My combo tag says I can take 2 bucks during firearm season. A buck with one antler at least 3 inches and another buck with at least 4 points on one side. We have been using APR for a long time here in Michigan!!!!!! If this poll is about changing the current APR on the small buck tag, I'm all for it. 3 points instead of 3 inches on one side would really help Michigan's buck age structure.

Fishx,
You are correct. We currently have APR's. They're 3" on one tag and 4pt's on at least one side for the other tag.
Basically, the issue is about tweeking the 3" tag to something more. Perhaps "no spikes", at least one forked antler, 3pt's on one side (likely in the northern 2/3's) and possibly 4pt's on one side (SLP).

Comments will be allowed, however please direct them to the APR work group and not eachother. This forum will follow the same rules and guidelines as the whitetail forum.


Guys, these poll are not for discussions amongst yourselves, take those discussions back to the main forums. Please direct you comments toward the workgroup only and save me a lot of time deleting posts.

Thanks

i voted yes, if we want too be know as true big buck state. we must pass on little bucks and take more doe's. mich has a long ways too go in becoming know for big bucks.

I call these the "Trophy Management Polls"
Do you want the DNRE to manage the whitetail herd for large antlered trophies?
"Yes or "NO"

Not everybody agrees with the QDM philosophy, or have the money, resources, desire, or dedication that some of you put into private property to raise a deer with large antlers.

Somebody said, "Once you have lost the mother and father, you have lost the next generation".
Think about it.

If this was to be mandated, and hunting numbers were to drop, then the DNRE would have a ligament argument to ask the legislator to raise license fees to re-coop the lost revenues.

Neal, I do not think that I am outside your guidelines, please check.

i would have no problem paying a much higher fee, guys going out of state are paying up too 5k. now thats cash. look at ia,ohio, tx, il. these states have real racks.

I feel for youth hunters this may be an issue....we want them to have success at an early age. But if they happen to shoot a nice 8pt or better at an early age- they are HOOKED on hunting and passing little bucks would be easier from then on out. If the hunters would let these little guys grow a year or so, the age structure would increase and more mature bucks would be readily available. We are getting closer, just need to get over the hump....

Every body is always talking about how many does we have, and that hunters aren't taking enough of them. Then, there's the crew that wants bigger bucks/bigger racks available (age structure). Now, how do we accomplish both? Can both be done realisticly?

What if......... we did some things such as:

• Keep all the deer season dates the same. Leave all current antler restrictions in place.

• Allow archers only two (2) weeks of the entire archery season to harvest bucks. Say the third and forth week of the first part of the season. All remaining hunting weeks would be legal for does only. Crossbow rules would be the same as archery rules. However, if a crossbow is used during any other part of the season, it would have to be for does only.

• Allow firearm hunters only one (1) week, the second week of firearm season, to harvest bucks and the first week would be does only.

• Allow muzzleloader hunters only one (1) week to harvest bucks. After that week, does only.

Would it upset some people? Sure it will. Just like any other changes will upset other people. However, other than reducing the number of bucks harvested, and increasing the number of does taken, nothing but the hunt dates for bucks would change. Bucks that normally get waxed in the first couple days of firearm season, would "wise up" and be harder to hunt or find. Thus, many more of them would survive to be hunted the following season. Older bucks/bigger racks would be available for the following season. Those that want "age structure" would certainly get it. Are they willing to pay the price though?

The guy or gal, that would be pleased to shoot a spike or 4pt, would still be allowed to do so. Those bucks would still be in the woods, just much harder to hunt during the firearms seasons.

Special consideration would have to be given to the area where bTB is present. I think that the DNRE's proposal of reducing the doe population would happen with these rules. HOWEVER, for the biggest spreader of TB, bucks, special consideration may have to be given to harvest more bucks.

I'm just say'n..............

This is like talking politics or religion from a barstool, but...here goes; We need to first and foremost check every deer that is harvested (i.e. Ohio) and take violators seriously. Don't slap someone's wrist $1200 for shooting a 200" deer. That should be a felony. One buck rule is a good idea, but insurance agencies have some heavy clout in this one, and it will not happen (at least for the time being). I like the idea of 3pts on one side North of M-57 and 4 on one side South of M-57. However, like I have stated in the beginning, we need to have mandatory deer check stations. DNRE would have a better grip on the ACTUAL deer numbers/harvest if we had this law implemented. Let's have no choice but to tag our button bucks with BUCK tags, too! That will make somebody think about pulling the trigger to fill that doe tag burning a hole in their bibs.

I voted no.

IMO...

Quit worrying about the "size" of the bucks. People who are only concerned with that and want to put the time/money/energy into hunting and growing big bucks will do it on their own... AKA QDMA.

The DNR should manage the deer herd. Size, health, etc. Not the points. People want older bucks because it's "for the good of the herd" but you rarely hear those people talk about letting the does grow older. Let's be fair, this has a lot more to do with ePeen size of people who are jealous of what other hunters in other states are doing.

If you NEED to shoot an 8 point to enjoy hunting, you're doing it for the wrong reasons. If you want to try for a mature buck, great. If you find it necessary to REQUIRE EVERYONE to do so, you need to learn to hunt for more pure reasons than how much bone is on a deer's head.

