# too many does



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

What makes people think they have to many does? Is it because that is all they are seeing, or that they are not seeing any Bucks.

If the ratio is like we say, than if you are seeing 20 does, than there are 15- 20 bucks around. Just because we don't see them doesn't mean they aren't there. If you believe that only does are on your property than there has to be an area around that has only bucks. If you find this area let me know .    

It's a simple fact, If a square mile has fifty deer on it, 20 of them are probably bucks. IF you don't want to believe this you don't have to. But taken the current deer management practices in the state. It is only common sense.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

The problem comes in with what those 20 bucks are comprised of. If 12 of them are button bucks, and the other 8 are yearlings, you've got a
SICK
deer herd.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

There is nothing physically sick with the herd. 



With todays deer mangement goals if you have 15 bucks around they should break down to about 5-BBs 5-1.5 years olds and 5 -2.5+ year olds.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

I think the problem comes when the 20 bucks (buttons included) wake up for a snack on Nov 15th. Many buttons fall to doe tags and the rest havea good chance to fall as well. Then you are depending on the fawnnumbers to replace most of the bucks. There are always a few "smart" bucks with a little age that make it through that nobody sees.

AW


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

poz said:


> With todays deer mangement goals if you have 15 bucks around they should break down to about 5-BBs 5-1.5 years olds and 5 -2.5+ year olds.


I hunt a couple of 100 hours per year in MI, my trail cameras are on the job 24 hours a day, and there isn't anywhere in Calhoun, Jackson, Ingham, Eaton, & Hillsdale counties that I've seen that even begin to have a split like this. 

I've yet to see an area in MI where there's even 1 2.5 year old per 5 1.5 year olds. As a matter of fact, it's still quite possible to go an entire season without seeing even one buck that's older than 2.5.


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

Not true, there is not a 1:2 ratio, but more like a 1:5 ratio on most places in Michigan.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Poz,

Most areas do not have those older bucks. You can walk miles right now across the U.P. in some areas an find barely a rub. Older bucks rub...a lot. If you are not seeing rubs right now...you have no older bucks, period. Not to say that the lone 2.5 year old from the neighboring section won't come through during the rut, but big bucks leave a whole lot of sign. In fact, a 2.5 year old will leave several times more sign than a yearling, and 3.5 more than a 2.5 year old. Also, the sign gets bigger and more aggressive.

Also, it's true on buck number estimates. Many studies have show that hunters see only 50% of the bucks in their area, if they hunt hard. About the only way to truly see close to the actual number of bucks in an area is with an extensive camera census...which many don't do. 

But again, we do not have a good age structure in most areas and the harvest rates show that. We basically just about eliminate an entire age class of bucks every year..the yearling age class, and this is especially true on public land.

A good way to know how many older bucks you have though...sign. If the sign isn't there, neither are the bucks!


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

poz said:


> There is nothing physically sick with the herd.
> 
> YOu are setting personal standards for the herd and if it doesn't meet your expectations than you label it as sick.


To infer that non-existent buck age structure is wholly irrelevant to overall health of the deer herd would represent a distinct minority opinion amongst most highly-regarded deer management experts. It goes way beyond "personal standards".


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Guys, I'll try to answer some of the questions.

We are determining that the majority of buck we kill are 1.5 year olds because that is what 70-80% of the bucks that are checked in are. We get this from the DNR. Then why do we chose to ignore the other numbers the DNR posts.

If the ratio is 1:5 than with a Deer herd of 1.8 million. That leaves you with only 300,000 bucks running around. If 250,000 are button bucks that are born each year, that only leaves you with 50,000 shootable buck. we shoot on average 300,000 bucks a year. So we know we don't have a 1:5 ratio.

The DNR states that 35% of the preseason herd is shootable bucks. That is 630,000 shootable bucks(1,5 yrs, and older). If we only shoot 300,000-350,000 a year that leaves about 300,000 that live pass 1.5 yrs. old. What happens to these, I don't know.

Many of us think that we are great hunters, Myself included :lol: , but every year we have some one in the party kill a buck that nobody has seen. And then the farmers comes over and says that he use to see that buck all the time in the summer? But hasn't seen it since hunting season, did the buck leave, probably not he just became nocturnal. 

It reminds me of fishing about 20 years ago, we thought we knew the lake and everything, but when we entered a bass tournament, and the pros came in, the smoked us, why because these guys were pros and knew what they were doing. Many hunters are the same way the have a piece of property and hunt it the same way year after year. the bucks pattern them and the hunter never sees them. I have had great success during gun season kust walking into the woulds and finding a trail and sitting by it. Why because the bucks in the area, didn't get a chance to pattern me.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Who says we don't believe the DNR numbers? I believe their harvest numbers, I believe them when they say 11/19 DMU's in the U.P. are under carrying capacity, I believe their sex ratio estimates. The only thing I might not believe fully is their wolf population estimates..but that's another topic. What numbers don't we believe? To be honest, I find non-QDM people don't believe their numbers more that QDM folks, but that's just an opinion.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

NorthJeff said:


> ... I believe them when they say 11/19 DMU's in the U.P. are under carrying capacity...


