# DNR Deer proposal change



## jasrking79 (Jan 3, 2022)

Sorry if this has been posted... filled out the deer survey they emailed...question 29 asked if I supported 4 items..1st being this one......

Changing the current combination license to include one statewide buck tag and one statewide doe tag (still $40). *Hunters would no longer be able to harvest two bucks. *
just for your info


----------



## timj (Apr 28, 2003)

Even though I very rarely ever fill both buck tags, (In fact I've only been able to do that 3 times in 44 years. Hunting every weekend from Oct thru the end of dec, along with 3 weeks of vacation time mixed in there). I would like to leave the rules as they are now.
When I first started deer hunting, you could legally take 4 bucks, per year. (2 during bow and 2 during firearm) That was never going to happen for me-lol.
However I remember Fred Abbas from Away products not only harvesting 4 michigan bucks in one season but all 4 being record book bucks!


----------



## Chessieman (Dec 8, 2009)

Do you actually think the DNR is going to pay attention to the survey? They will do what ever their boss says and BS the NRC to get it passed. Did they even ask a question about getting rid of the lower Muzzle Loading season, no they just did it. You guys in the northern lower will probably have the extended gun season next year with no say.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

jasrking79 said:


> Sorry if this has been posted... filled out the deer survey they emailed...question 29 asked if I supported 4 items..1st being this one......
> 
> Changing the current combination license to include one statewide buck tag and one statewide doe tag (still $40). *Hunters would no longer be able to harvest two bucks. *
> just for your info


May be the best thing yet that happens in 2022 to start the season off right. IF it happened.


----------



## bowhunter426 (Oct 20, 2010)

They have asked this question a few times and support for it is growing

Allowing 1 antlered buck survey data in support
2006 -35%
2012 -37%
2016 - 43%
2020 - 50%


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

bowhunter426 said:


> They have asked this question a few times and support for it is growing
> 
> Allowing 1 antlered buck survey data in support
> 2006 -35%
> ...


So in theory 2021/22 should be higher yet. All about money not management. Never happen.


----------



## Chessieman (Dec 8, 2009)

For the guys that might only go out for the opener or a couple days this may drop them out of Deer hunting.


----------



## bowhunter426 (Oct 20, 2010)

johnIV said:


> So in theory 2021/22 should be higher yet. All about money not management. Never happen.


I don't think so. I am voting strongly oppose for 2022 because of number 4. Why bother doing 1 buck rule if I can have my wife, mom and sister buy tags for me? Only reason I can see is to artificially prop up hunter numbers


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

It's happening anyway. Nobody needs permission to use another's tag. It's not legal but it's common. IMO, gotta start somewhere. One tag rule makes sense. I've been killing one buck for several years and killing a doe in addition for my second deer. It was tough at first but now it's easy.


----------



## bowhunter426 (Oct 20, 2010)

johnIV said:


> It's happening anyway. Nobody needs permission to use another's tag. It's not legal but it's common. IMO, gotta start somewhere. One tag rule makes sense. I've been killing one buck for several years and killing a doe in addition for my second deer. It was tough at first but now it's easy.


I agree that 1 buck rule makes sense and I agree that poaching takes place. I am a strong proponent for OBR, but what was proposed is not OBR.


There are a lot of honest hunters out there that will just have someone buy them a tag so they can continue to hunt how they have. The end result will be poachers will continue to poach, those with friends will have 2+ buck tags and those without friends will be hunting for 1 buck.

OBR works because it makes a lot of hunters consider what they shoot as it ends their buck hunting. What the MDNR proposed doesn't do that.


----------



## bowhunter426 (Oct 20, 2010)

Chessieman said:


> For the guys that might only go out for the opener or a couple days this may drop them out of Deer hunting.


Because they now need to buy a combo tag or because they cannot shoot 2 bucks in the couple days? I am guessing option 1?


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Only 6% of hunters kill two bucks annually per the 2020 deer hunters survey. With mandatory registration possibly happening for the 2022 season why not spread the harvest around so that only one of those two bucks can be killed in the same DMU? Better yet include the adjacent DMU into the restriction or even zones with over the counter antlerless tags.

Many DMUs do not need any antlerless deer harvested, why would the DNR want to have does shot with the second tag in most of zone1? If the goal is to limit hunters kill place a limit on all hunters not just those who hunt in low deer population zones.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

For me the one buck kill is tailor made by me mostly. I pass up so many bucks that could be killed just because these days I have no desire to kill 99% of the bucks I encounter. I kill one in the UP if I'm lucky and it shows up when in my stand. If not, I head home and kill one in late November when 99% of the other firearm hunters have cleaned their deer rifles for the season. Then December is meat deer month. This last year having the late doe season made it nice in northern lower to take out the centerfire rifle for does. Muzzleloader has been the season for most late season meat for me. I think alot of older hunters feel the same as I do. The need to kill a buck is less than it once was. Never killed the big old wide beam spike I had on my place last season. He was a hit lister because of his unusually wide beams with no points. Easily a 3+ year old buck.


----------



## IceHog (Nov 23, 2007)

I'm moving to Iowa, I want to get (4) buck tags per year and still have multiple chances at booners


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

IceHog said:


> I'm moving to Iowa, I want to get (4) buck tags per year and still have multiple chances at booners


Nice hunting a big buck state that has so few hunters and so many big bucks. Michigan has more hunters than Iowa has residents ( kidding but so many less than Michigan).


----------



## Heehaw (Jan 4, 2021)

To me you should be able to vote on each question separately. 
As bowhunter426 stated no way I would support it as a package with question# 4 attached.


----------



## Botiz (Oct 21, 2010)

Chessieman said:


> For the guys that might only go out for the opener or a couple days this may drop them out of Deer hunting.


You mean like it hasn’t in all the other 1 buck states? As mentioned in the thread, only 6% of hunters kill 2 bucks. I would strongly doubt a sizable portion of that already small number get both in the same day or couple of days.


----------



## Botiz (Oct 21, 2010)

Heehaw said:


> To me you should be able to vote on each question separately.
> As bowhunter426 stated no way I would support it as a package with question# 4 attached.


I agree, if they are wanting feedback you’d think they want to be able to know which of the things on that list are supported and which are not. 

As is, somebody votes yes or no but you have no idea what they support and what they don’t. Seems a waste of a survey.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

The incentive is having big bucks in the state where only one buck tag is the rule. Ohio has it but the incentive is, big bucks live there and are all over on state land, not just private land. I'll hunt Ohio every year with that being the case.


----------



## bowhunter426 (Oct 20, 2010)

Heehaw said:


> To me you should be able to vote on each question separately.
> As bowhunter426 stated no way I would support it as a package with question# 4 attached.


They were separated last year. The sharing tags was 29% supported it, 56% opposed last year. 

I don't understand why they would attach this to something that had good support. Maybe to say see we did something. We have OBR(just kidding, everyone can still hunt like they used to if you know someone willing to turn over a tag) and our number of hunters is increasing!

