Big wolf

[FYB]

As long as I get to pick the recipients  

Heck, I'll help. 

[Tank-Ace]

The deer where I live are quite tame.... or stupid, one. Tame enough that you will have to physicly move them out of the road at times  .


Oh, and interesting story: A friend of mine did an expirement to see if deer will eat bannanas. He put a feeder in the same spot every day for 3 weeks, and on the last 2 days, he mixed mashed up banna in with the food, and it wasn't touched.

It seems they also don't like the taste of butterscotch.

[Vulcan]

feeders? FEEDERS?

I nailed one of my deer @ 330m (was on a ridge overlooking it feeding, no way to stalk in close), and the other two stalked in to 50m and shot both within seconds of each other.

Feeders are for pansies.

[mtnman]

feeders? FEEDERS?

I nailed one of my deer @ 330m (was on a ridge overlooking it feeding, no way to stalk in close), and the other two stalked in to 50m and shot both within seconds of each other.

Feeders are for pansies.

He may not be talking about baiting/feeding deer Vulcan.  People around here actually feed deer like they do birds.  With feeders in their yards...

[uptown]

He may not be talking about baiting/feeding deer Vulcan.  People around here actually feed deer like they do birds.  With feeders in their yards...

I work with a obsessed bow hunter and he plants whole fields for deer. Heck he has folks from out of state wanting to hunt his ground. It's big business around here. Get hooked up with a locale outfitter and your're set! I would consider that baiting as the whole property is sell up for the sole purpose of havesting big deer. With all the money changing hands it's hard to convince them different. But by the same token, the deer are overpopulated here and are a hazard. I know people that are hit by deer 2&3 times a year. So whata ya do <shrugs>

[Raptor]

The Bald Eagle reference proves that you know jack.

You are just trying to aggravate...



Here are the numbers.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10905-150249--,00.html



The DNR says that ~17-29k is a small impact, but I'm here to tell you that the herd has been reduced significantly.

EDITED for 29k

2011 Deer Forecast Report - Michigan

Within the UP, deer populations continue to slowly increase following a second mild winter in a
row. Fawn production should be good, though predation may have produced some losses.
Antlered buck numbers will likely be on the rise, as the increased production of fawns in 2010
should lead to greater antlered buck numbers this year. More deer will be found in the Southern
UP near Lake Michigan, with fewer in the Northern UP near Lake Superior.

http://michigan.gov/documents/dnr/2011_Deer_Forecast_Report_365237_7.pdf

Sounds like the Deer population in the UP is healthy and growing, despite minor predation. Wolves don't seem to be destroying the population as much as you claim.

[Melvin]

Of course the Michigan DNR is choosing to look at the wolf/deer relationship through rose colored glasses. After all, it was their irresponsible management of the predator population that allowed the wolf numbers to rise so sharply.

I just don't understand how people can't see that the numbers don't lie.

Humans can account for ~64,000 deer. Wolves are responsible for as much as 29,000. To me that is a huge number. Throw in a moderate to severe winter (75,000-105,000 respectively) and what you have is a recipe for disaster.

Remember, the DNR issues forecasts that they are fully aware prospective hunters (read tourists) will view. Of course they will say that numbers are at least stable, if not rising. Unfortunately daily observation doesn't bear this out at all.

Or perhaps I'm just crazy. Perhaps the deer are all around me and I just can't see them due to my blind hatred for mother nature. 

[Raptor]

Or perhaps I'm just crazy. Perhaps the deer are all around me and I just can't see them due to my blind hatred for mother nature. 

This.

That report is made for officials to make decisions on how many licenses to distribute, how much to charge for a license, etc.

I just don't understand how people can't see that the numbers don't lie.

[Jayhawk]

"You're ignorant!"

"No, You're ignorant!"

"NO, YOU'RE ignorant!"

"NOO, YOU'RE ignorant"

"NO! YOU'RE IGNORANT"

[Melvin]

That report is made for officials to make decisions on how many licenses to distribute, how much to charge for a license, etc.

