# Where do you stand? - NOT A POLL



## Dawg (Jan 17, 2003)

Eliminate outside influence of all special interest groups from the NRC. I mean hunting organizations as well as the others. Seasons should be based purely on desired impact dynamics (deer herd) not on human societal implications.

Once the goals are set the means should be implemented without prejudice. This means no youth season or any other means of legalized discrimination. Archery season includes all types of archery. Firearms season includes all types of firearms. Beyond that any primitive seasons should be limited to a more realistic definition of primitive weapons.

Keep season dates based on a static calendar standard, not a floating day that allows prejudice.

If too many males are being taken, reduce the number of permits - no AR's. Eliminate prejudice.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

If I was crowned the king of Michigan (kind of like the way Ferg is king of this threadLOL), here are the major changes Id make in regards to deer management: 

1) Mandatory check-ins should be required for all deer taken. Deer check-ins are needed for the professional management of our herd. At minimum the head must be brought in for aging.

2) Make license gender specific as either a buck or doe tag. All bucks (including button bucks) must be tagged with a buck tag. All does, including those shot with a bow, must be tagged with a doe tag.

3) Doe tags would only be valid in the DMU and section for which they are assigned. 

4) Raise the price of all deer tags to $30 (buck or doe) and put that extra money into a fund to hire more biologists to better study and managed the deer herd. Hire at least one, full-time biologist for each DMU in the state. His or her only job would be to keep tabs on deer numbers in all recesses of their DMU and set antlerless deer harvest quotas for each section in their jurisdiction. Also, all nonresident deer tags should cost $300 to better match what other states are charging these days. Upon check in, if the animal is a buck and is under two years old (including button bucks), then you would have to pay a $30 fee and would be done deer hunting for the year. If the buck is older than two, then you would be issued a second buck tag (for the same price as the first buck tag). The second tag could only be used on a buck with four points on one side. A $30 fee would also apply to a buck harvested using the second buck tag if it turned out to be a yearling. The fees would be earmarked for habitat improvement and deer management. These regs would focus the harvest away from yearling bucks. 

5) Replace the youth season with an early doe only season open only in DMUs where deer numbers are above population goals. Eliminate the late doe season entirely.

6) Make all hunters keep a daily deer sighting log and submit that log at seasons end to the DNR where they can gather and analyze the data. This would be similar to the Deer Camp Surveys in the U.P. but would be state wide and mandatory. Failure to submit the sighting data would be punishable by either a $25 fee or forfeiting your deer hunting privileges for the next season.

7) Firearm season would start on the Friday after Thanksgiving and run for 10 days. Muzzleloader season would be the first Saturday after firearms season closes for 10 days. Archery season would run form Oct. 1 to Nov. 10 and then would start again after muzzleloader season ends until Jan 1. This would leave bucks alone during the peak of the rut. 

8) The penalties for poaching a deer would change to a $1000 fine for a doe and a $3000 fine for a buck (including button bucks). If the buck was deemed a trophy though, then the fine would be doubled. This would better represent the value of the resource being pilfered. Id also include deer shot and then left in the woods as poached and subject to heavy fines. An exception to these stiff penalties would be if a hunter mistakenly shoots a deer and turns themselves and the deer in to the DNR, then they would only be assessed a $25 fee, the antlers (if present) would be removed and kept by the DNR and the carcass would be kept by the hunter. All fine and fee money collected would go towards habitat improvement, hiring more COs and deer management programs.

9) Baiting would be reinstated in all counties of Michigan, but would be limited to one gallon per hunting site. Id terminate the current, flawed TB eradication program and reassign all resources currently on that project to a new, serious effort to find a cure for TB in our wild deer herd. Id also charge all cattle producers a fee of $5.00 per head to fund the new eradication program. It would not be paid for by hunters because TB came from cattle in the first place.

10) Agricultural deer shooting permits would be history as would block permits. Farmers that dont allow hunters free access to their land would have to live with the deer and the damage they inflict. 

11) Supplemental feeding would be reinstated in all areas of Michigan by permit only. Permits would only be available for areas where timber harvests have unnaturally concentrated deer and those deer are in immanent danger of winterkill.

12) The coyote season in the U.P. during firearm deer season would be reinstated and Id increase the number of bear permits available. Also, to reduce predation of deer by wolves, Id open a limited draw season on those venison loving beasts.

You can only imagine the havoc Id wreak on fishing regs.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

:woohoo1:  


ferg....


