# public land habitat



## PiercedOne (Sep 7, 2007)

Our entire group mainly hunts public land, up near west branch area. My question is, is there anything I could do to the public land to make it better for deer? 
BEFORE baiting was illeagle I had wanted to put out some salt licks and/or trophy licks just to help to get better minerals and what not for the deer. I know planting food plots on public land is not permitted but is there anything that can be done to help improve the habitat for the deer? 

I ask because talking with the old guys in our group the big piece of public land we hunt has always supplied bucks but they are never very big.
I know part of it is to not shoot them and let them grow but thats a difficult story some times on public land with the if i dont shoot it someone else will mentality. I would just like to see some improvements if there is something that can be done to the deer population in our area.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

There are no programs that I know of that will allow you to alter public land.


----------



## PiercedOne (Sep 7, 2007)

What about even picking up dead fall trees, or raking up leaves to make less noise when going to and from our blinds? 

Currently we do use some dead falls for our ground blinds and what not but it seems there are just tons of them and it would be nice to clear a better path to our blinds or even the building of some new ones.

It seems like if I am willing to do the work at my own cost and time not seeking any rembursment from the state that I should be able to "alter" the land. I know if I put in a food plot and others found it, it would look like a huge pumpkin patch on opening day but to me that would be worth it in that it would keep them further away from my hunting area, and provide better nutrition for grow bigger deer in the area. As stated above before the baiting ban I have wanted to put in salt licks, or mineral blocks to help them grow. We dont hunt over bait so I would have no problem putting it down and then hunting in a different area as long as I know it would provide them more nutrition throughout the year.


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

More of a passing comment since I'm a bird hunter. But it's been my observation since moving to this state that there is an over population of deer, at least in the southern part of the state. Letting younger small deer go by may help to let them grow, but a lack of food due to over population can also lead to runts. 

There doesn't appear to be a really proper balance of predators to deer here so what you've got are rats with antlers. Cut down on the population a little and you'll probably start seeing bigger bucks.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

there is an abundance of food in Region 3 for deer, which is why there are so many of them.

the only predators are coyotes and now wolves in Regiion 1. we have a lot of coyotes throughout the state and plenty of wolves in the UP. 
what we are lacking in 1 and 2 is winter browse. i understand we have a lot of deer in Menominee co, but there is a lot of farming there. there was a time in the early 20th century when we had almost no deer in Region 3, everyone hunted "up north". now you go north to hunt and south to kill a deer.<G>

we've let our winter browse- aspen grow way to old. it's growing at a rate of 2-3 times faster than we are cutting it. that winter browse is habitat, without it we cant support good populations of deer, grouse, woodcock or many other animals.


----------



## NEMichsportsman (Jul 3, 2001)

Pierced-You would need a firewood permit to remove that deadfall. That is not habitat improvement it is merely tidying up the area you intend to hunt.

Best use of your time would be to lobby for increased clearcutting of older stands.

Westcoast the overabundance of deer is primarily a southern zone issue. In the NELP I have shot 4.5 YO bucks that were the size of a 2.5 YO SLP buck. The state needs to realize that they need to mange by region when setting strategies. 

Unfortunately, the state typically doesn't manage the habitat, their strategies revolve around herd management by quotas and license sales.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

i dont see how it is possible to "manage" animals through quotas and license sales. there is a lot of hunting pressure here in Region 3 and i see deer everywhere. my neighbor filmed 10 different bucks in our small woods, maybe 10-15 acres. and we had two sets of triplets born last spring. i'm told by biologists that that is a sign of a very high deer population. on the other hand, Region 3 has very little hunting pressure on pheasants and very few pheasants, but we have very little habitat for them.

we only have an abundance of certain game species when we have an abundance of habitat. other methods give the appearance of management but are highly ineffective.


----------



## NEMichsportsman (Jul 3, 2001)

dogwhistle said:


> i dont see how it is possible to "manage" animals through quotas and license sales.


:lol:I never said it was possible....I just pointed out that the state definitely doesn't manage habitat!


----------



## PiercedOne (Sep 7, 2007)

The area we hunt is Mid Lower Peninsula, so not a overabundance of deer unless they start taking I-75 north. There are deer not like in the SE Mi tho. 
Would getting a firewood permit be hard? and/or worth it in trying to clean up the area a little? 
They have clear cut some areas where we hunt and they are good for deer but it doesnt seem to do much for providing nutrition. Where we hunt are hardwoods with acorns so there is food but not a huge abundance. 
Are you allowed to still "drop" autim olive that the dnr used to provide for hunters or is that under the altering of public land? 

My biggest objective is to provide the best area I can (be it public land) for not only the deer but also for our future hunters also (I have one that I know will be a hunter and another that might warm up to it)


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I would suggest that you go talk to your local dnr biologist.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

NEMichsportsman said:


> :lol:I never said it was possible....I just pointed out that the state definitely doesn't manage habitat!


it was just a rhetorical remark. here's another, if the DNR "can't" manage game by licenses and quotas and "doesnt" manage habitat by clearcutting aspen, what is it that the do with the $40 million dollars a year they recieve from hunter?


----------



## the rapids (Nov 17, 2005)

PiercedOne said:


> Are you allowed to still "drop" autim olive that the dnr used to provide for hunters or is that under the altering of public land?
> 
> My biggest objective is to provide the best area I can (be it public land) for not only the deer but also for our future hunters also (I have one that I know will be a hunter and another that might warm up to it)


by "drop" you dont mean plant or spread do you?

if you want to help as a steward of public land for future generations of hunters then planting an invasive species such as autumn olive that is responsible for a tremendous loss of native diversity is not the way to go about it.

much of the loss of woodland/oak opening/prairie habitats which happen to be beneficial for not just whitetails but many other game/non game animals occurs due to degredation caused by invasives such as autumn olive in addition to suppression of historic fire occurrences.


----------



## NEMichsportsman (Jul 3, 2001)

PiercedOne said:


> Would getting a firewood permit be hard? and/or worth it in trying to clean up the area a little?




http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-30301_30505_30816-24382--,00.html


----------



## NEMichsportsman (Jul 3, 2001)

dogwhistle said:


> it was just a rhetorical remark. here's another, if the DNR "can't" manage game by licenses and quotas and "doesnt" manage habitat by clearcutting aspen, what is it that the do with the $40 million dollars a year they recieve from hunter?



I don't necessarily blame the DNR for not accomplishing more with scant resources. The tiny fraction of my income that goes towards Michigan licenses brings me alot of satisfaction.

I really don't want to get caught up in the $$'s debate. I have never been convinced by anyone that the DNR is cash rich and fiscally irresponsible. Nobody has ever changed their thinking by me offering my opinion on the matter.......In my opinion it is a matter of planning and strategy that needs to be fundamentally changed. However, I don't want a bunch of politicians stinking up the process either.....But I think here in MI the DNR does a better job of managing the forests for hunters vs. the US Forestry Service.


----------



## PiercedOne (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks for the link NE, might have to do get one this summer or spring and clear some logs out and build up a nice supply of fire wood. 

Is this just crazy in anyone elses mind or do people see what I am really trying to do? On that thought brothers dad has a industrial leaf blower (one on wheels that is gas powered) would that be concidered "altering" the land or not really because the wind would/could blow the leaves around. Just to clean up some trails and paths to and from our blinds.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

nemichsportsman. the dnr as you said earlier, doesnt manage any habitat. it simply sells timber, most of it hardwood and confiers at a profit. that kind of timber is selectively cut and provides very little habitat for any game species. it just provides a source of income. only about 10,000 acrs of aspen is cut a year, about half to one third that needed to maintain the status quo. so every year that passes, we have less habitat.

money is at the very heart of this issue. i think you can find it on the DNRs Q&A. they recieve 30 million in license fees and 10 million from pittman robertson. 40 million dollars is a lot of money. especially when none is spent on habitat improvement and "game management" consists of setting bag limits and hoping for the best.

so where is all that money going? endless studies? conferences and meetings? non hunting related activities?

there are many many states where hunting of certain species has eroded to virtually nothing. if hunters dont start asking hard questions and holding their bueacracies accountable, they will follow suit. in fact, in some cases we already have.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

dogwhistle said:


> nemichsportsman. the dnr as you said earlier, doesnt manage any habitat.


The Michigan DNR manages 4.5 million acres of wildlife habitat.

-na


----------



## Ken Martin (Sep 30, 2003)

Other than the cutting permit you could go to the office in Roscommon with a plan and submit a "Land Use Permit" to plant something (food and/or cover) but anyone would be able to hunt over it. Search www.michigan.gov/dnr for the permit application.

Ken


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

there is about 4.9 million acres of state forest. i believe about 60,000 acres is cut per year. but it is mainly done for profit. 50,000 of those acres are selectively cut and are hardwoods or confiers. they provide virtually no habitat for game.

of the 4.9 million acres of state forest, about 900,000 acres is aspen. about 10-11thousand acres, a little over 1% is cut, also for profit by private industry. and that represents a net loss of 2-3% of aspen habitat per year. or a 40-60% loss over every twenty year period.

our forests are growing older and less attractive to game animals every year. at one time, the dnr had crews that actively cut and managed our state forests, i know someone who headed up one of those crews. now they only "manage" about 2/10th of one percent of the forest for various game species. the rest is just cut to turn a profit.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Not all of the lands managed by the DNR are state forests. Your total ownership numbers would include State Forests, State Wildlife Areas, State Parks, trail right of ways, meandered lake bottoms, state university research areas, etc. The fact that not all of these lands are managed for the one particular resource that you would prefer doesn't mean they aren't being managed in the best interests of the people of the state of Michigan.

Deer are not an endangered resource. Given that deer are already overpopulated in much of the state, it is not surprising that the state does not put a large priority on deer habitat enhancements.

-na


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

all other land managed by the dnr is a drop in the bucket compared to the state forests. deer are overpopulated in Region 3, where the DNR does very little management. they are generally not overpopulated in Region 1 and 2. and there are other species of game animal besides whitetails.

$40 million dollars from hunters is a large part of the DNR"s budget. i believe more revenue is recieved from hunters than any other single source, such as boaters, fisherman, snowmobilers or fourwheelers. and the money should be spent in proportion it is recieved and to benefit those who are being taxed. in fact, i know firsthand where some of this hunter money is going and it's for very astounding and frivilous purposes. 

if hunting isnt all that important to you or maybe your concept of hunting is game farms of one kind or another, then there isnt much i can say. but our habitat on the largest state forests in the nation is shrinking and so is the game that lives in it. i've seen it firsthand and the statistics from the dnr support it.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

The DNR does far more than manage timber, As far as I am concerned the timber harvest strategy for roscommon count is absolute bull####. That issue aside the dnr has a huge job and I dont think many people realize the extent of what they do. generally I think they do pretty well with what they have to work with.

And to suggest that they are responsible for the population problem in the SLP is a joke. If the people in the SLP who have a higher than desired population density want to know why, they should look in the mirror. Many of them are managing theyre property (owned ,leased ,used etc)to make it capable of supporting more deer including higher reproduction, controlling harvest in an area, sanctuarys let em walk, etc., etc., then they want to complain about the DNR. The DNR could probably get something done if they didnt have several thousand archair managers working against them.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

dogwhistle said:


> $40 million dollars from hunters is a large part of the DNR"s budget.


$40 million dollars is less than 15% of the DNR's annual budget.

-na


----------



## the rapids (Nov 17, 2005)

Nick Adams said:


> $40 million dollars is less than 15% of the DNR's annual budget.
> 
> -na


uh-oh, dont give him that ammo... makes it seem like they have "so much money on their hands"


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

that $40 million from hunting revenue is 1/6th of the dnr's budget. more than any other program.

and we have a lot of deer, too many, in Region 3 because we have a great deal of farmland. it isnt being managed for deer, it's being managed for crops and the deer have adapted to it. if the dnr were able to manage for deer, we would have fewer deer in the populated and farmland areas of Region 3 where they arent as desireable and more in Reg 1 and 2.

my point is, the only way to manage for game is through habitat. but the dnr is not managing the habitat on a scale to even maintain the status quo. they are only managing for timber production which produces revenue for Forestry but very little habitat. the money is there, but the choose to spend it in other ways, not related to game or habitat at all.

if a protectionist group such as the Sierra Club, was forcing the DNR to follow these policies, hunters would be up in arms. i used to think the same way that many of you do. but i hunt a great deal in a northern lower state forest that is at the forefront of this policy. i started looking around, seeing the trends, asking questions and talking with people with expertise.

if you think it cant happen here, look around at some of our neighboring states; IN, OH, PA, especially the latter and see where we are headed.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

When you talk about farm land not managed for deer, you should look at leases etc. that have severely limited hunter access to propertys that in the past would have been hunted by more people. This very problem has come up many times. And gets worse every year.

The same situation exists in Ill. due to antler fever outfitters have been buying up leases, limiting access and causing inflated deer densitys that the DNR can no longer control



> According to recent statistics from the DNR, there are about 270 licensed outfitters in the state that control 1,004,028 acres (2006 numbers). As a comparison to that million acre number, theres about 550,000 acres of public hunting land in IL (and shrinking every day that our governor is in office). Thats an average of 3,700 acres per outfitter, and nobody wants to address access issues! The number of hunters who hunt with outfitters went from 8,473 in 2005 to 11,182 in 2006, a 32 percent increase in just one year. Keep in mind, this is only licensed outfitters. Its estimated by DNR that at least another million acres are tied up by non-licensed outfitters
> 
> 
> > > A DNR employee reported that one outfitter controlled 6,000 acres, and his clients took 8 bucks and 0 does. Is that sound management?
> ...


----------



## ratherbhuntin300mag (Jan 11, 2008)

I hunt right in that area alot in Roscommon county and i know of 13 food plots that are put in from the dnr and are deer herd looks better but there are still not that many big bucks so all i can say is put time in and locate the best sign that area has to offer


----------



## answerguy8 (Oct 15, 2001)

Would it be possilbe to spread some fertilizer?


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

ratherbhuntin300mag said:


> I hunt right in that area alot in Roscommon county and i know of 13 food plots that are put in from the dnr and are deer herd looks better but there are still not that many big bucks so all i can say is put time in and locate the best sign that area has to offer


 I have planted those rye fields under contract some years, they are now under a rotation plan.


----------



## bradym54 (Oct 8, 2008)

ok my dad goes to a place to huntin illinois and every year about 30 people take about 25-30 bucks and 1-2 does and the place i swear is *NOT* overpopulated. the thing is that there are so many ******* giant bucks that roam!!!!! when i went with him in october there was literlty fields of 8-12 point bucks and 1-2 does. in illinois it is not overpopulated it just has some weird genes. i think the illinios habiats could handle about another 1/3 of its population without suffering. no joke. i think its just the mass of food they have access to(corn fields)


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

dogwhistle said:


> money is at the very heart of this issue.
> so where is all that money going? endless studies? conferences and meetings? non hunting related activities?


This is where some of it went.

*Saginaw lands another large grant to reopen water park

by Justin Engel | The Saginaw News Saturday December 06, 2008, 12:30 PM
*









Saginaw City Hall officials have secured another six-figure donation for their Andersen Water Park repurposing plans. 
The state's Department of Natural Resources awarded the city a $480,000 grant this week, City Manager Darnell Earley said.
"We're ecstatic about this latest news," he said. "This puts us very much on schedule for the 2010 opener."
The news comes two weeks after Thomas Township's Hemlock Semiconductor Corp. donated $400,000 to the $1.4 million undertaking.
"I knew it was a good project from the beginning, so I'm not surprised (by the donations)," Earley said. "The staff has done a wonderful job."

*Darnell Earley of the NRC*

*Darnell Earley*
P.O. Box 70141
Lansing, MI 48908
517-373-2352
Appointed: 5/3/05
Term Expires: 12/31/08
Democrat



If you oppose the baiting ban go to this site and print a letter to send to your elected officials.
*http://sixinchtrack.tripod.com/*


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

i know of some others. sounds more like the Dept of Artificial Resources than the Dept of Natural Resources.


----------

