Managing Herds......
01-10-2008, 02:53 PM
#11
Site Bouncer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,099
RE: Managing Herds......
ORIGINAL: bigjim12
As Germ said before, once the carrying capacity has been stretched to its limit bad things happen. Mother nature won't just kill the "few" weak ones, she will kill many as most of them are most likely malnourished. Not to mention with deer populations at an extreme high the chance for a disease to spread with dramatically increase.
As Germ said before, once the carrying capacity has been stretched to its limit bad things happen. Mother nature won't just kill the "few" weak ones, she will kill many as most of them are most likely malnourished. Not to mention with deer populations at an extreme high the chance for a disease to spread with dramatically increase.
01-10-2008, 02:55 PM
#12
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan/Ohio
Posts: 11,682
RE: Managing Herds......
ORIGINAL: BigJ71
Germ,
Do you know the numbers of deer taken in Michigan by chance? I'm interested in bucks taken vs does taken.
What I'm getting at is even though people hunt for bucks, I'd be surprised to find out more bucks are killed each year than does.
If those deer died due to disease then so be it, maybe it happened for a reason? Maybe in it's own way it made the overall herd stronger. Sure the numbers would be low for a while but then they would rebound...they always have. We had deer at the brink of extinction at some areas by the turn of the century but they bounced back...once we as hunters were held in check.
Germ,
Do you know the numbers of deer taken in Michigan by chance? I'm interested in bucks taken vs does taken.
What I'm getting at is even though people hunt for bucks, I'd be surprised to find out more bucks are killed each year than does.
If those deer died due to disease then so be it, maybe it happened for a reason? Maybe in it's own way it made the overall herd stronger. Sure the numbers would be low for a while but then they would rebound...they always have. We had deer at the brink of extinction at some areas by the turn of the century but they bounced back...once we as hunters were held in check.
I have the numbers
2007 63% bucks 37% Antlerless(20% of those are bb)
Since 1963 MI has NEVER shot more does than bucks
A survey of deer hunters was conducted following the 2006 hunting seasons to
estimate hunter participation, harvest, and hunting effort. In 2006, an estimated
671,000 hunters spent 10.0 million days afield. Statewide, the number of people
hunting deer increased about 3%, but hunting effort was virtually unchanged
between 2005 and 2006. Hunters harvested nearly 456,000 deer, an increase of
nearly 9% from the number taken in 2005. Statewide, 46% of hunters harvested a
deer. About 22% of the hunters took an antlerless deer and 34% took an antlered
buck. About 15% of deer hunters harvested two or more deer.
estimate hunter participation, harvest, and hunting effort. In 2006, an estimated
671,000 hunters spent 10.0 million days afield. Statewide, the number of people
hunting deer increased about 3%, but hunting effort was virtually unchanged
between 2005 and 2006. Hunters harvested nearly 456,000 deer, an increase of
nearly 9% from the number taken in 2005. Statewide, 46% of hunters harvested a
deer. About 22% of the hunters took an antlerless deer and 34% took an antlered
buck. About 15% of deer hunters harvested two or more deer.
01-10-2008, 02:58 PM
#13
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Nashville, Ohio
Posts: 1,109
RE: Managing Herds......
First off the reason we have these abundant herd numbers is because we made it that way. We have more deer now than have ever populated the north American continent. Before europeans camemother nature did all the managing of the herd hence the reason we have more now. If we were to allow mother nature to take control again we would see a major boom in deer number for about 10 years imo. Then once these number get to or exceed MCC we would see a drop in deer numbers, no i think it would almost be more like genicide. Starvation, Disease, and overall sufferring of a species. I think we as the creators of the situation owe it to the animals that we love and admire, to keep this from happening.
Adrian
Adrian
01-10-2008, 03:00 PM
#14
Site Bouncer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,099
RE: Managing Herds......
ORIGINAL: GMMAT
True...but isn't this what we're trying to thwart with REAL deer management?
If those deer died due to disease then so be it, maybe it happened for a reason? Maybe in it's own way it made the overall herd stronger. Sure the numbers would be low for a while but then they would rebound...they always have. We had deer at the brink of extinction at some areas by the turn of the century but they bounced back...once we as hunters were held in check.
I suspect every species on earth (for the most part) has a way of dealing with their own overpopulation problems, it may not always be pretty but it's natures way. Why is it we feel the need to "step in" for the deer?
I don't know the answers....I'm just asking questions.
01-10-2008, 03:01 PM
#15
Site Buck Guru
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Racine, Wisconsin
Posts: 5,922
RE: Managing Herds......
