Split opener proposal [Archive] - The Michigan Sportsman Forums

Pinefarm

12-23-2005, 11:27 AM

As most state game biologists and many hunters agree, a peak rut firearm opener isn't the best management option in the 21st century. However, Michigan is unique in that we have the UP, which has weather, habitat and herd migrations more like Canada, and we have the LP, which is more like our surrounding Midwest states.
We also tried a split gun opener many years back that did not work well, especially for those who lived in the UP were concerned. But, virtually everything is different in the state now. We have some 400,000 archery hunters who'd be bow hunting the LP in November if there was a split gun opener, the UP doesn't have near the amount of deer that it did 40 years ago and hunters don't take off the big chunks of time to gun hunt, like they did 40 years ago. Plus, half of our hunters now hunt the prime SLP and have no real desire to go anywhere else. That prime SLP herd didn't even exist when the old split opener was tried.
So, the question is, how do you craft a split opener that's really needed, yet it keeps 90% of our hunters happy and accomplishes the goal? And that goal being, less yearling bucks harvested with a peak rut opener and a substantial increase in more bucks surviving gun season and more mature bucks in a few years.
I have a simple suggestion and I'm wondering if anyone has input. MDNR offers one antlered firearm tag good for any buck and one "either sex" archery tag, along with all the "antlerless only" tags. The combo tag is eliminated. When you buy your firearm tag, the clerk asks "do you want it for the UP or LP? And that's where the regular firearms tag is good for for bucks only. Then, come muzzleloader seasons, any unused firearm tags are good anywhere in the state.
The UP regular firearm season would open on the 3rd Friday of November and run to the following Sunday, giving hunters 2 full weekends. In 2006, that season would run Nov.17-26. In the LP, the regular firearm season would open on the 1st Friday of December and run to the following Sunday, also giving 2 full weekends. In 2006, it'd be Dec. 1-10.
This would only be for buck tags. If you had a UP antlerless tag, but wanted your buck tag for the LP, you could still hunt in the UP with a gun from Nov.17-26, but you'd only have an antlerless tag. And vice versa for the LP.
This solves the problem of having LP management having to have anything to do with deer migrations in the UP. And, if hunters pick the LP, they get the entire LP for bucks in the regular firearms season and if they pick the UP, they get the entire UP.
If a hunter hunts both the UP and LP, he'd have to decide where he wanted his regular firearm tag to be good for, but he'd still be able to hunt anywhere in the state with archery, muzzloader and antlerless tags.
Since firearm season is when by far the most bucks are killed, I think it's worth suggesting to the NRC and MDNR. Any thoughts?
Seems simple to me and keeps the Yoopers from seeing any increase in LP buck hunters while correcting when the opener dates should be.

jk hillsdale

12-23-2005, 11:42 AM

I'm 100% in favor or moving the lower peninsula firearm season back. In terms of protecting more bucks, your timing suggestion would work well, the Ohio model would work well, etc. However, there are areas of S. MI where it's proving very difficult to even come close to getting the antlerless population in line, and that's with 16 days of firearms hunting followed by 17 days of muzzleloader hunting followed by an additional 14 days of antlerless firearms hunting. It would seem that moving the main firearms season back might be counter productive in the effort to reduce the antlerless population is some areas of S. MI.

In terms of the upper peninsula, I really don't have any understanding of what would make best sense there. My guess is that you're correct in stating that having an earlier opener in the U.P. would probably not lead to a radical increase in U.P. hunting pressure, but I think the possibility that could happen is a valid concern.

I like the innovative ideas that you come up with Bob. Good stuff!

weatherby

12-23-2005, 11:46 AM

I might be misunderstanding some of the post, but would bow season run all the way to gun or would there be a quiet time?

buckslayerII

12-23-2005, 12:09 PM

I know it's probably more simple than it sounds, but it sure sounds complicated!!! My biggest non-understanding is whether or not I could hunt anterless with a gun during the UP gun "buck" season? Here's the reasoning behind my question: I agree most deer (not just bucks IMO) are killed during the gun season. The goal is to control/manage the herd to certain numbers of quality deer. If you push the LP gun season back to the first week in December, I predict that you'll see a big decrease in amount of time hunters spend in the field (and thus deer killed) for "seasonal" reasons.

Let's face it, we all get way busy with family and parties and shopping and commitments once the holiday season starts, which is kinda viewed (IMO) as Thanksgiving.

Another reason is weather. Granted, this past gun season was pretty harsh for hunting at times, but that's not typical. However, the chances of having weather similar to that in early December on a consistent basis are much better.

There also seems to be concern about how to get younger people started hunting. The last 2 weeks in November are during a "breather" time for school sports, which allows the kids time to be in the field. The first of December is very hectic with seasons starting and all the practices and games associated with that. Kid's will just be too stretched to spend any quality time hunting, as well as the parents!

So, the summary is that I think you'll see less hunters in the LP helping to accomplish the management goals if the opener is pushed back. I'm not a fan of only critizing an idea, so I commend you on at least throwing one out there and also believe that we need a way to help the young bucks become mature.

NorthJeff

12-23-2005, 12:25 PM

Gilbey

12-23-2005, 12:53 PM

I can tell you one thing.....our camp and surrounding camps already get upset enough at the rudeness of two groups of downstate guys that come up for our opener and hunt right on our bait piles, incoming trails, trespass, chainsaw within eyesight on private property, hunt right next to us etc etc. Not only do they do this every year, they have the gall to keep coming back and bringing more extra people every year.

Do I hope that we have a later opener???????

I know a lot of you guys will find offense to what I just typed. And I will of course note that not even close to all the guys from downstate would behave in this fashion.....

But I, my friends, and the neighboring camps believe that we have more than our fill of BS without having additional people up here doing the same due to having a "2nd opener".

Let's just keep it the same, just my opinion.

Luv2hunteup

12-23-2005, 05:47 PM

I have no problem with split seasons for the UP and LP but only if it had the 2 tag option. If there is a date change it should be moved forward instead of backward. The migration starts prior to November 15th if we cold weather and deep snow sets in.

I vote for a November 1st opener. This will also keep the bow hunters below the bridge during the first few weeks of the month.

Swamper

12-23-2005, 06:14 PM

In the 27 seasons that I have hunted, the rut has been anywhere from start to near completion during the firearm deer season. Changing the season will have the same impact on the deer herd as now.

The best way to improve the health of the herd is through education, education, education. Education and voluntary efforts will have the biggest impact. Relying on the heavy arm of government to mandate a change will provide less improvement.

Swamper

Whit1

12-24-2005, 01:22 AM

I believe it is time that we took a look at our opening dates, making some major overhaul in them. I did hunt back in the mid '60s when there was a split opening day, one in the U.P. and another in the L.P. These were set on a Sat., but I forget which. Perhaps it was the first Sat. in Nov. for the U.P. and the second Sat. for the L.P.

At that time there was a lot of hunter angst over it as a sacralige against the move from the traditional Nov. 15th date. Yoopers....they were called U.P. residents at the time (yes, I know it takes more than residency to be a Yooper!....:lol:).

I didn't hunt the U.P. opener, but my dad did.

I think they did this for only one or two years.

Keep in mind that was 40 years ago.........that's almost a 1/2 century if your counting that sort of stuff........I'm not!!....:yikes:. Times have changed and the deer herd has expanded it's range and decreasing in numbers in the U.P. and NLP and exploding in the southern third of the state.

I'd add a note that if we are going to shorten the main firearms season from its traditional two weeks to less I'd also suggest that we close bow season for the first two weeks in Nov. If we are going to try and protect bucks than let all hunter do their part. Bowhunters......I used to bowhunt a LOT, but due to a new hip don't want to climb trees anymore and came to the conclusion that one reason I enjoyed bowhunting so very much was the "View from the Penthouse" as I called it in an article I penned.....and firearms hunters.

Bowhunting: Oct. 1st to Oct. 31th and December 1st to December 31st
Firearms U.P. Second Saturday in Nov. and run for ten days.
Firearms L.P. Third Saturday in Nov. and run for ten days.

Another option is to open the firearms seasons to give hunter two weekends in which to hunt. That would be a better option, which I think Bob mentions above but it's almost 2:30AM and I don't want to go back and check that out in his post.....:lol:

It's time that we began to think "outside the box" of what was 20th century deer herd management.

trailsend

12-24-2005, 07:25 AM

Quote" So, the question is, how do you craft a split opener that's really needed, yet it keeps 90% of our hunters happy and accomplishes the goal? And that goal being, less yearling bucks harvested with a peak rut opener and a substantial increase in more bucks surviving gun season and more mature bucks in a few years." unquote 90%!!:lol: high hopes

I really can't and won't speak for area's i don't hunt. Where i hunt i just cannot see how changing dates will do anything for protecting smaller bucks.As for protecting more mature bucks, you want rifle hunters to have a set quota? If you want to protect yearling bucks in the area of the UP that i hunt then eliminate bait. This will work for a few seasons. Also ban atv's during hunting season. As i have stated before peak rut does not fall during rifle season here as often as you may believe. Our camp is in the bananna belt but we still get snow ( based on generations of camp log writings) that will shut the rut down.I have many stands set up and some are a hours walk from the brule river(staeline). Wisconsin opens on the saturday after our opener. That can sometimes be a week later and you should here the shootin.It has been a long standing joke that we should post on the brule (michigan side) on wisconsins opener. Saturday openings bring out more hunters,hunting over more bait piles.This inturn moves more deer and thus more deer shot. IMO. Since we come to camp for the season we are on vacation also. So we try to take a ride into northern wisconsin and stop at all the buck poles and ride through camp country and just look at the bucks hangin. I guess if i took pics i could show ya that they shoot yearlins in wisconsin also and too many in my opinion. Buck tag for the lower or the up? I feel that takes yet another option away from hunters and for what reason? I can see where some unethical sportsmen would only buy buck tags if they shot a buck being that they could still be legal in the woods with a doe tag.Again these are just my opinions and observations. Education will get us where we want to be.Times are changin for sure.I can remember the old timers would get together at a camp and everyone would throw there doe tag in a bowl and light em up. This would get ya a shot of yukon. Now we shoot does at a very liberal pace. Merry christmas,peace.

