# What's the DNR's goal for your deer herd?



## TheApprentice (Oct 17, 2005)

I thought I would share this site with you all. I found it to be quite interesting and at the same time quite disturbing. It shows the DNR's goals for the deer herd in every DMU in the state of MI. I was quite shocked to see some of the numbers they are trying to get to. Some goals are nearly half of what the current herd is. I would be interested to hear what some of you guys/gals think about the goals that the DNR has set for the deer herd in your areas. http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10905-129948--,00.html From the looks of it we should all be hunting in Jackson County if we want to see big deer numbers.

Ryan


----------



## n.pike (Aug 23, 2002)

Ugh. 11000-14000...............Way to go DNR, you have single handedly destroyed tourism and our economy with those goals. We depend on deer hunters, but with those numbers they wont come here.

Alcona County---Michigans new welfare capital.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Wow, it's hard to believe that in only one generation the sky is falling on the deer hunting world. It's too bad that not enough of todays deer hunters experienced the lean years of the late 60s and 70s. 

I only had time to hunt 8 days during rifle season this year. I saw more deer on any one of those days than I saw in 3 maybe 4 years combined during the lean years. Numbers are definatley lower than the boom years but hunting is still great in the eastern UP. 

I hope we never return to those boom years. Too many deer for too many years has destroyed the forests understory and it's ability to regenerate quality food within reach of the deer.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Wow, it's hard to believe that in only one generation the sky is falling on the deer hunting world. It's too bad that not enough of todays deer hunters experienced the lean years of the late 60s and 70s.


Maybe some of us weren't around during those lean years, but some of the people that were around and busted their butts to make the future of hunting better are probably sure happy to here how all their hard work is being ruined. I do remember driving down roads and seeing signs stating that this area was a DNR improvement area and with help from the locals was planted with food plots, or all the people who had winter feeding yards who made sure the deer survived the winter so the hords of deer hunters from the southern part of the state can drive up there next year and have a good herd to shoot. 
Like you said I't hard to believe that it only took one generation to forget what these people did.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

I'm having trouble opening Lake county, Can some one please tell me what it says.


Thanks, Poz


----------



## jme (Aug 26, 2003)

Poz, to summarize Lake County, it says the current deer population is estimated at 14,615. The goal is 23,000-26,000 (40-45 deer per square mile.) Right now the herd is 37% below goal. Restricted anterless permits on public land, and limiting bow hunters to only one antlerless deer are intended to build up the herd. There's a lot more and I hope you're able to open the report. Good luck, John-Ypsi (Washtenaw County)


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Thanks, 

That is good news for that area. I appreciate you doing that for me.

Poz


----------



## Elk Guide (Dec 19, 2000)

Hi......I want to first state that i have hunted deer since i was 11 years old when it was legal to hunt with a bow at that age and i remember not seeing many deer thanks to the large #s of does tags in the early 60's...I also remember the years when i saw so many deer that i couldnt count them but since these QDM people have taken over my sightening of deer have steadly went down ,my buddies bought in to this like most of you but i didn't...Well i have hunted hard since the beginging of november and i have not seen one deer on our land in isabella county ...That can be directly attributed to the # of doe tags gaven out in Isabella county over the last several years and people shooting up to 5 and 6 deer each year do to liberal amounts of doe tags....Isabella county has had over 15,000 doe tags availabe for private land for several years now ...And i dont know the # for public land....all i know is where i live in Isabella county there are no deer...And i want to say thanks to every one who shoots any thing they see....I tryed to get that web site to work for unit 37 to but it wouldnt work and i would like to see how many more they want to kill so its county wide.....I am not even going to bother hunting tomorrow or muzzle loading its just not worth it.. I realize that some of you have more deer in your area than you need but how far are you willing to draw the herd down to ....I am not pointing this at any of you i want to know from Rod Clute why ? If i see him at the Elk Oreintation i intend to ask him and fine out if this is what hes trying to do to the elk herd as well ..well thanks guy and gals for leting me vent ...


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

I think for DMU 001 they got is assbackwards. They claim all the deer are in the southeast and northeast of dmu 001. I believe there's more deer in the northwest and southwest than we have in the SE corner. I don't hunt the NE part so I can't say.I emailed the wildlife bio for my are to ask if this was a typo. If the DNR thinKs we have too many deer in the SE Corner the rest of the county is in some deep do-do :yikes: .........m


----------



## safetreehunt (Oct 1, 2003)

I think the DNR has taken a real positive approach in identifying the population by county. This will give the people that hunt in those counties a greater interest in helping the DNR SCIENTIFICALLY manage their herd.

I hunt Iosco County, DMU035, where the goal is to bring the population down. This year we saw plenty of bucks and lots of does. We figure our ratio of does to bucks is around 9:1. It use to be closer to 20:1, but our QDM effort is helping this out a lot. 

As a matter of fact, as you can see, we are doing our best to help the DNR out:


----------



## smbassman (May 25, 2005)

In Tuscola county, the deer population is being slaughtered with the number of doe permits and the length of firemarms season. On private land the deer get a one day break (Dec. 1) from Nov 15th to Jan.1. Public land is not much better with over a straight month of shotgun and muzzleloader seasons.

Now here is the kicker - 14000+ Private land doe permits and 2700 public land permits. I unfortunately live/hunt near state land and the deer population is rediculously low. 

Here is some interesting math regarding the permit #'s.

In Tuscola County, there is 29,500 acres of land open to the public. That means roughly 46 square miles. With the estimated (from DNR) deer herd @ 31/square mile, there should be 1428 deer total (antlered and antlerless) on state land in Tuscola county. WHY THE HECK DO THEY HAVE 2700 ANTLERLESS PERMITS AVAILABLE????????


----------



## wagoneer (Nov 22, 2004)

I just found that site myself. My area is actually below target so better times are coming, right?

After looking at several DMU's it supports what I've been saying. The DNR needs to do better management on private land. I know it's hard to accept that the government can control the deer #'s on your property, but unless you have high fences and paid for the deer inside them, than they can.


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

n.pike said:


> Alcona County---Michigans new welfare capital.


 LOL @ N pike.

Hey one thing they sold just under 4000 doe permits so far. Maybe with 2000 left and at ten bucks a whack that 20 grand less for the DNR. Next year if nobody bought a doe permit that would be an " Attention Getter"......m :lol:


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

Isnt it a problem when you reduce the numbers so drastically that what little deer are left seek refuge on private land, leaving public land near vacant? Isnt that whats going on in some of these areas where hunters arent seeing deer at all?

In my home town where deer numbers have been dramaticaly reduced, we are finding what little DPSM there are on public land are seeking refuge on low pressure private land. Since I came home from deer camp, I have been back tracking tracks in hopes of finding bedding areas as a reference for next year and I'm finding everyone to lead me back to someone's private property.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

smbassman said:


> In Tuscola County, there is 29,500 acres of land open to the public. That means roughly 46 square miles. With the estimated (from DNR) deer herd @ 31/square mile, there should be 1428 deer total (antlered and antlerless) on state land in Tuscola county.  WHY THE HECK DO THEY HAVE 2700 ANTLERLESS PERMITS AVAILABLE????????


It's like anything else - let's say 2/3 of those deer are does. (952) If the DNR wants to hold steady, I'm guessing they would need to take about 1/2 of them. (476) Now, stick with me here, lets 'assume' a hunter success rate of about 20% - 20% of 2700 permits would be around 540 doe taken.

So if the actual success rate is less than that, and my guess is that is less, then they have to issue 2700 permits to get 476 doe killed.

It's not that they want ALL 2700 permits filled, they just have to issue that many to achive their ACTUAL goal of 476 female deer.

