# Shooting anything that moves?



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

357Maximum said:


> Are you wealthy enough to have 1,000 acres with a tall fence? If not then some day's your efforts will still seem all for naught anyway. Last several years I have actually been fighting the urge to just shoot the first two legal bucks I see and then go fishing. If it was not for the fact that I actually prefer to shoot long tined mature bucks and genetic messes over the others I probably would have done just that by now.
> 
> Half the bucks I passed this year died yesterday, I watched it happen. No I did not get upset about it, but I was not jump up and down giddy about it either. Do I blame the guys that were doing it??? NO, it is their right to do so and I know for a fact one of them was proud as a peacock with his first buck I chose to pass 3X.
> 
> In that particular instance APR would not have made ZERO difference, they would have all qualified. More rules are never going to fix anything unless they make you shoot a spike or a forkhorn and a doe for every nice mature buck. That ain't going to happen in Michigan...EVER.


Where do you hunt?


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

cscott711 said:


> Isn't the percentage of hunters taking two bucks a year around 4%?


It is, but second bucks represent about 12% of all bucks killed. So 4% of the hunters kill 24% of all bucks killed.


----------



## mstgman (Oct 3, 2007)

protectionisamust said:


> And sports (including recreational) tend to add or modify rules to make the game better as time goes on. Yes, in those sports, people pay money to be apart of the game. The dnr collects revenues from hunters to be apart of this game. Why can't they change / modify rules to make this sport better?


Better for who?

Those that are in it for the sport and put meat in the freezer or those that merely want a trophy?

If taken legally, let em punch their tags as they see fit. Happy for every successful hunter!


----------



## protectionisamust (Nov 9, 2010)

mstgman said:


> Better for who?
> 
> Those that are in it for the sport and put meat in the freezer or those that merely want a trophy?
> 
> If taken legally, let em punch their tags as they see fit. Happy for every successful hunter!


Your can kill 2 bird with 1 stone. With deer being able to get older / bigger, the meat hunter gets more meat per kill. Technically even driving the cost per pound down. With people constantly killing yearlings, you need 4 of those suckers to feed a family of 4 hence part of the brown it's down problem.

Older deer equals more meat equals bigger bucks. Sounds like a win win to me.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

protectionisamust said:


> And they have become.....well....boring playing the same ol same old I bet


Which is your perspective and the only one you are considering. Those just taking up the sport and the youth coming of age feel quite different.


----------



## bounty hunter (Aug 7, 2002)

Qdm guys blasting does


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

protectionisamust said:


> Older deer equals more meat equals bigger bucks.


...equals much lower success rate.



Wisconsin: Hunter Success Rate: 30.1%
Ohio: Hunter Success Rate: 31%
Illinois: Hunter Success Rate: 20.5%
Kentucky: Hunter Success Rate: 34%


Michigan: 42%


----------



## goodworkstractors (Aug 7, 2007)

bioactive said:


> It is, but second bucks represent about 12% of all bucks killed. So 4% of the hunters kill 24% of all bucks killed.


Well I am apparently unable to make this math work...

Say you have 100 successful buck hunters.

4% of those 100 which is 4 hunters kill two bucks totaling 8 dead bucks.
96% of those 100 which is 96 hunters kill one buck which is 96 dead bucks.

This totals 104 dead bucks taken by 100 hunters.

8 bucks taken by the 4% / 104 total buck harvest of all bucks = 7.7%. So 4% of hunters take 7.7% of the total bucks. 
Second bucks alone represent an even smaller percentage. 4 (number of second bucks) / 104 (total bucks) = 3.8%.

I am lying in bed sick, so my brain may or may not be functioning beyond basic involuntary operations to remain above ground.


----------



## protectionisamust (Nov 9, 2010)

pescadero said:


> ...equals much lower success rate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of coarse were higher. Our dnr gives tags away like their food stamps...Hense why most of guys are shooting yearlings. Hey, pure michigan, lol


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

protectionisamust said:


> Of coarse were higher. Our dnr gives tags away like their food stamps...Hense why most of guys are shooting yearlings. Hey, pure michigan, lol



There are plenty of people that prefer to shoot a deer every year (no matter the size) over shooting a big one every 3-4 years. That preference isn't wrong. 

Me - I shoot what I can get. My goal is to get meat for the freezer... which means I shoot piles of antlerless deer, and take a buck whenever I get the chance. 

I've shot 14 deer in the last 9 years, 11 of them does (and at least 4 of those does were fawns) - and I'm perfectly happy with the quality of my hunting.


----------



## cakebaker (Sep 13, 2011)

chilidip00 said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Does anybody else have a camp around them that seems to shot everything that moves? I should mention I hunt public land in Glennie so it comes with the territory that you expect a lot of young deer to be shot.
> But we have this one camp that drives back and hunts by us for the last few years and they shoot everything they see. So far this year they have 2 spikes, 2 four points, and 2 does.
> ...


Once again pure Michigan. Like I've always said until the dnr changes Michigan's deer hunting regs it will never change.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

cscott711 said:


> Well I am apparently unable to make this math work...
> 
> Say you have 100 successful buck hunters.
> 
> ...


What you are not taking into account is that the percentages of hunters are of total hunters, and 70% do not kill any bucks.

So, let's suppose there are 100,000 hunters. 30% kill bucks = 30,000 bucks. 4% of hunters is 4000, each of whom killed 2 bucks, or 8000 bucks. So of the bucks killed they killed 8/30 = 27%. The actual numbers work out a little lower than that at 24% plus or minus, because the math is a bit more complicated than that yet, since the question of whether you killed 1 buck is answered yes by both the two buck killers and one buck killers (did you kill at least one buck?). 

