# Entire U.P. Under Point Restrictions?



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

There's a new proposal in the works now that will make the entire U.P. an experimental QDM area restricting the harvest of antlered bucks to three points on one side. Superior Deer Management, a group that was highly successful in getting a similar measure passed three years ago in the Central U.P, is driving spearheading this measure with help from many other groups and associations. I hunt extensively in the Central U.P. in the middle of the current QDM zone and have seen some positive results from the current measures all ready. There have also been some sacrifices. I've had to pass up some shots that I otherwise would have taken, but I've also seen more big bucks in my hunting areas. Perhaps the biggest benefit I've seen is a buck to doe ratio that used to be 1 to 10 that is now 1 to 2 with about the same number of overall deer. We now see many times more bucks and it's a rare day when I don't see at least one antlered buck during a days hunt. Unless the DNR stops the measure, it will likely go up for a vote of hunters/landowners late next year (2004).


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Has to 'start' someplace might as well be in the UP. I hope it work well and is widely accepted - I'd vote for it - but I'm not int he UP.

ferg....


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

I would vote for it. 

Hopefully the voting method is not stacked in favor of failure as it has been in the past.

I would like to see voting only by UP land owner's or hunters who bought their deer license in the UP or applied for a UP antlerless tag in 2003.

I know that would exclude many hunters from voting but it would be a fair way to get a representation of people who hunt in the UP. Using historical data would prevent the pro or anti QDM groups from stacking the deck. I would feel better with having the issue voted down with a fair vote than what is currently being done to defeat the QDM movement.


----------



## flyguy (Sep 18, 2002)

If it does pass I will start hunting the U.P. I am excited that someone is at least getting it off the ground. 

I moved back form pennsylvania to michigan 4 years ago and I wish I was still there to hunt. I hunted there for 3 years and was very frustrated, but now it looks like things are really turned around. 

We need these regulations. Our potential is too great to not at least try.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Luv2hunteup _
> *I would like to see voting only by UP land owner's or hunters who bought their deer license in the UP or applied for a UP antlerless tag in 2003.*


That's how the voting was conducted in the past, but it has required a 66% majority, or close to it, to be enacted into law.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

> _Originally posted by Trophy Specialist _
> * I hunt extensively in the Central U.P. in the middle of the current QDM zone and have seen some positive results from the current measures all ready...
> I've also seen more big bucks in my hunting areas. Perhaps the biggest benefit I've seen is a buck to doe ratio that used to be 1 to 10 that is now 1 to 2 with about the same number of overall deer. We now see many times more bucks and it's a rare day when I don't see at least one antlered buck during a days hunt. *


Wow. That IS impressive, and good news. Guys that hunt the U.P. deserve this. 

Boy, would I be happy to see results like this in my neck of the woods. Don't know about my doe:buck ratio precisely, but I can report, from reviewing my hunting logs, that sightings of antlerless deer have outnumbered antlered deer over the last 3 hunting seasons combined by more than 25:1.


----------



## yoda (Jan 26, 2000)

I would vote for that. Right now I try to shoot something with 4pt on a side anyway, But then again the seat I have has been very productive for "Nice" bucks.. The only down fall that I can see (And it's a personal one) would be the influx of down state hunters, I don't much care for most of the ones that hunt state and Federal land ..


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

> _Originally posted by yoda _
> *The only down fall that I can see (And it's a personal one) would be the influx of down state hunters.. *


My guess (hope?) is that such an influx would be temporary. If hunter satisfaction is such that U.P. hunting pressure is increased, there would surely be a statewide clamor for similar measures down below.


----------



## stevebrandle (Jan 23, 2000)

Our club near Naubinway has had a "no spike" rule for about 5 or 6 years now. This protects about 80% of the year and a half old bucks from our records. The majority of the bucks taken in a given year are two and a half year olds. So basically, we are shooting a year older class of animals for the most part every year. 

These two and a half year old bucks are almost all 6 or 8 points. So, in a round about way, a "three points to a side rule" would do the same thing. To see even more bucks make it to three years old and beyond, I think it should be four to a side.

The one thing I wonder about, though, does this harm the gene pool? If we let a spike walk, but shoot a buck the same age with more points, are we taking the better ones with more potential too early? 

None the less, waiting that extra year puts about 20 or 30 pounds on them. As a rule, the racks still lack the size of a buck the same age taken down state. 

So, no need to flock to the UP if it passes.


