One Buck...

[farmlegend]

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.

Here's my understanding - you are absolutely correct that the NRC could dictate a one-buck limit; no grass-roots "QDM" proposal process would be necessary. However, by statute, Michigan must offer hunters a creature commonly known as a "Combo Tag", which permits hunters to harvest two deer. In order to impose a one-buck limit, the NRC would have to permit the other "half" of the Combo Tag to be used to harvest an antlerless deer. Unless, of course, the state enacts new legislation. Which is possible, seeing the "license package", intended to be submitted to the legislature, is currently under review by the NRC.

[Munsterlndr]

FL-
You are exactly right with your reading of the law. One further comment, the same law gives the NRC the right to regulate where licenses can be used so even if a portion of the combo tag was made antlerless, they could still close certain DMU's to antlerless hunting for management purposes. They could also continue to offer over-the-counter, stand alone, antlerless permits, specific to a certain DMU for management purposes, in those areas where more does need to be harvested. The NRC could make this change without there being any legislative action required.

[QDMAMAN]

decides what deer will be harvested on the combo tag. But it is true that the DNR must offer a combo per statute.
Rod Clute indicated that he could make the buck tag for a 30 pointer and the second for a doe if he saw fit as an example.

Big T

[NorthJeff]

"the NRC would have to permit the other "half" of the Combo Tag to be used to harvest an antlerless deer."

To offer a combo tag with antlerless permit in the U.P. would be negligant and irresponsible with consequences to be felt for possibly a decade or more, and even our NRC should have enough experience to figure that one out. So, the combo tag in the U.P. could never have a doe tag with it...it would have to be two bucks.

[Munsterlndr]

"the NRC would have to permit the other "half" of the Combo Tag to be used to harvest an antlerless deer."

To offer a combo tag with antlerless permit in the U.P. would be negligant and irresponsible with consequences to be felt for possibly a decade or more, and even our NRC should have enough experience to figure that one out. So, the combo tag in the U.P. could never have a doe tag with it...it would have to be two bucks.

Yet current license policy allows rifle antlerless hunting in some UP DMU's and allows bowhunters to harvest up to two antlerless deer in every UP DMU. Is the current policy negligant and irresponsible?

Under a new combo configuration certain areas of the UP could remain closed to antlerless rifle hunting, so what is the difference?

[NorthJeff]

For one, than it's not a combo tag if you can't use it as such. How can you shoot 2 does in every DMU right now?

[Munsterlndr]

For one, than it's not a combo tag if you can't use it as such. How can you shoot 2 does in every DMU right now?

With a bow. Bowhunters can use both halves of the current combo tag on antlerless deer.

Sure it would still be a combo tag because you could use the antlerless half in any other area of the state not closed to rifle antlerless hunting. It would be similar to the current situation with combo tags and DMU's with MAR's.

I currently buy a combo tag that says I can take any antlered deer with 3"+ antlers. Except that my DMU has mandatory 3 point per side restrictions that supercedes the Combo minimum. So if I want to use the unrestricted portion of my combo in my DMU I have to abide by the antler restrictions. If I want to use it to take a legal spike I have to go to a DMU that is not restricted.

The antlerless portion of a combo and a DMU that is closed to Rifle hunting would be the same way. You could use the antllerless portion in any other DMU that is not restricted. So how is this not a combo license?

[NorthJeff]

It's not a combo tag because a lot of guys couldn't shoot a doe in their hunting spots...so wouldn't buy the combo tag, therefore going against the principle of the tag in making more money by having many choosing to buy combo tag, over just 1 license.

To keep it simple...I like an idea on another thread of keeping things the way it is..but if you shoot a buck with less than 4 pts on a side, you have to use both tags. If you have already used the first tag on a buck with 4pts on a side or more, than you have to do the same with the 2nd tag. Sounds good to me! If you want to shoot two, they have to both have 4pts on a side or better, if you want to shoot a young one, you have to buy the combo tag and burn both of them.

[Munsterlndr]

if you shoot a buck with less than 4 pts on a side, you have to use both tags.

So if you are only able to harvest one deer with it how is it a combo tag?

[NorthJeff]

If you live in DMU's where you can't shoot a doe with a rifle, and the combo tag includes 1 buck, and 1 doe license...how is that a combo tag?:)

It's a combo tag with having to use both tags to tag a young buck...because you made that choice, not the DNR. You had the option of attempting to harvest a "combination" of deer, andywhere in the state, but you made a personal choice to harvest a younger buck, therefore requiring you by regulation to use both tags. It's still a combo tag because you can choose to still go after a combination of deer. You pay the full price for 2 tags, but whether you use them both on 1 young deer, or go for two older, is up to you.

However, if the combo tag included both a buck and doe license, then the "combo tag" would prohibit some from taking advantage of shooting 2 deer, because of where they hunt, unlike the idea of having to use 2 tags on a young deer, because you could use that combo tag to hunt anywhere in the state.

[Trophy Specialist]

Going to a one buck limit has as much to do with QDM as MARs; therefore it should be handled with the DNR’s QDM procedures. If the DNR were ever to implement such a QDM initiative without following their own QDM guidelines, then what good are the guidelines? The only way this one-buck limit has the slightest chance of being implemented is on a limited basis in one or two DMUs. I’d like to see it tested that way to see how it would work but I will fight it with all my resources on a statewide basis.

In my opinion, all this one-buck banter is just a waste of time. The DNR is not going to implement such a measure no mater how much screaming and fish pounding goes on. They are required to manage our wildlife based on sound scientific means. They like to remind us that sound science consists of peer reviewed papers. Can anybody show me a peer reviewed, scientific paper on a one buck limit, because you just now the DNR will throw that one out there? Also, going to a one buck limit will necessitate a near doubling of the cost of a deer tag to make up for lost revenue and that would all have to pass through the legislature. The DNR would have to get that huge license cost increase passed first before they would be able to change the buck limit. Can you imagine the firestorm that legislators would get bombarded with on that one? It would be a no-win, political suicide type issue that would never see the light of day in the legislature.

Therefore, there are other measures that could be implemented that would actually have a significant impact on the quality of our deer herd. So why even both with this dead horse.

[NorthJeff]

TS,
I guess it makes me a litte nervous knowing the NRC commisioners would be chomping at the bit to go with 1 buck tag if they could....they have the final decision, and as most like to point out, "political science", in which they get input from the public on wildlife decisions, is a part of the process.

[Trophy Specialist]

To keep it simple...I like an idea on another thread of keeping things the way it is..but if you shoot a buck with less than 4 pts on a side, you have to use both tags. If you have already used the first tag on a buck with 4pts on a side or more, than you have to do the same with the 2nd tag. Sounds good to me! If you want to shoot two, they have to both have 4pts on a side or better, if you want to shoot a young one, you have to buy the combo tag and burn both of them.
I like that idea too.

[NorthJeff]

TS,
I think you have talked about it before...but what about keeping things the way they are, but if you harvest a buck with less than 4pts on a side, you have to use both combo tags, and if you want to harvest 2 bucks, they have to both have 4pts on a side? Wouldn't have to change anything, except the regulations. Also, if you think you might want to shoot a young buck, that does not fit the 4pt on side criteria..you'd have to purchase the combo tag. Might even increase revenue for the DNR!

[NorthJeff]

Woops...beat me too it TS!

[Trophy Specialist]

NorthJeff has laid out an option that would accomplish much more than a one buck limit without necessitating a huge license cost increase and without ticking off many avid deer hunters. It would definitely save more bucks and would have the side affect of introducing more people to QDM principals. It would actually make a lot of people think before pulling the trigger while still providing maximum recreational opportunities. This is why my respect for Jeff keeps going up.

[NorthJeff]

Mike, If you are referring to the tagging of a yearling buck with 2 tags...can't take credit for that idea..thanks for the kind words though! Flinch, on another post brought that up. I was thinking you had thought of an idead regarding this issue a couple years back in which you buy 1 tag for double the money with the option of tagging a young buck, or 2 tags for the option of harvesting 2 bucks, with 4pts on each side.

Either way though, there are a lot of ideas floating around, but I personally like the thought of having to tag a young buck with the 2 tags...or 2 older with 1 tag each.

