# What is really wrong with wanting big bucks?



## Liv4Huntin' (May 24, 2000)

So......... in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and Kentucky, how many bucks is each hunter allowed to shoot every year, and how many does? What is the hunter ratio to the number of deer in these states? (Relevant only when considering the amount of pressure put on the Michigan herd each year, it would seem.) It seems in Michigan we have many out of state hunters coming up for the gun hunt, and that we have had for MANY years. I assume (?) these numbers are added into the total number of licenses sold for the deer hunts...... anyone know?

~ m ~


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

This is a good point, I believe all those states limit the amount of tags to non residents. Maybe we should do the same to any state that restricts over the counter license to us.

I hunted Kansas last year and the residents are only allowed one buck. They must make a choice if it will be archery or rifle. The problem we have here is, the DNR would have such a huge fight trying to change from the present law.
Like most of our states problems, it dos'nt lay totally with the DNR. I blame the hunters of this state for the lack of big deer and the mentality of "if the law says I can kill two bucks, then I am going to do it."


----------



## Aspen Hill Adventures (Feb 25, 2001)

It's too bad Michigan is more known as a state with a big TB herd rather than a big buck herd. Sadly, I see no change as the view most hunters seem to have is QUANTITY not QUALITY.


----------



## fishinlk (Apr 14, 2000)

In Ohio you are able to shoot 2 deer per season in the prime deer counties. 1 may be antlered(spike 3"+). You may also take and additional 4 antlerless deer in the "Urban areas". The rules for residents and non-residents are the same. Ohio sells a non-resident "hunting license". Then you buy your deer tags.

As far as hunters vs deer numbers. These are not exact but close. These numbers also represent total number of deer hunters as they only sell a deer permit. gun bow it doesn't matter.

Number of hunters approx. 500,000
Deer harvest. approx. 155,000 (Season ended 1/31 and the official count isn't out)
Deer population. approx. 500,000

In some ways MI and OH are alike. Public ground gets POUNDED. I think there are three reasons you still find some decent bucks on public land down here:
A) we don't have the vast expanses of public land MI does so the deer have safe havens and get pushed off to the private ground.
B) Most of our public hunting areas are pretty rugged. Plenty of places for a deer to hide on a steep hilside covered with logs and briars. 
C) Most of Ohio is private ground and many areas have pockets that get relativley little pressure due to this. 

Here's a link to the 2000 breakdown on antlere vs antlerless deer harvest.
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/hunting/deer/harvest01.htm

Hope this answers some questions.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

No non-resident restictions in Illinios yet. Although that may change this year. The way I understand it is that even residents can get a max of three tags. Two either sex and one antlerless only. But that's only if you get drawn in each lottery. There's been years where I've drawn an either sex muzzleloader and the locals didn't. I don't think they have any buck only tag. They're either sex tags for bucks.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Oh my god, in Ohio they see big bucks BUT only have a spike 3 " rule like Michigan...somebody stop this maddness. How can they have such a rule, don't they know they will never have large bucks, etc... blah blah.

Ohio, Kansas, Iowa all are made up of mostly private lands, chuck filled with corn fields. No way to compare Michigan to these states. Not sure we are comparing apples to apples here, especially in northern Michigan.

Michigan is not known for its big bucks???? You guys act like every deer walking around Michigan is a spikehorn. A possible world record 8 point this year in Michigan. Have you seen buck buck nights on PBS? What more do you want, ohhhhh, I know, YOU want a big buck too like everybody else. BUT you don't want to leave the comfort of your enclosed blind on YOUR property, and your neighbors keep shooting ALL those small six points and if they would just let them grow, you could shoot a big buck like EVERYBODY in Ohio does!?!?!


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

It's a different culture where I hunt in Illinois. Down there, you may not only get your a$$ chewed for shooting a small buck, you may not get invited back. They call 14" 8pts "trash bucks". But, they get mad if you shoot a small trasher because they know it will be much bigger with another year on it. Until we can change the culture in northern Michigan where 80% of the guys shoot the first 8" fork that walks into their carrots, nothing will change. As time passes and many of these old ideas die, we'll see improvement.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Easy there, Beer & Nuts - quotes:

"Ohio, Kansas, Iowa all are made up of mostly private lands, chuck filled with corn fields. No way to compare Michigan to these states. "

Would you rather use Wisconsin for a basis of comparison? Similar proportion of public land, similar habitat, nearly identical herd size and hunter numbers. Tons more mature bucks in the population, as evidenced by B&C entries several times that which we see in MI.


"Oh my god, in Ohio they see big bucks BUT only have a spike 3 " rule like Michigan".

Fundamental differences in Ohio - a one week gun season beginning after the rut, and no traditional reluctance to harvest does - Buckeye state hunters consistently take a higher proportion of does than we do in Michigan.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

[email protected], is this what Michigan really wants to go to, calling 8 point bucks "trash bucks" and not being able to get invited back kinda attitudes. I would like to know how much land your hunting and how many hunters hunt it?? Becaue if your comparing that to Michigan hunting in Baldwin, no comparison. Plus Bob I can find you tracts of private land just like the property your hunting in Ill. But you too would have to be invited to hunt there. 

Farmlegend, Wisconsin??? Sure we can compare that to Michigan. I know plenty of folks that hunt northeast/central Wisconsin and they too had a horrible year for deer sightings, they also are complaining about special doe seasons, harvetsing to many does etc... I will say Wisconsin is made up more, at least 3/4(or more) of the state, like southern Michigan. Has alot more agriculture area than Michigan as a whole, so yes I can see why they have more B&C entries. The top 1/4 is mostly like Northern Michigan and a small part is like the UP.

You talk about Ohio and the fundementals differences, how they take more doe etc..so what does this have to do with QDM and all this 6 point on one side stuff that Michigan QDM supoorters are trying to push. It seems to me, like Ohio(big bucks), this has nothing to do with limiting what size antlers we can take. Right?
Are you trying to say that the taking of more does gives Ohio these bigger bucks?, The reason I ask, is Ohio has no antler limits(3" inch) but some consider Ohio a big buck state when compared to Michigan.

