Pinefarm
02-03-2006, 12:47 PM
I think many of us are missing the big picture when we read that the "the entire NRC would vote for a one buck rule", as Bob Graner said, as long as they could find a way to make the budget work.
It isn't mainly bucks that they're thinking about, it's does. The population goals they have set for the state, and especially the SLP, will be unachievable unless they limit the amout of buck tags a hunter can buy. As long as a hunter has 2 buck tags in his pocket, he's much more unlikely to fill an antlerless tag, even if he has several antlerless tags.
Here's my analogy. Say you have 2 children side by side. You give one child a tray with 2 hotdogs and a bowl of broccoli. You give the other a tray with 1 hotdog and a bowl of broccoli. If you tell them they can eat until they're full, the child with 2 hotdogs will probably eat just the 2 hotdogs and not touch the broccoli. On the other hand, the child with only one hotdog is still going to eat his dog, but there's a very good chance that he'll still be hungry and eat some of his broccoli.
The problem with 2 buck tags isn't just the practice of shooting the first buck many see regardless of how small and only then becoming selective, the problem is also hunters letting countless antlerless deer walk by when they have an antlerless permit, but are holding out for a buck because they know they have 2 buck tags to burn for the year.
The social behavior of letting a big doe walk by when you have a perfectly good antlerless tag in your pocket has to be modified somewhat. The harvest order is currently backwards. Currently hunters pass does to wait for any buck. If I'm reading Lansing correctly, they now want hunters to possibly pass more bucks and wait for a doe to show up to fill the freezer. But even more so than under the current regs. I believe that's been the whole point of these population meetings.
I also have to say, if this is the case, MDNR is doing a very fine job of framing up the changes. And the changes make even more sense.
One buck tag isn't about bucks, it's about does.
One other point, the idea of making a 2nd, more expensive buck tag was thrown around. It does have merit, but again, we fall into that trap of hunters being able to get 2 buck tags and not killing the does MDNR wants killed. On top of it, we run across this problem. If a hunter has already filled his regular buck tag and he has an antlerless permit, how many guys do you think will just hunt with that antlerless tag and only go buy that $100 buck tag only AFTER that 2nd buck is on the ground? In the real world, I bet it's a bunch. So basically, you'd have guys buck hunting, but doing it on the cheap with their antlerless tag until they got antlers on the ground. Since 75% of our hunters hunt private land, this would become more common.
Nope, for MDNR to achieve their population goals, I don't know how they do it without going to one buck only. My .02
It isn't mainly bucks that they're thinking about, it's does. The population goals they have set for the state, and especially the SLP, will be unachievable unless they limit the amout of buck tags a hunter can buy. As long as a hunter has 2 buck tags in his pocket, he's much more unlikely to fill an antlerless tag, even if he has several antlerless tags.
Here's my analogy. Say you have 2 children side by side. You give one child a tray with 2 hotdogs and a bowl of broccoli. You give the other a tray with 1 hotdog and a bowl of broccoli. If you tell them they can eat until they're full, the child with 2 hotdogs will probably eat just the 2 hotdogs and not touch the broccoli. On the other hand, the child with only one hotdog is still going to eat his dog, but there's a very good chance that he'll still be hungry and eat some of his broccoli.
The problem with 2 buck tags isn't just the practice of shooting the first buck many see regardless of how small and only then becoming selective, the problem is also hunters letting countless antlerless deer walk by when they have an antlerless permit, but are holding out for a buck because they know they have 2 buck tags to burn for the year.
The social behavior of letting a big doe walk by when you have a perfectly good antlerless tag in your pocket has to be modified somewhat. The harvest order is currently backwards. Currently hunters pass does to wait for any buck. If I'm reading Lansing correctly, they now want hunters to possibly pass more bucks and wait for a doe to show up to fill the freezer. But even more so than under the current regs. I believe that's been the whole point of these population meetings.
I also have to say, if this is the case, MDNR is doing a very fine job of framing up the changes. And the changes make even more sense.
One buck tag isn't about bucks, it's about does.
One other point, the idea of making a 2nd, more expensive buck tag was thrown around. It does have merit, but again, we fall into that trap of hunters being able to get 2 buck tags and not killing the does MDNR wants killed. On top of it, we run across this problem. If a hunter has already filled his regular buck tag and he has an antlerless permit, how many guys do you think will just hunt with that antlerless tag and only go buy that $100 buck tag only AFTER that 2nd buck is on the ground? In the real world, I bet it's a bunch. So basically, you'd have guys buck hunting, but doing it on the cheap with their antlerless tag until they got antlers on the ground. Since 75% of our hunters hunt private land, this would become more common.
Nope, for MDNR to achieve their population goals, I don't know how they do it without going to one buck only. My .02