spectr17
12-28-2002, 04:23 PM
Americans care a lot about deer
In Michigan, hunters just want to see more
December 19, 2002
BY ERIC SHARP, DETROIT FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
Deer have a special place in the hearts and minds of Americans, whether they're hunters or not. And for many hunters, the attachment to the most popular animal in North America is almost mystical.
Deer have a long, intimate and often symbiotic relationship with humans in this country. They provided food, tools, clothing and other necessities of life for the Indians. Scientists know that Indian agricultural practices, including setting wildfires to clear forests, created a lot of deer habitat.
In the late 20th Century, American deer numbers were brought back to about the same 20-million level of 1492 by the same white people whose market gunning and agriculture almost drove deer to extinction by 1920.
How many of you know that a dollar is called a buck because that's what a deerskin sold for in the nation's infancy?
How many hunters know that venison was once as common as beef in American restaurants and more common than beef in frontier homes, where cattle were too valuable for their milk and fertilizing dung to be slaughtered?
Frank Miniter is a friend and editor at Outdoor Life magazine in New York, and when I mentioned Michigan's deer fixation to him the other day, he said, "It's not just Michigan. It's all over the country. By the June issue, you'd think people would be more interested in stories about fishing, but the No. 1 topic is still deer."
So it's not surprising that this deer season, one of the worst in years for many hunters in the northern part of the state, drew a torrent of e-mails and telephone calls from people. They doubt the state's estimate of the size of the deer herd -- 1.6 million to 1.8 million. They also wonder whether the Department of Natural Resources is following the proper path in its stated determination to reduce the herd to about 1.3 million while increasing the percentage of antlered bucks.
Two weeks ago, the state Farm Bureau said more deer should be killed to reduce crop damage and losses from the spread of bovine tuberculosis.
The following is a sampling of the e-mails, some of which ran to hundreds of words. The writers often didn't say where they lived or give their full names.
"Eric: I wonder if the Farm Bureau gets its way, will our car insurance rates decrease? I hunt between Cadillac and Manistee, and the lack of shooting this year was very noticeable. We did not see one deer all season. Joe Pittiglio, Troy."
Joe: You're not alone in that complaint. But it doesn't make sense that deer numbers could be decreased that drastically in one year, even with liberal antlerless permits. And you'll probably see the insurance prices drop a couple of days after those Enron executives pay back all that money.
Dan Halpin, who hunts near Curtis in the eastern Upper Peninsula, said: "I don't think there are more people who put more time in the woods than myself. I hunted from the 15th through the 28th from dark till dark. I hunted real hard and saw three deer in that time. I talked to 75 hunters, and out of that number, 10 deer were seen and four were shot. Why don't they go back to the old way -- apply for a permit and shoot one buck per season? Get rid of the combo tag."
Dan: The eastern UP was disappointing for most people, yet the overall kill in the UP was up, based on the counts at the Mackinac Bridge and check stations. That was because people in the western UP did very well, especially for bucks. But you bring up an excellent point. Why do we have the same hunting regulations throughout a state where the deer population varies tremendously and even the climate can be broken into three distinct zones?
"Eric: Food for thought -- the DNR appears not to be considering demographics when dealing with deer overpopulation. . . . In traditional hunting areas, hunters have brought the deer well within the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. The problem lies in areas that are not hunted (enough) for one reason or another. For the DNR to keep spinning the total herd approach is shortsighted. We are getting to the point of hurting the traditional areas and at the same time (failing) to address the overpopulation in those areas that are not hunted. John McClintic."
John: The problem is that the DNR can't control who gets to hunt on private land. It can issue bloc permits and crop damage permits to farmers, but it's up to the farmer whether he allows hunters to come in, uses the permits himself, or kills a few deer and then feels guilty and throws the rest of the permits away.
"Hello, Mr. Sharp: What I don't see mentioned is that 80 percent of Michigan's deer herd is on private property, while 20 percent is on public land. If the farmers and the DNR cannot come up with a way for us hunters to hunt on private land, then I believe you will never make farmers happy. . . . I have been hunting every opening day for 34 years, and they have been getting progressively worse. I saw one deer in four days of hunting, the worst ever. I hunted the same areas as last year, where I got a nice eight-point. Jim Miller."
Jim: You're right about the need for farmers to let hunters solve their deer problems. Those deer are owned by the people of Michigan, and it's senseless to issue permits to a farmer who will simply shoot the deer and let their bodies rot in the fields.
I wish we had room to run all of the messages from concerned and thoughtful hunters. Heck, I wish we even had room for the messages from some people who appeared to be nuts. But the one lesson we can all take from this deer season, no matter how we did, is that we hunters need to get more involved in how our totem animal is managed.