----------



## yoda (Jan 26, 2000)

The way I see it farmlegend it will only make the pressure worse than it already is up here. There is no reason for folks to come up here now , If people want to shoot nice bucks every year, the U.P. is not the place to do it at this time, But it doesn't stop them.. Now let throw visions of "Rudolph" behind every tree and on come the slobs. Don't get me wrong, I have the upmost respect for a few of you folks that come up to enjoy our country up here.. But for the most part , most of the folks I run into into up here in the woods during deer season have not right to be there, let alone be carring a rifle


----------



## stevebrandle (Jan 23, 2000)

Gee, Yoda. Don't sugar-coat it, tell us how you really feel about those trolls.


----------



## yoda (Jan 26, 2000)

Sorry Steve, But you been around this site long enough to know my feelings toward a bunch of the folks that cross the Big Mac. to mess up the Great U.P.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

> _Originally posted by yoda _
> *The only down fall that I can see (And it's a personal one) would be the influx of down state hunters*


That is a fact in my hunting area, I did see more deer hunters on public land largely due to the prospects of getting a bigger buck.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

The only bigger dream I've heard of lately is the $155 million mega millions jackpot. LOL



> I did see more deer hunters on public land largely due to the prospects of getting a bigger buck.





> Now let throw visions of "Rudolph" behind every tree


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

I should clarify; the areas of public land that I saw increased deer hunting preasure on are those areas with good deer numbers, typically public or CFR lands near large blocks of private lands that have been managed for QDM, which is common in my area. Most of the public land around my area offers poor deer hunting and in these areas, there is not surprisingly little hunting preasure. I bird hunt a lot on public lands within 30 miles of my camp. I often stop by and chat with bowhunters (in camps and by their vehicles) when I see them so I can find out where they are hunting so as not to disrupt their efforts. Many of the folks I spoke to were new to the area and the main reason they were hunting there was to hunt for a mature buck created by QDM. As for non-native Yoopers being slobs, I just don't see it much in the areas I frequent. In fact, I run into far more local Yoopers commiting violations.


----------



## bogwalker (Aug 5, 2002)

Hey...yeah sure lets "use" the U.P. to benefit everyone else whether they like it or not. I agree in some areas we need to kill more does and mine is one of them,but I get so tired of hearing everyone equate a "quality" hunt as a big scorable rack. If size matters so much why not just go to a fenced in hunt then you will have your sure thing and be happy.Some of these posts mention hunting in four or five other states,well if you can afford to do that go ahead and do it and dont interfere in a hunt situation Ive enjoyed for over forty years.Happy new year!


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Okay, I've gotta say it again. Let's have an honest, open vote of all interested parties, including ALL landowners and residents, not just a select few. No super-majorities here, no stacked decks, no hidden agendas.....just a good old-fashioned vote of the people. If it passes by SIMPLE Majority, then so be it.

Oh and yes, Happy New Year to everyone!


----------



## twodogsphil (Apr 16, 2002)

Bogwalker and others who equate QDM and "a 'quality' hunt as a big scorable rack" you are out in left field. QDM is not about big scorable racks. Rather, it is about a healthy herd with a more natural buck to doe ratio with representives in all age classes. However, just because you have bucks in the older age classes does not mean a plethora of "big scorable racks".

Consider a statement made several years ago by Brian Murphy, Executive Director, QDMA, that the average buck, if he reaches the older age classes and has adequate nutrition will be a 130-140 class animal. What his statement means is that the average adult buck at maturity will not make the official record book even as a bowkill which has a lower minimum entry score. Anyone, who believes that by adopting a QDM program, they are on their way to putting a buck in the B&C book, has much to learn.

While I'll agree that their will be bigger racks with older class bucks, a B&C buck will still be a rarity.


----------



## mjp (Jun 30, 2000)

My question is why does there need to be a vote? If this is such a good idea and so good for the deer herd why can't the DNR strap a pair on, do what's right and make the changes?


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

> _Originally posted by mjp _
> *My question is why does there need to be a vote? If this is such a good idea and so good for the deer herd why can't the DNR strap a pair on, do what's right and make the changes? *


Lotta folks ask the same question. Including me. 

Best guess is, fear of some sort of public outcry, and some bureaucrats may lose their jobs.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by farmlegend _
> *Lotta folks ask the same question. Including me.
> 
> Best guess is, fear of some sort of public outcry, and some bureaucrats may lose their jobs. *


They know it will work the evidence is overwhelming, now a state with a history like PA is singing the praises of antler restrictions and increased antlerless harvest, it will be hard for the powers at be to deny it.

