# Better Deer and Better Deer Hunting



## Guest (May 11, 2005)

The following are my thoughts about Mandatory Antler Restrictions, (MAR's) and what needs to be done for Better Deer and Better Deer Hunting!

*Better Deer and Better Deer Hunting*

​Are we still complaining about last years deer hunting experience? Generally there is a reason one does not see deer while hunting. They are not there, especially after you have had years of better viewing of deer in the same location and used the same hunting technique. No, you are not losing it as many would have you believe. You may need to get more aggressive and go after the deer but certainly we need to make changes to the management of our deer and their habitat if we are to have sustained quality deer hunting experiences.



Can we over harvest our doe segment? You can bet your friends new truck that this is so. We need to have a deer management system that protects 50% of our bucks, which creates a more natural buck age structure and insures that the best of the bucks do the bulk of the breeding, just as nature intended. We need to have a doe harvest plan that fits the deer density and environmental conditions of the area, not a one size fits all plan. I have heard more than once from our state leaders that we should harvest a doe for every buck harvested and throughout our state to maintain a sustained deer herd. This is Cracker Jack deer management at best. 



Only along our environmentally friendly southern border can we allow this one for one deer harvest strategy and only if there is a protection of at least 50% of the mature bucks. A one to one buck to doe harvest without restraint in the harvest of bucks will create an over harvest of the doe segment. We take over 70% of our bucks and an equal harvest would take over 60% of the doe segment. We should never take more than 40% of the does even in the most productive areas. 



As we move north the picture changes and gets completely out of focus in the harsher areas of northern Upper Peninsular. Here, we should take no mature does except following a few mild winters and even then, target the younger unproductive does. Leave the mature does for fawn productivity. Here, on average, it takes four mature does to produce a single male fawn to one year of age, while along the Indiana border it takes only one and 1/3 adult does for the same one year old male fawn. One size certainly does not fit all. Its time to abandon the present Cracker Jack deer management system presently in place. Lets have a sound doe harvest strategy and have it fit the area conditions. 



Speaking of area conditions, lets get serious about the habitat, state and private. Why not increase the drip fund sufficiently to help correct this. Complaining about the conditions will not get the job done fellow deer hunters, lets get serious.



We just had a survey throughout the UP to have a five-year experimental demonstration in mandatory antler restrictions. The proposal specified that only bucks with three points on one side minimum would be legal. This rule would protect 85% of the yearling bucks in the UP. This is a good rule and one should expect a definite improvement in their deer hunting experience. It failed because the mandatory antler restriction guidelines designed by the MDNR was designed for failure. Consider that one needs 66% approval in the survey results, plus there are four choices in the survey, with the no opinion choice counting as a no and an I dont care choice, which sounds like a yes, but used for information only. Are we voting to make a constitutional change? Its only deer and they need our help. Lets practice what most of you voted for back in 1996 Proposal G, sound and scientific deer management not Cracker Jack guessing. The final land owner survey tally showed more than 66% support if you do not include the no opinion number, and 63% with it included.



The MDNR is presently reviewing the existing mandatory antler restriction guidelines and is asking for your input for possible changes. Well, lets give it to them and see if they listen. 



The following is my suggestion for fairness and future Better Deer and Better Deer Hunting!

*Letter to Rod Clute by the end of May*​ 



Rod Clute, MDNR Big Game Specialist

Steven T Mason Building

P.O. Box 30028

Lansing, Mi 48909



Dear Rod

Per your request for public comment on potential changes made to existing guidelines for mandatory antler restriction proposals.



We offer the following changes



1, A simple majority (51%) is sufficient for approval

2, Have only two choices available in the survey, YES and NO.

3, Have a fact sheet approved by both the sponsoring group and the MDNR included in 

 The initial survey that outlines the goals and expected biological benefits of the QDM 

 five-year demonstration.

4, Send out the second survey after the five-year demonstration, not four years.

5, In the second final survey include a fact sheet approved by both the sponsoring group 

 and the MDNR that outlines the bio harvest data of the five-year demonstration to aid, 

 an informed decision by the recipients.