If you do the math with the actual numbers of hunters and deer killed you will find it comes pretty close to 24% of all bucks are killed by 4% of all hunters from year to year.


----------



## goodworkstractors (Aug 7, 2007)

bioactive said:


> What you are not taking into account is that the percentages of hunters are of total hunters, and 70% do not kill any bucks.
> 
> So, let's suppose there are 100,000 hunters. 30% kill bucks = 30,000 bucks. 4% of hunters is 4000, each of whom killed 2 bucks, or 8000 bucks. So of the bucks killed they killed 8/30 = 27%. The actual numbers work out a little lower than that at 24% plus or minus, because the math is a bit more complicated than that yet, since the question of whether you killed 1 buck is answered yes by both the two buck killers and one buck killers (did you kill at least one buck?).
> 
> If you do the math with the actual numbers of hunters and deer killed you will find it comes pretty close to 24% of all bucks are killed by 4% of all hunters from year to year.


Got it. Total hunters, not just successful hunters. Makes more sense.


----------



## hypox (Jan 23, 2000)

pescadero said:


> There are plenty of people that prefer to shoot a deer every year (no matter the size) over shooting a big one every 3-4 years. That preference isn't wrong.
> 
> Me - I shoot what I can get. My goal is to get meat for the freezer... which means I shoot piles of antlerless deer, and take a buck whenever I get the chance.
> 
> I've shot 14 deer in the last 9 years, 11 of them does (and at least 4 of those does were fawns) - and I'm perfectly happy with the quality of my hunting.


I think everyone would be happy if the self proclaimed meat hunters hunted as you do.

It's the self proclaimed meat hunters that shoot 14 yearling bucks in 9 years that pisses people off.


----------



## bounty hunter (Aug 7, 2002)

Define success?


----------



## cast and tug (Apr 25, 2010)

It surprises me that only 30% of hunters kill a buck. When you look at things on social media or stuff like the deer contest on here, the percentage seems much greater. But you don't see everybody brag about eating tags.


----------



## gatorman841 (Mar 4, 2010)

protectionisamust said:


> Of coarse were higher. Our dnr gives tags away like their food stamps...Hense why most of guys are shooting yearlings. Hey, pure michigan, lol


I agree, we give out so many tags in southern Michigan it seems ludicrous. I'm not sure how many doe tags you can buy now but it was like 1 a day. It's a money hungry business for the dnr it seems in this aspect. I agree with a lot the dnr does but with the amount of tags we give out is one thing I do not like. Espicially with so many people using xbows now the amount of deer killed during bow season has to be 2x what it was before they were legalized. I just hope my kids get the same opportunities I have, with 2 buck tags and endless amount of doe tags for people and adding in xbows seems like a big hit to our population along with ehd and cwd. I guess only times will tell I'm hoping I'm wrong and our deer herd stays strong in southern Mich. Seems like besides a few guys the upper and northern lower are on a bad turn for the worse.

Nice thread though by the op get to hear a lot of guys different views on this aspect, not everyone gonna agree but we all need to agree on what's best for our deer population for years to come.


----------



## bounty hunter (Aug 7, 2002)

as long as it is within the law shoot what YOU want to and and be happy and screw the ones who feel otherwise.


----------



## 357Maximum (Nov 1, 2015)

bioactive said:


> Where do you hunt?



Gratiot, Montcalm, and Mecosta counties normally.


----------



## 357Maximum (Nov 1, 2015)

bounty hunter said:


> as long as it is within the law shoot what YOU want to and and be happy and screw the ones who feel otherwise.



I am starting to feel the same way. Might go oldschool next year and tag out in a day or two just to clear my conscience of being too picky sometimes.


The solution is easy for the DIE HARD QDM GUYS. just shut off all deer hunting for 3 or 4 years...would that make you happy....think it would fly? HA NOT SOme of you guys make me want to go slaughter all the forks and sixes I can locate just so I can post a pic of them on here.


----------



## bounty hunter (Aug 7, 2002)

deer hunting is for you not the ones who preach to you what you should do or not do. its only a deer nothing more nothing less. It might be best to take up more then one hobby so its not life or death for a big one. But to some it is all or nothing and well to me that's fine but keep it to your self and enjoy your quest


----------



## bounty hunter (Aug 7, 2002)

QDM ? I do not get why they shoot the best bucks? let them live and breed and shoot the little guys? I would think the big ones will do more for the herd then the small scrub bucks they pass on?


----------



## Trap Star (Jan 15, 2015)

To ALL.....please read my post "I am a trophy hunter" i just posted it last week or somthing.... this topic is covered from my prospective and many other judging by the replies.
thanks,
Ryan


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

hypox said:


> Terrible example.
> 
> Deer are a limited, natural, biological resource we all need to share. How can you even compare playing a round of golf to killing an animal?
> 
> Get a grip.


Both hunting and golf are recreational activities in which there is a wide range as to how seriously participants approach things. In that respect, it's an excellent analogy. Nobody is suggesting that anyone take a casual approach to killing animals, so your disbelief is unwarranted. Choosing to harvest a younger buck because the opportunity presents itself is not unethical in the least, nor does it show any kind of disrespect to the animal, as you seem to suggest by your comments. 