----------



## David G Duncan (Mar 26, 2000)

Ferg,

Thanks for the thought provoking thread!!

It is obvious to me that I am a long ways from being qualified to make comprehensive suggestions on how to manage the deer herd in Michigan, but I have been hunting deer in Michigan for 46 years.

Both my wife and I hunt deer with our bows, rifles and muzzleloaders and cherish every minute of the time we spend in woods. In my opinion Michigan is a great place to be if you are a whitetail deer hunter.

My father hunted Michigan deer every year, starting in about 1930 and started me hunting in 1958. And I would classify my father as being an above average deer hunter, in regard to his woodmanship and hunting skills, but the largest antlered buck that he ever took during his life was a seven pointer from the U. P. So I guess I was conditioned from the start to not have any great expectation on shooting a monster buck year after year. If I had I would have quite deer hunting a long time ago.

Being a trapper, I probably have the opportunity of spending an above average amount of time out in the woods. Granted it is mainly within several miles of our home. But I think most of us are limited in this way regarding our ability to see the big picture in terms of the Michigan deer herd.

With all this said, I am very satisfied with my deer hunting experience over the past 46 years. I do have a wife and grandson, who I have managed to recruit to the sport, but I definitely sense that recruiting new hunters is a potential serious problem, that needs continued top billing in our deer management program (and it has with the youth hunting season). QDM is fine in my opinion, but like everything it could be counter productive if taken to an extreme.

I guess in the final analysis I can only ask myself the question "Am I more or less satisfied with my deer hunting experiences, when comparing the first 23 year to the last 23 years?" And my answer would have to be that I believe that the deer herd is definitely in better shape today than it was in the good old days. In fact when I first started hunting at age 14 I had serious concerns that the deer herd would not be plentiful enough to hunt by the time a future son of mine would be old enough to hunt. Boy, did I ever underestimate the adaptability the whitetail deer!!!!

I strongly disagree with the opinion that we need a deer registration program in Michigan. It would be a nusiance that would not be worth the inconvenience in terms of any meaningful benefit it would have regarding efforts to micro manage the deer herd. Wisconsin is a good example. They have this deer registration program and they definitely have more problems with their deer herd than Michigan.

Otherwise, keep trying new things based on good science and good hunter feedback.


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

Ferg said:


> A couple items that seem to have gone 'unadressed' - and I thought I'd bring them up at this point and let everyone post one more time -
> 
> No need to re-hash what you have already addressed, however, what would you add to address these three issues:
> 
> ...


My second post allowable under thread rules.

TB - I suspect that TB has been here for a good deal longer than our Officials believe. I do not believe the complete eradication of the disease is possible as it is not dieing off as the Offials indicated it would. I am not a DNR basher but their policy has failed in this instance. Therefore they either need to come up woith a new plan or allow the population to recover somewhat.

CWD - Unlike TB it is not here and I believe we can reduce the probability of infection through not allowing live cervids to enter the state. Requireing that all privately owned facilities remain CWD free through mandatory testing and certification. And the border zone with Wisconsin in the U.P. needs to have the deer heard thinned out in Both Michigan and Wisconsin.

Tax ID's - Don't know much about the system. It sounds like there is a problem as described by some. If this will alleviate the problem then lets do it.


----------



## Daviddd (Jan 10, 2005)

To keep it as short as I can I will list what has already been said as I agree or disagree. 
Agree-1buck per season counting button bucks
Agree-Smaller DMU's
Agree- Mandatory deer check in's- By phone is probably the best
Agree Ban all baiting- Get deer back to being natural browsers not bait pile bedders.
Agree- Do doe tag availablity by counties.
Agree- We must have cooperation between all sportsman and the DNR and Forestry departments towards better habitat management.

Diagree- Leave season start and stop dates alone- they work for the whole state now and if shortened or moved they would greatly impact our northern brethren who trust me spend alot more hours inbetween deer sightings than we do in the middle and southern part of the l.p.
Disagree-Two buck rule
Disagree- DNR counting methods
Disagree- With amount of effort put into catching poachers. I reported a slob deer killer this year. Gave Name, address, Date, Time, discription of animal killed, etc. I did not witness the kill so could not testify but did give the name of someone who did witness it. They did not contact poacher or witness. I know both personally and would for sure know if they did. Needless to say I was very diheartened as turning him in was not an easy thing to do. 
Disagree-Age of youth hunt-Needs to be lowered to 12 & 13


----------



## Chuck (Sep 24, 2000)

Where do YOU stand on MICHIGAN's, again, MICHIGAN's, deer management?


