# Is Michigan in trouble? : Fawn recruitment Decline



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

I was flipping thru the latest copy of Quality Whitetails and came across an interesting article on fawn recruitment. Most understand that fawn recruitment is an important metric that is used to measure many things concerning deer. The article has a table in it by region, the Midwest has the highest fawn recruitment rate in the country ( on average) and we got some more great press. Michigan, by the region, and by the entire reporting of all regions and including Canada sampling.....has the lowest fawn recruitment rate of all! 

Our fawn recruitment rate in 2000 was measured at .57 , in 2005 it had fallen to .53, and in 2010 it has fallen to a grievous .39!

What does this mean? I am sure it will be heavily debated, but the numbers mean this. In 2010 with a fawn recruitment rate of .39 fawns recruited per adult doe....it will take 3 adult does to produce 1 fawn to add to the herd dynamic. This does not bode well for us and needs to be taken seriously when we look to alter, change, or modify how we hunt deer and push for regulation change.

I don't have the numbers, I am sure someone will, but at what point are we harvesting what percentage of the herd and with a fawn recruitment rate that low, that we slide backwards and have a shrinking herd?

Some will say, bahhhh, this means nothing, there are 1 million plus herd in Michigan and the MDNR wishes for a herd goal size statewide of 1.2 million animals. However, ponder this......if fawn recruitment is at a point where it is taking 3 does to produce 1 fawn, and we keep harvesting at the rates in which we do......by the time the MDNR puts the brakes on with antlerless harvest, it is not out of the question that we get ourselves behind the proverbial 8 ball very quickly.

If you don't think it can or could happen, I welcome you to the NLP, and how fast deer numbers were reduced specifically in the NELP (sure it was on purpose, but it did happen).

I am not suggesting pushing the red panic button, but someone needs to be watching the store.

Further, we need to know why our recruitment rate is alarmingly low? 

Comparatively speaking, Wisconsin across the lake which is pretty similar to us in relative geographic position on a map, has similar winters, and has the same predators situation as us....has twice the fawn recruitment we do.

Thoughts on this?


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

The main reason the NLP herd got knocked down is because NLP hunters are more willing to kill antlerless deer. 

As it states in the Lake County "Goal"..."people are very receptive to harvesting deer".

I lived there for 15 years. Many locals drive around to shoot deer out the truck window, when the lighted bait pile outside their kitchen window dries up. 

All many locals need is a tag to quickly get on the deer, to justify any "bending of the rules" for them to get a deer hanging on the pole.

The 2nd part of the NLP situation was discussed by John Ozoga when he had the article about the northern boob-bust rollercoaster coming go an end because many northern forests are no longer capable of mustering a boom again.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

Ok, but we have always had poaching and poaching problems in numerous areas, how does that affect a sharp decline in fawn recruitment?

Why isn't Wisconsin having the same issue, due to its similar features with us?


----------



## MRBIGGINS (Dec 22, 2011)

plain and simple.... WE LACK BUCKS! another reason for an apr.


----------



## jafurnier (Jun 7, 2008)

Around me...the habitat is in poor condition. Toss in the cyotes that I see all the time...and I am not surprised in my area that we lose lots of fawns. All the cover is six feet and up.

I also think the recruitmenet is a barometer of the overall health of the herd. A baromete that says inclement weather is coming (or is already here).

Good thing is...with cutting...and planting...this can be fixed.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> The main reason the NLP herd got knocked down is because NLP hunters are more willing to kill antlerless deer.
> 
> As it states in the Lake County "Goal"..."people are very receptive to harvesting deer".
> 
> ...


Keep spinning it. Does were over shot and the coyote population exploded. Less deer mean less fawn survival, coyotes will be killing a higher percentage of fawns.

Funny pinefarm how you keep saying APRS will help increase the doe harvest . Should we be harvesting more does. One of the major signs of health of the herd is fawn recruitment but I guess your not about the health of the herd.


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

soggybtmboys said:


> Why isn't Wisconsin having the same issue, due to its similar features with us?


I noted the decline for MI in the article too. However, comparing to other states is not relevant as it was stated that each state agency surveyed has different methods to report / estimate recruitment rates.

Perhaps MI is very accurate compared to other states, cannot speculate without knowing all of the methodologies used to estimate.