The analogy has nothing actually to do with killing animals, it has to do with some humans attempting to impose their will on others and belittling those who do not share their approach or standards. It's as indefensible position as if a bunch of guys from the local country club launched a campaign to ban par 3 public courses, using the excuse that forcing everyone to play more challenging courses will result in everyone upping their game and being more satisfied with playing golf. Sounds ludicrous when applied to golf but when it comes to hunting such a "movement" is applauded by some.


----------



## 357Maximum (Nov 1, 2015)

bounty hunter said:


> QDM ? I do not get why they shoot the best bucks? let them live and breed and shoot the little guys? I would think the big ones will do more for the herd then the small scrub bucks they pass on?



AHMEN.

Ask any dairy or cattle farmer what he thinks about shooting his herd bulls and letting all the others "eaters" have a round with Bessie.


Personally I have a very loose qdm system for ME, I just happen to like shooting mature bucks...MOST THE TIME.


----------



## bounty hunter (Aug 7, 2002)

to some golf is way more important then a deer so suck it up! YOU do not make the rules and ps nice 10 point you got again this year!


----------



## NovemberWhitetailz (Oct 10, 2008)

357Maximum said:


> AHMEN.
> 
> Ask any dairy or cattle farmer what he thinks about shooting his herd bulls and letting all the others "eaters" have a round with Bessie.
> 
> ...


You do know that the giant 150" 5.5 yo old mature whitetail had the same "jeans" he was spreadin at 5 as he did at 1.5? It's not like his genetics get better each year. LMAO some people! Yearling bucks still bread and they do at 2 an 3 and 4. Mature whitetails aren't the only one populating the deer herd.


----------



## goodworkstractors (Aug 7, 2007)

bounty hunter said:


> QDM ? I do not get why they shoot the best bucks? let them live and breed and shoot the little guys? I would think the big ones will do more for the herd then the small scrub bucks they pass on?





357Maximum said:


> AHMEN.
> 
> Ask any dairy or cattle farmer what he thinks about shooting his herd bulls and letting all the others "eaters" have a round with Bessie.
> 
> ...


Your genes are your genes. You think if a five year old buck breeds a doe it automatically means it has superior genes compared to a year and a half old? You think 80" 10 point yearlings are going to pop up all over if a five year old ten point gets to breed every doe in the neighborhood? Your earlier example of once a spike, always a spike is the exception to the rule. Nature isn't a farm. It's healthy for a diversity of genes to be in the pool. I don't think there's much thought that's been put into your viewpoint.


----------



## goodworkstractors (Aug 7, 2007)

HUBBHUNTER2 said:


> You do know that the giant 150" 5.5 yo old mature whitetail had the same "jeans" he was spreadin at 5 as he did at 1.5? It's not like his genetics get better each year. LMAO some people! Yearling bucks still bread and they do at 2 an 3 and 4. Mature whitetials aren't the only one populating the deer herd.


Haha was typing the same thing that you posted.


----------



## triplelunger (Dec 21, 2009)

Trap Star said:


> To ALL.....please read my post "I am a trophy hunter" i just posted it last week or somthing.... this topic is covered from my prospective and many other judging by the replies.
> thanks,
> Ryan


It's too bad some guys on here believe your way of thinking and hunting are ridiculous. 
Congrats again. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


----------



## gatorman841 (Mar 4, 2010)

HUBBHUNTER2 said:


> You do know that the giant 150" 5.5 yo old mature whitetail had the same "jeans" he was spreadin at 5 as he did at 1.5? It's not like his genetics get better each year. LMAO some people! Yearling bucks still bread and they do at 2 an 3 and 4. Mature whitetials aren't the only one populating the deer herd.


I thought a guy on here that has raised deer and a couple others chimed in that the doe was the biggest factor in antler size not the buck? This was first I heard of it but the ones breeding them tended to agree


----------



## hoffie1 (Dec 31, 2001)

Munsterlndr said:


> Both hunting and golf are recreational activities in which there is a wide range as to how seriously participants approach things. In that respect, it's an excellent analogy. Nobody is suggesting that anyone take a casual approach to killing animals, so your disbelief is unwarranted. Choosing to harvest a younger buck because the opportunity presents itself is not unethical in the least, nor does it show any kind of disrespect to the animal, as you seem to suggest by your comments.
> 
> The analogy has nothing actually to do with killing animals, it has to do with some humans attempting to impose their will on others and belittling those who do not share their approach or standards. It's as indefensible position as if a bunch of guys from the local country club launched a campaign to ban par 3 public courses, using the excuse that forcing everyone to play more challenging courses will result in everyone upping their game and being more satisfied with playing golf. Sounds ludicrous when applied to golf but when it comes to hunting such a "movement" is applauded by some.


Excellent post Munster
I just can not believe some people think everyone would get more enjoyment if they held out for a mature deer.


----------



## 357Maximum (Nov 1, 2015)

Are we having fun yet?

I ain' the best at conveying my message, but you can see what I posted this year for kills. Wait to you see what I post next year. Choices can be made for many different reasons ya know. 


Not every bull makes herd bull just cause it's age, there's a lot of other reasons he's DA BULL. Ya'll can have a herd that is only bred by what's left, think I'll pass. Good Day.


----------



## NovemberWhitetailz (Oct 10, 2008)

gatorman841 said:


> I thought a guy on here that has raised deer and a couple others chimed in that the doe was the biggest factor in antler size not the buck? This was first I heard of it but the ones breeding them tended to agree


Not sure on antler growth but I do know the off springs genetics are more influenced by the doe than the buck. And... by "know" I mean I read it on the interweb


----------



## bounty hunter (Aug 7, 2002)

Shoot what you want this is a free country. Good lord its really just a deer


----------



## gatorman841 (Mar 4, 2010)

bounty hunter said:


> as long as it is within the law shoot what YOU want to and and be happy and screw the ones who feel otherwise.


