# Where did all the hunters go?(Lake County)



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

Was just thinking about this the other day. I've been hunting up in Lake County for the last 15 years between Luther and Irons. I have a private 60 to hunt but spend about 75 days per season on all the stateland up there. About 10 or so years ago for the opening week of rifle it was hard to find a spot on stateland without being close to others. I remember driving around and seeing hundreds of guys dressed as pumpkins and that 1st day sounded like the Civil War just started. Now a days you are lucky to hear 15 shots on the opener and ya don't see many rifle hunters at all on stateland. These days I feel like I own 5000 acres when I bowhunt!!!! My question: for those of you who used to hunt this area, where did you go and why?

Lack of deer?
No stateland doe permits?
Economy?
Quit hunting?
Other reasons?


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

yes
yes
yes 
yes


----------



## hoyt03 (Jul 21, 2003)

No Doe permits- would be high in the rankings, I believe....

I bow hunt up there often, have not gun hunted it in 15-20 years.


----------



## onenationhere (Dec 18, 2008)

fishx65 said:


> Was just thinking about this the other day. I've been hunting up in Lake County for the last 15 years between Luther and Irons. I have a private 60 to hunt but spend about 75 days per season on all the stateland up there. About 10 or so years ago for the opening week of rifle it was hard to find a spot on stateland without being close to others. I remember driving around and seeing hundreds of guys dressed as pumpkins and that 1st day sounded like the Civil War just started. Now a days you are lucky to hear 15 shots on the opener and ya don't see many rifle hunters at all on stateland. These days I feel like I own 5000 acres when I bowhunt!!!! My question: for those of you who used to hunt this area, where did you go and why?
> 
> Lack of deer?
> No stateland doe permits?
> ...



It is the not just lake county,all of the NLP as well as the U.P have seen reduced participation.


----------



## Chuck (Sep 24, 2000)

I hunt Allegan SGA where they do have doe permits (over 40 doe tags per square mile for the 50,000 acres) and on the opener of gun I heard maybe 20 shots by 1:30. It used to be the same around there 15 years ago guys were parked all along the road and opening day sounded like WW 3. The weird thing too is we saw lots of deer then now not so much.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

The private land I hunt in SW Lake county still has plenty of hunters around it but there is also a decent amount of deer (noticeably less deer than 5 years ago though). Even the public land in that area still has a decent amount of hunters.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Lack of deer. Lake county was over shot. Now the deer numbers are down. Coyotes are taking alot and the herd is having a hard time rebounding. I was up there during the holidays. Even with the snow you found only a few tracks. I use to count shots up there also. Was nothing to here over 100 on opening day. This year my cousin counted 4. Lake county is a perfect example of overshooting does without studying the area. Everyone came out and said you have to shoot does, gave to many doe permits and ruined a county


----------



## norton shores killer (Oct 24, 2009)

poz said:


> Lack of deer. Lake county was over shot. Now the deer numbers are down. Coyotes are taking alot and the herd is having a hard time rebounding. I was up there during the holidays. Even with the snow you found only a few tracks. I use to count shots up there also. Was nothing to here over 100 on opening day. This year my cousin counted 4. Lake county is a perfect example of overshooting does without studying the area. Everyone came out and said you have to shoot does, gave to many doe permits and ruined a county


 i couldnt agree more
we have 40 acres by rainbow rapids and i dont even go up and hunt it during gun season
i think they just gave out way to many doe permits for too long


----------



## bricky (Feb 23, 2010)

I was up there for 2 weeks,opener of gun and 1 week prior.The deer herd is way down.We had the place to ourselves for bow,and only saw 5 others for gun. Deer sightings were way down, and the trail cams verified that.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

I hunt near Leroy and the deer numbers are up slightly over the last several years. You're not going to see them every time out but most times you'll see some. There is a lot of state land there and a lot of hunters too. Not a lot of shooting, but no public land antlerless permits either. Personally, I think the deer numbers are just about right.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Lake county has not offered that many antlerless permits in a long time.

However, and it's a big however, when I spoke at the NRC in 2005 (I believe) I warned about the real world impact of no longer requiring a tax ID number and the removal of minimum acreage requirements in some NLP areas, like Lake county.

While some may love to mock my experince as an owner of BBT as merely "standing behind the counter", the reality is, during my time at working at other shops before we opened BBT and the years of owning BBT, the combined shops did literally well over $1,000,000 in licenses, probably twice that. (Off the top of my head it was more like $2M) I knew the license system inside and out and, as anyone familiar with anything, I knew the problems with the given system.

Lake county's problem isn't the Lake County quota. Lake's problem is that many Lake county hunters are buying antlerless permits for any DMU that offers them and then using them on both private and public land. Keep in mind, Lake county is among the poorest county in the state, if not the poorest. Also keep in mind that Lake county offers some of the most accessable larger parcels of "southern" public land. 

So it isn't just locals doing this, many hunters from large populations of Kent, Muskegon and Ottawa counties also hunt Lake county. 

From my personal experience, even when there was higher Lake county quotas and possible leftovers, hunters would come in and ask for a Lake county antlerless tag. When I told them that Lake was sold out, many times they'd ask "well where's the closest DMU offering antlerless tags?"
If there was a closeby DMU with leftovers, they'd buy that. If there wasn't, they'd ask for a TB zone or SLP tag.

Back when we required tax ID numbers, when I'd then ask for that, they'd kinda laugh and shrug and say that don't have one of those. Human body language often being evident, it was clear that their goal was to buy any tag and use it in Lake county. 
Also, I knew first hand of Lake county locals who owned no land over an acre or two, and who also spent all their time hunting public land, that bought private land tags. Again, they would often joke something like "we all own the public land, don't we?" with a wink. Those private land tags were being used on public land. Once the acreage requirement was removed, anyone with a trailer and an acre could buy Lake county private land tags, as could all family members. 

When I mentioned this to MDNR, they said to not interfere, cause any conflict with a customer at the counter, sell the tag and let the CO's deal with it from there.

The reality is, people know the odds of getting caught in the field with an untagged antlerless deer are slim. They know that how they'll possibly get caught is once they get the deer in the truck, then get on the road or when the deer is hanging. So once it's in the truck, they're on the road and it has a tag on it, they're in "pretty good shape". Not that a CO wouldn't sense something is up, he/she probably would, but that's the thinking of the person committing the violation. 

So, the combination of Lake county's poverty, ample public land, and it's close proximity to large numbers of hunters means that even if a smaller percentage violate the rules, it really has an impact. And that's without mentioning the legendary Lake county violating, mixed with Great Depression unemployment numbers in the county, for residents.

Now, some people may try to justify these violations and say "well, if someone is feeding their family, I guess it's OK". To that, I say a loud "BS!".

We have many mechanisms in place for people to "feed their families". Between food stamps/bridge cards, WIC, food banks, etc, tolerating violations like this is unacceptable. Especially when obesity, not starvation is among the areas greatest health issue.

Instead, think in these terms. Is it fair to business owners who provide the few jobs in the area? Think of the damage this does to the "hunting tourism" industry in the area. The motels, the party stores, the sport shops, the gas stations, the restaurants. What about their families? 

How about the landowners who bought land in Lake county, pay the property taxes and now may own land they don't want to hunt and probably can't sell? What about their families? 

I understand MDNR wanted it make it easy for hunters to buy SLP tags. I not only understand the reasons for making the SLP one large antlerless unit, I was possibly the first to suggest it. 
http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=225052&highlight=kent+multiple

That said, I've always maintained that tax ID numbers and minimum acreage requirements helped keep "the masses" honest and were needed. The honor system, that someone will buy an over the counter antlerless tag and use it in the DMU listed on the tag, just doesn't work well in a state like Michigan, where many 100,000's of hunters are only interested in taking from the resource, not managing it.
( I feel the same about "hunter choice" buck tags unless the only tag option is the combo tag and a single "any buck tag" that's good for all seasons. The honor system with "choice" APR's doesn't work with both the archery and firearms being offered. You should only be allowed the combo tag or the single non-combo tag.)

Let's be honest with ourselves, we all know that antlerless tags from other DMU's are being in DMU's other than listed on the tag. In some DMU's, it's worse than others. Likely, the farther south/close to the SLP a NLP DMU is, the more likely the violations occur there. A Kent county tag on a deer in the UP is a red flag. A Montcalm county tag on a deer in Lake county makes the "hunter" believe it's plausible, so he does it.

I'm not sure of the fix. Many license agents only type in 000000000000000 when the tax ID or phone # is asked for on the license machine. 

Perhaps we hunters should demand that the penality for using an antlerless tag in a DMU other than the one listed on the tag results in a 3 year revoking of all hunting priviledges? That may work, since those doing so are still buying tags. It isn't as if they're outright poaching, with no tag. Those doing so probably feel they are just "bending the rules". But, the stick of a loss of hunting priviledges may make the vast majority of guys using antlerless tags in other DMU's stop doing so.

Either way, some fix is needed, because the southern tier of the NLP takes the brunt of those "bending this rule enough to jump thru the loophole".


