# Ruby Creek deer herd



## Wolverine53 (Jan 9, 2015)

Pinefarm2015 said:


> When you say "help the local deer herd", what do you mean? If the habitat is poor, one strategy is to keep the herd low for 20-30 years so native browse can return. But then it would likely be shade tolerant species, that deer don't necessary like. Are you talking about incentives for more private land cutting? Or are you talking abut cutting on USFS or State of Michigan land? Keep in mind, in a trout fishery like the Ruby Creek and the Big South, wildlife agencies usually aren't too keen about cutting anything on public land that's remotely close to the water, that could cause warming or more sand, both top issues with the watershed.


I guess every little bit helps. There is plenty of land to be cleared w/o bothering the creeks and rivers. Some neighbors and I had a cutting done last fall. (About 50 acres total, I think..) Once new growth came in, we did see more deer on camera late summer and early fall. I keep expanding plots for the deer. (To be honest, they are quite small). The folks at the end of Washington Rd (south side) east of the store had a large cutting done this year. That helps.
Its been between 5 and 10 years since the Feds had a cutting in the area; there was another couple near to it and one adjacent to it about 5 years before that. Unfortunately, recently I read that the Feds aren't doing any cutting because there wasn't any money in it for them in the current economy. Anyway,I agree that more cutting would mean more deer browse. Just the cutting and plots we have done have had a notable impact on our little patch of ground.
I guess I mentioned the Sportsmen's Club because they would have resources for projects. For
example, if you go east of the store on to the dirt section of Washington about a mile, there is a federal piece of land that has a 30 or 40 acre agricultural field that was cleared years ago, but no one has ever planted anything in it. I always thought that if we (locals or a club) got permission from the Feds / DNR to plant brassicas or sugar beets for winter carry-over purposes, it might do a lot of good for the local deer herd. There is also a similar field on Federal land in the Four Corners region that is similar.
I don't know if any incentives to cut would work. Land owners are reluctant to change the landscape. I can tell you first hand that it is a little traumatic to see your land cleared, even selectively like we did. It took me a while to get used to it, but I wouldn't go back to the way it was. We now have much more browse and some bedding. You only have to bite the bullet for the first fall. Once the new growth comes in you know you did the right thing.
That wait 20 - 30 year thing, a little too pie in the sky for me.


----------



## Wolverine53 (Jan 9, 2015)

plugger said:


> Valley view farms, as well as at least one farm on Masten road has received crop damage permits as well as dmap permits. I don't believe the dnr has done a onsite inspection in a few years. The large Amish family has also hunted extensively.


That's a real downer. I've hunted in Montcalm Co. for 25 years too. This area has one of the highest deer density levels in the state. I know plenty of farmers and land owners. I can tell you most don't bother with crop damage permits. The hunters keep the herd pared back for the most part, probably too much so where I have been hunting. Anyway, I have never seen a time when there were too many deer in the Ruby Creek area. I'll bet we could get local donations through the Sportsmen's Club to give to local farmers to reimburse them for documented deer damage if they refrained from using crop damage permits. It would be like they were food plotting for all of us! Heck, maybe the DNR should pay the local farmers to let some crops stay standing in the field for the local deer herd in low density areas. There's an idea for you. DNR sponsored / subsidized food plots, anywhere from a farm size field to a 1/4 acre. That would really help low density areas. The DNR is basically doing that now with the ring-neck pheasant initiative they started a couple years ago.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

I grew up hunting the big oak forests of the Manistee forest north of Ruby Creek. These forests are capable of holding good populations of deer. First, they have areas of browse within them. It may be pocketed, but a swamp, river bottom and swale is never to far away. It was simply amazing the amount of deer these mature oak stands could sustain from the acorn crops.These forests are barren for one reason, deer population. Not a sustainability issue. This doesn't mean we need to go to the population of the late 80's early 90's, but what we have today is a herd managed to ridiculously low population. Has to be hard to manage to some mean with deer though. Seems like the mean would only be reached in passing on the way to underpopulated, or overpopulated.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

Ranger Ray said:


> I grew up hunting the big oak forests of the Manistee forest north of Ruby Creek. These forests are capable of holding good populations of deer. First, they have areas of browse within them. It may be pocketed, but a swamp, river bottom and swale is never to far away. It was simply amazing the amount of deer these mature oak stands could sustain from the acorn crops.These forests are barren for one reason, deer population. Not a sustainability issue. This doesn't mean we need to go to the population of the late 80's early 90's, but what we have today is a herd managed to ridiculously low population. Has to be hard to manage to some mean with deer though. Seems like the mean would only be reached in passing on the way to underpopulated, or overpopulated.



