Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=174...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
good deer hunting/good deer management (for Ed Spin) - The Michigan Sportsman Forums
Topic fork from "The Results are in" thread
Quote: : Spin04 NA, why the negative input on a obvious overall postive experience.
My estimate of 70 deer PSM is a shot from the hip and 70 is common in mixed ag areas with thick habitat.
In the imediate area I hunt in Clare County I estimate based on harvest data and observations that presently it is no less than 80 deer PSM as does the local MDNR Feld Biologist.
70 DPSM is a doable and safe number in many cases NA.
Both I and the local Field Biologist estimate that in 1998 prior to the deer hunting season that the DPSM in our several square mile coop area, (3,000 acres) in Arthur Twp in Clare County was no less than 100 and possibly up to 120 DPSM.
We pushed hard to drop the deer numbers.
Just four farmers, (including me) in two square miles took 130 does using block permits and in 1998.
That's an average of 65 does per square mile and does not include does taken by hunters.
It was not my intent to comment on the Calhoun Coop's positive experience.
I congratulate them on their success in achieving their property goals to date and wish them more sucess going forward.
I congratulate them on taking as many antleress deer as they did.
I understand that they as individuals, or as a group, are not responsible for conditions throughout the DMU they hunt in.
I does, however, raise some questions in my mind regarding private land deer management and something you touched on recently in the "Conservationist" thread.
In that thread you challenged us with a Quote: from Dr.
Alt reminding us that hunting is a free conservation resource that we provide to the public and that we need to be mindful of that rather than just focusing on "what's in it for me".
Now, a couple of days later, we are discussing an area with well over double the DNR population goal, in a DMU the DNR describes as having significant browse damage, chronic agricultural complaints and one of the highest car-deer collision rates in the state.
More bucks than does were shot and approximately 60% of the antlered harvest was yearlings.
Yet we are offering this up as a great success story for private land deer management solely on the basis of evidence that something less than 5% out of those 150 harvested bucks were exceptional?
How do we rationalize what are two completely different goals: good deer hunting for me and good deer management for the people of the state of Michigan?
Do the DNR population goals provide any meaningful guidance to us as deer hunters with respect how many antleress deer should be harvested on a DMU-wide basis or are we as private land managers free to completely ignore those state deer managemnt goals in pursuit of our own individual desires?
I'm not interested in argueing over your answer.
I won't even reply to it unless requested to do so.
I am simply interested in hearing the viewpoints of those who participate in this forum on the questions raised above.
-na
|
|
Quote: : Adams How do we rationalize what are two completely different goals: good deer hunting for me and good deer management for the people of the state of Michigan?
Do the DNR population goals provide any meaningful guidance to us as deer hunters with respect how many antleress deer should be harvested on a DMU-wide basis or are we as private land managers free to completely ignore those state deer managemnt goals in pursuit of our own individual desires?
Very good questions, and an excellent contrast.
I believe ethically we should strive to meet the DNR goals.
The obvious reason is that wild deer are a public resource that just so happen to visit our private property.
If we disagree with the DNR goals we should work with the DNR on changing and/or understanding the goals, but we should not flaunt them.
|
|
See this is what seems to catch me alot of flack in here...cause i live in an area that is very overpopulated with antlerless deer i really have been given the oppurtunity by the state to harvest a bunch of deer there has been very little speak of qdm around here...its been more of a kill em all approach up until a couple of years ago we could buy a doe permit a day....now i can get 3 doe permits and 2 buck tags ive had many a farmer tell me to kill every deer I see....so thats what i do now i can see where in different parts of the states guys opinions are different due to different deer densities but here there is no shortage of deer.
I have seen whole corn field wiped out by mid july by deer eatin right down to the stalk and easliy counted 50 deer a year hit on about a ten mile stretch of road i live on to alot of people they arent much more then a nucience.
|
|
" NA, This is the exact reason I took the time to survey all people hunting in our area(note-not all of these peolpe are in are co-op that i surveyed).
I can tell you that in our area we have reduced the deer # from years past.I have hunted in calhoun for 15 years and in the early 90's there were alot more deer in our area.
We have taken a ton of does over the years to get us were we are today.
What i have found from doing the survey is their is still alot of people that don't shoot does and I'm working on that.
I really believe the only way to be sucessfull at our co-op is to get real kill # and make adjustment from that info, for next years season.
Also i know what Ed is trying to say, You would not kill deer of that age class if we were doing T.D.M.I truly believe it will be extreamly hard for the D.N.R.
To reach those goals in calhoun.
For one you would need to change the mindset that it is okay to shoot a doe or several for that matter.
Second is the amount of cover, Calhoun has a ton of swamps you can even walk through.
Third and the most important, its almost all private property and Its not easy convincing somebody to shoot more deer when they have hardly seen any.
Thats the problem with private property, yours might hold a 100 deer mine might not have any on it at all.
Thats why communication between land owners is so important.
I do believe if we as hunter come together with the D.N.R.
We can reach a happy medium that is good for the people and also still have good hunting.
Thats why when you start a co-op you can gather this info and go forward knowing you are making the right decison.
Sorry for the long post
|
|
You know I hope nobody feels I'm taking a shot at them here.
But these kind of pockets regardless of how or why they exist are at the heart of a lot of the problems in the state.
