# DMU 452 question??



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

Splitshot 15 deer per sq mile is crazy that's no place to have unlimited doe permits and extended seasons Figure it out less than one deer per 40 acres I care about my hunting so thats why I willing to fight and spend every extra dime if I have to so I can see deer and have deer for my future deer huntersBTW do you hunt in 452 or the new dmus in the area?? marty


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

I'd rather have you guys arguing with me than among yourselves. I had some e-mail that I should delete these posts after the ---hole came out. My reply was that the name didn't bother me and that everyone is entitled to their own opinion as I am too. Hence, I didn't delete it. At the same time though I believe it would not be right for you guys to argue with each other, post you opinion and leave the remarks, name calling go towards me. Even though in 21 years I've only been called a ---hole about 10 times, a hard nose twice, and other things here and there too, I don't get upset at it, I just let it go. 

GO SCOUT'IN!


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

Just heard from another source that the DNR Made a boo-boo on the tag limits and now plan to rediscuss this next week. Man do those guys keep you wondering or what? ............marty

Boehr I'm sorry this all came out like this. You have your opinion as we all have ours. ..........marty


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Hey, if we all had the same opinion things would be pretty boring and we wouldn't need any communication, web, phone, meetings, newspapers because we would all agree. I wonder if we would ever make any progress or if anything would ever be better in the future if we all had the same opinion.

Anyways, marty...I believe 15 deer per square mile was stated by someone as a goal...not what we presently have. If you want a figure of deer per square mile though...we have 57,022 square miles in this state. The goal of about 1.2 million deer for the entire state gives you *an average* of a tad over 21 deer per square mile. Now you have to realize some areas probably can support more, some areas can't support that many, that's an average. Right now we have, *an average* of about 35 deer per square mile. Now there may or may not be that many deer in your area, like I said, it's an average but...you have another problem in your area and that is TB.

Also marty...you keep saying that many people didn't show up to the meetings because it was too far to travel. What would the reason be for the meeting in the Kalamazoo area or the Detroit area were we have a lot of hunters that live in the city and still low attendance? I wonder if it's not because a lot of people understand and agree with the management plan? I'm not saying they do, just wondering.

Also I don't think you heard correctly on the tag limits. Quit making statements and state your source so we can see it's not rumor. I will tell you that there is still discussion on closing some of the counties for the extended season. I have posted that fact before but must have been missed by you. That is where the DNR is listening to hunters, people like you, about the herd being down in some areas and doing the best they can to gather last minute data to please the hunters ensuring that their information either matches what the hunters state or the data is completely different from what the hunter states.

That's the biggest gripe I have, people complain when the regs are not out quick enough and they complain when regs are too quick and say there is no way they could have the data that fast. Make up their minds for cry'in out loud, but that will never happen.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Well thought I was done here, but just had to respond.

Splitshot: I guess you missed my apology on using THAT word on this forum. But try practicing what you preach.

My question is why can't we go back to the 1950's and make it simplistic? Now I know that it is alot different in the southern half of the state now, so some more deer will have to be taken there but its virtually unchanged in northern Michigan/UP. Splitshot said when doe permits were first issued in the 50's since then the deer population has grown. I think you guys that think this is somehow alot more complicated than then it actually is, are being being hoodwinked by media and over-zealous biologists. 

What is so different about giving everybody one buck and one doe license(maybe two for southern counties), and you can't take doe in most parts of the UP, limit the baiting to 2-5 gallons(make baiters happy). Isn't this what we are already doing, but we have to go through this doe permit process of apply, etc...And trust me in northern michigan/up if there is excessive deer in certain parts, mother-nature WILL take care of them in the winters(might not be every winter, but most). 

I have my opinion on the DNR, and my look at this last minute changing things is crap. Their jobs were to have this figured out by now-at least that is what they told us, they gave us a deadline on when we could apply-they should have been talking to hunters in the summer and/or after hunting season and then figured out the winter kill and should have had all this quotas figured out by now. I look at it this way, if they were in the private sector and had to have a report/project done by now, they would have been fired for not meeting the deadline..period!

