# Split opener proposal



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

As most state game biologists and many hunters agree, a peak rut firearm opener isn't the best management option in the 21st century. However, Michigan is unique in that we have the UP, which has weather, habitat and herd migrations more like Canada, and we have the LP, which is more like our surrounding Midwest states. 
We also tried a split gun opener many years back that did not work well, especially for those who lived in the UP were concerned. But, virtually everything is different in the state now. We have some 400,000 archery hunters who'd be bow hunting the LP in November if there was a split gun opener, the UP doesn't have near the amount of deer that it did 40 years ago and hunters don't take off the big chunks of time to gun hunt, like they did 40 years ago. Plus, half of our hunters now hunt the prime SLP and have no real desire to go anywhere else. That prime SLP herd didn't even exist when the old split opener was tried. 
So, the question is, how do you craft a split opener that's really needed, yet it keeps 90% of our hunters happy and accomplishes the goal? And that goal being, less yearling bucks harvested with a peak rut opener and a substantial increase in more bucks surviving gun season and more mature bucks in a few years. 
I have a simple suggestion and I'm wondering if anyone has input. MDNR offers one antlered firearm tag good for any buck and one "either sex" archery tag, along with all the "antlerless only" tags. The combo tag is eliminated. When you buy your firearm tag, the clerk asks "do you want it for the UP or LP? And that's where the regular firearms tag is good for for bucks only. Then, come muzzleloader seasons, any unused firearm tags are good anywhere in the state. 
The UP regular firearm season would open on the 3rd Friday of November and run to the following Sunday, giving hunters 2 full weekends. In 2006, that season would run Nov.17-26. In the LP, the regular firearm season would open on the 1st Friday of December and run to the following Sunday, also giving 2 full weekends. In 2006, it'd be Dec. 1-10. 
This would only be for buck tags. If you had a UP antlerless tag, but wanted your buck tag for the LP, you could still hunt in the UP with a gun from Nov.17-26, but you'd only have an antlerless tag. And vice versa for the LP.
This solves the problem of having LP management having to have anything to do with deer migrations in the UP. And, if hunters pick the LP, they get the entire LP for bucks in the regular firearms season and if they pick the UP, they get the entire UP. 
If a hunter hunts both the UP and LP, he'd have to decide where he wanted his regular firearm tag to be good for, but he'd still be able to hunt anywhere in the state with archery, muzzloader and antlerless tags. 
Since firearm season is when by far the most bucks are killed, I think it's worth suggesting to the NRC and MDNR. Any thoughts? 
Seems simple to me and keeps the Yoopers from seeing any increase in LP buck hunters while correcting when the opener dates should be.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

I'm 100% in favor or moving the lower peninsula firearm season back. In terms of protecting more bucks, your timing suggestion would work well, the Ohio model would work well, etc. However, there are areas of S. MI where it's proving very difficult to even come close to getting the antlerless population in line, and that's with 16 days of firearms hunting followed by 17 days of muzzleloader hunting followed by an additional 14 days of antlerless firearms hunting. It would seem that moving the main firearms season back might be counter productive in the effort to reduce the antlerless population is some areas of S. MI. 

In terms of the upper peninsula, I really don't have any understanding of what would make best sense there. My guess is that you're correct in stating that having an earlier opener in the U.P. would probably not lead to a radical increase in U.P. hunting pressure, but I think the possibility that could happen is a valid concern. 

I like the innovative ideas that you come up with Bob. Good stuff!


----------



## weatherby (Mar 26, 2001)

I might be misunderstanding some of the post, but would bow season run all the way to gun or would there be a quiet time?


----------



## buckslayerII (Jan 4, 2005)

I know it's probably more simple than it sounds, but it sure sounds complicated!!! My biggest non-understanding is whether or not I could hunt anterless with a gun during the UP gun "buck" season? Here's the reasoning behind my question: I agree most deer (not just bucks IMO) are killed during the gun season. The goal is to control/manage the herd to certain numbers of quality deer. If you push the LP gun season back to the first week in December, I predict that you'll see a big decrease in amount of time hunters spend in the field (and thus deer killed) for "seasonal" reasons.

Let's face it, we all get way busy with family and parties and shopping and commitments once the holiday season starts, which is kinda viewed (IMO) as Thanksgiving.

Another reason is weather. Granted, this past gun season was pretty harsh for hunting at times, but that's not typical. However, the chances of having weather similar to that in early December on a consistent basis are much better.

There also seems to be concern about how to get younger people started hunting. The last 2 weeks in November are during a "breather" time for school sports, which allows the kids time to be in the field. The first of December is very hectic with seasons starting and all the practices and games associated with that. Kid's will just be too stretched to spend any quality time hunting, as well as the parents!

So, the summary is that I think you'll see less hunters in the LP helping to accomplish the management goals if the opener is pushed back. I'm not a fan of only critizing an idea, so I commend you on at least throwing one out there and also believe that we need a way to help the young bucks become mature.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I like the way it is...I don't want people to have a the choice of 2 openers so the U.P. would get more hunters and give us more hunting pressure.

Also, If you really like good hunting our 15th opener works great because it does not go against the rifle openers of many of the surrounding states. I like hunting PA or WI more than MI's opener...but it doesn't mean I want to miss MI's because I have friends and family in.

Anyways, we just don't need the added pressure of more bait-toting rifle hunters up here that can have their own opener in the lower, and then travel to the U.P. for another and wack even more yearling bucks.

The 15th is already past prime hunting in MI and if you want to take pressure off bucks, eliminate the baiting, especially in the northern lower and U.P.


----------



## Gilbey (Oct 26, 2005)

I can tell you one thing.....our camp and surrounding camps already get upset enough at the rudeness of two groups of downstate guys that come up for our opener and hunt right on our bait piles, incoming trails, trespass, chainsaw within eyesight on private property, hunt right next to us etc etc. Not only do they do this every year, they have the gall to keep coming back and bringing more extra people every year.

Do I hope that we have a later opener???????