I think alot of it has to do with some of these guys saying "It won't work here" saving face for as long as they can.

MI hunters are waiting and watching, the PA genie is out of the bottle and the more we talk about and draw attention to PA the better.


----------



## grizzlyadams73 (Jul 13, 2003)

heck why worry the wolves are going to take out the deer population. with all the wolves and coyotes ive seen this fall there will be no deer come 3 years from now. the dnr estimates are way off. one day this fall while fourwheeling i saw one pack of wolves that was eight large.


----------



## stevebrandle (Jan 23, 2000)

Now there's an optimistic view. If I can't have them, why should I care?


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Before we put PA up with the deer gods of management, ya better do some more probing and read some of the forums over there....it seems most highly disagree with the antlerless program that came along with Alt's great game ranch plan. They are whacking the hell out of the doe herd in the last two years. This plan is experimental at best right now..consequences are years away both positive and negative depending on your views.

What is a natural doe to buck ratio? Natural---back in the mid 1900's my grandpa used to hunt all over northern Michigan, days of seeing 20-100 deer come out of the swamp mostly all bald , few hunters for miles, no bait just a natural hunting situation, repeat the the same scenerio in the UP too. 20 to 30 doe per buck back then. Where did the 2 to 1 ration ever come from? My guess would be deer ranches setting up this for the entertainment factor of seeing lots of bucks during the hunt and what better for the client than to see 20 bucks instead of 20 does and one buck. Just curious where we ever came up with saying "nature" raito?!?!


----------



## stevebrandle (Jan 23, 2000)

A natural buck to doe ratio for unhunted deer herds is around 1 to 1.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

> Before we put PA up with the deer gods of management, ya better do some more probing and read some of the forums over there


LOL! Highly scientific and non-biased I'm sure.

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=435931#post435931


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

A major antlerless season was held in 1952 in the northern Lower Peninsula north of Highway M-20. No permit was required. Any licensed hunter could take a deer of either sex during the last three days of the season (November 28 through 30). A total of 95,810 antlerless deer was taken, which many hunters considered to be too many. There is still talk in northern Lower Peninsula deer camps about the "slaughter of 1952." It was reported that a truckload of letters came to Lansing, one of which was signed in doe blood. 

During this time of increased antlerless deer hunting, the habitat for deer collapsed. Some of this was due to heavy browsing of deer between 1940 and 1960. Most habitat deterioration was due to forest succession. Mature stands of timber began to appear on lands that had been formerly logged. The heavy leaf cover in the canopies of the mature trees prevented sunlight from reaching the forest floor. Thus, there was little food for deer to eat in the mature forests. Also, there was not much logging to produce browse for deer. 

This combination of decreasing deer numbers due to habitat change, along with significant antlerless deer harvests, sent a confusing message to the public. Many individuals attributed the decreasing herd to the antlerless hunting because they were unaware or did not believe information concerning the habitat crash. Habitat was not much of a problem in southern Michigan. All deer hunting had been closed in southern Michigan from 1930 to 1941, when Allegan County was opened. By 1943, for the first time in 70 years, deer could be found in every county. The southern herd increased from 15,000 deer in 1949 to 85,000 by 1972. Even the increased presence of deer in southern Michigan did not affect a major decline in the herd from 1.5 million in 1949 to 0.5 million in 1972. Two generations of deer hunters reacted as they had been taught by the Department-return to a "buck law." A few hunters, however, understood the real problem in the 1970s and pursued a more important solution, DEER RANGE IMPROVEMENT.



Steve, I have read many pieces of research that at birth the buck to doe ratio slightly favors bucks.

But bucks have a higher natural mortality rate, even in unhunted herds, giving us a buck to doe ratio very close to 1:1. Nature always seeks balance, it's man that screws it up.



> What is the sex ratio at birth? Out of every 100 fawns born, how many are males and how many are females? The answer is usually, but not always, slightly more males than females. We could discuss the theories about why this occurs for hours, but the bottom line is I dont think anyone really knows


~Larry Marchinton.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Because a biologists says so, does that make it scientific and true? Or because a you read a study from MSU does that make it scientific and true? Or because it worked in an enclosure down in Texas with mineral pelts fed to them, it should work in a nature setting? 

I'm just wondering how it can be considered natural, when "natural" back then was way beyond the 2 to 1 we now consider as natural today? Do I have stats to prove this-no, just real true stories of people that were out in the woods back then. Same true stories of deer hunters that are out in woods today, not "paper biologists" with theories. 

