Actual statistics - One buck limit

[November Sunrise]

All information on antlered bucks harvested and % of yearlings taken is from Indiana’s annual deer harvest summaries. Feel free to double check all of my calculations, as I’m assembling this info very late at night. If there are any miscalculations they are not by design, but are a result of fatigue.

From 1999-2001 Indiana hunters were permitted to harvest a total of 2 antlered bucks, one during archery season and one during firearms/muzzleloader season:

1999 - 46,371 antlered bucks harvested 63.5% yearlings 29,445 yearlings
2000 - 44,620 antlered bucks harvested 61.8% yearlings 27,575 yearlings
2001 – 48,357 antlered bucks harvested 55.5% yearlings 26,838 yearlings

Beginning in 2002 Indiana hunters were permitted to harvest only 1 antlered buck, regardless of which season it is taken in:

2002 - 47,177 antlered bucks harvested 53% yearlings 25,003 yearlings
2003 – 49,533 antlered bucks harvested 54% yearlings 26,747 yearlings
2004 – 54,768 antlered bucks harvested 50% yearlings 27,384 yearlings

Number of antlered bucks harvested that are at least 2.5 years old:

2001 – 21,519
2002 – 22,174 (+3%)
2003 – 22,786 (+2.7% over ’02)
2004 – 27,384 (+20.2% over ’03)

2004 totals are up 27.2% over the baseline of 2001.

One thing that creates a question here is the 2001 decrease in yearling harvest, which took place before the regulation change. If 2001 had been congruent with 1999 & 2000, this would be a highly compelling case for the positive influence of a one buck limit on buck age structure. As it is, the evidence is very solid that in Indiana the one buck limit is having a significant impact on buck age structure.

IF Indiana's 2005 statistics remain largely congruent with or are even better than 2004’s, it will be very difficult to dispute the impact of a one buck limit on buck age structure.

[Carl8orbtr]

The numbers don't lie. Combine the one buck limit with a moderate point limit (6) and we would have some fine deer hunting around here. Let em go so they can grow! Thanks!

[farmlegend]

If I'm reading it right, NS, half of Indiana's antlered buck harvest for 2004 was comprised of yearling bucks.

That's quite different than where I hunt, where yearlings are probably make up 80% of the antlered buck harvest.

[Pinefarm]

That's because we have 2 buck tags offered. With 2 tags, of which at least 1 is "any buck", many more hunters will kill the first buck they see. With 1 tag per year, they'll be more selective. From 1999-2004 Indiana saw a 13.5% decrease in the amount of yearling bucks making up the total buck kill. That jives exactly with what many of us who propose a 1 buck limit have contended. The problem with offering 2 buck tags isn't guys shooting 2 bucks, few do. The problem with 2 buck tags is hunters killing the very first buck they see, regardless of how small, and only then becoming selective on what other buck they shoot. That's why we now have such a high yearling makeup of our Michigan kill numbers.
Although, hunter attitudes do change. To compare when Michigan had 1 buck tag in the 1960's and 1970's to today is irrelevant because the whitetail world is so different. But Indiana's numbers are from only the past few years.
You'll always have a large group of hunters that are only interested in killing the first buck they see. There's nothing wrong with that. Many hunters have limited access to land and many only hunt for a day or two all year. The goal is to create regulations for that other large group who would be more selective if the regulations guided them into it.
I'm assuming you'll see Indiana's yearling buck kill numbers drop a percentage point or 2 every year, as more hunters realize there's something better out there and pass even more bucks. Ultimately, a 15-20% decrease in the yearling buck kill is the answer to many of our prayers in Michigan. The big hurdle now, and really the only one in our way, is how does MDNR afford a 1 buck per year rule?
In my opinion, the only reason the NRC haven't changed this yet is because dealing with the legislature is such a pain, and the whole process is such a pain, that they had to ride it out until the budget crisis grew to critical mass, in typical political fashion. Nothing will really happen until the last second before the crash. Oh well, better late than never. ;)

[November Sunrise]

If I'm reading it right, NS, half of Indiana's antlered buck harvest for 2004 was comprised of yearling bucks.

That's quite different than where I hunt, where yearlings are probably make up 80% of the antlered buck harvest.

What's particularly impressive is that Indiana was at a 63.5% yearling harvest in 1999. To decrease yearling harvest from 63.5% in 1999 to 50% in 2004 is outstanding.

