# One at a time



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

This sections seems to run in circles. It never really gets anywhere, and I think we all get dizzy (and frustrated) discussing the issues. I would propose that we deal with the issues one at a time in this thread, and try to stick completely to the issues. Can we do it? 

FIRST UP: "SICK DEER".

Please present any evidence the the deer herd in Michigan is either "sick" or "healthy". <----<<<


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

Bovine TB?

hehe

In all reality, TB may have been passed from cows to deer. But what I find wierd, is that for all the history of cows living in the same proximity as deer, NEVER has this disease taken off in a wild deer herd.

The fact that (for some reason) the Michigan deer herd is so unique that we are experiencing an unprecedented disease in our herd shows me that indeed the amount of deer led to disease.

Too many deer? Over the carrying capacity? Mounds of bait?

I find it to be too much of a coincidence that the TB out break occured in our state.

All under traditional management regulations.

Just thoughts

Hunt


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Yeah, but we really do not know how long the disease has existed in the wild, or that it has indeed "taken off". There is a good chance that the disease has been in the wild as long as the deer themselves, and only our increased testing is defining our awareness, and the severity. In any case, the ban on winter feeding should tend to lower the herd numbers closer to what the land can support. 

Also, I do not think that the TB issue should be used to favor QDM because DRASTIC measures are being incorporated in TB areas already. In my opinion, the current TB eradication plan would make QDM success very unlikely in the TB sections for years come? <----<<<


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

I agree with you Joe.

QDM should not be instituted where TB is so evident. We need to tackle that problem on its own.

But do you think it's coincidence that the sheer volume of deer in that region (maintained by current trad. management) and an unprecedented disease had nothing to do with each other?

More clear, leaving antler restrictions out of it, do you believe that a herd managed by QDM would be AS susceptible to TB as the herd was in your area in '95?

Just reachin for your opinion......

Hunt


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

I beleive that Dan Obrien made an excellent case for the relationship between population density and spread of TB. However, the management practices of 1995 have been changed significantly and steps are already in place to lower the deer population. In fact, one could state that one basic principal of QDM, "natural habitat improvement" could be in direct opposition at the attempts to lower the deer population in a given area. 

Anyway, back to the question; Do we have any evidence that our deer herd is healthy or not? Maybe we can vote on the issue at the end of two weeks and see what side best represents their case. Personally, I would like to bow out of the discusion for now and just read what happens. <----<<<


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

well, if you hadn't noticed i took a couple of days off of this subject. i was extremely frustrated and in turn was becoming a real *sshole. i apologize to the people who bore the brunt of my frustration. 

on to the issue at hand 

"one could state that one basic principal of QDM, "natural habitat improvement" could be in direct opposition at the attempts to lower the deer population in a given area. "

thats true but we all know one of the other principles of QDM is keeping the herd well within it's carrying capacity, improved habitat, browse, and food sources for fewer deer make for healthier, bigger deer.


if you look at the herd as a whole it goes against every wildlife biologist's description of a well rounded, physically and socially healthy deer herd. yes, i said socially!


----------



## PrtyMolusk (Aug 13, 2000)

Howdy-

Joe, like most issues, I think it's all a matter of perception.

We (my buddies who hunt the 40 in Kingston) have seen no ill or diseased deer. They appear well-fed and otherwise in good health.

Therefore, we think the herd is 'healthy.'

Ask a couple of guys who hunt 452. They may have seen a few diseased deer, or perhaps few or no deer. 

They may feel the herd is 'unhealthy.'

Without quantitative benchmarks, it's nothing more than an opinion poll.

The thing about opinion polls is there are no right or wrong answers, just opinions.......and differing opinions are not conducive to action.

Just thinkin' out loud.


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

"One at a time" can look as a good idea, where it not be that Life is multifactorial ... and if people would ALL share the same knowledge.
"WHO", the "World Health Organisation" defines human health as a state in which one is not just diseased but ALSO enjoys a full well being" = an optimum physical condition.
As deer are large mammals, just as we are, don't they deserve the same definition of health ???
When a herd enjoys full well being, the EVOLUTION :
- of calves and yearlings AVERAGE weight is at its top.
- That of the annual recruitment too. (averge 1,5 fawn per doe, so I read)
- The average yearlings antler size and points at its top too.
- Winter losses are at their minimum, with up and down depending upon the Winter Severity Index, amongst others meteorological conditions. 
- All animals shot must be FULL of fat reserves prior winter : they build up first around nerves, then in the bone marrow, then around internal organs, to end with above the rump.
The amount of fat around kidneys "Kidney fat index" is a good indication of well being, of a good physical condition, of HEALTH.