I don't believe that, because if that were the case the deer wouldn't be getting smaller in the UP. ;-)

-na


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Seeing as the vast majority of our U.P. deer herd is located in the southern DMU's, and those 4 DMU's are over carrying capacity...that very large deer herd will greatly skew the data for overall U.P. percentages..but I have not seen that data that shows the U.P. body weights are shrinking. Also, take away diversity, and the body weights drop, regardless of how much food there is to go around. Better diet, better nutrition, more variety and the deer will be larger....abundant quality forage is also whole lot better than abundant low quality forage for increasing body weights and this really has nothing to do with carrying capacity but instead diversity and nutrient content.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

poz said:


> The DNR states that 35% of the preseason herd is shootable bucks.


Link?


----------



## Foodplot (Sep 29, 2005)

Have any of you guys looked at the surrounding states and their deer herds?? Guess I'm asking for a comparitive analysis. It seems several surrounding states have larger buck deer/older etc. Is there a difference in farming soil etc??? or just how the deer herd is managed/harvest etc???


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Bob S said:


> Link?



It's in the sticky at the top of this forum


A SMALLER DEER HERD WITH A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF BUCKS

In the late 1980s, the Department of Natural Resources reaffirmed its goal of 1.3 million deer in the fall herd (which was biologically the same as the 1971 goal of 1 million deer in the spring herd). However, a new dimension was added by specifying that*35 percent of this fall herd should ideally be antlered bucks.* Increased hunting of antlerless deer was encouraged by quota and area to thin adult doe herds. In 1989' the Hunter's Choice license was changed to a bonus Antlerless-only license. The number of antlerless deer hunting licenses was increased from the tens of thousands issued annually in the 1970s to a peak of 322,890 in 1990. The herd responded as was intended-there were 20 percent fewer deer in fall 1993 as there were in 1989.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> To infer that non-existent buck age structure is wholly irrelevant to overall health of the deer herd would represent a distinct minority opinion amongst most highly-regarded deer management experts. It goes way beyond "personal standards".



The deer managers in this state, The DNR, have a break down of the bucks at about a 33% BBs 33% 1.5 yr olds, And 33% 2.5 and older. Is their other deer managers in the state that we don't know about that that have different numbers? If so, I would like to see their findings.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Differance in deer mgmnt, hunter expectations, bag limits, gun season timing, and traditions.

Take the U.P. for example. Prior to 1990 the U.P. had a huge advantage for record buck entries compared to downstate. Since that time we are not on the map. The only differance? Baiting. We are 70-80% public land with very little mast, fruit or ag crops, but instead mostly wilderness. Baiting allows for an easy hunt on yearling bucks and it is incredibly easy with bait in the U.P. to shoot a yearling buck if you just hunt a few days during rifle.

You can look at WI. 1 buck for gun, 1 buck for bow and the gun season starts after the rut is over, or at least is winding down considerably where MI's rifle opens right during the peak of the rut, or at least towards the later 1/2 of the peak.

Basically though most of it boils down to AGE. That's it. The U.P. can and has grown some of the state's largest bucks, and some of our lower MI farm areas have as much potential for huge bucks as anywhere in the country...but "dead bucks don't grow". We don't have a habitat problem, we don't have a genetic problem, our deer density issues are even better than most states and were addressed sooner...but we do have an age problem and it's part of our hunting culture, hunting method with baiting in some areas, and low hunter expectations and experience.

To most MI hunters a 2.5 year old buck is a true trophy of a lifetime....pretty sad!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"The DNR, have a break down of the bucks at about a 33% BBs 33% 1.5 yr olds, And 33% 2.5 and older."

Where are these numbers?


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> To most MI hunters a 2.5 year old buck is a true trophy of a lifetime....pretty sad!


Jeff what is pretty sad that some hunters do not consider any deer a trophy unless it has a trophy rack and is 3-5 yrs.old. 

This is disrespectful to the animal and to hunters. It's funny because if you ask many hunter why they hunt, their answer is for the challenge, yet if someones challenge isn't the same as yours it is pretty sad. this attitude make hunter look like hypocrits.

Now let's get back to the topic of Does.


----------



## BDL (Dec 17, 2004)

NJ -

Wisconsin posts a lot lower number of hunters then does Michigan..thus their kill numbers are lower. Also, your statement, "we don't have a habitat problem"...is questionable. The U.P. is a prime example of a skewed habitat, with devasted deer yards of too many deer in the past. If the hunters didn't or don't bring down the numbers, mother nature will (i.e. weather and habitat).


----------



## wecker20 (Mar 10, 2004)

It's pretty sad that a 2.5 year old buck is rare. Don't think he was refering to the hunter if that's how I took you as taking it....


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> "The DNR, have a break down of the bucks at about a 33% BBs 33% 1.5 yr olds, And 33% 2.5 and older."
> 
> Where are these numbers?



I posted it before, they are in the sticky at the top of the forum.

Preseasoned antlered bucks is 35% of the herd. 1.8million deer= 630,000 antlered bucks.

Fawn birth of about 500,000 deer. 50/50 birth ratio== 250,000 BBs

Antlered kill around 300,000 bucks, the last couple of years.

