12.6% of antlered bucks are tagged with a second license

[November Sunrise]

Please double check my numbers for accuracy. This is another late night compilation - hopefully I didn't make any mistakes in calculations.

Total number of hunters and % of hunters harvesting an antlered buck is taken from the abstract at the beginning of each annual harvest summary report. The total number of bucks harvested is taken from the harvest summary report.

2000 – 758,291 hunters 32% of hunters took an antlered buck
758,291 x .32 = 242,653
Total number of antlered deer harvested = 285,911
Number of antlered deer harvested on second tags = 43,288
Percentage of antlered deer tagged with second licenses = 15.1%
Percentage of hunters who harvested a second buck = 5.7%

2001 - 753,059 hunters 27% of hunters took an antlered buck
753,059 x .27 = 203,325
Total number of antlered deer harvested = 235,271
Number of antlered deer harvested on second tags = 31,946
Percentage of antlered deer tagged with second licenses = 13.6%
Percentage of hunters who harvested a second buck = 4.2%

2002 – 740,529 hunters 28% of hunters took an antlered deer
740,529 x .28 = 207,348 antlered deer
Total number of antlered deer harvest = 241,304
Number of antlered deer harvested on second tags = 33,956
Percentage of antlered deer tagged with second licenses = 14.1%
Percentage of hunters who harvested a second buck = 4.6%

2003 – 743,000 hunters 30% of hunters took an antlered buck
743,000 x .30 = 222,900 antlered deer
Total number of antlered deer harvested = 254,473
Number of antlered deer harvested on second tags = 31,573
Percentage of antlered deer tagged with second licenses = 12.4%
Percentage of hunters who harvested a second buck = 4.2%

2004 – 713,000 hunters 30% of hunters took an antlered buck
713,000 x .30 = 213,900 antlered deer
Total number of antlered deer harvested = 229,654
Number of antlered deer harvested on second tags = 15,754
Percentage of antlered deer tagged with second licenses = 6.9%
Percentage of hunters who harvested a second buck = 2.2%

5 year total

3,707,879 hunters over five years
Number of antlered deer harvested = 1,246,613
Number of antlered deer harvested on second tags = 156,517
Percentage of antlered deer tagged with second licenses = 12.6%
Percentage of hunters who harvested a second buck = 4.2%

[Pinefarm]

The important number to be able to figure out is how many bucks killed with the first tag would have been passed up had there been no 2nd tag option? Agian, it isn't hunters killing 2 bucks that's really the isuue with 2 buck tags, it's having no incentive to pass the first buck and not shooting a doe that's the issue. Although until I decided to start passsing, I shot 2 bucks every year and most of the the guys I knew that put in a lot of time around here also always shot 2 bucks. It wasn't hard to do. However, 1 out of 8 hunters killing 2 bucks statewide, if that number is correct, is still a decent sized number. While the passing up number is a hypo we'll never be able to put a finger on, I'd have to guess the number is rather high. Now, whether that hunter would see another buck he'd want to shoot at a later date is another hypo question that'd we'd like the answer to.
Or more importantly, how more likely is that hunter to shoot an antlerless deer if he has only 1 buck tag as opposed to 2 buck tags?

[Tom Morang]

I don't think you can treat numbers of deer like a bank account.:dizzy:

Still, most of those second bucks were taken in just the SLP where the herd needs reduction be they does or bucks.

[Swamper]

"I don't think you can treat numbers of deer like a bank account"...

That's the problem I am afraid....some want to use wishy math instead of reality math. If you "wish" for the number, it will happen.

15K + bucks roaming the woods, plus those not shot due to hunters waiting for the big buck to fill their single tag....those are real numbers. Just like putting money away in a 401k each year and watching the growth compound.

ARs are like spending last year's money during this year and never saving any.

Swamper

[Rondevous]

Your numbers are off.
You need to factor in those hunters such as myself that live in S.E. Michigan and purchase both tags, however they hunt mostly for the experience of being outdoors and have never filled both tags.
Perhaps a 2% differance ;)

[A-plus]

I think there is a pretty severe disconnect between where we hunt and what our ethics are. I have hunted primarily on state land in the Grayling area for 30 years. In these areas, it takes a lot of time in the woods to consistently see even one buck in a year. Despite DNR numbers, there are probably less than 10 deer/square mile and a buck to doe ratio that is way out of whack, combined with very heavy hunting pressure. If you think that the average hunter here will pass a smaller buck, waiting for a bigger one, you are dreaming. I know lots of hunters around here and most do not even get a shot at one buck every four or five years. One person I know very well, spends nearly as much time in the woods as I do, will shoot any legal deer that crosses in front of him, yet has not shot a deer, any deer, since 1967.

[Munsterlndr]

NS/JK

The percentage of hunters who harvested a second buck in 2004 was 4.3 not 2.2.