So you'd be ok with a guy in southern Michigan shooting a spike and a 6pt with 4 on one side with his combo tag and then shooting a doe a day. I believe you can buy a tag a deer in some counties , so 92 deer a year would be fine since it legal. Just cause it's legal doesn't always make it right. If everyone did this cause it's "legal" our deer heard will be horrible. I've noticed the doe count drop in my area, and it's just finally starting to come back.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

gatorman841 said:


> So you'd be ok with a guy in southern Michigan shooting a spike and a 6pt with 4 on one side with his combo tag and then shooting a doe a day. I believe you can buy a tag a deer in some counties , so 92 deer a year would be fine since it legal. Just cause it's legal doesn't always make it right. If everyone did this cause it's "legal" our deer heard will be horrible. I've noticed the doe count drop in my area, and it's just finally starting to come back.


Get back to us when your hypothetical actually happens. Until then, continue digging that hole deeper by telling us why it's ridiculous and "not right" for someone to legally harvest a yearling buck if they feel that they want to..........


----------



## goodworkstractors (Aug 7, 2007)

triplelunger said:


> It's too bad some guys on here believe your way of thinking and hunting are ridiculous.
> Congrats again.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G920V using Ohub Campfire mobile app


I sure don't feel it's ridiculous. However, this country is going downhill because everybody has to accept everyone and everything or else face the wrath of the social media police. If someone is genuinely happy shooting any legal deer, then awesome! If they do it cuz they "had to get their buck", then that's pathetic. No matter what you shoot, just keep it real folks like Trap Star.


----------



## bounty hunter (Aug 7, 2002)

Indeed


----------



## bounty hunter (Aug 7, 2002)

gatorman841 said:


> So you'd be ok with a guy in southern Michigan shooting a spike and a 6pt with 4 on one side with his combo tag and then shooting a doe a day. I believe you can buy a tag a deer in some counties , so 92 deer a year would be fine since it legal. Just cause it's legal doesn't always make it right. If everyone did this cause it's "legal" our deer heard will be horrible. I've noticed the doe count drop in my area, and it's just finally starting to come back.


If its legal ? Yes who made you the boss?


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

Too bad threads like this pop up every year. Or should I say, "rears its ugly head". If only these ding dongs would have stopped watching the Hollywood hunting TV shows at an earlier age, we wouldn't need this crap on this forum. Oh well.


----------



## Fishsmith85 (Mar 4, 2015)

chilidip00 said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> Does anybody else have a camp around them that seems to shot everything that moves? I should mention I hunt public land in Glennie so it comes with the territory that you expect a lot of young deer to be shot.
> But we have this one camp that drives back and hunts by us for the last few years and they shoot everything they see. So far this year they have 2 spikes, 2 four points, and 2 does.
> ...


I enjoy the "confronted" mans response. I personally don't like it when somebody tries to dictate or talk down about what I legally do as a hunter of fisherman with selective phrasing. Also So you know I share the same opinion as you as far as not shooting everything all the time. But you had to expect the outcome in that situation especially on land you don't own.


----------



## bounty hunter (Aug 7, 2002)

You only live once so never let anyone tell you how to enjoy what you do


----------



## gatorman841 (Mar 4, 2010)

Munsterlndr said:


> Get back to us when your hypothetical actually happens. Until then, continue digging that hole deeper by telling us why it's ridiculous and "not right" for someone to legally harvest a yearling buck if they feel that they want to..........


I brought that up cause I ran into a guy at tractor supply in Jackson and we started bsing on deer hunting. He began bragging about him shooting 30 plus does a year the last 5 years, it made me sick to hear one person actually would kill that many deer. His reasoning for it was like you if it's legal I'm gonna do it. This actually happens and I'm sure alot more do it then we actually know.


----------



## MIhunt (Dec 18, 2011)

gatorman841 said:


> So you'd be ok with a guy in southern Michigan shooting a spike and a 6pt with 4 on one side with his combo tag and then shooting a doe a day. I believe you can buy a tag a deer in some counties , so 92 deer a year would be fine since it legal. Just cause it's legal doesn't always make it right. If everyone did this cause it's "legal" our deer heard will be horrible. I've noticed the doe count drop in my area, and it's just finally starting to come back.


If someone could find the deer numbers to kill 90 does then please do because there are obviously WAY to many deer in that area. This scenario is completely ridiculous. No one is in an area to shoot one deer a day. No one can afford that or even has the time to do this. 

There are many things that factor into a deer heard a number besides hunters including disease, predation from natural animals, car-deer accidents, etc...

It's very natural for populations to fluctuate around the carrying capacity. There will be years were the population is above the carrying capacity followed by years of it being below the carrying capacity. Generally if there is a period where the population is abnormally high above the carrying capacity, it will be followed by an abnormally low population. Just because the doe count was abnormally low does not mean that it was below the carrying capacity, your "low years" may actually be where nature intends for the population to be.


----------



## hypox (Jan 23, 2000)

APR's are working and aren't going anywhere. The future of deer hunting is clear. 

If anything, restriction will only continue to get tighter on bucks, and we will continue to see an increase in hunting opportunities. Both are win-win for everyone whether they believe it or not.