FWIW, I do know in the NELP where I primarily hunt, Bears and Yotes are the biggest factors in fawn recruitment on a local (property) scale, followed by poor (mature forest) habitat on a more regional (township) scale.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

Benelli said:


> I noted the decline for MI in the article too. However, comparing to other states is not relevant as it was stated that each state agency surveyed has different methods to report / estimate recruitment rates.
> 
> Perhaps MI is very accurate compared to other states, cannot speculate without knowing all of the methodologies used to estimate.
> 
> FWIW, I do know in the NELP where I primarily hunt, Bears and Yotes are the biggest factors in fawn recruitment on a local (property) scale, followed by poor (mature forest) habitat on a more regional (township) scale.



I had thought about that as well, but the accuracy shouldn't have that much of a swing in it. I am sure that Michigan specific, the three major zones here are differing by a large margin...ie. SLP, NLP, UP based on a number of factors.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

*Midwest:* *2000 2005 2010

*Illinois .79 .65 .55

Iowa n/a n/a 1.30

Kansas n/a .71 .64

Michigan .57 .53 .39

Ohio 1.00 .84 .81

S. Dakota n/a n/a .95

Wisconsin 1.06 1.07 1.07

n/a-not available


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

I just read the article, really kind of a fluff piece that does not draw any conclusions. Not enough data to really be able to make any reasonable determinations. The fact that Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and Minnesota did not provide any data and Iowa and North Dakota only provided one year of data really skews the Midwest average to the point of being pretty inconclusive. As mentioned, without knowing whether the methodologies used in a given state are consistent from year to year, it all does not mean very much.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

Perhaps to a certain degree, but what it does show is that quite a few states do keep tabs on this metric, and it shows that Michigan is one of them and we have declined significantly.


----------



## MIpikeGuy (May 27, 2011)

As you mentioned soggy, I'm sure it's definitely different by region in Michigan. SLP around me it seems like every doe has 2 fawns.

I do think a lot of areas are probably maturing and less capable of holding numbers.

Curious how things like the birch borer and emerald ash borer have effects on this. It seems like it would produce an upswing, as lots of the wood up there is dead or dying and new growth is now starting?


----------



## billmitch (Dec 21, 2009)

In one area I hunt, lots of the residents hunt, and the last couple years have started to embrace the doe killing mentality. What we are seeing or should I say NOT seeing is many deer. I think in some areas, the doe whacking is gong overboard, and would think this could be a major factor. One thing we mostly agree on is that hunters manage the herd with our trigger finger, but many guys would assume if the licences are available, then it must be ok to use them. 
I don't think doe permits are bad but unregulated doe permits could have a devastating impact in some small localized areas tonthe point some guys ain't seeing anything, which I already think we are seeing. Not all these guys are bad hunters, the deer are just not as numerous in some areas like they used to be.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

All points aside on the article, it is definately something all hunters should be aware of along with doe harvest in a localized area. Like stated WE HUNTERS manage the herd with our trigger fingers. 
Communication amongst your neighbors is a great way to get a feel for what is going on in the area and could lead to retaining or improving the local herds dynamics. Don't wait for the DNR to regulate you.


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

Shooting too many deer has consequences. A lot of people would say it's all good...we are doing a great job at managing deer. I have not heard Farm Bureau or the insurance companies bitching like before and they are the most important stakeholder in all of this. If they are happy the DNR is happy. Hunters can fight over the scraps now...it's all good because this is what we all voted for under Proposal G.  By the way.... the last two appointments to the NRC should tell us all we need to know.... nothing is going to change anytime soon. Business as usual.


----------



## cakebaker (Sep 13, 2011)

It is not hard to sit back and think of how the deer are in trouble.

1. EAS
2. Farm permits
3. 5 does a day
4. Farm machinery deaths to fawns
5. Car/Deer accidents
6. Coyotes
7. More MI hunting seasons
8. Extremely long deer seasons
9. Try to balance the herd when u can kill 2 bucks..........DUH how dumb.
10. And many wonder why the private land owners become pricks about the MY deer thing. People are sick of MI hunting standards, its annoying.


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

cakebaker said:


> It is not hard to sit back and think of how the deer are in trouble.
> 
> 1. EAS
> 2. Farm permits
> ...


