one buck tag or two - one buck limit -

[Big Frank 25]

Go to "View" and then to text. Works on my IE.

[buckslayerII]

Can somebody please explain this DRIP fund? Would be happy to contact the right people, but don't know what for yet. Thanks.

[NorthJeff]

Glock29,

I do feel for you guys up there. I have a close friend that has hunted in your area for the past 15 years and I know the hunting is terrible now. The winter habitat is getting older and supports less and less deer each year, and the deer numbers do not rebound at all. I know from personal experience those little bucks you see can be shot 2 miles away on an active bait pile and you may never know it. A spike my friend passed up two years ago was shot by a neighboring hunter and my friend knew about it by seeing it on the back of his truck.

Our deer numbers peaked in the early to mid 90's, and then not only have they not recovered from the 350,000 deer we lost in the winters of 96-97, but they are still under from the 110,000 we lost in 2000-2001. Unless we have several very mild winters in a row, the deer herd will not rebound. I see it as matured does..any, doe, should be protected at all costs. No shooting does with bows in Dec., no doe permits...no shooting does at all costs. I still feel guys are shooting those small bucks...might be 3 miles away, might be on the migration trail, might be in the deer yards with a bow. My friend was hunting in a Marquette deer yard in late Dec. and all he saw was does....and knew he shouldn't shoot one, so he didn't.

QDM is only 3 things:

1.Adequate buck age structure
2.Populations maintained in balance with the habitat
3.Appropriate sex ratios

That's all QDM is. But, there has to be bucks to pass up, has to be a deer herd to hunt, and you have to have a core group of mature does to contribute to a healthy herd. I know guys around here that shoot does in deer yards that come from very, very low deer densities...but they do it anyways. We have areas of less than 5dpsm over here, yet guys will still shoot does with there bows...maybe even two or three in a group of hunters, and then they blame the DNR when they don't see a deer the following 2 or 3 years.

You guys are in a tough spot up there! But, I know for a fact that the finger pointing and protests did nothing to foster any type of constructive atmosphere with wildlife officials. All that can be done is to aggresively protect every doe, pass on young bucks, and hopefully the state will manage any deer yards they have the power to with a rotational cutting and regeneration plan designed to provide better food and cover to the northern deer yards.

Guys call for a "1 buck" license. How many guys do you know that shot 2 bucks last year? Around me the guys on public land are here for a few days, and go home....I know no body. I find that mostly rifle hunters call for a 1 buck law because they are not in the woods that much anyways. I think 1 buck for bow, 1 for rifle may be appropriate, but either way the best way to get the herd to grow is to pass on all yearling bucks and any doe. They rarely if ever get two bucks...but they are happy to shoot the first deer with a small piece of bone that walks by. I know in my areas a 1 buck license would do nothing, and if it saves 1 little yearling buck in several square miles with 1 hunter out of 20...well the effects wouldn't even be noticable. On the other hand, if guys couldn't shoot a yearling buck by law, the effects would be noticable very quickly.

Anyways, some have the misunderstanding that you have to shoot does to have QDM...and this is flat out incorrect. I know if it were me, I'd hunt somewhere else...but unless we get some very light winters and improve the winter habitat, I don't know that you'll ever see the deer numbers you had even in the late 90's, after the big loss.

[yooperkenny]

...Guys call for a "1 buck" license. How many guys do you know that shot 2 bucks last year? Around me the guys on public land are here for a few days, and go home....I know no body. I find that mostly rifle hunters call for a 1 buck law because they are not in the woods that much anyways. I think 1 buck for bow, 1 for rifle may be appropriate, but either way the best way to get the herd to grow is to pass on all yearling bucks and any doe. They rarely if ever get two bucks...but they are happy to shoot the first deer with a small piece of bone that walks by...

NJ - Hypothetically - If a guy only has one buck license and a spike/forkhorn walks into range, don't you think he MIGHT consider letting it go because if he shoots it his hunting recreation is done for the year and/or he won't have a chance at something bigger?

As it is now, many hunters shoot that younger deer because they know they can keep hunting and maybe see the big boy if that's what they're into. You will never convince me that going to one buck tag won't help our UP herd despite the 5% figure everyone keeps throwing up as an oppositional arguement.

I understand meat hunters and younger/new hunters and if they want to take that younger deer that's legal and fine but with one buck license they won't be in the woods thereafter and will have 0% chance of taking another deer. Even if it only saves several hundred young deer it's worth it IMHO

[NorthJeff]

"don't you think he MIGHT consider letting it go because if he shoots it his hunting recreation is done for the year and/or he won't have a chance at something bigger?"

Absolutely positively not! maybe 1 in 20, but most guys are hunting now for 3-4 days or less. They aren't thinking 2nd buck...they are thinking of shooting the first deer with bone. Also, I see this as a rifle hunters' complaint. As someone that hunts most all of bow season, rifle, and muzzleloader, I don't want my recreational opportunities dictated by rifle hunters that hunt a few days and go home..and wouldn't pass on that little buck anyways. We don't have a problem with how many bucks we shoot, only a problem with what age we shoot them at. I will fight this to no end. In the past 19 years I have taken 2 bucks twice, but I have barely missed the last day of bow season and that 2nd tage has given me an incredible amount of recreational opportunity.

I know the guys hunting on public land, I talk to them at their cars, I know they are primarily not from the area...they are up here to shoot a buck and go home and I know of no one that gets 2 bucks...it is a very rare occasion because guys are looking for any buck. An antler restriction with 3pts on a side up here protects 82% of the yearling bucks....removing the 2nd tag wouldn't even come close to that. The 2nd tag might have more of an impact on large tracts of private land...but typically they have more deer in those areas anyways so it's not much of a concern.

Again, I'll fight this to no end...it is not the solution to the problem at all. Now, since mostly rifle hunters that hunt only a few days want this...how about we give the rifle hunters what they want? Afterall, the rifle hunters are the ones that shoot the most bucks in the least amount of days afield..they have the greatest impact. So, 1 buck for rifle, 1 buck for bow..just like WI. Other than that though a 1 buck license is not the solution...only a bandaid to mask the real problems of declining size and quality of winter habitat and the 900,000 deer that have been lost in the last 15 years due to winter severity.

Also, you would have to more than double the single license to make-up for department revenue...how is that accounted for? It's just not a realistic solution of any substance.

[yooperkenny]

..how about we give the rifle hunters what they want? Afterall, the rifle hunters are the ones that shoot the most bucks in the least amount of days afield..they have the greatest impact. So, 1 buck for rifle, 1 buck for bow..just like WI...