----------



## bounty hunter (Aug 7, 2002)

Down guys its only a friggin deer. Your wife,kids mean way more


----------



## hypox (Jan 23, 2000)

bounty hunter said:


> to some golf is way more important then a deer so suck it up! YOU do not make the rules and *ps nice 10 point you got again this year!*


For me? Thanks!


----------



## bounty hunter (Aug 7, 2002)

Well hypox you seem stuck on 10 pointers


----------



## Bomba (Jul 26, 2005)

cscott711 said:


> Isn't the percentage of hunters taking two bucks a year around 4%?


Doesn't matter what the % is, if the 4% are his neighbors, it will affect the amount of mature bucks he sees.


----------



## hypox (Jan 23, 2000)

bounty hunter said:


> Well hypox you seem stuck on 10 pointers


I swear I'm not targeting them, it's just the way the dice are rolling.


----------



## goodworkstractors (Aug 7, 2007)

Bomba said:


> Doesn't matter what the % is, if the 4% are his neighbors, it will affect the amount of mature bucks he sees.


I'm sure that's the case


----------



## protectionisamust (Nov 9, 2010)

hypox said:


> APR's are working and aren't going anywhere. The future of deer hunting is clear.
> 
> If anything, restriction will only continue to get tighter on bucks, and we will continue to see an increase in hunting opportunities. Both are win-win for everyone whether they believe it or not.


1 can only hope


----------



## bounty hunter (Aug 7, 2002)

hypox said:


> I swear I'm not targeting them, it's just the way the dice are rolling.


Year after year and some doubles? Not buying it


----------



## bounty hunter (Aug 7, 2002)

aprs are the answer for better deer but until


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

hypox said:


> If anything, restriction will only continue to get tighter on bucks, and we will continue to see an increase in hunting opportunities. Both are win-win for everyone whether they believe it or not.


May not have intended it to sound that way but this certainly smacks of the attitude of "We know better then you, you are just to stupid to understand, shut up and do what you're told."

Hopefully not what you meant to imply.


----------



## steve myers (Dec 29, 2000)

gatorman841 said:


> I've heard that before, shooting a year n half buck takes about as much skill as shooting a squirrel they are the dumbest animals in the woods. Save them for the kids and guys who are shooting their first buck. For a grown adult who has years of hunting to go out n shoot one is a joke! nothing will change without the dnrs help.


 very well said.


----------



## ryan-b (Sep 18, 2009)

QDMAMAN said:


> What's your experience?


Having shot a large number of mature does(some very mature) off both farm and stateland id have to say ive got a pretty darn good idea. Being that my wife is the daughter of a butcher of 50 years id say she also has a very good idea. Ive got burger from a 14 yr old elk in the freezer. Yep i said 14 yrs old. She was aged by the dnr. Now thats MATURE! Its a known fact that the older and larger any animal get the worse it is to eat. Try going to the butcher and asking for a nice porter house from a fully matured 4.5 year old bull. Theres a reason that animals are slaughtered at no more then 1.5( most are much younger) and it has nothing to do with slaughter houses not being able to pass up the first thig it sees. You guys love antlers and trophies. Thats fine its your thing im not against that. What people dont want are others telling them the animals they want to legally harvest are some how not up to others standards and therefore no one should have the ability to shoot them. Tired of seeing guys slam others because they arent see the bucks the size THEY want.


----------



## kangsnbucks14 (Aug 24, 2015)

I think every deer you throw an arrow at or pull the trigger on is a trophy somewhere down deep otherwise you wouldnt have shot at it. I had my 8 yr old son with me in my ground blind this year and shot a smaller deer that i would probably normally let walk, but the excitement my boy had and wanting to finally get to watch dad shoot a deer turned that younger deer into a trophy to me. Do we only hunt to show everyone how big or mature the deer we shot, or do we hunt for the memory and the love of our sport? If it makes you happy shoot it, if it doesnt pass it but dont look down on a guy that shoots something that makes him happy. I am sure i have a life long hunting partner now because of the hunt not the size of the deer. (Rant over) Good luck to all my fellow outdoors sportsmen.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

ryan-b said:


> Its a known fact that the older and larger any animal get the worse it is to eat. Try going to the butcher and asking for a nice porter house from a fully matured 4.5 year old bull. Theres a reason that animals are slaughtered at no more then 1.5( most are much younger) and it has nothing to do with slaughter houses not being able to pass up the first thig it sees.


When it comes to table fare, deer flesh is a whole different ballgame from cattle flesh.


----------



## wildcoy73 (Mar 2, 2004)

I figure i pay my taxes and buy tags like you do. 
I spend money on gear, gas, and food. Just like you do.
So guess what? 
Ill shoot what ever i feel like on that day.
Sometimes ill let the young ones pass by. Than other times i want some venision and see a few meals in front of me.
I say do what you like and dont worry about the rest.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Watch my unbiased demonstration as I prove my point :lol::lol:


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

bioactive said:


> It is, but second bucks represent about 12% of all bucks killed. So 4% of the hunters kill 24% of all bucks killed.


I went and reviewed the 2014 Deer Harvest Survey Report, and this is correct. I had remembered prior years where the percentage of SLP hunters which killed two bucks was 4.8-4.9%. It looks like that number has come down some.

Statewide, 3.5% of the guys that hunted deer in 2014 tagged two antlered bucks (it was 3.6% in the SLP)

614,593 people hunted deer in Michigan in 2014, and 21,511 of them tagged two antlered bucks. 21,511 X 2 = 43,022 bucks killed by hunters that took two bucks. Since the total statewide antlered buck harvest was 178,228, we can presume that 24.1% of the buck harvest was accomplished by hunters that killed two bucks.

