BOB@BBT
01-28-2006, 09:05 AM
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060128/SPORTS10/601280369/1058
Outdoors
ERIC SHARP: Upset hunters shouldn't blame DNR
January 28, 2006
The state Department of Natural Resources has held meetings around the state to explain its deer management plan, prompting a lot of e-mails and phone calls from hunters. They say they don't believe the DNR's estimate that the state deer herd is 1.6 million to 1.7 million.
Most of those hunters think the DNR has vastly overestimated the herd, especially in the places those hunters hunt. And that got me thinking:
Why weren't those complaints made in 1989-90, when the DNR was estimating the herd at 1.9 million to 2 million?
The method the DNR used to count deer then was the same one it uses now. And though a few people in 1990 said they didn't think the DNR's method was really accurate, no one questioned whether the DNR was right when it said there were an awful lot of deer in the state.
I have to figure that even if the DNR's raw numbers are wrong now, the accuracy of its estimates hasn't changed because its methodology for counting deer hasn't changed.
And if the biologists figure the statewide herd is down by 15% to 20%, that's probably about right. But that doesn't mean the numbers might not be down a lot more on the little patch where you hunt.
For the southern half of the Lower Peninsula, the DNR estimates the average is roughly 40 deer per square mile, with some places a bit higher, others a bit lower. In the northern Lower, there are roughly 20-25 deer per square mile, and in the Upper Peninsula about 15 per square mile.
Whether those numbers are on the money really doesn't matter much. The key is how they compare in ratio to the numbers of deer we had in 1990. Back then, the DNR figured the northern Lower Peninsula held about 800,000 deer, or 40 per square mile. The southern Lower had about 15-20 per square mile and the UP about 30 per square mile.
In other words, no matter how many deer there really were, we had twice as many in the woods of northern Michigan as we did last fall. Any experienced hunter knows that if you cut the number of deer in an area by 50%, your chances of seeing one decrease by 75% to 90%.
That's because the deer no longer have to fill every inch of their habitat to find food and breeding areas. So if you're hunting in marginal deer habitat, and the overall herd in your area has decreased 20, that might mean the guy next door with the good habitat draws all the deer in the area while your place has none.
Many hunters are accustomed to putting out bait and waiting for deer to come within easy shooting range. That worked when deer were superabundant, but not when their numbers are fewer and they can find more natural food.
I doubt the DNR can put an exact figure on the number of deer in the state, but it does a pretty good job of estimating how the numbers fluctuate as a percentage year to year. I also think the agency has made mistakes and allowed too many deer to be killed in some areas. When experienced hunters don't see deer in places where they used to see a lot, that's pretty evident.
But like it or not, what you see is likely what you will get for years to come.
Contact ERIC SHARP at 313-222-2511 or esharp@freepress.com.
Outdoors
ERIC SHARP: Upset hunters shouldn't blame DNR
January 28, 2006
The state Department of Natural Resources has held meetings around the state to explain its deer management plan, prompting a lot of e-mails and phone calls from hunters. They say they don't believe the DNR's estimate that the state deer herd is 1.6 million to 1.7 million.
Most of those hunters think the DNR has vastly overestimated the herd, especially in the places those hunters hunt. And that got me thinking:
Why weren't those complaints made in 1989-90, when the DNR was estimating the herd at 1.9 million to 2 million?
The method the DNR used to count deer then was the same one it uses now. And though a few people in 1990 said they didn't think the DNR's method was really accurate, no one questioned whether the DNR was right when it said there were an awful lot of deer in the state.
I have to figure that even if the DNR's raw numbers are wrong now, the accuracy of its estimates hasn't changed because its methodology for counting deer hasn't changed.
And if the biologists figure the statewide herd is down by 15% to 20%, that's probably about right. But that doesn't mean the numbers might not be down a lot more on the little patch where you hunt.
For the southern half of the Lower Peninsula, the DNR estimates the average is roughly 40 deer per square mile, with some places a bit higher, others a bit lower. In the northern Lower, there are roughly 20-25 deer per square mile, and in the Upper Peninsula about 15 per square mile.
Whether those numbers are on the money really doesn't matter much. The key is how they compare in ratio to the numbers of deer we had in 1990. Back then, the DNR figured the northern Lower Peninsula held about 800,000 deer, or 40 per square mile. The southern Lower had about 15-20 per square mile and the UP about 30 per square mile.
In other words, no matter how many deer there really were, we had twice as many in the woods of northern Michigan as we did last fall. Any experienced hunter knows that if you cut the number of deer in an area by 50%, your chances of seeing one decrease by 75% to 90%.
That's because the deer no longer have to fill every inch of their habitat to find food and breeding areas. So if you're hunting in marginal deer habitat, and the overall herd in your area has decreased 20, that might mean the guy next door with the good habitat draws all the deer in the area while your place has none.
Many hunters are accustomed to putting out bait and waiting for deer to come within easy shooting range. That worked when deer were superabundant, but not when their numbers are fewer and they can find more natural food.
I doubt the DNR can put an exact figure on the number of deer in the state, but it does a pretty good job of estimating how the numbers fluctuate as a percentage year to year. I also think the agency has made mistakes and allowed too many deer to be killed in some areas. When experienced hunters don't see deer in places where they used to see a lot, that's pretty evident.
But like it or not, what you see is likely what you will get for years to come.
Contact ERIC SHARP at 313-222-2511 or esharp@freepress.com.