[November Sunrise]

That's because we have 2 buck tags offered. With 2 tags, of which at least 1 is "any buck", many more hunters will kill the first buck they see. With 1 tag per year, they'll be more selective. From 1999-2004 Indiana saw a 13.5% decrease in the amount of yearling bucks

Slight correction Bob:) .

They've achieved a 13.5 POINT decrease. On a percentage basis, that's a 27% decrease. That's big!

[Pinefarm]

Correct away! :)
I'm curious, was there also a correlation between an increase in overall antlerless kill after changing the rule from 2 bucks to 1 buck?
Meaning, was there evidence that more hunters chose to shoot an antlerless deer for meat once the rule was adjusted to 1 buck, when they were shooting more yearling bucks for meat before the change when it was 2 bucks? Understand my question?

[farmlegend]

The problem with offering 2 buck tags isn't guys shooting 2 bucks, few do. The problem with 2 buck tags is hunters killing the very first buck they see, regardless of how small

Well put. That's exactly what I see in my area, particularly in the early archery season.

[November Sunrise]

Correct away! :)
I'm curious, was there also a correlation between an increase in overall antlerless kill after changing the rule from 2 bucks to 1 buck?
Meaning, was there evidence that more hunters chose to shoot an antlerless deer for meat once the rule was adjusted to 1 buck, when they were shooting more yearling bucks for meat before the change when it was 2 bucks? Understand my question?

2001 Total harvest – 103,163
46.9% antlered bucks
30.8% adult females
10.9% male fawns
11.4% female fawns

2001 antlerless harvest (adult females & fawns) was 54,806, or 53.1% of the total.

2004 Total harvest – 123,058
44.5% antlered bucks
33.9% adult females
10.2% male fawns
11.4% female fawns

2004 antlerless harvest (adult females & fawns) was 68,290, or 55.5% of the total.

Once again, feel free to double check all of my numbers. I did my best to make certain I'm relaying the info accurately, but mistakes can easily happen.

Here's where the info comes from:

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/hunt/deer/deerinfo.htm

[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!"

That was a quote from a PA wildlife official, taken from another poster on the 1 buck thread.

In the past I thought that PA's overall yearling kill rate was worse than ours, even though they had 1 tag..and this Kammerdiener guy is actually saying that PA's yearling buck harvest was around 85%...WITH ONE TAG!!

IN is not MI, and well, neither is PA. But, PA is much like MI, in terms of hunters and public land. When you mix those two together, along with baiting, you get dead yearling bucks, even with 1 buck tag...as PA has shown in the past.

Just in the U.P. alone we have 70-80% public lands...how much public land does IN have?

[farmlegend]

"IN is not MI, and well, neither is PA. But, PA is much like MI, in terms of hunters and public land.

Indiana, particlularly the NE corner of it(Steuben County), is extraordinarily similar to to the area I hunt in. 15 miles away as the crow flies, same Regional Landscape Ecosystem as defined by the USGS; same topography, vegetation, and soil types. Identical proportion of public land (practically none). Big difference - better deer hunting in Steuben County. Indiana, or, better yet, Ohio-type regs would work great in my huntzone.

To me, this sort of thing points out the need to manage our deer harvest strategy in a vastly different manner in some regions of our state than others. Currently, other than issuing different numbers of antlerless tags, we manage the same way in Ontonagan as we do in Onondaga. I think we need a different approach.

[Whit1]

To me, this sort of thing points out the need to manage our deer harvest strategy in a vastly different manner in some regions of our state than others. Currently, other than issuing different numbers of antlerless tags, we manage the same way in Ontonagan as we do in Onondaga. I think we need a different approach.


This concept, "......manage our deer harvest strategy in a vastly different manner in some regions of our state than others." Is one that is rarely explored and/or considered. It would be a most valuable management concept.

Thanks for the IN data NS or JK or ............:lol:

[November Sunrise]

how much public land does IN have?

About 650,000 acres

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/huntguide1/huntarea.htm

However, the amount of public land is irrelevant, because it's been a constant for many years. The amount of public land didn't change when they moved to a one buck limit.

Pure and simple, the change to a one buck limit greatly increased the amount of antlered bucks 2.5 years and older being harvested.

MOST IMPORTANTLY the change was initiated through the desires of the hunting public. It has been widely accepted and is non controversial, and creates a fraction of the emotion of antler restrictions. In my estimation, it would be infinitely easier to increase the buck age structure in MI through a one buck limit than to attempt mandatory antler restrictions.

[NorthJeff]

"However, the amount of public land is irrelevant, because it's been a constant for many years. The amount of public land didn't change when they moved to a one buck limit."

