# Why? Don't you want to try out Antler Restrictions for five years?



## MoshPitHippie (Mar 11, 2005)

I can not figure out why people would not like to try out the A/R's for five years??? So please tell me what it is that would make you be opposed to a five year test period, what is you basis for the opposition? Is it is just your personal deer management thoughts or are your thoughts based on biological deer studies? If it is based on science please let me know what else I should be reading and who it was written by, so that I can take a look for myself... For those that are not for A/R I am wondering how much time you have spent researching how A/R's would affect the deer herd, and I also wonder if you have taken any time to read any of the information written by John Ozaga?

Please don't turn this into a mud slinging post, just give honest answers...


----------



## Buddy Lee (Dec 17, 2003)

I'm against mandated antler restrictions and here's why...

Say you have a 4 on a side antler restriction. I'm hunting in a pretty thick swamp, and a good looking buck comes through. I can see he's got a pretty decent rack, looks like an 8 pointer, and because of the thick brush I've got a limited amount of time to decide whether to take the shot or not...I don't have time to sit there and count points. I shoot him, and when I walk up to him I'm :yikes: :yikes: :yikes: because I discover he's only a 6 pointer...NO BROW TINES!! Now I'm a violator. :help:


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

After being heavily involved in at least the public informational meetings with the U.P. A/R initiative, I can honestly say that many people voted against the proposal that inaccurately thought that antlerless harvest would increase if the proposal passed. This was false, this was not true, and it would not have been QDM either, but that little bit of misinformation guided many down the wrong path. 

John Madigan pulled me aside at lunch yesterday to talk to me about my comments in the Mining Journal newspaper. He stated something to the effect that there has to be "mandatory doe harvest with QDM". He actually believes that false information himself to be true and it was a clear demonstration just how widespread that misconception is.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

My reasons...
-no scientific evidence it would help the deer herds
-try it on voluntary basis first and see the results
-would remove out sizeable portion of the deer hunters (those who use deer drives, those without scopes, those with limited vision)
-no evidence provided that they are needed 
-public support lacking which means if implemented, another division in the hunting population.

Swamper


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Buddy lee,

That process takes less time than it does to raise your gun and if you've ever lived by an A/R and utalized it as a tool in the field, you'd have a hard time disagreeing.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Swamper, the public support across the entire state has been almost 60%....you want to continue to manage for the 40% minority?


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

NJ - 
I have not seen any data showing 60% support for ARs. What is the source of your claim?

Swamper


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

no scientific evidence it would help the deer herds

So you are saying harvestion 75% of the yearling age class is a good thing?

-try it on voluntary basis first and see the results

The U.P. vote showed that people want it by a 2:1 margin IF MANDATED but continually show each year with the harvest of 75% of the yearling bucks that they will not practice, unless mandated. Considering that the U.P. is 70-80% public land, it will never happen on a voluntary basis. For large blocks of private land though, mandatory is not needed.

-would remove out sizeable portion of the deer hunters (those who use deer drives, those without scopes, those with limited vision)

Maybe people need to take the time to really know what they are shooting. If you have ever used an AR you would realize this is a non-issue.

-no evidence provided that they are needed

How about the continued slaughter of 75% of the yearling age class

-public support lacking which means if implemented, another division in the hunting population.

Across the state AR proposals have commanded close to 60% approval. There was a "peyton and bell" survey that showed the support, as well as the average of all the AR proposal around the entire state. Afterall, right here in the U.P. it was a 2:1 margin. What the majority are sick and tired of is the state managing for the minority.


----------



## MoshPitHippie (Mar 11, 2005)

If that buck you see in the brush turns out to be an 8 pt and you let him walk would that be all so bad???


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

> Regardless of management region, a majority (55%) of our respondents agreed that the agency should manage for an older age structure among bucks in Michigan.