2004 – 713,000 hunters 30% of hunters took an antlered buck
713,000 x .30 = 213,900 antlered deer
Total number of antlered deer harvested = 229,654
Number of antlered deer harvested on second tags = 15,754
Percentage of antlered deer tagged with second licenses = 6.9%
Percentage of hunters who harvested a second buck = 2.2%

This would make the five year average 4.6% not 4.2%.

Thanks for gathering and supplying these statistics.

I think you also got the number and the percentage of deer tagged with a second license wrong. 4.3% produces a harvest number of 30,659 deer killed with the second tag, which make up 13% of the total buck harvest. This will change your 5 year average a little.

[November Sunrise]

NS/JK

The percentage of hunters who harvested a second buck in 2004 was 4.3 not 2.2.

Anybody have any ideas about what would have caused such a preciptious drop?

Hard to say without seeing a zone specific breakdown. One possibility is the reduced herd in the northern LP.

I'm still coming up with 2.2%. 15,754 hunters took a second antlered buck out of 713,000 total hunters. Isn't that 2.2%?

[November Sunrise]

NS/JK

The percentage of hunters who harvested a second buck in 2004 was 4.3 not 2.2.

2004 – 713,000 hunters 30% of hunters took an antlered buck
713,000 x .30 = 213,900 antlered deer
Total number of antlered deer harvested = 229,654
Number of antlered deer harvested on second tags = 15,754
Percentage of antlered deer tagged with second licenses = 6.9%
Percentage of hunters who harvested a second buck = 2.2%

I think you also got the number and the percentage of deer tagged with a second license wrong. 4.3% produces a harvest number of 30,659 deer killed with the second tag, which make up 13% of the total buck harvest. This will change your 5 year average a little.

229,654-213,900=15,754

15,754=6.9%

[Munsterlndr]

Hard to say without seeing a zone specific breakdown. One possibility is the reduced herd in the northern LP.

I'm still coming up with 2.2%. 15,754 hunters took a second antlered buck out of 713,000 total hunters. Isn't that 2.2%?

713,000 hunters x 4.3% = 30,659 deer taken with the second buck tag.

30,659 / 229,654 = 13% of total buck kill.

[William H Bonney]

Not trying to be sarcastic here, but what makes you think hunters would be more "selective" with one tag, Bob? I think the majority of hunters in MI have the " brown its, down mentality", so I don't think having only one tag would sway their decision that much. The only time I ever hear of hunters passing on younger bucks is in regulated areas, which is a small area, or in "self-regulated, QDM areas" again, which are small. If the one tag deal ever came to be,, I think you'd see more younger bucks taken than less.

[Munsterlndr]

Not trying to be sarcastic here, but what makes you think hunters would be more "selective" with one tag, Bob? I think the majority of hunters in MI have the " brown its, down mentality", so I don't think having only one tag would sway their decision that much. The only time I ever hear of hunters passing on younger bucks is in regulated areas, which is a small area, or in "self-regulated, QDM areas" again, which are small. If the one tag deal ever came to be,, I think you'd see more younger bucks taken than less.

It just makes sense that some would. For example, it's opening day of bow season. You have been waiting for deer season to start for months and you are excited to be out in the woods on a beautiful morning. You are looking forward to a full season of bowhunting, rifle hunting and then muzzleloading. Shooting light dawns and you see two deer working thier way through the woods towards your stand. Both stop within 20 yards and you can take a shot at either one. One is a doe and the other is a spike. If you shoot the spike you know that you are done buck hunting for the year. If you shoot the doe you can continue to buck hunt throughout the other seasons. Which are you going to do?

I have to believe that at least some of those hunters are going to take the doe instead of the buck. Currently, because they have a second buck tag to fall back on, a lot of hunters take the spike, knowing that if a ten point comes along later in the season they can still whack it.

[November Sunrise]

713,000 hunters x 4.3% = 30,659 deer taken with the second buck tag.

30,659 / 229,654 = 13% of total buck kill.

It look like you may be beginning with the 4.3% percentage. I'm beginning with results from the actual report and attempting to calculate the percentages from the numbers provided.

For example, at the top of the 2004 report in the abstract it says that there were 713,000 hunters and that 30% took an antlered buck. 713,000 x .30 = 213,900.

The report goes on to say that the total antlered buck harvest was 229,654. I'm subtracting the 213,900 number from 229,654, to arrive at the total number of bucks harvested on second licenses of 15,754.

15,754 equates to 6.9% of the total harvest and 2.2% of the total hunters.

I know the 4.3% number has been bantered about, and that was close to the five year average percentage. However, if the actual number for '04 was 4.3%, then my calculations for all years are incorrect, invalid, and should be disregarded:) .

What are the numbers that point to it being 4.3%?

[Swamper]

"but what makes you think hunters would be more "selective" with one tag"....