----------



## STG8008 (Sep 14, 2011)

Family owns property near Big Star, seeing fewer and fewer deer every year, was up thier over Thanksgiving, went out driving around and never even seen another hunter, heard very few shots (maybe 10) the 4 days i was up there, talked to the neighbors and they said that they have not been seeing many deer this year either.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

I agree with some of what pinefarm said but lake county was always a trial place for the DNR. Back in the 90s you couldn't shoot a doe north of US10 for about 2 years. The fallowing years we had the most buck sightings ever and then they came in a gave a ton of doe permits. At the peak we had does having twins and triplets now the are lucky to have one. The coyotes exploded up there and with fewer deer to eat it's stressing the herd out and many fawns are being eaten. They didn't think of this when they we're giving massive doe permits out be cause coyotes weren't a problem. I was up there during the holidays. We didn't have much snow but I saw more coyote tracks than deer. 
Poaching has always been there it's about the same as it always was maybe even less do to less hunters up there. 

Land value is falling fast saw 80 acres for $79,000 . Less than 1000 an acre.


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

Well said PF, i'd also add that I've hunted Lake for the last 7years, tons
of public land and some private, most of the areas i've seen in Lake county isn't that great of habitat. Wide open old growth scrub oaks, and alot of
old growth pines. Neither have much cover for the deer. There are deer to be found, but they are in little pockets. You have to work to find them.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Poz,
You have to remember, back in the later 1990's, both Osceola and Mecosta counties had TB positive deer. During that same time, many DMU's in the area had a pile of deer AND baiting was still legal then. They had no other option but the slash deer populations.

Of course, that was just for legal 043 tags. 

It was nearby TB that put MDNR in panic mode in our area. And that was a justified reaction and fear. MDNR had no other option.

This is why longterm, stable populations are best. Boom/bust/boom/bust populations bring about such reactions to a crisis, especially with legal baiting. 

We need regulations that assure longterm, stable regulations. Then nothing comes to a shock to anyone.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Poz,

I'm not sure poaching is the same as it ever was. A great friend of mine lives near Forman rd and he said he'd never heard as many "after dark" single centerfire rifle shots during the screen window Summer months as this year. He said it seemed nightly and he's only seen like 4 deer all year from his bay window. He's a full time resident. 
Now, that's one lone case, but there's obviously some withering poaching going on near his house, on top of everything else.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> Poz,
> You have to remember, back in the later 1990's, both Osceola and Mecosta counties had TB positive deer. During that same time, many DMU's in the area had a pile of deer AND baiting was still legal then. They had no other option but the slash deer populations.
> 
> Of course, that was just for legal 043 tags.
> ...


Pinefarm there was also rumors that the TB deer where shot elsewhere and tagged with tags from those counties. You yourself admit that this happens. The fact of the matter is that it was a knee jerk reaction and they allowed to many deer to be shot. The DNR takes poaching into consideration when they determine quotas. They've even admitted that the herd there was over shot thus the fewer antlerless tags available. The habitat is the same it was. Ride the trails up there and look at all the cutting they've been doing. 
Poaching has always been a problem but fewer hunters and fewer deer camps result in fewer violators. I was up there for a week never heard a late night gun shot. Previous years. Heard them all the time the same week.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Pinefarm said:


> I think a $10,000 fine for the offending agent would be a great start.


----------



## MillDoo (May 28, 2004)

That's some good points Pinefarm thanks for sharing. My buddies and I have hunted sw manistee county close to lake and the evidence of poaching has increased in recent years. I believe the economy has a lot to do w it. Your right on about people not worried about being caught. In 25 years I have never seen a CO 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Let's take a little tiny piece of our brain power calculator and figure out the incredible odds of the ******* multi-party conspiracy staying quiet for almost 2 decades that 2 different NELP TB deer, that weren't yet tested TB positive but were TB positive, were then transported to Osceola and Mecosta counties, placed in the possession of hunters that never wanted that label, then they then turned in the heads into MDNR, only to find they were TB positive. 

I know there's some that say GW planned 9-11 and flew the first jet into the WTC but he had secret top secret fire gear and a Star Trek transporter that allowed him to survive, but the TB deer being secretly smuggled in may be the best conspiracy theory ever.

So after all these years, the silence of this grand conspiracy is still alive? :lol::lol::lol: (I'd add a moron icon, but saying moron is better.)


----------



## huxIIIhammer (Feb 28, 2005)

We have 240 acres in lake county, I have been hunting it for 34 years. We have plenty of white oaks and it used to be awesome hunting when we had good acorn drops. The last 7 years or so it doesn't matter what kind of acorn drops we have the deer numbers are so far down. And the shots are way way down which makes sense. We have a diverse habitat, aspen and four years ago logged a bunch of red pine and planted several thousand more. We also have a cedar swamp, but you are lucky to see two deer during a whole weekend hunt. I have been voicing this to the dnr through the hunter survey for several years. I don't know what the answer is but it sure does suck.


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

There no hunters because there are no deer. There are a few areas that still have a lot of deer and there are other hunters. The state land spot u hunt in the nw corner was crawling with guys this year. The only variable is one area still has deer and most of the county doesn't. 

To pinefarms point deer used to walk up to an by the cabin all time. Now that I think about we haven't seen a deer near the cabin a couple of years. Almost like they are afraid of the it. Hmmm. That might have made more sense then we thought.


----------



## jafurnier (Jun 7, 2008)

I do not live in Lake County...but I have fished there for the past 23 years. Spring steelies, trout and fall salmon.

Deer numbers are way down compared to what I saw incidentlally while fishing or driving to and from Midland. In fact...they are down the entire US 10 corridor.

I do know after the humongous snow fall of 1996...the next year I saw drasticaly reduced deer numbers on the drive over and they have never returned.

Did you guys see deer that starved to death?

Also...to be frank...do you think most of the habitat in Lake County is prime deer habitat 365?

IMO...the "woods" have grown up. 23 years ago I wondered what in the world the deer had to eat in your area. Pine trees...some coarse grass...and oaks. Oaks fill a deer's stomach for such a short part of the season. Grass...not really preferred. Take that same habitat I saw 23 years ago...fast forward 23 years...and I wonder if it is just lousy habitat?

I do know I saw the same thing up near Mio where I have also hunted and fished sinced 1996. A few years ago, a buch of areas were clearcut...and last year deer were crawling out of the woodwork in those areas. Other areas where we used to see lots of deer...are now nothing but lodge pole aspen trees. The worst habitat for deer next to a mall parking lot. The trees were cut and the deer came back.

I am not saying doe tags had nothing to do with this. But I am not sure the habitat you guys are working with is conducive to large deer numbers.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Here is the 2006-2010 report/goals for Lake...

WORKSHEET FOR ESTABLISHING DEER POPULATION GOALS 
2006 -2010
Lake Co. DMU 043

http://www.midnr.com/publications/pdfs/wildlife/draft_deer_goals06_pdfs/DMU043.pdf


Here's the clickable map for the whole state...
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10905-129948--,00.html


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

Pine, thank you very much for posting these links!!!!

*Proposed management strategy for moving the population toward this goal:​*Currently the deer population in this DMU is 37% below goal. People are very receptive to
harvesting deer. Hunting pressure is very heavy throughout the county. Closing the DMU to
antlerless hunting, except archery harvest for one year, should allow the herd to rebuild almost to
goal. Deer numbers on public land will remain low because of hunting pressure. This hunting
pressure on public land may drop off with lower deer numbers and allow the herd to rebound
somewhat. The issuance of over-the-counter private land permits and DMAPs will be used to
maintain the herd at or below goal.
The current harvest is resulting in an estimated overwinter or spring deer density of 17 deer per
square mile. The proposed goal for this DMU will result in a spring density of 28 to 31 deer per
square mile.

This is the paragraph I found really interesting. 37% below poulation goal and it also talks about how the herd may rebound a little because of the lack of hunters. I'm sure poaching, to many antlerless permits, severe winters and predators all played a hand in the 37% under goal population. Reading these links tells me that the Michigan DNR does know what is going on in this DMU which really surprised me. I still believe they screwed up by issuing way to many antlerless permits and this was the major reason why the population in this area crashed. I, myself, was involved in Lake County's massive doe slaughter. I spend countless hours wandering, bowhunting, small gaming, scouting and driving around about 4-5 thousand acres of stateland in this county. Even with the lack of hunters and Zero stateland doe tags, I have seen no evidence that this deer herd has rebounded at all over the last 5 years. I'm not a biologist but the habitat in this area I hunt seems really good to me and I know in past years it did not have a problem supporting lots of deer. I hope this area can once again become a great destination for my fellow hunters someday but it's not looking good right now.​


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Fishx,

I point in my first post was that lots of antlerless deer are still being killed in Lake county, despite any quota or lack thereof. 

My friend off of Forman has lived there for a long time. He said he'd never heard so much poaching as over the last few years. He said the single, 11pm-ish rifle shot occured all Summer long. And that's with the screen windows open. Who knows the level of poaching when the windows were closed. 

The "recorded" unemployment rate for Lake county was hovering near 20% in 2009 and 2010. And that's only counting people looking for work. The "real world" unemployment rate in Lake county is more like 40%, maybe higher. There are families in the area, covering several generations, that haven't ever had the passing thought of ever looking for a job.

Think of it this way, just imagine the poaching that would occur if there were lots of deer in Detroit. 

The poachers mostly come at night...mostly.