If its such a problem trying to figure this quota/regulation thing out, maybe they should look at moving the application date back to say August 1st.

Now I know this stuff as to go through a process, so I blame every person involved at every step, especially all bosses/Dept heads, supervisors, and Kool. I'm not here JUST blaming the small hourly biologist in the fields, I'm blaming the whole entire process.
Some people say they are doing the best they can....well if this is the best I'm sure going to hate see a down year.

Lets try making it simple, and I think(hope) the DNR might be seeing the light, at least this year the broke it down to county boundaries...so thats a start.

All my opinion and suggestions...


----------



## Stinger (Jan 29, 2000)

B&N, I'm interested in knowing why you feel that it's not necessary to take does in most of the UP. 
It also seems that most hunters are willing to try and micro manage the herd as best we can but you seem to want to paint things with a broad brush and go backwards. What are your reasons and who supports you? 

If there ever was a place to kill more does it is in MOST parts of the UP. 

I don't think the doe tag quota or numbers is a problem, they are just running a little late getting the data in this year. You know all of the DMU boundaries have been changed and that is bound to slow things down a bit for the first year. Never the less, those numbers aren't needed for the average person to apply for doe tags because in most DMU's their will be plenty to go around. 

Even in the UP eh!

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Stinger (Jan 29, 2000)

UP offers hunters plenty of chances to bag a buck 
July 12, 2001
By Eric Sharp
Detroit Free Press


GRAYLING -- The buck darted across Four Mile Road 50 feet in front of the truck, velvet-covered antlers already nearly a foot above his head. Watching the deer dart into the woods, I knew that if I looked to the right I'd see my wife giving me the evil eye from the passenger's seat.


Susan always tenses up when we see a deer by the road or pass a lake or river. She knows that there's no way I can keep my eyes from straying to the animal or a potential fishing site, and as the survivor of a serious car wreck, it drives her nuts when my inattention to the road lets the vehicle wander.


Guiltily, I brought the truck back across the center line, something I've had to do a lot this summer, because I've seen a ton of deer while driving around on various stories. And reports from people who know deer say the abundance in most areas is as good as or better than last year, and the number of antlered bucks might be even larger.


John Urbain, the whitetail specialist for the DNR, said that despite killing more than 500,000 deer last year, Michigan hunters this fall will find a herd that's still about the same -- 1.9 million.


The Upper Peninsula is reverting to its status as the Department of Natural Resources' problem child when it comes to deer numbers. Three mild or moderate winters in a row have seen the UP herd explode from about 500,000 (after two brutal winters killed 300,000 animals) to perhaps 750,000 today.


"There are parts of the UP where deer numbers are still down (mostly on the northern side near the Lake Superior watershed), but overall they are up. We're trying to control things by issuing a lot of antlerless permits, but the real problem is that we just don't have enough hunters there," he said.


The DNR relies largely on hunting to control deer numbers, but that simply doesn't work in the UP, where about120,000 people hunt. Even if they could manage a success rate of 50 percent, UP hunters would take only about 60,000 deer, or 8 percent of the local herd this fall. Biologists figure they need to kill 30 percent every year just to keep the herd from growing, never mind knocking it back.


In the Lower Peninsula, about 600,000 firearms hunters will pursue about 1.2 million deer. That's one firearms hunter for every two animals, and when you add in the bow kill, you can see why hunting can be an effective population control below the bridge.


Rene Mertes of Grayling has been scouting the Upper Peninsula for bear, and he said the deer numbers he has seen in the UP verge on the incredible.


"I was coming back to Grayling one night and I was afraid to drive 55 miles an hour. Between Watersmeet and the bridge (St. Ignace), I must have seen 300 deer by the side of the road on U.S.-2, and a few of them were nice bucks," he said.


Occasionally, someone will call or e-mail to say, "Enough already about deer. It's summer. We should only be talking about fishing." Believe me, it would be nice if it were that simple. But in a state with 1.9 million deer, nearly 750,000 firearms deer hunters and 400,000 archery hunters, the whitetail's status is more like a religious icon than a game animal.


