OBR Myths

[November Sunrise]

I've seen some recent posts referencing a one buck rule (OBR), and on a few occasions there has been incorrect information attached to a OBR.

At the current time my interest in debating the merits of a OBR is nil. However, I think that it does make sense for everyone to at least have some correct understandings of the recent history.

1) OBR means one buck per year across all seasons. It does not mean one buck in archery season, one buck in firearm/muzzleloader season. The term OBR was coined by our hunting brethren in Indiana when in 2002 their DNR implemented a five year test of one buck per year, which was a change from their previous structure of one buck in archery, one buck in firearm/muzzleloader season. Due to favorable hunter sentiments the Indiana five year test has now been extended another five years.

2) The MI Natural Resource Commission (NRC) did not vote on a OBR this past spring. They did vote 7-0 against a one buck per archery, one buck per firearm proposal.

3) In the 2001 Peyton-Bull survey close to 60% of Michigan hunters expressed their support for a OBR.

4) Early in 2007 the DNR conducted a hunter survey which asked numerous questions, including feedback related to buck harvest structure. I don't remember all the choices, but they included OBR, a one per archery one per firearm structure, and an antler restriction structure. My understanding is that there was not 50%+ support for any of these initiatives. I believe this is primarily due to the number of choices offered. When a surveyed individual is asked to indicate level of support amongst multiple choices it dilutes the rating level of all possibilities. I was told that the preliminary analysis showed OBR receiving higher support than the one per archery/one per firearm structure or antler restriction structure, but to my knowledge the final report from this survey has still yet to be released by the DNR.

[Lugian]

I've seen some recent posts referencing a one buck rule (OBR), and on a few occasions there has been incorrect information attached to a OBR.

At the current time my interest in debating the merits of a OBR is nil. However, I think that it does make sense for everyone to at least have some correct understandings of the recent history.

1) OBR means one buck per year across all seasons. It does not mean one buck in archery season, one buck in firearm/muzzleloader season. The term OBR was coined by our hunting brethren in Indiana when in 2002 their DNR implemented a five year test of one buck per year, which was a change from their previous structure of one buck in archery, one buck in firearm/muzzleloader season. Due to favorable hunter sentiments the Indiana five year test has now been extended another five years.

2) The MI Natural Resource Commission (NRC) did not vote on a OBR this past spring. They did vote 7-0 against a one buck per archery, one buck per firearm proposal.

3) In the 2001 Peyton-Bull survey close to 60% of Michigan hunters expressed their support for a OBR.

4) Early in 2007 the DNR conducted a hunter survey which asked numerous questions, including feedback related to buck harvest structure. I don't remember all the choices, but they included OBR, a one per archery one per firearm structure, and an antler restriction structure. My understanding is that there was not 50%+ support for any of these initiatives. I believe this is primarily due to the number of choices offered. When a surveyed individual is asked to indicate level of support amongst multiple choices it dilutes the rating level of all possibilities. I was told that the preliminary analysis showed OBR receiving higher support than the one per archery/one per firearm structure or antler restriction structure, but to my knowledge the final report from this survey has still yet to be released by the DNR.

If the DNR thought they could make as much revenue with a OBR, they would consider it more than what they are. Agree or disagree w/ current policy, the DNR needs the revenue generated by license sales. A OBR may be popular among hunters, but won't fly unless that lost revenue can be made up somewhere. I'm sure plenty will say "just raise the price" which may work, but there are plenty of "hunters" who go out on openeing weekend for two hours and thats it. If the price is too high, they may just say forget it. That will make the actual amount of licenses sold decrease. Like it or not, the "openeing day warriors" generate alot of revenue.

[November Sunrise]

If the DNR thought they could make as much revenue with a OBR, they would consider it more than what they are. Agree or disagree w/ current policy, the DNR needs the revenue generated by license sales. A OBR may be popular among hunters, but won't fly unless that lost revenue can be made up somewhere. I'm sure plenty will say "just raise the price" which may work, but there are plenty of "hunters" who go out on openeing weekend for two hours and thats it. If the price is too high, they may just say forget it. That will make the actual amount of licenses sold decrease. Like it or not, the "openeing day warriors" generate alot of revenue.

Well said. Primary hindrance to a OBR is financial. I do believe that OBR will become a possibility once the legislature passes a license fee increase.

[skipper34]

Hey guys, I just wish comments referring to "weekend warriors", etc. were put to a halt. Let's remember that these are still legal(hopefully)license purchasing people just like you and me, and they have every right to pursue their hunting pastimes just like we do, even if they can only hunt a few days a year. Division in our ranks is not needed in this day and age. Arrogance really has not place on forums like these. Just my $.02.

