[bigdaddypife]

Now before you go Nutz!!!! Hear me out. Some of us are serious big buck hunters. Some not so serious and some....well you get the point. Deep down inside we all want that great big one, and after my Oklahoma trip, I am an official "SloB Hunter". The adrenaline you get from having a P&Y so close to you is satisfying on so many levels. But the reason that most hunters don't get this feeling is that they haven't had the opportunity. Now, there are the people who could shoot a deer that grosses 175" and go out the next week and shoot a spike. I think they might be considered outliers or anomolies, but in any case, I think we have a majority consencus who would like to see some sort of mindset that favors sparing the 1.5's and 2.5's and filling just a wee bit more doe tags. I think a buck lottery could jump start that trend. Of course, some will shoot bucks regardless of a lottery tag or not. The tag would have an antler restriction of course(3 on one side, etc.) So I put it to the masses for your feedback

 

[Fred Bear]

not a bad idea but the DNR would never go for it. I for one would like to see some of our bucks to "grow up"

 

[jdub]

I like where you are going but something like that would never fly here in MI. I know exactly where you are coming from, after hunting IL the past two years and seeing more 3.5 year old or older deer in 7 days then in 3 years of hunting here in MI. I think an earn a buck would be a good start for the MI DNR.

MI has such a rich heritage when it comes to hunting its going to be very hard to change peoples ways. To many, if it has horns its a bigger accomplishment than shooting a doe, that mindset is hard to change for a lot of people. I'm not bashing anyone who shoots young bucks, I've shot my share in my career.

I think the biggest thing this state has going for it right now (at least in the southern part of the state) is the growing number of Co Op's popping up and hunters that own good chunks of land just practicing some sort of deer management on their own. I really believe that if we want to see bigger deer here in MI, these Co Op's are key. I've seen the results from one of the largest ones down here in Hillsdale cty this year and it's very impressive.

 

[swampbuck]

this should be interesting.:coolgleam

 

[bigdaddypife]

I like where you are going but something like that would never fly here in MI. I know exactly where you are coming from, after hunting IL the past two years and seeing more 3.5 year old or older deer in 7 days then in 3 years of hunting here in MI. I think an earn a buck would be a good start for the MI DNR.

MI has such a rich heritage when it comes to hunting its going to be very hard to change peoples ways. To many, if it has horns its a bigger accomplishment than shooting a doe, that mindset is hard to change for a lot of people. I'm not bashing anyone who shoots young bucks, I've shot my share in my career.

I think the biggest thing this state has going for it right now (at least in the southern part of the state) is the growing number of Co Op's popping up and hunters that own good chunks of land just practicing some sort of deer management on their own. I really believe that if we want to see bigger deer here in MI, these Co Op's are key. I've seen the results from one of the largest ones down here in Hillsdale cty this year and it's very impressive.

You bet, and I think we have a good genentic here also. I personally believe we could have lots of sub 200" bucks running around in 8 to 10 years, but Im afraid that only a handful exist now

 

[2PawsRiver]

I understand the "Big Buck" Concept as well as ones choice to only shoot big bucks, but the part that is lost on me is that if we structured hunting so that we increase the number of Big Buck, then they become so what.

If you see a wallhanger every day or even a few times a year then taking one isn't such an accomplishment.

I don't hunt real hard and I manage a wall hanger about every three or four years and it's pretty exciting. Plus I can't afford to have a wall hanger mounted every year.

Even with the current "Michigan" mind set, the taking of younger bucks, the alleged mishandling of the herd by DNR, the bad neighbors, the lack of QDM, and all the other "Blah Blah Blah" great bucks are taken in Michigan every year. Many are posted right here on the site and we are just a minute percentage of the Michigan hunters.

If somebody wants a great Michigan Buck, all they have to do is go out and hunt one, it may not be easy, may require some effort and you may not get one every time, but when you do, it's great.

 

[bigdaddypife]

I understand the "Big Buck" Concept as well as ones choice to only shoot big bucks, but the part that is lost on me is that if we structured hunting so that we increase the number of Big Buck, then they become so what.

If you see a wallhanger every day or even a few times a year then taking one isn't such an accomplishment.

I don't hunt real hard and I manage a wall hanger about every three or four years and it's pretty exciting. Plus I can't afford to have a wall hanger mounted every year.

Even with the current "Michigan" mind set, the taking of younger bucks, the alleged mishandling of the herd by DNR, the bad neighbors, the lack of QDM, and all the other "Blah Blah Blah" great bucks are taken in Michigan every year. Many are posted right here on the site and we are just a minute percentage of the Michigan hunters.

If somebody wants a great Michigan Buck, all they have to do is go out and hunt one, it may not be easy, may require some effort and you may not get one every time, but when you do, it's great.

You could not be anymore wrong. Not that many and thats why we do not attract out of state hunters. Ask any guide or rancher if he still gets pumped when he see's a booner- do think they say, "nah-see them all the time". I hate restrictions but we have a resource that is not seeing its potential

 

[gunfun13]

I voted no. I don't believe a lottery is necessary, and I probably wouldn't be too happy if I didn't draw a buck tag some years. A simple one buck rule would do wonders for us and I would be in favor of that.

 

[2PawsRiver]

No, I'm not wrong, we just have a difference in opinion. Mine is based on my 36 years of Deer hunting, as well as the people I hunt with. My opinions aren't based on that of an out of stater, a guide, or a rancher.

Get back with me in about twenty years.

 

[Pinefarm]

This thread is titled...Who would give up their Buck hunting rights???


First define "buck hunting RIGHTS".

What right is there for hunters to always be guaranteed any particular tag, statewide?