6, Remove the need for the sponsoring group to gather bio harvest data of 100 bucks and 

 200 antlerless deer. We already have the necessary pre demonstration bio harvest data 

 and it should be an average of at least three years, not a single year for accuracy.

7. Make above guidelines changes retroactive to be in effect for the recent Superior Deer 

 Management UP antler restriction proposal, survey results.

8, Table all other new changes to the existing guidelines that the MDNR is creating for

 NRC approval until after above changes are addressed and presented to the NRC. 





Keep the fun in hunting!



Ed Spinazzola, Chairman of the Board, Mid Michigan Branch QDMA

 Board of Directors, National QDMA





*Also, please send a letter to the NRC, they make the final decision and will address this issue in August or September*



Department of Natural Resources

Executive Division

P.O. Box 30028

Attention Teresa Gloden

Lansing, Mi 48909

517-373-2352


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"A one to one buck to doe harvest without restraint in the harvest of bucks will create an over harvest of the doe segment. We take over 70% of our bucks and an equal harvest would take over 60% of the doe segment. We should never take more than 40% of the does even in the most productive areas. "

Since fawns are born at a ratio of 50% males and 50% females why wouldn't it make sense that you would have to harvest an equal numbers of males and females in order to keep the population stable?

Furthermore, in order to know the effect of an equal harvest of buck and anterless deer,one would first have to know what the B/D ratio was in the OW herd. For example, if there were 100 OWD with a B/D ratio of 1:2 there would be 33 buck and 66 doe. If all 33 buck were harvested ,the harvest rate would be 100%. But if an equal number of adult doe were harvested , then only 50% of the adult doe would be harvested. But, since the anterless harvest also includes male and female fawns , a harvest of equal numbers of antlered and anterless deer would result in a much higher survival rate of adukt doe.


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2005)

HH, OK, Here we go, Deer Management 101 AKA BSK knowledge.

A sustained constant harvest strategy of bucks versus does will in a short time (about four years) create a certain buck to doe sex ratio, GUARANTEED! This certain created sex ratio is also influenced by local invironmental conditions, which need to be taken ino consideration, when establishing a buck to doe harvest formula.

All deer die and no matter what sex ratio is in place prior to a sustained buck to doe harvest strategy, it will have very little influence in the birth productivity of fawns after the four year or so period. So, it matters little that the fawns are born at nearly equal numbers, what makes the sex ratio happen is how many does are taken versus bucks and what other social and invironmental pressure are put on the deer herd.

Example. If one were to take an equal harvest of does and bucks and the sex ratio was around one buck to four does, the first year's impact would be noticed but you would have to look for it. The effect of the equal harvest would not make an obvious major impact the first year. You certainly would notice the differance in three years, due to the fact, many of the orginal mature does have died from causes other than hunting mortality and since they represent a higher percentage of the deer herd they also will represent a higher percentage of the natural mortality, not one death per buck and doe.

If deer would live for 40 or more years and be productive during that entire period than one could safely have close to one doe per buck harvest ratio and have little change in the sex ratio. A six year old doe is not a common thing, A 10 year old doe checked into the MDNR highway check station is rare. In other words having four does to one buck sex ratio can only stay that way if the deer never died with a one to one harvest ratio and only if there were as many deer taken as fawns are recruited to one year of age. 

It does get complicated, but remenber, many forces are being exerted on our deer and they all impact the sex ratio. Bucks are known to be more risk taking than does, this exploring nature of bucks takes a toll, a heavy one. This differance plays a major role in their natural sex ratio, which is close to one buck to 1.3 does, and this changes from one invironment to another. 

Taking one doe per buck over time in average invironmental conditions will generate closer to one buck per 1.1 does, not the natural 1:1.3 buck to doe sex ratio. 

Hope this clears up the question of why it is important to have a correct buck to doe harvest strategy to generate a hoped for buck to doe sex ratio. 

Be careful about taking the right number of does. If you are not protecting any of the bucks and also pound on the does, you will in a short time, lower the number of does and their average age to a disasterous level that will severely lower the fawn production. Mature does are the producers, not the doe fawns and yearlings. 