I have given up trying to figure out wth they are doing. One buck, two buck, red buck, blue buck, black buck, blue buck, old buck, new buck no matter what rule change the dnr makes I will still try to shoot a buck.


----------



## Whitetail Freak (Nov 10, 2008)

They are becoming a dam joke! I had a dnr officer, actually 2 of them call animal control to get the definition of feral cat! It was a real surprising experience.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Why fix something that isn’t broke Seems to me that if the combo is for one buck and one doe then the object is to push the killing of more does. Personally I d like it to stay the way it is.


----------



## Piranha man (Apr 11, 2017)

Chessieman said:


> For the guys that might only go out for the opener or a couple days this may drop them out of Deer hunting.


More mature bucks = more hunters wanting to hunt.


----------



## Chessieman (Dec 8, 2009)

bowhunter426 said:


> Because they now need to buy a combo tag or because they cannot shoot 2 bucks in the couple days? I am guessing option 1?





Botiz said:


> You mean like it hasn’t in all the other 1 buck states? As mentioned in the thread, only 6% of hunters kill 2 bucks. I would strongly doubt a sizable portion of that already small number get both in the same day or couple of days.


I am meaning the cost, it will be double. So if you go up to a Deer camp for a couple days your hunting cost just doubled.


----------



## Piranha man (Apr 11, 2017)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Only 6% of hunters kill two bucks annually per the 2020 deer hunters survey. With mandatory registration possibly happening for the 2022 season why not spread the harvest around so that only one of those two bucks can be killed in the same DMU? Better yet include the adjacent DMU into the restriction or even zones with over the counter antlerless tags.
> 
> Many DMUs do not need any antlerless deer harvested, why would the DNR want to have does shot with the second tag in most of zone1? If the goal is to limit hunters kill place a limit on all hunters not just those who hunt in low deer population zones.


Why keep trying something different. Do WHAT OTHER STATES DO where the hunting is better. Dnr is afraid to upset those for 1 year who get off more on just the kill or the kill and meat instead of those (numbers increasing) who get off on more the meat the age of animal and the kill


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

sparky18181 said:


> Why fix something that isn’t broke Seems to me that if the combo is for one buck and one doe then the object is to push the killing of more does. Personally I d like it to stay the way it is.


I will say that the DNR allowing the use of the combo tags for does was a good thing for most hunters. Even the change in doe tags being universal has been a great thing also. Let's hope those two continue if nothing else changes.


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

johnIV said:


> I will say that the DNR allowing the use of the combo tags for does was a good thing for most hunters. Even the change in doe tags being universal has been a great thing also. Let's hope those two continue if nothing else changes.


Great for what. I know of one weekend pushing group that killed 11 does one weekend and 9 the next.on public. Know 3 guys that took 5 does each on Barry County public. I'm for doe kill but the universal rule is and will greatly harm public land


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Chriss83 said:


> Great for what. I know of one weekend pushing group that killed 11 does one weekend and 9 the next.on public. Know 3 guys that took 5 does each on Barry County public. I'm for doe kill but the universal rule is and will greatly harm public land


The system must be working as designed. As needed where needed. Most public land hunters don’t see that in a season.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Chriss83 said:


> Great for what. I know of one weekend pushing group that killed 11 does one weekend and 9 the next.on public. Know 3 guys that took 5 does each on Barry County public. I'm for doe kill but the universal rule is and will greatly harm public land


Great because many less tags get purchased and not eaten in a sandwich. Here's the deal, anybody that wants to buy tags, can buy tags to kill does. The money isn't an issue for guys that want to over kill does. The guys that just want to kill a deer for meat and not waste a tag are who I'm speaking of. Why spend money on a doe tag when there's a tag left from a combo license ? That's what was addressed and IMO is a good thing. Every management plan can be improved. Have to start somewhere as one member said earlier.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Use to be we could by as many tags as we want. Doesn't matter if it's private land or not. Deer don't stay exclusively on private land. Those are public land deer also. Do you think it's fair only private land owners kill as many does as they want while public land hunters don't get the same opportunity ? No more deer are getting killed under this new tag system than the years prior IMO. If one guy kills 9 does and another kills 11, there's 20 other hunters that won't kill one doe. Kinda evens it up. Be the same if every deer hunter killed a doe in that particular county. I'd say more don't kill does than kill them.


----------



## pgpn123 (May 9, 2016)

Just want to point out 6% of 616,000 deer hunters (2020) means 36,900 hunters killed 2 bucks. 36,900 bucks didn't make it through the season.
With 83 counties, that's 445 bucks/county (evenly distributed, which wouldn't be the case).
Having 2 tags makes it easy to kill the first buck you see. I'm straddling the fence. I like hunting for 2 but believe it makes quite a difference in age structure.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Can't say I don't like having two buck tags. I'd be lying if I did. I just don't fill them both anymore. I have the Michigan lifetime sportsman's license so they've been free since 2009. I haven't had to buy anything in tags in 12 years. I liked using that spare buck tag on a doe this year and not having to buy a doe tag. Many guys I know feel the same way. Obviously everyone doesn't share that opinion. Can't make everyone happy.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

pgpn123 said:


> Just want to point out 6% of 616,000 deer hunters (2020) means 36,900 hunters killed 2 bucks. 36,900 bucks didn't make it through the season.
> With 83 counties, that's 445 bucks/county (evenly distributed, which wouldn't be the case).
> Having 2 tags makes it easy to kill the first buck you see. I'm straddling the fence. I like hunting for 2 but believe it makes quite a difference in age structure.


Desire varies.
I can enjoy one good buck as much as two bucks. Have done both.
This years froggin around working on one better than good left an uncut tag. 
Would taking a lesser buck have been worth cutting a tag for me though? Maybe if multiple older bucks were evident it could have been. Not any established trend though.
But there are neighboring hunters I get along with well and we cheer each other on too. We don't score every year. And have yet to all score in a year. It's a numbers thing.
Being wall hangers are the minority , I can be happy with one that way when it's my turn. (Luck or timing , maybe both.).
No , I'm no giant buck kill or nothing killed hunter. Just less needing kills to justify hunting this year.
I have antlers on the wall. Why not upgrade them vs down grade? Just for number of bucks killed's sake?


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

bowhunter426 said:


> I agree that 1 buck rule makes sense and I agree that poaching takes place. I am a strong proponent for OBR, but what was proposed is not OBR.
> 
> There are a lot of honest hunters out there that will just have someone buy them a tag so they can continue to hunt how they have. The end result will be poachers will continue to poach, those with friends will have 2+ buck tags and those without friends will be hunting for 1 buck.
> 
> OBR works because it makes a lot of hunters consider what they shoot as it ends their buck hunting. What the MDNR proposed doesn't do that.


If the number of hunters who kill two bucks is really 6%. Then a one buck rule isn't going to make any difference in the first place is it?


----------



## bowhunter426 (Oct 20, 2010)

Nostromo said:


> If the number of hunters who kill two bucks is really 6%. Then a one buck rule isn't going to make any difference in the first place is it?


