Better idea!

[NorthJeff]

Scrap my original, more complex thought.

Flinch thought of a good one that is a twist on an older thought.

Keep everything the way it is with deer tags. The only differance, if you shoot a young buck...a buck less than 4pts on a side, you have to tag it with both combo tags. On the otherhand, if you want to take 2 bucks...they both have to 4pts on a side or more, and you can use 1 tag on each buck.

If you thought you might shoot a young buck during rifle, this might force you to buy the combo tag, but it would make you think of your decision more. If you want to shoot 2 bucks, you can, but both have to have at least 4pts on a side. If you shoot a buck with 4pts on a side, you now can not shoot a buck with less than 4pts on a side.

In this way the combo tag can be still be used, shoot, it might even create an increase in combo tags sold, over buying just 1 tag for rifle season, or bow.

What do you guys think....can this be the "great comprimise" between QDM, MARs, VARS, 2 buck tags, or 1 buck tag? You could even make it so that the 2nd tag has to have 5pts on one side in the southern lower...just an added thought.

[Munsterlndr]

Before you start doing back flips over this idea, that type of change would require legislative approval. Here is a quote from the governing statute:

"A combination deer license shall authorize the holder to take 2 deer in compliance with orders issued under part 401. "

Your option would only allow taking one deer with the combo license. this would require a change in the law. 2 deer, hence the word combo.

[NorthJeff]

You can still take 2 deer....that's just your choice not too.;)

Kind of like you can take 2 deer right now...but not 2 does, and you can take bucks, but only if one has 4pts or more. The combo tag is still offered, you decide if you want to try for 2 deer, or one.

Boy, you are hard to please!..from someone that appears to fully support going to a 1 buck license, I'm surprised you are attempting to point out technicalities.

[Munsterlndr]

I'm open to considering any options that don't require legislative approval.

I personally think the one buck limit with a combo license good for one buck and one doe is the best way to go but I'll certainly consider other options.

Awhile back we talked about the combo license being good for two restricted bucks, 4 point or better, and the single license being good for one unrestricted buck. I would not have a major problem with that option, as it might protect a few more yearlings while still allowing the hard core hunters to try and take two restricted bucks. The major problem with it would be from a revenue standpoint. I would be afraid that combo license sales would drop substantially and that is not something that the NRC would consider.

By the way, what did you mean when you said above you can take two deer now but not two does? You can currently use both the restricted and unrestricted portion of the combo to harvest two does with a bow.

[NorthJeff]

There are a lot of people that only buy the single license, and many may want to shoot a young buck. For that privelage they would have to buy the combo license, or buy the 1 tag, but have it restricted to a buck of 4pts on a side or better.

With the idea of 1 buck, 1 doe, you couldn't use that combo tag in most of the U.P., and many portions of northern Lower MI...so why by a combo tag at that point? Even DMU's that have doe tags up here often have very few, so to add the extra amount of potential doe harvest tags by including the license within the combo would keep a large portion of hunters from buying the combo tag because it would not be appropriate, or even allowed, to use in their areas.

This idea of using the 2tags for one young buck may even increase combo license sales, might break even, but with the 1 buck, 1 doe tag you automatically limit the potential buyers of the combo tag, because doe harvest most likely would not be allowed in their areas without the use of an antlerless tag.

[Munsterlndr]

I've said this before, if it was up to me, go to a combo tag good for one buck and one doe good anywhere in the state, with some DMU's restricted for antlerless during rifle season. You could still use the antlerless portion in closed DMU's during bow season, as you can now. Eliminate single rifle & archery antlered tags. Very few people buy them now anyway and this would force them to buy a combo tag, insuring there would be no loss of revenue to the State. You want to shoot a buck, buy a combo tag which is good for one buck and you get a doe as a bonus. Other states do this and it sems to work for them. If you just want to shoot a doe buy a stand alone doe tag that is DMU specific.

You could use the antlerless portion of a combo during bow season throughout the UP and during rifle season in those areas deemed allowable for management purposes. Or you could use it in other areas of the state. In the past a lot of guys travelled to the UP to hunt, so the idea that you are only going to hunt where you live does not hold water.

This plan would make sense for almost everybody.

It would decrease the number of smaller bucks that are killed.
It would increase the numbers of doe harvested, in areas that need it for management purposes.
It would not decrease revenue.
It could be enacted without legislative approval.

The only segment of the hunting population that would be making a sacrifice is the hard core hunter who is insistent on pursuing two mature bucks every year. I realize you and TS fit that description and that is why you are so adament about going with any alternative that allows two bucks to be taken.

But if any change is going to occur something has got to give and IMO this impacts the fewest numbers of hunters in the most minor way. Otherwise let's just leave things the way they are and forget any change. But then let's quit complaining about the lack of mature deer and the rotten hunting in Michigan.