Just looking over each state regs, these other states limit how many bucks are taken(permits) and take more does BUT they also have a tighter handle on how many permits are issued for each area(more micro-managed if you will). I don't see antler limitations. i think there is alot more factors as well, such as private land, habitat, number of hunters, etc..


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Beer&Nuts. The answer to your first question is YES!YES!YES!YES!!!!! I would love it if guys saw a small basket rack 8pt and said "don't shoot that little guy, there's a couple 18" and a 20" around!" YES! You know, just like people do when they throw little fish back. The answer to the second question is that we hunt a lot of land. We're lucky there. The bad thing is that since a lot of the surrounding land is being leased up by Chicago hunt clubs, the locals are seeing a general and fast decline in the racks. The new neighbors are doing just what most do here. Shoot the little ones. The farm I hunt at frowns on that because they know the potential of their bucks. The old Illinois state record came from the farm and a bunch of B&C. I've even noticed a difference in racks the last couple years at the check station. The first year down there, I passed up 9 nice bucks in three days. We still shot 3 big 10pts this year and I shot a big 11pt last year, but we're not seeing nearly as many small bucks because they're getting killed by the neighbors. Not as many small bucks, much less big bucks. The only nice thing is that Illinois has mandatory checks, so they'll decrease the number of either sex (buck) permits for next year. At the check station, they said they'd have too. The bad thing is that I and some of our group may not get a permit next year. But Illinois doesn't let the situation spiral out of control. Am I advocating something like that here? Yes. I think we should have to pick the county our buck tag is for and then only get one over the counter. In counties with good buck numbers, we can have a lottery for 2nd buck tags.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Wrong again.

"I will say Wisconsin is made up more, at least 3/4(or more) of the state, like southern Michigan. Has alot more agriculture area than Michigan as a whole, so yes I can see why they have more B&C entries. The top 1/4 is mostly like Northern Michigan and a small part is like the UP." 

To say that Wisconsin's B&C entries vs. Michigan's are purely a function of the proportion of agricultural acreage inaccurate. Look at the map by county where record book entries are identified (there were several floating around last weekend's Lansing Deer & Turkey Spectacular). The U.P. counties bordering Wisconsin look very sparse, then you cross the state boundary into identical countryside and you'll see that northern Wisconsin is LOADED with record book entries. 

Next time, consider doing some homework before you shoot your mouth off.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Personally, I know more hunters that leave the state of Michigan to deer vacation than I do Michigan hunters that stay in Michigan to deer hunt on their vacations.

We are moving our 9 day deer hunt out of state this up coming year...because we are tired of experiencing the same 100 doe and 2 fork horn hunts every year.

I am tired of people fighting and screaming for their right to kill deer that have lived 1/6th of their possible life span.

We shoot nothing but kindergartners and teenagers in this state, and very few male deer ever make it to adulthood....

I find it very sad....

I find it very discouraging that humans treat their gifts this way....

I, for the life of me, cannot comprehend why people are so against raising the age structure of our deer while leaving the population total the same overall....

Well, I went to Alaska to chase big moose and big caribou because Michigan doesn't have any....I will also leave state now to chase normal adult deer because....Michigan doesn't have any.

However, I will still cringe when we spend around $4000.00 out of state helping their economy and deer ,instead of, spending it here helping Michigan deer and our economy.

Truth is...I like deer hunting, and am tired of Michigan hunting and pursuing nothing but children deer.

This isn't a deer hunting state, this is a mass immature deer harvest state, and certainly is not the game I want to play when I pick up a bow.

Hunt


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

"I, for the life of me, cannot comprehend why people are so against raising the age structure of our deer..."

Good news, Huntnut. A clear majority of Michigan hunters DO desire a deer herd with an older buck age structure. I cite the MSU Bull/Peyton report.

Of all respondence surveyed, 54.9% exrpressed a desire that our herd be managed for an older buck age structure. 29.3% expressed no opinion, and ONLY 15.7% DID NOT WANT THE HERD MANAGED FOR AN OLDER BUCK AGE STRUCTURE. 

Put another way, 77.8% of those hunters which expressed an opinion want the herd managed for an older buck age structure.

Now, it's up to the NRC to do the right thing and give hunters the tools to manage our herd responsibly and get the kind of herd structure that both serves the public also the overall health of the deer herd.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

> Are you trying to say that the taking of more does gives Ohio these bigger bucks?


this is not the only reason but a major contributing factor to ohio and other states producing more mature bucks


A Glut of Does Harms Bucks
By: John J. Ozoga 

In white-tailed deer, the adult sexes live separately during much of the year, just as they do in mule deer, red deer, elk, moose, and many other ungulates. Scientists refer to this social and geographical separation as sexual segregation" or "niche separation" of the sexes.

Related does live in close-knit matriarchal societies, composed of mothers, daughters, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, and so forth. Bucks, on the other hand, form fraternal or bachelor groups generally composed of unrelated males. In either case, social group size and the degree of social complexity varies depending upon many different factors that influence deer herd sex-age composition and density.


While the female whitetail might spend her entire life on a relatively small ancestral range, the male generally disperses to a new range. At some point in time, the young male must leave one societal unit to join another if he is to become a successful breeder.


Because adult bucks and does differ so much in their behavior, they can almost be treated as though they were different species. Researchers around the world still debate the adaptive advantages of the totally different lifestyles demonstrated by the whitetail sexes. Unfortunately, their seasonal differences in food, cover, and social requirements are seldom considered in deer management plans.


Given the potential significance, some deer researchers question whether current deer habitat and herd management strategies adequately serve both sexes. We are often bound to a system that overexploits the male segment of the population and under-harvest the females. The goal, it seems, is to produce an abundance of whitetails, regardless of their condition, to satisfy steadily increasing recreational demands on this species.


In many parts of the country, antlered bucks are currently being harvested so intensively that mature bucks and true buck groups are virtually nonexistent.


