NorthJeff

Jvanduse, I hunt in the central U.P. You're right, it's hard to pass them up, but I passed up a decent 8 during rifle because I had already shot a larger 8 during bow. I probabley would have shot him otherwise. Around here they say we might even have less hunters than we used to, but with no crops, nuts, or fruit, the yearling bucks flock to the bait piles. Baiting is a very effective way to eliminate yearling bucks. In fact the figures show that here in the U.P. 84% of our buck harvest is made up of 4 points or less-how many were taken over bait? I don't see a lot of deer around here, but then again I don't see alot of hunters either. In 4 years I have seen only 1 other hunter(probably lost), with over 200 times in the woods hunting.

This is one thing that may vary in other areas, but with our wilderness setting, and dense cover with very few openings, if a buck makes it to 2.5 years old, and especially 3.5 years old, he is a survivor. There are some things he can't pass on to off-spring, but many things will be passed down. Things such as type of habitat used for bedding cover, type of woods used, how secretive he might be-I think can be inherited. I've heard a story of a very young fawn hiding under water next to a log with it's nose barely above water-a trait taught or inherited? If one deer can also be much less wary than the next, how come deer aren't readily domesticated and taken for pets? Survival trates are passed down, just like those rabbits that love to sit out in the open-they were wiped out of gene pool long ago. You get an occasional idiot in the group, but hopefully they don't last very long to do any of the breeding.

I really believe that around here, if the bucks are ever to get passed 1.5 years old, the baiting needs to go. If the baiting was taken away here in the U.P., most people wouldn't even know how to hunt, wouldn't know how to get around the woods, and would be too afraid to go very far from the car. That would definately improve the age structure-just like about 20 years ago when no one baited, only this time very few have the honed, true hunting skills of 20 years ago. It's no coincidence, that although Alger, Delta, and Marquette counties hold the most CBM entries of all time, they havn't been in the top 10 in over 15 years.
Every region has it's problems, and ways to solve them, but the bottom line is that buck age structure is very important in the herd, a fact proven by biology and every scientific study associated with deer behavior. If while trying to solve the problem QDM is labled as "Trophy Management", so be it. I'm sure there are many animal rights groups out there that would label any form of harvest based management tactics as "In-humane", but there just as wrong.

The DNR has had trouble in MI going to a state-wide QDM to promote a better age sturcture, because of license sales. But recent votes concerning the subject to pass mandatory QDM regulations have passed with hunters and land owners by over 70%, and these rules have become law. If MI mirrors every other state, this approval rating will be between 85 and 90% within 2-3 years.

If QDM was labeled, and truely was, "Trophy Management", do you think hunters and land owners would vote over 70% to have it? or is it just the big lie, and all the country's top biologist and whitetail professionals have come together to put the health of the herd, habitat, and the future of hunting asside, to selfishly promote "Trophy Management" within our country. Considering many of the top professionals in the country hunt less than most on this board, is it really conceivable they are just trying to promote "trophy" animals, or are they trying to promote what's best for the herd and older bucks(which have bigger antlers), are just a bi-product of healthy management tactics?

Different tactis, and various levels of doe harvest need to take place in different locations, but sound biology can't, and shouldn't be replaced by feel-good legislation, whether it be a personal need to see 20 deer a day, or placing traditions asside to focus on the most important principle-the health of the herd, built, based, and supported by the facts, and only the facts.

Jeff...U.P. of Michigan.

NorthJeff

Davidmil,

My neighbor has some cows he needs to get rid of, since you only hunt to kill, do you want his number? I'm sure you won't mind that there is a 1 acre inclosure, you can focus on what you like to do best...kill.

Jeff...U.P. of Michigan.

stealthycat

Hillhntr - You're just begging me to go off on the AG&FC , aren't you ?

Yes, your shortened season to 6 days ( a recent even if I remember correctly ) is the reson for your NE areas deer numbers. Look at my zone - 4 weeks rifle, 3 weeks muzzleload, 5 months of archery - thats ridiculous and add a 2 and 3 does limit and voila!, you've killed a heck of a lot of does in a declining herd and your fawn numbers for 2002 are going to SUCK.

Short seasons (like most states) for modern gun and protect the does to a balanced hered, AND a three point rule would work. AG&FC got half the equation right IMO and failed miserably on the second half.

stealthycat

Hillhntr - You're just begging me to go off on the AG&FC , aren't you ?