It will make a huge difference. You no longer have that mulligan tag so many hunters will be much more selective. They may now pass on a 2 year old they would have shot in a second under a 2 tag system because they don't want to be done hunting for bucks on Oct 15 unless it is the "one".

OBR isn't about protecting the 2nd buck. It's about protecting the first one.


----------



## onlinebiker (Sep 19, 2019)

I have had no trouble filling 2 buck tags and multiple does for the last 3 years. I have not had a year where I did not get at least 2 deer in nearly 20 years. 90 % of those were out of one blind.

And - each year I spend less and less time hunting.

There' s no shortage of deer south of Allegan.

This year I got a combo and two doe tags and tagged out.

I simply didn' t have more room in the freezer.


----------



## Martin Looker (Jul 16, 2015)

My first several years of deer hunting we had one buck tag. Useit for bow or rifle but you only had one. You might get a doe permit if you were lucky. We did not wait all season for that big buck because they weren't very many around. If it was legal we shot it.


----------



## DEDGOOSE (Jan 19, 2007)

The powers that be have tried everything to get hunters shoot more does... 

Why not a lottery... Like pure Michigan hunt.. Shoot a doe take to check station, scan, boom your in for 1.. Shoot as many as allowed you have that many chances.. Probably a way to tele enter to


----------



## bowhunter426 (Oct 20, 2010)

DEDGOOSE said:


> The powers that be have tried everything to get hunters shoot more does...
> 
> Why not a lottery... Like pure Michigan hunt.. Shoot a doe take to check station, scan, boom your in for 1.. Shoot as many as allowed you have that many chances.. Probably a way to tele enter to


Earn a buck. Shoot a doe first to be able to shoot a buck. While I am not a huge proponent of it, it would increase antlerless harvest, while pissing off a lot of hunters.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

bowhunter426 said:


> It will make a huge difference. You no longer have that mulligan tag so many hunters will be much more selective. They may now pass on a 2 year old they would have shot in a second under a 2 tag system because they don't want to be done hunting for bucks on Oct 15 unless it is the "one".
> 
> OBR isn't about protecting the 2nd buck. It's about protecting the first one.


Statistical insignificance of 6% aside. Those younger bucks have whatever genetics nature bestowed on them. They are capable of passing those genes onto subsequent deer in their second year of life. White-tailed Deer Illinois So, there is no harm to the population if they end up in the freezer during their third. Is there?


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

bowhunter426 said:


> Earn a buck. Shoot a doe first to be able to shoot a buck. While I am not a huge proponent of it, it would increase antlerless harvest, *while pissing off a lot of hunters*.


Earn a buck or second buck by killing some coyotes maybe. Reference the hunters, could they be more upset?


----------



## pgpn123 (May 9, 2016)

Nostromo said:


> Statistical insignificance of 6% aside.


You consider 36,900 bucks/year insignificant?


----------



## bowhunter426 (Oct 20, 2010)

Nostromo said:


> Statistical insignificance of 6% aside. Those younger bucks have whatever genetics nature bestowed on them. They are capable of passing those genes onto subsequent deer in their second year of life. White-tailed Deer Illinois So, there is no harm to the population if they end up in the freezer during their third. Is there?


Who is talking about Genetics? I don't see age as a genetic trait.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

bowhunter426 said:


> Who is talking about Genetics? I don't see age as a genetic trait.


Well, age like everything is heavily influenced by genetics. 

I think your point though is that the 2.5-year-old one hunter shoots could have been your 5.5-year-old. Assuming wolves, coyotes, automobiles or other deer don't get him in the interim. Is that really worth curtailing someone else's sport over? 

Our biggest concern as sportsmen remains that we are not killing enough deer in general. Having hunters who want an OBR may not be as big of a problem as hunters who refuse to shoot a doe. But trying to force your goals on other hunters certainly is. Common goals can be useful, individual goals not so much.

So, the DNR clumps all of those issues together and runs it up the flagpole. Salute or not it's your choice.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

pgpn123 said:


> You consider 36,900 bucks/year insignificant?


I don't know an absolute ratio of bucks to does in Michigan. But our herd is believed to be around 2 million. So... Yes it's insignificant. Isn't it?


----------



## bowhunter426 (Oct 20, 2010)

Nostromo said:


> Well, age like everything is heavily influenced by genetics.
> 
> I think your point though is that the 2.5-year-old one hunter shoots could have been your 5.5-year-old. Assuming wolves, coyotes, automobiles or other deer don't get him in the interim. Is that really worth curtailing someone else's sport over?
> 
> ...


Only thing OBR is forcing is the 6% won't be able to shoot 2 antlered deer. OBR would be giving 94% of hunters a single buck tag to use how they see fit that falls in line with what they normally shoot.

The plus side is it will change how they hunt and will likely increase antlerless harvest as well.

If you pursue my post history, specifically around APRs you will find I am and have always been against programs to limit the deer that someone has availability to shoot. OBR does not take away anyone's opportunity. The hunter does that themselves by choosing not to shoot so they can continue to buck hunt which in turn could benefit them directly down the road.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

bowhunter426 said:


> Only thing OBR is forcing is the 6% won't be able to shoot 2 antlered deer. OBR would be giving 94% of hunters a single buck tag to use how they see fit.
> 
> The plus side is it will change how they hunt and will likely increase antlerless harvest as well.
> 
> If you pursue my post history, specifically around APRs you will find I am and have always been against programs to limit the deer that someone has availability to shoot. OBR does not take away anyone's opportunity. The hunter does that themselves by choosing not to shoot which in turn could benefit them directly down the road.


I appreciate your point except where you say OBR will not take away an opportunity for hunters. I think you'll agree that is exactly what it's intent is.


----------



## bowhunter426 (Oct 20, 2010)

Nostromo said:


> I appreciate your point except where you say OBR will not take away an opportunity for hunters. I think you'll agree that is exactly what it's intent is.


What specifically does it take away? Just the ability to shoot 2 antlered deer for a small subset of the hunting population? It doesn't take away the opportunity to hunt because there is an antlerless tag going along with it.


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Nostromo said:


> I don't know an absolute ratio of bucks to does in Michigan. But our herd is believed to be around 2 million. So... Yes it's insignificant. Isn't it?


The 6% of hunters that kill 2 bucks account for ~30% of the total buck harvest.

If we assume that the deer population is ~2 million, a sex ratio of 2:1, and a recruitment rate of 1.0, there's still more hunters in this state than antlered deer available for harvest.


----------



## grapestomper (Jan 9, 2012)

bowhunter426 said:


> Only thing OBR is forcing is the 6% won't be able to shoot 2 antlered deer. OBR would be giving 94% of hunters a single buck tag to use how they see fit that falls in line with what they normally shoot.
> 
> The plus side is it will change how they hunt and will likely increase antlerless harvest as well.
> 
> If you pursue my post history, specifically around APRs you will find I am and have always been against programs to limit the deer that someone has availability to shoot. OBR does not take away anyone's opportunity. The hunter does that themselves by choosing not to shoot so they can continue to buck hunt which in turn could benefit them directly down the road.


If it goes so one person could transfer their tag to another individual some hunters could shoot 5 bucks.


