|
|
Post by QDM MARS on Dec 5, 2014 17:41:27 GMT -5
Most hunters have a strong opinion on this. Lets hear them..............
|
|
|
|
Post by jailbot on Dec 5, 2014 23:21:51 GMT -5
I think they need to get rid of the QDMA and their you need to kill more does and why kill a young buck ,just shoot a doe BS. It seems like several states have gotten in bed with the QDMA and pushed their mantra of kill more does and now they are all having a back lash because they have driven the population over a cliff by trying to save the bucks till they are ripe and killing all the does. Bucks don't have fawns ......................
|
|
|
|
Post by yesdeer on Dec 6, 2014 22:51:12 GMT -5
Wouldn't it make sense to try and get a real count of the population and then plan accordingly? Since the DNR seems to work off of fictitious and skewed numbers while bending over backward to appease the special interest groups, in my opinion our deer herds are going to be all but wiped out if we stay the present course.
|
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Dec 7, 2014 17:23:20 GMT -5
BINGO.........WE HAVE A WINNER!!!   |
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Dec 7, 2014 17:25:32 GMT -5
I am putting my thoughts together on this. Hopefully it will be done tomorrow but Yesdear said a mouthful in a nutshell....does that make any sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Dec 7, 2014 17:39:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by yesdeer on Dec 7, 2014 23:29:15 GMT -5
So, dapple knocker, does that mean you are calling me a mouthy nut?
|
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Dec 8, 2014 2:20:01 GMT -5
Wouldn't it make sense to try and get a real count of the population and then plan accordingly? Since the DNR seems to work off of fictitious and skewed numbers while bending over backward to appease the special interest groups, in my opinion our deer herds are going to be all but wiped out if we stay the present course. I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately the damage may have already been done. When the DNR gave out unlimited anterless permits in our area, some hunters used them to decimate the deer numbers. I guess it was a money maker for the DNR so they were happy. We only take one to two deer so that we have venison for the family and that does not happen very often any more. |
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Dec 8, 2014 10:59:37 GMT -5
Shoot more deer where needed and shoot less deer where needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on Dec 9, 2014 2:29:47 GMT -5
Shoot more deer where needed and shoot less deer where needed. Even though that sounds too simple it is the truth. That is until you try to manage the deer herd for some special management plan (yes like MARs). It no longer is that simple. With any special management plan you have to manage at a finer level and monitor it regularly to make adjustments. The DNR does not have that capability and so we end up with what we got in the NWLP where the DNR is issuing antlerless permits (that will further reduce the herd) in the name of balancing the buck/doe ratio and saying that normally they would not be issuing those antlerless permits if it wasn't for that |
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Dec 9, 2014 12:11:04 GMT -5
What’s wrong with deer management in Michigan? Can it be fixed?
After the disastrous hunting season in 2014, many more hunters are finally growing concerned. The 2014 deer hunting season just may be the last straw for many hunters. The number of hunters participating in deer hunting has been hemorrhaging since 2008. Deer population numbers have been declining since 2008. Mandatory regulation changes favoring one group of hunters over another have become common since 2008. Because of these realities hunter satisfaction has tanked and division amongst hunters is at an all time high. Why?
The only thing that I can put my finger on is the acquisition on a new Wildlife Division Chief in the fall of 2008. Since the arrival of the new WDC, Dr. Russ Mason, our white tail deer resource, hunter numbers and the division amongst hunters have been on a downward spiral. What did he bring to the table you ask?
A philosophical management style predicated on “social science” which leads to flawed ideas that created failed operational decisions. It was in 2008 that the WD under the control of Dr. Mason decided to recognize “social science” as a legitimate science and was incorporated into the meaning of 1996 Proposal G. Since that time our white tail deer management has become dysfunctional at best.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe the WD has a responsibility to listen to the hunting community. Keeping an ear to the ground is being prudent. But, what they have done is stuck their head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich, and listen only to the single interest and special interest groups. This problem has become systematic as the whole MDNR along with the NRC has been drinking Dr. Mason’s cool-aid.
I believe that Dr. Russ Mason has become the Brady Hoke of Michigan’s Wildlife Division and should be replaced at once. I believe that removing Dr. Mason is the only path to the healing that Michigan hunters deserve. We MUST go back to wildlife management predicated on “principles of sound (biological) science” as was the INTENT of Proposal “G”, and leave wildlife management based on “politics” behind. The only way to achieve this goal is to get rid of Dr. Mason and his flawed philosophical ideas and those of his selfish special interest cohorts.