[buckslayerII]

NJ - based on your previously stated belief (and I agree with it - correct me if I've read your "message" wrong) that most young bucks are probably shot during the first and second days of rifle season, this might not help at all to save them. However, it will add more revenue from license sales that hopefully will get used well. I'm with you in that I like to hunt, I rarely hunt the same place more than two times out and I travel to many areas of the NL and UP. This proposal still allows me to do that if I happen to take a nice buck early in the season.

[Trophy Specialist]

I've said this before, if it was up to me, go to a combo tag good for one buck and one doe good anywhere in the state, with some DMU's restricted for antlerless during rifle season.
In so doing, in DMUs with no antlerless tags available, that would result in the tags only being valid for one deer for gun hunters, thus requiring legislative approval. It would also affect gun hunters in DMUs where antlerless tags are oversubscribed or only available on private lands. Besides, going with your idea would also require a huge increase in license fees, which also would need to be approved by the legislature and would be a tough sell.

On the other hand, Jeff’s scenario (or who ever originally thought of it) would not require legislative approval because hunters would have the opportunity to shoot two deer in all DMUs. Now I will disagree with Jeff on whether his scenario would increase sales of Combo Licenses. I would predict that Combo license sales would drop as more hunters would opt for single bow or gun licenses. That could be offset though with a slight price increase for all or some deer license, which the DNR is likely to go forward with anyway and as long as it’s not to severe, then it will likely pass. Another option to preserve or increase DNR deer hunter license revenue under Jeff’s Scenario would be to do away with single bow or gun licenses and just have the Combo License available good for either one unrestricted buck or two restricted bucks as the same price. The main drawback to that would be a big cost increase for hunters that buy the single bow or gun licenses. Also, another drawback would be that BOB@BBT would have to explain the thing to a bunch of dimwits year after year when selling licenses (I know that’s the main reason you are so behind a simple one buck license:lol: ).

Now for the bad news; even if the vast majority of hunters support such a change (or a one-buck limit), in my opinion the DNR is not likely to back it because it would result in fewer deer being killed and it resembles QDM as much as MARs do. They will likely require any adoption of such a measure to follow the DNR’s QDM procedures. I am behind it 100% statewide, but it would probably have probably be limited to being tested in one or two DMUs, which I would also be in favor of.

[Munsterlndr]

In so doing, in DMUs with no antlerless tags available, that would result in the tags only being valid for one deer for gun hunters, thus requiring legislative approval. It would also affect gun hunters in DMUs where antlerless tags are oversubscribed or only available on private lands. Besides, going with your idea would also require a huge increase in license fees, which also would need to be approved by the legislature and would be a tough sell.


Horsefeathers! Nowhere on the combo tag does it say that you are gauranteed to hunt in every DMU in the State. The DNR can close certain areas for management purposes any time they want without having legislative approval. They can put any kind of restrictions they want on specific DMU's. The tags under my scenario would still be good for two deer and thus would be a combo tag. You could harvest two deer with a bow, like you can currently with a combo tag. If you want to take a doe with a rifle in a DMU closed to antlereless during rifle season then you will have to hunt in another DMU that is open to antlerless. Just like right now, I can't shoot a spike in the DMU I own property in with my combo but I can step over the county line and harvest one.

As far as an increase in license fee's; I don't see how it would require an increase at all, especially if you did away with individual antlered licenses and mandated that everyone buy a combo. This should provide about a 20% increase in combo sales which would add significantly to the revenue stream without having to increase the cost of the license, thus avoiding all of the complaining about fee increases. Since you would not be increasing fee's there would be no legislative approval required.

[Trophy Specialist]

Horsefeathers! Nowhere on the combo tag does it say that you are gauranteed to hunt in every DMU in the State. The DNR can close certain areas for management purposes any time they want without having legislative approval. They can put any kind of restrictions they want on specific DMU's.
Wrong again. I totally disagree and so does the DNR. The DNR is required to offer two deer tags under the Combo License. They can only designate the kind of deer that may be taken and the geographic area in which any license is issued under the Combo License when advisable in managing deer. The DNR is required by law to manage deer based on sound science. The DNR has gone on record saying that a one-buck limit would have no significant positive effect on deer management in Michigan, which is one reason they are against it. Face the facts; the one-buck limit is not going to happen, so you're much better off putting your time and effort into something that will actually have a significant improvement to deer management in Michigan.

In case you're interested, here's the entire law pertaining to the Combo License.

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

(2) The fee for a resident combination deer license is the total of the resident firearm deer license fee plus the resident bow and arrow deer license fee. The fee for a nonresident combination deer license is the total of the nonresident firearm deer license fee plus the nonresident bow and arrow deer license fee. The fee for a combination deer license for a resident or nonresident who is 12 years of age through 16 years of age shall be discounted 50% from the cost of the resident combination deer license.

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

(4) The department may issue kill tags with or as part of each combination deer license. Each kill tag shall bear the license number. A kill tag may also include space for other pertinent information required by the department. A kill tag, if issued, is part of the license and shall not be used more than 1 time.

(5) The combination deer license shall count as 2 licenses for the purposes of license fees under section 43536a, discounting under subsection 43521(c), and transmittal, deposit, and use of fees under sections 43554 and 43555.

