Which method to restrict harvest of young bucks?

[bwiltse]

Which restriction method would you prefer most to help protect young bucks, balance sex ratios, and accomplish a more even age distribution - one buck limit, antler restriction, minimum antler spread, earn a buck permit, etc?

------------------
Boyd

[Seldom]

We've done it before in this state and I can do it again. That's making the choice if I want to harvest a buck during bow season or gun season. If we are really serious about buck/doe ratios, quality of bucks seen, and not shooting spikes & button bucks, I think we have to go back to a one buck/yr limit. If you think you are going to lose quality hunting time/experience by harvesting your buck early, take your kids or grandkids hunting and focus on teaching THEM to hunt and YOU enjoy THEIR experience! Maybe we wouldn't need so many "special-interest" seasons.

[farmlegend]

I believe that antler point restrictions and minimum spread requirements would be counterproductive in southern lower Michigan, since so many 1.5 year old bucks down here sport 6-8 point racks; a yearling buck was harvested on my property in '97 with a 17.5" inside spread! Such restrictions would not protect the best yearling specimens.
Also, I question the ability of the masses of hunters to make field judgements of antler spread or even number of points on a side; in my experience, sad to say, most hunters in our state cannot even distinguish a doe from a fawn.
To me, a one buck limit is a baby step toward reforming our havest methodology in the direction of better balancing our herd, and it befuddles me that even this most modest reform has not been made. From my discussions with DNR personnel, I've been told that there are political reasons for continuing to allow two buck tags per hunter per year. If true, that's unfortunate; if such a modest change as going to a one buck limit cannot be accomplished, what are our chances for more aggressive reforms to protect yearling bucks?
How is it that Michigan, with its deep and long-standing hunting tradition, is so pitifully far behind other states in managing its herd for a healthy age/sex structure?
The "earn a buck" permit would be a step in the right direction, but I think it would be unpopular at this time. Still, I'm all for continuing to push for it.
Another potential reform, which I also regard as modest, would be to protect "button bucks" (incidentally, I think we should all start to refer to them as "button fawns") by way of forcing hunters to use their buck tags if they choose to harvest a male fawn. As it stands now, in areas where hunters can acquire three antlerless tags this year (2000), a Michigan hunter could legally harvest FIVE male deer (two antlered bucks plus three "button fawns")! I think it's irresponsible to allow this.
Sorry if I seem negative, but I'm somewhat passionate about this issue.
Actually, I'm hopeful that we can move our policy in the right direction, although it will likely take several years for meaningful changes to be made.
Boyd, thank you for your efforts in support of a healthier deer herd.

[RemFire]

To FarmLegend, you make some good points about yearling bucks I didn't consider. I'm a firm believer in QDM, but because our state is so diverse, a number of measures seem to be the only choice...I'm also a bowhunter, and I would be willing to go to a 1 buck, 1 doe permit system. Doesn't matter if I shoot both with a rifle, bow, or combo. If we change our system a bit,,,then more doe kill tags could be issued in areas it is needed.....I don't think we will ever get away from the fact that some people are in the woods and cannot tell the difference between a fawn and a doe. At times, it's very hard. We do need to make some tough choices and actually do something to get there. Keep me posted please.....

[Joe Archer]

I would like to see a better buck to doe ratio as well. Honestly though, I strongly disagree with the one buck/season option. I would support protecting spike horn bucks, and limitting bucks to one per license. One non-spike buck with a bow, and one with a gun. As for southern Michigan? Most areas down here are under hunted and my guess is that there is a decent buck to doe ratio already. At least, the areas I hunt in southern MI seem to have more (and better) bucks than the northern areas.<----<<<

[Sarge]