630,000 antlered - 300,000 killed antlered leave 330,000 antlered bucks that will be around next year.. 2.5+ yr.olds

200,000 BBs that will make it throught the season will give you another 200,000 antlered deer next year. 1.5 year olds

Next years birthrate will be another 250,000 BBs


That gives you at least 780,000 bucks around next year. Actually there should be more 2.5 and older bucks around than 1.5 yr.old bucks


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

It's pretty sad that our MI hunters have such low expectations and experience that a 2.5 year old buck is the best that most see in a lifetime...just the way it is. That's just how rare a 2.5 year old buck is and it's also pretty sad that if a hunter sees one a lot of them will think that buck is "the grandaddy of em all". Mediocrity breeds low expectations and MI is a prime example.

Again, it's age, it's all about age and MI is severly lacking.

Also, BDL, the deer yards have bee in the same condition for the past 40 years...so that has nothing to do with why harvest fewer mature bucks than every before by percentage of harvest.


----------



## wecker20 (Mar 10, 2004)

poz said:


> It's a simple fact, If a square mile has fifty deer on it, 20 of them are probably bucks. IF you don't want to believe this you don't have to. But taken the current deer management practices in the state. It is only common sense.


 Why does my camera take pictures of 25 different antlerless and only 5 bucks, legal or button bucks, smile for the camera? I'm going by the camera and actual sightings of does while glassing the fields in the mornings and evenings. If it wern't for the camera, I would say I have no bucks cause I have yet to see one not on film. The 25 number is just what I've actually seen at one time in the fields, could be higher.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

North Jeff said:


> Take the U.P. for example. Prior to 1990 the U.P. had a huge advantage for record buck entries compared to downstate. Since that time we are not on the map.


I don't believe I can agree with this statment if I am reading it correctly. By my memory, record buck entries have come from Jackson, Calhoun, Hillsdale and surrounding counties since much before 1990. But maybe I'm misreading the post.  



poz said:


> pretty sad that some hunters do not consider any deer a trophy unless it has a trophy rack and is 3-5 yrs.old.


I can agree with that. A trophy is in the eyes of the particular hunter but unfortunately egos have cause some to have a different definition of what trophy is. :yikes:


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

wecker20 said:


> Why does my camera take pictures of 25 different antlerless and only 5 bucks, legal or button bucks, smile for the camera? I'm going by the camera and actual sightings of does while glassing the fields in the mornings and evenings. If it wern't for the camera, I would say I have no bucks cause I have yet to see one not on film. The 25 number is just what I've actually seen at one time in the fields, could be higher.


wecker20, I hunted your next of the woods for the past 20 years. I was up there and scouting at the end of July off of Kings Highway and saw more bucks than does.
I think it was something like 3 bucks for every doe I saw. I can't say just because of that that there are more bucks than does. 

Old bucks are smart animals, Do you have bait by your camera, maybe they don't come into the bait like the does do. Maybe you have your camera on a trail that does mostly use, I can't answer why. 

But I hear all this talk about how we have to many does and how we shoot to many 1.5 yr. old bucks. and I want to hear the reason why some people think they have too many does. We all tend to think things because we only see does. I hunt a field down in the thumb that on any given night it has 20 -30 does in there. Yet between are hunting party we have spotted several different bucks in there. If only on guy was hunting it, they would think that they have a bunch of does and a few bucks in it because they would have never seen or heard of the other bucks if the other hunters didn't tell them.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> Again, it's age, it's all about age and MI is severly lacking.


Jeff, I have directed people to the links that I got my info from. Can you direct us to a site or find out what the actual average age of bucks in Michigan is. I would like to know because you guys say that all we shoot is 1.5 yr.old bucks and the don't get any older in michigan. So than the average age should be under 1.5 yrs. old. I would be very interested to see what the Biologist say the average age is.
Thanks


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

wecker20 said:


> Why does my camera take pictures of 25 different antlerless and only 5 bucks, legal or button bucks, smile for the camera? I'm going by the camera and actual sightings of does while glassing the fields in the mornings and evenings. If it wern't for the camera, I would say I have no bucks cause I have yet to see one not on film. The 25 number is just what I've actually seen at one time in the fields, could be higher.


I have to believe a there's a good number of .5 year old bucks in those field observations. I would say it's near impossible for a group of 10 does to not give birth to a buck. Yes you can tell a bb from a doe sometimes, but in a field from any distance would be difficult, imo, especially if we're talking summer field observations. Even camera shots are hard to discern under some circumstances.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

If you want some more anecdotal evidence, I've had my game cam out on my property since April. So far I've identified 5 different bucks and 7 different does that have been regularily photographed during that time frame. 

The buck break down is an 8 point and a 7 point that are 2.5 year olds, a fork and a spike that are 1.5 year olds and 1 BB.

The does are 1 older doe, 2 1.5-2.5 year olds and two doe fawns.

Could there be some older bucks out there that are camera shy? Yes, it's possible but I don't know any way to determine that. 

By the way, this ratio is after 3 years of 3 point per side mandatory AR's and very limited antlerless permits. The AR's have not produced any visible evidence of an older buck age class. As I mentioned, it's certainly possible that there are some older bucks out there but they have not been caught either on film or seen by the human eye. 

