# If you could ask Mr. Clute one question.



## SR-Mechead (Jan 25, 2004)

My question would be .Mr. Chute in the Sunday paper in Wisconsin the DNR said that they where going to start listening to the hunters and sportsman on issues in the state ,When is Michigan going to listen to the hunters who are in the woods from Oct. to Dec. on issues in there state.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

My first point to Mr. Clute would be to thank him for his efforts, as well as the efforts of his department.

Question is this - what is the DNR's strategy to drive unity among hunters that will help us to preserve hunting for our followers, as a way to protect the sport from those who want to criticize the hunting traditions in an effort to get a particular interest to the forefront? This is part of protecting the natural resources of the STate.

Again, Mr. Clute, I respect your efforts.

Swamper


----------



## aborgman (Sep 8, 2004)

Sib said:


> Yeah, we're not gonna agree on this issue, their methodology of counting harvested deer reminds me of the a Dishwalla song, _...we count only blue cars..._ There maybe some science involved, but other states have a much better process and I'd like to know why Michigan hasn't embraced those processes.


 I honestly doubt from a scientific and accuracy perspective that other states do have a better process. What other states do seem to have are processes which are much more understandable to laymen/hunters - thus engendering more confidence in the accuracy of the numbers. 

-- 
Aaron


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

aborgman said:


> What other states do seem to have are processes which are much more understandable to laymen/hunters - thus engendering more confidence in the accuracy of the numbers.


And there-in lies one *excellent* reason for having mandatory deer deer check-in.


----------



## aborgman (Sep 8, 2004)

Whit1 said:


> And there-in lies one *excellent* reason for having mandatory deer deer check-in.


 Yep... sometimes perception is much more important than reality.

-- 
Aaron


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

aborgman said:


> I honestly doubt from a scientific and accuracy perspective that other states do have a better process. What other states do seem to have are processes which are much more understandable to laymen/hunters - thus engendering more confidence in the accuracy of the numbers.


You could be right about the science part. And I agree that having a system which is understadable by the hunter would be an improvement and remove some of that cloud of uncertainty.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Rod, off the record and all politics aside, if you were calling the shots in the DNR, what deer management changes would you implement?


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Rod, off the record and all politics aside, if you were calling the shots in the DNR, what deer management changes would you implement?


Now THERE is a question!!!

ferg....


----------



## Buckmaster Flash (Nov 2, 2001)

aborgman said:


> I honestly doubt from a scientific and accuracy perspective that other states do have a better process. What other states do seem to have are processes which are much more understandable to laymen/hunters - thus engendering more confidence in the accuracy of the numbers.
> 
> --
> Aaron


Aborgman, Michigan very well may have data collection methods that lead to a relatively accurate estimate of what the deer numbers are in Michigan, but are you 100% certain that these are the same number that they dissmeinate to the media and to the public through their website. In this day of Enron, Worldcom, Andersen, and countless others, a company or government agency reporting numbers that don't reflect reality isn't quite a stretch, especially an agency who has quite a different objective than the people it is serving (hunters). 

The DNR could say their are 3 million deer in Michigan next year. How could you prove they were wrong, since there is really no way to audit them, other than auditing the validity of their sampling methods and comparing those figures to what they are reporting to the public.


----------



## Buckmaster Flash (Nov 2, 2001)

Below is a partial cut and paste from a previous post of mine from another thread on the DNR's estimates. You have to read it to fully understand my question. 

MY QUESTION TO MR. CLUTE:
MR CLUTE, HOW IS IT THAT MANY MORE HUNTERS TAKING MANY MORE DOES THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS HAS LED TO A DRMATIC INCREASE IN DEER DENSITIES IN THE SOUTHERN LOWER PENINSULA. 


Here is the Clute quote from a December 2004 Free Press article.

"Many people who hunt the northern zones refuse to accept the DNR's statewide deer population estimate, which has remained about 1.7 million to 1.8 million for a decade. Clute said that's because they fail to understand that while the total number of deer in Michigan hasn't changed, the distribution of those deer has.

In 1985, three-quarters of the deer lived in the northern Lower Peninsula and the UP, and in 1995 those areas still held two-thirds of the state herd.

But today more than half of Michigan's deer live in the southern Lower Peninsula, which means the number of deer per square mile in the northern zones has decreased dramatically."
End of quote.