> One option to protect yearling bucks is to place a minimum antler size restriction on all bucks harvested. At the time of the survey, Michigan required that one of two bucks harvested have a minimum of four antler points on at least one side, but the other buck harvested could be any buck with a minimum of 3 inch spike antlers. Respondents were asked what their position would be if an antler restriction was proposed to protect yearling bucks in their hunting area.
> Respondents were more decided on this matter than on the goal of older age structures among bucks. Nearly 2/3 of the deer hunters who said deer hunting was their most important recreation supported the idea and about a fourth opposed it (See section 3.5.2 for a detailed description of the importance variable.) The principle of antler restrictions appears to have a lot of support in the state that is essentially unrelated to type of land access or age of respondent. The consensus among private, public and private/public land hunters is noteworthy.​
> We also probed reasons for their support or opposition to the antler restriction idea. Those who supported the regulation (59% of respondents) were primarily interested in seeing and/or harvesting bucks with large antlers. Encouragingly, an equally important reason had to do with being responsible for the quality of deer in their area.


 



THE PERCEPTIONS OF MICHIGAN DEER HUNTERS REGARDING QUALITY DEER MANAGEMENT (QDM) AND RELATED ISSUES. 

Submitted to:​


Wildlife Division 
Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Submitted by:
Peter Bull and Dr. Ben Peyton
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife 
Michigan State University
*
*​*
*


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

NJ -
No need for us to debate the true value of public support measured through a survey of a sample. I thought you had some other data.

Now, moving back to Moshpothippie's original thread...

Swamper


----------



## Buddy Lee (Dec 17, 2003)

MoshPitHippie said:


> If that buck you see in the brush turns out to be an 8 pt and you let him walk would that be all so bad???


I hunt public land, and most years I don't get an antlerless permit...so that 8 point would be a prime chance for me to fill my tag. With that attitude, why even take a gun into the woods when I hunt? I should just sit there and watch deer go by and wave at them.


----------



## 4x4_Hunter (Jan 2, 2002)

Moshpit... 

You took the words right out of my mouth or I guess in this case, the letters right off my keyboard.

I have done this. We have self-inflicted ARs and I saw a buck coming in. I took a quick look and figured it wasn't 4 on a side. So, I grabbed the video camera and video taped it come within 1 yards of my stand. I was looking through the camera and never noticed until I watch it at home that night on tv that it was at least 8 points. Beautiful buck. Was I mad??? Heck NO! I felt great knowing that this buck will be just that much bigger the next time I see him. Even if it is on the neighbor's pole. I'm not selfish. I haven't shot a buck in 15 years of hunting now and I still love the ARs. You wanta know why???.... because it allows me to catch some glimps of some really nice bucks instead of getting opportunities at harvesting some babies. I'll shoot a nice large doe instead. If I would have taken that 8-point, I would have shot a nice 1.5 year old buck with good genetics. Instead I shot a large doe that year that aged out at 5.5 years old. And the largest point of my story is: I feel so great about it. A bit stupid... but still a real good feeling overall.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

depends on where it is that you hunt too. I would not support 4 on a side in my area but I would support no spike or maybe even a 3 point per side possibly but the areas need to be broken up and rules made according to the area. Also if you are going to do it, why do it for 5 years and have a free for all on the 6th year to destroy anything you may have accomplished in the prior 5 years? This is one of those issues that has more to do with where you hunt, the property you hunt or own, and the experiences you have had in the Michigan woods hunting deer.

AW


----------



## Magnet (Mar 2, 2001)

Antler restrictions have been in place in Michigan for years. A buck shall have at least one three inch antler. So we don't need to implement antler restrictions, we just need to modify the current antler restrictions definition.

As far as 4 points on one side, thick brush, brow tines, scopes, poor vision, etc., isn't that already an existing issue with the 3 inch spike rule? Gotta see it and know it's a legal buck before you shoot it.

I say bring on an upgraded antler restriction program!


----------



## MoshPitHippie (Mar 11, 2005)

The way that deer hunting is today I agree with you that letting that buck walk when we could not count the points would reallky suck... But do you think that if we had A/R that things minght not be a little different? As things are today a guy is lucky to even see an 8 pt buck, but I believe the chance of see a few bucks with 8 or more pts would increase with the A/R's.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

4x4_Hunter said:


> I haven't shot a buck in 15 years of hunting now and I still love the ARs. You wanta know why???.... because it allows me to catch some glimps of some really nice bucks instead of getting opportunities at harvesting some babies. I'll shoot a nice large doe instead. If I would have taken that 8-point, I would have shot a nice 1.5 year old buck with good genetics. Instead I shot a large doe that year that aged out at 5.5 years old. And the largest point of my story is: I feel so great about it. A bit stupid... but still a real good feeling overall.