It's hard to believe how low it's gotten. Management wise permits are slim for public land but the lack of restriction on landowners permits and people misusing those permits on public land makes me very pessimistic for a recovery in the foreseeable future.


----------



## Wolverine53 (Jan 9, 2015)

plugger said:


> It's hard to believe how low it's gotten. Management wise permits are slim for public land but the lack of restriction on landowners permits and people misusing those permits on public land makes me very pessimistic for a recovery in the foreseeable future.


I don't remember any public land antlerless permits listed in the Digest for DMU 053 and surrounding areas; I think they are all private land issue.
By the way, I did forget to mention one potential obvious problem in the thread set up.....POACHING.
We don't hear a lot of shots at night, so we don't have any reason to think that is a major problem.
I wonder if anyone has good reason to believe it is a major contributor to the low deer density.
Anyone?


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

I've been hunting 75 acres about 5 miles north of Ruby Creek for 25+ years. The deer population overall is down, but there are still hunt able numbers in the area. The winter of 08'-09' was harsh and knocked the herd back a bit. Then the winter of 13'-14' came along and knocked them back some more! Hopefully we get a couple mild winters in a row.

The deer flock to the areas with the best habitat (mostly private Ag lands). As the population becomes lower, the areas with less than ideal habitat (mature national forest) will be very tough hunting. I did find some very good buck sign on a few different public parcels this season, but the sign was concentrated in small pockets. There was also a lot of gun season pressure up there this year. Finding deer after the first few days of gun season was tough.

I shot this guy on 10/23 in our swamp (5 miles from Ruby Creek store)











My aunt got this guy 2 days later from their 40 acres (3 miles from the store)


----------



## jonnyb (Oct 29, 2013)

I live in the northwest corner of NEWAYGO co. Not far from Ruby Creek. I have only lived up here for a little over a year, I have had many encounters with people in the area hinting that people poach. I have not witnessed it. I do believe it happens on a regular basis with all the dirt roads and dead ends and low income residents. I don't think poaching is the main issue but one to consider for sure.


----------



## Pinefarm2015 (Nov 29, 2015)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> I've been hunting 75 acres about 5 miles north of Ruby Creek for 25+ years. The deer population overall is down, but there are still hunt able numbers in the area. The winter of 08'-09' was harsh and knocked the herd back a bit. Then the winter of 13'-14' came along and knocked them back some more! Hopefully we get a couple mild winters in a row.
> 
> *The deer flock to the areas with the best habitat (mostly private Ag lands). As the population becomes lower, the areas with less than ideal habitat (mature national forest) will be very tough hunting.* I did find some very good buck sign on a few different public parcels this season, but the sign was concentrated in small pockets. There was also a lot of gun season pressure up there this year. Finding deer after the first few days of gun season was tough.


*The deer flock to the areas with the best habitat (mostly private Ag lands). As the population becomes lower, the areas with less than ideal habitat (mature national forest) will be very tough hunting.
*
And there is the plain truth summed up in 2 sentences.


----------



## Wolverine53 (Jan 9, 2015)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> I've been hunting 75 acres about 5 miles north of Ruby Creek for 25+ years. The deer population overall is down, but there are still hunt able numbers in the area. The winter of 08'-09' was harsh and knocked the herd back a bit. Then the winter of 13'-14' came along and knocked them back some more! Hopefully we get a couple mild winters in a row.
> 
> The deer flock to the areas with the best habitat (mostly private Ag lands). As the population becomes lower, the areas with less than ideal habitat (mature national forest) will be very tough hunting. I did find some very good buck sign on a few different public parcels this season, but the sign was concentrated in small pockets. There was also a lot of gun season pressure up there this year. Finding deer after the first few days of gun season was tough.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wolverine53 (Jan 9, 2015)

Wow! Looks like APR's are working for you. Both of those look like the ones guys get in Montcalm County. I've been hunting 2 1/2 year olds down there for years. I think both of those may be better than any of my 2 1/2 yr. Montcalm Co. bucks.
I'm so close to the Oceana Co. line that the APRs may never show up around me.
I drive to the north a lot going to Walhalla; I've never seen anything like those boys cross the road on my trips. As a matter of fact, I see few if any crossing those roads.


