Is this really an issue?

I remember when our state had a lot of deer - has been 20 years ago. Me or my wife hit a deer five out of seven years. Insurance threatened to cancel. It was a pain in the butt dealing with the deer collisions on almost a yearly basis. They averaged about $3500 apiece - 20 years ago - and sometimes six or eight weeks before your car was repaired. Our bag limit has since increased. There is a balance. In general, hunters will not shoot the maximum number of deer allowed. In our state - that number is six. I know of no one who has ever killed six deer. I have read where something like 20% of the successful hunters - hunters who kill one deer - will take a second deer.

Driving is much safer now. There are still areas where you know you are more likely to see a deer on the road and you become more vigilant. Those are areas where landowners - like myself - manage for an increased deer density - in spite of G&F management plans. I have seen too many deer, basically statewide, and that is definitely a problem. I like lots of deer - but I understand there is a balance. I dont know if there is a true problem with too high a deer density in MI - but if there truly is, I understand the effort to decrease the deer population.
 
It seems like one of the major talking points in reducing deer herds now is an attempt to reduce tick borne diseases.
 
We need more of the current to actually harvest a deer, specifically does, here in Wis rather than just more hunters. Plenty of deer, the DNR survey shows our county as having 58 deer per square mile.
 
Tree Spud said:
We need more of the current to actually harvest a deer, specifically does, here in Wis rather than just more hunters. Plenty of deer, the DNR survey shows our county as having 58 deer per square mile.
Click to expand...
So how do you get hunters to harvest more does - bounty provided by the car insurance companies?😎
 
I think in more areas than we think, some of those doe harvest narrative is doing harm to the herd. I’m not quite as cavalier in my thinking as I once was. Obviously it’s area and even property specific but even I’ve seen some numbers drop around me and I’ve definitely read from some guys who are flat out stopping their doe harvest for the time being. Anecdotal I know, but first year of beans at my place I was seeing 40 ish deer and evening. This year 8-10.
 
Last edited:
Howboutthemdawgs said:
I think in more areas than we think, some of those doe harvest narrative is doing harm to the herd. I’m not quite as cavalier in my thinking as I once was. Obviously it’s area and even property specific but even I’ve seen some numbers drop around me and I’ve definitely read from someone’s guys who are flat out stopping their doe harvest for the time being. Anecdotal I know, but first year of beans at my place I was seeing 40 ish deer and evening. This year 8-10.
Click to expand...
I have seen it and I was a big part of the problem. Our g&f was on a big “balance the herd” kick. Balance the herd by removing does to make a more frenzied rut. We drank the koolaide as did adjacent landowners. At one time at the worst of it, we had a 3:1 - buck:doe ratio. Yes, you read that right. One doe per three bucks.

I promise, it takes a lot longer to get them back than it does to shoot them down. Took us two years for the decrease. Eight years to get them back in a balanced herd form - with no does killed during that period. . To maintain our population, because of low fawn recruitment - we need almost three does per buck. We are still very cautious about our doe harvest.
 
SwampCat said:
I have seen it and I was a big part of the problem. Our g&f was on a big “balance the herd” kick. Balance the herd by removing does to make a more frenzied rut. We drank the koolaide as did adjacent landowners. At one time at the worst of it, we had a 3:1 - buck:doe ratio. Yes, you read that right. One doe per three bucks.

I promise, it takes a lot longer to get them back than it does to shoot them down. Took us two years for the decrease. Eight years to get them back in a balanced herd form - with no does killed during that period. . To maintain our population, because of low fawn recruitment - we need almost three does per buck. We are still very cautious about our doe harvest.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Some of these respected groups act like it’s nearly impossible to shoot out your does. And if you aren’t killing truckloads of them a year your property is doomed. While that may true on certain properties, I’d be damn sure I had a problem before I started going too crazy. I’m probably looking at taking 3-4 this year. One on each property I hunt with maybe 2 on my main farm.
 
