Explain This

[NorthJeff]

Straight from the PA Game Commision.....

"Based on Game Commision deer research, a good percentage of the antlered bucks in the state's deer population are 2.5 years of age or older by fall. Prior to antler restrictions about 80 percent of all antlered bucks were harvested at 1.5 years of age."

80 PERCENT!! By some accounts that is actually HIGHER than MI's current yearling buck harvest. "Big deal", you say?!? Well, keep in mind that PA only has 1 (one), yes ONE, buck tag for all seasons combined. PA has as high, or higher yearling buck harvest than MI does, with two buck tags.

We have compared MI to a lot of other states with substantially less hunters, substantially better habitat overall, and to states with substantially less public land than MI. PA is about as close as it gets to MI in terms of hunter numbers, hunter tradition, public land low density deer population to the north, high density ag land and private land to the center and south. PA is one of the best comparisons to MI, and even with no 2nd buck tag, they STILL harvested just as many yearling bucks as MI. When hunter numbers are high, and deer numbers are low, yearling bucks are sitting ducks. Add in MI bait...and yearling bucks do not stand a chance, especially on public land, 2nd buck tag, or not.

If you guys think eliminating the 2nd tag will do anything, you are fooling yourself and I don't think you have to look any further than PA for the proof. From personal experience I see the guys in PA putting more emphasis on "getting their buck". "Did you get your buck yet", is a common phrase to be heard. Hunting hours are less, and more importance seems to be placed on immediate results during less hunting time afield in an overall effort to "get your buck", during the first few days of rifle season. Remember we aren't managing for guys like me on this site, who will hunt for 3-4 months no matter if I have to move, hunt out of state, or be creative...I will hunt for that period of time, and very little will get in my way including job or financial constraints...I'll be in the woods. No, instead we are managing for the average guy that spends a few days in the woods to shoot a buck, and no 2nd tag or not, when you have a high number of hunters, especially on public land, the result is dead yearling bucks.

Don't let this stuff be a distraction to you. Wolves, the DNR, and now the magical "1-buck" license are all distractions to the real problems of loss of winter habitat, poor age structure, winter mortality, and the extreme willingness and tradition of shooting any buck that walks by with the huge hunter numbers in the state of MI.

Eliminating the 2nd tag will accomplish nothing other than placing a premium of shooting any buck that walks by within a decline in hunter hours spent in the field, and the resulting loss in economic revenue that is hunter based. Regardless of your opinion, look at the facts, and results of PA to help you see a better perspective of this issue. And before you refer to me as selfish, and someone that just wants to "pad my deer harvest numbers", keep in mind I have harvested 2 bucks only twice in 19 years, and at least 3 years I harvested no buck at all, for an average of less than 1 buck, per year, even though I've always purchased additional tags. That extra tag, however has given me most of the time more than twice as much time in the woods, twice as much experience, and twice as much money spent on hunting related products and expenses.

The numbers just do not add up to justify eliminating the 2nd tag, whether it be for overall deer numbers, yearling buck mortality, or $$$$'s spent on hunting. The more time we waste on this issue, the more time we ignore the real problems facing the management of our state's deer herd.

Please think about it. Let's work on real solutions, to real problems.

[Joe Archer]

Talk about hitting the nail on the head! I have also only taken two bucks in three of the 25 years that I have been hunting! In these 25 years I have taken a total of about 15 bucks. I take pride in the decisions I have made, and ALWAYS kill only what I feel best benefits the herd I am hunting.
The current 2-tag system allows me the freedom of harvesting a young buck (in place of a doe) when numbers are down and the ability to lengthen my season hunting for a mature buck.
Well said NorthJeff!
<----<<<

[FREEPOP]

Jeff, please understand I'm not flaming or trying to start a verbal disagreement or anything. I believe that I've read many times when people negatively comment on our herd here in Michigan, you are one of the first to point to Pennsylvania as a place that has their stuff together with herd management....etc., etc.