There are alot of things I do like. I like the fact that are liscence is affordable to a large audience. I like that we can hunt bucks with one tag any where in the state. I like that if all your after is to fill your tag then you have a good chance at it especially if you do some research and hunt hard. We have alot of state land too with lots of different types of habitat.

Things I would like to see changed;

would be drop the second buck tag.

Habitat improvements other than clear cutting on public land.

I think those are a good small steps in the right direction. But I wonder how much money the state will loose by getting rid of the second buck tag? So do we charge double for a buck tag to make up for it? Where do we get money for habitat improvments on state land?

Later I would like to see areas with low deer densities implement antler restrictions. Then after a 5-8 year period reevaluate and and see if this is something that can be done state wide. Pennsylvania seems to be making improvements but they have not made every one happy and after a few years now you dont see lots of people going there to hunt. Part of there problem is the same as ours we are NOT Kansas. We have lots of hunters for gun and deer. This creates a much larger problem. Instead of shooting all the 1 1/2 year olds we will have people complaining that all the 2 1/2 year olds are being shot and we still dont have any mature deer to harvest.

So do we raise the price of tags to eliminate more hunters? Do we make it so hard to figure out which tag to buy that we need to take a course on "buying your hunting liscence in mI" and have a week class and a text book and learn about QDm and other stuff like Germany? god I hope not.........


----------



## Daviddd (Jan 10, 2005)

I would like to make a couple of corrections to my earlier post where I talked about reporting a slob poacher and never heard anything. I will have to take partial responsibility for this as I thought that by sending an e-mail the DNR would have all necessary info they need to contact me but I guess this is not true MY BAD. When I get a e-mail I can click respond and answere it but I am not a computer wizz so now I know not all are that way. I also said that I gave the address of the poacher and I did not. What I did is told them that he lives on such a such street 3 driveways south of such a such street. And I did supply his name and he is in the phone book. But do to my lack of info they did not know where to start. He will be up to the same thing this year and we will see if they can use my report as a reason this season. I apologize to anyone that might have been bothered by this.


----------



## dodge7 (Jan 18, 2005)

Management is a great idea, major drawback way be mother nature herself. a late killing frost in the spring will affect mast in fall, a cool wet long spring will affect mortality of fawns, Again we cant controll this just maybe prepare for it. 

10pt plan 
1. elimenate doe tags
2. eliminate youth season
3 ban all baiting and food plots
4 regular seasons, hunters choice if you are a junior, or a senior(either doe or buck)
5 bucks only for all other hunters
6 last 3 t 4 days of season depending on area would be hunters choice 
7 mandatory deer check in
8 Farms that participate in hunter access programs would also have special doe conciderations
9, same for muzzle loaders, 
10 first offence for poaching, lifelong loss of hunting rights, forced restitution payed to state
probly gonna get slammed but there it is


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

^^^^I'm bumping this up ^^^^ 

Please, tell us just where you stand - 

Thanks

ferg....


----------



## woodsrat (Jan 4, 2005)

Doesn't matter to me if we have QDM or not. I shoot at least one buck per year and usually get a decent one. If I put more time into it, I usually shoot two bucks or a doe and a buck (bow & rifle).

I read the letters in Woods & Waters and posts on this site complaining about a lack of deer. Sorry, I don't see it that way. I see lots of deer even in the U.P. The complaints about a lack of deer baffles me. I've shot some nice bucks but had to put a little time and effort into getting them. That makes it all the more fun for me, more of a challenge.

QDM.....fine with me. No QDM........fine with me. Baiting....fine with me. No baiting.......fine with me. I will shoot some nice bucks either way. (Wife says no more wall hangers though because there are already enough in the house, I'm just gonna have to hang them in the garage).