Forgive me, but what Clute says still doesn't make any sense. So for Clute to say the numbers are down noticeably in the NLP and UP and the herd is still 1.7-1.8 million, than he is quite obviously stating that the numbers are up rather noticeably in the SLP. Hmm, I know the numbers are high in many areas if not most areas of the SLP, but are they dramatically higher than they were five years ago. I personally can't see how that could be given the initiatives to reduce the deer herd in the southern lower the past five years. 

1.Addition of essentially unlimited antler-less permits in many counties.

2.Adding a late antler-less season in many counties.

3.Elimination of the tax ID number requirement for antler-less permits on private prop.

4.Elimination of minimum acreage requirement for private prop antler-less permits.

5.Explosion in the popularity of muzzleloader hunting in the past several years. Can also add that the modern in-line has led to higher kill rates based on their capabilities when compared to the traditional.

6.Addition of a youth hunt.

7. The increase in the number of hunters hunting the southern lower due to the decline in the deer numbers up north. I think farmlegend recently posted a statistic that 52.5% of hunters now primarily hunt the southern lower. We must not be very good hunters in the southern lower, cause the herd keeps growing according to Clute.

8.Growth in QDM in SLP, which often times entails taking a lot of does due to the make up of the southern lower herd.

So, Clute is essentially saying that these intitiatives have worked in the UP and NLP since the herd is down, but not only did these intiatives not work in the southern lower, they have led to a significant increase in the deer herd in the past handful of years in the southern lower. I'm a little slow, so can someone please explain to me how this can possibly make sense. How can many more hunters taking many more does in the past several years lead to a significant increase in the deer herd in the southern lower?


----------



## davidshane (Feb 29, 2004)

What I really dislike about Mr. Clute's statement is this: It's not that I disagree with the numbers that they put out there, that is not the major focus point. If there are now more deer in the SLP than in the NLP so be it. The deer number i the SLP have grown from reproduction, not from the NLP deer moving. The deer in Roscommon don't now live in Jackson. 

I feel they have tried to control deer numbers by lowering them where they can. The plan isn't working. There are more deer than ever in the SLP and few deer in most parts of the NLP. Recognize that a new plan is needed and make a change, quit issueing so many antlerless tag in areas that need to start a recovery. If they can not see where these areas are; we're in big trouble up north. 

MY QUESTION:

I would like to know the management statagy that is being used in 072-Roscommon. Where do they think they are at and what is the plan for the next 3-5 years.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Buckmaster Flash said:


> 8.Growth in QDM in SLP, which often times entails taking a lot of does due to the make up of the southern lower herd.
> 
> So, Clute is essentially saying that these intitiatives have worked in the UP and NLP since the herd is down, but not only did these intiatives not work in the southern lower, they have led to a significant increase in the deer herd in the past handful of years in the southern lower. I'm a little slow, so can someone please explain to me how this can possibly make sense. How can many more hunters taking many more does in the past several years lead to a significant increase in the deer herd in the southern lower?


Fawn recruitment. The number of does has declined. The buck age structure is improving. The habitat in that part of the State is great. Therefore fawn recruitment increases. A smaller deer herd, if balanced or close to balanced, buck to doe ratio less than 1:2. Will produce more fawns that will survive to their first birthday, than will more deer in poor habitat with an out of balance sex ratio.

That is why QDMA advocates a small, balanced, deer herd, in balance with it`s habitat. That is why most QDMA members. Outside of the UP snow belt. Hit the does hard. That is why most QDMA members(even those of us who hunt the NLP) have a freezer full of does, and continue to see more deer. That is why over the last 5 years on my property. Our buck harvest is less than 10% of the total deer harvested. Yet we continue to see more deer. Fawn recruitment.


----------



## tubejig (Jan 21, 2002)

With the recent contraction of TB by a Michigan hunter, what are we to expect over the many seasons ahead?


----------



## Buckmaster Flash (Nov 2, 2001)

davidshane said:


> What I really dislike about Mr. Clute's statement is this: It's not that I disagree with the numbers that they put out there, that is not the major focus point. If there are now more deer in the SLP than in the NLP so be it.


Davidshane.
Just a quick point. No one is questioning if there are more deer in the SLP than NLP. The point was for Clute to have said that the deer densities in the NLP are way down and for the herd estimates to have remained at 1.7-1.8million he is obviously implying that the SLP deer densities have increased dramatically, which goes against what the vast majority in the SLP have experienced in recent years and goes against good old fashioned common sense given the initiatives taken by the DNR to reduce the deer herd in the SLP in recent years.


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

Some very good questions posed above, so rather than repeating them, how about a new one such as:

_Is there any consideration of returning to DMUs as areas based upon ecosystems rather than the current political boundaries in the Lower Peninsula? If not, why not?_


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)




----------



## Buckmaster Flash (Nov 2, 2001)

Clute stated:
"But today more than half of Michigan's deer live in the southernLower Peninsula, which means the number of deer per square mile in the northern zones has decreased dramatically."

Forgive me if a paraphrased and took some liberties to translate "deer per square mile in the northern zones decreased dramatically" to deer densities are way down in the NLP. If anything me paraphrasing and saying "way down" might have actually understated Clutes statement of "decreased dramatically" Forgive me if I belive that "decreased dramatically" equates to more than "down" as you state. 


Clute's quote from the Dec04 Freep article
"Many people who hunt the northern zones refuse to accept the DNR's statewide deer population estimate, which has remained about 1.7 million to 1.8 million for a decade. Clute said that's because they fail to understand that while the total number of deer in Michigan hasn't changed, the distribution of those deer has.

In 1985, three-quarters of the deer lived in the northern Lower Peninsula and the UP, and in 1995 those areas still held two-thirds of the state herd.

But today more than half of Michigan's deer live in the southern Lower Peninsula, which means the number of deer per square mile in the northern zones has decreased dramatically."
End of quote.


----------



## Buckmaster Flash (Nov 2, 2001)

Bob S said:


> Fawn recruitment. The number of does has declined. The buck age structure is improving. The habitat in that part of the State is great. Therefore fawn recruitment increases. A smaller deer herd, if balanced or close to balanced, buck to doe ratio less than 1:2. Will produce more fawns that will survive to their first birthday, than will more deer in poor habitat with an out of balance sex ratio.
> 
> That is why QDMA advocates a small, balanced, deer herd, in balance with it`s habitat. That is why most QDMA members. Outside of the UP snow belt. Hit the does hard. That is why most QDMA members(even those of us who hunt the NLP) have a freezer full of does, and continue to see more deer. That is why over the last 5 years on my property. Our buck harvest is less than 10% of the total deer harvested. Yet we continue to see more deer. Fawn recruitment.


So I get this straight, the more doe you shoot in the SLP the higher the fawn recruitment because of the great habitat, which in turn leads to an increase in deer densities. So, just so I understand, the less doe you shoot, the lower the fawn recruitment, so deer densities decline. So are you saying we should be shooting less doe in the SLP to bring deer densities down in the SLP?????


----------



## lostmale (Dec 28, 2003)

Is the Farm Bureau And Insurance companies going to pay your wages Once all the Deer and deer hunters have migrated to Ohio?


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

QDMAMAN said:


> It seems that everyone has an opinion about what the problem(s) are with the deer herd. If you had the opportunity to sit down with Rod Clute and have a civil face to face conversation and your conversation would in the end effect change what one question would you ask him and why?
> 
> *Please keep your answers short an concise*.


This thread is wandering a little, let bring it back into the original context.

Thanks

ferg....


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Buckmaster Flash said:


> So I get this straight, the more doe you shoot in the SLP the higher the fawn recruitment because of the great habitat, which in turn leads to an increase in deer densities. So, just so I understand, the less doe you shoot, the lower the fawn recruitment, so deer densities decline. So are you saying we should be shooting less doe in the SLP to bring deer densities down in the SLP?????


Good question Buckmaster.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Buckmaster Flash said:


> So I get this straight, the more doe you shoot in the SLP the higher the fawn recruitment because of the great habitat, which in turn leads to an increase in deer densities. So, just so I understand, the less doe you shoot, the lower the fawn recruitment, so deer densities decline. So are you saying we should be shooting less doe in the SLP to bring deer densities down in the SLP?????


Deer Management 101: Manage Your Way to Better Hunting

No, what I am saying, is that it is all about balance, habitat and social pressures. Now, if you did stop shooting does in the SLP. At some point the doe population would reach a saturation point in relation the the habitat. At that point, fawn recruitment would cease.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Mr. C, any retirement plans in the near future? :evil: 

AW


----------



## SR-Mechead (Jan 25, 2004)

Thanks Adam I needed that. :lol: :lol:


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Lets keep this on thread. 
I'm liking what I'm reading and also can't help but notice some of the "wall flowers" getting their .02 worth in. Where ya been NorthJeff?