(6) A senior citizen may obtain a senior combination deer license. The fee for a senior combination deer license shall be discounted at the same rate as provided in section 43535.

(7) A combination deer license issued to a person less than 14 years of age is valid only for taking deer with a bow and arrow, until the person is 14 years of age or older.

(8) Notwithstanding any other provision of this part, except for replacing lost or destroyed licenses, a person shall not apply for, obtain, or purchase any combination of firearm deer licenses, bow and arrow deer licenses, and combination deer licenses that would authorize the taking of more than 2 deer.

[Munsterlndr]

And how is what you quoted me saying wrong? There is nothing in the law that you posted that would prevent the DNR from from enacting what I suggested. Everything I suggested is totally consistent with the current statute.

Mike, I know that you don't want to go to a single license but suggesting that all of the supporters of the single buck license should just face the facts and give it up without providing some hard facts other than your opinion that the DNR won't go for it is a pretty weak arguement.

[Trophy Specialist]

Mike, I know that you don't want to go to a single license but suggesting that all of the supporters of the single buck license should just face the facts and give it up without providing some hard facts other than your opinion that the DNR won't go for it is a pretty weak arguement.
If you’d have actually read or understood what I posted you would clearly see the facts. Please feel free to contact the DNR to verify what I have stated, but I doubt that you’ll do that because you know that I’m right.

People like you Munsterlndr make me extremely frustrated. After a couple years of not shooting a buck, the blame gets focused on everybody and everything except where it really belongs: on yourself. You blame other hunters for shooting “your” bucks before you get a chance and seem to be willing to stop at nothing to try to impede others from enjoying deer hunting by pitting one hunter against another. Even though the majority of hunters and land owners in your DMU elected to try MARs you bash them and the law at every opportunity without even considering the ramifications. When your ideas are shot down by reason, logic and legalities you simply stick with the same old tired arguments of denial. You seem to be a fairly intelligent (although stubborn) person, so why don’t you put that brain power to work and either come up with (or support) something that will have a significant improvement to deer management in Michigan that is also feasible. I know I’m probably wasting my time with this post, but I had to try.

[Munsterlndr]

Mike -
Sorry if you are frustrated by people that voice any opinion that differs from yours. But last time I looked nobody had appointed you the deer policy czar for Michigan and everybody is entitled to their opinion.

Please show where I have ever decried anybody shooting "my bucks". If you read any of my past postings it will become clear that I could care less about shooting a buck. I am first and foremost a meat hunter and always will be. I actually prefer taking a doe to a buck. When I post about the effects of MAR's I am not complaining about not seeing mature bucks. Again, I could care less. I am simply relating my experience with MAR's. The last time I harvested a buck was in 1999. It was a 1.5 year old 6 point. I shot it because a) it was legal. B) I like venison C) I could not get a doe permit that year. It is my choice and I make no apologies for making that decision.

You say I am trying to impede other hunters enjoyment. Nothing could be farther than the truth. The primary reason that I am a proponent of a single buck rule is that I think it a much better alternative to MAR's. I don't like MAR's, I've been very open about that. I have hunted under them for three years so I think I'm entitled to an opinion about them. When I joined this forum all of the talk was about pushing MAR's down everybodies throats under the guise of QDM. This turned me off to QDM and I was very opposed to the concept of QDM. I saw it as just a rationilzation for trophy hunters to limit what other hunters could do.

After doing a lot of reading on the topic of QDM I came to the conclusion that it had a lot of valuable ideas in it and that the concept was worth embracing. I also came to the conclusion that some individuals, who held themselves out to be major supporters of QDM, were instead using QDM as a means to an end, that end being MAR's. I think that this bastardization of the QDM message has hurt the QDM movement and turned individuals such as myself off to the concept. I've been pretty vocal about the fact that I think VAR's are a much better way to go than MAR's. When I saw growing support for VAR's over MAR's among QDMA members it was enough to convince me to join the organization. If QDMA came out with formal policy endorsing MAR's I would be gone in less than a minute.

The tide seems to have turned in the QDM movement and more people are embracing VAR's as a better way to go. Just like more hunters are starting to think that the idea of a one buck limit is a better way to go than MAR's. I realize that some hard core MAR's advocates are threatened by this sea change of opinion.

As far as who is in denial over hunter opinion and how many hunters prefer MAR's, I'll leave that up to others to draw their own conclusions. As I previously posted, 9 of the 15 MAR's initiatives were not enacted because they failed to achieve the required amount of support. Half of the people polled in these surveys were landowners, who as far as I'm concerned should have no special say in establishing deer management policy, since many may not even hunt. It will be interesting to see whether any new test DMU's are enacted during the coming years. I would not hold my breath.

The whole point of these forums is to exchage ideas. You seem to get frustrated if anyone posts an idea contrary to what you feel is the right way to go. Maybe you need to take a step back, take a deep breath and realize that this is just an internet forum and it really does not amount to a hill of beans, in the greater scheme of things, what we say on here.

[Whit1]

Take this to PMs please.