MAR proposal to NRC

[Liver and Onions]

Maybe I missed the discussion regarding the proposal made at the Jan. 10th NRC meeting.
Made by George Lindquist representing the UP Whitetails Association.
Hunters would be given a choice of buying a single buck license with no restrictions(3" rule of course) or a combination license where both are restricted. One would require 3 pts. on one side the second would require 4 pts. on one side.
This seems pretty similar to the idea that Trophy Specialists suggested about 2 yrs. ago.
Ed Spin addressed the NRC a bit later and supported the idea with a bit of a twist to the combo license. I'll let you read it if you wish at the DNR website or maybe someone can attach all of the minutes regarding the UP Whitetails proposal and Ed's comments and suggestions.
www.michigan.gov/dnr on the right side.......quick links......NRC

L & O

[Pinefarm]

L&O, we've already hit the NRC with the idea, many times.

TS said this here on M-S in early 2006...

As a compromise I could go for changing the current combo license to a double restricted license being valid for two bucks that must both have 4 points on one side. Giving hunters a choice of eithor a double restricted combo license or one unrestricted license would save a heck of a lot more young bucks each year than just going to one buck license per hunter per year. That way hunters could choose between maximum recreation or one buck of their choice.

I followed up in 2006 and even suggested to the NRC...

Perhaps many of us should contact the NRC and ask for more "hunter choice" rules. By "hunter choice", I mean a hunter decides when he/she buys his or her tags at the store, not in the field at dawn or dusk. I think hunters SHOULD make their choice before the go into the field, that way it's a more reasoned choice. To me, hunters could choose whether they want to buy only one buck tag for any season or two. I'd suggest that the combo tag be 3pt's for the regular tag and 4pt's for the restricted tag, instead of "any buck" for the regular tag.
The firearms season accounts for most bucks killed anyways, so let hunters decide at the counter if they want one "any buck" or not. It's their choice.



The NRC is very aware of this option. I've probably sent them 20 emails with this option included. Since funding is such an issue, this is a reasonable shift if OBR isn't going to happen anytime soon.
But, and a big BUT, this CANNOT just be for the UP alone. This MUST either be statewide or no change at all.

[Whit1]

Maybe I missed the discussion regarding the proposal made at the Jan. 10th NRC meeting.
Made by George Lindquist representing the UP Whitetails Association.
Hunters would be given a choice of buying a single buck license with no restrictions(3" rule of course) or a combination license where both are restricted. One would require 3 pts. on one side the second would require 4 pts. on one side.
This seems pretty similar to the idea that Trophy Specialists suggested about 2 yrs. ago.
Ed Spin addressed the NRC a bit later and supported the idea with a bit of a twist to the combo license. I'll let you read it if you wish at the DNR website or maybe someone can attach all of the minutes regarding the UP Whitetails proposal and Ed's comments and suggestions.
www.michigan.gov/dnr (http://www.michigan.gov/dnr) on the right side.......quick links......NRC

L & O

Mike/Trophy Specialist was the first one that I heard speak of this proposal. I have no idea as to who originated it if he didn't.

This is one regulation that makes sense to me. It is a reasonable (IMO) compromise.

[Liver and Onions]

........
The NRC is very aware of this option. I've probably sent them 20 emails with this option included. .........

But, and a big BUT, this CANNOT just be for the UP alone. This MUST either be statewide or no change at all.

When some large groups support this type of proposal, then it has a chance. An email here and there from you and me doesn't mean much.

This was a statewide proposal. I also agree with Ed in that this kind of plan would need to be looked at within a few years in zone 3.

L & O

[Pinefarm]

Whit, to be honest, I thought I did. :lol::yikes:;) But TS has the original general concept of dual restricted tags down by search dates. Either a 3pt or 4pt "regular" tag is fine by me. ;)
If a 3pt-4pt rule ever passes, TS deserves the all the credit. I may have merely refined his original concept. And it's a great concept worthy of trial.

[Pinefarm]

L&O, that's great news.
Now, how about a M-S email/speaking blitz to the NRC to make this proposal happen?
It's my clear opinion that OBR just is not going to happen since the legislature is needed to change all the tag laws, and nothing (I MEAN NOTHING) is going to change in the legislature.
So let's play the hand we have in the smartest way. If we can "upgrade" the combo tag, let's be realistic and run with it.
Anyone else agree?

And everyone knows I hate the combo tag over OBR, but compromise in our favor is better than the status quo.

A 3pt tag STILL "saves" a lot of bucks. The over 50% of guys that only hunt Nov.15-17 and kill the bulk of yearling bucks would now have a major hesitation on their part, if they buy the combo. For those guys, the concept of "DEER!-BUCK!-BOOM!" would end, unless they only buy the single tag. And if they buy the single tag and shoot at the first antler they see, they're done on bucks and can only kill doe's from there on out.

LET'S EMBRACE THIS OPTION! IMHO

[Whit1]

So let's play the hand we have in the smartest way. If we can "upgrade" the combo tag, let's be realistic and run with it.
Anyone else agree?

And everyone knows I hate the combo tag over OBR, but compromise in our favor is better than the status quo.


".......in the smartest way"........ ????????

"...........compromise"......... ??????

What, and go against the grain of being divided, argumentative, splintered, "my way or the highway", "don't bother with the way I hunt"...??????

Have you no regard for tradition? :)

[swampbuck]

I would prefer the combo tag to be 1 buck/1 doe. Its hard enough to see the brow tines on the 4 point restriction, even worse on a fork horn. I see lots of room for errors and cheating. And you should probably clear it with the michigan bowhunter assoc. first seeing how they have so much influence with the nrc.

[Luv2hunteup]

Remember one thing; this is Michigan nothing will happen.

I do like the idea. The proposed restrictions would limit the kill of 1 1/2 year old bucks for the areas that I hunt in the UP. I know very few guys that ever kill more than one a year in the UP so it won't be a huge impact. More feel good management than anything but it's a step in the right direction.

If I were king both tags would be 4 point restricted tags. The guys wishing for two bucks would either have to kill a younger one below the bridge or two 3.5 year olds above the bridge.

[M1Garand]

Here's the minutes:

George Lindquist, UP Whitetails Association, Inc., proposed giving deer hunters statewide the option of one buck tag for the year or buy the combination license with both tags restricted – one three points to the side, the other four points to the side. One buck hunters would still have the option of antlerless tags, where available. From a biological standpoint, UP Whitetails believes these proposed regulations will save a lot of yearling bucks, which will, in turn, help buck-to-doe ratios and start getting some age classes back into the buck herd. The one buck hunter would still have the option of antlerless tags where available. Mr. Lindquist said this proposal is supported by UP Whitetails, the UP Sportsmen’s Alliance and Quality Deer Management Association in the Upper Peninsula. Commissioner Madigan said the proposal has merit, but asked that Wildlife Division biologists prepare the pros and cons of it to be discussed in the next couple of months at the NRC Policy Committee on Wildlife and Fisheries.

Commissioner Wheatlake said he supports the concept but will need to review it further. Commissioner Madigan recommended getting as much support from hunters statewide. This issue was referred to the NRC Policy Committee on Wildlife and Fisheries.

[dusoc]

I think it's a great idea. After reading the minutes, (thanks M1Garand) I now learned that the proposal is for a statewide regulation change. I had originally thought it was only for the U.P. Statewide would be even better though. In the last day I've read about this in three different places: here, MOOD Magazine and the Western U.P. Deer Camp Survey. I have not heard any opposition to it, which is a good sign. If hunters could come together on this, it would be a step in the right dirrection.

The only problem I see is if it does become a statewide regulation, then it would be better to have regional antler mimumums on the combo license. Both should have 4 pts. in S. MI. The rest of the state would be fine with a 3pt/4pt combo license.

[Ed Spin04]

Perhaps a little history on this hunter's choice idea. I first heard of it in 1999 from the present QDMA State Chapter Board Member, Boyd Wiltse. We were having difficulty getting hunter support for a Mar's program in Clare County. I was driving Boyd home from a NRC meeting and asked Boyd the following question. Boyd, you are well aware of the problem we have in getting support from hunters for our Antler Restriction proposal for Clare County, what's the answer? Boyd shot back without any hesitation, "Give then a hunter's choice plan". What do you mean, 'Hunter's choice'? Boyd replies, "For those not yet ready let them buy a tag using the present rules, but only one tag good for all seasons, For the multiple season hunters and others whom understand and accept the fact that they are stewards of their resources, allow them two tags good for all seasons as presently available, (Combo tags) but now both bucks are restricted, with antler restrictions applied appropiately per region". Hmmnn, I didn't say anything to Boyd for I needed time to digest. Through the years we as a team worked on this idea along with many other deer management thoughts. Example, The free antlerless tag given to those who opt for the restricted Combo tag, which is good for any DMU and any deer season. This free doe tag covers several areas. It encourages hunters to think about their role in manageing deer. It is an incentive to buy that Combo tag. It goes to our ultimate goal of creating stewards of our resources.There was much thought put into this overall deer mangement plan, which was published in Woods n Water in 2006 and early 2007 (actually two articles). This plan was mailed to all NRC members and MDNR Officials at this same time period. Trophy Specialist picked up on my WNW article and posted here with his support and thank you TS, (approached the NRC with this idea). Ray Lyon, MBH Board Member made a similar proposal to the MDNR around three years ago. Rod Clute, MDNR, Big Game Specialist took his proposal but didn't move on it. So yes, as suggested there has been much banter about this direction of manageing our deer and it appears to be picking up steam. This steam is due to all who have pushed for deer management that represents a more natural deer herd. There also appears to be substantial support from the present NRC members, also our MDNR officials were asked to and accepted the task of looking into George Lindquist's proposal for its feasibility. This interest and cooperation from the NRC and the MDNR is new and encouraging. Those who supprt this proposal should let our decison makers know their position as they have in the past. The iron is HOT and needs to be struck now.

[Pinefarm]

Thanks for the history Ed. You are correct, the iron is as hot as it's been in a long time, and realistically, it's as hot as it may get in the next 10 years. Let's embrace this as the best realistic option we've had and that everyone should be at least mildly happy with. It's certainly better than NO change!

[Pinefarm]

From November...
http://www.miningjournal.net/page/content.detail/id/501486.html?nav=5008&showlayout=0

For the love of bucks
Groups work to develop trophy whitetails

By Dave Schneider
Journal Outdoor Editor
November 11, 2007


Among the things that get deer hunters fired up for the season are good buck sign and looking over some of the nicest bucks of previous seasons.


The first enticement — which includes large, fresh scrapes and antler rubs — lets you know there are bucks around. Recent scouting trips have included finding fresh scrapes and rubs, which is certainly promising.


The second enticement, whether it’s photographs or antlers hanging on the wall, gives you a glimpse at what you might encounter this season.


The photo that accompanies this column falls into the latter category, and the memory of the day the photo was taken in late November 2003 remains as fresh as the snow blanketing our hunting grounds in northern Marquette County.


The hunter, Bill “Boney” Coughlin of Marquette, shot the first of his 10-pointers on Nov. 19 and the second on Nov. 24. To say he was excited about his success that season is a big understatement.


In fact, he still retells the tales of how he outsmarted the trophies as if it was yesterday.


His secret hunting grounds have produced similar bucks over the years for Boney, as well as other hunters, but they’ve been few and far between in more recent years.


There’s various theories as to why the number of mature bucks is down, although veteran hunters point to the fact that too many small bucks are shot.


Among hunters who follow this belief are those who belong to U.P. Whitetails of Marquette County. This organization, in conjunction with the seven other U.P. Whitetails Association chapters spread across the peninsula and the U.P. Sportsmen’s Alliance, have been advocating the “let ’em go, let ’em grow” philosophy for several years.


The eight U.P. Whitetails chapters include 3,500 members and the alliance represents 14,000 sportsmen and women, which hopefully will carry some weight as groups lobby the state to enact the flex system statewide.


These hunters are strong supporters of setting antler size restrictions on bucks taken by hunters, as well as education efforts aimed at hunters voluntarily letting smaller bucks pass.


