8941208 total results

By October 1. 1989, Michigan's deer population was estimated to be 2,000,000 deer. which was about four times the number of deer in Michigan in 1971. This herd was causing unacceptable societal costs through damage to agricultural crops and car/deer accidents. For 1990, the State Deer Damage Task Force recommended, and the Michigan Natural Resource Commission adopted, the experimental Deer Crop Damage Block Permit (DCDBP) Program to reduce the number of out-of-season deer damage control permits; increase antlerless deer harvest on sites of chronic deer crop depredation; and utilize licensed hunters to resolve crop damage problems during regular deer seasons. In 1991, the Wildlife Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) contracted with the Department of Park and Recreation Resources of Michigan State University to impartially examine the attitudes and reported behaviors of the following groups affected by the program: farmers eligible for the program, neighbors of farmers in the program., and deer hunters who did and did not hunt with DCDBP. Mail questionnaires were used to solicit the information. The majority of farmers, landowners adjacent to participating farmers, and hunters who hunted with DCDBP had favorable attitudes about the program.. Hunters who did not hunt with DCDBP were evenly divided between those with favorable attitudes and those who had negative attitudes about the program. The majority of farmers rated the DCDBP program as highly or moderately effective in controlling deer crop damage. The reported harvest of antlerless deer on DCDBP participating farms increased 138% between 1988 and 1990, while the reported harvest of antlerless deer on non-participating farms increased 75%. When asked if they would participate in the DCDBP if offered in 1991, the large majority of the participating farmers (84%) and a sizeable minority of the non-participating farmers (34%) responded they would.

Results of a survey of duck hunters at Harsens Island Unit in 2013 completed to determine their opinions about the use of spinning-wing decoys (SWDs) and the ban on SWDs.

Results and analysis of a survey of firearm deer hunters during 1975 seeking opinions on experimental clearcuttings.

A survey was completed to determine whether hunters and landowners supported proposed mandatory QDM regulations in Deer Management Unit (DMU) 053 (Mason County). A key feature of the proposed mandatory regulations was changing the definition of a buck to a deer with three or more points on one antler. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) supports the voluntary implementation of QDM practices on private land in Michigan. However, mandatory regulations should be imposed in a DMU only when it can be shown that a clear majority (>66%) of hunters and landowners support implementation. Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of landowners and hunters; 79% of the landowners and 84% of hunters returned their questionnaire. About 47% of landowners owning land in Mason County, and 49% of people hunting deer in Mason County supported implementing mandatory QDM regulations. Support from both landowners and hunters was insufficient to recommend implementation of mandatory QDM regulations for DMU 053.

Results of a 1979 survey sent out to Michigan deer hunters with two goals: first, to supply useful background information for one large segment of resource users to assist natural resource managers in predicting future pressures for land and facilities, and secondly, to assess hunters' opinions on the "back tag": a rectangular back tag of treated paper 2 1/2 x 4 7/8 inches in size, and color-coded by license type, which prominently displays the license number.

A survey was completed to determine whether hunters and landowners supported mandatory QDM regulations in Deer Management Unit (DMU) 017. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) supports the voluntary implementation of QDM practices on private land in Michigan. However, mandatory regulations should be imposed in a DMU only when it can be shown that a clear majority (>66%) of hunters and landowners support implementation. Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of landowners and hunters; 77% of the landowners and 83% of hunters returned their questionnaire. About 57% of landowners owning land in DMU 017 and 53% of people hunting deer in DMU 017 supported implementing mandatory QDM regulations. Support from both landowners and hunters was insufficient to recommend implementation of mandatory QDM regulations for DMU 017.

Results of a postcard survey of deer hunters for opinions on various subjects.

Results of the annual mail survey for opinions of deer hunters on various subjects.

A survey was completed to determine whether hunters and landowners supported mandatory QDM regulations (no-spike rule) in Deer Management Unit (DMU) 135. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) supports the voluntary implementation of QDM practices on private land in Michigan. However. mandatory regulations should be imposed in a DMU only when it can be shown that a clear majority (>66%) of hunters and landowners support implementation. Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of landowners and hunters; 77% of the landowners and 81% of hunters returned their questionnaire. About 81% of landowners owning land in DMU 135, and 74% of people hunting deer in DMU 135 supported continuation of the "no-spike rule," Support from both landowners and hunters was sufficient to recommend continuation of the "no-spike rule" for DMU 135.

Result and analysis of a questionnaire mailed to property owners in Roscommon County after half of a planned 12,990 acres were clearcut as part of a deer habitat research project.