I think you've seen my posts before, and I'm going to do my very best to control myself this year. Actually, I don't really have enough woods experience to judge deer properly. Also from lack of experience, I tend to shoot the first legal critter that gets itself in my cross hairs. What I want to do, is find more time in the woods to get used to what a mature deer looks like compared to a young one, and secondly, I want to try to hold out for a buck. I shot a 4 point as a teen and 3 antlerless in the last 3 years. I'm really not depleting the population much, but 2 of those antlerless were baby bucks. You have to understand that I hunted for 3 years and saw 1 deer, then didn't hunt for 30 years. Then the next 3 deer that I saw in the woods I killed with one shot. Now, that the "new hunter" syndrome has begun to wear off, I can (hopefully) start to concentrate on woodsmanship as opposed to proving that I can find and kill venison. I have nothing but respect for all the mature hunters that gather here and want to become one of them. At 53 its about time.

------------------
Sarge

[Tim Baker]

I would be in favor of a one buck limit also. I don’t think it will ever happen unless our herd was decimated but it sure would improve the herd.

Joe Archer, the spike horn is usually a “lessor” deer for one of two reasons and neither is a good reason to protect it (a third reason would be lack of nutrition but unlikely in s. MI). It is either genetically inferior or it was born late the previous year. You also mentioned that most areas of Southern Michigan are under hunted. In Washtenaw county nothing could be further from the truth, most land is over hunted for bucks to the point where we have 10 - 20 does per buck before season and 20 - 30 does per buck after season. I find it hard to believe that Washtenaw county is that much different than the rest of Southern Michigan. Another thing, if areas are under hunted why is it so hard to find permission on private property. I also have to disagree with your idea to limit a person to one buck with bow and one with gun. If were going to have a two buck limit keep it the way it is. So if I don’t gun AND bow hunt I can only shoot one buck?

Tim

[David G Duncan]

Looking back over the past forty years of deer hunting, I am pleased to report that I believe the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has done a very good job of managing our deer herd.

As a boy in southern Michigan I can remember seeing my first deer tracks in the snow during a time when deer were normally only found in the northern part of the state.

My dad to my brother and me to northern lower pennisular to hunt deer from a tent deer camp. We could only purchase a license to harvest a buck. But we could also enter a drawing for a doe permit. If you got a doe permit you could still only take one deer a year.

I support the efforts of the DNR and believe we should allow them to maintain some consistence in their current program, by keeping the same policy for at least a couple more years to see if the results related to QDM are being realized.

------------------
Trapper Dave

[farmlegend]

Respectfully, Joe Archer,I'm curious as to which areas in southern Michigan are underhunted. I've hunted in Lapeer, Jackson, Washtenaw, and of late, Hillsdale counties, and hunting pressure appears heavy to me everywhere I've been. In particular, pressure on 1.5 year old, "yearling" bucks (which I regard as the easiest deer in the herd to kill)is very, very heavy. At a popular deer processing location in Hillsdale county last season, I observed 30 carcasses harvested in the first two days of the archery season. Three were antlerless deer(I don't remember their gender), and each and every one of the other 27 deer were yearling bucks! Obviously, archers are harvesting the first antlered deer they see. I'm confident a one buck limit would make some of them more selective.
My field observations indicate a poorly skewed buck to doe ratio, and, equally important, an unhealthy age structure in southern Michigan; I believe that 85% or better of the pre-harvest antlered deer in the area I hunt are yearlings. I support the efforts of QDM (I am a member), but we must recognize that we've got a long way to go.
A note to Sarge - I salute your resolution to improve your woodsmanship and become a better hunter, and trust that you will find it a rewarding endeavor. Hope you can find the time to do so. My guess is you'll find that you never stop learning, and that's part of the beauty of absorbing our great outdoors. Happy hunting!

[Tim Baker]

Very good post Farmlegend. I couldn't agree more with you about the 1.5 year old bucks and how many of them are harvested every year.