Keep'um coming!
Thanks, Big T


----------



## aborgman (Sep 8, 2004)

Buckmaster Flash said:


> Aborgman, Michigan very well may have data collection methods that lead to a relatively accurate estimate of what the deer numbers are in Michigan, but are you 100% certain that these are the same number that they dissmeinate to the media and to the public through their website.


 I'm not certain they aren't lying, but all that data is available to anyone who wants to check it out through the Freedom of Information Act.



Buckmaster Flash said:


> In this day of Enron, Worldcom, Andersen, and countless others, a company or government agency reporting numbers that don't reflect reality isn't quite a stretch, especially an agency who has quite a different objective than the people it is serving (hunters).


 The DNR isn't serving hunters. The DNR is serving hunters, non-hunters, motorists, farmers, and every other citizen of the state of Michigan as well as our natural resources (not just deer).



Buckmaster Flash said:


> The DNR could say their are 3 million deer in Michigan next year. How could you prove they were wrong, since there is really no way to audit them, other than auditing the validity of their sampling methods and comparing those figures to what they are reporting to the public.


 The field data is available through the FoIA and the methodology is published. One can obtain their figures and methodolgy and analyze them. 

-- 
Aaron


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Mr. Clute,
Obviously the deer numbers are down on the millions of acres of public land in the NLP. Yes, much of this is due to a maturing forest. Does the MDNR have any plans to improve that situation by implementing a major effort in timbering practices and put relenting, consistent pressure on the USFS to institute similar practices on federal lands where practical?

I have "no dog" in this "hunt" as the majority of my hunting takes place on private land with the only large block of state forest being about seven miles to the east. However, being a romantic at heart, and realising that we must do all we can to keep the hunting spirit alive and well in a dwindling population of hunters we must do what we can to improve the habitat of our public forests in regards to whitetail deer.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

aborgman said:


> I'm not certain they aren't lying, but all that data is available to anyone who wants to check it out through the Freedom of Information Act.
> 
> 
> The DNR isn't serving hunters. The DNR is serving hunters, non-hunters, motorists, farmers, and every other citizen of the state of Michigan as well as our natural resources (not just deer).
> ...


Want to discuss this issue please start another thread - this topic is NOT what this thread is about - 

Thanks

ferg....


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Mr. Clute, don't you think it's about time for Michigan to adopt a permit draw system for deer tags, similar to Western states and our own elk, bear and turkey tags?


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Swamp Ghost said:


> Mr. Clute, don't you think it's about time for Michigan to adopt a permit draw system for deer tags, similar to Western states and our own elk, bear and turkey tags?


I hate to think of it.


----------



## Letmgro (Mar 17, 2002)

Mr. Clute, is that your real hair? :chillin:


----------



## PERRY (Nov 29, 2001)

Bob S said:


> Assuming there will be a meeting with Mr. Clute again this year at the Lansing Deer and Turkey Spectacular. Also, assuming we won`t have anyone volunteer to run for Mid-Michigan Branch President on January 29. I will therefore be the Mid-Michigan Branch President at the next meeting with Mr. Clute. I have several topics to discuss. Number one on my list is, when are we going to get a private land antlerless season before the rut?


This one of our topics discussed with Rod Clute Wednesday night at our QDM DNR workgroup meeting


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Letmgro said:


> Mr. Clute, is that your real hair? :chillin:


Like Laura Petry use to say "OOOOOOH ROOOOOOB!":lol: :lol: :lol: 
Big T


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

Why does the DNR / NRC let the Farm Bureau dictate harvest goals without the sound science mandated by Proposal G? (Unless you assume political science is what voters approved)


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Swamper said:


> Quote "Mr. Clute, is that your real hair? "
> 
> I would ask the moderators (of this forum only) to not hide behind the shield of "no personal attacks" on certain posts and then let the others go. Having been threatened once with banishment after having said "I am glad you are not my neighbor" to a fellow poster, I am a bit perplexed as to what is viewed as a personal attack on a CONSISTENT basis. I recognize this is not a public forum, recognize it is not a democracy, and I post here at the will of the moderators.
> 
> ...


I took that in 'jest' and not as an attack on his politics or himself as a person - I may have missed it - but I 'think' it was 'in fun' and not in a harmfull or mean spirited way, as most of the 'personal attacks' have had a tendency. Just because we try to moderate, doesn't mean we don't have a sense of humor.

Swamper, if you are truly 'offended' by that comment let me know, I'll surely delete it and close this thread without a second thought -

ferg....


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

I am certainly not offended by the comment. Thanks and I enjoy the forum.

Swamper


----------