We did this to ourselves in the late sixties, which created around a 500,000 total deer population in Michigan. Will we ever learn from our mistakes?


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

I agree harvesting equal numbers of adult buck and doe will have an adverse effect on recruitment. But, when the goal is to reduce the OWDD ,that is exactly why mature doe are targeted.

Futhermore, I simply pointed out that your math was wrong. With an adult breeding B/D ratio of 1:2 , harvesting the same number of adult buck and adult doe reduces the adult doe population by 34% , not 60%.


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2005)

Someone should reread my post with an honest frame of mind. 


My vocation is mechanical engineering, my avocation is farming and deer management. My math is correct, while my deer biology statements are not from my formal training but from real deer reseach experts, (not wanna be's) which I respect and quote.

It would do someone well if he looked at research by the experts, not making statements with obviously no truth in them to support his position. My math is correct.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"We take over 70% of our bucks and an equal harvest would take over 60% of the doe segment."

For that statement to be true , the PS B/D ratio would have to be close to 1:1.2. If you disagree ,why don't you post an example using an OW herd of 100 deer ,with whatever B/D ratio you choose to use, and point out my mistake.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Ed,

Thanks for the post. I'm not a "numbers" person, more of conceptual, but I certainly makes a lot of sense. 40% doe harvest should only be the maximum, and only in the most productive areas. Of course we are talking hunter harvest, and that 40% number guide really would go from 40 to 0 when moving north through MI. Sure, there are exceptions, but what you say makes a lot of sense.

The concept is very sound....who cares about the numbers (for me anyways), basically, harvest up to 40% in only the most productive areas, and down to -0- in the most severe.

Appreciate the post.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

NorthJeff said:


> Ed,
> Thanks for the post. I'm not a "numbers" person, more of conceptual,
> Appreciate the post.


 
As am I.


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2005)

All one needs to do is reread my post.

"Example. If one were to take an equal harvest of does and bucks and the sex ratio was around one buck to four does, the first year's impact would be noticed but you would have to look for it. The effect of the equal harvest would not make an obvious major impact the first year. You certainly would notice the differance in three years, due to the fact, many of the orginal mature does have died from causes other than hunting mortality and since they represent a higher percentage of the deer herd they also will represent a higher percentage of the natural mortality, not one death per buck and doe".

In just a few years if one is taking an equal number of bucks and does the sex ratio can be nothing else but what that buck to doe harvest ratio generates for that area, (it changes from area to area due to invironmental conditions and social forces). The sex ratio can easily evolve to be one buck per 1.1 doe in a very short time period. Going back to my previous post, 

"Only along our environmentally friendly southern border can we allow this one for one deer harvest strategy and only if there is a protection of at least 50% of the mature bucks. A one to one buck to doe harvest without restraint in the harvest of bucks will create an over harvest of the doe segment. We take over 70% of our bucks and an equal harvest would take over 60% of the doe segment. We should never take more than 40% of the does even in the most productive areas" 

To repeat, with a close buck to doe sex ratio created by an even harvest strategy of bucks versus does in just a few years, you can be sure that.by pounding on the bucks, (taking over 70% of them) you will take at minimum over 60% of all the mature does. How about agricultural areas that practice clear farming, which leaves very little cover and winter food. In the Michigan thumb farm areas this is the rule and it has been verified that over 85% of all the mature bucks are taken yearly. Thay are easily driven from cover and BOOM. A one to one harvest strategy would take over 75% of all the mature does in time. You can forget about seeing any deer with this form of deer management, (actually an MDNR hartvest recommendation).

I thought I wrote it clearly in my previouis posts. 

However,when ones mindset is frozen in their own justification to support their bia's there is little room for the facts to filter in. For some the world is still flat.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Ed, I do not agree on the "fact sheet" idea, why?? Well, because when you post expected possible results, thats far from "fact". Also, no way can it be "facts" when no where has these regulations been tested or proven on such a large public/private area. A fact sheet that would go along with a sponsored survey would only be propoganda. 