Trophy Specialist

12-24-2005, 07:47 AM

I like the way it is...I don't want people to have a the choice of 2 openers so the U.P. would get more hunters and give us more hunting pressure.

Also, If you really like good hunting our 15th opener works great because it does not go against the rifle openers of many of the surrounding states. I like hunting PA or WI more than MI's opener...but it doesn't mean I want to miss MI's because I have friends and family in.

Anyways, we just don't need the added pressure of more bait-toting rifle hunters up here that can have their own opener in the lower, and then travel to the U.P. for another and wack even more yearling bucks.

The 15th is already past prime hunting in MI and if you want to take pressure off bucks, eliminate the baiting, especially in the northern lower and U.P.
I agree mostly with what NorthJeff says and I also think that it is over complicating things. I'd like to see the firearm season open statewide on Nov. 15, but for the first week of the season, it would be for antlerless deer only. The second week of the season would then be for bucks or does. Then I'd like to see the late antlerless season ended state wide because it would not be necessary. These simple rule changes would save lots of bucks because of the later buck season date and also because the bucks would be spooked in all areas where does are legal. There are other states that have separate buck and doe seasons.

Erik

12-24-2005, 07:58 AM

I've always held the oppinion that the UP and LP should have seperate seasons and licenses. It makes perfect sense if you ask me. And it would be easily enforced. I might even go so far as to suggest that people who live down state should have to apply for a UP permit, and vice versa. I know alot of UP residents would like that.
As for the rutt thing I don't really think thats an issue. I can see alot of people getting upset about it because they will believe it is an issue...ie..."the bow hunters are killing all the nice bucks because they get to hunt during the peak of the rutt". But the truth of the matter is the peak of the rutt varies quite a bit from year to year. Around here it can happen anywhere from holloween through thanksgiving. And even though I myself prefer to bow hunt I still think its good for everyone to be able to hunt during at least part of the rutt. It's the most exciting time of the season.

Backwoods-Savage

12-24-2005, 12:27 PM

I keep seeing posts about the deer hunting being different compared to what it was in the 60's or even earlier in the UP. I agree, but differently. Back in the 60's it was very common for some folks to hunt a week and never see a deer. Personally, I remember one year when I hunted for 8 days and saw one doe. So, yes, the times are different. The hunting is still better now than it was then.

I personally don't like the idea of a split opener. However, if there was, then I would be against the season starting after Thanksgiving. Perhaps it could start the day after Thanksgiving though rather than wait until December.

Another thing is that December is firewood cutting time for lots of folks, myself included. I hunt from October 1 through November and come December it is time to get some work done again. Oh how I hate cutting wood when the temperature is 10 degrees or less and snow ***** deep to a tall Indian.

Keep trying Bob. You might get something yet.

Whit1

12-24-2005, 01:57 PM

Bow Season
U.P. and L.P.
October 1st - October 31st
December 1st - December 31st

Firearms Season U.P.
2nd Saturday in November and run for two weekends

Firearms Season L.P.
3rd Saturday in November and run for two weekends

Muzzle Loader
Same as now

Special Firearms Antlerless Season in the SLPs that need it to be determined by the MDNR after the regular fire arms season.
The last week of the month

One buck tag per weapon (archery and firearm) You cannot take two bucks with any one weapon (weapons being defined as archery and firearm)

Minimum of 40 acres w/ tax ID number and written permission from the landowner for private land antlerless permits. (This is just for thought!)

nwilcox

12-24-2005, 11:11 PM

I can tell you one thing.....our camp and surrounding camps already get upset enough at the rudeness of two groups of downstate guys that come up for our opener and hunt right on our bait piles, incoming trails, trespass, chainsaw within eyesight on private property, hunt right next to us etc etc. Not only do they do this every year, they have the gall to keep coming back and bringing more extra people every year.

Being from SE Michigan, I have to agree with what you just said. No to splitting thr season. It would make for more "traffic" in the UP

I dont know but the past couple years, driving around before season starts it seems to me the dear hurd numbers are down. I dont see nearly the number of dears out in fields like I use to.

Pinefarm

12-25-2005, 09:18 PM

It wouldn't make for more traffic in the UP if you had to pick UP or LP for the only place your tag is good for. If you pick the UP, you were already going there. A later opener protects bucks in the LP because the gun season won't be opening at peak rut, so the bucks won't be as exposed to hunters. In fact, other than feeding or getting jumped, half the bucks would more than likely lay low throughout the December gun season. But an opener at peak rut means that all the bucks are moving all day. When they set the Nov. 15 rule, the plan was to only shoot bucks and as many as possible to control the herd. The Nov.15 rule is perfect for that. But those days are over. Is it an inherent Michigan thing to not want to acknowledge when something's time has passed and we're in a new age? There probably is no better date to assure that as many young bucks as possible get killed on the first 3 days of a firearm season than a Nov 15 opener. That's why most states have an opener a bit later. We no longer want to manage our herd by killing as many young bucks as possible. But some seem to confuse the reason for a firearm season with a holiday for them, instead of how best to manage what we have. :rolleyes: :dizzy: :help:

Whit1

12-25-2005, 09:28 PM

Why a Split Opener Between the U.P. and the L.P wouldn't Deluge the U.P. with L.P. Hunters

The best deer hunting in the state is in the southern third

Job, time, and financial constraints would limit how much time could be spent hunting whitetails and why would a hunter leave the best hunting to go to areas of lessoned prospects?

Gasoline per gallon costing well over $2

If the need arises have two licenses, one for the U.P and one for the L.P. If a L.P. hunter chooses to hunt in the U.P. (are ya getting yur pee's straight?....LOL!) that's their choice. Life is full of choices!

Pinefarm

12-26-2005, 09:00 AM

On page 62 of the March 2006 Deer and Deer Hunting, Iowa biologist Willie Suchy states the biggest reason why Iowa has so many mature bucks… “but I think the primary difference between us and some other states is that we don’t hunt our bucks heavily with firearms during the rut. Our firearms season occurs during December, well after the peak breeding has occurred. That saves a certain percentage of bucks each year that will survive and mature.”

Pinefarm

12-26-2005, 09:07 AM

Northjeff, you're not suggesting that you like a poor opener date for Michigan only because it fits your schedule for going to other states openers for their good opener dates, are you?
The solution there is to pick which state you want to hunt the opener.
Again, I think everyone is thinking in 1960's split opener terms. Making a hunter put "UP ONLY" on his regular firearm tag will probably reduce UP hunters by 1/3.

trailsend

12-26-2005, 09:49 AM

"Why a Split Opener Between the U.P. and the L.P wouldn't Deluge the U.P. with L.P. Hunters

The best deer hunting in the state is in the southern third

Job, time, and financial constraints would limit how much time could be spent hunting whitetails and why would a hunter leave the best hunting to go to areas of lessoned prospects?

Gasoline per gallon costing well over $2

If the need arises have two licenses, one for the U.P and one for the L.P. If a L.P. hunter chooses to hunt in the U.P. (are ya getting yur pee's straight?....LOL!) that's their choice. Life is full of choices!"

1) best deer hunting in the slp? Depends on how you define hunting.

2) True, so your solution is to add another constraint?

3) Rifle = 300^ bow= 600^ processor= 50^ come on 2 bucks a gallon isn't stoppin ya

4) the only one that makes sense.

Pinefarm

12-26-2005, 09:59 AM

And when the UP opens the muzzleloader on Decmber 2, it will fit nicely with the LP regular gun season opening at the same time. The goal is to have a split opener that sets a opener date later in the rut AND decreases trolls coming across the bridge. Of course, we could open the season statewide on the first Friday in December, but Yoppers won't like that either. Basically, as far as priorities like herd numbers, car/deer numbers, crop damage and hunter numbers go, what happens in the UP has to come 3rd behind what happens in the SLP first and NLP second. Not the other way around. It may be a colder view, but it's the truth. When Delta county has as many deer/auto accidents as Kent county, we can revisit the rules.

Pinefarm

12-26-2005, 10:02 AM

Trailsend, you NOT would have the choice of 2 firearms licenses. You'd have only one chioce for your one firearm tag, UP or LP. Then you spend your whole regular firearm season in the one you pick.

trailsend

12-26-2005, 10:21 AM

Trailsend, you NOT would have the choice of 2 firearms licenses. You'd have only one chioce for your one firearm tag, UP or LP. Then you spend your whole regular firearm season in the one you pick.

Bob, i am trying to see your reasoning for this but it just isn't hitting me in the forehead. Would not just allowing one buck tag be better?

And surely the goal must be bigger than to keep "trolls" out of the UP.

Leon2

12-26-2005, 11:48 AM

I generally support ideas that protect more young bucks, so I am intrigued by Bob@bbt's proposal and I believe that Iowa's approach certainly contributes to it having more big bucks survive each year.

I also started hunting in the 1960s and I remember how much different it was. I too went a whole season one year without seeing a single deer and we used to get excited just seeing a fresh set of tracks. I never want to go back to those days where shooting a buck (or any deer) was a rare event.

I also don't see the harm in encouraging a few LP hunters to come to the UP (i'm one making that 600 mile trip on most weekends). This traffic is good for the UP's economy and many UP residents and businesses need some LP money to make ends meet. I also supported the one duck opener so that we don't have every duck hunter in the LP coming to the UP. Split duck openers sure make for lousy duck hunting in the UP and strained relations among too many hunters crammed into a limited number of public marshes.

Finally, there's something magical about seeing a buck on the trail of hot doe, or to see one madly chasing a doe, trying to breed with her. It might be the only time all season you see that buck, so hunting during the rut (whether with a rifle or bow) has always been special to me.

So, I'm probably interested in this proposal, but the current season (coupled with more emphasis on a smaller young buck harvest), seems like the best alternative to me.