Your point is well taken. I don't have a lot of interaction with downstate hunters that come to the UP for rifle season because I'm in the woods not at the bar or casino so I'll take your word for it. The only one I really know is my brother and he religiously passes on anything under a 6 pt. Many from this site that travel to the UP seem to also think that way.

So as a Yooper that hunts bow, rifle and mz I think your suggestion above, which basically is elimination of the combo tag, is a happy medium that would improve the situation.

[Ferg]

Ferg, you're kidding right?

From the report of the deer number in DMU007 those kids better be concerned. Won't be any deer left by the time they can hunt in just a few years.

I applaude anyone who is willing to stand up for what they believe. Left or right, QDM or TDM, motorized or non-motorized, etc. Might not agree with them but believe in folks standing up for their beliefs.

My 6th grade son and classmates were circulating a petition to change an action by their schools administration. Made me proud.

-Ed

Kidding? Sorta - from a seriously jornelistic point of view - I think the message would have been better told with a picture of hunters that were upset and protesting in an orderly manner - NOT a bunch of kids 'mugging' for the camera to get their picture in the paper - ;)

Just my .02c -

ferg....

[Bonz 54]

Like Buckslayer II said, "What is DRIP?" I have never heard of this and can't help with any letter writing if I don't know. Someone PLEASE explain. :confused: Thanks. FRANK

[Ed Spin04]

UP Ed, I couldn't agree with you more. Let the upset hunters young, (ten year olds know the story) to great grandpa vent, even though they do not know the true biological reason why they see fewer deer as the years pass.

They may be wrong about their arguement but they should be heard. The overall message to the powers to be, is, "Somethings wrong and they need to address it".

Most on this site from the info being passed out have a better handle on the real reasons there are less deer seen and I firmly believe that there are much less deer than 1.8 million as some officials say, perhaps closer to 1.5 million. One reason for the discontent is that the deer are unequally distributed.

It can be fixed and I applaud the MDNR for going through the motions of listening to hunters and landowners. They finally have picked up on the method to balance our deer. "Get the hunters and landowners involved in the process". They have a poor record historically in this regard.

I do not believe for a second that they will truely listen and change their deer density goal and they probably shouldn't for it is probably correct.

Only until hunters and landowners get into the act of managing their deer in a sound and scientific manner should we increase the herd density, which I believe is the reason the MDNR are having these town meetings. "get the hunters and landowners involved in the process", (EDUCATION).

[Trophy Specialist]

"don't you think he MIGHT consider letting it go because if he shoots it his hunting recreation is done for the year and/or he won't have a chance at something bigger?"

Absolutely positively not! maybe 1 in 20, but most guys are hunting now for 3-4 days or less. They aren't thinking 2nd buck...they are thinking of shooting the first deer with bone. Also, I see this as a rifle hunters' complaint. As someone that hunts most all of bow season, rifle, and muzzleloader, I don't want my recreational opportunities dictated by rifle hunters that hunt a few days and go home..and wouldn't pass on that little buck anyways. We don't have a problem with how many bucks we shoot, only a problem with what age we shoot them at. I will fight this to no end. In the past 19 years I have taken 2 bucks twice, but I have barely missed the last day of bow season and that 2nd tage has given me an incredible amount of recreational opportunity.

I know the guys hunting on public land, I talk to them at their cars, I know they are primarily not from the area...they are up here to shoot a buck and go home and I know of no one that gets 2 bucks...it is a very rare occasion because guys are looking for any buck. An antler restriction with 3pts on a side up here protects 82% of the yearling bucks....removing the 2nd tag wouldn't even come close to that. The 2nd tag might have more of an impact on large tracts of private land...but typically they have more deer in those areas anyways so it's not much of a concern.

Again, I'll fight this to no end...it is not the solution to the problem at all. Now, since mostly rifle hunters that hunt only a few days want this...how about we give the rifle hunters what they want? Afterall, the rifle hunters are the ones that shoot the most bucks in the least amount of days afield..they have the greatest impact. So, 1 buck for rifle, 1 buck for bow..just like WI. Other than that though a 1 buck license is not the solution...only a bandaid to mask the real problems of declining size and quality of winter habitat and the 900,000 deer that have been lost in the last 15 years due to winter severity.

Also, you would have to more than double the single license to make-up for department revenue...how is that accounted for? It's just not a realistic solution of any substance.
:yeahthat: I agree with NorthJeff. :yeahthat:

If people want to buy one buck license they are now free to do it under current law. I wonder how many hunters are now buying the combo tags and are also crying for a one-buck limit? I bet a bunch of Michigan's deer hunters fall into that category and that one makes me think of the word hypocrite.

[Gilbey]

Well said all. I for one would definately miss having both buck tags, but would definately go for one bow and one rifle.

Jeff, I'm going to be argumentative on only one point, which is mature does. I'm a little confused now. You say that WI is pretty much the cat's ers when it comes to deer hunting, so I would assume they are doing some things right. Well, they do have a buck for bow and a buck for rifle, like you said. But during bow, it is "earn a buck" time.

Wouldn't this contradict this philosophy of killing the does, and if so, why is this strategy working in WI when we shouldn't take them?

All in all though, I am pretty much on the same page as you guys, I'm probably a heavier advocate to the MARS than most, but it works.

[NorthJeff]

I'm only talking about not taking does when the DMU is under goal...over goal and often a mature doe is the best one to take. WI was only "earn-a-buck" this year in the CWD areas, so in our area you get a doe tag with you buck tag, but your buck tag is an "either sex" tag..both for bow and rifle. But that wouldn't be appropriate in the low DMU areas of northern U.P....if we need to build the herd up, protecting those mature does is vital.

It's all about balance...too low, save them, too high, shoot them.

We really need to make some noise on this "1 buck" issue. Our NRC commmisioner seems very political and depending on who is the loudest, he would probably push that way. He also hunts very little, just a little bit during rifle, and I have a feeling would be more sympathetic to the rifle hunting crowd that hunts very few days, and contributes very little to the overall hunting dollars...as he does. On the otherhand, the guys that are avid whitetail hunters, those that hunt multiple weeks, multiple seasons, need to speak up. Bow hunters, for example, show just about the same success rate...but how much more time and money to they spend to have those success rates?

Anyways, rifle hunters take a huge amount of bucks, especially young bucks in the first couple days of rifle, so it possibly makes sense to limit both rifle and bow hunters to 1 buck license for each tag. If you bowhunt and fill your tag early, you can buy a gun or ML and go hunting. Same with rifle. If you want to continue hunting after you kill a buck on opening day...buy a bow and buy another tag. It would be more limiting, but guys wouldn't end their entire season after the first evening of bow season, which would be bad for the economy and severely limit recreational opportunities and "days-afield".