----------



## Wolverine53 (Jan 9, 2015)

Pinefarm2015 said:


> *The deer flock to the areas with the best habitat (mostly private Ag lands). As the population becomes lower, the areas with less than ideal habitat (mature national forest) will be very tough hunting.
> *
> And there is the plain truth summed up in 2 sentences.


Yea, but the crops are gone by gun season. They must have a bunch of cover around the ag fields if he's right. I've never noticed that many ag fields going to Walhalla. He must be north on the road by the store or Masten Road. I don't go up that way much.


----------



## Thirty pointer (Jan 1, 2015)

Wolverine53 said:


> Yea, not too practical. A local sportsmen's club with cannon nets sounds spooky dangerous. I know the DNR does that with turkeys, but what a job to try to do it with large numbers of deer.
> Tranquilizers in their hands, probably not going to happen either.
> 
> I think I'm done applying for a private land antlerless permit in DMU 053. At one point they were like $4.00. Now they are $20. I feel as if I'm wasting my money. I used to consider it a donation to the cause; now I'm disgusted that there is an obvious problem and no solution in sight.
> ...


I opted out 12 years ago after low numbers in my area unfortunately nieghbors did not .Think this year was the straw that broke the camels back .Not much of any shooting this season .


----------



## Pinefarm2015 (Nov 29, 2015)

Wolverine53 said:


> Yea, but the crops are gone by gun season. They must have a bunch of cover around the ag fields if he's right. I've never noticed that many ag fields going to Walhalla. He must be north on the road by the store or Masten Road. I don't go up that way much.


I'm talking about better bedding cover on private land. In the NLP, once the heavy hunting pressure starts, deer flock to sanctuary and cover during daylight hours. Nothing is worse than heavily hunted public land with little cover. With a Sunday opener, there could be zero deer left on mature forested public land and they all could be laying elsewhere, unless bumped.


----------



## Wolverine53 (Jan 9, 2015)

Pinefarm2015 said:


> I'm talking about better bedding cover on private land. In the NLP, once the heavy hunting pressure starts, deer flock to sanctuary and cover during daylight hours. Nothing is worse than heavily hunted public land with little cover. With a Sunday opener, there could be zero deer left on mature forested public land and they all could be laying elsewhere, unless bumped.


I can't argue with you about the affects of heavy hunting pressure, but I can tell you that I was up to RC for days preceding the gun opener and following the opener. I didn't see heavy hunting pressure on the public ground I hunted. Thirty years ago I went on hunts in MI where I couldn't find a spot on public ground where hunter orange of others wasn't visible. In the RC area this year that pressure was very light. In one smaller area there were about 4 of us in the area. In another my brother and I probably had a square mile w/o other hunters around. We scouted the Four Corners area one afternoon, and there were only about six hunters in the area. That didn't matter because there was minimal deer sign anyway. I started this thread to see if others also experienced minimal deer contact in the RC area this year. Everyone appears to agree with that. The opinions are differing on why that is so. The consensus is certainly that it is not the carrying capacity of the land that has the deer density so low. It looks like too many antlerless permits and hard winters are the most prevalent opinions. We can't change winters, but we can stop killing does. I maintain that the DNR should be embarrassed to have bills passed into law stating that they must use "scientific management" to determine seasons and harvest levels when they actually manage deer like its 1950. They need smaller DMU's so they can address low deer density. Me thinks they like getting $20 a piece for thousands of imaginary deer annually. If we hunters stop applying for those antlerless permits in low density DMU's, we can make a difference and send the DNR a message. Let's wake up people.
You know, if the DNR had a mandatory reporting system like Ohio has, they would have real numbers to base decisions on. I've checked on line to see if the DNR has any deer density maps, and I haven't found any. I think they are either lazy or unimaginative to not be able to come up with a system to keep deer density reasonable throughout the state. We're in the information age and the DNR doesn't have the information or programs they need to manage the deer herd well. How sad is that?


----------



## Wolverine53 (Jan 9, 2015)

Pinefarm2015 said:


> I'm talking about better bedding cover on private land. In the NLP, once the heavy hunting pressure starts, deer flock to sanctuary and cover during daylight hours. Nothing is worse than heavily hunted public land with little cover. With a Sunday opener, there could be zero deer left on mature forested public land and they all could be laying elsewhere, unless bumped.


Your statement is very logical; however, I didn't see many deer on the MNF lands before gun season started.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

Pinefarm2015 said:


> *The deer flock to the areas with the best habitat (mostly private Ag lands). As the population becomes lower, the areas with less than ideal habitat (mature national forest) will be very tough hunting.
> *
> And there is the plain truth summed up in 2 sentences.