Swamp, you are the first guy to read an article about some PA hunters saying how they killed big bucks and the plan is already seeing great results---of yea thats scientific as well right? Only when its convient for your cause!


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

B & N,
I agree with you, but the majority on this site will not. Keep in mind, they are pro-QDM, and are very one-sided in their thinking. Now before you all bash me, I'm not saying I totally disagree with some of the research. You do need these kinds of studies, and much of it has merit. But to say that it's the ONLY way? I'm not buying it. At least not yet.

And to mjp saying "why do we need a vote", well okay then...you're saying because you think it's right, and some others think it's right, then by God it should be the law???? C'mon now, landowners and other interested parties have a say, after all we do live in a democratic society. I'm not a UP landowner, or a UP deer hunter for that matter, but I'd be damned if you'd come in and dictate my hunting practices IF.....and that's still the question....IF the majority of all interested parties do not agree. I'm right back to my original statement.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

"Habitat Crash" - this is the first time I have ever heard of this!!!! Those big 80-120 year old trees sure did grow faster in the 1960's, creating massive canopies. No-I'm sure it wasn't the doe harvests that created decrease in deer numbers but the rapid increase and fast growth of all the mature white pines!? LOL

""Mature stands of timber began to appear on lands that had been formerly logged.""" Began to appear!!!! Man you do believe everything you read!!! LOL 


"""""Also, there was not much logging to produce browse for deer."""" Back then!???? Are you joking.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Swamp Ghost, see what we're up against? An uphill, deer 101 battle. Not even 99% of deer managers, biologists or publications are enough to convince some.   
You know what, I wouldn't even waste your time...


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

> _Originally posted by beer and nuts _
> *"Habitat Crash" - this is the first time I have ever heard of this!!!! Those big 80-120 year old trees sure did grow faster in the 1960's, creating massive canopies. No-I'm sure it wasn't the doe harvests that created decrease in deer numbers but the rapid increase and fast growth of all the mature white pines!? LOL
> 
> ""Mature stands of timber began to appear on lands that had been formerly logged.""" Began to appear!!!! Man you do believe everything you read!!! LOL
> ...


Beer and Nuts, do some homework. The phenomena that you just mocked happen to be reality. Which may be an interesting place for you to visit. 

So much for constructive dialog once you show up. Someone please close this one down.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

LOL! I bet them Texan deer love them mineral pelts.

We may be one-sided but at least we have a sense of reality.

I'll take a biologists opinions, data and research with all of it's inherent controls over "joe bucket sitters" any day of the week, the same guys that have been sitting in the same spot for 40 years as the timber matures around him, wondering, "Where did all the deer go"? "Damn DNR!"

Our thinking and rationale isn't based on what's going on in our back 40, it's much bigger than that. There are better ways of doing things, that are much better for the hunter and the hunted.

The deer are the DNR's to manage, they do this with regulations, that are enforced by LAW.

The DNR affirmed the need for change but they have fallen short in a few areas:



> In the late 1980s, the Department of Natural Resources reaffirmed its goal of 1.3 million deer in the fall herd (which was biologically the same as the 1971 goal of 1 million deer in the spring herd). However, a new dimension was added by specifying that 35 percent of this fall herd should ideally be antlered bucks. Increased hunting of antlerless deer was encouraged by quota and area to thin adult doe herds.
> 
> The heightened opportunity to take antlerless deer reduced the hunting pressure exclusively devoted to bucks. Thinning the herd also increased fawn survival so that more 1½-year-old bucks were recruited into the fall herd in the 1990s, compared to the 1960s.
> 
> ...


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

The 60s and early 70s UP deer crash was caused by the multiple consecutive severe winters. It was around 10 bad winters in a row inconjuction with very poor winter habitat that was responsible, not over harvest of doe by sportsman. 

Shooting a doe was scorned upon by most sportsman but poaching deer I think was more common (some loss there). I really don't recall anterless tags in those days even though parts of Memominee county could have used 1000s of tags.

These are the facts I remember from being there. These were not the good old days of deer hunting. 

BTW what the heck are *Texas deer mineral pelts*?


----------



## utan (Mar 21, 2002)

This group has a history of supporting buck restrictions but not the killing of more does.

Will they encourage the taking of more does in SUPERLAND


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

utan,
I have to disagree with your statement. I've been one of the more vocal people against antler restrictions all along, but I've found that most of the pro-QDM'ers on here favor taking more does. I've had some really good discussions with them about why we should take more does. So much so that I really have changed my viewpoint on it altogether, and will probably take more does off of our property in the future.


