Obviously you don't read very well. I was saying that we do not see alot of deer yet they keep giving out tags to land owners. No I don't want a doe tag for there, and in my own opinion I think one buck a year would be great and if you shoot a button buck your buck tag goes on it. Besides if I wanted to shoot a doe I would do it where I hunt in close to home, I see anywhere from 10 to 12 a night. What I am pointing out is that the DNRE is not managing the herd properly. Next time read and ask questions instead of labeling someone as a complaner or whiner such as yourself.

Just trying to defend my self. He judges people without knowing.

This post is a very good one for the workgroup to consider, The difference in habitat and the deer herd between the 3 Zones is vast. The 3 zones should be considered individually.

Munsterlndr said:

Kenn -
After watching that video that you posted where you filmed numerous younger bucks on opening day, I can understand why you might be bored and frustrated that you are not seeing trophy caliber bucks. I've also come to the conclusion that someone coming from that kind of a hunting environment will never understand what hunting in many of the Northern parts of the State is like. You see more bucks (or deer, for that matter) in one morning, then many Northern hunters will see in 5 or 6 years. It's not because you are some kind of hunting god or because they are crappy or lazy hunters (as you seem to imply), it's simply due to the differing deer densities and land ownership patterns in different parts of the State.

You guys want mandatory APR's so badly, then lobby for them to be applied across the board in the SLP. I'll back you 100% in that effort, I'll even join you speaking in front of the NRC promoting mandatory APR's for the SLP. But understand that hunting conditions are vastly different in other parts of the State and what the potential consequences will be for the casual hunter who has to pass on putting some meat in the freezer, all so that another hunter can put an extra 20" on the wall. Walk a mile in their shoes before you are so quick to judge.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, But I think the U.P. needs three sections as well due to different habitat types. And the NLP needs to be divided into two units east and west due to they t.b. area and the zones different habitat types. And start the NLP units strait across from Bay City to the west.

I agree, once again Munsters' post is spot on.

swampbuck said:

This post is a very good one for the workgroup to consider, The difference in habitat and the deer herd between the 3 Zones is vast. The 3 zones should be considered individually.

Click to expand...

Sure it is, charge $30 for the $15 license and sell half as many licenses.

Pinefarm said:

Anything north of M-46 can't handle essentially unregulated, essentially unlimited antlerless tags, for public and private a like, in any firearms season. The option on taking 2 antlerless deer with a bow, anywhere, is almost too liberal now, in many northern area's.

The only way "either sex" or antlerless tags for all in firearms season is close to viable with 650,000 firearms hunters is if tags were issued by specific county only and by lottery, like the Illinois firearms tags.

In an "open borders" deer hunting state like Michigan, where anyone can choose to hunt from Hillsdale to Houghton, and buck tags are good for any and all area's in between, APR's are the best approach, especially when lowering the current 2 tag system to OBR isn't fiscally possible.

Click to expand...

Munstr, Ive hunted all over the state, from Cadillac to Mio, Roscommon, Alpena, Marquette, west of Marquette about 45min and even did some time in the woods over in Rock which is somewhat central UP. Yes I do most of my hunting in the thumb area. While my video depicts a typical opening day in that area, its nothing compared to where I work in Marshall. So yes even in the same zone its vastly different. This is why there are many work groups around the state, and not just one in each zone. I have walked in their shoes, and can tell you there is a reason I no longer hunt much up in those areas. However if there were antler restrictions, there would be more deer, and then I would entertain those areas again. Ive been hearing good things on some of the APR areas already, but they are still not up to par with my out of state hunting. I have a family like many of you, and my wife was not real tolerant of me hunting every weekend. She is more then happy for me to hunt for 7 days straight, versus every weekend. So my time is limited, I go where my chances are high at getting what Im looking for. When Michigan can offer that, my 7 day adventure will be in Michigan. Until then, I dont get out as often as I would like.