I think Poz is probably pretty close on the state wide ratio being 2:1 or maybe in some places 3:1. A couple of months ago I put together a spread sheet and crunched the numbers as Poz has done and statistically I could not make any other ratios work. 

For those of you who think that the statewide ratio is really out of whack, like 5:1 or 10:1, it would be interesting to know what data from the DNR you think is wrong? 

The variables are the pre-hunt size of the herd, harvest numbers for each component of the herd, recruitment rate, non-hunting mortality, fetal sex ratio and B/D ratio of adults & fawns. 

I would like to see a statistical analysis of the herd dynamics in Michigan that show a much greater number of does than bucks, if that is really the case. That would hold a lot more water with me than a bunch of hunters saying all of the bucks are gone just because they have not seen any while hunting.


----------



## wecker20 (Mar 10, 2004)

Yeah, glassing the field in the late summer/early fall is almost impossible to see a button buck. I can see 3/4 of a mile in some areas and at that far I wouldn't know if it had horns unless it was a monster. I do have apples under my camera and I do not hunt near it. I've seen a lot of mature bucks visit other peoples set-ups w/ bait and that is why I used apples. Unless I had numerous cameras, I guess it's safe to say I cannot get a good handle on buck to doe ratios. Just seems kinda odd that I have very little buck sightings even using apples during darkness. Lately, I get 20-30 pics a day and that's where the does are hanging out.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> Who says we don't believe the DNR numbers? I believe their harvest numbers, I believe them when they say 11/19 DMU's in the U.P. are under carrying capacity, I believe their sex ratio estimates.


Jeff if you believe their numbers, than why you argueing about the buck age structure. right now with the DNR numbers The antlered buck populaton is 50% 1.5 yr.olds and 50% 2.5yr. olds or older.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"The antlered buck populaton is 50% 1.5 yr.olds and 50% 2.5yr. olds or older."

I guess I haven't seen where the DNR says that.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Jeff if the DNR say that the preseason antlered buck population is 35% of the herd and the herd is 1.8 million, that equals 630,000. It was about the same last year. Last year the Buck harvest was around 300,000. That left around 300,000 bucks that were at least 1.5 years old last year that made it to this year. These animals are 2.5 yrs old or older. now.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

wecker20 said:


> Yeah, glassing the field in the late summer/early fall is almost impossible to see a button buck. I can see 3/4 of a mile in some areas and at that far I wouldn't know if it had horns unless it was a monster. I do have apples under my camera and I do not hunt near it. I've seen a lot of mature bucks visit other peoples set-ups w/ bait and that is why I used apples. Unless I had numerous cameras, I guess it's safe to say I cannot get a good handle on buck to doe ratios. Just seems kinda odd that I have very little buck sightings even using apples during darkness. Lately, I get 20-30 pics a day and that's where the does are hanging out.


It'd be real interesting to see some pics from your set-up in two weeks. As the rut starts up it will be interesting to see how the ratio changes. 

Just from my summer observations, the bucks only care to be in a smaller area while in their bachelor groups. In fact, the area they prefer is only about 1/4 the size of the property, in the other 3/4 during the summer and early fall it's almost always does. Of course, with the rut things change up and the deer move more freely throughout the property.

I would love to see some info on preferred bachelor ranges and preferred maternal ranges. I have an opinion that it's possible for a person to own a smaller parcel and have the entire parcel a preferred materal range for a good portion of the year. This would account for the skewed numbers during the preseason and throughout the summer. I don't have any data to support my opinion, just my observations through a few summers of keeping close tabs on the bachelor group. You could take this 40 and split it into 10s and of the four 10s three would look like there are no bucks and the other would look like there are no does, at least up until the rut hits. 

Interesting topic and I'd love to see how your cam ratios change with the rut.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

I cannot speak for every part of Michigan, but I can say with calm self-assurance that it is preposterous to suggest that anywhere near 50% of the pre-harvest antlered bucks in my area are 2.5 years old or older.

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that 90% the annual class of yearling bucks in the neighborhood failed to make it to New Year's Day.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

farmlegend said:


> I cannot speak for every part of Michigan, but I can say with calm self-assurance that it is preposterous to suggest that anywhere near 50% of the pre-harvest antlered bucks in my area are 2.5 years old or older.


Exactly. 2.5 year old or older bucks are not invisible. If they constituted even 25% of the current S. MI. herd, then many more would be spotted while hunting, from trail cameras, with a spotlight at night, etc. It is, as you said, preposterous to suggest a number anywhere near 50%.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> I cannot speak for every part of Michigan, but I can say with calm self-assurance that it is preposterous to suggest that anywhere near 50% of the pre-harvest antlered bucks in my area are 2.5 years old or older.



Farmlegend, 

These are the only numbers we have to go by that are some what official, I have a hard time believeing them myself sometimes. Espeially when you are in a field watch 30 doe and fawns, and are not seeing any bucks.

When people were complaining last year of not seeing deer and low deer numbers, Alot of QDM guys were saying that we were wrong and the deer were there. yet our observations were no good for you guys, yet you want us to believe you guys when it comes to not seeing 2.5 + bucks.