From the standpoint of whitetail social evolution, groups of yearling bucks, in the absence of older bucks, do not represent true fraternal groups. Groups of yearling deer may also include females, and tend to occur only during late spring and summer while does are rearing fawns. Thus, these groups of young deer differ greatly from exclusive, age-structured groups of older bucks.


In a natural population, only relatively few dominant bucks do most of the breeding. A young male can only hope to become a dominant male by engaging in competition with other bucks over a long period. The achievement of dominant status by young males requires outliving older, stronger males and dominating males of similar age. It is not enough to simply maintain a rank. To succeed, the young male must continually strive to move up in dominance. This requires that he associate not only with animals of lower rank, but also with those of higher rank.


In an age-structured male society, a high rank is not easily attained, it requires experience and the learning of competitive skills. Success, as in any contest of strength, skill, and endurance, comes from long and diligent training. A young male choosing not to join all-male groups would not be able to obtain the necessary skills to compete successfully.


Considering that the whitetail buck's chances of breeding are largely determined by his rank in the male dominance hierarchy, the young buck has little choice but to associate with other males. Although he is tightly linked to the mother-young system early in life, he must eventually break those bonds. When sexually mature, the buck must seek out and interact with older males, achieve male group membership, and rise in dominance rank. If he does not, but instead remains with female relatives, it is my opinion that he would become a "psychological castrate," never achieving respected breeder-status.


Even casual observers may note that, as with any behavioral trait, the whitetail's social organization is an adaptation. It evolved in response to numerous environmental stresses, including predators, diseases, climate, habitat conditions, and hunting by Native Americans. And, as with any adaptation, the whitetail's social organization is genetically linked, inherited, and essential for the species' healthful existenceit promotes social order, genetic selection and physical fitness, and improves the prospects for survival.


Since the whitetail sexes differ in many aspects of physiology, behavior, and anatomy, it is likely that they evolved differently. For example, bucks and does differ in size, shape, growth rate, metabolic rate, life span, food and cover requirements, and in many aspects of physiology and biochemistry.


Based upon intensive behavioral investigations conducted in Southern Michigan's George Reserve, investigator Dale McCullough concluded that, due to sex differences in use of space, food, and cover, whitetail bucks and does do not compete equally for the necessities of life on a year-round basis.


Therefore, if bucks and does evolved differently, then they must also respond differently to environmental change. As a result, habitat management practices that benefit does may not necessarily benefit bucks equally, or may even be detrimental to bucks.


Also, harvest management strategies that inflict unnatural patterns of mortality (such as buck-only harvesting) and create deer herds with abnormal sex and age composition could impact the welfare of one sex, either favorably or otherwise, more than the other.


Many hypotheses have been advanced to explain the evolution of sex segregation among ungulates. However, two Oregon researchers, Martin Main and Bruce Coblentz, propose that females select habitat that is best suited for rearing offspring. Normally, that means diversified food and cover arrangements with ample hiding cover for both mother and young, as a predator defense, during the critical stage of early fawn-rearing.


By comparison, when available, males tend to select areas where nutrition is superb, which allows for maximal body growth necessary for the attainment of high dominance rank and improved breeding success.


Generally speaking, both male and female whitetails in northern latitudes subsist upon relatively poor quality forage during winter and leave their winter ranges in depleted, poor physical condition.


Forage and environmental conditions normally become much better in spring and summer, allowing for fairly rapid replenishing of energy reserves. Ungulates from northern latitudes have evolved to give birth during this period, when conditions are most favorable for rearing young. This is when the reproductive patterns of the adult sexes differ the most and they show the greatest niche separation.


The Oregon researchers emphasize that body size, physical strength, and general body condition influence a males mating success. Therefore, the replenishment of energy reserves should coincide with major growing seasons, and optimization of forage resources by males should be most evident during these periods as they prepare for the rut. Optimal foraging by males may require avoidance of heavily grazed areas or adoption of foraging patterns that exploit temporal resources of high quality. The importance of maximizing body condition for males apparently exceeds even increased risk of predation."


When a deer population is socially balanced, my observations indicate that adult bucks intensively scent mark their favored summer habitat as soon as they return to it in spring, probably as a means of reclaiming range that had been vacated during winter. This marking, which is done primarily on overhead branches, serves to intimidate other deer, including pregnant females that require solitude for fawn rearing. As a result, buck scent marking helps to segregate the adult sexes and distribute the herd more evenly during the nonbreeding period when does are rearing fawns and bucks are growing antlers.


In McCullough's words, "Resource partitioning between the sexes in white-tailed deer adds a new dimension to the role of social behavior as it relates the animal to its environment." Indeed, if bucks differ from does in their use or space, food, and cover resources, on a seasonal basis, then deer herd and habitat management considerations take on an entirely new level of complexity.


McCullough suggests that this issue should be carefully considered especially when it comes to determining deer harvest management strategies. As he points out, "unbalancing populations toward females intuitively would be expected to increase productivity, but in practice seldom does in moderate- to high-density populations."


Clearly, poor growth rates among young deer and reproductive failure among adult does, when associated with food competition and malnutrition, invariably is the result of too many female deer, not because of too many bucks.


Martin Main was probably correct in criticizing traditional deer management practices which promote and expand female groupsespecially predator control efforts and bucks-only harvestingrun counter to how the white-tailed deer's social system evolved.


Wherever fawn-rearing females are overly abundant, over-browsing and range forage deletion is likely, thereby excluding buck use of such habitat. Conversely, female groups may be prevented from becoming established in areas used by males, because predation or other factors reduce fawn-rearing success.


In other words, when deer density is high, whitetail bucks often occupy certain habitats strictly by "default." They browse depleted areas where no does live or where does live in very low numbers.


Today, young bucks in Michigan probably have great difficulty finding suitable habitat during spring and summer, in an environment saturated with too many antlerless deer. As a consequence, many bucks are forced to occupy nutritionally poor areas, where they grow poorly, sport undersized antlers, and may even suffer greater than normal over-winter mortality.