Kenn -
After watching that video that you posted where you filmed numerous younger bucks on opening day, I can understand why you might be bored and frustrated that you are not seeing trophy caliber bucks. I've also come to the conclusion that someone coming from that kind of a hunting environment will never understand what hunting in many of the Northern parts of the State is like. You see more bucks (or deer, for that matter) in one morning, then many Northern hunters will see in 5 or 6 years. It's not because you are some kind of hunting god or because they are crappy or lazy hunters (as you seem to imply), it's simply due to the differing deer densities and land ownership patterns in different parts of the State.

You guys want mandatory APR's so badly, then lobby for them to be applied across the board in the SLP. I'll back you 100% in that effort, I'll even join you speaking in front of the NRC promoting mandatory APR's for the SLP. But understand that hunting conditions are vastly different in other parts of the State and what the potential consequences will be for the casual hunter who has to pass on putting some meat in the freezer, all so that another hunter can put an extra 20" on the wall. Walk a mile in their shoes before you are so quick to judge.

Click to expand...

The one problem I see with the doe tags is in the area I hunt in northern MI is they give private land owners tags and state land gets none. I find this a problem. You would think we would see all sorts of deer yet out of our group of four hunters that hunted the 13th thru the 17th we only saw 4 deer total and I saw three of them. This system has been going on for years. If you give out tags give them to all or none.

Click to expand...

Bchez, didnt mean to jump on you if I misunderstood what you wrote. Its just a typical statement I see frequently on these boards. Guys saying they only saw a few deer, then complain they didnt have a doe permit. I read your comment above that you guys saw very few deer. You know they sold private land tags and you feel they should sell some to public land as well, or dont sell any tags at all. Guess Im confused, how did you read it?

Surprised to read this today:

Michigan Sportsman magazine.......Dec./Jan 2011....starting on pg. 24....Michigan's Deer of December....... by Richard P. Smith

The author was certainly writing about Michigan muzzleloading hunting. What's interesting is on pg. 25, middle column.

He writes: "New buck-hunting regulations are in effect for DMU 487 this year. If you purchase a combo deer license, one tag is only valid for a buck with at least 3 points on one antler, and the second tag is for a buck with 4 points or more on one antler. Hunters who want to be able to shoot a buck with 3-inch spikes or better can buy a single bow or gun deer license, but then are limited to shooting one buck per year.

This will be the thrid year for the same rules to be in effect across the entire Upper Peninsula, with no obvious improvement in the number of older age bucks in the herd."

Page 27, last paragraph: "Although the information in this article was accurate at the time it was writtenm, it's always a good idea to double check with the DNRE regulation bookslets and the agency Web site (www.michigan.gov/dnr) for any changes that have occurred."

So.... It ain't working in the U.P. ?

Why would you think this?

Has not happened in Leelanau Co. or in Pennsylvania or Missouri, none of those APR's resulted in a larger herd. In fact the reason the DNR enacted them in DMU 487 recently was supposedly to reduce the size of the herd further.

kenn1320 said:

However if there were antler restrictions, there would be more deer,

Click to expand...

Swamp,
I'm sure you looked at the declines in all the DMU's around 045.

Have you?

He stated that success rates under APR's declined after the initial 5 years. If you look at the last two years success rates for the 3 counties around DMU 045, compared to the Pre-MAR's baseline period, Leelanau had success rates below the baseline, Benzie slightly below 2 years ago and the same as the baseline average last year, Grand Traverse both had a higher success rate the last two years then the baseline average and Antrim had a higher success rate the last two years then the baseline average.

So out of 6 years of data to compare to the 2 years of declining success rates in DMU 045, 5 out of the 6 saw increases, not declines.

Pinefarm said:

Swamp,
I'm sure you looked at the declines in all the DMU's around 045.

Click to expand...

I guess I worded it a little weird. I was ranting more about how poor the DNRE has managed the area. My Dad and Uncle have been hunting in the area since 1976 and I started in the 80's and have only seen does tags given out maybe twice since I started. We have gone from seeing 20 deer a night to seeing 4 over a weekend. Where are all the deer if they don't give doe tags to state land hunters? The point I'm trying to get at is how can you police an area like this to keep people honest. Just like having one county 3 points on a side or better, how to you keep some hunters honest? If you hunt close to the county line just shoot anything and drag it to the other side and tag it, then prove where it was shot. Just bad management IMO.