Don't let the facts cloud the reality of the situation. The good ol' days were really not good. We just thought it was good because we enjoyed seeing deer. The reality is the lack of deer will help us appreciate them more and when we see _one_ we will enjoy the hunt more. Right :lol:


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

bentduck said:


> Don't let the facts cloud the reality of the situation. The good ol' days were really not good. We just thought it was good because we enjoyed seeing deer. The reality is the lack of deer will help us appreciate them more and when we see _one_ we will enjoy the hunt more. Right :lol:


That's what pheasant hunters use to say. They appreciate pheasants so much now they don't hunt them in Michigan:yikes:


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

Michigan has the biggest deer herd in the country, but our fawn recruitment is one of lowest? Anyone else find that odd? We also harvest more deer then any other state. Something is just not adding up....


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

TwodogsNate said:


> Michigan has the biggest deer herd in the country, but our fawn recruitment is one of lowest? Anyone else find that odd? We also harvest more deer then any other state. Something is just not adding up....


Michigan does not have the biggest deer herd in the country, Texas has around 3.2 million deer. I would be amazed if Michigan's recruitment rates even came close to what you see in most other Midwestern states, we don't grow near as many agricultural commodities and have substantially tougher winters in 2/3rds of the state. Winter stress takes a huge toll on fawn recruitment.


----------



## jimmyo17 (Jun 7, 2011)

Nature :idea:


----------



## Outdoorsman17 (Dec 28, 2005)

poz said:


> That's what pheasant hunters use to say. They appreciate pheasants so much now they don't hunt them in Michigan:yikes:



Priceless and a fact


----------



## freebeer (Jan 4, 2012)

I live in Kent County and hunt in Montcalm County. The area where I used to hunt in Kent County has become unhuntable for lack of deer. The section I used to hunt was always decent (huntable numbers) but I would feel guilty shooting anything there now. It is an ag area and deer are not thought of too highly... From what I can tell, folks really took advantage of the unlimited permits. The hunting is horrible. 

I now hunt a great section in Montcalm county that always had a ton of deer. The last two years has shown a steady decline. This year was off about 50% from three years ago...It is a depressed area and I think people are simply filling their freezers with whatever they can. From what I can see and hear, hunting season and legal shooting hours don't mean much. 

The deer numbers are definately off from a few years ago...I really don't worry about it as much as I used too.. but I can see why people are getting frustrated.


----------



## onenationhere (Dec 18, 2008)

I saw a lot of lone little does walking around during late season.I know they will survive but maybe we have low fawn survival rates because the majority of the does dropping dawns are very young and inexperienced.
Guys are always shooting biggest oldest doe,maybe we should stop doing that.


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

The less deer hunters see, the more desperate some of them become to fill their freezer or ego...whatever. Desperate people make bad decisions. I think we are going to regret not addressing the declining numbers sooner. 

The economy in Michigan based recreational activities like hunting should be at least as important as crop damage complaints and car deer accidents. I can buy insurance for those two issues ....


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

soggybtmboys said:


> I was flipping thru the latest copy of Quality Whitetails and came across an interesting article on fawn recruitment. Most understand that fawn recruitment is an important metric that is used to measure many things concerning deer. The article has a table in it by region, the Midwest has the highest fawn recruitment rate in the country ( on average) and we got some more great press. Michigan, by the region, and by the entire reporting of all regions and including Canada sampling.....has the lowest fawn recruitment rate of all!
> 
> Our fawn recruitment rate in 2000 was measured at .57 , in 2005 it had fallen to .53, and in 2010 it has fallen to a grievous .39!
> 
> ...


 
I have been posting about the decreasing herd and lack of fawns for a few years now.....and being bashed for it. Its been nice this year to see all the "experts" finally realize that there is a problem. :lol:

One thing that should be noted, .39 is a statewide average. When you consider the habitat and environmental difference between the SLP and northern regions....Some areas are certainly far less than .39. 

In my area I would say it is less than .20, Probably closer to .15 Of course that's coming from the guy that keeps saying the herd is declining.

Remember this quote from BSK,



> In addition, reproduction in the best habitat will be the highest, reducing the influence of the high deer harvests. In very productive habitat, a full third of the entire deer population must be removed *every year just to keep the population stable*. In poorer habitat, a sustained 20% population harvest may not be able to be replaced by the lower reproductive success caused by the poorer habitat and the pre-hunt population would decline from year to year
> 
> 
> > http://www.qdmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=46527
> ...