Similar to what would happen if divorce was not an option...would folks choose their spouse more selectively?

Swamper

[Munsterlndr]

What are the numbers that point to it being 4.3%?

Page 31 of the harvest report, bottom of the page, states 4.3%.

Use the 713,000 hunters stated in the report (later on they say it was actually 712,894 hunter). The total buck harvest stated as 229,654 and the percentage of hunters that tagged a second buck 4.3% and you can calculate the number of deer tagged with a second tag and the percentage of the overall kill.

[farmlegend]

713,000 hunters x 4.3% = 30,659 deer taken with the second buck tag.

30,659 / 229,654 = 13% of total buck kill.

This concurs with my understanding of this matter. 30,659 antlered bucks taken by hunters who legally harvested two bucks for 2004.

30,659 bucks is certainly a material number. 13.35% of the total buck harvest.

Now, to take it to the next level - would a one-buck rule have saved 30,659 bucks? We really don't know; could have saved fewer(those bucks may have been taken by others), could have saved more(guys that pass may on the first crack at Sparky may never get another chance, plus a culture of passing on the first kill opportunity would be encouraged).

[Munsterlndr]

30,659 bucks is certainly a material number.

No question that it is a significant number. According to DNR estimates around 100,000 antlered bucks survive the season every year to advance to the next age bracket. Adding another 30,000+ bucks to that figure it would increase it by almost a third. This would have to be good for our herd. It's hard to believe that anyone can view that 4.3% figure as being so small as to be insignificant.

[Swamper]

"It's hard to believe that anyone can view that 4.3% figure as being so small as to be insignificant"

I will second that! Let's spread the word now!

Swamper

[Whit1]

30,659 bucks is certainly a material number. 13.35% of the total buck harvest.


Michigan has 83 counties. Wayne County doesn't have much deer hunting so let's go with 82 counties.

30,000 bucks saved would mean 366 bucks per county saved by the limit of one buck per hunter. That sounds like a material number to me.

[Munsterlndr]

Michigan has 83 counties. Wayne County doesn't have much deer hunting so let's go with 82 counties.

30,000 bucks saved would mean 366 bucks per county saved by the limit of one buck per hunter. That sounds like a material number to me.

Milt -
There are 91 DMU's so the figure would be 337 per DMU. There were around 850 Bucks harvested in my DMU last year. Another 300+ antlered bucks would be a nice addition!

[Joe Archer]

With so few hunters EVER filling two buck tags. The "brown its down" theory would still be the rule. After that you'd just have more hunters willing to tag "the buck of a lifetime" with someone else's tag while they hunted on a doe permit. <----<<<

[November Sunrise]

Page 31 of the harvest report, bottom of the page, states 4.3%.

Use the 713,000 hunters stated in the report (later on they say it was actually 712,894 hunter). The total buck harvest stated as 229,654 and the percentage of hunters that tagged a second buck 4.3% and you can calculate the number of deer tagged with a second tag and the percentage of the overall kill.

Moderators - the guy who started this thread should be reprimanded:bash:

He spend 50 minutes in the middle of the night posting incorrect calculations and percentages that were already clearly stated on the harvest report:lol: .

Thanks for the help/clarification Munsterlndr:)

[A-plus]

I believe that reducing the numbers of bucks killed will result in more bucks being available in the following year. If you couple this with continued antlerless permits being made available to help keep the overall herd numbers in check, you have a viable plan to improve the buck to doe ratio and probably allow more bucks to reach older ages. If more hunters start seeing more bucks, you may see them passing up younger/smaller bucks to wait for a larger/older one, especially if they feel there is a reasonable expectation that may happen.

I would not expect this to happen in the short-term in the northern two-thirds of the state on public land, where hunters have traditionally seen very few antlered bucks, so shoot the first one they see or risk going without. You also have to remember there is a difference between the hunters who frequent this discussion group and the average hunter. The average hunter may not bow hunt and is basically a gun hunter who may only have a few days each year to devote to this sport. They are not slobs, but do not have the same desire/access/available time/whatever... to spend as they may like, so do not have the same opportunity to pass on legal deer as someone who spends a greater amount of time in the woods.

There are also a lot of meat hunters who do not want an older deer, for fear that it would have a stronger taste and/or tougher meat. Many meat hunters are very happy to shoot a yearling or even a fawn as they believe it makes better table fare.

These things are very hard to quantify when figuring populations and harvest quotas. These are very difficult with the complex models that the DNR uses to estimate numbers and are near impossible with the simple statistics posted here. This is an enjoyable debate and I agree with much of the premise, but we have to take into account that we don't have all the pieces of the puzzle.

[Whit1]

Moderators - the guy who started this thread should be reprimanded:bash:

He spend 50 minutes in the middle of the night posting incorrect calculations and percentages that were already clearly stated on the harvest report:lol: .

