# Michigans Problem All the does being shot!



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

I see threads like this and I just have to scratch my head. All I can figure is some guys must love seeing LOTS of deer, regardless of whether that number of deer is good for the herd, the farmer, or all those front bumpers on the highway. When someone talks of seeing 100 or more deer in one field, like it's a good thing, I don't know how to respond except to suggest that they educate themselves on the science of deer herd management.

These same folks are basically limiting themselves to not shooting more than one or two deer per year, so why do they need to see hundreds? Have they forgotten the severe winter kills of years past? Does seeing dozens of deer each sit mean you're more successful, even if you're only going to harvest 1 or 2? 

The OP said, "There can never be too many deer." With all due respect, that is simply ignorance talking. I like seeing deer while hunting as much as the next guy, but they need to be in balance with their habitat and with the social goals of hunters, farmers and insurance agents. Ironically, you live in a state where there are still a LOT of deer, even if there's not quite the over-abundance you saw a few years back. It's a good thing, really!


----------



## Aoutdoorser (Apr 7, 2006)

All these extra permits and extra seasons is nothing more than a money grab by the state, and yes to many deer are being shot through out the state. The state knows that hunters will buy these permits as long as they, the permits are available, $$$$$ for the state, whether you see a deer, shoot a deer or not. We are on a downward slide as far as deer population and hunter numbers go, people see no or few deer they stop hunting or don't start or don't get someone else interested in hunting. Yes, there are areas through out the state that have higher density than others, but these are going to be thinned rather quickly, unless depopulation of the deer herd is slowed down, and than when it's to late, what'ca gonna hunt.


----------



## jsmith2232 (Jan 4, 2006)

FYI, private land is only 5 per season, but you can now but all5 the same day as where last year you would have to purchase one a day for 5 days.... I don't think any one should be dogged for taking does, for the most part I would hope that hunters are responsible enough to take out what the property can hold. Deer eat approx 3200lbs of forage/year. so realistically how many deer/acre can the land support and be healthy. I think that anyone desiring to rip on a family that desires to live off the land should thouroughly research the topic at hand before bashing. I have 2 young daughters my wife and I in our family and we will polish off 7 mature deer before each up coming season. We make brats, salami, jerky, steaks, burger, roasts...and we NEVER buy beef. Between veni, bluegills and our garden were eatin GOOD for cheap. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

jsmith2232 said:


> FYI, private land is only 5 per season, but you can now but all5 the same day as where last year you would have to purchase one a day for 5 days.................


If you would like to edit your post with the correct information, it can be found in your Antlerless Deer Hunting digest.

L & O


----------



## jsmith2232 (Jan 4, 2006)

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10905-171755--,00.html#cost
Or you can read this 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## boomer_x7 (Dec 19, 2008)

Personally it is gonna depend on the area. In NLP where i live, less doe permits would be good. BUT its more than just a numbers issue. The current numbers wouldnt be bad if the buck to doe ratio was better. i will typicaly see 3 deer average per sit. I can sit in say 10 diff. spots and see 3 does each time. 30 does 0 bucks. Now if say in those 10 spots i seen 5 bucks out of 30 deer regularly that would be pretty good hunting... What i would like to see is have 2 years no doe permits, to get numbers up.Then have antler restrictions and maybe "more than now" doe permits to get the numbers a little better than 1/40 or what ever it is. 

As far as 100's of deer in feilds around here... I believe he is refering to how it used to be. I remember when i was a little feller, the headlights hitting a feild at night and seeing well over 150 deer feeding in any feild in the area. Block permits... noone caredcause there was plenty of deer. Maybe that was too many but i agree, 10 in a feild around NLP is like "wow, look at all the deer" now.


----------



## TreestandSparty (Nov 16, 2010)

Wow what a great topic. I have hunted with and old timer in SLM on some farm land that he had leased for years. His rules were no does during regular gun season. He always said..."You shoot the does and the bucks won't come". He thought it was better to shoot a 3 pointer standing with 30 does rather then a doe. A couple of years ago he told me that " we need to do something about all these does cause there was not enough bucks around to breed all the does". But the start of the next deer season ..."don't shoot the does"...The tally for opening day...1 thee point taken while over 50 deer does were running around. A few more bucks were taken during regular deer season....and some does during late doe. My point is...we need to let some young bucks grow.... Yes I think 5 doe permits a day is silly. Spend some time learning about the deer herd in your area...and use common sense when harvesting does. 
Here's a question for those hunting in NLM & UP....How much is your deer heard affected by poaching?


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

jsmith2232 said:


> http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10905-171755--,00.html#cost
> Or you can read this
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine



Yep, having the correct information is usually better than misinformation.

L & O


----------



## jimmyo17 (Jun 7, 2011)

Liver and Onions said:


> Yep, having the correct information is usually better than misinformation.
> 
> L & O


 I still dont think he realizes you can buy 5 a day, everyday if you wanted.


----------



## Ferris_StateHunter (Apr 24, 2006)

It seems like the originals posters intentions are that he see's 100ks of deer per sit. 

Is this even logical?? It would not take long before those deer moved on because there would not be enough feed to support that herd in such typical huntable tract of land, say 80 acres...

Not to mention disease and other variables. 

On top of that if you see 100 deer, and 99 are does and one spike, is that a sucessful hunt?

Just trying to get a handle on what your intentions are... And perhaps a reasoning...

Because all I have ever learned about herd management, this would not be a good scenario, and would lead to more problems than it would solve.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I thought hunters were complaining that too many bucks were being shot? 

Now too many does too? 

I was also under the impression that most hunters called themselves "meat hunters". Well, no better meat than a big, fat tasty doe. 

Meat hunters don't care about being a numbers seen-phile.


----------



## thunder river outfitters (Aug 21, 2007)

i hunt an area that has no doe permits, but yet ill see 10-40(depending on the stand) everytime out. bucks need the right vegitation(along with age) to grow a big rack, and when you have to many does, this will leave the bucks with out the nutrition they need.


----------



## thunder river outfitters (Aug 21, 2007)

Pinefarm said:


> I thought hunters were complaining that too many bucks were being shot?
> 
> Now too many does too?
> 
> ...


i agree!....lol


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

November Sunrise said:


> Only people who is well served by excessively high deer numbers are hunters who are selfish.
> 
> High deer numbers don't benefit the deer, they don't benefit anyone who drives a vehicle, they don't benefit the habitat, they don't benefit other species, and they don't benefit anyone who farms for a living.


I don't like using this adjective very often...but my fine sir, that post is epic.