Tim

[Joe Archer]

I guess it is all relative. I meant compared to Northern Michigan, southern Michigan is much less hunted. Unfortunately, part of the reason is that many land owners do NOT allow hunters. And yes, I am speaking of private land. I am sure that any state land in Southern Michigan is hunted hard. If what I say isnt to some extent true, than why do you consistently see more MATURE bucks with the larger racks taken from Southern Michigan? As a side thought, 400,000 or so people purchased archery licenses last year. If we could only take one buck, many of us would not purchase rifle permits. Can the state afford this. I mean bucks vs. "bucks"?<----<<<

[This message has been edited by Joe Archer (edited 06-21-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Joe Archer (edited 06-21-2000).]

[bwiltse]

"Can the state afford this. I mean bucks vs. "bucks"?<----<<<"
Interesting comment above. Do any of you think that there should be a primary state income source other than hunting license sales for managing our deer herd and other wildlife.

------------------
Boyd

[RemFire]

Well, the reason so many big bucks come from southern mi, is because of the nuitrition. In the Upper Peninsula, a spike most likely is that years buck. Not always, but most likely. So, QDM must consider all this. I still say, if farmers get state tax dollars for "crop damage", or get extra kill tags, they should be forced to allow other hunters. Let it be their choice. Right now they have their cake and are eating it too, and I'm paying for it.

[Stinger]

I think instead of not buying a gun license many would not buy an archery license if the limit were to be one buck per year.

[Joe Archer]

Rem, I knew nutrition was a part of the nice racks, but not the entire story. Thats why I capitalized MATURE. It's the same in the UP, not as much pressure, extreme winters, and nice racks. As for hunters not purchasing archery tags for a one buck limit.. YEAH BABY! It could be like it was 15 years ago..I had ten square miles of state land to myself :) Yeah, and I'll probably hit the lotto this weekend too. <----<<<

[LONE WOLF]

First off, let me say welcome back home Sarge. I wouldn't know what to do with myself if I couldn't hunt. I swear each fall my eyes get a little funny looking and my neck swells, and I get this uncontrollable desire to rub the heck out of little saplings as I do my pre season scouting.

I have read a few times, in here so far, about judging a deers age. Now keep in mind, this is not a fool proof method, but it works for me.

I look at a deers face/head, a mature deer will have a long face, or roman nose look to it. Also I find a mature deer will have a sway back, like an old horse, and a pop belly, not too much different than an older hunter ie... myself.

Also keep in mind, a mature deer's back will only be about to the average persons hip, this is if it is 150 pounds or 250 pounds. Look for Short squatty legs and a deep chest, all signs of a mature deer.

Ok, now one more thing. We are talking about QDM, has anyone given any thought to managing Michigans deer herd as two seperate deer herds?
What I mean by this is, I live in the UP, and it is obviose to anyone who hunts up here, our deer live in completely different conditions than their southern cousins. Our deer are in pockets all over the UP, some better than others for numbers, some better for big bodies/racks.
I am in favor of the one buck rule for us up here, and would like to see spike bucks protected, that is to include spikes less than 3 inches qualified as an antlerless deer.
There are very few genetic spikes, period. A buck needs 3 things to make him a trophy, in body size or antler size, or both.
First is age, kill him as a spike and obviousely he will never reach his true potential.
Second is genetics, if the genes are not there it doesn't matter how good the feed and how long he lives he will never be a true monster buck.
And finally he needs the proper feed, minerals and such. I have read, somewhere, it takes a deers bones 3.5-4.5 years to develope. Until this happens most of the minerals go to bone growth in the body and not the antlers.
Don't get me wrong, I am not pushing for a trophy class hunting only, I just think if we stop the killing of spikes for just 3 short years, most hunters would see the beifits of their labor.