Michigan Department of Natural Resources figures support the contention that too many small bucks are being shot, as well, with 65 percent of the bucks taken to deer check stations being yearlings. The figure is probably even higher, seeing many hunters don’t bring smaller deer in to get checked.


To counter this trend, the U.P. Whitetails groups are stepping up their efforts to produce better bucks, especially in light of the approaching firearm deer season. George Lindquist of the Marquette County chapter of U.P. Whitetails said the alliance and the U.P. Whitetails groups have developed a “flex license” proposal.


The plan is simple and straightforward: give hunters the option of buying a single buck tag without antler restrictions or two tags with both having restrictions. One of the combination tags would be limited to bucks with at least three points on a side and the other to bucks with four points on a side.


This plan looks pretty good to me. It allows hunters who are more interested in getting some venison to buy a single tag and shoot a spike or whatever, while still enabling those after bigger bucks to have the second tag in hand if they’re lucky early in the season. In addition, hunters who opt for the single tag would still have the option of getting an antlerless tag where they are available.


In addition to the potential of having more mature bucks available to hunters, the benefits of promoting more mature bucks through antler restrictions would include a healthier overall deer herd.


This would be accomplished by having a better mix of age classes in the herd, more mature bucks doing the breeding and larger, more experienced deer having a better chance of making it through a severe winter.


In addition, Lindquist said having more mature bucks in the woods could also help slow the decline of hunter numbers.


Another benefit Lindquist pointed out is hunters simply need to know there are a fair number of mature bucks out there.


This is the benefit I like. Just think about how you’ll feel as opening day of hunting dawns on Thursday and the woods come to life. Wouldn’t you be more excited about the hunt if you knew there was a better chance at seeing a mature buck?I know Boney would be.

[M1Garand]

And per request, here's Ed's minutes:

Ed Spinazzola, Quality Deer Management Association, said that quality deer management demonstrations have shown positive harvest results. He recommended eliminating quality deer management guidelines and suggested decisions be made on the merits of the quality deer management results. He supports the proposal made earlier in the meeting by George Lindquist where one has the choice of purchasing a single buck license good for all seasons with the current antler restrictions in place and the second license choice being a combination license but both with antler restrictions. He recommended that combo license buyers get a free antlerless tag, good for any season and any location in Michigan.

For the southern area of the Lower Peninsula, the above rule should be viewed as a learning curve for hunters. Then after a few years, the Wildlife Division should evaluate bioharvest data for possible antler rule restriction changes. Discussion ensued relative to existing demonstrations in effect in Michigan in Leelenau and Iosco counties.

[bentduck]

And to think this monumental decision all rests in the hands of Mary Brown and the rest of the cronies that make up the NRC. Makes me proud to say I am a sportsman living in the state of Michigan.... To bad the NRC members are living in the state of "denial" :lol:

If you really want an answer to this and other questions, forget about the NRC and focus in on what what the Farm Bureau thinks about this proposal. It sounds to me like this proposal might result in a few less deer being harvested in the future so my guess is this game law doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell at being passed. Lets not forget at who is really calling the shots here. Just my opinion.

[swampbuck]

at least the mining journal article form pinefarm called it what it is.

"From November...
http://www.miningjournal.net/page/co...8&showlayout=0 (http://www.miningjournal.net/page/content.detail/id/501486.html?nav=5008&showlayout=0)

For the love of bucks
Groups work to develop trophy whitetails

By Dave Schneider
Journal Outdoor Editor
November 11, 2007 "

I thought nobody supported trophy management.

[Pinefarm]

For the 100th time, mature or "trophy" bucks is what you get when you have a healthy, balanced herd. Only small, stunted immature bucks is what you get in a less than healthy herd.
I totally want trophy deer around. That's the #1 indicator that things are pretty good. Especially in poorer soiled area's like the NLP. Lack of trophy bucks is a warning sign of herd imbalance/over-population.
I think most hunters want a good herd that produces mature bucks, not the other way around.


To clarify for any kids out there...
It's the same with any economic situation.
If you have wealth and people are in good financial shape, you have typically better kept people (overall health, hair, teeth, clothing, hygene) and you have better, safer neighborhoods with nice homes that are well kept and good schools.
That's a healthy deer herd with mature bucks and does under control.

When you have poverty, you typically have less kept people, poorer health, shorter life expectancy, unsafe neighborhoods, run down homes and schools that are lacking.
That's an unhealthy deer herd with no mature bucks and too many does.

Or for those who rely on images, ask who usually gets the hot chicks, the guy in super great shape or the 300 pound guy with BBQ sauce on his chin and beer breath. ;):D:lol::p

[Pinefarm]

Here's a question Swampbuck, would you be in favor of this proposal? If not, why not?

[Ed Spin04]

Pinefarm, George Lindquest contacted me prior to their presentation to the NRC. He thanked me for the articles published in WNW, which generated their proposal. He said that they streamlined it and passed it around the UP for feed back in 2007. George told me that there was almost unaminous support, even from those that were strongly opposed to any antler restrictions in the past. Support from hunters and landowners is vital for MDNR and NRC acceptance. The 9,000 surveys sent out last year to hunters showed 70% support for a more balanced buck age structure. This is a big change from years ago. A similar survey sent out in 1993 showed only 13 % favored a more balanced buck age structure. The hunters of Michigan have come a long way and the future looks good. My personal hope is that they become true stewards of their resources. I believe rules such as being proposed go to this end. I fervantly hope to live long enough to see the hunters and trappers as a whole accept their role as stewards for the good of all natural resources and citizens of Michigan. Your right Pinefarm, having so called trophy bucks running amok is a byproduct of sound deer management and necessary for their health.

[Pinefarm]

Ed, I'd like to thank you for all the work you've done too. And for your articles. I've read everyone. I also have your Ultimate Deer Food Plots book.
In fact, it was your section on "poor soils" (pg 93) that was the tipping point in my decision to walk away from one of my field sites. I picked a spot for a field we called Death Valley because that's what it always was. A 1 acre little valley of light sand (probably blow sand) where little growed. Before getting your book, I figured we could lime it and manure it and we'd create some magic. Well, after about 2 grand worth of having a local farmer lime, manure, fertilizer and seed and the field still sucks. (The farmer let me know ahead of time that it was 50/50 on making something good happen and I decided it was worth the gamble, due to the prime field location on our property) My family was in the oil exploration business, so taking your lumps and walking away from "a dry hole" is a concept I've known all my life. Death Valley is a dry hole. :lol:
So, I'm going to concentrate on the few really promising field sites we have instead of trying to create more small plots on poor sand. I'll plant those poor open sites with a pine assortment for bedding cover and leave it at that. Thick cover is appearing to be our best asset anyhow, with the local pressure.
Some of our other field sites, with much better top soil and moisture are doing quite well. :)

Anyhow, I don't want to get ahead of myself, but if this proposal goes anywhere, those working behind the scenes for all these years will deserve a
big thank you from all of us.
And even if this particular plan doesn't go anywhere, it still means that there's hope, since attitudes are changing.

But my gut feeling is, this idea has a great chance.
IF THERE WAS EVER A TIME FOR US M-S MEMBERS TO GO TO NRC MEETINGS, IT'LL BE WHEN THIS PLAN IS DISCUSSED!
Being a Thursday, I'll get a baby sitter or someone to watch the kids that day. But I WILL NOT miss the NRC meeting where this topic is a main focus. (At least if it's in Lansing. If the UP, then I'm screwed) ;)

[shell waster]

Whit, to be honest, I thought I did. :lol::yikes:;) But TS has the original general concept of dual restricted tags down by search dates. Either a 3pt or 4pt "regular" tag is fine by me. ;)
If a 3pt-4pt rule ever passes, TS deserves the all the credit. I may have merely refined his original concept. And it's a great concept worthy of trial.


I second the above. Any change would that helps protect younger bucks is fine with me, and that state still gets the double down money.

[Blood Dog]

Well for all you guys holding your breath at the NRC meetings. The Leelanau vote and possible repassing of the MAR is supposiblly next month. I don't believe that any of the expermental DMU have been reinstated for another 5 years, except Drummond Island and possibly Iosco County. If it does pass I beleive this will help alot towards the "hunters choice" system.

My thinking is the combo tags should both be 4pt. restricted. Just to make up for the number of 1 1/2 olds. harvested by the single tag hunters. I like the "free" doe tag for the combo. THen the hunters have some controll over the deer on "their" property (public or private). I like the common goal that hunting is fun, what ever way one wants to do it.

[Whit1]

The Leelanau vote and possible repassing of the MAR is supposiblly next month. I don't believe that any of the expermental DMU have been reinstated for another 5 years, except Drummond Island and possibly Iosco County.


The Leelanau vote on renewal the MARS regs is in the works now. The "ballots" were sent out in December. I don't know when the results will be announced.

Although the renewal votes have all, I believe been in the majority to date none have received the necessary 66% approval from those who were sent "ballots". Keep in mind this is NOT 66% of all hunters and/or landowners in a MARS DMU, but rather a sampling.

[bentduck]

In theory, this proposal would result in less deer being harvested each year.

We all know that is not an acceptable option.

It will be debated in the theatre that is the NRC to give the appearance of due dilligence

The idea is already dead in the water.

[farmlegend]

In theory, this proposal would result in less deer being harvested each year.

We all know that is not an acceptable option.

Bentduck, I'm curious why you believe the proposal would reduce the total deer harvest, "in theory".

Consider this possiblity - hunters (and especially bowhunters, who account for 35% of the antlered buck harvest in the SLP) may become more encouraged to take a doe, rather than wait for a buck that meets the new standard.

FWIW, I'm not in favor of this proposal on a statewide basis, as I believe it would encourage high-grading of deer in the better areas of the SLP.

[swampbuck]

In the nlp where we have very limited to nonexistant doe permits, low deer numbers, And a huge influx of hunters from the slp especially during rifle season. I dont think this is a good plan for the nlp.

The only way I would support it is if it included a doe tag or if license were dmu specific. I would rather see the combo be 1 doe/1 buck

[Pinefarm]

Farm, it won't have any more effect on high grading in the SLP than what you have now. It's not like all tags are 3pt's or more. (plus look at PA, even if it was all 3pt's for all) A large percentage of the hunters will be buying the single tag and killing any small yearling buck. Plus killing 70-85% of all bucks, and picking out the biggest yearlings like we have now, does more damage than killing 50-60% of yearlings at 3pt's.

Bent, in theory, you'll see less antlerled bucks killed for a year or 2 and MORE antlerless deer killed. KY and IN have shown that, when you decrease buck killing options, people will be more willing to kill more antlerless deer earlier in the season. Killing MORE antlerless deer is the key. I suspect buck kill would even out after a few years too, except guys will just be killing bigger, heavier bucks.
If Ed Spins idea of adding an antlerless tag flies, that's really boost antlerless kill too.
The type of guy that wouldn't otherwise ever buy an antlerless tag will likely use it if it's free.

[beer and nuts]

I totally want trophy deer around. That's the #1 indicator that things are pretty good That is NOT how certain parts Illinios and Pike county see it. Funny how its right one way and wrong the next, guess it just sounds right when needed.

With the proposal, I thought I came up with that a long time ago on here, this is BS that somebody else is taking credit for it!!!:evil::cool:

I like MY idea:D, my only thought would be price, do you charge more for one license or should we charge more for each two restricted licenses--should the harvest or chance at harvesting two quality deer cost more??? Should that extra license/extra chance cost hunters more?

[bentduck]

I just don't think the NRC is interested in what "might happen" in regard to additional doe's being harvested. Doe permits are already a dime a dozen. They (NRC) will react to the "hard numbers" and zero in on the fact that less bucks will be killed as a result.

I am all for this proposal but like I said earlier, they (NRC) have not shown the ability or inclanation to think outside the box in the past and if the Farm Bureau doesn't buy into this proposal it is dead. Just my opinion.

[beer and nuts]

A large percentage of the hunters will be buying the single tag and killing any small yearling buck. Actually Pine, that might be the biggest question mark. Again, having only one tag in hand might give way to some having restraint on pulling the trigger, but I like to see that option for hunters and youth hunters.