Make sense ? 

ferg....


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Ferg, 
you got me thinking, I'm going to start a thread on what percent of the tags hunters buy, do they fill or plan on filling.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

poz said:


> Ferg,
> you got me thinking, I'm going to start a thread on what percent of the tags hunters buy, do they fill or plan on filling.


I suppose you could do that or you could look at the 2004 Deer Harvest Report that was posted a few months ago and look at the total number of licenses sold and the estimated kill numbers. That thread also contains those numbers from the previous 5 yrs. if you wanted to looked at a longer time frame.
An advantage of looking at looking at the harvest surveys is that you are looking at the results of over 30,000 hunters, not a couple of dozen who might reply to your thread. 

L & O


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

poz said:


> Ferg,
> you got me thinking, I'm going to start a thread on what percent of the tags hunters buy, do they fill or plan on filling.



Dont forget to take into consideration all other contributing factors such as fawn mortalities, car/deer deaths, preditors (coyotes), poachers, un-recovered deer, etc., etc, etc,..............


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

codybear said:


> Dont forget to take into consideration all other contributing factors such as fawn mortalities, car/deer deaths, preditors (coyotes), poachers, un-recovered deer, etc., etc, etc,..............


I started the other thread, But the things you mentioned above should be considered by the dnr as well when they issue permits. They can't say that we are going to issue 2700 tags because we want reduce the herd by 500, thinking that hunters kill 20% and not take into the consideration of the things you mentioned above.


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

If they have projected goals of lets say 30 DPSM, do they atually want 35 or 40 due to other contributing factors or are their numbers actually true goals with lower expected numbers due to contributing factors.



> It's not that they want ALL 2700 permits filled, they just have to issue that many to achive their ACTUAL goal of 476 female deer.


Doesnt leave much room for a hick-up does it?


----------



## TheApprentice (Oct 17, 2005)

I sure would love to see the percentage of deer tags filled this year. I think to assume that only 20% will get filled is quite low. I say this only because 9 out of 10 hunters that I know will have shot at least one deer this year with some of them shooting 3-5. I myself could have taken quite a few deer already this year, but have let all but 1 pass due to the fact that I am holding out for a big buck. Later in the year if I don't have the buck I'm after I will fill my tag with a doe, but I guarentee I will have a deer by the end of the year. I think it is absurd for the DNR to issue 2 times the amount of permits as there are deer, regardless of their reasoning. What happens if we get a crazy year and a lot more hunters get lucky enough to take deer. Our herd would be seriously diminished and then how long do you think it would take to get it back to decent numbers again. All I am saying is that I don't feel that the DNR should be allotting more tags then there are deer numbers in each given DMU. I think from reading some of the posts here that a lot of hunters would tend to agree with that statement. I am not high and mighty and I am just one being in this universe, so I don't expect that everyone will agree with me and I know for a fact the DNR could care less what I think, but I just had to state my opinion here.

Ryan


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

From the other thread it looks like most guys are filling about 50% of the tags they buy.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

poz said:


> From the other thread it looks like most guys are filling about 50% of the tags they buy.


that's of the guys on this board - which I venture to say is <1% of hunters

ferg....

In fact - I just checked - and if EVERY MEMBER of this site hunted whitetails it would only be .0191% of all hunters - pretty hard to draw any conclusions about filling tags - from that.

ferg....


