DEER MANAGEMENT MEETINGS SUMMATION OF TESTIMONY Thank you for the opportunity to share with you our observations of the public meetings held around the state on Michigan deer management. ight public meetings were held from Crystal Falls to Livonia. Nearly 700 concemed hunters and landowners presented their views on deer management. The meetings, thanks in part to the expert moderation of John Amrhein, MSU Extension Service, were extremely positive and testimony as a whole, was presented in a most constructive ‘manner, Survey respondents rated the meetings as worthwhile, interesting and fair. I would like to compliment the Wildlife Division staff, MDNR, for their presentations, professional demeanor and willingness to meet with a concerned public. You have a wildlife staff that deserves your support! Deiailed notes were taken on the comments of each speaker in addition to the printed survey results. Comment topics were then grouped into areas of similarity, with six major areas of concem surfacing. These six arcas are listed in order of the number of comments received, with the area of greatest concem first. Here, it is Important to note that respondents averaged 32 years of hunting experience. CREDIBILITY Mandatory deer check Don’t believe DNR deer population figures Manage deer by DMU Post card mail check Where is hunter money going — want an accounting © DNR doesn’t listen ‘The lack of trust in the department was the number one concem expressed. The most common opinion expressed in this area was a lack of confidence in departments harvest figures and deer population estimates. Approximately half of the survey respondents were dissatisfied with the Departments appropriate use of science to manage deer; efforts to make decisions fair to all interests, and, the amount of opportunity given for input on deer hunting. Some form of mandatory registration, whether it be check stations, return tags on licenses, license dealer reports, or independent survey forms were often suggested. Sixty two percent of survey respondents had questions or support concerning the ‘advantages and disadvantages of mandatory deer checks and over sixty percent expressed little or no confidence in the Departments estimate of deer herd status. Fifty three percent of surveyed respondents did not feel that the departments post card mail survey was adequate to estimate harvests 2101 WOOD ST. © P.O. BOX 30235 @ LANSINGMI 48909 @ 517-371-1041Expressed Perceptions of Distrust © Many still believe harvest estimates are still derived from bridge counts. * Perception of double harvests counts — (re) traffic surveys and locker counts, * Department has a stated objective of a better buck to doe ratio in herd. However, the department: © Permits shooting of button bucks. + Extended late scason allows for shooting of shed antlered bucks. © Permitting of two-buck system. * Shooting of bucks on damage/disease permits, * Questions if summer counts, which terminate September 30" are timely for regulation setting which is done in May/June. * Farmers allowed use of mineral blocks, which attract deer, yet blocks are not permitted on public lands. + Lack of fiscal accountability to public on the use of hunter dollars. Poor public communications with no feedback; lack of educational effort for hunting public; too few field biologist. DNR not talking to or listening to its hunting clientele. * Habitat work on public lands not perceived by the hunting public. ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION * Harvest Figures — The department needs to reestablish/buttress its trust with the public. Suggest contracting with an outside/out-of-state entity to audit its mail survey harvest estimating procedures. This has not been done for two (+) generations of hunters. If the audit finds this method accurate and cost effective get the word out. If not found accurate, cost effective; correct or change the methodology or pursue other alternatives. * Population Estimates - Suggest a study of other state methodologies and do a comparative analysis. Possibly schedule an open forum in which other state Tepresentatives can discuss their methodologies. Invite key conservation groups (re) Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Safari Club, Whitetail Unlimited, and Michigan Bowhunters, tc. to discuss and tailor to Michigan conditions and traditions. Then publish comparative analysis and selected mechanisms and request groups to assist in getting the word out on selected methodologies. ‘* State publicly what the department's populations’ goals are by DMU. ANTLERLESS PERMITS AND LATE. SEASONS, * To many antlerless permits being issued Against broad use of unlimited permits Fees structure for antlerless permits Late season concems Crop and disease permit and abuse The second area most commented on revolved around the volume of antlerless permits and their wholesale application by the DNR.Numerous speakers objected to the wholesale broad-brush stroke distribution of unlimited antleriess permits. The scientific management aspect of such an approach was a major area of question, as was the negative impact on areas not over populated with deer. ‘The public's perception of over harvest and the abuse of over-the-counter