Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

Do you support the earn-a-second-buck proposal?

  • Yes

  • No

Do you support the new Earn-a-Second-Buck proposal?

17080 Views 609 Replies 93 Participants Last post by  Nostromo
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.
  • Love
Reactions: LGB
221 - 240 of 610 Posts
If you want to see a massive amount of data on how a OBRs vs APRs work in a state with heavy hunting pressure like Michigan, then Pennsylvania is a prime example. When they had OBR, the percentage of yearling bucks in the harvest and the buck to doe ratio of the kill were both terrible. Both improved immensely after statewide APRs were enacted into law.
Show me data that says OBR will advance the buck age structure. Show me data that shows obr protects over 50% of the yearling bucks harvested. If you can't or Obrs don't do that, then what is the sense of having OBR?
Unfortunately they're setting themselves up for failure. People don't want harsh restrictions. They just want hunt without worrying about the ********. Unless they provide exemptions for the youth and seniors on the APR this will ruin the chance of APRs getting established. Lp wide just isn't going to work. Especially if they add this earn a buck on the 2nd tag.Yeah I'd like to see them lp wide but there is a practical side that just isn't going to be addressed. This will divide our hunting ranks even further. There is lessons to be learned from the past if we are going to forge into the future.
The ONLY way the proposing groups will go forward with this proposal is with the APR component on all buck tags.
I have read stories from guys back in the 60's being happy if they saw some tracks while hunting...times have changed.

Deer populations continue to grow, license sales continue to fall (except Covid year). Despite many hunters shooting multiple deer, damage permits, and disease the herd continues to expand. Habitat is stressed & the buck to doe ratio is severely out of proportion.
When I was growing up, and started deer hunting, the law was one deer per year, regardless of how it was taken. "Doe permits" were rare. There was not special youth season, our dads took us up to the camp. At 14 it was a "right of passage". Old enough to hunt with a gun and hang out with the men. Too bad those days are gone.
  • Like
Reactions: bowhunter426
I think you are absolutely right about setting themselves up for failure. I'm not surprised that over 2/3 of hunters on here are not in favor of the earn a second buck concept. I'm guessing that the hunters on here are far more avid on average than the rest of the general hunting public in Michigan, so it's very likely going to be even less popular there. My worry is that the DNR will take this proposal, make it much worse, then get it passed through the NRC and then put the blame on the Proposing Group for all the fall-out ruining any chances of future, positive changes to advance the buck age structure through regulations in Michigan.
Unfortunately they're setting themselves up for failure. People don't want harsh restrictions. They just want hunt without worrying about the ****. Unless they provide exemptions for the youth and seniors on the APR this will ruin the chance of APRs getting established. Lp wide just isn't going to work. Especially if they add this earn a buck on the 2nd tag.Yeah I'd like to see them lp wide but there is a practical side that just isn't going to be addressed. This will divide our hunting ranks even further. There is lessons to be learned from the past if we are going to forge into the future.
...in zone 3
I have read stories from guys back in the 60's being happy if they saw some tracks while hunting...times have changed.

Deer populations continue to grow, license sales continue to fall (except Covid year). Despite many hunters shooting multiple deer, damage permits, and disease the herd continues to expand. Habitat is stressed & the buck to doe ratio is severely out of proportion
  • Like
Reactions: Justin
You mean give them an excuse to mess with the NW13 and blame the proposal? :unsure:
I think you are absolutely right about setting themselves up for failure. I'm not surprised that over 2/3 of hunters on here are not in favor of the earn a second buck concept. I'm guessing that the hunters on here are far more avid on average than the rest of the general hunting public in Michigan, so it's very likely going to be even less popular there. My worry is that the DNR will take this proposal, make it much worse, then get it passed through the NRC and then put the blame on the Proposing Group for all the fall-out ruining any chances of future, positive changes to advance the buck age structure through regulations in Michigan.
  • Like
Reactions: brushbuster
My opinion is a 3 point lower peninsula APR would work...

Knowing that the current standard is that any APR has to protect 50% of the yearling bucks, the state would have to compromise on a 3 point APR for zone 3. I don't know the exact number, but this would still protect well more than 40% of the yearling bucks allowing hunters to still be able to kill " the big 6" or "the nice 6" (terms we have all heard). Who cares? Let them shoot them...Less blow back from those opposed, 40+ percent of yearling bucks protected, and if this model holds true to other APR areas more doe harvested.