[Munsterlndr]

I find it kind of ironic that many of the same people who decry the lack of mature bucks are the same ones who are convinced that going to a one buck license will make no difference and are adament about wanting the opportunity to whack two big bucks every year.

So let me get this straight, you want to limit the guy who only gets a few days off for hunting each year from harvesting a 1.5 year old fork-horn, so that you can continue to try and shoot two 3.5 year old eight points every year?

[Gilbey]

I'm only talking about not taking does when the DMU is under goal...over goal and often a mature doe is the best one to take. WI was only "earn-a-buck" this year in the CWD areas, so in our area you get a doe tag with you buck tag, but your buck tag is an "either sex" tag..both for bow and rifle. But that wouldn't be appropriate in the low DMU areas of northern U.P....if we need to build the herd up, protecting those mature does is vital.

It's all about balance...too low, save them, too high, shoot them.



Makes sense. I was thinking consistency across the board which is tough to do without micromanagement. And to be frank, I shoot the dominant doe out of the group every year.

Say....does anyone know how close we are to going to this one buck thing? And who do we have to call to complain to?

[NorthJeff]

Exactly right! I've shot 2 bucks twice in 19 years and have probably well more than doubled my time afield..and money spent on hunting or land management because of that 2nd tag. Just like the DNR will tell you, it accounts for 4% of the buck harvest...5%, whatever it is, even if that was increased because of those magical guys that take two on public land..and they would in theory pass up the first one to look for a bigger. It would do absolutely nothing good for the area I hunt, with how much public land there is and how few guys hunt more than 3 or 4 days. It's not a solution to the problem and there are no numbers that show it is. Guys in PA where I hunt only have 1 buck tag and before the AR they were happy to shoot the first buck that walked by..sometimes 7 or 8 years of spikes in a row. Then, they have the AR and now we shoot older bucks, but that did not happen just because there was one tag, it happened because it was regulated by AR.

Again, we don't have a problem with how many bucks we shoot...only the age at which we shoot them at. Don't destroy recreational opportunty for those that want it to just to appease guys with something that is not a solution to the problem. The problem is not how many bucks we shoot, but the age at which we shoot them.

[NorthJeff]

Gilbey,

You can try Bob Doepker at 228-6561 or 563-9077..I believe those are the right numbers. Or John Madigan at 387-4313. Madigan is more the Politician as our NRC commisioner. He is the one with the political contacts it would take to ram this thing through the legislature.

Another question that no one answers..how is the license revenue going to be replaced...do we sell the one tag for $35? it has to be replaced...it's not an option not to, so from where?

[UP Ed]

Gilbey
Say....does anyone know how close we are to going to this one buck thing? And who do we have to call to complain to?

From my previous post from the Baraga meeting:

One buck license.
DNR said that there is wide spread support for a one buck license but be careful what you wish for. Statewide 5% of hunters take two bucks. DNR feels that the two buck license gives the hunter an opportunity to keep hunting if he scores early in the season. By law the DNR must sell archery and rifle buck licenses.

-Ed

[Munsterlndr]

By law the DNR must sell archery and rifle buck licenses.

-Ed

Ed -
Do you remember exactly what they said concerning this? I don't think the law specifically says that the DNR must sell seperate archery & rifle buck licenses.

What the law says is this:

324.43525a Combination deer license.


Sec. 43525a.
(1) The department shall issue a combination deer license that authorizes a person to hunt deer both during the firearm deer seasons and the bow and arrow seasons, in compliance with the rules established for the respective deer hunting season. A combination deer license shall authorize the holder to take 2 deer in compliance with orders issued under part 401.

(3) When advisable in managing deer, an order under part 401 may designate the kind of deer that may be taken and the geographic area in which any license issued under this section is valid.

According to the law the DNR could offer a combination license that would be good for one antlered and one antlerless deer, good in both archery and firearms season. This would allow us to go to a one buck a year policy without requiring legislative approval.

I would be curious to know if the DNR was saying that it is the law that they have to offer seperate antlered licenses for both archery and firearms and if so I would like to see the citation for where this is stated in the MCL.

[UP Ed]

Munsterlndr,

Ed -
Do you remember exactly what they said concerning this? I don't think the law specifically says that the DNR must sell seperate archery & rifle buck licenses.

Exactly- No. I wrote a note down that Rod Clute said it was in the statue that they had to sell both and my note said "buck". It would seem from the laws noted below that either I wrote "buck" down incorrectly or Rod Clute misspoke, either is possible.:lol: From the statue it seems the DNR must sell a license for firearms, archery and combination. What and where we can use it is up to the DNR.

324.43525a Combination deer license.
(1) The department shall issue a combination deer license that authorizes a person to hunt deer both during the firearm deer seasons and the bow and arrow seasons, in compliance with the rules established for the respective deer hunting season. A combination deer license shall authorize the holder to take 2 deer in compliance with orders issued under part 401 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(bjku5lfzviic5ejm5dm2vxjv)/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-324-43525a&queryid=12444060&highlight=part%20401#2).
(3) When advisable in managing deer, an order under part 401 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(bjku5lfzviic5ejm5dm2vxjv)/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-324-43525a&queryid=12444060&highlight=part%20401#top) may designate the kind of deer that may be taken and the geographic area in which any license issued under this section is valid.

324.43526 Firearm deer license; second firearm deer license; fees; orders; kill tag.
(1) A person shall not hunt deer during the firearm deer season without purchasing a firearm deer license. ... The department may issue orders under part 401 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(bjku5lfzviic5ejm5dm2vxjv)/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-324-43526&queryid=12444060&highlight=part%20401#top) designating the kind of deer that may be taken and the geographic area in which any license issued under this section is valid, when advisable in managing deer.

324.43527 Bow and arrow deer license; fees; purchase of second bow and arrow deer license; orders; kill tag; provisions applicable to bow and arrow deer license.
(1) A person shall not hunt deer with a bow and arrow or crossbow during the bow and arrow deer season without a bow and arrow deer license. ... The department may issue orders under part 401 (http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(bjku5lfzviic5ejm5dm2vxjv)/mileg.aspx?page=GetMCLDocument&objectname=mcl-324-43527&queryid=12444060&highlight=part%20401#top) designating the kind of deer which may be taken and the geographic area in which any license issued under this section is valid, when advisable in managing deer.

According to the law the DNR could offer a combination license that would be good for one antlered and one antlerless deer, good in both archery and firearms season. This would allow us to go to a one buck a year policy without requiring legislative approval.

I guess they could due this but it would seem the license would be good anywhere in the state. ie shoot a doe during firearms season in an area that shouldn't have does harvested.

Off topic - I remember when hunting regs were simpler!