purchases were commented on often. Many speakers wanted a termination of unlimited permits, Numerous speakers also voiced concems regarding the extended late season hunt, its impact on antlerless bucks, reduced antlerless license fees, reducing the value of the white-tailed deer in the public mind, and increased violations. Several favored climinating the unlimited permit system and raised the eligibility to 40 acres to qualify for landowner permits, Opposition to the broad issuance of crop damage and disease permits was also raised and, its’ potential for abuse ~ both in terms of numbers and the taking of bucks. Forty eight percent of survey respondents thought harvest success was low in the county where they hunt and forty nine percent wanted more deer in the county they hunt. ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION * Unlimited permits - Terminate practice of unlimited permits (except possibly in known ateas of dramatic over populations or TB eradication areas). The departments own figures show that over 96% of permit purchases acquired 4 or less. Consider not more than 4 permits as the maximum number in areas of high confidence of over population or specific problems. * Late season — carefully evaluate benefits of late season ys potential violation increases, deer biology and impacts on buck segments of the population. * Evaluate disease and damage-permit systems and establish criteria which both assists landowners and reduces excesses. BAITING AND FEI NG © Pro + Con * Winter feeding Baiting received considerable discussion at all public meetings, with comments for and against the practice being fairly evenly split. A slight majority favored banning the practice, however, numerous speakers favoring baiting expressed support for limits on the practice. Fifty percent of survey respondents thought baiting should be regulated. Comments received in the Upper Peninsula were more in favor of feeding/baiting than in the Lower Peninsula, due to the impacts of harsh winters. Sixty eight percent of surveyed respondents approved the no bait restrictions in the TB management area. Several Questions were raised regarding baiting which should be answered and conveyed to the Public —a step toward addressing the department's credibility problem. For example: * Does baiting assist in the spread of Tuberculosis? * Does limiting the amount and type of bait stop the risk of spreading tuberculosis? * Does baiting aid in carrying more deer through severe winters, thus adding to the overpopulation problem in some areas of the north?* Some stated that baiting was necessary for harvesting deer. Does baiting really increase harvest? ‘+ Does baiting make deer nocturnal feeders thus negatively impacting the harvest of the older breeding segment of the population? * Does baiting draw deer off public lands to private lands thus exacerbating the damage problem? ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION * Feeding and baiting- evaluate feeding and baiting impacts by region and regulate according to regional conditions and potential impacts. * Baiting- review and respond to questions posed and act appropriately based on scientific findings. (re) If current baiting practices aid in the spread of tuberculosis make necessary changes. COMMUNICATIONS AND EDUCATION © Need better communication © Desire for educational materials * Continued public meetings with feed back opportunities + More wildiife personnel in field ‘The need for a wildlife public education and communications outreach program came through loud and clear. The lack of and need for a conservation, information, and educational outreach program, directed toward hunters, hunting and wildlife management was commented on, by several speakers, in many ways, There was a growing fecling expressed that the department has forgotten its hunting clientele — the people who pay the bills. A large number of speakers commented on the need for improved communication between the department and the hunting public and landowners and many expressed their desire for educational materials. Many felt the department was not talking to or listening to its hunting clientele groups. Fifty three percent of surveyed respondents were unsatisfied with opportunities for public input. Blame did not appear to be directed at field personnel, but rather toward policy setters, Wildlife biologists were cited by survey respondents as the information source with the highest credibility, while attendee’s held a rather low opinion of DNR performance. One Person went so far as to state the department is not giving its field personnel the opportunity to do their job correctly. There are too few of them. Comments in this area covered a broad spectrum, from providing educational materials and more landowner/hunter clientele meetings which includes feedback loops, to more wildlife staff in the field, greater fiscal accountability of hunting dollars, and the establishment of local deer management committees. Some speakers went so far as to question who really was making deer management policy for the Department. Fortunately for the Department, greater attention to this perceived problem area would take giant strides to resolving the number one concer