Is this now untrue?

[Munsterlndr]

Straight from the PA Game Commision.....

"Based on Game Commision deer research, a good percentage of the antlered bucks in the state's deer population are 2.5 years of age or older by fall. Prior to antler restrictions about 80 percent of all antlered bucks were harvested at 1.5 years of age."


This is such an amibigous statement that it really does not mean much. Please define a "good percentage". Prior to MAR's it indicates that 20% of the buck population was 2.5+ year olds, so if that increased to 30% is that a "good percentage"? Without having that figure defined it's hard to make any sort of judgement about the effectiveness of MAR's.

Also, if the perception of what has happend to deer hunting that is evidenced by a lot of people that have hunted there in the last few years is true, then I don't think that we want to be emulating PA's herd management techniques.

[Swamper]

I think we all can see the tide is moving beyond just ONLY growing older bucks, ie bigger antlers. We are working towards more bucks = better balanced herd. NJ - You said it yourself - 4.3% of the bucks are taken each year with the 2nd license.

The rest will follow. The groundswell of support as evidenced on this site beyond focusing on antler size is tremendous and spreading.

Let's get er done!

Swamper

[Munsterlndr]

For those of you who are interested in MAR's primarily for the increased potential of harvesting older, larger deer, I though you might find the rest of the Paragraph that Jeff quoted from the PGC interesting.

Straight from the PA Game Commision.....

"Based on Game Commision deer research, a good percentage of the antlered bucks in the state's deer population are 2.5 years of age or older by fall. Prior to antler restrictions about 80 percent of all antlered bucks were harvested at 1.5 years of age."

" But that information shouldn't be interpreted to mean all hunters will see bigger bucks, or that big bucks can be found everywhere. In addition, hunters must recognize older bucks often aren't as predictable or tolerant of disturbances as younger bucks. They are normally very cautious, and flighty. And when disturbed, they sometimes limit their movements to after dark. It usually takes a great deal of effort to harvest one. "

There you have it,... Straight from the PA Game Commission. :)

[GVDocHoliday]

" But that information shouldn't be interpreted to mean all hunters will see bigger bucks, or that big bucks can be found everywhere. In addition, hunters must recognize older bucks often aren't as predictable or tolerant of disturbances as younger bucks. They are normally very cautious, and flighty. And when disturbed, they sometimes limit their movements to after dark. It usually takes a great deal of effort to harvest one. "

There you have it,... Straight from the PA Game Commission. :)

Yeah...but it means they're still there...and just because you're not seeing them means you need to work a little harder to obtain a good shot at one.

Jeff, please understand I'm not flaming or trying to start a verbal disagreement or anything. I believe that I've read many times when people negatively comment on our herd here in Michigan, you are one of the first to point to Pennsylvania as a place that has their stuff together with herd management....etc., etc.

Is this now untrue?

No...what Jeff is getting at is the number of people who seem to feel that Michigans so called "problems" are a reflection of the fact that we get two antlered licenses. Penn and MI have nearly the same yearling harvest while Penn only offers one license for all seasons. The point he's making is that eliminating the second buck tag will not reduce yearling harvests.

[NorthJeff]

Again, here is the point that I have stated many times, on numerous threads..and it's nice to see GVDoc sees it too, and even Joe Archer. The point is that with only the 1 buck tag, PA shot just as many yearling bucks as a percentage of the harvest, which shows that the hunters were not willing to wait for a larger one, resulting in less bucks killed, or an improved buck age structure. Eliminating the 2nd tag in MI would accomplish nothing...and that is supported by results from similar states.

It also talks about further in that report that now only 50% of of the harvest is made up of yearling bucks which is an incredible figure meaning that 50% are 2.5 years of age or older. But that is only further proof of the effectiveness of the AR...the POINT of this thread is that with only 1 buck tag, they still had the same harvest results as MI with 2 tags...EXPLAIN that.