Private property is as dismal and is creating the problem as much as public land. I have a neighbor that has five acres and has family and friends that hunt with him. They use to spread out and hunt public land and usually took a couple bucks, mostly with bows and usually 1.5 year olds. With dropping deer numbers he hunts his five acres that has a beautiful area and is a travel corridor being fed from a much larger area. This year they took at least two does during archery season and two button bucks, a doe fawn, and a adult doe with the rifle. They put in a lot of time and baited to accomplish this. They were totally legal and none of them took more than one deer. With aprs they feel their chance at seeing a legal buck is slim so they hunt what ever is legal. The farm across the road started the season with a few deer taken during the veteran's hunt and then to my amazement he found people that would hunt for weeks to shoot a doe during bow season. They get people that do this every year, just not the same people year after year. When deer numbers get low enough some people leave the area but others, like property owners are tied to the area and tend to hunt what's available. The dnr sets quotas over a wide area and pockets of low population are not addressed, the only solution is for hunters to recognize the problem and show restraint. I cant blame the people who are shooting the only legal deer they have seen in two years or the farmer that applies and receives dmap permits. Hunters will slowly disappear, the local public land is lightly hunted. Within the same dmu I have property 20 miles west and see more deer in one evening sit than a week of hunting to the east. I haven't shot a doe at the farm area in a few years, and don't plan to, but others will. It is easy to say just hunt somewhere else, and I do, but when my grandson hunts the one farm he is at least the 6th generation. History like that has to count for something. The solution to the areas problems are elusive because management is tied to hunters resolve and the dnrs bigger picture.


----------



## triplelunger (Dec 21, 2009)

This year was our best year in a long time near ruby creek. 5 bucks killed and two does. I saw 15 different bucks the two rut weekends I hunted. Only sat twice without seeing deer. All public. 
It took some scouting, but we were all on deer. 
I saw 15 Sunday morning... I was squirrel hunting, I'm tagged out. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## itchn2fish (Dec 15, 2005)

We used to hunt this area every year 20-35 years ago. Lots of great memories camping on Federal land during bow & gun seasons. We took/saw alot of big bucks back then. I hope to get reaquanted with the Ruby Creek area again some day.


----------



## syonker (May 7, 2004)

An sign of EHD in the area?


----------



## A.M. General (May 3, 2001)

syonker said:


> An sign of EHD in the area?


I doubt it, I personally haven't seen any dead deer for no reason near Ruby creek or Crystal Valley in the past 4 or 5 years. I don't think ehd made it up this far when it was happening. If we could stop opening day on the Fourth of July, that would help the herd.


----------



## Wolverine53 (Jan 9, 2015)

A.M. General said:


> I doubt it, I personally haven't seen any dead deer for no reason near Ruby creek or Crystal Valley in the past 4 or 5 years. I don't think ehd made it up this far when it was happening. If we could stop opening day on the Fourth of July, that would help the herd.


I agree; I had a lease in Ionia Co. a few yeas ago when EHD was so bad there. A serious outbreak is very obvious. Land owners in the RC area would know, and hunters would have found carcasses on public land too.( BTW...Ionia county has still not recovered from that outbreak according to land owners I know.) Poor management of the herd is the major problem, and coyotes are probably the number two problem. Hunters in this thread have cited a number of severe winters as an issue. I agree, but then should not the DNR have eliminated antlerless permits the season after each of the hard winters? .... Poor management I say.
If you read Kenny Darwin's article, _Calling Coyotes Kissin Close (p. 12 -13.), _in the January 2016 issue of _Woods n _Water, he agrees with me.
He says there are areas where deer are " fast becoming extinct". He cites " over-selling" (antlerless) licenses at the top of his list. He follows that with "disease" since he had already discussed those areas affected by EHD. His last culprit is "poor fawn recruitment" from coyote predation which leads back into the theme of his article on coyote hunting with electronic calls. So, one of our hunters on the thread has reported the coyote population down in the RC area. I agree. Also, this winter is as mild as they get. So, what can stop the deer density from making a big recovery in 2016?............MDNR and its antlerless deer permits and policies.