----------



## sixgun4866 (Jun 7, 2011)

I will agree that in my area of Newaygo county we have to few deer, I base this on the fact that I own 80 acres of mixed vegitation, fields and woods and the last two times out I have not seen even one deer. A comment about the deer eating farmers fields, one old farmer by me use to say "they eat some of my crops and I eat some of them it all works out" good attitude if you ask me. As far as the numbers thing how are we as hunters suppose to get new hunters involved especially kids if they go out and sit for hours and don't see deer. Kids and new hunters and many of us older hunters want to see a buck and deer in general. To a 14 or 15 year old a nice 4 or six point is something great, or to a 20 year old bow hunting for the first time. I have a couple of questions;
In regards to car deer accidents. Has anyone seen their insurance rates drop with a reduction in the deer herd? Lets not forget that the people who work in the body shops make a living of this type of stuff.
Next if we shoot all the does where are the bucks suppose to come from?
If we want a true trophy state for bucks maybe we should make all deer tags a lottery draw with a great reduction in number of buck tags to ensure large bucks, what say everyone? Only want to hunt once every 5 or six years like a bear hunt thing.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

November Sunrise said:


> Only people who is well served by excessively high deer numbers are hunters who are selfish.


Don't forget DNR license sales. Oh and all the people in the service industry that benefit by human numbers, like motels, restaurants, etc... There are many served by high numbers. I don't know how you make the claim, those for small numbers are any less selfish than those for high.


----------



## harpo1 (Dec 6, 2007)

pikemaster789 said:


> The best deer states with the healthiest populations and biggest bucks (which we all want) have closer to a 1:1 buck to doe ratio. There are many things that need to be fixed here and I support shooting of does. I hunt gladwin and see 20+ does for every buck I see. And the bucks are usually "scrub". For example the neighboring farm field held 35 does at one point this year. Ill be shooting at girls for meat. I think I am helping management in this way. I do not think it will fix issues but will help. I dont think I would ever take 5 though lol


*This by no means is a personal shot at you pikemaster and I commend you for targeting some of those does this year, but I do have one question for you and any other "land/deer management" supporter which is...

While hunting, if you were to come across a field with 20+ does feeding in it and 1 single mature buck with about 130" rack..... which deer are you going to shoot? Are you going to take out a doe to help bring the ratio into balance, or are you taking out that buck?

I've asked that same question when confronted by QDM supporters at shows & seminars and it's always funny to watch them fidgit around trying to come up with the correct wording for their answer. Most often they respond with a sheepish grin... "I'm taking the buck out!", almost like their ashamed to go against the deer managment culture they're trying to spread.

I think the bottom line is that most hunters start out each season with the hopes of tagging a buck regardless of it's maturity level. The fact is that with the current laws in the state of Michigan.... it's perfectly legal to do just that! Shooting a doe over a buck would be somewhat of a test to most hunters (relax, I didn't say all) including myself.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

Ranger Ray said:


> Don't forget DNR license sales. Oh and all the people in the service industry that benefit by human numbers, like motels, restaurants, etc... There are many served by high numbers. I don't know how you make the claim, those for small numbers are any less selfish than those for high.


What I said was:

No one benefits from excessively high deer numbers.

No one in this thread's talking about reducing numbers to a "small" level. What's in view is the poster's ridiculous claim that there can never be enough deer. Such an assertion is biologically and socially ignorant.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

harpo1 said:


> *This by no means is a personal shot at you pikemaster and I commend you for targeting some of those does this year, but I do have one question for you and any other "land/deer management" supporter which is...
> 
> While hunting, if you were to come across a field with 20+ does feeding in it and 1 single mature buck with about 130" rack..... which deer are you going to shoot? Are you going to take out a doe to help bring the ratio into balance, or are you taking out that buck?
> 
> .


Your hypothetical is a straw man argument, in that sex ratios are largely self regulating. 

"20 does" in a field is more likely 8 adult does and 12 fawns, 6 of which on average will be button bucks. That equates to 14 does and 7 bucks including the antlered one, which is a ratio of 2:1.

Now in actuality a true sex ratio calculation includes only adult deer and is calculated immediate previous to the beginning of hunting season. In most of MI the ratio is lower than 2.5 does per 1 antlered buck. 

The "out of whack" sex ratio claims are largely a myth perpetuated by those who don't understand the topic. If you're interested in learning more do a search in the deer management forum for posts by Bioactive who's provided numerous models.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

I have to agree with the OP... I've been hunting our property in SLP for over 20 yrs and this year has by far been the worst ever for deer sightings... in 5 days of hard hunting down there I saw 12 deer.. Neighbors reporting the same thing..This year we are blaming the swamp being full of water. We noticed a decline 4yrs ago and have been limiting ourselves to 1 doe for the freezer...which I dont believe anyone has shot a doe in the last 3 yrs...I cant help but wonder if when deer are removed from an overpopulated, good habitat area they aren't quickly replaced by deer from outside that area. Leaving the surrounding area thin yet keeping the good habitat overpopulated..

I have to say this season has been great here at home in the NLP where I have never been able to get a doe permit..


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

jsmith2232 said:


> I have documented sightings on my property where alot of does are taken each year and only a few mature bucks and also at my dads where few does get shot but alot of 1.5s get shot. I can tell you that my antlerless count where theres plentiful bucks walking around is approx 40% mature does 60% yearlings, and the area that has very few bucks 70% mature does 30% yearlings. This tells me that if you want to boost your population the number of bucks plays a huge role, say you had A herd of 20 deer with 3bucks and 17 doe, now you shoot 2 bucks . Do you think that lone buck will breed 17 does and how will that affect the size of next years herd size with so many does going unbred. Now another scenerio, you shoot 5 does and none of the bucks, that leaves you with 3 bucks to breed 12 does, I guarentee that more than 5 fawns will be born next year and will enlarge the population. so for those wanting a higher population of deer, try taking a few does and hold back a couple years on the bucks, it will boost herd size plus give you opportunity at more mature bucks, it's a win win. I've been told "if you shoot the does then who is going to have the babies" well if you shoot all the bucks then who is going to breed all those does?
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine





aimus1 said:


> I'm hunting the land of baby deer and does. I wish they'd introduce a "Earn a Buck" law in Charlevoix County where in: The only way to obtain a buck tag is by first killing a doe. Turn the doe head into the DNR where they would confiscate the head and sell you a "Restricted" buck tag. 4 points on one side or more. I've got does everywhere. I've got spike horns mounting does. How good are your chances that a mature buck is going to breed those does when there are soo many does to breed. And what are the chances that one of those hot does are going to bring you a mature buck when there are 100 does. The sex ratio here is way out of whack. Not to mention all of the hunters that come from the school of: "If I don't shoot that fork horn then the neighbor will". The herd here is a healthy population with regard to number of deer but it's like I said... The land of baby deer and does.


It is virtually impossible for the PRE-SEASON doe/buck ratio to be worse than 3-1.......You problem is not the sex ratio.


