# Hey, listen Up!! It could happen!!



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

I predict the whole state will have it as well in a few years( if not then the lindquist proposal for starters) once the sample counties have been examined.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

brushbuster said:


> I predict the whole state will have it as well in a few years( if not then the lindquist proposal for starters) once the sample counties have been examined.


With the ease that the NRC applied the Lindquist rules to the NELP I fear you may be right.


Big T


----------



## muliefever (Jul 2, 2007)

well I must say that I am excited about something taking place! I took pictures of 20 or so small bucks the other night. Everyone of them would be protected!


----------



## Lugian (Aug 19, 2007)

bucko12pt said:


> The new proposal is based on the same rules that are in effect for Leelanau, 3 points on a side.
> 
> The DNR has talked of updating the procedure, but to date it has not been done. This proposal, if it were to pass, will coincide with Leelanau's rules, giving a much larger area to collect data from, which is what the biologists involved would like to see.


Obviously you know of the new proposal, when is the proposed date that it would go into effect? Will there be a vote after the 5 year period on this proposal too?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## PWood (Aug 6, 2004)

Let's see:
Kalkaska just had their antlerless permits cut form 100 (2009) to 0 (2010).
Benzie had their permits reduced from 300 to 200.
Grand Traverse had theirs cut in half from 600 to 300.
Manistee was also reduced by 400.

But the NRC is considering a plan that has more than the potential to take additional antlerless deer from these DMUs.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Why is this not being considered for the SLP where it is needed.

But, I guess it will give the NWLP trophy hunters some bigger bone to shoot at.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Seems that the nlp is being used as a test area. This test belongs in the slp. It won't make much difference anyway, there is not much they can do to enforce it, except on public land.


----------



## muliefever (Jul 2, 2007)

I disagree that the "test" needs to be done in the LP.. How many more Big deer do they need to harvest down there? All we need in the NLP is age class. (for bucks that is) and to harvest the right amount of does per each area. A one buck rule would be awesome. But nonetheless, it is a step!


----------



## Lugian (Aug 19, 2007)

muliefever said:


> I disagree that the "test" needs to be done in the LP.. How many more Big deer do they need to harvest down there? All we need in the NLP is age class. (for bucks that is) and to harvest the right amount of does per each area. A one buck rule would be awesome. But nonetheless, it is a step!


I'm not sure if the state can afford a OBR. If you take a look at the stats from dmu 045, there are just as many bucks killed every year but the age structure has increased significantly. The state wouldn't take a financial hit and the hunter has a greater chance at an older buck. Win-win for everybody.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## swoosh (Sep 29, 2006)

I think I just heard swamps head explode:yikes:

I think they are doing this by region so the only piss-off a few of us at a time:lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Lugian said:


> I'm not sure if the state can afford a OBR. If you take a look at the stats from dmu 045, there are just as many bucks killed every year but the age structure has increased significantly.


In looking at the stats in DMU 045, Antlered buck harvest peaked two years ago and has since declined to lower then pre-MAR's baseline levels. We will have to see if that is a trend or an anomaly. Hunter participation also dropped 12% last year to under pre-MAR's baseline levels, so that may be the cause of the reduction in antlered buck harvest. Anterless harvest is down 21% under MAR's in DMU 045.


----------



## giver108 (Nov 24, 2004)

Lugian said:


> Where did you see that at, and what were the other counties?


Here's a link to an article. 

http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/news/51184-antler-restrictions-proposed

As a Mason Co. hunter myself, I would like to see this proposal pass as well.


----------



## Kalamazooxj (Nov 18, 2007)

So in the future if the state impliments AR's the people who shoot the younger bucks with not-so-many points would be considered poachers?


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Lugian said:


> I'm not sure if the state can afford a OBR. If you take a look at the stats from dmu 045, there are just as many bucks killed every year but the age structure has increased significantly. The state wouldn't take a financial hit and the hunter has a greater chance at an older buck. Win-win for everybody.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 A way to solve that problem is to make it obr on one tag and doe on the resricted tag.You still have a dual tag to bring in revenue.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Serious question, after re-reading thru the thread I came up with the question on the combo tag for the counties in question. 3 on one side for the first buck and 4 on one side for the second. Say the first buck you shot was a 8 pointer can you use the 4 on one side tag or must you use the 3 on one side? I'm assuming you have that choice like we do with our current system?

Thanks,Tom


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

tommy-n said:


> Serious question, after re-reading thru the thread I came up with the question on the combo tag for the counties in question. 3 on one side for the first buck and 4 on one side for the second. Say the first buck you shot was a 8 pointer can you use the 4 on one side tag or must you use the 3 on one side? I'm assuming you have that choice like we do with our current system?
> 
> Thanks,Tom


I would guess it would be the same as it is now.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

tommy-n said:


> Serious question, after re-reading thru the thread I came up with the question on the combo tag for the counties in question. 3 on one side for the first buck and 4 on one side for the second. Say the first buck you shot was a 8 pointer can you use the 4 on one side tag or must you use the 3 on one side? I'm assuming you have that choice like we do with our current system?
> 
> Thanks,Tom


You can use the combo tag in any order. 

You can also still use both of the combo tags to tag button bucks, if you have a valid antlerless license. 

