The Michigan Deer Herd – It’s Time for a Change

(As seen in April 2024 Woods-N-Water News publication) by: Adam Lewis

We may be at a tipping point. The discontent of many deer hunters in Michigan over the health of the deer herd and management of deer hunting is now colliding with the DNR’s admission that we need to make changes for just that. As I write, meetings are being set for a small group to join the DNR and NRC (Natural Resources Commission) to discuss this topic and the direction of deer hunting in Michigan (the Deer Management Initiative, or DMI). But will these meetings produce what is needed to actually get us going in the right direction? That’s a question that remains to be answered, and largely depends on if all parties, the hunters in Michigan, the DNR, and the NRC, can make the seismic shift required to get there. 

I’m hoping all three of those parties will come to the table with the open mind to do so, but there’s some hard pills that I believe need to be swallowed first in order to be able to “fix” the deer herd and management of it in Michigan. Although a difficult task with many nuanced aspects stretching far beyond a single article, I hope to address some of those here. Included are references from interviews with Michigan’s deer, elk, and moose management specialist Chad Stewart, the National Deer Association’s Chief Conservation Officer Kip Adams, the current Michigan Deer Management Plan (the playbook for the DNR and NRC), and a few other sources I’ll reference along with some science-based opinions of my own. To move forward, we have to be very honest as we look back, and for each party involved to accept responsibility for their part in where we are. And yes, I am a part of that too. Only then will we have the clarity needed to steer a proper and correct course forward. Let’s start with a look at our problem and how each of these three groups has contributed to the current situation of the Michigan deer herd. 

The Problem with Michigan’s Deer Herd

This past year the National Deer Association (NDA) wrote a bombshell article giving several states a failing score on their doe harvest, and Michigan was one. At about the same time Chad Stewart issued an open letter to hunters admonishing them for being too buck-centric (too focused on just shooting bucks) and admonishing them to take more does in the lower peninsula. He stated we have a hunting culture problem, but this letter is apparently still sitting in most people’s inboxes because harvest data shows it made no effect on the 2023 season. And there’s much bigger problems, as well. With hunter numbers declining both in Michigan and around the nation, an observable unbalanced herd as far as age structure and sex ratio goes (which is hard to put numbers to since the DNR doesn’t collect data on this to my knowledge), and current regulations not actually supporting the needed corrective measures, there is no current solution.

What the Deer Reports Say

Data from the last two years that Michigan has done mandatory reporting of deer harvest, as well as the 2024 NDA deer report confirms these problems. Michigan deer report data shows a decrease in deer harvest, decrease in doe harvest, and the same buck-centric trends in Michigan over this time frame. Further confirmation is the 2024 NDA report which puts Michigan at #2 for buck harvest in the nation (only behind Texas which has an estimated almost 3 times as many deer) and basically tied for #1 with Pennsylvania for bucks shot per square mile, at 3.6.  Also, at an average of 3.6 bucks to every doe taken in youth season, and an overall season average of 1.32 bucks taken for every doe over the last two seasons, this “culture problem” of idolizing buck shooting and failing to balance the herd persists (for a reference, the NDA cites healthy harvests as being much less than 1 buck per doe, or more does taken than bucks in a season). We do indeed have a problem with the culture of hunting in Michigan, as well as a problem with our way of harvesting deer that doesn’t seem to be creating what we could call a healthy herd. But before we assume anything here, what does a healthy deer herd even look like?

Several weeks ago I interviewed the NDA’s Kip Adams and asked him just that. He has a long history of working with state deer herds and has a firm grasp on the topic. If you aren’t familiar with the NDA, they are a national organization that promotes deer stewardship and achieving and maintaining healthy deer herds in all states. Kip, in fact, has helped different states get back to what is considered “healthy” from a deer management perspective, including New York. According to him, a healthy herd consists of three things: 

What Makes a Healthy Deer Herd

1. A buck to doe ratio as close to 1:1 as possible.
2. A relatively balanced age class in the herd. 
3. A habitat that can adequately handle the deer population.