Thanks though! ;)

[Swamper]

I think all the ideas being generated demonstrate the enthusiasm and interest in improving the deer herd health. They also show the lack of being able to pinpoint with much accuracy about what will work vs what will sell with the hunters. Furthers supports why VARs are the way to go vs MARS, and this is further evidenced by clear hunter wide support, aside from surveys of select hunters which fell short of the agreed upon benchmarks.

The enthusiasm is great to see.

Swamper

[mecosta]

I think that this is the best idea that I have heard by far. The only question that I have is for NJ and Trophy Specialist.

How is this any better of a management tool than going to 1 buck? The argument that I have heard about 1 buck is that it would do essectially nothing to the herd quality because people are still going to shoot the first small buck they see and be done. They could still do that with this tag AND some people would have the opportunity to kill two nice bucks. I would think that this tag would be an even worse idea if you think people are just happy to shoot their small buck and go back to camp. Now all of the same small bucks would be killed AND an additional number of large bucks.

As I said, I think that this would be a great idea. But the reason that I think it would be effective is because I think that people would be more selective on what they shoot. It would be a slow process for most hunters and I think it would take several years before some hunters changed their thinking from quantity and just wanting to get a buck, to quality. I do think that would happen though. Just like it used to be common amongst many hunters to tag with someone elses tag and not think twice about it. Now even though that still happens, it is much less popular and far less accepted by the majority of hunters.

I am not trying to argue about this or make you mad by asking the question. Just curious as to why and how you think this would be better from a management perspective than only having one tag. The only thing that seems better to me is that people that hunt the way I do (passing on smaller bucks) would be able to have a second tag. Although I like that idea, I am not sure it isn't only for selfish reasons on my part.

[Gilbey]

Jeff's mentioned many times that age structure is what is wrong with the herd. What he's saying here is that if you want to take two MATURE bucks, it's a good thing and ok with the herd. Basically protection of the younger bucks. In my area, the buck to doe ratio is pretty much in check through the addition of MARS and gotten back to healthy, and age structure is improving. So we don't really need improvement on the herd pops, but more so on getting more 3.5 yr old deer, which 4 on one side would really do this here in the UP.

I could easily jump on this band wagon.

And this would still allow for the vennie hunter or weekend hunter taking the kids out for enjoyment just as much fun. Seeing a smaller buck and making it shootable....It may cost a little bit more to buy a combo verses a single buck, but that's really not such a huge increase in cost. Would this be for the button bucks as well?

[NorthJeff]

"How is this any better of a management tool than going to 1 buck?"

I'm not sure it is...don't think either would make any biologically significant changes, just a compromise. I am wondering if people would think twice more about shooting a young buck though, knowing they have to burn two tags. Also, if a guy only wants to buy one tag...he would HAVE to shoot a buck with 4pts on a side. That's why I think more would buy the combo tag...just as insurance in case they wanted to shoot a young buck. They couldn't buy just 1 tag unless they planned on shooting a buck with 4pts or better. Even my dad would have to buy the combo license, because he'd be happy, and I'd be happy for him if he were to see a 2.5 year old 6pt. Now he just buys 1 tag, but that wouldn't work for that older 6pt....although I haven't gotten a picture of one in several years.

Who knows, but it wouldn't do any worse, than the 1 buck license, and would still allow for optimum recreational time afield...if you want it.

[mecosta]

NJ-

I did not think about people who just bought one tag would have to shoot one with 4 on a side and not have an option. That would probably help more than having only one buck tag. It might not help too much more than having only a sigle buck tag, but it would probably help some and would most likely raise revenue because more people would buy a combo.

[NorthJeff]

Would probably raise more awareness, could increase revenue, and I don't see how it would do any less than the 1 buck license.

Just a thought though, but I think they would only have to change regulations to get it to work. Also, I think it would do even more good in the large public lands areas where few yearling bucks have 4pts on 1 side. They could even "mix it up" a bit for southern lower MI and require that the 2nd buck have 5pts on a side....basically, 4pts on a side for the first, 5pts for the 2nd, if you want to shoot two bucks. Would really be a bumber though for that 4.5 year old giant clean 8 with a 20+ inside spread, 250# dressed weight...that you would have to pass on with a 5pt on a side restriction!

[Trophy Specialist]

I think an even simpler idea would be to eliminate the single bow and gun buck tags. Hunters would have to use both tags on a buck that has under X amount of points on one side or they could shoot two bucks with at least X number of points on one side. X could equal any number of points that would protect at least 75 percent of the yearling bucks and could be different in various areas of the state. If the only option for shooting a buck was to buy a combo license then the DNR would gain a sizable increase in funding without even having to raise license fees.

Hunters would surely look at and think carfully before pulling the trigger on any buck with this type scenerio. It would probably save a small percentage more yearling deer than a one-buck limit would becasue they would have to think more and some that would normally shoot the first buck they see would pass up more deer in the process.

[NorthJeff]

TS...where do we start to get this going? I'll call commissioner Madigan, probably can meet him for coffee, I'm meeting with Craig Albright at our next board meeting, and I can give Bob Doepker a call...but where else? I'd like to get this in their minds early, so that it's not too late at some point in the long, political process of proposal "G".

[Munsterlndr]

I agree that we should eliminate single antlered tags. Force people to buy a combo tag in whatever version is decided upon. It will increase revenue without having to go for a fee increase.

If, as Mecosta pointed out, the biological motivation of restricting yearling buck kill is to increase the age structure within the herd, it seems counter-productive to then allow someone to harvest two of these mature bucks on an annual basis. If we have to make sacrifices to achieve a larger population of mature bucks and the presence of these mature bucks has such a positive impact on herd dynamics, why would we want to make it easier for more of these mature bucks to be killed? What is the biological or scientific reasoning for allowing two restricted deer to be harvested by one hunter each year?

[flinch]

why would we want to make it easier for more of these mature bucks to be killed?

How would this make it easier for more of these mature bucks to be killed? Any hunter can take two mature bucks (4 points on a side) now. What this does is make a hunter think twice before burning both tags on a spike. It should reduce the yearling harvest while still allowing the same hunting opportunities as before, with only minor changes to the structure of the combo license.

[Munsterlndr]

It would make it easier than if we went to a single buck license, which would make it impossible to kill two bucks of any size. From a biological standpoint this makes the most sense, if you are truly interested in increasing the buck age structure within the herd.

[jimmyboy]

:yeahthat: My thoughts as well.

[flinch]

If we are really interested in increasing the buck age structure, we should go to lotteries for all buck tags. As long as we allow everyone to have at least one buck tag, we are going to continue to take too many bucks period. Burning two tags for a small buck should help increase the buck age structure and works within the concept of a combo tag without making major changes.

[Gilbey]

Jeff - Downside being 4 pts one side better taken with 1st buck, what happens if somebody would inadvertantly pop a huge 6 without brows for example? You know it's gonna come up as devils advocate. Can't tag 2nd deer with two combo tags, 1st one is already used.

[Munsterlndr]

Flinch -

I guess I'm not seeing the reasoning as to why we would continue to take too many young bucks with a single buck tag, but would not with your scenario. If someone wants to shoot a young buck he will do it whether he has only a single buck tag or whether he would have to use both parts of a combo to tag it. In either case, he has to make the same decision about being done buck hunting that year, so the minimizing effect should be the same. It's just with your scenario some hunters could harvest two bucks a year instead of just one under a single buck tag, which is going to result in more bucks being killed.

[flinch]

Flinch -

I guess I'm not seeing the reasoning as to why we would continue to take too many young bucks with a single buck tag, but would not with your scenario. If someone wants to shoot a young buck he will do it whether he has only a single buck tag or whether he would have to use both parts of a combo to tag it. In either case, he has to make the same decision about being done buck hunting that year, so the minimizing effect should be the same. It's just with your scenario some hunters could harvest two bucks a year instead of just one under a single buck tag, which is going to result in more bucks being killed.