A survey was completed to determine whether hunters and landowners supported existing mandatory Quality Deer Management (QDM) regulations in Deer Management Units (DMUs) 152, 155, and 252. A key feature of these existing QDM regulations was that the definition of a buck was a deer with three or more points on one antler. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) supports the voluntary implementation of QDM practices on private land in Michigan. However, mandatory regulations should be imposed in a DMU only when it can be shown that a clear majority (>66%) of hunters and landowners support implementation. Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of landowners and hunters; 76% of the landowners and 82% of hunters returned their questionnaire. About 60% of landowners owning land in DMUs 152, 155, and 252 and 52% of people hunting deer in these DMUs supported continuation of antler point restrictions. Support from both landowners and hunters was insufficient to recommend contin

Results of a survey where nearly 3,000 waterfowl hunters were contacted by mail after the 1998-99 waterfowl hunting season to determine hunter activity and opinions about waterfowl management in Michigan.

This is the 29th consecutive year of a mail survey asking for opinions of deer hunters on various subjects. A continuing thread through all surveys since 1956 has been one or more questions asking opinions about antlerless deer hunting. About 72 percent of the hunters contacted this year indicated that they would accept the harvest of some antlerless deer in addition to bucks. In both 1981 and 1982 a series of questions were asked about hunting in the current and the two preceding seasons, and whether they planned on hunting the following fall. The results were remarkably similar for the two years. Slightly over three-fourths (76 and 77 percent respectively) hunted the three consecutive years, 12 and 13 percent hunted two of the three years, and 10.4 and 7.9 percent hunted one of the three years.

Results of the 1963 waterfowl hunting season, with information from opinion surveys post-season.

Report on the results of the 1984 "Deer Hunter Opinion Survey" which was expanded to include archery, as well as firearm, deer hunters.

A survey of deer hunters in the Northeast Lower Peninsula (NELP) of Michigan was completed to determine the opinions of hunters about hunting with bait and to determine the efficiency of people hunting with and without bait. Most hunters (68%) approved or strongly approved of people hunting deer with bait. Archers using bait appeared to be more efficient in taking a deer than non-baiters. In comparison, the impact of baiting on the efficiency of firearm hunters was relatively small. The relative importance of baiting for archers was also evident in the changes in the hunting activity of archers as a result of the baiting ban. More archers avoided hunting in the NELP than firearm hunters because of the baiting ban. About 50% of the archers in the NELP (excluding Deer Management Unit 452) hunted less because of the baiting ban, while 31% of people hunting in the regular firearm season hunted less.

A survey was completed to determine whether hunters and landowners supported mandatory QDM regulations in Deer Management Unit (DMU) 045. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) supports the voluntary implementation of QDM practices on private land in Michigan. However, mandatory regulations should be imposed in a DMU only when it can be shown that a clear majority (>66%) of hunters and landowners support implementation. Questionnaires were sent to a random sample of landowners and hunters; 74% of the landowners and 86% of hunters returned their questionnaire. About 66% of landowners owning land in DMU 045 and 64% of people hunting deer in DMU 045 supported implementing mandatory QDM regulations. The margins of error associated with the estimates of support for the QDM regulations were plus or minus 3-5%. Thus, these estimates were too close to 66% to determine whether the levels of support were sufficient or insufficient recommend implementation. After the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) had reviewed the results of this surveys, they requested that the Wildlife Division prepare a Wildlife Conservation Order recommending implementation of the proposed QDM regulations in DMU 045. Before implementing QDM regulations, however, the existing sex and age structure of the deer herd must be assessed so that the effects of QDM regulations can be evaluated. Currently, insufficient data has been collected to describe the existing conditions of the deer herd; thus, the Wildlife Division will recommend that the QDM regulations be delayed until 2003, or until sufficient data has been collected.

Report on a survey and study of the recreational use of eight forest research areas which had been treated at four levels of clearcutting.

A random sample of names was selected from the 1982 list of small game licensees. Even though these hunters were selected from the 1982 license file, they were asked about their hunting experiences during the 1983 ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus) season. In 1983, grouse kill appeared to be somewhat proportional to the hunting effort. Examination of the Regional figures revealed much the same pattern. In Region II, the two December hunt periods accounted for 10 percent of the grouse bagged and 8 percent of the hunting effort. Corresponding figures for Region III were 24 percent of the bag and 22 percent of the hunter days. Examination of grouse kill per day hunted by season by Region revealed some interesting results. Upper Peninsula hunters bagged .43 grouse per day in the field compared with .50 in the Northern Lower Peninsula and .52 in the Southern lower Peninsula. Regions II and III success rates varied somewhat throughout the season. Region I grouse hunters appeared to be more successful as the season progressed.

Results of a survey completed to determine whether hunters and landowners supported existing mandatory Quality Deer Management (QDM) regulations in Deer Management Unit (DMU) 118.

Due to a drop in participation and controversy with continuing hunters about waterfowl issues, the Department of Natural Resources. (DNR) appointed a committee of 18 waterfowl hunters representing various regions of the state to provide them with improved public input and recommendations about waterfowl hunting issues. This report covers the results of their findings and the results of mail surveys.