I know a lot of you guys will find offense to what I just typed. And I will of course note that not even close to all the guys from downstate would behave in this fashion.....

But I, my friends, and the neighboring camps believe that we have more than our fill of BS without having additional people up here doing the same due to having a "2nd opener".

Let's just keep it the same, just my opinion.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

I have no problem with split seasons for the UP and LP but only if it had the 2 tag option. If there is a date change it should be moved forward instead of backward. The migration starts prior to November 15th if we cold weather and deep snow sets in. 

I vote for a November 1st opener. This will also keep the bow hunters below the bridge during the first few weeks of the month.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

In the 27 seasons that I have hunted, the rut has been anywhere from start to near completion during the firearm deer season. Changing the season will have the same impact on the deer herd as now. 

The best way to improve the health of the herd is through education, education, education. Education and voluntary efforts will have the biggest impact. Relying on the heavy arm of government to mandate a change will provide less improvement.

Swamper


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

I believe it is time that we took a look at our opening dates, making some major overhaul in them. I did hunt back in the mid '60s when there was a split opening day, one in the U.P. and another in the L.P. These were set on a Sat., but I forget which. Perhaps it was the first Sat. in Nov. for the U.P. and the second Sat. for the L.P.

At that time there was a lot of hunter angst over it as a sacralige against the move from the traditional Nov. 15th date. Yoopers....they were called U.P. residents at the time (yes, I know it takes more than residency to be a Yooper!....:lol.

I didn't hunt the U.P. opener, but my dad did.

I think they did this for only one or two years.

Keep in mind that was 40 years ago.........that's almost a 1/2 century if your counting that sort of stuff........I'm not!!....:yikes:. Times have changed and the deer herd has expanded it's range and decreasing in numbers in the U.P. and NLP and exploding in the southern third of the state.

I'd add a note that if we are going to shorten the main firearms season from its traditional two weeks to less I'd also suggest that we close bow season for the first two weeks in Nov. If we are going to try and protect bucks than let all hunter do their part. Bowhunters......I used to bowhunt a LOT, but due to a new hip don't want to climb trees anymore and came to the conclusion that one reason I enjoyed bowhunting so very much was the "View from the Penthouse" as I called it in an article I penned.....and firearms hunters.

Bowhunting: Oct. 1st to Oct. 31th and December 1st to December 31st
Firearms U.P. Second Saturday in Nov. and run for ten days.
Firearms L.P. Third Saturday in Nov. and run for ten days.

Another option is to open the firearms seasons to give hunter two weekends in which to hunt. That would be a better option, which I think Bob mentions above but it's almost 2:30AM and I don't want to go back and check that out in his post.....:lol: 

It's time that we began to think "outside the box" of what was 20th century deer herd management.


----------



## trailsend (Feb 12, 2005)

Quote" So, the question is, how do you craft a split opener that's really needed, yet it keeps 90% of our hunters happy and accomplishes the goal? And that goal being, less yearling bucks harvested with a peak rut opener and a substantial increase in more bucks surviving gun season and more mature bucks in a few years." unquote 90%!!:lol: high hopes


I really can't and won't speak for area's i don't hunt. Where i hunt i just cannot see how changing dates will do anything for protecting smaller bucks.As for protecting more mature bucks, you want rifle hunters to have a set quota? If you want to protect yearling bucks in the area of the UP that i hunt then eliminate bait. This will work for a few seasons. Also ban atv's during hunting season. As i have stated before peak rut does not fall during rifle season here as often as you may believe. Our camp is in the bananna belt but we still get snow ( based on generations of camp log writings) that will shut the rut down.I have many stands set up and some are a hours walk from the brule river(staeline). Wisconsin opens on the saturday after our opener. That can sometimes be a week later and you should here the shootin.It has been a long standing joke that we should post on the brule (michigan side) on wisconsins opener. Saturday openings bring out more hunters,hunting over more bait piles.This inturn moves more deer and thus more deer shot. IMO. Since we come to camp for the season we are on vacation also. So we try to take a ride into northern wisconsin and stop at all the buck poles and ride through camp country and just look at the bucks hangin. I guess if i took pics i could show ya that they shoot yearlins in wisconsin also and too many in my opinion. Buck tag for the lower or the up? I feel that takes yet another option away from hunters and for what reason? I can see where some unethical sportsmen would only buy buck tags if they shot a buck being that they could still be legal in the woods with a doe tag.Again these are just my opinions and observations. Education will get us where we want to be.Times are changin for sure.I can remember the old timers would get together at a camp and everyone would throw there doe tag in a bowl and light em up. This would get ya a shot of yukon. Now we shoot does at a very liberal pace. Merry christmas,peace.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

NorthJeff said:


> I like the way it is...I don't want people to have a the choice of 2 openers so the U.P. would get more hunters and give us more hunting pressure.
> 
> Also, If you really like good hunting our 15th opener works great because it does not go against the rifle openers of many of the surrounding states. I like hunting PA or WI more than MI's opener...but it doesn't mean I want to miss MI's because I have friends and family in.
> 
> ...


I agree mostly with what NorthJeff says and I also think that it is over complicating things. I'd like to see the firearm season open statewide on Nov. 15, but for the first week of the season, it would be for antlerless deer only. The second week of the season would then be for bucks or does. Then I'd like to see the late antlerless season ended state wide because it would not be necessary. These simple rule changes would save lots of bucks because of the later buck season date and also because the bucks would be spooked in all areas where does are legal. There are other states that have separate buck and doe seasons.


----------



## Erik (Jan 17, 2000)

I've always held the oppinion that the UP and LP should have seperate seasons and licenses. It makes perfect sense if you ask me. And it would be easily enforced. I might even go so far as to suggest that people who live down state should have to apply for a UP permit, and vice versa. I know alot of UP residents would like that.
As for the rutt thing I don't really think thats an issue. I can see alot of people getting upset about it because they will believe it is an issue...ie..."the bow hunters are killing all the nice bucks because they get to hunt during the peak of the rutt". But the truth of the matter is the peak of the rutt varies quite a bit from year to year. Around here it can happen anywhere from holloween through thanksgiving. And even though I myself prefer to bow hunt I still think its good for everyone to be able to hunt during at least part of the rutt. It's the most exciting time of the season.