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

Here's my two cents worth. Farm legends Idea is good. But I have another.
First off, I would continue the Bovine TB program. I would also continue the program for Chronic wasting Disease. 
I would like to see harvest goals based on actual data. For instance, actual deer counts, Fawn crops over recent years, as well as winter severity index. Factor these in with the observed carrying capacity for the region. You get the idea. We need a better understanding of the deer we have in the field so that we can harvest as responsible stewards. I am going to use the UP as my example. I think it is a mistake to harvest our better bucks before the rut. So, I would change the seasons. The first season would start the last saturday in october. It would be antlerless only, to start with. As our data improves, it could be used as a management or cull hunt. I would probably allow any weapon including crossbows. Bait would not be allowed. Achieving one of the harvest goals would open you up for the second hunt. Which would start the last saturday in november. This would be a buck only harvest and run to the end of december. Again, there would be no weapons restrictions. Point restrictions would be based once again, on harvest goals. I would like to see private land holders form deer management groups and help with population data from their holdings. Perhaps working with their neighbors to cover larger blocks of land and get a better picture of the deer herd in their area. Since the state is so straped for cash this would be a big benefit. And should be rewarded with package license or camp permits. example: camp A should harvest Five yearling antlerless, Two mature does, and one buck 3 1/2 yo, one buck 5 1/2 yo. If you are unable to fill your harvest goal in the first hunt, you must turn in your unused tag to draw a buck tag. all deer would have to be presented to a wildlife biologist for inspection. If the numbers dictate, a second management hunt could be held After the first of the year, over bait. However, stiff penalties would be applied to anyone who disrupts predator control operations. Whether with hounds or calls.
In addition, I think a second buck could be earned by, for example, harvesting a certain number of predators, help with wildlife surveys on private or public land, Owning a drahthaar, A tip to the rap line that leads to conviction, etc. The lower peninsula may have different dates to account for their later rut activity. But, I would handle it in the same basic way.


----------



## BFTrout (Sep 27, 2002)

I would love to see state-wide QDM. Yoop and Northern lower 3pts to a side or better. Southern zone 4pts to a side or better. 
Liberalize doe harvest in ag. areas, restrict in "big woods" areas. 
One buck tag per person. . .that's it, burn it with your weapon of choice. 
Mandatory deer check. Not as intesive as drving the critter to the station, but have your kill tag pre-paid postage and throw her in the mailbox. 
Look at how well PA is doing on their QDM. 


BFTrout


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

1- OUTLAW BAITING

2- deer season nov.1 through nov.31 regardless of weapon.with the advances in bows and muzzle loaders there is no reason for them to have such a time advantage over the 2 wk. rifle season. although I could support a short primative season for recurves/longbows or unscoped flintlocks.

3-the dnr should require the return of all tags at the end of season,they could then determine true hunter success ratios. if you dont return your tag you dont get one next year.

4- buck and doe tags as needed by dmu, determined by deer density, eliminate private land permits. the deer are not the property of land owners. if a land owner has a deer problem he can invite other hunters to use theyre doe tags or figure out on his own how to keep them off the property

5-use counties for dmu's. set harvest quatas per county based on hunter success and field reports from dnr personel and hunters licensed the previous year. in some cases the buck harvest may also need to be restricted. if thats the case then a buck tag drawing may be required in that county.

6-when buck or doe drawings are required give county residents preference in that county

7- apply preference points to all permit drawings in michigan regardless of species

8-double the amount of co's in the field

9- go back to requiring backtags so that when we see someone cheating or harrassing another hunter we have a way to identify them

10-if someone intentionally breaks the rules ban them from hunting for life.


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2005)

Ferg, do you really mean that I can tell you guys and gals how to improve our deer resource, and hunting experience. I'm afraid I would be on this contraption forever and I do not expect to live that long.

I like your suggestion that we address the TB, CWD issue.

OK, I have written articles on TB and had them published in the MUCC and WNW monthly journals in years past. At one Seminar I spoke at in the Alpena area in 2002 a well known MSU veterinarian told me that older bucks have a higher incidence of TB therefore QDM would have a negative impact to the health of the deer herd overall. I told him that my research suggests just the opposite if there were truly a balanced sex ratio and balanced buck age structure.

We talked at some lenght and I guess nobody convinced the other to change their opinion.

The good Doctor does not take into account many factors when he states that the older bucks in the TB area show a higher incidence of TB.

First, the herd is nowhere balanced in their numbers in relation to what the habitat should carry, the sex ratio or buck age structure. Since it is obvious that there is no QDM practiced in the TB area, how can anyone say that QDM would negatively impact the deer herd. They have nothing to hang their claims on. 

What would be a true QDM herd in the Alpena area? 
1, Deer numbers at no more than 60% of what the habitat can carry.
2, Deer, buck to doe sex ratio at 1:2 or better.
3, Buck age structure to as closely represent a natural deer herd as possible. 

So, how and why would a QDM type deer herd fair better than a traditional deer managed herd TB wise?

First why is it that older bucks in the Alpena area exhibit a higher incidence of TB percentace wise than younger bucks. The first obvious cause is that the older bucks have a longer time exposure to TB. This does not seem to be a good arguement for the the older does have a lower incidence of TB percentage wise in relation to the older bucks. So is there more to the story?