Pinefarm

12-26-2005, 02:00 PM

Trailsend, the point is, in the lower, we should open our firearm season for bucks around the first of December, so it's later in the rut and more bucks are protected. The probem is, Yoopers then complain that the opener is too late for them because some years their deer have started migrating. But, the Yoopers also complain because they don't want a split opener if it means "Trolls" from the lower will come to hunt "their" deer and opener. Fair enough, but they can't have it both ways and the lower pen, which has the vast majority of hunters and deer, should not be beholden to the UP. The Nov. 15 is only advantageous to the UP. Now, 40 years ago, when the UP had many more deer and hunters, and MDNR didn't want any does killed and wanted bucks to make up nearly the whole harvest, the Nov. 15 gun opener made sense. It no longer makes sense. It hasn't made any sense for about a decade now.
As it stands now, we have a firearms opener really only best suited for the UP and designed to pile up the yearling buck harvest numbers. That made sense in 1955 or 1975, but not in 2005 and beyond. I'm looking for a way to keep the UP fairly happy, but to give the majority of what's best to where the vast majority of deer and deer hunters are located, in the lower pen.
This suggestion of mine may or may not be the best, but what it is is a theme for how we need to start thinking. If we think that we can have the same old rules forever, without adapting and adjusting then we become GM. Or Michigan deer hunting, for that matter, which is what we have. The term for a small racked buck of "Michigan trophy" in all of our neighboring states should not be thought of as a cute term of endearment. It's an insult to how we all act and I think we're better than that. In the 21st century, deer management is going to have to be fliud and should be able to completely overhaul it's regs every 5 years, if need be. Everything else in the world changes every 5 years, why does our hunting need to be the only thing shackled?

Pinefarm

12-26-2005, 02:13 PM

"Split duck openers sure make for lousy duck hunting in the UP and strained relations among too many hunters crammed into a limited number of public marshes."

Maybe I'm not clear. I guess the term "split opener" is incorrect. I'm talking about entirely separate seasons. Think of it as more like the bear or turkey regs. You hunt the area you choose. If you choose to hunt the UP during the regular firearms season with a buck tag, you CANNOT hunt the LP with a buck tag during the regular firearm season. There is no split opener. Split connotates one could somehow do both. You hunt only the UP or only the LP for bucks in regular firearm. Either one, but never both. However, antlerless tags are OK in their DMU anytime and in muzzleloader seasons, any unused firearms tag is good anywhere.
This is only to to deal with regular firearms or "rifle/shotgun" season, when we all know the most amount of yearling bucks are killed.

SA ULTRA MAG

12-26-2005, 02:43 PM

Bob,

You know as well as everyone here that you can't make everyone happy all the time. :)

Why not have antler restrictions (state wide). If you were to make a 4 point (one side) rule there would be a number of 1-1/2 year olds shot but not near as many that are shot today. Couple this with a shotgun/muzzleloader rule throughout the LP. I might be wrong here but doesn't Iowa (and other "big buck" states) only allow shotguns and muzzleloaders. Also allow one buck tag for firearms and one buck tag for archery.

Then the DNR could still dictate where anterless permits would help to control high deer densities.

Hey, it would be more equal for the UP and LP.

Just some thoughts :confused:

Pat

nwilcox

12-26-2005, 08:09 PM

I find this topic interesting.

I have learned alot about the layout of the season format.

Bwana

12-26-2005, 08:31 PM

The 15th is already past prime hunting in MI and if you want to take pressure off bucks, eliminate the baiting, especially in the northern lower and U.P.

I agree with Jeff.

Also, I would not be interested in shortening the Gun Season and moving it to a later date unless there was a "quiet time" during the "peak rut" that excluded hunting regardless of the method. As whit1 said, and I am paraphraseing here, all hunters need to contribute.

Whit1

12-26-2005, 09:11 PM

I find this topic interesting.

I have learned alot about the layout of the season format.

I agree.

If we keep thinking in the same box we'll stay in that box.

Our present seasons have been around, basically for over a 1/2 Century...with some exceptions of course.

Here are some stats showing how hunter numbers have changed in the past 50+ years.

#'s of Archery Hunters (about)
1953: 25,000
1973: 90,000
2004: 320,000
That is a jump of over 11x in 50 years

#'s of Muzzleloader Hunters (about)
1953: ????
1973: 95,000
2004: 200,000

#'s of Regular Firearms Hunters
1953: 450,000
1973: 700,000
2004: 650,000

These stats come from the MDNR website and were taken from graph thus they are all "about".

Couple this with the huge increase in deer numbers in the SLP and we have a very different situation than existed when our present firearms season (Nov. 15th) was instituted.

Swamper

12-26-2005, 09:23 PM

BBT - your proposed changes would certainly reduce the number of hunters, particularly in the Lower Peninsula. Pushing the opener back by two weeks would make quite a difference on the weather front, particularly that time of year. Mid November is often cold weather, particularly in the northern LP.

Swamper

Tom (mich)

12-27-2005, 07:24 AM

I like the dialogue, and it's great to see interest in adapting to the changing state of deer hunting in Michigan.

In my opinion, the epitome of the deer hunting experience is witnessing rut-related activity. While I enjoy the experience of a mid-October hunt, with its associated colors and mild temps, there's absolutely nothing that can compare to seeing chasing, hearing grunts, etc. I'd be opposed to anything that eliminates that portion of the hunter's season, regardless of their weapon of choice.

If the objective is truly to reduce the harvest of yearling bucks, then it seems to me the simplest and most prudent solution is to eliminate all artificial baiting.

farmlegend

12-27-2005, 07:27 AM

Given the difference in climate alone between Ironwood and Monroe, it's crazy to have a common statewide firearms opener. As Bob noted, back in the day when the 11/15 opener was established, hardly anyone hunted in the southern lower. Things have changed greatly.

As to the possibility of incremental hunting pressure in the UP as a result of a split opener, again, things have changed. Nowadays, there just aren't hundreds of thousands of guys out there that have the time to hunt in multiple places period, let alone places hundreds of miles apart.

Southern lower, we ought to have something like Ohio; first week of December, and be done with it. Another option would be a 7 day season beginning the Monday after Thanksgiving.

Adam Waszak

12-27-2005, 08:17 AM

I don't think many read the entire first post by Bob. Go back and read it he is not suggesting a UP and LP season in which the same hunter could shoot a BUCK in both. you have to choose where you wish to "buck hunt" and then thee are antlerless tags etc you use per DMU. The Nov 15th opener is dumb I don't like it because 9 years out of ten the weather sucks but come Dec. 1 the weather usually turns in favor of the hunter. I like the idea a lot and would support it. As Farmlegend pointed out, this is a big state and the habitat, climate, deer populations and behaviors are all different from Up to SLP so why use the same plan for the entire state. I like the idea Bob and punch in your license machine one LP tag for me please :D

AW

answerguy8

12-27-2005, 09:08 AM

Why all the pandering to a group of selfish UP residents who don't want anyone else hunting 'their' public property? Decide what would be best for all hunters and be done with it.

NorthJeff

12-27-2005, 09:41 AM

Answerguy8,

One of the reasons they combined the ML opener's this year was to take pressure OFF the U.P...straight from Rod Clute's mouth. It's just being realistic that as our deer herd is ever decreasing up here in the U.P. to the point that the majority of DMU's were under DNR stated goals entering the hunting season....we just don't need any added pressure. It doesn't make sense to add any pressure at all to the U.P. if it can be helped....that's just sound management, not selfishness.

If we increase the pressure in the U.P. due to improved winter habitat, a larger deer herd, and an improved buck age structure...that would be welcomed and the economy could certainly use the boost. But, the last several years have shown that people don't flock to the U.P. for a continually smaller deer herd and to change regulations that would add pressure in the U.P., without changing the quality of the deer herd, doesn't make much sense.

Also, in my experience I don't see any differance in the best times to be in the woods between southern lower MI to the U.P., to SW WI.....you better be in the woods with a bow in the first week of Nov. or you are missing the best time. In fact, I'd happily give up the entire rifle and the month of Oct. to only have the option to hunt the first 10 days of November-from the U.P., to southern WI, to the thumb area. Now if we were in AL...mid to late January would be my pick, but this isn't the south.

If you want to take pressure off the bucks...eliminate hunters and/or bait (in the north).

answerguy8

12-27-2005, 09:46 AM

NorthJeff

12-27-2005, 09:56 AM

That's from Rod Clute's partial reasoning for the combined openers. We get lots of ML hunting up here in the deer yards if the winter is early and ML around here is more pressure than archery by a long shot. Rifle pressure is very high, ML is moderate, bow is low.

Bottom line, we lost 350,000 deer in the 2 winters of 96 and 97, 110,000 in 2000-2001 and with our winter habitat every aging and shrinking, our deer herd continues to shrink. The bridge dead deer count has been down in the double digits each of the last several years as well. You can bet guys will travel north for a day or two to hunt an extra rifle opener if they have it...I can only imagine how bad it would be if the opener was on a weekend as well.

IA doesn't save bucks due to the later season...they do it because of the lack of hunters and a hunting culture that just doesn't shoot small bucks. If our rifle season was in the first week of Nov. it might be a problem, but I see no differance between the U.P. and the lower as far as the best times to be in the woods...and it isn't on 11/15.

We don't have a problem with the number of bucks we shoot in MI...we have a problem with the age we shoot those bucks at. Let the young walk, there will be more bucks in the woods overall...and more older.

SA ULTRA MAG

12-27-2005, 10:12 AM

IA doesn't save bucks due to the later season...they do it because of the lack of hunters and a hunting culture that just doesn't shoot small bucks.

We don't have a problem with the number of bucks we shoot in MI...we have a problem with the age we shoot those bucks at. Let the young walk, there will be more bucks in the woods overall...and more older.

:yeahthat: :yeahthat: :yeahthat:

:hide:

Whit1

12-27-2005, 10:24 AM

Adam Waszak

12-27-2005, 10:34 AM

I like the split and I do think if there were another gun opener inthe UP and the LP there would be a mass migration of hunters to get an extra opener thus defeating the goal. I don't hunt the UP but I may if it was a different opening day because that is the best day to be out there. With the herd being in its current shape I think Northjeff is right but I also like the opener being after Thanksgiving. Maybe there should be a quiet time during prime rut who knows what is the best option but I do think we are in need of some adjustments throughout the state.