 Jack.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

"In fact, one could state that one basic principal of QDM, "natural habitat improvement" could be in direct opposition at the attempts to lower the deer population in a given area."

Ok, I knew this was gonna be said sonner or later.

"Natural" habitat improvement will happen "naturally" as soon as you start removing deer.

Removing deer to within 60% carrying capacaity will lead to a greater abundance of natural browse that will grow without all the deer eating it.

Deer themselves shape the woodscape enormously. Exactly what happened in Kensington Metropark. The deer outgrew and ate up their habitat. They decided to remove a bunch of deer so the habitat can regrow. Not only makes more deer food, but offers habitat to other species.

Talking about 452, my guess is you guys are in for a bright future once we tackle TB up there. With all the deer gone, all the natural deer browse is growing like mad. The herd is gonna rebuild itself very fast because there will be so much food for 'em.

You guys will have the opportunity to grow a good herd from scratch with tons of new biomass being available to all the new deer that aren't eating it today.

Habitat improves itself once you start removing deer 

Or it can be grown and planted by us!

Great thread.

Hunt


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

This is an interesting post and I have agreement with all of the posts so far, at least partially. Do we have a healthy deer herd? How do we look at it? As a 452 area? As a county wide area? As a U.P. verses Lower? As agricultural verses woods area? As a club area verses other private property area? As private property area verses public land area? Or do we look at it as a statewide issue? I pick the later. With all the members spread all over the state we should be concerned with the health of the deer herd statewide.

We have all seen or heard of monster bucks or does that weight in the 200-pound class or close to it, or over it. In the fall of 2000 we had a 19-year old doe die of old age, a wild deer, on the property of the Kalamazoo Nature Center, picked up and sent to Rose Lake which was when the age was determined along with other health characteristics being checked.

The size in deer is genetically passed on, I believe. They are not and never will be all big, all small body or rack size, they will always be different. I don't believe you could make them all the same even in a perfect environment.

Yes, I believe the overall health of Michigan's deer are healthy. The thing that Belbriette talks about I find in most (99%) deer shot by hunters. Can they be healthier? That's the hard question. We can attempt to make them healthier but we also, in this matter, have to be concern with keeping them "wild" too. We as hunters will have different opinions and sometimes those opinions will change. I know mine has over the last 21 years from when I would argue with biologists that we had too many antlerless permits to the point where I am now with much more experience and being education by those experiences and by hunters like everyone here. I have more of an opinion that we still have too many deer, maybe not in your area but I look at it statewide. We can manipulate those numbers county by county to achieve the goal of a healthy, evenly balanced herd but it will take time and cooperation between all parties involved, not just the DNR and not just hunters because we are all managers.

Proof of a healthy herd statewide? The statewide herd population from 1970 to the present. A herd that was not healthy could not expand to the present (or the past 4 years) without being overall healthy.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

I like the posts. So far the only person who lists any type of evidence is Boehr. 

The statement " The statewide herd population from 1970 to the present. A herd that was not healthy could not expand to the present (or the past 4 years) without being overall healthy." is evidence. 

Statements by Balbriette such as, "The amount of fat around kidneys "Kidney fat index" is a good indication of well being, of a good physical condition, of HEALTH." are someone's definition. However, it is not evidence in this thread because he doesnt point to studies or findings of kidney fat index in Michigan deer. Can anyone help him with these facts on Michigan deer?

Also Jaime, can you show us how and where our deer herd doesnt fit into every wildlife biologists definition of healthy? 

I agree with Prtymolusk, that opinions are plentiful...we need more evidence. <----<<<


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

I gotta try and clear this TB thing up.

1. Excessive deer number DID NOT create TB, this came from cattle, its a cattle disease passed on to deer from cattle.

"""But do you think it's coincidence that the sheer volume of deer in that region (maintained by current trad. management) and an unprecedented disease had nothing to do with each other?""""

Huntnut this statement is very misleading and the most part false. First, the volume of deer in this region is in most part in the Club Country, this area covers sections upon sections of privately owned land(a huge area). These deer within this area were fed all year long(and I mean by semi-trailor loads) for years and years, the harvest during hunting season was zero compared to the number of deer. These clubs would see hundreds of deer, and were NOT maintained by current management, because of the sheer size of the property and the out of control baiting. 

The TB then was spread because of the extreme high volume of deer nose to nose at these feed piles all year long. I do believe TB has always been in the herd in this area for many years before this and with the increase in "club country" deer maanagement, it became worse.

Your statement is partially true that the high volume of deer did have something to do with TB, BUT it was not due to the current Michigan DNR Manangement practices. Thats why if you look at the "core area" of TB deer, it sits directly in the middle of this "club country".

If you say well the DNR should have been doing something about this its their fault to allow it, WELL, ya gotta understand the size of the clubs and how private they really are, also and most important is the political side of it. Club membership/owners of most of these were the richy legislators, wealthy large business owners, judges, CEO's, etc...

Then you got these deer spreading out and here and there and spreading it sporadically over the years. This club area was really never under "normal" DNR deer management and for this reason shoudl not be used as an argument for QDM or as an example of Michigan deer herd being unhealthy because of "old" management practices.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

What is Carrying Capacity?
By Justin S. Hall

In almost any discussion of deer population numbers you will hear the term "carrying capacity" mentioned. But what is "carrying capacity"? Carrying capacity is defined as the number of animals that can be supported by their habitat without that habitat being significantly altered. Simply put, it is the number of animals you can have in an area without them eating themselves out of house and home.

All animals have three basic necessities for survival, water, food, and shelter. To insure survival all three must be in adequate supply, close together, and of good quality. As animals increase in number there will eventually be a shortage of one of these basic necessities. This shortage will limit the number of animals that can survive in that habitat, andc is called the "limiting factor". Once a necessity has become limiting, you have reached the carrying capacity of the habitat.

The carrying capacity is not a single figure. It isn't that you have 100 deer and everything is fine because you are at the carrying capacity, and then you have 101 deer and are over the carrying capacity and they are all unhealthy. Instead, as carrying capacity is approached there will start to be signs in the deer herd that it is beginning to come under stress. These signs may include things like poor reproduction by does and decreased antler growth in bucks. As numbers keep growing, weaker members of the population will become unhealthy due to malnutrition and crowding and disease may enter into the population. Crowding will also cause members of the population may start migrating away from the areas of high population density, which puts them at greater risk to predation and car-deer accidents. If numbers continue to climb, members of the population will start dying of starvation or disease as the population regulates itself to be within the carrying capacity. The first members to die are the youngest age class, followed by the very old. Due to the fact that signs of stress start to appear in the deer herd as it approaches the carrying capacity, wildlife biologists attempt to keep the population at approximately 80% of the carrying capacity, ensuring that all members of the population will have adequate supplies to remain healthy.

Complicating the concept of carrying capacity is that it is not a static number but instead is an ever changing target. It changes due to long-term changes in the habitat. For example, as a forest matures it will begin to have less shrubs and grasses in the understory due to competition for light as the trees close in and shade out the forest floor. That means there will be less browse for deer to eat. So that young forest that you once hunted which had lots of deer, twenty years later has become a mature forest and supports fewer deer. The harvesting of forests can have a positive impact on deer numbers since they do well in openings and along edges. The harvesting will have a positive effect initially, as the cut tops become available for browse, and in the longer term as grasses and shrubs once again become available. Seasonal fluctuations in the environment impact the carrying capacity as well. A year with a mild winter will have a higher carrying capacity than a year with a harsh winter. 

John Ozoga, an internationally respected deer researcher, spent much of his time with the DNR. One of the things he found was that the limiting factor on deer numbers in the Upper Peninsula and northern Lower Peninsula was winter habitat in the deer yards. The deer yards provide shelter, and more importantly, food, during the cold winter months. Winter is the time of greatest stress on deer due to the poor availability of browse and the energy necessary for simply staying warm. It is during winter that the effects of being at or above the carrying capacity are felt as deer die of starvation.

In the southern Lower Peninsula, deer numbers have grown tremendously in the last thirty years. Deer have found all the necessities to be plentiful and have been steadily filling in the habitat. As the numbers have risen, the deer have reached a new type of carrying capacity known as the cultural carrying capacity.

The cultural carrying capacity is the number of deer that people are willing to have around. This differs from individual to individual. The person that suffers crop damage or deer eating their ornamental plantings may feel that there are too many deer. A hunter in the same area may feel that there are too few deer. Assessing the cultural carrying capacity of an area requires surveying the attitudes of the various stakeholder groups and compromising on an acceptable level of deer numbers for all. 

Assessing the biological carrying capacity of an area involves looking for signs in the animals that they are under stress. Due to the fact that food is generally the limiting factor in Michigan, most of the signs that a population is approaching the biological carrying capacity are indications that the animals are under nutritional stress. One of the first signs that a buck is under nutritional stress is that it will allocate less of its energy resources to antler development. So if you are seeing smaller racks than you have in the past or more young deer with spikes as opposed to forked antlers, the deer in your area may be approaching the carrying capacity. For does, the major sign of nutritional stress is that they are less successful at rearing fawns. Their nutrition must be allocated to survival and they may not have enough left over for reproduction and rearing.

