggest the latter.
> 
> Contrary to the opinion of some, I would *greatly* prefer a social change amongst us hunters, instead of a regulatory change. Other than singing it from the rooftops, I don't know what else might trigger that social change, and I don't hold out much hope, given how reluctant and stubborn the "status-quo gang" seems to be.


The social change is in the process of happening. I watched it happen in the bass fishing world over a 20 year span. We are about 10 years into it happening in the whitetail world, with only about 10 to go before most hunters will try to squeegee themselves into a position where they were in favor of it all along:lol:.

*In bass fishing it was the foundation of B.A.S.S., which led to local bass tournaments all over the country and introduced the concept of catch and release to the masses.* In the 1970's and even into the early 80's, I caught, killed and ate thousands of bass, including many in the 5-7 pound range. From the mid-80s forward, I began to release them all. 

*In Whitetail hunting, it was the foundation of Q.D.M.A., which led to local deer co-ops forming all over the country, and is introducing the concept of catch and release (selective harvest) of deer.* From the '70s to 2006, I caught, killed and ate a good many 1.5 year old bucks. From then forward, I began to "release" them.

One of the problems is that many of us are too close to it. I believe most of the co-ops in this state have been formed in the last 5 years. I know they are growing like wildfire. But it just started. Give it another 10 years and see what happens. This site happens to have a number of members who are pioneers. Whenever I raise these issues, they say it will never happen. That is because they have been at it 10, 12, 15 years or more and still are faced with so many naysayers. Those old-timers need to ask the question, how many co-ops were there 10 years ago? I believe that pushing for regulatory change ahead of social change may set back the clock on progress towards quality deer management. Education and peer influence work, forcing regulations on people is a wrong way to go. 

I truly believe that regulations should follow social change. If you institute regulations without the regulatees yet understanding the "why" you will produce anger and unrest. For example, the 14 inch limit on bass, catch and release designated waters, slot limits, and the like, came after the social change, not before. All hell would have broken loose in the 60s or 70s if you told fishermen they could not keep a 12 inch bass. It was only after the social change that the regulatory change could be accepted.

That is why I spend very little time pushing regulatory change. I spend a lot of time on our co-op, talking to neighbors, showing people pictures of young bucks I passed, helping people improve their scent control and hunting set-ups so they will see more and better deer. 

I grew up in a world where no one ever heard of releasing a bass or letting a young buck pass.

Many children today are growing up in a world where it has long been a sin to release a bass, and where the concept of releasing a buck is growing.

Co-ops, education, and peer influence are, in my view, the mechanisms by which sustainable regulatory change will occur.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> By your own admission a full 2/3 of MI hunters are not dissatisfied so I would hope that they garner the attention a majority of any group deserves.


I'm not sure where that 66% figure came from. Table 10 of the 2010 Report shows 33% satisfied and 53% dissatisfied state wide when it comes to number of deer seen, and 22% were satisfied and 61% were dissatisfied when asked about number of antlered bucks seen. Now, what you seem to be doing is going to table 11, and seeing that 36% of hunters were dissatisfied with the "overall deer hunting experience." However, only 43% were satisfied. You cannot subtract out the percentage of those who were "dissatisfied" and leave the reader to infer that the other 64% were "satisfied." In fact only 43% were satisfied.

Let me ask you a question. If you had a business, say a restaurant for example, and 36% of your patrons were dissatisfied and only 43% were "satisfied" with the overall experience--would you leave things as they are or think about making changes? Now, while I agree with you that change should mainly be pursued through social and not regulatory approaches, it has not happened yet, according to these numbers. 

I and every single friend of mine hunting on a QDM property seems to be satisfied with the number of deer they see, the number of antlered bucks they see, and the "overall hunting experience." A grad student at M.S.U., Anna Hamilton, is currently doing a thesis on co-ops (here's an article about it-- http://www.fw.msu.edu/PERM/perm_newsletter_jan2011.pdf ). Her thesis doesn't relate as much to whether QDM makes hunters more satisfied, it is aimed at understanding why they are more satisfied.



> "Initial evaluations indicate that private deer cooperatives are more effective at habitat management and overall deer harvest than hunters not affiliated with a deer Co-op. This phenomenon may be partly driven by social networks, group dynamics, and social capital
> generated within the Co-op."


And on the other subject you bring up: 



> Michihunter: As for social change, one would have to be truly blind not to recognize the social change that has taken place over the last 10 years here in MI. It is with that change that we have seen these harvest reports reflect a substantially higher kill rate of antlerless deer that continues to grow year in and year out. As with any change, something that comes from a voluntary awareness is always stronger in the end than that which is mandated upon us.


While I agree that social change is occurring and will grow exponentially, it is not visible in the data you are citing.

From 2009 t0 2010 hunter numbers in the SLP went down 3.5%, but harvest of antlerless deer went *down 10%* and harvest of antlered bucks was unchanged.

It is convenient to go back 10 years and ignore the more recent trends. Antlerless harvest has gone down two years in a row. This is not just because there are fewer hunters, but in fact, the percentage of hunters harvesting antlerless deer has gone down for two years in a row, while the percentage of hunters harvesting antlered bucks went up last year. This indicates that currently, the majority of hunters have not yet See post #23 for charts.

Only 27% of SLP hunters killed a doe this year, whereas 30% killed an antlerless buck. While I agree with you that "voluntary awareness is always stronger in the end than that which is mandated upon us." I disagree that much progress is yet being reflected in the harvest reports. In fact, the trend is in the wrong direction. At this time, the average hunter in this state is still obsessed with antlers. 

As I stated in the last post, I think it is changing, and we will see these trends in the future, but it is not there in the numbers yet.


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

I am in a unique situation being that I have two large pieces of property to hunt. One in deer rich slp and one on nwlp were there is about 10 per square mile. 

I think the biggest problem is how different the two areas of Michigan are managed. 

Nlp the herd in most areas is almost so small it's getting hard to hunt. Even with bait there is a good chance you could go day without seeing a deer. I understand how guys in the slp would see that as insane. In my slp spot last year my wife counted 27 different does in one sit. 

Nlp IMO is mismanaged. I think our deer estimate is way off. Look at the success Rate for lake county. It's the worse in the state. Yet the deer there are some how above quota. 

In slp we harvest a bunch of does but our attempts at QDM have been futile. Still seeing lots of young bucks but the older ones continue to allude us. Havent killed a buck off the property in 4 years. I believe the buck to Dow ratio us so screwed up that there us very little actual rut activity. 

Although they are only 150 miles apart it feels like worlds apart as far as deer management is concerned.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

bioactive said:


> The social change is in the process of happening. I watched it happen in the bass fishing world over a 20 year span. We are about 10 years into it happening in the whitetail world, with only about 10 to go before most hunters will try to squeegee themselves into a position where they were in favor of it all along:lol:.
> 
> *In bass fishing it was the foundation of B.A.S.S., which led to local bass tournaments all over the country and introduced the concept of catch and release to the masses.* In the 1970's and even into the early 80's, I caught, killed and ate thousands of bass, including many in the 5-7 pound range. From the mid-80s forward, I began to release them all.
> 
> ...


Great observation, comparing the effect of BASS and what I hope will be an analogous result from QDMA practices. It should also be noted that an entirely catch-n-release bass fishery is not _always_ desirable, but there is no doubt the social change is nearly universal, where that is concerned. As in all applied sciences, we cannot fail to observe the current conditions or trends, before each decision we make. 