----------



## walkingonwater (Jan 11, 2010)

I am not in Lake County but a stone's throw away into Mason County. Our cabin hunting property has been in the family for 20+ years so I have seen some good and bad changes over the years. Many great points already established here, ie maturing hardwoods, coyotes, poaching. I am not the DNR or a wildlife biologist, just a guy that treasures his time hunting and improving the habitat of the land "I" can control. My observations:

#1- Hunting pressure is way down. Fewer hunters = fewer deer sightings. I see the deer are there thru observation and cameras. Car/deer accidents were up (normal). They simply don't have to move much, which confirms a previous statement "either you have them in your area or you don't"...
#2- Fewer hunters due to a spit and sputter economy. Funds that were once used for hunting/outdoor activities are allocated to family priorities instead.
#3- Baiting ban had a big impact. No bait in this area meant much fewer deer sightings = bored hunters = less pressure on deer to move. Reminder: this is an area w/ limited ag industry and so-so wildlife habitat at best. Work in progress!
#4- Coyotes were a problem about 5 years ago, since than they been hunted heavily and haven't been a factor since. (I know, they're still around though).
#5- Poaching still is a big issue. An after dark gunshot only raises a browe and a shake of the head.

Now, I don't have the BIG answer on how to fix everything, but I can take care of my "area" if you will. If I do my part, improve our habitat and promote the health of the heard, maybe the other hunters will come back. In the meantime, my neighbors will at least appreciate my efforts!:lol:


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

As one who owned a sporting goods store in Lake County, I talked to a wide range of sportemen. BBT is more of a fly fishing store, so the vast bulk of our customers were tourists from elsewhere.

What I heard the most of was, many sportsmen who used to hunt the area still fish the area, but they now deer hunt in the SLP.

The biggest reasons were that it was just easier to hunt close to home and that there was a legit chance at a nice buck, just about anywhere in the SLP. Not that there's a big buck behind every tree, but there is a reasonable hope.

While guys would often take a weekday off, make a 3 hour each way drive to river fish for the day, many guys expressed that when you're done fishing you throw your gear in the truck and can head home. That's not the case if you shoot a deer. You have to track it, drag it, gut it, etc. You wouldn't get home until 4am if that happened. Then you have to work the next day.

They also expressed that it's tougher and tougher to get any grouo together that can get the same time off, for extended hunts. The workplace for many is much different than even in the 1990's.

But if they stay around home, they can slip out of work early and hunt afternoons. There's the chance at an older buck and then if they shoot something, "helpers" are a close by phone call away and they can be back home at a reasonable hour.

The NLP will never see anything remotely close to the "heydays" of 1950-1995 again. It's a bygone era. The only thing that will bring a few more guys back and maybe a little interest from out of staters who don't have family here is when the NLP gets to the point where mature bucks are more common and the hopes of at least seeing one aren't 1000 to 1.

Given the ample public land of the NLP, if a party of four could come up for a long weekend and had the realistic expectations that one of the four would kill a 110 class buck, more guys would return. Until that point, they won't. They'll stay in the SLP, where they can expect that.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

The bait ban theory doesn't hold water. If few hunters saw or killed any deer during the years of the ban, there'd be deer all over by now.


----------



## walkingonwater (Jan 11, 2010)

slight misunderstanding, the bait thing was in relation to hunters that typically used bait, not seeing deer after the ban in their huntin' spot. No interest in bait debate. We're debating where the hunters went here...

Scenerio:Without the bait, a hunter sits in an unfamiliar piece of land, and typically sees nothing. One becomes discouraged and hanging it up because "I didn't see anything". Final result, one less pumpkin in the woods. 

Or possibly, and very likely, as you said, hunt closer to home. "Home" not being Lake Co. Excellent point made there by the way!


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I'm not in the bait debate either. What I'm saying is, if there's no hunters left, they'd be more deer herd growth. 

It's like Yogi's quote...

Nobody goes there anymore. Its too crowded.


----------



## walkingonwater (Jan 11, 2010)

You're right, thats a head scratcher


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

fishx65 said:


> If you to see what areas have fewer or more hunters from 10 or 15 years ago, look at the '95 or 2000 Deer Harvest Survey Report from those years then compare it to the 2010 season. I know the last few reports are on the DNR site, no sure about some of the older reports. You might have to request a hard copy.
> I have some of the numbers from the top deer killing counties from 2000-2010. All of the top counties also were at the top or near the top when looking at the number of hunters per square mile. More deer = more hunters.
> 
> L & O


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> As one who owned a sporting goods store in Lake County, I talked to a wide range of sportemen. BBT is more of a fly fishing store, so the vast bulk of our customers were tourists from elsewhere.
> 
> What I heard the most of was, many sportsmen who used to hunt the area still fish the area, but they now deer hunt in the SLP.
> 
> ...


It's very simple the county was over shot. Why is it hard to admit. All you guys that we're pushing the over slaughter of does can't admit it was a mistake. I to have a business and talk to hunters. Their main reason not going up north anymore is lack of deer pure and simple. Look at pheasant hunting no pheasant in Michigan they go to south Dakota. You can make any excuse you want. But bottom line is no deer no hunters. Less opportunities for deer less hunters.


----------



## HCbowhunter (Jul 23, 2010)

I still hunt that area off from franksmith when i can make it up that way i hunt a 80 acre piece in reed city but when i can make it up that way i like to do some bow hunting just north of the tin cup entrance an a couple other spots on those side roads up there if it was not for that private land i would have been hunting the state land around there this year i love it up there, there are so many deer if i lived closer i would have hunted there alot but good luck to ya in the upcoming seasons.


----------



## HCbowhunter (Jul 23, 2010)

Must be where your hunting cause i know quite a few spots where it isn't nothing to see 20 or 30 deer at a time must just be the area your hunting has taken a little impact.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

poz said:


> Their main reason not going up north anymore is lack of deer pure and simple. Look at pheasant hunting no pheasant in Michigan they go to south Dakota. You can make any excuse you want. But bottom line is no deer no hunters. Less opportunities for deer less hunters.


Exactly right. The reason for the huge numbers of hunters in the past was lots of public land and lots of deer, period. It had nothing to do with the possability of 110" bucks.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Poz,

I'm not making any excuses. 

My land is in Newaygo county. There's far fewer hunters there too. Same with Osceola and all the others.

Even in my deer camp, I have several friends who live in SELP and come up for rifle opener. They now spend their bowhunting time in the SLP and out of state. The sole reason for them is that they said they can't justify taking all that time and drive just to maybe see a dink buck. They will drive many hours out of state, however. 

The research is very clear that hunter attitudes have changed over the years. Deer hunting now, for the vast majority, is all about recreation. That's why many deer hunters have no problem ending the season with an empty freezer. For most deer hunters, this is our golf. 

Research shows that only 25% of hunters even claim they hunt for "meat". I suspect that that response is also a bit kneejerk as it's been a built in pat answer for deer hunters in area's with few mature bucks as a way to justify shooting a yearling. My hunch is less than 10% of deer hunters main reason for hunting is meat. Maybe more like 1%.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Pinefarm said:


> Poz,
> 
> 
> My land is in Newaygo county. There's far fewer hunters there too. Same with Osceola and all the others.
> ...


Do you hunt Osceola? I do. There may be slightly less hunters, it's not even close to "far fewer".
Maybe your deer camp just sucks! Our camp has guys from Kent, Montcalm and Ionia counties. All hold more big bucks yet no one would miss camp in Osceola.


----------



## Chad1981 (Dec 20, 2011)

Mecosta is the same was. Nov.15 there were 45 gun shots all morning. Deer hunters are not what they were. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> Poz,
> 
> I'm not making any excuses.
> 
> ...


Pinefarm, you are bringing up the same arguement as me. Opportunity is the key. The vast majority of Michigan deer hunters don't go out of state on a regular basis to hunt. They stay instate, but will move to where the deer are. All my friends that use to hunt up there now hunt downstate. The reason is why should i waste my time hunting up there and not see deer when I can hunt the SLP and see deer. 
I live by the Clinton river there are no steelhead fisherman on the river by me. Yet if you go up river 10 miles there are alot of guys fishing for steelhead. The reason because there are fish there. How many guys would flock to the pere Marquette. If it didn't have fish NONE. would you say the reason isn't lack of fish it must be something else. 

You put to much emphasis on people shooting big bucks and saying they won't hunt up there if they can't shoot a big buck. Lake county will never be Texas, Kansas, Iowa etc. The minerals aren't there. The only way you might get something close to those states is if you put a fence around it and make it a deer farm.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I saw over 60 deer on Nov.15 2010. Yet, the public land camp on our line, that'd had been there since I was a kid, wasn't there in 2010, or 2011 for that matter. There was always 10-15 guys in that big camp.
I've stopped and talked to these guys every year since the early 1980's. In the turkey season of 2011, I saw one of the guys parked in the campsite, as he was getting his turkey gear ready.
I asked what happened and he said that they got a big lease in the SLP and said to the effect of "there's just too many nice bucks down there to deer hunt here anymore".
He still was hunting my area, but it was for turkey. And the turkey hunting in my area is really good.

So, you all can try to blame all the hunters who shot all the antlerless deer for the deer hunter migration to the south, but I don't place the blame on those hunters.

The hunters have voted with their feet. I've yet to have personally talked to a former NLP hunter who now hunts the SLP that hasn't mentioned "big bucks" in the conversation.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Bob, did they ever tell you that the reason they hunted by you for all those years was because of all the big bucks? Doubt it. The big antler craze is causing them to migrate south. For many it has passed the want for a great camp and quality hunt. They would rather sit by the highway in a shack if there is a chance at a big buck. Pretty sad. :sad:


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Poz,

The only reason SLP hunters originally went north is because there was zero deer in many SLP area's until pretty recently. Staying in the SLP wasn't even an option. You HAD to go north to deer hunt.