[Joe Archer]

...the POINT of this thread is that with only 1 buck tag, they still had the same harvest results as MI with 2 tags...EXPLAIN that.
I would venture a guess that the hunters were predominantly meat hunters who believed that the doe population needed to recover. They opted to take any legal buck before they would put any more stress on the female population. Add to that the fact that very few of us seem to take two bucks with any degree of regularity and it all adds up nicely. <----<<<

[Munsterlndr]

Jeff -

You are drawing a conclusion which may or may not have anything to do with the fact that PA and MI had a similiar percentage of yearling harvest.

Do you really think that you can draw any valid conclusions about the potential effectiveness of Michigan going to a one buck license based on the fact that PA had a similar harvest rate? There could be many, many other factors involved. There are lots of states that have a one buck limit and have a much lower yearling harvest rate than MI, but that in and of itself does not mean that simply going to a one buck license will cause the harvest rate in MI to mirror those other states.

If a second buck license has no impact on the harvest rate, you would think that PA would change to a second buck license, especially since they are pushing for massive herd reduction and every extra buck taken would help in this endeavor. They also have had falling license revenue for several years so you would think they would jump at any chance to increase revenue. Yet I have not read of any effort in PA to offer a second Buck license.

If you want to show an example of the impact of a second buck license, show us a state that used to have one buck license and then went to two. If there was no resulting increase in the yearling harvest rate then this might indicate that a second license has a negligable impact.

The fact remains that a lot of people feel that Michigan has an unacceptably high percentage of yearling buck harvest and also think that it might be worth changing the current system to decrease that number. Many other States offer a single buck license so understandibly going to a single license is one of the options that is going to be discussed.

Here are the harvest percentages from some other states. Some of these States have single licenses, some have MAR's, some have shotgun only, some have shorter seasons. All have a lower yearling harvest rate than Michigan.

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/photopost/data/520/SEdeer.jpg

[beer and nuts]

Yes, can someone explain what "good portion" means when it comes from the PA Commission??

If you believe the MI DNR numbers that 4.3% of hunters take a second buck every year and we eliminate that and top that with a certain percentage of hunters who actually will be more patient in waiting for that one buck(one buck tag) and pass on a smaller buck-say "a good portion" percentage, we would actually be saving a "good portion" of bucks by going to a one buck tag here in MI.!!!!

I think a "good portion" of hunters believe that!!!

The data I still have a hard time believing is 80% of the bucks harvested are 1.5 year old deer here in MI. I see more 2.5 year old deer shot than 1.5 year olds at least in my small circle.

[Swamper]

"...what Jeff is getting at is the number of people who seem to feel that Michigans so called "problems" are a reflection of the fact that we get two antlered licenses."

I have not read anyone who said 2 buck permits are the source of all our ills. What has been stated very factually is that reducing to one can only help. 4.3% of the bucks are taken with the 2nd permit (NJ quote); 4.3% compounded annually, plus the number fewer shot due to hunters waiting for a larger buck - those are real numbers that make an impact.

I understand the resistance to eliminating the 2nd licenses. I was there as well until I better understood the need that we all have to sacrifice to make a difference. I cannot tell others to change their ways and preserve mine without change.

Swamper

[beer and nuts]

That map is interesting. Ill, IN and OH avg about 52% of buck kills as yearling and OH has a 65% yearling kill!!!! I just find it very hard to believe MI hunters are that much different than all of those states, I would bet we might be closer to the OH 65% than the 80% some on here use-thats my opinion and really what I see especially in the last couple years.