I was working under a couple basic premises, first that we have to continue to offer a combo tag, and second, that the revenue can't go down. I firmly believe that either of those will not be changed by the NRC any time soon. If we go to one buck tag then no more combo tag and a loss of revenue. NRC, DNR, whatever, is not going to allow that. What would be the point of a combo tag for a gun hunter hunting in a "no doe permits" county under the one buck scenerio? In fact, exactly what would a combo tag be good for under a one buck rule?

[Trophy Specialist]

Once bucks make it past two years they don't need protection any more. Studies have shown that is nearly impossible to over harvest adult bucks. They become much smarter and more wary the older they get. How many people do you think harvest two adult bucks in Michigan in a year? I'm not talking about yearlings with 4 points on one side either. That number is very small for sure and is insignificant in the big picture.

As far as implementing a wide scale deer regulation change like the one proposed, it would certainly stand a much better chance than any one-buck limit mainly because it will meet much less opposition from hunters, and the DNR would certainly embrace such a measure. The biggest obstacle would be to get the hard-line one-buck limit crowd to get on board. Many of those folks have sunk so much energy into that futile cause that they will fight anything else no mater how much sense it makes.

The measure would also need a catchy name to be successful like "The Hunter's Choice Program".

[Trophy Specialist]

TS...where do we start to get this going? I'll call commissioner Madigan, probably can meet him for coffee, I'm meeting with Craig Albright at our next board meeting, and I can give Bob Doepker a call...but where else? I'd like to get this in their minds early, so that it's not too late at some point in the long, political process of proposal "G".
I think it's time for me to write another deer managment article.

[Trophy Specialist]

Jeff - Downside being 4 pts one side better taken with 1st buck, what happens if somebody would inadvertantly pop a huge 6 without brows for example? You know it's gonna come up as devils advocate. Can't tag 2nd deer with two combo tags, 1st one is already used.
It would be the same scenario as it is currently with the combo tag, so there would be no change. I would like to see Michigan change the law on this one to the way Pennsylvania does it. There, if you shoot a buck that does not have the required points it is not a criminal offense like it is in MI. In PA they require you to bring the illegal deer in and the antlers are removed, you pay a nominal fee, and you get to keep the deer. I have brought that one up time and time again with the DNR and defer that it would take an act of the legislature to change it.

[Munsterlndr]

I was working under a couple basic premises, first that we have to continue to offer a combo tag, and second, that the revenue can't go down. I firmly believe that either of those will not be changed by the NRC any time soon. If we go to one buck tag then no more combo tag and a loss of revenue. NRC, DNR, whatever, is not going to allow that. What would be the point of a combo tag for a gun hunter hunting in a "no doe permits" county under the one buck scenerio? In fact, exactly what would a combo tag be good for under a one buck rule?

I agree that we have to work within those basic premises. Under a one buck rule the combo tag could be good for one buck and one doe. As to those in an antlerless DMU, they would have a couple of options: 1) use the antlerless portion during bow season. Many do this now so it would not create any change for them. 2) Hunt in another part of the state. Many hunters already hunt in more than one part of the state. With a three month season there is ample opportunity to visit another DMU that is open to antlerless hunting. 3) Decide that if they don't want to hunt in another DMU to just not use that portion of the combo. How many hunters today don't fill either portion of the combo or don't fill the restricted portion? We are talking about a relatively small number of DMU's that are closed to antlerless hunting, anyway.

As far as revenue, again, get rid of stand alone buck licenses and force people to buy the combo tag if they want to hunt for a buck. Impact would be a net increase in revenue.

[flinch]

I agree that we have to work within those basic premises. Under a one buck rule the combo tag could be good for one buck and one doe. As to those in an antlerless DMU, they would have a couple of options: 1) use the antlerless portion during bow season. Many do this now so it would not create any change for them. 2) Hunt in another part of the state. Many hunters already hunt in more than one part of the state. With a three month season there is ample opportunity to visit another DMU that is open to antlerless hunting. 3) Decide that if they don't want to hunt in another DMU to just not use that portion of the combo. How many hunters today don't fill either portion of the combo or don't fill the restricted portion? We are talking about a relatively small number of DMU's that are closed to antlerless hunting, anyway.

As far as revenue, again, get rid of stand alone buck licenses and force people to buy the combo tag if they want to hunt for a buck. Impact would be a net increase in revenue.

This would make sense if everybody bow hunted in the southern part of the state. I don't think this would be too favorable for those gun only hunters in the upper pennisula and northern lower pennisulas. Most of those counties don't have high enough populations to allow unrestricted doe permits, which is essentually what the second part of the tag becomes.

All of these ideas have good and bad points. I just think that using both tags on a small buck would be a simple way to help reduce the yearling buck harvest while still allowing similar hunting opportunities to what we have now. I also think it is more likely to win favor with the hunting community. Of course, we could all be wrong.

[Trophy Specialist]

Under a one buck rule the combo tag could be good for one buck and one doe. As to those in an antlerless DMU, they would have a couple of options: 1) use the antlerless portion during bow season. Many do this now so it would not create any change for them. 2) Hunt in another part of the state. Many hunters already hunt in more than one part of the state. With a three month season there is ample opportunity to visit another DMU that is open to antlerless hunting. 3) Decide that if they don't want to hunt in another DMU to just not use that portion of the combo. How many hunters today don't fill either portion of the combo or don't fill the restricted portion? We are talking about a relatively small number of DMU's that are closed to antlerless hunting, anyway.
What about in DMUs where there is oversubscribed number of antlerless tags are only available in a lottery?

What about DMUs that are below goal and the number of antlerless tags should be allotted very conservatively?

What about DMUs where antlerless tags are only available to private land owners?

What about hunters that hunt in areas where no antlerless tags are available that don’t bow hunt and don’t want to go hunt somewhere else?

What about the lost revenue from lost antlerless permit sales because it is built into the combo tag?

You’re "simple" plan has way too many holes in it whereas there are other better ideas floating around that would have a more desirable impact on deer management and would also not be so disagreeable to so many people. Keep plugging away though because you keep giving me more ideas for an article.

[Swamper]

Tis comforting to know after reading some of these posts that many things are considered when making the regs and rules...revenue, deer herd health, habitab, politics, etc. While we all complain from time to time about the DNR/NRC/etc, tis much better than having a single self interest govern the process. It is clear that the overall support for having no single interest govern the process is growing daily. Some of the interests are wolves wrapped in sheepskins, but in the end, its best balanced.

Swamper

[Munsterlndr]

What about in DMUs where there is oversubscribed number of antlerless tags are only available in a lottery?

What about DMUs that are below goal and the number of antlerless tags should be allotted very conservatively?

What about DMUs where antlerless tags are only available to private land owners?

What about hunters that hunt in areas where no antlerless tags are available that don’t bow hunt and don’t want to go hunt somewhere else?

What about the lost revenue from lost antlerless permit sales because it is built into the combo tag?

You’re "simple" plan has way too many holes in it whereas there are other better ideas floating around that would have a more desirable impact on deer management and would also not be so disagreeable to so many people. Keep plugging away though because you keep giving me more ideas for an article.

Admittedly there may need to be some tweaking. I think a lot of your concerns are overblown, though. For instance, there is for all intense and purposes an unlimited number of antlerless permits available now, even in DMU's closed to antlerless hunting, via bowhunters using both halves of the combo license. I don't see many people raising a concern over this currently.

If a DMU is borderline for needing does taken, then close it to antlerless rifle hunting and allow bowhunters to take the required numbers of does. This is what they did this year in Lake County. I did not see widespread protests over it.

For those that choose not to utilize the antlerless portion of a combo tag, that is thier personal decision. You make it sound like everyone who buys a tag is guaranteed filling it. If we eliminated stand alone antlered tags and you had to buy a combo tag to pursue a buck, do you really think that very many hunters are going to skip buying the combo because they may not choose to use the antlerless portion? They will buy it anyway and just use the antlered tag. The increase in combo sales should offset any reducton in antlerless sales. A lot of guys are still going to buy an over the counter antlerless permit just to have it on hand.

As Bob stated in another thread, we need to encourage people to take more does in many portions of the State. This plan would accomplish that.