Now many of the SLP guys can stay home because there's good hunting near home. 

If there was 40 deer per mile in the NLP, but little chance at a buck over 100" and 25 deer per mile in the SLP but a decent chance at a 100" plus buck, just as many SLP hunters would stay in the SLP.

Just bringing back bloated herds and stunted bucks in the NLP isn't going to do a thing in the 21st century. In 1970 or 1980, it would have. Not anymore.

They aren't coming back to the NLP until the NLP buck age class recovers from decades of TDM. 

Speaking with honest and selfish frankness, I hope they stay in the SLP. Much of the NLP was grossly overhunted for decades. That's just me being selfish, but be honest, lots of NLP guys secretly also hope the same. While it would hurt business, my selfish inner deer hunter hopes we lose another 50% of NLP deer hunters and let them jam 40 hunters per mile on Nov.15 in the SLP for a couple decades, like we used to have. Again, just me expressing what a lot of NLP hunters secretly are enjoying, and that's declining NLP deer hunter numbers. 
I'll take fewer high caliber deer hunters over a mob of guys that probably shouldn't even be near guns any day. The reality is, with a core group of serious, dedicated deer managers, the NLP will be better managed than it was in the past, when too many guys confused deer season with a college football tailgate party before racing into a black friday sale with 10 free ipods to the first 10 guys that get there first.


----------



## norton shores killer (Oct 24, 2009)

pinefarm where is your property in newaygo county just out of curiosity?


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> Poz,
> 
> The only reason SLP hunters originally went north is because there was zero deer in many SLP area's until pretty recently. Staying in the SLP wasn't even an option. You HAD to go north to deer hunt.
> 
> ...


Careful what you wish for. The people that hunt the SLP are hunting some of the hardest land to get access to hunt. All the farms are lea
sing or hunting themselves. When you lose your state land hunters up there. You will lose alot of those guys from our sport. It's sad to see that in your quest for a trophy buck you will gladly sacrifice our sport. 

Also I'm glad you saw so many deer opening day. The funny thing is that it's okay if your land has that many deer but you think the the guys land down the road or thee state land shouldn't have that many deer


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> I saw over 60 deer on Nov.15 2010. in.



So lets say there are another 20 deer on the remaining square mile that you don't own. 
After all these years you've been practicing QDM your herd is still about 100% over carrying capacity. WOW


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

We've been losing guys from the sport for years now and we're going to continue to do so. There's nothing to stop it. All we can do is try to make a soft landing.

Hunters will continue to hunt the SLP. They'll whine about having to pay to lease, but they will. It's still cheaper than golf. 

Many NLP guys spend as much on bait as they could on a group lease in the SLP.

When you consider gas costs to go back and forth to the NLP, a SLP group lease is possibly cheaper in many respects.


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

I'm not sure if Lake was ever known as a big buck area but there have always been a few running around each season. I do know that Lake was once a deer mecca with a huge population of deer and hunters. Even back then I think most new that their odds of taking a huge buck were much greater in the SLP. I'm gonna say that a massive deer herd is why this area used to be so popular more so then a chance at a big buck. Yes, times have changed but I can't help but think the average Joe Weekend Warrior Gun Hunter of today would still take lots of "any deer" action over the chance at a monster. I'm all about working hard to find deer but I do have to admit there are times when I kinda miss those "20 deer sightings per hunt" days. I've had great seasons in Lake every year but I've had to scout my tail off harder and harder to see deer on a regular basis. Not complaining cuz I enjoy every second of it!!! If I didn't have so much time to scout and bowhunt I think I would have stopped hunting Lake a loooong time ago.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> We've been losing guys from the sport for years now and we're going to continue to do so. There's nothing to stop it. All we can do is try to make a soft landing.
> 
> Hunters will continue to hunt the SLP. They'll whine about having to pay to lease, but they will. It's still cheaper than golf.
> 
> ...


Look when archery hunting took off. Many hunters got into archery because they saw deer. They could drive up to the NLP. See deer and shoot one. Then with baiting many more guys were successful. I don't know numbers but I bet the vast majority of bow hunters shot their first deer over bait . The archery boom happened when hunters had good opportunities to harvest deer. Take away the opportunities take away the boom. Now they want APR in the area. That have nothing to do with the health of the herd, and you think it will help bring hunters into our sport. All it will do is divide us. But it will help you shoot a big antlered deer.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

The reason the Lake/northern Newaygo area was so popular in the past is because it was among the closest places to deer hunt for the large population centers of the SLP.

If, in 1970, the SLP had decent deer hunting, the large numbers heading north wouldn't have done so.

It's not that the area still won't have lots of deer hunters. Virtually all the wooded land over 10 acres around my hunting land is just that, hunting land. It's all owned by guys in the GR, West Michigan and Detroit area. But instead of those camps/clubs having 5, 10, 15 guys like in the past, they'll have 3, 6 and 9 guys. The others have decided it's better overall for them to stay in the SLP.

Things change, times change. We residents of Michigan should realize that better than anybody. You can't stop the passage of time.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> The reason the Lake/northern Newaygo area was so popular in the past is because it was among the closest places to deer hunt for the large population centers of the SLP.
> 
> If, in 1970, the SLP had decent deer hunting, the large numbers heading north wouldn't have done so.
> 
> ...


Times change indeed. But instead of having places where new hunters want to go you are for taking away opportunities in order for a few to shoot larger deer. Every sport needs new recruitment to survive. The problem is that many would rather lose hunters than provide opportunities for them. We bought our place up there when we started losing hunting land down here. We couldn't afford leases and finding places to hunt were getting harder. So we went to a place that had deer and opportunities. Now if I guy can't find a place to hunt down here and can't go hunt up there he will lose interest and stop hunting. Ask the business owners up there if they are happy. Probably not. Do you think they are happy. Or do they want the old days back. How long would BBT stay opened if they ruined the fisheries up there. Not very long. Do:xzicon_sm you think you former partner would say that it's okay I lost my business because a feww guys destroyed the fishery so they can catch monster trout. 

Like I said no deer no hunters
No fish no fishermen
No large group that sticks together more rights taken away


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Poz, 

It's not all doom and gloom. Think of the change as a long term positive. 

Go back and read the MDNR fact sheet for Lake.

Proposed management strategy for moving the population toward this goal:

Currently the deer population in this DMU is 37% below goal. People are very receptive to harvesting deer. Hunting pressure is very heavy throughout the county. Closing the DMU to antlerless hunting, except archery harvest for one year, should allow the herd to rebuild almost to
goal. Deer numbers on public land will remain low because of hunting pressure. *This hunting pressure on public land may drop off with lower deer numbers and allow the herd to rebound somewhat.* The issuance of over-the-counter private land permits and DMAPs will be used to maintain the herd at or below goal.


If there was ever an area that would greatly benefit for APR's, it's our area. If you hunt this area, demanding "more of the same" assures you get more of the same. It's time for some new, out of the box thinking for our area. Something as simple as a "no spike" rule would really have an impact in 043 and 262. 

I don't want to argue with you. I want to see improvements to our area too. We're all on the same team. I went up yesterday to start flagging area's of junk scotch pine that my buddy and I are going to start cutting down next week. But that's just on my tiny 160 acres. That doesn't impact the DMU. We need to start thinking, collectively, about how we can get gentle rule changes that improve the hunting for all of us. 

SA Ultra Mag sent me a PM and he wants to think of ways to start some a co-op in the area. I believe that if we could get even 20% of the larger landowners into a co-op, that everyone would benefit.

That's just a small piece of the puzzle. I also believe, while 3pt on a side APR's in the area would be a tough sell, a wide majority of area hunters would OK a "no spike" rule for our area. It would allow roughly 50% of the yearling bucks to get to 2.5 years old, then we'll kill them. 

What do you think? Would "no spike" in our area be something you could possibly support?

As long as antlerless quota's were low or zero, APR's wouldn't further lower herd numbers.

Unfortunately, there just isn't much we can do with the area poaching. We need to be realistic and accept it as a given and figure out how best to work around it and negate it, with regulation changes.


----------



## 19rabbit52 (Jul 15, 2007)

I keep seeing where people think their wasn't any good deer hunting in SLP. I disagree. I hunt the same area now that I hunted in 1970. I saw alot more deer then! Men went north to hunt to have a good time. A deer was a bonus. Today 3/4 of the hunters act like they have to get a big buck or thier head is going to explode or something. My last statement is why so many have quit.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> Poz,
> 
> It's not all doom and gloom. Think of the change as a long term positive.
> 
> ...


:SHOCKED:

Pinefarm I understand what you are saying and I want some of the same things you do but I believe a hunter needs to learn to pass deer by himself not forced to . The reason alot of states have better deer hunting is not because of laws but because the hunter mentality . We are trying to force change down hunters throats and are dividing hunters . I can now take my kids hunting and let them decide if they want to shoot.. I can tell them you want to take that doe or wait for a Buck. Or do you want to shoot that spike or wait for something bigger. I'm letting them make the decision. And they are already showing signs of passing deer. But nothing is forced on them. They will learn more about what you are trying to achieve and start practicing it before the kid you tell it's illegal to shoot that spike because someone wants to shoot it next year when it's antlers are bigger


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

"I believe a hunter needs to learn to pass deer by himself not forced to...We are trying to force change down hunters throats and are dividing hunters. I can now take my kids hunting and let them decide if they want to shoot."


So, higher antlerless quota's are fine and let hunters decide what they want to shoot? I thought you wanted to force lower antlerless quota's down some throats? So confusing. 

Why is forcing antlerless harvest decisions down someones throat perfectly acceptable to you? I figured you as one not obsessed with antlers.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

norton shores killer said:


> pinefarm where is your property in newaygo county just out of curiosity?


Easy to find with a plat book.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> "I believe a hunter needs to learn to pass deer by himself not forced to...We are trying to force change down hunters throats and are dividing hunters. I can now take my kids hunting and let them decide if they want to shoot."
> 
> 
> So, higher antlerless quota's are fine and let hunters decide what they want to shoot? I thought you wanted to force lower antlerless quota's down some throats? So confusing.
> ...


I'm all for forcing antlerless permit numbers down when an area is over shot to help the herd rebound. And if there are too many deer than increase them. You want them down for everyone but yourself. You already admitted that you saw 60 deer on opening day on your 160 acres. That's over capacity but I guess you don't believe what you preach. 

As far as antler envy I'm far from it. I've shot big and little deer. All were great hunts and I would shoot everyone of them again. And I'm proud of everyone. Because nobody was forced to pass on one of my bucks inorder for me to shoot it. Somehow in your mind you believe a. 1 1/2 year old 8 point is OK to shoot but a 1 1/2 six point isn't .because if I shoot that 6 point I'm taking away something from you . If you saw 60 deer like you said you did and you didn't shoot one. It's time for you to reevaluate what your doing. Or move to a state you will be happy in.


----------



## billmitch (Dec 21, 2009)

Pinefarm said:


> "I believe a hunter needs to learn to pass deer by himself not forced to...We are trying to force change down hunters throats and are dividing hunters. I can now take my kids hunting and let them decide if they want to shoot."
> 
> 
> So, higher antlerless quota's are fine and let hunters decide what they want to shoot? I thought you wanted to force lower antlerless quota's down some throats? So confusing.
> ...


do you actually read the crap you post on here? Lowering AQs in an area way below goal isn't forcing anything on anyone. It's preserving what's left so some hunters might see one or two deer in a weekend hunt. You need to step back and reread some of your posts. They are DRIPPING with hypocrisy. You preach about balanced sex ratios and population control and on your own property you don't practice the same, as evidenced by your statements of the number of deer you see. You say if a guy can shoot a decent buck the hunters will come back, and a few will, but if hunters had seen a few less deer removed maybe they wouldn't have left in the first place. I know this sounds harsh, but you are not all for one and one for all. You want to mandate others choices to benefit yourself, without thinking about the other 600,000 plus hunters in the state.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

"It's time for you to reevaluate what your doing. Or move to a state you will be happy in."

And that's my advice to you. 

Why are you even posting here? Because you're not happy about the present situation in the area, right? Yet you want to continue with the same program? 

I'm very positive about the future. I'm happy about the present. I'm seeing and killing deer. I just want to make it even better. 

The hypocracy that if some suggest trying APR's in an area that we're jamming things down others throat, but if others demand that no antlerless deer can be killed by hunters that isn't jamming their opinions down their throats is the perfect illustration of how the TDM'ers have lost the argument. 

So if you don't want to change anything in the area, why are you complaining? Why are people hunting elsewhere? I've listed the reasons why. Why do you think so? On what basis did you come up with your theory?


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

Justin said:


> No...the real problem is the guys that just want any change for the sake of a change, without considering the consequences. Period.


So what are the consequences I should be considering? I am open to suggestions. 

As a hunter who has invested a lot of time and money in Lake county both on public and private lands why should I be against changing the regulations? Honestly the hunting can't get much worse.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

Pine, not antiQDM here. Sorry you do not like the fact that someone has a different opinion than you.
I joined and still practice it but I quit QDMA back in the 90's because they wanted mandatory restrictions and tried to get them enacted in my area before they even had a 500 member base. They didn't think voluntary QDM was working fast enough. 
If you think people do not have the right to disagree to your way of thinking, then it sounds like you are the one full of hate.

Maybe it's you who just can't see the forest for trees,(that you hinge-cut):lol::lol:

JUST MY OPINION, NO DISRESPECT IS MEANT AND HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND MY POSITION:evil:


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Pinefarm said:


> The bottom line is, there's some members here that have invested so much energy into being anti-QDM that they can't bring themselves to admit that improved habitats improve game opportunity, for everyone.
> 
> Yet, Ducks Unlimited's habitat work is a grand success. Same with Trout Unlimited. Pheasants Forever does good work. Same with the Turkey Federations. The Ruffed Grouse Society does good work. Look at how the Musky fishing on LSC has improved better than anyone's dreams with the changes in attitudes there.


Maybe its because the main thrust of all those programs (and 95% of all their practitioners) is geared toward maintaining and expanding healthy resources in huntable (fishable) numbers, *NOT* growing trophies.

KPC


----------



## hjbigrapids (Oct 4, 2009)

Ya know, when the herd is healthy, there is more and better animals. Subsequently there are bigger bucks.

It is a no brainer...... Why not shoot a 3.5 year old buck or doe, that weighs another 50% more than a 1.5 year old. 

My grandfather was one of the greatest hunting guides in Minnesota. He hunted for the deer that were worth the effort. He taught people how to hunt. No bait, no stands, all still hunting. I still wish I could have had some more years with him. 

Yet he took only mature animals. What a concept. Is it possible that there are so many people that are caught up in the mentality of unions???????

NO COMPRIMIZE, we want what we want..... Guess what things change.....


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Lumberman said:


> So what are the consequences I should be considering? I am open to suggestions.
> 
> As a hunter who has invested a lot of time and money in Lake county both on public and private lands why should I be against changing the regulations? Honestly the hunting can't get much worse.


The consequences that I consider are
1. What will it do to the deer
2 What affect will it have on other hunters in other places
3. What affect will it have on my hunting
4. public vs private

The answer to Lake county's problem is habitat. It's not going to improve much until some logging takes place. It's happening in Osceola county and the deer are responding.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

hjbigrapids said:


> Ya know, when the herd is healthy, there is more and better animals. Subsequently there are bigger bucks.


Wait a minute, I thought QDMA said when the herd was healthy, there were *LESS* and "better" animals.



KPC


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

hjbigrapids said:


> It is a no brainer...... Why not shoot a 3.5 year old buck or doe, that weighs another 50% more than a 1.5 year old.


Why shoot a 3.5 year old, why don't you set your sights a little higher and only shoot 6.5 year olds? 

You said your dad only harvested mature deer, there are some posters on here that say that 3.5 year olds aren't mature, so why would you not want to follow in your dad's footsteps and hold out for something older? 

Since success is not measured in the deer killed but the experience enjoyed in the pursuit, why not aim high?

I'd hate to see you COMPRIMIZE........:yikes:


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

This whole thread is kinda funny. The compliant is "what happened to Lake county?"

Then, when proven solutions are given to the problem, they are rejected.

Habitat improvement is the key. Somehow ignorance has taken hold where a few think QDM always means fewer deer. I'm not sure how that came about. Negative spin is my guess.

Yes, if poor habitat remains poor and unchanged, and you have boom/busts, then fewer deer is the remedy, to allow the habitat to slowly recover. However, you can increase carry capacity by improving the habitat thru aggressive improvements.

It's like how many don't understand how tax cuts work. When you cut taxes on job providers and economy makers, small business, the total increase in economic activity for all increases revenue to the treasury. It's not a zero sum game.

I think some also think deer numbers is a zero sum game. As if, a region with poor/mature forests has the same capacity as quality/improved habitat.

For those of you in Bitely, a zero-sum game means the thinking of if one gains, another loses, which the total of all the gains and losses is zero.

A given NLP region with present lesser habitat can maybe only support 20 deer per mile. But the same exact region, if greatly improved, can support 30-35 deer per mile and STILL be below total carry capacity.

I'm not sure why some still can't grasp that, after all these years and the 1000's of posts explaining it. Then again, Obama won, so maybe many just can't grasp much of anything involving counter-intuitive thinking. 

QDM would only call for lower herds if the habitat can't support it. But QDM calls for improving the habitat, thus allowing the possibility of more deer, since the land can support it. 

Now, you don't want too many deer for the habitat, but with improved lands, you can still support more deer than on unimproved lands.

The net result is more deer, yet not too many deer. Balance.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Pinefarm said:


> Somehow ignorance has taken hold where a few think QDM always means fewer deer. I'm not sure how that came about.


In much the same way that many have apparently confused TDM with QDM, and will go to the mat insisting it's for the health of the herd.

KPC


----------



## CarnageProductions13 (Mar 11, 2011)

If the question is what happened to lake county, I would say nothing. As far back as my grandfather could remember there really never was great hunting here. Just minor up's but mostly downs. People these days aren't as willing to spend the money to go up north and see nothing, when they can spend that money on a lease in their backyards/ and see deer on a daily basis.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> This whole thread is kinda funny. The compliant is "what happened to Lake county?"
> 
> Then, when proven solutions are given to the problem, they are rejected.
> 
> ...