If you guys want to push AR's and QDM or large doe harvest you have to base your findings on some fact, If the only guys doing the fact finding is the DNR and they say this is how we are manageing it and they have the numbers to prove it, than We have to go by those numbers, not by what people are seeing. I think people can be used in studies and take those findings and use them, but it has to be done on a scientific level, not on someones opinion.

I am still waiting for somene to tell me what the average age of a Michigan buck is.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

jk hillsdale said:


> Exactly. 2.5 year old or older bucks are not invisible. If they constituted even 25% of the current S. MI. herd, then many more would be spotted while hunting, from trail cameras, with a spotlight at night, etc. It is, as you said, preposterous to suggest a number anywhere near 50%.


Do you guys think that all 2.5 yr.olds are monster bucks. Many of them are 4 and 6 pointers, until you shoot them and age them, you can't tell how old they are. We can take guess at it, and sometimes we may be right, but until it is down, you just don't know.


----------



## twodogsphil (Apr 16, 2002)

Poz, your estimates of buck numbers are based on an MDNR "goal". Where does MDNR state that its estimate of pre-October legal antlered bucks has met the 35% of herd "goal". If the "goal" has not been met, the numbers you are tossing around don't mean anything.


----------



## n.pike (Aug 23, 2002)

NorthJeff said:


> To most MI hunters a 2.5 year old buck is a true trophy of a lifetime....pretty sad!


Probably one of the worst commemts I've ever heard. A 2.5 deer to a 16 yr old or 70 yr old is something to be proud of. 

Its easy to shoot a mature buck from a deer farm, or spend tons of $$$ to travel to a state to harvest a deer, but I respect the guy that takes a weekend with his kid or buddy and gets a 2.5 yr old from state land.

Its about traditon, hunt camp, friends.........not the size of your rack.


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

twodogsphil said:


> Poz, your estimates of buck numbers are based on an MDNR "goal". Where does MDNR state that its estimate of pre-October legal antlered bucks has met the 35% of herd "goal". If the "goal" has not been met, the numbers you are tossing around don't mean anything.


EXACTLY, Poz that is if it was IDEALLY!!!!!!!!!!!! Look at your quote. 

THere are not that many SHOOTABLE bucks as you say. And yes I shoot nice bucks and I am Pro QDM.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

No, they are not. Most of the 2.5 year old bucks up here have 7-8 points and the least number of points I've personally harvested or seen harvested has been on a 16.5" wide 6 point with no brow tines. Even all the way up here in the U.P. were the racks grow big...but slow, the average 2.5 year olds have 7-8points.

Consider this, the average YEARLING buck in lower MI and most ag areas of the midwest has 7 points.

Poz, I really think you've fallen victim to the low expectations many MI hunters have and it's really not your fault, it's just the result of continued mediocrity and poor age structure. Have you ever hunted whitetails outside of MI?


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

twodogsphil said:


> Poz, your estimates of buck numbers are based on an MDNR "goal". Where does MDNR state that its estimate of pre-October legal antlered bucks has met the 35% of herd "goal". If the "goal" has not been met, the numbers you are tossing around don't mean anything.


This was already discussed in a previos thread, But I'll give you the short of it.

In the late 1980s, the Department of Natural Resources reaffirmed its goal of 1.3 million deer in the fall herd (which was biologically the same as the 1971 goal of 1 million deer in the spring herd). However, a new dimension was added by specifying that 35 percent of this fall herd should ideally be antlered bucks. Increased hunting of antlerless deer was encouraged by quota and area to thin adult doe herds. In 1989' the Hunter's Choice license was changed to a bonus Antlerless-only license. The number of antlerless deer hunting licenses was increased from the tens of thousands issued annually in the 1970s to a peak of 322,890 in 1990. *The herd responded as was intended* -there were 20 percent fewer deer in fall 1993 as there were in 1989.

It was discussed in earlier threads, but the DNR did meet their goal.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

N.Pike

Sorry you have yet to understand my statement...I doubt you put much thought into it. It's not sad that the kid thinks it's a trophy, or a seasoned hunter, the point is that it IS INDEED a trophy of a lifetime in MI because it is so rare.

And that's the point. A 2.5 year old deer should not be so rare. That should be part of the majority we harvest...not the minority and when guys think that is a trophy, of which it truly is in MI, it's a sad statement to both our age structure in MI, and our low expectations. Shoot, I have a few 2.5 year olds on the wall and believe me they were all true trophys to me when I shot them and still to this day I love hunting in MI...I just lower my expectations and enjoy the challenge of harvesting a 2.5 year old buck.

Don't miscontstrue my point because you don't take the time to understand. I think it's great when you see a kid or anybody that excited that they mount a 4-point...that's NOT AT ALL THE POINT!! In fact I thoroughly enjoyed letting the 12 year old shoot a spike on my property and that kid would probably not been any happier if he shot a larger buck...that was a true trophy to that kid.

Again though, don't misconstrue what I have to say because you don't take the time to understand...it's about age, in fact QDM is about age and it's a crying shame that in MI a 2.5 year old buck is the "grandaddy of them all" because many MI hunters will spend a lifetime hunting and not see anything better...because they are not there.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> Poz, I really think you've fallen victim to the low expectations many MI hunters have and it's really not your fault, it's just the result of continued mediocrity and poor age structure. Have you ever hunted whitetails outside of MI?


