152
Deer Management Unit
Geographic Location: Deer Management Unit (DMU) 152 is 386 sq. miles in size and is
primarily in southwestern Marquette County. This DMU falls within the moderate snowfall zone
and does not see the heavy snow fall amounts influenced by Lake Superior as seen in DMU’s to
the north. This unit is 60% publicly owned with much of it held in State ownership.
Land use and habitat quality for deer
This unit is heavily influenced by industrial timber management. Traditionally timber
management emphasis has been on hardwood and aspen production. Agricultural influence is
very limited and primarily only a factor a near traditional rural communities and along M-95.
Since 1978 the availability of deer wintering habitat has remained fairly stable in this DMU.
Typical winter weather, as related to deer
Winter weather is moderate compared to other portions of the U.P. Only about 200 inches of
snowfall typically occurs each year in this unit compared to 300+ inches in areas influenced by
Lake Superior. Consequently, fawn recruitment and over-winter survival tends to be high in this
DMU.
Management Guidance: Both deer densities and hunting success rates are relatively good in
DMU 152 compared to other DMU’s in the Western Upper Peninsula (WUP). Traditionally
antlerless permits have been available for this DMU. The number of permits and whether they
are available for private and public land depends on the previous winter weather and deer herd
population trends. There is very little agricultural activity in this area and consequently the level
of deer crop damage is extremely low. Outside of the deer wintering complexes deer browse
normally has not impacted tree regeneration.
Deer Harvest Analysis: DMU 152 consistently ranks on the lower end for bucks harvested per
square mile in the U.P. Over the last seven years (2006-2012) DMU 152 has averaged 3.5 bucks
harvested per square mile (Fig.1). This harvest density signifies a relatively healthy deer herd
compared to the rest of the WUP. In the last 12 years the bucks harvested per square mile has
been somewhat volatile and took an unexplained drop in 2009. However, during the last seven
seasons is unit has been at or above the average number of bucks harvested per square mile (Fig.
2). Unfortunately, once 2013 data is analyzed we suspect this harvest rate will take a downward
trend for the next few years because of the harsh winter conditions seen across the whole U.P.
Antlerless harvest per square mile remained relatively consistent with the number of antlerless
permits available in a given year. Since 2001 there has been a decrease in the number of
antlerless tags available for this unit and no permits were available in 2006,08,09,10 and 2013
(Fig. 2).
7.0
Mean Number of Bucks Kille d per sq. Mile
6.1
6.1
5.7
6.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.1
3.0
2.5
2.4
2.2
1.9
2.0
1.2
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.1
0.7
0.0
7
21
22
27
31
36
42
55
66 121 122 127 131 152 155 252 255
Western Upper Peninsula Deer Managment Units
Figure 1. Mean number of bucks killed per square mile in the Western Upper Peninsula by Deer
management unit, mail survey data 2006-2012.
Figure 2. Deer killed per square mile in Deer Management Unit 152 in all seasons combined
from the mail survey harvest estimates, 2001-2012.
Additional Population Assessment Factors:
Deer sightings and hunter success/satisfaction trends
Participation in the U.P. Camp Survey has remained fairly stable in DMU 152 over the last 13
years (average 26 camps) (Table 1). The WUP is divided into 17 DMU’s and DMU 152 on
average (last 8 years) is below the average (3.1) number of deer seen per day at (2.4 deer seen
per day) using camp survey data. During the last eight years on average this DMU has had a
reported buck hunter success rate of 25%, which is also below average success rates in the WUP
(29%). However, DMU 152 also has one of the highest hunter densities in the WUP (11 hunters
per sq. mile) which likely contributes to the lower hunter success rate (Fig. 3). In fact this DMU
has the fourth highest hunter density reported in the WUP .