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

Munsterlndr said:


> I would be amazed if Michigan's recruitment rates even came close to what you see in most other Midwestern states, we don't grow near as many agricultural commodities and have substantially tougher winters in 2/3rds of the state. Winter stress takes a huge toll on fawn recruitment.



We have one of the the biggest herds IN THE MIDWEST, If not the biggest. My computer will not open the file for the annual QDMA report, so I am not positive.


We have one of the biggest deer herds, but recruitment is poor. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I am quite sure Michigan ranks in the top 2 in kills every year? Amazing that we can harvest that many deer and they get replaced for the next years kill. 1 fawn for every 3rd doe, from what the published report says, seems like a low number to me. Something is just not adding up. Maybe the recruitment numbers reflect an accurate number in the UP and the Northern half of the state, but from Mid Michigan down, It seems off. This might be a better question for the " other " forum.


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

You should all keep up on this study going on right now in the UP.

http://fwrc.msstate.edu/carnivore/predatorprey/study-design.asp


Griff


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

TwodogsNate said:


> Michigan has the biggest deer herd in the country, but our fawn recruitment is one of lowest? Anyone else find that odd? We also harvest more deer then any other state. Something is just not adding up....


Yeah, I find that odd too. We kill more deer than almost everyone, yet we have nearly the lowest recruitment rate ???? Something just isn't right here. 
Michigan was #2 in harvest in 2010 to Texas. Their harvest was about 576,000, so we would kill more per sq. mile. I wonder how bad their deer herd was hurt last summer with the drought and wildfires.

L & O


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Look, its simple.....The fawn recruitment in the NLP and UP is THAT BAD. We have been watching it happen for several years.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Liver and Onions said:


> Michigan was #2 in harvest in 2010 to Texas. Their harvest was about 576,000, so we would kill more per sq. mile.


I thought we were number three, behind Texas and Alabama, do you have Alabama's total harvest numbers?


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

swampbuck said:


> Look, its simple.....The fawn recruitment in the NLP and UP is THAT BAD. We have been watching it happen for several years.



I don't think anyone is saying that you're Northern observations are wrong, I tend to agree with you. I just find it odd that this State can maintain the high amount of deer kills every year, figuring recruitment is that low. The only thing I can figure is, Deer hunters in the lower half of the state must be the ones doing the majority of the killing.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

TwodogsNate said:


> I don't think anyone is saying that you're Northern observations are wrong, I tend to agree with you. I just find it odd that this State can maintain the high amount of deer kills every year, figuring recruitment is that low. The only thing I can figure is, Deer hunters in the lower half of the state must be the ones doing the majority of the killing.


If you look at the harvest survey data, the Northern deer harvest has been falling...Particularly on public land.


----------



## MRBIGGINS (Dec 22, 2011)

jimmyo17 said:


> Nature :idea:


LOL, good answer jimmy


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

onenationhere said:


> I saw a lot of lone little does walking around during late season.I know they will survive but maybe we have low fawn survival rates because the majority of the does dropping dawns are very young and inexperienced.
> Guys are always shooting biggest oldest doe,maybe we should stop doing that.


 I think you hit on a major factor!


----------



## MRBIGGINS (Dec 22, 2011)

if the buck to doe ratio is way out of wack, wouldnt you think we need more bucks to bring in more fawn? there are alot of does that go with out getting bread.
our herd has been on the decline for years. going to an APR or OBR would really help things along.
look at texas, the have more deer then any other state, and a ratio that is pretty darn good.
i dont think predetors or winter weather plays that big of a role in it. the winters in the nwlp have been on the decline for a number of years now(exluding 2008) and the herd is still dropping.


----------



## jimmyo17 (Jun 7, 2011)

MRBIGGINS said:


> LOL, good answer jimmy


Thanks Dan. I do believe this phenomenon called "nature" really could hold some weight. I think it even explains why bucks become bigger as they progress in age, but im still working on that one.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> I thought we were number three, behind Texas and Alabama, do you have Alabama's total harvest numbers?


No. I did a search and could not come up with their 2010 harvest numbers. My source was Deer and Deer Hunting. www.deeranddeerhunting.com
Some numbers from that site.
Hunters:
1. Texas 2. Pa. 3. Mi

Harvest:
1. Texas 2. Mi. 3. Wis.