AW

NorthJeff

12-27-2005, 11:04 AM

Whit,

I see it as a "balance". The number of hunters have been shrinking with our deer herd...guys have a bad hunt, and don't come back, but it seems parallel...the number of hunters are shrinking along with the number of deer. On the otherhand, if you give guys another opener by coming up to the U.P. the number of hunters will increase regardless of if the deer numbers decline, or improve. Might be a 5% increase...10%, 20%..who knows, but it's added pressure that we don't need on a shrinking deer herd and shrinking winter habitat. It's not that guys would come for the great hunting overall in the U.P....but they'd come just because it's another rifle opener they can participate in. It's all opinion anyways...but we would increase our number of hunters for the opener by a certain percentage and I don't see how it wouldn't hurt whatever "balance" we have right now, between deer and hunter numbers.

Improve the habitat, increase the deer density...we can add more hunters, but who's to say we don't attract the same hunters we've already lost AND additional hunters that come due to another opener. It's all about balance and I just don't see where we should be tipping the scales towards more hunters when the deer herd is shrinking or remaining parallel to the number of hunters we already have.

If you get rid of the bait in the northern and U.P. all this discussion becomes a mute point. I don't see how there would be a lick of differance between the 15th, or the 30th of Nov. as far as number of bucks harvested...we'd still have a pile of yearling bucks killed over bait the first day or two that would make up the bulk of the harvest.

Pinefarm

12-27-2005, 11:19 AM

Farmlegend posted...
"As to the possibility of incremental hunting pressure in the UP as a result of a split opener, again, things have changed. Nowadays, there just aren't hundreds of thousands of guys out there that have the time to hunt in multiple places period, let alone places hundreds of miles apart.

Southern lower, we ought to have something like Ohio; first week of December, and be done with it. Another option would be a 7 day season beginning the Monday after Thanksgiving."

I think you make a great point. I personally don't know anybody that would go up to the UP to hunt a spilt gun opener, since they'd be able to bow hunt the rut around here in the LP. Add to that the modern life time factor. Going to the UP to hunt is a major schlepp. You don't do it if you have a day or 2 off, as compared to the pace of life in say, 1961, when most guys took a week off for gun opener.
To compare anything with the days of hunting in 1960 is so far off base that it's a bit mind boggling to me.
Anyways, it's nice to throw ideas at the wall of how to have a noticeable decrease in the yearling buck harvest without MAR's.
Voluntary passing is a great first step, but regulations that dovetail with that and help the situation are also needed. In a way, it's like the war on militant Islam. The military can only do so much without the political half doing it's part. Voluntary passing is one half of the puzzle of decreasing yearling buck harvest and updated political regulations that helps point hunters to that ends is the other half.
Of course, ending baiting would probably do as much good. Doing both, updating opener dates and ending baiting would make Michigan's deer hunting scary good IMHO.

skipper34

12-27-2005, 11:28 AM

Northjeff,

Please re-read Bob's original post. It does not mention an "additional opener". He says to have an opener separate from the LP. The idea is that the hunter decides where he wants to buck hunt, UP or LP. He then purchases his buck tag accordingly. There would not be another opener in either zone for every hunter. Bob, am I correct on this?

Pinefarm

12-27-2005, 12:13 PM

Skipper, evidently I didn't do that good of a job of conveying my suggestion. You are correct. despite my poor explaination, the "keep it simple stupid" rulle applies because this is very simple. For regular firearm season only, it'd be very much like the turkey tag sytem that works well and everyone understands. When you buy you firearm tag, the clerk aske which area you want it for, just like they would do for turkey. But unlike turkey, there's a mere simple 2 choices, UP or LP.
And similar to the turkey system has the 234 guaranteed hunt period, the new deer tag would allow anyone to hunt anywhere in muzzleloader season if they had an unused firearm tag.
This would decrease pressure in the UP, perhaps far more than 30%, and increase pressure in the SLP, since that's where most hunters live and spend a fair amount of their time hunting. If a person lives and hunts 70% of the time in Jackson, Barry, Allegan or Oakland county, he will never pick the UP for regular firearm season for his buck tag. If that person from Jackson wanted to go to a UP gun opener camp with some friends, he still could, but he'd be doing so as an antlerless only hunter, if he bought an antlerless tag. His regular firearm buck tag would be good only be for the LP, which was his choice.

NorthJeff

12-27-2005, 12:20 PM

Bob,

My bad...I like the idea of the choice between the two but I still have my doubts about it really taking pressure off the bucks even on a Dec. opener. As far as the U.P. goes keeping the 15th would be good be idea as it is past the best of the rut (even past the best in the lower) and some of the areas guys can't get into a week or two later. Even this year I know of guys that used up a couple tanks of gas in the chainsaw and had a tough time getting our after just the first week with how bad the weather was. A week later and they wouldn't have even made their opener.

Swamper

12-27-2005, 12:27 PM

Pinefarm

12-27-2005, 12:42 PM

Northjeff, I'm 100% for keeping the Nov. 15 opener in the UP. That's the whole point. Only the lower would have the first Friday in December opener.

NorthJeff

12-27-2005, 12:46 PM

"Only the lower would have the first Friday in December opener."

Which would coincide with the U.P. ML opener...sounds good :)

Sorry for not paying attention, must still be in the "haze" of all that food I ate over the weekend!

We still have to get some pressure off our young bucks in the U.P. though....but that's another thread! I really think again, in the U.P., it's not the number of bucks being shot, just the age at which they are being shot.

Whit1

12-27-2005, 12:57 PM

This is a great thread!

We're exchanging ideas and learning from each other. I'm even agreeing with Farmlegend...mark this one down Dan!!!.........:lol:.

As Bob and FL say we can't think back to the demographics of life in the '60s. They have all changed, as has the deer herd all over Miichigan. Because of this I don't believe you'll have enough hunters going north to the U.P. to hunt "their" opener.

Today's sportsman.....except us retired guys and I ain't goin'........have severe time constraints put on them due to job, family (both hubby and wife work so time is precious), expense, etc. Given a choice between taking the time to hunt in the SLP or the U.P. I don't think there'd be many who who travel north, certainly not enough to put significant added pressure on the herd.

One factor that would help the buck/doe ratio and improve the herd age structure in all areas is the elimination of baiting. Perhaps, rather than keep these ongoing discussion of VARS vs. MARS, SLP vs. NLP vs U.P., ML vs. BH vs FA hunting (I hadda stretch those last ones) we should really be focusing on getting rid of bait, but, as Jeff says, that's for another thread.

Adam Waszak

12-27-2005, 01:00 PM

"The Nov 15th opener is dumb I don't like it because 9 years out of ten the weather sucks but come Dec. 1 the weather usually turns in favor of the hunter. "

AW - do you hunt in the Lake County that borders Manistee County? When does winter usually arrive there?

Swamper

Swamper that time of the year in my experience the weather isn't good until almost thanksgiving. We have had 60 degree openers, rain and sleet openers, 10 degree mornings with 45 degree afternoons etc etc etc mostly mild though and not really cold enough to get the deer moving but soon as December hits it is usually better. I hunt bow gun muzzle and bow so I deal with it fine I am just saying from the best hunting weather the 15th is not usually when it is IMO

AW

NorthJeff

12-27-2005, 01:17 PM

"One factor that would help the buck/doe ratio and improve the herd age structure in all areas is the elimination of baiting."

I actually used bait on the property this year so I don't think it's an ethical issue, but:

1. Improved sex ratios
2. Improved buck age structure
3. Return to a variety of traditional hunting methods
4. More socially acceptable

Personally, I've never been too big on the disease issue because it's been so isolated and up here in the "baiting capital of the world" there have been no problems.

But there are many improvements to getting rid of baiting accept for the fact there might be some hunters a little lost for the first few years..but there could be a lot of good to come from it. I still think it's a shame that some of the hunters I know up here that have hunted for a decade or more have NEVER hunted without bait. These are hard-core guys still in the woods...they have never even been exposed to not hunting over bait. They aren't doing anything wrong...just amazing though that we have a generation like this and if we took the bait away some of our most die-hard hunters will becomes some of the least experienced hunters in the woods, literally overnight.

Pinefarm

12-27-2005, 01:23 PM

Northjeff posted...
"Which would coincide with the U.P. ML opener...sounds good"

Now you see what I was trying to get at. ;) With the LP regular firearm season going on at the same time as the UP muzzleloader season, I don't see a mad dash of more hunters going to the UP. I think those UP lovers/and or UP landowners/dedicated UP public land huntes will still go and the more casual guys will stay closer to home in the LP.

NorthJeff

12-27-2005, 01:34 PM

The winner for the whole idea for me is the either tag option. If you buy for the south...you stay in the south..buy for the U.P., stay in the U.P. Having the U.P. ML and southern opener coincide is the "icing on the cake".

O.K. Bob...let's get it done! ;)

EdB

12-27-2005, 02:23 PM

I'm not sure how a later opener will save bucks in Southern MI? The rut peaks around Nov 1 - 7 down here so we are definately not hunting the peak rut on Nov 15. The deer, including bucks, have been real vunerable in this years Dec muzzle load season here due to the snow and cold weather. Hunger had them moving quite a bit in daylight hours and we saw lots of bucks. If we would have had a deer opener in December this year, the buck kill would have been much higher in southern MI. Also, the later the season, the less protection bucks get from standing crops. Most crops are gone by December. If the goal is to save bucks, a later opener won't do it. Going to one buck tag is the best way to save some bucks. I'm also not real thrilled with any proposal that permanently links opening day to a Friday or weekend but that's another issue.

Munsterlndr

12-27-2005, 02:35 PM

NorthJeff

12-27-2005, 02:44 PM

"Leave the season dates alone and go to a one buck license."

We don't have a problem with how many bucks we kill...just the age of the bucks we kill. Kill the same amount...just wait a year and let the young ones go. Keep our numbers in line with doe harvest if needed and the result is more total bucks in the herd, including more mature bucks, as well as improved sex ratios.

Like a lot have been saying though...get rid of the bait and all of these concerns are taken care of.