-Ed

[yooperkenny]

...I would be curious to know if the DNR was saying that it is the law that they have to offer seperate antlered licenses for both archery and firearms ...

Just to confirm - that is exactly what Rod Clute stated in front of hundreds of people in Marquette Tues night. He did not cite any specific statutes to my recollection.

[MI newguy]

Must of been one heck of a meeting, all over the radio here in the Northern Lower. About the protest, and talk of boycotting 2006 licenses. WOW has this started a big huge discussion?

[Munsterlndr]

I guess they could due this but it would seem the license would be good anywhere in the state. ie shoot a doe during firearms season in an area that shouldn't have does harvested.

Off topic - I remember when hunting regs were simpler!

-Ed

I think that a combo license that is good for one buck and one doe, anywhere in the State, is the way we should go. The law says the DNR can still regulate where it can be used so they could still close portions of the UP or NLP to antlerless hunting where appropriate. For that matter they could still implement AR's in certain area's if they wanted to, although I am not a fan of MAR's. I also think they should make the combo license the only license available for an antlered deer. If you want to hunt for a buck you buy a combo which also allows you to take one doe. If you just want to shoot a doe then you could buy an over-the-counter antlerless license in those DMU's where it makes sense to harvest antlerless deer.

[Munsterlndr]

Just to confirm - that is exactly what Rod Clute stated in front of hundreds of people in Marquette Tues night. He did not cite any specific statutes to my recollection.

Thanks, I do not see where this is specified anywhere in the law. It would be interesting to know what he is basing this statement on.

The reason it is kind of important is that if it is a matter of law that they have to offer seperate antlered licenses for each season, then there is no way we are going back to a one buck season. It would require the legislature amending the law and I doubt that is going to happen. If it is not a matter of law, then the NRC has the ability to offer one buck license, as long as it's part of a combo license that is good for both seasons. It seems like there is a significant amount of support for a one buck season but if it really would take an act of the legislature you can forget it.

[yooperkenny]

Like Buckslayer II said, "What is DRIP?" I have never heard of this and can't help with any letter writing if I don't know. Someone PLEASE explain...

The following is from the DNR website (link below for those interested in the complete text)

"DRIP is funded by a portion of deer license revenues. From each license, the DNR sets aside $1.50 to improve and maintain deer habitat and acquire land for deer management purposes in the UP and the northern Lower Peninsula. To date, the program has identified 14,000 acres of land that it has recommended for purchase. Of that, 3,000 acres is pending approval.

The DRIP program began in 1971, under the leadership of retired Wildlife Division Chief Merrill “Pete” Petoskey, with the goal of maintaining sufficient habitat to support 1 million deer in Michigan by 1981. The success of DRIP and a series of mild winters in the 1980s drove the deer population to exceed 2 million in 1989."

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10369-131008--,00.html

Do a search on the state's web site (if you want a headache) or this (MS) site for more - also if you google or yahoo search you'll see that the veggies/antis have jumped on this big time.

What was said in the Marquette meeting was that this fund has $6 million of our money tied up that has not been appropriated by the legislature for its intended use. UP Sportsman are upset because habitat improvement is sorely needed asap. Everyone was urged to contact their state representatives and/or senators to light a fire.

Does anyone know if the $6 million figure is accurate? I'm just restating what was said at the meeting.

[NorthJeff]

Munsterlndr,

The problem is that in portions of the norther lower MI, and much of the U.P., that 2nd tag can not be a doe tag. In many of our DMU's we have no doe permits anyways, for good reason, and in many more we have very few. To include a doe license in anyway would be to potentially decimate our U.P. deer herd....it would be both inappropriate and neglegent.

Consider this...in 2005 we had no doe permits for my DMU, and in 2004 only 600. That is an area that covers 77 to 28 to 41 to 2 to 77....at least 2000 square miles in an areas that includes thousands of hunters. To add doe permits would be a crime in this DMU...not to mention the several DMUs that have never had doe permits.

That's another reason you could never sell a buck and doe tag as a combo license because our state experiences high enough winter mortality in areas that doe permits would be inappropriate.

[Trophy Specialist]

Does anyone know if the $6 million figure is accurate? I'm just restating what was said at the meeting.
It's likely that 6 million is way low because for a long period of time the DNR used most of the DRIP money for timbering on state land. The state actually lost money on timber sales (I've never heard a plausable explanation for that one) and the DRIP money was used to pay for that fleecing of Michigan's deer hunters. I'd like to see a full accounting of how DRIP monies have been spent since its inception. Any missapropriations should be eithor be paid back to deer hunters or the money should be spent on deer habitate as stitupated by law.

[buckslayerII]

Yooperkenny - thanks for info regarding the DRIP program. Anyone else with info regarding its current status please chime in so that we can contact our state reps with credible numbers.

[Munsterlndr]

Munsterlndr,

The problem is that in portions of the norther lower MI, and much of the U.P., that 2nd tag can not be a doe tag. In many of our DMU's we have no doe permits anyways, for good reason, and in many more we have very few. To include a doe license in anyway would be to potentially decimate our U.P. deer herd....it would be both inappropriate and neglegent.

Consider this...in 2005 we had no doe permits for my DMU, and in 2004 only 600. That is an area that covers 77 to 28 to 41 to 2 to 77....at least 2000 square miles in an areas that includes thousands of hunters. To add doe permits would be a crime in this DMU...not to mention the several DMUs that have never had doe permits.

That's another reason you could never sell a buck and doe tag as a combo license because our state experiences high enough winter mortality in areas that doe permits would be inappropriate.

The antlerless portion would not be DMU specific but the DNR could still close portions of the State to antlerless hunting. This would protect those portions of the UP that needed to be. By the way, those portions of the UP are not closed to antlerless hunting now, only to antlerless rifle hunting. All of those dmu's have antlerless deer currently harvested by archers using the combo tag.

Several states sell a combo tag good for one buck and one doe and still have portions of the state either closed to antlerless or with mandatory antler restrictions.

Remember we are talking about a license policy for the entire State. You are saying it won't work based on your experience in a very small portion of the State. Keep those DMU's closed to rifle antlerless hunting. For the few thousand hunters who hunt in those DMU's it may be a minor inconvenience to hunt in another part of the UP or downstate if they want to use the doe portion of the combo tag during rifle season but for the vast majority of the 700,000+ deer hunters in Michigan this would not be an issue.

I get the feeling that you are always going to be opposed to going to one buck license, regardless of whether it would have a positive impact on protecting younger bucks. You don't seem to want to make the sacrifice of only being able to pursue one buck a year yet you have no problem imposing antler restrictions that are going to negatively impact other hunters success rate. I guess I don't understand that viewpoint.