Every APR initiative in this state has had greater than 50% approval and hunter surveys have shown the same. Hunters want change...the state needs to start listening.
Unfortunately they're setting themselves up for failure. People don't want harsh restrictions. They just want hunt without worrying about the ****. Unless they provide exemptions for the youth and seniors on the APR this will ruin the chance of APRs getting established. Lp wide just isn't going to work. Especially if they add this earn a buck on the 2nd tag.Yeah I'd like to see them lp wide but there is a practical side that just isn't going to be addressed. This will divide our hunting ranks even further. There is lessons to be learned from the past if we are going to forge into the future.
Or eliminate another group that wants to present a logical proposal when this one fails.
You mean give them an excuse to mess with the NW13 and blame the proposal? :unsure:
  • Like
Reactions: mustang72
The MDNR doesn't like HC because of the huge shift to the single tag option (OBR) by yoopers and resulting loss of revenue. Yoopers have indicated time and time again that they would support a "No Spike" rule in the UP, so, with those facts on the table why not include the UP in this proposal and have the combo buck tag with a branch antler restriction ie: 2 pt APR which would be a "regionally specific APR". The Second buck tag option would remain a 4 pt APR statewide.
With these facts in play the idea that UP hunters will over shoot the doe population for a second buck tag isn't supported by the data because if it were a "venison thing" they'd buy the combo and shoot 2 doe with archery equipment. The fact is that Yoopers are content with shooting one buck as long as there's a minimal restriction in place.
I just don't see hunters from below the bridge going to the UP shooting a doe for a second buck tag, the data doesn't support the premise.
What may seem obvious to you could very well be past perceptions. The data from the 5 CWD experimental counties showed unequivocally that APRs increased antlerless harvest ratios and the removal of APRs resulted in pre APR antlerless ratios or worse. That kind of data, which has only become available in the last couple of months, can sway the NRC, and the MDNR's, opinion(s).
The NDA has been consistent in their support for statewide APRs with the licensing structure that's in place (Combo mandate that's not going away). This compromise stems from the strong OBR crowd voice that fails to recognize what it will take to abolish the Combo and try to work within those parameters. The Earn a second buck proposal stems from Virginia's success and Chad Stewart's support for the idea. Put it all together and this proposal was spawned.
This WILL NOT be a hunter sponsored initiative in the historical sense that we've grown accustom to in the last 20+ years but rather an attempt to come together as user groups and state agencies to look at the data and take action vs status quo for the next 3 year regulation cycle.
If if that's the case, what's stopping the DNR from removing the APR component in such a recommendation to the NRC? Or, for what every reason, removing the APR component at a later date? I remember a couple years ago when the DNR tried to get rid of the Hunter's Choice regulations in the U.P. despite overwhelming hunter support for those regs there. If it weren't for two NRC commissioners, it would have been history too. Those two two commissioners are gone now. It has become very obvious to me that the current DNR does not like APRs and they and the NRC can't be trusted, which is sad.
Or eliminate another group that wants to present a logical proposal when this one fails.
If you want to see a massive amount of data on how a OBRs vs APRs work in a state with heavy hunting pressure like Michigan, then Pennsylvania is a prime example. When they had OBR, the percentage of yearling bucks in the harvest and the buck to doe ratio of the kill were both terrible. Both improved immensely after statewide APRs were enacted into law.
  • Like
Reactions: KevinHort
If I could earn another vote I would like to vote No again. :ROFLMAO:
  • Like
Reactions: mbrewer
I find the "road kill" issue to be red herring. Are there a lot of car/accidents? Yes. BUT the reason is more detailed than simply saying we are "overrun" with deer (does). Especially in the lower 2/3rds of the state farm land is being sold and built up daily. Once a brushy ag field suddenly turns into a subdivision with $300-$400 thousand dollars houses filled with non hunters. The same amount of deer squeezed into a smaller area. All this talk of slaughtering does is going to bite us in the butt in the future. 5-10 doe tags. Really? How many bucks have you seen give birth to fawns? None. And we have guys running around this state with both bow and gun shooting anything brown, not to mention how many they wound and lose. Many of whom (not all) treat it as no big deal. That is bulls**t.
That's one way to get the road killed does off the road
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Make two deer licenses, hunter must choose at time of purchase between:

A) One buck tag, no APR, one doe tag.

B) Two 4+ APR buck tags, both of which could be used on a doe as well.

