Would you buy just one tag?

[JD]

Who would be willing to just purchase one deer tag during 2006-2007?

What about buying your tag for a specific DMU not a statewide tag? You would have to use that tag in that DMU only.


It is my opinion that by only purchasing one tag, it would send a message to the DNR that we do not have to put a 5-year plan together. We could settle this problem within two or three years if at least 50% or more of the states hunters agreed to purchase one tag only. It would hit the DNR in the pocket book and the deer numbers should increase quickly. Don’t get me wrong my family loves to eat venison and we could eat it every day if we had enough, but the important thing is having a deer heard out there to be able to harvest in the future.
Why would a hunter need 5 or more tags? Unless he/she has the Brady Bunch or The Walton’s back home, I feel that 4 or less tags would be reasonable number.

As for managing by DMU it would regulate how many hunters will be in that DMU. Just like bear and turkey.

I personally believe that we as hunters know what needs to happen we just don’t want to give up our extra tags or time in the woods. Shorten seasons, fewer tags whatever the change is it starts with us and we truly do not have to wait on what the DNR or State to decide as we can make a difference just by agreeing on one or two things.

Yes, they can raise the price of the tags, which who cares we would still pay the price to hunt. This may be a cycle that we must do to maintain our deer heard in MI. I know it would be very hard for me to give up an extra tag or tags but I’m willing to do so for the sake of the deer heard.

I would do a poll just to see what everyone would vote for but I'm not sure how.

[NorthJeff]

A 3pt on a side rule saves 82% of the yearling bucks in the U.P....eliminating the 2nd tag would do nothing except elminate a large portion of hunting time afield and dollars that are spent by avid deer hunters each year. Also the 2 tags are mandated by legislation..so the DNR is out of this one and the miniscuel amount of hunter that would protest wouldn't even be noticed.

Improve the winter habitat, improve the deer herd. Continue to let the winter habitat decline, the deer herd declines as well...it's that simple. I know of no-one that shoots 2 bucks in my area, and I have only twice in 19 years of hunting..but that 2nd tag accounts for sometime more than doubling the time afield and experience for sportsmen.

[2Lunger]

The last time that I shot two bucks I was 14 and that was before the antler restrictions on the second tag. I enjoy hunting too much to be done on opening day if I shoot one then or during bow season if I am lucky enough to get one.

[hunting man]

If they dont sell those extra tags. They will have to lay off some of the CO's. I want more of them in the field. Never going to convince me to lay off a CO. I would pay $50 for a buck tag or a antlerless tag if they would hire more CO's.

[nessenswamper]

In 17 years of hunting I have harvested 2 bucks in 1 year only once,and only 3 seasons when I have taken a buck and doe.I imagine that most hunters have seasons like this. So a self imposed 1 tag wouldn't help with deer numbers.For every multiple tag fills there are probably 3 times that don't even fill a tag.

[JD]

NorthJeff,

I did not know exactly where the money went, and I don’t fallow allot of the stories on this. I did go to the meeting in Newberry on Tues. and it just got me thinking so I thought I would ask the question here. I myself have only killed two bucks 8pts in the same year once and that was over 8 years ago. The deer numbers are dropping but nothing has changed as far as number of tags being sold, restrictions ect. I just would like to be able to take my daughters hunting so they too can have a chance to shoot something. But when you go for four days and see nothing every day it’s tough to teach your children that this can be fun and exciting.

As for time in the woods and money coming into communities by out of town hunters I understand what your saying. It would be a sacrifice on us all, but would it be worth it in the long run? This is something we can control, where as snowmobile season is not controlled by us. If we get snow out of town snowmobilers come, if it does not snow the businesses lose money. We can control deer population and we can have a way to guarantee those who come from other areas continue to do so into our communities.
Why would anyone want to sit in a stand or blind and see nothing every day? At some point that person will stop coming up here anyway because they are spending more time and money and bringing home nothing.

I agree with the 3pt. rule and would support it 100% here in the U.P
Improve the winter habitat would be great but all of our deer in 048 go to 049 so when the car deer accidents in that area go up and over browsing ect. then they change the goals there which directly affect our area the next year. 049 you can purchase doe permits and 048 you cannot.

Don’t get me wrong I’m trying learn about this stuff, and I hope to find the time to read up on allot of these posts here. I have sat back too long and should have been more involved in things like this instead standing alone doing things the way I thought they should be done. I’m just frustrated with this whole issue and needed to vent so sorry if I stirred up something. I want a quality deer heard, a future for the youth coming up to hunt that’s all.

[mecosta]

I have read a lot of posts on this subject. One thing that is obvious is that nothing is going to make everyone happy.

I do not think that having only one buck tag is meant at all to increase the quantity of the herd. It would be purely a quality move. That being said, I am very surprised that people still deny that it would have much of an impact on the herd. Without a stance on whether I think it is the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, I will say that I think it would have a HUGE impact on the number of 2.5 and older bucks.

I know that only 4.3% of second tags are used. But if you start asking around to other hunters, many (actually all of the ones that I have asked) said that they would definately be more selective on what they shoot. If you look at OH where I have hunted 5 different years, the entire attitude of shooting 1.5 year old bucks is totally different. Many, many hunters do not even think of shooting them because they know they would be done shooting bucks. These are not trophy hunters, these are normal everyday hunters, almost all of which I have met on public ground. It would have a much larger impact than the 4.3%.

I am not argueing that there would not be a $ shortage in the DNR, or that there could be less time a field, those could very well be true. But to say that it would not have much of an impact on the quality of bucks or at least their chances of making it through the season I think is crazy(for lack of a better word).

[NorthJeff]

Again, 4.3%

How many people are happy to shoot the first buck that comes by...and don't even bother going in the woods again? For most it's antler, bang, dead buck...out of the woods for another 360 days. Most bucks are shot in the first 2-3 days of rifle by guys that don't step another foot in the woods. So, if we have 1 tag, will it save 10% more of the yearling bucks? 30%?, 50%? I've hunted on PA public lands for 13 yearsnow with a 1 buck license for the first 9 years, for all seasons, all year, for the entire state, and trust me, those guys blasted the first buck that walked by. However, the last 4 years have been a 3pts on a side restriction...and guys don't shoot those yearling bucks now. Not surprisingly...PA averaged the same number of dead yearling bucks every year, with the 1 buck license, as we do with 2 buck licenses. 1 buck license won't make a differance, other than to millions of dollars of DNR revenue, hunter expendatures, tourist dollars, and travel expenses, not to mention hours a field and hunter opportunity to avid hunters.

Think about this. A 3pt on a side rule protects 82% of the yearling bucks in the U.P. and Rock data has shown that with the 3pt rule less than 10% of the harvest has been yearlings. Those are facts, not assumptions, that's what I'd like to see us work with.

Again, this isn't about the number of bucks we shoot...only the age at which we shoot them. Pass on the yearlings, build the buck herd, which in turn builds the overall herd, and have an older age structure. So, more bucks, older bucks, and more deer...what's wrong with that?

[holzy]

NJ - I agree with you 100%!

Question on the website link in your signature - Is it supposed to be a valid website because when I click on it, it directs me to a godaddy.com website that has nothing to do with whitetails.

[One Eye]

Again, this isn't about the number of bucks we shoot...only the age at which we shoot them. Pass on the yearlings, build the buck herd, which in turn builds the overall herd, and have an older age structure. So, more bucks, older bucks, and more deer...what's wrong with that?
This is a great plan for those that are interested in mature animals, like you and I. But what about those hunters that are happy with any buck?? I suspect that this is a larger majority of the hunting population than those that support ARs care to admit.

I do agree 100% with your comments on the 2 buck tag issue. There is no biological reason to cut the buck tags down to 1.

Dan

[Nick Adams]

...Rock data has shown that with the 3pt rule less than 10% of the harvest has been yearlings. Those are facts, not assumptions, that's what I'd like to see us work with.

Less than 10% of the deer brought into check stations have been yearlings.

Checked deer are roughly 10%, and often less, of the harvest and not a random sample of the harvest.

You are making a large and unwarranted assumption in expanding the check station percentages to the DMU wide harvest.