Hey, 4x4 Hunter, you've got me beat, and I am impressed! It's been 8 years since I've last taken a buck. It's reassuring to know that there are hunters out there with a longer anter "drought" than me. Incidentally, I've greatly enjoyed my hunting over the last several seasons also.


----------



## huntingfool43 (Mar 16, 2002)

I guess if 60% are really in favor of ARs then you should be over run with big bucks or maybe someone is playing with numbers to try and get what they want. Why do you think you have the right to force ARs on everyone? My question is Why do you want to try and turn Michigan into a trophy state. Show me the proof that a bunch of big racks running around is better for the heard. Leave the ARs out of it, if someone wants to trophy hunt that is their right but it is not their right to force it on everyone.


----------



## GVSUKUSH (Mar 9, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> Hey, 4x4 Hunter, you've got me beat, and I am impressed! It's been 8 years since I've last taken a buck. It's reassuring to know that there are hunters out there with a longer anter "drought" than me. Incidentally, I've greatly enjoyed my hunting over the last several seasons also.


So you're saying that your QDM hasn't produced a "shooter" buck in 8 years?


----------



## MoshPitHippie (Mar 11, 2005)

I passed up 3 bucks last season but I must tell you it is a hard thing to do when you know the guy hunting on the other side of the fence will shoot anything with one or more pts... Some hunters think deer hunting has been great because they get to shoot up all of the little bucks that other people pass on....


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

GROUND CHECK EM!  




Easy just joking  

AW


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Nobody ever polled me on this question. thats the problem with polls you can just ask the people who will give you the answer you want to hear. it said 59% wanted to harvest a big rack, so it sounds like in this case they were polling trophy hunters.

If you want an accurate poll you need to talk to ALL THE HUNTERS!!!


----------



## Guest (Mar 30, 2005)

I haven't posted here prior, and primarily to hear what the public land hunters have to say and its the same old story. You can't eat horns, why should I let a spike go when it will be hammered by the guy down the lane, there are no studies that show a negative impact on our deer by taking the yearling bucks, etc, etc etc. Will guess what, I don't blame them for this negative, leave me alone, it is my right to do my thing, attitude, one single bit. 

This frame of mind comes from our leaders within the MDNR and has been there for decades. Some of you are old enough (well, maybe not too many) to remember when we were told to not take a doe, "You shoot a doe and you are taking three deer and one of them is your future buck" (statement by ourMDNR officials in the past), now you hear this exact same refrain from hunters. Some of you have heard more recent incantations from our decision makers in Lansing "We have a lot of deer, maybe 2 million, so. we are allowing you to take four bucks per year but we are not really concerned about the doe harvest at this time". 

Then recently (our officials in 1999) said, "We have way too many deer and we will let you take as many antlerless deer as you want in designated DMU's". This was, and still is, in my mind, the greatest move of deer management by the MDNR for Michigan hunters ever. They actually gave you hunters the power to make deer management decisions. You decide how, why, where and when to take surplus does. Think about it, it was all in your hands to manage your deer.

How did we react? Oh, yes, and I know you remember. Randy Smith started the Whitetails Forever organization and recieved plenty of support. Were you one of them crying out to the DNR, "We do not trust our neighbor, he will kill them all, you MDNR are the one and only deer manager in this state". Again I do not blame you one single bit. You have been trained and conditioned by the DNR and forever to be merely hunters, not deer managers. So, how on earth can anyone expect you to make a 180 degree turn in your mindset overnight? It's unrealistic and it didn't happen. The MDNR is still giving us jazz in advice in manageing our deer to keep us in the blind. Trust me, they do not want you to be informed. You just might challange them.

It was only recently when I asked a MDNR high official (decision maker) these two questions. "How many does should we take in relation to bucks and why are we not managing for a more natural sex ratio and buck age structure"?

Answer, "We should take a doe for every buck taken and throughout the state including the entire UP". "There are no studies that show a negative impact on our deer using the present deer management system". I can understand this stuff being fed to the uninformed, but I was literally floored by these two old canned answers.