It’s hard to say exactly where we are with these in Michigan because the DNR’s stated goals, and therefore measurements, have nothing to do with the first two. But the current harvest data in Michigan, the NDA’s 2024 report data, and the NDA’s calling out Michigan as a “standout for performing below potential,” show these are both of concern. 

Before I continue, I will say the Upper Peninsula is in a very different situation when it comes to the herd, and that will require a different discussion. There is a separate DMI just for the UP. Harvest numbers are way down there, and according to the recent Michigan Out of Doors TV interview with Chad Stewart, they are not sure exactly why. So keep in mind I am addressing mainly the lower peninsula in this article – there’s just not enough space here to discuss the UP, but it is definitely of equal importance. Many of the general issues and solutions I address may equally apply there though.

The Problem Simplified

So to summarize the problem:

1. The buck to doe ratio is not healthy in most areas.
2. Our doe harvest is too low in many areas to keep a healthy herd.
3. Our culture is too buck-centric which exacerbates the buck to doe ratio problems.
4. Our age structure is not as healthy as it should be for a healthy herd.

Who’s to Blame?

So who’s at fault for this lopsided and mismanaged herd we find ourselves with? The truth is that the three groups mentioned earlier, the DNR, the NRC, and us hunters have all played a part.

The DNR:

For years the DNR has operated under what I’d call flimsy goals. A mission statement along with six goals and actions for each are found on the michigan.gov website. If you have not read the Michigan Deer Management Plan, last updated in 2016, I will say frankly – you need to. It’s the only way to speak to this issue in an intelligent and informed way. If you are part of the DMI team, you simply must read it to be of any help in those meetings, as it will open your eyes to how the DNR and NRC see the deer herd and its management, as well as how they see hunters. I’ll reveal some of that here for discussion purposes, but obviously cannot go into full depth of the 35 pages. Their mission reads “to maintain a healthy white-tailed deer population, using sound scientific management, maximizing recreational opportunities while minimizing negative impacts on ecosystems and other wildlife species and without creating undue hardship to private interests.”  And the six goals, which also have actions associated with each, are:

1. Manage deer populations at levels that do not degrade the vegetation upon which deer and other wildlife depend;
2. Promote deer hunting to provide quality recreational opportunities, as the primary tool to achieve population goals, and as an important social and cultural activity;
3. Manage habitat to provide for the long-term viability of white-tailed deer in Michigan while limiting negative impacts to the habitats of other wildlife species; 
4. Reduce conflict between humans and deer; 
5. Reduce the threats and impacts of disease on the wild deer population and on Michigan’s economy; and
6. Enhance public engagement in and awareness of deer management issues and knowledge of deer ecology and management.

We shouldn’t oversimplify a complex issue like managing a deer herd across the state, but we do need to look at the goals – the foundation of every aspect of herd management, with a very critical eye. Although deer herd management may be different in some ways to personal or business endeavors, some basic and well-accepted “good goal” criteria seem lacking. If goals aren’t formatted in a certain way, they are of minimal benefit and are more “show” and won’t create much “go” or progress. One popular method you may have heard of is using SMART goals – Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound. As you look at the deer herd goals, and the sub-actions for each, a large majority aren’t measurable, lack specificity, and have no time limit by which to reach them. They are vague and lack a clear ability to tell if they’ve even been reached, hence I would argue are unhelpful goals. Further, the DNR cannot show the public the goals have been reached or that they’ve even made progress toward them, which is a major and I’d say self-inflicted problem for the DNR. This is seen in the current high rate of hunter distrust (the Deer Management Plan reveals around 46% of hunters do not trust the DNR and their management of the herd). 