[Ferg]

Tennessee has hunting starting on Sept 24 and runs, in some form or another until Jan 15th -

Max 2 antlered deer/all seasons/max one per day - 3/doe/day in my WMA, by permit -


MAR = 3" on all bucks - tagged as bucks and on antlered only hunts -

However what I can offer from a TN point is that VARS is HUGE here - and the percent of 2.5 yo antlered deer has been on the rise for over 15 years (even before dumping the 9 buck tags per hunter) - people here 'just do it' when it comes to passing on 1.5 yo animals -

And there is NO talk of trophy hunting - everyone here knows TN is not going to be a trophy state - (there isn't the soil for it) - but - TN is swiftly becoming a great place to shoot a mature buck - in fact 3.5 + are takin with some regularity -

ferg....

(just for the sake of discussion - I think it was back in 1990 the buck limit in Tennessee was 9 bucks/season per person. we are currently at 2. 80% of buck harvest was 1.5 - now it's right around 50% - from the 2004 figures. 2005 figures are in - but haven't been reduced to %'s from harvest just the raw data is avail.

[farmlegend]

You said it yourself - 4.3% of the bucks are taken each year with the 2nd license.

I believe it is 4.3% of hunters that harvest two bucks, and not

that 4.3% of the bucks harvested are taken by hunters killing their second buck.

In other words, if 700,000 hunters buy deer licenses, 4.3% (about 30,000 hunters) take a second buck.

[GRUNDY]

Very interesting, makes me think twice about a one buck rule. Come to think of it I only know one person who ever killed two bucks in one year. It was 2 spikes even!

I doubt there is anything that will fix our percieved problem, baring about 500,000 deer hunters throwing in the towel. We get too much pressure period. Deer are smart and go nocturnal or find places they do not get disturbed at the first sign of pressure.

Brian

[mecosta]

Does anyone else ask other hunters when they talk to them what they think about these two options? I try to ask every single hunter that I run into what they think of MARS and what they think about going to a single buck tag. The results of doing this are pretty interesting.

I would say that by far the majority of hunters that I ask that are more of the die-hard type like myself and most others on here would without question prefer the MARS. This would obviously protect more young bucks which is what most hunters that have hunted for a significant amount of time and shot there share of young bucks ect. seem to gravitate towards. One thing to add however to this is most would also like to see some kind of "free pass", for lack of a better term, to kids. Many are worried about kids loosing interest ect. if they are not shooting any bucks. I was entrenched in this camp for the past several years.

People that are more of the weekend warrior type seem to be in the other camp. They would prefer a single buck tag without hesitation. The common thing that I hear is they never see any bucks that would qualify ect ect ect. We have all heard all of the reasons. (I am by no means saying they are good reasons!!)

I always follow up this question by asking if they had one buck tag would they put it on the first small buck they saw and be done hunting bucks for the season. I have had exactly 1 say that he would do that! All of the others (i have probably asked 20 maybe 25 total) have said that they would without question hesitate before pulling the trigger/release. Now I am not dumb enough to think that at least a couple of these people would not let their emotions get the best of them and let it fly at the first buck they saw. But if half did what they said, it would have an impact and I think it would be a fairly big one. If some of these people only hold off for the first couple of days it would have a big impact as it is generally quite a bit harder to get one later in the rifle season. Even my friends(who I am not including in the 25 hunters asked) who are all for the most part serious hunters who spend a lot of time hunting take advantage of the two tags. I would say that half do not shoot anything that is 1.5 not matter what and often times go a season empty handed. The other half shoot "a buck" and then hunt for a nice one after that. I think I could say with confidence that 100% would not shoot small bucks at all, ever, if we only had one tag. That is why I would favor this option.

It is not the answer. I think that it would be a step in the right direction toward educating hunters and changing people from the "I have to get my buck" attitude which I do not think is always good for the either the hunter or the herd.

It sounds to me like there are other issues that need to be addressed first that are not really being talked about much. The main one being habitat in the UP.

