Michigan deer hunting licenses dropped 4 percent last year. Photo credit: N. & M.J. Mishler/USFWS
By Paige LaBarge
LANSING–Deer hunting is a $1 billion-a-year industry in the state but last fall the bucks fell short.
That’s because both the number of hunting tourists and the amount of money they spent were down, experts said.
According to Russ Mason, chief of the Wildlife Division in the Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE), license sales dropped 4 percent in 2010 from previous years.
Mason also said a broader distribution of deer throughout the state has hurt rural areas’ hunting tourism.
“Rural Michigan depends on hunting for its main economic wealth, and less animals in the Upper Peninsula means less tourism for us,” Mason said.
Dave Lorenz, manager of public relations for Travel Michigan, the state’s official tourism promotion agency, also cited changes in the deer population.
“Previously deer could mostly be found in the Upper Peninsula, but now someone can find five of them in their back yard,” Lorenz said. “This is causing people to travel less to hunt.”
Under current economic conditions, some Michigan residents are working longer and hunting less. Thus traveling to hunt isn’t a priority for many families, Lorenz said.
As a result, many people are choosing to hunt locally.
Mason said DNRE is trying to focus on younger hunters who don’t have 9-to-5 jobs.
“We are beginning to fix how we recruit ages 20-to-40 now, which could possibly raise the amount of tourists during hunting season,” Mason said.
Together Travel Michigan and DNRE are trying to boost hunting tourism through advertising in the Pure Michigan campaign.
Through the campaign, organizations are targeting hunters by discounting license fees and also trying to attract more out-of-staters.
Mason said the ads are concentrating on bordering states like Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana.
Steve Yencich, president of the Michigan Hotel, Motel and Resort Association, also noted the decline in hunting tourism last fall and said that it can be improved by targeting non-hunters through other ways.
In addition to fewer hunting tourists, jobs in the industry have also dropped. Yencich said that tourism employment levels fell to 142,000 this hunting season compared to 200,000 in previous years.
He said college courses and the greater involvement by younger hunters can help reverse the trend.
“This is a huge business, and college students should be part of this industry, which will raise the number of jobs again and also bring more attention about hunting tourism to a younger generation,” Yencich said.
He said that idea is being put into action at Michigan State University through the Department of Community, Agriculture, Recreation, and Resource Studies, where students can focus on tourism and the economy.
Students can learn how to revitalize damaged economies through educational means and in turn improve the state’s hunting tourism, according to Yencich.
Some species of trees, such as aspen and jack pine require clear cutting in order to successfully regenerate. Aspen which is shade intolerant regrow saplings from shoots off of stump roots. Studies have found that regrowing young aspen stands have some of the greatest diversity of plants and animals in temperate climates. This benefits not only game animals but all animals. Mature forests have the least bio-diversity of wooded lands in our region.
I hunt in the northeast Lower Peninsula, but I find it strange that so many hunters feel that the sole purpose of the DNR is to guarantee that they’ll get a deer each year (whatever happened to the meaning of “hunt”?). I’d much rather see a healthy ecosytem where wildlife populations don’t need much “management”. We have far too many clearcuts on state land for the primary purpose of producing more deer habitat–not necessarily good habitat.
Strange, there was no mention of the effect of wolves on the U.P. deer herd. Oh, I know, the official position of the DNR is that wolves do not have much effect on the deer herd, and they say it with a straight face. Considering that the DNR manages our wildlife populations using computer models, how can they be wrong? Let’s not take the observations by 10,000 camp owning deer hunters, and 1000s more landless deer hunters regarding wolves into consideration.
When the DNR starts to manage for predators (wolves, bear, fisher and marten), of wildlife that are desired by hunters and those desirable animals begin to disappear, what is the logical result? Don’t tell me, let me guess, DAH, da hunters disappear. That is why I and my son travel to eastern Montana to hunt gamebirds. Since I am primarily a meat hunter I have not quite yet found it necessary to hunt elsewhere for deer.
The number of deer available to hunt in the northern Lower Penninsula is way too low. The over-hyped concern about TB and the corresponding slaughter of anterless deer has reduced the herd on public land to the point of travesty. The antler restrictions in the UP make it a less attractive area to hunt as well.
Access to private land in the LP is a significant problem to me. It’s getting harder and harder to gain access to hunting areas. This herd could stand to be thinned, but getting at them is difficult and sometimes expensive. I’m contemplating hunting in Ohio.
From the article…”Together Travel Michigan and DNRE are trying to boost hunting tourism through advertising in the Pure Michigan campaign.
Through the campaign, organizations are targeting hunters by discounting license fees and also trying to attract more out-of-staters.”
Discounting fees for out-of-staters is ridiculous because drawing more non-resident hunters to Michigan won’t solve anything. Hunters who travel from out-of-state generally do so to harvest mature animals. It is well-documented that relatively few trophy bucks are harvested in Michigan compared to states like Nebraska, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, etc. Money would be far better spent on young hunter education and recruitment and deer habitat improvement, to start with.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Bucks disappear Up North in more ways than one | Great Lakes Echo -- Topsy.com
Michigan needs to rethink the price of a non-resident antlerless license. In Wisconsin they GIVE you one free one with your buck tag, and extras are dirt cheap. Michigan, forget it, it’s like the cost of a buck. Counties with plenty of deer like in southern MI or some of the ag UP counties should have cheap does tags for NRs.
The DNR has destroyed deer hunting by having so many special early seasons that still use illegal bait piles long before the traditional deer season of November 15. The DNR also killed way too many does in northern lower Michigan. We will not buy any deer license next fall.