----------



## Backwoods-Savage (Aug 28, 2005)

I keep seeing posts about the deer hunting being different compared to what it was in the 60's or even earlier in the UP. I agree, but differently. Back in the 60's it was very common for some folks to hunt a week and never see a deer. Personally, I remember one year when I hunted for 8 days and saw one doe. So, yes, the times are different. The hunting is still better now than it was then.

I personally don't like the idea of a split opener. However, if there was, then I would be against the season starting after Thanksgiving. Perhaps it could start the day after Thanksgiving though rather than wait until December. 

Another thing is that December is firewood cutting time for lots of folks, myself included. I hunt from October 1 through November and come December it is time to get some work done again. Oh how I hate cutting wood when the temperature is 10 degrees or less and snow a$$ deep to a tall Indian. 

Keep trying Bob. You might get something yet.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Bow Season
U.P. and L.P.
October 1st - October 31st
December 1st - December 31st

Firearms Season U.P.
2nd Saturday in November and run for two weekends

Firearms Season L.P.
3rd Saturday in November and run for two weekends

Muzzle Loader
Same as now

Special Firearms Antlerless Season in the SLPs that need it to be determined by the MDNR after the regular fire arms season.
The last week of the month

One buck tag per weapon (archery and firearm) You cannot take two bucks with any one weapon (weapons being defined as archery and firearm)

Minimum of 40 acres w/ tax ID number and written permission from the landowner for private land antlerless permits. (This is just for thought!)


----------



## nwilcox (Nov 16, 2005)

Gilbey said:


> I can tell you one thing.....our camp and surrounding camps already get upset enough at the rudeness of two groups of downstate guys that come up for our opener and hunt right on our bait piles, incoming trails, trespass, chainsaw within eyesight on private property, hunt right next to us etc etc. Not only do they do this every year, they have the gall to keep coming back and bringing more extra people every year.


Being from SE Michigan, I have to agree with what you just said. No to splitting thr season. It would make for more "traffic" in the UP

I dont know but the past couple years, driving around before season starts it seems to me the dear hurd numbers are down. I dont see nearly the number of dears out in fields like I use to.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

It wouldn't make for more traffic in the UP if you had to pick UP or LP for the only place your tag is good for. If you pick the UP, you were already going there. A later opener protects bucks in the LP because the gun season won't be opening at peak rut, so the bucks won't be as exposed to hunters. In fact, other than feeding or getting jumped, half the bucks would more than likely lay low throughout the December gun season. But an opener at peak rut means that all the bucks are moving all day. When they set the Nov. 15 rule, the plan was to only shoot bucks and as many as possible to control the herd. The Nov.15 rule is perfect for that. But those days are over. Is it an inherent Michigan thing to not want to acknowledge when something's time has passed and we're in a new age? There probably is no better date to assure that as many young bucks as possible get killed on the first 3 days of a firearm season than a Nov 15 opener. That's why most states have an opener a bit later. We no longer want to manage our herd by killing as many young bucks as possible. But some seem to confuse the reason for a firearm season with a holiday for them, instead of how best to manage what we have.   :help:


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

*Why a Split Opener Between the U.P. and the L.P wouldn't Deluge the U.P. with L.P. Hunters*

The best deer hunting in the state is in the southern third

Job, time, and financial constraints would limit how much time could be spent hunting whitetails and why would a hunter leave the best hunting to go to areas of lessoned prospects?

Gasoline per gallon costing well over $2

If the need arises have two licenses, one for the U.P and one for the L.P. If a L.P. hunter chooses to hunt in the U.P. (are ya getting yur pee's straight?....LOL!) that's their choice. Life is full of choices!


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

On page 62 of the March 2006 Deer and Deer Hunting, Iowa biologist Willie Suchy states the biggest reason why Iowa has so many mature bucks but I think the primary difference between us and some other states is that we dont hunt our bucks heavily with firearms during the rut. Our firearms season occurs during December, well after the peak breeding has occurred. That saves a certain percentage of bucks each year that will survive and mature.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Northjeff, you're not suggesting that you like a poor opener date for Michigan only because it fits your schedule for going to other states openers for their good opener dates, are you? 
The solution there is to pick which state you want to hunt the opener.
Again, I think everyone is thinking in 1960's split opener terms. Making a hunter put "UP ONLY" on his regular firearm tag will probably reduce UP hunters by 1/3.


----------



## trailsend (Feb 12, 2005)

*"Why a Split Opener Between the U.P. and the L.P wouldn't Deluge the U.P. with L.P. Hunters

*The best deer hunting in the state is in the southern third

Job, time, and financial constraints would limit how much time could be spent hunting whitetails and why would a hunter leave the best hunting to go to areas of lessoned prospects?

Gasoline per gallon costing well over $2

If the need arises have two licenses, one for the U.P and one for the L.P. If a L.P. hunter chooses to hunt in the U.P. (are ya getting yur pee's straight?....LOL!) that's their choice. Life is full of choices!"

1) best deer hunting in the slp? Depends on how you define hunting.

2) True, so your solution is to add another constraint?

3) Rifle = 300^ bow= 600^ processor= 50^ come on 2 bucks a gallon isn't stoppin ya

4) the only one that makes sense.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

And when the UP opens the muzzleloader on Decmber 2, it will fit nicely with the LP regular gun season opening at the same time. The goal is to have a split opener that sets a opener date later in the rut AND decreases trolls coming across the bridge. Of course, we could open the season statewide on the first Friday in December, but Yoppers won't like that either. Basically, as far as priorities like herd numbers, car/deer numbers, crop damage and hunter numbers go, what happens in the UP has to come 3rd behind what happens in the SLP first and NLP second. Not the other way around. It may be a colder view, but it's the truth. When Delta county has as many deer/auto accidents as Kent county, we can revisit the rules.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Trailsend, you NOT would have the choice of 2 firearms licenses. You'd have only one chioce for your one firearm tag, UP or LP. Then you spend your whole regular firearm season in the one you pick.