I also believe we are "too close to it", but I would be referring to the emotional connection most deer hunters feel toward our sport. It makes discussions like these heated and passionate, but sometimes detracts from what might otherwise be a more logical and polite discourse. I can be pretty detached when talking about whether or not to plant oats or rye, but when it comes to management practices that effect the long-term dynamics of the deer herd, I admit that my emotions become a factor in how I communicate my thoughts on the matter. I'm not sure if this is a good thing, or a bad thing, but there it is. :chillin:

I really do hope the changes come about, one way or the other. If it takes 20 years, but it DOES happen, I will be grateful. Having seen what occurs when sensible change is "forced" upon hunters by a biological imperative to lower deer/doe numbers, I can tell you that you are 100% correct in stating all hell would break lose, because it did, here in Indiana. The thing is, 3 years later, those who had been wailing the loudest were silent and just about everybody else was happy as could be with the results. I'm not talking about the trophy hunters; working farmers, insurance agents and IDNR biologists were all pleased with the outcome. Hunters were happy because they still saw plenty of deer, more mature deer of both sexes, and of course, some bigger bucks.

I believe Michigan will get there, one way or another, but you can look all around the Midwest and see that it doesn't HAVE TO TAKE 20 years! If enough of the old guard would see the forest for the trees, we could easily cut that time period in half. Given that the DNR is highly unlikely to do much to encourage change, maybe I should wise up and realize a social shift is the ONLY likely means of making even gradual improvements? Color me naive for wanting to do better.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

bioactive said:


> I'm not sure where that 66% figure came from. Table 10 of the 2010 Report shows 33% satisfied and 53% dissatisfied state wide when it comes to number of deer seen, and 22% were satisfied and 61% were dissatisfied when asked about number of antlered bucks seen. Now, what you seem to be doing is going to table 11, and seeing that 36% of hunters were dissatisfied with the "overall deer hunting experience." However, only 43% were satisfied. You cannot subtract out the percentage of those who were "dissatisfied" and leave the reader to infer that the other 64% were "satisfied." In fact only 43% were satisfied.
> 
> Let me ask you a question. If you had a business, say a restaurant for example, and 36% of your patrons were dissatisfied and only 43% were "satisfied" with the overall experience--would you leave things as they are or think about making changes? Now, while I agree with you that change should mainly be pursued through social and not regulatory approaches, it has not happened yet, according to these numbers.
> 
> ...


For clarification purposes I have to admit I did not use the survey in my statement but the statements of Broom Jim himself in coming up with that number.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> For clarification purposes I have to admit I did not use the survey in my statement but the statements of Broom Jim himself in coming up with that number.


Come on, where did you leave the pod of the original Michihunter?


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

bioactive said:


> Come on, where did you leave the pod of the original Michihunter?


If you read my statement carefully I said that 2/3 were NOT dissatisfied. You have to admit that this is still an accurate statement even when using the survey as a source.


----------



## Forest Meister (Mar 7, 2010)

Very interesting points being made on possible ways to reduce numbers in SLP by increasing doe kill. I don't hunt there so maybe I can add some food for thought from an outsiders viewpoint, from someone who's deer hunting experience would not be impacted one way or the other by a radical suggestion. Maybe this suggestion has been made before and I missed it but here goes anyway.

In some old accounts of deer hunting in Michigan there was much reference to moaning and groaning from certain sectors when antlerless deer were first protected even though at the time it made good sense. Deer numbers had dropped due to various factors and the Conservation Department realized does needed protection to increase the herd. Everywhere it was preached that killing a doe for any reason was bad. This went on for decades and became so ingrained that it was pretty much universally believed that only a poacher would stoop so low as to kill a doe. Ask your fathers and grandfathers about that if you want confirmation. Believe it or not there was also a time not that many years ago where even some trained biologists were more than reluctant to recommend antlerless harvest long after it was clear that deer numbers in some places were negatively impacting habitat. I like to call this prejudice toward killing does another example of the "Smokey Bear Syndrome". That's where an entire concept long outlives its intended purpose and it is then difficult to modify in the minds of the public so as to fit present science and or social reality.

Anyhow, here is my idealistic suggestion for areas where the majority agree there are too many deer and antlerless tags are presently going unsold: Limit the number of buck tags available. 

Maybe put the draw under a preference point system so buck tags would be spread out over time to all hunters. Maybe even lengthen the firearm season so a buck hunter would have a better chance of killing the animal of his dream. If the holder of a buck tag wanted to shoot a spike or fork he or she could legally do that too. Everybody could still hunt under a limited buck tag system but not everybody could legally pull the trigger or release an arrow on a buck. 

Your thoughts? FM


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

bioactive said:


> A grad student at M.S.U., Anna Hamilton, is currently doing a thesis on co-ops (here's an article about it-- http://www.fw.msu.edu/PERM/perm_newsletter_jan2011.pdf ). Her thesis doesn't relate as much to whether QDM makes hunters more satisfied, it is aimed at understanding why they are more satisfied.


By the way, I mentioned Anna Hamilton but should also mention her thesis advisor, Professor Dan Kramer at MSU. I have met Dan at the kickoff meeting for this initiative, which is part of a cooperative effort with the Michigan DNR, also met Anna there and have seen her present at several co-op meetings. What is interesting about Dan is that he is really a social scientist, in addition to being a biologist, which is encouraging to those of us who think that change comes first in the hearts and minds of people, and that regulations should follow education and voluntary adoption of practices. He is not a deer guy, but in fact, has worked on the social aspects of fisheries and lake communities.

Here is his very interesting bio: https://www.msu.edu/~dbk/


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Michihunter said:


> If you read my statement carefully I said that 2/3 were NOT dissatisfied. You have to admit that this is still an accurate statement even when using the survey as a source.


Using your ambiguity as MY defense, I never said 2/3's of hunters were satisfied...I said 1/3 were DISSATISFIED. 

You made assumptions based on facts not in evidence, without reviewing the actual survey, yourself. The "hard" numbers indicate only 10% more hunters are "satisfied" than those who are "dissatisfied". Now that you have the actual facts, do you STILL think that should be be considered good enough?


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

broom_jm said:


> Using your ambiguity as MY defense, I never said 2/3's of hunters were satisfied...I said 1/3 were DISSATISFIED.
> 
> You made assumptions based on facts not in evidence, without reviewing the actual survey, yourself. The "hard" numbers indicate only 10% more hunters are "satisfied" than those who are "dissatisfied". Now that you have the actual facts, do you STILL think that should be be considered good enough?


Good enough for who? Do you think thew state gives two hoots about satisfaction if it doesn't result in a loss of revenue? I'd argue that the survey doesn't reflect the true satisfaction rate amongst hunters as much as license sales do which of course remains the best in the country. Just like any product known to man, if their is true dissatisfaction it will ALWAYS be reflected in sales. Care to show me another state other than TX where license sales can be matched or superseded by those in the state of MI?


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

broom_jm said:


> I can be pretty detached when talking about whether or not to plant oats or rye...


Soybeans now, they can produce some record breaking rancor...:lol::lol::lol:

http://www.qdma.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38847&page=4&highlight=soybean


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Michihunter said:


> Good enough for who? Do you think thew state gives two hoots about satisfaction if it doesn't result in a loss of revenue? I'd argue that the survey doesn't reflect the true satisfaction rate amongst hunters as much as license sales do which of course remains the best in the country. Just like any product known to man, if their is true dissatisfaction it will ALWAYS be reflected in sales. Care to show me another state other than TX where license sales can be matched or superseded by those in the state of MI?


Good enough for you, sir...you said 2/3's were satisfied and that should be good enough. Is 43% satisfaction high enough?