Munsterlndr

12-27-2005, 03:20 PM

We don't have a problem with how many bucks we kill...just the age of the bucks we kill. Kill the same amount...just wait a year and let the young ones go. Keep our numbers in line with doe harvest if needed and the result is more total bucks in the herd, including more mature bucks, as well as improved sex ratios.

When you say "We" I assume you are talking about "We" as in Yoopers, not "We" as in Michigan hunters. If you mean the latter I'd have to strongly disagree. Michigan is one of the only states in the midwest that is killing more bucks than does annually. The ratio for the entire State is 56/44 antlered to antlerless. We need to change this ratio so that we are taking more does than bucks. Going to a one buck license is the most painless way to accomplish this.

In the UP you guys are whacking bucks at a 73/27 antlered to antlerless ratio. Maybe you do have a problem with how many bucks you kill.

Btw, BB's are not included in the above figures. If you figure that 20-25% of the antlerless kill are BB's it gets even worse.

NorthJeff

12-27-2005, 03:32 PM

We will always and probably always should be heavily weighted towards the number of bucks we harvest in the U.P. because in many of our DMU's it is just not appropriate to harvest a doe...EVER. Some of our DMU's have NEVER had a doe license and that is just the way it will most likely be. In 3-4 out of 19 of the southern DMU's in the U.P. they have just about reached their saturation point with doe harvest so more permits wouldn't make much differance.

It most likely hasn't been appropriate to harest a doe on my property since we've owned it 1999. That is the falicy with QDM even. Many think that in order to have QDM, you have to harvest does, and that is not true if mother nature takes care of the excess for you, or you are unnecessarily below you habitat's carrying capacity.

Really, the 2nd license will accomplish this? What is the percentage of harvest of the 2nd tag?

Again though, pass on the young bucks, keep the herd in line with the appropriate amount of doe harvest...and we can still shoot the same amount of bucks we do right now, just a year older.

I say we structure the amount of buck tags so that if you want to shoot any buck with total disregard to the management or health of the herd, you pay double the price for that option and get one unrestricted tag. However, if you want two restricted tags that are designed to allow you to take only mature bucks, so you are therefore severely limited, you pay 1/2 the price of the restrictred tag for each...for the same total. This is a non-issue anyways unless the DNR can be assured of the same funds.

Pinefarm

12-27-2005, 03:42 PM

The rut in the LP runs the entire month of November and peaks roughly mid-point. The rut is only beginning Nov.1-7 and is interrupted on Nov. 15.

Northjeff, I'm glad my point is now clearing up. That's why I wasn't giving up on this thread. ;) As far as "getting 'er done", tell all your UP and QDM buddies to get a hold of the NRC and MDNR and suggest something along these lines. I don't think that this is an unrealistic proposal.

I would suggest NOT trying something like this in 2006. Too many folks already have plans for the 2006 season. But it could certainly be done for 2007, with lots of public notice coming from MDNR and the media.
But, if it was to happen in 2006, here's how the seasons would look...

REGULAR FIREARM BUCK TAG
One tag good for any buck with the hunters choice of UP ONLY or LP ONLY.
UP Dates--Nov. 15 though Sunday after Thanksgiving. (Nov. 26 in 2006)
LP Dates--1st Friday in December through 2nd Sunday in December. (Dec. 1-Dec. 10 in 2006)

MUZZLELOADER SEASON
Anyone with an unused Regular Firearm Buck Tag may hunt anywhere in the state, in any muzzleloader season, regardless of which Peninsula chosen for the Regular Firearms Buck Tag.
UP Dates--December 1-December 10
LP Dates--2nd Monday in December through 3rd Monday in December. (Dec. 11-Dec. 18 in 2006)

ARCHERY
One either sex tag good for anywhere in the entire state.
UP dates---October 1 through November 14. Closed for Regular Firearms season. Re-opens the Monday after Regular Firearms season ends through January 1.
LP Dates. October 1-Day before Regular Firearms season opens. (Oct.1-Nov. 30 in 2006) Re-opens day after Regular Firearms ends through Jan.1. (Dec. 11-Jan. 1 in 2006)

ANTLERLESS TAGS
Any hunter may use an antlerless tag in the DMU it is valid for at any time and in any season, as long has the hunter follows the rules of what particular weapon must be used during that season. A hunter DOES NOT need to have a Regular Firearms Buck Tag for the same peninsula that the antlerless tag is issued in. Example, a person with a LP Regular Firearm Season Buck Tag may use an anterless tag in the UP during the UP Regular Firearm Season.

The combination tag would be eliminated.

Munsterlndr

12-27-2005, 03:42 PM

We will always and probably always should be heavily weighted towards the number of bucks we harvest in the U.P. because in many of our DMU's it is just not appropriate to harvest a doe...EVER. Some of our DMU's have NEVER had a doe license and that is just the way it will most likely be. In 3-4 out of 19 of the southern DMU's in the U.P. they have just about reached their saturation point with doe harvest so more permits wouldn't make much differance.

It most likely hasn't been appropriate to harest a doe on my property since we've owned it 1999. That is the falicy with QDM even. Many think that in order to have QDM, you have to harvest does, and that is not true if mother nature takes care of the excess for you, or you are unnecessarily below you habitat's carrying capacity.

Really, the 2nd license will accomplish this? What is the percentage of harvest of the 2nd tag?

If you keep harvesting a much higher percentage of bucks you will be fighting an uphill battle to achieve a balanced sex ratio.

The question is not how many hunters currently use the second tag, it's how many would hold off on shooting a spike if they only had one tag? That number would be a lot higher than the number of hunters who currently harvest two bucks.

Whit1

12-27-2005, 03:42 PM

Really, the 2nd license will accomplish this? What is the percentage of harvest of the 2nd tag?

The point is, by limiting hunters to one buck, and I'm talking about one buck per weapon (bow and firearms) we would be saving some bucks. That's the key. Just because that method wouldn't save the % of bucks that some would like really doesn't matter. Some bucks would be saved.

Certainly this might be a "burden" on those hunters whose main reason to hunt is to take a large antlered buck, but they would be a very small minority of deer hunters.

Limiting hunters to one buck would be a simple,......no need for studies, votes, proposals, surveys, etc...... way to improve the buck to doe ratio.

Pinefarm

12-27-2005, 03:58 PM

Munsterlndr

12-27-2005, 04:11 PM

The problem with offering 2 buck tags in any season isn't so much that hunters shoot 2 bucks. The problem is, offering 2 bucks allows hunters to "burn" their first tag on the first buck they see so they can say they "got their buck". Basically mulligan tag. By offering 2 tags in any given season, there is zero incentive to pass the first yearling buck you see. The problem with offering 2 buck tags in any season isn't hunters shooting 2 bucks, it's all the hunters that shoot 1 yearling buck, who probably would have otherwise passed on that first small buck if they knew all they had was 1 buck tag for each season, archery and firearms. Offering the option of 2 buck tags in any sesaon is just giving hunters a free pass mulligan tag. If anything, the combo tag ASSURES that more hunters will shoot more yearling bucks, than if only one buck tag per season was offered.

Bob you have it exactly right!

I'd go farther, though, and make it one buck tag for any season. Otherwise hunters are going to use thier archery buck tag on a little buck just before firearms starts, knowing they can still take a monster with a gun. Or they will use thier firearms buck tag on a spike knowing they can still hunt the late season archery for a bigger buck. One buck a year should be enough for anybody. If you want more venison shoot a doe.

skipper34

12-27-2005, 06:06 PM

Munsterlndr

12-27-2005, 06:24 PM

Fella's, these are all real good ideas and I am glad to see the feedback and responses. The real problem that I see to all of these good ideas is the NRC and the DNR. Lets face it, unless the state can reap their revenues from license sales, all the best ideas in the world won't mean much if the almighty dollar is not in the mix. Sad but true, the DNR and NRC is a business first, and a manager second. This is only one man's(mine) opinion, but isn't that really the crux of it? I liked Northjeff's idea of a higher license fee for an any-buck tag for either UP of LP. Bob, this is to me a very good thread. But consider this for a moment.......what about a blind license, like what they use for the elk hunt? Lets say, go ahead and separate the two pennisulas as far as a buck tag, but make the tag blind, so that when the hunter purchases his tag for either UP or LP, he must then open the purchased tag to find out whether he can tag any buck or a restricted buck. I wouldn't think that the logistics would be too difficult to figure out by the powers that be. Am I making any sense of this or am I all wet? This idea has been on my mind for quite some time. This would be a one-buck tag as was suggested, but by luck of the draw, you are a any-deer hunter or a trophy hunter. They could provide less any-buck tags than restricted tags. That would take care of the number of young bucks harvested. Tell me what you all think.

Sounds way too complicated and remember that any proposal still has to offer the combo license, that is mandated by statute.

We need to stick with the KISS principle. The only change that needs to be made is to change the combo license from being good for two bucks to being good for one buck and one doe. Eliminate single firearm or archery buck tags. If people want to hunt a buck they buy a combo tag. If they just want to hunt doe they buy an antlerless tag.

This would accomplish the following:

It should reduce the number of young bucks taken , which in turn should increase the numbers of mature bucks in the future.

It should increase the number of does taken, which will help balance sex ratio's and help stabilize herd numbers.

It should increase revenue since there would be more combo license sold.

It should help to equalize the antlered/antlerless kill ratio.

It's simple enough that most sportsmen can understand it and it can be accomplished without the legislature having to vote on it.

Really the only downside is for those hunters who want to harvest two bucks in a single year. Under this proposal they would only get to harvest one but at least this would be offset by being garaunteed at least one antlerless permit that could be used in any DMU. I think it's a fair trade off.

What's not to like?

New Kid

12-27-2005, 08:05 PM

bravo, best idea i've heard to date. but what if we divide the pressure in the LP between two gun seasons, have the first dec. 2-6 and the second dec. 9-17. this =s a 14 day season but makes hunters chose between 5 days of hunting fresh deer or 9 days of hunting deer that have experienced only 5 days pressure with 3 days to relax. this has worked in iowa for years to help distribute hunters. theoreticly you should come across only half the people you do in the current firearm season.i'm exicited to hear so much about change i really hope something comes of it

ENCORE

12-27-2005, 08:22 PM

...... I also think that it is over complicating things. I'd like to see the firearm season open statewide on Nov. 15, but for the first week of the season, it would be for antlerless deer only. The second week of the season would then be for bucks or does. Then I'd like to see the late antlerless season ended state wide because it would not be necessary. These simple rule changes would save lots of bucks because of the later buck season date and also because the bucks would be spooked in all areas where does are legal. There are other states that have separate buck and doe seasons.

