I take your 2 bird limit and raise you a buy one a day until they're gone!

I've been pulling for the ability for anyone to buy leftover private land tags for years, regardless of their success in the draw. Why allot a quota and then not even come near selling the tags? Leave the public land tags alone (in-fact reduce the amount in the northern regions with hard winters), but the population of birds in the southern half of the state is stupid, and could certainly support a larger spring harvest.

 

I would like to see it as well.

 

My suggestion will be the same as it has been for 5+ years:
1- Private land, unit ZZ only.
2- 2nd tag becomes legal after 2 weeks of the 2nd season. May 18th this year. This gives people buying a second tag 2 weeks for a 2nd hunt.
3- 100% of the money goes to feed northern turkeys. UP & NLP. The MWTF raises money every year for this effort. Volunteers put out corn and grit in feeders that are designed to prevent deer from getting into the food.

I'm not a Northern Michigan turkey hunter, but I understand the saying, "if they ain't fed, they're dead". I would love to support northern turkeys by buying a tag to hunt a southern bird.

L & O

 

I would not want Wisconsin's system but like Iowa's. Look at harvest statistics for states with similar bird numbers and increased bag.

 

I'd support a two tag system if:

All of the extra money was used for the HAP program so more hunters could have access to these bird rich southern private lands you all speak of.

 

I say leave it the way it is. We have GREAT turkey hunting and would like to keep it.

Where I live in Monroe county we have very few turkeys. Not every locale is flush with birds.

 

I can't even kill 1 turkey let alone two :lol: :lol:

 

I can't even kill 1 turkey let alone two :lol: :lol:

I don't think a 2nd tag would have a lot of buyers. My guess...under 5,000. Still at $15($6 senior) a license perhaps over $60-70,000 to be raised. That amount would be a god send to the MWTF for feeding northern birds during the winter.

L & O

 

I say leave it the way it is. We have GREAT turkey hunting and would like to keep it.

Where I live in Monroe county we have very few turkeys. Not every locale is flush with birds.

I agree why screw up what has been a good thing.

Turkey hunting should be about quality not quantity. Fact is in a good share of northern Michigan the population is dropping.

 

Not on public land. I love the public land system. But then the argument of why give landowners special treatment comes in. Personally I think the population "could" support it. Not sure if the benifits would would be wide enough for support by the hunting community at large. I'd love to kill two. But think the fact that we can talk about two is because turkeys are managed so well. Maybe lower fall tag prices?! I dunno. Not enough people participate In the fall

 

We will see how well the turkey population is MANAGED when the DNR comes out with the fall seasons this year.

Will they have fall seasons again in areas that have suffered flock losses after the second brutal winter in a row? the fall season is supposedly a hunt to thin out the flocks by taking out the hens.

Oceana county where I hunt sure does not need a fall season. The population was on the decline before the last two brutal winters. This spring birds were hard to find at all.

 

I say leave it the way it is. We have GREAT turkey hunting and would like to keep it.

Where I live in Monroe county we have very few turkeys. Not every locale is flush with birds.

I agree. My area is good with birds, but not GREAT.

Wish they'd make statewide APR before they worried about bird limits.

 

I agree with the 2 bird limit, toms of course. Any state that lets you shoot hens in the fall but only 1 tom in the spring does not have a clue in regards to game management.

For those of you that feel by having the ability to shoot an extra tom will effect your turkey population I think you best served by addressing the hen shooting thing.. One tom can service LOTS of hens but if the hens are setting hammered.....

The Mi DNR is a train wreck, not a clue they have when we talk game. We have the finest boat launches in the country but no idea how to manage our wildlife.

 

Many states have county specific tag limits- one bird limit in one county two in another. I don't remember seeing a county by county population estimate in Michigan . That would be a good start. This brings up another question what should the second tag cost. I would pay 50-75 dollars to hunt a second bird.

 

Many states have county specific tag limits- one bird limit in one county two in another. I don't remember seeing a county by county population estimate in Michigan . That would be a good start. This brings up another question what should the second tag cost. I would pay 50-75 dollars to hunt a second bird. Also think the sensible time frame for second hunt would be the 234 dates. The DNR would not be interfering with the weekly hunts and it would be a small dent in the 60,000 plus tags still available.

 

I would go with two toms but seperate seasons .One for a early season and one for after the first week in may.That way it would spread out the hunters.I would also cancel the fall season we have enough other things to hunt in the fall.In the spring we onley have turkeys to hunt ..This would give us a longer period to hunt.

 

In St. Clair County where I hunt we are flush with birds.

1 tag per season on Toms in the spring would be fine with me so I can hunt the early and late season, 2 tag max for spring on private land. I'm ok with 1 tag max on hens in the fall.

3 tags total for the year. I honestly don't think that would hurt the population in my county. But then again i'm a Certified Armchair Wildlife Biologist™

 

Liver & Onions,

You would think that would be a Win/Win, but I don't know how they would do it. With it being part of their budget though, I would imagine they could spend the funds were they would like. I suppose it could be done "Behind the Scenes".

 

All of the extra money was used for the HAP program so more hunters could have access to these bird rich southern private lands you all speak of.

Unfortunately, I think the HAP program is pretty darn DOA down here.

 

I say leave it the way it is. We have GREAT turkey hunting and would like to keep it.

LoBrass,

I've seen this Line of Thinking several times before, so I am curious as to why you think it would be so negatively affected by the addition of a second tag. Just because of more dead Tom's?

 

Fact is in a good share of northern Michigan the population is dropping.

multibeard,

While I'm sure you have a legit point with this, the fact is it has nothing to do with the Private Land in the Southern Lower which is where I am headed with this. But I m glad you brought this up because I think it ties into my underlying point of the fact that one broad across the board management plan makes no sense for the entire State of Michigan. I am sure without a doubt that your area North does not match up with my residence area down here, just as my area down here does not match my northern property.

With as large as this State is, having ONE plan in place for the entire area seems antiquated.

 

This brings up another question what should the second tag cost. I would pay 50-75 dollars to hunt a second bird.

ezcaller,

I know I would pay at least double for the second tag myself.

 

Look at harvest statistics for states with similar bird numbers and increased bag.

I'm going to leave that up to Retired Guides with a ton of free time on their hands.

 

Many states have county specific tag limits- one bird limit in one county two in another. I don't remember seeing a county by county population estimate in Michigan . That would be a good start. This brings up another question what should the second tag cost. I would pay 50-75 dollars to hunt a second bird. Also think the sensible time frame for second hunt would be the 234 dates. The DNR would not be interfering with the weekly hunts and it would be a small dent in the 60,000 plus tags still available.

Yeah that. But for the 2nd tag I'd pay up to $30.

 

LoBrass,

I've seen this Line of Thinking several times before, so I am curious as to why you think it would be so negatively affected by the addition of a second tag. Just because of more dead Tom's?

Same reasons I would prefer we had a one buck rule. More and bigger Toms is the result of a one bird limit.

All about quality. Look what a 2 buck rule has done to our deer quality.