[Night Moves]

A group is proposing to the NRC a new proposal. Details have been a little sketchy, but from what I understand, in order to kill a second buck, you will first have to kill an antlerless deer, and register it online, before you will legally, be able to fill your second buck tag. I'm just trying to gauge support of this proposal on here.

 

[Night Moves]

I tried to add a poll to this and it wouldn't let me. When I hit add a poll, it just posted the thread with no poll option. I tried it again and it worked ok. Could a moderator please delete this thread?

 

[Night Moves]

A group is proposing to the NRC a new proposal. Details have been a little sketchy, but from what I understand, in order to kill a second buck, you will first have to kill an antlerless deer, and register it online, before you will legally, be able to fill your second buck tag. I'm just trying to gauge support of this proposal on here.

 

[Bucman]

Honestly it doesn't bother me where I hunt, killing deer is pretty easy.

 

[>WingIt<]

Yes

 

[Craves]

My understanding is the NDA will be proposing this idea to the NRC. Your combo license will be good for a buck & doe, then you will be able to buy a second buck license after killing a doe. There will also be regional APRs (3 point zone 1 & 2, 4 point zone 3) on the first buck, 4 point APR on the second buck across the state. If I have it wrong, please clarify.

I'm not sure on this idea yet. At first blush I don't think it will have much impact on my hunting, but wonder how it will effect the masses. Without going into all the who-haa associated with any of the ideas, I am still adamant that a 3 point APR state wide is the best response to giving hunters the change they have indicated they want for years. OBR is a non starter in my opinion for many reasons (again, I'm not hashing this out again, especially in this thread)

Looking forward to reading the responses of others to this second buck idea.

 

[LGB]

A group is proposing to the NRC a new proposal. Details have been a little sketchy, but from what I understand, in order to kill a second buck, you will first have to kill an antlerless deer, and register it online, before you will legally, be able to fill your second buck tag. I'm just trying to gauge support of this proposal on here.

I'd be in

 

[Zofchak]

I'd be fine with it, but not if it includes complicating things further with additional APR restrictions on the first buck.

 

[SEMichiiganConservation]

OK by me. I have not shot, my second buck, EVER.

 

[sparky18181]

The key is registering in order to get that second buck tag. How many that would never kill an antherless deer will just buy the tag and register without actually killing an antherless deer.

 

[Flag Up]

I don't support earn a buck at all, weather it is first or second buck. I actually support one buck only with APR restrictions. Does are dependent on the local population not some mandate state wide.

 

[Tracker83]

Selfishly, as a someone who mostly only hunts zone 3 anymore, I like it. But I am very uncomfortable with continued incentives to shoot more does in zones 1 and 2.

 

[SEMichiiganConservation]

I don't support earn a buck at all. Weather it is first or second. I actually support one buck only.

OK by me. I grew up with on deer per season period. That's OK too.

 

[SEMichiiganConservation]

Voted yes but would have preferred an IDK choice.

 

[Craves]

I haven't been able to find the exact wording for the NDA's proposal yet...not sure if it has even been written yet.

Important to know especially if APRs are associated with it. See my other post in your original thread regarding this idea.

 

[Waif]

No support from me.
If doe need killed so bad that bucks need restricted then quit killing bucks. Let alone multiple , (which I do sometimes.)

Kill a doe this year to be eligible for a single buck tag next year (entire season one buck limit) , I'll support. But ONLY where doe need reduced so bad that bucks need to be taken off the table.
And I won't agree that an N.D.A. voice should determine that doe need reduced where. Example , Keweenaw should have an earn a buck?
Does Kip Adams hunt there? Does he hunt where I hunt? Or he just knows I need an earn a buck better than I?

I disagreed when I read this article months ago. Still do.
Too broad a brush. And as usual devalues doe. That devaluing is a big part of the problem.
Remember your first doe tag? Did you throw your first doe kill away or see value in it?
A doe required to buy a buck tag and you may expect more (just in case you have not seen discarded deer before , they exist) wasted deer. With doe devalued yet again.

Earn-a-Buck: An Effective, Divisive Way to Manage Deer | An Official Journal Of The NRA (americanhunter.org)

 

[mustang72]

A group is proposing to the NRC a new proposal. Details have been a little sketchy, but from what I understand, in order to kill a second buck, you will first have to kill an antlerless deer, and register it online, before you will legally, be able to fill your second buck tag. I'm just trying to gauge support of this proposal on here.

Your missing the most important part of this proposal. Did you leave it out on purpose?

 

[d_rek]

The percentage of hunters who harvest two bucks has historically been very small - like a fraction (6% iirc) of all hunters who even fill two tags in a year. So yeah idk if earn a second buck is even that meaningful of a reg. Probably just give the anti-reg-don't-tread-on-my-hunting crowd more to yell at the clouds about, along with adding unnecessary complications to the already obfuscated tag system.

 

[mustang72]

I'd be fine with it, but not if it includes complicating things further with additional APR restrictions on the first buck.

Funny you say that..

 

[stickbow shooter]

F No, unless they stop with the ridiculous amount of doe tags in our area.