Thanks for the help/clarification Munsterlndr:)


Nah! If we had to do that everytime then....well....I'd be sittin' in that bash boat! You should see some of my early hour stuff and I'm retired so don't have to face getting up for work at an early hour.....:lol:

[Ferg]

Moderators - the guy who started this thread should be reprimanded:bash:

He spend 50 minutes in the middle of the night posting incorrect calculations and percentages that were already clearly stated on the harvest report:lol: .

Thanks for the help/clarification Munsterlndr:)


NS - Sleep is good :) - your time, albeit WASTED, ;) :yikes: was well intentioned and apprricated - :)

Thanks

ferg....

[November Sunrise]

No question that it is a significant number. According to DNR estimates around 100,000 antlered bucks survive the season every year to advance to the next age bracket. Adding another 30,000+ bucks to that figure it would increase it by almost a third. This would have to be good for our herd. It's hard to believe that anyone can view that 4.3% figure as being so small as to be insignificant.

The 2004 antlered buck kill was 229,654. If the above DNR estimate of 100,000 survivors is solid (I believe it is) then that means 69.7% of antlered bucks were harvested in '04.

A OBR rule would have permitted 30,659 more antlered bucks to survive the season. If there had been a OBR in '04, the number of bucks 2.5 years or older would have been over 30% higher this past season!!

I don't know about the rest of the state, but at least in Zone 3, where well over half of the deer are harvested, and where over half the man hours are expended, a OBR would make a radical difference in buck age structure.

[farmlegend]

A OBR rule would have permitted 30,659 more antlered bucks to survive the season. If there had been a OBR in '04, the number of bucks 2.5 years or older would have been over 30% higher this past season!!

This is indeed possible.

Next question that comes to my mind: if the above is true, why does the DNR "spin" the story down, by illustrating the paltry 4.3% of hunters stat? Could it be that they're so wedded to the revenue provided by the combo tag, that they want to minimalize the impression of the number of bucks which could be protected by a one buck rule? Hmmm.

What concept would you rather try to sell? Protecting 30% more bucks, or pointing out that only 4.3% of licensed hunters killed two bucks? If your objective is revenue maximization from the continued sale of two buck tags to hunters, you may wish to point out that latter. The former will only increase the clamor from hunters desirous of an improved buck age structure, and perhaps jeapordize the combo tag gravy train.

[William H Bonney]

It just makes sense that some would. For example, it's opening day of bow season. You have been waiting for deer season to start for months and you are excited to be out in the woods on a beautiful morning. You are looking forward to a full season of bowhunting, rifle hunting and then muzzleloading. Shooting light dawns and you see two deer working thier way through the woods towards your stand. Both stop within 20 yards and you can take a shot at either one. One is a doe and the other is a spike. If you shoot the spike you know that you are done buck hunting for the year. If you shoot the doe you can continue to buck hunt throughout the other seasons. Which are you going to do?

I have to believe that at least some of those hunters are going to take the doe instead of the buck. Currently, because they have a second buck tag to fall back on, a lot of hunters take the spike, knowing that if a ten point comes along later in the season they can still whack it.
I understand what you're saying, and ya I'd take the doe as I'm sure most would, with a bow. What I'm talking about is,, that same hunter watches a spike and a forkhorn,, or just a single forkie,,, that forkie is goin' down for the majority of hunters,,, regardless if they have another tag in their pocket. Same goes for a gun for that matter. One tag ain't gunna do what you guys think its gonna do.

[Pauly3511]

All this percentage and "compouned anually stuff is just getting to be too much. :yikes:

[jimmyboy]

What concept would you rather try to sell? Protecting 30% more bucks, or pointing out that only 4.3% of licensed hunters killed two bucks? If your objective is revenue maximization from the continued sale of two buck tags to hunters, you may wish to point out that latter. The former will only increase the clamor from hunters desirous of an improved buck age structure, and perhaps jeapordize the combo tag gravy train.

By Jove FL, I think you've struck a chord!

[Pinefarm]

Quote..."Next question that comes to my mind: if the above is true, why does the DNR "spin" the story down, by illustrating the paltry 4.3% of hunters stat? Could it be that they're so wedded to the revenue provided by the combo tag, that they want to minimalize the impression of the number of bucks which could be protected by a one buck rule? Hmmm."

This is the whole reason for our 2 buck tags in a nutshell IMHO. For all those that are concerned about what's best for the herd, I think you'll find very few, if any, state deer biologists across the country that would suggest 2 buck tags a year is better than 1 buck tag with more antlerless permits, in the 2006 deer world reality. We still have 2 buck tags because, under the current budget, MDNR could not survive without 2 buck tags. However, we're going to see a new license structure coming this year. That's why the NRC recently publically said that'd they'd probably unanimously vote for 1 buck tag, if MDNR could afford to do so.
The 2 buck tag isn't about science, the herd or hunter opportunity. It's about revenue generation. That's my opinion anyways. I could be wrong, but something tells me I'm not. Like the old saying goes "if someone tells you 'it's not about the money', then it's about the money". Again, just my opinion.

