# Draft deer quotas by DMU have been published.



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10905-129948--,00.html

then click on a DMU for additional detail.

-na


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Good work Nick. Very interesting stuff in there.


----------



## Live2Hunt (Nov 23, 2004)

Thanks for sharing. Very interesting read.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Thanks for posting. I read my DMU's management summary and it seems to reflect how I view what's going on.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

You've been putting out some good stuff, Nick. Your charting/mapping earlier was a good read...and now this. Don't know where I'd get this stuff if you didn't make it available. At least, I'd never get it so easily and so timely.

Thanks again. As before, Papa woulda been proud...

FX1


----------



## kitchue (Sep 25, 2001)

How many acres is a square mile? I'm having a complete brain fart.

sean


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

fairfax1 said:


> Don't know where I'd get this stuff if you didn't make it available. At least, I'd never get it so easily and so timely.


Don't thank me, thank the state for publishing it. 

When they announced the draft quota changes a couple of weeks ago I simply kept an eye out for it, in the hope that they would provide more detail.

-na


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

kitchue said:


> How many acres is a square mile? I'm having a complete brain fart.


640


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

-na


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Beautiful work Nick.

For the 2006-2010 goals, I assume you used the midpoint of the target ranges?


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

farmlegend said:


> For the 2006-2010 goals, I assume you used the midpoint of the target ranges?


Yes, midpoint of the draft quota DPSM numbers.

There was some variation in what was included in each DMU report. Some reported DMU acreages, some did not. Wherever possible I used the DNRs DPSM numbers rather than total numbers for a DMU. 

I used my own DMU acreage figures for everything except for the Western UP, where a number of DMU boundaries changed significantly and I did not have a detailed description of the new boundaries. I used the acreages included in the draft quota reports for those DMUs.

-na


----------



## omega58 (Sep 3, 2003)

No date for former 118, now 018? SURPRISE!!! :lol:


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

It's always interesting to look at your stuff, Nick. I respect the sweat-equity you are putting into helping all of us understand better.

.................................................................

I noted when reading a number of the individual DMU drafts the references to QDM efforts in this county or that county. They were in the context of helping control the population in DMU's that were substantially over goal. The references I saw were positive.

That is heartening. I have always hoped the staff of the Wildlife division would support the growing _'mangement by landowner' _ movement...that they would believe that it helps them achieve their goals; and, more imortantly, it is good for the welfare of the resource.

I have had private discussions with division biologists where there was expressed guarded reservations about the zealousness of QDM'rs. They seemed to perceived that some _management_ proponents are conveying that the QDM way is the only way. That has been worrisome.

So, to see QDM mentioned in a positive light in the drafts by several different southern Michigan biologist is very encouraging.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

fairfax1 said:


> That is heartening. I have always hoped the staff of the Wildlife division would support the growing _'mangement by landowner' _ movement...that they would believe that it helps them achieve their goals; and, more imortantly, it is good for the welfare of the resource.


Within the context of this forum that may sound like a good idea. There are, however, a wide variety of landowners out there with radically different viewpoints as to how many deer are appropriate. 

I suspect that, from the state's perspective, the question actually boils down to how much free rein landowners (in general) should have in managing a public resource on private property as they see fit; QDMA people, as well as DMU452 club country deer hunters, USFS, The Nature Conservancy, industrial timberland owners, farmers, etc.

The Wildlife Management Division's primary deer managment tool is the hunting season. The landowner's primary deer management tool is manipulation of the habitat. Neither party has a whole lot of control over the actions of the other. I don't see how we can have a rational, coherent deer management program unless both sides are working together on the problem. 

DMU's that serve as examples showing cooperation, or lack thereof, between different landowners and the DNR over appropriate deer numbers:

* DMU 255: timber industry*
DNR's point of view: http://www.midnr.com/publications/pdfs/wildlife/draft_deer_goals06_pdfs/DMU255.pdf
Timber industry point of view: http://forestry.msu.edu/msaf/Tours/Deer2005/08-Donovan.pdf and
http://forestry.msu.edu/msaf/Tours/Deer2005/09-deCalesta.pdf

* DMU 118/018 and DMUs 155, 152, 252: QDMA*

* DMU 027: National Forest*
DNR's Point of View: http://www.midnr.com/publications/pdfs/wildlife/draft_deer_goals06_pdfs/DMU027.pdf
USFS point of view: http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/ottawa/publications/docs/m_e_15yr_review/m_e_chapter1.pdf
Excerpt


> Goal Statement - Provide an adequate amount of coniferous thermal cover for white-tailed deer and other wildlife species such as blackburnian warbler that require this important habitat component. (Forest Plan, p.IV-3)
> 
> Response  The Ottawa maintains approximately 289,000 acres of coniferous forest types (Table II.4), distributed across all MAs. Thermal cover has been more than adequate to achieve the Forest Plan goal to maintain habitat adequate to support 20 deer per square mile. However, estimates of over 30 deer per square mile over most of the Ottawa during the last 15 years are raising concerns over long-term regeneration abilities of hemlock, cedar, and white pine due to browsing by deer on seedlings. Deer population levels result from a variety of climatic, habitat, and other ecological factors, not vegetation type alone.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Great work Nick..thanks a lot for the posting! Interesting to note that some of the largest bucks I've ever seen taken have come from one of the lowest density areas.


----------



## halfcore (Nov 11, 2003)

send in your suggestions for your DMU's to [email protected]. It's up to you to make some noise!


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

So if I'm reading this correctly they want Lake county to have a goal of 43 DPSM. One of the highest in the states.


----------