It's July, but a big chunk of my telephone and written correspondence still is from people asking questions about the deer herd and the DNR's deer regulations. While people who don't hunt deer might not realize it, thousands of archery hunters already are practicing, aware we are only 80 days away from the glorious First of October, the opening of the bow season.


So if you're starting to think about deer hunting in the fall, give some serious thought to the UP. For one thing, you can get as many antlerless permits as you like. And while you can't buy more than three a day, the odds are very high that you can put all of the venison you can handle in the freezer.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

OK let's go back to the 1950's a total population of about 600,000 deer statewide! That's an average of about 10 deer per square mile. How many hunters want that beside B&N?


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Stinger, very simple when it comes to the UP. For one the UP, for the most part is the most easily to manage(minus the banana belt, menominee co. mostly). Majority of the UP is a classic deer cycle region, numbers go up and then crash and the slowly build again, all you have to do is look at the kill data, right now its at its peak. Should be a banner year for the UP, why? as the article said three straight mild winters. Just wait, this or next year they will be hit with a tough winter and this will drop the number by a ton and the cycle starts over. Why don't I like the doe permit for most of the UP? Well when you start to take does(and most hunters will take the large to medium does first, which leave the yearlies by themselves) when you get a hard winter, the young are the first to die because the can not reach the browse lines to eat. UP winters leave only the strongest deer which usually are the larger females. You can almost wipe out a herd in one year by taking alot of larger does and then have a hard winter, the eastern end of the UP is just finally recovering from this, when they gave out to many doe permits and then had a hard winter about 5-7 years ago(maybe more, give or take). Ask the hunters around that area how the hunting was 4-5 years ago.

Sure we could get away with handing out doe permits the last three years up there but when that strong winter hits, we are going to regret taking those healthy breeding stock does. It just takes that much more longer to recover.

I don't see us going backward with this thinking, I just see the DNR, new theories, new ideas as trying to re-invent the wheel, so to speak in their managing. Mother-nature perfected managing wildlife to habitat sustaining numbers, its just that we think those "numbers" have to be the same year-in, year-out. U.P. deer numbers flux on a 8-15 year cycle, but we have the DNR trying to maintain a certain number every year, and guess what they have never been able to do this, you just can't beat mother-nature no matter how hard we try.

Now the northern lower is different as a whole and southern Michigan thats much different. N. Lower has gotten into a problem of mild winters, year-round baiting(years past, not now), large extensive baiting in "club country", and more selective harvesting by more and more hunters/property owners. BUT, what I see is most hunters still only like to take two deer at the most, whether its a doe and buck or two bucks only. Reasons: only enough room in freezer, thats all they want to eat till next year, time to hunt is limited, etc...and I see this pattern in southern Michigan hunters as well. So the DNR can give out all the permits they want BUT still the majority of hunters will take only two deer. I would like to see some sort of study on how many deer on average a average hunter takes and ask him did he have the opportunity to take more deer or was one, twol three deer enough. I think you will see that two deer is average. My guess!! Thats why a buck and doe license would make it simpler for all and the DNR. Again, my opinion! WOW enough said for me.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

How many hunters would like that, problably not alot in southern Michigan, Boehr, where the population of deer was zilch back then, most of that 600,000 deer were in the northern lower(good portion of that was central northen lower) and UP, so that wasn't so bad back then. Try calculating that deer per square mile, just based on northern lower and the UP? Also I'm sure the DNR, Farm Bur., Insurance companies would love that 600,000 deer number if we were talking about the entire state.


----------



## Stinger (Jan 29, 2000)

It's the winters that kill the numbers of deer in the UP not the hunters. That's my point, YOU CAN'T SAVE DEER so we may as well kill the excess and use the meat because if we don't mother nature will do it for us. 

Your right about one thing, in the UP during a hard winter the first deer to die are the fawns of the year.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

B&N you are definitely correct on a number of things and the DNR was saying that all along but the hunters wouldn't believe it. We can give out unlimited permits for antlerless deer and there were very few hunters taking more than two or three deer, in fact very few hunters buying more than three permits whether they filled them or not.

You are correct on another thing, a bad winter will take the fawns first. But like Stinger says, that's more of a reason to take them during hunting season instead of not putting something to use.