----------



## Thirty pointer (Jan 1, 2015)

Wolverine53 said:


> I agree; I had a lease in Ionia Co. a few yeas ago when EHD was so bad there. A serious outbreak is very obvious. Land owners in the RC area would know, and hunters would have found carcasses on public land too.( BTW...Ionia county has still not recovered from that outbreak according to land owners I know.) Poor management of the herd is the major problem, and coyotes are probably the number two problem. Hunters in this thread have cited a number of severe winters as an issue. I agree, but then should not the DNR have eliminated antlerless permits the season after each of the hard winters? .... Poor management I say.
> If you read Kenny Darwin's article, _Calling Coyotes Kissin Close (p. 12 -13.), _in the January 2016 issue of _Woods n _Water, he agrees with me.
> He says there are areas where deer are " fast becoming extinct". He cites " over-selling" (antlerless) licenses at the top of his list. He follows that with "disease" since he had already discussed those areas affected by EHD. His last culprit is "poor fawn recruitment" from coyote predation which leads back into the theme of his article on coyote hunting with electronic calls. So, one of our hunters on the thread has reported the coyote population down in the RC area. I agree. Also, this winter is as mild as they get. So, what can stop the deer density from making a big recovery in 2016?............MDNR and its antlerless deer permits and policies.


----------



## Pinefarm2015 (Nov 29, 2015)

plugger said:


> Private property is as dismal and is creating the problem as much as public land. I have a neighbor that has five acres and has family and friends that hunt with him. They use to spread out and hunt public land and usually took a couple bucks, mostly with bows and usually 1.5 year olds. With dropping deer numbers he hunts his five acres that has a beautiful area and is a travel corridor being fed from a much larger area. This year they took at least two does during archery season and two button bucks, a doe fawn, and a adult doe with the rifle. They put in a lot of time and baited to accomplish this. They were totally legal and none of them took more than one deer. With aprs they feel their chance at seeing a legal buck is slim so they hunt what ever is legal. The farm across the road started the season with a few deer taken during the veteran's hunt and then to my amazement he found people that would hunt for weeks to shoot a doe during bow season. They get people that do this every year, just not the same people year after year. When deer numbers get low enough some people leave the area but others, like property owners are tied to the area and tend to hunt what's available. The dnr sets quotas over a wide area and pockets of low population are not addressed, the only solution is for hunters to recognize the problem and show restraint. I cant blame the people who are shooting the only legal deer they have seen in two years or the farmer that applies and receives dmap permits. Hunters will slowly disappear, the local public land is lightly hunted. Within the same dmu I have property 20 miles west and see more deer in one evening sit than a week of hunting to the east. I haven't shot a doe at the farm area in a few years, and don't plan to, but others will. It is easy to say just hunt somewhere else, and I do, but when my grandson hunts the one farm he is at least the 6th generation. History like that has to count for something. The solution to the areas problems are elusive because management is tied to hunters resolve and the dnrs bigger picture.


I hate to say it, but it sounds like maybe you and your neighbors are more to blame than MDNR. Others fairly close around you with equal antlerless tag opportunities are seeing and killing lots of deer.


----------



## Pinefarm2015 (Nov 29, 2015)

Pinefarm2015 said:


> I hate to say it, but it sounds like maybe you and your neighbors are more to blame than MDNR. Others fairly close around you with equal antlerless tag opportunities are seeing and killing lots of deer.


To expand on the thought, in my area, we at my camp had much of the blame for our situation because we were once old school brown it's downers. Currently, our neighbors who are mostly downstate residents who own 10's, 20's and 40's are most "to blame" for the relative lack of 3.5 year old bucks in the area. It isn't that they are good or bad people, it's that they don't really know or meet any neighbors and they shoot whatever is legally allowable. One can't blame them and one should understand why they aren't using any voluntary restraint.

The only change the state could make is to change the baiting laws and add antler point restrictions to my area, to have any short term impact. Now, as younger generations replace what I hesitantly call the older, more "greedy/me/mine/don't care about the resource as a whole" hunters of the older generation (for lack of better words), we will see continued long term shifts in attitude.

But without regulation changes aimed at limiting yearling buck harvest, there isn't much impact the state has on our local deer herd. The hunters are the ones making the impact. The problem in my immediate area is small private land owners who, for whatever reason, don't or won't improve their land and cut a lot of mature junk wood and then don't consider the overall localized deer herd when they squeeze the trigger. If one complains about too few deer, don't fill an antlerless tag. I ate my antlerless tag this year, as did 2 other guys at camp because we felt we should wait a year. I didn't shoot a buck either and passed on them. A couple other buddies at camp also didn't shoot a buck this year either, when they could have filled both combo tags on little 4x2 6pt's and spikes. It's dawning on more and more that we don't have to kill a buck every year to have a successful season, as we thought in the past. I hope it's dawning on more and more private land owners that they are the drivers of their destiny, not the DNR scapegoat of old.