[Belbriette]

Originally posted by farmlegend:
I believe that antler point restrictions and minimum spread requirements would be counterproductive in southern lower Michigan, since so many 1.5 year old bucks down here sport 6-8 point racks; a yearling buck was harvested on my property in '97 with a 17.5" inside spread! Such restrictions would not protect the best yearling specimens.
Also, I question the ability of the masses of hunters to make field judgements of antler spread or even number of points on a side; in my experience, sad to say, most hunters in our state cannot even distinguish a doe from a fawn.
To me, a one buck limit is a baby step toward reforming our havest methodology in the direction of better balancing our herd, and it befuddles me that even this most modest reform has not been made. From my discussions with DNR personnel, I've been told that there are political reasons for continuing to allow two buck tags per hunter per year. If true, that's unfortunate; if such a modest change as going to a one buck limit cannot be accomplished, what are our chances for more aggressive reforms to protect yearling bucks?
How is it that Michigan, with its deep and long-standing hunting tradition, is so pitifully far behind other states in managing its herd for a healthy age/sex structure?
The "earn a buck" permit would be a step in the right direction, but I think it would be unpopular at this time. Still, I'm all for continuing to push for it.
Another potential reform, which I also regard as modest, would be to protect "button bucks" (incidentally, I think we should all start to refer to them as "button fawns") by way of forcing hunters to use their buck tags if they choose to harvest a male fawn. As it stands now, in areas where hunters can acquire three antlerless tags this year (2000), a Michigan hunter could legally harvest FIVE male deer (two antlered bucks plus three "button fawns")! I think it's irresponsible to allow this.
Sorry if I seem negative, but I'm somewhat passionate about this issue.
Actually, I'm hopeful that we can move our policy in the right direction, although it will likely take several years for meaningful changes to be made.
Boyd, thank you for your efforts in support of a healthier deer herd.

I am a French red deer lover : I read several of your messages in this forum, and from a large experience with red and roe deer, different species but similar management problems.
To start from a severely disturbed sex ratio in favor of females and to reach a good one, there are only three possibilities : either protect males or increase females cull, or both.
From an average hunter standpoint, for instance, it would be less painful to decrease the male cull by 20% for the needed number of years, than to rely on highly theoretical "field judgements" ... We tried this method and, of course it did not work.
Please notice that this -20% would not seriously affect the political money aspect of the problem.
I do not know about your deer, but serious researches on red deer, as well as experiences, have shown that the number of points and antlers weight, are more dependent on the animal well being (read density/carrying capacity, climate variations, date of birth, well being and dominance of the mother, social well being - from birth on -), than from genes.
As a result, one may advance to say that the average deer quality depends on the average well being of the population, whereas individual quality depends on specific individual factors of the well being.
Consequently, the goal must be to act for a general well being ...which necesarily depends from density, a good structure of population, sex and age wise, to which must be added a respect of the very important biological and social bound between mother and fawns.
The only question left is to decide what is the best sex ratio to look for : after over 20 years of reading, thinking and talking ... about this, I would be glad to tell you about it if you wish (as far as red deer are concerned).

[Sarge]

This particular post is aging and may not get much attention. Our web page allows us to view only those posts which are x of days old and many people have that set very low.

The new post you created name "orphans" will probably be much more productive for you. You might want to copy the remarks you made here into that post. I think much of the information has been repeated there anyway though.

Nice day,

------------------
Sarge

[Todd Buck]