-na

[PAbuck]

I have seen the results in PA- where we hunt it is a 4 point on one side area.... I like it, there are those that do not. Causing quite a stir over there in the Keystone state.... I am 50% since the AR being implemented there- and Yes I too hunt state game lands. I have also saw shooter bucks in all but one of the years I did not score.....two of them were MONSTERS!!!:yikes:

[luv 2 bowhunt]

I like the two buck tags, I have doubled up seven years.

[NorthJeff]

Nick,

Try comparing these hard facts then...3pts on a side protects 80-82% of the yearling bucks from harvest in the U.P....that's a DNR regional figure edited for accuracy for me by John Ozoga a few years ago for a QDMA article, and the the 2nd license accounts for 4.3% of the harvest.

So, how will eliminating the 2nd buck tag come anywhere close protecting to what a 3pt on a side rule would protect...the 2nd tag is what we are talking about.

Also, if 1 buck tag will so greatly reduce buck harvest numbers because guys who hunt a few days and shoot the first thing they see in the first 2 days of the season will all of a sudden pass on those same bucks...how come in PA, where they have similar amounts of public land, and a similar number of hunters, did they shoot roughly the same amount of yearling bucks as a percentage of the harvest, as we currently do with 2 tags? I don't see anything but pretty wild assumptions and opinions that actually contradict results and facts, that eliminating the 2nd tag would have noticable effects.

[NorthJeff]

One Eye,
I understand what you are saying...but don't you think hunters would like to have double the amount of bucks in the woods, with double the age structure, many times more rubs, scrapes and rutting activity, with more 2.5 year old and older bucks in the herd, than yearlings? That's how it works, and I've found hunters love it..even though most never get a chance to hunt a herd like that.

[Chasin]

I like the two buck tags, I have doubled up seven years.


I think we should go to one buck tag. still can shoot a doe for more meat if desired an spend every day of season in the woods if you want.

And as far as 4.3% ??? I must know every one of the guys that are in that group. Over half the guys I hunt with get two bucks each year. In all but the last 5 years I have shot the legal number of bucks allowed to be taken in the state since around 1983. Around 2000 I finally saw the light and started only taking bucks over 120 inches and only one per year. Over the last 5 years I can already see a differance. Whats the point of letting every 1.5yr old buck go when you simply plan on shooting everyone of them the following year. NJ I do not understand your reasoning???:confused:

[mecosta]

Northjeff-

I absolutely agree that if there was an AR it would save a higher percentage of the buck from being killed than if we had a one buck system. I still do not agree that having one buck tag would have very little impact. I think that it would have a huge impact, especially down the road a few years after people get used to it and start seeing their friends ect. passing on small bucks and shooting a nice one while they shot their spike and and were done on bucks. We have both been to one buck states and have seen very different use of the tags.

I personaly would prefer the AR. I hunt for the same reasons as you and pass smaller deer with the goal of shooting a 3.5 year old or older. It is the challenge. I have not shot a buck in MI since 2000 and it does not bother me at all. The reason that I would favor a 1 buck over AR restrictions is because of all of the "weekend worriors" that want to hunt and do not have the same goals as myself. With one buck tag they can still shoot and be happy with their deer, but then they are done with bucks. It would certainly not save as many deer as AR, but I think it would help dramatically and would be a good compromise.

If we did go to a one buck rule, I would not be in favor unless there was a doe tag included if someone wanted a combo liscence. I know that there are some areas that there are not enough deer currently to do that, but in most areas there are, and with a year or two of not shooting any does in most of the other areas, the would have enough to allow everyone a doe tag if they wanted to get one as a combo.

One last thing. I know the numbers that you have been saying as far as the % of deer a 3 pt rule would save as yearlings in the UP. Do you know what that number is for northern, central, and lower MI ?

[NorthJeff]

A 3pt on a side rule in the U.P. protects 82% of the yearling bucks
A "no-spike" rule in the U.P. protects 50%
3pt's on a side in northern lower protects 70%
3pts on a side in southern lower protects 39%
A 4pt on a side rule in southern lower protects 69%
A 15" spread(wide as the ear) rule in southern lower would protect 85%

Basically, a 3pt on a side rule in the U.P., and 15" spread rule in southern lower protect the same amount of yearling bucks.

The loss of the 2nd tag would only help more large tracts of private land where more hunting hours are logged per acre and more bucks are shot...but then again, there are many more deer in most private tracts of land to shoot.

On public land, however, most are hunting a few days, and rarely do guys shoot more than 1 buck. Around here it basically goes like...18 guys in camp, 4 bucks shot. 10 guys in camp, 2-3 bucks shot. And, if there is a "hot" blind, guys will be rotated in and out of that blind all season taking deer, regardless of number of tags per hunter. I know one blind where 5 guys, harvested 4 yearling bucks and 1 button buck(honest mistake) in 2004. Didn't matter if they had another tag or not, once you shot one it was someone elses turn. I know another blind a local family shares. Dad will hunt there, but if you gets a buck mom sits there, and the sons get their turns as well. It's not about thinking about multiple tags, it's get your buck and lets someone else take a turn. It is very rare that guys take multiple buck on public land...the effects of the loss of the 2nd tag wouldn't even be noticed.

Even on my property, if my season was ended prematurely..I'm filling my best stands with close friends or family members for the opening few days of rifle, and the same number of bucks will get shot. I look at how many bucks I think the property can handle losing for the year...and that's how many I'll do my best to have get shot, whether I shoot them, or someone else does. The only differance I'd be sitting with a friend with my video camera getting some great shots of them shooting a buck...bottom line though, same dead buck, out of the same stand.

Again, PA shot the same number of yearling bucks with 1 tag as a percentage of harvest, than MI currently does with 2 tags. The only way that changes, was when PA went to AR's...the 1 buck tag did nothing. Also, as the quality of the hunting goes down, including age structure, guys are more inclined to shoot anything that comes by on public land.

The loss of the 2nd buck tag on public land will do nothing but severly cut the hours and days afield for avid sportsmen. If you hunted every year on average for a full 3 months, would you cut your season short on 10/5 when you shoot you best buck ever? Me neither.

[mecosta]

NJ-

I would gladly cutt my season short on 10/5. I would still hunt, but only withmy video camera over a friends shoulder. I know that most people would not want to cutt their season short though.

I agree that 1 buck would not save nearly as many deer as AR. I think that it would however have a much smaller impact on the hunters. In other words people would be happier(probably actually less mad) than if there were AR. Again, probably not the die hard hunters, but the majority of hunters.

If given a choice between the two, I personally would prefer AR. Actually on the one tract of private land that I hunt, noone shoots anything that they think is 1.5 years old and most do not shoot if they think it is 2.5. But if the state tells people that they can only shoot deer with 3 on a side ect., I think many people will say "why go, I have not seen one that big in years". The last thing we need right now is less hunters on our side.

I would like some kind of change. I am just not sure what the answer is.

[Swamper]

Saving 4% of the bucks each year, compounded annually, would have to have a huge impact each. Would personally impact me some years, but I figure its not about me first, but rather the sport and outdoors.

Swamper

[Liver and Onions]

Swamper,
The State wouldn't even come close to saving the 4.3% of the total buck kill. Do you remember hunting in the 70's & early 80's before you could legally take two bucks with a gun ? All of the hunting camps or families in our area(private land) had a couple of extra licenses available for the guys who got a buck right away. That way "Uncle Bob's" license(who was not a hunter) went on the deer and everyone was able to keep on hunting. Not much of that happens anymore, although some do take about 4 bucks every year that way now in the high deer density areas. We could could go back to the old way & sell a lot fewer licenses or keep it the way it is and kill a few more bucks.
I'm in favor of trying to save more button bucks by requiring that they be tagged with 2 antlerless tags or an antlerless tag & a "management tag" costing the same amount or to tag it as a buck which we can currently do. Or, tagging it with one antlerless permit & donating it to the "Sportsman Against Hunger' campaign. A little slap on the wrist like this should help lower the BB kill from its current level of 22% of the antlerless kill and I would hope no one would be tempted to leave the animal in the woods which some would do if they have to tag it as a buck.