Curtis Stone
Dec. 9, 2014
|
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Dec 9, 2014 14:41:53 GMT -5
IMO, daappleknocker, that would make a great beginning!  |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Dec 10, 2014 11:48:11 GMT -5
According to the MIDNR deer harvest surveys for the last 5 years, more than half of Mi deer hunters do not bag a deer while 15% bag more than one.
So last year 284,568 hunters took 385,000 deer, 195000 took one, 86,000 took more than one.
It seems to me that any regulation limiting the number of deer one could harvest would affect the minority of hunters, as the majority of deer hunters harvest none.
I think if the state should limit deer hunters to only two tags over the counter. Only one buck tag.
Separate buck tags from does tags,( eliminate the taking if does on the combo licenses).
In DMU's deemed to have an overabundance of deer doe tags by drawing.
But deer hunting is a money maker to our state, so anything that will limit that revenue will never even be considered in this state of confusion.
I think the real problem this year is our hunting hours. Instead of being from sunup to sundown, it should be sundown to sunup. This year the deer seemed to go nocturnal a little early.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimmer on Dec 11, 2014 18:50:04 GMT -5
I say we need to kill more does ......yah that's the ticket .......NOT!
I is only going to get worse if we keep killing all the does, that's basic biology right there. The problem is the QDMA has brainwashed too many hunters and the DNR into thinking this is the way to have more bigger bucks  |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Dec 11, 2014 23:45:15 GMT -5
Welcome jimmer! You are so right. There are areas where the deer are nearly eliminated and taking does there does not make sense. Some of those qdma folks must be drinking too much of that sap!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Younggun on Dec 11, 2014 23:45:25 GMT -5
First cut down on the number of down tags avaliable on private land by at least 50% if not more.On state land, completely get rid of them for at least the 2015 season. This will salvage the deer that are left and allow the numbers to bounce back. Second, switch to only 1 buck tag per hu ter, this will force hunters to be more picky when shooting a buck allowing more yearlings to survive as most won't shoot a spike for example, if that would be their only buck for the season. Also eliminate early and late doe seasons. The 3 month regular seasons are plenty long enough, in fact longer than most states around the country. Another idea would be to split the gun season into 2 7 day periods spaced out, like in late November and another in late December. This would give deer time to recover from the extreme hunting pressure would help hunters see more deer, getting rid of the "there's no deer left" when in reality the deer are extremely wary and nocturnal due to being shot at during the almost month long gun season (gun season + muzzleloader season) we currently have. The drop in numbers was a long time coming. I knew countless neighbors and friends who would shoot 3 plus deer a year on 80 acres or less, and surrounding properties of the same size would do the same. Hopefully this year is a wake up call and hunters and the DNR start realistically managing the deer herds around Michigan. Otherwise, the next endangered species in Michigan will in fact be the whitetail deer and the DNR will greatly miss the billions of dollars in license revenue.
|
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Dec 12, 2014 14:10:47 GMT -5
MY CONCERNS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR
MICHIGAN DEER MANAGEMENT
BY CURTIS STONE
White tail deer hunting is BIG business in Michigan. It is an industry, a commercial undertaking and economic boon in this State. Deer hunters spend BILLIONS in the pursuit of the elusive white tail. With that said you would think that those who oversee this operation would pay a little more attention to details as this historically prominent activity begins to fade. Hunter numbers have been hemorrhaging for several years. The MDNR have blamed everything from the economy to hunter mortality, older hunters die, and younger people don’t seem interested. Recently they have manipulated the recruitment rates by removing the age for youth hunters, a temporary fix at best. Retention remains a problem as the “perception of diminished gratification” from hunting emerges as deer populations fall and many formally harvestable animals are taken off the table because of the emergence of “social science” in the form of “mandatory antler point restrictions”. How can this disturbing trend be reversed?
First and foremost we need to return to “sound biological science” in determining our management goals. Using “social science” to promote one hunter’s values over another should be a crime. Maximum harvest management has been the most successful form for deer harvesting in history. I believe that maximum harvest management coupled with an educational agenda to promote an older age class and better buck to doe ratios would be highly successful while reuniting hunters currently divided on the MAR’s issue. You will never change everybody but you have to get over it.
Because deer hunting is big business you have to look at it that way. One of the biggest management tools with successful businesses today is “inventory management”. We have to start looking at our deer as inventory. If Deer Management Units (DMU’s) are like stores or warehouses then we have to keep them stocked with inventory (deer) for our customers (hunters). The problem is that the current Wildlife Division (WD) has no idea what or where their inventory levels, deer populations, are. They have many stores with inventories so low that customers, hunters, are dropping out of the hunt.