[NorthJeff]

"By the way, those portions of the UP are not closed to antlerless hunting now, only to antlerless rifle hunting. All of those dmu's have antlerless deer currently harvested by archers using the combo tag."

And that's also part of the problem in some areas.

It's why we didn't move to PA...and why I'd move from MI if it happened. Again, I've killed two bucks twice in 19 seasons. It's about recreational opportunity. As a very avid whitetail hunter I'm not going to stop hunting just because I take a buck of a lifetime with my bow on 10/5....when there is almost 3 months left of the season. I'm not a fair weather hunter that goes out for 3-4 days during rifle, complains I didn't see any deer, and goes back to living their normal lives. I hunt...it's a lifestyle. There is still a rifle to pick up, a ML, and late bow. There is also hundreds, if not thousands of more dollars to spend with multiple weapons in multiple seasons and many hours of hunting experience and knowledge to gain. Would I use the 2nd tag? Sure, if the right buck comes along. I wouldn't even care if they said the 2nd buck had to have 5 pts on a side or more. It's not true with everyone, but generally I don't like seeing a policy adopted for a group of individuals that hunt in the lowest deer density DMU in the state as rifle hunters only...and then complain of deer numbers when just an hour to an hour and a 1/2 south there are farmers with 80 dpsm that would love to have someone thin their deer herds for them.

There is no credible source or wildlife professional that agrees that removing the 2nd license would make a differance. At the same time, no one could prove to me that removing the 2nd license would make a differance when virtually no one shoots a 2nd buck around here anyways. On the otherhand, an AR has proven to protect yearling bucks...to the rate of 82% U.P.-wide. You try and tell me how the elimination of the 2nd buck license would even get us 25% of those results. It would do absolutely nothing in most large tracts of public land..of which the U.P. is 70-80% corporate or public, which also happen to be where the low deer numbers are in the first place.

Habitat, protection of yearling bucks, severity of winter....baiting, now, you could elminate baiting and correct much of this..deer numbers and age structure, but that's a different topic.

[Trophy Specialist]

I get the feeling that you are always going to be opposed to going to one buck license, regardless of whether it would have a positive impact on protecting younger bucks. You don't seem to want to make the sacrifice of only being able to pursue one buck a year yet you have no problem imposing antler restrictions that are going to negatively impact other hunters success rate. I guess I don't understand that viewpoint.
I will opose going to one buck per year unless antler restrictions are included in the deal. Otherwise, since less than 4 percent of Michigan's deer hunters shoot two bucks in a year, it will not have enough of an impact to solve our lopsided sex ratio problems. Antler restrictions have been proven effective in the U.P. and in the DMU155 test area the hunter sucess rate on bucks actually increased with MARs. In the last five years hunters in DMU155 have killed more and bigger bucks than before MARs were in effect, so your assertion that MARs negatively impacts other hunters sucess rate is just not true.

[Big50blaster]

I will opose going to one buck per year unless antler restrictions are included in the deal. Otherwise, since less than 4 percent of Michigan's deer hunters shoot two bucks in a year, it will not have enough of an impact to solve our lopsided sex ratio problems. Antler restrictions have been proven effective in the U.P. and in the DMU155 test area the hunter sucess rate on bucks actually increased with MARs. In the last five years hunters in DMU155 have killed more and bigger bucks than before MARs were in effect, so your assertion that MARs negatively impacts other hunters sucess rate is just not true.

what people forget is that they sees 5 deer with no racks they call em 5 does and don't even think they might be some bucks in the group.

Many times they might even be a very small racked buck in a group like that and almost always button bucks but they caint see its rack right off the bat. this is how ARs help guys shoot more and better bucks

if a farmer sells all his calves evryyear when they is 500 lbs he sure as heck aint gonna have any 1000 lb steers on his place. if he could skip the income just one year he would have 1000lb steers ta sell every year.

kinda the same way antler restrictions help. that first year or two ya may hafta pass a small buck or two, but a few years down the road a more mature buck should be waitin for ya most evry year.

[Munsterlndr]

I will opose going to one buck per year unless antler restrictions are included in the deal. Otherwise, since less than 4 percent of Michigan's deer hunters shoot two bucks in a year, it will not have enough of an impact to solve our lopsided sex ratio problems. Antler restrictions have been proven effective in the U.P. and in the DMU155 test area the hunter sucess rate on bucks actually increased with MARs. In the last five years hunters in DMU155 have killed more and bigger bucks than before MARs were in effect, so your assertion that MARs negatively impacts other hunters sucess rate is just not true.

My assertion is that MARS negatively impact hunter opportunity and every time a hunter has to pass on a sub-legal deer and goes home without venison that is the case. You and Jeff keep bringing up the fact that only 4% of hunters harvest two bucks, but that is not the point. A much larger number of hunters harvest a small buck because they know that they still have the restricted portion to use if a big buck comes along later. If you only had one license to burn you might think twice about taking that fork horn during bow season, knowing you would be done buck hunting for the year.

If you can convince hunters in a certain area to impose ARr's, fine. I would rather see these voluntary and I think support for the voluntary approach is growing in Michigan.

Let's face it Mike, you and Jeff are both Trophy hunters. You harvested two mature whitetails this year. I can see from a personal viewpoint why you would be opposed to a one buck a year limit and why you and Jeff favor MAR's. But we are talking about a comprehensive license policy for the entire State, not just a portion of the UP.

A one buck license is a step that would have the least impact on the recreational opportunities for the greatest number of hunters while still helping to protect a greater number of younger deer than the current policy. It is much less controversial than imposing MAR's and from the feedback that has been posted regarding the DNR public meetings, it is a rule change that seems to have a growing amount of support. Yes it would limit to some extent the recreational opportunity of a few hard core trophy hunters but I would guess they are a very small minority compared to the vast majority of Michigan deer hunters.

[Swamper]

One buck license per hunter makes perfect sense...would force some to at least think about waiting for a bigger buck...if BIGGER BUCKS are the targeted outcome. Applying elementary banking terminology.... 4% of the bucks saved each year, compounded annually adds up over the years if I recall from my mathematics story problems in the classroom.

Swamper

[Trophy Specialist]

Let's face it Mike, you and Jeff are both Trophy hunters.
While I can't speak for Jeff, I am definitely not a trophy deer hunter at heart. Other than making sure that a buck is legal, I typically shoot the first good sized bodied, adult buck that give me a high percentage shot. Body size is more important to me that rack size. To me a trophy deer hunter is mainly hunting for antlers, whereas I hunt mainly for meat and the pure joy of the ultimate challenge. If a buck happens to have a big rack then that's just icing on the cake for me. My user name on this forum might be a little misleading. Trophy Specialist is the name of my boat and not a deer hunting description.