----------



## bowhunter426 (Oct 20, 2010)

grapestomper said:


> If it goes so one person could transfer their tag to another individual some hunters could shoot 5 bucks.


Yes. I could have shot every buck I saw this season. Would have cost me a little over 2k but I would have had a serious pile of knife handles.


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

Radar420 said:


> If we assume that the deer population is ~2 million, a sex ratio of 2:1, and a recruitment rate of 1.0, *there's still more hunters in this state than antlered deer available for harvest.*


And???? It is supposed to be hunting which by nature includes success and failure. You want a closer hunter/buck ratio in a herd of ~2 mil?

I wonder what % of the 6% of two buck killers comes from zone 3? My *guess *would be most of it.


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Dish7 said:


> And???? It is supposed to be hunting which by nature includes success and failure. You want a closer hunter/buck ratio in a herd of ~2 mil?
> 
> I wonder what % of the 6% of two buck killers comes from zone 3? My *guess *would be most of it.


I look at it in 2 ways - I'd support a lottery for buck tags due to the discrepancy between antlered deer available vs hunter numbers. Conversely, I could also see an argument being made to have unlimited buck tags since we had the largest deer population when everyone had access to 4 buck tags and it was sustainable.

As to the 2nd part, since 80%+ deer are harvested on private land and zone 3 is overwhelmingly private, I'd imagine you are correct but there's plenty of zone 1 & 2 hunters who tag out.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Pp]


bowhunter426 said:


> What specifically does it take away? Just the ability to shoot 2 antlered deer for a small subset of the hunting population? It doesn't take away the opportunity to hunt because there is an antlerless tag going along with it.


You said it yourself._ "Just the ability to shoot 2 antlered deer for a small subset of the hunting population." _


Radar420 said:


> The 6% of hunters that kill 2 bucks account for ~30% of the total buck harvest.
> If we assume that the deer population is ~2 million, a sex ratio of 2:1, and a recruitment rate of 1.0, there's still more hunters in this state than antlered deer available for harvest.


By your numbers and the DNR for 2020: 615,948 hunters after around 666,666.66 Bucks. They took About 420,071 deer of both sexes. 2020

The bottom line is while hunting is recreation there are responsibilities attached. Hunters have not been able to kill enough deer year in and year out. Add to that, deer season is very long now and those with the opportunity can hunt from September until January. The goals being providing recreational opportunities and reducing the deer herd. Shooting only one buck does nothing to help this. Does it?


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Nostromo said:


> Pp]
> 
> You said it yourself._ "Just the ability to shoot 2 antlered deer for a small subset of the hunting population." _
> 
> ...


2:1 sex ratio is adult deer and the 2 million estimate includes fawns. So using the numbers in the example, there's 1 antlered deer for every 4 antlerless (2 adult does that each have 1 fawn by hunting season) so ~400,000 antlered deer.


----------



## pgpn123 (May 9, 2016)

Nostromo said:


> I don't know an absolute ratio of bucks to does in Michigan. But our herd is believed to be around 2 million. So... Yes it's insignificant. Isn't it?


36k bucks here, 36k there, I think it adds up. You'll lose some to winter, cars, predators and be left with...30k? 25k? Now those are all 2 yr olds walking in the woods that wouldn't have been otherwise. Some 3's, don't think many yearling bucks are shot (?), so not many 1 1/2 out of the 30k. Repeat the next year, adding 30k+- 2 yr olds and I gotta believe it makes a difference.

I'm still on the fence with obr.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

pgpn123 said:


> 36k bucks here, 36k there, I think it adds up. You'll lose some to winter, cars, predators and be left with...30k? 25k? Now those are all 2 yr olds walking in the woods that wouldn't have been otherwise. Some 3's, don't think many yearling bucks are shot (?), so not many 1 1/2 out of the 30k. Repeat the next year, adding 30k+- 2 yr olds and I gotta believe it makes a difference.
> 
> I'm still on the fence with obr.


While I'm not 100% in favor of it, it's another management tool. It hasn't been used in our state in several decades. When it was, it was because deer numbers didn't support more than one tag per year.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Hopefully one of you guys let the DNR’s biologist know we have 2 million deer in the State, they quit estimating the deer population years ago. Pulling number out of the air is nice but does not provide any useful information. If we are going to guess at a population I would hazard a guess that’s it’s much closer to a million deer right now than 2 million deer.


----------



## Invisible (Sep 3, 2008)

While I appreciate the idea that there would be another 30+ thousand bucks still walking in Michigan each year, I think the larger benefit of an OBR would be the adjustment to the mindset of many hunters. I’m referring to the hunters that enjoy time chasing deer beyond the firearm opener and a weekend here or there. I’m spitballing here, but I’m thinking that there are a number of hunters that would adjust their thinking regarding sending an arrow or a bullet through a buck that effectively ends your buck hunting for the season. (And I love hunting and eating antlerless deer). I, and I’m just playing this out in my own head, would think long and hard before shooting a buck in October with a single buck tag in my pocket. Sitting out chasing bucks in November would be a bit rough. Feel free to tell me I’m way off base here. I’m thinking that an OBR would do much more to improve age structure in the male portion of our deer herd than just the 30ish thousand bucks that would not be shot on our current second tag.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Invisible said:


> While I appreciate the idea that there would be another 30+ thousand bucks still walking in Michigan each year, I think the larger benefit of an OBR would be the adjustment to the mindset of many hunters. I’m referring to the hunters that enjoy time chasing deer beyond the firearm opener and a weekend here or there. I’m spitballing here, but I’m thinking that there are a number of hunters that would adjust their thinking regarding sending an arrow or a bullet through a buck that effectively ends your buck hunting for the season. (And I love hunting and eating antlerless deer). I, and I’m just playing this out in my own head, would think long and hard before shooting a buck in October with a single buck tag in my pocket. Sitting out chasing bucks in November would be a bit rough. Feel free to tell me I’m way off base here. I’m thinking that an OBR would do much more to improve age structure in the male portion of our deer herd than just the 30ish thousand bucks that would not be shot on our current second tag.


Yep it's getting thru the mindset of which buck to take and once it's harvested, your buck hunting is done. That gives me some sense of peace really. Seems I'm hunting for a buck from October 1st thru Jan 1st every year. If I killed my buck in mid November, I could simply kill my meat doe in December and relax.


----------



## tdejong302 (Nov 28, 2004)

The DNR, Federal Forest, and National Parks do not care about your input. They only care about your revenue stream. I don't fill out any of their stuff anymore. Its not geared towards sportsmen and women. The managment of wolves in the Upper Peninsula is one prime example. The management of the Lake Superior Watershed as a wilderness area is another. We can't fish w/ a gas motor nor ride a sled in there in the winter time. They cater the to granola crunchers. We offer input and make suggestions however remain unheard.


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Hopefully one of you guys let the DNR’s biologist know we have 2 million deer in the State, they quit estimating the deer population years ago. Pulling number out of the air is nice but does not provide any useful information. If we are going to guess at a population I would hazard a guess that’s it’s much closer to a million deer right now than 2 million deer.


