Some DMU's do have less deer than they did in the post timbering deer boom, but others have more deer. Most northern DMU's have less deer both because the habitat has aged and the biologists have tried to keep populations lower because of TB/CWD concerns and the large winter die off's/further habitat damage that would come if deer populations became too high for the habitat.
Michigan's deer history is easy to follow. In the late 1800's thru early 1900's, the northern part of the state was essentially clearcut. What followed was a deer boom due to that extreme timbering. However, many northern units have slowly been reverting back to what they were pre-timbering, that being fairly marginal deer habitat where Winter and habitat dictate more than in southern area's.
Many guys our age grew up going north and seeing lots of deer. But we simply caught the tail end of the timber/deer herd boom. Several top biologists have written that parts of northern Michigan can no longer get the herd size "boom" going, to get the boom/bust/boom/bust herds we all grew up with. Basically, in many area's, the forest has reverted back to the tipping point where an area will probably never have more than 25 deer per mile again, as opposed to the 50 plus deer per mile they may have had 30 years ago, with a younger forest and year round supplemental feeding.
Look, we can beat the finer points to death. But keep this in mind, because this is the seeing "the forest for the tree's" moment. On average, those private land hunters doing some habitat improvements and better "trigger management" and those public land hunters doing more research into finding recently timbered lands are pretty happy with their hunting and have a bright outlook for the future. Those who hunt private land where a chainsaw hasn't touched a tree since 1923 and those hunting unimproved, northern public lands with soils so poor that nobody wanted it 100 years ago are typically less happy with their deer hunting.
We started doing lots of changes at my place starting in 1999. Before then, we were the typical NLP deer camp. We shot a pile of spikes, thought clearcutting was bad and we thought feeding bloated herds all winter long was a good thing. Since then, we've essentially turned our entire forest over, with the expection of saving/managing about 50% of the mast trees, we've passed most yearling bucks, shot about 2 does for every buck and created quiet area sanctuary's, even though they are only some 3-5 acres in size. They work.
If you don't like how your hunting is going, defending the status quo policies that got you there doesn't make sense to me. In the north, it's the current regs that brought about a 30% decline in hunters and a skewed buck to doe ratio. I'm open to trying new regs that have worked elsewhere. We know what our liberal buck tag program will do for us.
Back to a January season, maybe the bow groups should get together and focus on running archery season thru Feb. 1. I personally talked to the Ohio DNR deer chief and he said he'd supply any data we may need and he said there's no reason not to give bowhunters all that extra opportunity. He also said that January archers who take a "dropped antler" buck account for something like .6% of the buck kill. That's a point in front of the 6. Cars kill more bucks in January. It's a no brainer for us. We should use the same reasoning/precedent set with the crossbow inclusion. A January bow season increases opportunity for hunters but doesn't have a large negative impact on the resource. Slam dunk.
Topic: Michigan deer season (Read 1921 times)