I somewhat agree with what's said here but, there are some areas that there is no doe hunting.
I'd be careful with that around hunters in those DMU's ;) . It might be better to consider an early doe season, State wide in DMU's that require it, then open up the buck hunting. The hunting of does first will certainly "wise up" the bucks.
I don't think that there will be too many changes in the future.
As I understand it (from the DNR), they're having too many problems with the next "Ten Year Budget". Right now, they're too worried about having to double the lisence costs in the next two years and keep hunters hunting.

Pinefarm

12-27-2005, 08:36 PM

Encore, keeping hunters hunting is the whole point of this discussion. It's the prospect of mature bucks that keeps hunters hunting. States that have mature bucks are turning people away.

Liver and Onions

12-27-2005, 08:46 PM

..... It's the prospect of mature bucks that keeps hunters hunting..........

OMG

L & O

Swamper

12-27-2005, 08:47 PM

ENCORE

12-27-2005, 09:01 PM

Encore, keeping hunters hunting is the whole point of this discussion. It's the prospect of mature bucks that keeps hunters hunting. States that have mature bucks are turning people away.

I agree, but beg to differ also.
Its every hunter dreams of harvesting a mature buck, but rather that's what keeps hunters hunting is up for debate.
Its extremely easy for a non-resident to purchase a deer lisence in Michigan. Michigan hunting hunting land, number of hunters and amount of private property is much different than States that have an exceptional amount of mature bucks. Michigan has plenty of mature bucks. They're just harder to hunt.
Going back to the post, I believe that there's too much complication for many people without any additional. My statement of keeping hunters hunting most likely should have been for another post. I was refering to the proposed doubling of hunting lisence fees in the next two years.

Pinefarm

12-27-2005, 09:28 PM

I mean that in the sense of states that are losing hunters and will see a more drastic dropoff soon and those states that will continue to have to tighten non-resident hunting due to overwhelming demand from hunters from places like Michigan. And we all know what states those are and what those states offer that Michigan does not offer.
For those that believe that states with mostly yearling bucks will do just as well in keeping hunter numbers as states with far more mature bucks over the next 20 years, I have some Dephi stock to sell you. ;)

Swamper

12-27-2005, 09:45 PM

BBT - I think Whit posted it....

#'s of Archery Hunters (about)
1953: 25,000
1973: 90,000
2004: 320,000
That is a jump of over 11x in 50 years

#'s of Muzzleloader Hunters (about)
1953: ????
1973: 95,000
2004: 200,000

#'s of Regular Firearms Hunters
1953: 450,000
1973: 700,000
2004: 650,000

Our biggest threats are CWD, TB, losing hunting ground to development, anti hunting regulations, and other sports and hobbies. Not small antlered bucks.

I agree that its wrong to look at what has worked in the past and say it will always work in the future. I also believe that sounding the trumpet for change based on the need to grow bigger antlers or we will perish is equally wrong.

Swamper

Pinefarm

12-27-2005, 10:09 PM

Swamp, I wasn't saying that. That is just a side bar issue. But we had some 800,000 just a decade ago, now it's 650,000. If we have 400,000 deer hunters in 20 years, there's probably nothing we can do about that. But how do we fund MDNR in 20 years? Will people pay $500 for an out of state Michigan tag to see spikes in 20 years?
The NWLP has been losing hunters at a high rate since 2000. Does anyone want to honestly discuss why that is, in another thread of course?
The fact of the matter is, quality herds will keep hunters at stronger numbers in the future and non-quality herds will have hunters searching for reasons why they hunt. I always believe that the hunt is the most important part of the hunt. Give the hunters a great hunt and they don't have to justify the hunt with social bonding excuses for their sub-standard hunting.
Anyhow, this is way off topic. :Modified_

Swamper

12-28-2005, 12:31 AM

Actually, the total number of hunters has increased significantly in total for the three categories. And this matter is directly on topic, since the thread starts with a thought that if we don't change, we are doomed. I think your comment of "Give the hunters a great hunt and they don't have to justify the hunt with social bonding excuses for their sub-standard hunting." may be a bit overly harsh.

Again, your ideas are thought provoking and the thread is good. As mentioned, there are other things that threaten hunting in MI more than small antlered bucks.

Swamper

buckslayerII

12-28-2005, 08:55 AM

I've been following this thread with much interest and think there are some great ideas presented. Now, either those of us reading and posting on it either have nothing better to do, or we're AVID hunters/outdoorsmen. I didn't go back to count the number of posters, but I'll guess 15-20, with most discussion between 3-4.

Guys, that's not even a needle in the haystack if you look at the numbers posted for hunters in MI. Based on that, I think any change needs to be subtle and SIMPLE or else it'll be met with too much opposition that there won't be any chance of it happening. IMO, it boils down to "hunters" vs. people who are passionate about hunting and being in the out-of-doors. Given the social demographics of our culture, it's not too hard to figure out which is the larger group.

Based on the KISS argument, my vote would be to eliminate baiting. I can't begin to imagine the opposition that I think that would bring, but I think it's the easiest way to get the young bucks through their first season.

NorthJeff

12-28-2005, 02:43 PM

"The problem with offering 2 buck tags in any season isn't so much that hunters shoot 2 bucks."

You guys are forgetting about all the hunters that come to the public land areas to hunt 2-3 days during rifle and only really care about shooting a buck....of which public land makes up 70-80% of the entire U.P. They shoot the first thing they see, and party..or go home. That's it, that's their season. I actually can't think of a hunter around here that has shot 2 bucks in a season since I did back in 98..which was only my 2nd time in the last 18 years. Yet, I still have a tag and I'm still hunting until Sunday even though most of the bucks have dropped both their antlers. That 2nd tag has typically more than doubled my hunting time each year, doubled my experience, doubled my knowledge, although I've used it only 2/18 years. That 2nd tag is more of a large private land area issue. For that matter, even on my own property for example...I've safely increased my deer herd, increased the number of bucks several times, encouraged bucks to an older age structure, and more hunters have shot more bucks around me for my efforts..why shouldn't I be allowed to reap the fruits of my efforts if the mood strikes me?

I can see 1 buck tag for bow, 1 for rifle...but not one for the entire year, both seasons....that's one of the main reasons we didn't already move to PA....way to limiting of a hunting season.

As for the sex ratios...interesting how in the U.P. we shoot so many more bucks than does, yet our sex ratios are some of the best in the state. That is further testament to how low the mortality rate is around here on bucks. Doe fawns die first, than BB's, than yearling does..and then there are yearling bucks. Yearling bucks have incredibly low winter mortality rates. In talking to John Ozoga he only remembers one yearling buck he found dead in the deer yards due to winter mortality. Older bucks typically inhabit the fringe areas of the deer yards where there is more food...and higher quality food sources, away from the female populations. Remember, it is only during the rut that bucks will associate with does. It makes sense you could have young does in family groups starving in March...and their brothers towards the outside of the same yard making it through winter.

Bottom line, nature gleans the weak..which happen to be more young does, than bucks even just looking at body size and yarding charecteristics. Even our DNR recognizes this and that is why some of our DMU's have never had antlerless permits...and most likely never will, but those DMU's have some of our best sex ratios in the state, as well as the best buck age structures.

Anyways...Bob, I like the way you broke down the new tag structure and your season dates. Makes a lot of sense and appears it would reduce pressure on the U.P., but at the same time reduce pressure on some of the bucks in lower MI with the later season dates. If we could add your idea, to getting rid of baiting, shooting more does in the right areas, and less in the right areas....why then there we can drop the AR talk and MI would be on it's way to about the best it could be without limiting hunter time afield.

Great ideas Bob!

just ducky

12-29-2005, 12:29 PM

"It's the prospect of mature bucks that keeps hunters hunting."

Bob, that is only your opinion...there are many other things that keep hunters hunting. Tradition, being outdoors, family time together, pursuit of the big one, pursuit of food, etc. Making such a major change with the notion that hunters keep hunting only in pursuit of the mature bucks will doom any major change. Most hunters dream of the big buck, but is that why most hunt?

Let's focus on improving the health of the herd and balance of the herd through habitat improvement, managing buck license (2, 1, or none in some areas), voluntary MARs, managing doe permits...all helped and led through hunter education. Espousing such significant change (many positives, and certainly thought provoking) for the sake of growing large bucks will doom it. Hunter education is the key.

Swamper

Boy am I glad someone else beat me to saying that! To say something like

"It's the prospect of mature bucks that keeps hunters hunting."

only reiterates the fact that there is a very real divide in the reasons why people hunt deer. I would hazard a guess if you polled all the gun deer hunters in Michigan when they bought their license, and asked them "what keeps you hunting", the majority wouldn't say "the prospect of taking a mature buck". They would answer something like "the tradition, being outdoors, family time together, pursuit of the big one, pursuit of food, etc." So I hate to say it, but I think we're back to this being about big racks again, not the overall health of the herd. :hide:

NorthJeff

12-29-2005, 12:42 PM

JD,

It's always been that way..now, when guys get a picture of a mature buck they put even longer hours in. Shoot, just getting a glimpse of a mature buck will cause guys to extend their seasons, not to mention raise their expectations. I say raise their expectations because so many have been mired in mediocrity for a couple of decades and really do not have a clue as to what is possible with quality management. I feel bad for a lot of MI sportsmen that have never had the opportunity to hunt a deer population with an adequate buck age structure because they have never hunted outside of MI.