Harvest by bow:
1. Ohio 2. Mi

I was surprised that Ohio killed more with a bow than we do.

L & O


----------



## Nocturnal Ghost (May 26, 2011)

jimmyo17 said:


> Thanks Dan. I do believe this phenomenon called "nature" really could hold some weight.


 This could also explain why in Clinton county we had huntable deer numbers in the 1950s but the deer numbers didn't explode till the late 1980s could it be nature? Doe permits were almost non existent back then and the guys who got them would burn them.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

MRBIGGINS said:


> if the buck to doe ratio is way out of wack, wouldnt you think we need more bucks to bring in more fawn? there are alot of does that go with out getting bread.
> .................


I am going to assume you mean "bred". Can you provide even a single wildlife biologists that would agree with your statement ? We have the highest buck kill per square mile in the country and you think does aren't getting bred ? Are our bucks gay or something ? Not that there is anything wrong with that........

L & O


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

I got a statistic for you...their ain't' as many deer as their used to be in Michigan. You don't need to cite _biological studies_ or give it a funny name like poor _fawn recruitment_ 

Just look around next time you are in the woods....best statistic there is.


----------



## soggybtmboys (Feb 24, 2007)

If this is indeed what the MDNR has found over time, I have no reason not to believe them. As many a frequent poster(s) has in the past, come to show that the MDNR does a very good job and is accurate with most of their other deer counts, I find no reason not to put some credence into this one......if it's coming from the MDNR.

However they are applying this metric, as long as it is within standards set on how they calculate other metrics, and have been applying the same method......the decline is what should be most noted.

Plainly, if they are using the same formula from when they started keeping record or when this study started......something has changed in the formula....a variable(s), that is showing a steep decline.

It would be very interesting to see what variable(s) have changed, I think it is something worth looking at, and perhaps something that needs some attention by our professional game managers.

I can't see swings in the NLP or the UP having that much of an impact since most of the reductions in those two areas , especially the NLP have already occured and the UP with never knowing what the winter is going to do. Those are kinda known and I would suspect not weigh as heavily in a state wide average when pitted against the deer producing factory in the SLP. I don't recall but someone posted up numbers sometime ago, and it was reflective of the fact that the bulk of our herd resides and reproduces in the southern half of the LP. 

I looked at some of my journals and logs, and I started seeing a slow down in sightings in overall numbers where I do hunt in Washtenaw county on a very large piece of land, it was 08-09, things started to appear to slow down and the 09 season was not that great as far as seeing number, much of this was attributed to the year of the standing corn due to weather. 10' wasn't much better and this past season was the first time in roughly 30's this particular piece were the sighting down by an enormous amount. It went from seeing numerous deer every sit, does, fawns, bucks......and seasons where it was not uncommon to have a kill over 20 plus animals all combined, and repeated almost every season. I believe this year to my knowledge...there were only 4 kills.

Numbers of deer alone don't explain it, because it's a ratio. You can have a low population, but still have a good recruitment rate.


----------



## deerdude (Jan 6, 2009)

Alright guys, your missing the point. The reason the numbers are not adding up is because they're made up. We do not have to register our kills, so that number is a calculated guess that is probably high in order to make it look better on paper. The deer per square mile I know is high because a month ago my brother talked to the southern michigan bioligist and asked him what the deer per square mile was in central clinton county, where I hunt, and he said he would guess about 40. I have never in 31 years of deer hunting seen that number, not even in the 80s and 90s. I hunt at least 40 days every year and go shining at least 15 times a year, just ask my wife, and I would guess a hell of alot closer to 15 than 40! Big difference. And by the way, we are not doing a big doe contest in our QDM next year because we think mature does are the ones that need to survive so that there is a better fawn survival rate.


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

deerdude said:


> Alright guys, your missing the point. The reason the numbers are not adding up is because they're made up. We do not have to register our kills, so that number is a calculated guess that is probably high in order to make it look better on paper. The deer per square mile I know is high because a month ago my brother talked to the southern michigan bioligist and asked him what the deer per square mile was in central clinton county, where I hunt, and he said he would guess about 40. I have never in 31 years of deer hunting seen that number, not even in the 80s and 90s. I hunt at least 40 days every year and go shining at least 15 times a year, just ask my wife, and I would guess a hell of alot closer to 15 than 40! Big difference. And by the way, we are not doing a big doe contest in our QDM next year because we think mature does are the ones that need to survive so that there is a better fawn survival rate.


I have heard the DNR use that number (40) over and over again when discussing deer per square mile for years. It does not matter what part of the LP your in...that was always the magic number they pulled out of the hat when dragged into this discussion. The only group I can remember who disputed this number was the Whitetails Forever Network based in Gratiot County. The DNR flinched when they (WFN) presented their own data including arial surveys. The antlerless permits dropped in Gratiot the following year. The group then disbanded. 

Biological science?? I think not.


----------



## billmitch (Dec 21, 2009)

Its very difficult to regulate doe permits, IMO. I hunt Springfield township and see tonsmof deer and does, but drive to another parcel literally 15 minutes away and don't see any. The big difference, IMO hunting pressure. It's not the DNRs fault it's our fault. The DNR gives 5 a day in the SLP because many areas it's necessary. Problem is, guys see they can get 5 a day and think it's ok to hammer them. Now all the guys around the one parcel are bitching about seeing nothing, yet one drive around the area this past October and we see 10 or so does hanging in the garages and pole barns. I'm no biologist but this thought that you can't kill enough does seems questionable.


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

billmitch said:


> Its very difficult to regulate doe permits, IMO. I hunt Springfield township and see tonsmof deer and does, but drive to another parcel literally 15 minutes away and don't see any. The big difference, IMO hunting pressure. It's not the DNRs fault it's our fault. The DNR gives 5 a day in the SLP because many areas it's necessary. Problem is, guys see they can get 5 a day and think it's ok to hammer them. Now all the guys around the one parcel are bitching about seeing nothing, yet one drive around the area this past October and we see 10 or so does hanging in the garages and pole barns. I'm no biologist but this thought that you can't kill enough does seems questionable.


_Experts _ say you can overfish bluegills so overhunting deer is not a stretch.

The DNR / NRC are going to soon realize that the revenue they have generated through special seasons and endless antlerless permits will be trumped the loss of hunters statewide. Follow the money.... It won't be long before they do the math and realize they are really screwing up.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

bentduck said:


> _Experts _say you can overfish bluegills so overhunting deer is not a stretch.
> 
> The DNR / NRC are going to soon realize that the revenue they have generated through special seasons and endless antlerless permits will be trumped the loss of hunters statewide. Follow the money.... It won't be long before they do the math and realize they are really screwing up.


They already know.


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

swampbuck said:


> They already know.


Not quite yet...they will get the message loud and clear next hunting season though. JMHO


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I was thinking about the lower level MDNR. The upper wont admit it until they lay off the Kool-aid.


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

swampbuck said:


> I was thinking about the lower level MDNR. The upper wont admit it until they lay off the Kool-aid.


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

swampbuck said:


> I was thinking about the lower level MDNR. The upper wont admit it until they lay off the Kool-aid.


If they want the point driven home how far it's fallen in the NLP and UP, then take a drive through WI the night before their firearm opener. I did that a couple of years ago and all the bars and small motels were packed...reminded me of the old days here. Yet all through the UP, we saw the same types of businesses closed and/or with for sale signs....


----------



## madimyra (Jul 25, 2010)

My family owns 200 acres in eastern U.P and 170 acres in western Mich, all mainly for deer hunting and its hard to even get excited about the opener in the U.P, HUNTING IS TERRIBLE! family owned since the 1950's and QDM for the last 12 yrs plus, shooting nothing smaller the 8 pts or a big 6. I get very excited about my Iowa hunt evey other year! Thats a whole different WORLD OF HUNTING! What amazed me was how many MI plates I saw saw out there my first year, I went by one 12 room hotel in a small town and counted 15 michigan plates


----------



## Stevedyer_48741 (Nov 10, 2011)

This may have already been stated but I hunt in the NLP. And there are no deer up there and the numbers have been on the decline for a decade. It was done on purpose up there due to TB. But what's funny is that no one in the thumb realizes that this is going to happen down here next. Everyone is in to killing doe's and with 5 a day and two during bow season people r getting carried away on there harvest. How many deer do u need to kill? The numbers were at there peak when doe tags were a lottery and there wasn't much if any of the over the counter BS. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Stevedyer_48741 (Nov 10, 2011)

There needs to be a cap on doe permitts. That is the main reason for the decline. Not habitat, not predators, not poachers. It's the guys who think they have to shoot everything that walks. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

Stevedyer_48741 said:


> This may have already been stated but I hunt in the NLP. And there are no deer up there and the numbers have been on the decline for a decade. It was done on purpose up there due to TB. But what's funny is that no one in the thumb realizes that this is going to happen down here next. Everyone is in to killing doe's and with 5 a day and two during bow season people r getting carried away on there harvest. How many deer do u need to kill? The numbers were at there peak when doe tags were a lottery and there wasn't much if any of the over the counter BS.
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine





Stevedyer_48741 said:


> There needs to be a cap on doe permitts. That is the main reason for the decline. Not habitat, not predators, not
> poachers. It's the guys who think they have to shoot everything that walks


I agree Stevedyer, Unlimited antlerless permits can decimate a deer herd in localized areas. As I have mentioned before, I have properties bordering mine on the north and south filled with hunters from the city that think it is a free-for-all come gun season. South mainly bow hunt and shot gun hunt, admit to being meat hunters, but don't hunt much after gun season. But north of me, WOW! Gun season, muzzleloader season, on through Jan. 1st with late doe season. 50-100 shots every year during that period on less than 80 acres. WHY? BECAUSE IT'S LEGAL: 

Unlimited Antlerless Permits are not about the resource as much as they about the money they bring in. Does anyone really trust the NRC (Government Appointees) to correct the problem before something drastic happens to our deer herd? Without pressure to decrease Antlerless permits will the NRC act on their own, and jeopardize the Dollars rolling into the coffers from the Unlimited Antlerless Permits? Not so sure, but the again, is MAR's the REAL answer? Or Just doing SOMETHING for the sake of DOING something????? JMO


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

Stevedyer_48741 said:


> There needs to be a cap on doe permitts. That is the main reason for the decline. Not habitat, not predators, not poachers. It's the guys who think they have to shoot everything that walks.
> 
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Too many people still think they are doing a great service for the state of Michigan by shooting as many deer as possible...that is what the DNR has been trumpeting the last decade or so. Until the message changes from the DNR brass, outdoor writers and other apologist completely in the tank with them, we will contimue to circle the tank. Next stop...septic tank.


----------



## tallwest (Nov 21, 2007)

My questions, short and sweet. 

What percentage of the hunters are of the type that just get out for a weekend or 2 any season? 

How many of these hunters really know about deer populations without listening to the DNR?

Now if they only know what the DNR says do you believe they will think twice about what they shoot?

Do you think it is smart that the DNR tells these guys go regulate yourselfs when it comes to the number and sex of deer you shot?

I think we need a DNR that is in charge of hunters and what they are allowed to kill. Just my opinion. 

I am a deer hunter with a cabin in SE Mason county. Wanna buy it? Bordering state land. Big Bucks everywhere...:mischeif:


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

tallwest said:


> My questions, short and sweet.
> 
> What percentage of the hunters are of the type that just get out for a weekend or 2 any season?
> 
> ...



You are implying that the DNR makes the rules ...You forget the NRC (who is made up of primarily non hunting bureucrats / tree huggers) has been designated as the _steering committee _on all of this. They are a complete joke and I am ashamed to admit I voted yes on Prop. G years ago. 

Their is no biological science behind the _management plan_... it's simply whatever they can do to avoid lawsuits from the Farm Bureau and other "stakeholders" who are deemed much more important than the hunters...Why? The hunters will keep buying licenses even when hunting is terrible...or will they  Follow the money and watch the hunting license sales closely....reality is closing in here in Michigan.


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

bentduck said:


> You are implying that the DNR makes the rules ...You forget the NRC (who is made up of primarily non hunting bureucrats / tree huggers) has been designated as the _steering committee _on all of this. They are a complete joke and i am ashamed to admit i voted yes on Prop. G years ago.
> 
> Their is no biological science behind their management plan... it's simply whatever they can do to avoid lawsuits from the Farm Bureau and other "stakeholders" who are deemed much more important than the hunters...Why? The hunters will keep buying licenses even when hunting is terrible...or will they  Follow the money and watch the hunting license sales closely....reality is closing in here in Michigan.


 They still sell licenses in the UP where their is more wolves than deer.


----------



## tallwest (Nov 21, 2007)

DNR or NRC? 

I think 1 flips the coin and the other calls it. Thats how they decide.


----------