I was raised and attended school in Michigan and as a result I've been following the QDM issues in the Michigan Out of Doors Magazine. As a Wildlife Manager in Arizona who has dealt with QDM (we call it Alternative Management) I have a few thoughts on the direction the discussions seem to be taking. Let me qualify my comments by stating that much of what I have to say is derived from Mule Deer management in the western US. Many (if not most) western states have experimented with point restrictions on bucks. This has resulted in problems in many areas which have not restricted the harvest in concert with the point restriction idea. In other words point restrictions have only worked in areas with a limited number of hunters allowed afield. What has happened in many situations is that as soon as a buck reaches an age at which he attains the minimum number of points he is harvested. At this point the post hunt breeding population of bucks consists primarily of younger bucks and the harvest has effectively removed the deer that should be breeding (dominant, older age class, large antlered deer). Dr. Valerius Giest, a noted wildlife biolgist, believes (and I agree) that a harvest of yearling and young bucks is essential under current situations. If growing big bucks is the only issue perhaps a restriction which allows hunters to only shoot spike and two points is in order. Under this strategy every buck who makes it thru the first two years of life will grow to a ripe old age and the breeding portion of the population will consist of dominant bucks (this strategy would most closely replicate a natural situation). However, I don't see the reason to grow big bucks unless they can be harvested. Young deer are the expendable portion of the population. Also, in my opinion, doe harvest is essential to QDM. In AZ we are attempting to manage for older age class bucks by restricting harvest levels, adjusting season dates, and maintaining the population below carrying capacity. This strategy means that draw odds for Alternative Management Units fluctuate around the 1-2% mark. This means that statistically a person would draw the tag once every 50-100 years. These odds are somewhat improved with a bonus point system but it still means several years between deer hunting. Is this something hunters in Michigan are willing to do? Also, I've read critisms of the DNR since the voters passed the proposition to give management decisions to the DNR. Keep in mind that with most deer populations, given ideal conditions, it can take 7-15 years to remedy population problems. Finally, (sorry about being so long winded) in AZ the age structure in my Alternative Management Unit is showing improvement after 4 years of Alternative Management Guidelines. However, mother nature has given us several years of low precipitation and as a result antler developement is still less than desirable for the most part. My advise think of as many outcomes to the management strategies presented to you and discount the best and the worst outcomes and hope for something in the middle.

[Belbriette]

You are faced with overpopulation and a disastrous sex ratio due to the urge of most hunters to harvest a trophy, even at the yearling stage...
Bow or riffle, a dead buck is always a dead buck, and the state money has nothing to do with deer management.
The only way to overcome the problem is obviously to shoot much more females(which also goes towards a quality goal through a lower density)and much less males, for a while.
In my opinion, the first and most important step is to define COHERENT management units from a deer standpoint, to assess the spring population and sex ratio within each one,and to define which sex ratio you want to reach (up to 1,4/1 in favour of males, the higher the better)-(see what I wrote about this in "Buck/Does sex ratios").
Once the goal is fixed, the yearly recruitment estimate will tell you how many fawns can be shot without killing too many males,and how many yearling and older bucks can be shot to spare again more males, without penalising too heavily the hunters ... and the State finances... The results of all these estimations to be checked and corrected from one year to the next. The more sacrifices agreed to, the faster the goal will be reached.
Once it is, well adapted quotas must be maintained, otherwise, in a few years back to the starting point ...
The only selective shooting which MAY AND CAN REALISTICALLY be required from hunters is to spare the best fawns(with buttons if I understood correctly what I have read)and to shoot (and cleanly kill), the weakest yearlings according to their average quality inside each management unit.
I cannot see any "salvation" outside of these simple measures.
With whitetail bucks reaching their apogee between 5 1/2 and 8 1/2 years old (from what I have been told here), the goal is much easier to reach than with red deer which only do so between 10 1/2 and 14 1/2.

[hoytshooter]

Although I would like to see better quality deer in the woods, I believe that two things make this a difficult proposition. The first being that I am primarily a meat hunter, and I have a great desire to fill the freezer. That being said, I am more than happy to shoot a doe. It seems to me that a lot of the people that I hunt with still refuse to shoot does! They however do not hesitate to shoot a yearling! I think this is because so many of us were brought up when it was hard to get a doe permit.

Secondly I feel that a lot of people define a quality deer as one with big antlers. I shot a five point a few years back that was aged at a dnr check station as a three and a half year old, and another with antler points broken on both sides (a car maybee?), that was a seven pooint when I shot it, but before the antlers were broken, probably a ten point or more. But as I stated before, I am a meat hunter, and both of these deer were what I consider quality deer.

Just my two cents on the subject.

[This message has been edited by hoytshooter (edited 09-03-2000).]