_" Stewart estimated there may be as many as two million deer in Michigan today, up from closer to 1.7 million a decade ago, and closer to 1 million in the 1940s — a number that species managers of the time already saw as problematically large. Most recent growth has been clustered in the southern half of the lower peninsula, where most of Michigan’s human residents also live."_ That's Chad Stewart of the DNR.


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Hopefully one of you guys let the DNR’s biologist know we have 2 million deer in the State, they quit estimating the deer population years ago. Pulling number out of the air is nice but does not provide any useful information. If we are going to guess at a population I would hazard a guess that’s it’s much closer to a million deer right now than 2 million deer.


If you ask nicely, they'll sometimes give you a statewide estimate.









As hunting wanes, fear of a southern Michigan deer invasion grows


By Kelly House (Bridge Michigan) On a residential street a mile from the nearest shopping mall, Matt DeLong parks his truck and slips into his hunting camo. Crossbow in arm, he trudges to a hunting…




themanchestermirror.com





"Stewart estimated there may be as many as two million deer in Michigan today, up from closer to 1.7 million a decade ago, and closer to 1 million in the 1940s — a number that species managers of the time already saw as problematically large. Most recent growth has been clustered in the southern half of the lower peninsula, where most of Michigan’s human residents also live."

MSP also estimates a population nearing 2 million. I'll assume the MSP didn't come up with that number on their own.









Vehicle Deer Crashes







www.michigan.gov


----------



## Invisible (Sep 3, 2008)

johnIV said:


> Yep it's getting thru the mindset of which buck to take and once it's harvested, your buck hunting is done. That gives me some sense of peace really. Seems I'm hunting for a buck from October 1st thru Jan 1st every year. If I killed my buck in mid November, I could simply kill my meat doe in December and relax.


I kinda took this for a test drive this season, so to speak. I was fortunate enough to shoot a very nice buck early in October. This was the first buck I’ve killed before the rut in quite a few years. While I was thrilled to have taken a great buck during mosquito season, I wondered what the rest of the season would be like if I didn’t chase another buck. I think your choice of the term “relax” is about perfect. I sat when conditions were absolutely perfect, and never in my more sensitive rut stands, I played deer guide/outfitter for my folks and my kids, drank a lot of coffee with my Dad when the weather was less ideal, and managed to get most of my family and friends in places to experience a good season. Did I miss the excitement and anticipation of hunting on those cold early November mornings? Somewhat, but sharing camp and the excitement it brought others was more rewarding than I anticipated. All told, the season ended up being highly memorable and one that I’ll treasure for a long time. A good bit of that came from deciding not to chase a second buck for myself.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Radar420 said:


> If you ask nicely, they'll sometimes give you a statewide estimate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep, it does say May which also translates to may not. There is no official estimate because they have no way to come up with one since SAK was dropped due to inherent problems. Give Chad a call, he pretty helpful.


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Yep, it does say May which also translates to may not. There is no official estimate because they have no way to come up with one since SAK was dropped due to inherent problems. Give Chad a call, he pretty helpful.


That's why it's an estimate...

I usually communicate with Brian Frawley


----------



## Night Moves (Jan 28, 2021)

Can't anybody now just limit themselves to one buck? Another stupid regulation push by the DNR and others to needlessly restrict hunters.


----------



## Night Moves (Jan 28, 2021)

pgpn123 said:


> You consider 36,900 bucks/year insignificant?


Where did you get that 36900 number? You know its 6% of hunters that bought a combo license. A good portion of hunters only buy one buck tag or no buck tag at all.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Radar420 said:


> That's why it's an estimate...
> 
> I usually communicate with Brian Frawley


It’s a very simple question. What scientific principle was used to arrive at the estimated population vs a gut feeling. There is none.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Chessieman said:


> For the guys that might only go out for the opener or a couple days this may drop them out of Deer hunting.


Them guys wouldn't have enough time to shoot two bucks


----------



## pgpn123 (May 9, 2016)

Night Moves said:


> Where did you get that 36900 number? You know its 6% of hunters that bought a combo license. A good portion of hunters only buy one buck tag or no buck tag at all.


I used 6% of deer hunters as mentioned. I didn't subtract single buck tag hunters. What would you say a good portion is that buys one tag? Should really have some data point to reference.


----------



## Night Moves (Jan 28, 2021)

pgpn123 said:


> I used 6% of deer hunters as mentioned. I didn't subtract single buck tag hunters. What would you say a good portion is that buys one tag? Should really have some data point to reference.


Not sure. It varies a lot by region I would guess. In the UP I read somewhere that about half only buy one buck tag. I would suspect fewer in the LP. But more there only buy a buck tag after they kill him or none at all. You might have to contact the DNR for correct numbers or just say 6% of combo license buyers.


----------



## bowhunter426 (Oct 20, 2010)

Night Moves said:


> Where did you get that 36900 number? You know its 6% of hunters that bought a combo license. A good portion of hunters only buy one buck tag or no buck tag at all.


The survey data is deer hunters. 6% of deer hunters harvested 2 antlered deer . No mention of it being percentage of combo tag holders only.


----------



## Mole Hill (Jul 15, 2020)

Zone 3 has been managing the age structure on a lot of private property for over 2 decades that I'm aware of and more climbing aboard this last decade. At the rate it is going a potential world record is quite possible. Passing 140" plus class bucks is the next step and I'm not sure when or if I will get there. But what hunters are doing is working and not much credit goes to the D.N.R.


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

Luv2hunteup said:


> The system must be working as designed. As needed where needed. Most public land hunters don’t see that in a season.


This was lake county. Not good for anywhere in lake county. Especially the public it was on


----------



## pgpn123 (May 9, 2016)

Night Moves said:


> Not sure. It varies a lot by region I would guess. In the UP I read somewhere that about half only buy one buck tag. I would suspect fewer in the LP. But more there only buy a buck tag after they kill him or none at all. You might have to contact the DNR for correct numbers or just say 6% of combo license buyers.


You can contact the DNR, you claimed a good portion only buys 1 tag. Can we agree it's still quite a few bucks?


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Luv2hunteup said:


> It’s a very simple question. What scientific principle was used to arrive at the estimated population vs a gut feeling. There is none.


You should ask Chad since he's the one quoted.

Or you can contact the MSP and ask how they arrived at their estimate since they track deer/vehicle collisions.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Radar420 said:


> You should ask Chad since he's the one quoted.
> 
> Or you can contact the MSP and ask how they arrived at their estimate since they track deer/vehicle collisions.


I have the last time we sat in a meeting.


----------



## DEDGOOSE (Jan 19, 2007)

Radar420 said:


> I look at it in 2 ways - I'd support a lottery for buck tags due to the discrepancy between antlered deer available vs hunter numbers. Conversely, I could also see an argument being made to have unlimited buck tags since we had the largest deer population when everyone had access to 4 buck tags and it was sustainable.
> 
> As to the 2nd part, since 80%+ deer are harvested on private land and zone 3 is overwhelmingly private, I'd imagine you are correct but there's plenty of zone 1 & 2 hunters who tag out.