The poor deer hunting has many factors but I believe the biggest factor is poor doe permit management in this state. What I do not get is why we think we have to pass different regualtions but yet we still have the same "lack of" management in place. Your flat-out misguiding people when its percieved in these new proposals that this is somehow going to change mismanaged doe permits. Show me, guarantee me,where in the proposals/surveys/plans, more biologists, more money, more effort in management.


----------



## omega58 (Sep 3, 2003)

Ed,

Great post and great ideas. I have been wondering the same about the "5 year survey" that was actually a 4 year survey. 

Keep up the great work, you'll never have everyone on the same page, but I can bet we can get a majority.

Randy


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

There is no question that harvesting equal numbers of adult doe and buck while change the B/D ratio. What I questioned is your claim that those harvests would reduce the adult doe population by 60 %.

Now here is you chance to point out why you think I am wrong. If thereis aherd of 100 OW deer with a B'D ratio of 1:2 ,then there would be 33 buck and 67 doe. If we harvest 70% of the buck the harvest would be 23 Buck. If we harvest 3 adult doe, 23/67 = 34 %. So equal harvests of adult buck and doe result in a 70% reduction in the adult buck ,but a 34 % reduction in adult doe.

Thanks,L&O


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

If we continue to harvest 40% of the does and 50% less of the bucks, and experience a winter loss of 50%, during a period in which 10% of the fawns have a 52% chance of being a male, then what percentage of the total buck percentage is 2.5 years of age and older if the herd begins and ends with a 1:1.5 sex ratio, with a post-hunting season harvest of 439 deer for 12 square miles, and a yearling age class of bucks or younger that totals 160 young bucks? And would a 40% continued harvest of antlerless deer be appropriate if the Maximum sustained carrying capacity of the land is 60dpsm?


That is exactly why we need antler restrictions and effective doe harvest...don't you think?


----------



## 4x4_Hunter (Jan 2, 2002)

Actually HH,

Ed's numbers do work out. I looked at it at first and figured, no way. I think that you are concentrating too much on the % of doe harvest after the first year. I am more looking at it in a way that with it improve the buck:doe ratio. That I just figured out that it does work. 

Ed, mentioned that he was starting with a 1:4 B/D ratio. So, start with 1000 bucks and 4000 does. If you take 70% of bucks and then the same number of does for 3 years straight (and I am assuming that every doe has twin fawns the next year). We all know that this isn't true, however, this is just for easy calculations. I also figured no mortality other than hunting because even though we know there is, I made the assumption that it will be an equal number of bucks and does. So, all of that considered, after 3 years of this practice, there would be 1548 bucks and 4548 does. Now, that just made the buck:doe ratio 1:3. So, over many years, you would eventually get close to a 1:1 B/D ratio and then the harvest of 70% of Bucks would end up in a 70% harvest of does also. This is theroetically but the numbers do work and why not try it? Maybe I would reduce the % though of equal harvest at least for the bucks just to speed up the process a bit. JMO though!

So, even though it may not be the 60% for the first year, it will eventually be. I wasn't sure whether Ed was saying the 60% would be right away or over time. I see it as being over time.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

beer and nuts said:


> The poor deer hunting has many factors but I believe the biggest factor is poor doe permit management in this state.


So, where are the "facts" to back up your beliefs? Where are the "facts" that deer hunting is poor in this state? Where are the "facts" that we have poor doe permit management? You want Ed to present facts, but I don`t see you presenting any "facts" for your point of view. All I see is your opinion, but no "facts".


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

This is going south pretty fast - cool down - and chill out - remember - constructive banter - not in your face - kind of posts ....


Thanks 


ferg....


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)




----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Ed, you may want to consider a modification to the following sentence.



Ed Spin04 said:


> We should never take more than 40% of the does even in the most productive areas"


"Never" is a fairly absolute word. In the most productive areas, if you wish to reduce deer densities, it would likely be necessary to harvest _more_ than 40% of the does. Perhaps you could end your sentence with, "except when herd reduction is desired".

In any event, in places where you've got rich habitat and abundant cover, it would likely be extremely difficult, if not humanly impossible, to kill 40% of all of the does during legal hunting seasons.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"Where are the "facts" that we have poor doe permit management?"