Jeff, I haven't fallen victim, I just believe that older bucks are smarter than people think and if you think you are going to see one everytime you go out, I think that you have been watching to many T.V. hunting shows. 

I have hunted stateland for a week straight before guns season, I was the only guy in the place. I saw a ton of does and a few bucks, LOw and behold on opening day of gun season when 20 hunters come in, 10 guys shoot bucks, and I shoot a 9 pointer out of the same stand I hunted for a week. Did these bucks just drop out of the sky that morning, No, they were there the whole time and I didn't see them. Many guys have fallen victim to low expectation, I am not one of them, I know the bucks are there. They just have to be hunted, I shot a 3.5 year old 4 pointer in lake county, I also shot a 8 point 1.5 yr'old there. I bet if you showed those two to the average hunter, he would say the 4 point was a 1.5 and the 8 was 2.5. you just don't know until you get them down.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

poz said:


> but the DNR did meet their goal.


If that was the case. There would be 1.3 million deer in Michigan, not 1.8 million.


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

That may be true in the north as of age, but in the south, we better have better racks than a 4 or 8 for those ages. 

As for big bucks not being seen, I agree they are ghosts, just NOT a lot are out there!!


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Bob S said:


> If that was the case. There would be 1.3 million deer in Michigan, not 1.8 million.


Bob that was the goal, back then, But the DNR has aspired to keep it at that level and pretty much has as the population grew.

Crunch the numbers, they can only add up to what I and other people have come up with, The only other alternative is if the total population is off, And if it is, than the population would have to be around 3-4 million deer in order to have had a buck to doe ratio of 1:5 or better. If this is true than all this talk about the habitat not being able to support it a herd of 2 million is way off mark and should be reevaluated to get the herd up to what the habitat can support.


----------



## twodogsphil (Apr 16, 2002)

Poz, the MDNR statement that you are basing your estimates on appear to be at least a dozen year's old (1993 vs. 2005). Also, MDNR's statement that "...the herd responded as intended." seems to be a self-serving conclusion that is quite nebulous and can mean anything. However, if one assumes that the conclusion is true, why is MDNR still giving out unlimited antlerless permit in central and southern Michiigan, extending the muzzle loader season, and having a late gun antlerless season? Sound's to me like the herd has "not" responded as intended.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Poz, I shoot at least a 2.5 year old every year and sometimes older in several states, on my own, no guides, so believe me I know what it takes, and I also get several thousand photos a year on both private and public land in at least 2 states and see many bucks and trust me, if you don't work at getting an older age structure in the herd....it isn't there unless you hunt large roadless wilderness common with for example the Lake Superior Shoreline.

I know camps around here that have gone decades or more without a 2.5 year old buck or older and one that went 25 years.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

twodogsphil said:


> Poz, the MDNR statement that you are basing your estimates on appear to be at least a dozen year's old (1993 vs. 2005). Also, MDNR's statement that "...the herd responded as intended." seems to be a self-serving conclusion that is quite nebulous and can mean anything. However, if one assumes that the conclusion is true, why is MDNR still giving out unlimited antlerless permit in central and southern Michiigan, extending the muzzle loader season, and having a late gun antlerless season? Sound's to me like the herd has "not" responded as intended.



Because as Ron Clute has stated, 50% of the state deer herd live in the SLP. this is mainly comprise of farm land. So out of a herd of 1.8 million, at least 900,000 live in the SLP. The deer have shifted over the years from the nothern to the southern, Look at all the threads already on this site from guys not seeing deer in the NOrthern. Many spots in the NOrthern, Like Lake county don't have doe permits at all. They are trying to build the deer back up up there. BY issueing alot of permits, they will try to get the hunters to move where the deer are. Unfortunately unlike upnorth, much of the land in the south is private. Plus the hunting presure is somewhat less in the lower, Don't get me wrong, I know just about every piece of property gets hunted, But if you look at our group we have almost 450 acres we lease that is hunted by 8 guys, 450 acres of public land up north is hunted by 40 guys. 

The article is the history of michigan to present day., If the buck to doe ratio is 1;2 and people are saying that the SLP has way to many does, Then there has to be a Place where the bucks outnumber the does.

As i stated in an earlier post, I find theses numbers hard to believe, especially when you are watching a field with 30 does and fawns and no bucks in it. I think that if any of these numbers are off, it has to be the total population number. 

Try crunching the numbers yourself and see what you come up with.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

poz said:


> Do you guys think that all 2.5 yr.olds are monster bucks. Many of them are 4 and 6 pointers, until you shoot them and age them, you can't tell how old they are. We can take guess at it, and sometimes we may be right, but until it is down, you just don't know.


I'm not able speak with any intelligence about aging a deer from, for example, the northern lower peninsula. But in southern MI a fairly high percentage of deer can be accurately identified as to whether they're 1.5 or 2.5.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

NorthJeff said:


> I know camps around here that have gone decades or more without a 2.5 year old buck or older and one that went 25 years.


I understand that you see this as a great tragedy, but it only indicates to me that camp culture in the UP has little or nothing to do with shooting older/larger antlered deer.