The problem was it was over shot. pure and simple. you keep trying to spin the wheels in your favor but everyone is seeing right thru you.

Let's see we have two people in this thread that have hunted your land. you saw 60 deer on opening day , your buddy saw 35 in a day and a half. you own 160 acres, you state that the goal might be 30-35 on properly managed land, that's roughly 1 deer for every 20 acres. yet you maintain your land at 1 deer for every 2.5 acres. about 750% over capacity. Those deer need 300 lbs. for food a day yet you don't bait or have food plots. it's amazing how you can do that. after all the state land around you isn't managed, because the state land in that area is all old growth. How do these deer survive?????. 

Still waiting to get an answer to my questions. but I don't think I will.

So back to Lake county. It was over shot and hunters left, pure and simple, when deer come back hunters will also.

Now as for the guys that hunt your land, if you kept it at the level you preach you should have about 8 deer on your property, now lets say we come up and overshoot your property and leave you 4 deer, and do it every year for 8 years, do you think that all your buddies will come up there to hunt if there isn't any deer. I doubt it.

everything you have said in this thread shows that you have a total disregard for the health of the herd. And that when someone calls you out on it you say they hate or they are jealous. you keep bringing up Obama, but you act just like the people that voted for him don here in the city. Their motto is "take from everyone just not me". you preach about everyone else having to sacrifice their hunting land, but you won't yours.
They have a word for that Hypocrit


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Lumberman said:


> So what are the consequences I should be considering? I am open to suggestions.
> 
> As a hunter who has invested a lot of time and money in Lake county both on public and private lands why should I be against changing the regulations? Honestly the hunting can't get much worse.


Because some of the changes haven't been proven to work. just look at what happened when they said let's shoot does. over shot the herd, now no hunters up there, businesses have suffered or closed, property values are down in some parts over 60%.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Lumberman said:


> How could obr or apr be a bad thing? The disease argument is skinny at best.
> 
> Let's leave out ratios, better age mix, more active rut, and buck competition, and say we just talk about bigger bucks which seems to be your point.
> 
> Just ask this question, if you have a spike and an 8pt under your stand both giving you the same shot which one would you shoot?


I have no problem about OBR or APRs, you can practice them all you want, you have that choice. I'm just against forcing them on anyone. Most hunters I know practice some sort of QDM APR etc. It's their choice. They don't hide behind what they are doing is for the health of the herd they do it to shoot bigger bucks. 

What we are noticing is that all these guys who have 1000s of threads preaching what they are doing is for the health of the herd, they want baiting banned, herds thinned, etc. are really just trying to grow a trophy deer and are not concerned about the health. They are for fewer hunters in our sport. 
So when these guys come out preaching about the next Great thing that needs to be done, I'm a little sceptical (sp) at their motives.

As far as which buck I would shoot. of course I would try to shoot the 8 point first. but if the spike stayed around i would shoot him too. why because I have 2 tags.

Now how would you feel if you were hunting Lake county, and you finally had a chance to go up with your kid, wife, etc. it's probably the only trip you will hunt with them this year, because your kid is in sports, wife works etc. so your sitting in a stand and a nice 6 point walks up. your kids ready to shoot it, and you stop him telling him he can't shoot it, because a group of guys who don't want to put the time in to shoot a big buck got a law passed that says you have to pass this buck because they want to shoot it next year.


----------



## bowonly (Oct 31, 2006)

poz said:


> I have no problem about OBR or APRs, you can practice them all you want, you have that choice. I'm just against forcing them on anyone. Most hunters I know practice some sort of QDM APR etc. It's their choice. They don't hide behind what they are doing is for the health of the herd they do it to shoot bigger bucks.
> 
> What we are noticing is that all these guys who have 1000s of threads preaching what they are doing is for the health of the herd, they want baiting banned, herds thinned, etc. are really just trying to grow a trophy deer and are not concerned about the health. They are for fewer hunters in our sport.
> So when these guys come out preaching about the next Great thing that needs to be done, I'm a little sceptical (sp) at their motives.
> ...


So I guess by shooting the 8pt first and spike second, your gonna tag that 8pt with which license first? I was under the belief that second tag was for a deer with four or better on a side. Some might consider that poaching! 

Just curious on what scienctific data went into our current tag system for deer hunting? Is that the study on dnre needs more money!

Lake county sucks for deer hunting, buck numbers and quality have been down for years! You can only blame the economy for so much! People arent hunting lake county because its not worth the trip anymore! I have hunted that county since I was a teenager!

When we had one buck rule nobody complained, when they added the second buck tag nobody complained. Nobody complained when they added doe permits! And know we need sciencetific data to change the rules. Where was all the science when they made those changes? I guess its ok to add opportuntites but its not ok to take them away!

Seems to me we have to many hunters that feel they are entitled to their two buck rule. Please, show me one study that says Mars,obr or any other system doesnt work!


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

bowonly said:


> So I guess by shooting the 8pt first and spike second, your gonna tag that 8pt with which license first? I was under the belief that second tag was for a deer with four or better on a side. Some might consider that poaching!
> 
> Just curious on what scienctific data went into our current tag system for deer hunting? Is that the study on dnre needs more money!
> 
> ...


There is no first or second tag, In a combo tag you have a regular deer good for any buck and a restricted deer good for 4 points on one side or better. So you should know the law before you accuse people of poaching.

So you are for taking away opportunities for hunters in the quest for a trophy buck. wow, and you call yourself a sportsman. No one is asking you to give up anything, you can practice what you want. yet you want other hunters to give something up for you. If i asked you to give up your next 2 seasons so i could shoot a big buck would you do it or tell me to get lost. 

Mars ARS etc. do work to grow bigger deer, 1000s of game ranches practice them across the country. But those are controlled herds and strickly managed. 
Many studies show that older age structure in the herd increases the chance of disease in the herd. The DNR has also stated these restrictions will do nothing to increase the health of the herd. So the only reason to pass them is for the benefit of a select group of hunters.

What happens tomorrow when some group wants to change something that will take away your opportunites to hunt would you be all for it?


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

bowonly said:


> so i guess by shooting the 8pt first and spike second, your gonna tag that 8pt with which license first?
> 
> *with my restricted tag, just as intended.*
> 
> ...


kpc


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

bowonly said:


> ............. I was under the belief that second tag was for a deer with four or better on a side. Some might consider that poaching!
> ..........


So for the past 15 years you never read what was printed on your tags ? 

L & O


----------



## jafurnier (Jun 7, 2008)

poz said:


> Let's see we have two people in this thread that have hunted your land. you saw 60 deer on opening day , your buddy saw 35 in a day and a half. you own 160 acres, you state that the goal might be 30-35 on properly managed land, that's roughly 1 deer for every 20 acres. yet you maintain your land at 1 deer for every 2.5 acres. about 750% over capacity.


There are about 20 deer bedding in the pines across the street. There are three groups to the north across the road that total about 20. Opening day...they all came running through my place at one point or another. I own 38 acres. According to your example...I now have 40 deer/38 acres! 

Do you really think that math somehow can be translated to carrying capacity? 

I am curious. Have you hunted any other state in recent years? I have hunted WV, KY, OH, KS, and IA in the past 5 years. I also spent considerable time in IN and PA. MI is an embarassment.

I have friend's who deer hunt with outfitters out of state. Want to know who they say are the hunters they like the least? MI hunters. Why? Cuz of all hunters they have in camp...the ones who lack patience and cannot eat a tag are MI hunters.

Like Pinefarm, I cannot undersatnd why you and others like you do not realize you can have the same number of deer but with a buck herd with larger horns and bigger bodies. I also do not understand why this is bad.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

jafurnier said:


> There are about 20 deer bedding in the pines across the street. There are three groups to the north across the road that total about 20. Opening day...they all came running through my place at one point or another. I own 38 acres. According to your example...I now have 40 deer/38 acres!
> 
> Do you really think that math somehow can be translated to carrying capacity?
> 
> ...


Pinefarm boasts about how his property holds most of the deer in the area. You can't have it both ways. When other hunters say they see 20 deer in a sitting they are told you have too much deer yet 60 deer on his land is to much. In his post he says even a properly managed property you should have 30-35 per square mile. He says he has no food plots. What do these deer eat? If I was preaching about thinning the herd and banning hunting practices for the health of the herd the last 10 years and you found out I wasn't practicing what I was preaching. Would you call me out on it. 

I have hunted out west also. They do laugh at us. They laugh how Michigan hunters are all out for themselves, how we don't stick together. You said it yourself we don't want to eat tags. That's why these guys want APR, OBR, etc. They hate having to eat a tag so they want to impose restrictions and take away opportunities from hunters in order to be able to not have to eat a tag.

I am for more deer in Michigan would like to see bigger horns. But I would rather see this happen by hunter practices changing than by a law pass that might have impact on the health of the herd and the economy in the region


----------



## jafurnier (Jun 7, 2008)

poz said:


> I am for more deer in Michigan would like to see bigger horns. But I would rather see this happen by hunter practices changing than by a law pass that might have impact on the health of the herd and the economy in the region


I agree Poz!

What is surprising me...is how many people near me are starting to hold back on shooting and doing some things to positively impact the herd. Slowly but surely...change is happening.

When I think about it...the chane in laws is not what converted me..it was seeing. then I becasme a believer.

I just wish my neighbor would sell me his 40. Then I could really show people what they can have..and they will change on their own!


