Deer numbers in Michigan are declining. You know it, I know it, and the DNR wants it that way.
A herd that was estimated at over two million animals just a few years ago is barely a million today and according to our DNR wildlife managers the decline is part of coordinated effort to keep Michigan's deer herd within its cultural carrying capacity.
In case you haven't come across this term in your reading, a cultural carrying capacity is the number of animals (deer) a region can sustain without society complaining of car/deer accidents, crop depredation, landscape destruction, and other deer-related social problems.
To say our DNR whitetail deer biologists have their hands full is an understatement. On one hand, they have hunters clamoring for a larger deer herd and a greater percentage of bucks in the population. On the other side, there's pressure from farmers and insurance companies who want Michigan's deer herd trimmed even further.
If this isn't bad enough, related controversies like baiting, regulating the length of bow season, restricting blinds placed on public lands, and other issues eat up more of the biologist's valuable time and energy that would be better spent managing whitetails.
The loser in this political game management mess are Michigan's army of licensed deer hunters. The boom years of the late 1980s when hunters brought home the venison in record numbers will be remembered through snapshots and hunting stories for years to come. Unfortunately, hunters will have to be satisfied with memories, because the future of deer hunting in Michigan doesn't look promising from this hunter's point of view.
In short, if hunters what both quality and quantity in their deer herd, the responsibility of managing this resource will have to fall largely in the hands of the those who have the most to lose.
Improving the deer hunting in Michigan starts with every licensed hunter. I believe an attitude adjustment is in order if hunters are to have a positive impact on game management in this state.
Hunting is one of those activities that's driven more by tradition than common sense. The way I see it, hunters as a whole are reluctant to change their attitudes and hunting techniques despite poor hunting success in recent years. The shooting of does is a prime example. Should we or should we not be shooting does?
The systematic harvest of antlerless deer through doe permits and block management permits is the primary reason deer numbers are at a 20-year low in traditional deer hunting regions of the state. There's little doubt that doe shooting has been an abused management tool in some areas.
Despite noted antlerless deer shooting abuses, there are many areas of the state that still need a controlled doe harvest to prevent the doe-to-buck ratio from getting any worse. Many southern Michigan counties are crawling with deer, and the doe to buck ratio runs as high as 20 to 1.
Harvesting antlerless deer in these areas helps to keep the overall deer population from exploding. The hunter who harvests a doe is also doing his or her part to increase the percentage of bucks in the population.
Doe permits allow a hunter to harvest surplus venison for his families enjoyment, while at the same time taking pressure off from young bucks that normally suffer a high mortality from hunters.
The hunter who harvests a doe while passing on a young buck is taking out an investment in his or her deer hunting future. Bucks that survive the hunter's arrow or bullet will be larger and support better racks the following year.
Throughout Michigan it only takes three seasons for a whitetail buck to develop a respectable head set. A trophy worth bragging about can be grown in four or five seasons. Hunters who want to see more and bigger bucks should consider the merits of this basic selective harvest principle.
Allowing a limited harvest of does in high density deer areas allows hunters the opportunity to pass on immature bucks while still being able to take home venison for the freezer. It's the best of both worlds, and a way hunters can put the bucks back into deer hunting.
Unfortunately some of Michigan's most popular hunting areas have so few deer that doe permits and selective harvest plans are out of the question. In areas where deer numbers are low, the only way to improve hunting is to reduce the harvest of all deer, especially does.
Michigan's deer hunting heartland--Roscommon, Otsego, Crawford, Gladwin, Ogemaw, Osceola, Lake, Montmorency, Wexford, and Oscoda counties--has suffered a dramatic decline in deer. The deer population is so low in some of these areas, special harvest restrictions might be in order to prevent further damage to the deer herd.
When the Michigan State Legislature created the second buck license, they made a bad situation worse in the most popular deer hunting regions. Allowing hunters to harvest two bucks in areas where bucks are already hard to come by makes little sense.
In the Lower Peninsula hunters will again be allowed to harvest two bucks this season with antlers at least three inches long. Those hunters who are successful at harvesting two bucks may be shortchanging their own chances at quality deer hunting in the future.
Limiting yourself to one buck is a way every hunter can do his or her part to improve hunting conditions. Don't assume that because the DNR is allowing a second buck license that there are plenty of deer to go around.
The second buck license has been and always will be a political decision to increase license revenues. Deer managers haven't fought against the second buck license because it provides them a larger annual budget and helps achieve their goal of a smaller overall deer herd.
Short of changing hunting areas, harvesting surplus does, and practicing selective harvest, there's little the average hunter who depends on public lands can do to improve his hunting opportunities. It's a frustrating reality, but many hunters have turned to private land in order to enjoy better quality deer hunting. Leasing or buying land for deer management purposes is becoming a popular alternative to public lands that often support more hunters than deer.
Managing private property for deer production is the most logical way hunters can positively impact on their own hunting success. Managing for whitetails is a long-term commitment that requires both time and money. Hunters who lease their lands are wise to sign an extended lease agreement before spending their hard-earned cash on habitat improvements.
For the record, there's a lot more to building a deer herd than hauling semi loads of deer feed into the woods each fall. Supplemental feeding can be an important part of deer management, but the primary goals of deer management should be to develop natural foods and cover. We'll discuss supplemental feeding more later.
The belief that it requires large areas of land to successfully manage whitetail deer is a common misconception that prevents many land owners from enjoying the benefits of better deer hunting. Whitetail deer often live out their lives within a square mile of forest land.