It seems like those two-buck hunters who oppose going to a single buck tag, under any circumstances, almost all come from the UP. You seem to view all of the proposals soley through how they impact the UP. Well I've got news for you, the bulk of the deer herd is no longer in the UP and I don't see that trend changing any time soon. If you want to address the deer managment issues that we have in this State you better be focusing on the SLP and next on the NLP. That is where the overwhelming majority of both the deer and the deer hunters are going to be.

A Single Buck License + Voluntary Antler restrictions + Education+ Habitat Improvement = Better Michigan deer hunting.

[Trophy Specialist]

“Admittedly there may need to be some tweaking.”
Now that may very well be the understatement of the year

Here the actual facts about how many deer hunters hunt in the north vs. the south in all seasons from 2004 DNR stats:

Southern Lower Peninsula: 372,108
Northern Lower Peninsula: 317,687
Upper Peninsula: 118,192

The total number of hunters in the north is 435,879, which is fully 63,771 more hunters then in the south so it is clear that northern Michigan still racks as the most popular place to hunt deer. With some habitat improvement and some region wide professional deer management, the North Country could outpace in the future, especially considering that urban sprawl will affect the south much more.

I think you’ll find thousands of hunters in southern Michigan that would oppose your version of a one buck limit too. I don’t’ think it would be fair to force people to buy a tag which they could not use in the area they intend to hunt. Munsterlndr, keep going my all means though, you're helping me with my article more and more with every post.

[farmlegend]

Nope.

Look at Table 3, on hunting effort applied. In 2004, there was more total hunting effort applied in the southern lower alone than the northern lower and the UP combined.

Hunting Days:
Southern Lower: 5,382,533
Norther Lower: 3,535,268
U.P.: 1,265,412

The southern lower is the most popular place to hunt deer, by a mile.

Fellas, in all seriousness, a one buck limit would be a much easier sell in the southern lower than antler restrictions.

[Trophy Specialist]

That is surprising that more people hunt up-north but more hunter hours are expended hunting down-below. There's an easy explanation for that: Hunters party more up-north.:lol:

Nobody has ever tried a MARs experiment in any of the southern counties. FL, I just know, down deep, you would love to have MARs in your area but you're just too nice of a guy to tell us what you really think.:lol:

Time to run my dog.

[November Sunrise]

Fellas, in all seriousness, a one buck limit would be a much easier sell in the southern lower than antler restrictions.

Without a doubt - it would be infinitely easier.

[Munsterlndr]

Nobody has ever tried a MARs experiment in any of the southern counties. .
They tried but there was little support for one. 2002 initiative in Huron, Sanilac & Tuscola counties (Zone 3 SLP) only had 39% support among hunters. It does not appear that MAR's support in the SLP has grown much since then since no one has even tried to start another initiative.

In fact, since 2001 only 1 out of the 9 new MAR's inititiatives that have been voted on have been enacted. More evidence of the growing support for MAR's. :lol:

[Trophy Specialist]

I seriously doubt that you’ll have an easier time passing a one-buck limit compared to MARs even in a test DMU. In 2004 there were 745,310 combination tags issued compared to a paltry by comparison 376,434 individual firearm and archery tags. Also, the number of Combination licenses has been on a steady increase while purchases of single gun and bow licenses have been declining in recent years indicating a trend away from a single-buck limit. Since it would be hypocritical for people to buy a combo tag and then demand a one-buck limit, I must conclude that this is a fair representation of hunter’s opinions on this issue;) . Besides, buying a single buck tag is already an option, so we really don’t any new laws. It’s just a mater of choice and these days people are choosing the combo license and until that trend changes, a one-buck limit is highly unlikly.

[Trophy Specialist]

2002 initiative in Huron, Sanilac & Tuscola counties (Zone 3 SLP) only had 39% support among hunters.
When I stated southern counties, I was referring to the counties along the southern part of the southern Lower Peninsula.

[Munsterlndr]

In 2004 there were 745,310 combination tags issued compared to a paltry by comparison 376,434 individual firearm and archery tags.

Mike -
I hope you research your "facts" a little bit better before you write your upcoming deer management article. There were actually 372,655 Combination licenses issued in 2004 compared to 376,434 individual antlered licenses sold. So it appears that more hunters chose to buy a single (one buck) tag than to purchase a combination tag. The number you quoted (745,310) was the number of antlered tags contained within the combo licenses sold, but since each combo tag has two licenses this does not represent the number of hunters who bought combo tags.

So it appears that a majority of Michigan deer hunters are already buying a One Buck license.

[farmlegend]

They tried but there was little support for one. 2002 initiative in Huron, Sanilac & Tuscola counties (Zone 3 SLP) only had 39% support among hunters. It does not appear that MAR's support in the SLP has grown much since then since no one has even tried to start another initiative.

Not to quibble, but you overstated the level of support for MARS. In the Huron/Sanilac/Tuscola proposal, antler restrictions got 36.4% support from hunters. Landowner support was 38.8%.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10905-29395--,00.html

[Trophy Specialist]

I hope you research your "facts" a little bit better before you write your upcoming deer management article. There were actually 372,655 Combination licenses issued in 2004 compared to 376,434 individual antlered licenses sold. So it appears that more hunters chose to buy a single (one buck) tag than to purchase a combination tag. The number you quoted (745,310) was the number of antlered tags contained within the combo licenses sold, but since each combo tag has two licenses this does not represent the number of hunters who bought combo tags.
As usual you are wrong again. Here's what I stated:
In 2004 there were 745,310 combination tags issued compared to a paltry by comparison 376,434 individual firearm and archery tags.

Now if you actually read that, you'll see that I stated combination "tags" and not "licenses". There's nothing inaccurate about my facts. There are thousnds of people out there that buy both a single archery and firearm deer license.

[Munsterlndr]

As usual you are wrong again. Here's what I stated:


Now if you actually read that, you'll see that I stated combination "tags" and not "licenses". There's nothing inaccurate about my facts. There are thousnds of people out there that buy both a single archery and firearm deer license.

Ok, now you are really nitpicking, so I guess I will too. There are no such things as "combination tags". Read the DNR harvest survey. What you are referring to is Harvest Tags. There are two Harvest Tags issued in a Combination license. So when you use the word "Combination" you are talking about a license not a Harvest Tag.

The "fact" remains that there were more Single Season Antlered Licenses issued than Combination Licenses. You can try and spin this and say that a lot of hunters chose to purchase two individual licenses instead of the combo license, even though it makes no sense to do so. But give it a try anyway, maybe somebody will believe you.

[Trophy Specialist]

The "fact" remains that there were more Single Season Antlered Licenses issued than Combination Licenses. You can try and spin this and say that a lot of hunters chose to purchase two individual licenses instead of the combo license, even though it makes no sense to do so. But give it a try anyway, maybe somebody will believe you.
I know of a bunch of people that buy both single archery and firearms tags. Even if you refuse to believe that anybody would buy two single tags:rolleyes: , what's your argument for the reason combo license sales are going up while single buck tag sales are going down? Between 2002 and 2004 the number of single archery and firearm tags dropped by 44,726. In that same timeframe, the number of combo tags sold increased by 30,220. Now if tag sales for combo licenses are increasing, especially in an age when hunter numbers are dwindling, it would make little sense to eliminate that successful option.

[Liver and Onions]

I know of a bunch of people that buy both single archery and firearms tags.......

Same thing here. More & more people that I know and talk with are buying the 2 single tags . Pretty obvious reasons why.

L & O

[Trophy Specialist]

Same thing here. More & more people that I know and talk with are buying the 2 single tags . Pretty obvious reasons why.
I know of more opting for two single tags over a combo tag tool, which is why I was surprised by the fact that combo licenses are on the rise with the single license sales are dropping.

[Luv2hunteup]

See the link for proper deer tag numbers and percentages.

Page 10 indicates combined firearm and archery hunters purchase equal half the number of tags as combination tag purchases.

44% Combo tags
34% Antlerless tags
18% Firearm tags
4% Archery tags

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/report3444_135086_7.pdf

Alot of other facts can be gleaned by reading all 38 pages of information. One of the stats that I find most interesting is that archery hunter place more hunting pressure on the deer herd than firearm hunters. 46% of all deer hunting pressure is placed on the herd by archery hunters, page 12.