It's about the challenge, and any seasoned hunter with true hunting experience knows that a yearling buck is one of the dumbest deer in the woods. It's a true trophy for a lot of MI hunters, and there is no problem in that, other than it is a testament to the overall quality level of our deer herd. I find when a hunter says that mature bucks are not important, it's because they don't have them and their expectations are so low...not because they actually do not want them in the population, they have just settled for less. It's no different in fishing. Take a kid fishing, and he will be happy to catch 2" perch minnows..I know, my kids love it! But, 5 years down the road, 10 years, those perch minnows become pretty darn boring. Sure, there is the beautiful sunset over the water, the warm air, the good weather, the loons, the sounds of summer, etc...and those are great. But eventually you get bored and complacent with mediocrity...and possibly even give it up.

just ducky

12-29-2005, 01:11 PM

...I find when a hunter says that mature bucks are not important, it's because they don't have them and their expectations are so low...not because they actually do not want them in the population, they have just settled for less...

Not sure I agree with you or not, and again I'm only going by my personal experiences down here in farm country. I still believe that it's a minority of the deer hunters that go that hard after a true monster buck, and most would be happy with any reasonable sized buck. If I had the interest in hunting every day of the bow and gun season, there's a great chance I'd at least have a shot at a mature buck, because they're here, and we take a few truly nice bucks each year. But personally, my obsession is waterfowling, and so I spend most of my fall chasin' birds not deer. Having said that though, the pressure once gun season starts is very heavy, and the majority of the mature bucks taken around here are taken either bow hunting, or during the first couple of days of gun season. It's just a fact that if you don't get your shot at a mature buck in either bow season, or by the first couple of days of gun season, your odds are astronomical. There still are some to be had, but the pool is greatly reduced, so one tends to change their expectations...there's where I agree with you. But it's not because they don't exist...they've been shot already! Just thinking out loud here, so I'm not sure that makes sense or not.

Swamper

12-29-2005, 03:03 PM

NJ - your quote of "I find when a hunter says that mature bucks are not important, it's because they don't have them and their expectations are so low...not because they actually do not want them in the population, they have just settled for less." ....how exactly do you "find" that????????????? Is this one of your thoughts with hard facts or no hard facts??????????

There is a heckuva bunch of us who enjoy the outdoors, watching nature, getting together with family and friends, putting venison on the table...all in tall order before taking a mature buck. And oh yeah, a 1.5 or 2.5 year old buck comes before a "mature buck". I have taken a few very nice bucks, but those seasons are no more special than the ones where I took nothing or took a small deer. I won't be disappointed in my son or daughter when they take a small deer, nor will I look down at anyone else who chooses to wait to take a big one or a small one.

Regarding your other thought of "But eventually you get bored and complacent with mediocrity...and possibly even give it up.". NEVER!!! Not me or the group we hunt with....cause we ain't all about big bucks. I am truly glad to see QDM having moved beyond this focus, and that's why I will send in my membership fees this year.

Swamper

NorthJeff

12-30-2005, 10:00 AM

JD,

"I still believe that it's a minority of the deer hunters that go that hard after a true monster buck, and most would be happy with any reasonable sized buck."

Maybe that's a little misunderstanding on both our parts. I'm not talking about the average guy going after true monstor bucks...not at all. Most don't have what it takes to consistantly harvest mature bucks and many never will. But, what I would love to see is guys raising the bar from a yearling, to a 2.5 year old or older. There are so many guys around here on public land that are just average guys, average hunters, etc. The typical guy. Some get yearling bucks every year, yet will go a decade or more in between 2.5 year old bucks. Even QDM isn't about getting every body to shoot true monstor bucks...but just raising the bar to an adequate age structure, which includes a healthy amount of 2.5 year olds. There should be more 2.5 year old and older bucks than yearling bucks, instead of more yearlings than all other age classes combined. Unfortunately many MI hunters, especially public land hunters, have never had the opportunity to hunt a population that has less yearlings, and more older....they simply don't realize how easy it could be, but everyone has to be on the same page for it to happen, and we are not.

ENCORE

12-30-2005, 01:11 PM

JD,
...... There are so many guys around here on public land that are just average guys, average hunters, etc. The typical guy. ..... Unfortunately many MI hunters, especially public land hunters, have never had the opportunity to hunt a population that has less yearlings, and more older....they simply don't realize how easy it could be, but everyone has to be on the same page for it to happen, and we are not.

Are you trying to say that the "average guys, average hunters, etc. The typical guy", is some sort of wildlife problem? Or, are you saying that anyone above the "average guys" is considered a wildlife biologist or management genius?
I do think that the "average guys" are the majority of the hunting popluation. I think the the real monster hunters are few and far between. There's probably a number of contributing factors as to why that is. Not to say that a monster deer can not be harvested from State or Public property, its just that most of that property isn't managed well for a healthy deer herd. The highest percentage of so called "monster bucks" come from private property. There's quite a few of the so called "typical guys" that don't own their own hunting property. Most can't afford the acrage. I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but I think that if the truth were probably known, the monster buck hunters have much more time to spend in the field than the "average guys". Most of the "average guys" have families and jobs that require them to be at work. If the "average guys" do not have the property or time to be a "real scout", then it appears that the "average guys" are going to hunt the time that they have available and try to harvest a buck.
The MI hunters, irregardless of rather they hunt public land or private land and, have never had the opportunity to hunt a population with more older deer, is a little misleading. I'm not an expert, but if deer populations and hunter numbers today, were compared to the same numbers 40 years ago, I believe you'd find the same ratio. Or very close. Our population and urban sprawl has grown along with the deer numbers. Our deer hunting is much better today than its ever been.
"...they simply don't realize how easy it could be..."
There's no "easy" involved. Its sure "easy" to say, but certainly not easy.
Start with a little education, voluntarily make a decision based on the quality of animal that each hunter wants to harvest, and make hunting enjoyable and safe.
The true trophy hunter will continue to persue his quarry, and the "average guys" will continue to enjoy hunting.

Pinefarm

12-30-2005, 05:31 PM

All any of us have ever been talking about is respectable 170 pound, 2.5-3.5 year old bucks. None of us are talking about creating a herd of 180 class, 230 pound super bucks.

ENCORE

12-30-2005, 06:53 PM

All any of us have ever been talking about is respectable 170 pound, 2.5-3.5 year old bucks. None of us are talking about creating a herd of 180 class, 230 pound super bucks.

The "respectable 170 pound, 2.5-3.5 year old bucks" ARE THERE. You have to HUNT for them. I myself passed six (6), 2.5 year old bucks on opening day.
If you didn't have to HUNT for them, it'd be called killing.
I'm finding that most of these posts just go from the original subject, to AR's or 2.5 to 3.5 year old bucks.
Back to the split opener guys or some nice moderator will end this. :D

Whit1

12-30-2005, 07:04 PM

I'll be nice, but if this thread doesn't get on track it'll be closed and it has value.

Belbriette

01-01-2006, 03:34 PM

For exactly the same reasons , all hunted cervid species, every where, including all over Europe, pay a high price for being mismanaged, MAINLY because hunters, hunt selfishly for their own pleasure, without any consideration for the long term optimal Conservation of the species ...

Could all hunters place the respect of the biology, the ethology and ecology of the hunted species at the right place they deserve for a durable and optimal Conservation, the "management" problem would vanish ...

It is possible to hunt without penalizing the herd and to find that much more pleasure in doing so ...

Whit1

01-01-2006, 05:54 PM

just ducky

01-02-2006, 01:10 PM

...It is possible to hunt without penalizing the herd and to find that much more pleasure in doing so ...

Agreed, but the problem is what constitutes "penalizing the herd"? Michigan is fortunate enough to have a large deer population. We aren't generally lacking in deer, although some areas of the state are definitely currently under their target populations. But many areas of the state, like in southern farm country where I live, have far too many deer per square mile. The problem is the...dare I say "quality" of the deer in the current herd, and the fact that we hunters in Michigan cannot, and probably never will agree on what we would like to see in the make-up of our herd. And I hate to see some people state that those of us who are currently happy are just "settling" for inferior deer, or that we're "penalizing" the herd. Without starting the tired old debate about what a quality deer is, I'll just say that there's nothing inferior about my current deer hunting, or the deer I take. The hunting on our property, and the sex ratio, is better than when I started deer hunting in the early 70's. I realize that isn't the case statewide, but I suspect Kansas or Iowa also have regional problems or issues as well.

I'll just repeat the worn out saying..."the grass is always greener"....

Belbriette

01-02-2006, 03:49 PM

just ducky,

First of all, thank you for your interest in what I dared to introduce in this thread.

In our two posts, can be found what is the right, but hard ... path to an "Optimal and Durable Deer Conservation" for our long term successors...

From what you wrote, I have to let you know you are on the right track, stick to it for the best of the species, for the best of her environment, for the best of hunters (harvest of "good" trophies wise), all are totally inseparable ...

Be it in Europe, in Kansas or in Iowa, for the same reasons, exactly the same problems prevail all over the world ...

From what I came to learn, I am far from being sure any place is "greener" ... than any other ...

Kindly forgive my clumsiness in your language, please just try to decipher what I am doing my best to express.

Warmly your's,
Jack

QDM 4sure

01-02-2006, 06:21 PM

Well I personally I dont see a split openner helping the buck population a whole lot.I hunt alot during the bow season and right during the peak of the rut.It seems to me prior to the peak of the rut thats when i have taken my best bucks.They were making scrapes,and checking them regularly.Hunting rub lines have also proven to be good at this time-however once the rut was in full swing the big boys seemed to be hidden in the bedding areas and staying out of sight.:yikes: I know what your thinking,Im crazy.
Oh I do realize alot of deer get shot chasing does around....mostly following them into a bait pile.
Go figure,do you want to know how to protect bucks.Practice control...Dont shoot bucks that are less then 8 points.Dont shoot 1and a half or even two and a half year old.
The best thing that could happen is that the D.N.R would manage the deer harvest county by county,as far as the harvest of does was concerned.Then the next thing is to issue one buck tag per hunter a year.If you fill it with a bow great,If you choose to use a rifle so be it,muzzle loader thats on you.One buck thats it.I know one thing a person wouldnt be in such a hurry to end his buck hunt on the first spike that came down the trail.:grouphug: Split season isnt going to do much to help the deer population.Its only a way for L.P. hunters as well as U.P. hunters to plan vacations to hunt in a more convienent fashion.
This is just my personal take on the idea.