[Pinefarm]

I don't think so, since this isn't like OBR. Hunters have a choice with this option. A guy who wants to pass will opt for the combo.
Many hunters are almost militantly against the concept of passing a buck, if they want to kill any buck.

[Pinefarm]

To me, this quote from Charles Alsheimer applies to Michigan and also could be applied to this proposal vs. sticking with our present combo tag.

"In many area's of the country, hunting pressure is so intense that it's imperative to save as many yearling bucks as possible, regardless of whether it's a spike, crotch-horn or a nice basket rack."

Alsheimer's quote applies to almost all area's of the LP. Given that no OBR tag options are on or will be on the table for anytime soon, due to license revenue concerns, this is the best thing going.

Maybe in 5-10 years, the state will have it's financial house in order so that OBR might someday happen here.

[farmlegend]

Farm, it won't have any more effect on high grading in the SLP than what you have now.

I don't see it that way.

Right now, I think it's fair to say that the antler characteristics of yearling buck harvest in the SLP is highly reflective of the antler characteristics of the entire yearling buck population. Were this proposal to become adopted, the SLP yearling buck harvest will become skewed, including a higher proportion of 7-8pt yearlings in the mix. Ergo, enhanced risk of high-grading over what we have now.

Another way to look at it - I think it's fair to assume the hunting mortality on 7+ antler point yearling bucks (the ones that would continue to be fair game under the Lindquist proposal) in my area is approximately 80%. Were this proposal to be adopted, the hunting mortality on those larger-antlered yearlings would with certainty go higher, perhaps to 90%. I don't see that as progress.

FWIW, according to a survey I've conducted of serious deer managers in Lenawee, Hillsdale, and Branch counties, the advertised protection rate of a 4pt a side restriction (69%) is a complete joke. I believe it to be no higher than 40%, and everyone I surveyed believed it to be less than that, with some pegging it around 25%. Less than one-third of the yearling bucks I saw in 2007 would have been protected by a 4pt a side restriction.

[bentduck]

To me, this quote from Charles Alsheimer applies to Michigan and also could be applied to this proposal vs. sticking with our present combo tag.

"In many area's of the country, hunting pressure is so intense that it's imperative to save as many yearling bucks as possible, regardless of whether it's a spike, crotch-horn or a nice basket rack."

Alsheimer's quote applies to almost all area's of the LP. Given that no OBR tag options are on or will be on the table for anytime soon, due to license revenue concerns, this is the best thing going.

Maybe in 5-10 years, the state will have it's financial house in order so that OBR might someday happen here.

Unfortunately, this logical statement would not survive NRC scrutiny if past history is the judge.

Back in 2002 or 2003, at an NRC meeting in Lansing, former commissioner Bob Garner made the statement that taking measures to help protect button bucks is a bad idea because "most of them don't survive the winter anyway" What really struck me however was the fact that none of the other commisioners stepped in to take issue with his claim.... none, notta'. Although his comment was ridiculous, it was, in fact, holding to the "company line" as it related to the input from the Farm Bureau which would never approve any such measure. Even though BB may have a higher mortality rate in the U.P., he was able to make this broad, sweeping statement uncontested regardless of the state-wide biological science that disproves his comments.

That is what we are dealing with, regardless of wether its 1 1/2year old bucks, BB's, OBR ... it really doesn't matter. The NRC and DNR for that matter are not in the business of catering to special interest groups UNLESS they carry one heck of a big stick which the FB does.

Until we all wrap our arms around this fact we will continue to spin our wheels.

[dusoc]

Farmlegend, while your concerns about high grading might be valid (I've read science both ways on it), would you prefer the status quo for the forseeable future? If we got this change enacted into law, it would be a logical next step twards better deer managment. When I started hunting we had a one buck limit. Then we went to a two buck limit, one bow one gun. Then it went to four bucks, two gun, two bow. Then it went to two bucks and now we have the current reg of one unrestricted and one restricted for a buck limit. Would you rather have our current buck limit or the four buck limit we used to have? My guess is that you are a logical guy and would pick the current regs dispite your concerns of high-grading with the current antler restrictions. I know from your past posts that you favor a one buck limt, but you have to face the facts that that option is off the table and is not going to happen in the foreseable future.

All along the way we have learned a lot about modern deer managment. Another step twards restricting the buck harvest is a good thing in my opionion. Even if it did not have a big impact in the SLP, we would be able to learn from that and make changes to make the antler restriction componet more applicable to the growth rates in that area. I guess that naysayers can eithor become a part of the solution or a part of the problem. It's your choice. We need people like you Farmlegend to get on board and help shape the deer regs for the better.

[farmlegend]

Farmlegend, while your concerns about high grading might be valid (I've read science both ways on it), would you prefer the status quo for the forseeable future?
For my area, yes. I have multiple objections to it. The biggest one is this: the only criteria which the DNR will allow is antler points; they will not allow an antler spread or main beam length restriction. A four-point a side restriction simply protects so few yearling bucks in my area that it's more a question of how much high-grading will occur rather than if it will occur.

All along the way we have learned a lot about modern deer managment. Another step twards restricting the buck harvest is a good thing in my opionion. Even if it did not have a big impact in the SLP, we would be able to learn from that and make changes to make the antler restriction componet more applicable to the growth rates in that area.
If this proposal were to be adopted, I am confident that there will be no modifications made for specific areas, including mine. Why am I so certain? Because the southern tier of counties has extremely poor check station data-gathering, and I see no evidence that this will be changed. There are no season-long check stations located in Lenawee, Hillsdale, and Branch counties, for example, nor have there ever been. There's generally only a single-day temporary setup for 11/15 at a couple of deer processors, which is not terribly representative from a calendarization standpoint. I can show you places in this region that are a full one hour drive from the nearest check station.


I guess that naysayers can eithor become a part of the solution or a part of the problem. It's your choice. We need people like you Farmlegend to get on board and help shape the deer regs for the better.
I am on board as anyone, and those that know me will vouch for it, with investing time in registering my input. But I'm not going to support bad policy. BTW, I could just as easily pejoratively categorize those that dismiss high-grading concerns as "naysayers".

[Pinefarm]

Highgrading is only an issue under certain settings. On a Texas ranch or a big private southern club, I do think it's possible.
In Michigan, even the SLP, no, I don't see the theory happening.

We'll have to watch PA with their non-choice MARS. So far, all they're showing is great progress. I've not heard or read of highgrading coming out of PA. If it shows up anywhere in a mass hunting state with MARS, it'll be PA, since no hunters can shoot any buck. All bucks in PA are 3pt on a side or up, unlike 50% will be here.

After 5 years, if anyone anywhere can show evidence of highgrading after this proposal is enacted, then something can be tweaked.
But it's not going to happen here IMHO.

[farmlegend]

Highgrading is only an issue under certain settings. On a Texas ranch or a big private southern club, I do think it's possible.
Dr. Steve Demarais of MSU disagrees, and he's more performed more research on the subject of antler restrictions and high-grading than anyone alive.


After 5 years, if anyone anywhere can show evidence of highgrading after this proposal is enacted, then something can be tweaked.
That's actually a big part of the problem. If the MIDNR were to establish check stations in every DMU where the risks of high-grading are highest, AND staff them from October 1 throught December 31, and actually do something with the data, that would provide some comfort. But that is not going to happen; neither the resources nor the desire to deal with the issue are there. Nothing will be tweaked.
I would also submit that five years is too short a time horizon to credibly measure high-grading.

[swoosh]

The answer to High grading

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/game_management/deer/antler_restrictions/
Never mind way to complicated for the point and shoot crowd here in MI:lol:

[November Sunrise]

Kudos to L&O for accurately labeling this proposal for what it is, which is a mandatory antler restriction proposal. We already have a "hunter's choice" system - 52% of license buyers in '06 purchased a combo tag, and the remaining 48% purchased a firearm tag or an archery tag. Only a very small percentage of that second group purchased both a firearm tag and an archery tag. "Hunter's choice" is already live and well in our state.

Since the only real change here would be to implement mandatory antler restrictions onto both of the combo tags, it's quite likely that the DNR is going to define this as what it is, which is simply another attempt to get antler restrictions in place. If they define it correctly, it will be dead in the water shortly.

If the proposal gets past that hurdle I'd say there's a solid chance that this is going to get traction. Key groups to watch in terms of whether they support it or not will be MUCC & Michigan Bow Hunters, and to a lesser extent the Michigan Sportsmen Alliance and the Resource Stewards.

I’ve been thinking a lot about this proposal and have admittedly waffled back and forth a little bit over the past several weeks as I’ve tried to find a way for it to become palatable from a SLP perspective. I came to my conclusion recently after again reviewing the research on mandatory antler restrictions that was contained in the three article series that ran last year in Quality Whitetails magazine.

Where I end up on this proposal is that while I don’t believe it’s the optimal scenario for any portion of the state, I’m ok with it for the UP and NLP. The UP has by far the greatest proportion of hunters who already purchase just a firearm only license, leading to a strong likelihood that this proposal is going to be much less impactful than the UP groups are hoping. Nonetheless, I don't see any major negatives with this structure for the UP.

It's quite likely that this proposal will be strongly impactful for the NLP, where the archery hunters/combo tag hunters have a much a greater influence than in the UP, and where the 3 on a side and 4 on a side restrictions would be on solid biological ground. If I were a NLP hunter I'd be excited about the possibilities that this proposal offers.

However, for biological reasons, I do not support it for the SLP. In the structure as it was proposed (one tag w/ a 3 on a side requirement, one tag with a 4 on a side requirement) my level of opposition will be vigorous. Speaking very conservatively, over 55% of SLP hunters use the combo tag, and at least 65% of SLP bucks killed are tagged with a combo tag. In actuality I think the real percentages are much higher, but I'm currently erring on the side of caution until I can get further validation. Also, we know that at least 70% of SLP antlered bucks carry 3 or more points on one side. The net effect of this change would be to protect bucks that have four or fewer antler points and put even greater pressure on the majority of yearling bucks. The SLP will become the case study of high grading and regressive deer management if this structure gets put into play.

If this proposal does somehow end up morphing into a four on a side requirement for both tags for the SLP I will still be opposed to the structure but I will have far fewer reservations than I do with it presently. The only MAR that would be biologically acceptable for the SLP is a spread credit, and there’s no possibility of a spread credit being adopted, or for that matter even considered.

This will all become interesting to consider and debate if the DNR somehow misses the obvious point that this is simply a new twist on mandatory antler restriction proposals. As the proposal currently stands, I will opt for the label of "lipstick on a pig" as it pertains to the SLP.

[Munsterlndr]

I've had a hard time ramping up any level of enthusiasm either for or agin' this proposal because realistically I don't see it having much of an impact. It seems to me to be a typical political compromise that takes a valid idea, the need to increase the buck age structure, and waters it down to make it politically palatable to the widest number of constituents and thereby rendering it ineffective. I guess my feeling is either do the thing right and that means imposing an OBR or a MAR or just leave things alone instead of fooling yourself that making a change of this nature will actually accomplish anything.

One aspect of it that does concern me, though, that I have not seen any discussion about, is the prospect that it might have on reducing the antlerless harvest. Currently both of the combo tags can be used by archers to harvest an antlerless deer. I'm assuming (although I have not seen it stated anywhere) that the single unrestricted tag could also be used by an archer on an antler less deer. The question is, how many hunters who currently buy the combo tag use one or both of the tags to harvest a doe but who in the future elect to purchase the single unrestricted buck tag will hold out to use it on the first buck that walks along? My guess is that most will. I also think that many who currently use at least one of the tags on a doe may not decide to also spend extra money on an antlerless tag if they purchased the unrestricted tag. So I guess my point is that if large numbers of hunters purchase the single tag I could see it reducing the number of antlerless deer taken. If large numbers purchase the combo tag I don't see it having that big an impact on the SLP, which let's face it folks, is where the deer management issue in Michigan is most broken. Like I said, it's hard for me to work up much enthusiasm either way on this one.