----------



## huntnbrush (Oct 12, 2005)

TheApprentice said:


> I sure would love to see the percentage of deer tags filled this year. I think to assume that only 20% will get filled is quite low. I say this only because 9 out of 10 hunters that I know will have shot at least one deer this year with some of them shooting 3-5. I myself could have taken quite a few deer already this year, but have let all but 1 pass due to the fact that I am holding out for a big buck. Later in the year if I don't have the buck I'm after I will fill my tag with a doe, but I guarentee I will have a deer by the end of the year. I think it is absurd for the DNR to issue 2 times the amount of permits as there are deer, regardless of their reasoning. What happens if we get a crazy year and a lot more hunters get lucky enough to take deer. Our herd would be seriously diminished and then how long do you think it would take to get it back to decent numbers again. All I am saying is that I don't feel that the DNR should be allotting more tags then there are deer numbers in each given DMU. I think from reading some of the posts here that a lot of hunters would tend to agree with that statement. I am not high and mighty and I am just one being in this universe, so I don't expect that everyone will agree with me and I know for a fact the DNR could care less what I think, but I just had to state my opinion here.
> 
> Ryan


Well, according to the numbers published for Jackson County the deer herd could recover rather quickly. From their estimates, the herd here grew by 25% in a single year - 40,000 to 50,000 so apparently a diminished herd could get back to decent numbers in short order.


----------



## TheApprentice (Oct 17, 2005)

huntnbrush said:


> Well, according to the numbers published for Jackson County the deer herd could recover rather quickly. From their estimates, the herd here grew by 25% in a single year - 40,000 to 50,000 so apparently a diminished herd could get back to decent numbers in short order.


Yeah and you are looking at a county that is in the top 3 couties in MI for having the highest deer densities. You need to take a look at a county that ony has a herd of 15,000 or so. If there are 20,000 available tags in that county and 50% of those are filled the deer herd just dropped to 5,000, so how quickly do you think that herd would get back to a reasonable number. You can't just take a look at the counties with the highest deer herds and use that as the norm. 

Ferg while you may be right about Poz's conclusion as to the threads he has read, I know lots of hunters in Cass County that have no clue this site even exists and they 9 out of 10 have shot at least one deer if not 3-5 this season alone. When I speak of the deer herd I am really only talking about Cass County's herd, because this is where I hunt. I know there are only 19,000 deer in Cass and if they keep issuing tags like they are here it will be no time IMO that the herd is going to be drastically low. 

Ryan


----------



## huntnbrush (Oct 12, 2005)

Ryan, Forgive me for not posting my reply more accurately, I am totally with you on this. My response was intended to be taken as sarcasm. Even though I live in a county with a large number of deer, I don't believe the published numbers are anywhere near actual numbers. I certainly don't believe a herd (even the size we have here) can grow by 25% in just one year. I also don't buy that we have 70 deer per sq. mi. on average as the report states. There are many other inconsistencies that I found in the report such as the claim that in the past 10 years the topography here has gained more cropland, forests and WATER another was a claim that deer/car accidents continue to increase then they post numbers with a decrease of 200. I'm guessing that most hunters are going to look at the report for their area and feel the same - that it is inaccurate and has many things that simply make no common sense.


----------



## Nighttimer (Jul 24, 2001)

Ferg said:


> that's of the guys on this board - which I venture to say is <1% of hunters
> 
> ferg....
> 
> ...


----------



## Freestone (May 15, 2003)

I think the DNR is doing pretty well with their objectives. Alot of the areas with poor habitat should have a lower herd density. Over the course of time hunters will either migrate to areas of higher densities or give up the sport getting our number of hunters more in line with the size of the herd.


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

safetreehunt said:


> As a matter of fact, as you can see, we are doing our best to help the DNR out:



By looking at the picture I would say those bucks all look like 2 1/2 year olds. Those bucks would of made good breeder bucks and by next year, you would see much nicer racks too. Why would you take those and leave the 1 1/2 year olds to bread?


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Ferg said:


> that's of the guys on this board - which I venture to say is <1% of hunters
> 
> ferg....
> 
> ...


Ferg, I'm not saying or even try to say that the results from the other thread should be taken as the whole hunting community. I wil be the first to admit that most of the guys on this site are more die hard hunters than the majority of the rest of the hunters.
I just thought it would be interesting to see what people expectations and goals are, and to get an idea of the success people have.
I buy extra tags with the knowledge that I won't fill them. My worst hunting season would be to shoot two big bucks the first week of bow season, and not have any doe permits available in my areas. This would mean my season would be over. I always try to have a Tag for muzzleloader or late archery just to be able to spend time in the woods.


