Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,675 Posts
Indiana hunters wanted the OBR and the DNR did not, that was intersting.

Just check out the Jump IN has made as a "big buck" state.

PA's not working either, they went from 28th to 8th
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
This rule will not appreciably change the antlered age structure because very few hunters take two antlered deer in a given season," DNR deer biologist Jim Mitchell said at that time.
This point of view grossly underestimates the importance of the concept of a mulligan. I passed what would have been the biggest deer of my life on the second day of gun season. Why? I have only one tag in my pocket and know there are three others in my area that are bigger yet. This is a very, very powerful influence on decision making by hunters.

Our hunters are convinced the one-buck rule has made a difference, and if they believe it, that's good," he said. "We've seen a lot of nice bucks, so it's hard to discredit it. But what's odd is the buck harvest has actually gone up since the one-buck rule, and you'd think it should go down.
I don't think this is odd at all. Almost any way you mathematically model approaches to increasing the age structure of bucks, the harvest numbers get re-established after a few years at almost the same as before the institution of the new approach. The harvest rate may go down but the harvest number gets re-established.

Here's an example: For simplicity's sake consider a closed fence herd with 1000 bucks. If the number of does and recruitment rate remain constant, and you start off with a harvest rate of 70%, then each year, you are killing 700 bucks. In a steady state, 700 new bucks show up the next year and you have 1000 again.

Now, change the harvest rate to 60%. Now you have only killed 600 bucks the first year, but an extra 100 are around the next year.

Year 2: 1100 bucks times 60% = 624 bucks killed, and 376 survive.

Year 3: 1076 bucks, at 60% harvest rate = 646 bucks killed, and 430 survive (rounding off).

Year 3: 1130 bucks in the herd. Kill 60% = 678 harvested and 452 survive.

By year 4, the buck numbers have grown to 1152, = a 15% increase in the number of bucks. That year, the harvest reaches 691, almost back to the original rate.

Hunters see more bucks. The percentage of deer in the herd that are over 2.5 years old is much higher (40% vs. 30%). The harvest rate has decreased, but the harvest numbers have become re-established. Now, if you add another variable, increased doe harvest-which did occur in Indiana, it is very likely the recruitment rate for new bucks will rise in areas where deer were overpopulated. So you can end up with more bucks, bigger bucks, and actually be killing more than you were before.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,222 Posts
It's no one elses business what I shoot. I shoot small bucks to feed my family. There are no does in Sanilac County. Small bucks taste better. The neighbors shoot small bucks so I do too. I shoot small bucks to make trophy hunters & qdma people mad. I shoot the first legal deer I see because I don't have any time to hunt. I am not a good enough hunter to kill anything over a year old. I have no patience. I don't care about big antlers. You can't eat the antlers...:hide:

Interesting article! I have a couple buddies in Indiana that got big bucks this year. Must be nice
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
419 Posts
They alo inceased nonresident license sales. (tripled I Believe)
Double the cost of nonresident license sales.
Increased over all DNR revenue.
Retained resident hunters.

I bring all these points forward because some on here argue that it can't be done in MIchigan because of money, or because we would lose resident hunters. To both these points I say hogwash! Better products cary higher demand and price. I contend that OBR is better for Michigan's pocket book as well as it's hunters!
 

·
Tornado Jim
Joined
·
19,989 Posts
This point of view grossly underestimates the importance of the concept of a mulligan. I passed what would have been the biggest deer of my life on the second day of gun season. Why? I have only one tag in my pocket and know there are three others in my area that are bigger yet. This is a very, very powerful influence on decision making by hunters.

I don't think this is odd at all. Almost any way you mathematically model approaches to increasing the age structure of bucks, the harvest numbers get re-established after a few years at almost the same as before the institution of the new approach. The harvest rate may go down but the harvest number gets re-established.

Here's an example: For simplicity's sake consider a closed fence herd with 1000 bucks. If the number of does and recruitment rate remain constant, and you start off with a harvest rate of 70%, then each year, you are killing 700 bucks. In a steady state, 700 new bucks show up the next year and you have 1000 again.

Now, change the harvest rate to 60%. Now you have only killed 600 bucks the first year, but an extra 100 are around the next year.

Year 2: 1100 bucks times 60% = 624 bucks killed, and 376 survive.

Year 3: 1076 bucks, at 60% harvest rate = 646 bucks killed, and 430 survive (rounding off).

Year 3: 1130 bucks in the herd. Kill 60% = 678 harvested and 452 survive.

By year 4, the buck numbers have grown to 1152, = a 15% increase in the number of bucks. That year, the harvest reaches 691, almost back to the original rate.

Hunters see more bucks. The percentage of deer in the herd that are over 2.5 years old is much higher (40% vs. 30%). The harvest rate has decreased, but the harvest numbers have become re-established. Now, if you add another variable, increased doe harvest-which did occur in Indiana, it is very likely the recruitment rate for new bucks will rise in areas where deer were overpopulated. So you can end up with more bucks, bigger bucks, and actually be killing more than you were before.

Just noticed the typos. Still, I think the point is made that you can reduce overall harvest rate without sacrificing harvest success in the long run.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top