The state may not give "two hoots about satisfaction", but they cared enough to publish the results of the survey. I would also note that revenue IS going down, along with participation rates. I think you're right that dissatisfaction is accurately reflected in license sales. Relatively few non-residents hunt in Michigan while quite a few head for greener pastures, each fall. Wisconsin has quite a few hunters, and a comparable harvest. An embarrassment of riches is no excuse for neglecting to manage that bounty well. Let one harsh winter-of-old hit the SLP and see what folks have to say the following spring, when they're dumping bag after bag of lime on the ruins of a poorly-managed deer herd.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

The percentages of hunters that are dissatisfied or satisfied in the DNR harvest surveys is such a vague conclusion as to be almost meaningless. Until you can measure how dissatisfied some hunters are, you have no real measure of whether there will be the will to effect change. Are they dissatisfied enough to close antlered buck hunting for a year or two? I highly doubt it. Are they dissatisfied enough to pay $100 for a license to harvest one buck? I doubt that as well. It's one thing to say that you are dissatisfied and another to say that you are willing to make the sacrifices required to attain the end goal, whatever that may be. When a majority of hunters say they are both dissatisfied and willing to forgo harvesting bucks for a year or embrace earn-a-buck in the SLP or an OBR with a 5 point on a side APR in the SLP, then I would be impressed that the "Dissatisfied" hunters should be taken seriously. Until that point is reached, they remain a minority who likes to bitch, but who are unwilling to take the steps required to reach their goals.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Munsterlndr said:


> The percentages of hunters that are dissatisfied or satisfied in the DNR harvest surveys is such a vague conclusion as to be almost meaningless. Until you can measure how dissatisfied some hunters are, you have no real measure of whether there will be the will to effect change. Are they dissatisfied enough to close antlered buck hunting for a year or two? I highly doubt it. Are they dissatisfied enough to pay $100 for a license to harvest one buck? I doubt that as well. It's one thing to say that you are dissatisfied and another to say that you are willing to make the sacrifices required to attain the end goal, whatever that may be. When a majority of hunters say they are both dissatisfied and willing to forgo harvesting bucks for a year or embrace earn-a-buck in the SLP or an OBR with a 5 point on a side APR in the SLP, then I would be impressed that the "Dissatisfied" hunters should be taken seriously. Until that point is reached, they remain a minority who likes to bitch, but who are unwilling to take the steps required to reach their goals.


In a surprising turn of events...I think we are in almost complete agreement on everything you just said. Where I question your logic is as follows: If the satisfaction survey results can not be relied upon as a gauge for what changes would be welcomed, or tolerated, at what point _can you_ determine a change is indicated? Under you presumptions, wouldn't that be never? Further, if common sentiment is NOT a reliable cause for change, shouldn't the best recommendations of the DNR biologists be taken to heart and implemented, as policy?

Under what circumstances would you advocate change?


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

broom_jm said:


> Good enough for you, sir...you said 2/3's were satisfied and that should be good enough. Is 43% satisfaction high enough?
> 
> The state may not give "two hoots about satisfaction", but they cared enough to publish the results of the survey. I would also note that revenue IS going down, along with participation rates. I think you're right that dissatisfaction is accurately reflected in license sales. Relatively few non-residents hunt in Michigan while quite a few head for greener pastures, each fall. Wisconsin has quite a few hunters, and a comparable harvest. An embarrassment of riches is no excuse for neglecting to manage that bounty well. Let one harsh winter-of-old hit the SLP and see what folks have to say the following spring, when they're dumping bag after bag of lime on the ruins of a poorly-managed deer herd.


I'm more than satisfied with the opportunities afforded me by this states hunting seasons. In fact I'm more than just satisfied and in fact am overtly grateful for what this state offers me by way of whitetail deer hunting. I personally wouldn't trade it for any other states offerings. I've been at it for over 32 years and not one season has went by that has left me with an empty feeling of mismanagement by the DNR. I can begin hunting in late September for deer and continue on with it until the beginning of January if I so choose. And just like the other 45% or so successful hunters each and every year, I normally enjoy the fruits of my labors by grilling up some very tender venison each year. What more could a hunter ask for?

As for a drop in revenue and participants and such, when it becomes MORE than the equal numbers of reductions being reflected nationwide, then will I begin to agree that it is the product that is the cause of that decrease. Until then I'll continue to understand that the heyday of hunting has long since passed and will accept that Xbox, computers and a host of others determining factors is what the causal agent is behind those reductions.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> I'm more than satisfied with the opportunities afforded me by this states hunting seasons. In fact I'm more than just satisfied and in fact am overtly grateful for what this state offers me by way of whitetail deer hunting. I personally wouldn't trade it for any other states offerings. I've been at it for over 32 years and not one season has went by that has left me with an empty feeling of mismanagement by the DNR. I can begin hunting in late September for deer and continue on with it until the beginning of January if I so choose. And just like the other 45% or so successful hunters each and every year, I normally enjoy the fruits of my labors by grilling up some very tender venison each year. What more could a hunter ask for?


Nothing! I agree totally. I've been at it for 37+ years and I've enjoyed them all.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

broom_jm said:


> In a surprising turn of events...I think we are in almost complete agreement on everything you just said. Where I question your logic is as follows: If the satisfaction survey results can not be relied upon as a gauge for what changes would be welcomed, or tolerated, at what point _can you_ determine a change is indicated? Under you presumptions, wouldn't that be never? Further, if common sentiment is NOT a reliable cause for change, shouldn't the best recommendations of the DNR biologists be taken to heart and implemented, as policy?
> 
> Under what circumstances would you advocate change?


I didn't say that common sentiment can't be a valid impetus for change, I said that responses on a survey that don't also contemplate the consequences, both positive and negative, of that change are essentially a poor indication of actual public sentiment. It's like asking you if you want your income taxes lowered. For the vast majority of taxpayers the answer would be yes. If the question was posed, would you like your income taxes lowered but in order to do so a 50% VAT tax would be instituted, then the response would be totally different. 

If there is a valid assessment of public sentiment, when that sentiment is expressed by those in an informed capacity, then it can certainly be a reasonable reason to contemplate changes in management. I don't think we are at that point in Michigan and 30+% of Michigan hunters saying they are "dissatisfied" is not a legitimate reason to contemplate changing what is not broken and which provides a recreational experience to over half a million Michigan deer hunters every year.


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

I could of swore at least one youth took a deer during the youth hunt in 2008 and 2009 but page 30 says ZERO :lol:

CB


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

codybear said:


> I could of swore at least one youth took a deer during the youth hunt in 2008 and 2009 but page 30 says ZERO :lol:
> 
> CB


Look at the information again.

L & O


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> . Just like any product known to man, if their is true dissatisfaction it will ALWAYS be reflected in sales. ?


I don't know about that.
Gas....whos satisfied.......not the common man, but yet because we have to use it we still buy it. Sure we back off some but not enough to effect the price to "satisfactory" levels.

Food......prices are up, we got to buy it, we pay the cost too. 

Hunting kind of goes along with that too. Not too many have any other option than to hunt Michigan. If they want to hunt and most of us do, we will continue to hunt in Michigan satisfied or not. The decline in hunter numbers probably has very little to do with satisfaction, but more to do with the economy as a whole and the lack of involvment between those who do hunt and the next generation.

Jack the price up on the tags I bet the decline in hunters doesn't change pace to what has been going on the past decade. People will complain but like gas and food, they will pay the price.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

bucksnbows said:


> I don't know about that.
> Gas....whos satisfied.......not the common man, but yet because we have to use it we still buy it. Sure we back off some but not enough to effect the price to "satisfactory" levels.
> 
> Food......prices are up, we got to buy it, we pay the cost too.
> ...


If you say so BnB. All I can give you is an anecdotal account of my own personal spending habits and I know for a fact I use way less gas and buy cheaper groceries as a result of the two things you mentioned. I would have to assume a lot of folks are similar in that regard. In fact if I recall correctly, you yourself said you'd be making less trips this year as a result of gas prices, no? I would say even without looking up the data that the volume of gas and groceries being sold is way down from a year or two ago.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Using the logic of those who don't want a Saturday opener, one would suggest saving more money for hunting trips.