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

Huntnut, Maybe you could send that to Ole Fred Trost. He has been asking questions why hunter numbers are down. He is also against any kind of QDM/TDM management.
Last year I only hunted 2 days total for gun and muzzleloading season in Mich. I normally take two full weeks. I started hunting out of state few years ago. I do bow hunt here when I can just because I enjoy setting in the woods.

I wish the people state who are against any kind of management would at least give it a trial. I think there is a conception that your herd must be very small to have quality deer. I don't believe that for one minute. I think in a lot of areas are in very good shape now. What most hunters have to realize... if you go to the mangement program you are not going to set in the woods the entire season to see that one trophy. With time you will see just as many bucks as you do now except, more often one will be a true monster, body and antlers.

The question becomes, are you willing to sacrifice a couple of years without tagging a buck. I think most are not. That is what this really boils down to.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Yeah, the NRC should be reformulating regs to give the majority of Michigan hunters what they want.

Problem is the special interest groups, the politics, and everyone else who has their hand in the deer cookie jar.

Why aren't they doing it?

I know they are pulling the regs together for the 2002 season....are they doing anything to appease the majority?

Until they do...Im not spending my vacations in this state. I have spent the last 5 years doing a 9 day bowhunt up north. In the last 5 years the largest buck we have seen was a puny 6 point.

I hear all my bowhunting buddies talking about the 8 10 points they saw in one week out of state...just hunting normal private land! I get teased about my deer hunting endeavors in this state!

I am wasting my hunting life in this state. I want to chase mature adult deer....not these stupid kids runnin all over.

This states deer herd is diseased (TB)..... Engler could care less.... hunters dont want normal deer.... DNR gettin budgets slashed.... millions of special seasons poppin up everywhere..... hunters constantly complaining about one thing or another.... Farm Bureau having way too much influence.... baiting debates where the prosecuters wont even prosecute offenders.... the Sierra club instituting old growth stands everywhere on state land.....my hunting money being used in everywhere but hunting.....

IVE HAD IT!

The amount of money this state is losing because of people leaving to hunt elsewhere is enormous!

I am looking forward to our hunt next year....maybe I will finally see ONE SINGLE 10 point while deer hunting IN MY LIFE!

Hunt


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

but what does Ozaga know?

he is just the one most well respected wildlife biologists of our time.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

so hunt, are we car pooling or what? LOL 

can't wait!


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

If you guys want, drop me a PM and I'll give you the number of the guy we hunt with in Illinois. He's doing pay bow hunts for around a grand. I think they're four-five day hunts. You should see a 10pt then! Like I said, the old non-typ state record was from right there. I think it scored 252. You may not get shots, but they get your heart pumping even at 200 yards.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

hey legend,

did i read this right:



> Respondents supported (59%) the idea of an antler restriction to protect yearling bucks. Support was essentially unrelated to type of land access or
> age of respondent.


this report keeps getting better and better


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

To get back to what Huntnut stated in the beginning. A trophy is what you work for and its Okay to hunt for a trophy. We have olympics going right now and they work all their lives to get a medal(Trophy). Why should I be put down because I shoot big bucks. I am one to tell others to let the small ones go, because I am in search of the TROPHY. 

This may seem out of line, but many of you should be happy that you are able to hunt and enjoy the outdoors. You shouldnt be bickering at each other and talking about others states. 

There are many people out there that dont have the liberty's that we all have. Just something to think about. We as hunters can do our part and have conservation, but when you look at the big picture you should be lucky that you can walk, talk, hear, have 2 legs, etc. IMO


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

I am not one who feels I should force anyone to except my views. I personally would much rather take a trophy every year. This means I take of chance of not tagging out. I don't think everyone should be the same. I have no problem with the guy who takes ONE buck no matter what size it is. I think we are killing to many young bucks with the two buck limit. Now, we as residents of this state have a right to voice this opinion. After all we are the ones who own the deer.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

King fisher, your last post(if read between the lines) sums up what I feel would be a better way to go about trying to gain this "better, bigger, more" quality buck goal, yet allowing other hunters to harvest spikes etc if they choose. 

"""I think we are killing to many young bucks with the two buck limit.""" - Kingfisher

This I think sums up a big problem that needs to change, we need a limit on buck licenses. I wouldn't say too many young bucks but more like too many bucks, period. Again go back to one buck for bow and one for gun, no combo stuff.


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

No matter which way we go with this, I can see troubles.
If we go to the 4 points or better on one side for all bucks. We will then have more poaching, more non residents and the good private land will get leased up. We then would need more Officers in the field and restrictionson non residents. We will have larger deer though.

If we stay the way it is, the herd quality may deteriate even more.

If we go to the one buck system then we will have guys buying the wife a tag. Of course we still need more DNR officers in the field. This is true for any management program. I feel we would still see more bucks with this program. Not as many large deer but, there will be an increase.

The one buck program works in Kansas, but they don't have the hunters. They have a major poaching problem also. All states and provinces that have quality deer hunting do tend to micro manage the herd. 

We as hunters need to change the mind set. No matter which way we go, don't abuse the resource. The bucks and does in certain geographical areas are not an unlimited resource.


----------



## fishinlk (Apr 14, 2000)

Now there's a revelation!
"If we go to the one buck system then we will have guys buying the wife a tag. "

I've known many people that have been doing that off and on for the past 20 years, including when you could legally take 4 bucks in 1 year! And these people did know each other either I've begin to think its more the rule than the exception in high deer density areas. I also honestly beleive that this is probably one of the biggest problems up there, that combined with the mentality of "if I don't shoot it my neighbor will" and "don't shoot a doe on my property" the 1.5 year old bucks don't stand a chance of making it to 2.5 yrs old. All of the rules in the world won't make up for what's happening to the younger bucks if you can't get through to the people that have these philosophies.