----------



## musicman34 (Oct 7, 2011)

teamlilly said:


> *Hello all, this is my first post on this site but I love to come here every day and read all the great post from you all. I would just like to say I hunt in Genesee County and since Oct. 1 thru today I have seen a total of 5 Deer, and I hunted pretty hard this year. I have 3 sons 7-11and 13 and when ever they come out with me to the blind they are bored to death. I am pretty sure they will not be doing much deer hunting in the future if things don't change here. my two oldest are loving the Rabbit and the Squirrel hunts but don't care much about deer hunting. So far only one of my kids has ever seen a deer from the blind and that was about 4 years ago. I am no expert about Deer Management but if it was up to me I would only allow 1 Doe per hunter per year in this county. Thanks for reading and have a great day all.*


So I can assume that you sit in the same blind each time out? I can also assume that this blind has been in the same spot year after year?
Why not try to find a new spot? Apparently, the deer aren't using the area where your blind is. If this is the case, how is it the DNR's fault?


----------



## teamlilly (Nov 6, 2011)

musicman34 said:


> So I can assume that you sit in the same blind each time out? I can also assume that this blind has been in the same spot year after year?
> Why not try to find a new spot? Apparently, the deer aren't using the area where your blind is. If this is the case, how is it the DNR's fault?



*I don't believe I ever said it was the DNR's fault. I know I said I was no expert and the I gave my experience. I hunt out of a climber and I have 3 ladderstands set up. I can't shoot my bow in the blind it is to narrow. I mentioned the blind because that is usually where I take my sons so we can gun hunt a large field butted up to a crop field together. *


----------



## BohemianJon (Nov 28, 2011)

We hunted hard in a new area in Benzie County...2 of us...and I spent 65 hours in the woods and I saw ZERO deer! Found little sign. This is my 60th season of hunting here in Michigan...gets worse all the time. I've moved from one hunting area to another when we stop seeing any deer after the doe harvestors got through doing they're "If its brown...its down" thing. The DNR is not doing and has not been doing a good job of managing our deer herd and should all be fired! All they're interested in is selling licenses. Doe harvesting has to stop if we want to rebuild the herd!


----------



## Gigantopithecus (May 10, 2011)

BigBuckHunterDan5 said:


> I'm writing today because it is just plan and simple there is too many does being shot in Michigan. Deer population just keeps lowering and lowering. I can understand one per person but, 5 come on thats freakin ridiculous. Theres not deer like there use to be. All the early doe hunts don't help it either. You hardly see any deer like you use to up north. You use to see 100 to 150 deer in a field at a time now your lucky to see 8 or 10. What i'm trying to say is please stop shooting the does. People would see a lot more deer and a lot more bucks. You figure every doe has 2 fawns a year so if you passed on 50 does thats a 100 deer there will be in the woods next year and you figure 25% of them will be bucks. Plus if people pass on does there will be a lot less chance of button bucks being killed. And i'm not trying to say don't shot does i'm just saying don't shoot so many. 1 per person would be as bad. It would help Michigans deer hunting.
> 
> Sincerly,
> A concered Michigan Hunter


I grew up hunting zone 2 with 50-100 deer seen in fields. I started hunting with the attitudes that you are expressing. With the management style that you liked. The maximum number of spike bucks were produced and there was a buck for every hunter, even the high numbers that were there in the 1980's. 

What I would like to do here is explain something that anyone who is complaining about not seeing many deer (especially in zone 2) needs to understand.

Northern Michigan was managed with a goal and management style where very few doe tags are issued and the population is at its maximum capacity before the season. Hunters see many deer and their chance of taking home a buck (mostly spikes) is great. This style is tough on the habitat, other species, and winter kill is great. (Many hunters never knew that because they were home watching football when the fawns and tired out bucks died of starvation). Also, this management style brought out many hunters and opening day was a sea of orange. 

It is well-known that this style of management is rediculous. I can speak for the area that I hunt in NLP. I am near the TB Zone and many doe tags were issued for quite a few years now. The herd is holding on and the deer are much healthier. In fact, we had our best year ever. Not in number of deer sightings, but deer quality and low hunter numbers around us. 

We don't see 30 deer per day, but we have a full freezer and a good 10 point buck taken by my wife on opening day. What we don't see are lines of 10-20 deer and lots of spikes like we used to. 

I know that these deer will have more food per deer, better thermal cover and less hunting pressure than ever. 

Think about it, how many deer can each square mile hold and feed? How many deer do you need to take home? What is the benefit of seeing 50-100 deer? What is the real difference between taking home a spike buck or a doe? You might have to change tactics a little. I used to hunt the escape routes to heavy cover. Now, the deer were acting more normal by feeding and chasing.


----------



## thunder river outfitters (Aug 21, 2007)

Robert Holmes said:


> In twenty years all of the food plots in the LP that you guys work so hard on will not be worth a cup of rice if the wolves start coming across the ice and set up camp in the LP


they already have...lol. been seen in the kalkaska area now for over 2 years...lol


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

jsmith2232 said:


> I have documented sightings on my property where alot of does are taken each year and only a few mature bucks and also at my dads where few does get shot but alot of 1.5s get shot. I can tell you that my antlerless count where theres plentiful bucks walking around is approx 40% mature does 60% yearlings, and the area that has very few bucks 70% mature does 30% yearlings. This tells me that if you want to boost your population the number of bucks plays a huge role, say you had A herd of 20 deer with 3bucks and 17 doe, now you shoot 2 bucks . Do you think that lone buck will breed 17 does and how will that affect the size of next years herd size with so many does going unbred. Now another scenerio, you shoot 5 does and none of the bucks, that leaves you with 3 bucks to breed 12 does, I guarentee that more than 5 fawns will be born next year and will enlarge the population. so for those wanting a higher population of deer, try taking a few does and hold back a couple years on the bucks, it will boost herd size plus give you opportunity at more mature bucks, it's a win win. I've been told "if you shoot the does then who is going to have the babies" well if you shoot all the bucks then who is going to breed all those does?
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


This is easily one of the best posts I've seen on MSF in quite a while. Biologists used to believe that a dominant buck would breed every doe around; as many as 20 or more. Now, they concede that it is rare for a buck to breed more than 5 does in a season. When the ratio of does to bucks gets too high, shooting even more bucks can and DOES limit population growth. The basic problem with all of the models guys produce is that they _presume_ every single doe gets bred. When the ratio gets bad enough, that is no longer the case. This obviously makes the problem worse, as year after year of buck-centric harvest prevents breeding-age does from actually being bred.

I grew up hunting in California where a virtual moratorium on shooting does has created a model of another kind. It is a living case study in why you should harvest does every season. Imagine seeing 200 deer in a week-long hunt, but not a single buck with a branch-antlered rack. Imagine seeing 50 in a single group, with only 2 spikes. Folks assume if they see 50 deer they are seeing 20 does and 30 fawns. What they fail to realize is that only a fraction of those does were bred the previous year, so what they're seeing is 42 does and 8 fawns. If 4 of those fawns are bucks and 2 of them get killed the following season (because that's ALL you can shoot) then how many of those ~40 does are going to be bred by the remaining bucks? What if 3 of those 4 buck fawns gets killed?

I understand logistics and averages and recruitment dynamics, but all of that goes out the window when there simply aren't enough bucks left to service the does. Like another poster said...mature does and baby bucks.