Just like any "real hunter" will make sure he gets weekdays off for firearms opener, any "real hunter" will make sure he has enough cash saved to be able to hunt come season time.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Pinefarm said:


> Using the logic of those who don't want a Saturday opener, one would suggest saving more money for hunting trips.
> 
> Just like any "real hunter" will make sure he gets weekdays off for firearms opener, any "real hunter" will make sure he has enough cash saved to be able to hunt come season time.


Who can argue with 'logic' like that?:lol::lol:


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I agree 100%! 

Next time someone who's against a Saturday opener makes the claim that if you want it bad enough, you'll quit your job if you have to, to make a mid-week opener, remember it.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Munsterlndr said:


> I didn't say that common sentiment can't be a valid impetus for change, I said that responses on a survey that don't also contemplate the consequences, both positive and negative, of that change are essentially a poor indication of actual public sentiment. It's like asking you if you want your income taxes lowered. For the vast majority of taxpayers the answer would be yes. If the question was posed, would you like your income taxes lowered but in order to do so a 50% VAT tax would be instituted, then the response would be totally different.
> 
> If there is a valid assessment of public sentiment, when that sentiment is expressed by those in an informed capacity, then it can certainly be a reasonable reason to contemplate changes in management. I don't think we are at that point in Michigan and 30+% of Michigan hunters saying they are "dissatisfied" is not a legitimate reason to contemplate changing what is not broken and which provides a recreational experience to over half a million Michigan deer hunters every year.


If the hunters in the DNR survey do not represent "actual public sentiment", then what means do we have of determining such? Surely a full one-third of those half a million hunters is a representative sample that can be considered "common sentiment"? If the hunters polled can not be trusted as "those in an informed capacity", then who, Munster? Are the hunters in Michigan NOT well-enough informed to answer a series of questions concerning their _subjective_ views on whether or not they were satisfied with the deer hunting last fall? If they are just a bunch of uneducated dolts, who else would you ask for an assessment of deer herd management policy? The only other reasonable body would be the DNR biologists, but you discount their suggestions as readily as you're discounting the survey they conducted AND the hunters they actually polled.

When 33% are "somewhat dissatisfied" or "strongly dissatisfied", and only 43% are "satisfied", are you honestly going to defend the status quo? If only 43% of the population is "satisfied" with the governor, should we also retain HIS services? You discredit the poll, the participants, AND the findings...without merit or qualification.

So, I ask you yet again: _Under what circumstances would you advocate change?_ If the results of the annual DNR survey, in your opinion, are not suitable data upon which to predicate change...WHAT IS?

You have repeatedly accused me of trying to force change upon others, but aren't you imposing inertia on 1/3 of the hunters in Michigan, who are NOT happy with the deer hunting? Just because you are "satisfied" with the hunting is not cause to maintain the status quo, is it? Maybe some people just have higher standards or aspirations than yours? Have you considered that possibility?


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

A couple of things that I noticed as I looked at the report:
----58% of crossbow hunters bothered to get the FREE required crossbow stamp. I am not sure what the % was last year, but that sure seems low.
----Lake County had 16,293 hunters and they only took 3,832 deer. Maybe some other counties had that low of a success rate, but at some point it seems like guys would quit driving north to hunt there. I understand tradition and the difficulty to find private land to hunt in Zone 3, but those numbers remind me of deer hunting in the 60's in Michigan.
Any thoughts from Lake County hunters ?

L & O


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Liver and Onions said:


> A couple of things that I noticed as I looked at the report:
> ----58% of crossbow hunters bothered to get the FREE required crossbow stamp. I am not sure what the % was last year, but that sure seems low.
> 
> 
> L & O


Personally I'd love to know who actually admitted to violating the law and what was done after that admission. Without looking at the report are you sure that this was what was reported and not that only 58% of all crossbow participants obtained a stamp? The reason I ask is that there are still a number of disability permits being used that do not need a stamp to hunt with a crossbow which may reflect the number being reported(ie: 42% were disabled permits?).


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Michihunter said:


> Personally I'd love to know who actually admitted to violating the law and what was done after that admission. .....................


Are you saying that you don't know that the surveys are filled out anonymously ?

L & O


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

codybear said:


> Actually there were a few counties that were much worse.. Lake County had a success rate of roughly 23%.. My county (DMU069) was at roughly 15% and* Kalkaska was even worse at roughly 10%.. On the other hand, counties such as Montcalm County had success rates upwards of 80% :yikes:*
> 
> CB


Sorry for jumping off topic here but what I find amusing:evilsmile about the bolded part is..............
A couple of years ago I had to kick three guys off my lease because they were nothing but trouble makers. Always causing turmoil between everyone. Well they found a new piece to lease and it was in Kalkaska.
From what I have heard they couldn't find anything the second year more to their liking and leased out the Kalkaska piece again. Then they tried to out bid me on my lease. Guess what I didn't get out bid but I actually got the landowner to drop the lease a $1000. 
And the kicker.............................
I hunt Montcalm County:lol::lol::lol:.

Oh and by the way they didn't do too good in Kalkaska and those are 3 guys I hope to never have to deal with again.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Munsterlndr said:


> Do you think that it's likely that some of the guys that decide to go out of state to hunt may be pre-disposed towards the trophy hunting end of the spectrum to begin with?


Well, of COURSE they are! However, if they could find a lease or outfitter in Michigan who offered the same quality of bucks, don't you think they'd stay home and put their $15 resident tag on a deer, instead of traveling and paying for a non-resident tag, elsewhere? While we're on the topic of leases, the proliferation of large bucks has indeed led to much higher per/acre lease fees in states like IL, IN and even KY. When you've got a product that is in high demand, people will pay more for it. Such is the premise of a free market economy. I guess the same can be said for the deer hunting in Michigan...which is far and away the _least_ expensive state, per tag, of which I am aware. Both are classic examples of getting what you pay for, aren't they?

I'm glad that harvesting 1 or 2 does a year is all it takes for you to be satisfied, Mr. Munster. You must be a true and modest sportsman. Do you hunt near Traverse City? In the NWLP, where the deer population is at or below target goals? Shouldn't you be harvesting one buck and one doe, in order to do your part in keeping the herd balanced? That is most certainly what you advocate.

You say you DID recommend a one-buck rule in the SLP? Does that solution still make sense to you, or are you going to abandon the notion simply because of the political and fiscal ramifications? I know you can't discount what the morons in Lansing base their campaigns on, but do you really think it is justified for hunters in Michigan to pay roughly half as much, per harvest tag, as many of the others states in the Midwest? Shouldn't we do the best thing for the _resource_ instead of acquiescing to the stuffed shirts in the capital building or the tight-fisted "sportsmen" who might squeal if their tags went up 5 or 10 dollars each?


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

codybear said:


> .......and Kalkaska was even worse at roughly 10%.. On the other hand, counties such as Montcalm County had success rates upwards of 80%
> CB


I hadn't noticed Kalkaska Co. 829 deer kills, wow. I will point out that the 10% success rate in Kalkaska Co. is probably pretty accurate since not a lot of hunters take 2 or more deer. The actual success rate for hunters in any of the high deer kill counties is going to be a lot less than the posted number because lots of hunters take 2 or more deer. I wish the report had yet one more set of numbers that showed the actual success rate per DMU.