The public land has a LOT to do with it. There are different types of attitudes and practices hunting public land, or not. Comparing what would happen on large amounts of private land, mostly high quality ag where hunters numbers are limited due to most private land, and comparing that to large areas of public land, for example the U.P. where 70-80% is public is not in anyway reflective of each other. The public land hunters up here hunt for a few days and go home. Also, the locals share blinds and shoot multiple bucks out of some of the best blinds..taking turns! The 2nd tag means nothing in large areas of public land where amount of time spent hunting is much, much shorter, and hunters are more concerned with shooting anything they see, and returning back to their normal, non-hunting lives.

That's why in PA they shot as many yearlings as MI, WITH ONE TAG, before they went to AR's.

[username]

Dont throw all public land hunters into the same boat:) We are not all 3 day hunters!

[NorthJeff]

Username...no, you are certainly not, just that around here I have the public land to myself for about 51 weeks of the year(except for weekend baiters starting the first part of Nov). I see the public land use as extremely low...but during that amount of use there is an incredibly high number of bucks shot. Take the bait away and that wouldn't happen..but that's an entirely different topic. If guys really want to see their populations increase...take baiting away.

[November Sunrise]

NJ,

When you and I think of MI hunting, it seems like we're thinking of two different worlds. You picture the paradise that is the U.P., and I picture the farmland down here. I believe FL's thoughts about a more region specific approach on a lot of deer management issues is right on the money.

[Trophy Specialist]

It's amazing how some of you are spinning the numbers on the Indiana buck kill. Here's the facts:

In 2001, when hunters were allowed two bucks, 55.5% of the bucks killed were yearlings. The next year, 2002, the first year of the one-buck limit, the yearling buck kill was 53%, which is only an unimpressive 1.5% drop in the yearling buck kill. Then it gets even worse when 54% of the bucks killed were yearlings in 2003, an increase of 1% from 2002 and only a puny, statistically insignificant, half percent decrease from the baseline in 2002. In 2004 the percentage of yearling bucks drops indicating that there is a margin of error in the statistics judging by the rise and fall from one year to the next. Now if you add in the fact that a more people are not going to register their bucks, especially small ones, there was likely a slight net gain of even more yearling bucks in the harvest. Just for everybodies information, unless IN just changed the law, IN has lifetime hunting license and holders of lifetime licenses need only fill out a piece of paper with their name and number on it for a deer tag. It is purely the honor system on tags for many hunters there.

[Munsterlndr]

I seem to remember in the oft quoted DMU 118 statistics that you MAR proponants love to throw around, that the baseline used for comparison purposes was an average of the three years preceeding the implimentation of the restriciton.

If you apply the same method to the Indiana statistics you see a 10% reduction in the number of yearling bucks killed from the baseline to 2004. It also shows a pretty steady trend which if it continues in the future could result in a significant number of yearlings saved. If there are increasing numbers of mature deer running around it stands to reason that this trend would continue, since there would be more opportunity to bag a mature deer.

Personally, 10% is not bad in my book for something that would only have a minimal impact on most hunters. It's a good starting point anyway.

[Swamper]

I have hunted both private land and public land in MI, iN, and TN. I was the same person with same behaviors in all situations. Not sure why the public land hunter in MI is viewed so negatively.


Swamper

[November Sunrise]

It's amazing how some of you are spinning the numbers on the Indiana buck kill. Here's the facts:

In 2001, when hunters were allowed two bucks, 55.5% of the bucks killed were yearlings. The next year, 2002, the first year of the one-buck limit, the yearling buck kill was 53%, which is only an unimpressive 1.5% drop in the yearling buck kill.

Next time you accuse someone of spinning numbers you really should get your own right. The information above does not reflect a 1.5% drop. It is a 2.5 point drop, which equates to 4.5%.

Which exponentially, over a period of years, is massive.

Which is why the number of antlered bucks harvested in Indiana that are 2.5 years old or older has through 2004 increased by 27.2% over the 2001 baseline.

Which is why the percentage of yearling harvest dropped from 55.5% in 2001 to 50% in 2004 - which is an 11% decrease. Which is also massive.

Which is why I clearly stated at the beginning of the thread the importance of the '05 results, to make certain that 2004 isn't an aberration.

Several of you on the other thread indicated that you needed evidence of where a one buck limit had worked. You now have information for an entire state over multiple years. Maybe this wouldn't work in the U.P., I'm not even remotely qualified to speak about that area. But at least for Zone 3 where I hunt, I find this information very compelling.