[2Lunger]

I have been hearing a lot about this one buck tag option. People are making claims that it would cause "Avg. Joe" hunter to be more selective on what he/she shoots. I agree that more people will think a little harder about shooting the first yearling buck that comes out, but some will pull the trigger whether there are two tags or one. Some who pass up a 1.5 yr old buck at the beginning of the season will probably end up taking that same deer if they didn't see anything bigger and the 1.5 yr old buck is a regular customer. Most of the 1.5 yr olds that I see while hunting will visit me on a regular basis. Personally I like the AR's because whether that hunter saw anything during season or not, he can't shoot that 1.5 yr old because it is against the law. Just my 2 cents.

[farmlegend]

I would say that by far the majority of hunters that I ask that are more of the die-hard type like myself and most others on here would without question prefer the MARS.

We obviously hang out in different cocktail lounges, as my experience is quite the opposite. In fact, several of my contemporaries are serious and selective deer hunters who can go for years without taking any bucks at all.

[mecosta]

Farmlegend-

What I meant was that most of them abide by a standard that having MARS would not effect the way they hunt much at all. I am that way personally. If we had MARS I would shoot no more or less bucks than I do now. But that is my personal preference to pass not mandatory. Even though I choose to hunt that way does not mean that I am in favor of MARS.

You are right. Even though many die hard type may practice some type of QDM, they might not neccesarily favor MARS. Many do, but many do not also. I think the word mandatory turns people off. I had one guy say that his dad pays the taxes, owns the property ect. and he feels like his dad should be able to shoot a spike if he wants to. This was a guy that absolutely would not shoot a small buck period. That type of thought seems to be very common.

[Tom Morang]

Farm,

I believe that the surveys (take a good hard look) say that 4.3% of those who shot 1 buck, shot 2. That would be significantly less than the number you have posted and the majority of those second bucks (according to DNR stats) are killed in the SLP.

I don't think for a minute that by eliminating the second buck tag that it would stop all those who are in the woods for the gun opener for the first 3 days of gun season from killing the first buck they see. That's the group that kills the most bucks now and they will keep on doing that no matter what kind of a box you try to put them into. We have way more deer hunters than almost any other state and the gun season falls smack in the middle of the rut.

[ENCORE]

I believe it is 4.3% of hunters that harvest two bucks, and not

that 4.3% of the bucks harvested are taken by hunters killing their second buck.

In other words, if 700,000 hunters buy deer licenses, 4.3% (about 30,000 hunters) take a second buck.
farmlegend,
I believe that you're very close on this. I have one question though. If there are 700,000 hunters who by deer licenses, did all of them by a second buck tag? If only 1/2 of the hunters who purchased deer licenses bought the 2nd buck tag, the number of 2nd bucks killed would be much lower, around 15,000. Are the figures for how many 2nd licenses and/or combo licenses purchased available?

[ENCORE]

Farm,

I believe that the surveys (take a good hard look) say that 4.3% of those who shot 1 buck, shot 2. That would be significantly less than the number you have posted and the majority of those second bucks (according to DNR stats) are killed in the SLP.

I don't think for a minute that by eliminating the second buck tag that it would stop all those who are in the woods for the gun opener for the first 3 days of gun season from killing the first buck they see. That's the group that kills the most bucks now and they will keep on doing that no matter what kind of a box you try to put them into. We have way more deer hunters than almost any other state and the gun season falls smack in the middle of the rut.
I started reading from the beginning of this and asked one question, but I think that you put the 4.3% issue right on target Tom.

[Munsterlndr]

I have seen this 4.3% figure thrown about in these forums in many different combinations but I have not seen an official source for it. I did find this from a Nov. 2005 interview with Rod Clute;

" Mr. Clute says their hunters take about 70% of the buck herd every year. You can buy two buck tags in Michigan and 5% of their hunters do take a second buck."

If Mr. Clute was quoted accurately it would support Farmlegends interpretation of the 4.3% figure being of the gross number of hunters, not the successful hunters.

Another queston for Tom Morang, you state that firearms hunters are the ones most likely to shoot the first buck they see and by implication that bow hunters are more likely to be selective and not shoot the first buck they see. Do you have any data to back up this idea? I have not seen any DNR publications that break out the yearling buck harvest between firearms and archery hunters.