Interesting how two people can see such different things in the same statement. ;-)

-na


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

poz said:


> I think that if any of these numbers are off, it has to be the total population number.
> 
> Try crunching the numbers yourself and see what you come up with.


I tend to agree. I would estimate that the total population number is lower than 1.8 million. I also suspect that in S. MI the pre-season percentage of antlered deer is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25%.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

What it indicates is that they didn't shoot these bucks for decades or more not because they didn't want to, not because they didn't care, not because they passed on them in favor of shooting a yearling buck...but they didn't shoot any, because they weren't there to shoot, and that is the tragedy.

What a shame that your idea of camp culture can not have the lure of the mature buck and all the scrapes, rubs, and mystic that surrounds mature bucks to go along with it. Could this be why there are no more tent camps in the area? No more campers back in the woods? No more hunters walking the countryside? I haven't seen another hunter during gun season in around 11 total gun season in several locations. You can count on not seeing anybody over a 1/4 to 1/2 mile from their car anymore because it's too far to carry bait...is that the positive wonderful U.P. heritage and hunting culture you speak of?

U.P. camp culture may have nothing to do with shooting a 2.5 year old deer in some areas because there are none to shoot. I also know camps that are not coming back this year because the age structure is so poor, guys with 20+ years of experience. At the same time, hunting season is one of the poorest tourist times around here to the point that some places actually shut their doors because of the "slow-season". It's all snowmobile, then summer tourism, and I wouldn't be surprised if the influx of fall color tour retirees beat out hunting season.

Let's face it, a 2.5 year old deer is a young deer...it shouldn't be one of the rarest species in the woods.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> Poz, I shoot at least a 2.5 year old every year and sometimes older in several states, on my own, no guides, so believe me I know what it takes, and I also get several thousand photos a year on both private and public land in at least 2 states and see many bucks and trust me, if you don't work at getting an older age structure in the herd....it isn't there unless you hunt large roadless wilderness common with for example the Lake Superior Shoreline.
> 
> I know camps around here that have gone decades or more without a 2.5 year old buck or older and one that went 25 years.



Jeff i don't doubt you, I see camps also that by the 2nd day they are done hunting. They shoot the first buck they see and then complain bout not seeing big bucks. Michigan has a lot of hunters and is not manage to be a trophy state with big bucks, I would love it to be, But if you want big bucks in this state you have to manage for it by not only providing the habitat, but also providing hunting opportunities for the hunter that will shoot any buck. If you reduce the deer population more hunters will shoot smaller bucks because that is what they are seeing. If you increase the population where the average hunter can go out and shoot a 1.5 year old and still have a bunch of 1.5 yr'olds survive, it will increase the older buck population and eventually make people pass on smaller bucks and wait for bigger ones.
Why do people hunt Texas, because they go out on a ranch an see a ton of big bucks, the pass on the little ones and wait for a big one. If they were out ther for 3 days and only saw a 6 pointer walk by, they would shoot it like we do in Michigan. But they don't just see one buck, they se 20-30 a day.

QDM is a great thing if you can get people to by into it, But it won't work in Michigan with the number of hunters we have.

We have to decide if we want Michigan to be a QDM state firstor a Trophy state first. Than hopefully the other can follow.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

is whither or not we are going to keep talking about 'too many does' or change this to a not enough older bucks thread - :yikes: 


ferg....


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

The problem is the average hunter cannot sit on stand 50 or 60 day s out of the year and that is sometimes all it takes as well. Your average hunter sits on weekends and maybe a few days off during the year and therefore capitalize on the chances they get plain and simple. Throw in a few kids who play sports a spouse work obligations etc and very few have the luxury to pass buck after buck till the right one comes by. This is why I am starting to beleive more and more in some type of simple AR by zone county whatever that people can "simply" follow. Then it is law and that may help JMO

AW


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

jk hillsdale said:


> I tend to agree. I would estimate that the total population number is lower than 1.8 million. I also suspect that in S. MI the pre-season percentage of antlered deer is somewhere in the neighborhood of 25%.



I find it hard to believe that if the popultion is lower, and the antlered deer are at 25% than we shoot almost every antlered deer during the season. That's what it would amount to.

I hope guys leave there trail cameras up after the season to see what bucks are still out there


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

Ferg said:


> is whither or not we are going to keep talking about 'too many does' or change this to a not enough older bucks thread - :yikes:
> 
> 
> ferg....


Sorry Ferg it is morphing into something else.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

I'll continue this later, I got to go


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

poz said:


> I find it hard to believe that if the popultion is lower, and the antlered deer are at 25% than we shoot almost every antlered deer during the season. That's what it would amount to.
> 
> I hope guys leave there trail cameras up after the season to see what bucks are still out there


Exactly! We do shoot almost every antlered deer annually. If 250,000 antlered bucks were killed last year, it means that no credible source would suggest that we had more than 320,000-340,000 to begin with. 