Personally, I'm eagerly awaiting Indiana's 2005 report, to see how many bucks 2.5 years old or older were harvested, and to see what the yearling buck harvest percentage was.

[Trophy Specialist]

Next time you accuse someone of spinning numbers you really should get your own right. The information above does not reflect a 1.5% drop. It is a 2.5 point drop, which equates to 4.5%.
Sorry about that typo. It was in fact a 2.5% drop, but still hardly worth getting all excited about. In all fariness though, I did notice some creative

Looking at the Indiana numbers though it hardly mirrors Michigan. We harvest a much higher percentage of yearling bucks compared to Indiana. From what I saw when I've hunted there, IN is leaps and bounds ahead of MI on QDM and in my opinion that has made more difference there than the one-buck law.

Again, I am not against trying a one-buck rule in Michigan as a test in one or two DMUs. Anytime you introduce regulations that the DNR considers QDM, including a one-buck rule or MARs, it might have the added benefit of educating more hunters about QDM. It was certainly the case with MARs experiments in MI. So, by all means get a group together to introduce a proposal to try it out. Who knows, if you tried it in a DMU where I hunt or own land, I might even vote for it. If you think that the DNR is going to adapt a one-buck limit because of a bunch of people sitting around complaining, then think again. They revamped the DNR-QDM procedures last year making them even more difficult to get something passed. How may of you people that are for the one-buck law wrote the DNR saying you wanted restrictive DNR-QDM procedures? If you fall into that category, then you helped make the rules, so now live with them.

Also, keep in mind that the original Leelanau County QDM proposal included a provistion that hunters be limited to one buck from DMU045. However, even though the measure passed muster, and the DNR approved the experiment, the one-buck provision was disallowed by the DNR. So, it apears that the DNR hates a one-buck rule even more than MARs, so good luck on that one.

[NorthJeff]

November Sunrise...actually, I picture not just the U.P., not just MI, not just PA, and not just WI....BUT THE ENTIRE REGION. I've hunted more in lower MI, than the U.P....I've hunted more rifle seasons in PA, than the U.P. My experience and prescription to quality hunting is not simply limited to the U.P., and my U.P. perception. I've hunted multiple seasons in WI, KY, PA, IN, AL, and MI..lower MI farmland, lower MI state land, Northern lower state land, and U.P. public and private....it's all different. Of course management has to be shifted from one region to another...I've been saying that for four years on this site regarding the application of QDM with doe harvest and AR's and it's nice to see some guys finally jumping on board.

I still haven't seen any convincing evidence that elminating the 2nd buck tag would do anything.

[Pinefarm]

Jeff, we're talking about 1 buck tag for all of archery, regular firearm and muzzleloader combined. Not 1 buck for archery and then another buck for firearms. You don't think that would make any difference?
I just read a good article writen by Knight, of Knight muzzleloaders, and he said if you want to find mature animals, don't hunt in states that offer 2 buck tags per year, concentrate on states that only offer 1 buck per the entire year.

[Trophy Specialist]

I just read a good article writen by Knight, of Knight muzzleloaders, and he said if you want to find mature animals, don't hunt in states that offer 2 buck tags per year, concentrate on states that only offer 1 buck per the entire year.
That has got to be one of the silliest things I’ve heard in a long time. Wisconsin and Illinois are the top two states for producing record book bucks yet they both allow hunters to kill two bucks. There are dozens of states that allow killing multiple bucks and many of them are in the top ten for producing trophies. Limiting hunters to one buck has a minimal impact on the number of trophy bucks taken in a given state.

[One Eye]

I still haven't seen any convincing evidence that elminating the 2nd buck tag would do anything.
:yeahthat:

The reason is that there is no BIOLOGICAL evidence supporting the elimination of the 2nd tag.

Dan

[Pinefarm]

Ohio, KY and IN are both 1 buck. The friends I know that hunt there love it and claim everyone they know loves it and holds it responsible for their great hunting.
I'm not responsible for the content of outdoors writers articles, just passing it on.
I believe the biggest thought about it is that that more buck tags a hunter has in his pocket, the less likely he is to kill a doe.
If you think our hunting is fine and dandy, we can keep doing the same old, same old.

[Trophy Specialist]

Another thing that I see with the harvest data from Indiana is a trend where the number of bucks harvested is going up year by year even right after cutting the number of available buck tags in half. Wouldn't you think that reducing the number of tags available would have just the opposite affect?