----------



## anon12192013aazz (Dec 10, 2010)

swampbuck said:


> It is virtually impossible for the PRE-SEASON doe/buck ratio to be worse than 3-1.......You problem is not the sex ratio.


Let's say you're right and the pre-season ratio of does to biologically male deer is 3:1. What is the ratio of antlerless to antlered deer? I mean, given that you're including buck fawns in your 3:1 presumption, how many antlered deer are left in your population model? Now, let's say you personally focus all of your hunting effort on killing 2 of those antlered deer, each season. Are you stating, unequivocally, that you cannot reduce the male deer population to the point where not all does get bred? Are you saying that is "virtually impossible"?

Have you stopped to consider that low fawn recruitment numbers may be influenced by the fact that fewer than 100% of the breeding-age does is actually being bred? If you had 20 actual does, and ZERO bucks...how many fawns would be born the next year? If you had 19 does and 1 buck (who was subsequently killed) how many does did he service, first? How many of the buck fawns from that effort will survive as a spike or a forkie? What you presume to be impossible EXISTS in some places. 

It makes no more sense to shoot too many bucks than it does to shoot too many does. Here's a thought: Let's have a herd that is perfectly in balance, where 50% of the deer born are bucks and 50% of the deer harvested are bucks. It works great in other states and within QDM coop's right here in Michigan. All you have to do is get past the notion that killing a big buck is somehow "better" than killing a big doe.


----------



## old school (Jun 2, 2008)

A quick google produced this for lapeer county which I live and hunt in. Pretty interesting

Ex: If you google " Lapeer County deer numbers" The first thing on the list shows work sheet for calulating deer population. It worked the same for Tuscola..

http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/publications/pdfs/wildlife/Draft_Deer_Goals06_PDFs/DMU044.pdf


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Too many deer for too many years has crippled the UP deer yards. It's beyond my comprehension why anyone would want to set themselves for the same problem in other parts of the state. It might not be a yarding problem but lack of a suitable food source will happen as the forest system matures. Disease is another problem associated with too many deer than the range can support.

It's time for some of you arm chair biologists to get a little education. Start by purchasing Dr. Grant Woods' book "Deer Management 101." Read it, understand it and implement the principals taught in that book. There is no need for huge deer numbers anywhere in our state.


----------



## Hespler (Oct 6, 2007)

I can see 1 or 2 tops for doe harvest but 15 freeking deer is nothing but slaughter, some think there man hood grows because they own 40-80 acers of land and can get all the doe permits they want,,,,,and screw the DNR all they want to do is sell sell sell either fishing of hunting tags, they would sell you 100 doe tags even though they knew there was only 12 doe left in Michigan. I dont have to buy a tag to go sit down in the woods and not see nothing.

also have a buddy who works for the DNR and say's its all political red tape, and the deer #s are way of, to many of us trust the law makers, but when the do ers are out there doing and not seeing the numbers the DNR claims are out there dont just chalk it up as bad luck, its a whole lot more than that.

I will be spending my money on tags in another state next year.


----------



## stinky reinke (Dec 13, 2007)

I heard that next year the DNR is handing out a box of kleenex with every license purchased in Michigan.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

I find it interesting that people whom talk about the out of whack buck to doe ratio rarely report seeing fawns in their tally. It's almost always something like - I saw 25 does and zero bucks. Fawns never get mentioned. 

The corrected math for those observations, is they saw 16 does and 9 bucks. Bucks don't get their antlers until their second season. 

If your deer tallies never include fawns, you are clueless to what your local buck to doe ratio is.


----------



## sixgun4866 (Jun 7, 2011)

Must be the buck to doe ratio is right in my area (1:1) because the last couple of times I was out I saw 0 does and 0 bucks, good job to the DNR.


----------



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

Sib said:


> The corrected math for those observations, is they saw 16 does and 9 bucks. Bucks don't get their antlers until their second season.


Wrong their still fawns. They don't gain doe or buck status until they are yearlings.:evil:

Skinner


----------



## TSudz (Sep 30, 2009)

boomer_x7 said:


> The current numbers wouldnt be bad if the buck to doe ratio was better. i will typicaly see 3 deer average per sit. I can sit in say 10 diff. spots and see 3 does each time. 30 does 0 bucks. Now if say in those 10 spots i seen 5 bucks out of 30 deer regularly that would be pretty good hunting... .


It's sad that 5 out of 30 is considered good hunting. I've been to places where the deer are managed properly, and it's 1 to 1, not 1-6. How awesome do you think it would be if you went out for a sit and had to wait for the right deer to come by? I'm not talking about hoping for a 3 point, I'm talking about waiting for a 130+ or better.

In general, as long as we sit around and think, "Don't shoot the does, they bring in the bucks" or, "Don't shoot the does, you're killing two or three deer...", we'll struggle to have 'good hunting'. 

I"ve heard it said a couple of times - know your land. State or private doesn't matter, invest the time all year long, get into the woods and get to know the herd you hunt. If you find more does than bucks, it's time to take down some does. 

Remember, mother nature gives 'em to us in a 1-1 ratio. Why are we messing with that by only killing bucks?


----------



## sixgun4866 (Jun 7, 2011)

From what I have read hear sounds like most of us agree that there needs to be more deer in general.

For the people of the QDM approach who want to see bigger deer, which I am not apposed to: if you only want to shot deer 3.5 years old or older isn't the herd going to be out of wack with a ratio of about 4 bucks to one doe per area based on the fact that the young bucks get a free pass and you will need however may deer you want to kill in an area per year plus the replacements growing? 

Also if you hunt in an area that is way out of wack with to many does and you rarely see a buck, do you let the 3.5 year olds and older walk so as to help the ratio?

From what I read on this post and it has been a good one, the one thing that seems to bind us together as a group is the fact that the DNR is not doing a very good job of giving hunters a quality deer hunt, no matter what your individual opinon of "quality" might be. This work together to get the state to listen to the hunters.
Glenn


----------



## Jet08 (Aug 21, 2007)

harpo1 said:


> My post had nothing to do with the actual buck to doe ratio being right or wrong in MI. It was merely to state that the average hunter in MI will target a buck over a doe when in that position...... *including "management-minded" hunters* when it's a mature buck regardless of the perceived ratio on their surrounding property.


 
As a HUNTER, I would absolutely shoot the buck, and that is because a mature buck is my target. However, what needs to be realized is management is a process, not a hunt. Attempting to control the over population of a local heard can and needs to be done over time, not just in one hunt.

So again I say yes I shoot the buck. Then I continue on with my season with the 5 doe tags I just bought and enjoy correcting the problem :coolgleam


----------



## sixgun4866 (Jun 7, 2011)

Why is the answer to reduce the number of does instead of building up the number of bucks? Based on hunter reports deer sightings in general and especially buck sightings appear to be down.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

sixgun4866 said:


> Why is the answer to reduce the number of does instead of building up the number of bucks? Based on hunter reports deer sightings in general and especially buck sightings appear to be down.