[Adam Waszak]

Bob are you talkin one buck tag total or one per Gun or bow? I think that is the issue people get frustrated with. I enjoy shooting doe's if there are doe's in the area to shoot but it will be difficult to decide do i want to fill my tag with bow or gun or muzzleloader for a buck. Is the DNR gonna charge double for the tag? This is gonna really stir the pot with a lot of people in this state for sure. I guess we wait and see maybe I'll have more time for the bird huntin if this happens:lol: Please let us know any more details about what is being discussed Bob I would really be interested in hearing about them

thanks

ADAM

[farmlegend]

Adam, not to speak for Bob, but we're talking one buck, period. One bow and one buck would be a complete waste, IMO. For one thing, it wouldn't provide much incentive to get us bowhunters to pass on the first buck we see.

[Pinefarm]

Correct, one buck per year. You can take one buck of any size in bow, gun and ML seasons combined. Or you can pass as many small bucks as you like and take doe instead. Just like Ohio, KY and IN. One buck tag per season, bow and gun, is still two buck tags. It appears that New York may be doing the same this year too, in order to put the focus on antlerless deer as opposed to bucks. The practical outcomes of selling 2 buck tags is dawning on more state agencies. IMHO

[Pinefarm]

One doesn't have to shoot at every deer they see. That's a mindset we have to break. You can hunt all year with only one buck tag if one becomes more selective. Just like in OH, KY and IN.

[Adam Waszak]

Bob you are correct if you hunt northern newaygo cty you can definately hunt with only one tag:lol: Thanks for crearing that up but do you know what the DNR is looking to do as far as the license revenue shortfall that could be there if they get rid of the combo license? I agree there would be more bucks in the woods with the cut to one buck tag per year. And it would make you think about what you shoot knowing you still have gun and muzzle coming up as well. I just wonder are they going to make the buck tag $25.00? They may actaully make more money than ever if they did that because not all hunters get the combo.

AW

[November Sunrise]

The 2 buck tag isn't about science, the herd or hunter opportunity. It's about revenue generation. That's my opinion anyways. I could be wrong, but something tells me I'm not. Like the old saying goes "if someone tells you 'it's not about the money', then it's about the money". Again, just my opinion.

That's my opinion as well.

The combo tag may have led to MI not keeping pace with single license costs that are the norm in surrounding states. WI residents pay $20 for an archery tag, and $20 for a firearms tag. They can take one buck in each season, so their version of a "combo" tag is $40.

Ohio residents pay $24 for a deer permit, which entitles them to one buck only. I'm not certain, but I believe they may have to purchase a general hunting permit as well to hunt deer. I know that's a requirement for non-residents, I'm not certain that it applies to residents. However, an interesting twist in Ohio is a landowner exemption which I don't fully understand the intricacies of, but in some fashion it permits landowners to hunt deer without purchasing a permit.

Indiana residents also pay $24 for a deer permit, which entitles them to one buck only. There are select urban areas in Indiana where residents can take another buck, those areas are very limited, and I'm assuming the hunter must pay for that extra tag.
I don't know if Indiana has any type of landowner exemption, and I believe they eliminated their lifetime license opportunity within recent years.

[jimmyboy]

NS - KY allows farmland owners to hunt w/o buying a license or permit ONLY WHILE HUNTING UPON THEIR OWN FARMLANDS.

FYI, KY has announced their 2007 license/permit proposals/increases.Resident Deer permit $30. Non-res deer permit $60.Non-res annual hunt-lcense $130.Non-res spring turkey permit $60. Deer permit is good for two deer,one of which may be antlered.Button bucks must be checked in as "male" deer w/no visible antlers while considered as antlerless for kill purposes.

The KDFWR recieves no state tax dollars to pay for its services and operates from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses and associated federal funds based on license sale volume and boat registrations.

KY previously increased non-res deer and turkey permits in 2005. MI could stand some increases as well,me thinks.

[Adam Waszak]

The one buck idea would really change a lot I never really thought a whole lot on it until recently but that adds a lot of pressure to the game. Especially if you have game cams and you know what is out there when that 8 pointer comes by on oct 1st:yikes: Shoot or not to shoot would be tough. I guess the reluctance by many is if they are in an area with no antlerless tags available or very few doe's in their spot. If there were ample doe's I have no objection to the one buck but without hunting opportunities for antlerless deer it would sure be a bummer to tag out in early october on your one deer and have to forgoe gun and muzzleloader season. I have rarely used my second tag for anything more than an excuse to be out in the blind anyway. 12.6% of bucks is a pretty large number IMO it is higher than I would suspect. I wonder what the percentage is of people throwin someone elses tag on.

ADAM

[LUCE-YOOPER]

I have rarely used my second tag for anything more than an excuse to be out in the blind anyway.
ADAM[/quote]

This is why the DNR wont change the combo tag. I talked to the Chief of Budget for the DNR yesterday; she stated that getting hunters in the field and keeping them returning is a major factor. The big selling point that is presented to the "non hunters" in Lansing; is the economic impact, + or - of hunting in general. 1 tag will reduce the hunting days, thus reduce revenue. The Budget dept. would'nt even attempt to try and sell that. One tag might be good for hunting, but not for the DNR, which would eventualy hurt hunting.

As a side note... the largest drop off of hunters from year to year are 20-40 yo males. 5% fewer bought licenses last year.

[Adam Waszak]

Yeah I can see how that would effect "deer hunters" I love to deer hunt but if I was tagged out I'd be duck, pheasant, goose whatever hunting instead so it doesn't effect me as much as the deer only hunter. Lets hope they lower the age rerquirements that will give them a little boost in revenue as well.

AW

[Trophy Specialist]

Rod Clute has gone on record saying that only 5% of the buck kill was the second buck taken by hunters.

[Trophy Specialist]

The 4.3% is a success rate of hunters that bought two licenses. To apply it to the total number of hunters is not correct. You would first have to factor in the percentage of hunters that bought two licenses. When you factor that in I come up with around 6% of the buck kill for 2004 was the second buck taken by hunters. Actually, when I look at my notes, Rod Clute told me that 5-6 percent of the bucks killed are the second buck taken by hunters, so his numbers are accurate. So for those of you that have purported erroneous figures go sit in the corner.

[Munsterlndr]

The 4.3% is a sucess rate of hunters that bought two licenses. To apply it to the total number of hunters is not correct. You would first have to factor in the percentage of hunters that bought two licenses.

Mike -
Better check your facts. Page 31 of the 2004 deer harvest summary clearly states that 28.1 percent of deer hunters harvested 1 antlered deer and 4.3 percent harvested 2 antlered deer. Those percentages are of the total number of deer hunters. If Rod Clute actually said that then he was either misquoted or mistaken. Like to provide a source for his quote?

[Trophy Specialist]

Mike -
Better check your facts. Page 31 of the 2004 deer harvest summary clearly states that 28.1 percent of deer hunters harvested 1 antlered deer and 4.3 percent harvested 2 antlered deer. Those percentages are of the total number of deer hunters. If Rod Clute actually said that then he was either misquoted or mistaken. Like to provide a source for his quote?
Here we go again.:dizzy:

Rod Clute told MUCC the same numbers in an interview aired on their MOOD program last night. It's no missquote or mistake.

Those percentages on page 31 reflect "sucess rates" and not the percentage from the total number of hunters. Now you can deny that all you want and keep spreading false data, but if you would bother to take the time to check your assumptions by contacting the DNR, you would find out the facts. Refuting what I have stated without finding out the facts would be irresponsible.

[giver108]

Clute was on the MUCC TV show last night, Munster and he stated the 5% figure but did not say how he came up with it. This may be where TS got that number from.

Mr. Clute talked about enacting a one-buck rule in Michigan and after hearing him, it seems pretty safe to say that it isn't going to happen here. I thought his interview last night was rather interesting. Although it wasn't really what I was hoping to hear, he seemed to be quite honest in his statements. Another thing he mentioned was if you hunt public land in the NLP or UP and are disappointed in the deer numbers, get used to it. There are no plans to increase deer numbers because the DNR does not feel the habitat can support it.

[buckslayerII]

Rod Clute state 5% last night on the Michigan-Out-Of-Doors interview as well.

For those of you who didn't see the interview, he basically told the viewers two key points in the DNR's stand on one-buck tag.

One - based on the 5% figure, the DNR believes the number of bucks harvested in MI would not decline. The same number of bucks would be harvested, but that number would be spread amongst more hunters. He stated something to the effect that only "mature/veteran" hunters would pass on small bucks and wait for a larger one, and most hunters in MI aren't "mature/veterans." (Don't jump on the "mature" term here guys - that's what I used since I can't remember the exact term he did - I'm not referring to people in general :~))

Two - the second license provides a great recreational opportunity for many who harvest any buck early in the season.

Next week: the DNR's relationship with the Farm Bueau!!!! Hmmmmm.....

[buckslayerII]

Giver108 - beat me to the punch!!!! (or keyboard)

[Munsterlndr]

I guess I will tend to believe a DNR publication over what Mr. Clute said on TV, especially since he has also stated in interviews in the past that the 5% is of Michigans hunters.

"Michigan claims to have about 1.7 million deer. They harvest about 450,000 deer per year with half that harvest (225,000) as antlered bucks. 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. " Taken from an October 2005 interview with Rod Clute.

Here is the table concerning the 4.3% figure. It is clearly 4.3% of Michigan deer hunters.

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

So either Mr. Clute is mistaken in his application of the 5% figure or the DNR publication is incorrect.

I guess if one was trying to minimize the benefits of going to One buck license that spinning that 4.3% figure might be one way of doing it.

[giver108]

Don't feel bad, Buckslayer. TS beat me to it as well!

I forgot about his statements regarding how only "experienced" (again, not sure if this is the exact word he used) hunters will pass on smaller bucks. Seemed to me that he was making an awful lot of assumptions with that philosophy. How he determined this is what I would like to know.

[Trophy Specialist]

I guess I will tend to believe a DNR publication over what Mr. Clute said on TV, especially since he has also stated in interviews in the past that the 5% is of Michigans hunters.

"Michigan claims to have about 1.7 million deer. They harvest about 450,000 deer per year with half that harvest (225,000) as antlered bucks. 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. " Taken from an October 2005 interview with Rod Clute.

Here is the table concerning the 4.3% figure. It is clearly 4.3% of Michigan deer hunters.

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

So either Mr. Clute is mistaken in his application of the 5% figure or the DNR publication is incorrect.

I guess if one was trying to minimize the benefits of going to One buck license that spinning that 4.3% figure might be one way of doing it.
There is no mistake in the publication. :rolleyes: If you actaully look closely at page 31 above, you will see that the word "Sucess" is used in the column heading. It is a sucess rate and not a percentage of the total number of hunters. Munsterlndr you acuse me of "spinning" but did you even bother to check the facts as I did with the DNR before making assumptions?

[buckslayerII]

giver108 - think about ALL of the people you know who hunt - not just your buddies who might (I don't know your hunting style/preferences) be selective, but everybody. Now, try to count up the number who would actually pass on a 1.5 year old buck. I won't speak for you, but my "pass' list isn't very long. This number might be affected by where you hunt in the state and whether you hunt on private or public land. Rod said that in his years of "talking to many hunters" he/the DNR had reached that conclusion. Based on your list from the above example, I suspect (I know I can) that you could draw the same conclusion/assumption.

TS & Mun - I haven't read this entire post, so I might be out of line with this conclusion, but are you guys actually debating 0.7%?!?!?!!?!?!? If so, and given the +/-2% error (whatever it referred to) that Mr. Clute stated last week, isn't it a moot point?

[Ferg]

It is a sucess rate and not a percentage of the total number of hunters.

OK TS you got me -

if 4.3 % is a 'sucess rate' in order to figure what the sucess rate is - it has to be a percent of something - and that something has to be the total number of hunters 4.3% of ALL hunters took 2 bucks -

What else could it be ? 4.3% of what?

ferg....

Dang - thought we put this part to rest a couple of days ago :SHOCKED:

[Trophy Specialist]

TS & Mun - I haven't read this entire post, so I might be out of line with this conclusion, but are you guys actually debating 0.7%?!?!?!!?!?!? If so, and given the +/-2% error (whatever it referred to) that Mr. Clute stated last week, isn't it a moot point?
It’s not a moot point because some people on this thread have greatly inflated the number of “second bucks” harvested by hunters and are using that bogus data to push an adgena. Now I can understand making a mistake when coming up with those inflated numbers. Anybody can make a mistake. Just own up to it, move on, and all is forgiven. However, when you see people persisting in perpetuating the misinformation to further their agenda, then that needs to be exposed for what it is.

[Munsterlndr]

TS & Mun - I haven't read this entire post, so I might be out of line with this conclusion, but are you guys actually debating 0.7%?!?!?!!?!?!? If so, and given the +/-2% error (whatever it referred to) that Mr. Clute stated last week, isn't it a moot point?

BuckslayerII -

No that is not the point of debate. Whether it is 4.3% or 5% is not the question. The published number is 4.3% and I'm assuming that Mr. Clute just rounded this off as 5%. I don't have a problem with the rounding off.

The question is what is the 4.3% a percentage of? The DNR publication states that it is 4.3% of michigan deer hunters.

[Trophy Specialist]

OK TS you got me -

if 4.3 % is a 'sucess rate' in order to figure what the sucess rate is - it has to be a percent of something - and that something has to be the total number of hunters 4.3% of ALL hunters took 2 bucks -

What else could it be ? 4.3% of what?

ferg....

Dang - thought we put this part to rest a couple of days ago :SHOCKED:
It's a sucess rate of hunters that bought two buck tags and hunted. You can't come up with an accurate sucess rate on hunters that shot two bucks without limiting that equasion to hunters that bought two buck tags.

[Munsterlndr]

OK TS you got me -

if 4.3 % is a 'sucess rate' in order to figure what the sucess rate is - it has to be a percent of something - and that something has to be the total number of hunters 4.3% of ALL hunters took 2 bucks -

What else could it be ? 4.3% of what?

ferg....

Dang - thought we put this part to rest a couple of days ago :SHOCKED:

Ferg -

Good question, the answer ought to be interesting.

The success rate is of ALL Michigan deer hunters, as is stated at the top of the table. If the 4.3% rate is not of all deer hunters than all of the other success rates cannot be of all deer hunters either.

[Munsterlndr]

It's a sucess rate of hunters that bought two buck tags and hunted. You can't come up with an accurate sucess rate on hunters that shot two bucks without limiting that equasion to hunters that bought two buck tags.

Are you just making this up out of thin air? Where in the DNR publication does it make any reference about the success rate being of only those hunters who purchased two tags?

[Trophy Specialist]

The success rate is of ALL Michigan deer hunters, as is stated at the top of the table. If the 4.3% rate is not of all deer hunters than all of the other success rates cannot be of all deer hunters either.
That is not accurate. Here is what is says in the title of the table:
Percentage of deer hunters harvesting deer in Michigan during all seasons
Now I spoke dirrectly with the DNR on this subject. Again, before you spout any more missinformation, please check your facts with the DNR. No instead you persist in ranting on anyway. Why is that?

[Ferg]

That is not accurate. Here is what is says in the title of the table:

Now I spoke dirrectly with the DNR on this subject. Again, before you spout any more missinformation, please check your facts with the DNR. No instead you persist in ranting on anyway. Why is that?

I have a call into them as we speak -

I'll get back to ya -

ferg....

[Trophy Specialist]

Are you just making this up out of thin air? Where in the DNR publication does it make any reference about the success rate being of only those hunters who purchased two tags?
You can't expect the DNR to explain how they came up with every number in that 38 page document. I called the DNR to find out the facts. For once you ought to try it before you go on any further.

[Ferg]

You can't expect the DNR to explain how they came up with every number in that 38 page document. I called the DNR to find out the facts. For once you ought to try it before you go on any further.

The hell we can't - it's their job - and beside - I don't want an explaination of every number in the document.

Just the 4.3% and, as I said - I'll get back to ya - I'm waiting for a call.


ferg....

[LUCE-YOOPER]

TS, I agree

How could you have a success rate if you did'nt have an opportunity. ie bought only one license. Of course the success rate would only be for those that had a chance at 2 bucks. Just because the chart doesnt spell that out, it makes perfect sense!!! 4.3% of those that bought 2 licenses!!!

[Munsterlndr]

Now I spoke dirrectly with the DNR on this subject. Again, before you spout any more missinformation, please check your facts with the DNR. No instead you persist in ranting on anyway. Why is that?

Please allow me to continue ranting with some more missinformation. :rolleyes:

The deer harvest survey is a statistical analysis of a number of aspects concerning deer hunting in Michigan. The statistical percentages which are given in the report are percentages of all Michigan deer hunters.

Statewide,

43% of hunters harvested at least one deer.

23% of hunters harvested an antlerless deer.

28% of hunters harvested an antlered deer.

14% of hunters harvested two or more deer.

4.3% of hunters harvested two antlered bucks.

I'm not sure who your contact is at the DNR (maybe the janitor or something) but I find it hard to believe that they are officially contradicting the published data from the DNR.

[buckslayerII]

See - I knew I shoulda read the entire post!!

Ferg - let us know what the correct answer is. As we all know, graph titles MUST be concise for any graph to be clearly understood.

[LUCE-YOOPER]

So if you want to take the chart literaly.... 13.9% of all hunters killed a doe in the UP... no wonder I did'nt see any deer. That's almost 100,000.

[Ferg]

My request:

================================================== =

Mr. Clute -

Would please settle an argument for me -

What is the percentage of ALL hunters in Michigan that successfully take TWO antlered deer?

I know what I believe the answer is, but there is some discrepancy as to what 4.3% is a percentage of, is it of all hunters a field? or 4.3% of something else?

Respectfully

James Ferguson
CWO USCG(Ret)
Harrisville Mi

================================================== ===

The reply:
Mr Ferguson,

The 2004 Deer Harvest Survey Report says that 4.3% of all deer hunters took a second buck. That is a state wide value. In the UP 1.6 % of UP hunters took a second buck, 2.0% of NLP hunters took a second buck, and 5.3% of SLP hunters did.


Rodney Clute
Big Game Specialist
Mason Building
P.O. Box 30444
Lansing, MI 48909-7944
TX - (517)-373-9337
Fax- (517)-373-6705

================================================== ===

This argument is closed -

ferg....

[Ferg]

So if you want to take the chart literaly.... 13.9% of all hunters killed a doe in the UP... no wonder I did'nt see any deer. That's almost 100,000.

Nope - your looking at the wrong number your looking only at the UP's number - that 13.9% is of UP hunters - the state wide number is 23% of ALL hunters.

ferg...