L & O


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

Liver and Onions said:


> I hadn't noticed Kalkaska Co. 829 deer kills, wow. I will point out that the 10% success rate in Kalkaska Co. is probably pretty accurate since not a lot of hunters take 2 or more deer. The actual success rate for hunters in any of the high deer kill counties is going to be a lot less than the posted number because lots of hunters take 2 or more deer. I wish the report had yet one more set of numbers that showed the actual success rate per DMU.
> 
> L & O


I agree and we also have to factor in that my county, which only had a success rate of 15% didnt issue any antlerless permits on both public and private for the 2nd time since since the early 90's so it was bucks only last year.. Even so numbers around here are pathetic.. They are also allowing us to bait this year for the first time since 1995.. I think we are the only county that was removed from the TB list.

CB


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

broom_jm said:


> Well, of COURSE they are! However, if they could find a lease or outfitter in Michigan who offered the same quality of bucks, don't you think they'd stay home and put their $15 resident tag on a deer, instead of traveling and paying for a non-resident tag, elsewhere? While we're on the topic of leases, the proliferation of large bucks has indeed led to much higher per/acre lease fees in states like IL, IN and even KY. When you've got a product that is in high demand, people will pay more for it. Such is the premise of a free market economy. I guess the same can be said for the deer hunting in Michigan...which is far and away the _least_ expensive state, per tag, of which I am aware. Both are classic examples of getting what you pay for, aren't they?


My guess is that 98% of Michigan hunters who hunt in other states are hunting in Michigan also, so I don't see any compelling need to recruit more hunters from that segment. As far as attracting more out of state hunters to Michigan, not a high priority if the changes that would help do so would have a negative impact on resident Michigan hunters. Let them go to Buffalo Co. and pay exorbitant lease rates if that's what floats there boat. 



broom_jm said:


> I'm glad that harvesting 1 or 2 does a year is all it takes for you to be satisfied, Mr. Munster. You must be a true and modest sportsman. Do you hunt near Traverse City? In the NWLP, where the deer population is at or below target goals? Shouldn't you be harvesting one buck and one doe, in order to do your part in keeping the herd balanced? That is most certainly what you advocate.


I own hunting property in Lake and Leelanau Counties and also have private access in Antrim Co., which is where I do the majority of my hunting. Some years I will also harvest a doe down in Montcalm Co., where I have some private access, as well. No need for me to harvest both a buck and a doe, as there are plenty who only harvest bucks, so I provide some balance. I have not harvested a deer in Lake Co. in a number of years, the population is just too low to warrant it. I think twice about taking a doe in Leelanau Co. but will do so those years that I am lucky enough to get an antlerless permit. The DNR monitors the population pretty closely and if they give me an antlerless permit, I'll use it as I did last year in DMU 045. Antrim is still over goal so antlerless permits are readily available over the counter, if the freezer is empty in December, then that is where I'll concentrate on taking a doe during Muzzy season. I typically harvest 2 does a year, some years 3 but that is more the exception then the rule. Have not harvested a buck since 2000 and I'm in no hurry to break that streak.



broom_jm said:


> You say you DID recommend a one-buck rule in the SLP? Does that solution still make sense to you, or are you going to abandon the notion simply because of the political and fiscal ramifications? I know you can't discount what the morons in Lansing base their campaigns on, but do you really think it is justified for hunters in Michigan to pay roughly half as much, per harvest tag, as many of the others states in the Midwest? Shouldn't we do the best thing for the _resource_ instead of acquiescing to the stuffed shirts in the capital building or the tight-fisted "sportsmen" who might squeal if their tags went up 5 or 10 dollars each?


I advocated an OBR in the past for the sole reason of lowering population densities in the SLP. I'm still concerned about the negative impact that it would have on the hunting experience for hunters in other parts of the state, so I'm not as big an advocate as I was in the past. But as I said, I'm enough of a political realist to recognize that it's a dead issue due to the fiscal impact. You can whine and moan about how cheap it is to hunt in Michigan but the fact of the matter is the legislature is not going to raise license fee's anytime soon and until there is some evidence that they would consider such a move, you are simply spinning your wheels in hoping and dreaming for such a change. Feel free to fulfill your fantasies, just don't expect them to be taken very seriously.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

If one has never done a particular activity out of state, be it vacationing, on business, hunting, etc, it's pretty hard to have an outlook that isn't provincial and myopic in scope. 

An open mind can be achieved with never having experienced anything else, but what usually occurs if one hasn't experienced anything else is they believe the way things are done in their sphere is best and the way things have to be done. 

One need only to look at state by state economies to notice that some do things far better than others.

Since Obama was elected, the state of Texas has accounted for nearly 50% of all job creation in the USA. Texas has no income tax, no capital gains tax and is a Right To Work state. Yet, while so simple and so universal in truth, many in other states insist that higher taxes are needed.

The lesson is, we all can learn things from each other and build on the good and cut out the failed.

There's a reason that nearly everyone who has traveled out of state to deer hunt have returned with a different perspective. In my experience from talking to lots of Michigan deer hunters who've hunted elsewhere, when they return, they no longer feel as excited about Michigan deer hunting. Instead, they usually feel resigned to hunting Michigan, until they get the chance to go back out of state again. That speaks volumes.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Pinefarm said:


> Since Obama was elected, the state of Texas has accounted for nearly 50% of all job creation in the USA. Texas has no income tax, no capital gains tax and is a Right To Work state. Yet, while so simple and so universal in truth, many in other states insist that higher taxes are needed.


Oy... talk about a messed up almost fact.

Texas has accounted for nearly 50% of all job creation in the USA SINCE RICK PERRY WAS ELECTED - in 2001. Not since Obama was elected.

Also note - if you create 100,000 new jobs, and your state loses 80,000 existing jobs... you've still created 100,000 jobs.

...and about 10% of those jobs created during Perry's tenure were state government jobs.


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

Texas is rich because of the oil wells and oil investers.. They have more oil wells than any other state and we all know oil companies have been making a killing with higher profit margins than ever.. I get a ton of calls from investers wanting me to invest in oil because it will help drive the cost up even more, making thei investment even better and all these investment companies are calling from Texas..

CB


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Some things that I found interesting as I looked at the top deer kill counties.
-Newaygo, once the top deer kill county and top for the total number of hunters is no longer even close to the top ten in deer kill. Although, if you look at the total kills for the last 10 years I would think that Newaygo would still be in the top 5. The slide down has been the steepest the past few years.
-Memominee got back into the top ten, 10 years ago it was a top 5 county.
-Sanilac was again #2, but if you look at the deer kill per square mile it drops down a couple of places. This is a very large county.
-Mecosta County dropped out of the top 10. I found this surprising since it sits on top of #1. 
-I believe that Ionia has the highest deer kill per hunter. 
-All of the top counties are killing between 12-20 deer per square mile. 
**These numbers or thoughts come from my charts. It's very possible(maybe likely) that I have made mistakes as I look at or write down the DNR numbers.

L & O


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

To be exact, Gov. Perry did create the most jobs over the last decade, compared to any other state. 

But, Texas ALSO has created nearly 50% of the new jobs in the USA in the last 2 years. 

Both are correct.

For the record, Michigan had great potential for oil business growth, with safe directional drilling under the Lakes. The enviro groups got that shut down with lots of mis-information. Too bad. Michigan could use a few billion in oil revenue and 1000's of high paying jobs.

Also, Newaygo was cut into 2 DMU's, 162 and 262. Our herd has been reduced by nearly 50% since the 1990's and we've gone from roughly 25,000 hunters to around 15,000. So kill numbers will naturally drop.

In my immediate area, the big camp next to mine was not there for the first time in my lifetime. In turkey season I ran into one of those guys. He said they leased something downstate. So a yearly camp of around 15 guys completely disappeared. 