L & O

[NorthJeff]

I really think PA is a good indication too. Their yearling buck harvest was just as bad as ours by percentage even though they only have 1 tag...until they went to the AR. Yeah, we had guys in camp that had a "no-spike" rule, but no one cared one way or another if someone shot one or not. There were some great stories by some seemingly "guilty" hunters when they shot a spike...but any limits were personal and the camp never cared, but rest-assured a 4pt was typically "dead-meat". Now, we have a 3pt on a side rule. Still, some guys have higher standards, but no one cares either way. Bottom line, there are a whole lot of stories about passing little bucks and seeing huge ones, and a lot of yearling bucks make it to the next year. Even with not having a 2nd license, guys still readily shot yearling bucks. Shoot your buck....you get to go home and make the wife happier!

[mecosta]

NJ-

My wife would be pissed if I told her that I was coming home early!! You must either be a nicer guy than me or not married as long!

[NorthJeff]

Mecosta..with 3 kids 5 and under I need to get home quick!! It's not so much my wife wants to see me..it's that she wants me to see the kids, if you know what I mean!:) I've averaged less than a day of hunting in PA for the past 13 years, and only plan on 2 days of hunting. It's the way it goes in camp though, except for 2-3 guys out of 16-17 guys, you get a deer, you leave camp the next day. It's the only time most of the guys are in the woods all year....not to mention by that time of the year I've had an opening day for rifle in MI and WI, as well as bowhunting in MI and WI. Some guys take 2 weeks off for rifle. I like to take that same 2 weeks off, but split it between 5 seasons in 3 states during the best times to be in the woods!

[Swamper]

L&O - I admit the 4% cannot be confirmed by myself. I had seen that figure bounced around earlier and that is why I quoted it. But to say it would have not impact because so few hunters shoot a 2nd buck, or that hunters would just used other hunter's unused tags is based on assumption. Some level of validity, but certainly would not mitigate the entire benefit.

Swamper

[mecosta]

NJ-

I also have two under 5 and another in about 2 weeks. I must admit, she likes me home quicker and quicker the more kids we have! Is that bad!?!

I would like to talk to you sometime about both the UP and Wisc. We have a group of 4 guys that go on a hunt every year. We have been to OH several times and IL. We are heading to IO this year and KS next year. We always hunt either public land or ask permission. No outfitters. We have both the UP and Wisc. on our to do list(along with MO, KY, Neb, ND, SD and several areas of Canada).

L & O-

If we do not make laws because we think that poachers are not going to follow them then we are in big, big trouble. The statement that you made can be said about people now using someone elses tag to harvest a second buck that is not 4 on one side or for that matter why poachers are breaking any other law. Poachers are poachers. They should be turned in no matter what law they are breaking. Hopefully that is the minority. I think that times have changed from that perspective.

[NorthJeff]

mecosta,

Sounds fun with the hunting you like to do. If you want to travel there are some great spots you can find in those areas you have gone, and are going. I would say WI is an exceptional spot to hunt...but tough to find private land without paying for it. I've never used an outfitter either. Never been guided either, or even pointed in the right direction. It's fun doing it all yourself, glad to see you like doing that too.

As far as the U.P. there are some great public land hunts...but in spots with very low deer numbers and miles of walking to get into spots. It's a rugged wilderness beauty that can be very successful, but is deminished in overall quality(buck age, daytime movement, deer distibution, etc.) because of baiting. Not that you can't find a good hunt...but it's not like it was 25 years ago when there was no bait.

Send me a PM though sometimes if you want to talk more about specifics and ideas of hunting in the two states...or at least my personal experiences.

I've heard of some GREAT public land hunts in Iowa...you might want to stay right there if you find a good spot!

[Munsterlndr]

L&O - I admit the 4% cannot be confirmed by myself. I had seen that figure bounced around earlier and that is why I quoted it. But to say it would have not impact because so few hunters shoot a 2nd buck, or that hunters would just used other hunter's unused tags is based on assumption. Some level of validity, but certainly would not mitigate the entire benefit.

Swamper

Going to a one buck license would save more than the 4% figure that is thrown around. Tens of thousands of spikes and forks are shot by hunters every year soley because they have the restricted tag as a back up, in case they see a bigger buck later in the season. We see lots of posts, especially from bow hunters early in the season, saying " well, I got a small buck for the freezer, now I can start hunting the big one."

If those guys knew that their buck hunting was over for the year if they shot that spike on Oct. 2nd, I bet 80%+ would pass on it and wait for something bigger. I bet a lot of those guys would shoot a doe instead for the freezer, especially if an antlerless tag was made part of the combo license, paired with the one buck tag.

More does harvested and less small bucks taken, what's not to love?

[NorthJeff]

On especially public land the number would not even be noticable. Again, around here many local hunters share blinds by family and shoot multiple bucks out of the sames stand..by rotating multiple hunters on public land. Rarely does anybody shoot a 2nd buck around here BECAUSE THEY AREN'T in the woods. Guys aren't hunting on public land around here multiple seasons, for weeks of hunting time. They hunt for a few days, shoot a buck...and go home. The 2nd tag means nothing and you have to look no further than the very comparable state of PA. They have one license, yet before statewide AR's, they shot the same number of yearlings as a percent of harvest..maybe even higher. So in PA you actually have an example...instead of wild assummptions based on nothing.

How many people in PA don't bowhunt because they don't want to miss rifle season and rifle camp...I know I don't for that very reason and guys in camp don't either. So, when they go to camp they aren't thinking about late bow, or M/L...there thinking this is my only hunting time, they shoot the first legal buck, and go home. Wouldn't be any different in MI.

[lwingwatcher]

Well, I was in the distinct minority with my views over on the archery forum about shortening the time that bucks were fair game in archery season..:lol:

I guess as it pertains to this thread, I wouldn't mind seeing one buck tag available and then draw for a second (with guaranteed antlerless for the unsuccessful).

There is not much chance of cutting down on the folks that have all their relatives buy licenses....nobody is gonna snitch off their spouse and enforcement would be really tough.

Sadly, in my area, there are many folks that whack a ton of bucks (recovered or not) in that 45 day arrow flinging fest and guess what---there really are not many bucks around come rifle season.

What would be effective in the UP is drastically different from what would be necessary (or unnecessary) in central or lower Michigan.

NorthJeff---I know several folks in my area that whack their two bucks from the same tree stand in bow season in one morning or evening. And you know what---they are right back out there the next day and the next day and the next day.... Cell phones are a wonderful thing. "Honey--go to town and buy a license". "Honey, when you are there, get a combo....I sent another arrow"
I know for a fact that this sort of thing happens in my part of the state.

[Liver and Onions]

......
More does harvested and less small bucks taken, what's not to love?

There are a lot of hunters who would not be real crazy about more does being killed.

If anyone doubts the number of hunters who had their wives or mothers purchase a buck license for them in the 70's or early 80's before they could buy two buck licenses for gun hunting, check the DNR stats from those years and you'll see a very large drop in females purchasing licenses after hunters were able to purchase two buck licenses for a gun or 4 buck licenses with a bow & bow combined.

L & O

[Liver and Onions]

NorthJeff---I know several folks in my area that whack their two bucks from the same tree stand in bow season in one morning or evening. And you know what---they are right back out there the next day and the next day and the next day.... Cell phones are a wonderful thing. "Honey--go to town and buy a license". "Honey, when you are there, get a combo....I sent another arrow"
I know for a fact that this sort of thing happens in my part of the state.

I hunt just a few miles from lwingwatcher. What he says is true. Getting two bucks on a bow sit is not that big of a deal. Getting 3 is though. That's why I would favor going to selling 4 buck or more licenses to those who would want to go that route. 2 restricted to 4 pts. on a side & all of the rest restricted to 15" minimum width. These hunters are going to take their 4 or more bucks per year. Why not make it legal and harder ?

L & O

[HTC]

Antler point restrictions have worked very well on Colorado's elk herd. I understand that is pretty far removed from Michigan's whitetails but the principal is the same. Used to be just a few spikes running around acting stupid. Now by the time they're legal they are usually at least 3 years old and educated....but they are much more gratifying to see much less take. It took a few years of grumbling by hunters to get to that point.....but no one complains now.