----------



## trailsend (Feb 12, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Trailsend, you NOT would have the choice of 2 firearms licenses. You'd have only one chioce for your one firearm tag, UP or LP. Then you spend your whole regular firearm season in the one you pick.


Bob, i am trying to see your reasoning for this but it just isn't hitting me in the forehead. Would not just allowing one buck tag be better?

And surely the goal must be bigger than to keep "trolls" out of the UP.


----------



## Leon2 (Mar 8, 2004)

I generally support ideas that protect more young bucks, so I am intrigued by [email protected]'s proposal and I believe that Iowa's approach certainly contributes to it having more big bucks survive each year.

I also started hunting in the 1960s and I remember how much different it was. I too went a whole season one year without seeing a single deer and we used to get excited just seeing a fresh set of tracks. I never want to go back to those days where shooting a buck (or any deer) was a rare event.

I also don't see the harm in encouraging a few LP hunters to come to the UP (i'm one making that 600 mile trip on most weekends). This traffic is good for the UP's economy and many UP residents and businesses need some LP money to make ends meet. I also supported the one duck opener so that we don't have every duck hunter in the LP coming to the UP. Split duck openers sure make for lousy duck hunting in the UP and strained relations among too many hunters crammed into a limited number of public marshes.

Finally, there's something magical about seeing a buck on the trail of hot doe, or to see one madly chasing a doe, trying to breed with her. It might be the only time all season you see that buck, so hunting during the rut (whether with a rifle or bow) has always been special to me.

So, I'm probably interested in this proposal, but the current season (coupled with more emphasis on a smaller young buck harvest), seems like the best alternative to me.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Trailsend, the point is, in the lower, we should open our firearm season for bucks around the first of December, so it's later in the rut and more bucks are protected. The probem is, Yoopers then complain that the opener is too late for them because some years their deer have started migrating. But, the Yoopers also complain because they don't want a split opener if it means "Trolls" from the lower will come to hunt "their" deer and opener. Fair enough, but they can't have it both ways and the lower pen, which has the vast majority of hunters and deer, should not be beholden to the UP. The Nov. 15 is only advantageous to the UP. Now, 40 years ago, when the UP had many more deer and hunters, and MDNR didn't want any does killed and wanted bucks to make up nearly the whole harvest, the Nov. 15 gun opener made sense. It no longer makes sense. It hasn't made any sense for about a decade now. 
As it stands now, we have a firearms opener really only best suited for the UP and designed to pile up the yearling buck harvest numbers. That made sense in 1955 or 1975, but not in 2005 and beyond. I'm looking for a way to keep the UP fairly happy, but to give the majority of what's best to where the vast majority of deer and deer hunters are located, in the lower pen. 
This suggestion of mine may or may not be the best, but what it is is a theme for how we need to start thinking. If we think that we can have the same old rules forever, without adapting and adjusting then we become GM. Or Michigan deer hunting, for that matter, which is what we have. The term for a small racked buck of "Michigan trophy" in all of our neighboring states should not be thought of as a cute term of endearment. It's an insult to how we all act and I think we're better than that. In the 21st century, deer management is going to have to be fliud and should be able to completely overhaul it's regs every 5 years, if need be. Everything else in the world changes every 5 years, why does our hunting need to be the only thing shackled?


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

"Split duck openers sure make for lousy duck hunting in the UP and strained relations among too many hunters crammed into a limited number of public marshes."


Maybe I'm not clear. I guess the term "split opener" is incorrect. I'm talking about entirely separate seasons. Think of it as more like the bear or turkey regs. You hunt the area you choose. If you choose to hunt the UP during the regular firearms season with a buck tag, you CANNOT hunt the LP with a buck tag during the regular firearm season. There is no split opener. Split connotates one could somehow do both. You hunt only the UP or only the LP for bucks in regular firearm. Either one, but never both. However, antlerless tags are OK in their DMU anytime and in muzzleloader seasons, any unused firearms tag is good anywhere.
This is only to to deal with regular firearms or "rifle/shotgun" season, when we all know the most amount of yearling bucks are killed.


----------



## SA ULTRA MAG (Nov 7, 2001)

Bob,

You know as well as everyone here that you can't make everyone happy all the time.  

Why not have antler restrictions (state wide). If you were to make a 4 point (one side) rule there would be a number of 1-1/2 year olds shot but not near as many that are shot today. Couple this with a shotgun/muzzleloader rule throughout the LP. I might be wrong here but doesn't Iowa (and other "big buck" states) only allow shotguns and muzzleloaders. Also allow one buck tag for firearms and one buck tag for archery.

Then the DNR could still dictate where anterless permits would help to control high deer densities.

Hey, it would be more equal for the UP and LP.

Just some thoughts  

Pat


----------



## nwilcox (Nov 16, 2005)

I find this topic interesting.

I have learned alot about the layout of the season format.


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> The 15th is already past prime hunting in MI and if you want to take pressure off bucks, eliminate the baiting, especially in the northern lower and U.P.


I agree with Jeff.

Also, I would not be interested in shortening the Gun Season and moving it to a later date unless there was a "quiet time" during the "peak rut" that excluded hunting regardless of the method. As whit1 said, and I am paraphraseing here, all hunters need to contribute.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

nwilcox said:


> I find this topic interesting.
> 
> I have learned alot about the layout of the season format.


I agree.

If we keep thinking in the same box we'll stay in that box.

Our present seasons have been around, basically for over a 1/2 Century...with some exceptions of course.

Here are some stats showing how hunter numbers have changed in the past 50+ years.

#'s of Archery Hunters (about)
1953: 25,000
1973: 90,000
2004: 320,000
That is a jump of over 11x in 50 years

#'s of Muzzleloader Hunters (about)
1953: ????
1973: 95,000
2004: 200,000

#'s of Regular Firearms Hunters
1953: 450,000
1973: 700,000
2004: 650,000

These stats come from the MDNR website and were taken from graph thus they are all "about".