At my own camp, one buddy leased downstate and another has been saving nearly all his time and money for Iowa. And he also owns his own 20 arces in Newaygo. A neighbor to the north now hunts a lease near Hastings and says he'll never come back...and his family has 120 acres in Newaygo county!


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Pinefarm said:


> To be exact, Gov. Perry did create the most jobs over the last decade, compared to any other state.


No, Texas created more jobs.



Pinefarm said:


> But, Texas ALSO has created nearly 50% of the new jobs in the USA in the last 2 years.


No, they haven't



> The BLS keeps annual data, starting from April 1 each year, on total private sector job gains and losses. During the most recent three years  2008, 2009 and 2010  California gained an average of 1.3 million jobs annually, while Texas posted an average of 935,000 jobs.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Yup, Texas did.

After searching some of your posts in the political forum, I've determined you must be listening to MSNBC while you're snowboarding. :lol:

We'll end the debate here. Probably best for you to start an anti-GOP thread over in the political forum. 

Out.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Page 9 of the report has the percentage of deer taken on private / public land. I didn't check back on any of the older reports, but I didn't remember the private land advantage being so great. Maybe not a complete reversal from 50 years ago, but a major change. 
I believe that should be a goal of the DNR to improve the hunting for not just deer, but also grouse and turkey on State Land, especially in the central part of the state.
Not an easy thing to do without money and not likely many State Land hunters would support purchasing an additional tag that would go to fund any projects. I certainly don't think that us private land hunters should have to kick in more money for State Land projects.

L & O


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Liver and Onions said:


> Page 9 of the report has the percentage of deer taken on private / public land. I didn't check back on any of the older reports, but I didn't remember the private land advantage being so great. Maybe not a complete reversal from 50 years ago, but a major change.
> L & O


Here are the figures since the DNR started keeping track of the percentage of deer harvested on private vs. public land.

00 - 80%
01 - 82
02 - 85
03 - 86
04 - 87
05 - 87
06 - 87
07 - 86
08 - 87
09 - 89
10 - 89%


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> Here are the figures since the DNR started keeping track of the percentage of deer harvested on private vs. public land.
> .................


I thought that had kept track of this for a much longer time. I know that I've read several times that more deer were harvested on State Land than private land in the 40's-70's. Seems to make sense because so feel SLP deer were taken before the late 70's. I did scan thru both "Deer Hunting Regulations" and "Deer Management History in Michigan" and nothing caught my eye in those 30+ pages.
I will again recommend making a copy of both of the above articles if you have any interest in deer hunting or the history of deer hunting in Michigan. Both are found on the DNR site.
If anyone knowns of an accurate source of information from before 2000 please post that here.

L & O


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Liver and Onions said:


> I thought that had kept track of this for a much longer time. I know that I've read several times that more deer were harvested on State Land than private land in the 40's-70's. Seems to make sense because so feel SLP deer were taken before the late 70's. I did scan thru both "Deer Hunting Regulations" and "Deer Management History in Michigan" and nothing caught my eye in those 30+ pages.
> I will again recommend making a copy of both of the above articles if you have any interest in deer hunting or the history of deer hunting in Michigan. Both are found on the DNR site.
> If anyone knowns of an accurate source of information from before 2000 please post that here.
> 
> L & O


 At one time you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone hunting the SLP where it is now predominantly private land. And nowadays that's where the majority of hunting is done. So it's simply logical to think that you are right in your assertions L&O based solely on the regional focus shift of deer hunting in MI.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Liver and Onions said:


> I thought that had kept track of this for a much longer time. I know that I've read several times that more deer were harvested on State Land than private land in the 40's-70's. Seems to make sense because so feel SLP deer were taken before the late 70's. I did scan through both "Deer Hunting Regulations" and "Deer Management History in Michigan" and nothing caught my eye in those 30+ pages.
> I will again recommend making a copy of both of the above articles if you have any interest in deer hunting or the history of deer hunting in Michigan. Both are found on the DNR site.
> If anyone knowns of an accurate source of information from before 2000 please post that here.
> 
> L & O


They may have kept track of it but it was not included in the published annual reports. I have them in PDF going back a long way, there was no indication in the 1998 & 1999 reports and I also looked back at an old format report from 1980 and no mention was made of public vs. private land harvest. I don't have time this afternoon but I'll take a look at some of the annual reports from the 40's - 70's tonight and see if there is any mention.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Didn't survey results show 84% of Michigan deer hunters hunt private land? If the percent of deer killed on private is on par with those numbers, given that private also has ample antlerless tags in many area's, it's an interesting set of numbers. 

The issue with much of the public land in the central NLP is that much of it is federal, not state. Now, perhaps we could convince the USFS to do a deer management program like they did for the grouse management program, but to be honest, I don't think the USFS really wants anymore deer on the lands they plan on timbering more valueable tree's from over the next 100 plus years.

What is the possible incentive for USFS to want more deer?


----------



## Bloodrunner (Feb 3, 2011)

I Dont mean to be a jerk, but do you guys believe these numbers?

Where is the link on how these numbers came about? How do they allow for the thousands of hunters that dont report what they kill?


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Bloodrunner said:


> ..........
> Where is the link on how these numbers came about?
> ..............


??? The link is in post #1. Pages 5-7 for methods. This information is published every year. Seems odd that someone who is totally uninformed about this process would make a post like this one. Hope you take the time to read the info provided in this thread and then go back to look at a few reports from past years. 

L & O


----------



## Bloodrunner (Feb 3, 2011)

Liver and Onions said:


> ??? The link is in post #1. Pages 5-7 for methods. This information is published every year. Seems odd that someone who is totally uninformed about this process would make a post like this one. Hope you take the time to read the info provided in this thread and then go back to look at a few reports from past years.
> 
> L & O


 
I'll check it out and get back with you on wether I believe it or not, cause I dont know many hunters that dont butcher their own and they dont report a thing


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Come election time, many people refuse to take part in a poll. Yet, those surveys, of much smaller samples, are usually remarkably accurate. 

I'm pretty sure the survey of how many people hunt private/public was done by MSU.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Bloodrunner said:


> I'll check it out and get back with you on wether I believe it or not, cause I dont know many hunters that dont butcher their own and they dont report a thing


The statistical methods that the DNR use for compiling and assessing data are highly accurate for assessing trends on the macro scale. Spend a few hours with the DNR statistician, Brian Frawley (as I have) and any doubts that you might have about the accuracy of the data will fade rather quickly.


----------



## Bloodrunner (Feb 3, 2011)

How many tags that were sold is easy, how many that were filled, who knows.

Just over half the people sent in the survey, and who knows wether they told the truth? A guy that filled up could easily say he never saw a deer, or vice versa?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> I'm pretty sure the survey of how many people hunt private/public was done by MSU.


You are referring to the Peyton/Bull survey that was done in 2001 and yes, Ben Peyton is/was a professor at MSU. The figure that you quoted was for hunters that hunted on private land some of the time, not exclusively. The numbers that L&O were quoting came from the DNR annual harvest survey and are independent of any private surveys.


----------



## Bloodrunner (Feb 3, 2011)

Munsterlndr said:


> The statistical methods that the DNR use for compiling and assessing data are highly accurate for assessing trends on the macro scale. Spend a few hours with the DNR statistician, Brian Frawley (as I have) and any doubts that you might have about the accuracy of the data will fade rather quickly.


Okay, but how do they add in the deer killed by farmers and ******* hillbillys that dont have internet or could care less about surveys?

Or the tags that got used more than once by poachers? Ect,Ect,Ect?

I hear they are way off on wolf count, why so much faith in their deer count?