[Swamper]

If only 4.3% of the second tags are used each year....assume those 4.3% are not used this fall, that equals x number of bucks saved (plus those who might wait for a bigger buck and never take one - their choice). Next fall, its another 4.3% of the bucks saved. Like money, considering the compounding factor, it adds up to some sizeable numbers in terms of more bucks and bigger bucks.

Much better alternative mandatory ARs, and allows people to get more comfortable with passing on smaller bucks. Some may think 4.3% isn't much, but one needs to look beyond just one year. Its called "the beauty of compounding interest"!

Swamper

[Gilbey]

Yes, I would buy a specific DMU license. No to taking only 1 buck tag. And,,,,,I'd put a disclaimer on the dmu if it was a drawing system like bear. All my time scouting down the drain cuz I have to go hunt a buck elsewhere, not gonna support that.

Incidentally, I've only used my two tags once. And if I were knocked down to 1 tag, I'd almost have to make a huge decision.

Bow season being out in the woods, best time of year, great opportunities.
Gun season, going out to camp for a week without a buck tag would almost be like slow torture to me.:rolleyes: I'd have to rename it Beer no Deer Camp and sit and drink by myself.

[MGV]

Yes i would buy one tag for a buck. But i would also like the option for one Doe tag also. Or a Doe/Buck tag like bow hunting. As long as i have a option to put meat in the freezer.

[NorthJeff]

Gilbey....you could move like me, if we go to the one buck license.;)

The only problem though, less recreational opportunity=less recreational users=less buyers/users of recreational properties=lower land and home values in recreational markets. We already have a slow market and the poor QUALITY hunting doesn't help...take some buck tags away and why would guys want to buy hunting property that can potentially be used much less time of the year by themselves, friends, and family?

Limit hunters, limit recreational property prices, limit revenue for recreationaly based businesses. In tough times there is no sense making it tougher. On the otherhand, raise the quality of the hunting, which includes buck age structure, and find a place in the United States that has not benifited from a quality deer herd in terms of land prices, and recreationally based business revenue. Deer season used to one of the busiest times of the year around here for local businesses...now it is one of the slowest and areas businesses actually close their doors during hunting season because of how few people are in the area.

[Gilbey]

I'm a converted cheesehead, already thinking of hunting there next year......miight as well go full bore and move back to Appleton.:evil:

All I can say is i would support one buck tag per firearm chosen.

1 for Bow
1 for gun/muzzle

[Trophy Specialist]

The State wouldn't even come close to saving the 4.3% of the total buck kill. Do you remember hunting in the 70's & early 80's before you could legally take two bucks with a gun ? All of the hunting camps or families in our area(private land) had a couple of extra licenses available for the guys who got a buck right away. That way "Uncle Bob's" license(who was not a hunter) went on the deer and everyone was able to keep on hunting.
I certainly remember hunting then and the incidence of people using other peoples tags or just not tagging bucks was much, much higher back then.

[NorthJeff]

I'm not saying I'd buy my wife a tag, but for a guy that is used to hunting all 3 months, all seasons, and has uses that 2nd tag to extend deer season by more than 2 months and multiple seasons, depending on the year, and hunting is a way of life for those 3 months or more...what's a guy to do with just one tag? That's all fine and dandy for the several day a year hunter that experiences little annual success and frankly isn't in the woods enough to expect very high success, but this would be pushing the compliance of legal bounderies for many. I know for me personally, I'm not saying I'd be illegal, but I'd view this as an attack of a way of life for me no different than if you told an avid fisherman they could only fish for the month of June, or a snowmobiler they could only ride their sled in February. Some fisherman or snowmobilers wouldn't care, because that's all the time they were going to spend anyways, but to the rest....they would have a big problem.

[Nick Adams]

...what's a guy to do with just one tag? /.../ I'd view this as an attack of a way of life for me.

We shouldn't be designing deer regulations around "what's good for me as a hunter". They should be designed around whats good for the deer herd and all of the other natural resources in the state.

As far as I'm concerned, providing an option to participate in a rewarding recreational experience to as many people as possible is a laudable secondary goal.

You could always camera hunt the rest of the season, or head over to a higher population DMU and take a few does - help the DNR out with their population goals.

-na

[Liver and Onions]

I'm not saying I'd buy my wife a tag, but for a guy that is used to hunting all 3 months, all seasons, and has uses that 2nd tag to extend deer season by more than 2 months and multiple seasons, depending on the year, and hunting is a way of life for those 3 months or more...what's a guy to do with just one tag?.......

I have no problem admitting that I would buy a tag for my wife or my non-hunting cousin. So would thousands of others. Some would simply haul their first buck up to the pole barn and never tag it at all. Filling someone else's tag was commonly done before we could buy 2 or 4 buck licenses, and it would be done again. Again, what would happen is that the DNR would sell many fewer licenses, take in a lot less money, need to make more cuts somewhere and a small percentage of bucks would be saved.
I am not concerned in the least that the DNR would consider this change. They can see the big picture, unlike some hunters.

L & O

[Gilbey]

I have no problem admitting that I would buy a tag for my wife or my non-hunting cousin. So would thousands of others. Some would simply haul their first buck up to the pole barn and never tag it at all. Filling someone else's tag was commonly done before we could buy 2 or 4 buck licenses, and it would be done again.

L & O

I'm new to the state over the past half a decade, but am i in the dark when it comes to shooting 4 bucks? Sorry for the interuption on the thread, just wanted a little clarification, or is that the 2 + the wife's 2?

[farmlegend]

The objection to tag limits, based on the likelihood of spouse's buying additional tags, is becoming less potent by the day. Because of the requirement that hunters born since 1960 must have earned a hunter safety certificate, fewer and fewer spouses are available (as time goes by) to run out to the hardware store to supply hubby with a fraudulent tag. Not many wives that I know would be willing to sit through a hunter safety course and take an exam, simply to facilitate their husbands' poaching habits.

Now, the spouse could still fraudulently sign an affidavit that the hunters safety course was successfully completed, but that would involve breaking two laws, not just one (maybe even three, an additional violation for serving as an "accessory"). I'm sure some of this would still go on (sleaze attracts sleaze, especially where spousal choice is concerned), but, all things being equal, the practice seems certain to decline over time.

[NorthJeff]

Sorry Nick, but the whole point is that the reason I see it as an attack on a way of life is that I also recognize that there is no research, no facts, no numbers, and frankly very little support from wildlife professionals and experts that the removal of the 2nd tag would do anything noticably or significatnly positive for the deer herd. As someone that does actually weigh every option, take in as much information as possible, and seek and search for truth from the most knowledgable and informed sources as possible...on ANYTHING I pursue, I just haven't seen any substance to removing the 2nd buck tag. That is why I'd view it as a pure tragedy for many avid sportsmen if the 2nd tag is removed.

*You can research and find that a 3pt on a side rule would indeed protect 82% of the yearling buck age class

*You can do research and see that as timber production increases, so does the deer herd, and as it decreases, so does the deer herd

*You can research the age and number of acres of wintering habitat and see how it effects deer population

*You can research how many deer a wolf eats a year, and how many wolves we have in the U.P.

*You can research winter mortality rates per year

*You can research how many bucks are shot with the 2nd tag, how many are killed by bowhunters, how many by gun hunters, how many days it takes for gun hunters to kill a deer compared to bow hunters

*You can research the effects of overbrowsing and habitat degredation and the number of years it takes the habitat to recover

*You can research the effects of overharvest in particular DMU's and how long it takes a deer herd to recover...if it CAN even recover at all.

There is so much concrete information out there on what can and can not be done. What has been done and what can be done. However, other than wild assumptions and baseless opinions you can not predict with any degree of any form of accuracy that the elimination of the 2nd tag would be statistically significant or noticable. I will never support regulation by assumption or for public relation..and I would hope you would not either. If you can prove to me that the 2nd buck tag would have as great effect on the overall buck age structure as a 3pt on a side antler restriction, or even come close...I'd be all for it, because it would be best for the herd, but I have yet to see anything that would indicate that. Instead, I currently see it as an expensive regulation based to dupe the status quo as an inappropriate and ineffective PR-based assumption with the potential to further hinder recreationally generated opportunity and revenue, while a the same time masking the real and present threats of loss of winter habitat and poor buck age structure.