[swoosh]

Hey guys, I just wish comments referring to "weekend warriors", etc. were put to a halt. Let's remember that these are still legal(hopefully)license purchasing people just like you and me, and they have every right to pursue their hunting pastimes just like we do, even if they can only hunt a few days a year. Division in our ranks is not needed in this day and age. Arrogance really has not place on forums like these. Just my $.02.

Skipper I am weekend warrior most of the time.

I think what some are saying is our deer policy is setup for weekend warriors. Take that for what it is worth, I do believe it to be true.

I want policy that is a win for deer and us.

[Lugian]

Hey guys, I just wish comments referring to "weekend warriors", etc. were put to a halt. Let's remember that these are still legal(hopefully)license purchasing people just like you and me, and they have every right to pursue their hunting pastimes just like we do, even if they can only hunt a few days a year. Division in our ranks is not needed in this day and age. Arrogance really has not place on forums like these. Just my $.02.

I happen to be a weekend warrior also. I work alot and hunt when I have time. I bet most people in here are in the same boat. It wasn't meant to be negative. My point was that the DNR needs all of "our" money and is trying to find a way to benefit the budget, the hunter, and the deer the best they can(IMO). It can't happen over night. If it wasn't for the weekend warrior the DNR would be in financial trouble. So, if the DNR could install a OBR and not lose the weekend warriors, it could be a win win.

[RIVERAT]

Let's face it, the folks in Lansing who manage our deer herd are motivated by and large by money.

IMO, they should cut the price of doe tags and raise the price of buck tags until they achieve the proper herd size and a balanced ratio between mature bucks and does. Keep the prices high for buck tags and suddenly that dinky little 4 point rack isn't going to be such a big deal anymore.

Old and bad habits need to change, and we are going to need are going to need the State to get on board in order to make that happen.

I would gladly pay $50 or even $100 for a buck tag in order to have sound deer management techniques implemented. It would be a bargain compared to what we are dealing with now.

All of this talk about deer management on a statewide level will not amount to a pile of poop if the DNR doesn't think that their $$$bottom line$$$ will improve as a result of such changes.

Let the buck tag prices soar. IMHO, at this point we wouldn't have anything to loose.

[farmlegend]

Let's face it, the folks in Lansing who manage our deer herd are motivated by and large by money.

IMO, they should cut the price of doe tags and raise the price of buck tags until they achieve the proper herd size and a balanced ratio between mature bucks and does. Keep the prices high for buck tags and suddenly that dinky little 4 point rack isn't going to be such a big deal anymore.

Old and bad habits need to change, and we are going to need are going to need the State to get on board in order to make that happen.

I would gladly pay $50 or even $100 for a buck tag in order to have sound deer management techniques implemented. It would be a bargain compared to what we are dealing with now.

All of this talk about deer management on a statewide level will not amount to a pile of poop if the DNR doesn't think that their $$$bottom line$$$ will improve as a result of such changes.

Let the buck tag prices soar. IMHO, at this point we wouldn't have anything to loose.

I like a market-based approach like the one you suggested; it could be tweaked each year, so as to adjust for changing herd conditions - sex ratio or buck age structure gets worse, just bump up the price of buck tags and cut the price of antlerless tags for the next season. Would be best if buck tags were region-specific. Wouldn't even have to limit tags! Your fist buck tag, $100, second buck tag, $250, third buck tag, $600, etc. Anyone with a grasp of economics knows that it would not fail! I like it a lot!

Bureaucrats probably wouldn't like it, too much work, and it flies in the face of their relexive egalitarian instincts (can't you just hear the infants wailing, "why should someone with money be able to buy more buck tags, wahh! :lol: ).

[RIVERAT]

I like a market-based approach like the one you suggested; it could be tweaked each year, so as to adjust for changing herd conditions - sex ratio or buck age structure gets worse, just bump up the price of buck tags and cut the price of antlerless tags for the next season. Would be best if buck tags were region-specific. Wouldn't even have to limit tags! Your fist buck tag, $100, second buck tag, $250, third buck tag, $600, etc. Anyone with a grasp of economics knows that it would not fail! I like it a lot!

Bureaucrats probably wouldn't like it, too much work, and it flies in the face of their relexive egalitarian instincts (can't you just hear the infants wailing, "why should someone with money be able to buy more buck tags, wahh! :lol: ).



FL, Good followup.

If the price is right, even the bureaucrats will be on board. $$$$:)$$$$

Don't forget, what this whole thing really boils down to is money.

[Whit1]

This thread is no where near on-topic. Take a look at the first post and stick with that. Those other issues merely serve to confuse the issue and belong in separate threads of their own.