Some of us work to boost the numbers of buck by passing on them when they're young and waiting on something mature. It's virtually impossible without private land, though, since many hunters will shoot the 1st buck that comes their way. Since growing the buck pool is so difficult, taking does is one of the only ways to keep a balanced sex ratio. 

Habitat is the key to more deer. Improve the habitat and the carrying capacity increases. But no herd should be managed at max carrying capacity, or over. As stewards we should be willing to keep the herd in check with the available habitat. The lack of sightings in many areas indicates marginal habitat, other areas were brought intentionally down because of disease concerns. These issues were created by not keeping the deer population in check during the 90s. 

Lastly, we as hunters, should be prepared to understand that a healthy deer herd doesn't mean increased hunter successes. That's one of the largest conflicts for some hunters. Managing for the health of the herd vs managing for hunter success.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

harpo1;3884157 but I do have one question for you and any other "land/deer management" supporter which is...
While hunting said:


> I can answer that..........it is very simple. I am going to shoot the buck and the next time I see 20 does in a field if there is no shooter bucks I am going to shoot a doe. I will repeat until I have at least 4 deer in the freezer and may even take a few more. I believe that is what most QDM hunters would do. We want to shoot big bucks but at the same time we won't quit hunting when we get one.
> I like to shoot deer, plain and simple, but I am selective on what bucks I will shoot, not so selective on the does


----------



## bassdisaster (Jun 21, 2007)

Skinner 2 said:


> Wrong their still fawns. They don't gain doe or buck status until they are yearlings.:evil:
> 
> Skinner


I totally agree but wont hide under a chair!
Fawns are fawns, neither buck or doe untill they have survived the WINTER, if they survive the winter then they are Yearlings.
Yearlings do not breed, male or female, so they are "ANTERLESS" deer again neither buck or doe, and again if they susvive till the next spring then they will be bucks and does, there is no other way to figure it, if you do then your no smarter then our precious DNR or MRC. Something about counting chickens befor the eggs hatch!

BD


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

bassdisaster said:


> I totally agree but wont hide under a chair!
> Fawns are fawns, neither buck or doe untill they have survived the WINTER, if they survive the winter then they are Yearlings.
> Yearlings do not breed, male or female, so they are "ANTERLESS" deer again neither buck or doe, and again if they susvive till the next spring then they will be bucks and does, there is no other way to figure it, if you do then your no smarter then our precious DNR or MRC. Something about counting chickens befor the eggs hatch!
> 
> BD


Wow, that might set the record for the most misinformation in a single post.

L & O


----------



## y660rider (Nov 27, 2011)

HAHAHAHA, I'll second the misinformation. BTW, bucks grow a rack when they are about 11 months old or the spring after the year they are born. No, that monster fork horn you shot was not a 3.5 yr old buck.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

bassdisaster said:


> I totally agree but wont hide under a chair!
> Fawns are fawns, neither buck or doe untill they have survived the WINTER, if they survive the winter then they are Yearlings.
> Yearlings do not breed, male or female, so they are "ANTERLESS" deer again neither buck or doe, and again if they susvive till the next spring then they will be bucks and does, there is no other way to figure it, if you do then your no smarter then our precious DNR or MRC. Something about counting chickens befor the eggs hatch!
> 
> BD


You have assembled one of the finest posts I've ever come across on here. 

I believe I speak for many of us when I say that anything else you can teach us regarding the definitions of buck, doe, and yearling would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps you can also further illumine us regarding who does the breeding. Or maybe share some of your research findings related to genetics or yearling buck dispersal. 

The opportunity to learn at the feet of a master doesn't come along often. We all want more. Please don't disappoint us.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

y660rider said:


> HAHAHAHA, I'll second the misinformation. BTW, bucks grow a rack when they are about 11 months old or the spring after the year they are born.


What are you talking about??? 

I recognize you're new to the site, and for that reason I'll say welcome aboard, but please don't muddy the waters further by correcting the Master of Disaster's deer age model. That's like trying to improve a Picasso. Better to just sit back and admire.


----------



## Firefighter (Feb 14, 2007)

bassdisaster said:


> I totally agree but wont hide under a chair!
> Fawns are fawns, neither buck or doe untill they have survived the WINTER, if they survive the winter then they are Yearlings.
> Yearlings do not breed, male or female, so they are "ANTERLESS" deer again neither buck or doe, and again if they susvive till the next spring then they will be bucks and does, there is no other way to figure it, if you do then your no smarter then our precious DNR or MRC. Something about counting chickens befor the eggs hatch!
> 
> BD


Wow. Just, wow.

(this is in good fun Bass, please don't take offense...)


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

Firefighter said:


> Wow. Just, wow.
> 
> (this is in good fun Bass, please don't take offense...)


Posting a picture of the incoming class of White Lake Firemen and adding your own caption is just plain wrong!!!:lol:


----------



## Firefighter (Feb 14, 2007)

wintrrun said:


> posting a picture of the incoming class of white lake firemen and adding your own caption is just plain wrong!!!:lol:


 
zing!!! Lol!


----------



## jatc (Oct 24, 2008)

bassdisaster said:


> I totally agree but wont hide under a chair!
> Fawns are fawns, neither buck or doe untill they have survived the WINTER, if they survive the winter then they are Yearlings.
> Yearlings do not breed, male or female, so they are "ANTERLESS" deer again neither buck or doe, and again if they susvive till the next spring then they will be bucks and does, there is no other way to figure it, if you do then your no smarter then our precious DNR or MRC. Something about counting chickens befor the eggs hatch!
> 
> BD


 
I swear my IQ level just fell about ten points after reading this.


----------



## Falk (Jan 18, 2005)

bassdisaster said:


> I totally agree but wont hide under a chair!
> Fawns are fawns, neither buck or doe untill they have survived the WINTER, if they survive the winter then they are Yearlings.
> Yearlings do not breed, male or female, so they are "ANTERLESS" deer again neither buck or doe, and again if they susvive till the next spring then they will be bucks and does, there is no other way to figure it, if you do then your no smarter then our precious DNR or MRC. Something about counting chickens befor the eggs hatch!
> 
> BD


----------



## CarnageProductions13 (Mar 11, 2011)

Falk said:


>


----------



## bassdisaster (Jun 21, 2007)

So the general concensus is that A Yearling buck that has yet to grow horns should be counted in the # of breeding bucks?
As well as the # of none breeding yearling does being part of the breeding population?
When I call a deer a yearling i mean its not a breeder, weather its a buck or a doe matters not.
When a Doe can be bread then its a doe not a yearling, when a Buck is old enuff to grow horns and breed the does then its a buck till then its only a male deer.
Is this concept so hard for everyone to understand?
Missimformation is counting these yearlings and fawn deer as part of the Breeding population!