*11/19 DMU's below targeted DMU goals in the U.P.
*Antlerless harvest quotas set BEFORE fawn production is determined
*Lack of education in smart doe harvest in determining what does to harvest at what time either in the hunter handbook or in most educational outlets so that hunters can make an informed management decision...other than John Ozoga's suggestion of harvesting fawn does or fawns in severe northern areas.
*Large DMUs that encourage broad-based non-site specific targeting of antlerless deer resulting in large variances of population density in which pockets of high deer density and low deer density can be evident just a few miles apart from one another.

Overall, the state has pretty good doe management and they seem to be on target to accomplishing most of their "big-picture" goals, BUT, the way we manage has many holes and it is certainly not perfect. Again, doe management should be site specific, which is great for private land with limited hunters and more control, but on public land this does not happen...how could it?

So for facts...
*We have large DMUs
*We have DMUs that are unecessarily under carrying capacity
*We have a lack of education
*We set antlerless harvest without fawn production data
*Our doe management is NOT site specific

Is it terrible?...NO
Is it perfect?...NO
Are there holes?...YES
Can it be better?...YES
Is it wrong to assume that every property is at or above carrying capacity...YES!
Is it wrong to assume that every property is below carrying capacity...YES!

You have to acknowledge that some areas are high still, and some areas are low. For the guys that have populations too high...except for QDM guys, they love it and are not complaining. But for the guys with populations too low...and you have to have your head in the sand to say there are no areas like that, especially on some public land, it stinks and it is painfully obvious....so give em a brake!


----------



## 4x4_Hunter (Jan 2, 2002)

Bob S,

I doubt he has facts on that. HOWEVER, I know where you stand and you know where I stand. I do BELIEVE that there is poor doe management in this state. Not everywhere. I think our area up north is managed fairly well. However, where I hunt down in my southern county I believe they still give out WAY too many antlerless permits. Although, I don't totally blame the DNR. I more blame the entire state system. The DNR doesn't have the staffing to do all the studies that would make this the BEST hunting state. They do their best with the funding they have.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Nobody is questioning the fact that the DNR does *not* have the resources to micro manage Michigan's deer herd. The DNR *does* have the resouces to provide education on proper herd management either on a website or in the deer hunting guide. Why is there so little information available on the proper harvest stategy for does?

I'm in a DMU that has been below target goals for about 10 years yet I feel I'm being overrun with deer. Heck, I've had 25 deer in a 2 acre clover plot during firearms season. I've had another firearms season where the longest wait between deer sightings was 2 hours and I hunted from dark to dark for over a week. On the opposite end of the spectrum, is the hunter who's hunted as long and as hard without seeing a deer, should he shoot a doe when one appears?

Why isn't there a simple formula that I can plug raw data in and get an idea on how many deer should be shot including what age group should be targeted. Why is there no information on how many deer certain habitat can safely support. Lots of questions and little availabe info.

Is it asking too much of our DNR to provide an instruction sheet for the "tool" that sportsman has been provided with? I've had quality deer hunting for some time. I just want to make sure it's sustainable and I don't ruin a good thing by sending too many deer or too few to the yards. Some of us do read the instruction prior to something being broke.

Stewardship is one of the best adventures I've ever encountered. The personal satisfaction I've received is hard to describe and certainly even harder for a non believer to comprehend.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"Stewardship is one of the best adventures I've ever encountered. The personal satisfaction I've received is hard to describe and certainly even harder for a non believer to comprehend."

Well said, and you know exactly why you have seen 25 deer at 1 time. It is simply amazing what you can do as a private land owner, and if you make an honest effort at it with just a little work each year, it can be absolutely incredible.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"So, when only looking at AR's...there should be more bucks in the herd the year following implementation, basically advancing the age 1 year. BUT, when you add into the equation significant herd reduction, that's a sepperate issue."

While in theory , that is how it should work, in reality the buck harvest is always significantly lower with AR.s because more buck are lost to non-hunting mortality and in most cases additional doe have to make room for the bucks saved by AR's. In additional, not all of the 2.5+ buck will be AR legal ,so that accounts for additional reduction in the buck harvest. Therefore, the number of legal buck available to be harvested will always be lower with Ar's than without.