[NorthJeff]

FL,

Honesty, do you think if a husband is going to have a wife buy a tag to shoot an illegal buck, that a hunter's safety class certification of completion is going to be an issue?

[Liver and Onions]

I'm new to the state over the past half a decade, but am i in the dark when it comes to shooting 4 bucks? Sorry for the interuption on the thread, just wanted a little clarification, or is that the 2 + the wife's 2?
Good question......many aren't old enough to remember or were out of state.
I can't remember the exact years, maybe '86 through '89 we could buy 2 buck licenses for bow season & 2 buck licenses for gun season. It may have only been 3 yrs. instead of 4 yrs. I would have to dig out my notes to check on that. Not a lot of hunters bought 4 licenses and of course fewer filled all 4. Make them all restricted and I would buy 3 or 4 every year.
Shortly after that time, the Michigan deer herd peaked at about 2 million animals.

L & O

[NorthJeff]

That's interesting to note that guys are complaing about deer numbers so their answer is to reduce the buck tags, when in the past our deer herd grew to be the largest when we had 4 buck tags available. If you want to build a deer herd, especially up here in the U.P., you do it by protecting mature does and improving the habitat, not by saving 1 out of every 20 bucks shot.

Let's work on the real problems, with real solutions...not on unecessary baseless assumptions.

[Liver and Onions]

I think that going back to the 1 buck rule would work as well as Prohibition did in the '20's & early '30's. Some of us are old enough to have talked with our fathers or grandfathers and they would freely admit that many weekends they stopped being a law-abiding citizen and would break the law by buying a few drinks from a supplier.
Probibition was the opportunity of a lifetime for organized crime.

L & O

[Liv4Huntin']

:confused: Swamper writes: "If only 4.3% of the second tags are used each year....assume those 4.3% are not used this fall, that equals x number of bucks saved (plus those who might wait for a bigger buck and never take one - their choice). Next fall, its another 4.3% of the bucks saved. Like money, considering the compounding factor, it adds up to some sizeable numbers in terms of more bucks and bigger bucks"

I'm confused....... I thought it said that the 4.3% was the percentage of the overall buck kill represented by the second buck tag..... which is it?

Interested to know how the two figures would compare. Not attacking you, Swamper!!


Another subject note: If someone objects to NOT having a second license available, based on the argument that when the first (only) license is filled then the season is done, the solution would seem to be simple....don't pull the trigger/release that arrowso soon. It IS a personal CHOICE.

So many of the posts I'm reading seem so self-serving it's very sad. If we are to do what's best for the herd, and thus, in the long run, hunting as a whole, I guess the only thing left is to determine what that is. Figures can be thrown around to 'prove' ANY argument.

And yes, I would buy one tag... even at double the price.

Just my .02. Ok.... whale away.......
~ m ~

[Trophy Specialist]

Sorry Nick, but the whole point is that the reason I see it as an attack on a way of life is that I also recognize that there is no research, no facts, no numbers, and frankly very little support from wildlife professionals and experts that the removal of the 2nd tag would do anything noticably or significatnly positive for the deer herd. As someone that does actually weigh every option, take in as much information as possible, and seek and search for truth from the most knowledgable and informed sources as possible...on ANYTHING I pursue, I just haven't seen any substance to removing the 2nd buck tag. That is why I'd view it as a pure tragedy for many avid sportsmen if the 2nd tag is removed.

*You can research and find that a 3pt on a side rule would indeed protect 82% of the yearling buck age class

*You can do research and see that as timber production increases, so does the deer herd, and as it decreases, so does the deer herd

*You can research the age and number of acres of wintering habitat and see how it effects deer population

*You can research how many deer a wolf eats a year, and how many wolves we have in the U.P.

*You can research winter mortality rates per year

*You can research how many bucks are shot with the 2nd tag, how many are killed by bowhunters, how many by gun hunters, how many days it takes for gun hunters to kill a deer compared to bow hunters

*You can research the effects of overbrowsing and habitat degredation and the number of years it takes the habitat to recover

*You can research the effects of overharvest in particular DMU's and how long it takes a deer herd to recover...if it CAN even recover at all.

There is so much concrete information out there on what can and can not be done. What has been done and what can be done. However, other than wild assumptions and baseless opinions you can not predict with any degree of any form of accuracy that the elimination of the 2nd tag would be statistically significant or noticable. I will never support regulation by assumption or for public relation..and I would hope you would not either. If you can prove to me that the 2nd buck tag would have as great effect on the overall buck age structure as a 3pt on a side antler restriction, or even come close...I'd be all for it, because it would be best for the herd, but I have yet to see anything that would indicate that. Instead, I currently see it as an expensive regulation based to dupe the status quo as an inappropriate and ineffective PR-based assumption with the potential to further hinder recreationally generated opportunity and revenue, while a the same time masking the real and present threats of loss of winter habitat and poor buck age structure.
:yeahthat:
I'm getting very tired of the one-buck arguement as the "majic pill" that's going to fix all of our deer management problems. Face the fact, for a long list of reasons mentioned above, the DNR is never going to put such a measure into law, so instead why not push for measures that will actually have a real, meaningful, positive affect?

[NorthJeff]

Liv4Hunting...it's not about being self-serving, but instead dealing with facts and research to come up with realistic answers...not baseless assumptions.

4.3% is the number of bucks the 2nd tag accounts for within the harvest. It is just an opinion, but it stands to reason that MORE of those 4.3% bucks are killed in high quality private land habitat areas with high deer numbers, and LESS of those 4.3% of bucks are killed in low-quality, low population public land areas. So, that number of bucks potentially saved is most likely even more insignificant in areas with some of the largest complaints.

If I could be convinced that a 1 buck tag would make a noticable differance, I'd happily go with it. But, the sad fact is that in the last 8-10 years of listening to people discuss the 1 buck/2 buck tag "theory", I haven't seen any validity that removing the 2nd tag would be positive in any way. Lets work on the real problems of declining winter habitat, winter mortality, and poor buck age structure....with REAL solutions.

[Ferg]

While the 'filling of others tags' does fit this thread *sorta* I broke off those posts into another thread that maybe usefull later down the road for searching that subject - if we want to continue the ethics discussion of that topic feel free over in the new thread -

Thanks guys -

ferg....

[Swamper]

Liv4 hunting - you are right; its 4.3% of the bucks taken are tagged with a 2nd tag. I read the data quoted somewhere else.

Its a hard and fast number...big numbers that add up over time. Use the compound interest analogy. Some folks may not want to face the facts and numbers, but they are real.

Let's go do it!

Swamper

[Nick Adams]

...there is no research, no facts, no numbers, and frankly very little support from wildlife professionals and experts that the removal of the 2nd tag would do anything noticably or significatnly positive for the deer herd.

To hear Rod Clute talk at the DNR open-house recently you could make the exact same argument about mandatory antler restrictions on public land. ;-)

I don't think we disagree so much on tactics as much as we do on strategy: what the goals and priorities should be when it comes deer management on public land.

You are only assuming that advancing the age structure of bucks is a universal and high priority goal. While it may be a popular goal here on this forum, as far as I can tell it isn't doesn't appear to be a high priority among the the state wildlife managers. I know it isn't among the resource professionals that actually manage the public lands on a day to day basis.

On public lands in the UP, advancing the age structure of bucks is of greatest benefit to that portion of the hunting community that gets to hunt the rut (bow hunters) and the the type of person that can afford to spend more than a week or so worth of time on deer hunting. I don't begrudge them that opportunity. I do object to any proposal involving public lands that increases opportunities for a select few at the expense of the larger majority, all of whom have an equal "ownership interest" in the resource regardless of the time or effort they choose to expend each year on deer hunting.

I don't object to your desire to advance the age structure of bucks. I don't disagree that antler restrictions are likely to get you there much faster than a single buck tag.

I do object to mandatory antler restrictions on the grounds that it lays all of costs and very few of the benefits of an older age structure on the casual firearms hunters. I think the people who stand to benefit the most from an older age strucuture should, at a minimum, share the cost of getting there equally with the rest of the hunting community (1 buck tag, no baiting/feeding, etc) or even disproportionately to the rest of the hunting community (no hunting in the UP from Nov 1st through Nov 14th).

