# Scary Numbers



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Since nobody responded to my question about the total Sq. miles in the Norhtern lower. I'll assume that each each of the three zones is 20,000 sq. miles. 
With 20,000 Sq. miles in the northern lower. And a goal of Possible 50,000 bucks a season taken. that equals an average of 2.5 bucks killed per sq. mile. That will include archery, rifle and muzzle loader season. With some areas having 50 hunters per sq. mile as stated in previous posts. I find this very fightening for our sport. If half of those bucks are taken in bow season, then we may very well have a 2%to 4% success ratio (in certain areas)for hunter hunting bucks during gun season. I do't believe these numbers will lead to better QDM when in the past we have had as high as 5 bucks taken off of the 30 acres we hunt and another couple taken by the neighbors. In my mind this was a quality Deer herd. Not what we have today.

As far as farmers, I agree many are great to hunters and let them hunt or lease their land. but wasn't the farm bureau threatening to sue the DNR a few years back, because they want the herd reduced. I'll try to find more info on this. And isn't this part of the reason the herd is being reduced.

Look what happened to Pheasant hunting in Michigan. It use to be bigger than deer season. but with the decrease in pheasant numbers and less places to hunt, Phesant hunter numbers declined. I think the same will happen with deer hunters. If the hunters aren't seeing deer or aren't shooting deer, then they will get out of the sport and invest their time and money in something else. This is bad for all of us.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

poz said:


> Since nobody responded to my question about the total Sq. miles in the Norhtern lower. I'll assume that each each of the three zones is 20,000 sq. miles.
> With 20,000 Sq. miles in the northern lower. And a goal of Possible 50,000 bucks a season taken. that equals an average of 2.5 bucks killed per sq. mile. That will include archery, rifle and muzzle loader season. With some areas having 50 hunters per sq. mile as stated in previous posts. I find this very fightening for our sport. If half of those bucks are taken in bow season, then we may very well have a 2%to 4% success ratio (in certain areas)for hunter hunting bucks during gun season. I do't believe these numbers will lead to better QDM when in the past we have had as high as 5 bucks taken off of the 30 acres we hunt and another couple taken by the neighbors. In my mind this was a quality Deer herd. Not what we have today.
> 
> .


Those numbers your using above to form your opinion are purely speculative guesses. Why get upset over meaningless numbers? I understand your frustration, but all your doing is losing sleep over guesstimated numbers. Try to get hard numbers first.

And the fact remains, that success ratio's are goingto go down a bit, thats a fact. It could be more or less dramatic based on where you hunt and the habitat it offers. Those two factors are in your control to an extent. 
In you first post, you warned folks to get used to not shooting many deer. I agree, it's not a shoot, it's a hunt. it's that hunt that some seem to be forgeting about, and considering deer were like rats around here for a decade or so, I can understand why it seemed like a shoot and not a hunt. 

I'm not attacking you Poz, just making a point....mainly don't get to upset with your own numbers, the sky is not falling, things are just changing a bit. The only constant in life is change.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

I agree with change, what i don't agree is what is driving the change, I think we are being hood wink by the DNR and the insurance companies. I think this is bad for our sport and will have an impact on the economy and property values. Look at the history of sports. Phesant numbers went down, Pheasant hunters went down. now many Michigan hunters go out west to hunt Pheasant and spend there money there. Many salmon charter captains are moving from lake huron to lake michigan because the salmon numbers have declined. When the opportunities aren't there the people won't be there. and without hunters, our political clout goes down. Let's say in 10 years we lose 1/2 of our deer hunters due to the fact that people get out of the sport because of not seing deer. We have to remember that althought many of us are die hard hunters, a vast majority only hunt gun season and only the first 2 days of the season. These will be the first to go or not buy licenses because they don't want to waste there money. Now a politician looks at sportsman and see a possilble 750,000 votes. do you think they will care as much if they only see 350,000 possible votes.

I know these are just numbers, but they are the only numbers we have. 

This is the first year in many that I won't gun hunt the baldwin area. I finally broke down and joined a lease down here. We use to have 6 or 7 guys a weekend upnorth atleast every other weekend. Now I' might go up for the opener of bow, but that will be it. I'll will hunt where there are more deer. Now don't you think that when we use to spend over $4000 between 6 guys a season in the baldwin area and now i'll probably spend $200 for one weekend a season, that this will have an impact on the economy up there. multiply that by the number of camps up there and it will have a huge impact on the economy.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