Each time I hunted in Indiana over the last few years I saw a buck to doe ratio that was even more lopsided than in Michigan's, probably around 1 to 15. Keep in mind that I was hunting on a vast holding of private property that is being managed for quality. Here's what is happening: Most avid hunters have lifetime licenses. On good property they shoot a buck early in the season, tag it with a hand written piece of paper, and then register it. Then they are allowed to shoot does under that same lifetime license and they continue to hunt does the rest of the season, but in reality they are still hunting for another buck, so very few does are shot. When another big buck steps out, they shoot it, take it home and process it without registering it. I've seen this happening a lot and ironically, the same guys that are violating the law are tickled to death with the one-buck law because it just means more bucks for them.

[Munsterlndr]

Here's what is happening: Most avid hunters have lifetime licenses. On good property they shoot a buck early in the season, tag it with a hand written piece of paper, and then register it. Then they are allowed to shoot does under that same lifetime license and they continue to hunt does the rest of the season, but in reality they are still hunting for another buck, so very few does are shot. When another big buck steps out, they shoot it, take it home and process it without registering it. I've seen this happening a lot and ironically, the same guys that are violating the law are tickled to death with the one-buck law because it just means more bucks for them.

I'm sure that the good sportsmen of Indiana appreciate your implication that most of them are poachers. :rolleyes:

[GRUNDY]

Then they are allowed to shoot does under that same lifetime license and they continue to hunt does the rest of the season, but in reality they are still hunting for another buck, so very few does are shot. When another big buck steps out, they shoot it, take it home and process it without registering it. I've seen this happening a lot and ironically, the same guys that are violating the law are tickled to death with the one-buck law because it just means more bucks for them.[/quote]

The exact same thing happens in Michigan, I have known guys who never stop hunting as long as the season is open. 1 or 2 buck tags, the violaters will violate. It would be VERY EASY to shoot a deer on your own land, haul it to the woodshed and butcher it with nobody knowing.

The majority of hunters follow the rules, I'm not saying we need to go to one buck tag, but the evidence brought forth from Indiana's statistics is very compelling. I always wondered If I would take two bucks (never had the opportunity) but it would seem to me if I wanted more venison in the deep freeze, a doe would be a better choice, if out strictly for meat. But that's just me.

Brian

[Trophy Specialist]

I'm sure that the good sportsmen of Indiana appreciate your implication that most of them are poachers. :rolleyes:
It's not a pleasant thought but it is reality. It used to be much worse here in Michigan with people taking more bucks than allowed, but it got better when we were allowed multiple bucks. If we were ever to go back to one buck then expect a big increase in poaching here too. Remember when the speed limit was 55 on Michigan's freeways? How many people went the speed limit in those days compared to today when the limit is 70?

[NorthJeff]

"Ohio, KY and IN are both 1 buck. The friends I know that hunt there love it and claim everyone they know loves it and holds it responsible for their great hunting.
I'm not responsible for the content of outdoors writers articles, just passing it on.
I believe the biggest thought about it is that that more buck tags a hunter has in his pocket, the less likely he is to kill a doe.
If you think our hunting is fine and dandy, we can keep doing the same old, same old."

Those states are not big buck states because of the 1 buck license..come on. Explain how WI is a bigger buck state that all 3 of them, and they are allowed to shoot 2 bucks. Also, WI is much closer to MI in terms of overall hunter numbers. Do you realize that KY has fewer total hunters, than MI has bowhunters? I've hunted in KY, even leased land there, and the lack of hunters, and the hunter attitudes towards passing young bucks is years ahead of MI. Also, can't you shoot up to 3 bucks in OH?

Again, it isn't about how may bucks are shot...it's about the age at which we shoot them. Manage the herd right and we would have more bucks in the herd, older bucks, and more to shoot. Explain how PA would shoot as many, or more yearling bucks than MI, even though they only had 1 tag. Explain how our deer numbers were at our highest in MI, when we had 4 buck tags.

Talk about poaching too...do you realize that KY had to restock deer in the 80's(yes, 80's..NOT the 60's and 70's) due to rampid poaching?!? I hunted with a shooting aquaintance down there that is a district wildlife biologist. He showed me videos of trapping deer, stuffing them into the back of covered pick-ups, and releasing them in counties that were virtually devoid of deer. When he was first bowhunting in the early 80s he shot a 6pt with his bow. Big deal, right? Well, that buck happened to be one of the few bucks shot in the entire county that year...all due to again, rampant poaching. No, I'm not saying that all hunters in IN or KY are poachers..but those levels are pretty extreme when you think about it. Now, they have too many deer in KY and they don't have enough hunters to keep the herd in check. The herd went from nothing, to 50-60 dpsm in a pretty short time and now the body sizes are getting smaller, and they have just about reached their saturation point for shooting does. Maybe if they had a 2 buck tags guys would be more willing to get out into the woods and potentially harvest more does..don't you think!? I wouldn't say, in the case of KY, that the 1 buck tag is a good thing necessarily.