----------



## OTIS (Feb 15, 2001)

That is an interesting proposal. I have hunted the UP for almost 20 years. I hope they consider the vast differences in Habitat and Deer densities along with the Nutritional needs vital to Antler growth. 
The area we currently hunt 200 pound Bucks are very common. 50 Miles up the road lighter deer densities still produce smaller deer with smaller racks. 
I dont like the Antler restrictions because they do not protect all your young bucks, and they can sometimes protect a bad gene pool. 

I wish they would manage by education instead of regulation. 

My pennies worth.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Old Yooper habitats die hard but if needed I think doe harvest will be just fine in most areas of the UP. Besides ma nature tends to kill more deer than hunters do.

If winter does not hang on too long this year I intend on increasing my doe harvest up 2-3 times.


----------



## utan (Mar 21, 2002)

"this group" defined 

Superior Deer Management

If you thinking this group will promote killing more does in the UP you have anohter thig comming


----------



## utan (Mar 21, 2002)

http://www.qdma.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=110&PN=1


----------



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

Swamp Ghost, who is critcizing QDM here. You have a 2:1 ratio in does being taken than bucks and it's being more selective in the buck you want to harvest. Michigan has numerous counties in it that do not have the deer in them as you think, the counties I hunt have been hit hard the last few years with to many doe permits, and it showed this past year. If the DNR has to search for the counties with the most deer in them, than that is there job, but one man will not tell me that he can find an area were there needs to be a 30-40 doe reduction in every county.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Michigan hunters still harvested more antlered deer last year, even with "unlimited" antlerless permits.

Only about 4% of the second buck tags get filled. (Basically a one buck tag system).

It's all about perspective, a person's perspective, or viewpoint, is often the foundation for their thoughts on deer population estimates. Hunters often base their estimates on what they see where they hunt. Farmers may base their deer population estimates on the number they see in their fields. Biologists base their estimate on data collected at the county and state levels.

Each person's perspective influences his or her deer population estimate, and the three may not agree. The hunter who sees only a few deer during the season is likely to conclude that deer populations have dropped. A farmer who has just watched a dozen deer graze across his soybean field may conclude that deer populations are increasing. Finally, a biologist may be looking at data that indicates the population is stable. In each case, there are limits to a person's perspective.




.


----------



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

I agree with you swamp ghost, but I also try to do my homework. I personally do not agree with all the percentages that are thrown out there regarding how many bucks were shot or how many doe's were shot. How many hunters do you really think register some way or turn in there heads to get an accurate count, from my years of hunting it just does not happen very often. Those percentages can be put out there but I will never believe them. Secondly, I hunt with friends who live in the area I have hunted the last 20yrs and also family. I grew up hunting puplic land and never complained, never had a reason to, but when you go to the local deer shops and see how bad the numbers are down it is very discouraging to say the least. We also have anywere from 5-8 hunters every weekend covering probably around 20 square miles of public land and the deer were just not to be there this year. I am all for doe hunting but let's do it in the area's that need it.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

I believe the MDNR deer harvest numbers are very accurate. They perform a statistical survey of approx 5% of deer hunters, which means the average selection would be once every 20 years. A statistical selection of this size gives you a high degree of reliability in the results.

Now if you want to talk about the live deer population, that is a different matter, as there is no meaningful way to perform a statistical evaluation, so other less accurate methods must be used in estimating the number of live deer, antlered, sex, etc. You can determine trends and changes in the population from year to year.


----------



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

Bwiltse, I hope you can bear with me on this but could you give me a little definition on how a statististical survey works. 5% of the hunter population does not seem like alot, is it different hunters being surveyed or are they the same ones every year.


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

It is strictly a random selection. You could get selected two years in a row or once in 50, and so forth. The mathematical accuracy of the total population is very high with such a sample size.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

There is a great misconception out there that you HAVE to have doe harvest, in any QDM management plan. Although a very small percentage, there are indeed areas in the country that do not need doe harvest, as is the case in most of the northern 1/2 of the U.P. of Michigan. Unfortunately, our DNR feels, as a way to "squash" QDM initiatives, that with a QDM plan, doe harvest must increase. This could be highly detrimental to the pursuit of a sustainable whitetail population in areas of the U.P. of MI, and with harvest data and cooperation with wildlife officials, the SDM was able to greatly reduce the number of doe permits in areas that did not need doe harvest. 