Now for the real truth and well known by many true deer reseach experts. One can take 50% of all the mature bucks yearly and still have a decent buck age structure if there is also a program in place protecting yearling bucks. One can take from 30 to 35% of all does, (in some very productive areas, up to 40%) and still have plenty of producing does to replace the bucks that are taken yearly. However, in the harsher areas of the UP it is advisable to never take a mature doe unless one knows for sure that the herd is at capacity and following a mild winter or two. I pointed out that last truth to the official, he still stuck to his story, "unbelievable".

When I mentioned to this gentlmen that you all know, "If there is no restraint in the protection of at least 50% of the bucks and the hunters are taking up to 85% of them as they do in certain DMU's, then taking an equal number of does will devestate the herd for we are taking at least 70% and probably more of all the does yearly and nowhere in this entire country can we take that percent of does without lowering their number and age to a level of certain disaster". All I recieved was a blank look, and finally he said '"No way".

As I expected this well known MDNR official said to the second question, "There are no studies that show a negative impact on our deer by using the present deer management system". That's two for two of unbelieveable answers from one that I know, knows the truth. So, my dear public land hunters, this is what you are being fed and I don't blame you one single bit for your present mindset. 

For the record, this official was asked if there was a study on this subject. There was a another blank stare, for there aren't any studies, absolutely none on this subject. Even if there was a study it is unconcieveable to expect any meaningful data. It is very difficult to impossible to get an answer from a negative type research program. One can always be suspicious when data is based on removing existing conditions. You get meaningful data when you add to the picture. If there is a change when something is added it means something, when there is a change when something is removed it is not prove positive, one can speculate forever as to the cause of change when there is a negative research program. Changing a herd with an existing natural sex ratio and buck age structure and replacing it with an unnatural sex ratio of one buck to five does and an especially young buck age structure is certainly a negative happening. 

Are there studies that show that having a more natural sex ratio and buck age struture improves the picture over Traditional Deer Management. Oh, yes, indeed and there are literally hundreds of them. When I suggested that the recent five year demonstration in DMU 118 shows a difinite improvement and is a good research project to make judgements using the bio harvest data. I got another blank look and finally he said "That data is inconclusive". 

Yeah sure, a 24 % increase in the total number of bucks taken, versus the historical average, while also increasing the doe harvest by 84% and this while protecting at least 50% of the yearling bucks, with the last year showing as many 3-1/2 year old bucks and older taken as the 2-1/2 year olds.

Why oh why do people in decision making positions spend so much time defending their past decisions. Don't we ever make mistakes? I guess we don't if you are President Nixon, Clinton or a MDNR official. 

So you public land hunters you have been getting the short end of the stick for a long time and will continue to, until you demand truth and real progress in our deer management. I know well what is out there for I hunted exclusively on public lands for 22 years, a private club for 20 and for the last 11 years exclusively on my privately owned land, which I have spent much time in creating into a fun place.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

You da' man Ed!


----------



## Ogre (Mar 21, 2003)

I really take offense to the statement that I have been brain washed because I'm opposed to antler restrictions. I clearly stated my desire and preference for a young deer versus an old deer for quality and taste preferences. My preferences have nothing to do with DNR propaganda. I refuse to be restricted by the quality and amount of horns that an animal has. Remember that a young animal can be either buck or doe but if a buck then horn size is not significant to me. Understand that if a twelve point walked by I wouldn't mind the bragging rights associated with such a trophy however as previously stated: you can't eat the horns. Why is it that when people give their honest opinions that the counter argument is that they are obviously bad hunters, are misinformed, or are brain washed? Why the name calling and finger pointing? The thread asked why not try antler restrictions? When people answer honestly they deserve better than being labeled as being directed or manipulated.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Ogre,

I'm not at all questioning your motives, but a couple of points:

1) It's a falacy that a young deer tastes better than an older deer (I've eaten 10+ year-old deer and found absolutely no difference in flavor to a yearling deer); 2) Sure, you can't eat antlers, but an older deer generally weighs much more than a young deer, hence produces more meat; and 3) under a QDM program hunters generally kill much more meat than under traditional management, specifically because they harvest more does. In fact, it is commonplace for hunters switching to QDM to double their annual meat harvest.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Orge said it best before and before this gets into 'one of those' threads I'll heed Orge's first warning - quote: *Let's give antler restrictions their deserved rest.* unquote.

Yea good idea for now.


ferg....


----------