----------



## jimmyboy (Jan 10, 2002)

What's with the fuzzy math here? Remember,figgers don't lie - but liars figger! example: 2 deer taken last year. 4 deer taken this year. 100% harvest increase. Git it? Works the same in reverse.


----------



## EYESON (Sep 22, 2003)

Many of you here know that I hunt in Wisconsin but bow hunt near my home in S.E. MI. I know I should not compare states but in this case they are very similar as to deer density goals. The one thing I think Michigan needs to do is to break up some of the DMU's to make them smaller. For example, one of the DMU in Wisconsin had a high population of deer on the east end of it also alot of private land, where as the west end had lowere deer numbers, mainly national forest land. Well the DNR split the DMU into two seperate units now and had almost no doe tags this last year. The area I hunt in which is between Iron Mountain and Iron River had huge doe tag numbers a couple of years ago well we finally had two years of low doe tags, heck this year they only issued 400, it was the first yera I saw deer every day I hunted and I hunted for the whole ten day season. My other sugestion is get rid of the private land / public land doe permits and go to a lottery for everyone. If there are tags left over allow people to by extras then. I really don't see why land owners should be given special privelages on doe permits. My reasoning for this is if the population on the private land starts to grow the deer will filter to the public lands as well. My point to all this is I think MI DNR should not be bull headed and think that their way is the best they should take alook at other states plans and maybe adopt some of them here.


----------



## halfcore (Nov 11, 2003)

EYESON said:


> Many of you here know that I hunt in Wisconsin but bow hunt near my home in S.E. MI. I know I should not compare states but in this case they are very similar as to deer density goals. The one thing I think Michigan needs to do is to break up some of the DMU's to make them smaller. For example, one of the DMU in Wisconsin had a high population of deer on the east end of it also alot of private land, where as the west end had lowere deer numbers, mainly national forest land. Well the DNR split the DMU into two seperate units now and had almost no doe tags this last year. The area I hunt in which is between Iron Mountain and Iron River had huge doe tag numbers a couple of years ago well we finally had two years of low doe tags, heck this year they only issued 400, it was the first yera I saw deer every day I hunted and I hunted for the whole ten day season. My other sugestion is get rid of the private land / public land doe permits and go to a lottery for everyone. If there are tags left over allow people to by extras then. I really don't see why land owners should be given special privelages on doe permits. My reasoning for this is if the population on the private land starts to grow the deer will filter to the public lands as well. My point to all this is I think MI DNR should not be bull headed and think that their way is the best they should take alook at other states plans and maybe adopt some of them here.


It's not a matter of preference for private land owners for doe permits, its the fact that deer will congregate on private land that has MUCH better habitat, therefore thats where they will need to be harvested. By the time private land is saturated and deer move to public, there will not be a tree/shrub/crop left!


----------



## jimmyboy (Jan 10, 2002)

Wanta increase deer numbers on public land? Do clearcuts and stop killing them there.Takes habitat improvement,time,and reduced hunt pressure for recovery.THere's no majic cure.


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

jimmyboy said:


> Wanta increase deer numbers on public land? Do clearcuts and stop killing them there.Takes habitat improvement,time,and reduced hunt pressure for recovery.THere's no majic cure.


I agree with "stop killing them" but its not summer habitat our deer up here need, it winter. In Chippewa County in the U.P. the DNR cuts Cedars in the winter because the DPSM are below their projected goal and they cant even get the heard up to their minimum goal numbers. They have never issued antlerles permits in that region either.

There is no regrowth of Winter habitiat being conducted here in the NLP which plays a big role in a deer survial up here where they yard. Some areas in the NLP have severe winters just like areas of Chippewa county too.