[Munsterlndr]

Page 10 indicates combined firearm and archery hunters purchase equal half the number of tags as combination tag purchases.



That graph shows the percentage of harvest tags issued under each type of license, not the percentage of Licenses sold. Each Combo license includes two harvest tags.

More single season archery and firearm licenses are sold than are combination licenses. Go further down in the report where it shows the table listing total license sales for each type of license.

[Munsterlndr]

Same thing here. More & more people that I know and talk with are buying the 2 single tags . Pretty obvious reasons why.

L & O

Just curious, what would be the reasoning for doing this? About the only reason I could see for doing this is that it would allow you to harvest a small buck in each season, where under the combo the second buck would have to be restricted. Is that the obvious reason you are talking about?

If it is, is that practice something that we really want to encourage?

[Luv2hunteup]

Munsterlndr

The pie chart on page 12 is the graphic representation of what is shown on the matrix at the bottom of page 19. Number of tags sold.

I agree with you that one of the reasons for buying separate archery/firearm tag is to by pass the antler restriction of the combo tag.

[flinch]

I agree with you that one of the reasons for buying separate archery/firearm tag is to by pass the antler restriction of the combo tag.

There is no way to bypass the antler restrictions. No matter what you buy, you still can't take more than one buck with less than four points to a side.

From the huning guide:

If you take two antlered deer, one of the two antlered deer must have at least one antler with four or more antler points one inch or longer. This deer can be taken first or second in either an archery, firearm or muzzleloading season. A person is limited to purchasing only two kill tags for taking an antlered (buck) deer. You may purchase one archery license AND one firearm license (one kill tag each) OR one combination license (two kill tags).

[Munsterlndr]

Munsterlndr

The pie chart on page 12 is the graphic representation of what is shown on the matrix at the bottom of page 19. Number of tags sold.

I agree with you that one of the reasons for buying separate archery/firearm tag is to by pass the antler restriction of the combo tag.

The problem with looking at just the numbers of harvest tags issued is that it appears that more hunters chose to buy a combo license than bought single licenses.

Here is an analogy.

Say you have a hundred people shopping at a fruit stand. For a $1 you can buy a bag containing 1 apple or a bag containing 2 oranges. 53 of the people decide to buy apples.

In that scenario more people chose to buy apples than to buy oranges. Now if you just look at the total number of oranges sold it would appear that the more people wanted oranges but that is not the case.

In Michigan it appears that more people bought a single license than bought a combo license.

[Munsterlndr]

There is no way to bypass the antler restrictions. No matter what you buy, you still can't take more than one buck with less than four points to a side.

From the huning guide:

If you take two antlered deer, one of the two antlered deer must have at least one antler with four or more antler points one inch or longer. This deer can be taken first or second in either an archery, firearm or muzzleloading season. A person is limited to purchasing only two kill tags for taking an antlered (buck) deer. You may purchase one archery license AND one firearm license (one kill tag each) OR one combination license (two kill tags).

Thanks Flinch, I missed that. You can tell I just buy the combo license. :lol:

Since that is the case I am at a loss as to understand what the obvious reason would be to buy two single licenses instead of the combo. Anybody have any ideas?

[flinch]

Thanks Flinch, I missed that. You can tell I just buy the combo license. :lol:

Since that is the case I am at a loss as to understand what the obvious reason would be to buy two single licenses instead of the combo. Anybody have any ideas?

Never understood that one myself.

[Whit1]

Since that is the case I am at a loss as to understand what the obvious reason would be to buy two single licenses instead of the combo. Anybody have any ideas?

I would suspect that some hunters THINK that by buying singles they can get around the MARS restriction on the second buck. We see examples of that on these boards quite often when a member asks a question that seems a bit off the wall and then gives an answer which is an attempt to rationalize, if not legalize some illegal behavior. In their mind they are attempting to contrive a way around the law.

[Liver and Onions]

There is no way to bypass the antler restrictions. No matter what you buy, you still can't take more than one buck with less than four points to a side.

From the huning guide:

If you take two antlered deer, one of the two antlered deer must have at least one antler with four or more antler points one inch or longer. This deer can be taken first or second in either an archery, firearm or muzzleloading season. A person is limited to purchasing only two kill tags for taking an antlered (buck) deer. You may purchase one archery license AND one firearm license (one kill tag each) OR one combination license (two kill tags).

Since I only buy the combo license, I can only tell you what I've been told. The above law is not enforceable and therefore what we have is an honor system. A smaller deer is taken during the bow season and goes in the freezer. The tag goes in the garbage. The same thing can happen during the gun season. The honor system does not work so well either when people earn money "off the books" and should report that income to the IRS. It has also been rumored that some business men inflate/fudge their business expenses on their tax returns. How many of you have broken these laws or any law within the past few years ? Does anyone truely follow 100% of all the rules/laws ? Slime balls that cheat on their taxes bother me a whole more than some guy taking a pair of 6 points.
Another reason to buy one at a time is that some hunters just want to leave the $15 in their wallet until gun season.

L & O

[flinch]

Since I only buy the combo license, I can only tell you what I've been told. The above law is not enforceable and therefore what we have is an honor system. A smaller deer is taken during the bow season and goes in the freezer. The tag goes in the garbage. The same thing can happen during the gun season. The honor system does not work so well either when people earn money "off the books" and should report that income to the IRS. It has also been rumored that some business men inflate/fudge their business expenses on their tax returns. How many of you have broken these laws or any law within the past few years ? Does anyone truely follow 100% of all the rules/laws ? Slime balls that cheat on their taxes bother me a whole more than some guy taking a pair of 6 points.
Another reason to buy one at a time is that some hunters just want to leave the $15 in their wallet until gun season.

L & O

Whatever, I was only repeating what is on the books as law.

[Trophy Specialist]

I'm sure there are a bunch of people out there that buy separate buck licenses to get around the 4 point restriction on the second tag. I also know that some people still buy a gun license, shoot a buck and then go out and buy a second buck license and the DNR's computer system does not even stop that practice at the point of sale. Still others buy a doe tag, shoot a buck, go to the store and then buy a buck tag. Party hunting is still alive and well in MI too and there are lots people that will shoot every buck they see regardless of the limits or laws just so long as they think they can get away with it. Poachers will be poachers and they are allowed to get away with it mainly because we hunters are not policing our own; if you see or hear of someong poaching, then report the incident. The DNR could make a few computer and procedureal changes as well that would stop a lot of the law breaking. One things for sure though, there are a lot of hunters choosing to buy single gun and bow tags rather than the combo license.

[flinch]

I'm sure there are a bunch of people out there that buy separate buck licenses to get around the 4 point restriction on the second tag.

I still don't understand how this gets around the four point restriction unless you are saying that everyone poaches that does this. In which case, between the poaching tresspassers, poachers who overbait or bait in no baiting zones, poachers who use others tags, poachers who tag anterless deer with tags for a different county, poachers who shoot first and buy tags later, poachers who don't bother to use a tag at all, poachers who shoot after hours, poachers who buy separate tags to put on two small bucks, etc. there must not be very many true sportsman in this state. I don't know why we should even bother to consider changing laws that are ignored anyway.

[Trophy Specialist]

I still don't understand how this gets around the four point restriction
When you buy a combo license you get two tags: One unrestricted and the other restricted. If you tag a buck with less than four points on one side with a restricted tag it would be very easy for a CO to identify it as illegal.

When you buy separate gun and archery licenses those tags are not restricted, therefore there is no easy way for a CO to identify if a hunter is following the point restrictions law just by looking at a tagged deer. A lot of hunters exploit that loophole.

I knew that that was going to be a problem when the tagging structure of the Combination License went to a 4 point requirement on the second license and I raised that problem to the eyes of the DNR before. It is my opinion that the law should be written so that you can only buy a single archery or firearm tag and not both. If you want two buck tags the combo license should be the only option. That would stop it dead and make the licensing process much simpler.

[flinch]

When you buy separate gun and archery licenses those tags are not restricted, therefore there is no easy way for a CO to identify if a hunter is following the point restrictions law just by looking at a tagged deer. A lot of hunters exploit that loophole.