46% of hunters do not trust the DNR and their management of the herd…

MI DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN

One example is goal 2.3 which says “Establish deer hunting programs and regulations that will result in high quality opportunities for deer hunters and will allow population control through appropriate harvest of deer.” And its sub-action #1 which says,”continually evaluate and implement, at appropriate regulations cycles, deer hunting season structures, regulations, and outreach programs to improve opportunities associated with deer hunting to reach a desired harvest of deer.” This begs the questions, “what is “high quality” and “what is a “desired or appropriate harvest?” These aren’t measurable since they aren’t defined. To have any value, goals need to have numbers associated with them and timelines to complete them.  Also, according to Kip Adams, a healthy herd should be associated with bucks, does, and age classes for both of these. As the 2024 NDA report says, “Age structure data is the backbone of deer management programs.” I’ll digress at this point and emphasize that the entire goals of the Deer Management Plan need to be revisited before even discussing regulations to help accomplish them. The foundation has to be solid first. 

 Not only are the current goals questionable, but the current regulations and seasons are incongruent in their aim and therefore results. They are pointing in different directions and thus causing different outcomes. Is it any wonder we can’t seem to make forward progress? Much like a team of sled dogs all pulling different directions, it is impossible to get anywhere. For example, if a healthy deer population is wanted (we already defined as close to a 1:1 buck to doe ratio and balanced age structure), and the doe population is too high and out of balance in lower parts of Michigan (as put forth in Chad Stewart’s open letter), then why do we have two bucks tags there? The regulation does not align with the goal of thinning the does and shooting less bucks. Or, if our culture of being “buck-centric” is part of the problem, and we need to better educate our hunters that shooting does is good and maybe a better goal than hunting antlers, then why are we allowing youth to focus on and take bucks over does at such a high ratio (which is further exacerbating the problem and ingraining this mentality)? And further, if indeed we are too buck-centric, then why do we allow our current two buck tags to be filled during the peak of the rut (the most vulnerable time for bucks of the year), and with the easiest weapon to take a deer (firearms season – opening on November 15th)? These are just some examples, but go to show that poor goals and inconsistent regulations produce poor outcomes.

Further, although “education” is a stated goal of the DNR (under #6 in the plan), it has been lacking or ineffective at best. This is concerning as it’s potentially the top way they can create change. According to Adams, the only way the New York DNR made significant progress was by strategic and committed education of hunters toward the desired goals. The Michigan DNR and NRC has failed to create good measurable goals, regulations that all work toward achieving them, and to educate hunters about the importance of helping achieve them.

The NRC

Beyond the questionable nature of a seven member Natural Resource Commission being appointed and thus potentially politically driven and not knowledgeable hunters, deer herd managers, or have real “skin in the game,” the reality is that all our current regulations fall on them. They are final arbiters and approve of what the DNR presents to them regarding regulations, and therefore hold similar blame as the DNR stated above. 

Hunters

For as long as I can remember, hunters in Michigan have played the victim. We’ve blamed what we see in the field and our success deer hunting on the DNR and NRC. As we just read, there’s plenty of blame to be assigned there, but hunters really need to answer one question: with all the “bad” regulations foisted upon us, who is pulling the trigger? The fact is the DNR and NRC cannot do a thing without the help of hunters in the field. Back in the 90’s when the deer herd was at its peak in lower Michigan, the DNR issued large numbers of block permits and doe tags. What ensued was an unprecedented slaughter of does in Michigan’s thumb where I hunted. I remember this vividly, and also the complaint of many hunters the following years of, “what happened to all the deer?” Well, quite simply we shot them all. Hunters need to realize we are where we are due to our own mismanagement, or complicit involvement in bad management practices if we truly want to make things better. 

Hunters are the DNR’s #1 Tool for managing the deer herd… but may no longer be adequate to manage the deer herd…

MI DNR MANAGEMENT PLAN

And here’s another wake up call that hunters will see clearly when they read the Deer Management Plan – The DNR and NRC see you as a tool. The deer herd in Michigan is not regulated for you, and it’s not about you. You are just the #1 tool to keep it in check. And, there is nothing specific about the quality of hunting or the herd either, just about keeping it in appropriate healthy balance for all stakeholders (which includes non-hunters, anti-hunters, and insurance companies to name a few). According to the plan, “hunting provides recreational opportunities, is important as a cultural and social activity, and is the primary tool used to manage the size and distribution of Michigan’s statewide deer population.” Further, the DNR is realizing that us hunters aren’t as valuable a tool as we used to be. We just aren’t getting the job done like we used to. They even knew this in 2016, and it’s worse today due to decrease in hunter numbers and the aforementioned trend in decreased harvest. As the plan states, “it is foreseeable that recreational hunting may no longer be adequate to manage the deer herd in some places in southern Michigan.” This should be a wake up call, because if hunters can’t get better at regulating the herd, we will progressively lose our voice and the DNR and NRC will have to use methods other than hunters to do this.