One thing you are not taking into account though is urbanization and human population. Not necessarily more people just spread out. Even though it is small for the most part in the UP it's still happening and even worse in northern Michigan and even more so in southern Michigan. Urbanization is one of the main reasons that northern Michigan was lowered from 40 acres to 5 acres for private land permits.


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

Splitshot I'll answer you first. Yepper 15 deer per square mile is no place to have unlimted doe permits and extended seasons. As boehr said they don't know how many deer per sq mile maybe 2 at one and 21 at another place. I really can't tell you how many deer per sq mile around here so if were at the magical 15 and we have many more years of this what will happen for our future generations? Btw I had nothing to do with the name calling issue and I didn't gang up on boehr. More and more people are growing to distrust the DNR and a lot of lawndowners in 452 have had it. I have no bad feelings for boehr. He makes his points and we make ours. ......marty


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

Boehr; Thats my point the DNR doesn't know how many deer there is per sq mile? It's a SWAG at best. If there are areas with two deer per sq mile does the DNR issued doe permits there? What is the cutoff for doe permits in the TB area or is it the plan to shoot every deer. They can't get them all but sure can put the hurt on hunting. Face I want to see deer and the normal hunter wants to see deer as well.

As the meetings go a wed 600pm 100 miles away. How a about a sat with some advertisment radio or news paper. Maybe also people are just giving up and just don't care. Be interesting to see how the license sales went in this area last year. I know a lot of people who quit bowhunting.

As the doe tags I got the info for three per season of the DNR web page which btw say 1 july-1 aug. I got the info about a boo-boo from bob gwidz page at the michigan forum. He stated that it got through the cracks and I think they are going to change it back to unlimited permits again and I though they were coming to their senses. Silly me     .............marty


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

marty...I think I understand what you are saying but there are some things you take out of context and some things that are impossible to do. Example, my post of 2 deer per square mile was just that, an example. You can not regulate deer hunting by square mile unless you want 57,022 DMU's. As far as detirmining how many deer per square mile, impossible to do, just can't get those deer to stay in one section and they won't return the censes cards. One of the ways the deer herd is figured is by summer deer observation reports which are done by many more people that just wildlife biologists or employes. Many rural mail carriers fill them out, hunters and other people who volunteer. I can't think of anyway to get an accurate count better that what is being done, if you can, post it, I will definitely take it up the ladder.

As far as Bob Gwidz, I enjoy reading his articles, sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't but I'm sorry, Bob writes a column which is his opinion from things he hears. Sometimes I disagree with his opinion because I have had direct involvement with with some of his subject matter. Now, I don't blame Bob because I know right from the start that he is not writing a fact sheet, it's his story.

That is exactly why I read the newspaper very little simply because the stories in newspapers are slanted to liberal or conservative, left and right wing depending on the author. When I do read it I know I'm reading opinion with very little fact or even the facts twisted. Case in point, take away the newspapers, TV etc., etc., and then who would you vote for in any election? How many presidents have been there in your area that you could hear their platform? Probably none but I bet you choose by listening to opinion combined with fact depending on who you were listening to.

Even my posts, unless I'm stating what the law states, it's my opinion. I, like you, have that right. I can say though that the more experience a person can show, the more facts a person can give to explain their opinion, the more creditable the opinion is but, it's still opinion.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Splitshot, a couple comments from me.

First, your quote about if we let mother-nature take its course it might do more harm than good-your right she has done a crappy job and we are lucky we have any trees and animals at all, I'm glad in the last 30 years we have come in and saved her destruction. For a minute there, we almost lost all the trees and animals, but luckily we came in and discovered how to "manage" her.

Also, you say something about a management plan has to re-act to changing conditions, now I know about urbanization(might take 5 years to effect a larger area) and weather(winterkill) so is this what you are talking about when you say changing condidtions. Or are you talking about, Farm Bur. Insurance comp., etc..