[dusoc]

Here's some information from the PA Game Commision website on antler genitics and antler restrictions. It seems like PN's biologists are comfortable with antler restrictions not affecting antler genitics:

------------------------------

A recent review of the scientific literature on genetics in hunted populations concluded that there is little evidence available to suggest that hunting, including selective harvests, has long-term genetic consequences. One reason for this conclusion is the combination of genetics and harvest regulations apparently diminish suspected negative impacts. For example, if antler restrictions did selectively harvest "better" bucks, antlerless harvests are generally nonselective in their removal of "better" or "poorer" does. Thus, a continued mixing of "better" and "poorer" genes throughout the deer herd reduces the amount of change.

We do know that genetics is just one of many factors that determine the number of points on a yearling buck. A buck's mother and her genes, nutrition, health and other factors affect antler points. All these factors create a situation where there is no strong evidence that the new antler restriction will hurt or improve genetics of Pennsylvania's deer herd.

Smaller yearling bucks will still be small when they're adults.
This statement is based on the assumption that yearling bucks with few points grow into adult bucks with few points, and yearling bucks with more points grow into adult bucks with more points. This assumption is generally not supported by scientific research. A recently published research paper specifically looked at the effect of antler restrictions on antler characteristics of adult bucks. The paper presented a total of 18 different scenarios where antler restrictions and harvest rates varied. Fifteen of the 18 scenarios resulted in no differences in antler characteristics of the surviving bucks at 4.5 years of age.

The scenario that most closely represented our new antler restriction format showed no difference in antler characteristics of adult bucks. In other words, antler characteristics of adult bucks with antler restrictions were the same as those without antler restrictions. Additional data from various deer populations indicate adult bucks generally have 8 to 10 points regardless of the number of antler points they had as a yearlings.

[Ed Spin04]

Thanks for the Texas lead in swoosh. Note the potential big expansion of their antler restriction rules. Also the similarity of Texas's method and the hunters choice, to achieve the same result. Dr. Gary Alt spent much time with his staff in determining how best to advance the buck age structure in Penn's, experiment. Gary contactacted the National QDMA for input. The overwhleming consenses was antler restrictions. Our recent MDNR Chief of Wildlife, Dr. Bill Moritz had a meeting of all field biologists and lansing staff prior to his resignation. One major topic was this same subject. What is the best way to advance our buck age structure? Dr. Moritz said that there were only three methods, with only one acceptably to hunters. One, we can have a limited number of buck licenses given by lottery. Two, we can have a much shortened season, or three, we can have antler restrictions. Which one do you think hunters will accept? FL, I applaud your concern to have balanced and healthy deer herd, but you constantly refer to Dr. Demaris and his hygrading findings. Perhaps you should contact his mentor Dr. Harry Jacobson who is considered the deer genetic expert in the USA. Yes Dr. Jacobson has the credentials and reputation from over 30 years of reseach at MSU, not Dr. Demaris. Steve is still cuttting his baby teeth. FL, ask Harry his views, ask Brian Murphy his views and try our respected Reach Director Kip Adams his thoughts. The deer have evolved to what they are today from over 4 miilion years of selective breeding. Yes, high grading is real but it does not show up in a few years. At minimum it takes decades to note the smallest changes. We have had in our state high grading in action for more than 75 years and due to the deer management system in place. It is the rule where one must pass on spikes less than 3 three inches. This wouldn't affect deer in the SLP but it does in the harsher areas of the UP. All one needs to do is look at the last 50 years of bio harvest data and they will find proof of this. Yes, positive proof of our deer degrading in certain areas of the UP. It is there but minimal and not recognized unless one knows what to look for. FL, as Pinefarm noted the choice of taking any deer but only one will negate any fear of hygrading if it does exist. If for the oddest long chance it happened we would not identify it for decades even if we knew what to look for.

[dusoc]

Munsterlnder, this measure is just another step. It has been proven through poll after poll that Michigan hunters are as divided as can be on what should be done with deer management. This proposal would introduce a lot of people to a one buck limit and antler ristrictions that now do not support eithor concept. Once people start to make decision on buck harvest restraint, it can become contagous. They might even support a more stingent measure down the road. It might be a stand alone one buck limit or strict statewide MARs of some sort, or it might be a combination of the two like PA has, in which I personally favor. It's my opionion that it will take some time to get the necessary support, but if it ever does happen, it will be one step at a time. Here's the first viable step. You can help derail it or support it; it's your choice.

[farmlegend]

Yes, high grading is real but it does not show up in a few years. At minimum it takes decades to note the smallest changes. We have had in our state high grading in action for more than 75 years and due to the deer management system in place. It is the rule where one must pass on spikes less than 3 three inches. This wouldn't affect deer in the SLP but it does in the harsher areas of the UP. All one needs to do is look at the last 50 years of bio harvest data and they will find proof of this. Yes, positive proof of our deer degrading in certain areas of the UP. It is there but minimal and not recognized unless one knows what to look for. FL, as Pinefarm noted the choice of taking any deer but only one will negate any fear of hygrading if it does exist. If for the oddest long chance it happened we would not identify it for decades even if we knew what to look for.

Ed, I agree that high-grading may take decades to measure, and it seems reasonable to suggest that it has indeed occurred in the UP, where sub-legal spikes have been rather stupidly protected. Even if it does take decades, it still can occur. And decades is a very short period of time when we're talking about an animal species.

Still, acknowledging that high-grading is real, why would we suggest a standard where (even if 4pts a side were the minimum on both tags) the MAJORITY of yearling bucks would still be fair game in some of our better areas? That is an extraordinarily low protection rate. Seems to me that we are saying that we can tolerate a bit of high-grading in some of our better areas (so long as it's somewhere else) in the interest of protecting more yearling bucks everywhere. I have serious doubts that it's worth it, particularly if it's the deer on MY farm that are being degraded.

[swoosh]

What will truly amaze me about high grading and who brings it up is this:

For the most part, High Grading is brought up because it allows(said by some) lesser bucks breed.

But it appears the 50+ years we have had of shooting all of them is ok:dizzy: God forbid a mature 6 breed:lol:

Remember and this is from an Antler guy, MAR's is suppose to improve age structure not Antler size. Makes me wonder who really has antler envy;)

[NoWake]

While I agree that most yearling bucks in the SLP will meet the 3 antler point requirement, I am not 100 percent certain the change would be useless for the SLP.

I'm curious what the psycological effect would be. By that I mean if a guy sees a buck and is not close enough to bee 100% sure if it has brow tines or not, or even how many points are there will he still shoot it? The way it is, they know all they have to be sure of is it has antlers over 3". If they had to make darn sure it has at least 3 or 4 on one side, knowing the intent of the restrictions, they may be more inclined to pass on smaller basket racks. Stiff and or strictly enforced fines for violations would add to the equation I think. After a couple of years, it may become completely a non-issue.

Maybe having to count points and be 100% sure wouldn't make any difference, maybe I'm giving the the average SLP hunter too much credit, but I can't help but think that it would make some much more conscientious about what they harvest.

[farmlegend]

High Grading is brought up because it allows(said by some) lesser bucks breed.


Swoosh, I think you're oversimplifying the high-grading issue. I suggest you read the three articles November Sunrise referred to, especially the third.

Just so I'm clear, I have no problem with the Superior Whitetails proposal for either the UP or the NLP. So long as we're not open to a minimum antler spread restriction, however, I don't like it one bit for the SLP. Simply too few yearling bucks are protected by antler point restrictions.

[dusoc]

What will truly amaze me about high grading and who brings it up is this:

For the most part, High Grading is brought up because it allows(said by some) lesser bucks breed.

But it appears the 50+ years we have had of shooting all of them is ok:dizzy: God forbid a mature 6 breed:lol:

Remember and this is from an Antler guy, MAR's is suppose to improve age structure not Antler size. Makes me wonder who really has antler envy;)
Swoosh makes a very good point. I am a QDM advocate big time. Antlers are not nearly as important to me as a more balanced buck age structure. When you have a horrible buck age structure across much of Michigan, high grading is just a miniscule issue in comparison.

[swoosh]

Swoosh, I think you're oversimplifying the high-grading issue. I suggest you read the three articles November Sunrise referred to, especially the third.

Just so I'm clear, I have no problem with the Superior Whitetails proposal for either the UP or the NLP. So long as we're not open to a minimum antler spread restriction, however, I don't like it one bit for the SLP. Simply too few yearling bucks are protected by antler point restrictions.

I have read a pile of info on it. While I will admit it happens, it's the lesser evil than what we have now.
I do not think I am oversimplifying it at all, Like NS said "It's all about the Antlers":) I just look at it different.
Head over to a PA board and read about those guys whining about a 6 with a 20'' spread they cannot shoot. Are they worried about

1. disease?
2. Over population?
3. Buck to doe ratio?

No, No and No, they're worried about buck passing his inferior gentics on.
I am not a fan of MARS for some very simple reasons, and this is just how I see it. This will offend some

The "Proto" hunter of MI is not capable of checking head gear before shooting. This will lead to a lot of dead deer being left to lay. We have been condition to see antler than shoot.
Like it or not a lot of archery buck kills were does when they shot him that night:lol: I thouht it was a doe:dizzy:

[dusoc]

The people that want to “see antlers – shoot”, will largely be the ones that choose the one buck license option. The people that choose the combo license with dual tag antler restrictions will do so knowing they will have to clearly identify their targets. It will be a different sector. I also think that some people are underestimating the impact that a MARs has on hunting style and wounding rates. From what I’ve read, wounding rates go way down under MARs, so the number of bucks left in the woods would likely decline not increase. Also I read where the bottom buck harvest drops in areas with MARs. That is likely due to people having to adjust their hunting style to being able to accurately identify deer better. Hunting techniques that rely on shots at running deer would be reduced in usage in favor of tactics that allow for slower more deliberate shot methods.

[farmlegend]

IThe "Proto" hunter of MI is not capable of checking head gear before shooting.

Well, I'm not offended!:D

Dr. Kroll refers to what we have as the "DEER...BUCK...BOOM" sequence.

[November Sunrise]

I applaud your concern to have balanced and healthy deer herd, but you constantly refer to Dr. Demaris and his hygrading findings. Perhaps you should contact his mentor Dr. Harry Jacobson who is considered the deer genetic expert in the USA. Yes Dr. Jacobson has the credentials and reputation from over 30 years of reseach at MSU, not Dr. Demaris. Steve is still cuttting his baby teeth. FL, ask Harry his views, ask Brian Murphy his views and try our respected Reach Director Kip Adams his thoughts. of this.

According to Kip Adams, a biologist employed by the QDMA, the desired minimum protection rate for an antler proposal is 50%.

A 3 point on a side tag would at best protect 30% of SLP antlered bucks.

Conservatively speaking, at least 65% of SLP bucks are taken by combo tag users. The actual number is most likely in excess of 70%.

I remain increduluous that anyone would be dismissive of the impact of a 3 point on a side restriction for the SLP. As I said before, this proposal as it currently exists is lipstick on a pig for the SLP.

[November Sunrise]

THunting techniques that rely on shots at running deer would be reduced in usage in favor of tactics that allow for slower more deliberate shot methods.

I agree that it's certainly within the realm of possibility that antler restrictions could have a positive influence on safety.

[swoosh]

I agree that it's certainly within the realm of possibility that antler restrictions could have a positive influence on safety.


NS there is stats somewhere I have read from PA that shows this, I have little faith in MI:rolleyes:

Most still have not figured out they can put their restricted tag on the first buck they shoot if it has 4 points or more:confused: Talk about high grading:lol:

[dusoc]

Most still have not figured out they can put their restricted tag on the first buck they shoot if it has 4 points or more:confused: Talk about high grading:lol:
Really, I thought the second buck had to have 4 points on a side.

[swoosh]

Really, I thought the second buck had to have 4 points on a side.


Really, please tell me you're kidding?

Direct from the Reg Book

"If you take two antlered deer, one of the two antlered deer must have at least
one antler with four or more antler points one inch or longer. This deer can be
taken first or second in either an archery, firearm or muzzleloading season."

In my younger days, I thought I was in the norm for reading the Regulation book every year:lol:

[dusoc]

Really, please tell me you're kidding?