Yes, your shortened season to 6 days ( a recent even if I remember correctly ) is the reson for your NE areas deer numbers. Look at my zone - 4 weeks rifle, 3 weeks muzzleload, 5 months of archery - thats ridiculous and add a 2 and 3 does limit and voila!, you've killed a heck of a lot of does in a declining herd and your fawn numbers for 2002 are going to SUCK.

Short seasons (like most states) for modern gun and protect the does to a balanced hered, AND a three point rule would work. AG&FC got half the equation right IMO and failed miserably on the second half.

NorthJeff

Stealthcat,

I will agree with you there. 7 weeks for gun season?!!! That's terrible! I thought our 2 weeks of gun, 10 days of muzzle was bad, but that's no good. I personally wouldn't complain about the 5 month bow season, but even it seems a little long.

In MI we have 3 months of bow, and the gun seasons mixed in, but most of our deer die the first 2 days of gun season. One year, peronally saw 17 different bucks before gun season-passing the 14 yearlings and not getting a shot at the older 3 others, and even that year I only saw 1 buck after the gun season, for a total of 2 bucks seen after the gun season in 12 years of hunting in lower MI.

I'd be real happy for 1 week of gun, and 1 week of muzzle, around here we have very low hunter numbers after the 2nd or 3rd day anyways.

Jeff...U.P. of Michigan.

davidmil

Sorry Northjeff.... I don't hunt towers, pens or trained animals. The wilder the better. Heck, I don't even like to fish where they stock fish. I said I'm a hunter.... not a killer. I used to kill for a living, but that was a long time ago when Uncle Sam paid me to do it in Southeast Asia.

NorthJeff

Davidmil, sounds better to me. I guess on the QDM stuff we'll just have to disagree a little.

Just try going to the national site and read their mission statement and different beliefs. They even have some of the articles on there that have been printed in their magazine.

Jeff...U.P. of Michigan.

jvanduse

Here's another thought.....
If your happy with a spike..GOOD FOR YOU!!!! You should shoot it and be happy! For others, they might not be happy unless they shoot a nice 8 point.....to each his own.

As for the banning of baiting....your right Northjeff, people would be in a panic, but by taking away baiting, like you said, with lack of crops, fruits, nuts, the deer herd would have to adapt also. They are use to feeding at a bait, (bucks at night mostly) and by eliminating them....we would probebly have Bigger deer, but not as many......We are kind of in a Catch-22. Know what I mean???

From one Yoooper to another,
John

My Uncle

Ansel

Here's my two cents on that John: I don't think you would see the decline you might think. How many guys do you know that hunt over bait vs. not? I believe that the vast majority in our neck of the woods do. How many of the hunters would be equally effective without the bait? Currently, Not many. I think by eliminating the bait you would increase the number of 1.5 old bucks making it from 1.5 to 2.5 and so on. I know this is moving from a qdm issue to a baiting issue but I believe there is a strong link from baiting to a stronger, more balanced deer heard. I hope I am reading your response correctly. Welcome to the board!

NorthJeff

John, as far as that bait goes, it provides a brief energy boost of carbs, of usually non-nutritional intake. Corn is only around 7% protein-compared to 15% protein for fertalized woody browse, or 8% protein for unfertalized, and most of the other stuff is worse-almost like a bait pile of candybars-great for energy boosts, but not much substance. Much of the browse is better for the deer than the actual bait, and relief baiting in the yard only effects deer in a 200 yard direction, and produces ambush trails for predators. Around my house people start baiting in Nov, and stop around the Nov. 15th opener, very few continue to muzzleload season. By the way I did throw some corn out during gun season for my dad so he'd see a couple of deer, and he did so he was happy.

I can understand what your saying about the spike/8 point thing, but I'm mainly looking at it as a meat thing. Most of the spikes are in the 100 pound class, with less than 40 pounds of de-boned meat. A mature doe will weigh around 140 up here and give over 50 pounds of meat. If someone lives in an area where they can't take a doe, I can understand wanting to take a spike, especially if that's all the see, but I suspect sometimes people are shooting the spike so they can say they shot a "buck". Many of these people will say they are meat hunters and it doesn't matter, but when in actuallity they are shooting the spike because it has antlers.

I know it's a hot topic, but I guess I have a mission to try and get the facts out...at least facts that are based on science and not tradition.

John---Packers or Lions fan?

Jeff...U.P. of Michigan.