----------



## jimmyboy (Jan 10, 2002)

codybear,clearcuts provide winter browse for a few years,then more clearcuts are needed on a continual basis. My understanding is that UP winter yards are overbrowsed and there is very limited young cedar survival due to overbrowsing as well. All the cedar in my area of Alcona co. has a browse line as high as a deer can reach on their 2 hind legs, brought about by too many animals over the years for the habitat to sustain itself. Only new growth cedar can replace that, and this requires years of minimal to no browsing of this young cedar.Cedar blowdowns on my place are gobbled up as quick as it occurs and the young trees are also decimated.A dismal outlook.The overbrowsed yards can't support former deer numbers in the UP or NLP,IMHO.


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

I agree but the clear cuts wont do any good in the winter if their not near the winter yards. I clear cut 20 acres on my property but the deer arent around in the winter.

I totally agree with you on not having enough cedar to supply the demand and thats where we need the most improvement up here. So it comes down to what do we do, continue to cut the heard drastically so there is adequate browse to support the reduced size with room for regrowth or do we begin to take measures to improve winter habititat to support a larger heard? I prefer to do the ladder and I'm sure other would too..

Another idea would be suplimental fedding during the winter so the current status of the yards can begin to recover. Why not start a Wild Deer Federation like they did for the Turkey's, take donations and raise money for winter food (Alphala dont cost much and would help the farmers). Obviously, deer hunting is a hella of lot more popular than Turkey huntin, brings in much more revinue and they have to be fed in areas of the state to survive during the winter. Why do we pay more attention the Turkey's than Deer?


----------



## jimmyboy (Jan 10, 2002)

Yep,clearcuts should be adjacent to winter yards,preferably on the south sides for more sun exposure.

Don't count on any supplemtal feed programs tho. That was tried back in the 70's or so, with detrimental results. ANG a/c airdropped alfalfa in the UP yard areas. Alfalfa caused deaths,as the dry hay stems created punctures in the rumen of the deer eating it.


----------



## huntndaddy (Mar 25, 2005)

smbassman said:


> In Tuscola county, the deer population is being slaughtered with the number of doe permits and the length of firemarms season. On private land the deer get a one day break (Dec. 1) from Nov 15th to Jan.1. Public land is not much better with over a straight month of shotgun and muzzleloader seasons.
> 
> Now here is the kicker - 14000+ Private land doe permits and 2700 public land permits. I unfortunately live/hunt near state land and the deer population is rediculously low.
> 
> ...


Tuscola County is in total waste. The deer heard is bad just like bassman has stated. I have hunted this area for the past 22 years. When I first started hunting there, at the end of the day day when everyone meets back at camp the main question would be "How many did you you see today?" Now the question is "Did you see anything?" This year I put in over 20 hours in the woods in this area between bow and gun and seen a total of 7 deer. Also I would like to point out that this 4 point rule is useless in this area. The last time I had seen or heard of anyone taking anything larger that a 6 point has been 5 years. I see bucks every year in this area but they are only 1 1/2 year old bucks. The DNR NEEDS THIER A$$ KICKED!! Whats going to happen when our kids are old enough to hunt?


----------



## marshrat (Oct 29, 2005)

As a former Michigan DNR wildlife manager in the U.P., my best advice to those of you with complaints is to go meet and talk with your local wildlife manager. This is NOT the Conservation Officers, although they, too are often very knowledgeable about local conditions. When you speak with your local manager, they can fill you in on the "why's" and "why nots" of deer management. There are also a lot of books on the market to educate yourselves on the subject...one good one I've seen lately is put out by the editors of Deer and Deer Hunting magazine called "Whitetail Wisdom - A 12 Step Guide" by Daniel E. Schmidt. You'll learn about the many myths that the general deer hunter has regarding whitetailed deer and deer management and it just might make folks better hunters. Happy Holidays!


----------