Small plots of land can be improved to attract and hold whitetail deer. A surprising amount can be accomplished with 40 acres of land. Obviously the more land one has to work with the more deer you can expect to attract.
Food plots are the fastest way for hunters to make their land more attractive to deer. Crops planted in the fall or early spring will begin providing needed food within a few short months.
Clover, alfalfa, rye grass, timothy, trefoil, winter wheat, and buckwheat are all excellent grasses that attract whitetails and they grow well in Michigan soils. You can buy these seed crops by the pound or 50-pound bag. Mixes formulated especially for deer are often the best value for the hunter looking to create several small feed plots on his property.
The mixes normally include several species of clover, alfalfa, timothy, and trefoil. A popular mix sold at my local milling company runs $2.75 per pound, and they recommend 10 pounds to plant an acre. Another popular blend known as Whitetail Clover includes five species of sweet clover and runs $6 per pound. Clover should be planted at approximately 8 pounds to an acre.
Rye grass and buckwheat are other common feeds planted to attract deer. Rye runs approximately $7 for a 50-pound bag that will sow about one acre. Buckwheat costs around $30 for the same amount and coverage.
Each of these crops is planted in a similar fashion. The soil needs to be worked with a plow and/or disk to develop a suitable seed bed. Once the soil is prepared, seed is drilled in or broadcast onto the ground and covered lightly by dragging the soil or disking again.
Try to plan your plantings to coincide with a soaking rain that helps the seeds germinate. A small amount of 12-12-12 fertilizer can also be disked into the soil to foster improved plant growth.
Natural opening in the forest canopy are the best places for feed plots. These openings need not be large to be effective. Roger Jensen of Escanaba maintains a small feed plot at each of the half dozen permanent blinds he has erected on his property.
"I position both an elevated bow blind and enclosed firearm blind at my primary feed plots," comments Jensen. "During bow season I usually hunt from the elevated stands, but if the weather is nasty I can choose a ground shack to keep out the wind and rain,." he states.
Jensen has had excellent success maintaining two stands per feed plot. "Depending on the wind direction, there are times when the ground stand is the better choice even in fair weather," adds Jensen.
Jensen's rifle blinds are situated to overlook the runways deer use when making their way to the feed plots. In some cases he has cut narrow shooting lanes that allow him access to deer that refuse to leave the security of the surrounding cover.
Jensen has experienced with many types of food plots and feels clover is the plant whitetails are most attracted to. "Clover is a durable crop that once established will provide an important food source for years," comments Jensen. "My food plots run about 50 feet in diameter on the average and they see a lot of deer activity in spring, summer, and fall."
During the fall hunting season and throughout the winter months Jensen uses supplemental feed sources like corn, apples, potatoes, and cabbages to help sustain the whitetails living on his land. The experts disagree on supplemental feeding, but most will admit that this practice has at least some value in providing food for winter stressed deer.
Research indicates that deer receiving supplemental feeding often have improved overall health and may give birth to stronger and better developed fawns.
"Supplemental feeding is expensive," says Dale Voice who hunts on a private farm in northwestern Michigan. "The experts estimate that it costs between $30 to $50 per deer to provide supplemental feed in the fall and winter. Obviously this can run into some major greenbacks when large numbers of deer camp out at your feeding station for months at a time."
It's important to note that supplemental feeds must be introduced to deer gradually. Deer that have been feeding on natural browse simply aren't prepared to digest hay, corn, and other supplemental feeds.
There are dozens of products on the market that claim to provide deer the necessary minerals required for antler development. Ed Langenau, Michigan DNR deer specialist, feels these products have a limited value to the deer-hunting public. "If deer are provided with high quality natural food sources, they won't have any need for supplemental mineral blocks and other agents," says Langenau.
Improving the natural browse on your property is the best way to reduce that dreaded dependency on supplemental feeding. Deer will browse on almost any young woody plant, but some of their favorites include dogwood, white cedar, red maple, green ash, and witch hazel.
Contrary to what many hunters have been told, aspen (popple) is not a desirable whitetail deer browse. Certainly deer will eat aspen, but this plant has more cover than food value where deer are concerned.
Aspen does have the benefit of being a very fast growing tree that's easily managed. Clear cutting small blocks of aspen is an excellent way to increase available cover and browse for whitetails, ruffed grouse, varying hares, and other forest life.
Other trees with more food value for deer, like red maple and red oak, also respond well to clear cutting management. A whole forest full of maples or oaks doesn't have to be cut in order to benefit deer.
A chainsaw can be used to remove conservative clusters of mature trees and help open up the forest canopy. Sunlight pouring onto the ground will spur on the growth of young saplings that deer need for fall and winter food.
Early winter is an excellent time to cut these forest openings. When cutting leave the tops and small limbs for deer to browse on and remove the larger limbs and truck for firewood. When cutting, it's best to select trees that have little or no timber value.
Your reforestation efforts can also be helped along by planting desirable trees. The Soil Conservation Service and National Arbor Day Society are both excellent sources of inexpensive trees that can be used for wildlife plantings.
Some of the most popular trees are those that provide a mast crop deer enjoy eating. Red oak, white oak, beech, apple, and pear trees are good choices. I have a friend who as a kid planted several apple trees at strategic spots on his father's farm. Today those apple trees bear fruit that consistently lure deer into his rifle sights.
Private land deer management is becoming an issue hunters can't afford to ignore. Furthermore it may be the only way to guarantee there will be enough deer around to put the fun back in deer hunting.
Home | Library | Hunting | Big Game Hunting