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

Pinefarm2015 said:


> To expand on the thought, in my area, we at my camp had much of the blame for our situation because we were once old school brown it's downers. Currently, our neighbors who are mostly downstate residents who own 10's, 20's and 40's are most "to blame" for the relative lack of 3.5 year old bucks in the area. It isn't that they are good or bad people, it's that they don't really know or meet any neighbors and they shoot whatever is legally allowable. One can't blame them and one should understand why they aren't using any voluntary restraint.
> 
> The only change the state could make is to change the baiting laws and add antler point restrictions to my area, to have any short term impact. Now, as younger generations replace what I hesitantly call the older, more "greedy/me/mine/don't care about the resource as a whole" hunters of the older generation (for lack of better words), we will see continued long term shifts in attitude.
> 
> But without regulation changes aimed at limiting yearling buck harvest, there isn't much impact the state has on our local deer herd. The hunters are the ones making the impact. The problem in my immediate area is small private land owners who, for whatever reason, don't or won't improve their land and cut a lot of mature junk wood and then don't consider the overall localized deer herd when they squeeze the trigger. If one complains about too few deer, don't fill an antlerless tag. I ate my antlerless tag this year, as did 2 other guys at camp because we felt we should wait a year. I didn't shoot a buck either and passed on them. A couple other buddies at camp also didn't shoot a buck this year either, when they could have filled both combo tags on little 4x2 6pt's and spikes. It's dawning on more and more that we don't have to kill a buck every year to have a successful season, as we thought in the past. I hope it's dawning on more and more private land owners that they are the drivers of their destiny, not the DNR scapegoat of old.


 I agree totally that the decisions are made by hunters or farmers who are subject to crop depredation. The DNR does not shoot deer. The states interest should be limited to preventing extinction and otherwise take a hands off approach. 20 miles west of my farm the herd is totally different and it's under the same regulations, hunters decisions have made the difference. Some how hunters in Michigan have come to the idea that the state, through needless regulation , should provide the number and size of deer that they want. It's time Michigan hunters should grow up.


----------



## Rustyboy (Nov 27, 2007)

What kind of tags do you and auntie have on them deer


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

Rustyboy said:


> What kind of tags do you and auntie have on them deer





Rustyboy said:


> What kind of tags do you and auntie have on them deer


 In the area they are hunting tags have never been real popular! They just haven't caught on for some reason.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

Rustyboy said:


> What kind of tags do you and auntie have on them deer


The kind you buy online. The ones that have been the same color since at least 2009. You can see hers in the pic.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

plugger said:


> In the area they are hunting tags have never been real popular! They just haven't caught on for some reason.


I've heard stories like that, but not in either one of our camps.


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

I hunted there in the late 70s and all through the 80s. We always saw plenty of deer. I can remember a herd of 20+ bouncing through the woods. We shot some bucks, but mostly young ones. We also had a number of deer we shot tagged by others. This happened to me twice - one time the guy was literally running to the dead deer. After it happened to my young brothers, we called it quits and moved on. I do miss that area and seeing those kinds of numbers.
What's different is all the doe permits, 24/7 hunting for 60 days, youth hunts, veteran hunts, and on and on. Used to be VERY few bow hunters up there or anywhere for that matter. People got hooked on it, technology changed and pretty soon bow was as big as firearm season. Given the close proximity to larger populations, its an easy drive for a night hunt or even a weekend for a huge amount of the hunting populace. Sad, but the hunters, along with some other environmental and mgmt. impacts, hunted themselves out of the resource.
Someone mentioned not buying doe permits. That's never going to happen. What you do is have everyone apply at $5 a piece and when you find out you're successful just let them sit in the system - effectively 'using up" that quota. My dad tells the story of deer hunters in the UP during the 60s and 70s getting together the night before season and burning all the doe permits they got at a bonfire. They took the mgmt into their own hands.