Anyways, I have never taken the harvest report seriously, we know what we killed, and if the population is up or down.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Bloodrunner said:


> Okay, but how do they add in the deer killed by farmers and ******* hillbillys that dont have internet or could care less about surveys?
> 
> Or the tags that got used more than once by poachers? Ect,Ect,Ect?
> 
> ...


The accuracy of the data is dependent on the sample size. If they polled ten deer hunters, the data that resulted would have a very low accuracy rate and would not be representative of results from 600,000 or so deer hunters. If they polled 600 hunters, the accuracy of the data would improve but would still probably not be particularly reflective of the set of hunters as a whole. When the sample size gets into the tens of thousands, individual impacts of some hunters not responding accurately get smoothed out and the end result is data that is highly reflective of the results of the entire hunting population. 

To give you some assurance, bear harvest in Michigan requires mandatory check in. For a number of years, Frawley also conducted statistical sampling using the same methods that are used in the deer harvest survey, although with a much, much smaller sample group of bear hunters and then compared the results of the statistical vs. mandatory physical check-ins. The data that was produced was almost identical, which certainly validates the soundness of the statistical methods used to assess deer hunting in Michigan.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

I think I may have mentioned it earlier, but I was _stunned _when I found out you don't have to register a deer in Michigan. Every other state I've hunted in requires a deer be recorded at a check-in station w/in one or two days of being killed. If accuracy is predicated on sample size, it is very clear to me that WI and IN are actually calculating the total harvest, while MI is taking a SWAG, or maybe an _educated _SWAG, at best.

Like the previous poster said: It's pretty clear to the hunters on the ground how many deer were seen and harvested...and that dang sure ain't what the DNR is reporting. They're extrapolating based on a formula that, by their own disclaimer, is no more than 95% accurate, in many cases.

I will also point out that in states that REQUIRE deer to be checked in, pretty much everybody does it because if you're in possession of a deer that was NOT checked, you are likely to be fined. Where check-in is apparently "optional", guys don't bother to fill out their tag OR check deer in. I would suspect they don't answer surveys on the matter, either.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Bloodrunner said:


> Okay, but how do they add in the deer killed by farmers
> .............


If you are referring to the farmers/landowners that participated in the DMAP program, that question is answered on page 6. If you are referring to the Crop Damage Permit program, I wonder about that too. Perhaps the small number of deer taken in that program are lumped together with the DMAPs. Farmers just gut shooting deer to get rid of a problem pretty much ended in '89 when the Block Permit program was started and farmers were given the opportunity to legally solve their deer problem and the meat used by them or anyone of their choosing.

L & O


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

broom_jm said:


> I think I may have mentioned it earlier, but I was _stunned _when I found out you don't have to register a deer in Michigan. Every other state I've hunted in requires a deer be recorded at a check-in station w/in one or two days of being killed. If accuracy is predicated on sample size, it is very clear to me that WI and IN are actually calculating the total harvest, while MI is taking a SWAG, or maybe an _educated _SWAG, at best.
> 
> Like the previous poster said: It's pretty clear to the hunters on the ground how many deer were seen and harvested...and that dang sure ain't what the DNR is reporting. They're extrapolating based on a formula that, by their own disclaimer, is no more than 95% accurate, in many cases.
> 
> I will also point out that in states that REQUIRE deer to be checked in, pretty much everybody does it because if you're in possession of a deer that was NOT checked, you are likely to be fined. Where check-in is apparently "optional", guys don't bother to fill out their tag OR check deer in. I would suspect they don't answer surveys on the matter, either.


Sorry to say that you are simply wrong again. What you don't take into account is the compliance rate among states that require mandatory check in. You are simply wrong in your assumption that "pretty much everybody" does it. States that require mandatory check in have found that compliance rates can vary greatly from area to area and from year to year. Some states have found mandatory compliance to be as low as 50%. Since there are certainly poachers who harvest deer illegally out of season, why would you assume that everyone complies with mandatory check in's?

The ironic thing is that compliance in states that have mandatory check in is usually measured by conducting statistical surveys, albeit with much, much smaller sample groups then Michigan uses to compile our harvest data. 

I'd suggest you contact Mike Tonkovich of the Ohio DNR, he is their deer specialist and is one of the more respected game managers in the Midwest and ask him his opinion on mandatory check-in vs. statistical surveys. Our beloved former moderator for this forum, Whit1 asked him that very question and posted the letter he received in return, it might prove illuminating to you. Do a site search using "letter" and "Mike Tonkovich" and you will find a plethora of reading on the topic for your enjoyment.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Here is a letter from Mike Tonkovich to Whit1.



Whit1 said:


> Concerning Mandatory Deer Check-In
> I used to be a huge fan of Mandatory Deer Check-In until I looked into the issue further. The letter below, from Mike Tonkovich of the ODNR, was in response to an email I sent asking him about Ohio's MDCI as compared to the system Michigan's DNR uses.
> 
> You guys that are fans of mandatory deer check-in need to read this letter and somehow find a way to get past the fact that Michigan's system of final harvest figures is accurate enough for its purpose and is, quite frankly, respected by game departments all over the country. The state has a solid data base built up for over a 1/2 century.
> ...





Mike Tonkovich said:


> Hi Milton,
> Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding your thoughts on mandatory registration (MR). As you may know, Ohio is only one of several Midwestern states that have mandatory registration for both deer and turkey. Technically, I guess you could say that PA does, but their process actually involves both mandatory reporting via postcards and visits to processors to measure non-reporting rates. In the 10 years that I&#8217;ve been here, I&#8217;ve been engaged in numerous discussions on the pros and cons of mandatory registration. I have also found myself answering more than a handful of emails from MI and PA hunters who feel that the system used by their respective agencies leaves a lot to be desired. In their mind, they see mandatory registration as the only means for getting an accurate count of the harvest. Much to their chagrin, I have to disagree with hunters from both states.
> 
> On the surface, MR seems like the &#8220;cats meow.&#8221; You kill a deer, you bring it to the check station, it is permanently tagged and recorded and you go home. At the end of the season, the data are tallied and you not only know how many were taken, but you&#8217;re now in a position to generate an ACCURATE estimate of the size of the upcoming fall population. In a perfect world, that might be the case. The reality is, we know (PA and MO come to mind immediately) that not everyone checks their deer. How many? Who knows for sure? In some years it may be as low as 7%, in others it may be as high as 30%. No one really knows and more importantly, estimating it year in and year out is costly and very difficult to do. If you didn&#8217;t check your deer and you were asked after the season via a phone call, if you checked your deer, what&#8217;s you&#8217;re answer going to be? My point is, if you live in a state with MR, estimating non-compliance is difficult at best. Moreover, if you don&#8217;t know what noncompliance is, you don&#8217;t know what the true harvest is either. So why spend valuable license dollars year in and year out providing manpower and resources to operate check stations when in the end, your harvest estimate is just that &#8211; an estimate. In large part it is because of tradition. It also is a very good PR tool. It gives us an opportunity to interact with our hunters. I like working check stations, as do many of my colleagues. The same could be said for Missouri. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that MO will be fully implementing TeleCheck this fall. On-site registration will be a thing of the past. Last year was the last time they collected biological information at mandatory registration stations; they now rely on processors for that data. Mandatory registration has its advantages. However, providing biologists with a more accurate harvest estimate over many of the alternatives is not one. While my counterparts from MI and WI and I agree to disagree on a few small details, we generally agree that Michigan&#8217;s current system for estimating harvest is very sound and in some respects, better than mandatory registration. Brent Rudolf, a good friend and someone whom I respect a great deal summed it up best with the following comments:
> ...