So they plainly stated that there will be less deer in the norther UP. I suppose now they will have to restrict the number of hunting licenses, at least in that area.

Oh wait, of course that won't happen because the DNR is about one thing. Revenue. In fact, the DNR is pushing a law to lower the legal hunting age in the state so that we can have MORE hunters in the woods. (Not that it's a bad thing, just saying...)

Yep more hunters, more wolves and less deer.

Everything is going to be just fine.  

"NO! YOU'RE IGNORANT"

Yes Jayhawk, I feel that I was a bit out of line yesterday. Surely I know that many of the folks here are not ignorant. However, what I was trying to get across is that they may be ignorant to the facts regarding this particular situation. Once again, I may have used a sledgehammer to drive my point home when a tack hammer would have sufficed. Sorry about that.

[IrishOne]

Of course the Michigan DNR is choosing to look at the wolf/deer relationship through rose colored glasses. After all, it was their irresponsible management of the predator population that allowed the wolf numbers to rise so sharply.

I just don't understand how people can't see that the numbers don't lie.

Humans can account for ~64,000 deer. Wolves are responsible for as much as 29,000. To me that is a huge number. Throw in a moderate to severe winter (75,000-105,000 respectively) and what you have is a recipe for disaster.

Remember, the DNR issues forecasts that they are fully aware prospective hunters (read tourists) will view. Of course they will say that numbers are at least stable, if not rising. Unfortunately daily observation doesn't bear this out at all.

Or perhaps I'm just crazy. Perhaps the deer are all around me and I just can't see them due to my blind hatred for mother nature.  

 let me fix that statement for you.......correct numbers don't lie.    where the hell did you get 64,000 from?    


The top 5 states - record season harvests since 1999 (current through 2009 - according to HuntStats.com)

#5 – Alabama – 535,092 (2003)

#4 – Michigan – 541,701 (2001)

#3 – Michigan – 544,895 (1999)

#2 – Wisconsin – 618,274 (2000)

#1 – Texas – 619,650 (2008)

 

Top 10 states – average season harvest (according to HuntStats.com)

#10 – Louisiana – 247,800

#9 – South Carolina – 274,890

#8 – New York – 276,696

#7 – Mississippi – 311,676

#6 – Texas – 417,462

#5 – Georgia – 420,800

#4 – Alabama – 424,420

#3 – Pennsylvania – 452,925

#2 – Wisconsin – 467,808

#1 – Michigan – 495,303

 

[Melvin]

I got it from here.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10905-150249--,00.html

[IrishOne]

I got it from here.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10905-150249--,00.html

ahh, i was thinking Michigan as a whole. my bad.   i digress.  

[Vulcan]

He may not be talking about baiting/feeding deer Vulcan.  People around here actually feed deer like they do birds.  With feeders in their yards...

Ahhh to fatten them up?

[Raptor]

The source you are clinging to and basing your entire argument on:

"However, compared to the deer mortality caused by other sources, including other predators, the impact of wolves on the deer population is relatively small.

A population of 687 adult wolves (estimated Michigan wolf population in 2011) could eat between 17,000 and 29,000 deer annually. Many of these deer would have died from various other causes if wolves were not present (accidents, winter weather, diseases, etc.). Between 5,000 and 8,000 deer-vehicle crashes are reported annually in the U.P., and even more deer are killed in crashes that are not reported. A severe winter can kill 30 percent (or more) of the deer population. There are about 270,000 deer in the U.P., and hunters killed about 42,000 deer in 2010."

o they plainly stated that there will be less deer in the norther UP. I suppose now they will have to restrict the number of hunting licenses, at least in that area.

No where in the article I referenced did it say there would be less deer in the UP this year. They said there were less than the other regions, but that is the norm.
In fact, it said the opposite:
"Within the UP, deer populations continue to slowly increase following a second mild winter in a row."

"Antlered buck numbers will likely be on the rise, as the increased production of fawns in 2010 should lead to greater antlered buck numbers this year."