In other words, nearly one out of every four bucks legally harvested in this state were taken by a hunter that killed two bucks. Put that way, it sounds a little bit different than "only 3.5% of hunters killed two bucks".

My personal sense is that a lot of the hunters that kill two bucks are guys that do so frequently; I personally know of a few guys who have taken two bucks each year for a very long period of time, and I'm sure many here have observed the same.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

gatorman841 said:


> How many people do you know report their deer to the dnr every year? I have no clue...


You are right, you have no clue. But I do. In fact Michigan is second among midwest states only to Nebraska in the deer that get physically assessed in a check station each year. It is about 7% of the deer harvest, which is a massive number of animals.

But that has nothing to do with my comments about the crossbow. For those comments, I depended on the DNR Crossbow survey. They surveyed 1,475 crossbow hunters, asking them details about their crossbow experience.

If you have interviewed more hunters than they have, I will be happy to listen to you. In the meantime, you are just making stuff up in your head without relying on information that could help you to understand things better so you could have a more informed opinion.

You think the archery harvest doubled because of crossbows, and the DNR thinks that 75% of crossbow shooters were shooting an upright bow the year before and simply changed equipment, and they think the number of deer harvested was not increased significantly. 

Who to believe? The guy who makes numbers up or the people who interviewed 1475 actual crossbow users to form an opinion.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

motdean said:


> A quick question.....Since the removal of APR's is a management tool for fighting infectious disease, will they remain in tact until (if) they reach that zone? (In other words, at what point will they be removed?) And guys, please don't get me wrong, I would much rather have APR's than a disease in the herd, so please don't take this as a celebration of disease in the herd....It is an authentic question.


You would have to ask the DNR. I suspect that APR's would be suspended should a CWD positive deer be found in an APR area, as they have been in Missouri but I can't say for sure.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

swampbuck said:


> *Shoeless, the buck to doe ratio is self correcting. It can't get worse than about 2 does per buck, pre-season.
> 
> As far as those who kill 2 bucks a year, happy to say that I am one of those 4% guys about 80% of the time. Although if the deer herd wasn't down here, I would be happy to kill does.
> 
> ...


Agree completely with what you say right up until you start your emotional rant.

Nicely done in the bolded portion.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

motdean said:


> A quick question....*.Since the removal of APR's is a management tool for fighting infectious disease*, will they remain in tact until (if) they reach that zone? (In other words, at what point will they be removed?) And guys, please don't get me wrong, I would much rather have APR's than a disease in the herd, so please don't take this as a celebration of disease in the herd....It is an authentic question.


Removal of APRs is something that some biologists recommend. Others disagree, and in fact, this debate was held in MI regarding the TB zone prior to implementation of hunter's choice, and the viewpoint that it would be better to have APRs won out (disregarding the success or lack thereof of the program).

Just because Munster repeats himself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, as if what he says is a fact, it is not a fact that removing APRs is the best choice. We have a sterling example of that right here in our own state, at the Turtle Lake Club, where the age structure has been advanced dramatically over the years, without an increase in the incidence of TB, and with perhaps a lower rate than the rest of the TB zone. 

So please, let's not have discussion that ping from Munster's proclamations as if they were facts, they aren't. They are his opinion. He has a more informed opinion than most on here, but his viewpoint can be strongly contested by experts who believe that a herd CAN be managed in a disease zone with an advanced age structure.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> Removal of APRs is something that some biologists recommend. Others disagree, and in fact, this debate was held in MI regarding the TB zone prior to implementation of hunter's choice, and the viewpoint that it would be better to have APRs won out (disregarding the success or lack thereof of the program).
> 
> Just because Munster repeats himself over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, as if what he says is a fact, it is not a fact that removing APRs is the best choice. We have a sterling example of that right here in our own state, at the Turtle Lake Club, where the age structure has been advanced dramatically over the years, without an increase in the incidence of TB, and with perhaps a lower rate than the rest of the TB zone.
> 
> So please, let's not have discussion that ping from Munster's proclamations as if they were facts, they aren't. They are his opinion. He has a more informed opinion than most on here, but his viewpoint can be strongly contested by experts who believe that a herd CAN be managed in a disease zone with an advanced age structure.


I'm unaware of any credible experts who recommend APR's and an advanced buck age structure as a means of controlling disease, maybe you can provide us with links. Turtle Lake is attempting to advance the buck age structure in spite of the negative impact it may have, as it is a private club who's members want to shoot mature bucks. They are not attempting to advance the buck age structure as a means to limit the spread and impact of disease, a distinction that needs to be recognized. The issue is not whether a herd CAN be managed in a disease zone with an advanced age structure, the debate is over whether it SHOULD be managed in such a way and the best available science indicates that it should not be.

It's also deceptive to claim that there was any kind of substantive debate regarding the biological impact of APR's in the NELP prior to implementation, the fact is that the DNR biologists who were suggesting APR's had no idea whether or not they would help or hurt the situation there, it was a "throw it against the wall and see if it sticks" kind of experiment, not based on a rational examination of scientific data.


----------



## 357Maximum (Nov 1, 2015)

farmlegend said:


> I
> 
> My personal sense is that a lot of the hunters that kill two bucks are guys that do so frequently; I personally know of a few guys who have taken two bucks each year for a very long period of time, and I'm sure many here have observed the same.