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Several reasons. Keeping the uncapping of taxes barely tolerable and allowing families to keep property after a transfer of title ie death of a parent is one. Slowing fragmenting of woodlands is another and landowners managing their forest is another.

Just look around this site, and there's sportsmen here. But even most landowning sportsmen never do a single thing to maintain/manage their forests. And they then turn around in 20 years and wonder where all the animals went. 

A forest/habitat is like a truck or a house. If you don't maintain it, it doesn't work like it should.


----------



## bowonly (Oct 31, 2006)

poz said:


> Wow all this from a guy who doesn't know what tags are available or how to properly tag a deer.
> 
> I didn't force you to hunt my way. No one has forced you. You choose to hunt your way. you chose to shoot a spike and a four point . No one forces you to bait. No one forces you to pull the trigger or fling an arrow you choose that. If the only self discipline you have is to have to have a law passed to control your actions maybe you should look for another sport.
> 
> ...


 
I dont understand why you feel that somebody is trying to take your rights away? Laws change all the time. The DNRE sets the rules so what is the difference if the tags reads 3 inches or 3 points on a side? The herd has no age structure, buck to doe ratio is 1 to 12. I stopped bowhunting lake county over fifteen years ago because the herd was a mess. Actually it is worse now, at least back then I could see 10 deer a day (all does). All I want is something different from the current system. With NO BAITING, I DO NOT BAIT!!! No conspiracy theory still want opportunity to hunt just want a different regulation for a better age structure. And current system isnt getting it done! 

I have a goal of three deer a year! I perfer 2 yr olds and don't care if they are bucks or does! I pass on all small bucks intill halloween weekend which meant I passed on 9 different bucks, last year was more. Now this was all down south. In Irons I filled my doe tag for the first time in ten years during muzzle loader season! I buy tags in hopes thats somebody else wont get one, but I think state gives them out to everybody that applies!

The economy is not going to change intill gas prices become reasonable.
People aren't coming now with current system so why leave it the same? If lake cty produced record book bucks like jackson or hillsdale county. You'd be bitch'n about the number of hunters no state land or all state land hunters crowding your 5 acre plot! I hunt lake county because I love hunting the big woods. I would definitely go more often if there was better hunting opportunities and bigger bucks! The only thing appealing about Lake cty is the lack of hunter numbers.

Current system is a joke at best. Michigan keeps putting more tags out just too generate more cash flow, nice way to manage our resources. 
Ideally I would like to make gun season a draw tag. You either get a doe or buck tag. For both muzzleloader and gun season, and they would be separate seasons and you only get one buck tag a year!!So that means if you get a buck tag for gun your getting a doe tag for muzzelloader. And zone off the state so you can only apply for one zone to hunt, like turkey hunting. And of course bowhunting license would be over the counter and a either sex tag and good for anywhere in the state!

To be honest I want laws to change so people like you give up hunting!
You entitlement hunters are ruining the sport for everyone!


----------



## billmitch (Dec 21, 2009)

bowonly said:


> I dont understand why you feel that somebody is trying to take your rights away? Laws change all the time. The DNRE sets the rules so what is the difference if the tags reads 3 inches or 3 points on a side? The herd has no age structure, buck to doe ratio is 1 to 12. I stopped bowhunting lake county over fifteen years ago because the herd was a mess. Actually it is worse now, at least back then I could see 10 deer a day (all does). All I want is something different from the current system. With NO BAITING, I DO NOT BAIT!!! No conspiracy theory still want opportunity to hunt just want a different regulation for a better age structure. And current system isnt getting it done!
> 
> I have a goal of three deer a year! I perfer 2 yr olds and don't care if they are bucks or does! I pass on all small bucks intill halloween weekend which meant I passed on 9 different bucks, last year was more. Now this was all down south. In Irons I filled my doe tag for the first time in ten years during muzzle loader season! I buy tags in hopes thats somebody else wont get one, but I think state gives them out to everybody that applies!
> 
> ...


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

bowonly said:


> I dont understand why you feel that somebody is trying to take your rights away? Laws change all the time. The DNRE sets the rules so what is the difference if the tags reads 3 inches or 3 points on a side? The herd has no age structure, buck to doe ratio is 1 to 12. I stopped bowhunting lake county over fifteen years ago because the herd was a mess. Actually it is worse now, at least back then I could see 10 deer a day (all does). All I want is something different from the current system. With NO BAITING, I DO NOT BAIT!!! No conspiracy theory still want opportunity to hunt just want a different regulation for a better age structure. And current system isnt getting it done!
> 
> I have a goal of three deer a year! I perfer 2 yr olds and don't care if they are bucks or does! I pass on all small bucks intill halloween weekend which meant I passed on 9 different bucks, last year was more. Now this was all down south. In Irons I filled my doe tag for the first time in ten years during muzzle loader season! I buy tags in hopes thats somebody else wont get one, but I think state gives them out to everybody that applies!
> 
> ...


How am I an entitlement hunter? Again I'm not asking you to give something up you are asking me. 

You want laws passed to benefit a few (that's entitlement ) 

Suppose tomorrow a large group of gun hunters feel that all the bow hunters are shooting bucks before they get a chance ( some do) should they try to get the regulations changed to benefit them. Would you say what you say in your first paragraph. Or would you be against it saying they are taking away your opportunity to bow hunt


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

bowonly said:


> ..... The herd has no age structure, buck to doe ratio is 1 to 12.........
> . Actually it is worse now, at least back then I could see 10 deer a day (all does). ...........


Are you just trolling with statements like those two ?

L & O


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Liver and Onions said:


> Are you just trolling with statements like those two ?
> 
> L & O


He's not trolling just another example of the blind following the blind


----------



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

I agree 100% with you poz. Pinefarm's only agenda is to limit what state land hunters can shoot around his property boundry. He seems upset at times because he cannot keep all the deer on his property during the rut and the spike's and fork horns that he's trying to protect all year will get shot. Non of which is illegal or non ethical.


----------



## Dawg (Jan 17, 2003)

The state has compounded short-sighted (SLP) strategies to make it easier for more people to shoot more deer in a shorter amount of time.

Now they'd pretty much have to charge more for fewer tags (NLP). In trying to make hunting easier they've actually made it more of a challenge and _increased _the overall reliance on bait. They'll screw it up worse before they fix it. Locally the state is improving public habitat but the herd isn't here to benefit. I just hope those deer that are left don't happen to _pellet_ while they're on public land.


----------



## MichMatt (Oct 24, 2008)

billmitch said:


> bowonly said:
> 
> 
> > I dont understand why you feel that somebody is trying to take your rights away? Laws change all the time. The DNRE sets the rules so what is the difference if the tags reads 3 inches or 3 points on a side? The herd has no age structure, buck to doe ratio is 1 to 12. I stopped bowhunting lake county over fifteen years ago because the herd was a mess. Actually it is worse now, at least back then I could see 10 deer a day (all does). All I want is something different from the current system. With NO BAITING, I DO NOT BAIT!!! No conspiracy theory still want opportunity to hunt just want a different regulation for a better age structure. And current system isnt getting it done!
> ...


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

MichMatt said:


> If I remember correctly Lake county only had 300 private land antlerless tags available in 2011. None for public land.


Add another zero. Lake Co. had 3,000 private land antlerless tags available in 2011, 0 public land tags.


----------



## hjbigrapids (Oct 4, 2009)

The quick way to deal with the cookie bites was to break off the bitten area and enjoy..... Or if you are like me, just take the cookie and eat it. No big deal.

Public land is just that, Public. Does not matter if you are a landowner near by, or if you live hours away. Everyone has an opinion and everyone can have a say. Yet when the majority says lets change things, then don't cry about it. Now who is the MAJORITY, people who want change. The status quo does not appeal to a lot of people. There are better ways.

I have mitigated in circumstances where there were union people against non-union people. Unfortunately I am not pro union. Or should I say FORTUNATELY. What it comes down to is you have to be able to change with the times. There are so many examples, in the history of this country, of people who were set in their ideas and would not accept anything else.

When change comes along don't fight it. Take a good look at what it could do and then make up your mind. 

I remember sitting in Edies Log Bar in Baldwin and telling some guys that smoking would be banned soon. They were adamant that it would not. Guess what happened.

So ladies and gentlemen take may advice, pull down your pants and slide on the ice..........


----------



## STG8008 (Sep 14, 2011)

Munsterlndr said:


> Add another zero. Lake Co. had 3,000 private land antlerless tags available in 2011, 0 public land tags.


You are correct, Lake County had 3000 Private Land & 0 Public Land.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2011_Antlerless_Quotas_357876_7.pdf


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

Munsterlndr said:


> Add another zero. Lake Co. had 3,000 private land antlerless tags available in 2011, 0 public land tags.





hjbigrapids said:


> Public land is just that, Public. Does not matter if you are a landowner near by, or if you live hours away. Everyone has an opinion and everyone can have a say. Yet when the majority says lets change things, then don't cry about it. Now who is the MAJORITY, people who want change. The status quo does not appeal to a lot of people. There are better ways.


Does not matter if you are a landowner nearby?

What part of 3000 private land tags and "0 public land tags" don't you get? 

You want the public land hunter to have *0 doe tags and the APR's YOU want.* and you think everyone should be happy about that?


----------



## hjbigrapids (Oct 4, 2009)

Unfortunately there apparently was some miscommunication. If I really wanted to enforce the things that I could, I would close so called public land and reinforce my treaty rights.