[NorthJeff]

I hunt for age of the buck in a true challeng of matching wits with an elusive creature. I hunt to improve both myself as a hunter and to continuously add in the experiences that fill my memories to last a lifetime. If hunting were ever too easy...I'd quit. Hunting is about honing a craft, never settling. If I don't continuosly improve as a hunter, then why bother. I enjoy bringing youth and new hunters into the sport and encourage them to learn and expand their experiences, never settling for the "status quo", or the norm. Expect more, demand more, give it your best and improve yourself. I'd happily shoot a 5.5 year old 6pt over a 2.5 year old 10 pt. Huge rubs, large scrapes, fighting, seeking, chasing, grunting, snort-wheezes are all part of a healthy herd, that includes an adequate buck age structure. I don't care if I harvest the buck, just give me a location with a mature buck and let me hunt. It's the entire experience, and that experience includes mature bucks...I wouldn't hunt otherwise. I've never entered a "trophy", and care most about age. The mystic of a mature buck, the personality, the tendancies that set apart that animal from every other animal in the woods. Anything I do I do at the highest level I can take it, never settling for anything less. I want to improve myself, improve my skills, improve my level of experiences. It's no different with climbing mountains. Sure, the first time you tame the local hill it's a great feeling and part of learning curve, but at some point you seek and need greater challenge and it's a rare person that continually accepts the local hill as there only source of climbing experience. We have a lot of stale experiences in our hunting woods and the bad thing is that most don't even realize what bigger mountains, and higher levels of experience are out there just waiting to be realized and grasped.

I don't like to settle...never have!

[farmlegend]

I think it's fair to say that a one buck limit (ONE buck, all seasons, regardless of weapon) would likely be more effective in protecting yearling bucks in regions where the archery kill is a higher proportion of the total kill.

I do believe a one buck limit would have merit where I hunt. My observations consitently indicate that yearling bucks get massacred during the first week of October. Walk into the Jerome Country Market (where they processed nearly 3,000 deer in the season that just ended) the first few days of October and see what I mean. I don't think it's an exageration to state that the VAST majority of bowhunters in my area launch an arrow at the very first antlered buck they see, knowing full well that they've got another tag in their pocket which they may save for the gun season. Give 'em only one buck tag for the season, and they may think twice before trying to arrow Sparky the Wonderbuck on October 1.

I understand such a strategem may be less effective elsewhere, which is all the more reason to regulate our harvest in an altogether different fashion in the vastly differing regions of our state.

[UP Ed]

We have MARs already and it is statewide. Its called an antler at least 3". I believe we would have better hunting with the MARs changed to a minimum of 3 points on one side. I would still like to see the combo license as it gives me an opportunity to stay in the field longer to try and harvest that big 10 or 12 pointer that has thus far eluded me!

It's no different with climbing mountains. Sure, the first time you tame the local hill it's a great feeling and part of learning curve, but at some point you seek and need greater challenge and it's a rare person that continually accepts the local hill as there only source of climbing experience.
Its unfortunate today but if we compare Jeff's mountain climbing to deer hunting in michigan, we have bulldozed the great majority of the mountains into little hills!

-Ed

[Trophy Specialist]

As a compromise I could go for changing the current combo license to a double restricted license being valid for two bucks that must both have 4 points on one side. Giving hunters a choice of eithor a double restricted combo license or one unrestricted license would save a heck of a lot more young bucks each year than just going to one buck license per hunter per year. That way hunters could choose between maximum recreation or one buck of their choice.

[farmlegend]

As a compromise I could go for changing the current combo license to a double restricted license being valid for two bucks that must both have 4 points on one side. Giving hunters a choice of eithor a double restricted combo license or one unrestricted license would save a heck of a lot more young bucks each year than just going to one buck license per hunter per year. That way hunters could choose between maximum recreation or one buck of their choice.

Excellent! I'd suggest two restricted buck tags priced at $40, or, a single unrestricted buck tag for the same $40. You want to take a spikehorn, go knock yourself out. Something for everyone. And it's a methodology which works statewide.

[Munsterlndr]

As a compromise I could go for changing the current combo license to a double restricted license being valid for two bucks that must both have 4 points on one side. Giving hunters a choice of eithor a double restricted combo license or one unrestricted license would save a heck of a lot more young bucks each year than just going to one buck license per hunter per year. That way hunters could choose between maximum recreation or one buck of their choice.

I could go for that if you offered a choice of the combo tag being good for two 4 pt. restricted licenses or good for one unretricted buck and one antlerless deer. If you just offrered a single unrestricted buck tag I think that it would cause a pretty substantial loss of revenue. If you offer a single unrestricted buck tag, only available as part of combo, it should not casue a loss of revenue, which let's face it, is an important part of the equasion. By offering a combo tag with an automatic antlerless permit you might encourage those hunters who would normally shoot a spike with the unrestricted portion of the current combo tag, to shoot a doe instead. You could still close parts of the UP to antlerless hunting during rifle season to make Jeff happy. Sounds like a reasonable compromise.

[NorthJeff]

Munsterlndr,

That's an idea we've talked about for about a year now...and it would be welcomed with open arms by me. What I like about that idea is that it makes the decision for the hunter at the license counter, and not in the woods. I know guys that have the best intentions...but shoot a small buck every year. This would make them decide before they ever step foot in the woods.

The only problem is the loss of revenue for U.P. hunters that live in areas that do not have enough does for harvest...maybe hunters in those areas don't buy the combo tag anyways, who knows.

Anyways, I've always liked that idea as a great compromise that actually would do some good. I bet there are a lot of people that would choose the 2 bucks with 4pts over the 1 unrestricted with doe tag.

[Trophy Specialist]

Excellent! I'd suggest two restricted buck tags priced at $40, or, a single unrestricted buck tag for the same $40. You want to take a spikehorn, go knock yourself out. Something for everyone. And it's a methodology which works statewide.
I'd also like to see the price of antlerless tags raised to the same level as buck tags. The current bargain basement price of antlerless tags demeans does and in my opinion does little to increase the antlerless harvest. For instance, I'm going to buy X number of antlerless tags each year based on how many does I think I might need or want to harvest regardless of whether the tags cost $10 or $15. But before I’d endorse any license increases, I first want to see the rate of general funding of the DNR frozen or guaranteed, otherwise, if we raise license fees, then the greedy politicians will just take away more funding of the DNR with no net gain. I don’t want to pay more for hunting and fishing licenses to effectively fund a spendthrift state government full of pork, greed and corruption; that would make me sick.