I like the lottery idea... Do it like turkey... 

Hunt 1 Oct 1-15
Hunt 2 Oct 16-25
Hunt 3 Dec 1-Jan1 

Break it down into Areas like turkey with tag allotment by population.. Any weapon... Doe season as it is with current weapon arrangement..


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

DEDGOOSE said:


> I like the lottery idea... Do it like turkey...
> 
> 
> Hunt 1 Oct 1-15
> ...


Given the popularity of turkey management in this state, I'm surprised our deer regs don't more closely match them.

Several years ago when changing opening day was being discussed heavily on here, I made the suggestion that Firearm season should adopt spring turkey regs. You have your choice of different hunts to apply for - you can even apply with a partner so you can get the same hunt. As an example, one of the hunts could include the 15th as an "opening day," another could include a Saturday opener, and then the 234 hunt could be an all encompassing after Thanksgiving hunt for people who want the large camp atmosphere.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Newaygo1 said:


> Exactly They are not seeing that the Dropping of the Single License will also not help them with some Deer Hunters, You see that the Base License and the ONly Combo Deer Lice is Just "FREE" Money some including myself (Antlerless License I would Not Use Either) So they get the Free $ for the Base and another $20.00 for the Antlerless that is part of the New Combo Deer License. Over the 40 years I have Deer Hunted I have only taken 4 Does but realized I was more deer on my property not Less to get a decent Buck since made that decision I started seeing More Good Bucks as then the DNR Opened up the Antlerless Permits to Too Many Available and once they did The Bucks disappeared Then the Does did and If I saw anything in 10 to 20 days of Hunting I Might See a "Fawn" So That is when i Stopped Taking Antlerless Deer, The DNR learned then and Finally split my DMU in to then combine 2,5 DMU's as one and Then Talked that Newaygo County / DMU was still in the top Deer Hunting Places when and how can you combine other DMU's with one and Think it won't have more deer taken? Again "FLAWED DATA" That some accept as Good Science and Management!!! As for selling ones land will you get what you should for it and not a low ball offer? And Finding a Place in Zone 3 as a lease and as mention hunt it like you could your own will be different and hen losing that lease then what so many miss that part. And Yet we also pay Property Taxes if we keep our land another cost for a few that bought their Property long before the CWD Arrived. And What is Your Property Now Worth? Over the last 5 years I have many offers from out of State Real Estate Companies offering me less than I paid back in 1991 for my parcel. Why would I take a loss??? But that is how it seems to Go These Days as CWD is a tipping Point as to losing $ if selling...
> Newaygo1


L.O.L..
I throw away those out of state (well in state too) offers. It's the only way to keep from responding impolitely.

Nonhomestead property tax on hunting land in a C.W.D. zone where the herd was reduced by the state's early response plan encouraging more kills to where I left the couple deer alone after... Yeah ,I brought that up at the review board. I didn't buy it for it's low deer numbers.

Might find a spot on my property that will perk. Neighbors paid heck getting septic systems to code.
Were it a potential homesite it might sell easier.
Sure ain't going to sell for the deer hunting it was historically being retained.
But hey , who needs areas multiple wild species have a place to frolic?
Land is limitless....Unlike my tolerance of paying taxes on land falling short of original intent of acquisition due to regulations since I bought it.

Maybe I'll make a big haul if I auction it off , if I put a picture of a set of deer tracks on the flier and call it great deer hunting...State regulations promoting big bucks. (Nevermind doe gotta go tags.)


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Some crap with same actors in this DNR and lobbyists etc.. and the push for certain regulations. No science behind it.


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

bunji_hunter said:


> No one seems to be interested in the Elephant in the room on the question.
> Hunters would not be able to buy a single tag to hunt for only one antlered deer for, as it is now, $20. You would be required to buy two tags without options for $40. Sorry but with having seen *ZERO *deer this year, buck or doe (2 weeks bow season 8 days rifle), why would I want to be forced to pay more for a tag that, if I get lucky in reality, only gets filled once every three years with a buck. No I lied there, I saw one doe in early October. But other than the ground squirrel who had kept me company during bow season, until a Hawk got it the day before the opener of rifle, Nov 14th. I would also like to put in the face of this, you have to buy a doe tag as well as a buck tag in the new proposal, even if you hunt in an area that doesn't allow does to be harvested bow or rifle season.
> 
> What am I supposed to do now with a tag the DNR says I can't use where I hunt?
> ...


No offense but if you didn't see a deer this year you need to make a big change. Not to mention 20$ is among the cheapest in the country. But Michigan guys still can't get out of there own way many times.


----------



## Night Moves (Jan 28, 2021)

Chriss83 said:


> No offense but if you didn't see a deer this year you need to make a big change. Not to mention 20$ is among the cheapest in the country. But Michigan guys still can't get out of there own way many times.


So the DNR mismanages the deer down to near extinct levels in some areas and your solution to someone who hunts there is to just make a big change? How about making a big change in the DNR's poor deer management instead?


----------



## Chriss83 (Sep 18, 2021)

Night Moves said:


> So the DNR mismanages the deer down to near extinct levels in some areas and your solution to someone who hunts there is to just make a big change? How about making a big change in the DNR's poor deer management instead?


 Not saying they do great by any means lol. Nowhere in the state are they near extinct levels and if you think that you may need to go to Eberhardt workshop. I think you sound more mad you can't shoot 2 bucks and heaven for it you spend 20 whole dollars more on a tag. Guessing pissed you can't bait too? If the 20 is gunna stop you from hunting what kind of weapon and camo you using? Time to reevaluate for anyone that thinks hunting is going to stop for you over 20 $.


----------



## Chessieman (Dec 8, 2009)

Chris, with so many people not buying a license or borrowing one why would it not increase? Read how many got busted this opener;

DNR - 11/14/2021 - 11/27/2021

This is a good example, should be costing him $11,750.00 plus the fine, just to save $20.

CO Kris Kiel received a RAP complaint about a subject baiting for deer in front of his blind, behind a residence in St. Clair County. CO Brad Silorey did some great game warden work by looking up the suspect on social media. CO Silorey found that the suspect had shot a monster, 13-point buck in 2020. A quick check of license purchases showed that the subject had not purchased a hunting license in 2020. On opening morning of firearm deer season, COs Kiel, and Brad Silorey walked back to check the hunter and found him in his stand, hunting over bait and without any visible hunter orange. While checking the subject's license, the COs asked the subject to show a picture of his deer from last year. The subject showed the COs a picture of the 13-point buck. When asked what he tagged it with, the subject admitted to tagging it with his father's license so that he could take it to a taxidermist. Citations were written for hunt deer over bait and hunt without wearing hunter orange. The deer rack was seized from the taxidermist and a report will be submitted to the prosecutor for take a deer without a license and borrow a tag of another.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Chriss83 said:


> Not saying they do great by any means lol. Nowhere in the state are they near extinct levels and if you think that you may need to go to Eberhardt workshop. I think you sound more mad you can't shoot 2 bucks and heaven for it you spend 20 whole dollars more on a tag. Guessing pissed you can't bait too? If the 20 is gunna stop you from hunting what kind of weapon and camo you using? Time to reevaluate for anyone that thinks hunting is going to stop for you over 20 $.