Direct from the Reg Book

"If you take two antlered deer, one of the two antlered deer must have at least
one antler with four or more antler points one inch or longer. This deer can be
taken first or second in either an archery, firearm or muzzleloading season."

In my younger days, I thought I was in the norm for reading the Regulation book every year:lol:
I had to get you back for nailing me on my grammar spelling typo.:DWhen you posted that comment it triggered memories of explaining that first buck second buck thing to people over and over and some never did get it. I shot a couple bucks last year: one was a six and the other was an eight. My brother in law quized me on the order of how I shot them like I had done something wrong. I gave up on explaining things to him years ago.:lol:

[swoosh]

I had to get you back for nailing me on my grammar spelling typo.:DWhen you posted that comment it triggered memories of explaining that first buck second buck thing to people over and over and some never did get it. I shot a couple bucks last year: one was a six and the other was an eight. My brother in law quized me on the order of how I shot them like I had done something wrong. I gave up on explaining things to him years ago.:lol:

damn you got me:lol:

[QDMAMAN]

I'm well aware that the MDNR has no interest in using a spread credit as criteria for ARs, which is unfortunate because I believe it would have merit in the SLP. With the Hunter's Choice option a combination of 1 buck with at least 4 pts. on one side and another buck needing at least a 15" spread (and 4pts.) would be more acceptable and would address some of the concerns that are being raised.
As the combo license is now, as Swoosh points out, you can use your restricted tag 1st or 2nd. This could still be the case with the 2 restricted tags that I am hypothetically proposing. If the first buck is an 8 pt. it automatically qualifies for the 4 pt. restriction. If it's an 8 pt. that's 15" it qualifies for the width criteria. If a hunter complains that the spread credit is to limiting he/she would be limited after having already shot a buck that had at least 4 pts. on one side. (Hope I'm making sense). I would have little sympathy for some one that would have this concern after having already shot one buck. I think the that hunters that opt for the combo are willing to accept the responsibility of having to be more observant before pulling the trigger. Part of the purpose of offering the second buck tag is to extent hunter opportunity, even if heavily restricted, not unlike it is now.
If the spread criteria was violated there could be a simple fine attached like..$25/inch of violation.
This criteria, IMHO, would accomplish the >50% protection rate that we would like to see.
Another thought I had was that the second tag in the SLP would have to be EAB and wouldn't be valid until an antlerless deer was checked in. I think these ideas are easily efforcable as well.
I'm in total support of the 3pt./4 pt. restrictions in the UP and the NLP and believe that those regions will experience a renisance after a year or two. I know I will be alot more fired up about my annual trip to the UP and may even extend my stay and expenditures.

Big T

[Steve]

I'm afraid I've fallen behind on reading threads around here. I think this proposal is something this website should and can utilize it's email resources to get behind. If someone would like to draft an email for me about this proposal along with who they need to contact to make it happen, I will do the rest.

[Pinefarm]

I like the fact that possibly 50% of Michigan hunters will now choose OBR for themselves. Don't forget, this just isn't a choice between a new combo tag and buying an archery tag and a firearm tag. This is a choice between buying 2 MARS tags or one OBR tag. Every hunter that buys the single tag is now hunting in a OBR state.

If the new combo proposal is for the UP and NLP to have 3pt's and 4pt's for the new combo tag and let the SLP combo tag remain the same as it is today, I'll certainly go for that too, if the SLP folks don't like the new option and want to keep their combo as what they have now.
But I sure don't want this plan to be UP only, because it will completely transform the NLP in a positive way.
So for those sending individual emails who do not like the combo proposal for the SLP, please add that you'd be willing to go for it in the NLP and UP and leave the SLP combo tag status quo, if you're fine with it for the NLP and UP.
And this rule change isn't just about protecting bucks. It should account for more balanced antlerless kill too.
Thanks.

As a NLP hunter, where guys will mull over a spike to see if it's got 3", or if its less than 3", to shoot, I'll side with Charles Alsheimer on this one.
A 3pt on a side tag protects much more than only bucks with 3pt's on a side. Michigan hunters, unlike Texas hunters or southern club hunters, often only get fleeting glimpses of antler and get seconds to decide what it is before it leaves their property. Under current rules, we have "Deer! Buck! Boom!". And then, guys often have no clue what they shot until they walk up on it. Many times, nice 8pt's and 10 pt's were thought to be only forks, or less. With a 3pt rule, you'll often get "Deer! Buck! What's it got?!? Dammit, it's gone!". Or, a small basket 8pt will be walking in shootable cover in low light, and he'll get passed in some cases just because people aren't sure. Under current combo rules, he's a possible mulligan buck and likely gets killed.

I've read a lot of research on high grading. I can see how it could happen. It makes sense. But I've probably spent as much time hunting in Texas as anyone on these boards. Comparing Michigan's "style" of hunting vs Texas, as far as high grading potential goes isn't viable.
In Texas, a small property is 5000 arces and you may be looking over a 1000 yard circle with 5-20 different bucks around you at one time. You have to be a good judge of age and antlers to make the right call. With simple MARS in Texas, guys could punish the best 2.5 and 3.5 year old bucks. Texas hunting is also perfect for width restrictions, over point restrictions.
In Michigan, average guys are hunting 10-80 acres and they maybe only see a few bucks a season. And not over a field or more open ground, but in a swamp and for mere seconds. Many SLP hunters are hunting 5-10 acres. Sure, some guys pass up 30 plus bucks a Fall. But the average NLP and UP hunters, who only hunt a couple days in archery and then mainly hunt Nov.15-17, may see 2-3 bucks a year. And glimpes in cover at 70 yards plus, at that. Under the current combo, they kill one of those bucks. Under the proposed combo, I suspect they end up passing many of those bucks, not by pure virtuous choice, but by default. Either they were too small or they just weren't sure. They'd have killed those bucks if no 3pt rule or if they could tell for sure.
And don't forget, those hunters still made their choice to buy the combo tag. Look at how many hunters have OBR?

Thinking of all the bucks I've shot with a rifle in Michigan before I went QDM, I bet I'd have had to let 80-90% of them go if I had to make sure they had 3pt's or 4pt's on a side. Instead, I killed everyone once I threw the scope up and saw a hint of antler.
That's what the NLP has been in my lifetime. The scratch hunt. The NLP was where you shot your spike or fork, because that's all it was gonna be, then you traveled the country hunting what we've never had. My hope is for that to become just a distant memory. Fond memories, but in the rear view mirror.
Voluntary QDM in the NLP and UP is having an good effect. But so far, the voluntary NLP or UP QDM'er hasn't gotten much help from the NRC. This would be a shot in the arm.

Anyways, I put theoretical new high grading (we've had it for 70 years) about as high on the list of my concerns as school vouchers in the next election. Protecting far more yearling bucks and killing more does is like national security and the economy in the next election.

[swampbuck]

I dont get why several people claim this is a good idea in the north but not the south. In the nlp there are not a lot of doe permits to go around, many people who are wanting meat in the freezer will never see a 6 point or better and do not have the option of a doe.. so in effect you are limiting them to 1 deer or none. It seems that most of the support is from hunters in the slp and a some of them want to impose it on the nlp and up but not there own area. I think that you should worry about your own area.

this proposal is trophy hunting and while there are many that want that, the majority of michigan hunters just want a chance at a deer. If someone wants to hunt trophy bucks they are out there already for anyone who wants to put in the time and effort. I myself spend about half the season hunting trophys and most years I kill an 8 point or better but I also want 2 deer in the freezer when its over. So if I dont have a doe permit (most years) then I am happy to make that second one a spike or forkhorn. If it came down to it I could probably still fill both buck tags if this proposal went through because of where I hunt but the majority wouldnt.

[farmlegend]

But, and a big BUT, this CANNOT just be for the UP alone. This MUST either be statewide or no change at all.

Other than the fact that this proposal will be seen as a backdoor way of expanding antler point restrictions upon Michigan deer hunters, making this proposal statewide is the other factor which will kill it.

We would anticipate the usual suspects to oppose it simply because it's about MARS (MBH, USA, MUCC), but applying the proposal to the SLP will introduce a whole new class of opponents - namely, SLP deer managers that are already QDM enthusiasts. Now, perhaps we're talking about a relatively small number of people, but they are people that are motivated to send polished emails and show up at NRC meetings. Some of these folks have made a substantial investment of time and money in their deer hunting properties and will fight tooth and nail to oppose something that they perceive will degrade their deer.

Think of it - if the Lindquist proposal were mandated upon hunters statewide, as is, with an option for a 3-pt a side minimum on one buck and 4pt a side on the other buck, how would this play out in the areas of richer habitat within the SLP?
I believe that a 3pt a side restriction would protect less than 15% of the yearling bucks in my area, and a 4 pt restriction would still protect a percentage significantly less than 50% of yearling bucks. Meanwhile, yearling bucks with larger antlers will almost certainly be harvested at an even higher rate than what we currently see, while those few sub-legal yearlings will be protected from harvest. This is a prescription for high-grading on steroids.

I get two different reactions from deer managers in my region; either
A. The proposal is worthless and will do no good, since it protects so few bucks as to have no impact on our buck harvest; or
B. The proposal will result in high-grading.

Bottom line, if the proposal were limited to places where it makes sense, where the antler restrictions would protect a majority of yearling bucks, it would get both less opposition and more support.

[dusoc]

I like the fact that possibly 50% of Michigan hunters will now choose OBR for themselves. Don't forget, this just isn't a choice between a new combo tag and buying an archery tag and a firearm tag. This is a choice between buying 2 MARS tags or one OBR tag. Every hunter that buys the single tag is now hunting in a OBR state.

If the new combo proposal is for the UP and NLP to have 3pt's and 4pt's for the new combo tag and let the SLP combo tag remain the same as it is today, I'll certainly go for that too, if the SLP folks don't like the new option and want to keep their combo as what they have now.
But I sure don't want this plan to be UP only, because it will completely transform the NLP in a positive way.
So for those sending individual emails who do not like the combo proposal for the SLP, please add that you'd be willing to go for it in the NLP and UP and leave the SLP combo tag status quo, if you're fine with it for the NLP and UP.
And this rule change isn't just about protecting bucks. It should account for more balanced antlerless kill too.
Thanks.

As a NLP hunter, where guys will mull over a spike to see if it's got 3", or if its less than 3", to shoot, I'll side with Charles Alsheimer on this one.
A 3pt on a side tag protects much more than only bucks with 3pt's on a side. Michigan hunters, unlike Texas hunters or southern club hunters, often only get fleeting glimpses of antler and get seconds to decide what it is before it leaves their property. Under current rules, we have "Deer! Buck! Boom!". And then, guys often have no clue what they shot until they walk up on it. Many times, nice 8pt's and 10 pt's were thought to be only forks, or less. With a 3pt rule, you'll often get "Deer! Buck! What's it got?!? Dammit, it's gone!". Or, a small basket 8pt will be walking in shootable cover in low light, and he'll get passed in some cases just because people aren't sure. Under current combo rules, he's a possible mulligan buck and likely gets killed.

I've read a lot of research on high grading. I can see how it could happen. It makes sense. But I've probably spent as much time hunting in Texas as anyone on these boards. Comparing Michigan's "style" of hunting vs Texas, as far as high grading potential goes isn't viable.
In Texas, a small property is 5000 arces and you may be looking over a 1000 yard circle with 5-20 different bucks around you at one time. You have to be a good judge of age and antlers to make the right call. With simple MARS in Texas, guys could punish the best 2.5 and 3.5 year old bucks. Texas hunting is also perfect for width restrictions, over point restrictions.
In Michigan, average guys are hunting 10-80 acres and they maybe only see a few bucks a season. And not over a field or more open ground, but in a swamp and for mere seconds. Many SLP hunters are hunting 5-10 acres. Sure, some guys pass up 30 plus bucks a Fall. But the average NLP and UP hunters, who only hunt a couple days in archery and then mainly hunt Nov.15-17, may see 2-3 bucks a year. And glimpes in cover at 70 yards plus, at that. Under the current combo, they kill one of those bucks. Under the proposed combo, I suspect they end up passing many of those bucks, not by pure virtuous choice, but by default. Either they were too small or they just weren't sure. They'd have killed those bucks if no 3pt rule or if they could tell for sure.
And don't forget, those hunters still made their choice to buy the combo tag. Look at how many hunters have OBR?