DEER MANAGEMENT UNIT 152
Camps
Hunters
% killing a buck
Deer seen per day
Fawns seen per 100 does
Does seen per buck
More deer than last year
Same number deer
Fewer deer
Season good-to-excellent
Season fair-to-poor
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
22
130
7%
26
148
7%
22
130
12%
29
164
16%
31
157
10%
29
155
22%
30
153
23%
26
137
27%
28
142
21%
27
134
22%
25
115
27%
21
105
32%
20
98
28%
3.3
50
3 to 1
0%
5%
95%
0%
100%
1.7
39
5 to 1
12%
12%
76%
4%
96%
2.1
29
4 to 1
23%
36%
41%
15%
85%
1.4
39
2 to 1
0%
29%
71%
8%
92%
1.9
43
4 to 1
16%
29%
55%
7%
93%
1.6
43
5 to 1
24%
35%
41%
21%
79%
2.9
41
4 to 1
32%
39%
29%
38%
62%
2.6
50
4 to 1
8%
23%
69%
24%
76%
1.2
28
4 to 1
4%
8%
88%
15%
85%
2.2
32
3 to 1
23%
35%
42%
31%
69%
3.4
47
5 to 1
46%
37%
17%
37%
63%
2.8
37
3 to 1
28%
28%
44%
42%
58%
2.7
33
5 to 1
0%
26%
74%
21%
79%
Hunters Per. Sq. Mile During Firearm Deer
Season
Table 1. Summary of Camp Survey results for Deer Management Unit 152, 2004-2013.
18.0
16.1
16.0
14.4
14.0
12.5
12.0
11.0
10.6
10.0
8.1
8.0
4.0
7.2
6.1
5.2
6.0
8.0
5.1
4.7
3.9
4.1
3.3 2.9
2.1
2.0
0.0
7
21
22
27
31
36
42
55
66 121 122 127 131 152 155 252 255
Western Upper Peninsula Deer Mangaement Units
Figure 3. Hunters per square mile during the firearm season in the Western Upper Peninsula,
mail survey data 2006-2012.
Agricultural Crop Damage
While this area may not see the high snow fall amount seen in units influenced by Lake Superior
it does however get bitterly cold because it is further away from the Great Lakes. Because of the
severe winter conditions agricultural activity is very small scale. No deer Management
Assistance Permits have been requested over the last 13 years. The of use summer crop damage
permits has almost been nonexistent over the last 13 years averaging (0.5) less than one permit
per year. Crop damage is not a major problem in this DMU but it can be significant to the farms
that experience deer problems.
Forest Regeneration Concerns
DNR Forest Resources Division personnel have expressed concerns over tree regeneration
difficulties at times in this DMU. Although such problems have not been as significant lately,
during the mid to late 1990’s regeneration problems were reported. Foresters typically welcome
antlerless deer harvest opportunity in this unit.
Deer-Vehicle Collisions
Reported deer-vehicle accidents, adjusted for traffic volume, have declined in the U.P. during the
past decade (Fig. 4).
Figure 4. Reported deer-vehicle accidents in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 2002-2012.
Deer Condition Data
Each fall biological data is collect from harvested deer across the UP at deer registration stations.
The diameter of antler beams, measured 1 inch above the pedicel, is measured on 1.5-year-old
bucks as an index of physical condition. Antler beam diameters have changed very little in the
U.P. during the past decade (Fig 5.).
Figure 5. Mean yearling beam diameters collected from hunter harvest deer for the Upper
Peninsula, 2001-2012.
Deer Management Recommendations
Deer in this unit are in the moderate snowfall zones but still can be subjected to harsh conditions.
Current reported local herd indicators, (camp survey, car deer accidents, DMAP, crop damage,
and population projections) indicate that deer herd densities remain relatively low. The winter of
2014, with it’s higher than normal snowfall combined with record breaking cold temperatures
will have a long lasting negative effect on the deer herd in this DMU. The high energy
expenditure of navigating the landscape and poor nutritional value of available food in this DMU
during the winter will make it very difficult for the deer to recover quickly from the 2012-13 and
2013-14 winters. Fawn production and recruitment will not be favorable this year and above
average winter mortality is expected. Therefore there are no private, public, or late season
antlerless permits are recommended for the 2014 season. Local deer density issues associated
with agricultural operations can be dealt with effectively through crop damage and DMAP
utilization.
Covertype Map