They aren't "exploiting that loophole", they are poaching. And please don't call them hunters. You make it sound as if they almost aren't breaking any laws. It is illegal to shoot 2 bucks where both of them have less than four points to a side regardless of how they buy the tags.

[huntingfool43]

I also know that some people still buy a gun license, shoot a buck and then go out and buy a second buck license and the DNR's computer system does not even stop that practice at the point of sale.
BUT
This is also true or was for leftover antlerless tags, you could only buy 1 a day. Back in the mid 90's people figured out you could go to different places and buy one at each place on the same day and they did it. I know 1 guy bragged about stopping at 5 different places in 1 day and got 5 tags all on
the same day. The following May he recieved a ticket in the mail from the DNR for buying more than 1 a day the previous fall. Just because the puter sells you a tag don't mean they won't catch it later, not worth the risk and I don't think that many do it. As far as using grandma's tag, that is another problem.

[Whit1]

Okay guys! Five pages in this thread, this is post #72 and the thread is still open. There are at least 8 threads on the front page of this forum that have multiple pages. Most are still open.

What are you guys plotting behind the mods' backs?...........:lol: :help: :lol:

[Ferg]

Okay guys! Five pages in this thread, this is post #72 and the thread is still open. There are at least 8 threads on the front page of this forum that have multiple pages. Most are still open.

What are you guys plotting behind the mods' backs?...........:lol: :help: :lol:

Damn Whit1 - didn't your momma tell you '...if it aint broke, don't fix it...'!!!!

You doneit now boy !

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ferg....


'.....kinder, gentler deer management.....' :tdo12:

[Whit1]

Damn Whit1 - didn't your momma tell you '...if it aint broke, don't fix it...'!!!!

You doneit now boy !

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ferg....


'.....kinder, gentler deer management.....' :tdo12:



Ya! I know! The kiss of death syndrome!.........:lol:

[CaptainNorthwood]

What does everyone think about Baiting and shooting big deer!!! :lol: :lol: Sorry I had too!

[KI Jim]

I would very much be in favor of a one buck rule-regardless of method.

Jim

[Adam Waszak]

I think one buck is crazy we should have the season one buck per day for the 3 month season and no limit on baiting. Also get rid of the whole shooting hours thing and make it 24 hours a day that way everyone can hunt every day :yikes:

AW

[LUCE-YOOPER]

I think the bigger issue is the 4% decrease in hunters. Thats 12,000 people not staying in hotels, not going to resturants, and not buying gas, and not buying equipement. That costs the state a lot of money, more than any increase in license fee's would overcome. I don't think the "bean counters" in Lansing will do anything that will reduce the days in field/or opportunities for the average hunter. They need to find ways to get that 4% back hunting.

I always buy a combo license. Mostly because I imagine that the one year I dont, is the year I'm 3 miles back in the woods and have a chance at 2 terty-point bucks. I would rather be safe than sorry, as I think that most buy combo, do also.

[LUCE-YOOPER]

I think one buck is crazy we should have the season one buck per day for the 3 month season and no limit on baiting. Also get rid of the whole shooting hours thing and make it 24 hours a day that way everyone can hunt every day :yikes:

AW

OUCH...

I heard people falling out of there chairs from here!;)

[Whit1]

What does everyone think about Baiting and shooting big deer!!! :lol: :lol: Sorry I had too!


Capt'n, you keep that up and ye'll be finding yeself walking a short plank!!!!!!.......:lol:

[Trophy Specialist]

I just finished an article that deals with the one-buck notion along with other deer management issues facing Michigan. In doing the article I interviewed some top DNR decision makers. A DNR commission committee is looking into hunting and fishing licensing issues. For biological reasons, the DNR though does not support a one-buck limit law. It is highly unlikely that the commission will go against the DNR on this issue. Also, by law the DNR must sell a combination license along with an archery license and a firearm license. They indicated that the legislature is not likely to change those laws unless the DNR recommends it. Even if the legislature were to somehow take up a one-buck limit bill, it would also require a large license increase, which according to the DNR, “it would go over like a lead balloon.” With such a large amount of opposition on this issue it is just not going to happen. What you might see though is the DNR supporting a voluntary limit of one buck just like they support voluntary QDM. Incidentally, the main reason that the DNR is hearing from people that support a one-buck limit is from unsuccessful buck hunters that want more bucks for themselves. It’s interesting how you really don’t hear that reason fostered much on this forum from pro one-buck limit folks.

[Munsterlndr]

Care to elaborate on "biological reasons" for opposing a one buck rule? This should make for some interesting reading.

[CaptainNorthwood]

Can you make sure the short plank is located in the bahamas with lots of mermaids to save me nearby, I am tired of the weather.:lol:

Capt'n, you keep that up and ye'll be finding yeself walking a short plank!!!!!!.......:lol:

[Whit1]

Can you make sure the short plank is located in the bahamas with lots of mermaids to save me nearby, I am tired of the weather.:lol:

Okay!..........Can I join ya?............:lol:

[LUCE-YOOPER]

TS,

I just got off the phone with the Chief of Budget at the DNR. I had a very insiteful conversation about license fee's, budget and spending. She stated that they are already looking into increasing fee's across the board. She also stated that the economic impact of any changes would be explored. Meaning; they would never present to the NRC going to one license. It would cost them too much revenue. They also anticipate that any increase in fee's would cause a "drop off" of about 5% of license sales. And that would be acceptable, because about half of those will return after one year away from hunting.

She stated that pretty much all decisions are weighted heavily on "how much will it cost", and "how will it affect revenue".

I suggest anyone who wants to know how things are really done, and want to know how they make decisions, call or talk to the decision makers. She returned my call this morning in about 10 min.

[Whit1]

TS,

I just got off the phone with the Chief of Budget at the DNR. I had a very insiteful conversation about license fee's, budget and spending. She stated that they are already looking into increasing fee's across the board. She also stated that the economic impact of any changes would be explored. Meaning; they would never present to the NRC going to one license. It would cost them too much revenue. They also anticipate that any increase in fee's would cause a "drop off" of about 5% of license sales. And that would be acceptable, because about half of those will return after one year away from hunting.

She stated that pretty much all decisions are weighted heavily on "how much will it cost", and "how will it affect revenue".

I suggest anyone who wants to know how things are really done, and want to know how they make decisions, call or talk to the decision makers. She returned my call this morning in about 10 min.


Thanks for the insight.

Your comment about talking to the decision makers is most worthy of note. That's a hell of a lot better than getting into a "twixt hissy fit" on these boards over what someone suggests and discusses as a way to manage our fisheries and wildlife resources.

[Munsterlndr]

There is a difference between going to one buck license and eliminating the combo license. The combo license is the big money maker for the DNR, no question about that. Eliminating the combo license is unrealistic, both because of the revenue it produces and because it is mandated by the legislature.

The DNR has the authority to go to a single buck per season limitation. They also have the authority to change the combo license to being good for one buck and one doe. They also have the authority to eliminate stand alone firearms and archery buck licenses. They can do all of these things without having to seek approval from the legislature.

If the only license available to hunt for a buck was the antlered portion of a new combo license, you can bet that most hunters would purchase the combo license. This should result in an increase in revenue for the DNR, even if they did not increase the cost of the combo.

[Joe Archer]

Care to elaborate on "biological reasons" for opposing a one buck rule? This should make for some interesting reading.

I have stated in the past that I believe buck-age structure should only be a secondary objective in herd management. The primary objective in my mind would be to concentrate on getting doe numbers in order. In areas of Lower Michigan we need to thin out the herd. In some areas of Northern Michigan the doe population really needs to be spared. Biologically speaking, in areas of low deer numbers the one-buck rule would do nothing to help propagate the species, and in fact may lead to increased pressure on the nearly extinct doe. Until we can better manage the biological producers in the equation, buck age structure is a relatively unimportant factor in the long term result.
<----<<<

[Trophy Specialist]

Care to elaborate on "biological reasons" for opposing a one buck rule? This should make for some interesting reading.
The DNR told me that the number of hunters killing two bucks represents a statistically insignificant number of the total buck kill especially considering the high amount of recreation provided at a low cost to the resource. They also said that the antlerless harvest would drop if we limited hunters to one buck and they cited evidence from the muzzle loading deer season and the late antlerless seasons as evidence.