BD


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

bassdisaster said:


> I totally agree but wont hide under a chair!
> Fawns are fawns, neither buck or doe untill they have survived the WINTER, if they survive the winter then they are Yearlings.
> Yearlings do not breed, male or female, so they are "ANTERLESS" deer again neither buck or doe, and again if they susvive till the next spring then they will be bucks and does, there is no other way to figure it, if you do then your no smarter then our precious DNR or MRC. Something about counting chickens befor the eggs hatch!
> 
> BD


You seriously kept a straight face when typing this? 

Yearling sure as heck do breed. 1.5year old bucks(yearlings) making up 90% of the living buck population...they do a majority of the breeding. 

This December, there will be a good percentage of doe fawns(born spring/summer of 2011) that will breed. Of course the mortality rate within this demographic will be much much higher...but they still breed. 

Last year's doe fawns...or yearlings as you are aware...were prime for breeding this fall at 1.5years old.


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

bassdisaster said:


> So the general concensus is that A Yearling buck that has yet to grow horns should be counted in the # of breeding bucks?
> As well as the # of none breeding yearling does being part of the breeding population?
> When I call a deer a yearling i mean its not a breeder, weather its a buck or a doe matters not.
> When a Doe can be bread then its a doe not a yearling, when a Buck is old enuff to grow horns and breed the does then its a buck till then its only a male deer.
> ...


When a deer makes it through it's first winter, it's breeding stock. Some doe fawns have already been breed back in December, at that point they are breeding stock.


----------



## GuppyII (Sep 14, 2008)

He also needs to read up on the second rut which is about to start soon. This is the point when some FAWNS that aren't YEARLINGS yet are bred. Oh and the nubs on a FAWN button buck are antlers! They do grow during the summer and shed in the winter/spring. Good thread so far.

bambi makes a cute sandwich


----------



## sixgun4866 (Jun 7, 2011)

Everyone keeps refering to "doe" tags they are not doe tags they are "anterless". Go to a processer towards the end of season and see how many button bucks are brought in. My belief is a reduction in anterless tags will lead to more horned bucks the following year.


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

sixgun4866 said:


> Everyone keeps refering to "doe" tags they are not doe tags they are "anterless". Go to a processer towards the end of season and see how many button bucks are brought in. My belief is a reduction in anterless tags will lead to more horned bucks the following year.


So would a reduction in uneducated hunters that can't easily...and it is very easy....identify a button buck. 

Also, a decrease in antlerless tags would actually decrease the percentage of male deer in the population.


----------



## sullyxlh (Oct 28, 2004)

I'm done with late season Doe
Gutting out half born fetuses'(?) gets old.....


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

bassdisaster said:


> ..........
> Is this concept so hard for everyone to understand?
> ................
> BD


So that other post was for real ? I'll suggest that you try to block all that you think that you know about whitetail biology and start over with the correct information. 

L & O


----------



## Tracker83 (Jun 21, 2005)

bassdisaster said:


> unlimited doe permits have decimated the heard in Montcalm county


L O freaking L!!! If you can't find deer in Montcalm Co. then I think it's time to find a new hobby...


----------



## firenut8190 (Jul 15, 2006)

Just put out my pop up blind and dumped some corn. Now wait for the late Doe on.


----------



## WHITE BEAR (Jan 12, 2005)

I don't think the answer to any of this is quite black and white. It's obvious that the dnr have everything all screwed up and our deer hunting regulations and herd management need an overhaul. We need to look more closely at smaller regions and adjust the rules accordingly. It might take some time and effort and it might alter some folks traditions but I believe it would pay off in the long run. We need to get the politics out and the science and hunter input in. Michigan has the potential to be an outstanding whitetail hunting state if we can just get caught up with the rest of the deer hunting world.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

Probably the hardest working hunters are waterfowlers, imo. Most work the same way, they go to where the birds are. Compare that with the mindset of many deer hunters, there's a world of difference, imo. Can't imagine any waterfowler picking some random field and setting decoys hoping to bring some geese in. No way, they scout, see what fields the birds are using and go after the birds. 

Maybe some of the problem with Michigan's hunting has to do with us hunters? Maybe we've got unrealistic expectation and try to lure deer to us, rather than go to where the birds are. Food for thought.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

_"....... It's obvious that the dnr have everything all screwed up and our deer hunting regulations and herd management need an overhaul. We need to look more closely at smaller regions and adjust the rules accordingly. It might take some time and effort and it might alter some folks traditions but I believe it would pay off in the long run. We need to get the politics out and the science and hunter input in."_

Would you pay for a deer kill-tag license of, say, $25?


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

*Sib*.....oh man, how very perceptive: 

_"Probably the hardest working hunters are waterfowlers, imo. Most work the same way, they go to where the birds are. Compare that with the mindset of many deer hunters, there's a world of difference, imo. Can't imagine any waterfowler picking some random field and setting decoys hoping to bring some geese in. No way, they scout, see what fields the birds are using and go after the birds. 

Maybe some of the problem with Michigan's hunting has to do with us hunters? Maybe we've got unrealistic expectation and try to lure deer to us, rather than go to where the birds are."_ 

Are waterfowlers just plain better hunters than those who hunt deer? Smarter? 
They do what you just described ...go to the birds.
They have a rule book that makes deer rules look like _'See Dick, See Jane_".
They pay more money to shoot a duck than deer hunters do for a buck.

Thanx, Sib, you have provide a quick answer to many questions that revolve around deer hunting.....old questions, new questions, and questions still to be asked.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

WHITE BEAR said:


> ........ It's obvious that the dnr have everything all screwed up and our deer hunting regulations and herd management need an overhaul...........


Despite all the negative comments that you might read, hunters have taken more deer from Michigan than any other state over the past 30 years. Has our DNR failed even when we are in 1st place in the total deer kill category ? 

L & O


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Plus poster Tracker put a very fine point on it: _If you can't be successful in Montcalm......._

That county has been the number one county in Michigan for the number of deer killed for years and years.....both antlered and antlerless.

You can't be #1 year after year after year if you are killing off the broodstock. 

I'll betcha Montcalm will be #1 for the 2011 season too.


----------



## Falk (Jan 18, 2005)

fairfax1 said:


> _"....... It's obvious that the dnr have everything all screwed up and our deer hunting regulations and herd management need an overhaul. We need to look more closely at smaller regions and adjust the rules accordingly. It might take some time and effort and it might alter some folks traditions but I believe it would pay off in the long run. We need to get the politics out and the science and hunter input in."_
> 
> Would you pay for a deer kill-tag license of, say, $25?


That would be a bargain price for a little better managment.


----------



## willy05 (Nov 19, 2005)

It is illegal for michigan game ranches to bring deer bred outside the state of michigan.