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

Ogre said:


> I have a problem with outsiders trying to force their values on local stake holders. The concept that a simple majority (51%) being sufficient for approval is fine as long as that simply majority is of the registered voters of the community. It is absolutely not right for people who come up for one week of deer camp to make decisions that could be 180 degrees from those of the locals and live in, work in, and support the local community.


Its called private property rights Ogre. People that have purchased the land have just as much input in the decision as the locals (provided they own land); even if they spend one day there per year....because it is THEIR land.  And as for the State Land, that is everyone's land; including those that live farther away than others.  

And as for supporting the local community, frankly, many towns would go under if it were not for the hunters and anglers that travel North to enjoy their sport. I won't even go into the redistribution of wealth from some areas of the state that are doled out to other areas of the State.

If you guys don't want us up there then why don't you guys become land barons and buy all the land?




Ogre said:


> DNR survey returns of non local community stake holders are not sufficient to implement antler restrictions. Absentee landholders are not local community stake holders nor are once a year visiting deer hunters. We would have shopping malls in every back yard if this were the case.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Ogre said:


> I have very strong opinions on the point. I have a problem with outsiders trying to force their values on local stake holders. The concept that a simple majority (51%) being sufficient for approval is fine as long as that simply majority is of the registered voters of the community. It is absolutely not right for people who come up for one week of deer camp to make decisions that could be 180 degrees from those of the locals and live in, work in, and support the local community. DNR survey returns of non local community stake holders are not sufficient to implement antler restrictions. Absentee landholders are not local community stake holders nor are once a year visiting deer hunters. We would have shopping malls in every back yard if this were the case.


Ogre, by your rationale, you would disenfranchise probably 60% of the hunters in this state. Most hunters do not reside within the DMU they happen to hunt in. Heck, probably 40% of our hunters reside in SE Michigan alone, where very little hunting occurs.


----------



## Dean (Apr 29, 2005)

Ed Spinazzola,

Hello Ed - Dean Hall here, 

I usually dont post on forums anymore, but Id just like to answer that , yes, we do need one specific deer management practice that needs to be addressed, the harvesting of does. I wish that more hunters would harvest them, instead of waiting for a buck. I have a few things Id like to state on your posting at the beginning of this thread. On your statement that; 

Generally there is a reason one does not see deer while hunting. They are not there, especially after you have had years of better viewing of deer in the same location and used the same hunting technique. No, you are not losing it as many would have you believe. You may need to get more aggressive and go after the deer but certainly we need to make changes to the management of our deer and their habitat if we are to have sustained quality deer hunting experiences.

Everyone knows that there are a great amount of things which contribute to changes in deer sightings, particularly in a repeated area. Things such as a better suited environment or a safer environment are just two. I dont depend on past travel patterns or traditional feeding areas to indicate to me from one year to another whether there are more or less deer in the area I hunt. If I dont see them, I go looking for them. And if I dont see many deer in my travels, it definitely doesnt mean that their not around. And your statement of; 


We need to have a deer management system that protects 50% of our bucks, which creates a more natural buck age structure and insures that the best of the bucks do the bulk of the breeding, just as nature intended.

By a more natural buck age structure do you mean older bucks. Ive read that recent genetic data has shown that contrary to popular opinion, researchers have determined that the largest, or alpha bucks, do not have a monopoly on breeding. In fact, in some studies, no strict breeding hierarchy could be documented. Through DNA research, biologists found that many yearling bucks are quite successful at breeding does, up to 30% in one research work. The message is that bucks of all age classes are participating in the rut. Wouldnt it be more truthful to say that protecting 50% of the bucks is just that, protecting 50% of the bucks?

I for one appreciate the job the MDNR biologists are doing, its easy to stand back and criticize. Their job is to make sure that carrying capacity doesnt run over the browsing and environments in which they depend for their health with present and future concerns being a priority. A healthy deer population is their passion. Theres just one more item Id like to comment on, the percentages of the current survey for QDM implementation (66%) and the questions that you feel should be on the survey.