Couple this with the huge increase in deer numbers in the SLP and we have a very different situation than existed when our present firearms season (Nov. 15th) was instituted.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

BBT - your proposed changes would certainly reduce the number of hunters, particularly in the Lower Peninsula. Pushing the opener back by two weeks would make quite a difference on the weather front, particularly that time of year. Mid November is often cold weather, particularly in the northern LP.

Swamper


----------



## Tom (mich) (Jan 17, 2003)

I like the dialogue, and it's great to see interest in adapting to the changing state of deer hunting in Michigan.

In my opinion, the epitome of the deer hunting experience is witnessing rut-related activity. While I enjoy the experience of a mid-October hunt, with its associated colors and mild temps, there's absolutely nothing that can compare to seeing chasing, hearing grunts, etc. I'd be opposed to anything that eliminates that portion of the hunter's season, regardless of their weapon of choice.

If the objective is truly to reduce the harvest of yearling bucks, then it seems to me the simplest and most prudent solution is to eliminate all artificial baiting.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Given the difference in climate alone between Ironwood and Monroe, it's crazy to have a common statewide firearms opener. As Bob noted, back in the day when the 11/15 opener was established, hardly anyone hunted in the southern lower. Things have changed greatly.

As to the possibility of incremental hunting pressure in the UP as a result of a split opener, again, things have changed. Nowadays, there just aren't hundreds of thousands of guys out there that have the time to hunt in multiple places period, let alone places hundreds of miles apart. 

Southern lower, we ought to have something like Ohio; first week of December, and be done with it. Another option would be a 7 day season beginning the Monday after Thanksgiving.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

I don't think many read the entire first post by Bob. Go back and read it he is not suggesting a UP and LP season in which the same hunter could shoot a BUCK in both. you have to choose where you wish to "buck hunt" and then thee are antlerless tags etc you use per DMU. The Nov 15th opener is dumb I don't like it because 9 years out of ten the weather sucks but come Dec. 1 the weather usually turns in favor of the hunter. I like the idea a lot and would support it. As Farmlegend pointed out, this is a big state and the habitat, climate, deer populations and behaviors are all different from Up to SLP so why use the same plan for the entire state. I like the idea Bob and punch in your license machine one LP tag for me please  

AW


----------



## answerguy8 (Oct 15, 2001)

Why all the pandering to a group of selfish UP residents who don't want anyone else hunting 'their' public property? Decide what would be best for all hunters and be done with it.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Answerguy8,

One of the reasons they combined the ML opener's this year was to take pressure OFF the U.P...straight from Rod Clute's mouth. It's just being realistic that as our deer herd is ever decreasing up here in the U.P. to the point that the majority of DMU's were under DNR stated goals entering the hunting season....we just don't need any added pressure. It doesn't make sense to add any pressure at all to the U.P. if it can be helped....that's just sound management, not selfishness. 

If we increase the pressure in the U.P. due to improved winter habitat, a larger deer herd, and an improved buck age structure...that would be welcomed and the economy could certainly use the boost. But, the last several years have shown that people don't flock to the U.P. for a continually smaller deer herd and to change regulations that would add pressure in the U.P., without changing the quality of the deer herd, doesn't make much sense.

Also, in my experience I don't see any differance in the best times to be in the woods between southern lower MI to the U.P., to SW WI.....you better be in the woods with a bow in the first week of Nov. or you are missing the best time. In fact, I'd happily give up the entire rifle and the month of Oct. to only have the option to hunt the first 10 days of November-from the U.P., to southern WI, to the thumb area. Now if we were in AL...mid to late January would be my pick, but this isn't the south.

If you want to take pressure off the bucks...eliminate hunters and/or bait (in the north).


----------



## answerguy8 (Oct 15, 2001)

NorthJeff said:


> Answerguy8,
> 
> One of the reasons they combined the ML opener's this year was to take pressure OFF the U.P...straight from Rod Clute's mouth. It's just being realistic that as our deer herd is ever decreasing up here in the U.P. to the point that the majority of DMU's were under DNR stated goals entering the hunting season....we just don't need any added pressure. It doesn't make sense to add any pressure at all to the U.P. if it can be helped....that's just sound management, not selfishness.
> 
> If we increase the pressure in the U.P. due to improved winter habitat, a larger deer herd, and an improved buck age structure...that would be welcomed and the economy could certainly use the boost. But, the last several years have shown that people don't flock to the U.P. for a continually smaller deer herd and to change regulations that would add pressure in the U.P., without changing the quality of the deer herd, doesn't make much sense.


Where in the UP is the ML season making an impact on the deer herd? I've been up there then and have never see another hunter.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

That's from Rod Clute's partial reasoning for the combined openers. We get lots of ML hunting up here in the deer yards if the winter is early and ML around here is more pressure than archery by a long shot. Rifle pressure is very high, ML is moderate, bow is low. 

Bottom line, we lost 350,000 deer in the 2 winters of 96 and 97, 110,000 in 2000-2001 and with our winter habitat every aging and shrinking, our deer herd continues to shrink. The bridge dead deer count has been down in the double digits each of the last several years as well. You can bet guys will travel north for a day or two to hunt an extra rifle opener if they have it...I can only imagine how bad it would be if the opener was on a weekend as well. 

IA doesn't save bucks due to the later season...they do it because of the lack of hunters and a hunting culture that just doesn't shoot small bucks. If our rifle season was in the first week of Nov. it might be a problem, but I see no differance between the U.P. and the lower as far as the best times to be in the woods...and it isn't on 11/15.

We don't have a problem with the number of bucks we shoot in MI...we have a problem with the age we shoot those bucks at. Let the young walk, there will be more bucks in the woods overall...and more older.