-na

[NorthJeff]

"To hear Rod Clute talk at the DNR open-house recently you could make the exact same argument about mandatory antler restrictions on public land. ;-)"

Nick, it's a simple fact...82% of the yearling age class would be protected with a 3pt on a side AR. It's not a matter of getting there quicker, it's a matter of it being the only way on public land, other than getting rid of baiting. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if we get to see that in the next 2-3 years...CWD, and the results of getting rid of baiting at that time. We have more of a chance of that happening, than most likely AR's or voluntarily getting rid of baiting.

Also, rifle hunters kill more bucks in the first two days of rifle season, than bowhunters most likely do in the entire bow season...all 2.5 months. That's a funny one...that the casual rifle hunter wouldn't benifit, afterall, they are exactly the ones shooting all those bucks in the first 2 days of the season..along with all the "die-hard" hunters. That's the only time the casual rifle hunter is even in the woods...at a time when all the bucks are shot.

Here is a challenge. How about just 1 person, come up with something concrete and substantive how getting rid of the 2nd tage will improve anything..buck age structure, deer numbers, etc. Something concrete. Maybe a trend that took place in another state, some research somewhere that would pass peer review...something. I haven't seen it in the past 8-10 years...and I'm still waiting. Until that time, I'll fight this issue hard because it is truly an unwarranted attack on a way of life based on baseless assumptions. Find something...find anything to show that getting rid of the 2nd tag would do something significant other than significantly cut revenue, days afield, and recreational income. If you can show it would be of benifit to the health of the herd, deer numbers, buck age structure...I'm ALL FOR IT. But until you can show me that, reveal something new, it's just a pretty far-fetched and ill-conceived assumption.

[Swamper]

"Here is a challenge. How about just 1 person, come up with something concrete and substantive how getting rid of the 2nd tage will improve anything..buck age structure, deer numbers, etc. Something concrete."

4.3% in Year 1
4.3% in Year 2
4.3% in Year 3

NJ - You earlier cited these figure of 4.3%, so I consider them your evidence!


"it is truly an unwarranted attack on a way of life based on baseless assumptions."

I submit that many feel the same way about MARs. Could be right, could be wrong..but some look at both the same way.

Thanks.

Swamper

[November Sunrise]

Here is a challenge. How about just 1 person, come up with something concrete and substantive how getting rid of the 2nd tage will improve anything..buck age structure, deer numbers, etc. Something concrete. Maybe a trend that took place in another state, some research somewhere that would pass peer review...something. I haven't seen it in the past 8-10 years...and I'm still waiting. Until that time, I'll fight this issue hard because it is truly an unwarranted attack on a way of life based on baseless assumptions. Find something...find anything to show that getting rid of the 2nd tag would do something significant other than significantly cut revenue, days afield, and recreational income. If you can show it would be of benifit to the health of the herd, deer numbers, buck age structure...I'm ALL FOR IT. But until you can show me that, reveal something new, it's just a pretty far-fetched and ill-conceived assumption.

The paragraph below is a quote from BSK from May 5th of last year on this site, speaking to the benefits of going to a one buck tag. Sounds like he could provide the data you're looking for that this would improve the buck age structure.

BSK wrote:

I'm not in favor of states forcing QDM principles. However, if someone held a gun to my head and made me choose a statewide regulation that would 1) Increase the buck age structure; and 2) Be acceptable to the largest percentage of hunters, I would choose a one buck limit (for MI). Yes, only 5% kill more than one now. But that is forgetting the psychological effects of having only one buck tag. I've seen this tried in other states and it has met my two objectives above. In fact, I made the same mistake others are making when they quote the 5% figure. I did the same thing for my state when they were proposing a buck limit change from 11 down to 2. At the time only 9% of hunters killed more than 2 bucks each year, so I didn't think a lower limit of 2 would help. Boy was I wrong! We've gone from a harvest of 75% yearlings down to a harvest of 50% yearling and we now kill just as many bucks as we did before the limit change. A win-win in my book.

Now without question, a buck buck limit would not be as effective as ARs, but I think it would be much more acceptable to the majority of hunters.

Other states have found low buck limits to both work towards improving the buck age structure while at the same time being acceptable to the vast majority of hunters.

[Liv4Huntin']

Thanks, jk.

[weatherby]

No . I couldn't even begin to explain why here. Not enough time

[Trophy Specialist]

Again, as I've stated in previous posts on this subject, going to one buck per season per hunter would fall under "QDM" guidlines for it to become law. That means that it would have to be treated just like mandatory antler restriction proposals. So, if you want a one buck law, then form a group and jump through all the hoops that the DNR requires and get a test area to try it as an experiment. I'd be all for testing it for five years in a dmu to see if it works.

[November Sunrise]

I'd be all for testing it for five years in a dmu to see if it works.

I'd be in favor of that as well. As a matter of fact, from my perspective this would make very good sense as a "next step", assuming there ever is a next step.

Any sense of how that would work, in terms of the combo tag?

Would the test unit just need to function on the honor system?

Have there been any grass root attempts in MI to implement this option?

[Tom Morang]

Ask any field biologist about the 2 buck limit in Mi. They will tell you that going to a one buck tag is nothing but a social argument. No biological reason why we should go to a one buck tag system in Michigan.

It's all about the does.

[Trophy Specialist]

I'd be in favor of that as well. As a matter of fact, from my perspective this would make very good sense as a "next step", assuming there ever is a next step.

Any sense of how that would work, in terms of the combo tag?

Would the test unit just need to function on the honor system?

Have there been any grass root attempts in MI to implement this option?
Since a one buck limit would fit into the DNR’s definition of QDM the same as Mandatory Antler Restrictions, it would therefore have to undergo the same procedure for implementation on a test basis. I have not heard of anybody making a real effort for a proposal for a test area for a one buck experiment though. Sure there have been lots of complaints to the DNR, but no action from those complainers. If hunters are so adamant about a one buck limit, then let’s see some real action.

A one buck limit could be implemented on a test basis the same way it was done in the antler restriction experimental DMUs. In those cases it was technically made into law, but was really just on the honor system as I never heard or read of a single case (yes I did research that with the Law Division) of a citation being issued for someone shooting a buck without the required antler requirements. I was at the Escanaba DNR office the first year too when I saw one sub legal buck checked in that was shot in DMU155 and he wasn’t even given a warning. Here are the DNR’s guidelines for getting a proposal in the works:
http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/reports/QDMDRAFTIII11-29-05.pdf

[Carl8orbtr]

I do not think that having only one buck tag is meant at all to increase the quantity of the herd. It would be purely a quality move. That being said, I am very surprised that people still deny that it would have much of an impact on the herd. Without a stance on whether I think it is the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do, I will say that I think it would have a HUGE impact on the number of 2.5 and older bucks.

I know that only 4.3% of second tags are used. But if you start asking around to other hunters, many (actually all of the ones that I have asked) said that they would definately be more selective on what they shoot. If you look at OH where I have hunted 5 different years, the entire attitude of shooting 1.5 year old bucks is totally different. Many, many hunters do not even think of shooting them because they know they would be done shooting bucks. These are not trophy hunters, these are normal everyday hunters, almost all of which I have met on public ground. It would have a much larger impact than the 4.3%.
You are right on track!

[Carl8orbtr]

[quote=NorthJeff]Again, 4.3%

I've hunted on PA public lands for 13 yearsnow with a 1 buck license for the first 9 years, for all seasons, all year, for the entire state, and trust me, those guys blasted the first buck that walked by. However, the last 4 years have been a 3pts on a side restriction...and guys don't shoot those yearling bucks now. Not surprisingly...PA averaged the same number of dead yearling bucks every year, with the 1 buck license, as we do with 2 buck licenses. 1 buck license won't make a differance,

I don't see where PA keeps age structure details on deer???? With there harvest report card it seems unlikely that they would have accurate data?
I hunt there to and it is the best buck hunting I have ever had since the antler restrictions came to be. Here is what I found the PA DNR saying about age structure after the 2004 season.....