I understand what your saying, I agree, the economy will suffer in some areas, but improve in others at the same time. I do disagree that we should manage for numbers just for economic purposes though. Some of that should be taken into consideration, but it shouldn't carry a bunch of weight. Habitat, herd health etc should be the driving force. And yes, we may lose some hunter numbers, but I doubt we lose any political power......the majority of those fighting for our rights won't be the folks that give up, nor are they typically the person in the field two days a year to begin with. 
Personaly I think we spoiled ourselves to much in the mid to late 90's....hunters new to deer hunting that took it up during this time certainly did not get a realistic take of what deer hunting reality is all about. Seeing 150 to 200 deer in a single day is not necessarily good hunting, by any stretch. Might be good shooting though... There's a whole class of hunters that think thats how it should be unfortunately (not saying that is you Poz) We still have soem of the highest deer densities in the country in some parts of the state, yet some of the poorest hunting. 
I don't have the answers, but I'm not ready to say the DNR is pulling a fast one on us. It's easy for the average hunter to play armchair QB, we do it every day, but to think we have a good grasp of the whole state is pretty unrealistic. Especially when most of what we hear is heresy from folks who's only qualification is that they bought a hunting license and may have spent 8-10 hours in the same hunting spot they have for decades. That doesn't describe most here obviously, but you understand what I'm saying. I take some of the reports I hear or over hear with a grain of salt. I sometimes listen to my neighbors hunting experiences and wonder what planet they were on at the time. I'm a few hundred yards away with similar habitat/same herd and my take is much different.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

The shift from Huron to Michigan is nopt unusual. In a few years those folks will be back on Huron and folks from Michigan will be headed east. It's cyclical. 

Pheasants, well habitat changes and less trapping will continue to keep pheasant numbers low. I don't think the DNR is to blame for this (not that you are blaming them)


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

Swamp Monster said:


> Pheasants, well habitat changes and less trapping will continue to keep pheasant numbers low. I don't think the DNR is to blame for this (not that you are blaming them)


In addition, farming practices changed, the land became even more fragmented with development and pheasants are not native to Michigan. AS Michigan changes pheasants numbers went down, while whitetail numbers flurished. What I see happening at this time is the DNR trying to get deer numbers back down from the *invasive numbers of a few years ago. 

*As defined by the DNR, not hunters.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

I still find it funny when you talk to hunters who have been hunting 20 years and never shot a deer. You are correct, you can't go by what the majority says. 
I personally believe the deer herd was closer to 3 million in the 80s/90s. I've hunted for 24 years, and remember times that if you saw 1 deer all season in macomb county it was something special. I've also hunted the Thumb for many years and the baldwin area for many years.and saw 100 deer a day in these areas. After losing our place to hunt in the Thumb we decided to buy a place upnorth. The hunting was great, there were all sorts of deer. I can honestly say that i would pass on more deer when I would see more. I would let little bucks go and wait for a big one. I don't have a lot of land and I mostly hunt state land up there. 

Now with the lack of deer upnorth, I decide to get a lease in the thumb again. more deer, pure and simple. I will follow the deer. 

Whether people want to admit it or not, hunting is a business. It survives because it brings in money to the economy. When you look at states that want to promote hunting, they manage there wildlife to make it worthwhile for someone to come and spend there money to hunt there. Arkansas doesn't promote their duck hunting by saying that they have been decrease there duck population so hurry up and get out here before they are all gone. No, they brag about how there is better duck hunting than ever before. Does Texas say that they are going to cut there herd in half to make it a better quality hunt, no. Texas wants you to come down there and see a ton of deer, and alot of bucks. so you will come back. 

Why does Michigan want to go the opposite way an reduce the herd and drive tourism away.

If you live in Florida and you had $3000 to go on a deer hunt. you ask one friend who went to Texas and had the hunt of a lifetime, seeing alot of deer and shooting a nice buck. and you had a nother that went to northern michigan to hunt and only saw 3 deer all season and shot a 4 pointer. Where would you choose to go?


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

poz said:


> I do't believe these numbers will lead to better QDM when in the past we have had as high as 5 bucks taken off of the 30 acres we hunt and another couple taken by the neighbors. In my mind this was a quality Deer herd.


Five bucks harvested on thirty acres. That works out to a harvest of 107 bucks per square mile.

Don't expect those days to return anytime soon.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Swamp Monster said:


> The shift from Huron to Michigan is nopt unusual. In a few years those folks will be back on Huron and folks from Michigan will be headed east. It's cyclical.
> 
> Pheasants, well habitat changes and less trapping will continue to keep pheasant numbers low. I don't think the DNR is to blame for this (not that you are blaming them)


I'm not saying that the DNR is responsible for these events, What i was trying to get across was that Hunting and fishing is directly effected by the success they produce. If the fish aren't in lake huron then the people will move to find them or stop fishing them. Same with Pheasants, it use to be bigger than deer hunting. but the numbers went down and peopl stopped hunting them.There is a whole generation of pheasant hunters that have never hunted a wild bird in Michigan they hunt them in clubs that release birds. ( I do) because the numbers are not around. You use to drive down I-94 on opening day of Pheasant season and see orange in every field, now those fields are empty. People will lose interest if they aren''t successful. How many hunters do you think we'll lose because they use to shoot a deer a year and now they don'teven see a deer all season. I'd say after 5 bad seasons, they'll give up the sport.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> Five bucks harvested on thirty acres. That works out to a harvest of 107 bucks per square mile.
> 
> Don't expect those days to return anytime soon.