On the other hand, 22 percent of the antlerless harvest is composed on fawn bucks. That equates to 50,000 buck fawns will never see their first set of antlers because of hunters. The DNR opposes the tagging of buck fawns with buck tags for some valid reasons, but I offered the DNR a different alternative that they did not oppose. Simply require that buck fawns must be tagged with the appropriate hunting tag in the field along with a special “button buck tag” that would have to be attached to the deer within 24 hours of killing it. Now there would be a law that the vast majority of hunters would embrace that would actually do some significant good for the deer herd.

[Trophy Specialist]

They also have the authority to eliminate stand alone firearms and archery buck licenses. They can do all of these things without having to seek approval from the legislature.
That is absolutely not true.

By law the DNR must sell a combination license along with an archery license and a firearm license. It would take an act of the legislature and governor to eliminate any of those licenses. The DNR Commissions could order a one buck limit under the existing license offering requirements, but it would be unenforceable and thus not likely to happen. They might encourage it voluntarily though. I got this information straight form the DNR. If you don’t believe me then please contact the DNR before posting anything to the contrary as it would be deceptive.

[Munsterlndr]

Mike -
Read the law. The law says that the DNR has to offer a combo license valid during both archery and firearms seasons. It also gives the DNR the authority to designate what game (ie buck or doe) is legal under those licenses. I said that the DNR could eliminate stand alone buck licenses, and they can. So how is that not true? There is nothing in the law that specifies that the the type of firearm & archery licenses being offered have to be antlered licenses.

To say anything to the contrary is what is deceptive.

[Ferg]

Mike -
Read the law. The law says that the DNR has to offer a combo license valid during both archery and firearms seasons. It also gives the DNR the authority to designate what game (ie buck or doe) is legal under those licenses. I said that the DNR could eliminate stand alone buck licenses, and they can. So how is that not true? There is nothing in the law that specifies that the the type of firearm & archery licenses being offered have to be antlered licenses.

To say anything to the contrary is what is deceptive.

I think the miss communication is - TS is saying they can NOTdo away with the licenses (as a licenses) and your saying they can do away with an 'antlered licenses' - the licenses itself would still exsist - just in an 'antlerless' form -

So TS is correct as I read the law there has to be 1)archery 1)gun 1)combo - but but but -AND you are correct - the DNR CAN if they want too - say - all 3 lic are 'anterlerd' only or 'antlerless' only or any combo there of without the law being changed/addressed/amended in any way -

Do I read this correctly ?

ferg....

[Trophy Specialist]

Mike -
Read the law. The law says that the DNR has to offer a combo license valid during both archery and firearms seasons. It also gives the DNR the authority to designate what game (ie buck or doe) is legal under those licenses. I said that the DNR could eliminate stand alone buck licenses, and they can. So how is that not true? There is nothing in the law that specifies that the the type of firearm & archery licenses being offered have to be antlered licenses.

To say anything to the contrary is what is deceptive.
The DNR disagrees with your interpritation.

[Munsterlndr]

The DNR disagrees with your interpritation.

Was the person you spoke to speaking officially on behalf of the DNR? Do you want to give us a name by chance?

[Sib]

The DNR disagrees with your interpritation.

Perhaps, but you haven't supported your claim above that the information is false. Until Munsterlndr's comments are refuted with facts all you've done is share your opinion and your interpretation of the law. In a disagreement over something the person claiming a person provided false info has the onus to provide the correct info. Don't mean to sound like a nitpicker, but I do believe you have a responsibility to back up your claim.

All in all, I have to say 7 pages must be a record for this forum. Good job by all for stating their position and not getting personal! :coolgleam

[Munsterlndr]

I think the miss communication is - TS is saying they can NOTdo away with the licenses (as a licenses) and your saying they can do away with an 'antlered licenses' - the licenses itself would still exsist - just in an 'antlerless' form -

So TS is correct as I read the law there has to be 1)archery 1)gun 1)combo - but but but -AND you are correct - the DNR CAN if they want too - say - all 3 lic are 'anterlerd' only or 'antlerless' only or any combo there of without the law being changed/addressed/amended in any way -

Do I read this correctly ?

ferg....

Ferg,
I think you are correct. I stated in my previous post that the DNR could eliminate stand alone antlered licenses.

By the way, if you really read the statute, it only explicitlly refers to the combo license. It does not explicitlly say that the DNR has to offer single season licenses. It makes reference to single season licenses but does not mandate them like the combo license is mandated.

[Trophy Specialist]

I think the miss communication is - TS is saying they can NOTdo away with the licenses (as a licenses) and your saying they can do away with an 'antlered licenses' - the licenses itself would still exsist - just in an 'antlerless' form -

So TS is correct as I read the law there has to be 1)archery 1)gun 1)combo - but but but -AND you are correct - the DNR CAN if they want too - say - all 3 lic are 'anterlerd' only or 'antlerless' only or any combo there of without the law being changed/addressed/amended in any way -

Do I read this correctly ?

ferg....
Do you honestly believe that the DNR is going to decree that all firearm deer and archery deer hunting licenses are going to be good for antlerless deer only? That one is even sillier than Munsterlndr’s scheme for the combo license. It would make it impossible to manage the antlerless kill. Even if you made those tags usable only in areas that have antlerless permits available, what about in DMUs where there antlerless tags are oversubscribed and only available in a lottery? What about DMUs that are below goal and the number of antlerless tags should be allotted very conservatively? What about DMUs where antlerless tags are only available to private land owners? Because of those reasons it is never gong to happen and if you ask the DNR they will simply tell you that they must by law issue a firearm deer license good for a buck an archery deer licenses good for a buck. To believe anything else just demonstrates denial. Please call the decision makers in the Wildlife Division and see what they tell you. I did. For some reason people that back this notion are not willing to find out the facts through the DNR though. Instead, people like Munsterlndr ignor common sense in their attemp to push a notion that is so flawed and full of holes that it if it were a boat it would sink like a rock. Don't fall for his game.

[Sib]

Do you honestly believe that the DNR is going to decree that all firearm deer and archery deer hunting licenses are going to be good for antlerless deer only? That one is even sillier than Munsterlndr’s scheme for the combo license. It would make it impossible to manage the antlerless kill. Even if you made those tags usable only in areas that have antlerless permits available, what about in DMUs where there antlerless tags are oversubscribed and only available in a lottery? What about DMUs that are below goal and the number of antlerless tags should be allotted very conservatively? What about DMUs where antlerless tags are only available to private land owners? Because of those reasons it is never gong to happen and if you ask the DNR they will simply tell you that they must by law issue a firearm deer license good for a buck an archery deer licenses good for a buck. To believe anything else just demonstrates denial. Please call the decision makers in the Wildlife Division and see what they tell you. I did. For some reason people that back this notion are not willing to find out the facts through the DNR though. Instead, people like Munsterlndr ignor common sense in their attemp to push a notion that is so flawed and full of holes that it if it were a boat it would sink like a rock. Don't fall for his game.

Game, set and match Munsterlndr!

Edit, better include my rationale:

The claim of false wasn't properly supported and Trophy Specialist didn't or couldn't refute Munsterlndr post. Also notice the subtle criteria change from proving a legal point to the new criteria of 'common sense.'

Like I said, sorry to sound like a nitpicker, but with claims comes reponsibility and when making claims one needs to be able to back them up with facts.

[Munsterlndr]

The DNR told me that the number of hunters killing two bucks represents a statistically insignificant number of the total buck kill especially considering the high amount of recreation provided at a low cost to the resource. They also said that the antlerless harvest would drop if we limited hunters to one buck and they cited evidence from the muzzle loading deer season and the late antlerless seasons as evidence.


So 30,000+ bucks or around 13% of the total buck harvest is "biologically insignificant"?

Doe harvest will drop if we limit buck harvest? It would be interesting to know the logic that prompted this statement. Evidence from muzzleloading and late antlerless? What evidence?, enquiring minds want to know.

Somehow I don't think there was much biology involved in this response.