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Munsterlndr said:


> Sorry to say that you are simply wrong again. What you don't take into account is the compliance rate among states that require mandatory check in. You are simply wrong in your assumption that "pretty much everybody" does it. States that require mandatory check in have found that compliance rates can vary greatly from area to area and from year to year. Some states have found mandatory compliance to be as low as 50%. Since there are certainly poachers who harvest deer illegally out of season, why would you assume that everyone complies with mandatory check in's?
> 
> The ironic thing is that compliance in states that have mandatory check in is usually measured by conducting statistical surveys, albeit with much, much smaller sample groups then Michigan uses to compile our harvest data.
> 
> I'd suggest you contact Mike Tonkovich of the Ohio DNR, he is their deer specialist and is one of the more respected game managers in the Midwest and ask him his opinion on mandatory check-in vs. statistical surveys. Our beloved former moderator for this forum, Whit1 asked him that very question and posted the letter he received in return, it might prove illuminating to you. Do a site search using "letter" and "Mike Tonkovich" and you will find a plethora of reading on the topic for your enjoyment.


Well, having hunted in both types of states extensively (have you?) I have seen, and been a part of, the culture of compliance in other states. I have also seen the almost total disregard for registering deer in Michigan. Neither approach is without flaw, but of the two, there is no doubt in my mind which is more accurate and thorough. The results are VERY clear in the way subsequent management decisions play out. At times, Michigan is clueless as to the number of deer harvested or recruited, and it doesn't take any kind of survey to realize it...just ask the guys out there hunting. Statistics can show anything the guys writing them want to show, but there is now way a survey can make deer show up in the woods if they ain't there! 

Here in Indiana, when the DNR says to expect an above or below-average year, that's pretty much what ya get. In Michigan, it's a crap-shoot in most places, and it frustrates a lot of people.


----------



## Bloodrunner (Feb 3, 2011)

Munsterlndr said:


> Sorry to say that you are simply wrong again. What you don't take into account is the compliance rate among states that require mandatory check in. You are simply wrong in your assumption that "pretty much everybody" does it. States that require mandatory check in have found that compliance rates can vary greatly from area to area and from year to year. Some states have found mandatory compliance to be as low as 50%. Since there are certainly poachers who harvest deer illegally out of season, why would you assume that everyone complies with mandatory check in's?
> 
> The ironic thing is that compliance in states that have mandatory check in is usually measured by conducting statistical surveys, albeit with much, much smaller sample groups then Michigan uses to compile our harvest data.
> 
> I'd suggest you contact Mike Tonkovich of the Ohio DNR, he is their deer specialist and is one of the more respected game managers in the Midwest and ask him his opinion on mandatory check-in vs. statistical surveys. Our beloved former moderator for this forum, Whit1 asked him that very question and posted the letter he received in return, it might prove illuminating to you. Do a site search using "letter" and "Mike Tonkovich" and you will find a plethora of reading on the topic for your enjoyment.


I agree some residents may just hang the deer in the barn and never call, then use the tag again. 

Same thing happens in Mi. but no phone call required. So what is the point?

But non-residents call it in due to transporting it home


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Here's a brief article explaining statistics using sampling surveys that may help some to better unde5rstand why some of us believe in MI's system. http://www.custominsight.com/articles/random-sampling.asp

But if you truly want to know the details behind stats, a 101 course in Statistics would be HIGHLY recommended. But beware, it isn't a class that will come easily for most.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

Mr. Tonkovich states, "No one really knows and more importantly, estimating it year in and year out is costly and very difficult to do."

He goes on to say, "So why spend valuable license dollars year in and year out providing manpower and resources to operate check stations when in the end, your harvest estimate is just that  an estimate."

His associate, Brent Rudolf, is quoted as saying, "Although providing confidence intervals generally makes constituents uncomfortable, especially with the relatively wide range at the level of a DMU, they do provide a measurable means of exploring the consequences of not knowing the exact harvest."

In other words, it's all about saving a few dollars and providing numbers that are "close enough", even though they freely admit not know what the exact harvest was. When you combine the rhetorical response of a biologist whose own state has mandatory registration with the repeated and evident failure of Michigan's "system" to accurately calculate harvest or herd size, do you really need to question which method works better?

What disturbs me more than anything else I've seen is the prevalence of MI hunters who are not overly concerned with those troublesome legalities, like trespassing, baiting (when it was illegal) or erecting permanent stands on state land. (Last year, I personally witnessed every one of these laws being broken and the people doing it either didn't know, or didn't care.) So, if the advantage of Michigan's system of estimating the deer harvest is based on "confidence intervals", tell me how any of us can feel confident that the data they're gathering is of any value, whatsoever? I wonder if they calculate what percentage of survey respondents CLAIM they shot a buck, when they did not? ​


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

broom jm

If you are not reporting the game law violations that you witnessed you are part of the problem; not part of the solution. Poaching is a statewide problem and apathy is not going to solve it. Ask your local CO on the percentage of illegal deer kill in the area you hunt. You may find out that up to half the deer killed are illegal. Poaching takes a huge toll on out state's mature animals. Poaching is an estimate also but it has to be taken into account.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

broom_jm said:


> Mr. Tonkovich states, "No one really knows and more importantly, estimating it year in and year out is costly and very difficult to do."
> 
> He goes on to say, "So why spend valuable license dollars year in and year out providing manpower and resources to operate check stations when in the end, your harvest estimate is just that  an estimate."
> 
> ...


You only need to look at this quote from the letter to know that, in spite of what you and other non-professionals might think, the opinion of a professional in charge in a state with mandatory check-in says this:



> I have also found myself answering more than a handful of emails from MI and PA hunters who feel that the system used by their respective agencies leaves a lot to be desired. In their mind, they see mandatory registration as the only means for getting an accurate count of the harvest. Much to their chagrin, I have to disagree with hunters from both states.
> 
> Read more at Michigan-Sportsman.com: 2010 Michigan deer harvest survey report - Page 13 - The Michigan Sportsman Forums http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=382881&page=13#ixzz1QZr8VxEK


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Bloodrunner said:


> How many tags that were sold is easy, how many that were filled, who knows.
> 
> Just over half the people sent in the survey, and who knows wether they told the truth? A guy that filled up could easily say he never saw a deer, or vice versa?


There have been extensive studies of the accuracy of survey reports. This came up earlier in another thread, here was my response then. There is a whole bunch of reading available to you in this post from statistics experts that may convince you that these reports, with the confidence intervals stated, are accurate within those limits.



> Actually a 57% response rate is abnormally high for a mail survey.
> 
> Some studies have shown that lower response rates yield more accurate results, others show that the results are about the same:
> 
> ...


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Bloodrunner said:


> I'll check it out and get back with you on wether I believe it or not, cause I dont know many hunters that dont butcher their own and they dont report a thing


I butchered 16 deer I killed in the last three years and all have been reported either by mail or electronic survey.

All the kinds of concerns you have are issues for any mail survey. If it was a quilters survey someone would say what about Grandma that does all her own quilts at home:lol:. Well, Grandma is taken into account by the statistical methods if appropriate ones are chosen. The studies used to come up with survey reliability, and the methodology of determining the the confidence intervals take your concerns into account.

Moreover, if the state uses the exact same survey methodology each year, changes from year to year have validity. By the way, that is the most useful information that comes from a survey. What the exact numbers are is not as important as the trends over time.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

bioactive said:


> Moreover, if the state uses the exact same survey methodology each year, changes from year to year have validity. By the way, that is the most useful information that comes from a survey. What the exact numbers are is not as important as the trends over time.


OK, now THAT I agree with! 

However, I see states with mandatory check-in doing a much better job of predicting the over-winter numbers, along with next year's potential harvest. In a nutshell: Indiana's survey results are predictive, whereas Michigan's results are more reactive. That is my observation, and I dare say quite a few of Michigan's frustrated hunters agree with me, based on what they see, some years.


----------