Ed Spin04

01-02-2006, 06:44 PM

Split or no split opening season days? Whichever one as our friend Jack, (from across the atlantic) so aptly posted will benifit healthwise our most treasured resource, (the whitetail deer).

ENCORE

01-02-2006, 06:58 PM

We should ask one of the DNR biologists to answer this question.
I'm wondering if there's some kind of biological or scientific reason (or political) that they want to keep it as is?

Trophy Specialist

01-03-2006, 09:18 AM

We should ask one of the DNR biologists to answer this question.
I'm wondering if there's some kind of biological or scientific reason (or political) that they want to keep it as is?
There are two main reasons why they want to keep it as is: The first and foremost is that they have done polls before and the mojority of huters want it the way it is (Nov. 15-30). Secondly, they want hunters to kill as many deer as possible and having a season that would (save bucks) is not going to fly with this DNR.

NorthJeff

01-03-2006, 10:58 AM

"Are you trying to say that the "average guys, average hunters, etc. The typical guy", is some sort of wildlife problem? Or, are you saying that anyone above the "average guys" is considered a wildlife biologist or management genius?
I do think that the "average guys" are the majority of the hunting popluation."

Encore, your negativity has obviously clouded your interpretation. When you hear me say the average guy...I mean just that. The average guy. The average guy that comes up here and hunts on public land for 3-4 days and goes home. That's it. And you need to distinguish between Trophy Bucks, and 2.5 year olds...there is a huge differance. We are all talking about 2.5 to even 3.5 year old bucks...not true "trophy" bucks and if you think a 2.5 year old is a true trophy, than it offers further testament to the overall lack of quality in our MI herd.

You said you passed up 6, 2.5 year old bucks on opening day. Well, you are not the average hunter, and you get to hunt on trophy managed land combined with several thousand acres of private land. Most of us, including myself, do not have that privelage so to say that their are many 2.5 year old bucks out there for the taking is totally false. You need to realize that on much of our public land the average guy will go decades or more in between harvesting a buck the caliber of the 6 you passed on opening day....I think you take that for granted and don't realize how enjoyable it would be for the typical guy to have the opportunities just once a year, that you had 6 of on opening day.

Hey, a split opener may or may not be the answer..personally for me it probably wouldn't matter to my hunting. As far as AR's...they are a very useful tool but again though, they don't effect guys like you or I that hunt private land...especially you with how large of a managed area you hunt. 75% of the harvest in MI has traditionally been yearling bucks. You are right, the average guy does not have the time to scout, and neither do I. I might scout from my living room...but on the ground scouting is seriously over rated. The problem is we don't have a very high percentage of 2.5 year old bucks in the herd...if they were there, guys would harvest them, so whether it be a split opener, AR's, getting rid of baiting, whatever may get more yearling bucks to see their 2nd B-day will get more 2.5 year old bucks into the woods for the average guy to harvest.

"I think the the real monster hunters are few and far between."

Again, we aren't talking about monstor bucks, or monstor buck hunters. Many don't realize what it takes to consistantly harvest mature bucks and even if they had the time they wouldn't. Again, you need to seperate "monstor" bucks, from 2.5 year old bucks, and then the discussion might make more sense to you. We are not trying to get the average guy to hunt trophy bucks like you do...but just attempting to get the average guy to see just a small piece of the bucks you passed on opening day in a more consistent basis.

Munsterlndr

01-03-2006, 01:02 PM

75% of the harvest in MI has traditionally been yearling bucks.

I'm curious where you got this statistic, is this just a personal observation or did it come from the DNR or another published source?

If it came from the DNR it would be interesting to know where they got it. If it is based on the results from the hunter mail -out survey they would be depending on the hunter to be able to accurately age the deer. I would suspect that the average hunter would not be particularily accurate in assessing the age of the deer.

If it is based on check station data it might be a little more accurate, but it is not a truly random sample and as has been pointed out in other threads the volunteers who staff check staitons are often not very accurate when aging deer. At best, you could say that a certain percentage of those deer checked at a check station were a certain age.

I've seen this and similar percentages thrown around a lot in this forum but it would be nice to know if this is really fact or just opinion.

BTW, there are a lot more 2.5+ year old deer running around out there than most people think. They just don't tend to be as visible as the 1.5 year old bucks are, especially during hunting season.*

*Just my opinion but based on anectdotal pre-season trail cam evidence.

Gilbey

01-03-2006, 01:13 PM

Back to the topic at hand. I must have mis interpreted part of the post myself. I looked at this and thought this was another excuse for everyone to flood the UP with another "opener".

If we had an area designation such as UP and LP I would not be opposed to it. Assumption being that you'd have to choose one or the other.

I am not opposed to two tags, but I almost wish that it was different weapons designations such as some of the guys have brought up.

Oh, and when it comes to us "selfish" UP hunters......read my last post and I still feel the same way about a "2nd" opener.

NorthJeff

01-03-2006, 01:15 PM

Munstrlnder,

I agree....studies show, and what you and I have found is pretty similar, hunters typically only see about 1/2 the bucks in a given area based on intensive camera survey. As for the percentages, it's based on deer check-in data. The DMU percentages are on the DNR website, or they soon will be, and it's interesting that in the U.P. the numbers are actually O.K. in some areas....as high as in the upper 40's for older buck as a percent of harvest(2.5+)...but this has as much to do with the loss of the occasional fawn crops. Also, yearling bucks are not mistaken very often. Where the mistakes take place is in 2.5 year old+...which doesn't really matter because they are all lumped in as adult bucks whether they are 2.5 or 8.5.

I believe the actual percentages were 78% of the harvest was of yearling bucks..but you'd have to check for sure with the DNR. I'd guess that number would be near 90% in some areas, down to just under 50% in other areas such as the U.P. that may experience a loss of fawns in areas for a given year.

Nick Adams

01-03-2006, 02:29 PM

I believe the actual percentages were 78% of the harvest was of yearling bucks..but you'd have to check for sure with the DNR.

49-50% of the harvest over 2002, 2003 and 2004 was antlerless deer. (according 2004 harvest survey report)

78% of the 50% of the harvest that were antlered deer works out to yearling bucks as ~40% of the harvest.

It would be interesting to know how many deer are checked by DMU. When looking at Ed Spin's report on DMU 118 it worked out that checked deer were only 5-10% of the total harvest in the DMU. Curious as to whether that percentage holds true across the state...

-na

ENCORE

01-03-2006, 03:01 PM

[quote=NorthJeff ....
Encore, your negativity has obviously clouded your interpretation. When you hear me say the average guy...I mean just that. The average guy. The average guy that comes up here and hunts on public land for 3-4 days and goes home. That's it. And you need to distinguish between Trophy Bucks, and 2.5 year olds...there is a huge differance. We are all talking about 2.5 to even 3.5 year old bucks...not true "trophy" bucks and if you think a 2.5 year old is a true trophy, than it offers further testament to the overall lack of quality in our MI herd.

You said you passed up 6, 2.5 year old bucks on opening day. Well, you are not the average hunter, and you get to hunt on trophy managed land combined with several thousand acres of private land. Most of us, including myself, do not have that privelage so to say that their are many 2.5 year old bucks out there for the taking is totally false. You need to realize that on much of our public land the average guy will go decades or more in between harvesting a buck the caliber of the 6 you passed on opening day....I think you take that for granted and don't realize how enjoyable it would be for the typical guy to have the opportunities just once a year, that you had 6 of on opening day.

Hey, a split opener may or may not be the answer..personally for me it probably wouldn't matter to my hunting. As far as AR's...they are a very useful tool but again though, they don't effect guys like you or I that hunt private land...especially you with how large of a managed area you hunt. 75% of the harvest in MI has traditionally been yearling bucks. You are right, the average guy does not have the time to scout, and neither do I. I might scout from my living room...but on the ground scouting is seriously over rated. The problem is we don't have a very high percentage of 2.5 year old bucks in the herd...if they were there, guys would harvest them, so whether it be a split opener, AR's, getting rid of baiting, whatever may get more yearling bucks to see their 2nd B-day will get more 2.5 year old bucks into the woods for the average guy to harvest.

"I think the the real monster hunters are few and far between."

Again, we aren't talking about monstor bucks, or monstor buck hunters. Many don't realize what it takes to consistantly harvest mature bucks and even if they had the time they wouldn't. Again, you need to seperate "monstor" bucks, from 2.5 year old bucks, and then the discussion might make more sense to you. We are not trying to get the average guy to hunt trophy bucks like you do...but just attempting to get the average guy to see just a small piece of the bucks you passed on opening day in a more consistent basis.[/quote]

NorthJeff,
I really don't mean to sound so negative, but I may not have been the only person who's interpertation was clouded. "Average" was used too many times.
I'm very aware of the difference between a MI 2.5+ year old buck and what some would call a "True Trophy Buck". I've hunted in Saskatchewan and taken "True Trophy Bucks", but, I've also have nice bucks here from MI (161 2/8 the largest on the wall). But then again, I have a friend that hunts State Land in Ionia County that has shot 140+ class bucks every year for almost 20 years. But, he's a buck hunter, not a deer hunter.
A monster buck is very different for each hunter. I have another friend in Ionia County that has hunted every year for 25 years, and has never even had a shot at a buck! His idea of a trophy or monster and mine or yours is certainly going to be much different.
I agree with you that a split opener may or may not be the answer. I'm more inclined to think that it wouldn't.
I truely believe that its guys like you and I, that voluntarly pass on the younger bucks that will make a difference in the future of our hunting here in MI. I believe that instead of arguements about AR's, that hunters like you and I will be of greater benefit if we try to educate others to our voluntary hunting preferences. I don't believe that hunters are stupid, but I do know that they don't like things shoved down their throats.
I think that there's a lot of merit in education and making others familliar with the practices that you and I are using.
Maybe with more education, we as hunters might find value in a split opener.
Personally, I think I might be willing to listen to a doe opener first, then buck opener. We all know it will smarten up even the 1.5 year old bucks.
With a small step first, there may be justification which would indicate different opening dates between the U.P. and L.P.