----------



## Wolverine53 (Jan 9, 2015)

TNL said:


> I hunted there in the late 70s and all through the 80s. We always saw plenty of deer. I can remember a herd of 20+ bouncing through the woods. We shot some bucks, but mostly young ones. We also had a number of deer we shot tagged by others. This happened to me twice - one time the guy was literally running to the dead deer. After it happened to my young brothers, we called it quits and moved on. I do miss that area and seeing those kinds of numbers.
> What's different is all the doe permits, 24/7 hunting for 60 days, youth hunts, veteran hunts, and on and on. Used to be VERY few bow hunters up there or anywhere for that matter. People got hooked on it, technology changed and pretty soon bow was as big as firearm season. Given the close proximity to larger populations, its an easy drive for a night hunt or even a weekend for a huge amount of the hunting populace. Sad, but the hunters, along with some other environmental and mgmt. impacts, hunted themselves out of the resource.
> Someone mentioned not buying doe permits. That's never going to happen. What you do is have everyone apply at $5 a piece and when you find out you're successful just let them sit in the system - effectively 'using up" that quota. My dad tells the story of deer hunters in the UP during the 60s and 70s getting together the night before season and burning all the doe permits they got at a bonfire. They took the mgmt into their own hands.


Maybe it is a good idea to pay $5 in order to block someone else from getting a doe permit. I'll have to think about that one. If the DNR won't protect does in stressed areas like RC, we hunters may have to.

I just got an article about why deer herds are down in the mid-west. Nothing earth shattering but I thought those who have chimed in might like to read the article.

http://www.grandviewoutdoors.com/big-game-hunting/deer/why-deer-herds-are-declining/

Another update deals with the Federal Lands we have mentioned here. I have previously commented on this thread about unnecessary closing of good trails in the MNF which in effect closes large blocks of land to hunter access. There may be some relief in sight. I just red an article in the Outdoor News section of the January _Mid-West Outdoors_ Magazine informing that the U.S. House just passed a bill to " improve public access to federal lands, guard against regulations that would ban or limit hunting or angling and protect against laws that would make traditional fishing equipment illegal." The bill is called the Sportsmen's Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act (SHARE). They go on to explain that the bill is going to the House for approval.

Hopefully, this bill will open up some areas that have been closed to us in the MNF. If you have a couple hours to burn, go to the Fed page that explains the rules for using, camping, traveling, and hunting/fishing on NF lands. Oh, my! Its crazy.

Back during the Clinton Administration there were under-reported anti-hunting moves taking place that still affect access to the MNF .
Back then I called the Feds in Cadillac to complain about berms being placed on trails we had been using for years after they harvested the trees in the MNF near us. The Ranger explained to me that they had a "passive closing policy" to close hunter access to certain areas. He also said their berms didn't work well because hunters just drove around them. I also complained that the trails had been damaged by the logging trucks. He assured me that wasn't the case because the Ranger in charge always made sure trails were left in good shape. I took issue with him, stating I could access the area w/o a 4WD vehicle before the cutting but not now. I still have to usr a 4WD to get back there.
Of course, that "passive closing berm system" changed to the "closed unless marked as open by a trail number sign" system that began, as I recall, back in 2006. This system is also supported with annual maps which are available free and can be down-loaded on line. I've warned MS readers on other threads to read the rules and follow the rules, signs and map while on NF lands.
Another under reported item about the Feds that may interest you... back during that era the Clinton administration abused the money acquired through the Pittman-Robertson act. (For those that don't know about the PRA, it is a hidden Federal tax on outdoor products we all buy that the Federal government is supposed to use to advance outdoor pursuits like hunting and fishing.) Anyway, funds from the PRA were given to anti-hunting groups to oppose outdoor pursuits, instead of advance them.
Enough about spilled milk. Let's hope for some positive changes from SHARE. Maybe we should contact our congressmen about voting in favor of the bill.


----------



## triplelunger (Dec 21, 2009)

Wolverine53 said:


> Maybe it is a good idea to pay $5 in order to block someone else from getting a doe permit. I'll have to think about that one. If the DNR won't protect does in stressed areas like RC, we hunters may have to.
> 
> I just got an article about why deer herds are down in the mid-west. Nothing earth shattering but I thought those who have chimed in might like to read the article.
> 
> ...


Only sat twice without seeing deer near ruby creek. A couple spots i saw deer every hunt. I wish I could draw a doe tag there one of these years. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Wolverine53 (Jan 9, 2015)

triplelunger said:


> Only sat twice without seeing deer near ruby creek. A couple spots i saw deer every hunt. I wish I could draw a doe tag there one of these years.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


All the antlerless tags are for private land; you seem to be indicating public land hunts. You won't be "drawing" any antlerless tag unless you own land or are a private land guest in area 053. Those on our thread in Oceana Co. claim antlerless permits ( or poachers) have severely damaged the herd south of RC. We haven't heard much from the NW Newaygo Co. folks. I'd like some eye-witness testimony from that area too.