1) Bucks have a naturally higher mortality rate than does. In time, the buck/doe ratio would be really out of whack causing more stress on the bucks and lesser bucks would be doing moe and more of the breeding.
2) The effects of letting deer self populate would be disasterous to the land. Deer are like rabbits, very prolific. Have you ever seen a totally over browsed area? The food sources would become depleted, the deer would begin to deteriorate and starve and we'd have a real mess on our hands. Possibly something that would take at least a decade to recover from. It could possibly lead to a closed season(s) for a while.
In this day and age with people and developement, deer need to be managed.They need to be managed by people not by themselves. Since we'll be managing them why not do it for the optimum herd?
2) The effects of letting deer self populate would be disasterous to the land. Deer are like rabbits, very prolific. Have you ever seen a totally over browsed area? The food sources would become depleted, the deer would begin to deteriorate and starve and we'd have a real mess on our hands. Possibly something that would take at least a decade to recover from. It could possibly lead to a closed season(s) for a while.
In this day and age with people and developement, deer need to be managed.They need to be managed by people not by themselves. Since we'll be managing them why not do it for the optimum herd?
01-10-2008, 03:03 PM
#16
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan/Ohio
Posts: 11,682
RE: Managing Herds......
ORIGINAL: BigJ71
My question is why?? What's wrong with that?? Why would we want to thwartthe natural way of a species controlling their numbers?
I suspect every species on earth (for the most part) has a way of dealing with their own overpopulation problems, it may not always be pretty but it's natures way. Why is it we feel the need to "step in" for the deer?
I don't know the answers....I'm just asking questions.
ORIGINAL: GMMAT
True...but isn't this what we're trying to thwart with REAL deer management?
If those deer died due to disease then so be it, maybe it happened for a reason? Maybe in it's own way it made the overall herd stronger. Sure the numbers would be low for a while but then they would rebound...they always have. We had deer at the brink of extinction at some areas by the turn of the century but they bounced back...once we as hunters were held in check.
I suspect every species on earth (for the most part) has a way of dealing with their own overpopulation problems, it may not always be pretty but it's natures way. Why is it we feel the need to "step in" for the deer?
I don't know the answers....I'm just asking questions.
We killed their predators
Cut down the forest, which created some of the best deer habitat.
We shoved them into habitat, as we took their's.
So big I have no idea how we walk away from it now, if we should. I think we should not. I am speaking MI NRC and DNR this year about it. Going to say my peace to them about deer management and how I think they are doing. I give MI NRC and DNR a "D"
01-10-2008, 03:06 PM
#17
Nontypical Buck
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Nashville, Ohio
Posts: 1,109
RE: Managing Herds......
First off we are the reason that the White-tailed deer is as prolific as it is. We have more deer today on the North American continent than when the europeans first landed. The reason for this is that Mother nature is brutal in her management stratagies. If we were to let "nature run its course" so to say, we would see a boom in poopulation numbers for about 10 years imo. Then once the population reaches or exceeds MCC we would see a rapid decline, no i think genocide is the word, in the population of the white-tailed deer. I think we owe it to the species that we love and admire, to finish what we started.
01-10-2008, 03:06 PM
#18
Site Bouncer
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 4,099
RE: Managing Herds......
ORIGINAL: Germ
MI is not good.
I have the numbers
2007 63% bucks 37% Antlerless(20% of those are bb)
Since 1963 MI has NEVER shot more does than bucks
We have average right around the 65 35 % mark for awhile. It was way worst in the early 90's and 80's.
ORIGINAL: BigJ71
Germ,
Do you know the numbers of deer taken in Michigan by chance? I'm interested in bucks taken vs does taken.
What I'm getting at is even though people hunt for bucks, I'd be surprised to find out more bucks are killed each year than does.
If those deer died due to disease then so be it, maybe it happened for a reason? Maybe in it's own way it made the overall herd stronger. Sure the numbers would be low for a while but then they would rebound...they always have. We had deer at the brink of extinction at some areas by the turn of the century but they bounced back...once we as hunters were held in check.
Germ,
Do you know the numbers of deer taken in Michigan by chance? I'm interested in bucks taken vs does taken.
What I'm getting at is even though people hunt for bucks, I'd be surprised to find out more bucks are killed each year than does.
If those deer died due to disease then so be it, maybe it happened for a reason? Maybe in it's own way it made the overall herd stronger. Sure the numbers would be low for a while but then they would rebound...they always have. We had deer at the brink of extinction at some areas by the turn of the century but they bounced back...once we as hunters were held in check.