[NorthJeff]

" I first want to see the rate of general funding of the DNR frozen or guaranteed, otherwise, if we raise license fees, then the greedy politicians will just take away more funding of the DNR with no net gain. I don’t want to pay more for hunting and fishing licenses to effectively fund a spendthrift state government full of pork, greed and corruption; that would make me sick."

Great point! I have no problem with the license increase if it is given back to hunters, especially in the areas of habitat improvement/diversity.

[Munsterlndr]

The only problem is the loss of revenue for U.P. hunters that live in areas that do not have enough does for harvest...maybe hunters in those areas don't buy the combo tag anyways, who knows.

Anyways, I've always liked that idea as a great compromise that actually would do some good. I bet there are a lot of people that would choose the 2 bucks with 4pts over the 1 unrestricted with doe tag.

Jeff
I bet a lot of those UP hunters would still buy a combo tag so that they could use the doe portion during archery season. A lot of them are doing that now since archery only tags account for only 4% of deer license sales.

In fact, do away with the single archery or single firearms antlered tag. Make everyone buy a form of the combo license if they want to hunt bucks. If they just want to shoot a doe they could buy a stand alone over-the-counter antlerless permit good in those DMU's where antlerless harvest is appropriate. I bet this would result in an overall revenue increase for the State.

Trophy hunters are happy, meat hunters are happy, sounds like a win/win.

Sounds like a plan, somebody call Rod Klute and tell him we have solved the problem for him!

[NorthJeff]

Yep, Avid hunters are happy, "meat" hunters that want to shoot any buck so they could tell their buddies they shot a buck are happy, the DNR might have an increase in revenue.... it would be a win-win for everyone!;)

TS,
Just to stir the pot....." Body size is more important to me that rack size."

So you'd shoot a yearling spike that would dress 200#'s?:)

[Trophy Specialist]

I pulled this data out of the 2004 DNR deer harvest report:
----------------
Total Tags Issued
................................2002.............. ..2003..........2004....%change(03-04)
Firearm....................351,551...........344,1 07.......313,972.......-8.8
Archery.....................69,609.............66, 993........62,462.......-6.8
Combination..............715,090...........743,708 ......745,310.......+0.2
Antlerless.................653,446...........631,7 34......584,623........-7.5
Total Harvest Tags..1,789,696........1,786,542....1,706,367..... ..-4.5
-------------------

Note that all tag sales have dropped except for the combination tags which have actually increased. This would tend to indicated that hunters are favor the combination tag over a single buck tag more and more each year. Just thought I'd share this info as it is quite interesting. You'd think that with all the demand for a change to one buck per season these days that the number of combo licenses would be dropping and the others would be rising. I wonder why just the opposit is happening?

[Ogre]

"I know the guys hunting on public land, I talk to them at their cars, I know they are primarily not from the area...they are up here to shoot a buck and go home and I know of no one that gets 2 bucks "

"Again, I'll fight this to no end...it is not the solution to the problem at all. Now, since mostly rifle hunters that hunt only a few days want this"

"Other than that though a 1 buck license is not the solution...only a bandaid to mask the real problems of declining size and quality of winter habitat and the 900,000 deer that have been lost in the last 15 years due to winter severity."

I get the biggest kick from the above three quotes. It's alright for outsiders from down state to vote for QDM but it's not alright for outsiders or just rifle hunters to be able to influence the one buck rule for the same area. On the surface it would seem that political expediency is in vogue. I don't subscribe in total to the last quote but for the sake of argument let's say we have lost our habitat which has lead to a down turn in deer numbers. If true, this is not reversible in the short term and if you are only a rifle hunter then you are obviously disadvantaged by those taking deer before you. On a long term basis, if the resources are limited I see no inconsistencies with arguments that limit the depletion of the resources. It's OK not be a bow hunter and the non bow hunter should also have a chance at seeing and bagging a deer. I think the one buck rule is an excellent way of limiting the depletion of the herd, where necessary, but more importantly it is a plan that hunters will accept. It would appear to fair to each class of hunter: bow, rifle, or powder. I do not in any way shape or form subscribe to the notion that the herd has to be balanced in terms of ages but some do and again the one buck rule is acceptable to hunters and will balance the herd. All in all I think the one buck rule presents us with a win - win situation by first being acceptable and by secondly curing many ills.

"if a farmer sells all his calves evryyear when they is 500 lbs he sure as heck aint gonna have any 1000 lb steers on his place. if he could skip the income just one year he would have 1000lb steers ta sell every year."

Finally the above quote, I just had to reply to this quote. There is a reason that veal is so much more expensive then normal beef. The young are typically more tender and favorable. Our beef cattle are not kept until they are five years old and you know it is funny that there are no cries for age balancing in this insistence. All of you trophy hunters can tough out your old stringy deer but I will continue to prefer to dine on a yearling. It is true the older deer are typically larger but there is arguably a lesser quality of meat with an older deer. Beyond size correlating to age which in my mind equates to trophy hunting, I know of no evidence that says the balance of ages of deer in any one particular area leads to an individual deer that is better eating or more tasty. And yet, the one buck rule will in fact help balance out the ages so I get what I want and so does the trophy hunter. I would and will argue most favorably for the one buck rule as it will right some wrongs and be accepted by the hunting community unlike other unpopular alternatives.

[NorthJeff]

Sorry you misunderstood Ogre. It's not outsiders pushing the 1 buck change in the law. It's a group of hunters that primarily hunt DMU 007, which has the fewest deer in the state. It's a fact that the 2nd buck tag accounts for very, very few bucks. If fact, less than 1 out of every 10...and when you consider that the U.P. is 70-80% public land, very, very few hunters are actually shooting 2 bucks.

Also, the 900,000 deer lossed are accurate figures taken from John Ozoga's article in Deer and Deer hunting. We lossed 350,000 in two winters alone in the mid 90's, and 110,000 in the 2000-2001 winter.

I believe it's 80% of the rifle bucks are killed in the first 3 days of the season...and it takes bowhunters how long to kill a buck? If anybody needs to be limited it would be rifle hunters...maybe 1 buck for bow, 1 for rifle. If you want 2 buck tags...buy a bow, or rifle, or M/L and hunt more.

You need to look at realistic solutions, not baseless opinions that will do nothing more than hinder avid sportsmens time afield, not to mention how much money they contribute to the hunting economy. All this is mute though, because unless you can make up the 2nd license dollars to the DNR, through legislation...this, like most often, is just a bunch of useless rhetoric.

[One Eye]

Check the population data (historical) for the entire herd, especially the NLP and the UP. The herd grew its most during the 4 buck tag era. The reason was we were protecting does by only alllowing 1 doe permit per applicant, the doe quotas were much smaller, and there were no over-the-counter doe permits. The buck harvest has little to do with the herd size. Today, it is estimated that only 5% of the second buck tags are used. 60% percent of hunters buy the combo tag, and only 5% use it. The buck tag issue is simply a social issue, not a biology issue.