If you believe that the biologists(DNR, whoever) have to take into account the Farm Bur., insurance companies when they are suppose to be making 'biological' decisions, YOU to have fallen into this media/political game. This is exactly what we don't need when trying to make scientific decisions when trying to keep the deer herd healthy, not "political" biologists. The DNR/NRC need to break away from from this political crap if they are to make good decisions for our herd. Your right SPT I do have a simplistic view on this, because I feel we have over managed our herd, it just seems we are trying to run a 200 acres deer ranch, but the problem is we have millions of acres. When you still lookat the big picture even after all doe permits are handed out, most hunter will have in their wallet, one buck and one doe permit come November and if bow hunters too, still most hunters will have a buck and one doe permit.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Also marty...about the meetings. You didn't answer my question, you answered why you didn't attend.

Fact: It was MUCC that set up those meetings, not the DNR
Fact: Press releases are set out to advertise but papers can't be forced to print it
Fact: Bob Gwidz had advertised it in his column.
Fact: It was advertised on this site too.

Having stated those facts, your 100 mile thing does not explain why attendance was so low in high populated areas. It also indicates that there are too few hunters in close proximity to where the meetings up north were too, which I doubt. You indictate that hunters who did know about the meetings don't tell other hunters who may not have know. I don't believe that. Having the meetings all on Saturdays would have taken over two months to accomplish.

I can understand your dislike because unfortunately you live in an area where decease (TB) has been found in the deer herd. I can understand the farmers feelings because when their dairy or beef herd gets infected it effects their livelyhood. We can all blame each other what started it but, the fact still remains it's (TB) here and we have to deal with it!


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

Ok spiltshot you first . I can tell you right now if we came up 12 million dollars short there would have been a lot of people standing tall. If we said fuzzy math we'd be making little rock out of big rocks. I can agree with you there's probably a lot of people in the DNR who really care but I wonder how many of them are being held back or has been issued a gag order. I feel the major changes in the DNR are way overdue and it's time to fire kool and the gang. 

Real options are to make them used the propopsal that we voted on to put all the wildlife issues in the hands of the bio's and I feel that many outside agencys have their hands in it too. Remember a thing called "G' we voted on or was that a snow job by big john engler???.........Marty


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

Boehr the meetings are a bad time for most people here.As the majority that I talked too. As being on the web not a lot of people I know have the a PC. Plus we only get a paper a week at a time so if it don't make the deadline sorry. I know there's quite a few hunters here but more and more people are giving up hunting cause of differents things. Also I don't think it would take two months to have a saturday meeting at the local high school.

So off to Bob Gwidz is he wrong? Are they saying only 3 doe permits a season for us.Or are the regs are set in stone or did the powers to be make a pretty good boo-boo?


As dislike for the TB guess what? There has never been a positive around my area at all course there's not many deer either. I know the DNR is under pressure to rid it so that's take it or leave it and I know people who are leaving it. Might be interesting to see the license sale after this year here.

Anyway I guess we don't see eye to eye and thats good cause it would get awful boring. Good luck to all and believe me we're going to need it. ..........marty


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

An entertaining thread, to say the least.

Marty, I understand your passion for deer, and believe me, I share it. But I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with a herd density of 15 deer per square mile, if that's all the habitat can support on a healthy basis.

In fact, if those 15 deer per section are balanced in terms of age structure and sex, you can actually have pretty good hunting, even with the lower densities. If you actually have mature bucks around, and fewer does, those bucks have to do something they typically don't have to do in Michigan -- namely, get out there and compete for breeding rights. You'll actually see more buck sign in a well-balanced herd with 15 deer per section than you will in the area in which I hunt, with poor age/sex structure, at much greater density levels.

A lot of people are surprised to learn that some of those areas in other states that have well-balanced herds, and also produce a lot of mature bucks (parts of Iowa, Illinois, and Buffalo County, Wisconsin) actually have deer density levels substantially less than what we see in much of Michigan.

It's been pretty well established that when herd densities are lower, deer are healthier, more disease-resistant, less-stressed, larger, and have greater fawn productivity and recruitment rates.

I sincerely believe we need to continue to reduce herd density in any area where it is at or above the land's carrying capacity, and that this is particularly true in the Bovine TB "core area". It may result in fewer targets for hunters, but it is ultimately healthier for the deer, and best serves the long-term interests of us deer hunters.


----------