In the U.P. of Michigan, our winter severity and winter mortality rates are the #1 limiting factor of population control. In an average winter, 50% of our fawns perish, and every few years 80-90% die, along with majority of yearlings. Common QDM thinking would be to harvest adult does if antlerless harvest is needed, but this could be a highly detrimental practice if followed in the northern 1/2 of the U.P. 

The best practice in these particular areas is to manage for a base number of mature does on your property, and harvest doe fawns to yearling does only if your base number of mature does has been reached, and the fawn recruitment rates for the year are at least average, which indicates a light winter from the year before. For example, I can manage my property for a base number of around 10 mature does. If my yearly camera census and visual sightings indicate roughly 6 mature does, and 6 fawns.....no doe harvest is needed. But, when the population reaches 8-10 mature does, and there are 8 fawns and yearling does, it may be appropriate to harvest say a couple of fawns or a yearling or 2. 

We have very unique management challenges up here, and the SDM is to be comended for their understanding of QDM philosophy: 

1.Adequate buck age structure 

2.Populations maintaned at or below carrying capacity 

3.Appropriate sex ratios 

Looking at #2, if your population is not over carrying capacity, it is possible that your management plan is to maintane that population, which does not necessarily mean mandatory doe harvest, given the variables of winter mortality, predation, and previous years winter mortality/fawn recruitment. 

I've seen writers such as Charles Alshiemer and others say that doe harvest has to be a mandatory practice of ANY QDM plan, and this is true for 99% of the country, but, to say that is a necessity for 100% of the country is false, misleading, and represents a misconstrued understanding of the basic principles of QDM. Personally, I've found that when words such as "always", and "never" are used to explain any principle, practice, or idea, you can really set yourself up to be incorrect, and at least in the case of the northern 1/2 of the U.P. of Michigan....most writers have been just that....incorrect.

I am as pro-qdm as anybody on this site, or possibly in the country, as evidenced even recently as my life-membership purchase. But, what I find is that there is a general grave misunderstanding that for a QDM plan to be implemented, you have to harvest does. This is true for 99.9% of the country....but not here! and I will aggressively fight and increase in doe permits in the northern 1/2 of the U.P. On the other hand, SDM is in full cooperation and understanding that antlerless harvest needs to INCREASE in certain southern and eastern portions of the U.P., but being a central U.P. deer management group, with only initial regional concerns, most past literature will allude to less antlerless harvest due to the location of 99% of their members...make sense?

SDM is to be comended for their biologically correct interpretation of the "Big Picture", and for the leadership they have represented in the U.P., also evidenced by the support and cooperation of the QDMA in their future proposal process.


----------



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

WOW, that was a great post northjeff, very informative. I have the same feelings you have and I am in the northern lower and I to am pro-qdm. I am all for the bettering of the herd with more mature bucks but the doe issue is way out of control, you can shoot all the doe and yearling doe you want just as long as that area has a over abundance of deer in it, like you said you cannot give doe permits to areas that do not need them. I will also point out that in the last 5-10 years there seems to be a boom in coyotes in newaygo and lake counties, you cannot sit a night without hearing a pack or two going off which I think has a bigger effect on the deer herd than what is thought, especially in the late winter months.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

North Jeff, first off I totally agree with you on 99% of your points, especially fawn harvest in the harsh UP environ.

Bear with me here,

I see what you are getting at about winter kill, but I am a little confused by the following, "In an average winter, 50% of our fawns perish, and every few years 80-90% die, along with majority of yearlings" 

I have no doubt this occurs, but wouldn't this be indicative of an exceeded carrying capacity? Being that Ma Nature is the main limiting factor in the population, wouldn't you want these animals in someone's freezer instead of rotting in the spring thaw? If these initiatives pass and antlerless harvests decreases how many of those bucks saved by the new regualtions are going to become victim of a UP winter?

Maybe you could explain this to me, so that I can answer them for others that are posing these questions to myself. 

Thanx, NJ. 

Let me tell you, I feel much better about SDM knowing that J. Ozoga is involved.


----------



## jdt (Jun 30, 2002)

i believe that if you do`not equate the car/deer kills into the ratio,
you could have an estimate that makes sense on paper,but could 
over estimate the final numbers of the late winter/spring herd!


----------



## stevebrandle (Jan 23, 2000)

Swamp Ghost,

NJ may have some more data on the fawn kill, but I have a few ideas. The mortality rate can be attributed to two things. 