When inventories reach critically low levels, the WD needs tools that will allow them to replace their inventory as quickly as possible to keep their customers coming back. The current problem is that there is no way to micromanage stores with low inventories. One of the easiest ways to achieve this is to separate archery antlerless harvest from any license tags used for firearms harvest. If you want to harvest an antlerless deer with archery equipment you should have an antlerless specific license tag just as with a firearms antlerless tag currently.
Currently, the MDNR issues antlerless permits to control overpopulation in many DMU’s in the state. If all antlerless permits, firearms AND archery, were issued on an as needed basis, it would go a long way in rebuilding the resource in areas that are hit with uncontrollable mortality. There is absolutely NO dispute that many DMU’s in the Northwestern Upper Peninsula are experiencing historically low populations. This is resulting in hunter dissatisfaction and hunter retention problems that are irrefutable.
With an antlerless specific license tag the Wildlife Division would have a tool to rebuild as much as a tool to control overpopulation. Why the WD is fighting this change is beyond me as it seems so practical. With the explosion in archery hunters caused by the full inclusion of crossbows and the mechanical improvements in compound bows I believe the WD has fallen behind in recognizing technological advancements and the affects they have on hunting.
I also believe that the bow hunting season is way too long and needs to be shortened for the same reasons mentioned above. I do not believe that it would have any effect on hunter days afield as many of the hunters that I have talked to would just condense their time afield to the allotted archery season.
Something has to be done. The 2014 hunting season has been a disaster. The WD will blame it on many things such as license fees going up, the weather, standing corn and a Saturday opener. Did I say Saturday opener? OOPs.
I believe it has more to do with Mandatory Antler Point Restrictions that reduce the available harvest causing a reduced satisfaction from hunting. MAR’s also have been putting a lot of pressure on the antlerless harvest and most of that is does, therefore reducing the overall population. Unless you are a trophy or antler hunter, or QDMA member, reduced populations and seeing less deer and fewer hunters is NOT acceptable. The WD needs to get off this “social science” kick and start managing the resource as a business. More deer mean more hunters, more hunters mean more revenue, and more revenue can mean better management of the resource.
I do not believe that making Michigan a “one buck” state will accomplish anything but to reduce revenue from deer hunting. It will also encourage more women to being “ghost” hunters (women who buy a license for someone else to fill) as “Hunters Choice” has done in the U.P.
What I do believe is that we have some of the best wildlife biologist in the country. I believe that void of “politics”, they have the power to unite hunters again and build a first class Wildlife Division. They have a few hurdles in their way. Number one is their Chief who has brought the scourge of “social science” into Michigan’s management of wildlife resources. Number two is getting rid of a few biologists that have done his bidding out of fear or loyalty instead of standing up for what is right for our wildlife resources. Number three is getting rid of two more Natural Resources Commissioners who do his bidding for him at the NRC level. We have gotten rid of three so far and two remain, as I see it.
The biggest problem between hunters today is Antler Point Restrictions which over 90% of hunters support, and MANDATORY Antler Point Restrictions which about half of those 90%, or about 45% of all hunters want imposed on everybody through regulation change. This “political” agenda has been propagated by some very affluent and powerful groups and individuals. The “average Joe” hunters are losing the perception of gratification from hunting and have been dropping out as hunters as this agenda spreads. There seems to be no compromise in sight.
You would think that with all the division amongst hunters that the MDNR would get both sides together to work on a consensus. Why this has not happened is beyond me with no explanation other than “social science” or “politics”. They have very successful at manipulating the process to make it look like a majority of hunters support MAR’s, which they do NOT.
“Hunters choice” regulations have been a complete failure in the U.P. For seven years they have been forced unjustly (NRC politics) on U.P. hunters and have succeeded only in drastically reducing harvestable deer populations and hunter recruitment and retention. They are also responsible for a huge reduction in MDNR funding through license fees.
I have forwarded a compromise that I think may work while a comprehensive educational program is developed to teach Michigan hunters the advantages of “voluntary” APR’s. Attitudes are already changing. Education is already working. But, just not as fast as some in government or bureaucratic positions want. My compromise was to make Michigan a “NO SPIKE” state. This would take a smaller amount of deer out of the harvest. It would also get hunters into the mindset of passing on yearling deer. And it would go a long way to reach a <50% yearling harvest rate. Most of the hunters that I have discussed this with think that it would be a compromise that they could live with.
It would also go a long way to streamline hunting regulations and make them easier to understand and follow. Those who want “trophy” bucks can hunt harder, go out of state or hunt a high fence operation.
If we want to return Michigan to the status of a great deer hunting state again we must get rid of all “extreme” Mandatory Antler Restrictions. This will bring hunters back into our woodlots and farm fields and return the heritage and traditions to our hunting families.
Curtis Stone
12-12-14
|
|
|
|
Post by fieldnfeathers on Mar 26, 2015 6:02:20 GMT -5
What would I do?....
One buck rule with a minimal antler point restriction statewide (4 total antler points minimum), outside of current APR regions only. If hunters dont like the current APR, theyll be gone anyway. I'm OK with the current process in place. Youths, handicapped/disabled, and senior citizens would be exempt from the APR, including current APR areas. Eliminate baiting statewide, with supplemental feeding allowed post deer season only in areas without current disease. Do away with the archery antlerless option in any DMU without antlerless tag availability. Decrease DMU size to no larger than 1 county in size to better manage variances in deer populations.
That's a start.
|
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on Mar 26, 2015 8:06:14 GMT -5
fieldnfeathers,
you are absolutely correct when you say, "That's a start". But, first a "one buck rule" is a non-starter with the MDNR-WD. It would reduce revenues toooo much. But, if you were to truly make the second tag a "restricted" tag it would go a long way to reduce the number of hunters getting two bucks from about 5% to about 2%. The FIRST buck you shoot MUST be tagged with your #1 tag whether it is a fork or a 12 point. Your #2 tag would then be restricted to 4 points on one side. Currently many hunters shoot a large antlered buck and tag it with their restricted tag and then harvest a smaller buck, this would end that behavior. This would be very easy to enforce, if you are hunting with a combo license and have your #1 tag in possession but not your #2 tag, enforcement action would be required.
As for your four total points recommendation, you do realize you are basically talking about a "NO SPIKE RULE" don't you? I have been promoting the "no spike" rule for some time. I have NOT been suggesting this as a state wide APR as the other site likes to make fun of. I have been suggesting a "no spike" rule as a compromise to unite hunters again as I think it would work. |
|
|
|
Post by fieldnfeathers on Mar 26, 2015 14:44:47 GMT -5
I know some may think it's basically a no spike rule, but it is not, as it would have a higher yearling protection rate. I agree that combination licenses should be used in order, I just don't know how much of a difference that would make.
Additionally, I would not dismiss a OBR entirely. No, I'm not stating there is insider knowledge either. It's more of an optimistic observation. There is most definitely a "cultural shift" occurring in deer hunting right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Mar 26, 2015 17:34:30 GMT -5
I know some may think it's basically a no spike rule, but it is not, as it would have a higher yearling protection rate. I agree that combination licenses should be used in order, I just don't know how much of a difference that would make. Additionally, I would not dismiss a OBR entirely. No, I'm not stating there is insider knowledge either. It's more of an optimistic observation. There is most definitely a "cultural shift" occurring in deer hunting right now. Only one thing. Now it is not only about protecting yearlings, it seems we have a lack of 3 1/2 yr old deer. Percentage wise. I say no more restrictions....period. No compromise. Why compromise when you know it won't stop. Not until everybody gets there 3 1/2 yr old. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Mar 26, 2015 17:45:15 GMT -5
Doehead, I agree. The pro-restriction crowd has tried to shove that attempt of compromise down our throats for too long. They would only use it to go for more in the long run. Besides I find spike meat to be tender, tasty, and downright juicy. Fork meat is the best!
My plan would be the removal of Mason, Moritz, and Creagh. I would also end the strangle hold that the leadership of MUCC and the QDMA has on the NRC and the DNR.
Perhaps then we would hear what could be done instead of what the DNR can't do. Perhaps then hunter funds would go to improve the deer herd and state land instead of paying back old friends. Biologists could actually do things like getting a census of LIVING deer as best can be done.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Mar 26, 2015 18:45:58 GMT -5
But who is this "pro-restriction" crowd?
The LPDMI is no more, at least according to their website, and FB page.
There is a few outlying groups, nothing but rabid dogs though.
Dr Jim by himself maybe? The guys behind the NW13?
I guess they have the most to lose. But they have already lost a lot of what it takes.