In S. MI it's uncommon to see anything with antlers by mid December, whether it's while stand hunting, doing deer drives, with a trail camera, a spotlight at night, etc. It isn't because they've already shed their antlers, it's because more than 75% of them are dead. A three month bow season, a 16 days firearms season that begins at the peak of the rut, followed by several weeks of muzzleloader hunting, combined with a majority of hunters that kill the first buck they see - the survival odds in most of MI are currently very low for any individual buck.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

I started a new thread for the antlered buck "debate". Sorry for taking this one off topic.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

""""I've yet to see an area in MI where there's even 1 2.5 year old per 5 1.5 year olds. As a matter of fact, it's still quite possible to go an entire season without seeing even one buck that's older than 2.5."""" Everybody keeps talking about how rare a 2.5 plus buck is etc...this is what I do and don't understand about some on here...some points...

1. I have shot alot of 2.5 year old deer(some maybe 3.5) inthe past 15 years mostly hunting statelands in Rosc./Crawford Co or the EUP, either they are NOT rare OR I am one hellva hunter!!!! :evil: 

2. If you are not seeing these 2.5 year olds every year and your putting enough time in hunting(which I assume most on this forum here do) why on earth have you not found another hunting location??? Move people, the grass can be greener on the other side--move your stand, move to another location, move to another county to hunt,etc..Put some more effort in your scouting and hunting.....I really feel some just have poor hunting instincts....

3. if those camps in Lake co have not shot a 2.5 plus deer in that many years....and they continue to come back and hunt in camp....thats tradition and if you do not understand that type of tradition...you really have missed a great outdoor expereince and that feeling of when you first step foot from the vehicle and start hauling in the food, sleeping bags and hand shakes  ...it has nothing to do about killing deer....everybody needs to experience a true "deer camp" with friends and family.

4. I'm pretty certain most people underestimate the number of mature bucks in most areas--most of the times they are there, is just the hunting styles have changed to harvest them.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

beer and nuts said:


> Everybody keeps talking about how rare a 2.5 plus buck is etc.
> 
> 2. If you are not seeing these 2.5 year olds every year... QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Mmmmm, not really basing my post on just YOUR quote even though the first part of of your quote which you failed to leave out, says: """"I've yet to see an area in MI where there's even 1 2.5 year old......" and the way I read that is "not even 1 2.5 year old" pretty much means I'm not see any 2.5 years old--at least thats the way I read it?! Adn then when you read it all together I pretty much come to the conclusion your not seeing the very rare 2.5 year old. At least thats the way I read it......


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

jk hillsdale said:


> Simple fact, there are many more 1.5 year olds than 2.5 year olds in S. MI, and deer OLDER than 2.5 remain quite uncommon.


I suspect that, on the averge, the ages might be quite a bit higher in the UP. I have it on good authority they we have quite a few immortal does in our deer yards.

-na


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Nick, were talking about bucks...not does. Also, portions of the U.P. have a better buck age structure than most of the rest of MI, mainly the Lake Superior watershed area where both deer and hunters are very limited and large roadless tracts of land still exist.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

beer and nuts said:


> Mmmmm, not really basing my post on just YOUR quote even though the first part of of your quote which you failed to leave out, says: """"I've yet to see an area in MI where there's even 1 2.5 year old......" and the way I read that is "not even 1 2.5 year old" pretty much means I'm not see any 2.5 years old--at least thats the way I read it?! Adn then when you read it all together I pretty much come to the conclusion your not seeing the very rare 2.5 year old. At least thats the way I read it......


Cmon Beer & Nuts you've gotta quit misquoting me  

Reread the post. Here's what I said - verbatim:

"I've yet to see an area in MI where there's even 1 2.5 year old per 5 1.5 year olds"

In other words , in S. MI there are at least five 1.5 year olds for every one 2.5 year old. And as I already stated, deer OLDER than 2.5 are, unfortunately, quite uncommon.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

jk hillsdale said:


> Reread the post. Here's what I said - verbatim:
> 
> "I've yet to see an area in MI where there's even 1 2.5 year old per 5 1.5 year olds"
> 
> In other words , in S. MI there are at least five 1.5 year olds for every one 2.5 year old. And as I already stated, deer OLDER than 2.5 are, unfortunately, quite uncommon.


I would tend to concur (I've started another thread on this topic). As to bucks older than 2.5 years old being uncommon, I would add _"unnaturally"_ uncommon, because of our absurdly unnatural proclivity to wipe out the yearling buck age class each season.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Misquote or not...I read what I read what I read!!!!

Well if its that bad in SLP  come on up here where I can find a 2.5 year old quite easy or at least the sign of a 2.5 plus( did I just say that??)


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

beer and nuts said:


> Misquote or not...I read what I read what I read!!!!


  :lol: 

At my highest peak of motivation I'm still not psychologically equipped to handle the logic that went into that statement. 

I concede - you win  !!!!


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Sometimes I wish I had too many doe's. Those were the years...... thump thump thump just shoot away and fill the freezer :lol: 

AW


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

In the area I hunt ...
One doe is too many....
To shoot! 
<----<<<


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

I would suspect that winter kill takes nearly as many of the yearling bucks as hunters. 

Swamper


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Yea ha, I'm gonna NOT misquote ya on this one!!!!!

""""I concede - you win !!!!"""""


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

I concede - you win  !!!!



ferg....
you forgot the smilie face


----------

