Doe tag reductions

[Ont_Excal]

We've had so many mild winters that deer were not acclimated to one of such severity as last year.
I have no doubt that deer faired much better in the agricultural belt than further north.

I just have to look at how Michigan and Ohio manage their big game.
They are by far more proactive on a yearly basis with real data to support changes and not knee jerk reactions.
Their system is more productive and stable when reviewed over time.

[terrym]

If we have another winter like the one we just had then the deer herds will really be decimated. Hunters just have to be intelligent here and make decisions that will manage the herds if the MNR doesn't react effectively in your corner of an WMU . Some of these zones are pretty big and not all areas have the same quality cover and wintering yards. Distribution is not an even thing throughout a unit. We haven't killed any does in 3 years and definitely will not again this year. Will it make any difference? I can't answer that as I can't control what the other camps in our area do but every doe who survives the hunting season and winter usually means 2 live deer in the Spring.

[Ont_Excal]

Need to disagree with the "small annual adjustments". When a severe winter hits and there is significant winter kill, an immediate and dramatic change in the number of antlerless tags is required. What MNR has been doing in the past was small and infrequent changes - usually too small and five years too late to do much good. What they are doing now is active management - but as Fenelon points out - maybe not enough.

"Infrequent changes in the past" Exactly my point.

Just some additional thoughts to consider going forward.
Any work being done to protect winter yards??
Do they supplement feed so as not to lose a crop of fawns?? Had this been in place during last winter I'm thinking that we would have different results this year.
What about forestry practices that benefit the big game population??

Interesting topic.

[werner.reiche]

"Infrequent changes in the past" Exactly my point.

Just some additional thoughts to consider going forward.
Any work being done to protect winter yards??
Do they supplement feed so as not to lose a crop of fawns?? Had this been in place during last winter I'm thinking that we would have different results this year.
What about forestry practices that benefit the big game population??

Interesting topic.

Protecting deer yards and supplemental feeding are not in the MNRs mandate.
One problem with supplemental feeding is that it should be started in December if it is too be of much use. By the time you realize you're having a bad winter, its too late to do much.
Forestry practices that benefit deer are not of much interest to anyone in that managing for wildlife is generally contradictory to managing for commercial harvest. Improving wintering areas would involve planting white cedar stands which are slow growing and difficult to get started where there are large numbers of deer eating them. It's not a problem with a simple solution.

[Ont_Excal]

MNR has a mandate to manage all aspects of our resources.
The fact is they set policy and choose not to implement a lot of management tools for the sake of convenience.
They could change policy and improve mandates but I don't think they will.
Last winter we knew by January that it would be a tough one and the MNR could have erred on the side of caught by implementing a feeding program. Would that have saved a crop of fawns from being aborted?? Don't know for sure but it sure wouldn't have hurt.


In a balanced approach to timber management wildlife benefits but here in Ontario they still have the clear-cut mentality. Progressive jurisdictions have gone to a selective harvest over 30 years ago. However the MNR is still stuck in the 60s.

Browse grown for big game has to see a continuous effort over decades. Not a simple solution in the short term.

With all the biologists on staff we should have a better effort for our tax dollars.