Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 37 of 37

Thread: Deer wmu 47

  1. #31
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement
    ADVERTISEMENT
     

  3. #32
    Needs a new keyboard

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilroy View Post
    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.
    What calm deer hunterís heart has not skipped a beat when the silence of a cold November morning afield is broken by the echoes of hounds tonguing yonder?


  4. #33
    Needs a new keyboard

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rf2 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by ninepointer; December 7th, 2018 at 05:21 PM.
    What calm deer hunterís heart has not skipped a beat when the silence of a cold November morning afield is broken by the echoes of hounds tonguing yonder?


  5. #34
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ninepointer View Post
    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....

  6. #35
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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 arenít as effective as the science thinks.
    As for supplemental feeding an argument for or against has value on both sides but itís 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 donít 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 wasnít on.
    Last edited by terrym; December 8th, 2018 at 02:11 PM.
    I 'm suspicious of people who don't like dogs, but I trust a dog who doesn't like a person.

  7. #36
    Loyal Member

    User Info Menu

    Default

    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

  8. #37
    Member for Life

    User Info Menu

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by terrym View Post
    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.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •