Let's add another buck tag!

[NorthJeff]

It could be structured as such:

*You can first buy a bow buck tag that can be used until 11/15, at which time that bow tag would be invalid for the rest of the season. That bow tag could be used to shoot either a buck, or doe.

*The next buck tag you could buy would cover rifle and M/L season and could be used to harvest 1 buck only.

*A third buck tag could then be purchased ONLY if an unused first tag was presented at the time of purchase, and only for the harvest of 1 buck.

All areas with excessive antlerless numbers can still sell the same amount of antlerless tags, or increase those tags to accomidate additional harvest, if necessary. Overall, bowhunters could shoot 1 deer of either sex throughout the entire season, unless additional antlerless tags are purchased for appropriate areas. Also, bowhunters could not harvest late season does with archery equipment on migration trails and deer yards in areas where doe harvest may or may not be appropriate. Doe permits can still be purchased, if appropriate for the particular DMU the bowhunter is hunting in. Gun hunters would be limited to 1 buck only, unless additional antlerless tags are purchased. The first two buck licenses sold could still be sold in "combination", to be used in their respective seasons. The 3rd tag would be an additional tag purchase for late season bowhunters that did not use their first tag, but would only be able to be used for 1 buck.

If you don't bow hunt, this may intice you to buy a bow to get a 2nd tag, and if you don't rifle or M/L hunt,, you can do the same, or use your bow during the gun season with the purchase of the gun buck tag.

Just a thought...maybe a "compromise".

[Ferg]

Question NJeff -

3 Tags - are these 'any' buck?

:evilsmile :evilsmile :evilsmile

ferg....
sorry, had to ask -

[NorthJeff]

Ferg, ferg, ferg, you just have to "muddy" the waters don't you!

[Adam Waszak]

Ferg, ferg, ferg, you just have to "muddy" the waters don't you!


I was wondering the same thing especially coming from you Jeff:help: :hide:

aw

[NorthJeff]

Just trying to offer compromise between the guys who generally hunt little and spend very little for the hunting economy and wouldn't care if we only had 1 tag, and those that generally hunt all seasons, contribute greatly to the overall hunting economy, and would greatly miss multiple buck tags.

Personally, I don't think it would help buck age structure, number of bucks shot(even going to 1 tag), but it would just be a PR move designed to pacify both sides. It seems now day decisions are based more on PR anyways...might as well feed the fire.

[fairfax1]

And being creative is what I hope the NRC/DNR will be when they address the lisencing issue this year.

First....so everybody knows where I'm coming from.......in my opinion, our lisences are cheap, too cheap. So I'm encouragin the State to raise the price.

However, I'm well aware this is not a simple issue. For example, the Combo Lisence for which most of us pay about $30 is the load-bearer for lisence fees. With that product being the cash-cow the Department has got to be real careful about messing with it. (Remember "New" Coke?) Further, as a poster on another thread pointed out....per the law the DNR is mandated to offer some sort of multi-deer Combo.

I could envision a scheme similar to NJ's here........have more defined 'time-phased' lisence products similar to the way turkey lisences have been sold. In other words, shorten the 'shelf-life' of your deer lisence. For example:

Jeff's bow/buck lisence good for Oct 1st thru 10/31
[LIST]
Then a bow/buck lisence for 11/1 thru 11/14...a premium-priced product.

Then a firearm lisence good Nov 15th thru Nov.20th (a premium priced product)...then one 'value'-priced product from the 21st thru Nov 30th.
A stand alone doe lisence for defined periods: say, Oct. 15th to the 21st; 22nd to the 30th, etc.
A bow lisence good December 1st thru December 31st;
A stand alone muzzleloader lisence;

A 'super' deer lisence that allows one to bow and/or gun hunt from, say, October 15th thru the end of all seasons. One lisence at a very premium 'status'-type price. Platinum level, if you will.
.

Imagining different lisence 'products' is fairly easy....the hard part is avoiding the cannibalization of your 'franchise' (the Combo) and yet still growing income.

[FixedBlade]

I'll give you one point for creative but I think your idea stinks. We need to have a state land user permit for those that want to be on state land for any reason other than hunting/trapping/fishing. Anyone that uses the land needs to pay their fair share. The permit needs to be priced the same as a license so someone doesn't buy the cheeper of the two to get access to state land. The revenue generated by this would be huge. Think about it. The mushroom and berrie pickers, bird watchers, hikers, bikers and hosre back riders. It would double the anual income for the DNR.

[huntnbrush]

Hey if you guys are that interested in ridding yourselves of that pesky money that is weighing you down, I can give you my address. Personally, I am not burdened by any excessive amounts of cash.;)
Seriously though, what is the reasoning behind wanting to change things. We already have enough complaints about the lack of deer numbers, how is paying more to get a 3rd buck liscense going to do anything positive for the deer herd. I think if anything, tag limits might need to become more localized by DMU. There is just too big of a difference from area to area to make 1 plan work for the entire state.

[NorthJeff]

Huntnbrush,

That idea isn't actually to "add" another tag, meaning more deer killed, but instead to limit the amount of tags...1 buck tag to rifle hunters, 1 to bowhunters, but to break the 2nd bowseason tag off to take pressure off of low density DMUs from does being shot in the deer yards. Basically the idea is to limit the buck tags to 1 in each season. There are most likely more bucks shot in rifle in the first 2 days, than in bow the entire season. If people truly feel that limiting the number of buck tags is needed, then this limit is going to have the most effect during rifle season where hunters experience success in many shorter days per hunter, that during bow season...therefore, 1 buck for rifle, 1 for bow, with the added twist of not being able to take a doe with the bow tag in the late season..you can either shoot one early, or use an antlerless tag late.

Just being creative.

[flinch]

Why not leave everything the way it is except that if you take a buck with less than four points to a side then you put both combo tags on it. If you take a buck with 4 or more points to a side then you can take another of the same using the second combo tag. Other single licenses stay the same except that you can only take a buck with less than four points to a side if you buy a combo tag and use both tags. The state still gets their money and the 3 day gun hunters still get their any buck tag as well. I'll bet this could be done now with no legislative change since it means keeping the combo license.

[NorthJeff]

Flinch...I really like that idea! Either shoot 2 with 4 on a side...or 1 with anything. Sounds good to me! Lets go with that idea...sounds better than mine.:)

[huntnbrush]

[quote=NorthJeff]Huntnbrush,

That idea isn't actually to "add" another tag, meaning more deer killed, but instead to limit the amount of tags...1 buck tag to rifle hunters, 1 to bowhunters, but to break the 2nd bowseason tag off to take pressure off of low density DMUs from does being shot in the deer yards. Basically the idea is to limit the buck tags to 1 in each season. There are most likely more bucks shot in rifle in the first 2 days, than in bow the entire season. If people truly feel that limiting the number of buck tags is needed, then this limit is going to have the most effect during rifle season where hunters experience success in many shorter days per hunter, that during bow season...therefore, 1 buck for rifle, 1 for bow, with the added twist of not being able to take a doe with the bow tag in the late season..you can either shoot one early, or use an antlerless tag late.quote]

Gotcha. Sorry, I'm a little slow sometimes. I still think that different rules need to apply to different areas though. I am in the SL and the DNR goal is to thin our herd by half so taking does in late bow is important here according to them. Maybe the early bow becomes doe only in the second season in order to help reach that goal.

[NorthJeff]

They could also make that 2nd bow tag to mean different things, in different regions. For example, it could be a doe or buck tag in southern MI, and just a buck tag in the U.P.

We need to get creative with this stuff!

[jimmyboy]

So what happens to the current ONE buck license with this combo proposal? Doesn't the law require it's sale now?

[Munsterlndr]

So what happens to the current ONE buck license with this combo proposal? Doesn't the law require it's sale now?

The current law does not specify that the DNR has to offer a single Buck tag. The only reference to a single tag is that they mandate that the combo license has to be double the cost of a single tag, but it does not say that has to be a buck tag. They could eliminate single buck tags and raise the price of over-the-counter antlerless tags to half of the price of the combo tag, and still be in compliance with the statute.

[Gilbey]

I like the idea Jeff. State would get more mgt. funds. We'd still get the opportunity for a couple of bucks.

[One Eye]

While it sounds like a good idea Jeff, I suspect it would be too complicated. In a recent presentation from Rod Clute, he was pretty sure that the NRC and the Legislature wants this to be as simple as possible. Another example are the DMUs. Many biologists (and hunters) want to go habitat and land ownership-based DMUs. The NRC does not support this because apparently because they think hunters are "too stupid" to read maps, and thus the county boundaries are easier!

Way to think outside of the box though. Expecting this creativity from the NRC is a pipe dream.

Dan

[Tom Morang]

With your proposed sytem it would be OK to take 2 bucks (one during bow and one during gun) if you gun hunt and bow hunt? But you can only take one buck if you bowhunt or gun hunt exclusively? What's the reason for that? Most hunters gun and bow hunt so it seems to me you are just making the system more complicated without realy making any difference in the overall buck kill.

So what's the point?

[Whit1]

Another example are the DMUs. Many biologists (and hunters) want to go habitat and land ownership-based DMUs. The NRC does not support this because apparently because they think hunters are "too stupid" to read maps, and thus the county boundaries are easier!
Dan

The boundries of the present DMUs was brought up at the Cadillac deer population goals meeting in December. The reason Rod Clute gave was that they data as presented was easier to look at and compiled by county boundries. It looks better!

This is my summation of what Rod said rather than his exact words.

I was always under the impression that the ease of hunters finding the DMU boundries was the primary reason, and it still may be a significant factor, but no mention was made of that.

The consensus at the meeting (mine included) was that the old boundries were a much more effective tool in managing the whitetail harvest.

[lwingwatcher]

Huntnbrush,

That idea isn't actually to "add" another tag, meaning more deer killed, but instead to limit the amount of tags... to take pressure off of low density DMUs from does being shot in the deer yards.

Just being creative.

While your "creativity" might help somebody in th UP....it is just another lousy proposal to create state regulations to address a localized problem.

License fees are so cheap...anybody can have somebody go get them an extra buck tag or three in that initial bow season when you can kill 'em if you got them and this license proposal won't do a darned thing to help anybody in the majority of the lower pennisula.

You need to clue in on what takes place on private farm ground in much of the state before you can make statewide regulatory proposals that will hold water.

[Liver and Onions]

While it sounds like a good idea Jeff, I suspect it would be too complicated. In a recent presentation from Rod Clute, he was pretty sure that the NRC and the Legislature wants this to be as simple as possible. Another example are the DMUs. Many biologists (and hunters) want to go habitat and land ownership-based DMUs. The NRC does not support this because apparently because they think hunters are "too stupid" to read maps, and thus the county boundaries are easier!

Way to think outside of the box though. Expecting this creativity from the NRC is a pipe dream.

Dan

Many of us remember when the DMU boundries were changed not so many years ago to county lines. At the time, as I recall, there were 2 main reasons. Hunters were complaining that they couldn't figure out where the boundries were and the stores that sold the licenses were also complaining because they spent way to much time trying to figure the boundries out and then explain them to hunters. A store manager a few years ago told me that they quit selling licenses because of the complaining/time consuming hunters who thought the DNR was trying to trick them into making a mistake so that they could write them a ticket.
So ya, maybe hunters are too stupid to read a map or directions. The DNR did what they had to do.......don't expect a change anytime soon and don't blame the DNR.

L & O

[chasmo54]

What seems to be the end goal with all this creative thinking going on?

Help me with what the ending looks like?

Strategically if we start at the ending first, maybe we can work backwards to a starting point. The beginning of a strategic map of how we can all get to desired ending.

[Munsterlndr]

What seems to be the end goal with all this creative thinking going on?

Help me with what the ending looks like?

Strategically if we start at the ending first, maybe we can work backwards to a starting point. The beginning of a strategic map of how we can all get to desired ending.

A herd size of around 60%K (carrying capacity).

A fairly balanced sex ratio, 2:1 or 1.5:1 B/D ratio.

Increased buck age structure.

These are what I see as reasonable biological goals for the herd.

The other goals are related to hunter opportunity. I would like to see the current season lengths stay the same although I may be open to shifting some dates slightly. Hunters should have the opportunity to pursue deer in as many seasons as they like. If changes in current licensing are required to get us to the above mentioned biological goals I would prefer to enact changes that will have the least impact, on the greatest number of hunters as possible.

We also have to take into account the impact of herd size on outside factors and try and come up with a compromise that will work for all of us. For example, the 60% of K goal that I stated above may be 3 million deer in Michigan. If that is the case then it becomes an unrealistic goal because of the negative impact that so many deer have with human interaction, whether it is car accidents, crop damage, impact on habitat, whatever. So we have to be realistic when determining what the goals are.

By the way, I think your approach is a good one and maybe if there was more conscencus on what the goals are, there would be less debate about the best methods to get there.

Just my .02,

[luv 2 bowhunt]

Who decides what the carrying capacity is?????????
Farmers:
DNR:
Hunters:
Food Plotters:
Land Owners:
Who:

[fairfax1]

Those were two thoughful posts by Munster and Chasmo.

Much of the angst displayed in these deer forums seems to center on "what do we want out of this resource?" What purpose is served...or should be served.......by these wild deer? A mobile bullseye? A touchstone for what is natural, wild & free? NOT a traffic threat? NOT a crop threat? NOT a forest ecology threat?

And, as lov2bowhunt alludes in his last post, different constituencies can want different things.

Chasmo pointedley hints: do we know where we are going? will we know when we get there?

As a hunter, I can suscribe to Munsters' fine post. He defines the metrics of some goals: 1:2 b/d, 60% of capacity; more older males. But Munsters' thoughts ...and mine....seem to be a minority within the deer hunting community. It appears that most hunters simply want more deer. More mobile bullseyes. Period.


.................................................. ...........

As a sidebar: One of the really useful purposes of a such a forum venue as this ....M-S Sportman ...is that it allows interested hunters to read a lot of different views on the issues effecting deer hunting. And, it allows each to contemplate, and perhaps, articulate their own opinion. That is good. Prior to such a venue our options were to read the hookn'bullet press and maybe write a letter-to-the-editor once in a while.

But a real value to all is that it introduces into the public discourse that wider variety of views and suggestions. That cannot but help to better inform the decision makers within each of the constituencies that have a vested interest in this deer herd.

I do believe that some of the better considered, better presented arguments brought forth here can eventually work their way to the policy-making level...perhaps, only has a tempering influence.

That's my 2-cents. For today.

[magnumhntr]

Just trying to offer compromise between the guys who generally hunt little and spend very little for the hunting economy and wouldn't care if we only had 1 tag, and those that generally hunt all seasons, contribute greatly to the overall hunting economy, and would greatly miss multiple buck tags.



Although I commend you for trying to add another option to change the deer management of this state, I do tak up issue with the quote above. I hunt over 40 days of the Oct 1 - Nov 15th season, and probably 10 or more days of gun season, and would be happier than a pig in slop if they limited the tags to 1 buck/year. It has nothing to do with time afield, as it has more to do with promoting the passing of smaller bucks. I personally would continue to hunt for does if I had the great fortune of filling my one and only buck tag on a mature buck. And I think alot of people feel the same way. I also know there are plenty of people who would continue to contribute to the economy by small game hunting, salmon/steelhead fishing, waterfowl, etc. All of which adds to the state and local coffers. Maybe I read into the quote above a little , but I don't think the ammount of buck tags in ones pocket determines how much/little one hunts, nor does time spent afield determine how many tags one wants to have in thier pocket. I would be more than happy to fill both my buck tags opening day on mature bucks, and hunt with my family and friends with a video camera in my hand sharing thier experiences.....I'd still be in the woods hunting :D

[Pauly3511]

I love when the pot just keeps getting stirred. I'm with Jeff :evilsmile