My place was dirt...literally dirt when I bought it from a small farmer in a sea of HUGE agribusiness. IE Basically nothing lived here outside of cropping season, and that population of critters was still very minimal, mice mainly. I spent my life savings buying the place as well as planting the place with trees, shrubs, and other plants. Four solid years of very intensive labor and planning went into making my island for me and my family to use. Spring planting parties and such are a lot of work. There are over 12 thousand hand dug holes on my place and most of them have something growing out of them that I paid for.

My island sitting in the middle of a dirt ocean works very well now thank you very much. I shoot two bucks almost every year (and pass another 10-15), am I guilty of something in your eyes? Yes, I do shoot the occasional doe also, but normally that is because someone on one of the other "islands" or a car did something to it that made me finish it. NO.... I am not anti doe killing, it's just the other islands do a good enough job on that front I do not feel the need to follow suit. AM I still evil in your eyes?


When the State decides to force the 1 buck rule or other restrictive rules by for "special interests" because of people that wanna force their will onto others find a way....... I will sell my island to the HUGE dirt farmer that really wanted it. Two weeks later it will be dirt again. The 30-40 or so deer that use it, the 50 or so pheasants that live here, the 100 rabbits that live here, the 10 or so woodchucks that live here and all the other critters that liver here well..... They will all be homeless and I will be living somewhere that allows me to shoot 2 bucks a year, likely another state entirely.

How's forcing your will on others plan looking now. If all the small "islanders" here did that, there would be no deer for miles and miles and miles. Deer need a place to spend the winter and tilled dirt clods ain't very good cover. Your plan still sound like a winner?


The closest state land is 7 miles away, you can hunt there for free and do as you wish with zero time/effort/money spent. When you tell me what I can/should do on my place that I spent all this effort/money on.....yeah, that excites me a little bit. I know I do not own the deer, neither do you. I and the other islanders just keep them in feed and shelter afterall. Am I still an evil dick in your eyes?


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

357Maximum said:


> How's forcing your will on others plan looking now. If all the small "islanders" here did that, there would be no deer for miles and miles and miles. Deer need a place to spend the winter and tilled dirt clods ain't very good cover. Your plan still sound like a winner?


One person's "forcing your will" is another person's "doing what the majority wants".

By opposing the one buck rule, you, who are probably in the minority, are you "forcing your will" on others by asserting your desire to maintain the status quo?

We changed over to a 4 buck and then 2 buck harvest maximum from a one buck rule, and we can change back. It has nothing to do with forcing will it has to do with pleasing the most hunters.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

357Maximum said:


> The closest state land is 7 miles away, you can hunt there for free and do as you wish with zero time/effort/money spent. When you tell me what I can/should do on my place that I spent all this effort/money on.....yeah, that excites me a little bit. I know I do not own the deer, neither do you. I and the other islanders just keep them in feed and shelter afterall. Am I still an evil dick in your eyes?


For everyone like you that will sell because you think things would be worse, there are 2-3 who will start getting interested in improving or acquiring an "island" because they think things will be better. Funny thing happens when you do the math on what a minority like you thinks vs. doing the math on a majority. 

Do you get that guys like me will be more interested in buying your property after the institution of a one buck rule? Or are you so immersed in your own viewpoint that you think everyone thinks as you do?


----------



## Wendy (Oct 6, 2008)

I have to admit, after hunting several days and none of us seeing a d*** thing, I shot the first deer that I did see. It looked like a young doe, it was too long in the face and big for a "normal" button buck, but that is what it turned out to be. Am I happy about it? No, but I needed meat for the freezer first. Now I will be a little more patient cause I know what is out there, but I still need some more meat and I have a limited time to go hunting.


----------



## goodworkstractors (Aug 7, 2007)

357Maximum said:


> My place was dirt...literally dirt when I bought it from a small farmer in a sea of HUGE agribusiness. IE Basically nothing lived here outside of cropping season, and that population of critters was still very minimal, mice mainly. I spent my life savings buying the place as well as planting the place with trees, shrubs, and other plants. Four solid years of very intensive labor and planning went into making my island for me and my family to use. Spring planting parties and such are a lot of work. There are over 12 thousand hand dug holes on my place and most of them have something growing out of them that I paid for.
> 
> My island sitting in the middle of a dirt ocean works very well now thank you very much. I shoot two bucks almost every year (and pass another 10-15), am I guilty of something in your eyes? Yes, I do shoot the occasional doe also, but normally that is because someone on one of the other "islands" or a car did something to it that made me finish it. NO.... I am not anti doe killing, it's just the other islands do a good enough job on that front I do not feel the need to follow suit. AM I still evil in your eyes?
> 
> ...


Right. Changing to a one buck rule is going to uproot a significant portion of the state's population and send them packing, haha. State hunting regulations do change from time to time so is your plan to continue uprooting your family in protest of a deer hunting regulation change in every state you move to? Sounds like you've got your priorities straight.

You might have made a fantastic deer habitat from nothing and harvest two great bucks every year, but you're killing me between this post and the "only the herd bull should breed" post. 

Correction: You must harvest two legal 1.5 year olds every year since the herd bull is the only one with good genetics so you can't shoot him. I wonder what happens when he dies and all those inferior (younger) bucks have to breed the does? There goes the gene pool.


----------



## 357Maximum (Nov 1, 2015)

bioactive said:


> For everyone like you that will sell because you think things would be worse, there are 2-3 who will start getting interested in improving or acquiring an "island" because they think things will be better. Funny thing happens when you do the math on what a minority like you thinks vs. doing the math on a majority.
> 
> Do you get that guys like me will be more interested in buying your property after the institution of a one buck rule? Or are you so immersed in your own viewpoint that you think everyone thinks as you do?