FWIW, the sole purpose of any possible/potential MDNR restrictions of buck tags will have nothing to do with "creating" big bucks and everything to do with forcing more hunters to kill more antlerless deer. So don't confuse restricting buck tags with trophy hunting. Although, more "trophy" deer would be an indirect benefit of a more balanced herd.

 

[U of M Fan]

I voted no. I don't believe a lottery is necessary, and I probably wouldn't be too happy if I didn't draw a buck tag some years. A simple one buck rule would do wonders for us and I would be in favor of that.

I agree.

 

[jdub]

I understand the "Big Buck" Concept as well as ones choice to only shoot big bucks, but the part that is lost on me is that if we structured hunting so that we increase the number of Big Buck, then they become so what.

If you see a wallhanger every day or even a few times a year then taking one isn't such an accomplishment.

I don't hunt real hard and I manage a wall hanger about every three or four years and it's pretty exciting. Plus I can't afford to have a wall hanger mounted every year.

Even with the current "Michigan" mind set, the taking of younger bucks, the alleged mishandling of the herd by DNR, the bad neighbors, the lack of QDM, and all the other "Blah Blah Blah" great bucks are taken in Michigan every year. Many are posted right here on the site and we are just a minute percentage of the Michigan hunters.

If somebody wants a great Michigan Buck, all they have to do is go out and hunt one, it may not be easy, may require some effort and you may not get one every time, but when you do, it's great.

Sorry but I have to respectfully and totally disagree with you on this point. In order for somebody to "go out and hunt one" there has to be more than a couple in the county and a lot of places that just isn't the case. Sure, some michigan hunters score great bucks on a regular basis, but those guys are few and far between when you compare MI to other states that have better management practices through their licensing and regulations. I think I'll let the numbers speak for themselves:


2004 Ratio of Pope and Young bucks per licensed hunter

• Kansas 1 in 149
• Iowa 1 in197
• Illinois 1 in 297
• Wisconsin 1 in 493
• Missouri 1 in 694
• Indiana 1 in 763
• Michigan 1 in 5166

 

[bigdaddypife]

No, I'm not wrong, we just have a difference in opinion. Mine is based on my 36 years of Deer hunting, as well as the people I hunt with. My opinions aren't based on that of an out of stater, a guide, or a rancher.

Get back with me in about twenty years.

As soon as I get done hanging all of my P&Y's from my out of state hunts to lands of unpressured hunting and concern for age structure

 

[bigdaddypife]

This thread is titled...Who would give up their Buck hunting rights???


First define "buck hunting RIGHTS".

What right is there for hunters to always be guaranteed any particular tag, statewide?

FWIW, the sole purpose of any possible/potential MDNR restrictions of buck tags will have nothing to do with "creating" big bucks and everything to do with forcing more hunters to kill more antlerless deer. So don't confuse restricting buck tags with trophy hunting. Although, more "trophy" deer would be an indirect benefit of a more balanced herd.

Nobody would be "forced" to do anything. You could actually shoot a doe, like so many won't or get lucky with the draw. There is no Marxism here, and am not advocating such, or any attempt of the DNR to cull the doe herd, this thread is strictly to advance the age class of the bucks, I don't know how more "directly" that can be.

As far as I'm concerned-I have willfully given up my buck hunting "priveledges" in hopes that my decisions have a positive effect on the 1.5's running around, and my question is always answered by about 8 am on November 15th, when I've counted 100 shots. Just like clockwork, and I know they're not filling doe tags

 

[elvis]

no way, taking the fun right out of hunting, I'm all for letting them grow

some people should join a big buck elitist group, this is why peta hates hunters so much, its meat that you eat, antlers just make it more exciting

 

[kerby1]

I am not so quick to want to give up my current rights and opportunties. I may be an idealist, but I love having the option of taking two deer, and believe that we are moving in the right direction and that education about QDM is a better answer.

I may be wrong, so please do not put much weight into the following comment, but I believe I read somewhere in the past that very few hunters utilize their second tags and the harvest related to the second tags is statistically not significant.

If that is accurate, it can be looked at two ways, the first is why have two licenses if the second is not statistically significant. The second is that few may be used, but MI hunters are willing to harvest smaller animals with their first tag, because they know they have a second tag.

It would be hard for me to adjust if I had a chance at a real nice 8 or 10 point early in bow season to know that I would be done for the year from a buck perspective. Maybe this is selfish. I currently hunt in Saginaw County, see great numbers of deer and many bucks. Couple of years ago I was hunting in Alger area. The group would take one or two bucks a year and mostly little threes and fours and during gun if you saw a buck and passed you most likely would not get another chance.

In a long-winded fashion, I guess I think there are other options and management techniques that do not cause us to give up our current options. I would like to see management plans by the DNR on a county by county, or smaller unit basis, as different areas have drastically different issues, rather than three zones for one idea. Just my two cents. Good thoughts by all.

 

[Pinefarm]

A good question would be who would support a lottery for a 2nd buck tag, possibly restricted by points, by county?

 

[bigdaddypife]

A good question would be who would support a lottery for a 2nd buck tag, possibly restricted by points, by county?

good until you look at the statistics and figure out how many of the bucks are killed total as a function of what tag. 90% killed with first tag, meaning that 90% of the bucks killed are the first buck that season for that hunter, so a second tag restriction might not have that much affect. I thought you were a supporter of 1 buck only anyway, not getting greedy are ya

 

[Wendy]

I would be for a 1 buck limit per year, with antler restrictions. At least that way the younger one's would have a chance to develope.

If I'm not mistaken, weren't Kansas deer almost extinct? They are coming back big and strong because they've not been hunted until not too long ago.

 

[dabarra3]

Why can't i just use what little time i get off of work to go out and enjoy myself in the public land woods i hunt and just harvest whatever legal deer I choose?