----------



## WHITE BEAR (Jan 12, 2005)

Liver and Onions said:


> Despite all the negative comments that you might read, hunters have taken more deer from Michigan than any other state over the past 30 years. Has our DNR failed even when we are in 1st place in the total deer kill category ?
> 
> L & O


We also have the most hunters I do believe. I don't think the dnr are totally responsible for the problems with our deer. I do believe that there are plenty of deer for everyone. Like some posters have said you need to go find them. Try a different approach or scout out a new spot.Don't just go to the same blind on the same trail year after year unless that is working for you. Even in nature without mans influence deer populations will fluctuate. I just think we need to apply some of the modern science and knowledge to managing our deer because some of our regulations just don't make much sense.


----------



## crdroste (Dec 9, 2009)

WHITE BEAR said:


> We also have the most hunters I do believe. I don't think the dnr are totally responsible for the problems with our deer. I do believe that there are plenty of deer for everyone. Like some posters have said you need to go find them. Try a different approach or scout out a new spot.Don't just go to the same blind on the same trail year after year unless that is working for you. Even in nature without mans influence deer populations will fluctuate. I just think we need to apply some of the modern science and knowledge to managing our deer because some of our regulations just don't make much sense.


i totally agree not the, dnr's fault, consistently having the most deer harvested year after year is successful.
granted deer hunting in some areas is far better than others. 

every area is different but i feel that where i hunt we would see far better buck if more does were taken or in order to take a buck you need to off a doe first. 

also i feel the large amount of hunters leads to genneraly seeing young bucks, less deer would lead to bigger buck but more hunters are needed to keep the population stable/down... its a vicious cycle but it seems to be working


----------



## bassdisaster (Jun 21, 2007)

crdroste said:


> i totally agree not the, dnr's fault, consistently having the most deer harvested year after year is successful.
> granted deer hunting in some areas is far better than others.
> 
> every area is different but i feel that where i hunt we would see far better buck if more does were taken or in order to take a buck you need to off a doe first.
> ...


The problem here is that most hutners want a buck, I am 1 of them, I will shoot does heck ya, but the deep set purpose is a BUCK! 
I have hunted since I was a kid, never have I had a season with so few sightings, in traditionally hot zones at that!
I hunt Natl Forest thats adjacent to private, the private around here they never did stop baiting(no enforcement)and have been killing the doe's off in #'s.
SO now new hunters around here hunt for weeks with few if any sightings, well if I know kids they'll be back on the X box befor that bow hits the floor!
It always comes back to the chicken or the egg, no does no eggs, no bucks no fertilized does, go figure!

BD


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

bassdisaster said:


> It always comes back to the chicken or the egg, no does no eggs, no bucks no fertilized does, go figure!


You seeing a fertilization problem out there, are ya?


----------



## tjray (Nov 22, 2010)

BigBuckHunterDan5 said:


> I'm writing today because it is just plan and simple there is too many does being shot in Michigan. Deer population just keeps lowering and lowering. I can understand one per person but, 5 come on thats freakin ridiculous. Theres not deer like there use to be. All the early doe hunts don't help it either. You hardly see any deer like you use to up north. You use to see 100 to 150 deer in a field at a time now your lucky to see 8 or 10. What i'm trying to say is please stop shooting the does. People would see a lot more deer and a lot more bucks. You figure every doe has 2 fawns a year so if you passed on 50 does thats a 100 deer there will be in the woods next year and you figure 25% of them will be bucks. Plus if people pass on does there will be a lot less chance of button bucks being killed. And i'm not trying to say don't shot does i'm just saying don't shoot so many. 1 per person would be as bad. It would help Michigans deer hunting.
> 
> Sincerly,
> A concered Michigan Hunter


thank you someone can see, i think this people dont care, they just want to kill something . i get a doe tag every year ,& dont fill it, so one will make it every year . these people will see soon when they are hunting a woods with no deer, then they are going to be crying,saying the dnr wreck the deer, there the ones they keep shooting them...people WAKE THE F### UP.... & for meat bull.. a bet 75% of the people dont even eat the deer, go shoot a buck with bad genetics you dont want him
to breed anyways. back in the day nobody shoot a doe, and if you did you would of got you butt kick, go ask the old upers they will tell you the samething., to shoot a doe and post it, what a joke, like people really want to see it, o i forgot they are the great white hunters.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> tjray said:
> 
> 
> > thank you someone can see, i think this people dont care, they just want to kill something . i get a doe tag every year ,& dont fill it, so one will make it every year . these people will see soon when they are hunting a woods with no deer, then they are going to be crying,saying the dnr wreck the deer, there the ones they keep shooting them...people WAKE THE F### UP.... & for meat bull.. a bet 75% of the people dont even eat the deer, go shoot a buck with bad genetics you dont want him
> > to breed anyways. back in the day nobody shoot a doe, and if you did you would of got you butt kick, go ask the old upers they will tell you the samething., to shoot a doe and post it, what a joke, like people really want to see it, o i forgot they are the great white hunters.


Wow! Talk about fertility!:yikes: There's some fertile ground to be had in this post!:lol:
I think I'll refrain though.


----------



## RoadDog (Mar 13, 2011)

I will help you out with this one Big T.


Some people have "fertile ground" for brains.


----------



## WHITE BEAR (Jan 12, 2005)

tjray said:


> thank you someone can see, i think this people dont care, they just want to kill something . i get a doe tag every year ,& dont fill it, so one will make it every year . these people will see soon when they are hunting a woods with no deer, then they are going to be crying,saying the dnr wreck the deer, there the ones they keep shooting them...people WAKE THE F### UP.... & for meat bull.. a bet 75% of the people dont even eat the deer, go shoot a buck with bad genetics you dont want him
> to breed anyways. back in the day nobody shoot a doe, and if you did you would of got you butt kick, go ask the old upers they will tell you the samething., to shoot a doe and post it, what a joke, like people really want to see it, o i forgot they are the great white hunters.


I lived in the UP for a while. Go ask some upers how many does,bucks,fawns are in their freezer. I know not all poach but a good amount do. Same thing for the northern lower. I'm not saying it's wrong especially when the meat is feeding their family. I'm just saying it happens. I think you are very wrong in assuming that 75% of hunters that shoot does don't utilize the meat in some way. I believe most people either eat, give away, or donate the meat.


----------



## stndpenguin (May 19, 2010)

Montcalm county has too many deer.... although there seemed to be a shortage of bucks in my regular locations

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk


----------



## DEDGOOSE (Jan 19, 2007)

Like I posted in another thread. If your unhappy form a CoOp.. Get around to surrounding neighbors and agree to longer shoot does.. If you want meat agree that you will shoot a small buck instead of does.. And with baiting and recreational feeding back have everyone make an effort to feed all winter behind their home, if you do not live on said property bring feed to one of the neighbors.. 

If you are unhappy with the NRC and their regs, inflate your deer herd in your area with your neighbors. As displayed in numerous threads folks are successful in their QDM Coops despite unfavorable license regulations.. 