"Yes, there was a big time change in the age structure of bucks," Kammerdiener said. "Upwards of 50 percent of the bucks we aged were 30 months or older, which is a big change from the 15 percent in previous years. Antler restrictions definitely increased the age of these bucks!"

[NorthJeff]

"Yes, there was a big time change in the age structure of bucks," Kammerdiener said. "Upwards of 50 percent of the bucks we aged were 30 months or older, which is a big change from the 15 percent in previous years. Antler restrictions definitely increased the age of these bucks!"

I was thinking PA had a worse yearling buck harvest than MI...and if it was at 85% that would be true...with the 1 buck license and no AR's. PA's check-in with my experience is the same as MI's. Random DNR check stations that hunters can bring deer to be checked if they want to. I've brought some in, but not most.

If you look at the numbers, the guys that are complaing the loudest right now about this are the guys hunting in the lowest deer density DMU's. Buck tags have little to do with the deer population...the DOE population does though! Think of it, that 4.3% figure is an average. The higher the deer numbers, for example high quality habitat areas, the higher of percentage of bucks too harvest, and most likely ARE harvested, so those areas are probably much higher than 4.3%. On the otherhand, where deer numbers are extremely low, as well as hunter numbers, the number of 2nd bucks shot be hunters is probably well-below 4.3%. In reality, we are talking about saving 1 out of every 20 bucks...which is ABOVE the 4.3% rate. Who knows, might be more like 1 out of every 40 bucks. Either way though, it's statistically insignificant and masks the real problems of loss of quality winter habitat and winter mortality...of which we have still not recovered from the 350,000 deer lossed in the mid 90's in just 2 winters, and the 110,000 we lost in the winter of 2000-2001. Saving 1 buck out of 20-40 that have been shot means nothing. Protecting mature does from archers and from deer yard hunting with bows or antlerless tags, improving winter habitat, and increasing logging activities are about the only ways to turn things around.

Think of it this way...our deer herd was built the highest, when we had 4 buck tags! Let that sink in...our deer herd was built to the highest levels when we had the most number of buck tags available! It's not the number of bucks we shoot that is the problem, and focusing on this issue only masks the real issues at hand.

[mecosta]

NJ-

Look at the thread about the numbers in IN since they went to one buck. I am not saying this is the answer because I will be the first to admit that I am not a biologist. I will still argue that to simply say that the number protected will only be 4.3% is not at all accurate. Look at the other states that have one buck.

Other arguments about $ and so on are definately true, that would be a problem. I know that AR would have a better impact on the number of older bucks. I personally think that it would also have a larger impact on pissed off hunters than going to a one buck rule.

For those of you that would buy a tag for your wife and use it. Why are you even on here saying anything? It is pathetic to me that someone who supposedly loves hunting and is that passionate about it would even say that let alone do it. People like that are part of the reason that we have problems managing the herd. These are the kind of people that are always going to have a problem with authority no matter what. If the rules are changed to exactly what they want they still will not be happy and will complain. To manage the deer based on people that are going to break the rules is rediculus. NJ is obviously very passionate about hunting. The difference in him though is that he argues what he believes without making stupid comments about doing what he wants regardless of the rules.

Am I in the minority that I will follow whatever rules are set by the state? I certainly hope not. If I am, we are in very serious trouble!

[NorthJeff]

Mecosta,

I have a lot of experience hunting U.P. public land for all seasons. I live in the middle of the national forest. What I see is no-one taking 2 bucks. No-one. What I also see are guys using the woods for rifle hunting for an average of 3-4 days, and then going back home. Hunters just are not thinking about the 2nd tag..they are only hunting for a few days and going home. On the otherhand, I know of 2 blinds within a few miles of my house, on public land, where multiple bucks are shot each year, by different hunters. Close friends and family....these blinds are used for the full 2 weeks and I've personally seen 5 bucks pulled from ONE blind for the entire 2 weeks, ALL from different hunters. The 2nd tag is not the problem, or solutions, the number of bucks we shoot is not the problem..in fact, if managed right we should be shooting MORE than we do. The problem is in the loss of winter habitat, population numbers, winter mortality, and the one buck tag does nothing to help these problems..and on especially public land the effects of the loss of the 2nd tag would be insignificant.

I see guys using the public land for just a few days a year. Most all our bucks are shot the first couple of days over bait by guys that could care less if they get a 2nd buck, because they only hunt for a handful of days. I know guys around here that like to get their buck so they can party harder the rest of the season! The 2nd tag means nothing to guys that only hunt a few days a year..they aren't thinking about that 2nd buck, and they don't care if they lose the 2nd buck tag, because they only hunt a few days anyways.

Hunting is a way of life for my family and I. It's shaped where I live, what kind of job I do, what kind of girl I married, and frankly, I NEED to be in the woods, on a stand, taking on the challenge of hunting deer. I don't like the thought of guys that only hunt a few days a year pushing for my way of life that I can actively participate in for 3 months, to be taken away. I'll fight this harder than I did for the U.P.-wide AR proposal, with every resource I can, with no one standing in the way. It's a way of life. To me, it's about education. I honestly am extremely disappointed that so many good people are duped into thinking that eliminating the 1 buck tag would be significant, especially in areas where populations are so low, and I'll do my best to expose the real problems we face, especially here in the U.P. of Michigan. This 1-buck tag is simply a destraction to very real problems, problems that are reflected with very real and hard numbers. I personally see that the more time and energy we put into this 1 buck tag issue, the more we are ignoring the real problems and watching our deer numbers decline. We have got to focus on the real problems. You have to think in terms of the "lowest hole in the bucket". The 1 buck tag may vary well not even be a hole in the bucket, and we are ignoring the gaping hole at the base of the bucket of loss of winter habitat. Further up the bucket we are ignoring buck age structure. Instead, we focus on a "hole" in the bucket, that by most professional manager accounts, isn't even a hole. It's very frustrating to me, and I will not give-in on this issue in the face of public relations or even friendships. Like I said before, I see this as an attack on a way of life..and I'll fight back hard.

[LUCE-YOOPER]

NJ, i agree completely.

I think another thing that needs to be considered is the money. The DNR operates (as any business) on good ole cash. I'm not sure how many hunters purchase 2 tags, but I bet there's a lot. If I were the DNR considering dropping the 2nd buck, I would look at the lost revenue. Where will it get made up??? I dont think anyone in the DNR would want to lower they're budgets. I would bet they look at the 2 bucks per as a great source of income with minimal impact on the herd. Just a thought!!!

[mecosta]

NJ-

I finally think I might see why we don't agree on this issue. I think it is partially because of where we live. I live in Central Mi and it is a much different environment here. We have many more deer and many more hunters. I think in the UP, a lot of the people that you are talking about hunting for only 3-4 days and thats it are from down here and are mostly only rifle hunters. I know of a lot of people that bow hunt down here and then gun hunt up there for the first week at "beer camp". They absolutely have different standards of what they shoot and how they hunt in the UP or here. As a matter of fact, many do not even go up there really as much for the hunting as they do the experience of deer camp. I know that is a fairly broad blanket to throw over everyone going to the UP. It is by no means meant to include all hunters that head up your way to rifle hunt. But I would GUESS that it is a fairly large number of them.
It is good to hear someone as passionate as you are about hunting are willing to stand by your convictions without saying that you will just do what you want no matter what the laws say. The majority of hunters are very good people. Unfortunately it is the minority that break the law, take poor shots, or do other un-ethical things that tend to end up in the paper or being talked about by the general public.

[mecosta]

NJ-

I just re-read your reply again and had something to add. I totally agree with you on everything accept the impact that one buck would have. AR would without question be a better way to go as far as age structure. The thing that I really worry about is the impact that would have on hunters. It is obviously a very small sampling, but the hunters that I have talked to would be far, far more upset about AR then they would be about a one buck rule. One thing that we do not need is less hunters on the woods. I know for selfish reasons I would like that, but in the long run it would be very damaging to hunting.
My guess would be that a one buck rule would impact the herd less than I think and more than you think. It is not the solution for sure. I think that it would be a baby step in the right direction. One thing that PA did show us is that AR are not the only answer either. Lots of hunters are pissed there about the results. It sounds like the same thing as here with the deer numbers being the main thing, but there are also lots of people mad about AR also.
After discussing this stuff on here I have come to one conclussion. There deffinately needs to be different rules around the state as there are much different herds and habitat in different areas.
What is happening to the habitat in the UP? I am never up there so I had no idea there was a problem. Is it development?