expressed ~ Department credibilityACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION * Develop a public communication and education outreach program for hunters, especially deer, including educational materials. + Establish annual schedule of public meetings, with feedback loops to discuss seasons, regulations, concemns, etc. prior to regulation setting, ‘* Inform public on field activities, surveys, habitat work, etc. ongoing by districts each year. + Present an accounting of hunters dollars (receipts and expenditures). * Provide sufficient field personnel to do the biological, habitat and public communications work needed, ‘+ Expand use of Intemet website. PROTECTING YOUNGER BUCKS ‘* Use buck tag on button buck (buck is @ buck) © Quality deer management support © Lbuck, 1 doc tags © Doe permits not antlerless permits The protection of younger bucks received considerable attention, Specifically, numerous speakers felt that button bucks should be tagged with a buck license. “A buck is a buck” Was a commonly expressed sentiment. Comments centering around the department's objectives of establishing an improved buck to doe ratio and its perceived opposing management actions are contained in the credibility comments. Additional suggestions presented for protecting smaller bucks and improving the ratio included consideration of a 1 buck, 1 doe license; rather than a two-buck license. Revoking the two-buck license, or retaining the 4 point on one side restriction, if a two- buck license is continued. Implement doe only restriction for disease, damage and block permits issued after antler development has begun; and elimination of unlimited permits and over the counter permit issuance after the season has started. Require button bucks to be tagged with a buck tag during the archery season when identification is easier, A quality deer management approach to overall regulation setting was also mentioned. Seventy one percent of surveyed respondents agreed that the Department should restrict the harvest of yearling bucks (1 1/2 years old). Thirty four percent of respondents supported the antler restrictions of 1999, while fifty percent preferred a more restrictive buck harvest (restrictions varied by area of the state hunted). ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION * Evaluate comments (credibility protecting of younger bucks) and provide a detailed response to questions posed. * Explain what is being done in this area. Simply reducing doe numbers, for better balance to dwindling buck numbers is not sufficient. Develop a program with goals.PUBLIC LANDS HABITAT IMPROVEMENT. + Loss of habitat on public lands + Improved forest planning © Hunting fees for habitat work The need for habitat improvement on public lands was often expressed, both due to perceived habitat shortages, and as a mechanism to draw deer from private lands (agricultural and forest). Suggestions include a total department re-evaluation of both its’ forest cutting and planning practices on public lands. Such a re-evaluation would include the protection and management of deeryards, creation of openings and decreased planting of pines and provisions for travel corridors and overall new habitat creation. The protection and preserving of wildlife habitat should be reflected in all forest management and cutting plans. Seventy eight percent of surveyed respondents hunted in the northern Jower- peninsula and the Upper Peninsula where the majority of public lands are and forty five percent of respondents hunted public lands. Again, the issue of hunting fees was raised. This ranged from how deer range improvement dollars are spent, (credibility and communication) to further allotting $1.50 from every antlerless license for habitat improvement. Such action may also benefit private/commercial forestlands where it was stated that deet are severely impacting regeneration efforts, ACTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION * Develop and fund a detailed public lends wildlife habitat improvement program. * Evaluate forest planning and cutting practices to insure deeryard protection and improvement, opening creations, provision of travel corridors, and creation and regeneration of acceptable wildlife habitat. Encourage implementation of holistic forest planning. Other categories of comment, received to a lesser extent, but possibly of equal importance included special youth deer hunts, increased enforcement, improved access to Private lands, trespass, and resolution of the tuberculosis problem. There were several speakers who also felt that there were too many deer remaining in their arcas. In conclusion, these are the major points (concerns and suggestions) expressed at the eight public meetings. The sample was small, but it may also be reflective of hunter attitudes as a whole and thus should not be taken lightly. Opinions may or may not reflect Michigan United Conservation Clubs policy at this point and time, however, they do merit in depth consideration and response by the Department of Natural Resources. The Michigan United Conservation Clubs would appreciate a written evaluation and response to all concerns expressed for presentation to and discussion with out members and the public.