If a hunter only wants one tag as opposed to being only allowed to buy two that's on the hunter.
Would you accept buying double what you want one of? Vehicles, gasoline, pizzas ect?
It's not the money as much as the principle.

Non small game hunters have to buy a passport/small game license to buy a deer tag. Add a single deer tag and you're buying two licenses instead of the one desired.
Now make a combo deer tag mandatory for what would be a single deer tag buyer... And that's two additional purchases beyond what was desired. (Small game and second tag on the combo) making 2/3 of what is bought not what was wanted.

I buy combos and have not filled both in a long time. Has less to do with opportunity than how many and what deer I want to kill.
This year I eat two tags. Has nothing to do with deer seen despite not being a high population. Had multiple deer in range. So relocating /hunting elsewhere would change nothing.
When I am not crazy about killing one just to fill a tag , why would I want two tags?
If I want to donate money towards deer hunting , I can spend more on lime or fertilizer.
Probably does more for deer than the state does.


----------



## Night Moves (Jan 28, 2021)

Chriss83 said:


> Not saying they do great by any means lol. Nowhere in the state are they near extinct levels and if you think that you may need to go to Eberhardt workshop. I think you sound more mad you can't shoot 2 bucks and heaven for it you spend 20 whole dollars more on a tag. Guessing pissed you can't bait too? If the 20 is gunna stop you from hunting what kind of weapon and camo you using? Time to reevaluate for anyone that thinks hunting is going to stop for you over 20 $.


Where did you come up with those assumptions? My response to your post that bashed another guy who is not seeing deer and has nothing to do with my personal hunting situation. News flash, there are in fact lots of areas in the state that have few, if any deer anymore. I don't hunt in one of them, but I know others that do and I feel for them since some of those areas used to have fantastic hunting. My Dad was one of them. He had no interest in traveling far from home to hunt deer in an unfamiliar area at his advanced age, so he quit. The area I hunt has few deer, so I must hunt crazy hard just to be moderately successful. I don't have enough deer in my area to justify a doe harvest, so that is not an option unless one just doesn't give a rat's ass about the resource. Sadly, this is also the case in most of the state too since only private areas with limited hunting have deer overpopulation problems. It seems like their is either too many or too few deer with very poor management for the right balance. $20 is not the issue for me, rather its possibly taking away half my season so others can have the delusion of having more big bucks available for them. The fact is that we had a one buck rule in Michigan when I started deer hunting and hunters got around that by party hunting, sharing tags and otherwise not following the rules so they could hunt more. The result was an even worse buck age structure then compared to now. How would that be an improvement?


----------



## pgpn123 (May 9, 2016)

If it's any consolation, you can buy a single tag in OH and IN but it costs more. You have to buy a hunting license, then deer tags are sold seperate.

MI will increase the cost of a buck tag and the doe tag will be free...


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

I understand all the different ideas and bitches but what I don’t understand is the complaining about the amount of money for a license. Some spend that money in one night at the bar or going out to dinner but you re gonna bitch about it when you get to be in the woods for like three months. SMH.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

sparky18181 said:


> I understand all the different ideas and bitches but what I don’t understand is the complaining about the amount of money for a license. Some spend that money in one night at the bar or going out to dinner but you re gonna bitch about it when you get to be in the woods for mike three months. SMH.


Maybe you're willing to pay a $20.00 cover charge to step through a door at a restaurant and receive nothing in value, I'm not. I can sit in the woods anytime. I'm not going to pay for the privilege. I pay for a tag to kill a deer and attach it to. 
How many deer I kill (within allowed by regulations number) is up to me. Not on how many tags the state would sell me.

You can't buy one steak per person at all restaurants is the equivalent.. You must buy three or none. You don't want three , don't eat them. But you will pay for three. That's B.S. to me. 
Bad as the store owners encountered saying "You buy!" .
Including one telling me I needed to buy more bacon than I asked for (that he would not eat , and handled with gloved hands like it was his kryptonite while saying "you need to buy more") who I told , "you buy more".
That store is no longer run by his group. For good reason. People bought elsewhere.

The states monopoly on game fees is being treated like a golden goose . With the states hand up it's butt. 
I don't have to like it.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Waif said:


> Maybe you're willing to pay a $20.00 cover charge to step through a door at a restaurant and receive nothing in value, I'm not. I can sit in the woods anytime. I'm not going to pay for the privilege. I pay for a tag to kill a deer and attach it to.
> How many deer I kill (within allowed by regulations number) is up to me. Not on how many tags the state would sell me.
> 
> You can't buy one steak per person at all restaurants is the equivalent.. You must buy three or none. You don't want three , don't eat them. But you will pay for three. That's B.S. to me.
> ...


I understand what you are saying so what we have is our voice and to be let it heard to those that make the rules and decisions. 
I think it’s a cheap price to pay for what I get to do for that price. 
personally I would prefer it to stay as it is. If you want one tag then pay for one.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

sparky18181 said:


> I understand what you are saying so what we have is our voice and to be let it heard to those that make the rules and decisions.
> I think it’s a cheap price to pay for what I get to do for that price.
> personally I would prefer it to stay as it is. If you want one tag then pay for one.


I'll likely buy another combo.
Insurance against two giant bucks approaching me at the same time. 
If they change what's on a combo ,it changes.
Not holding my breath that it would be based on sound logic. Vs money grab.


----------



## Night Moves (Jan 28, 2021)

People here are saying it's only $20. What exactly do they do to improve things for that money? In my opinion they do more harm than good. Local Leo's could do just as good without harrasing us on enforcement. Most of the money is spent on useless bureaucracy.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Night Moves said:


> People here are saying it's only $20. What exactly do they do to improve things for that money? In my opinion they do more harm than good. Local Leo's could do just as good without harrasing us on enforcement. Most of the money is spent on useless bureaucracy.


Local LEO s don’t have the time to do the jobs they are paid to do. What’s harassing? Checking to make sure you are following the rules? Paid for a license like most people do? That money goes to a lot of places, not just enforcement.


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

Night Moves said:


> Where did you come up with those assumptions? My response to your post that bashed another guy who is not seeing deer and has nothing to do with my personal hunting situation. News flash, there are in fact lots of areas in the state that have few, if any deer anymore. I don't hunt in one of them, but I know others that do and I feel for them since some of those areas used to have fantastic hunting. My Dad was one of them. He had no interest in traveling far from home to hunt deer in an unfamiliar area at his advanced age, so he quit. The area I hunt has few deer, so I must hunt crazy hard just to be moderately successful. I don't have enough deer in my area to justify a doe harvest, so that is not an option unless one just doesn't give a rat's ass about the resource. Sadly, this is also the case in most of the state too since only private areas with limited hunting have deer overpopulation problems. It seems like their is either too many or too few deer with very poor management for the right balance. $20 is not the issue for me, rather its possibly taking away half my season so others can have the delusion of having more big bucks available for them. The fact is that we had a one buck rule in Michigan when I started deer hunting and hunters got around that by party hunting, sharing tags and otherwise not following the rules so they could hunt more. The result was an even worse buck age structure then compared to now. How would that be an improvement?