[NorthJeff]

Mecosta..I appreciate the discussion, even though we don't fully agree. What's happened in the U.P. is a rise and crash of U.P. habitat. We had historicially incredibly high deer numbers in the late 80's, early 90's, with a series of very light winters. The deer herd exceeded the habitat, depleted the habitat, and then we experienced in 95-97 a couple of the hardest winters of all times. Early snowfall, records snowfalls, cold temps, it all set-up for a loss of 350,000 deer that died in those 2 winters alone. In 2000-2001 we lossed 110,000 deer, and we've lossed 900,000 in the last 15 winters, compared with 1.1 million shot by hunters during the same period. We lose almost as much in the winter, as hunter kill. There are pulp shortages around the region and the next place to turn is low-land conifer habitat, which is our deer yards. Also, overall timber production is down as well. The less we cut, the less deer can be supported. Timber operations often will often increase food supply by 5X's....so population and timber production are very parrellel with each other.

So, the population depleted the habitat in the early 90's, our deer populations were devestated with winter loss, and many areas only experience a .5 fawn recruitment rate on average...coupled with a 50% fawn loss on average. Our deer herd takes a very long time to rebuild as it is, and with our current habitat will most likely never reach past levels, even with light winters. As our deer yards continue to age and stay mature..basically "green-barns" as John Ozoga likes to refer to, with no food, only cover, together with the past devestating population losses, the deer herd is set up a lot more for loss....that rebuilding, unless we can have an effect on winter habitat. Ironically, our summer ranges most often can support several times more deer than we have...but winter is the limiting factor. We are actually pushing the limits of a true sustainable herd in some areas to the point that winter feeding may be the only way to maintain a sustainable herd in some limited areas.

Anyways, the 2nd buck tag pales in comparison to some of the real and present threats at hand. I have to add too, our recent U.P. wide AR proposal experienced a near 2:1 support from hunters and land owners.

Again, I appreciate the conversation!

[Trophy Specialist]

AR would without question be a better way to go as far as age structure. The thing that I really worry about is the impact that would have on hunters. It is obviously a very small sampling, but the hunters that I have talked to would be far, far more upset about AR then they would be about a one buck rule. One thing that we do not need is less hunters on the woods. I know for selfish reasons I would like that, but in the long run it would be very damaging to hunting.
I disagree that more hunters would prefer a one buck rule or mandatory antler restrictions. Time and time again MAR proposals garner the support of the majority of those surveyed. On the other hand, the number of hunters buying combo tags represents the vast majority of Michigan's deer hunters. About twice as many combo license are sold compared to single firearm or archery tags. The number of combo licenses sold keeps going up while at the same time the number of hunters buying just one buck tag is going down. That tells me that Michigan's deer hunters prefer shooting two bucks plain and simple. If you are concerned about "less hunters in the woods" then how in the world is reducing the tags available going to prevent that? If we were to ever go to one buck per hunter the number of hunters in the woods would ultimately decrease substantailly.

[mecosta]

Trophy Specialist-

I have purchased a combo tag every year. I think that all of my friends have also. The way that the tags are now has nothing to do with what we are talking about. If we are talking about what people want then sure, most everyone would like to be able to shoot 2 bucks. I would like to also. I would like to shoot 3 or 4 for that matter. I am talking about if hunters were given a choice of either one buck with no restriction or 2 bucks, but both with AR. Both of these options are, I would say, significantly more restrictive than what we have now. Maybe it is the people that I talk to, I don't know, but that is what it seems like to me.

As far as more hunters in the woods, the reason I think it would not have as much impact is because I have heard a lot of people say things like "if I had to shoot a buck with 3(or 4) on a side I would not even go hunting. I see one like that every 5 years". or something along those lines. I also think that people (not all) would be more selective and would not be out of the woods as soon as you may think. I would also hope that the DNR would be able to give a guarenteed doe tag in most of the state if people wanted them. I know that by no means can all area's handle a doe tag at this time. But after a couple of years of no does being killed hopefully most areas could do that. It does not sound like that would work in parts of the UP so maybe they do AR with two tags. Comparing what we have now for tags is not a fair comparison.

NJ-
I did not realize that there is that big of a problem in the UP with habitat. Hopefully something can be done. Why can't the DNR or somebody else start a campaign to raise $ to improve the habitat for deer yards? If the government would like to, I would gladly help manage the forest up there in areas and sell the wood ect to help. As long as I get the profit! It just shows how screwed up the government is when they can not even make any money off their lumbering efforts.

[NorthJeff]

In the DNR's defense, there is not a lot of State Public land that contains deer yards by percentage of the U.P. Deer yards. The DNR has been able to purchase some deer yards, which is a good thing, but those deer yards also need to managed as they are just like John Ozoga refers to..."green barns", basically, little food, but good shelter.

It's going to take an agressive approach from the State to possibly offer a "deer yard coordinator" position who would actually seek to foster relationships between State, Feds, and corporate land holdings to improve the quality of the deer yards as part of a large and inclusive educational push to include private landowners as well. Also, I've personally seen on my own property the effects of improved spring/summer/and fall food sources. The effects on fawn production(double the avg.), yearling buck antler growth, winter mortality..in my experience it is all greatly improved, even without touching the winter cover. So, anthing that can be done to improve the quality of summer ranges, even though there is currently more than enough food, does go to help the deer herd. Maybe more cutting, perennial food plots on 2-tracks, more nut or fruit plantings, increased diversity in the habitat, who knows, but the habitat is critical to our U.P. deer populations, and again, our deer herd experienced it's greatest increase when we had the most number of buck tags (4), which is further evidence to how little the number of bucks we shoot has to do with overall population numbers and how we have much bigger issues at hand.

At the same time, we had the same problems with quality of winter cover 10 years ago...but no one, including myself, was complaining. Now, same problems 10 years later, but because the deer numbers are so low, and appear to be shrinking, there is a lot of complaining!

[Trophy Specialist]

As far as more hunters in the woods, the reason I think it would not have as much impact is because I have heard a lot of people say things like "if I had to shoot a buck with 3(or 4) on a side I would not even go hunting. I see one like that every 5 years". or something along those lines.
Actually, the data shows that hunter numbers have not dropped in the MARs experimental areas. Where I hunt in DMU155, hunter numbers actually increased after MARs were implemented, whereas most of the rest of the U.P. saw a loss of hunters at the same time. Our total buck sucess rate also increased and the number of adult bucks in the harvest went up sharply. We now have more hunters afield killing more bucks that are bigger. In my hunting, I went from seeing few adult bucks to seeing (and killing) them regularly. I'd love to see a similar test area set up to gauge how a one buck limit would work, but my guess is that it would have no measurable positive affect like MARs have had. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I don't see anybody taking the initiative to get a proposal going to test it. Why is that?

[Munsterlndr]

I'd love to see a similar test area set up to gauge how a one buck limit would work, but my guess is that it would have no measurable positive affect like MARs have had. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I don't see anybody taking the initiative to get a proposal going to test it. Why is that?

I think NS/JK posted the results from a test area, it's called Indiana! :lol:

[Trophy Specialist]

I think NS/JK posted the results from a test area, it's called Indiana! :lol:
Am I missing something here. I havn't seen any data from Indiana on this thread. Was is deleted by a Moderator? I am not aware of any big benifit from the one buck rule in Indiana.

[Ferg]

Am I missing something here. I havn't seen any data from Indiana on this thread. Was is deleted by a Moderator? I am not aware of any big benifit from the one buck rule in Indiana.

Why would we do that? Dang TS we are not THAT bad :lol: :yikes:

It's in another thread here:

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=126354

ferg....

[Whit1]

Why would we do that? Dang TS we are not THAT bad :lol: :yikes:



Why would we do that? Cuz we're evil thaz why!........:evil: :yikes: :lol: