One Buck Rule [Archive] - The Michigan Sportsman Forums

Munsterlndr

08-02-2006, 05:51 PM

There is a thread on the Indiana Sportsman site about evaluating the one buck rule in Indiana after 4 years. I found the first paragraph pretty illuminating

"Well, again we (those who attended the Grant Woods seminar last evening) heard from a professional, unbiased whitetail, expert biologist that the One Buck Rule is good for herd management, etc."

I thought this was interesting since some people in these forums seem to place so much emphasis on credentials. Anybody want to question whether Dr. Woods knows what he is talking about? :lol:

Here is a link to the thread for those who may be interested. The thread got off topic pretty quickly but that was mainly because nobody disagreed with the premise of the original poster, that the OBR has been good for Indiana deer hunting.

http://www.indianasportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2502&page=1&pp=15

Swamp Ghost

08-02-2006, 06:06 PM

What is there to question?

It's a no-brainer, just like AR's. Reduce the harvest of bucks and you increase the buck population there-by increasing the number of bucks available for harvest in future years.

There is no doubt that the enacted OBR had a positive effect on increasing the age and number of the bucks harvested, but you have to weigh this against the negative effect of only being able to put one buck in the freezer and reduced hunter opportunity......:evil:

farmlegend

08-02-2006, 07:08 PM

Arguably, no one in Indiana experiences loss of hunter opportunity to hunt deer as a result of the OBR. Far as I know, you can still tag does statewide there. Overall limits on total deer harvested per hunter have been unaffected by the OBR.

Anyone who thinks a OBR wouldn't have any impact in Hillsdale County has never walked into the Jerome Country Market on the first Saturday of bowseason to see the multitude of bucks stacked up, nearly all of 'em yearlings. All killed by hunters secure in the knowledge that they still had another buck tag in their pockets.

Lots of guys have never passed on a buck in their lives, period. A OBR would likely change some mindsets here, like it has in the Hoosier state.

It may be that some other sort of buck restriction would protect more yearling bucks, but, in the real world of the southern lower, a OBR is by far the most saleable to hunters.

Swamp Ghost

08-02-2006, 07:54 PM

M1Garand

08-02-2006, 08:08 PM

Anyone who thinks a OBR wouldn't have any impact in Hillsdale County has never walked into the Jerome Country Market on the first Saturday of bowseason to see the multitude of bucks stacked up, nearly all of 'em yearlings. All killed by hunters secure in the knowledge that they still had another buck tag in their pockets.

Lots of guys have never passed on a buck in their lives, period. A OBR would likely change some mindsets here, like it has in the Hoosier state.

It may be that some other sort of buck restriction would protect more yearling bucks, but, in the real world of the southern lower, a OBR is by far the most saleable to hunters.

I couldn't agree more...if an OBR were passed in the SLP, seeing is believing and would change the mindset there. And all those hunters who brought in a yearling to the Jerome County Market and many others across the SLP take them knowing they'll just pick up another tag and head back out. A OBR would IMO drasically change hunter selections in the SLP on what they take, esp in early Oct.

farmlegend

08-02-2006, 08:09 PM

I totally agree, just playin' devil's advocate......:D

I'm with ya. The thing is, lots of us guys really aren't very fussy at all. Just do something that effectively protects lots more yearling bucks, and we're happy. I could live with point restrictions, minimum spreads, OBR, selling buck tags by DMU just like we do with antlerless tags (fewer buck tags available in DMU's over goal), creative tag pricing, allowing hunters their choice of one "unrestricted" buck tag or two restricted buck tags for the same price, Earn-a-buck, on and on. They key thing is to do something that changes the mindset of hunters from habitually launching or firing at the very first antlered deer they see. I do believe that continuation of the status quo, with the reliance on volunteer orgainizations to educate and to encourage hunters to pass on Sparky, will work too, except that route will take about fifty years to work, and I'm just not that patient.

giver108

08-02-2006, 08:49 PM

They key thing is to do something that changes the mindset of hunters from habitually launching or firing at the very first antlered deer they see. I do believe that continuation of the status quo, with the reliance on volunteer orgainizations to educate and to encourage hunters to pass on Sparky, will work too, except that route will take about fifty years to work, and I'm just not that patient.

:bowdown: Very well said, Farm.

November Sunrise

08-02-2006, 10:32 PM

Eliminating the combo tag will cut revenue by $5.5 million. These dollars will have to be replaced.

The good news is that the biggest hurdle to making this work financially is about to be crossed. Many people don't yet understand that the critical step in moving to a one buck rule will take place this month, when the price of an antlerless tag will become equivalent to that of an antlered buck tag. Keep in mind that several years ago antlerless tags were $7, and last year they were $10. This year they'll be $15.

What's the financial impact?

Resident antlerless tag sales:

2003 - 575,007 x $7 = $4,025,049
2005 - 484,734 x $10 = $4,847,340
2006 - Assume 400,000 x $15 = $6,000,000

So to date, roughly $2,000,000 of the shortfall that will result from moving to a one buck limit has already been accounted for. All that will need to happen for a one buck limit to become revenue neutral in 2007 is for the price of an antlered or antlerless tag to move to $20, which is still a tremendous value, as well as a lower price than many states charge.

Aside from the financial element, there aren't any strong barriers that currently exist in getting a OBR in place. The several small barriers that are present will topple once it's a fit financially. Twenty one years ago I had a high school teacher who always counseled me that if you want to uncover the real issue, you need to follow the money. Rush has been saying the same thing for years on the radio. Reality is, that advice holds absolutely true on this topic. Once the financial kinks are worked out, this is going to happen, and it looks like it's going to be at a faster pace than the 3-5 year time frame that I've been expecting.

NorthJeff

08-03-2006, 08:34 AM

Our baiting in the northern lower and U.P. kills our yearling bucks, and no, Grant Woods has very, very, little knowledge of the U.P. and northern lower MI, even though he has been there. I seriously doubt he is familiar with the percentage of harvest the 2nd buck license accounts for and that he has talked to any regional experts in the field. While his comments may be appropriate for IN, when he is speaking in IN, that does not necessarily mean they are appropriate for all of MI, or that he is qualified and knowledgable enough to comment of something that may or may not be applicable to the entire state of MI. If Grant woods had a wealth of knowledge and experience in all of MI, years of experience studying data in MI, with MI management professionals...he'd carry a ton of weight. IF. Wouldn't matter with food plots, property management, whatever it may be, if you don't have experience within the area, all the experience and credentials in the world do not make you an expert in that area. No different than sticking a TX deer hunter in the ag land of WI and telling him to kill a mature buck or a ag land hunter in IA in the big woods of PA public land...experience matters. Maybe Dr. Woods did is graduate study in northern MI...I don't know, but management is site specific and a professional commenting on management in IN does not necessarily mean those comments apply to all of another state;)

Remember, PA, the state most like ours in terms of hunter numbers, number of deer, and number of public land acres (I don't think IN has as much public land as I see on the way to work in the morning) had a 1 buck license for decades. They also have one of the latest rifle seasons in the region starting the Monday after Thanksgiving every year, and they also...get this!, they also by percentage of harvest shot MORE yearling bucks than MI. How could this be? Shorter gun season, later gun season, and only 1 tag? Why is this, why did this not work in PA...for DECADES.

That is what some of you guys should be asking, why is it that PA had all we want..but had less than we get? The question shouldn't be about an ag state with less hunters than we have in 1/2 our state that could produce a better age structure than us with a month long rifle season and 3 buck tags..the question should be why did PA have "our dream team" of regulations, yet still produce worse results than MI currently does, without those dream team regulations?

Southern MI ag areas...may help a smidgen and depending on where you are at, you might notice. In some areas where there are hunters in every 5 acre patch of cover within fairly open sections of ag land...probaby not so much. In northern portions of MI where 1.8% of the hunters shoot a 2nd buck and there is no reason to think that the overall population will not trend downward in the next 10 years in the U.P. it's most likely we will actually be worse of in 10 years than we are right now, with our without a 1 buck license.

Again, what we should be discussing is why the state in the country that was the most similar to ours "had it all" in regulations..."1 buck, late gun, shorter gun season"...yet they still shot more yearling bucks by percentage of harvest than we do in MI right now. Why was that? Was it possible that those regulations did little to nothing to help? I think so, and so did Dr. Alt and his team when they implemented a statewide MAR, knowing full well that is was the only regulation that would produce credible and noticable results, despite it being the last tool any of them wanted to implement.

Pinefarm

08-03-2006, 09:15 AM

Munsterlndr

08-03-2006, 09:28 AM

Regardless of what you may think Dr. Woods is one of the pre-eminant whitetail biologists in the country and it's laughable to think that his knowledge and experience would not be applicable here in Michigan.

BSK, who worked with Dr. Woods for many year's, has also indicated that the OBR is a viable means of advancing buck age structure and has also stated that he does not think that Mandatory Antler Restrictions are the way to go, but I'd guess that since he is not from Michigan you will automatically discount his opinion.

How much time did Dr. Alt (a black bear specialist) spend in Michigan? Yet because his opinion happens to fit your agenda he is automatically an expert? Please.

Yes PA, had a one buck rule for many years. The fact that you consistently fail to point out when mentioning this is that they also had non-concurrent antlerless and antlered seasons. This fact had a major impact on the number of smaller bucks that were harvested. Within a very short time frame PA went to concurrent seasons, massive herd reduction efforts and MAR's. To point to any one of these as the sole or primary reason for changes in the buck age structure is unsupportable scientifically. Too many variables to determine what caused the change. Not even the PGC is making that claim.

On the PGC website, they mention that biologists from many other States choose a reduction in bag limits (I.E. OBR) instead of MAR's, as a means of protecting a larger portion of the yearling buck population, so to argue that a OBR would not have an impact in Michigan is highly questionable.

The OBR has worked well in a number of other states and should be seriously considered in Michigan. It is coming, it's just a matter of time. Should it be the only change? No, there are lots of other changes that should be considered, including changing the dates for firearms season, focusing on antlerless harvests to maintain a balanced herd, improving habitat and better education concerning identifying BB's.

Pinefarm

08-03-2006, 09:31 AM

Munster, as the QDM saying goes "works everywhere it's tried". ;) Same with one buck. IMHO

NorthJeff

08-03-2006, 09:32 AM

Bob, what numbers do you have to show that those bucks that are not shot with the 2nd license, won't be shot anyways?

KY, OH, and IN have a better age structure than us because they have a fraction of the hunters we do, and great ag habitat supporting many deer. They could literally offern 3 buck tags and still have a better age structure than we do.

Again, why did this not work in PA?

-and-

Why does WI allow 2 bucks to be shot, yet it still has the most trophy entries in the country for the past 15 years?

There are other contributing factors...baiting, hunting culture, hunter numbers, topography, traditions at work. Just look at those states..WI allows 2 bucks to be shot yet still records the most trophy entries, and PA had a 1 buck license, late rifle, and short rifle for decades yet still shot more yearling bucks than we do right now. Why is that? That's a great example of two states in which a 1 buck license has no impact...1 because they have 2 buck tags and are way ahead of MI, and another because they had it and it did nothing.

NorthJeff

08-03-2006, 09:44 AM

Munster,

If Grant Woods does not know MI's harvest numbers, and has no experience in MI..why would a statement from him regarding IN mean something here?

Also, BSK doesn't know MI either, as evidenced by his statement that there was an even age mortality rate on deer in winter, which is totally false. If he doesn't understand that about MI, than how could he prescribe a management plan in this area? That is crucial information to ANY northern deer manager and using a study from NY to base information on the U.P. of MI is just not accurate. As far as BSK's opinion on MARs...ask him yourself how the age structure will change in a 70-80% public land area with baiting without MARs when only 1.8% of the hunters harvest a 2nd buck..he is saying MARs are not the most hunter friendly, not that they aren't effective and if a TN biologist disagrees with that in the face of a nationally known area expert, well, I'll side with the area expert.

BSK and Grant Woods are both some of the best in a handful of the best in the country, and I can guarentee you if they are going to make a statement about a particular area, they will typically study the data and reach an informed and researched position. Also, it wouldn't surprise me at all if one of the first people they call would be John Ozoga.

The bottom line it's not a big deal to me..I hunt in several other states a year, have only shot 2 bucks twice in 19 years, and I'll be hunting until the end of the season in MI every year..but most are not that fortunate. Shoot, some are even fishing during the best of bow season and what do they care? Some even only rifle hunt..what do they care? But for the avid whitetail hunter that hunts all seasons, the 2nd tag accounts for a weeks of extra hunting per year and in high hunter density areas and or baiting...those little yearling bucks are going to be shot anyways.

BTW...never said Alt was an expert in MI, but I'm sure it wouldn't take long for him to get up to speed because he already understands the concepts. From there it's just understanding the math ;)

1st,you have to understand the concepts (big picture)

2nd, you have to understand the problems

3rd, you have understand the tools to address the problems

4th, you need to understand and comprehend the tools to address the problem

5th, you need to use the most effective tools within your resources to address the problems

6th, you study the results to see if adjustments need to be made within the tools that were used, or by possibly bringing in new tools.

PA went through the entire process...we here in MI are still between levels 1, 2, and 3, with a continued reversion to "1" due to appeasement, confusion, misunderstanding, and an overall lack of leadership or direction.

Munsterlndr

08-03-2006, 09:52 AM

Not a big deal to you? Me thinks thou doth protest too much. For not being a big deal you sure seem to devote an enormous amount of time and effort towards ridiculing the idea. I seem to remember you saying that if a OBR ever passed in Michigan you would be moving to another State, or something to that effect.

walleyechaser

08-03-2006, 10:01 AM

I've sat back and watched these threads regarding MARs and One Buck only go around and around for some time and the same question keeps popping into my head.
Common sense dictates that going to a OBL for the year is going to save a number of bucks period !
Who cares what the exact percantage is ? Percentages and statistics are for those with too much time on their hands or are grasping for anything that supports their position/opinion.
Will OBL save all yearlings ? Of course not and no one has implied that. Will OBL save some yearlings ? Absolutely and only a total lack of common sense or some other unspoken agenda would cause one to think otherwise.
A OBL is a partial solution but its a step in the right direction.
Waiting for the "Pie in the Sky" COMPLETE solution is like sitting on the side of the road with a flat tire while not bothering to change it because it won't solve the WHOLE problem. You aren't going anywhere !
Let's get real. a OBL is a partial but indisputable means of protecting some yearling bucks and non yearlings as well so continue to sit on that roadside with a flat tire if you wish while others drive by in wonderment.
JMO but go ahead and flame away if you wish; even through in some statistics for good measure but fact is fact period!:evilsmile

NorthJeff

08-03-2006, 10:09 AM

Munster..right, it wouldn't effect me because I could move, but I also get enough hunting in other states throughout the season too. Same with the MAR..doesn't effect me as much as it does the public land hunter. And therin lies the difference between me and you. I spend an enormous amount of time in the public eye, on the radio, etc....not necessarily for myself, but for the big picture of deer and deer hunting in MI. ANY effective regulation we can get pushed or implemented through the process I'll attempt it. The only process we have had in the past is the MAR...the ONLY one! That was a chance to do some actual good, to make a significant difference, and although 1/3 of the hunters and landowners were against it, they still complain and offer no workable solutions, no answers.

I'm all about results. I won't waste my time on futile baseless ideas no matter how much they are admired and pursued in the public eye. We have to explore changes that make noticable and credible results and although it may or may not effect myself, it's a passion I have for the love of hunting, deer, and deer habitat. "feel-good" regulations and high-fives do nothing for the future of deer and deer hunting but stall progress and real results. Believe me, if I thought a 1 buck license would provide results...I would have been on this subject as hard as I fight it, for the past several years. However, all I see is the probable continuation of the mediocrity we have...not necessarily on my property, but in MI as a whole, and that is a shame.

And yes, one of the reasons we did not move to PA 8 years ago was the 1 buck license...I hunt too much to enjoy living in a state like that. I might shoot my best buck on opening day in MI this year..but rest assured I'll be hunting until Jan. of this year with my bow unless a bigger buck comes by...and I'll enjoy and treasure every extra month, week, day and hour, as I have 18 other years (just realized this will be my 21st year hunting whitetails, not 20th)

Walleyechaser..talk about agenda, these continued discussions are full of anti-MAR folks throughout the dozens of pages of past discussions..think about it, maybe you are one too;) Some are full of rifle only hunters. Some are full of guys that only hunt a few days a year, some that have very poor hunting because of their own hunting styles that are not willing to change. Some are full of guys that will continue to shoot everything that moves, regardless of age yet tote a banner of the "the 1 buck license is what is best for the herd now", as if that really matters to them now at this point, when it never has before. "agendas" yes, everyone has one.

November Sunrise

08-03-2006, 10:13 AM

Duh. There's no question what one buck total per year will do for buck numbers and buck age structure, in my mind. Hunters in KY and OH say the same. The only hang up's are if Michigan hunters themselves are willing to limit themselves to only one buck and if MDNR is willing to stick it's neck out. My guess is no and no. Michigan hunters are now addicted to the idea of being able to possibly kill two bucks and at least kill one buck to "get their buck" and then look for mature bucks that usually don't exist for just the former reason. Once people get used to something, even if not good for them, it's difficult to give up. Ask any smoker. So, one buck per season, instead of year will possibly be the compromise for us next year.

The financial aspect is currently the primary limiting factor -as I previously posted, the financial elements are in the process of being worked out.

Hunter support for moving to a one buck rule is very solid, and is on the increase.

There is one additional facet to this that is very significant in terms of why the NRC is likely to implement a OBR. Interestingly enough, in all of our previous discussions of a OBR on this forum, this factor has never been mentioned. Since the detractors of a OBR seem to be oblivious to this additional consideration, I'm not going to spell it out for them here on the forum, but it's going to be an important component of the decision making process.

Science and common sense converge to form the perfect union in respect to this topic. Just as you said in the beginning of your post "Duh. There's no question what one buck per year will do for buck numbers and buck age structure". I like your statement so well that I'm considering making it my new signature line:D.

NorthJeff

08-03-2006, 10:18 AM

"Hunter support for moving to a one buck rule is very solid, and is on the increase."

Yep, 1 for bow, 1 for rifle. It will still hurt recreational opportunity, but that will be unnoticable to the average hunter. There is a lot of confusion in that area...most don't know if you are talking 1 for all season, or 1 for each season. Of course, there are many rifle-only hunters that are happy to have it be 1 for all seasons.

walleyechaser

08-03-2006, 10:48 AM

Just for the record NJ, I'm very much in favor of MARs and a OBL per year,
not per season.
BTW, I hunt as often as I can, about every day on the average, during both bow and firearms season and I wouldn't move out of state if Mars and OBLs become a reality! As a matter of fact I'd probably start a lifelong celebration!
It just gets a little old listening to discussions about DNR funding from license revenues and loss of opportunity.
Deer Hunting in Michigan is very cheap when we take into consideration how much the cost of goods and services have increased, even during the last few years and compared to other states. I strongly support a license fee increase and all some of those that complain about how they couldn't afford to hunt need to do is give up a case of beer a week to pay for the increase.
As for loss of opportunity, its us as hunters who decide when and where to pull the trigger or release an arrow. When we make the decision to do so we've also made the decision to end our season.
It just seems like some hunters like the public in general, want someone else to take responsibility for their actions. If more opportunity is needed by some, purchase a digital camera and have a ball!
We as hunters have a lot more say in the overall scheme of things than most are willing to admit. After all, its us hunters that make the decision to pull the trigger or release an arrow, not someone in the DNR or NRC.

Pinefarm

08-03-2006, 10:52 AM

Jeff, to me the burden would be proving that they would be shot anyways, by other hunters. Does anyone have any numbers proving so? I guess you'd have to ask the biologists from all the other states like IN, OH, IL, IA and KY if they would want to go to two bucks a season. Has anyone contacted any of those other states biologists on the matter? Michigan is losing hunters every year. The NLP has lost 4-6% a year for the last 5-6 years and will continue to lose hunters. But one could argue, if Michigan still has so much pressure, why in hell allow the most pressured state to have the most liberal buck tags? It's like the state with the highest business taxes and the least amount of business raising business taxes even more because the state doesn't have enough new businesses. And why would QDM advocates block making the most pressured state with the most liberal buck tags and one of the worst buck age structures to continue such a practice? Having two buck tags is like Traditional Deer Management on steriods in many area's of the NLP. It defies logic, to me. Sure, ending baiting would be huge too. But baiting won't end in Michigan until CWD starts. So until then, ending being the odd state out with two buck tags per season and joining all the other states as either a one buck per year or a one buck per each season state is all we have to work with for improving age structure on a mandated level. And if mandated, even the most uneducated hunter can be a bigger part of the solution if he simply follows the law. My .02

Pinefarm

08-03-2006, 10:59 AM

The reason one buck (either year or season) is on the radar screen is because MDNR and the NRC were even suprised by how many hunters demanded such at all the Winter deer meetings. And from what I personally saw and heard, the demand came from all sides. It came from QDM'ers wanting better herd structure, Trophy managers wanting more and bigger bucks and Traditional managers wanting more deer to see. If anyone went to the Winter meetings, I think you know what I'm talking about. Calls for one buck may have been the 2nd most popular subject mentioned.

NorthJeff

08-03-2006, 11:02 AM

Pinefarm

08-03-2006, 11:08 AM

Jeff, you have a vehicle, don't you? The SLP needs doe killers. And of all this talk of not finding access puzzles me. I just got access to hunt a prime 15 acre spot and prime 11 acre spot in Kent county about 2 weeks ago. I found it quite easy to get access. I just started knocking on doors.

walleyechaser

08-03-2006, 11:21 AM

NJ, would I miss it? Certainly but I made the decision to end my season and I would hold back on a doe until late in the season to spend more time in the woods.Would I regret taking the first buck if I saw a real monster later? Again, most certainly to a degree but I have a pretty good idea of what bucks are in my area which is why I held out during both seasons last year trying to get a shot at THE buck and never did. I did find one side of his sheds this spring so guess what I'll be doing this coming season again but that's my choice!
I can appreciate your situation not having any antlerless tags available in your DMU but common.
If I'm not mistaken, you travel out of state to hunt as well. What would be so hard about antlerless hunting in another DMU?
I can see where some hunters who hunt in their "back yards" might be limitied to weekends if they had to hunt another DMU but that's still better than not hunting at all.

Munsterlndr

08-03-2006, 11:37 AM

Walleyechaser,
You choose to end the season by pulling the trigger, but as an avid hunter if you shoot your best buck on 10/3...you won't miss hunting the rest of the season? What about that extra tag I might use to shoot a doe with my bow, since there are no doe tags available for my area? (and shouldn't be but that doesn't mean a few managed properties don't need them!).

If you choose to burn your one buck tag on a buck on 10/3 I would guess that it would be a pretty nice buck. I doubt most hunters are going to use their one buck tag on Sparky the wonderbuck and then be done for the year. If all the other hunters out there are facing the same situation, the odds of Sparky advancing to the next year increase substantially.

As far as the other tag being used for a doe, that is why the combo tag should be changed to one buck/ one doe.

That way you can still use your bow in the UP to harvest a doe (just like you can now). If you are a rifle only hunter, specific DMU's could be closed to firearms doe hunting (like they are now) and then in order to use the doe portion of the combo you would have to drive to a DMU that was open to firearms doe hunting. You would be hard pressed to find a spot in Michigan where you could not find a place open to antlerless hunting within a 2 hour drive. Most everybody has a car and there is lots of both public and private land that is accessible in areas that could use an increased doe harvest.

Of course, that might not be acceptable to those who have the philosophy that there is no challenge in hunting does. If you perceive harvesting does as shooting and harvesting bucks as hunting, I can see why you might be adamantly opposed to going to a OBR. But we have come a long way in this State in terms of educating hunters towards the benefits of harvesting does and thankfully the tradition of not shooting does has begun to change over the years. More and more hunters are actually enjoying hunting and harvesting does, as hard as that may be to believe.

NorthJeff

08-03-2006, 11:41 AM

Bob, I'm not driving to the south just to shoot a doe...I'm talking about shooting a doe on my property because it's needed for management. I have enough property to manage and make sure I'm making appropriate harvest decisions for my property in MI and my lease in WI...I shoot does because I need to, not because I consider it why I hunt. I hunt to hunt mature bucks...I can shoot a doe at any time of the hunting season on my property or in WI, it's the challenge of harvesting a mature buck that makes me go into the woods, is the my responsibility as a steward of the resources that makes me go into the woods to harvest does. Right now if I shoot a doe on my property it will be with 1 of the combo tags because there are no private land permits.

Did you really think I was complaining about the need to shoot a doe for meat or something? Finding hunting property has always been easy to me.

Also, you think that the removing on the 2nd license will do something, and I think it might to the south, but you have to remember I live within an area where the culture of hunting revolves around baiting a week before the season, sitting in a tent, against a tree, or shack within 150 yards of a turn-off elbow to elbow with 3 or 4 other hunters using the same parking spot or dead-end road, for a few days, looking for 1 buck...only 1 buck, no matter what it is. A 1 buck license on public lands up here is not the answer, the answer lies in what age buck we shoot...not the number of bucks that are shot. Those dumb little yearlings will be shot over bait anyways, IF that person hunting once a year for a few days decides by some miracle to pass him anyways....just doen'st happen up here. If OH, KY, IN game managers deal with millions of acres of public land and baiting, then there information is useful, if not, its no different than bringing your waterskis to the U.P. for a Christmas run on the lake.

I see a bunch of hunters, hunting very few days a year, hunting their only days of the season the first few days of the gun season, more than willing to take any buck they see, with not an incling of a thought for another license. Also, I see 50 acres of woods broken up into 6 or 7 patches in the thumb area filled with 20 hunters per square mile in lots of the southern ag area shooting bucks in a situation it's not a matter of if the buck is killed...only by whom. I just don't see the 1 buck license is the answer, the answer lies it what is shot instead...not by who or how many.

Munstr, I've killed so many does I don't like to...I do it because I have to. I don't appreciate the challenge, it's basically a messy day in the woods. However, I do my part....I drove 13 hours round-trip to hunt 3 hours and shoot a couple of does on our WI property not for my health, not for meat, certainly not for the challenge, but instead because of my responsibility to the habitat and the herd. Shooting does can be fun and rewarding and is for probably most hunters...but at some point it becomes more work than fun anymore and I'd much rather watch a youth hunter harvest a doe on my property, than do it myself....and if you've ever watched a youth shoot a doe, now there is true excitement, bringing tears to your eyes and a beating heart.

Liver and Onions

08-03-2006, 12:12 PM

........ So, one buck per season, instead of year will possibly be the compromise for us next year.

I don't like that compromise because then they would both be unrestricted wouldn't they ? A huge step backwards IMO. How about a choice of being able to buy only one unrestricted per year or two restricted per year ? Per year, not season.
Again, I'll remind everyone that Mich. had a one buck rule for over 5 decades. Mich. had a one buck bow & one buck gun rule for about 5 years. At least in my area, neither of these rules saved small bucks or slowed down the trigger finger. What made a difference in our area was the 4 pt. on one side rule. On the second year of that rule, we took as many 2 1/2 yr. olds as we had in the previous 10 yrs. on our property. By the end of the 3 yr. we had taken as many as in the previous 40 years. Maybe hard to believe, but true on one piece of property. I will qualify that by saying there were very few deer in our area during the 50's some in the 60's and decent numbers during the 70's.

L & O

Swamp Ghost

08-03-2006, 12:19 PM

I am not in favor of one buck per season. 1 buck per year or keep current reg's. To go back to one buck per season is a gigantic step in the wrong direction.

NorthJeff

08-03-2006, 01:26 PM

The idea of 2 restricted tags, or 1 unrestricted is really a great idea.

Munsterlndr

08-03-2006, 01:27 PM

I don't like that compromise because then they would both be unrestricted wouldn't they ? A huge step backwards IMO. How about a choice of being able to buy only one unrestricted per year or two restricted per year ? Per year, not season.
Again, I'll remind everyone that Mich. had a one buck rule for over 5 decades. Mich. had a one buck bow & one buck gun rule for about 5 years. At least in my area, neither of these rules saved small bucks or slowed down the trigger finger. What made a difference in our area was the 4 pt. on one side rule. On the second year of that rule, we took as many 2 1/2 yr. olds as we had in the previous 10 yrs. on our property. By the end of the 3 yr. we had taken as many as in the previous 40 years. Maybe hard to believe, but true on one piece of property. I will qualify that by saying there were very few deer in our area during the 50's some in the 60's and decent numbers during the 70's.

L & O

L&O -
This has been debated many times before but to compare Michigan's one buck policy, in the past, when there were very, very few antlerless permits available and a culture ingrained that precluded shooting does is an apples to oranges comparison. I started hunting during that era. Back in the day a lot of hunters shot spikes because they could not legally shoot does, and they wanted some venison. That is no longer the situation, so to expect that a OBR would not have an impact in protecting younger bucks, simply because Michigan used to do it that way, is not correct.

I would agree with you that one buck per season, unrestricted licenses would be a major step back. I'd rather have the status quo then to make that change.

Swamp Ghost

08-03-2006, 01:34 PM

The idea of 2 restricted tags, or 1 unrestricted is really a great idea.

Yep, gives MI hunters the best of both worlds and let them decide for themselves which is most important to them, vension in the freezer or more time afield.

1 unrestricted tag for $30 or 2 restricted tags (4 points to a side) for $30.

You cannot go wrong with this option!

Munsterlndr

08-03-2006, 01:38 PM

Yep, gives MI hunters the best of both worlds and let them decide for themselves which is most important to them, vension in the freezer or more time afield.

1 unrestricted tag for $30 or 2 restricted tags (4 points to a side) for $30.

You cannot go wrong with this option!

Just curious, do you know of any other state that has that kind of license set up?

NorthJeff

08-03-2006, 01:40 PM

It keeps the guys shooting 2 bucks..shooting 2 older bucks in most of the state, and it gives the freedom for some to shoot anything they want..once.

Swamp Ghost

08-03-2006, 01:56 PM

Just curious, do you know of any other state that has that kind of license set up?

Nope. Can't MI be the first to anything?:)

Munsterlndr

08-03-2006, 02:00 PM

Nope. Can't MI be the first to anything?:)

Well, we could have been first to allow deer hunting with an Atlatl but darn it, that progressive state of Pennsylvania beat us out! :lol:

How about an extended tomahawk season?

Swamp Ghost

08-03-2006, 02:07 PM

Well, we could have been first to allow deer hunting with an Atlatl but darn it, that progressive state of Pennsylvania beat us out! :lol:

How about an extended tomahawk season?

LOL! Tomahawks would be a blast!

bwiltse

08-03-2006, 02:08 PM

How about a choice of being able to buy only one unrestricted per year or two restricted per year ?

Sounds like a reasonable compromise.

magnumhntr

08-03-2006, 02:20 PM

I myself would be more than happy to try either of the option offered by NorthJeff or Munsterlndr. I see Jeffs point about time in the woods, and would be willing to try the 2 restricted or 1 unrestricted system. I also can agree with Munsterlndr as to changing the combo to 1 buck/1 doe period. If you shoot your buck on opening day of bow season, you've still got a tag to hunt does with.

As a side note, I'm leaning more towards Munsterlndr's idea, as (this is not an insult to you personally Jeff) it seems most people who want the 2 buck tags want it so they can continue to hunt another mature buck. I guess I don't understand what the difference is between 1 mature and 2 mature in sense of accomplishments. If I killed what I consider a shooter buck on 10/1, I'd be tickled pink. Would I want to keep hunting? Sure! But the fact that I outwitted a deer of that calibur would make me the happiest guy in the world. I'd still have a doe tag to keep hunting. And if filling a doe wasn't my cup 'o tea, I could grab a video camera, go fishing, bird hunting, trapping, etc. There is PLENTY of opportunity for people in michigan, not just deer hunting. And all this from a die hard bow hunter who lives to sit in a tree with a bow in hand. I just find it selfish to demand the second buck tag.

NorthJeff

08-03-2006, 02:55 PM

Munsterlndr

08-03-2006, 03:04 PM

"I guess I don't understand what the difference is between 1 mature and 2 mature in sense of accomplishments."

It's not more an accomplishment as it is being able to still be able to enjoy the passion we are kept from doing for 9 months out of the year....hunting mature bucks. It's not so much the harvest either. For my experience though it has allowed me to hunt until the last day of the season for 18/20 years..not that I shot a buck those 18 years, because I didn't, just that I had the opportunity. If someone told me I'd have to shoot a 12pt..I'd still be out hunting but no tag-no hunting, and my wife would kick me out of the house I'd be so miserable and onry! Some of us live for the pursuit of mature bucks..it's the only reason I hunt. I can hike, scout, photograph, manage property, plant, etc. all year..but hunting is only 3 months.

Another way to look at it. I increase the buck herd in the area 4-5xs or more, triple the age structure of bucks, increase the herd health, and some rifle only hunter that hunts 4 days a year and has shot any young buck for the past 20 years is going to tell me I can't take advantage of what has taken me 7 years to produce because it's now time to "do what is best for the herd?..not going to happen.

It's a way of life, and an obsession..for 3 months out of the year if possible.

We establish deer policy for the entire hunting population of the State not for a select few individuals. The fact that you choose to spend time improving your land, increasing the health of the herd, etc. does not entitle you to any more deer or harvest opportunity than the 16 year old kid that goes out and sits in a blind for one afternoon during firearms season. The deer herd is a public resource not owned by private individuals, regardless of who owns the land. You don't want to live by the rules that the rest of us live under, fine, fence your acreage and get licensed as a deer farm by the State. Then you and Ted Nugent can go out and shoot a deer any day of the year you want. Short of that, however, the idea that you should be "entitled" to more hunting opportunity because you put more into hunting than others is just plain wrong.

NorthJeff

08-03-2006, 03:12 PM

Munster...you are right, but it just burns me to hear the avg. rifle hunter up here sing "we have to do what is best for the herd", that argument, coming from the avg. guy means absolutely nothing and frankly it's a slap in the face to some of us that actually have provided them with a higher quality hunt because of our own sacrifices and hard work.

"Do what is best for the herd"...that's real rich coming from guys that haven't done anything for the area they hunt other than drive ATVs in the woods, set up tents, shoot any legal buck, hunt a few days a year, and plant carrots in a big pile. I'd say if you are a rifle only hunter by choice..you don't get a say in the matter because you lack the perspective of someone that enjoys hunting the full 3 months of the year.

Nick Adams

08-03-2006, 05:53 PM

...guys that haven't done anything for the area they hunt other than drive ATVs in the woods, set up tents, shoot any legal buck, hunt a few days a year, and plant carrots in a big pile. I'd say if you are a rifle only hunter by choice..you don't get a say in the matter because you lack the perspective of someone that enjoys hunting the full 3 months of the year.

This part of your "hearts and minds" campaign to win more yoopers over to your side of the issue?

I haven't met many of the people you describe while hunting public lands in the western UP. Must be a central UP thing.

-na

Trophy Specialist

08-03-2006, 06:12 PM

Michigan had a one-buck limit for many years in the distant past and also tried it again during the late 90s in much of the U.P. The results were less than impressive, with buck to doe ratios much worse then than they are now in the areas I hunted. I’d love to see some test areas set up in MI (similar to the MARs experiments) to survey whether a one-buck law there would have any significant impact on the quality of the deer herd. Why is it that the supporters of a one-buck limit aren’t pushing for some test areas? Could it be that they are afraid that they might be wrong? Or is it just laziness? First establish the science and then we’ll see about implementing it statewide. Anything else would be against the law of managing our wildlife resources based on sound science. Biologists in MI have gone on record as being opposed to a one-buck limit, so at present, the science says no one-buck limit.

NorthJeff

08-03-2006, 06:57 PM

Sorry Nicky...it's a downstate coming up here for a few days to hunt kind of a thing...not much to do with the locals;)

BTW..I don't meet many of them either....I don't hunt with them by their cars and trucks.

olliek

08-03-2006, 07:17 PM

I am a rifle only hunter by choice. I plant 20 acres of various foodplots on 125 acres of NLP land, at a cost of over 1,000 dollars. And I should get less say than N.J, because I choose not to hunt with a bow???

NorthJeff

08-03-2006, 07:35 PM

November Sunrise

08-03-2006, 09:06 PM

Michigan had a one-buck limit for many years in the distant past and also tried it again during the late 90s in much of the U.P. The results were less than impressive, with buck to doe ratios much worse then than they are now in the areas I hunted. I’d love to see some test areas set up in MI (similar to the MARs experiments) to survey whether a one-buck law there would have any significant impact on the quality of the deer herd. Why is it that the supporters of a one-buck limit aren’t pushing for some test areas? Could it be that they are afraid that they might be wrong? Or is it just laziness?

A one buck rule has been proven to have the exact opposite effect on buck to doe ratios - it puts greater pressure on antlerless deer and tightens the buck/doe ratio.

It's interesting how you attempt to malign the character of individuals who disagree with you, such as your statement yesterday that "MAR naysayers lack the conviction to put their ideas to the test", or your statement in the post above questioning "are they afraid that they might be wrong? Or is it just laziness?". Is it your perspective that everyone who disagrees with you regarding deer management is lacking in conviction and ambition?

Swamp Ghost

08-03-2006, 10:09 PM

A one buck rule has been proven to have the exact opposite effect on buck to doe ratios - it puts greater pressure on antlerless deer and tightens the buck/doe ratio.

It's interesting how you attempt to malign the character of individuals who disagree with you, such as your statement yesterday that "MAR naysayers lack the conviction to put their ideas to the test", or your statement in the post above questioning "are they afraid that they might be wrong? Or is it just laziness?". Is it your perspective that everyone who disagrees with you regarding deer management is lacking in conviction and ambition?

There is a lot of truth to what TS is saying and I whole hardely agree with him, in principle.

Whit1

08-04-2006, 01:01 AM

This thread is beginning to drift guys!!!!!!

Munsterlndr

08-04-2006, 07:02 AM

Getting back to the topic, OBR, as previously mentioned, any comparison between Michigan when it only allowed one buck in the past and the conditions today are just not valid. Int he past Michigan allowed almost no antlerless permits. I hunted for about half a dozen years before I even heard of someone in my area getting an antlerless permit and even then they were very rare. So hunters had few alternatives if they were interested in harvesting some venison, as most hunters are. Also, as I mentioned in another thread, at that time a group of hunters could harvest a camp deer so in many cases individual hunters were able to harvest more than one buck in a given season.

The other factor that has changed is the culture concerning shooting does. When I started to hunt all of the older hunters who I hunted with frowned on the idea of hunting does. Even if permits had been available I doubt many would have used them.

So to compare todays hunting climate with the conditions in Michigan in the past is just not a valid comparison. To continue to perpetuate the idea that "we've tried that and it didn't work" is just another sad attempt to mis-characterize a valid management concept, so that a small number of individuals can continue to shoot two mature bucks a year.

As far as a test DMU for a one buck rule, it's a little more complex than a test DMU for AR's. If combo licenses are still being sold and hunters can harvest two bucks, even in a test DMU you are not going to see a valid representation of what the psychological impact would be on hunters, if they still have the mulligan buck option. All it would mean is they would only shoot one of their two bucks in the test DMU and then go to another part of the State to shoot the second buck. Given that scenario it's still pretty likely that Sparky is going to get shot in the test DMU. So to criticize supporters of a OBR for not initiating a test DMU is a pretty pathetic attempt, IMO. If you want to look at a OBR model, take a look at Illinois, Ohio, Indiana and any number of other OBR States. It is telling that very few hunters in those States are complaining about the lack of hunting opportunity because they can't shoot two bucks in a year.

Pinefarm

08-04-2006, 09:07 AM

"because I choose not to hunt" is the operative statement. No, people that choose not to hunt during an entire open season should not be given as much consideration as those who do hunt, because all they are at that point is a non-hunter, as far as that season is concerned. They aren't even participating in the sport and are possibly golfing. At that point during the archery season, all a non-hunter is is a non-hunter. That's like saying "I don't Fall turkey hunt, but I want to shape Fall turkey regulations". Not participating is a choice anyone can make, but it comes with ramifications. IMHO. For example, even if a dove season passes, I won't be participating. So, should I really weigh in on the the actual dove hunters about what the regs should be for their season? I don't think so.
To me, firearms only hunters who want to curtail bowhunters is usually motivated by one unattractive human trait.

Whit1

08-04-2006, 09:14 AM

I don't bow hunt anymore. Does that move me from supporting firearms only regs and put bowhunting.....and bowhunters....into the dustbin of my concern? Not in any way whatsoever. I do not subscribe to that childish, juvenile (my former students would utter it....."that's not fair".

NorthJeff

08-04-2006, 09:15 AM

Bob,I was in a small-group meeting with the DNR a few months ago with about 20 people, incuding 4 DNR biologist. There was actually some comments, and support from more than one...wondering why bowhunters even got their own season.

Also, Bob Doepker, cheif wildlife biologist for the western U.P. actually spoke up to the extent of Don't you guys remember when you didn't only rifle hunt? Most of us have bowhunted at some point, we can't just make regulations for rifle hunters and we have to keep the recreational opportunity available for all seasons.

I didn't quote him, but the jist of it was to point out to the mostly rifle hunter-only crowd that there are other hunters out there beside rifle hunters, and there are others that hunt all 3 months. I honestly believe there are more than a few rifle hunters that would be happy to see bowhunting season end.

Milt, not all care about the resources and hunters in general as much as you do though when considering all types of deer hunting and deer hunters. There are definatley guys out there...probably on both sides of the isle that would like to see either bow or rifle season to end, and I question their level of credibility and objectivity when promoting any season/license change just the same as when I see guys that have shot yearlings for decades say "it's time we do something for the health of the herd" when urging a 1 buck license.

November Sunrise

08-04-2006, 09:16 AM

Getting back to the topic, OBR, as previously mentioned, any comparison between Michigan when it only allowed one buck in the past and the conditions today are just not valid. Int he past Michigan allowed almost no antlerless permits. I hunted for about half a dozen years before I even heard of someone in my area getting an antlerless permit and even then they were very rare. So hunters had few alternatives if they were interested in harvesting some venison, as most hunters are.

The other factor that has changed is the culture concerning shooting does. When I started to hunt all of the older hunters who I hunted with frowned on the idea of hunting does. Even if permits had been available I doubt many would have used them.

So to compare todays hunting climate with the conditions in Michigan in the past is just not a valid comparison. To continue to perpetuate the idea that "we've tried that and it didn't work" is just another sad attempt to mis-characterize a valid management concept

Wait a minute.

Are you suggesting that it might not be valid to compare MI deer hunting in the 70's to the present?

Wow - this is radical. In a minute I have to run out and pick up my leisure suit from the dry cleaners, purchase the new Olivia Newton John eight track tape, and fill up the Pinto with gas - while I do, I'm going to be thinking about your comments that things have changed since the 70's.

If that's true, then it's almost as if the individuals who bring out the tired old refrain of "we already tried this" may be hoping that no one's going to state the obvious differences between then & now, as you did in your post. Interesting.

Swamp Ghost

08-04-2006, 10:13 AM

It's interesting how you attempt to malign the character of individuals who disagree with you, such as your statement yesterday that "MAR naysayers lack the conviction to put their ideas to the test", or your statement in the post above questioning "are they afraid that they might be wrong? Or is it just laziness?". Is it your perspective that everyone who disagrees with you regarding deer management is lacking in conviction and ambition?

Research the studies and conclusions yourself.

Form your own conclusions based on your research

I encourage folks to come back with some reputable studies backed by reputable biologists that claim MAR's or an OBR is detrimental to the health of the population, and hurts hunters and/or the sport of deer hunting.

I can't find any, but I would be interested in reading "reputable" opinions that backs your positions.

Most naysayer's won't bother

Liver and Onions

08-04-2006, 10:15 AM

Wait a minute.

Are you suggesting that it might not be valid to compare MI deer hunting in the 70's to the present?

Wow - this is radical. In a minute I have to run out and pick up my leisure suit from the dry cleaners, purchase the new Olivia Newton John eight track tape, and fill up the Pinto with gas - while I do, I'm going to be thinking about your comments that things have changed since the 70's.

If that's true, then it's almost as if the individuals who bring out the tired old refrain of "we already tried this" may be hoping that no one's going to state the obvious differences between then & now, as you did in your post. Interesting.

Yeah, some things sure have changed haven't they ? My experiences lead me to believe that deer hunting attitudes haven't changed all that much. Most guys want to get a buck, any legal buck as quickly as possible. Many will fill another hunter's license if that situation arises. Party hunting is legal in some States. It happens all the time here too when guys are fishing, water foul hunting and deer hunting. Thousands if not tens of thousands will go the next step and buy a license for their non-hunting friend or uncle if we go to the one buck rule. The majority of hunters now have never not been able to buy two buck licenses. Within the past 6 months, 3 of the DNR's top brass have all said that a one buck rule would save only a few bucks. Partly because of the reasons above and also because that "saved" buck is going to be taken by some other hunter a few minutes, days or weeks later. But, what do they know, right ?
Someone one on this site, I forget who now, was so naive to say that 25-30,000 bucks would be saved with the one buck rule. I wonder if that person actually even hunts or steps foot into the woods. He is certainly not thinking in the real world.
Deer hunting in my area changed a lot 2 years after we went to the 2 buck, one with 4 pts. on a side rule. I also like the idea of letting a hunter take a smaller buck if he wants. That's why I like the idea of letting a hunter choose between one any buck license or two restricted licenses at twice the price.
I guess on the issue of the past/present, we will continue to disagree.

L & O

NorthJeff

08-04-2006, 10:25 AM

One thing has changed in the last 30 years....baiting has now become virtually the only method of harvest on northern public lands, placing an extreme amount of pressure on inexperienced yearling bucks that are without the additional wisdom of their mothers...even more vulnerable than fawns that are typically accompanied by their mother. Huge change. Baiting is an effecient way to remove the bulk of the yearling age class and a short distance around parking areas becomes the preferred food source in the woods in the first few weeks of Nov.

Ferg

08-04-2006, 10:41 AM

We can beat baiting to death - but lets do so in another thread - this one is OBR -

thanks

ferg....

November Sunrise

08-04-2006, 11:27 AM

That "saved" buck is going to be taken by some other hunter a few minutes, days or weeks later....

Someone one on this site, I forget who now, was so naive to say that 25-30,000 bucks would be saved with the one buck rule

13% (30,659 out of 229,654) of the total antlered buck harvest in 2004 resulted from a second buck tag.

The opponents of a one buck limit attempt to dismiss the 30,000 number by claiming that a one buck limit would only spread the antlered buck harvest across more hunters, and that it wouldn’t actually lead to more bucks surviving the season.

How do we know if their claim is accurate?

Firstly, we can look to states that have had a one buck limit in place for many years, such as Ohio and Kentucky. You won’t find a wildlife biologist in either of these states who doesn’t acknowledge the powerful influence that a one buck rule has had in creating a much higher percentage of older bucks in their deer herd. In these states hunter support for a one buck limit remains high, because there’s a clearly established and indisputable track record of success.

Secondly, we can trust our own experience. How often have you heard a hunter speak about quickly filling their first tag, so that they can then wait for a “trophy”? With a one buck limit this approach will be gone. While some bucks that would have been killed with a second tag will indeed be taken by someone else, other bucks which would have been harvested with a first tag will survive the season due to hunters applying greater selectivity.

November Sunrise

08-04-2006, 11:49 AM

Within the past 6 months, 3 of the DNR's top brass have all said that a one buck rule would save only a few bucks.

A biologist isn't going to advocate doing anything that cuts $5.5 million in revenue from his department. When making public statements, the concept of a biologist speaking with complete neutrality and solely from a scientific perspective is myth. Self & job preservation is a reality.

If a biologist were 100% certain that a one buck rule wouldn't cost the department any revenue or jobs, what would their analysis of a OBR then be? That's the real question.

Furthermore, any biologist worth his salt will have a greater emphasis on maintaining the deer population within the physical and social carrying capacity of the area, more so than worrying about how many antlered bucks survive the season. Antlerless harvest and herd population control will continue to be an increasingly larger factor in the future than the things which those of us here on this forum get worked up about, which is almost always focused on older bucks.

A one buck limit puts an emphasis on antlerless harvest, which in the vast majority of our state is merited. It's undisputedly what the focus has to be in Zone 3, which is where 55% of hunter effort is expended and where persistent challenges exist in terms of maintaining an appropriate population.

We don't have to pretend that we're reinventing the wheel with a OBR. It's already been proven elsewhere that a OBR has the intended impact on antlerless harvest, and that it permits more antlered bucks to survive the season. Sincere debate can occur regarding how many more will survive the seaon, but claiming that it won't make any difference is not credible.

November Sunrise

08-04-2006, 11:51 AM

These quotes are from Indiana biologist Jim Mitchell.

2002 - at the beginning of the one buck rule - from Bill Scifres column

Dr. James "Jim" Mitchell, deer biologist for the Division of Fish and Wildlife, puts those questions into perspective in three paragraphs of a statement issued by the DFW:
"The 'one buck' rule change was not initiated by DNR officials. The change has been proposed by deer hunters and DNR wildlife managers have responded to that request.
"I believe that this rule will not appreciably change the antlered age structure (emphasis mine), but also will not appreciably reduce hunting opportunity (very few hunters currently take two antlered deer).
"The primary effect of the one buck rule will not be to change the antlered age structure of the antlered harvest, but rather to spread the antlered harvest across more hunters. Where the previous bag limit system resulted in some hunters taking two antlered bucks and others taking none, the one buck system will have fewer hunters taking no antlered bucks and more taking one antlered buck."

2003 quote from Indiana Fish & Game magazine

Mitchell said he expects to see hunters become more selective in their buck harvest because of the new one-buck regulation and because the state's deer hunters are maturing. He expects the selectivity will change the age structure of harvested bucks toward more mature animals (emphasis mine). "In fact, the first year (of the one-buck regulation), the harvest of our 1 1/2-year-old bucks did decrease and the harvest of older bucks increased," he said.

Changed his tune pretty quickly, didn't he?

NorthJeff

08-04-2006, 12:09 PM

Again, IN can have an older age structure of bucks than MI if they have 3 buck permits and a longer gun season...that's what happens in areas with high quality habitat, less hunters, high percentage of private land.

Think in terms of this, and I think this may have to do with the fact that most only hunt 1 type of habitat, and don't have a very good experience level with multiple types of habitat:

*There is always more potential of number of bucks, and age structure of bucks, the larger the parcel of private land there is, the more cover, and the more ag land it is associated with. For example, 30 acres of cover surrounded by ag land in southern MI and certainly IN, KY, OH, etc. has more potentail than 160 acres in the non-ag areas of the U.P. Doesn't matter how many hunt, how many permits there are....the two different parcels are drastically different. Now, make that 30 acres of cover in the ag land broken topography, 1/2 as many hunters on avg. or less, and the differences are staggering.

The point is the potential in IN, with less hunters, with improved overall habitat, with improved overall topography, etc., with more private land, is better than MI is no matter what MI does, or how equal it is. To say that IN is improving or better simply because of a 1 buck license, and that would happen in MI to as noticable degree, is to really not understand the drastic differences betwenn IN and MI hunting dynamics including hunter numbers, as well as overall habitat type of hunting land differences.

I personally think you could offer 3 tags in IN, make their rifle season 1 month long...the entire month of Nov., and they would still have a better age structure than MI. Also, the spread of QDM princples and the acceptance of those principles is much higher now than ever before and is not slowing down...that alone could have made the difference in IN the last few years.

Not a very good comparison at all.

November Sunrise

08-04-2006, 12:49 PM

Again, IN can have an older age structure of bucks than MI if they have 3 buck permits and a longer gun season...

They would still have a better age structure than MI.

Not a very good comparison at all.

The significance of the comparison is what IN hunters have accomplished, in comparison to themselves. In the same way as what PA hunters have accomplished, in comparison to themselves.

What it proves is that changing the regulations leads to a rapid and meaningful change in outcomes. Both states have accomplished something meaningful and of significance, which is increasing the amount of older bucks in the herd.

The difference is that PA did it through MAR's. I'm not opposed to MAR's, it's just that I don't have any reason to believe that they're going to happen anytime soon in MI. I currently see spending time advocating MAR's as akin to performing CPR on a corpse. It's a shame that the great work and energy that you and others put into making MAR's happen didn't lead to implementation, but at this point in time it appears to me to be a closed door.

As a result, I'm going to strongly advocate for a OBR because it has created compelling improvements wherever it's been implemented, and just as importantly, it's a palatable direction to the majority of hunters.

I enjoy the healthy debate, but at this point in time I'm going to bow out of this discussion. Have a good weekend everyone!

farmlegend

08-04-2006, 12:53 PM

If you look at topography, climate, soils, etc., there is virtually no difference between the northern tier counties of Indiana and the southern tier counties of Michigan. If you wandered around Hillsdale or Branch County, and were blindfolded, then set loose and unmasked in Steuben County, you wouldn't know you left Michigan. Deer hunting has also become a pretty big deal in northern Indiana in recent years. Drive across the toll road or I-69 just before dusk through Steuben, LaGrange, or DeKalb counties during their gun season, as I repeatedly have, and you'll see blaze orange in woodlots and field edges all about you. Further, I'm certain there is more public land in the northern tier of Indiana counties than there is in the comparable most southerly tier of our SLP.

Anecdotally, before Indiana's OBR was adopted, they were neck-and-neck with Michigan in alltime B&C entries. That's changed a lot; they had 18 of 'em in 2004 alone, and last I heard, 14 so far for 2005. We average 2-6 a year here in Michigan.

Another anecdotal fact - since the adoption of Indiana's OBR, some of the more notorious violators in my neck of the woods have shifted much of their activities across the state line. Check with the sheriff's office in Angola for more on this one.

Trophy Specialist

08-04-2006, 01:04 PM

It's interesting how you attempt to malign the character of individuals who disagree with you, such as your statement yesterday that "MAR naysayers lack the conviction to put their ideas to the test", or your statement in the post above questioning "are they afraid that they might be wrong? Or is it just laziness?". Is it your perspective that everyone who disagrees with you regarding deer management is lacking in conviction and ambition?
It has nothing to do with people that disagree with me in general, but rather those that are demanding a widespread one-buck limit with absolutly no science in MI what so ever to back up such a radical change in the deer regulations. MARs proponents stepped up to the plat, with great personal sacrafice, to obtain some science for the deer management method. Hats off to them for doing it right. On the other hand, the one-buck crowd seems to think that they can just screem loud enough and get their way without any sacrafice to obtain the science required by law. I still have not gotten an answer yet, so I'll ask again: Why isn't any organizerations stepping up and proposing some one-buck limit test areas? I'd support that effort completly, but going forward without the science is putting the cart ahead of the horse.

November Sunrise

08-04-2006, 01:05 PM

NorthJeff

08-04-2006, 01:06 PM

FL, just talking state averages as a whole, but even getting between Fort Wayne and Indy, the topography changes, and when you get south of Indy it's a totally different state. I'll agree southern MI and northern IN is a lot alike, but IN has so much more potential than MI (unless you remove the baiting from public land but that is a different topic as Ferg reminds me of even though it is probably the #1 contributer of yearling buck harvest :) )

Number of hunters, topography, overall private land, quality of habitat....not even close to MI.

The closest state to us in terms of public land, hunter numbers, etc. in the area is probably WI..and we all know where they stand having 2 bucks you can shoot a year, but IN and MI are drastically different overall in a lot of ways.

Whit1

08-04-2006, 01:19 PM

Someone one on this site, I forget who now, was so naive to say that 25-30,000 bucks would be saved with the one buck rule. I wonder if that person actually even hunts or steps foot into the woods. He is certainly not thinking in the real world.
L & O

I'm one of those who posted that, or a similar stat as taken from the MDNR's data. NS has posted it above.

Yes, I do "actually even hunts" and I do step foot into the woods and I do so on a 12 month a year basis.

The data was from the "real world", as far as the "real world" exists in MDNR data anyway.

farmlegend

08-04-2006, 02:15 PM

One final comment. We saw two GIANT bucks last night in Williams County, OH, just a short number of miles from the IN & MI borders. One of the bucks had the tallest rack I've ever seen in person - it was breath taking.

An acquaintance of mine farms in Williams County, nearby where the three states come together (less than a mile outside of Michigan). A friend of mine hunts his farm, and just missed an opportunity to arrow a 190 in. non-typical there in 2004; he'd watched the deer for a good half hour, and got great looks at him before he came in. Of course, he's hunted his whole life in Michigan, and never once seen anything like that buck here.

FREEPOP

08-04-2006, 02:26 PM

Yep them bucks know where the state and county lines are.

M1Garand

08-04-2006, 03:24 PM

The OBR can be debated until we are all blue in the face but the fact is unless we try it, we don't know what the effects will be. I happen to believe it will have positive effects on the age structure, not from a biological standpoint but from the impact it will have on hunter selections on what they take when they no longer have the mulligan buck tag. I could be right, I could be wrong but we won't know until we try.

Even biologists can't say with 100% certainty what the effects will be until one of them conducts actual research on whether a OBR has any effect. They can have an opinion and but it is just that until it is tested.

Liver and Onions

08-04-2006, 03:32 PM

I'm one of those who posted that, or a similar stat as taken from the MDNR's data. NS has posted it above.

Yes, I do "actually even hunts" and I do step foot into the woods and I do so on a 12 month a year basis.

The data was from the "real world", as far as the "real world" exists in MDNR data anyway.

Ok, show me the Michigan data that going to a OBR is going to SAVE 25-30,000 bucks. Saying that 25-30,000 bucks are tagged with the 2nd legal tag and saving those two bucks are 2 different things.

L & O

See post #61.........it comes from DNR data.

NorthJeff

08-04-2006, 03:37 PM

That's an exceptional point L&O. There is no evidence any bucks will be saved, and many MDNR folks are on record saying it will not. However, the health factors of an improved age structure and sex ratios is widely accepted in the scientific research community.

farmlegend

08-04-2006, 04:50 PM

No, we do not know if a OBR would save between 25,000 and 30,000 bucks. Some bucks passed upon could conceivably be killed by other hunters.

At the same time, we do not know if a OBR would save 50,000 or more bucks, by working to change the mindset of hunters. I bet we've got hundreds of thousands of Michigan deer hunters who have never, ever, in their entire hunting careers, passed on an opportunity to shoot a buck.

We do have the experience of Indiana, a state with which we share a 100 mile border, which has seen measurable improvements in the age structure of its bucks since the adoption of the OBR. And it appears to be strongly supported by hunters there.

Great discussions on this topic over at the Indiana Sportsman sister-site.

M1Garand

08-04-2006, 05:01 PM

That's a good point FL, in addition to the 25,000 to 30,000 second bucks, how many of the first ones may not be taken in the first place? I don't think we can quantify it but changing the mindset no doubt would add thousands onto that total. Sure, others may be taken by other hunters, predation, cars, etc. but that would still leave many thousands more surviving that otherwise wouldn't have.

NorthJeff

08-04-2006, 05:03 PM

"We do have the experience of Indiana, a state with which we share a 100 mile border, which has seen measurable improvements in the age structure of its bucks since the adoption of the OBR. And it appears to be strongly supported by hunters there."

A state with more potential than MI ever has had, or will have, much fewer hunters, incredibly improved habitat, substantially less public land, more private ag land, which is the easiest form of habitat/hunting to manage...kind of like KY and OH. VERY different states....except for the border we share.

Why does WI have better results than IN...with 2 buck tags, more public land, and less quality habitat/ag land overall? Could it be that WI has been practicing QDM principles for over a decade, and it's just caught on in IN during the past few years?

farmlegend

08-04-2006, 05:16 PM

Why does WI have better results than IN?

Partly because Indiana opens their gun season too early. Usually opens within a day or two of our gun opener, and sometimes on 11/15 itself.

Give Indiana a few more years, it's a state on the ascendancy.

One real advantage that Indiana has over us is their relative lack of a longstanding deer hunting culture. The stigma about taking does hardly exists there.

NorthJeff

08-04-2006, 05:27 PM

I believe WI's gun is 3 days after ours this year..maybe the same as IN's?

M1Garand

08-04-2006, 06:11 PM

To my knowledge, the rut peaks around Nov 8th so when the 15th rolls around, it's still on. Bump the firearms season up a few days (I think the 18th is the earliest WI has it) and I wouldn't mind seeing archery ending the 5th...maybe that could be beneficial? Lots of pieces to the puzzle and hopefully MI can fit them in one of these years and we can see some great hunting in my lifetime :)

Hamilton Reef

08-05-2006, 11:00 PM

Single deer license the way to go

Saturday, July 29, 2006 (517) 487-8888 ext. 237 bgwizdz@boothnewspapers.com

Discussion of a proposed new license package by a Natural Resources Commission-appointed committee, which has been on hiatus for several months, will pick back up in September, when the group will hear from state fish and wildlife officials about their desires.

The discussion on licenses will be wide open; it is not simply a matter of attempting to raise fees on existing licenses to balance the budget, but rather, a review of the entire system.

No subject is more significant -- nor in need of more attention -- than deer licenses.

The deer-license situation is a mess. Hunters have an option of buying an archery license and/or a firearms license -- each with one buck tag -- or a combination license with two tags allowing the hunter to take the bucks as they please. But hunters who opt for the combo license have a restricted tag, one that is good for a buck with at least four antler points on one side.

This factor played heavily into the debate over going to a one-buck limit in the Upper Peninsula. Hunters who opted for archery and firearms tags would have two buck tags in possession, neither of them restricted. As commissioner Bob Garner pointed out, such a situation could actually lead to more small bucks being taken, when the point of going to one buck was to decrease the kill of small bucks.

Michigan should sell a deer license. Period. And the cost should be the same regardless of the number of tags available.

In Michigan, only deer hunters are allowed to take more game if they pay more money (for tags). Small game hunters cannot buy two licenses and then kill four pheasants a day instead of two. Anglers cannot buy two fishing licenses and double their daily limits.

Virtually everyone agrees that natural resources should be available to all citizens at a reasonable license price. Allowing hunters who can afford to pay more the opportunity to kill more game flies in the face of that principle.

Similarly, why should there be separate archery and firearms licenses? All deer killed are equally dead. Anglers don't buy a separate license if they fish with a fly rod instead of live bait. Turkey hunters who use a bow don't buy a different license.

Were the NRC to decide that a one-buck limit should apply statewide, the current licensing system would deprive the Department of Natural Resources, which is struggling with budget issues, of nearly $6 million. That fact figured into the one-buck discussion as well, and the NRC has no appropriate response when critics argue that it makes decisions based on revenue considerations. Under the current license system, it would be irresponsible not to.

For the sake of argument, let's say the NRC decides to go to a one-buck limit in the U.P., but two in the Lower Peninsula -- as was proposed. With a single license, it could simply note that the restrictive tag was not legal in the Upper Peninsula and Yoopers would have the option of heading downstate if they wish to kill a second buck. (Though we all know they'll more likely just buy a license for mom or grandma.)

Hunters who only want to kill one buck would wind up paying more than they currently do, but, so? Anglers who don't keep a limit -- and many don't ever keep a single fish -- do not pay less for their licenses than those who load the boat daily. Licenses are an opportunity to participate, not meat vouchers. The legal limit and the cost of participation are two separate issues, though you wouldn't know that based on the current system.

But if all hunters were required to pay the cost of the combo license, the DNR's current deficit would disappear and the principle of equal access to resources regardless of economic standing would be preserved.

Will everyone like it? No. But until the state separates the price of a deer license from the limit, state officials will always be accused of making financial -- not resource-based -- decisions.

Kingstone

08-05-2006, 11:20 PM

Here in Michigan we don't even have to purchase a doe permit to shoot a doe. I hunt 125 acres and one other fellow hunts it too. he will not shoot a doe . But it is not against his code of ethics to shoot 5 or six buicks in a season. I have seen the population on this farm drop from a huge heard that showed 65 deer in one night to a sparce 6 .Old time ideas need to be trashed. The deer herd here has been destroyed . Between the DNR issuing daily doe permits and illegal hunters taking more than legally allowed we have turned legal hunters away from the sport.Public land hunting in my area has dropped drastically.The deer heard has dropped drastically. I belive that some deer managment is necessary but Mother nature has a role to play too.Seems that we forgot that somewhere along the line.

Whit1

08-05-2006, 11:50 PM

But it is not against his code of ethics to shoot 5 or six buicks in a season

He is a poacher pure and simple.

Now, let's get this back on track about the One Buck Rule.

badfrog_5

08-06-2006, 04:14 PM

The point is that when hunter limits himself to a week of hunting, and that's all the time he devotes to this sport, then it doesn't hold much water, to me anyways, when they are making decisions that drastically effect the avid hunter that hunts all seasons, when it is extremely conveniant and fits their personal time limits already.

Question Jeff ??
do you have a job ?? THose guys that come up from down state have jobs
where they just cant up and go away for 3 months! those guys arent as lucky as you & I to live here in the north I have a job and if i told my boss I needed 3 months off to hunt he would be telling me to hunt for new job !!
So you saying the a guy who only puts in a week to hunt is not devoted ??
Your WRONG!! and yes they should have a say to what happens with their hunting rights !! AND I AGREE WE SHOULD GO BACK TO 1 TAG AND 4 POINTS ON ONE SIDE and it cover bow / gun & muzzle!!so we give the slow growing bucks time to become trophy bucks !!! I live in DMU 452 and I can set in the woods all day and if I am lucky I might see a doe !!! oh and I doooo put my scouting time !! It has been a shoot fest around here for 5+ yrs. So please dont say that the guy from down state is not devoted !!

Basically, many people that would be for a 1 buck license that are rifle hunters, not all, but a whole lot, never think about a 2nd buck anyways..how convenient then to take away the 2nd license. Just doesn't hold much water. Someone like my dad for example. He hunts about 5-6 days a year, only buys one license, and wouldn't even think of an extra buck. To him he could really care less if there were 10 tags or 1....he is only going to be using one if possible anyways and it will have no effect on him whatsoever for his typical hunting season. read above ty

love2huntelk

08-06-2006, 04:49 PM

If given an opportunity to take two bucks, 90 percent of the guys out there will take two bucks. I love the scenario my neighbor gives me as I try to convince him not to shoot 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 year old bucks. It is the same answer he gives me every year and I have heard it from numerous guys at work or just in casual conversation. It goes something like this; "I have to get my first buck, and then I will trophy hunt." I usually ask them this question;" Are you just going to cut off that 6 point rack and throw it in the milk crate in your garage with the rest of them?" Give me a break. I love shooting does for the excellent table fare they provide. Why shoot a young buck when there are plenty of does out there. If we had a one tag rule for bucks, the average guy wouldn't want to cut his thrill for the hunt by shooting the first 1 1/2 year old 6 or 8 point that walked by! It makes people think! My rule on all my properties that friends or clients hunt is pure and simple; if you shoot a buck you have to mount it. (Great for the taxidermists out there and great for my property!) Also, button bucks are a $500 fine! Make people think before they shoot and Michigan could be an Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin. Its not where you hunt because we have good gentics and hearty deer in this state right here. One buck rule rules!

Whit1

08-07-2006, 11:37 AM

Trophy Specialist

08-07-2006, 11:57 AM

"1 ½ yr old deer do not represent 80% of the buck harvest. Based upon the age of deer brought to check stations for 2004 and 2005 (over 40,000 deer are checked each year), 65% of the known aged antlered deer checked are yearlings (1 ½ yr olds)."

The percentage of yearling bucks in the harvest varies greatly from one region to the other and even from year to year in those regions. In some areas it may be 80% while in other it might be less than 50%.

Swamp Ghost

08-07-2006, 12:36 PM

Come on Mike we all know check station data isn't an accurate representation of the state harvest as a whole!

Hence the quote:

65% of the known aged antlered deer checked are yearlings (1 ½ yr olds).

:evil:

farmlegend

08-07-2006, 12:38 PM

What TS said. It varies substantially.

Furthermore, the sampling of check station deer poorly reflects statewide harvest data. The location of check stations is disproportionately skewed geographically, in favor of traditional hunting regions. The DNR has not changed much with the times when it comes to locating check stations to areas where the deer are being killed. I can show you a locale in the southern lower, for example, that is a good hour's drive from the nearest check station. It is my suspicion that the % of the buck harvest represented by yearlings is highest in the southern lower, where, at the same time, a relatively fewer % of deer are checked. Some counties have never, since the beginning of time, had a check station within them.

Not too many guys killing deer in the Camden/Montgomery area are going to make the trek up to Grass Lake or Battle Creek to show 'em their yearling buck and collect a patch.

Hey, Swamp Ghost, how many guys in Branch County routinely take their deer in to get checked? Down in Hillsdale County, "check stations" are not part of the typical deer hunter's vocabulary, and never have been.

FREEPOP

08-07-2006, 12:50 PM

Furthermore, the sampling of check station deer poorly reflects statewide harvest data.

Yet they use the info to determine harvest data :confused:

Either it's good data or bad data :confused:

Nick Adams

08-07-2006, 01:26 PM

Yet they use the info to determine harvest data :confused:

Either it's good data or bad data :confused:

It's good data for use in their Sex-Age-Kill population model which they use to predict live deer numbers. It is not data that can be used to characterize the overall harvest.

Harvest numbers are generated from the random hunter surveys, not from the check stations.

-na

FREEPOP

08-07-2006, 01:32 PM

...and what magic formula turns bad data into good.

I'd like to put my checking account info thru it :p

Swamp Ghost

08-07-2006, 01:52 PM

...and what magic formula turns bad data into good.

I'd like to put my checking account info thru it :p

LMAO! now that's funny, I want in on that!

Nick Adams

08-07-2006, 01:55 PM

...and what magic formula turns bad data into good.

I'd like to put my checking account info thru it :p

quantum physics.

You could determine your account balance or the number of outstanding checks, but never both at the same time.

-na

Trophy Specialist

08-07-2006, 05:18 PM

Munsterlndr

08-07-2006, 05:40 PM

Actually they do use check station data in their harvest data. They use it to determine the number of button bucks in the antlerless kill and they use it to determine the number of adult/vs/yearling antlered bucks in the kill. I've also seen them measure the antler bases to gauge antler growth rates from year to year.

FL is right. Since many hunters up north reside down south, they check in a higher percentage of their deer than local hunters will in the southern part of the state where check stations are not as convenient. Case in point, I have checked many deer that I've taken up north on my way home, but I've never taken one in that I shot in S. MI.

If they do in fact use check station data to determine the number of BB's in the antlerless kill then it would be about as accurate as a WAG. How many hunters take a BB in to a check station? It's got to be the most under-represented type of deer checked just like I would venture to guess that a disproportionate number of mature bucks get taken in to be checked. Guys want everyone to see a large racked buck so they make the rounds from the buck pole to the check station to the party store parking lot. How many guys want to go around saying "hey, look at this great BB that I shot!"

That is the problem with using check station data to estimate harvest numbers, it is totally subject to whether a hunter decides to stop in and show off his deer. I would say 95% of the hunters I know do not take their deer in to get checked. I usually shoot a couple of deer a year and have only started having one checked since TB came about, to help make the quota for that DMU. I've never had more than one deer a year checked. Harvest estimates based on check station data are almost meaningless.

badfrog_5

08-07-2006, 10:18 PM

I emailed Rod Clute asking what % of the buck harvest is made up of 1 and 1/2 year old bucks. Below is his reply.

Mr. Whitmore ,
1 ½ yr old deer do not represent 80% of the buck harvest. Based upon the age of deer brought to check stations for 2004 and 2005 (over 40,000 deer are checked each year), 65% of the known aged antlered deer checked are yearlings (1 ½ yr olds)
.
THERS OVER A HUNDRED THOUS.. HUNTERS EVERY YEAR !!
AND ONLY 40 THOUS... GET A DEER >> YEA OK !! SO WHERE DID THE OTHER 60+ THOUS TAKE THERE DEER TO BE CHECKED ??? THAT IS THE POINT!! THAT DEER CHECK STATIONS DON'T WORK !!!!!!!! I KNOW I DIDN'T RUSH IN THE CHECK STATION TO SHOW OFF MY 4 POINTER !!! COME ON BE REAL DNR HAS NO CLUE ON HOW MANY DEER WE HAVE RUNNING AROUND IN OUR STATE IT'S ONLY A GUESS !!!

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

READ ABOVE >> TY.