Keep the 'universal doe tag' but limit it to private land only and certain counties with population concerns could be left out (most of the UP for example).
I absolutely agree 100%. We almost have to have an attorney with us to hunt. I've hunted 50 years and this is getting ridiculous. What tag goes with what, how many points on one side, is the point at least 1" long etc etc.. How many of you can measure a point at 100yards, even through a scope? I can't bait, but the neighbor with 80 acres can have a food plot? Or, baiting is illegal in the Lower Peninsula, but every single gas station, country store etc has pallets full of carrots, apples, corn and sugar beets for sale. Oh, that's right, all that bait is going with the hunters to the Upper Peninsula where it's legal? 😂😂😂. That is bull crap and we all know it. Anymore, I buy a license, shoot what want and go home. Typical government, over complicate everything.
Does anyone else remember how easy it was to understand deer hunting rules in the late 70s & early 80s? Now the exact same tag is only good for 3pt buck if I am in one area, it is fine for a Spike in another area. The rules need to be simplified, not made even more complex. How many more different colors are going to be used in the rule book to show what is legal where as even more rules are added?
I love your idea. Makes sense. Balanced and reasonable, but the NRC would find a reason to oppose it. I want to know how many of the NRC members are actual dedicated deer hunters? Maybe the a just bird watchers?
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Make two deer licenses, hunter must choose at time of purchase between:

A) One buck tag, no APR, one doe tag.

B) Two 4+ APR buck tags, both of which could be used on a doe as well.

Keep the 'universal doe tag' but limit it to private land only and certain counties with population concerns could be left out (most of the UP for example).
I remember when family, friends and fun was the primary reason people hunted. Baiting was a tactic that was not widely used. It was considered unethical.
I absolutely agree 100%. We almost have to have an attorney with us to hunt. I've hunted 50 years and this is getting ridiculous. What tag goes with what, how many points on one side, is the point at least 1" long etc etc.. How many of you can measure a point at 100yards, even through a scope? I can't bait, but the neighbor with 80 acres can have a food plot? Or, baiting is illegal in the Lower Peninsula, but every single gas station, country store etc has pallets full of carrots, apples, corn and sugar beets for sale. Oh, that's right, all that bait is going with the hunters to the Upper Peninsula where it's legal? 😂😂😂. That is bull crap and we all know it. Anymore, I buy a license, shoot what want and go home. Typical government, over complicate everything.
  • Like
Reactions: R-boat and carnivor
I agree. Michigan is way too diverse for a one size fits all type of regulation. My area in the Western U.P. is no where near the same as my lease in S.E. Michigan. I’ll take a one buck rule in either area though. JMO
I do not support as a broad brush state wide. Maybe for localized regions. Maybe.
Unfortunately the sale of everything you mentioned can't be stopped as they are considered agriculture products. Baiting is an almost unenforceable rule for the DNR. I have advocated to make shell corn the only legal bait as 2 gallons of bait will be gone in a day (everything eats it) vs. "big bite" bait that several different deer can eat off of for days. The DNR believes that bait is a vector in the transmission of CWD. To keep doing what we are doing makes no sense if this is true.

80 acre food plot? Reads more like a farm than a food plot....

Fact is the DNR has food plots all over the state. They are usually planted with rye and are great places to hunt on or near...I have been doing it for decades. The area I hunt every year has had apple trees planted & caged (poorly) and even some cedar planted and caged.

FWIW...I don't bait and have no interest in going back to baiting.
I absolutely agree 100%. We almost have to have an attorney with us to hunt. I've hunted 50 years and this is getting ridiculous. What tag goes with what, how many points on one side, is the point at least 1" long etc etc.. How many of you can measure a point at 100yards, even through a scope? I can't bait, but the neighbor with 80 acres can have a food plot? Or, baiting is illegal in the Lower Peninsula, but every single gas station, country store etc has pallets full of carrots, apples, corn and sugar beets for sale. Oh, that's right, all that bait is going with the hunters to the Upper Peninsula where it's legal? 😂😂😂. That is bull crap and we all know it. Anymore, I buy a license, shoot what want and go home. Typical government, over complicate everything.
  • Like
Reactions: buckguts1970
I’m one of the 18%. Only hunt public in state and out. I only hunt in the 13 in Michigan. The difference since APR implementation has been amazing. More bucks, consistent rutting activity, absolute studs for NM etc. It’s been a lot of fun and i hunt a heavy pressured area.
This ain't crap . Public land hunters are getting it done in the NW13. Look at stats for cripes sakes. APRs do exactly what they were intended to do and then some. Tell this Kalkaska public land hunter their crap.
View attachment 880097

It's a lot of fun hunting where older age class bucks exist. Year after year I watch spikes and forks while im in the APR zone, and every year I see legal bucks that a got a free pass their first-year. Every year I see sign of older bucks, most years I get to catch glimpses of them. This is the best my hunting has been up here in a long time. I'll gladly travel to the NW13 where APRs exist. We don't need a mandatory doe tag to kill a 2nd buck. We don't need a one buck rule. But if you want a better chance at older age class bucks APRs for the public land hunter is where it's at.
221 - 240 of 610 Posts
Top