- 25,122
- 261
Many of us were lucky enough to get to speak with Mike T again this weekend at the Strouds hunt. Thanks again, Mrex for bringing him down. I'm curious to what the members here that were in on that conversation thought.
To start things off, I'll give my thoughts on the thing, and I'm sure I will be reminded of parts of the conversation as others chime in, so I will reserve my right to chime in as we go.
I walked in after the Mikes had apparently been there for a time, and they were already in the middle of conversation with Joe and others. By the way, when I arrived, I squeezed Mrex's rear end a little, and was somewhat disappointed that he just turned and smiled.... I fully expected a jump, at least a little one. Dang. Anyway, I didn't want to interrupt as my timing was off in my arrival. Joe and Mike T were discussing the tag reductions he made this year. Both agreed it will have zero impact on the total number of deer killed as most hunters on average shoot 1.3 deer anyway. Joe pointed out that it would have little effect because of this fact and Mike T pointed out the DOW did the reduction to give the impression they were cutting back on harvest goals. Joe re-stated that he knows it will make no difference, Mike T then said "But most hunters aren't that smart." What? Yeah, he said that. There is no harvest reduction goal, just trying to give the impression of one, and he just had to explain that to the farm bureau.... CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG IN THAT SUMMARY, MREX.
Shortly after we wrapped up that discussion, we moved to a picnic table to carry on in comfort. Being selfish as I am, I pointed out that in Fayette Co. we are now killing half the deer we did in 1995, even with expanded opportunity and better equipment. Mike T recalls 1995 well, as it was the year he started in his position, but seemed shocked that our numbers are so far off from what they were nearly 20 yrs ago. When I cry about not having deer, I'm not making this stuff up...The DOW's numbers prove it. In Athens Co., though the harvest number peaked a couple years ago, they are essentially killing the same number of deer as they did in 1995, within 100 at least. I wouldn't be crying if that were the case here. Fact is, we don't have them like we did back then, and I don't recall anyone locally crying too loud because we had too many!
Mike T ended the night stating it isn't an exact science and they only do the best they can with the index(s) they have available. He also did not seem to believe there was a better way to estimate the LIVING deer herd, that he does and should continue to manage based on dead deer, buck harvest in particular. Additionally, he feels there are areas where the deer are so plentiful they lack enough food and nutrition to reach their natural potential, and those areas need to be thinned further. Personally, I don't have an argument for or against that, I don't know, he may well be correct. However, there has NEVER been a deer in the areas I am most familiar that did not have enough to eat, there is food everywhere, and deer are sparse with apparently no help from the DOW to rebound in the near future. Essentially, his plan is if an area runs too low on deer, people will quit hunting, and then naturally deer will rebound. I believe that to be true, as that is how it works in all predator/prey relationships. I once had more faith in our DOW than to think we would rely on natural ebbs and flows.
To make this clear, again, I have no ill feelings toward Mike T. I do understand better I think, that the DOW is not interested in keeping a closer eye on fragile deer herds in my part of the State. They have enough irons in the fire, and I have it from the man with a plan that I should continue to do what I've been doing and that is NOT killing does, and killing coyotes.
As I said earlier, I'm sure my memory will be jogged by the comments of others, so I'm anxiously awaiting your replies.
Mike R., thanks again for bringing him down, and I will be sending Mike T an email to thank him for coming.
To start things off, I'll give my thoughts on the thing, and I'm sure I will be reminded of parts of the conversation as others chime in, so I will reserve my right to chime in as we go.
I walked in after the Mikes had apparently been there for a time, and they were already in the middle of conversation with Joe and others. By the way, when I arrived, I squeezed Mrex's rear end a little, and was somewhat disappointed that he just turned and smiled.... I fully expected a jump, at least a little one. Dang. Anyway, I didn't want to interrupt as my timing was off in my arrival. Joe and Mike T were discussing the tag reductions he made this year. Both agreed it will have zero impact on the total number of deer killed as most hunters on average shoot 1.3 deer anyway. Joe pointed out that it would have little effect because of this fact and Mike T pointed out the DOW did the reduction to give the impression they were cutting back on harvest goals. Joe re-stated that he knows it will make no difference, Mike T then said "But most hunters aren't that smart." What? Yeah, he said that. There is no harvest reduction goal, just trying to give the impression of one, and he just had to explain that to the farm bureau.... CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG IN THAT SUMMARY, MREX.
Shortly after we wrapped up that discussion, we moved to a picnic table to carry on in comfort. Being selfish as I am, I pointed out that in Fayette Co. we are now killing half the deer we did in 1995, even with expanded opportunity and better equipment. Mike T recalls 1995 well, as it was the year he started in his position, but seemed shocked that our numbers are so far off from what they were nearly 20 yrs ago. When I cry about not having deer, I'm not making this stuff up...The DOW's numbers prove it. In Athens Co., though the harvest number peaked a couple years ago, they are essentially killing the same number of deer as they did in 1995, within 100 at least. I wouldn't be crying if that were the case here. Fact is, we don't have them like we did back then, and I don't recall anyone locally crying too loud because we had too many!
Mike T ended the night stating it isn't an exact science and they only do the best they can with the index(s) they have available. He also did not seem to believe there was a better way to estimate the LIVING deer herd, that he does and should continue to manage based on dead deer, buck harvest in particular. Additionally, he feels there are areas where the deer are so plentiful they lack enough food and nutrition to reach their natural potential, and those areas need to be thinned further. Personally, I don't have an argument for or against that, I don't know, he may well be correct. However, there has NEVER been a deer in the areas I am most familiar that did not have enough to eat, there is food everywhere, and deer are sparse with apparently no help from the DOW to rebound in the near future. Essentially, his plan is if an area runs too low on deer, people will quit hunting, and then naturally deer will rebound. I believe that to be true, as that is how it works in all predator/prey relationships. I once had more faith in our DOW than to think we would rely on natural ebbs and flows.
To make this clear, again, I have no ill feelings toward Mike T. I do understand better I think, that the DOW is not interested in keeping a closer eye on fragile deer herds in my part of the State. They have enough irons in the fire, and I have it from the man with a plan that I should continue to do what I've been doing and that is NOT killing does, and killing coyotes.
As I said earlier, I'm sure my memory will be jogged by the comments of others, so I'm anxiously awaiting your replies.
Mike R., thanks again for bringing him down, and I will be sending Mike T an email to thank him for coming.