With the rights that I have and the law enforcement privileges I have, there would not be any more PUBLIC land. Having the badge that I do, and also the clearances I could effectively close it all down.

If you don't believe me then ask the tribal lawyer.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

hjbigrapids said:


> The quick way to deal with the cookie bites was to break off the bitten area and enjoy..... Or if you are like me, just take the cookie and eat it. No big deal.
> 
> Public land is just that, Public. Does not matter if you are a landowner near by, or if you live hours away. Everyone has an opinion and everyone can have a say. Yet when the majority says lets change things, then don't cry about it. Now who is the MAJORITY, people who want change. The status quo does not appeal to a lot of people. There are better ways.
> 
> ...


So the majority that is against some of the things the in do should get their way. The majority of non Indian casino owners would love to close the Indian casinos. Should
they get their way under your logic it should be yes. 

You want the dnr to make rules in lake county based on the majority.


----------



## Jacob Huffman (Sep 13, 2004)

I also hunt near LeRoy and have been hunting there for the past 27 years. I have seen the glory days back in the mid 80's when we used to drive around and shine...You lost count of the number of deer ,seemingly in every field..I remember counting 200 deer a weekend while hunting back then...Sure lot's were the same but still it was almost non-stop..Alot of fun...With that being said myself and my dad bow hunted up there this year for the 3 days before the gun opener ..on private land...and saw all of 3 deer...Then on opening day we were both tagged out by 8 am...funny how that works...I will hunt the opener in that area until I can't do it anymore, no matter how many...or few...deer I see. To me that is the only place to be for opening day..I love the area.....Just my 2 cent's.


----------



## hjbigrapids (Oct 4, 2009)

Again, bourbon logic has overcome everything else. If the Non-Indian casino owners had a real say, then more power to them.

Things change and that is the bottom line. I for one do not like to pay the amount of taxes that I do, yet it is part of the process. Why should Michigan tax the income that I make in other states.

I know this is off the line of Lake County, yet it is related. We need to get together as one party and look into the things that we leave for our off spring. If you can't leave something good for them then let it go.

I plan on buying up at least 3000 acres of land around the farm and leaving it to the kids. How, I can do it through Imminent Domain...Fun stuff.

If you have read this far then you know it is all a bait and trap thing. I wish you all well. Believe it or not. Perhaps you may take the time to sit down and think about things for a while, rather than just react........


----------



## MichMatt (Oct 24, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> Add another zero. Lake Co. had 3,000 private land antlerless tags available in 2011, 0 public land tags.


Thanks for the correction. I guess with the deer numbers up there it was wishful thinking .


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

hjbigrapids said:


> Unfortunately there apparently was some miscommunication. If I really wanted to enforce the things that I could, I would close so called public land and reinforce my treaty rights.
> 
> With the rights that I have and the law enforcement privileges I have, there would not be any more PUBLIC land. Having the badge that I do, and also the clearances I could effectively close it all down.
> 
> If you don't believe me then ask the tribal lawyer.


 Why don't you give that a try?:lol: Good luck.


----------



## wallhd (Nov 14, 2010)

After 25 years what drove me out of the county was I didn't see enough deer to make it worth putting up with the jerks in the camps.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

It seems some Lake County residents/hunters have another plan, just as all the SLP residents had when they drove a ways to deer hunt.

http://www.woods-n-waternews.com/Ar...01-01-210700.112113-Oakland-County-GIANT.html

January 01, 2012

For many Michigan families, deer hunting is a chosen lifestyle rather than just merely a recreational activity. Twenty-seven year-old Linc Lafountain comes from a large family of hunters and distinctly remembers sitting with his father, Terrie, as a young six year old. Linc comments, "My dad remains an avid hunter who rarely misses a morning or night hunt."

Linc and his immediate family live near Cadillac in the little town of LeRoy. Even though Linc lives near a classic "up north" town he regularly hunts with his uncles Chris and Mick Lafountain in southern Michigan's Oakland County. Lafountain regularly travels down-state to work with his Uncle Chris who owns a tree cutting service.

During the summer, Linc placed trail cameras in his hunting areas and got some impressive pictures of a giant 9-pointer. One evening the young hunter actually saw the buck in an agriculture field when scouting with a spotting scope. "He was by far the biggest buck that I have ever seen in the wild," declared Lafountain.

On October 27, 2011, Linc chose to hunt a stand located at a point that comes out into a field. On one side of the point was cut soybeans and the other side held standing corn. Linc was on a definite mission and that was to kill the giant 9-pointer.

Lafountain sat 25 feet high in a maple tree. Behind him was a mixture of mature maples and thick brush. Linc narrates what happened that fateful morning. "At first light a group of five does came through. Around 9 a.m., I heard a twig snap and looked behind me. I immediately saw the big 9-point. The wind was swirling and the deer was very cautious. The big buck stood perfectly still for about 20 minutes. By the time he committed to come my way I was shaking pretty bad. It was a good thing that I had a whisker biscuit arrow rest, otherwise my arrow would have come off the rest. Finally, the buck stood in a quartering away position only 22 yards away. As all of this was happening I had a large flock of starlings perched all around me making a very loud racket. When I released the arrow my shot looked like I hit him about three ribs from the center and I was afraid that I made a bad shot. I was rather upset with myself."

Linc says that he waited a full hour before getting down to look for sign. "Fortunately I hit a lung and the buck expired

about 150 yards from where he was shot," stated the relieved bowhunter, who found the giant 9-pointer lying at the bottom of a creek bed.

This great buck is not your typical 9-point. To start with he has an ultra-wide inside spread of 22.5 inches and sports extremely long tines. The longest tine measures an incredible 14 inches and the opposite side has a matching tine just 1/8 of an inch shorter! Heavy mass is maintained throughout the heavy rack. The monster buck's green score is 177 6/8 gross Boone and Crockett points and 174 net B&C points as a main-frame 8-point. Barring no major shrinkage, the buck will be officially measured after the mandatory 60-day drying period and should qualify for the national Boone and Crockett record books. This is quite a feat for a main-frame 8-point. According to Linc, this is the third year in a row that he has taken trophy class bucks. In 2009, Lafountain states that he got a 156 inch, 10-point and in 2010 he got a 140 inch 8-point.

As fate would have it, 2011 turned out to be a banner year for other members of the Lafountain family as well. Linc's father shot a 9-point on the opener of gun season and Linc's brother, Perrie, shot his all-time biggest buck on November 17, which was a 140 inch 10-point. 2011 will definitely be a year to remember for the Lafountain men!


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

FWIW...Leroy isn't in Lake county.:lol::lol::lol: I doubt you will find many Leroy residents flocking to SLP public land either.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Kind of amazing that two hunters from the same family were able to bag 9 points without having an OBR or APR's in place. It's a miracle! :lol:

I thought the deer herd was wiped out and the sky was falling. :yikes:

Guess not.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> Kind of amazing that two hunters from the same family were able to bag 9 points without having an OBR or APR's in place. It's a miracle! :lol:


Not to mention a 3rd member of the same family took a 140" 10 point. Those were quite possibly the last three mature deer in the state.

:lol:

KPC


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> Kind of amazing that two hunters from the same family were able to bag 9 points without having an OBR or APR's in place. It's a miracle! :lol:
> 
> .........


Not only that, this was done in Oakland County where, according to Pinefarm, just 30 years earlier there were more elephants than deer running around.

L & O


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Liver and Onions said:


> Not only that, this was done in Oakland County where, according to Pinefarm, just 30 years earlier there were more elephants than deer running around.
> 
> L & O


Looking at the pic of that nine point, he may well have been the decendant of one of them.



KPC


----------



## jafurnier (Jun 7, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> Kind of amazing that two hunters from the same family were able to bag 9 points without having an OBR or APR's in place.


Might not be legislated? But do you think all of those those bucks be there if they down anything brown?


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

We killed two giant bucks on our Oakland county property in the late 90's-early 2000's. One was 230lbs dressed and the largest deer I've ever seen in person.

There' the bucks often find sanctuary in upscale rural neighborhoods where each $400,000-$600,000 home has 2-5 acres. 

During the 1990's, as the herd really exploded, cars hit some giant bucks coming off our property on M-15, between seymore lake road and lake louise. There was a deadly crossing right about where the stop light is at seymore lake rd. 
The deer swung around our lake and everything came to a pinch point at the base of the hill.

I jumped a buck in the 1990's during duck season that was nearly as large as the one in the story, and I drove down from Big Rapids several times to hunt him, but never saw him again. He was a huge buck.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> It seems some Lake County residents/hunters have another plan, just as all the SLP residents had when they drove a ways to deer hunt.
> 
> http://www.woods-n-waternews.com/Ar...01-01-210700.112113-Oakland-County-GIANT.html
> 
> ...


Wow the locals are even leaving the area to hunt. Must be great for the economy up there.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> Mr. Fairbanks,
> 
> I don't think anyone here believes any disease will be wiped out. Be it TB, CWD, blue tongue or whatever. Or in humans, AIDS, influuenza, etc. Controlling to minimum levels is the hope of everyone I've talked to.
> 
> ...


"Having 50-70 deer terrible enough". I guess not that terrible, cause you had 60 on 160 acres not in a square mile. But that was when you were anti baiting. again do what i say not what i do.


----------