Contact ERIC SHARP at 313-222-2511 or esharp@freepress.com.
In Michigan, hunters just want to see more
December 19, 2002
BY ERIC SHARP, DETROIT FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
Deer have a special place in the hearts and minds of Americans, whether they're hunters or not. And for many hunters, the attachment to the most popular animal in North America is almost mystical.
Deer have a long, intimate and often symbiotic relationship with humans in this country. They provided food, tools, clothing and other necessities of life for the Indians. Scientists know that Indian agricultural practices, including setting wildfires to clear forests, created a lot of deer habitat.
In the late 20th Century, American deer numbers were brought back to about the same 20-million level of 1492 by the same white people whose market gunning and agriculture almost drove deer to extinction by 1920.
How many of you know that a dollar is called a buck because that's what a deerskin sold for in the nation's infancy?
How many hunters know that venison was once as common as beef in American restaurants and more common than beef in frontier homes, where cattle were too valuable for their milk and fertilizing dung to be slaughtered?
Frank Miniter is a friend and editor at Outdoor Life magazine in New York, and when I mentioned Michigan's deer fixation to him the other day, he said, "It's not just Michigan. It's all over the country. By the June issue, you'd think people would be more interested in stories about fishing, but the No. 1 topic is still deer."
So it's not surprising that this deer season, one of the worst in years for many hunters in the northern part of the state, drew a torrent of e-mails and telephone calls from people. They doubt the state's estimate of the size of the deer herd -- 1.6 million to 1.8 million. They also wonder whether the Department of Natural Resources is following the proper path in its stated determination to reduce the herd to about 1.3 million while increasing the percentage of antlered bucks.
Two weeks ago, the state Farm Bureau said more deer should be killed to reduce crop damage and losses from the spread of bovine tuberculosis.
The following is a sampling of the e-mails, some of which ran to hundreds of words. The writers often didn't say where they lived or give their full names.
"Eric: I wonder if the Farm Bureau gets its way, will our car insurance rates decrease? I hunt between Cadillac and Manistee, and the lack of shooting this year was very noticeable. We did not see one deer all season. Joe Pittiglio, Troy."
Joe: You're not alone in that complaint. But it doesn't make sense that deer numbers could be decreased that drastically in one year, even with liberal antlerless permits. And you'll probably see the insurance prices drop a couple of days after those Enron executives pay back all that money.
Dan Halpin, who hunts near Curtis in the eastern Upper Peninsula, said: "I don't think there are more people who put more time in the woods than myself. I hunted from the 15th through the 28th from dark till dark. I hunted real hard and saw three deer in that time. I talked to 75 hunters, and out of that number, 10 deer were seen and four were shot. Why don't they go back to the old way -- apply for a permit and shoot one buck per season? Get rid of the combo tag."
Dan: The eastern UP was disappointing for most people, yet the overall kill in the UP was up, based on the counts at the Mackinac Bridge and check stations. That was because people in the western UP did very well, especially for bucks. But you bring up an excellent point. Why do we have the same hunting regulations throughout a state where the deer population varies tremendously and even the climate can be broken into three distinct zones?
"Eric: Food for thought -- the DNR appears not to be considering demographics when dealing with deer overpopulation. . . . In traditional hunting areas, hunters have brought the deer well within the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. The problem lies in areas that are not hunted (enough) for one reason or another. For the DNR to keep spinning the total herd approach is shortsighted. We are getting to the point of hurting the traditional areas and at the same time (failing) to address the overpopulation in those areas that are not hunted. John McClintic."
John: The problem is that the DNR can't control who gets to hunt on private land. It can issue bloc permits and crop damage permits to farmers, but it's up to the farmer whether he allows hunters to come in, uses the permits himself, or kills a few deer and then feels guilty and throws the rest of the permits away.
"Hello, Mr. Sharp: What I don't see mentioned is that 80 percent of Michigan's deer herd is on private property, while 20 percent is on public land. If the farmers and the DNR cannot come up with a way for us hunters to hunt on private land, then I believe you will never make farmers happy. . . . I have been hunting every opening day for 34 years, and they have been getting progressively worse. I saw one deer in four days of hunting, the worst ever. I hunted the same areas as last year, where I got a nice eight-point. Jim Miller."
Jim: You're right about the need for farmers to let hunters solve their deer problems. Those deer are owned by the people of Michigan, and it's senseless to issue permits to a farmer who will simply shoot the deer and let their bodies rot in the fields.
I wish we had room to run all of the messages from concerned and thoughtful hunters. Heck, I wish we even had room for the messages from some people who appeared to be nuts. But the one lesson we can all take from this deer season, no matter how we did, is that we hunters need to get more involved in how our totem animal is managed.
Contact ERIC SHARP at 313-222-2511 or esharp@freepress.com.