Seeing a browse line, where everything palatable as a high as a deer can reach is gone, is a sign that the deer population either is or once was over the carrying capacity. Once a browse line is established, it can take years or even decades for the vegetation to regrow. It will never regrow as long as deer numbers remain high and until it does, the carrying capacity for the area will be significantly reduced.

Supplemental feeding can successfully hold a population over the carrying capacity and it is often used to maintain a population over the carrying capacity for the short term, particularly during very harsh winters. However by doing so the population is put at risk to disease and makes the population dependent on feeding. Contrary to popular belief, winter-feeding of deer does not remove pressure on the surrounding vegetation in the long term. Instead it will just allow greater number of deer to survive and in turn likely put more pressure on the habitat, especially if feeding is lessened or withdrawn. You can have a positive impact on the carrying capacity for deer in your local area depending on the type of habitat manipulations that you do. If you are interested in increasing your land's capacity for deer or other wildlife, contact a Cooperative Resource Management Initiative (CRMI) Resource Professional. They can be contacted through your local Conservation District. 

Measuring the carrying capacity is a very difficult thing to do. While foresters and wildlife biologists monitor habitat condition during field activities, actually measuring carrying capacity through habitat assessment is very labor intensive and expensive. A better alternative to measure the carrying capacity is through examining trends in the biology of the population using that habitat. In deer this includes things such as the fawn to doe ratio, the antler beam size, the number of yearling bucks with spike versus forked antlers, and average body weights.

In it's work managing the state's deer population, the DNR uses measurements from hunter harvested deer taken at check stations to help determine if the deer population in an area is approaching its carrying capacity. More specifically, they look at antler beam diameter and the fawn to doe ratio information gathered at the check stations. So, the best way to help the DNR gather data, and manage deer in your area is to bring your deer to a check station this fall.

It may seem to be strange that the ways of measuring the carrying capacity are all based on the animals and not the habitat but there is currently no good direct measure of habitat carrying capacity. As part of the increased emphasis on landscape level work, MSU has just started the Landscape Deer Project, so perhaps there will be new measures in the future. 

The goal of wildlife management is to maintain a healthy population of animals. By maintaining the population of deer below the carrying capacity it benefits both the deer and all the other animals that use the same habitat


http://www.msue.msu.edu/wildlife/mood/cc.htm





> The DWFF has an obligation to the states deer herd to implement a management regime that promotes total overall deer health. Too often, both agency personnel and user groups consider deer herd health in oversimplified terms. If deer are not dying of starvation or if disease is not rampant  then they may be considered healthy. We have learned far too much about deer in the last twenty years to continue this approach


Bill Gray
Certified Wildlife Biologist
Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries



> On a socio-biological level, nature never intended for many of our deer populations to be in the shape they are in. The negative effects of poor buck age structure and unbalanced sex ratios are well documented by countless university and private studies as well as research conducted by DWFF biologists. These negative effects include extended breeding and fawning periods as well as the virtual absence of mature buck sign and natural breeding behaviors.


Bill Gray
Certified Wildlife Biologist
Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Jamie...excellent article and there is not too much, if anything I disagree with but...are we looking for the health of the herd in relation to just carrying capacity? Are/do we want to look at the health of the herd overall by mixing carrying capacity, hunting opportunities, and economical prospects, etc.? I think we need to combine many things to have the best overall picture. Then determine the health or definition thereof, after all considerations of where we have been, where we are, and where we want to go. This is where the differences of opinion become, for lack of a better word, argumentative.

In order to stay on the subject topic, I guess we need to attempt to agree on what we want to use to determine health of the herd. This includes some things that are impossible for man to control (mother nature) and some things that we can control.


----------



## Huntnut (Jan 21, 2000)

I've thought alot about this thread.

We talk health alot, and debate whether our herd is "healthy" and whether it could be more "healthy".

When I zoom way out and look at Michigan as a whole, I get a picture of a deer factory state.

A state that mass produces deer for our mass population of hunters.

Now this is not all that bad, but with this scenario, I also think about the bubble theory.

I feel like Michigans current management techniques are desigend to fill the bubble as full as it can get with deer without popping.

When the bubble gets too full....it pops and we lose a bunch of deer.

TB is an example of the bubble getting too full. The bubble popped in 452. Too many deer. A bunch of deer "need to go."