Thinking of all the bucks I've shot with a rifle in Michigan before I went QDM, I bet I'd have had to let 80-90% of them go if I had to make sure they had 3pt's or 4pt's on a side. Instead, I killed everyone once I threw the scope up and saw a hint of antler.
That's what the NLP has been in my lifetime. The scratch hunt. The NLP was where you shot your spike or fork, because that's all it was gonna be, then you traveled the country hunting what we've never had. My hope is for that to become just a distant memory. Fond memories, but in the rear view mirror.
Voluntary QDM in the NLP and UP is having an good effect. But so far, the voluntary NLP or UP QDM'er hasn't gotten much help from the NRC. This would be a shot in the arm.

Anyways, I put theoretical new high grading (we've had it for 70 years) about as high on the list of my concerns as school vouchers in the next election. Protecting far more yearling bucks and killing more does is like national security and the economy in the next election.
Very good post. Sums it up well. Could get my vote for the best post of the year.

[Whit1]

I am in favor of a Hunter's Choice buck tag system and the reason is simple. It is the very best chance there is for any change in regulations. We can sit and discuss, argue, bicker, and keep on saying ".....but what if?" and "no, this would be better", until the sun no longer rises. There is no way the NRC is going to go to OBR and/or MARS unless some seminal event such as an asteroid charging pell mell into the planet and by then it won't matter.

This is the best opportunity we have to see something change. For those of you who feel strongly about the need to change these regulations in order to expand the age structure in our bucks, I would urge you to support Hunter's Choice. While it may not do enough it is a step in the right direction and so far Michigan through the fault (or credit, depending upon you point of view) of the NRC has been cemented in place for far too long. It is time to take this first, tiny step.

[farmlegend]

It seems that most of the support is from hunters in the slp and a some of them want to impose it on the nlp and up but not there own area.

Thinking that does not make it so. If you look at the history of MARS surveys, one trend is very clear; MARS is much less popular the further south you travel, and most popular in the UP. The proposals in Montcalm County and the thumb (the two southernmost) had support of about 34% of those surveyed.

[swoosh]

Thinking that does not make it so. If you look at the history of MARS surveys, one trend is very clear; MARS is much less popular the further south you travel, and most popular in the UP. The proposals in Montcalm County and the thumb (the two southernmost) had support of about 34% of those surveyed.

Only thing better than saying "I got my buck" in SLP MI is:

"I got two bucks";) It's more sporting:D

[swampbuck]

wasnt mars tried in part of the nlp. I sure dont see many people singing the praises of that test.

[Pinefarm]

How about tweaking the proposal to 4pt's and 4pt's for the SLP and 3pt's and 4pt's for the NLP and UP?
Leave the OBR single tag option as statewide.
As far as Ed Spins free antlerless tag idea, how about making that for private land only in the LP only?

[farmlegend]

How about tweaking the proposal to 4pt's and 4pt's for the SLP and 3pt's and 4pt's for the NLP and UP?
Leave the OBR single tag option as statewide.
As far as Ed Spins free antlerless tag idea, how about making that for private land only in the LP only?

I'd have to show up to voice my opposition to it. Every 7pt, 8pt, 9pt, an 10pt (yup, they exist) yearling would see their hunting mortality go up. Even 4pt a side wouldn't protect half the yearling bucks in my area.

If such a proposal were to pass, we'd not only encourage high-grading, but we'd still have accomplished nothing in the way of chipping away at that mulligan tag. Those early-October bowhunters (when a disproportionate portion of the yearling buck carnage occurs in my area) will be largely unaffected. Remember, in some areas of the SLP, 40% of the total annual buck harvest is accomplished by bowhunters, much of it early on. Virtually all of those guys buy combo tags, and it's nothing to arrow a 7-8pt yearling in the first week of bowseason.

Only way I could go for a 4pt a side restriction would be for the other half of the combo tag to have to be antlerless only, which would get at that wretched mulligan tag. But since there's some insane insistance on treating Osseo as if it were Ontonogan, that's not going to happen.

We keep coming back to the fact that we simply need different regs, and indeed, a different approach, for different regions.

[Ed Spin04]

Pine farm, WhitI and others You guys see the light. Those that pined forever for an OBR have it in sight with this proposal, yet some of these same OBR'ers cannot support hunters choice. Hunters choice is OBR but enhanced OBR. Think about their arguement. "Hygrading will happen even with both bucks having four points on one side in the SLP". Do they know for sure? Of course not. Is it possible to detect if it happens? Yeah, maybe in fify years if your an expert biologist. Boyd Wiltse and I spent hours on the feasibility of hunters choice and for many years. It wasn't a one nighter. The whole object of this hunters choice was to create stewardship in hunters. We firmly believe that rules to protect young bucks changes the mindset of hunters to be more aware of the resources. It does take time but it happens. Example, the DMU 118 five year demonstration was a minimum protection rate of yearling bucks. Hunters bought into it as the bio harvest results showed. The harvest of does increased 85% as a yearly average. That's awesome and the sex ratio went from one buck to three does to one buck to two does minimum. The local farmers actually stopped buying block permits for the crop damage disappeared. The demonstration is no longer in place and unfortunately farmers are now buying block permits. There was no extra push on hunters to take does. They just did. Same thing with taking restricted bucks. They followed the rules and strange as it may seem to some, there were no dead spike bucks laying in the woods to rot. It is natural for hunters to aspire to a higher level. With time and education the hunters will understand just what buck is best to take to create a truly healthy and natural deer herd and therefore, hygrading will not be an issue. We just need to give them the tools time and reason.

[Liver and Onions]

.......... We firmly believe that rules to protect young bucks changes the mindset of hunters to be more aware of the resources. It does take time but it happens..........

Bingo. I couldn't agree more. Many in my hunting area credit the combo license to changing the mindset of hunters. I don't want to discredit the effect of what guys read in magazines or the effort of any group, but antler restrictions got more people on board for SDM(Selective Deer Management)than anything else. And this not only includes the passing of smaller bucks with antlers, it includes the effort to not taking button bucks when taking an antlerless deer. If we can drop the State average of about 22% of the antlerless harvest being bb's to between 10-12%, we can bring deer populations under control in areas that need deer reduction within 2-3 years by just killing the same number of deer...... the right deer.
Believe me, every farmer in an area with too many deer knows this. When a farmer sees thousands of dollars of damage year after year he is more than eager to take does from his property. If you want to help take does for a farmer, ask how you can EARN that right. Forget about bucks, they are for family.

L & O

[Munsterlndr]

Example, the DMU 118 five year demonstration was a minimum protection rate of yearling bucks. Hunters bought into it as the bio harvest results showed. The harvest of does increased 85% as a yearly average. That's awesome and the sex ratio went from one buck to three does to one buck to two does minimum. The local farmers actually stopped buying block permits for the crop damage disappeared. The demonstration is no longer in place and unfortunately farmers are now buying block permits. There was no extra push on hunters to take does. They just did.

As has been pointed out numerous times in this forum, your repeated presentation of the DMU 118 data as having any scientific or statistical merit is ludicrous. That "Study" employed a flawed methodology that nullified any validity in the so called results. Your statement that the antlerless harvest increased 85% is a case in point. Ed, you have stated before on this forum that the DNR required a minimum sample size of 200 antlerless deer and that there were not sufficient numbers of does checked into the DNR check stations to meet that minimum. So you and a few other guys collected data from farmers who where harvesting does with Block permits and data from hunters who took their deer to local processors. In short, you changed the source of the data from when the baseline data was gathered, yet you continue to try and make an apples to apples comparison between the two data sets. In all honesty, you have no way of knowing whether or not the antlerless harvest increased over the term of the DMU 118 study, all that can be verified is that you artificially inflated the number of does included in the harvest sample, with data taken from sources that were not included in the original baseline sample. Then after manipulating the data you reach the conclusion that the results "must" be due to some change of heart among the hunting population instead of admitting that the results were totally dependent upon the differing sources of data. Give me a break.

It's my understanding that you used the same flawed methodology in masterminding the DMU 045 data and are making the same flawed assumptions in interpreting the results of that study, when all that has really changed is that different sources of data were used between the baseline and test data. For instance, in your analysis of the DMU 045 data you claim that antlerless harvest increased approx. 30% during the period of the study when compared to the baseline average. This is completely at odds with the previously published DNR data from the annual harvest reports which showed a 19% decrease in antlerless harvest during the test period. Note that during the study period the number of antlerless permits issued in Leelanau County has been reduced every year. It would make sense that if there are fewer antlerless tags available the antlerless harvest will decrease. Yet your data would have us believe that instead the antlerless harvest increased. Your Leelanau data also shows an increased buck harvest of 34% over the term of the test period, which is also at odds with the DNR harvest survey data, which shows a an 8% decrease in the antlered harvest during the test period. You even mention in your remarks that a decrease should be anticipated when MAR's are put in place, which is what one would logically anticipate, since there are fewer bucks available to legally harvest, but using your method of gathering data somehow the buck harvest increased and therefore it must all be due to MAR's.

Sorry, both the DMU 118 and the DMU 045 studies have been a gigantic fraud and a huge waste of everyones time. Flawed methodology creates unusable data. The results are clearly at odds with the DNR annual harvest survey. I'll put my money on the DNR's Brian Frawley, who understands scientific methodology and consistency in statistical data sources over "studies" produced by special interest groups with an agenda. It's becoming increasingly clear that this recent "hunters choice" proposal is merely the first step in a back door attempt to implement MAR's, where previous attempts have failed. I'm sure I'll be vilified for this post as you have an almost cult following based on your food plot expertise. I'll readily agree that you have a great deal of knowledge regarding some aspects of deer management, especially food plots but it also seems that you turn a blind eye towards any information, whether regarding high grading or the flawed methodology that you employ, if it contradicts your attempts to implement your specific MAR's agenda.

[bentduck]

I'm sure I'll be vilified for this post as you have an almost cult following based on your food plot expertise.

Although I agree with Ed on all things management related, I would still like to invite you to our Villians banquet in March. Since I lead this forum in villification, I will be the Master Of Cerimony. Fiends, bashers, and knuckle dragging red necks are also invited. :lol:

[Pinefarm]

One major point to understand is, this proposal is NOT MARS. Nothing about this hunter choice OPTION is mandatory. This proposal is complete VOLUNTARY antler restrictions or VOLUNTARY One Buck Rule.
The hunter makes a choice of how he's going to hunt, at the store counter, long before he has the chance to get in the stand and gets the shakes with a "lesser" young buck infront of him.

I don't understand the resistance to this otherwise clear understanding of hunter psychology. If suddenly, potentially 100,000 plus hunters said that they were voluntarily going 6pts or better instead of shooting any first buck they saw, I'd expect many here would be very happy about that news. All this proposal does is back up that voluntary pledge hunters make with some backbone. It solidifies that commitment at the license counter, instead of relying on it in the field, when the pulse races with the excitement of having any buck show up within range.

Here's an example of what I mean. A neighboring club of mine 1 mile down the road has 320 acres. Earlier in the year, they said they were finally going 6pts or better and they were going to shoot some does. That was a great first step. So, this year when we went over there after dark on the evening of Nov.15 for our traditional couple beers/meet and greet, they had 5 bucks hanging. All bucks were less than 6pts and no does had been killed yet in the season.

They said that they basically talked themselves out of their 6pts or better pledge on the night of the 14th. I just wonder what would have been hanging on their buck pole if those guys bought the new 3pt-4pt combo tag prior to that? Now, if some guys bought the OBR tag, then maybe some of those 5 bucks would be hanging. But let's assume some of those guys had combo tags and wouldn't have been able to shot a spike or fork.

I'd rather have guys make their management decisions with a cool head at the store counter, before the hunt instead of in the field, knowing you have a bunch of friends staying at camp who'd love to have some beers and hang any buck after dark.

Here's another big plus about the voluntary choice. QDM is all about education, right? Well what better way to educate on the thrill of passing a small buck?