Respect.
|
|
|
|
Post by fieldnfeathers on Mar 26, 2015 18:55:17 GMT -5
I know some may think it's basically a no spike rule, but it is not, as it would have a higher yearling protection rate. I agree that combination licenses should be used in order, I just don't know how much of a difference that would make. Additionally, I would not dismiss a OBR entirely. No, I'm not stating there is insider knowledge either. It's more of an optimistic observation. There is most definitely a "cultural shift" occurring in deer hunting right now. Only one thing. Now it is not only about protecting yearlings, it seems we have a lack of 3 1/2 yr old deer. Percentage wise. I say no more restrictions....period. No compromise. Why compromise when you know it won't stop. Not until everybody gets there 3 1/2 yr old. I can admire and respect your feeling of no compromise. I would like to point out, though, that this issue isn't going to stop with or without these forums or any other. The increasing outcry of our low herd numbers are not going to fix themselves by doing nothing or continuing on with status quo. Only a restriction of some sort is needed to fix the problem. Whether that be antlerless tag restrictions, buck harvest restrictions, or a combination of both. Again, doing nothing isn't going to fix it. The inevitable movement away from traditional deer management in our hunting culture is coming. We can all continue to argue about it, or try to find common ground to fix the "problem". |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on Mar 26, 2015 19:18:22 GMT -5
Only one thing. Now it is not only about protecting yearlings, it seems we have a lack of 3 1/2 yr old deer. Percentage wise. I say no more restrictions....period. No compromise. Why compromise when you know it won't stop. Not until everybody gets there 3 1/2 yr old. I can admire and respect your feeling of no compromise. I would like to point out, though, that this issue isn't going to stop with or without these forums or any other. The increasing outcry of our low herd numbers are not going to fix themselves by doing nothing or continuing on with status quo. Only a restriction of some sort is needed to fix the problem. Whether that be antlerless tag restrictions, buck harvest restrictions, or a combination of both. Again, doing nothing isn't going to fix it. The inevitable movement away from traditional deer management in our hunting culture is coming. We can all continue to argue about it, or try to find common ground to fix the "problem". I can see making revisions to the permit system, no need to restrict any further. |
|
|
|
Post by rickybobby on Mar 26, 2015 21:43:22 GMT -5
I have to disagree with you on the part highlighted in red. It's true that there was a movement toward the QDMA way of thinking and many a hunter bought into the bigger is better or "let them go and let them grow" mantra. This movement coincided with the explosion of satellite TV and internet. That allowed the commercializing of big antlers to reach just about every one. The QDMA was able to ride the coattails of that bandwagon. However as with any new thing (or fad) there is a time where it has to stand on its merits or become yesterdays news. We are at that point as we speak with this big antler craze and there are signs that hunters are turning their backs on it. It is going to take a few years to see what way the tide is turning but I think it will be a lot like disco where people were so bombarded by every one wanting to get their piece of the pie. And the industry milking it for every thing it was worth until there was nothing but disco being crammed down every ones throat . Then it was like flipping a switch as every one got a big belly full and were no longer hungry for it .
|
|
|
|
Post by fieldnfeathers on Mar 27, 2015 3:55:24 GMT -5
I have to disagree with you on the part highlighted in red. It's true that there was a movement toward the QDMA way of thinking and many a hunter bought into the bigger is better or "let them go and let them grow" mantra. This movement coincided with the explosion of satellite TV and internet. That allowed the commercializing of big antlers to reach just about every one. The QDMA was able to ride the coattails of that bandwagon. However as with any new thing (or fad) there is a time where it has to stand on its merits or become yesterdays news. We are at that point as we speak with this big antler craze and there are signs that hunters are turning their backs on it. It is going to take a few years to see what way the tide is turning but I think it will be a lot like disco where people were so bombarded by every one wanting to get their piece of the pie. And the industry milking it for every thing it was worth until there was nothing but disco being crammed down every ones throat . Then it was like flipping a switch as every one got a big belly full and were no longer hungry for it .
Well, we will have to agree to disagree then. The current movement away from traditional deer management has not subsided at all and is continuously growing. I can't disagree that current technology hasn't assisted with this movement. As far as results....sure, we will see what the future brings. Personally, if you're hoping for failure, I think you'll be sadly disappointed. IMHO. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Mar 29, 2015 22:19:14 GMT -5
Failure can be defined in many ways. Statewide MARs may be the opening of a door that the DNR marketing team does not want to enter if they stated their views correctly at this past meeting which I attended.
|
|
|
|
Post by deershack on May 5, 2015 11:29:52 GMT -5
Accurate population estimates that lead to realistic antlerless quotas. Elimination of antlerless harvest option with archery or combo tags. |
|
|
|
Post by hartman756 on May 5, 2015 13:25:48 GMT -5
Accurate population estimates that lead to realistic antlerless quotas. Elimination of antlerless harvest option with archery or combo tags. Right on ! Right now I don't think the DNR has any sort of clue on even an estimate population ! These population models can be off by over 100% and they only have to be off a little to really screw up any real idea of what the population really is. Sitting in an office in Lansing with a computer model is not the way to get an accurate population numbers ! |
|