Oh, on another Ohio rule note:
New reg proposal for this fall in the heavy deer counties is increasing it to a season limit of three deer but only one may be a buck.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

I guess you can lead a horse to water.... Anyway Jamie an unhealthy heard just isn't all that obvious. Here's why;

Quote 1)
"lack of mature bucks=unhealthy herd (anyway you slice it)" 
Huntnut and Beagle have shown an average of approximately 2:1 buck to doe ratio in Michigan.

Quote 2)
"too many does=unhealthy herd"
This is extremely area dependant. If you want to reduce doe numbers in an area you can do so easilly, without QDM (TDM). 

Quote 3)
"lack of habitat=unhealthy herd"
I am not sure that we really want to increase the carying capacity of the land at this time to increase deer density and help spread TB. It is contra-indicated in many areas of Michigan presently.

Quote 4)
"harvesting 80% of one particular age class (1.5 yr. old bucks)= unhealthy deer herd"
By Huntnut and Beagle's calculation we harvest approximately 70.5% of 1.5 year old and greater bucks in Michigan. We also enjoy nationally one of the highest percent success rates among hunters. If you hunt Michigan, odds are you will put venison in your freezer.

Quote 5)
"wake up people!"
I am awake, I have a degree in Animal Science, have worked in research all my adult life, and want only the best for our herd and our hunters. I am not convinced that our herd is unhealthy, sorry. <----<<<


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Joe, I don't attempt to classify our deer herd as unhealthy either but certainly believe it could be healthier! And hunting experiences could be enhanced.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

People sure do love to use that 2:1 ratio thingy that Beagle and I figured out.

Joe...with 2,000,000 animals thats 1.3 million doe and 660,000 male. There are alot more females then males in our herd.

2:1 does not sound bad, but we are dealing with numbers in the Millions.

I also love to hear people say our herd is healthy...and then they tack on "except for TB"

Thats like saying humans were healthy in the middle ages....except for the bubonic plague.....

Our herd is diseased, our sex ratios are lopsided 2:1, and we have very few adult bucks.

(since our findings btw, the DNR has come out claiming that their numbers were wrong...so our deductions aren't even accurate)

We often hear of a 6 or 8 year old doe that has been harvested somewhere...but when was the last time you heard of an 8 year old buck harvested in this state?

The sport of hunting should NOT shape the herd of animals being hunted.

God already shaped the herd....hunting should be a tool to keep the population below carrying capacity, and all sexes and all age classes should be harvested proportionately.

Hunt


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

God had created and shaped many species and herds that today do not resemble their ancestors. 

The cattle that are managed and marketed today barely resemble their ancestors of 50 short years ago! The dispensable males are managed for table fare, while select females are managed as breeding stock. In most reviews, "the beef industry has produced exceptional quality animals through intense selection and management". In these animals however, only select genes of their ancestors remain.

Take horses as another example, the magnificent Clydesdale's ancestors were only four feet tall! What did God intend here? Maybe, just maybe, he gave man the brainpower to turn a pony into a draft horse? Maybe it is Gods will that man manage the resources to best serve man?

Another example of a class of creatures that do not even resemble "God's creations" are dogs. Man through intense breeding selection produced every single AKC breed that you see today. Yet how many of us havent marveled at the grace and beauty of a pointer? 

Anyway, the argument that "God intended it this way" may better be stated that "God gave man the brains to use his resources in what ever fashion best benefits man." Might this be an accurate assumption?

If our deer management strategy does not strive to maintain a resource for future generations to hunt... that would be an out and out sin! <----<<<


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

In my opinion, a quarrel about a global SUMMER sex-ratio (after births) is inappropriate :
- According to biologists and zoologists, COMPREHENSIBLY, the natural scheme (natural predators and climate) which leads to an efficient herd structure is as follow :
- 50 % of all newcomers do not reach their second year.
- From there up to full maturity, before they are NATURALLY
engaged in rutting activities, males MOSTLY survive.
- Thereafter, RUTTING AND old age take their toll.
- This is the way Mother Nature has SUCCESSFULLY intended things to be from immemorial times.
This is the reason why I strongly believe the hunters impact on Wildlife should copy this pattern of "disappearances".

Hence, what is really important is the SPRING sex-ratio
MATURE males / females
and NOT the male / female sex-ratio AFTER births.
(by SPRING MATURE males, understand those males Nature NATURALLY intended to enter the mating competition for access to the females) 

Jack,


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Good point, Jack. I'd be very interested to know what the male:female ratio is here in Michigan prior to fawn birthing. And also interested in knowing the proportion of bucks one year old vs. two+ years old in the spring. Got to be ugly.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Joe,

You have a good point...but the examples you listed are not wild animals, they are domestic animals.

I like my deer herd wild and natural. (How much fun would cow hunting be?)

I want my cows domesticated.

I dont want to treat our deer herd like its only there to be used and harvested.

Yes we have the power to "farm" deer if we so wished....but do we want to?

Or do we want to supply the wilds with the diversity and harvest practices that keep our herd wild and natural?

Hunt


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

joe, you know how i dislike to be misquoted and for my quotes to be blatantly used out of context

Quote 1) i said, "lack of mature bucks"


Quote 2) if you have an overpopulation of does in any particular area it is unhealthy for that particular area's herd

hence: too many does=unhealthy herd


Quote 3) lack of quality habitat causes a domino effect of degredation to the herd. lack of food and cover for wintering deer is one of the most severe problem effecting herd health. quality habitat ensures wintering deer make it through winter in good condition, healthier bucks and does come spring and a healthier fawn crop to go along with them. reduces winter stress, etc.

quality habitat has nothing to do with holding a herd above capacity, baiting does!


Quote 4) needs no explaination and stands on it's own
look at the harvest figures, they speak volumes


Quote 5) then take your blinders off



> I am not convinced that our herd is unhealthy, sorry.


then you must be asleep in your treestand


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Jamie, go back one page. I'll paste the post here for you.