For the very first time in their hunting careers, potentially 100,000's of hunters will be in the position to let a small young buck walk for the first time, ever. And you know the rush that comes after doing that? Hopefully some will pass up 2 or 3 bucks. All the better. Get passing bucks into the blood. It's like sex, the more you do it, the more you want to do it. ;)

Sure, most of those guys will probably shoot the first 6pt they see. That's fine. I bet for a small percentage of those guys, there may be a bit of shooters remorse and they may think "why'd I shoot that 6pt after passing the other yearlings"?
And for others, that dawning may come in year 2 or 3. Or maybe never at all. But, they still opt for either OBR or self imposed higher standards.

I think folks have to take a breath and consider exactly what this proposal is all about. This isn't mandatory anything. When a hunter walks to the counter to buy a tag(s) for his or her season, the decision made at that point is, do I want to be more selective on bucks all Fall or do I have no interest on being selective and settling for only one buck, maximum.

For years now, we've touted that the less apt hunters are to shoot a buck, the more apt they are to shoot a doe. Well, here ya go. This is a proposal that people who agree with that premise should like.

Ask these questions, if a hunter opt's for the voluntary combo tag with a higher threshold before the season starts, how will that effect him if he participates in deer drives in the SLP? How will it effect the hunter who says he wants to pass some smaller bucks, but his resolve otherwise melts with a big fork horn underneath his treestand? If a guy bought the new combo and also has an anterless tag, he's passed a spike and his hunting time is getting short, how much more apt is he to get excited when a big doe shows up, since his freezer remains empty of venison?

One addition to this proposal worth mentioning is that we should copy PA when a mistake is made. If someone who's bought the new combo shoots a fork, give him 24 hours to call MDNR or show up at a check point or MDNR field office, pay a $20-50 fine by credit card by phone or otherwise is person, and let him keep the deer. PA's experience has been that "mistake" levels are much lower than thought.

This proposal is an excercise is human pyschology and human nature. People tend to back their personsal decisions, often vehemently. If someone decides on the new combo tag, if a fellow "brown it;s down" camp member rides him about it, you may find that the new combo tag person defends his decision even more so, even if he was never a dedicated QDM'er to that point.

This proposal is win, win, win on every level possible, IMHO

[Ed Spin04]

It has been mentioned here many times. The last year of the DMU 118 bio harvest data was collected 100% by the MDNR. Munster you are the one being selective in your numbers. The MDNR made the statement to the NRC after the fourth year, (2002) that the DMU 118 bio data was inconclusve due to me helping the DNR collect data. Strange, since it was they who asked that I do just that. Oh well, another set up by you know who. Well, I told Brent Rudolph that the final fifth year of data was going to be all theirs. Look real hard Mr M. and you will find an 85% increase in the harvest of does that year versus the base data. Call the local MDNR field Biologist and ask him for the facts. Ask him if the DMU 118 farmers stopped buying block peremits during the five year demonstration, ask him if the crop damage was negligeble and ask him what the story is today. You need not post the answer. I already know. I think that this is your tenth strike. What rules of baseball do you use. "Your outa here, take a shower"!

[Ed Spin04]

Bentduck, that's funny. Are you related to QDMAMAN? Let me know the date of your friendship banquet. If available I would be honored to attend. Should I wear my spanish armour outfit from my great,great,great.great.great grandpa.

[One Eye]

Mike/Trophy Specialist was the first one that I heard speak of this proposal. I have no idea as to who originated it if he didn't.

This is one regulation that makes sense to me. It is a reasonable (IMO) compromise.

I have heard this idea many times from a few different sources.

Dan

[bentduck]

Bentduck, that's funny. Are you related to QDMAMAN? Let me know the date of your friendship banquet. If available I would be honored to attend. Should I wear my spanish armour outfit from my great,great,great.great.great grandpa.


Ed,

Unfortunately you are too knowledgable, level headed and non confrontational to make the banquet under the qualifications set forth by the Fiends, Bashers and Villian Alliance Network.

However, since I have seen you wear the bib's to nearly every deer related function you have ever attended, I may get you in under the "Knuckle Dragging Red Neck Exemption" set forth in the by-laws. Question... do your knuckles touch the ground when walking upright? :lol:

[Munsterlndr]

It has been mentioned here many times. The last year of the DMU 118 bio harvest data was collected 100% by the MDNR. Munster you are the one being selective in your numbers. The MDNR made the statement to the NRC after the fourth year, (2002) that the DMU 118 bio data was inconclusve due to me helping the DNR collect data. Strange, since it was they who asked that I do just that. Oh well, another set up by you know who. Well, I told Brent Rudolph that the final fifth year of data was going to be all theirs. Look real hard Mr M. and you will find an 85% increase in the harvest of does that year versus the base data. Call the local MDNR field Biologist and ask him for the facts. Ask him if the DMU 118 farmers stopped buying block peremits during the five year demonstration, ask him if the crop damage was negligeble and ask him what the story is today. You need not post the answer. I already know. I think that this is your tenth strike. What rules of baseball do you use. "Your outa here, take a shower"!

Sorry Ed, that dog won't hunt. You have just admitted that 4 out of the 5 years of data gathered in the DMU 118 study was worthless to compare to the 3 years of baseline averaged data because the data was tainted by having a different source. Funny how you never mentioned that until the flaws in your methodology were publicly pointed out. Funny how in none of the original reports did you mention that alternative sources of data were used. In fact, the reports that you prepared explicitly state that all of the data was gathered from DNR sources but as we know now that was not the case. Then you compound your mistake by trying to compare 1 year of data to a 3 year baseline average and try and draw any meaningful conclusions. If that is a valid method for reaching a statistical conclusion why do you say in the DMU 045 report that you really need 8 years of test data to "find the true facts of a deer management program"?

Here is why you can't make any assumptions based on one year of data. The problem is that if you look at the year to year variance within the 3 year baseline period you also see a substantial variation. For instance between 1996 and 1997, years 1 & 2 of the 3 baseline years, there was a 43% increase in the antlerless harvest. So what was that due to? When comparing the dramatic increase between the year 5 data and the 3 year baseline average you claim it is due to a change in hunter motivation brought on by MAR's. Yet just 2 years prior to MAR's there was a 43% increase in the antlerless harvest. Obviously MAR's was not responsible for that since it had yet to be enacted so it calls into question the entire validity of all of the conclusions that you ascribe to the influence of MAR's and hunters embracing stewardship.

On a further note, since you have admitted that mixing data sources invalidated the results of the first 4 years of the DMU 118 study, why did you make no mention of that in your analysis of the DMU 045 data? They followed your proscribed method of having members of the sponsoring organization collect additional data from supplemental sources like farmers and processing facilities, which taints the DMU 045 data in the same way that the first 4 years of the DMU 118 data was tainted. Why replicate the mistake if you were aware of it back in 2003?

Sorry, those are the facts. You appear to have gone into these studies with a preconceived idea of what the results should be and then have manipulated the data until the foregone conclusion that fits your agenda was achieved.

This is what fuels my suspicion that your current promotion of the hunters choice option is simply the next step in furthering your MAR's agenda. Continuing to try and sell the results of a discredited MAR's study simply calls into question your motivations for pushing the "hunters Choice" option as the best thing since sliced bread.

"Enhanced OBR, tell us another one! What part of shooting two mature bucks a year "enhances" OBR?

[bucko12pt]

So you and a few other guys collected data from farmers who where harvesting does with Block permits and data from hunters who took their deer to local processors.

Sorry, both the DMU 118 and the DMU 045 studies have been a gigantic fraud and a huge waste of everyones time. Flawed methodology creates unusable data. The results are clearly at odds with the DNR annual harvest survey. I'll put my money on the DNR's Brian Frawley, who understands scientific methodology and consistency in statistical data sources over "studies" produced by special interest groups with an agenda. It's becoming increasingly clear that this recent "hunters choice" proposal is merely the first step in a back door attempt to implement MAR's, where previous attempts have failed. I'm sure I'll be vilified for this post as you have an almost cult following based on your food plot expertise. I'll readily agree that you have a great deal of knowledge regarding some aspects of deer management, especially food plots but it also seems that you turn a blind eye towards any information, whether regarding high grading or the flawed methodology that you employ, if it contradicts your attempts to implement your specific MAR's agenda.


I'm not sure what transpired in DMU 118, but in the case of DMU 045, the sponsoring group is not gathering information that the DNR is making decisions on. The group is helping to collect heads that are turned in to the DNR for analysis. This is being done at the requestof the DNR because they do not have the manpower to do it themselves.

The group is gathering information for their own use, but the DNR is not making decisions based on that information. Of course we are using that data to try to influence them and others, but they are not making decisions based on information gathered by the sponsoring group.

I've been told, no one in the Traverse City or Cadillac offices will be involved in assembling the data on which the decision on the QDM proposal for 045 is based, including CO's, biologists, et al. Assembly of the data is the "domain" of Lansing.

That is being done at this time and will be announced at the Saginaw meeting of the NRC on March 6th.

My understanding is Brian Frawley is assembling the data, so it shouldn't be flawed!! :)

On another note, I have some information from Rich Earl in the TC office re. block permits/kills for DMU 045 and the numbers are so small that they aren't worth discussing. Peoples concerns re block permits issued and reulting kills are unfounded.

[ustobe1]

Boy,
I can't believe I'm making a reply to this post as my first post on this site:yikes: I've been lurking for awhile and really love this site. I guess I picked this post to reply to since it's an issue near and dear to my heart and I feel I have some insite since I lived the 3/4point MAR in the Clare county DMU118 experiment. 1st I want make it clear that I am an avid QDMer and I did belong to QDMA at one time. I no longer do. I love big racks and I like to see healthy deer, deer habitat and an age structured herd. I can't believe all the bs that goes on trying to justify wether your motives for QDM or MARS is about big racks or properly managing a deer herd. They go hand in hand folks. Big bucks are the results of a properly managed herd.

Now my experience in Unit 118. We have 160 acres in the heart of that area that 6 guys hunt on. I own some and inlaws own some so I'm forced to hunt with these guys, not that I choose to. When the 3 on a side rule was put into effect, all the guys but myself were dead set against it. 2 even said they would quit hunting (I only wish). Before the restrictions went into effect this crew of guys shot whatever buck walked by and they did lots of that. In the 10 yrs previous to antler restrictions we averaged close to 12 deer a year off this property. Usually 6 or 7 bucks and about the same number of does. In those 10 years we took 1 buck that scored 125. We never even took another buck that had 8 points. All 1.5 year old spikes, 3's, 4's, and and occasional 6 or 7 point. When the MARS went into effect that 1st year we killed 1 seven point buck and 6 does. Boy were the guys po'ed. They were frustrated as heck having to let all the little bucks pass. Well you know what in about the middle of the next summer things really changed. All of a sudden we started seeing lots of nice bucks out in the hay fields. It wasn't uncommon to see 10-12 bucks at a time out there. In the past we were lucky to see 2 or 3. The second season we took 5 bucks, two 1.5 yr 6 points and 3 two and half year old eight points with two scoring about 110. It was unheard of on this property to kill bucks like this. Oh yah we also shot 8 does. After this second year 2 of the other guys that hunted the property realized what was happening and really jumped on board with deer management and the 3 of us made a pact to only shoot 8's or better. I'll skip all the details but over the rest of the MARS experiment every year we killed 6-8 bucks and all but one or two were atleast 8's with a couple of 9's and 10's thrown in. We were killing mainly 2.5 and 3.5 yr old bucks. The biggest we took scored about 135 with a lot of 110-120 inch bucks. We had a couple of bucks running around that would score in the 140's and niehbors got atleast a couple of them. Each year we saw more and more and better bucks. Also, saw the buck to doe ratio really change. Before MARS it was common to see as many as 75 deer at a time in our hayfield and only have one or two bucks and the rest does. After 4 years of the MARS, the number of deer were reduced and it was common to see 50 deer but 10 to 15 or more were bucks. I remember one September taking my dad up to do some scouting in the field. As the afternoon started to wear on and the deer and bucks came out into the field my dad sat there in disbelief watching bucks sparing and deer running everywhere. Everywhere you looked there were deer and lots of bucks. He shook his head and said it looked like we were on a deer farm or an enclosed hunting preserve. My dad is 75 and has been hunting Michigan for over 60 years and he had never seen anything like it or even thought it was posible. It was that good and so much better than before. By the end of the experiment all but one of our hunters had really bouht into QDM. At the end the 5 of us would only shoot deer that were atleast 2.5 yrs old and had 8points with atleast a 15 inch spread. QDM became contagious with these guys. The other, as soon as the MARS was lifted he started shooting the 1st buck he saw. Said if he didn't the guys next door would:dizzy:. Crazy thing is atleast 3/4 of section of land we are in, the neihbors are still practicing some form of QDM with most only shooting bucks that are atleast 2.5 yrs old.