Deer numbers in certain areas of the state are not really governed by management as much as having suitable habitat. Old forests with little available food and browse will drive deer out in a heartbeat. There are many areas of Michigan, especially NLP, where the habitat is much too mature to provide very much for deer. Where we hunt in NELP public land, there is major logging going on, which will provide much needed deer habitat in a year or 2.


----------



## Night Moves (Jan 28, 2021)

Something that hasn't been mentioned is that the latest research is showing that we should be killing more bucks to combat CWD. Knowing that, it would certainly not be sound science to decrease the buck kill by reducing the buck tags to one. Additionally, the article I just read (current issue of American Hunter) said that research shows that mature bucks are more apt to carry CWD than younger bucks. That indicates that we should be focusing more on killing mature bucks.


----------



## Night Moves (Jan 28, 2021)

sparky18181 said:


> Local LEO s don’t have the time to do the jobs they are paid to do. What’s harassing? Checking to make sure you are following the rules? Paid for a license like most people do? That money goes to a lot of places, not just enforcement.


Where do the hunting license dollars go then besides enforcement? The biologists are a joke with some of the stupid stuff coming out of Wildlife Div. They are not doing any research any more. They just push papers and tap on keyboards (bureaucracy). I'm betting that the lions share goes to bureaucracy of some type or another. All deer hunters have to buy a small game license these days. What does the DNR do for small game hunting? Every survey I see where the DNR is rated or hunting in general is rated seems to get worse and worse.


----------



## DeezChestnutz (6 mo ago)

98885 said:


> The incentive is having big bucks in the state where only one buck tag is the rule. Ohio has it but the incentive is, big bucks live there and are all over on state land, not just private land. I'll hunt Ohio every year with that being the case.


🤫


----------



## 12970 (Apr 19, 2005)

All the Rumors about the Combo going to a 1 Buck 1 Antlerless License is Just That a "RUMOR" I asked the DNR and They stated they were Not Changing it This Year. Second is they Still have Not decided on the Time Period a Deer Hunter is REQUIRED to his or her Deer? Being It is a Required for the 2022 Deer Seasons.
I think that some have Questions and the Things that Go On with the "NRC" & "DNR" seem to Keep Changing & Driven on WHO Is in these Positions, As Each Time the NRC "Changes" so does the "Plan" as to what is Important Deer Management!. I can appreciate them Tweaking it a little but when it takes a 180Degree Direction Change and Those on the NRC are Associated with a Group that wants Let Say APR's they do all they Can to Push these Agenda's Is that "GOOD" Resource Management by the last 25 Years I will Say No Sure, there has been a few things but Opening Up Antlerless Permits when You could Not get1 changed the whole dynamic of what Has Happened t Deer Numbers in areas Across the State when most could never get one then the opposite happen and the DNR Selling some that once you Take The Antlerless You Would See More and Bigger Bucks NEVER Happened. Once the Plan Changed Again and they Lowered these permit Numbers something happened and where I hunt started seeing Deer Numbers Rebound from seeing none to starting to seeing some Deer I have not changed how or where I hunt just that I now hunt less I see Deer each time I am out where as 2 years after they offer 10K for Private we saw nothing or maybe a FAWN! But then the amount of large required dropped and giving a Parcel Number was removed among other things. But also the DMU Numbering System was changed? Good Or Bad things they change make it look better for some DMU's and then you learn they combined DMU's so the Number of Deer Taken makes the Data look Better for the DNR... As for where the $ might be going Maybe it is Now used to Make Videos to suggest Hunting / Fishing is better when we really never needed a Video to Tell us that seems now there is always a New Video to Sell some on something where does that $ Come From? And Talk is the P&R will be repealed and where Funds are Given to the DNR for part of their Budget. So Why would They Take $ AWAY if not for something other like Firearms and Ammo to lower the Costs on these items. Hard to Get when P&R has been around for Years and Helps States with Resources and Management? 
Seems To be More Politics as Too Many Things are Today but State & Fed Govt's play and States have to find new revenues to deal with these lost Funds. Sad but Maybe it is the Times we are living in. The Times of Change or even Constant Change that is Some are Pushing on Others. There is never been any Reasoning Good Or Bad why the NRC / DNR Makes Changes and when they do they Sell Us on what "Might" Occur when It Never does they Thinks we are Not Following and make us think something they make up will smooth us over as to Accepting Their Thinking. SO How Many on the NRC are from the "MUCC" And Is their Voice better? As the NRC recently Changed? Again the NRC is appointments but now It is more Selective when we might more outsiders involved yet I see the MUCC Agenda front and Center (like APR's) as some mention older deer could have the CWD and yet No One is Seeing that as a Reason to hold off on the need for APR's as there talk is a Big Buck WILL Be behind each Tree out in the Field which is doubtful when a Disease can spread and big buck numbers will be fewer. I get that CWD has no cure as it has been around for years but some never thought it would get east of the Mississippi and Yet It Has? 
Just some Observations...
Newaygo1


----------



## no1huntmaster (Sep 6, 2015)

Taking *a* deer in Michigan.......Not to difficult.
*Taking a deer worth the work and time very difficult to impossible.*
There needs to be change. Once you hunt out of state or no folks that do, you don't know how bad Michigan really is.
Now if your one of the lucky ones treading out onto some prime county farm land and think you mastered hunting your in the dark for sure.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

I see a 'holy one' has spoken...oh deer god tell us how bad Michigan is for hunting!!?? Lol.


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

no1huntmaster said:


> Taking *a* deer in Michigan.......Not to difficult.
> *Taking a deer worth the work and time very difficult to impossible.*
> There needs to be change. Once you hunt out of state or no folks that do, you don't know how bad Michigan really is.
> Now if your one of the lucky ones treading out onto some prime county farm land and think you mastered hunting your in the dark for sure.


Wouldn't this theory of "treading out onto prime county farm land" also apply to hunting in better states?


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Or leasing ground in other states or using an outfitter....


----------



## jjlrrw (May 1, 2006)

no1huntmaster said:


> Taking *a* deer in Michigan.......Not to difficult.
> *Taking a deer worth the work and time very difficult to impossible.*
> There needs to be change. Once you hunt out of state or no folks that do, you don't know how bad Michigan really is.
> Now if your one of the lucky ones treading out onto some prime county farm land and think you mastered hunting your in the dark for sure.


What kind of deer is worth your work and time?


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

You asked the question for me. Of course we all know the answer. ANTLERMANIA!!!
Work and time for me at 70 means driving up to camp and spending time sitting in my favorite spot. The youngsters will be there someday. For me anymore, any deer is a good deer.


----------



## Martin Looker (Jul 16, 2015)

If you don't like our hunting then don't hunt deer in Michigan. Leave the scrubs for the rest of us.


----------