----------



## SA ULTRA MAG (Nov 7, 2001)

NorthJeff said:


> IA doesn't save bucks due to the later season...they do it because of the lack of hunters and a hunting culture that just doesn't shoot small bucks.
> 
> We don't have a problem with the number of bucks we shoot in MI...we have a problem with the age we shoot those bucks at. Let the young walk, there will be more bucks in the woods overall...and more older.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

NorthJeff said:


> Answerguy8,
> 
> One of the reasons they combined the ML opener's this year was to take pressure OFF the U.P...straight from Rod Clute's mouth. *It's just being realistic that as our deer herd is ever decreasing up here in the U.P. to the point that the majority of DMU's were under DNR stated goals entering the hunting season....we just don't need any added pressure.* It doesn't make sense to add any pressure at all to the U.P. if it can be helped....that's just sound management, not selfishness.
> 
> If we increase the pressure in the U.P. due to improved winter habitat, a larger deer herd, and an improved buck age structure...that would be welcomed and the economy could certainly use the boost. *But, the last several years have shown that people don't flock to the U.P. for a continually smaller deer herd *and to change regulations that would add pressure in the U.P., without changing the quality of the deer herd, doesn't make much sense.


 

I may be missing something, but the two areas of your post that I've boldened above seem to contradict one another.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

NorthJeff said:


> ...I find when a hunter says that mature bucks are not important, it's because they don't have them and their expectations are so low...not because they actually do not want them in the population, they have just settled for less...


Not sure I agree with you or not, and again I'm only going by my personal experiences down here in farm country. I still believe that it's a minority of the deer hunters that go that hard after a true monster buck, and most would be happy with any reasonable sized buck. If I had the interest in hunting every day of the bow and gun season, there's a great chance I'd at least have a shot at a mature buck, because they're here, and we take a few truly nice bucks each year. But personally, my obsession is waterfowling, and so I spend most of my fall chasin' birds not deer. Having said that though, the pressure once gun season starts is very heavy, and the majority of the mature bucks taken around here are taken either bow hunting, or during the first couple of days of gun season. It's just a fact that if you don't get your shot at a mature buck in either bow season, or by the first couple of days of gun season, your odds are astronomical. There still are some to be had, but the pool is greatly reduced, so one tends to change their expectations...there's where I agree with you. But it's not because they don't exist...they've been shot already! Just thinking out loud here, so I'm not sure that makes sense or not.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

NJ - your quote of "I find when a hunter says that mature bucks are not important, it's because they don't have them and their expectations are so low...not because they actually do not want them in the population, they have just settled for less." ....how exactly do you "find" that????????????? Is this one of your thoughts with hard facts or no hard facts??????????

There is a heckuva bunch of us who enjoy the outdoors, watching nature, getting together with family and friends, putting venison on the table...all in tall order before taking a mature buck. And oh yeah, a 1.5 or 2.5 year old buck comes before a "mature buck". I have taken a few very nice bucks, but those seasons are no more special than the ones where I took nothing or took a small deer. I won't be disappointed in my son or daughter when they take a small deer, nor will I look down at anyone else who chooses to wait to take a big one or a small one. 


Regarding your other thought of "But eventually you get bored and complacent with mediocrity...and possibly even give it up.". NEVER!!! Not me or the group we hunt with....cause we ain't all about big bucks. I am truly glad to see QDM having moved beyond this focus, and that's why I will send in my membership fees this year.

Swamper


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

JD,

"I still believe that it's a minority of the deer hunters that go that hard after a true monster buck, and most would be happy with any reasonable sized buck."

Maybe that's a little misunderstanding on both our parts. I'm not talking about the average guy going after true monstor bucks...not at all. Most don't have what it takes to consistantly harvest mature bucks and many never will. But, what I would love to see is guys raising the bar from a yearling, to a 2.5 year old or older. There are so many guys around here on public land that are just average guys, average hunters, etc. The typical guy. Some get yearling bucks every year, yet will go a decade or more in between 2.5 year old bucks. Even QDM isn't about getting every body to shoot true monstor bucks...but just raising the bar to an adequate age structure, which includes a healthy amount of 2.5 year olds. There should be more 2.5 year old and older bucks than yearling bucks, instead of more yearlings than all other age classes combined. Unfortunately many MI hunters, especially public land hunters, have never had the opportunity to hunt a population that has less yearlings, and more older....they simply don't realize how easy it could be, but everyone has to be on the same page for it to happen, and we are not.


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

NorthJeff said:


> JD,
> ...... There are so many guys around here on public land that are just average guys, average hunters, etc. The typical guy. ..... Unfortunately many MI hunters, especially public land hunters, have never had the opportunity to hunt a population that has less yearlings, and more older....they simply don't realize how easy it could be, but everyone has to be on the same page for it to happen, and we are not.


 
Are you trying to say that the "average guys, average hunters, etc. The typical guy", is some sort of wildlife problem? Or, are you saying that anyone above the "average guys" is considered a wildlife biologist or management genius?
I do think that the "average guys" are the majority of the hunting popluation. I think the the real monster hunters are few and far between. There's probably a number of contributing factors as to why that is. Not to say that a monster deer can not be harvested from State or Public property, its just that most of that property isn't managed well for a healthy deer herd. The highest percentage of so called "monster bucks" come from private property. There's quite a few of the so called "typical guys" that don't own their own hunting property. Most can't afford the acrage. I wouldn't bet the farm on it, but I think that if the truth were probably known, the monster buck hunters have much more time to spend in the field than the "average guys". Most of the "average guys" have families and jobs that require them to be at work. If the "average guys" do not have the property or time to be a "real scout", then it appears that the "average guys" are going to hunt the time that they have available and try to harvest a buck.
The MI hunters, irregardless of rather they hunt public land or private land and, have never had the opportunity to hunt a population with more older deer, is a little misleading. I'm not an expert, but if deer populations and hunter numbers today, were compared to the same numbers 40 years ago, I believe you'd find the same ratio. Or very close. Our population and urban sprawl has grown along with the deer numbers. Our deer hunting is much better today than its ever been.
"...they simply don't realize how easy it could be..."
There's no "easy" involved. Its sure "easy" to say, but certainly not easy.
Start with a little education, voluntarily make a decision based on the quality of animal that each hunter wants to harvest, and make hunting enjoyable and safe.
The true trophy hunter will continue to persue his quarry, and the "average guys" will continue to enjoy hunting.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

All any of us have ever been talking about is respectable 170 pound, 2.5-3.5 year old bucks. None of us are talking about creating a herd of 180 class, 230 pound super bucks.