The car/deer, crop, yard damage, visual contact with people are all flags that indicate overpopulation to the casual and trained observer.
A deer behind every bush with god knows what disease is exactly how I heard an elderly lady refer to a farm I used to hunt down in Cass county.
The DNR is currently hadicapped by the landowners within the DMU's.
Currently the DNR takes an overall approach and kills deer that don't have anything to do with the problem in the DMU.
Common sense, safety, best interest of the herd, or special interest eventualy is going to eliminate these pockets.
|
|
Maybe somtimes people confuse Quality Deer Management with Quality Hunting Management.
I'm a firm believer that we can still have quality hunting if we are willing to accept the DNRs population goals.
|
|
Quote: : Maybe somtimes people confuse Quality Deer Management with Quality Hunting Management.
I'm a firm believer that we can still have quality hunting if we are willing to accept the DNRs population goals.
This might make a great topic for another thread....not this one please.
QDM and QDH are they synonomous?
No? Interlinked? Where?
How?
|
|
NA, I'm well aware of the habitat conditions in Calhoun County.
There are many extra dense areas that can easily support 60-70 DPSM.
When it is done correctly hunters can experience a bonanza in the buck harvest while still keeping the deer density sensible.
I have data from many co-ops.
One comes to mind from Georgia.
After consulting with QDMA advisors and in only a short four years, they had a five fold increase in the harvest of bucks, while dropping the deer density.
It was not easy to convince this group that they can have more with less, (does).
They had a policy of taking no does, while taking only 3 1/2 year old bucks or better.
They couldn't understand that they were their own worst enemy.
Their yearling bucks disperesed, while the neighboring yearlings passed their property up due to the excessive density.
Obviously the co-op in question in Calhoun County does not have excessive deer density for the disperesing yearling bucks would not make their home there.
No one is advocating excessive deer density, least of all me.
Note; where four farmers, including me in 1998 took 130 does within two square miles.
Last year we took 8 does and two bucks, should of been 18 does but no more permits.
Balanced deer density is paramount, with the actual numbers being quite varied and dependant upon the habitat conditions.
Having 10 percent of your land in food plots alone allows one to be very flexible.
No NA, I know the score well and stay within the proper boundaries and that includes advice.
No need to preach to me.
Just keep the rhetoric positive.
Hope this helps.
|
|
Quote: : Quote: : Adams Do the DNR population goals provide any meaningful guidance to us as deer hunters with respect how many antleress deer should be harvested on a DMU-wide basis or are we as private land managers free to completely ignore those state deer managemnt goals in pursuit of our own individual desires?-na NA,
This has been my experience with MDNR population goals.
After attending the meeting last winter in Ionia I learned that Eaton County was still over population goals by, I believe, 20+%.
I personally work very diligently to control doe numbers on several different properties in Eaton County and have harvested as many as 7 does in one year and always at least 4.
My buck minimum is 3.5 yo, 15+" spread, and at least 4 pts.
On one side, this purposely limits my buck harvest.
After leaving the meeting I realized that I still had work to do in the doe harvesting catagory and comitted to doing so, them along comes the 3 antlerless limit.
Now, who's ignoring the problem?
It was only because we went the extra mile to obtain DMAPs that we were able to harvest does close to what was neccessary to reach our private property goals.
I just think the MDNR and the NRC are sending mixed messages and there seems to be a 3 Stooges aproach to what needs to be done.
JMO.
As long as the MDNR is mandated to manage the deer herd for the "maximum recreational value" this ammusement park style of management will keep us where we're at.
JMO.
Big T
|
|
Amusement Park-Style Deer Management!
I can almost hear the calliope, the carnies, and smell the cotton candy!
Come one, come all, you can put Sparky on the wall!
Step right up, young man!
|
|
Quote: : Amusement Park-Style Deer Management!
I can almost hear the calliope, the carnies, and smell the cotton candy!
Come one, come all, you can put Sparky on the wall!
Step right up, young man!
Amusement Park Style Deer Management in my mind is any managment style that places hunter satisfaction above all else.
It is not just shooting "sparky".
That said I think we can have very high satisfaction and have proper deer herd management.
|
|
Quote: : Amusement Park-Style Deer Management!
I can almost hear the calliope, the carnies, and smell the cotton candy!
Come one, come all, you can put Sparky on the wall!
Step right up, young man!
With all due respect farmlegend, I'm a bit confused with your post.
In another post you reproach the DNR's sincerity in trying to reach the 1.3 million pre harvest herd level, because they caved and limited doe permits to 3.
Primarily because in your words the unendingbitchfest from hunters wanting more deer and whorish legislators pandering to hunters wailing for the same.
First off I have no idea why its rhetoric, wailing, or worst when thousands of hunters question the DNR, but not when you do.
Pockets like these that are being created by QDM are the type of things we told the DNR were throwing their numbers off.
We have many areas in the state that the DMU's population is overstated, many because of car/deer accidents and damage from co ops and farm deer within the DMU.
The rest of a lot of the DMU's are considerably below goal.
The majority of the hunters that wanted the slaughter to end or wanted more deer in the woods were obviously from the northern two thirds.
Nobody sitting in those meetings envisioned the DNR comming up with a blanket fix of no more than 3 doe permits each for the state.
The move certainly isn't helping the areas that needed it.
Again they listened too and did what they wanted too.
|
|
|
|