Severe winters have to be the biggest cause. It wouldn't make sense to me to kill the herd down to a level that equals the survivors of a bad winter. First off, the animals that don't survive are the fawns. We'd have to have a season for fawns to salvage the animals lost to winter. It's impossible to predict how bad the winter is going to be on the herd and then set quotas for a hunting season. Even using an average would be wrong because many years in the U.P. we need a better survival rate to bring the deer numbers back to even close to the carrying capacity of a given area. It's a harsh environment and fawn mortality will always be a concern.

Secondly, I don't think too many take into account the number of fawns lost to black bear in the U.P. Wolves are getting the heat these days, but there's more bear than wolves. I don't have exact numbers and I'm not sure they exist. Natural preditation of fawns in the U.P. is tolerated, but can't be considered a factor when calculating the carrying capacity.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Swamp Ghost,

I understand where you are coming from, and I initially had probably the very same thoughts you did when I moved up here in 1998. The winter mortality is the limiting factor, but the problem comes in because of the fact you can never predict the upcoming severity of the winter. During a very extreme winter, we can have catastrophic die-offs, and then during light winters, you can have very, very little die-off.

The problem comes in the variation of winter severity, not the winter itself. If we were to only manage for the worst of winter, we would be left with a very bare-bones deer herd that would lead little enjoyment to U.P. hunters and residents. 

My goal is to have a sustainable whitetail population in my area. A few residents taking a few young does does not really impact the herd, and you are right, it's better to take a deer that may die during the winter, than let it go to waste. But, the DNR issues antlerless permit quotas, and people use them the vaste majority of the time, on adult animals that should very rarely ever be touched in the northern 1/2 of the U.P. That is the threat to the sustainable population....not taking an occasional fawn or yearling doe, but taking just 3 or 4 adult does in an area with pretty light deer numbers. At the same time, if fawn recruitment rates are considerably low for the given year, usually indicative of a harsh previous winter, antlerless permits most likely shouldn't be used at all. I've found that fawn recruitment varies greatly depending upon the previous winter. For example, in 2001, I had 1 fawn for 6 does, due to a harsh and long winter in 2000-2001. On the other hand, in 2002 I had 1.3 fawns per doe, and 2003 I had 1 fawn per doe, both following light winters. 2001 their should have been no permits issued, where as 2002 and 2003 could have had permits, but only if used on fawn/yearling deer. That's the problem, again, most people will use their permits on adult does, and that is the threat to the sutainable population. There may be a few times it is appropriate to take an adult doe, but only if you have both reached your base carrying capacity of adult does AND you have a high fawn recruitment for the year. Unfortunately our permits are handed out with little thought to fawn recruitment or base number of adult does, you just buy them and shoot. 

The coyotes, bobcats, and bear get their share of fawns, but in my estimation, only a few per square mile. On my property, a property in which I get at least 1 coyote on virtually every roll of film and 16 different bear pictures just this year, as well as bobcat pictures, I couldn't have a huge predation fawn kill if my numbers are still 1 fawn per 1 doe or higher. All of those predators eat many, many other creatures or food, than just deer. On the contrary, the main diet of a wolf, is deer, and I'm extremely thankful I have a very healthy coyote population, and no wolves. Although few and far between, a resident wolf population seems to be very effective at decimating pockets of deer.

Fawn mortality rates are 50% on an average year, and as high as 90% in a severe winter, according to John Ozoga, while at the same time, yearling mortality rates can be extremely high in a severe winter. According to John Ozoga, it is extremely difficult to kill an adult doe, no matter how hard the winter. In the deer yard to the south of me, they found that 20% of the does were 10 years of age, or older, and we need to keep it that way.

I've developed my management plan with a site visit and many conversations with Mark Thomas, as well as many conversations with John Ozoga. Initially, no does were to be taken, unless a doe fawn gave me the opportunity, as my deer herd was allowed to build. Last year, John finally told me it probably wouldn't hurt to take an adult, if I wanted to, but it still wasn't a necessity, so I figured why waste one. I ended up taking a yearling doe across teh road-my first doe on or near the property. But our winter is starting off around 3-4 weeks earlier than the previous 2 winters, and although not as early as 2000-2001, I'm fearing at least a moderate die-off, and I am currently very thankful I did not take an adult. And that's where it is a little different up here, you almost have to be a little conservative, to hedge against extreme severity. Those adult does are golden, and our summer ranges in the northern 1/2 of the U.P., can hold more deer than we have.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