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> All any of us have ever been talking about is respectable 170 pound, 2.5-3.5 year old bucks. None of us are talking about creating a herd of 180 class, 230 pound super bucks.


The "respectable 170 pound, 2.5-3.5 year old bucks" ARE THERE. You have to *HUNT* for them. I myself passed six (6), 2.5 year old bucks on opening day.
If you didn't have to *HUNT* for them, it'd be called killing.
I'm finding that most of these posts just go from the original subject, to AR's or 2.5 to 3.5 year old bucks.
Back to the split opener guys or some nice moderator will end this.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

I'll be nice, but if this thread doesn't get on track it'll be closed and it has value.


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

For exactly the same reasons , all hunted cervid species, every where, including all over Europe, pay a high price for being mismanaged, MAINLY because hunters, hunt selfishly for their own pleasure, without any consideration for the long term optimal Conservation of the species ...

Could all hunters place the respect of the biology, the ethology and ecology of the hunted species at the right place they deserve for a durable and optimal Conservation, the "management" problem would vanish ...

It is possible to hunt without penalizing the herd and to find that much more pleasure in doing so ...


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Belbriette said:


> For exactly the same reasons , all hunted cervid species, every where, including all over Europe, pay a high price for being mismanaged, MAINLY because hunters, hunt selfishly for their own pleasure, without any consideration for the long term optimal Conservation of the species ...
> 
> Could all hunters place the respect of the biology, the ethology and ecology of the hunted species at the right place they deserve for a durable and optimal Conservation, the "management" problem would vanish ...
> 
> It is possible to hunt without penalizing the herd and to find that much more pleasure in doing so ...


 
That's a thought provoking post!!!!! Thanks!!!


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Belbriette said:


> ...It is possible to hunt without penalizing the herd and to find that much more pleasure in doing so ...


Agreed, but the problem is what constitutes "penalizing the herd"? Michigan is fortunate enough to have a large deer population. We aren't generally lacking in deer, although some areas of the state are definitely currently under their target populations. But many areas of the state, like in southern farm country where I live, have far too many deer per square mile. The problem is the...dare I say "quality" of the deer in the current herd, and the fact that we hunters in Michigan cannot, and probably never will agree on what we would like to see in the make-up of our herd. And I hate to see some people state that those of us who are currently happy are just "settling" for inferior deer, or that we're "penalizing" the herd. Without starting the tired old debate about what a quality deer is, I'll just say that there's nothing inferior about my current deer hunting, or the deer I take. The hunting on our property, and the sex ratio, is better than when I started deer hunting in the early 70's. I realize that isn't the case statewide, but I suspect Kansas or Iowa also have regional problems or issues as well. 

I'll just repeat the worn out saying..."the grass is always greener"....


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

just ducky,

First of all, thank you for your interest in what I dared to introduce in this thread.

In our two posts, can be found what is the right, but hard ... path to an "Optimal and *Durable* Deer Conservation" *for our long term successors...*

From what you wrote, I have to let you know you are on the right track, stick to it for the best of the species, for the best of her environment, for the best of hunters (harvest of "good" trophies wise), all are totally inseparable ...

Be it in Europe, in Kansas or in Iowa, for the same reasons, exactly the same problems prevail all over the world ...

From what I came to learn, I am far from being sure any place is "greener" ... than any other ...

Kindly forgive my clumsiness in your language, please just try to decipher what I am doing my best to express.

Warmly your's, 
Jack


----------



## QDM 4sure (Dec 8, 2005)

Well I personally I dont see a split openner helping the buck population a whole lot.I hunt alot during the bow season and right during the peak of the rut.It seems to me prior to the peak of the rut thats when i have taken my best bucks.They were making scrapes,and checking them regularly.Hunting rub lines have also proven to be good at this time-however once the rut was in full swing the big boys seemed to be hidden in the bedding areas and staying out of sight.:yikes: I know what your thinking,Im crazy.
Oh I do realize alot of deer get shot chasing does around....mostly following them into a bait pile.
Go figure,do you want to know how to protect bucks.Practice control...Dont shoot bucks that are less then 8 points.Dont shoot 1and a half or even two and a half year old.
The best thing that could happen is that the D.N.R would manage the deer harvest county by county,as far as the harvest of does was concerned.Then the next thing is to issue one buck tag per hunter a year.If you fill it with a bow great,If you choose to use a rifle so be it,muzzle loader thats on you.One buck thats it.I know one thing a person wouldnt be in such a hurry to end his buck hunt on the first spike that came down the trail. Split season isnt going to do much to help the deer population.Its only a way for L.P. hunters as well as U.P. hunters to plan vacations to hunt in a more convienent fashion.
This is just my personal take on the idea.


----------



## Guest (Jan 3, 2006)

Split or no split opening season days? Whichever one as our friend Jack, (from across the atlantic) so aptly posted will benifit healthwise our most treasured resource, (the whitetail deer).


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

We should ask one of the DNR biologists to answer this question.
I'm wondering if there's some kind of biological or scientific reason (or political) that they want to keep it as is?


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

ENCORE said:


> We should ask one of the DNR biologists to answer this question.
> I'm wondering if there's some kind of biological or scientific reason (or political) that they want to keep it as is?


There are two main reasons why they want to keep it as is: The first and foremost is that they have done polls before and the mojority of huters want it the way it is (Nov. 15-30). Secondly, they want hunters to kill as many deer as possible and having a season that would (save bucks) is not going to fly with this DNR.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

"Are you trying to say that the "average guys, average hunters, etc. The typical guy", is some sort of wildlife problem? Or, are you saying that anyone above the "average guys" is considered a wildlife biologist or management genius?
I do think that the "average guys" are the majority of the hunting popluation."