Yeah, but according to alot of people the land couldn't support that kind of herd so they thinned it out. now we shoot one buck every 2 years. I'm glad i have a healthy herd on my property now. 

Oh yeah, i we shot those bucks before we had the food plots and automatic feeders on the property.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

poz said:


> Whether people want to admit it or not, hunting is a business. It survives because it brings in money to the economy. When you look at states that want to promote hunting, they manage there wildlife to make it worthwhile for someone to come and spend there money to hunt there. Arkansas doesn't promote their duck hunting by saying that they have been decrease there duck population so hurry up and get out here before they are all gone. No, they brag about how there is better duck hunting than ever before. Does Texas say that they are going to cut there herd in half to make it a better quality hunt, no. Texas wants you to come down there and see a ton of deer, and alot of bucks. so you will come back.
> 
> Why does Michigan want to go the opposite way an reduce the herd and drive tourism away.
> ?


Comparing ducks to deer is apples and oranges. States with arguably better deer hunting, such as Iowa, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin all have less deer than we do, though Wisconsin is close. Those states have less deer, less hunters, and better hunting. I think we have too many hunters, hunting poor land. Combo those two, and yes, people will be unhappy. With our hunter numbers the way they are, the DNR is in a tough spot. You are never going to please them all, so you do what is in the best interest if the herd. I applaud this. Reducing our numbers was necessary and I would be hard pressed to be convinced of anything different. Now, I think it's time to micro manage areas in a way that benefits those areas. DMU's by county are to large in some areas, and not large enough in others. I don't see that happening anytime soon though.


----------



## BDL (Dec 17, 2004)

Poz,

Texas can withstand above carrying capacity numbers due to the lack of winter kill. Plus, aside from "ranch hunting", a number of people have told me that the private land hunters take is less then that of the typical Michigan private land hunter. It reminds me of my hunting experiences in North Carolina. In the area that I hunt in N.C., very little no public land exists, and hunters whack everything. Deer numbers are still high.


----------



## codybear (Jun 27, 2002)

poz said:


> the herd was closer to 3 million in the 80s/90s


Bout time I hear someone make sense.

Take a look at the 96 season, over 575, 000 deer harvested.
Now lets put all the other factors into play:
200,000+ estimated deer lost in the UP due to the severe winter.
68,000+ deer killed in Car/Deer accidents
Now lets add poachers, wolves, unrecovered deer, etc, etc, etc... and were probably getting up around 1,000,000 deer killed that year....

What was the estimated deer count before the season that year and how many were left after the season? Now, out of the deer left, how many were does that had fawns that survived? How could the estimated deer count be the same the following year?


CB


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Swamp Monster said:


> Comparing ducks to deer is apples and oranges. States with arguably better deer hunting, such as Iowa, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin all have less deer than we do, though Wisconsin is close. Those states have less deer, less hunters, and better hunting. I think we have too many hunters, hunting poor land. Combo those two, and yes, people will be unhappy. With our hunter numbers the way they are, the DNR is in a tough spot. You are never going to please them all, so you do what is in the best interest if the herd. I applaud this. Reducing our numbers was necessary and I would be hard pressed to be convinced of anything different. Now, I think it's time to micro manage areas in a way that benefits those areas. DMU's by county are to large in some areas, and not large enough in others. I don't see that happening anytime soon though.


We do have alot of hunters, but that is because we had alot of deer and deer hunting is a traditon in Michigan. People hunted because they were successful, and they enjoyed going out and seeing wildlife. Hunting grew in michigan because people were successful at it pure and simple.what will happen to our numbers when they stop seeing wildlife. how are you going to keep kids interested in hunting if you take them out to state land and they don't see a deer. Many people in our sport hunt very few days. Work, school, and everyday life keeps them from hunting. many families might get one or 2 weekends a season upnorth. how long do you think the kids will keep interest if they don't see wildlife.

Duck and deer aren't apples and oranges. It boils down to the same things more animals to hunt, more hunters,pure and simple. Why do people travel down to argentina or mexico to dove hunt. They can hunt doves here and in our neighboring states, but down there you have 1000s of birds. you can shoot 1000 rounds a day. They go to where the animals are. Why do we spend money on land and food plots, to make sure we keep the animals on our land. I doubt any deer hunter would spend his hard earn money on land and food plots if he knew that there were no deer around.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

codybear said:


> Bout time I hear someone make sense.
> 
> Take a look at the 96 season, over 575, 000 deer harvested.
> Now lets put all the other factors into play:
> ...