​


----------



## popy (Mar 7, 2010)

solohunter said:


> as a former part time DNR employee in the original check stations, who lived north of glennie, Fact the first TB deer was turned in by a dentist hunting club land off hubbard lake trail several years before the TB epidemic, It was passed off by the DNR as an isolated incident untill 3-4 years later when several more were turned in, And its BOVINE ( cattle) virus, something the michigan cattle herd has had since the 30,s as far as the TB coming from Dan W.s captive herd????? nose to nose contact thru the fence cold have spread it into the facility, or caused it to spread outside, Fact is an overpopulated deer herd seeking food in the winter will feed in the cattle yards, so its a chicken or the egg issue, I never saw or heard any one state that the TB in the michigan herd was from a western strain, something they can check on. might be a question for the USDA who now own the depopulation issue.


I'm dropping it.


----------



## aimus1 (Feb 28, 2011)

WHITE BEAR said:


> I don't think the answer to any of this is quite black and white. It's obvious that the dnr have everything all screwed up and our deer hunting regulations and herd management need an overhaul. We need to look more closely at smaller regions and adjust the rules accordingly. It might take some time and effort and it might alter some folks traditions but I believe it would pay off in the long run. We need to get the politics out and the science and hunter input in. Michigan has the potential to be an outstanding whitetail hunting state if we can just get caught up with the rest of the deer hunting world.


A friend of mine returned from a county in Wisconsin where "Earn A Buck" regulations are in place. He visited the local buck pole on day 2 of the season. Absolutely blew his mind. They had mature, trophy bucks stacked like cord wood. As he was standing there a nother guy from Michigan pulled up with a buck that would have been a contender on any buck pole contest in the NLP. He estimated it to be a 3.5 yr. old 8 point buck with 18" inside spread and 10" G2's. They laughed at his buck, kicked it, refused to hang/weigh it, and ran him off like the deer he elected to harvest was a joke, and why the hell would you shoot such a baby. I was embarassed to take my 12 yr. old son down to our local buck pole this season. Nothing on it was over a 1.5 yr. old buck with the exception of a couple scraggly 2.5 yr olds & one very impressive mature animal. My 12 yr. old would have elected to pass on 60% of the animals hanging there. How hard is it? Michigan has everything to offer a whitetail with regard to habitat as Wisconsin does. The only thing we don't have are REGULATIONS THAT ACTUALLY WORK FOR THE HUNTER AND THE DEER HERD ALIKE. There are states right next door who have figured it all out FOR US. Model our regs based on the hugely successful regs. that they've had in place for years. NO BRAINER. You aint even gotsta be smart to figger dis un out. I'm not young enough to wait around for Michigan hunter's ethics to make a difference.
EARN A BUCK!!!!!!! Granted, this policy will certainly make it more difficult for some Michigan hunters to take a deer due to the fact that a mature doe isn't nearly as stupid and more difficult to kill than the spikey or forkey that comes gallavanting into their bait pile on opening morning.


----------



## musicman34 (Oct 7, 2011)

aimus1 said:


> A friend of mine returned from a county in Wisconsin where "Earn A Buck" regulations are in place. He visited the local buck pole on day 2 of the season. Absolutely blew his mind. They had mature, trophy bucks stacked like cord wood. As he was standing there a nother guy from Michigan pulled up with a buck that would have been a contender on any buck pole contest in the NLP. He estimated it to be a 3.5 yr. old 8 point buck with 18" inside spread and 10" G2's. They laughed at his buck, kicked it, refused to hang/weigh it, and ran him off like the deer he elected to harvest was a joke, and why the hell would you shoot such a baby. I was embarassed to take my 12 yr. old son down to our local buck pole this season. Nothing on it was over a 1.5 yr. old buck with the exception of a couple scraggly 2.5 yr olds & one very impressive mature animal. My 12 yr. old would have elected to pass on 60% of the animals hanging there. How hard is it? Michigan has everything to offer a whitetail with regard to habitat as Wisconsin does. The only thing we don't have are REGULATIONS THAT ACTUALLY WORK FOR THE HUNTER AND THE DEER HERD ALIKE. There are states right next door who have figured it all out FOR US. Model our regs based on the hugely successful regs. that they've had in place for years. NO BRAINER. You aint even gotsta be smart to figger dis un out. I'm not young enough to wait around for Michigan hunter's ethics to make a difference.
> EARN A BUCK!!!!!!! Granted, this policy will certainly make it more difficult for some Michigan hunters to take a deer due to the fact that a mature doe isn't nearly as stupid and more difficult to kill than the spikey or forkey that comes gallavanting into their bait pile on opening morning.


Most ridiculous post so far! Earn a buck is no longer a program in Wisconsin. Better try again with a different BS story.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

DEDGOOSE said:


> Like I posted in another thread. If your unhappy form a CoOp.. Get around to surrounding neighbors and agree to longer shoot does.. If you want meat agree that you will shoot a small buck instead of does.. And with baiting and recreational feeding back have everyone make an effort to feed all winter behind their home, if you do not live on said property bring feed to one of the neighbors..
> 
> If you are unhappy with the NRC and their regs, inflate your deer herd in your area with your neighbors. As displayed in numerous threads folks are successful in their QDM Coops despite unfavorable license regulations..
> 
> Thats a product of managing the deer density for Maximum Sustainable Yield....... actually as Bio pointed out the goal is a little better than M.S.Y.





aimus1 said:


> A friend of mine returned from a county in Wisconsin where "Earn A Buck" regulations are in place. He visited the local buck pole on day 2 of the season. Absolutely blew his mind. They had mature, trophy bucks stacked like cord wood. As he was standing there a nother guy from Michigan pulled up with a buck that would have been a contender on any buck pole contest in the NLP. He estimated it to be a 3.5 yr. old 8 point buck with 18" inside spread and 10" G2's. They laughed at his buck, kicked it, refused to hang/weigh it, and ran him off like the deer he elected to harvest was a joke, and why the hell would you shoot such a baby.


If thats what you want for Michigan....Thats pretty freakin sad.


----------



## Justin_04 (Jan 15, 2007)

Doe harvest is very important to keep a good healthy heard. Obviously deer populations are different in every part of the state and need to be taken into consideration when deciding how many deer need to be harvested. Here are a few reasons to harvest more deer (especially does) and lower the deer population.

1. Any over abundance of deer will lead to overgrazing of both natural agricultural vegetation. This in turn creates less forage for deer to eat and will lead to unhealthy smaller deer. 

2. A deer density that is too high will lead to an adult sex ratio that is way to high. There would be too many does to bread. The bigger bucks will you use more energy chasing and finding does to breed and keep other bucks from breeding. This will make them weaker and less likely to survive the winter.

3. There will be more smaller bucks breeding does leading to more inferior genetics in the gene pool, therefor more small bucks

4. A higher population density also makes it easier for disease to spread which in turn could devastate an entire herd

If the deer population reaches its carrying capacity all of these things I have mentioned can and will happen unless us hunters help control the population. It is bad for the deer as well as the environment.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

musicman34 said:


> Most ridiculous post so far! Earn a buck is no longer a program in Wisconsin. Better try again with a different BS story.


You beat me to it! :lol:


----------