I know most of the other "islanders", not only are you wrong, you are dead wrong. If/when the APR or OBR happens pretty much all that will be left is dirt and wind turbines. I guarantee you that. Most of us have standing offers and some have already moved on them offers. Each and every time the island simply goes bye bye. My place would never be offered for sale, you would have zero chance of owning it. I already have a standing written offer and a gentlemans aggreement that I would not dream of screwing with. You'd be S.O.L, but you would enjoy a nice unobstructed view on your way to the state land to enjoy your rules you cherish so much. Wanna guess where them state land deer USED TO spend the deep cold winter months????

Oh and Please wear a lot of orange and Kevlar when you get to that state land, I would hate to see you get hurt because a frustrated and restrained newbee thought you had enough points.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

ryan-b said:


> I believe with a little discrimination i would be going against what i told this 67 year old farmer id do for him. He carries zero crop insurance on his 900 total acres. Says it to much of a head ache and they dont want to oay when you need them too. So a dead deer is food for my family and one less deer coming over and taking money out of his pocket.
> As far as the meat thing goes why does everyone alway associate everything with cattle. ALL MEAT ANIMALS ARE SLAUGHTERED YOUNG. Its due to meat quality not economics. I used to work ranches out west and my father inlaws been a butcher for 50 years so ive got a pretty go idea about this. Its a known fact that ALL animals from birds to buffalo only get tougher more fiberous meat as they age.



My point, which I obviously failed to make, was that YOU could have helped the farmer, and your family's meat needs, by taking 3 mature does (baby makers) rather than 1 mature doe and 2 buck fawns.
You are NOW on to hunting for horns so you will do very little to alleviate the farmer's plight except by one if successful. 
If your plan was to fill 3 antlerless tags as quick as you could so that you could horn hunt, you accomplished your goal. If you wanted to "help" the farmer, and "fill" the freezer, I'm not sure you did the best possible thing. JMO.
Congrats on your season so far.


----------



## 357Maximum (Nov 1, 2015)

cscott711 said:


> Right. Changing to a one buck rule is going to uproot a significant portion of the state's population and send them packing, haha. State hunting regulations do change from time to time so is your plan to continue uprooting your family in protest of a deer hunting regulation change in every state you move to? Sounds like you've got your priorities straight.
> 
> You might have made a fantastic deer habitat from nothing and harvest two great bucks every year, but you're killing me between this post and the "only the herd bull should breed" post.
> 
> Correction: You must harvest two legal 1.5 year olds every year since the herd bull is the only one with good genetics so you can't shoot him. I wonder what happens when he dies and all those inferior (younger) bucks have to breed the does? There goes the gene pool.



I'll admit, I did not word some of that very well. I am not a wordsmith. I was simply stating or trying to state that having someone elses ideals shoved up my arse does not sit well with me. I choose to shoot what I shoot. Never once have I told others what to shoot, why do others insist on forcing their views onto me. I happen to think shooting only the good bucks is not the right answer. A minority opinion, I have been the minority most my life no biggie. Did I mention I like lake trout better than chinook yet?


----------



## ryan-b (Sep 18, 2009)

QDMAMAN said:


> My point, which I obviously failed to make, was that YOU could have helped the farmer, and your family's meat needs, by taking 3 mature does (baby makers) rather than 1 mature doe and 2 buck fawns.
> You are NOW on to hunting for horns so you will do very little to alleviate the farmer's plight except by one if successful.
> If your plan was to fill 3 antlerless tags as quick as you could so that you could horn hunt, you accomplished your goal. If you wanted to "help" the farmer, and "fill" the freezer, I'm not sure you did the best possible thing. JMO.
> Congrats on your season so far.


I am hunting horns, but not on that farm I never have nor will hunt horns on that farm and there are some great bucks in the area. I would have rather shot 3 mature does. However these we the only 3 out and about and they all offered shots.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

357Maximum said:


> I'll admit, I did not word some of that very well. I am not a wordsmith. * I was simply stating or trying to state that having someone elses ideals shoved up my arse does not sit well with me. I choose to shoot what I shoot. Never once have I told others what to shoot, why do others insist on forcing their views onto me*. I happen to think shooting only the good bucks is not the right answer. A minority opinion, I have been the minority most my life no biggie. Did I mention I like lake trout better than chinook yet?


I'm fairly certain you shoot what the MDNR tells you can shoot....and when.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

ryan-b said:


> I am hunting horns, but not on that farm I never have nor will hunt horns on that farm and there are some great bucks in the area. I would have rather shot 3 mature does. However these we the only 3 out and about and they all offered shots.



Cool, congrats again. Sounds like the deer reduction efforts have born fruit!


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

gatorman841 said:


> So you'd be ok with a guy in southern Michigan shooting a spike and a 6pt with 4 on one side with his combo tag and then shooting a doe a day. I believe you can buy a tag a deer in some counties , so 92 deer a year would be fine since it legal. Just cause it's legal doesn't always make it right. If everyone did this cause it's "legal" our deer heard will be horrible. I've noticed the doe count drop in my area, and it's just finally starting to come back.



I'd be absolutely ok with it.

Both his bucks met the DNR biological criteria to be allowed to harvest two, and his does are all fulfilling the desires of the DNR biological management team with respect to population.

It's the guy in southern Michigan that refuses to do the biologically necessary job of shooting enough does to control population that I'm not ok with, not the guy doing exactly what the biologists want.


----------

