Deer wmu 47

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilroy

I would also ask Ninepointer the usefulness of the questionnaire.You see the same single doe for a week,but then answer you saw seven deer.No wonder the survey becomes redundant.

---

You raise a common concern Gilroy. But any properly designed study that relies on self-reporting will have weighting factors built into the data-crunching calculations to help mitigate (impossible to eliminate) error, duplication and bias. I'm not familiar with MNRF's study model and can only assume they are using the same tried and true methods as other North American wildlife management agencies. Self-reporting never produces precise numbers, but its effectiveness in demonstrating trends/patterns is proven. Nevertheless, every biologist I've met would love to have a budget that would allow for regular aerial surveys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rf2

I agree that if the population in WMU 47 is in bad shape, antlerless tags should be reduced.

I don't agree with supplemental feeding. My view is that this will just artificially increase the population beyond the natural carrying capacity of the region. Why not just let the population return to a balanced level without supplemental feeding - maybe then there wouldn't be these drastic fluctuations? I don't want to start a war here, and I I think that you are one of the posters on this site that always presents sensible, well thought-out views, so I'd like to hear why you support the reinstatement of supplemental feeding.

---

Good question. I guess I'm falling back on what I've heard from some old timers I know who used to be involved in annual, hands-on, deer yard management. To hear them talk they are pretty convinced they were doing something effective and sustainable. They understand the difference between safe supplemental feeding versus dangerous high-energy feed such as corn. I'm no biologist though, just a guy who'd like to see some good done. Its frustrating when for years some of us have been saying that too many does are being shot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ninepointer

You raise a common concern Gilroy. But any properly designed study that relies on self-reporting will have weighting factors built into the data-crunching calculations to help mitigate (impossible to eliminate) error, duplication and bias. I'm not familiar with MNRF's study model and can only assume they are using the same tried and true methods as other North American wildlife management agencies. Self-reporting never produces precise numbers, but its effectiveness in demonstrating trends/patterns is proven. Nevertheless, every biologist I've met would love to have a budget that would allow for regular aerial surveys.

---

I think today there are probably much more accurate ways to get a better picture of the deer population.Picture is an intended pun,we have hundreds of people out there today with trail camera,s,that are taking hundreds of images.I believe this tool alone gives very accurate numbers,as a good comparison of different photo,s can determine if its the same buck or even doe.

On my 200 acres without even a camera I can give a good estimate of the number of deer,especially this year with tracking snow.

I think most landowners have a pretty good clue of the deer numbers on the land,Crown land hunters with trail cameras also have a good idea.

The questions just need to be changed ie How many individual deer did you see, what acerage are you hunting over....

The first step I would implement are mandatory check stations for all deer killed. There are plenty of staff in that ministry who could use some time in the field. I also think some of these zones are too big and management decisions aren’t as effective as the science thinks.
As for supplemental feeding an argument for or against has value on both sides but it’s effectiveness is proven. In our corner of #49 the herd has been decimated by 2 bad winters and the end of deer yard feeding. We don’t even hear shooting anymore during deer week. Used to be you would hear shooting everyday from surrounding camps. Last couple years it was silent as if the hunt wasn’t on.

Hunted the second week in 47. Gang of 7 got 2 deer. Deer yard in our area , the migration had started at the first of the week and had increased by the end of the week. Over the last several years , the migration was later, as the weather was mild. I think the local deer population , was fairly low , before the migration. Quite a few local moose in the area, not much calf sign. We did see one. Had a good hunt. old243

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by terrym

The first step I would implement are mandatory check stations for all deer killed. There are plenty of staff in that ministry who could use some time in the field. I also think some of these zones are too big and management decisions aren’t as effective as the science thinks.
As for supplemental feeding an argument for or against has value on both sides but it’s effectiveness is proven. In our corner of #49 the herd has been decimated by 2 bad winters and the end of deer yard feeding. We don’t even hear shooting anymore during deer week. Used to be you would hear shooting everyday from surrounding camps. Last couple years it was silent as if the hunt wasn’t on.

---

I think you are right about the size of some of the management area,s ie WMU60 for me is way to big.We have a great Moose population on the north west side
where a lot more tags could be given out.But atlas with the screw up,s in hunters taking the wrong Moose the tag numbers will be kept low.

[QUOTE=ninepointer;1074898]Good question. I guess I'm falling back on what I've heard from some old timers I know who used to be involved in annual, hands-on, deer yard management. To hear them talk they are pretty convinced they were doing something effective and sustainable. They understand the difference between safe supplemental feeding versus dangerous high-energy feed such as corn. I'm no biologist though, just a guy who'd like to see some good done. Its frustrating when for years some of us have been saying that too many does are being shot.


From what I understand about the historical range of the whitetail deer is that they are at their northern limit.
There were basically no deer north of nipissing.
So it’s quite possible in my view , that without some help from managers and landowners that very few deer may exist in that country.
Which would explain why the past generations have helped them out and looked after them.
Seems everyone likes to quote the experts of the day on management.
Maybe just maybe the old boys new what was up .....
and without some help there won’t be many whitetail deer.

Food for thought.... My opinion only.

I hunted 42 and 47 for 30 years in the Pickerel/French River area. I haven't for a few years now because it is unproductive.
One problem, as mentioned is the doe tag allotments, its never been in sync with actual deer numbers. Back in the late 80's your group (8-10) would be lucky to have 1 or maybe 2 antler less tags but yet we often saw does. As years past the success rate went up to 90-100% for antler less tags. Our numbers began to plummet from that point but yet the tag ratio stayed the same.
I keep in contact with the members and their success has been dismal over the last 5 years and this year they never saw a deer nor any sign.

There perhaps needs to be changes in personal and group ethics. When it's glaringly obvious that deer numbers are down, why do people still apply for an antlerless tag with the intention of using it. There is absolutely zero sense in my mind to be harvesting any does if yore hoping to see things improve. You might as well just put a shell in the chamber and shoot yourself in the foot. I see hunt camp groups complaining that the quality of the hunt is lousy and theyre not seeing any deer, yet every member applies for a doe tag and they fill some of these tags every year. Both my wife and i both apply every year and we're usually both successful. We only shoot bucks. Hopefully our two unused tags will keep someone else from eliminating more females from the population.. Ive given up on assuming that mnr is going to manage the herd properly. Perhaps we all need to do our part to help increase recruitment. Imagine if the majority of hunters and camps did the same thing for even a 3 to 5 year period - only take antlered deer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenelon

.. Ive given up on assuming that mnr is going to manage the herd properly.

---

I can't say the MNR has done a bad job of managing the Deer herds...at least in Eastern Ont. We were awash with deer 10-15 yrs back so they increased the amount of Doe tags in the draw and provided 'additional' tags. It worked, the hunters culled off and reduced the numbers to where they deer herds were more sustainable and less human deer conflicts.

In the ensuing years, the draw results were keep low fewer than 20 % in most MWUs. We were lucky to have one Doe Tag in camp of 10 hunters. The deer herds have rebounded due to milder winters etc and the MNR is now adding more tags to the draw. We had 5 in camp this year.

They do a pretty good job...the only ones who seem to complain are the hunters who aren't seeing, what they feel, is enough deer. Which, ironically is the desired result of a well managed herd. We shouldn't see deer every time we are out or there is something wrong with the population density.