I have the numbers
2007 63% bucks 37% Antlerless(20% of those are bb)
Since 1963 MI has NEVER shot more does than bucks
A survey of deer hunters was conducted following the 2006 hunting seasons to
estimate hunter participation, harvest, and hunting effort. In 2006, an estimated
671,000 hunters spent 10.0 million days afield. Statewide, the number of people
hunting deer increased about 3%, but hunting effort was virtually unchanged
between 2005 and 2006. Hunters harvested nearly 456,000 deer, an increase of
nearly 9% from the number taken in 2005. Statewide, 46% of hunters harvested a
deer. About 22% of the hunters took an antlerless deer and 34% took an antlered
buck. About 15% of deer hunters harvested two or more deer.
estimate hunter participation, harvest, and hunting effort. In 2006, an estimated
671,000 hunters spent 10.0 million days afield. Statewide, the number of people
hunting deer increased about 3%, but hunting effort was virtually unchanged
between 2005 and 2006. Hunters harvested nearly 456,000 deer, an increase of
nearly 9% from the number taken in 2005. Statewide, 46% of hunters harvested a
deer. About 22% of the hunters took an antlerless deer and 34% took an antlered
buck. About 15% of deer hunters harvested two or more deer.
I'm somewhat surprised about the ratio between bucks and does I must say. Thanks for taking the time to look that up for me.
Itseems like the folks in Michigan need to let the overall numbers increase?
01-10-2008, 03:09 PM
#19
Boone & Crockett
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Michigan/Ohio
Posts: 11,682
RE: Managing Herds......
ORIGINAL: BigJ71
Looks to me like the state need to look into how many deer are being killed in Michigan. If the numbers are suffering perhaps a shorter season is in order?
I'm somewhat surprised about the ratio between bucks and does I must say. Thanks for taking the time to look that up for me.
Itseems like the folks in Michigan need to let the overall numbers increase?
ORIGINAL: Germ
MI is not good.
I have the numbers
2007 63% bucks 37% Antlerless(20% of those are bb)
Since 1963 MI has NEVER shot more does than bucks
We have average right around the 65 35 % mark for awhile. It was way worst in the early 90's and 80's.
ORIGINAL: BigJ71
Germ,
Do you know the numbers of deer taken in Michigan by chance? I'm interested in bucks taken vs does taken.
What I'm getting at is even though people hunt for bucks, I'd be surprised to find out more bucks are killed each year than does.
If those deer died due to disease then so be it, maybe it happened for a reason? Maybe in it's own way it made the overall herd stronger. Sure the numbers would be low for a while but then they would rebound...they always have. We had deer at the brink of extinction at some areas by the turn of the century but they bounced back...once we as hunters were held in check.
Germ,
Do you know the numbers of deer taken in Michigan by chance? I'm interested in bucks taken vs does taken.
What I'm getting at is even though people hunt for bucks, I'd be surprised to find out more bucks are killed each year than does.
If those deer died due to disease then so be it, maybe it happened for a reason? Maybe in it's own way it made the overall herd stronger. Sure the numbers would be low for a while but then they would rebound...they always have. We had deer at the brink of extinction at some areas by the turn of the century but they bounced back...once we as hunters were held in check.
I have the numbers
2007 63% bucks 37% Antlerless(20% of those are bb)
Since 1963 MI has NEVER shot more does than bucks
A survey of deer hunters was conducted following the 2006 hunting seasons to
estimate hunter participation, harvest, and hunting effort. In 2006, an estimated
671,000 hunters spent 10.0 million days afield. Statewide, the number of people
hunting deer increased about 3%, but hunting effort was virtually unchanged
between 2005 and 2006. Hunters harvested nearly 456,000 deer, an increase of
nearly 9% from the number taken in 2005. Statewide, 46% of hunters harvested a
deer. About 22% of the hunters took an antlerless deer and 34% took an antlered
buck. About 15% of deer hunters harvested two or more deer.
estimate hunter participation, harvest, and hunting effort. In 2006, an estimated
671,000 hunters spent 10.0 million days afield. Statewide, the number of people
hunting deer increased about 3%, but hunting effort was virtually unchanged
between 2005 and 2006. Hunters harvested nearly 456,000 deer, an increase of
nearly 9% from the number taken in 2005. Statewide, 46% of hunters harvested a
deer. About 22% of the hunters took an antlerless deer and 34% took an antlered
buck. About 15% of deer hunters harvested two or more deer.
I'm somewhat surprised about the ratio between bucks and does I must say. Thanks for taking the time to look that up for me.
Itseems like the folks in Michigan need to let the overall numbers increase?
MI SLP is almost 50% over carring capacity. One county in SLP is 106% over the DNR's goal. I have all the numbers about MI[:@]
We kill the right number of deer, just the wrongs ones IMO