We harvest our does very conservativly on our land. After the bad winters of 1995/96, 1996/97 and 2000/2001, we were in a rebuilding phase. We didn't shoot any does in 2001 or 2002 on our property. In 2003, we took out four baldies, moslty fawns. We were not trying to reduce the herd, as we felt deer numbers were just about right, thus a young doe harvest. In 2004, we'll look at how many deer are in our area and if the deer numbers are getting too high, then we'll start targeting mature does and if it gets too bad, then I'll require that my guests shoot a doe or two before being allowed to shoot a buck. Most of my neighbors take a similar aproach as we do, so we have consistantly good hunting in our area. On the other hand, hunters on some properties and especially on public lands have overharvested does and continue to do so reguardless of depressed deer numbers. This is why there is a big disparity between public and private land hunting even in the UP and it needn't be that way. If hunters would use better judgment in their doe harvests then the deer herd would be much better off. Unfortunatly, the only way to improve the deer situation on many UP public lands is to cut down on the available doe permits. The DNR has risisted cutting doe permits in many area and this is where SDM has lobbied the DNR for sensible doe harvests, which in some cases equates to reduced or no doe permits, while in other areas increased permit availablity.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

That's a good point TS!

What I do, and what I harvest on my land, on a piece of property designed specifically to hold deer, and keep deer, with 9 food plots+, sound habitat management practices, and safety areas, is completey different than the surroundin public land. Even after several years of re-builiding, I'm still not at the point to need to take an adult doe, and may not be in the near future, but yet on the surrounding public land, with much less deer numbers, people will fill their available antlerles permits with adult does, maybe even a couple residents from my land. That is where SDM correctly identified the problem, and with COOPERATION(very rare up here) with local wildlive officials, from professional, consrtained contact and communication, SDM was able to greatly reduce the # of doe permits in areas greatly below carrying capacity...at least carrying capacity for the majority of winters.

They have done a great job, and have really raised public awareness for the unnecessary use of antlerles permits, and how the use of those permits can usually have a negative impact on sustainable whitetail populations in the northern 1/2 of the U.P.


----------



## Ed Spin (Mar 20, 2003)

I nominate North Jeff for our next DNR Executive Director. It's not too often Landowners or hunters listen to the wisdom of experienced unbiased professionals, (such as John Ozoga). This exchange of views is very healthy, keep it up guys and where are the gals (Linda speak up)! 

Deer management is really not that hard if you keep your mind open to proven facts, then apply them. Our DNR Wildlife Division officials are experienced and highly skilled individuals, who want to do a good job and really know what is best. I see a reluctance on their part to take a leadership role in educating the public and taking a strong stand on what is best for the deer. They have their reasons, $, defending decades of the existing deer management, pride in not admiting mistakes. and just the natural reluctance to change Etc. 

Pennsylvania under the leadership of Dr. Gary Alt is putting some heat on the surronding states. They will succed because Dr Alt will accept nothing less and he has with his dynamic personality swayed the Pennsylvania hunters to become deer managers. If it looks like something needs tweaking he will tweak it. We do not have a Dr. Gary Alt and if our deer management is to change for the better we will have to do it alone, unless our new DNR Executive Director, North Jeff (AKA Dr. Alt of the UP) leads us to paradise.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

You are way to kind Ed! 

Do you think I'd get shot?!? I can just see tilling the soil, enjoying the view, the smell of the earth, listening to the radio....all while wearing a flack jacket!


----------



## bwiltse (Jan 18, 2000)

Jeff, how about a current model tank?


----------



## grizzlyadams73 (Jul 13, 2003)

no need to worry about all these facts and figures, ma nature is in the process of taking care of all these so called excess deer. going on three weeks of single digit temps, hight winds and quiet a bit of snow the deer are taking a beating up here. with no supplemental feeding it is going to be a tuff winter. deer are already starting to come into town to find food. which is also causing qite a few car deer accidents.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

We get more snow over our way on average in Alger county...in fact we have had over 120" recorded in Melstrand/Vanmeer, and as of yet, our deer are in great shape! It's March and April that the deer really take their hit, but length of winter is critical to survival. If our deer are already weak and looking for a handout, they don't deserve to be alive in June. We've had over 40" in the last 5 days! Really, this is nothing for our U.P. deer, we'll wait and see come April. I was just over at John Ozoga's this morning and we we're talking about it being fairly average so far, and the deer should be fairing pretty well. Again, though, if this weather holds until the end of February, and push spring melt to the middle of April....watch out!

I'm personally glad I didn't take a mature doe this year.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Thanks, NJ.


----------