I guess I better keep looking for new areas if you are seeing deer. At least one other person on the thread suggested there are pockets of deer in the area. All I can tell you is I hunted 2 - 10 miles East, NE, W, and South of RC and saw three deer from four days before gun season through four days into gun season. That number also included a three day MNF hunt Thanksgiving weekend that covered two areas. Three deer my friend! I guess I have some scouting to do.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

Personally I like the berms on the 2 tracks. It keeps everyone and their brother from driving down them at all hours of the day.


----------



## Wolverine53 (Jan 9, 2015)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> Personally I like the berms on the 2 tracks. It keeps everyone and their brother from driving down them at all hours of the day.


I just started a new thread about SHARE; I urged everyone to contact their congressmen about supporting the bill. The bill will change the trail policy on NF lands to "open unless posted as closed".
Here's the bill:

http://naturalresources.house.gov/legislation/?legislationid=368003

Sorry Boopoo; I'm too old to drag a deer a mile.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

Wolverine53 said:


> Sorry Boopoo; I'm too old to drag a deer a mile.


A mountain bike and a deer cart work great for that.

The best way to screw up a public hunting spot is to make that spot easy to get to!


----------



## triplelunger (Dec 21, 2009)

Wolverine53 said:


> All the antlerless tags are for private land; you seem to be indicating public land hunts. You won't be "drawing" any antlerless tag unless you own land or are a private land guest in area 053. Those on our thread in Oceana Co. claim antlerless permits ( or poachers) have severely damaged the herd south of RC. We haven't heard much from the NW Newaygo Co. folks. I'd like some eye-witness testimony from that area too.
> 
> I guess I better keep looking for new areas if you are seeing deer. At least one other person on the thread suggested there are pockets of deer in the area. All I can tell you is I hunted 2 - 10 miles East, NE, W, and South of RC and saw three deer from four days before gun season through four days into gun season. That number also included a three day MNF hunt Thanksgiving weekend that covered two areas. Three deer my friend! I guess I have some scouting to do.


Public land doe tags were available in the area I hunt. I applied and was not drawn. 
The mapping app on the DNR website has been a great tool in the area. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## Wolverine53 (Jan 9, 2015)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> A mountain bike and a deer cart work great for that.
> 
> The best way to screw up a public hunting spot is to make that spot easy to get to!


Do you actually hook the cart up to the mountain bike or do you enter and exit with the bike and then walk in with a cart if you harvest a deer? We did talk about using a bike on the closed trail this year to knock off a half mile or so of walking, but we didn't do it. I wasn't sure that the bike was legal on a closed trail.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

Wolverine53 said:


> Do you actually hook the cart up to the mountain bike or do you enter and exit with the bike and then walk in with a cart if you harvest a deer? We did talk about using a bike on the closed trail this year to knock off a half mile or so of walking, but we didn't do it. I wasn't sure that the bike was legal on a closed trail.


Right now I use the bike and the cart separately, but I've been thinking about making a hitch to pull the cart with the bike. I've seen some slick setups from other people though. One guy had a custom cart that had a removable sled. He used it for trapping but I'm sure you could make one for deer as well.


----------



## Wolverine53 (Jan 9, 2015)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> Right now I use the bike and the cart separately, but I've been thinking about making a hitch to pull the cart with the bike. I've seen some slick setups from other people though. One guy had a custom cart that had a removable sled. He used it for trapping but I'm sure you could make one for deer as well.


Is there any question in your mind about a bike being legal on a closed trail? That was a question in my mind when I thought about using a bike last year. I don't think they would want you riding your bike where there is no trail and technically a closed trail is , in effect, no trail. I've read (on line) the many pages about all the rules on NF lands; I don't remember details about bikes. All the rules are overwhelming. If I get in the mood, I'll have to go back and start reading again.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

Honestly I'm not sure and I've only tried it twice because I mainly hunt private land or places where a bike wouldn't work. I would think their issue would be with motorized vehicles. I see little difference between a deer cart and a mountain bike and I'm pretty sure there's no rules against deer carts.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

I wish they would close more trails...foot only sounds better to me unless handicapped


----------



## norton shores killer (Oct 24, 2009)

jr28schalm said:


> I wish they would close more trails...foot only sounds better to me unless handicapped


 I agree. our area would be greatly improved with less roads for drunks in the middle of the night shining


----------