[glen sible]

Many of the posts on this thread have emphatically stated that eliminating the 2nd buck tag would not produce the results (more bucks) that the proponents of the change anticipate and even go to other state kill data to support their opinion.

My question: Is there any reason, other than self serving greed, to continue having the 2nd buck tag available?

Isn't one of the more easily explained deer management philosophies that of improving the buck/doe ratio? Wouldn't any bucks that survived the current hunting season(regardless of the actual number) help with that b/d ratio concept?

I've read many rather shallow reasons to keep the 2nd buck tag but none that explained any possible problems related to elimination of same.

thanks for reading and carry on
glen

[Munsterlndr]

Glen -

From a biological standpoint there is no reason to keep a second tag. The idea that eliminating a second buck tag will not cause some bucks to survive another year is just silly.

I am clearly a supporter of going to a single buck tag and my motivation has to do with the biologic impact that advancing the buck age structure will have on herd dynamics.

Having said that there is one argument that I consider legitimate and not self serving for preserving the second buck tag. That reason is revenue. As cynical as it may be, revenue is a huge issue for the DNR right now and that will continue into the future. So in my mind any move to a single buck tag has to be revenue neutral. I think there are number of ways this can be accomplished, by including an antlerless portion in the combo tag, increasing license fee's across the board, creating special tags for special seasons, (maybe a seperate tag for archery, firearms, muzzleloader & crossbow but you still can only take one buck) or a combination of all of these and other ideas.

While deer management is supposed to be based on scientific principle, unfortunatly revenue has to play a role in any decision.

[Swamper]

Let's try this....

Assume we have a 640 acre chunk of land containing 30 bucks and hunted by 30 hunters, 50% of whom are successful each year (15 bucks taken each year, plus more bucks taken on the 2nd buck license for a total of 18 bucks). Twelve bucks remain living.

With this situation (and assuming continued success rates as listed above) by eliminating the 2nd license, the woods has 3 more bucks living at the end of the first season, aka 15 bucks remain in the section. By keeping the second license intact and implementing MARs, the result is still 18 bucks taken and 12 remain, albeit they have bigger antlers.

Am I missing something? Now there is most likely a reduction in harvest the first year with MARs as the bucks may not be big enough, but after that.

Again, am I missing something? I don't feel like a biologist yet...

Swamper

[Tom Morang]

Swamper-where did you get your 50% success rate for killing bucks? According to the DNR survey 28.1 % of deer hunters killed a buck not 50%.


Munster---I did not mention bow hunters in my post.

Isn't it common knowledge that the majority of deer are killed in the first 3 days of firearms season?

The second buck tag issue is shown on page 31 of this report:

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


Farm, I stand corrected. You are quite accurate in your finding. The statewide percentage (2004) of deer hunters harvesting 2 bucks is 4.3%. That is 4.3 percent of all deer hunters killed 2 bucks.

Interesting to note that 5.7 percent of all deer hunters took two antlerless deer.

Still won't change my mind though. :)

[Munsterlndr]

Munster---I did not mention bow hunters in my post.

Isn't it common knowledge that the majority of deer are killed in the first 3 days of firearms season?



Yes the majority of the harvest occurs during the first three days of firearms season but how does this have anything to do with hunters shooting the first deer they see? The harvest spikes during that period because that is when the greatest number of hunters are in the field at one time.

The argument has been made that the lack of a second tag would cause hunters, both firearms and archery, to pause before they harvested the first buck they see, since their season would then be over. You stated that by "eliminating the second buck tag that it would stop all those who are in the woods for the gun opener for the first 3 days of gun season from killing the first buck they see." Do you have any evidence to support the idea that firearms hunters shoot the first buck they see? By omission, it also seemed like you were implying that bow hunters are not "killing the first buck they see". Just wondered if you had any data to support your statement.