Returning to 1 buck tag will severely cut time afield, money to the Game fund, economic impact to peripheral businesses (state economy), and also take hunters out of the woods in areas where more does need to be shot (especially in the SLP). In contrast, I suspect a 1 buck system in the NLP would actually lead to a heavier doe harvest at a time when that should be the opposite thing we would want.

Dan

[Liv4Huntin']

"In contrast, I suspect a 1 buck system in the NLP would actually lead to a heavier doe harvest at a time when that should be the opposite thing we would want."

You made nearly the exact statement in a thread in the Mi. Trad. forum, also, and there, I asked you for clarification. You neglected to answer or clear anything up. Now I ask you again, why do you believe that? Based upon what?
~ m ~

[plugger]

I would be in favor of one buck with a bow and one for gun. To me gun and bow are totaly different hunts.

[Trophy Specialist]

"In contrast, I suspect a 1 buck system in the NLP would actually lead to a heavier doe harvest at a time when that should be the opposite thing we would want."

You made nearly the exact statement in a thread in the Mi. Trad. forum, also, and there, I asked you for clarification. You neglected to answer or clear anything up. Now I ask you again, why do you believe that? Based upon what?
~ m ~
I'll answer that one: If some hunters are limited to one buck and they want X amount of venison in their freezer, then they will target more antlerless deer. Even in areas with no or limited antlerless permits, bowhunters can still shoot antlerless deer.

[Fletchman]

We need a 3 on a side law statewide, then people might put Mi. up there with the real deer hunting states?

Killin these 1 1/2 old scrub bucks is too easy and gettin old.

[Sib]

Killin these 1 1/2 old scrub bucks is too easy and gettin old.

Then don't kill them. It's that simple. Many of us pass on young bucks, we've had a 6 point or better rule in our camp for better than 10 years.

[trailsend]

Thats right. " don't shoot em" We have had the six point or better rule for several years now also up here in our UP deer camp. I would bet that parts of michigan there are 6 pointers that are a year and a half old, are they still scrubs?

[NorthJeff]

I've had a no yearling rule at my property for 7 seasons now...but although that's great for private land, especially larger parcels, that just doesn't work on public land unless it's mandated. Don't kid yourself that "education" will work on large tracts of public land. It's either mandated with results, or not-mandated without results...just don't fool yourself into thinking that "Education" will work if it's not mandated on public land.

[Fletchman]

Then don't kill them. It's that simple. Many of us pass on young bucks, we've had a 6 point or better rule in our camp for better than 10 years.

I pass a dozen bucks a year, I have never not filled a 4 on a side tag, or both my buck tags since 1992, and killed many before that but was in school and didn't hunt as much.

I have hundreds of trail cam pics of the bucks I let live, and still killing a P&Y in my area is still next to impossible,

You have to have everyone within a couple sq. miles of you on the same page to have QDM work.

That is why im for a 3 on a side law statewide.

[Fletchman]

I've had a no yearling rule at my property for 7 seasons now...but although that's great for private land, especially larger parcels, that just doesn't work on public land unless it's mandated. Don't kid yourself that "education" will work on large tracts of public land. It's either mandated with results, or not-mandated without results...just don't fool yourself into thinking that "Education" will work if it's not mandated on public land.


EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!

[riverman]

Jeff, Been wanting to ask you this a long time but could never find the place. I guess now will work. If you have had a restriction on bucks in place for seven years and all your work on food plots, do you have mature bucks on your property? If the answer is no, why? It would seem to me after just 4 years of self restraint on the antlers and a tight fence policy on your property, you should have horns approaching what you are taking in other states. Just curious. Riverman

[Fletchman]

Jeff, Been wanting to ask you this a long time but could never find the place. I guess now will work. If you have had a restriction on bucks in place for seven years and all your work on food plots, do you have mature bucks on your property? If the answer is no, why? It would seem to me after just 4 years of self restraint on the antlers and a tight fence policy on your property, you should have horns approaching what you are taking in other states. Just curious. Riverman


Unless you own a sq. mile or more QDM is next to useless

[riverman]

Really? I could walk you in some half sections and a couple quarter sections in my county (Ingham) and I bet you would never say those words again. And yes these parcel get hunted. If you have or can create a good sanctuary, stay out of it, you can have some mature deer. Now getting a shot at a creature of the night is another story if you stay out of his bedroom! Can we have deer like like IL, no, the same reason we cant grow corn like they can. And by the way, ONE BUCK TAG ONLY, BOW OR GUN!!!!! Riverman

[NorthJeff]

Hey, I've gone from getting a picture of 1 spike yearling buck in 1999 to getting hundreds of photos of 14 different bucks in 2005.

Gone from 1 rub, and 1 scrape in 1999, to 100's of rubs, and 40-50 scrapes, including several traditional scrapes in 2005.

Gone from barely being able to see a deer..to passing on multiple 2.5 year old bucks that grew up on the property.

Gone from a local fawn recruitment rate of .5 to over 1 per mature doe.

Believe it or not, it's fairly difficult to compare a 120 acre 15dpsm U.P. property with a local fawn recruitment rate of .5, to a 234 acre WI ag land property with a deer herd 3X's the size, and a fawn recruitment rate of close to 2....might surprise you.

That's why my goals in WI for harvest, are different than my goals in the U.P. of MI in terms of age....I don't go by inches of antler growth, only age. ;) It's not too hard to kill the oldest bucks in an area..but "oldest" is all relative to what property you are on.

[NorthJeff]

Riverman,

My problem is we here on especially public land do not reach the property's potential...even WITHIN the hunter density, soil types, winter severity, and habitat limitations. Just like my property, the public land in PA, my lease in WI, I like to see any property reach it's potential for number of bucks, and age structure relative to hunting pressure, REGARDLESS of if there are any habitat improvements or not. In my experience, we do not allow that to happen on especially public land and no amount of education is going to change that. Simply we can still shoot the same number of bucks...just at an older age. You can structure a U.P. herd to have many more bucks..but with an older age structure as well. Then, you limit the does if needed, but we have many U.P. DMU's that are UNDER DNR stated population goals, so we still don't need to touch the does.

You don't need to touch the habitat in the U.P., many DMU's you still don't need to touch the does, the only differance is to let the buck herd get older, which in turn would give you more total bucks, at a better age structure. That's what you can do in the U.P....that would be the "limit", or a reasonable expectation. Hunter numbers will limit you as to the total age of buck..but we haven't reached our potential due to regulation, not habitat, weather, number of bucks shot, or number of hunters.