Potential Deer Herd Solutions

When trying to seek a fix, the difficult part is many varying opinions of what that looks like. We simply can’t please everyone. But by looking back, as hard as it may be, we can hopefully have a clearer vision forward. Big change is hard, but for the significant improvement we need, significant change is necessary and clinging to past practices won’t get us there (especially if they didn’t work). This may be hard for some to accept, but we need to be willing to let go of past traditions that no longer serve us, unless there’s a very good reason to keep them (they get us to where we want to, or at least are neutral in that regard). So, based on where we’ve gone wrong, here are some potential actions to make things right.

1. Herd Goals. As stated, better goals and ways to measure them quantifiably are needed. For a healthy herd these should be focused around habitat, a sex ratio close to 1:1, and a balanced age structure. The challenge for the DNR will be coming up with ways to measure these. Continuing hunter check stations, data collected at buck poles, as well as trail camera surveys and partnering with county-level hunting groups or hunters could supply this data and allow tracking over time to meet specific goals within a stated time period. For example, if after a year or two of baseline data collection our herd is found to be a 5 to 1 doe to buck ratio in a particular DMU, a goal could be set of “a 2 to 1 ratio by 2030.” Then regulations could be made that help accomplish this. Populations will vary greatly by area, and it may be a good idea to set these at a county level (like doe tags used to be allocated), as DMU’s are vast and herd quality can vary within them.

2. Hunting Culture Goals. In order to get us to a balanced sex ratio and age structure goal, regulations as well as a focused educational initiative is needed. If it worked in New York, it can work here, but only if the DNR commits to it fully according to Kip Adams. The DNR must take ownership of this. Money should be reallocated to make this a priority, and intensely focused on education about shooting does and the need for a balanced age-class in the herd – meaning hunters need to be selective with deer they shoot. Also, hunters need to become better stewards and educate themselves on what makes a good herd, and what they can do in their local areas to measure and keep tabs on their deer. Trail camera surveys, and working with neighbors and forming common goals based on this data will be vital to changing our hunting culture. We simply have to eradicate the “if I don’t shoot it the neighbors will mentality” if we want to make significant progress. 

3. Hunter Recruitment Goals. Partly due to baby-boomers aging, and a shift in culture away from outdoor recreation, hunter numbers are on the decline. Again, this decreases the voice of hunters and also the DNR’s ability to regulate the herd. So getting more hunters is important and part of our shared responsibility. The DNR can actually do a lot more than maybe they realize by changing regulations to create a hunting atmosphere that draws hunters in. In fact, they’ve actually already conducted the research on this. In 2017 the DNR paid an outside firm to conduct an online survey and focus group study related to “Understanding the Barriers to Hunter Retention in Michigan.” It appears they and the NRC did not use this data to guide their regulations for some reason, but they indeed already have much of the information needed. The conclusions and recommendations from this were:

1. APR’s are a draw for younger hunters, and should be considered.
2. Purposes and the regulations of early hunts (particularly youth hunts) should be reconsidered – potentially for hunter retention & recruitment. 
3. One buck tag should be considered, or APR’s with one buck tag.

Let’s now talk about some specific examples – regulations that could help support these goal areas.

Regulations that Support Goals

1. Youth Season Restructured to Doe Only: To help with doe harvest, balancing the herd sex ratio, and more importantly changing the culture of hunting in Michigan, we have to start with the youth. It is well known that the society and culture of tomorrow is made in the classroom of today, and in hunting that is the youth season. Currently, we are creating a culture that glamorizes shooting bucks – again at a 3.6 to 1 rate in youth season. To fix this, we both need ramped up education in Michigan and regulations that support the idea that balancing a herd through shooting does is good. The current wide-open nature of being able to shoot any deer in youth season does the opposite of this.

