|
|
Post by ridge on May 5, 2015 22:38:34 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 ! Both of you are right on the mark. I would add to end all MARs so that some hunters are not motivated to have to kill antlerless deer. |
|
|
|
Post by daappleknocker on May 6, 2015 5:56:35 GMT -5
The Wildlife Division no longer sets population goals for each DMU. They also no longer try to determine current populations through field biologist. They currently use harvest reports to estimate deer populations. Like bear populations, they probably use the Statistical Catch at Age Method, (SCAM) which dropped the reported bear population estimates from 19,000 in 2008 to under 8,000 last year. With the SCAM method they can adjust the numbers to achieve any agenda. Are they pro-active? reactive? mismanaged or just monitored? Monitoring a resource is NOT managing. We need to get the Legislature involved to do a complete audit as they are doing in Minnesota.  |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on May 7, 2015 17:35:40 GMT -5
I totally agree. The numbers are being manipulated for the sake of their own agenda and not for the benefit of the resource or for the benefit of hunting itself. The legislature needs to retake control. Perhaps we need to vote in new people that will make needed changes.
|
|
|
|
Post by fieldnfeathers on May 21, 2015 0:49:16 GMT -5
Accurate population estimates that lead to realistic antlerless quotas. Elimination of antlerless harvest option with archery or combo tags. Agree with this completely. |
|
|
|
Post by Dale Malusi on May 26, 2015 20:15:09 GMT -5
Accurate population estimates that lead to realistic antlerless quotas. Elimination of antlerless harvest option with archery or combo tags. Agree with this completely. All of Michigan? |
|
|
|
Post by deershack on May 30, 2015 8:04:33 GMT -5
Agree with this completely. All of Michigan? Good question. Accurate population estimates for all DMU's definitely. Elimination of the antlerless harvest with archery equipment might better be done by DMU, based on the population estimates. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on May 30, 2015 22:39:04 GMT -5
This may not be accurate but I believe that the idea would be for all hunting equipment to come under the antlerless license only so that the DNR/NRC would have more control. It would not eliminate archery hunting from antlerless hunting but would place them under the regulations of the antlerless license. This could happen in the U.P. at the June meeting but I do not believe that it is on the table for the N.L.P. at this time. However as someone said, "The NRC can do what it chooses to do."
|
|
|
|
Post by deershack on Jun 1, 2015 12:08:30 GMT -5
This may not be accurate but I believe that the idea would be for all hunting equipment to come under the antlerless license only so that the DNR/NRC would have more control. It would not eliminate archery hunting from antlerless hunting but would place them under the regulations of the antlerless license. This could happen in the U.P. at the June meeting but I do not believe that it is on the table for the N.L.P. at this time. However as someone said, "The NRC can do what it chooses to do." I agree with your idea about antlerless hunting with archery equipment but in some DMU's there are probably enough does that the present option of taking antlerless deer with bow under a archery or combo tag would not have an adverse effect on the population and give the hunter the economic break of not having to buy a separate $20 doe tag. |
|
|
|
Post by ridge on Jun 1, 2015 18:49:14 GMT -5
First, it is not my idea. I was just supplying the idea that is on the table as I read it.
Second, I have no disagreement with your statement about DMUs with more than an adequate number of antlerless deer. Unfortunately, I believe that the number of those DMUs are becoming fewer with the passage of time. If CWD is more prevalent than it is thought to be at the present time, those DMUs may become rare.
|
|
|
|
Post by fieldnfeathers on Jun 3, 2015 3:40:43 GMT -5
Agree with this completely. All of Michigan? The archery option with a combination license should be removed in all areas with a few exceptions. It should not be removed in areas with disease, or in areas that historically have leftover antlerless tags. |
|