Someone said Ed's numbers are flawed or something but my own experience says they are right on the money. Over the course of the MARS experiment, we saw the buck to doe ratio come down significantly, the age structure of the bucks go up and our success actually increase. The other thing we saw was buck activity really increase. We had rubs and scrapes all over. It was also nothing to see 5 or 6 bucks out in the fields fighting. We never had this before. I wish I could post pictures because they say it best. I have 10 years worth of spikes, 4's and 6's on a wall in the garage pre MARS. During and post MARS I've put a bunch of shoulder mounts on the wall. A night and days difference.

I also want to say that I did belong to the same branch of QDMA that Ed does but I do not know him. We have met but he probably doesn't remember me. I quit the QDMA because in my opinion they were trying to move to fast and that is what caused us a chance to continue. The QDMA wanted to go to a 4 point on a side restriction and that is all they were pushing. It was my own opinion that we were finally getting peoples attention and buy in, lets not push it too fast. Saddly we did not get enough support to continue. (Although if I remember about 60% were for it. That's another story, to get more than 50% to agree on anything is hard enough.)

So, my opinon for what it's worth :rolleyes:, is that this OBR or 3/4point combo is a start in the right direction to really getting things changed. Is it perfect? No. But we need to get the ball started let the masses experience what it is all about. Will we ever get to pleasing everyone probably not but for everyone out there that wants change we need to start somewhere.

I see where a couple of SLPers are against it because it doesn't protect enough 1.5 yr olds and that may be right but what is protecting them now? As for high grading I think the jury is still out on that. I would think it will be easier for you to get the changes that you want once we get the ball rolling. Prove the nay sayers wrong and change will be easier.

How's that for a 1st post? Can't wait to get into the Lapratt vs Eberhart, or Lapratt's boot camp debates:cool:

[bentduck]

This has been a very interesting thread but when you break it all down and factor in a touch of reality, I would offer the following conclusion.

Just like you can't legislate morality...I don't think it's possible at this point in time (in Michigan) to somehow legislate a healthier deer herd or better buck to doe ratio or any other concept geared to provide what many here are privately or publicly trying to achieve .... bigger bucks, a healthier herd and keeping the fun in hunting which for most of us would be the by-product of this concept if only on a bigger scale.

This new MAR concept is a TINY step in the right direction but it's really not going to have any noticeable affect on our deer hunting experience unless it is universally adhered to PLUS it should only be considered as a "springboard" to more significant and provacative changes that would really will have a huge impact.

Just like the fact that it took peer pressure to finally convince folks of the merits of catch and release, it will ultimately take this same type of peer pressure to get people to change their historic, family tradition deer hunting methods. In short... don't shoot 1 1/2 year old bucks, take as many does as biologicaly sound in your area and don't rely on the state to be the key to getting this off the ground. By relying on the state officials for something even as simple as this MAR concept ... I'm afraid that by time they come around, we will be so far behind the curb, the baby will have already been thrown out with the bathwater. We need to think big and think way outside the box.... Start with HIGH expectations in your hunting area and radical changes in what you harvest ... and do it cold turkey! Lead by example and KEEP TELLING YOUR NEIGHBORS what, how and why you are doing what you are and how you are simply following the lead of other states where big bucks and healthier herds are the rule.

We are already losing enough hunters to other out-of -state oppotunities for good reason. I don't think we can afford to wait for the NRC/DNR to take this issue beyond the "baby steps" proposed here. We need to SOMEHOW educate our neighbors in a way that is not offesive but also in a way that will fire them up.... lead by example, take pictures and spread the word aggresively and don't wait for the state to do it cause it aint' gonna happen in Michigan.

[MERGANZER]

This thread rivals WAR AND PEACE lol! I do beleive that it is time for som esort of MAR or OBR in this state. If I can still take part in the numerous seasons through antlerless tags then so be it. I guess I have gotten to the point where A- there is no more need for another spike or 4 pointer to adorn my polebarn and B- There is no reason Michigan should not be in the mix year in and year out for the leader in pope and young entries. We have what the deer need to get mature and to be a great specimen to harvest. If Ohio and Illinois can do it why not us? Argue what you will but after a few years I think we would be in whitetail heaven JMHO. Feel free to pile on I have a thick skin.

Ganzer

[bucko12pt]

Boy,
I can't believe I'm making a reply to this post as my first post on this site:yikes: I've been lurking for awhile and really love this site. I guess I picked this post to reply to since it's an issue near and dear to my heart and I feel I have some insite since I lived the 3/4point MAR in the Clare county DMU118 experiment. 1st I want make it clear that I am an avid QDMer and I did belong to QDMA at one time. I no longer do. I love big racks and I like to see healthy deer, deer habitat and an age structured herd. I can't believe all the bs that goes on trying to justify wether your motives for QDM or MARS is about big racks or properly managing a deer herd. They go hand in hand folks. Big bucks are the results of a properly managed herd.

Now my experience in Unit 118. We have 160 acres in the heart of that area that 6 guys hunt on. I own some and inlaws own some so I'm forced to hunt with these guys, not that I choose to. When the 3 on a side rule was put into effect, all the guys but myself were dead set against it. 2 even said they would quit hunting (I only wish). Before the restrictions went into effect this crew of guys shot whatever buck walked by and they did lots of that. In the 10 yrs previous to antler restrictions we averaged close to 12 deer a year off this property. Usually 6 or 7 bucks and about the same number of does. In those 10 years we took 1 buck that scored 125. We never even took another buck that had 8 points. All 1.5 year old spikes, 3's, 4's, and and occasional 6 or 7 point. When the MARS went into effect that 1st year we killed 1 seven point buck and 6 does. Boy were the guys po'ed. They were frustrated as heck having to let all the little bucks pass. Well you know what in about the middle of the next summer things really changed. All of a sudden we started seeing lots of nice bucks out in the hay fields. It wasn't uncommon to see 10-12 bucks at a time out there. In the past we were lucky to see 2 or 3. The second season we took 5 bucks, two 1.5 yr 6 points and 3 two and half year old eight points with two scoring about 110. It was unheard of on this property to kill bucks like this. Oh yah we also shot 8 does. After this second year 2 of the other guys that hunted the property realized what was happening and really jumped on board with deer management and the 3 of us made a pact to only shoot 8's or better. I'll skip all the details but over the rest of the MARS experiment every year we killed 6-8 bucks and all but one or two were atleast 8's with a couple of 9's and 10's thrown in. We were killing mainly 2.5 and 3.5 yr old bucks. The biggest we took scored about 135 with a lot of 110-120 inch bucks. We had a couple of bucks running around that would score in the 140's and niehbors got atleast a couple of them. Each year we saw more and more and better bucks. Also, saw the buck to doe ratio really change. Before MARS it was common to see as many as 75 deer at a time in our hayfield and only have one or two bucks and the rest does. After 4 years of the MARS, the number of deer were reduced and it was common to see 50 deer but 10 to 15 or more were bucks. I remember one September taking my dad up to do some scouting in the field. As the afternoon started to wear on and the deer and bucks came out into the field my dad sat there in disbelief watching bucks sparing and deer running everywhere. Everywhere you looked there were deer and lots of bucks. He shook his head and said it looked like we were on a deer farm or an enclosed hunting preserve. My dad is 75 and has been hunting Michigan for over 60 years and he had never seen anything like it or even thought it was posible. It was that good and so much better than before. By the end of the experiment all but one of our hunters had really bouht into QDM. At the end the 5 of us would only shoot deer that were atleast 2.5 yrs old and had 8points with atleast a 15 inch spread. QDM became contagious with these guys. The other, as soon as the MARS was lifted he started shooting the 1st buck he saw. Said if he didn't the guys next door would:dizzy:. Crazy thing is atleast 3/4 of section of land we are in, the neihbors are still practicing some form of QDM with most only shooting bucks that are atleast 2.5 yrs old.

Someone said Ed's numbers are flawed or something but my own experience says they are right on the money. Over the course of the MARS experiment, we saw the buck to doe ratio come down significantly, the age structure of the bucks go up and our success actually increase. The other thing we saw was buck activity really increase. We had rubs and scrapes all over. It was also nothing to see 5 or 6 bucks out in the fields fighting. We never had this before. I wish I could post pictures because they say it best. I have 10 years worth of spikes, 4's and 6's on a wall in the garage pre MARS. During and post MARS I've put a bunch of shoulder mounts on the wall. A night and days difference.

I also want to say that I did belong to the same branch of QDMA that Ed does but I do not know him. We have met but he probably doesn't remember me. I quit the QDMA because in my opinion they were trying to move to fast and that is what caused us a chance to continue. The QDMA wanted to go to a 4 point on a side restriction and that is all they were pushing. It was my own opinion that we were finally getting peoples attention and buy in, lets not push it too fast. Saddly we did not get enough support to continue. (Although if I remember about 60% were for it. That's another story, to get more than 50% to agree on anything is hard enough.)

So, my opinon for what it's worth :rolleyes:, is that this OBR or 3/4point combo is a start in the right direction to really getting things changed. Is it perfect? No. But we need to get the ball started let the masses experience what it is all about. Will we ever get to pleasing everyone probably not but for everyone out there that wants change we need to start somewhere.

I see where a couple of SLPers are against it because it doesn't protect enough 1.5 yr olds and that may be right but what is protecting them now? As for high grading I think the jury is still out on that. I would think it will be easier for you to get the changes that you want once we get the ball rolling. Prove the nay sayers wrong and change will be easier.

How's that for a 1st post? Can't wait to get into the Lapratt vs Eberhart, or Lapratt's boot camp debates:cool:


This post could have been written about any number of family, or hunter groups that I know in DMU 045 over that past 5 years.

It amazes me the number guys in 045 that were dead set against it and then converted after experiencing it firsthand. It's easy to speculate about what will happen if a particular change is implemented and many had pre-conceived notions about what would happen when this program was implemented. Many were schocked at what the actual results were and it's been hard for a lot of them to admit that they were wrong.

For the first time in my lifetime we have a healthy(er) herd in DMU 045. Age structure, weights and resulting antler growth are all up as a result of this program.

Thank's for the post ustobe1. Sorry the renewal didn't re-pass in your DMU. It's good to hear from someone that has lived it, rather than a bunch of naysayers speculating on what might or might not happen and not willing to at least try something different.

[Ed Spin04]

Wow, I'm floored, the last four posts says it all. We have arrived, I do believe George Lindquest's proposal will happen and due primarily to the overwhleming message being given here and everywhere I visit. Please give the above message to our decision makers before March 6th or go to the NRC meeting in Lansing at 4:30 March 6th. I'm sending my letter tommorrow to the NRC and copies to key DNR officials. I can't make the March 6th meeting. Hmmmnn, so that's why my knuckles have callouses, ugh,ugh, ugh. I'm not a Democrat and wont vote for him , but that Obama guy is something else.

[Pinefarm]

This is an important issue. We're drifting after several pages of posts.
For clarity on this important issue, I'm going to close this one down in order to prevent any tit for tat quote pulling. I invite someone to start a page one, new thread with thoughts from here.
But this 6 page thread is becoming dense reading for the average member.
The average joe member should have the chance to understand this important issue, which will likely effect him, in a more simple, clear way than where this thread is headed.
Let's start a new thread on the subject.
Bob
Closed.

[Steve]

Good idea.