Certainly, that's why I posed the question. I don't see where 045 has a 40-60% greater reduction in harvests compared to the counties around them.

If APR's are the problem, then 045 wouldn't have similar reductions as the nearby counties, all because herds have been lowered elsewhere and are in heavy snowbelts with winter loss, but 045 would have 40-60% greater reduction in harvests. I don't see it.

Thanks for clearing that up Munster.......


Pinefarm,
Some people gather data before they establish their position. I have yet to find an area with antler restrictions that did not expierience a 40-60% drop after 5-6 years. I would welcome any data that shows APR's are a good LONG TERM solution

Maybe we should consider What Texas did in their AR areas. The started with OBR and added AR's. Then when the herd started to display signs of high grading, They made some adjustments.

They added a second tag making a combo and only ONE of those may be used on a buck with a spread 13" or greater..............Do you get that.. they changed their program to restrict the harvest of large bucks INSTEAD OF little bucks In response to long term problems with the program you support...........


Here is a passage from the MSU study that may explain the issue........

To determine if bucks protected at 1​

​

bucks in later years on these areas.

http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/p2427.pdf

Pinefarm said:

Swamp,
I'm sure you looked at the declines in all the DMU's around 045.

Click to expand...

Pinefarm.........Antlered harvest success rates DMU 045

pre apr

2001.....21%
2002.....23%

post apr

2003.....15%
2004.....21%
2005.....23%
2006.....29%
2007.....31%.......................5 year point
2008.....23%
2009.....19%

Now thats as a percentage........Actual harvest numbers look different

2002.......buck 973 .............total 1443 basline
2007..............1314.................... 1751 5 years
2009...............703.................... 1110 7 years

All that shows is a reduction in total population which is good for an area. Show me age class percentages of those bucks harvested in 2009. Mind you, 2009 trended way low state wide as far as overall harvest due to the severe winter previous of that fall.

swampbuck said:

Pinefarm.........Antlered harvest success rates DMU 045

pre apr

2001.....21%
2002.....23%

post apr

2003.....15%
2004.....21%
2005.....23%
2006.....29%
2007.....31%.......................5 year point
2008.....23%
2009.....19%

Now thats as a percentage........Actual harvest numbers look different

2002.......buck 973 .............total 1443 basline
2007..............1314.................... 1751 5 years
2009...............703.................... 1110 7 years

Click to expand...

Doc -

The population in DMU 045 was about 15% below stated DNR goal prior to APR's being implemented. It was kept low intentionally to reduce agricultural damage to cherry orchards. The DNR has stated that they would like to increase the population. If APR's caused the population to decrease further from that 85% under stated goal level when APR's were initiated, would that still be good for the area?

GVDocHoliday said:

All that shows is a reduction in total population which is good for an area. Show me age class percentages of those bucks harvested in 2009. Mind you, 2009 trended way low state wide as far as overall harvest due to the severe winter previous of that fall.

Click to expand...

I agree its not a long term solution, but we need something that is policeable to see some change. Id love to leave it up to the hunter to decide, and pass EVERY 1.5 yr old buck. However age class is very open to interpretation, hence the need to have point restrictions. I would only hope that after 5yrs of this, enough guys would see the results and comply with allowing more 1.5yr old bucks go without the need for rules. That being said, many still dont get the 1" min length for a legal point, and go by if they can feel a nub, its a point. Ive seen a picture of a woman in woods n waters that had "tagged out" with 2 dandy bucks. I dont think either had a total of 4 countable points, let alone 4 on one side. Each looked to have maybe 8" spread.

I would welcome any data that shows APR's are a good LONG TERM solution
​

Click to expand...

Some guys are making it sound like Armageddon might happen if they pass on a small buck