I believe in 1996 the estimate count was around 2 million. Back then everyone was saying we had a buck to doe ratio of 1:8. Now do the math 575,000 confirmed kills. More than Half of which were bucks. With that ratio there would only be 250,000 bucks total. So did we kill all the buck around that year and maybe a bunch of antlered does. I don't think so. 
So either one of the following is true.
1) The DNR and the public was wrong on the ratio.
or 
2) The ratio was right and we actually had 3 to 4 million deer. 

As far as winter kills, we don't have the mass die off we had we haven't had them in the lower since I can remeber.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

BDL said:


> Poz,
> 
> Texas can withstand above carrying capacity numbers due to the lack of winter kill. Plus, aside from "ranch hunting", a number of people have told me that the private land hunters take is less then that of the typical Michigan private land hunter. It reminds me of my hunting experiences in North Carolina. In the area that I hunt in N.C., very little no public land exists, and hunters whack everything. Deer numbers are still high.


Texas has manage their herd to be a deer mecca. They understand the fact that a hunter wants to go out and do 2 things. 

1) see alot of deer, I know from personal experience the more deer I see the better the chance of seeing a big one. Even if I don't see a big one, I know the deer are out there and my chance will come. A hunter is happy if he is seeing wild life. Like a fisherman, If he catches a 100 fish and 99 are under the limit and he releases them and he keeps only one. it's alot different than fishing all day and only catching one legal fish.

2) he wants to shoot a decent buck, and through management they got there herd there. Michigan has come up with this shoot all the does and reduce the herd and we will get big bucks running all over the place mentality. Wake up, it isn't working. Without Deer there will be no hunters. So we can sit around and bicker all we want, but if the hunter numbers decline and we lose our pull with politicians then we can have all the 12 pointers we want running around, because we won't be able to hunt them.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

I guess in the big scheme of things, I'm not to concerned if we lose a few hunters. Every year we lose available hunting land to developers etc....forcing the same number of hunters on less land each year. Too many hunters is not a quality hunting experience....just listen to all those who are forced to deal with the crowding on state land. 
I think folks need to get realistic about hunting. It's hunting, a verb. It's not shooting. If it needs to be easy to keep a persons interest, than that person needs to re-evaluate why they hunt. Many of us hunt for the challenge. It's a constant puzzle where the clues are all around, and it's up to you, the hunter to figure it all out...a little luck helps! Our deer population is far from wiped out so the "hunt" is still possible. Making it easy is not the point, and a reason I have some minor issues with the youth hunt, even though I understand its importance. 
So in the end, I guess I'm just not interested in having our DNR manage for quantity so I have more animals to hunt. I'd rather see the animals managed for their well being first.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

it is NOT the DNR/NRC's job to manage deer for the benifit of hunters - it's their job to ensure there will be a healthy deer heard in Michigan way longer than any of us remain alive - 

You can not compair the habitat available in the 50/60's with what's is there for the deer to use today. 

As sprawl continues to crush the available habitat the 'hunter' will be forced to hunt in increasingly over populated state/fed land - and - the end result will be less hunters - 

I for one, think it's time for a 'managed' hunt in Michigan. The 'free for all' of years gone by has outlived it purpose and/or usefullness.

ferg....


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Ferg said:


> it is NOT the DNR/NRC's job to manage deer for the benifit of hunters - it's their job to ensure there will be a healthy deer heard in Michigan way longer than any of us remain alive -
> 
> You can not compair the habitat available in the 50/60's with what's is there for the deer to use today.
> 
> ...


If it's not there Job to manage deer for hunters, why is it there job to manage for the insurance companies and farmers. Let mother nature take care of it. Why do they set quotas. It has to be a balanced for everyone. As I stated in my previous post. if we go by there numbers, than we had a huge deer herd before somewhere in the 3-4 million range. If they were that far off on the estimates and now they say that the land can only sustain half as much than Michigan could support an average of 35DPSM. why are we trying to get it down to 20DPSM. Numbers don't lie.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

poz said:


> If it's not there Job to manage deer for hunters, why is it there job to manage for the insurance companies and farmers. Let mother nature take care of it. Why do they set quotas. It has to be a balanced for everyone. As I stated in my previous post. if we go by there numbers, than we had a huge deer herd before somewhere in the 3-4 million range. If they were that far off on the estimates and now they say that the land can only sustain half as much than Michigan could support an average of 35DPSM. why are we trying to get it down to 20DPSM. Numbers don't lie.


there job to manage for hunters - simple - 

Can you source these numbers ? 

And - the reason we can't have the numbers of deer you want is because the land is changing - it will not support the number of animials you want to carry for 'hunters/shooters'.

Numbers do lie, and they are manipulated too, by anyone that want's to use them to further their agenda - 

Look at the browslines - it's EASY to see there are too many deer in places.

ferg....


----------