     If the DNR and NRC want to make science-based decisions, they need to consider psychological as well as economic science here. Let me explain. It is proven that people need incentive to be pulled forward, which is by far a better motivator than pushing. Look at all the economic incentive systems in the world, proven over centuries, to see this clearly illustrated. Employers pay employees after the work is done, not before. It’s what keeps them doing the work, willingly moving forward, and is the draw –  the carrot in front of the horse.

When a youth goes out in September, sees a lot of big bucks in the field, and easily shoots one (that may be the biggest of their life), there’s nothing left to draw them into the regular hunting seasons. It’s like getting dessert before dinner, and it psychologically chops hunger at the knees. This causes hunter recruitment problems, and exacerbates the buck-centric culture. The simple fix is to make the youth season a doe only hunt. Seeing these big bucks in early fall, and knowing they can only shoot them by joining the regular deer seasons, creates an incredible pull for hunters to continue their hunting journey and join the regular seasons.That’s hunter recruitment. The DNR, NRC, and also mentors of our youth need to wake up and be better leaders of our young people, and start changing our hunting culture by only allowing does to be taken in youth season.

2. Gun Season Overhaul – Date Changes: If we want a balanced age structure, balanced sex ratio, and to take more does, it should be a no-brainer to change our gun season. November 15-30 just won’t work to meet these goals. First, data shows we take a majority of the gun deer harvest the first day or two of firearm season. Then, due to all the increased hunting pressure, the remaining deer population is much harder to see and hunt successfully. Further, bucks are very vulnerable at this time of season due to it being the peak of the rut. To decrease the buck-centric trend and encourage more doe harvest, changes to the date and structure of gun season would be very helpful.

     The tradition of the November 15th opener honestly has little value to where we are now, and we have to be able to let that go. An easy fix would be to have multiple short gun seasons (like many other states), that are not during the rut. Bucks would be harder to take outside of this time frame, and this would push more hunters to take does instead. Ohio for example, has their gun season after Thanksgiving for a week, and also a weekend in late December. Illinois has multiple 3-4 day gun seasons throughout the year. This may seem like a drastic cut in opportunity compared to our current firearm season, which now is practically a month in many parts of the state, but our current format hasn’t produced a substantial harvest increase as admitted by the DNR. By having multiple short seasons, this would actually allow for multiple first day quality harvests, as the deer herd would not be stressed nearly as much and the time between gun seasons would allow them to recover. This would actually increase harvest, provide better deer sightings and hunter success, and further incentivize both new and old hunters to hit the field.

3. Buck Tag Revisions – 1 Buck Tag and Possible APR’s: To further decrease the buck-centric trend and encourage a better herd health, the last thing to cement this would be to go to one buck tag, and possibly APR’s. Remember that detailed survey the DNR had an outside firm complete that suggested this already? Again, it showed this license structure was more attractive to youth hunters, helping with recruitment and retention. Further, the psychological science of one buck tag is undeniable – it forces you to be selective, which automatically allows a majority of young bucks to live and immediately starts fixing the age structure issue. APR’s would potentially help with this also, but it doesn’t necessarily ensure bucks live to be older. It actually may just encourage shooting young bucks with good genetics, which I think we should avoid. Either way, a license structure revision to 1 buck tag at a minimum would help fix many issues, and also naturally encourage the harvest of more does for people who need to fill the freezer.

Final Thoughts

No longer can we sit around and blame the other side of the fence for our problems. Hunters need to step up and take control of the local herd by working with neighbors, monitoring their herd, harvesting appropriately, and being better mentors to youth. The DNR and NRC needs to significantly raise the bar and make measurable goals, drastic regulation changes that actually support reaching them, and also commit to a widespread education campaign of hunters to change the deer hunting culture. 

The Michigan deer herd is at a critical tipping point, and we have the power to push it in the right direction. I hope that’s what we do.