I just get tired of the sometimes subtle inferences that archery hunters are somehow more selective than firearms hunters, when I have not seen any data to support this theory. Anecdotally, there seem to be just as many stories on these forums from archers who shoot the first buck that walks under their stand as there are firearm hunters who do this.

[farmlegend]

Anectdotally, the bowhunters in my area overwhelmingly launch an arrow at the first antlered buck they get a crack at. Lots of these guys make it into the "Club 4.3" every year.

Anecdotally, I think the bowhunter proportion of the total kill is higher in my area than many others.

In the interest of full disclosure, I bowhunt exclusively, throughout the general firearms and other deer seasons.

Tom, on a hunters/sq. mile basis, we're neck-and-neck with Wisconsin; I don't believe that simply because we've got so many hunters, that we need to settle for poor buck age structure. They do have the advantage of a later firearms opener, which I believe helps them preserve some bucks. Just get us a 12/1 firearms opener in the southern lower, and even with the current regs, I just might quit complaining.

[ENCORE]

Yes the majority of the harvest occurs during the first three days of firearms season but how does this have anything to do with hunters shooting the first deer they see? The harvest spikes during that period because that is when the greatest number of hunters are in the field at one time.

The argument has been made that the lack of a second tag would cause hunters, both firearms and archery, to pause before they harvested the first buck they see, since their season would then be over. You stated that by "eliminating the second buck tag that it would stop all those who are in the woods for the gun opener for the first 3 days of gun season from killing the first buck they see." Do you have any evidence to support the idea that firearms hunters shoot the first buck they see? By omission, it also seemed like you were implying that bow hunters are not "killing the first buck they see". Just wondered if you had any data to support your statement.

I just get tired of the sometimes subtle inferences that archery hunters are somehow more selective than firearms hunters, when I have not seen any data to support this theory. Anecdotally, there seem to be just as many stories on these forums from archers who shoot the first buck that walks under their stand as there are firearm hunters who do this.
Gollie, I had 2 buck tags and let 6 different bucks go on opening day. Does that mean I'm different?;)

[Swamper]

Tom Morang - I said "assume"; not actual figures. Used assume since the math is easier to follow.

Are you sure about the 4.3%? On Jan 25 NJ wrote "Try comparing these hard facts then...that's a DNR regional figure edited for accuracy for me by John Ozoga a few years ago for a QDMA article, and the the 2nd license accounts for 4.3% of the harvest.".

I

Swamper

[Tom Morang]

Farm said: "Just get us a 12/1 firearms opener in the southern lower, and even with the current regs, I just might quit complaining."

Be still my heart.:D

Swamp: I posted the link to the literature you can look for yourself if you don't believe me.

Munster: Again, I didn't mention bow hunters, you did. Don't assume.:rolleyes:

Anecdotally:D when I did gun hunt most all of the gun hunters in the area that I hunted took the first buck they would see(rare exception did not). That was when we were limited to one buck a year, two bucks a year or four bucks a year. Didn't seem to matter.

Also anecdotally:D most every bowhunter I know does not kill the first buck they see (they will however take the first doe):). For the record I also bowhunt during all deer seasons.

[target-panic]

In this 4.3 % club there are three distinct groups.

(1) Both bucks killed with archery equipment

(2) One buck killed with archery equipment & One with some type of firearm.

(3) Both bucks killed with a firearm.


I personally hunt with both weapons.......every year.

Which group do we think makes up the largest portion of the "4.3% Club" ?
I would bet it's # 3.........................

I think many rifle hunters kill two bucks just on opening day. I'v seen it plenty of times............What's wrong with one tag per weapon / season ? I think this would affect the fewest number of hunters.......and still allow a few more 1.5 year olds to make it another year. Just my opinion.........

[Ferg]

How about a restriction that does NOT allow you to take two deer in one day - keep the 2 buck tags - but you can not take more than one a day - any sex -

Does this help?

ferg....