Yes, and the following facts are well known and documented. In a traditional deer herd there are few to no older bucks, thus allowing and encouargeing the younger bucks to be fully involved in the breeding ritual. Would they still be active in breeding if there were a good number of older bucks around? Yes they would but only about 20% would be active and these would only breed one or two does and they would be cohorts. This means that the yearling bucks that do get involved, breed other yearling does, more likely ones they have known all summer long. It is a known fact that being involved in breeding is a demanding activity for bucks. Example, just breeding three does will lower the next years antler potential 20%. So it is not all fun and games. These yearling bucks that are suppressed enter the winter in fine shape and thusly have a very good chance to ward off deseases of all types including TB, which it has been found to be rather difficult to contact. 

The point here is that traditional deer management highly increases the potential of yearling bucks to contact TB due to them being run into the ground by being involved in breeding and entering winter in sad shape. This is why they have it in higher percentages as older bucks. They caught it as depleted yearlings. Ask our officials to verify or disprove this fact and you will get a blank face. Sad to say they tell you only what they want you to know.

There is much more to this story and it all disproves the offficial line of our DNR that QDM should not be practiced in known TB areas. In fact if we had the time and had true research programs it would show that having a true QDM program in the TB area would actully lower the TB incidence in both older bucks ,does, and youger bucks and does. I have suggested just such a research program a few years ago. No reponse so far.


----------



## reddog719 (Dec 22, 2002)

I think that it should go back to when we had to buy a buck tag than go to a lottery for limited very limited doe permits. I am not opposed to shooting does, just shooting most of them. I also think that if you shoot a button that you should use your buck tag. If there was a second buck tag it should have restrictions of 4 antler points one side. That should make hunters think about what they are shooting at. Is it a doe or a button buck?


----------



## safetreehunt (Oct 1, 2003)

After reading countless letters, diatribes, and rants in magazines, newspapers and Internet forums about deer management in Michigan, it seems that there are essentially two things that drive the interest in Deer management:

*Deer Numbers*, or Did I get to see deer while hunting last year(s), and:
*Hunter Success*, Am I disappointed or discouraged that I havent harvested a deer in X year(s), or am I satisfied with my success based on my harvest or just seeing deer. Levels of this abound as well.
Some folks are just happy to see deer, others need to be successful with a harvest and some need to harvest a wall hanger each year to call their hunt season a success.



If the above issues are positive, then the benefits are:

Hunters are happy with the DNR, 
The DNR gets more income from an increase in license fees because more hunters are in the woods.
If the above issues are negative, then of course the opposite is true and it becomes harder for the DNR to dig out of the financial hole that begins to cave in on itself without more success.



That being said, what can be done about all of this.



*Deer Numbers*

There are several problems here. TB and avoiding CWD are causing a problem with the deer herd. I believe the biologists need to be trusted on how to manage these problems. 



One of the biggest problems with deer numbers is that supplemental feeding/baiting has provided more food in some areas and therefore more deer, than the natural habitat can support. This has gone on a long time and has created an artificial expectation of how many deer ought to be in any particular area. 



To fix this problem the DNR should sponsor and create a Voluntary DMU Deer Management Advisory Group in each DMU. The group would be charged with getting information throughout the county from members of the group on deer numbers for their DMU. The DNR should set the format of the needed info and sponsor setting up these groups. This kind of activity will also allow the DNR to see what one DMU can do relative to another and find some common threads that all will need to implement. I expect that hunters would be more than willing to provide this free labor to the state, just as moms do for schools. There are many people in each DMU that are more than willing to lash out at the DNR for any given reason. So lets volunteer some time to solve the problem and put up or shut up. Three meetings a year in each DMU ought to make and enormous impact.



*Seasons*

November 15th  Man, this is a tough one for me. For my family, its a national holiday bigger than Christmas. However, in the interest of improving the hunting season, I suggest that the firearm season starts on a Saturday each year and the season goes exactly 16 days. This will provide 3 full weekends and 2 full weeks of firearm hunting. 2005 season would then be 11/12 through 11-27. The benefits of this would be best felt in the up north economies as hunters book their hunting trips. The Saturday start will allow more hunters in the woods and the DNR should be able to better predict the harvest since the number of hunters in the woods ought to be more stable over the years.