Howboutthemdawgs said:
Increase hunters, decrease deer. Makes a ton of sense. I bet if you polled 100 hunters, 99 would opt for the opposite equation.

DNR aims to increase hunters, decrease deer population this season

We are just days away from the start of firearm deer season in Michigan.
www.wnem.com www.wnem.com
Click to expand...
"People look out for their own self interests. More at 11."
 
Not really related to the OPs post regarding Southern Michigan - but there was an excellent UP Michigan YouTube video, where a biologist explained that in these tough environments, such as the UP, doe harvest should be zero or close to it. His thinking was that if the doe #s are down, and you have a hard winter, your deer herd can cease to exist / become so decreased so as to not be feasibly hunted.

In Northern VT - since the increase of doe harvest #s, the quality of hunting on public land has decreased tremendously - Especially during the early November bow and late November rifle season (pre-rut/rut)

We run a check-in station and the amount of yearling does 60-70lbs registered is high. IMO this is because everyone feels they should shoot the 1st doe they see because you can buy subsequent tags.

I haven’t looked at MI rules, but if the rules allow liberal doe harvest on public land and the DNR messaging is “shoot does” the public land in MI will experience a decrease in hunter satisfaction.
 
SwampCat said:
So how do you get hunters to harvest more does - bounty provided by the car insurance companies?😎
Click to expand...

Nope! We had a program here in the early 2000's that was called Earn-A-Buck. It required that a hunter had to shoot a doe first to get a buck harvest permit tag. It did a fantastic job of reducing the doe herd in areas where they were over populated. It also saved a lot of 2.5 & 3.5 year old bucks from the brown is down crowd giving them a another year to grow. The 4.5 & 5.5 year old's really benefitted.

Some hunters hated it because in their culture you never shot a doe. the DNR did mis-apply the program universally across the state and in counties where doe over population was not an issue.

During the 10 years we had EAB, Wis lead the US in P&Y and Boone & Crocket bucks taken.
 
Aren’t the vast majority of harvested bucks in MI 1.5 y/o?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tree Spud said:
Nope! We had a program here in the early 2000's that was called Earn-A-Buck. It required that a hunter had to shoot a doe first to get a buck harvest permit tag. It did a fantastic job of reducing the doe herd in areas where they were over populated. It also saved a lot of 2.5 & 3.5 year old bucks from the brown is down crowd giving them a another year to grow. The 4.5 & 5.5 year old's really benefitted.

Some hunters hated it because in their culture you never shot a doe. the DNR did mis-apply the program universally across the state and in counties where doe over population was not an issue.

During the 10 years we had EAB, Wis lead the US in P&Y and Boone & Crocket bucks taken.
Click to expand...
Bring back EAB. Make WI deer hunting great again!
 
KY hunters usually kill about the same number of does as bucks, would this essentially be the same results as EAB or did years of EAB cause many more does harvested than the number of bucks?
 
KY wild said:
KY hunters usually kill about the same number of does as bucks, would this essentially be the same results as EAB or did years of EAB cause many more does harvested than the number of bucks?
Click to expand...
Not the same IMO.

Doe harvest would be higher than buck harvest. You can't get a buck tag until you harvest a doe, not every hunter gets an opportunity at a buck after harvesting a doe.
 
KY wild said:
KY hunters usually kill about the same number of does as bucks, would this essentially be the same results as EAB or did years of EAB cause many more does harvested than the number of bucks?
Click to expand...
Technically it’s a good bit more bucks than does in ky. Last year was 45-55. 2022 was even wider spread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SD51555
Kip: Top 5 Factors Causing Deer Population Declines
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
7K
sandbur
sandbur
SD51555
Yer fault
Replies
5
Views
2K
bwoods11
bwoods11
B
MN Audit Request Rough Draft. Suggestions welcomed.
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
8K
bat man
B
Back
Top