A questionnaire survey is a systematic collection of data from a sample population using a standardized questionnaire. The point of such a survey, is to quantify opinions and attitudes in a scientific and deliberate manner, while measuring consciousness of an issue or issues. Results should reflect reality, answers on a standard survey would differentiate between those who support, neither support or oppose, oppose, or those who dont care. To change the survey to a simple yes or no, wouldnt be collecting true data, and more likely than not changing to just a yes or no, would probably get a lesser amount of responses. In the QDM process work group, drafts were proposed and the respective representatives for the organizations of this group were given ample time for input. In the original final draft there were 2 who opposed the 66% for implementation issue, yourself and another opposed for a lower percentage rate, the rest approved. If you recall the demographic chart each representative was given at these meeting, showed why proposed percentages on survey returns were important and the most fair way to approach the survey results.

If you feel Im being defensive of the QDM practices, Im honestly not. 

The question is not what you look at, but what you see - Henry David Thoreau

Practice for perfection and protect our privilege - Dean Hall


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Dean,
Welcome to MS and thanks for your post.

If you continue to read the forums on this site, you'll see that we have an active group of moderators who work together with the site administrators and owner to offer a quality place on the 'net in which to discuss issues. We encourage the voicing of ideas and the civil discussion of concepts affecting our interests in Michigan outdoor activities, even when disagreements arise, which is bound to happen. 

I would urge you to continue visiting and posting your thoughts.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Dean said:


> Ed Spinazzola,
> 
> Hello Ed - Dean Hall here,
> 
> I usually dont post on forums anymore, but Id just like to answer that , yes, we do need one specific deer management practice that needs to be addressed, the harvesting of does. I wish that more hunters would harvest them, instead of waiting for a buck. I have a few things Id like to state on your posting at the beginning of this thread. On your statement that;



OK Dean you cannot have one plan for the entire state as there are areas where there does not need to be any ore Doe's taken. I wish people would realize the state is different no matter where you go and to say we need to shoot more doe's is a very uneducated opinion on the status of the Michigan deer herd as a whole. Doe harvest is a part of management butonly in areas where it is needed which is not everywhere. We need to divide the state up and address every area in terms of habitat, doe harvests AR's if need be etc etc etc but I am tired of people saying that what is good for their area is good for everyones area because it is not true, there have been good hunting areas temporarily ruined because of this train of thoughtl. 

AW


----------



## Dean (Apr 29, 2005)

Hello Adam,

I suppose I should have been more specific concerning harvesting does. In an area where the buck to doe ratio is at a desired level, I can see where an over harvest of does would be a concern. And restrictions would be made accordingly. In managing the white-tailed deer population to keep balance with their habitat changes would be proposed and more probably than not, implemented.

Example, the latest proposal for management ; Late Antlerless Deer season on private lands in the 12 counties open in 2004 (Barry, Branch, Calhoun, Hillsdale, Ionia, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Kent, Lapeer, Lenawee, St.Joseph and Tuscola) as well as Oakland, Ottawa, Sanilac and Shiawassee counties for 2005. Also an expansion of the muzzle loader season in Zone 3 with the season starting on the first Friday in December and continuing for 17 consecutive days.

This was targeting parts of zone 3 and specifically 4 counties in the S.E. portion of our state because more does needed to be harvested.

Dean


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Dean,

So the muzzleloader expansion would just take place in southern lower MI? We were worried up here in the U.P. if it was expanded.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

NJ,
Rod Clute said that the M/L season in the lower would open the same time as the upper and would close at it's regular time ( 2 week season) as to reward M/L hunters for taking so many does. The U.P. will stay the same and I would guess that some guys will not travel to the U.P. to M/L if it opens at the same time as the lower.

Big T


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"Rod Clute said that the M/L season in the lower would open the same time as the upper and would close at it's regular time ( 2 week season) as to reward M/L hunters for taking so many does. The U.P. will stay the same and I would guess that some guys will not travel to the U.P. to M/L if it opens at the same time as the lower."

Sounds like a great idea!!


----------