*Harvest/License requirements*

The DNR ought to implement a registration system that is simple and easy to use. I personally dont want to drag my deer 20+ miles into town to not find the DNR station open for registration. So Im dead against mandatory check in. This would also require high amounts of DNR manpower, which we wont ever get. 



I suggest a registration system via telephone or internet. The state already has an income tax telefile system that could be mimicked for this purpose. (Of course these systems would be separate.) This system could consist of several basic questions, which would then be linked to your license kill tag number. The registration should be completed by Jan. 31 each year for each license purchased, used or not, and all participants will receive a $2.00 coupon to use with each similar license purchased next season. 



To offset the coupon, license fees should be raised to $18-20 for each. As for kill tags, the number of bow hunters and gun hunters that do both are very high. It does not seem right to discourage doing both hunts by limiting the buck tag to only one per season. It would seem much more effective if the DNR provided a buck tag for Bow season and a buck tag for firearm season. This would allow a person to purchase one or the other or both depending on his or her own requirement. It would also eliminate taking two bucks during bow season thereby saving some bucks for the gun hunters. 



*Deer Size and Sex*.

Licenses should be set up by gender, not just by antler. If you shoot a button buck, there goes your buck kill tag for the season. If antler restrictions in the area do not allow button bucks, then the requirement would be to notify the local CO without fear of a ticket for the error, but you still lose your buck tag and the deer to the local food bank. Better luck next year.



Each DMU should consider the requirements for antler restrictions and the number of doe licenses in conjunction with the DNR and Voluntary DMU Deer Management Advisory Group (as mentioned earlier). It would be up to the hunter to understand the antler restrictions of the DMU they hunt in before taking a buck. This info could very easily be determined and published in the annual hunting guide and also setup online on the DNR website. Doe licenses should be created based on DMU for both public and private land. Use of the Private Land ID# should be implemented and used in the registration process for both sexes of deer.



*Age*

Open the firearm season to age 12. All the rules that someone over 18 MUST accompany the child still apply. Have a special youth hunt license. Allow kids to participate in the youth hunt until they harvest a deer, be it a doe or buck or until they are 16. Once the child harvests and registers their kill, the licensing system will not allow them to participate in this hunt again.



*Weapons of choice*

The original purpose of the shotgun only zone was to protect more highly populated areas from stray bullets. However, with all of the new shotgun and muzzleloader technology, this argument seems rather out of date. Open up the entire state to rifle hunting, but limit the calibers that may be used in particular areas. This could be up to the Voluntary DMU Deer Management Advisory Group, for instance. I expect that limiting the use of magnum calibers would be about the same as creating a shotgun only zone.



Allow the use of crossbows during the same time as regular bows. Again, this is a technology issue and a crossbow is not that much different than todays modern compound bow. Many people would benefit from this and increasing hunter numbers is something that the DNR is after.

QDM
The QDM Process ought to also be a decision that comes from the Voluntary DMU Deer Management Advisory Group. Some DMU's may feel it is necessary, some may not. The DNR can determine over time the results from the DMU's that do this vs. the ones that do not to understand whether this process be implemented deeper into the entire state.



Im sure Ive missed a bunch of issues, but in summary I feel implementing a Voluntary DMU Deer Management Advisory Group for help in counting deer and a registration system that is mandatory and rewarded would be some very positive improvements for Michigans Deer Management Process.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

That is one of the best thought out posts that I have read on these boards - no bitching - but clearly thoughtout problems/issues supported with solutions and corrective actions/suggestions - 

Very very good man, very good.

And this idea, in particular ROCKS !

QUOTE 

To fix this problem the DNR should sponsor and create a Voluntary DMU Deer Management Advisory Group in each DMU. The group would be charged with getting information throughout the county from members of the group on deer numbers for their DMU. The DNR should set the format of the needed info and sponsor setting up these groups. This kind of activity will also allow the DNR to see what one DMU can do relative to another and find some common threads that all will need to implement. I expect that hunters would be more than willing to provide this free labor to the state, just as moms do for schools. There are many people in each DMU that are more than willing to lash out at the DNR for any given reason. So lets volunteer some time to solve the problem and put up or shut up. Three meetings a year in each DMU ought to make and enormous impact.

UNQUOTE

ferg....

That's what I'm talking about - it's way WAY to easy to just point fingers and complain - that's why I started this thread, just tell us what YOU would do to fix the issues or at least start to address them. I'm going to be sending this thread to some people that might benifit from it or at least need to have the cob-webs shaken out of thier collective heads and read some 'new' ideas.

Keep 'em coming -


----------