[mecosta]

I do not know much about the other states, but in OH you can only shoot 1 buck. It does not matter where, who or whatever. There are counties that are 3 deer counties, but only one can be a buck.

What people are talking about in hunter attitudes being ahead of MI ect. is exactly what I have been trying to say. That is why I do not think that we should rule out one buck tag as an option. Even though it would not save as many bucks as AR, I think that it would have a substantial effect on the deer herd as well as being a small step to hopefully change many peoples attitudes towards needing to shoot bucks every year no matter what size ect. It would help the "I got my buck, now I can hunt for a nice one". Once hunters attitudes towards hunting turned away from being about quantity, the people that are out there shooting too many bucks on other people's tags will be far less popular! NJ has hunted in Wisc. I would bet that a person doing that would not be the most popular guy in the area if it got out. I know that they would not be in OH where I have hunted. It already has changed here in MI and I think will continue to be frowned apon more and more.

If you look at the states that have what I think we all could agree on to be better hunting than we have here, there is one thing I think in common. The hunters have a different attitude than in MI. Some of them like KS, OH, IO are because they were forced by one buck tag to be more selective their entire hunting life. Some others, mainly WI as an example is because they had a grass roots effort of QDM that really took hold. It was so successful that many people saw what it could do and is now the norm in much of the state. If we had the same attitude here, we could probably allow 4 buck tags and still be ok. As far as KY is concerned, I went to school there for 2 years and it is like a different planet. Hearing the story about poaching is not even remotely a surprise to me. Drive around the countryside of KY in the mountains and yoe will wonder if they have land fills or if everyone just dumps it along the road!

[Trophy Specialist]

Something else to keep in mind with Indiana: There are zones in that state where the one buck rule does not apply. A friend of mine has shot two or three bucks a year in Indiana every year for the past three years legally. So in reality Indiana is not a one-buck state.

[Pinefarm]

Another thing about Illinois. Illinois permits are very controlled. There may be a 2 buck limit, but you may not get 2 tags. Illinois gun season buck tags are sold by lottery and are county specific and only good for the one county you choose. I would be all for this, but too many hunters here don't seem to want one county only controls, so we may get 1 buck statewide instead.

[Trophy Specialist]

...so we may get 1 buck statewide instead.
It seems like some people on this forum are not grasping that the only way you are going to get a one buck limit eithor statewide or in any DMU(s) is to follow the DNR’s QDM procedures and submit a proposal so it can be surveyed. The revisions the DNR made last year will make that nearly impossible for “state wide” adoption of such a law. Besides, even if it were to all happen and the survey garnered more than 66% approval, the DNR commission would ultimately decided on whether to implement such a measure. Longs odds indeed. Here’s a link to the QDM procedures in case you’re interested:
http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/reports/QDMDRAFTIII11-29-05.pdf

[Munsterlndr]

It seems like some people on this forum are not grasping that the only way you are going to get a one buck limit eithor statewide or in any DMU(s) is to follow the DNR’s QDM procedures and submit a proposal so it can be surveyed. The revisions the DNR made last year will make that nearly impossible for “state wide” adoption of such a law. Besides, even if it were to all happen and the survey garnered more than 66% approval, the DNR commission would ultimately decided on whether to implement such a measure. Longs odds indeed. Here’s a link to the QDM procedures in case you’re interested:
http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/reports/QDMDRAFTIII11-29-05.pdf


Nobody is suggesting legally redefining what a legal buck is in michigan, which is what the QDM proposal guidlines are based on. Bag limits are totally within the authority of the NRC and they could change to a one buck rule tomorrow with a simple vote. It is a red herring to suggest that the only way that the change could be made is to go through the QDM initiative process.

[Ferg]

I cleaned up the last exchange because I think the discussion has merrit and I don't want to close this thread -

go have lunch and slow down -

you both have good points and this needs to be resolved -

is it a decision for the DNR QDM path - or

is it a decision simply to be mandated by the NRC -

But keep the personal stuff out -

Thanks

ferg....


(PS: Mike I actualy do have a full time job - I check in often but not every second :))