[COPY AND PASTE]
"" lack of mature bucks=unhealthy herd (anyway you slice it) 

too many does=unhealthy herd 

lack of habitat=unhealthy herd 

harvesting 80% of one particular age class (1.5 yr. old bucks)= unhealthy deer herd 

choose any place in the state and one or a combination of the above apply 

wake up people! "" 

Those are your exact comments that I quoted, if other context was inferred, I was not aware...sorry. <----<<<


Huntnut, the term "management" caries with it an implicit definition of intervention. Make no mistake, our goal is to intervene, we are just trying to decide what is best. 

Do you not see the contradiction of your statements;
"The sport of hunting should NOT shape the herd of animals being hunted." and 
"hunting should be a tool to keep the population below carrying capacity, and all sexes and all age classes should be harvested proportionately." ?? <----<<<


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

"mature bucks" mean just that,not just "bucks"

i was quilty of thinking a buck is buck, but it is much more than just getting a 2:1 ratio,not only should it be closer,but the buck population must be evenly distributed throughout various age classes. 

we are not even close with current populations and harvest practices.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

It is my belief that our herd would be best suited by hunters mimicing the harvest of natural predators.

Natural predators do in fact:

"keep the population below carrying capacity, and all sexes and all age classes are harvested proportionately." 

I dont think the deer are best suited by changing their population dynamics to suit our wants.

Hunt


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Natural predators of deer prey on the sick and the young, in uneven distribution. 

What is best for the deer may not be what is best for man? I am selfish. I want to maintain a huntable resource. If maintaining a natural social structure of the herd decreases the resiliency of the herd to respond to a sever winter, or reduces the success rate of hunters, than I say "bad idea". <----<<<


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

"If maintaining a natural social structure of the herd decreases the resiliency of the herd to respond to a sever winter... than I say "bad idea"." 

Now there's a topic worthy of a research project. I can just see the cover page on the report, "How Maintaining a Natural Social Structure of a Deer Herd Increases the Vulnerability of Whitetailed Deer to a Severe Winter."


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

I agree Joe...I dont believe there is anyone on this site who doesn't want a huntable deer herd a thousand years from now.

And no, natural predation doesnt just focus on the sick and young. Yes these individuals are culled out, but also the old and weak are culled out, and even many healthy adults are culled out.

If the deer herd population grows too fast, the predator population will grow fast to keep up. (carrying capacity)

It worked for millions of years....it cant be wrong or harmful.

One thing natural predators don't do:

Focus most their attention on males.....thats the big problem I have.

Really...when was the last time you heard of an 8 year old buck taken in this state?

There must be a reason that old bucks are needed in the herd, ma nature knows best and I believe her....otherwise male deer would have lifespans of 2 years.

Whenever man questions the logic of Mother Nature, he screws things up.

Hunt


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

> If maintaining a natural social structure of the herd decreases the resiliency of the herd to respond to a sever winter, or reduces the success rate of hunters, than I say "bad idea". <----<<<


that's a big IF, what makes you come to this conclusion?

a herd entering winter at 60-70% of it's carrying capacity, 1.5 year old bucks entering winter in better condition, does bred during the first estrus cycle, how will this lead to decreased resiliency?

decreased success rates? maybe for a year or two. MAYBE

ask the guys in the TB zone and many other areas how their success rates have been, how about hunter satisfaction, which i believe is more important than success. under a carefully followed QDM plan not only will you have a continued huntable resource but a better one with greater hunter satisfaction.


----------



## walleyechaser (Jan 12, 2001)

I've been reading the numerous posts regarding QDM and many other methods of improving our deer herd's quality. However, it seems we cannot accept some sad realities.

First of all, the deer herd estimates are not as accurate as some would have us believe.
Second, the mind set that "if I don't shoot it the next guy will" is
a reality in many areas---not a mind set!
I know this for a fact and have witnessed it too many times to ignore it. Thre are "Hunters"? out there who would and do shoot anything that moves so long as it is a deer.
*Uneducated is curable---Ignorance is often intentional!* 

The simple way to solve our current problems is to restrict deer hunting to does only for the next 3 - 5 years. Only after doing so does QDM or whatever else you choose to call it, stand a chance of accomplishing anything.
If an area is really lacking in deer numbers, no deer at all should be harvested for that time period.
If an area is over populated with does, issue extra permits.
Do away with crop damage permits alltogether or create strict guidelines for issuing them---the system doesn't work other than allowing large landowners to capitalize on a state owned resource. Many landowners with large numbers of crop damage permits haven't been visited by DNR personnel in years yet the permits keep coming.

Does this sound drastic? You bet it is but it would work without going through all of these discussions which more than likely will lead nowhere.

Just my .02 cents worth.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Jamie, it is a big "IF", and this is what I was hoping we could resolve here. It is actually where I have been stuck for a long time. 

If you look over harvest data, you will see that antlerless deer harvest is pretty much divided between adult doe and fawn crop. Any intervention to increase doe harvest will ultimately lead to an increase of fawns, and in all liklihood a decrease in fawn bucks. Passing on bucks because of antler restrictions will lead to an increase in percentage of bucks in the herd. Now you have lower numbers of deer, and more bucks....the goals of QDM. 

The carying capacity of the land however, is NOT a constant, and can be drastically decreased in a severe Michigan winter. So now, the question, who is best apt to survive this type of winter, a healthy buck or a pregnant doe? Obviously more doe will die. When enough deer die in a harsh winter (as was typical in the UP), the resiliency of the herd is directly proportional to the number of doe in the herd to begin with, and to some extent, the buck : doe ratio. <----<<<


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

> Any intervention to increase doe harvest will ultimately lead to an increase of fawns, and in all liklihood a decrease in fawn bucks


fawn sex is split 50:50, maybe even a percentage or two favoring males



> What is the sex ratio at birth? Out of every 100 fawns born, how many are males and how many are females? The answer is usually, but not always, slightly more males than females. We could discuss the theories about why this occurs for hours, but the bottom line is I don't think anyone really knows


 White-Tailed Deer Biology and Population Dynamics
by Larry Marchinton


many studies have shown that winter mortality is skewed towards bucks especially after the rigors and stress of a rut that keeps getting longer and longer. many bucks never recover and suffer a much higher winter/early spring mortality rate.

no joe, i don't have the actual studies, but rest assured i can and will find them


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

also joe, which deer herd would you rather enter a severe winter with?

a.) one at or above it's carrying capacity

or

b.) 30-40% below carrying capacity


which herd would be better able to rebound from such a winter?

which herd would suffer greater loses?

would you rather have these deer starve/suffer through winter-kill or be harvested?