[Munsterlndr]

Instead, people like Munsterlndr ignor common sense in their attemp to push a notion that is so flawed and full of holes that it if it were a boat it would sink like a rock. Don't fall for his game.

Mike -
I don't have an agenda here. I am merely throwing out some ideas that might positively impact deer hunting in Michigan. I think a one buck license would be a good thing for the resource and is one of the possible choices that would have the least impact on the greatest number of hunters. All we are doing here is discussing possible solutions. It seems like a lot of people like the idea of a single buck license.

If you think there is a better idea out there by all means propose it. But it really kind of defeats the purpose of an internet forum to simply say people should not even discuss the pro's and con's of an idea because you happen to feel that the powers-that-be will not even consider it.

You seem to be very threatend by the idea of one buck license. So what is your agenda? Why are you so violently opposed to even considering it?

[Ferg]

Do you honestly believe that the DNR is going to decree that all firearm deer and archery deer hunting licenses are going to be good for antlerless deer only? That one is even sillier than Munsterlndr’s scheme for the combo license. It would make it impossible to manage the antlerless kill. Even if you made those tags usable only in areas that have antlerless permits available, what about in DMUs where there antlerless tags are oversubscribed and only available in a lottery? What about DMUs that are below goal and the number of antlerless tags should be allotted very conservatively? What about DMUs where antlerless tags are only available to private land owners? Because of those reasons it is never gong to happen and if you ask the DNR they will simply tell you that they must by law issue a firearm deer license good for a buck an archery deer licenses good for a buck. To believe anything else just demonstrates denial. Please call the decision makers in the Wildlife Division and see what they tell you. I did. For some reason people that back this notion are not willing to find out the facts through the DNR though. Instead, people like Munsterlndr ignor common sense in their attemp to push a notion that is so flawed and full of holes that it if it were a boat it would sink like a rock. Don't fall for his game.




Mike, with all due respect - There is no such law - issue tags? yes make them 'buck' tags NO. They can change them to any thing they want based on the needs of the heard.

this is not about 'common sense' - this discussion has become about what the DNR CAN and CAN NOT due with or without a chanage in the law -

NOT what is good management -

You stated that the DNR CAN NOT do away with an 'antlered' bow lic and/or an 'antlered' gun lic - the 'hang up' here is the 'do away with' part -

Law mandates that there must X types of tags 1 gun, 1 bow, and 1 combo - for the sake of this discussion -

The DNR/NRC CAN change, switch, determine what 'types' of animials can be taken with each/any/all of these tags to meet bio needs - without a law change.

Whither they 'should' or in what form/fashon is NOT in question -

Would you/Do you believe that to be true or not ????

ferg....

[Trophy Specialist]

So 30,000+ bucks or around 13% of the total buck harvest is "biologically insignificant"?

Doe harvest will drop if we limit buck harvest? It would be interesting to know the logic that prompted this statement. Evidence from muzzleloading and late antlerless? What evidence?, enquiring minds want to know.
The DNR told me that the buck harvest would shifted to other hunters and not reduced. That is what happened in Indiana. The buck kill actually went up after they went to a one-buck limit there.

The DNR reasons that there are more antlerless deer killed during the muzzle loading season (three times more) than during both the early and late antlerless seasons combined. They say that without the chance to kill a buck, fewer hunters will be afield hunting does.

[farmlegend]

The DNR told me that the buck harvest would shifted to other hunters and not reduced. That is what happened in Indiana. The buck kill actually went up after they went to a one-buck limit there.

Those wishing to learn more about the Indiana one-buck rule should refer to the below thread. Nice work, November Sunrise.

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

The one-buck rule has reduced the proportion of yearling bucks, as a percentage of the buck harvest, from 63.5% in 1999, to 50% in 2004. That's a 21% improvement.

Hoosier hunters that I know would be irate if they went back to two bucks.

[Trophy Specialist]

Mike, with all due respect - There is no such law - issue tags? yes make them 'buck' tags NO. They can change them to any thing they want based on the needs of the heard.

this is not about 'common sense' - this discussion has become about what the DNR CAN and CAN NOT due with or without a chanage in the law -

NOT what is good management -

You stated that the DNR CAN NOT do away with an 'antlered' bow lic and/or an 'antlered' gun lic - the 'hang up' here is the 'do away with' part -

Law mandates that there must X types of tags 1 gun, 1 bow, and 1 combo - for the sake of this discussion -

The DNR/NRC CAN change, switch, determine what 'types' of animials can be taken with each/any/all of these tags to meet bio needs - without a law change.

Whither they 'should' or in what form/fashon is NOT in question -

Would you/Do you believe that to be true or not ????

ferg....
I agree with the DNR that they are mandated to offer both a firearm deer and an archery deer license along with a combo license. There are separate statues for each of them. I would agree that they can stipulate sex and geographic areas under those tags and they have done that in the past.

[Ferg]

I agree with the DNR that they are mandated to offer both a firearm deer and an archery deer license along with a combo license. There are separate statues for each of them. I would agree that they can stipulate sex and geographic areas under those tags and they have done that in the past.


Outstanding - no that we have put that 'issue' to rest -

On with whither they SHOULD go to one buck tag - or not.

ferg....

[LUCE-YOOPER]

Outstanding - no that we have put that 'issue' to rest -

On with whither they SHOULD go to one buck tag - or not.

ferg....


sounds great.... so can the DNR legally drop the combo license and go to just a single buck tag?????:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm going home!

[Trophy Specialist]

The one-buck rule has reduced the proportion of yearling bucks, as a percentage of the buck harvest, from 63.5% in 1999, to 50% in 2004. That's a 21% improvement.
The one buck law was enacted in 2002, so why would you cite those numbers from three years either way. It’s wouldn’t be to confuse the issue would it?

If an objective persons looks at all the data they will conclude that the percentage of yearling bucks in the harvest started dropping before the one-buck limit came along and dropped at about the same rate afterwards. That indicates to me that another factor caused that drop, probably a growing acceptance of QDM principals.

In 1999 Indiana killed 46,371 antlered bucks. By 2004 that number has climbed to 54,768 an increase of over 15 percent. The buck kill certainly did not decrease from a one-buck limit. Incidentally, the difference in yearling bucks harvested from 2001 to 2002 is only 2.5 percent, hardly anything to get excited about especially considering the error rate on Indian’s data.

[Whit1]

sounds great.... so can the DNR legally drop the combo license and go to just a single buck tag?????:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm going home!

Bad Yooper!!!!! Go to your corner, sit down, and be quiet. Ferg is refereeing the ongoing bout and while he's doin' that I'm taking care of the sideshow!!!..................:lol:

[farmlegend]

In 1999 Indiana killed 46,371 antlered bucks. By 2004 that number has climbed to 54,768 an increase of over 15 percent. The buck kill certainly did not decrease from a one-buck limit.

Hey, it's a little disingenuous to simply state that the buck kill did not decrease. Though the absolute number of bucks killed increased, so did the total deer harvest, since Indiana's deer herd was growing substantially during the period covered in November Sunrise's analysis. My gosh, the harvest of adult does grew by over 31% from 2001 to 2004, while the antlered buck harvest grew by only 13.2%. Couple that with the higher proportion of 2.5 year old and older bucks in the 2004 harvest mix, and it's hard to argue with NS's conclusions.

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.

[Trophy Specialist]

Hey, it's a little disingenuous to simply state that the buck kill did not decrease. Though the absolute number of bucks killed increased, so did the total deer harvest, since Indiana's deer herd was growing substantially during the period covered in November Sunrise's analysis. My gosh, the harvest of adult does grew by over 31% from 2001 to 2004, while the antlered buck harvest grew by only 13.2%.
I can also retort that it is disingenuous to simply state that the doe harvest grew faster than the buck harvest without qualifying that with the fact that the regulations for taking antlerless deer were liberalized from 2001 to 2004. Hunters can now legally kill more does now than they could in 2001 and they did just that. On the other hand they can not legally kill more bucks now than they could in 2001, yet that portion of the harvest still went up. Even though the percentage of yearling bucks of the total buck harvest has been slowly dropping, the actual number of yearling bucks killed in 2004 is still higher than in 2001.