A severe winter can pop the bubble. Michigan has had a couple few winters that were devastating to the northern herds. Over the carrying capacity for provided habitat. A bunch of deer "need to go." The die-offs wouldnt be near as severe if the population was kept at 60% instead of 90%.

Kensington Metro park and others experienced a bubble too inflated. Habitat was crashing, and a bunch of deer "need to go".

Our bubbles were too full to provide the necessary habitat for these deer, and we ended up losing alot more of them then we would have with a lowered population.

I think in many areas of this state the bubble is too full to cope with hard times.

Its not like I don't want a super full bubble, it's just that this type of bubble pops easiest and we lose a ton of deer.

As for overall health, this is why I think we should deflate our bubble in this state a bit.

Eventhough every one of our individuals is healthy, it just takes a small pin to pop the herd.

A deflated bubble will aid to the longevity and health of our current herd in the future by helping it deal with tough times that may be ahead. 

Deflate the bubble in this state a bit, and allow some new deer food to grow, and our herd will be in much better shape overall to survive the future.

Hunt


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

joe, i said "every" in haste, should have said most.




> Herds are unhealthy if there are disproportionate numbers of does or young bucks.


Bonnie Coblentz
MSU Department of Wildlife and Fisheries



> "Seeing is believing to most of us," explained Pennsylvania Game Commission deer biologist George Kelly. "Still, having a record population of deer doesn't mean there will be one behind every tree, or that you'll see more while hunting or driving around. But if you pay attention, you'll see signs of deer overpopulation: unhealthy and small-bodied deer, increased crop and property damage, increased deer-automobile collisions, habitat destruction, including a reduction in plant diversity, and does with fewer fawns and bucks with smaller racks."


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

It is an excellent article posted by Jaime, however it does not supply evidence that Michigan's deer herd is stressed or unhealthy. It suggests ways of determining if this "MIGHT" be the case. The evidence that we need would be to say if this IS the case. 

Also, it excludes Southern Michigan as an area of herd stress stating that the herd has found the resources to be plentiful. 

We could go on and on, but "show me the money". What about the DNR reports mentioned in the article that are used to determine if the deer population is nearing carrying capacity? Boehr? Can you fill in the blanks? 

Also, one final issue. In any wildlife situation without man's intervention there would be natural ebb and flow between the relationship of the wildlife and the resource. I think this article points this out very well. In times of overpopulation there would be a natural tendency for herd reduction and regrowth followed by a rebound in the animal population. Thus, nature would control the intimate balancing act between resources and wildlife?
<----<<<


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

Jamie post about MSU "What is carrying capacity" and others, as sex ratio and pyramid of ages of the male part of the part of the population, is great : I cannot imagine a shorter and better way to put down so many all important basic topics .
Boehr's post too : he certainly asks fundamental questions, but, I notice they are mostly limited to the short term hunters interests and to an economical approach : the end result of the impact of the way hunters manage the herd sex ratio along the year will only be appreciated in the very long term ...
Hence, in my opinion, the herd direct interests need to be given some priority, particularly males management, so as to keep what I feel is a most important natural breeding competition, with ALL its positive consequences.
This is also a part of an everlasting "Health", in the broadest and most complete meaning of the term.


----------



## jamie7117 (Aug 15, 2001)

> While the DNR is still trying to estimate the size of this year's herd, officials say that it's slightly smaller than last year - but still too large. By measuring antler beams and the number of points on 18-month-old bucks, DNR biologists say the large deer population is affecting the health of the herd. "We've been seeing smaller beams and fewer points, which indicate a less healthy population," Urbain explained. "The more points and bigger beams show a better balance with their habitat. And, if the bucks are healthier, so will be the does and fawns."



John Urbain, the MDNR's big-game biologist


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

jamie,

Comments on your quote from Urbain.

How come we never seen this data the last 5 years when the herd was actually larger? Where was this data the last couple years when they started implementing all these QDM experimental areas? So if I'm readiing this right, the last five years before this the herd was healthy(because Ive never seen ths type of data before from the DNR), if this is what they are comparing it too. can you draw such a conclusion from one year?

NOW, all of a sudden Urbain's numbers are correct!?! Do you believe this or should we take this with a grin like we do with the deer numbers he gives out?

Or is this just another way scare tactic from the DNR telling us there is more deer than we see, and gives them some data to go on to hand out more doe permits. 

Funny up here in Roscommon county/Crawford and surrounding areas the reports came back from hunters/outdoor stores/buck poles etc.. that the numbers were down BUT the antler size was bigger. Now he gives data for 18 month deer, now if the deer herd was not healthy shoudln't that follow right down the line with 2.5 year old and 3.5 year olds, etc....


----------