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

To Joe Archer :

Quote from your post :

"The carying capacity of the land however, is NOT a constant, and can be drastically decreased in a severe Michigan winter. So now, the question, who is best apt to survive this type of winter, a healthy buck or a pregnant doe? Obviously more doe will die. When enough deer die in a harsh winter (as was typical in the UP), the resiliency of the herd is directly proportional to the number of doe in the herd to begin with, and to some extent, the buck : doe ratio. <----<<<"

Most certainly the carrying capacity is NOT a constant and can be drastically decreased in a severe winter : I know this, first hand : this is why a "micro management" is ABSOLUTELY necessary 
("Up North" and "Down South" are two totally different situations, and in between another one !!!)

RUTTING males have been PROVEN to be much more vulnerable than females, even when these are pregnant, and much more so IF THEY RUT before the end of their body growth (rutting = much energy expenditures before winter, at the worse possible time = very hard to grow and rut at the same time !).
On the other hand, the more females, the largest the herd and the heavier the feeding pressure on the habitat when food becomes scarce = the more winter losses.
Hence, I doubt very much "the herd resiliency is directly proportionnal to the number of does in the herd to begin with" :
This is certainly true for the number of does surviving in SPRING, but certainly NOT for the number of surviving does just before WINTER !!! 
REMEMBER, does live in close-knit, rather large, matriarchal societies, bucks in much smaller groups, both sexes on DIFFERENT territories (except during rutting time) ... Obviously, it is easier for a smaller group of males to survive on a larger range than for a larger females one on a smaller range, especially if younger bucks have not been allowed to breed because mature ones (body growth totally achieved) were present.

To end with, from all times, if Nature can dictates its law to Man, the opposite is very rarely true (except for the comfort we find in our home, but who knows what will be its price in the long run ?) : also, if within a herd well below carrying capacity, many winter losses occur, the only thing that can be done is to take the fact in consideration for the following hunting seasons, even if that could mean no hunting at all !!!

It is an error to consider Man can rule everything to fulfil an egoistical quest for pleasure at the scale of His short Life ! 

Jack,


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Jamie,
You missed the point. It is a simple threshold analysis. If you continue to change the sex ratios, sooner or later you will reach a point where the herd has trouble responding to severe winters. It is straight forward math, just ask Huntnut. It isn't a question of "if", it is a question of "when". I am not saying that we are near the threshold, but I am concerned that we may reach that threshold in some areas.

Fl, I think the title of the article would be more along the lines of 
"Maintaining a High Percentage of Breeding Females in a Herd Creates a Highly Resilient herd." 

Look at what happend to the herd in the UP recently when they had a few harsh winters in a row. <----<<<


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Joe,

Are you saying you disagree with John Ozoga's article earlier in this thread?

You know, it seems that you spend alot of time ripping on other peoples ideas and solutions, but seldom have any of your own.

Joe, what do you see as the perfect Michigan herd? How big, what sex ratios, and what age class structure would best suit you?

Hunt


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

"If you continue to change the sex ratios, sooner or later you will reach a point where the herd has trouble responding to severe winters."

Joe, do you mind putting this sentence into the form of a syllogism? Seems to me to be a stupefying leap of logic.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

FL, how's this? What level of risk are you willing to take in order to produce larger racked bucks? <----<<<

Huntnut, I really did not intend to rip anyone's opinions. I was just asking questions. Anyway, since it seems my questions are not valid here, and have no constructive input, I guess it is time for me to drop out of these discussions. I hope you all come up with valid solutions, and our children are able to continue hunting deer. My most sincere wishes, and good luck to you all. <----<<<


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Joe,

I am not flaming you, I am just really interested on what YOU think the solution is?

What are your ideas? or do you like the state of the herd as is with current regs?

Its not like our discussions here ever really solve anything...its just brain candy.

Hunt


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

I guess the solution depends on the problem. In areas of over-population I think you should thin out the doe. In areas that the deer are bordering on extinction, I think you should not allow doe harvest. I believe the lack of baiting and feeding is already bringing the herd closer to the carying capacity of the land. 

I would like to see the herd below the carying capacity of the land, with a higher ratio of doe to bucks. I believe this will maintain high harvest percentages, resiliencey in years of sever winters, but will limit social structure. I still believe the described herd will be thriving, and healthy for many generations to come. <----<<<


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

joe, 

we agree on this:



> Any intervention to increase doe harvest will ultimately lead to an increase of fawns


 correct

and this:



> The carying capacity of the land however, is NOT a constant, and can be drastically decreased in a severe Michigan winter.


so why in the world would you want to jeopardize a northern herd of deer by keep them at or near capacity, just so you might have a few deer make it through. when you can assure this with a balanced herd held well below it's carrying capacity and by increasing doe harvest thus ensuring increased successful fawn production.

the herd with an overpopulation of doe/deer in general is certaintly more susceptable to the threats of a severe winter.

a balanced herd held below carrying capacity will bounce back with more resiliency and better overall health due to less winter stress. which can all be attributed to the inherent assurences (based on science and research) of a continued huntable resource within QDM practices.

joe your 3/4 of the way there, you just got to have faith.

hell, if UP deer can survive brutal winterkill, i'm sure they can bounce back from a little management tweeking.
(if it doesn't meet expectations,but it will)


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

I get more and more the strong impression much antagonism flares up because all of you do not hunt in the same global context (North, South and in between, not to speak of State / Private lands).
- Are your DMUs limits sound on purely biological 
environmental basis ?
- How are the different carrying capacities defined ? (Here I 
have also been very surprised to NEVER read about
forest damages, even if they can be hard to be rationally 
interpreted and can be abusively put forwards by foresters).
- Obviously, carrying capacities are very different in the UP
lower down : if the hunting pressure in the UP is as high as 
lower down, hunters in the UP necessarily can have a hard
time to see things as others, and may very well feel
threatened for their future.
Yet local hunters in the UP must also understand that the
fact they live there is not a valid reason to try, of course 
USELESSLY, to manage their herd to fulfill their "needs" 
LOCALLY. 
As they happen to live in a poor global carrying capacity
habitat, would it be impossible to give them 
a "compensatory" access to other DMUS, lower down, so
that all Michiganers could share equally the benefits of the 
deer "ressource" ??? 