Encore, your negativity has obviously clouded your interpretation. When you hear me say the average guy...I mean just that. The average guy. The average guy that comes up here and hunts on public land for 3-4 days and goes home. That's it. And you need to distinguish between Trophy Bucks, and 2.5 year olds...there is a huge differance. We are all talking about 2.5 to even 3.5 year old bucks...not true "trophy" bucks and if you think a 2.5 year old is a true trophy, than it offers further testament to the overall lack of quality in our MI herd.

You said you passed up 6, 2.5 year old bucks on opening day. Well, you are not the average hunter, and you get to hunt on trophy managed land combined with several thousand acres of private land. Most of us, including myself, do not have that privelage so to say that their are many 2.5 year old bucks out there for the taking is totally false. You need to realize that on much of our public land the average guy will go decades or more in between harvesting a buck the caliber of the 6 you passed on opening day....I think you take that for granted and don't realize how enjoyable it would be for the typical guy to have the opportunities just once a year, that you had 6 of on opening day.

Hey, a split opener may or may not be the answer..personally for me it probably wouldn't matter to my hunting. As far as AR's...they are a very useful tool but again though, they don't effect guys like you or I that hunt private land...especially you with how large of a managed area you hunt. 75% of the harvest in MI has traditionally been yearling bucks. You are right, the average guy does not have the time to scout, and neither do I. I might scout from my living room...but on the ground scouting is seriously over rated. The problem is we don't have a very high percentage of 2.5 year old bucks in the herd...if they were there, guys would harvest them, so whether it be a split opener, AR's, getting rid of baiting, whatever may get more yearling bucks to see their 2nd B-day will get more 2.5 year old bucks into the woods for the average guy to harvest.

"I think the the real monster hunters are few and far between."

Again, we aren't talking about monstor bucks, or monstor buck hunters. Many don't realize what it takes to consistantly harvest mature bucks and even if they had the time they wouldn't. Again, you need to seperate "monstor" bucks, from 2.5 year old bucks, and then the discussion might make more sense to you. We are not trying to get the average guy to hunt trophy bucks like you do...but just attempting to get the average guy to see just a small piece of the bucks you passed on opening day in a more consistent basis.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

NorthJeff said:


> 75% of the harvest in MI has traditionally been yearling bucks.


I'm curious where you got this statistic, is this just a personal observation or did it come from the DNR or another published source?

If it came from the DNR it would be interesting to know where they got it. If it is based on the results from the hunter mail -out survey they would be depending on the hunter to be able to accurately age the deer. I would suspect that the average hunter would not be particularily accurate in assessing the age of the deer.

If it is based on check station data it might be a little more accurate, but it is not a truly random sample and as has been pointed out in other threads the volunteers who staff check staitons are often not very accurate when aging deer. At best, you could say that a certain percentage of those deer checked at a check station were a certain age.

I've seen this and similar percentages thrown around a lot in this forum but it would be nice to know if this is really fact or just opinion.

BTW, there are a lot more 2.5+ year old deer running around out there than most people think. They just don't tend to be as visible as the 1.5 year old bucks are, especially during hunting season.*

*Just my _opinion_ but based on anectdotal pre-season trail cam evidence.


----------



## Gilbey (Oct 26, 2005)

Back to the topic at hand. I must have mis interpreted part of the post myself. I looked at this and thought this was another excuse for everyone to flood the UP with another "opener".

If we had an area designation such as UP and LP I would not be opposed to it. Assumption being that you'd have to choose one or the other.

I am not opposed to two tags, but I almost wish that it was different weapons designations such as some of the guys have brought up. 

Oh, and when it comes to us "selfish" UP hunters......read my last post and I still feel the same way about a "2nd" opener.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Munstrlnder,

I agree....studies show, and what you and I have found is pretty similar, hunters typically only see about 1/2 the bucks in a given area based on intensive camera survey. As for the percentages, it's based on deer check-in data. The DMU percentages are on the DNR website, or they soon will be, and it's interesting that in the U.P. the numbers are actually O.K. in some areas....as high as in the upper 40's for older buck as a percent of harvest(2.5+)...but this has as much to do with the loss of the occasional fawn crops. Also, yearling bucks are not mistaken very often. Where the mistakes take place is in 2.5 year old+...which doesn't really matter because they are all lumped in as adult bucks whether they are 2.5 or 8.5.

I believe the actual percentages were 78% of the harvest was of yearling bucks..but you'd have to check for sure with the DNR. I'd guess that number would be near 90% in some areas, down to just under 50% in other areas such as the U.P. that may experience a loss of fawns in areas for a given year.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

NorthJeff said:


> I believe the actual percentages were 78% of the harvest was of yearling bucks..but you'd have to check for sure with the DNR.


49-50% of the harvest over 2002, 2003 and 2004 was antlerless deer. (according 2004 harvest survey report)

78% of the 50% of the harvest that were antlered deer works out to yearling bucks as ~40% of the harvest.

It would be interesting to know how many deer are checked by DMU. When looking at Ed Spin's report on DMU 118 it worked out that checked deer were only 5-10% of the total harvest in the DMU. Curious as to whether that percentage holds true across the state...

-na


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

NorthJeff ....
Encore said:


> NorthJeff,
> I really don't mean to sound so negative, but I may not have been the only person who's interpertation was clouded. "Average" was used too many times.
> I'm very aware of the difference between a MI 2.5+ year old buck and what some would call a "True Trophy Buck". I've hunted in Saskatchewan and taken "True Trophy Bucks", but, I've also have nice bucks here from MI (161 2/8 the largest on the wall). But then again, I have a friend that hunts State Land in Ionia County that has shot 140+ class bucks every year for almost 20 years. But, he's a buck hunter, not a deer hunter.
> A monster buck is very different for each hunter. I have another friend in Ionia County that has hunted every year for 25 years, and has never even had a shot at a buck! His idea of a trophy or monster and mine or yours is certainly going to be much different.
> ...


----------