In Northern Mi, it's pretty obvious that the deer population is lower than most people would like to see it. Restricting the points in order to grow the herd to a safe level, is a good idea and something I could agree with since it's for the right reasons and not just to get more points.

In Southern Mi, it's pretty obvious that the deer population is healthy/overpopulated in most areas. Limiting what deer we can shoot while adding seasons such as the antlerless is a mixed statement. If we're concerned about herd size, we need to be killing more... bucks or does. (Yes, does affect the population more directly, but killing a buck does still impact things to a smaller level) AKA - The population is good or too high = Let us kill more deer, not less of them. Restrictions are a bad idea for this area.

I am a fan of LESS restrictions. Creating a situation where we can only shoot a buck that happens to be X points or bigger is simply a restriction that is NOT needed where I live and hunt (Southern Mi).

We've got enough problems with small numbers of new hunters, this will only dramatically increase this problem. IMO, moreso with private land owners, the place we need the small ones shot more than anywhere else. A hunter with only a few days to hunt, if any, might purchase a license in the off chance that he sees a deer. If he knows that he HAS to shoot an 8 point, which is more difficult (how much more difficult could be debated because the age structure would go up, but it IS harder to some degree) he may feel that his chances are not worth it.

You have to understand that the number of "weekend warrior" hunters VASTLY outnumber the very serious individuals that put endless time into hunting. As such, so does their financial contributions.

Ditto for me as well. As far as the SLP is concerned I agree with the poster who stated that many 1.5 year old bucks have a 6-8 point rack. BUT the vast majority do not so a ton of 1.5 year old bucks would get through with these restrictions which would be a massive improvement over our current age structure. It is not perfect but it is the only way. It would be impossible to say instead of point restrcitcitons you could only shoot 2.5 year old bucks or better. Just unrealistic to educate every hunter on body structure and impossible to enforce since it was that particular hunters opinion that the deer was old enough and we all make mistakes.

tgafish said:

Click to expand...

Voted YES.....Anything for a step in the right direction and out of the dark ages would be GREAT!!

Mike

3 on one side statewide keep it simple. This would protect the vast majority of bucks statewide as yearlings and by 2 years old the vast majority of deer statewide would be fair game. I've also seen some fine mature sixers that have no business being protected.

rotest_erotest_erotest_e

Tom Morang said:

We already have statewide antler point restrictions.


4point on a side with the restricted tag.

Click to expand...

I do not understand why some hunters seem to see whitetail hunting as a pursuit for antlers alone or why some see a growing list of regulations as a trail to nirvana for the hunter. To me a person possesses a love for hunting whitetails and being in the outdoors or one does not have that love. I have experienced hunts under all types of regulations and restrictions. None of the restrictions or regulations have ever increased my love or focus for deer hunting. The only things that have ever impeded this love have been slobs that use the wildlands for dumping grounds; that use hunting season for irresponsible shooting, thieving, and vandalism; and that will use any excuse to throw their weight around. But then this type of mindless activity can be found outside of deer season as well.

Because everyone knows that a true sportsman could never simply take pleasure and deep satisfaction from the totality of the hunting experience, if the end result fails to score at least 120". You can tell from this guys expression that he is one of those miserable low lifes that has no regard for the resource, due to his clear refusal to "let em' go, so they can grow." Clearly he was unhappy with the quality of his hunting experience.

ridgewalker said:

I do not understand why some hunters seem to see whitetail hunting as a pursuit for antlers alone

Click to expand...

Not much else out there hunting in Michigan:lol: Joking

Munsterlndr said:

Because everyone knows that a true sportsman could never simply take pleasure and deep satisfaction from the totality of the hunting experience, if the end result fails to score at least 120". You can tell from this guys expression that he is one of those miserable low lifes that has no regard for the resource, due to his clear refusal to "let em' go, so they can grow." Clearly he was unhappy with the quality of his hunting experience.

Click to expand...

For the same reason so many choose salmon or musky fishing over catching 6" bluegills off a dock.
Both are fishing, both are outdoors, but they offer different thrills.

I voted "yes".

Why is it that nobody thinks twice Michigan having minimum size limits for fish, but are irate that some want it for antlered deer????

Pinefarm, I love bluegills off the dock or shallow played on ultralight gear for the sport and for the delicious quality table fare just as I highly value tender quality venison.

Defining whitetail hunting by establishing a narrow focus on what is a legal target demeans the resource and the activity of deer hunting as I see it. By limiting the enjoyment of the pursuit of whitetails to one narrow focus such as antler restrictions excludes all of the other many enjoyable factors inherent in the sport. This would mean that a successful hunt is soley determined by the size of the antlers on the animal that is taken. Doing this would be a prescription for frustration and failure unless you restrict yourself to a pay hunt in a high fence operation. Even the best hunters with the most skills and nearly unlimited time afield do not always connect with large antlered racks. Is hunting an activity that we really want to restrict participation and support to an elite and able few? APRs will not guarantee that a large antlered buck will parade itself in front of average hunters that are restricted by space and time. These restrictions are not the panacea that are being described in the APR threads.

Pinefarm, thank you for your quality and informed contributions even when we disagree on a hunting issue.