I strongly feel you are VERY BADLY in need of a "micro"
management well adapted to LOCAL environmental
conditions in each DMU, even if that should mean to leave
aside purely Administrative limits.
It looks VERY unadapted to me to determine, indiscriminatively an annual cull for all the State of MI !!!
Each DMU carrying capacity, density, sex ratio should assessed in order to determine the legal cull THERE, and the State GLOBAL deer ressource should be equally shared.
I cannot see any other way for you to promote a sound, well 
adapted and efficient QDM. 
No doubt in my mind a rational well adapted approach will necessarily find a LARGE support ( GAUSS "Bell curve").

Jack.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

ahh, micromanagement!

we can dream! lol


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Jamie, we have been extremely close on most issues for quite some time.

Yes, micro-management is the key (we both agree).

If you look closer at my last post you would see that I want a herd BELOW carying capacity.... However, I still favor a larger ratio of doe to bucks, for reasons stated. <----<<<


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

i know we are, and i swear i am going to push you off that fence if i have to!LOL  

i see where your coming from, up to a point.

many studies have shown that with a balanced herd, fawn production is at it's highest level thus ensuring a continued resource. this is where we need to be. a balanced herd at or near capacity before hunting season and 30-40% below it after an equal harvest of all age classes and sexes. IMO


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

Jamie,
I knew you would be VERY rightly pleased by a "micro" management : it is biologically a MUST !!!
However, I regret you did not have a single word about the other issues I DARED to put forwards in my post : 
- By now, you should know I am VERY, VERY concerned by deer welfare and quality deer herd perpetuation , 
- Yet, you meet a STATE GLOBAL problem, and I progressively reached the point where it seems obvious to me that , in a good democracy, as the one which prevails in your Country, it may only be addressed from a GLOBAL and OBJECTIVE point of view. 
By " Global Objective point of view", I mean that ALL hunters TENABLE parameters, should not be ignored, even if not clearly stated, and even if they MUST stay second to the most important goal : as said so shorly and efficiently by the world famous A.B. BUBENIK about the relation hunters / deer, " The users must be useful to the used" !!!

Jack.


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

To Jamie :

" An equal harvest of all classes of age " opposes a good herd structure : equal harvest by sex YES, IF the sex-ratio is RIGHT, equal harvest by classes of age NO :
To mimic natural predation, hunters harvest should strike so as to insure the same end result :
- up to 50% of fawns and yearlings of both sexes, NO more, 
- very LIGHT harvest from 2 years old up to the time FULL body 
growth is reached, so as to insure the survival of 20% of any
male class of age (I leave females aside ... they do not wear 
any antler ...)
- Harvest resume after full body growth is over. 

Jack.


----------



## Ringneck (Jul 2, 2000)

All of the agreement on mirco managing of the deer herd is fine until you really get down to the basic fact that you don't manage the deer herd you have to manage the hunters and limit the number of people who are harvesting the game.

It is beyond me how the DNR can even try to manage a deer herd over the entire state and not take any steps to control the number of hunters in any one of the DMU's.

Micro managing would involve the game, the habitat, and the predator. It would have to take in consideration the quantity, quality, and the weather of all the small environments.

Can you just imagine the uproar if the state tried telling who and how many can hunt deer in this state?


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

I recently spent some time in a Kansas Bowhunting forum.

I wanted to educate myself on some....realities.

I asked the Kansas hunters what the largest factor was in creating their incredible herd.

The answer shocked me.

It wasn't QDM, it wasn't voluntary QDM, it wasn't a stigma against shooting small bucks, it wasn't preserving alot of doe....

The overwhelming answer was:

Because their DNR manages by unit.

Hunter #'s vs. Buck #'s vs. Doe #'s vs. Habitat measurement = How many tags are issued.

Hunters in Kansas give their DNR all the credit for their herd.

Hunters in Kansas also believe that their herd is diminishing in quality.........because

The state legislature is sticking their noses into deer regs and removing the choices of the DNR.

They are actually fighting to leave the regulation power with their DNR! They LIKE what the DNR is doing for their deer.

Not one hunter said they enjoy out of state deer hunting more.

And none of them knew anything about Michigan deer other then they have TB.

Interesting, no?

Hunt


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

I have posted several topics on my Kansas hunt last year. You are correct about why Kansas is better then Mich.

I find it funny how the Kansas residents see the quality deminishing. What they call a drop off in quality I call heaven.

I personally have not been to a place in Mich. where I can pass several nice bucks a day. You know that just around the corner could be a 170 class deer.

Whare can I find this Kansas forum?


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

www.bowsite.com

Goto state conferences on left side of page,

and choose Kansas.

Excellent site, and you can cruise all the different states to see what is goin on everywhere.

The Michigan conference is dominated by QDM, crossbows, and that guy that got that big deer in Traverse city....ahem.

It is interesting to see the differences in politics in the different states.

Hunt


----------



## mich bowmaster (Mar 2, 2002)

I think the word "trophy" means many different things to many different people . My best "trophy" buck was alittle 5 point buck i shot with my dad in the U.P. . It's not my best buck , but those memories of doing it with my dad make it my best "trophy".I think it just depends on the person. And i also do agree with what you said.


----------