You just can't shoot spikes over 3" and forkhorns.


----------



## Kalamazooxj (Nov 18, 2007)

tommy-n said:


> Serious question, after re-reading thru the thread I came up with the question on the combo tag for the counties in question. 3 on one side for the first buck and 4 on one side for the second. Say the first buck you shot was a 8 pointer can you use the 4 on one side tag or must you use the 3 on one side? I'm assuming you have that choice like we do with our current system?
> 
> Thanks,Tom


 
I would think that all depends on if they enforce some kind of mandatory thing like.... "If you are using your 3+ point lisence you must have your 4+ in your posession at that time". So if you use your 4+ point on your first deer... you better hope you don't have the 3+ tag on you. That way you could never tag 2 bucks if you used your 4+ on your first deer. Does that make sense? It's sort of a sneeky way to do a OBR.

I'm sure you will have a choice though, I'm just being weird. :lol:


----------



## Lugian (Aug 19, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> You can use the combo tag in any order.
> 
> You can also still use both of the combo tags to tag button bucks, if you have a valid antlerless license.
> 
> You just can't shoot spikes over 3" and forkhorns.


You can also use the combo tag for two does.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Thanks guy's. I know how the current combo tag works. I guess whatI was getting at would it be the same in the area's in question or would they word it in such a way you must shoot a 3 on one side to earn your 4 on one side. I would think not but it could be possible.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Lugian said:


> You can also use the combo tag for two does.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Only for bow hunting................this would not be the same as the NELP proposal.

To answer your earlier question about when it would go into effect. The original proposal for DMU 045 was two years in the making.......................first year to get to the vote and another year to put it in effect. If the NRC OK'd the process to start, I would assume the vote would be next year and another year to put it in effect, so the Fall of 2012 would be the earliest. That's assuming it goes the through the normal process.

It would sunset in 5 years and have to be voted on again.

Like DMU 045 and the other proposals that have been put forward in the past, it will be a lot of work and no
guarantee it will pass, considering it neets 67% approval of hunters and landowners.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Since the DNR is in the process of formulating a work group to look at the QDM restriction implementation process, it seems logical that they would wait until that work group has formulated a reccomendation before going forward with any new QDM initiatives....... But then again, it's the NRC that we are dealing with.


----------



## Lugian (Aug 19, 2007)

bucko12pt said:


> Only for bow hunting................this would not be the same as the NELP proposal.
> 
> To answer your earlier question about when it would go into effect. The original proposal for DMU 045 was two years in the making.......................first year to get to the vote and another year to put it in effect. If the NRC OK'd the process to start, I would assume the vote would be next year and another year to put it in effect, so the Fall of 2012 would be the earliest. That's assuming it goes the through the normal process.
> 
> ...


Do you know if they only take votes from landowners or hunters who hunt private land?

The counties mentioned all have a significant amount of public land and IMO after the 5 years the public land hunters will be very satisfied with the results. It also benefits the small parcel owners.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Skibum (Oct 3, 2000)

Lugian said:


> Do you know if they only take votes from landowners or hunters who hunt private land?
> 
> The counties mentioned all have a significant amount of public land and IMO after the 5 years the public land hunters will be very satisfied with the results. It also benefits the small parcel owners.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



The votes are by the NRC not the public.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> Since the DNR is in the process of formulating a work group to look at the QDM restriction implementation process, it seems logical that they would wait until that work group has formulated a reccomendation before going forward with any new QDM initiatives....... But then again, it's the NRC that we are dealing with.


They've also being working on that for what, two or three years now with no results, since the supposed moratorium, so how long should one wait?

Makes more sense to me, to implement something that is already in effect (ala Leelanau) then to come 
up with something totally new and have 4 different 
proposals (UP, NELP, DMU 045 and another new
proposal).

As you say, it's the NRC we are dealing with so God only knows.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Skibum said:


> The votes are by the NRC not the public.


Not so.

Part of the process is a random selection of property owners and hunters that filled out the hunter survey. 
They are surveyed and the results of that vote decides
whether the proposal goes into effect. It takes 67% of each group to pass. So yes, it's landowners and hunters that are the only ones in the survey.The NRC has no vote in that part of the process. 

The NRC simply approves the results of the vote, either yes or no.


----------



## Skibum (Oct 3, 2000)

Ieatantlers said:


> Why is the SLP not looked at? It is THE place that it makes sense.


Not really. Too many yearling bucks that have 3 or 4 points on a side. The simple solution is go a OBR and raise the price of a buck tag to $50. Charge $10 for antlerless tags and let hunters shoot whatever size buck they choose.


----------



## Skibum (Oct 3, 2000)

bucko12pt said:


> Not so.
> 
> Part of the process is a random selection of property owners and hunters that filled out the hunter survey.
> They are surveyed and the results of that vote decides
> ...


Yep, sorry. You are correct.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucko12pt said:


> They've also being working on that for what, two or three years now with no results, since the supposed moratorium, so how long should one wait?
> 
> Makes more sense to me, to implement something that is already in effect (ala Leelanau) then to come
> up with something totally new and have 4 different
> ...


They have not been formulating the work group for 2 or 3 years. The deadline for applicants to be on the work group is Aug. 12th, Commissioner Richardson is chairing the group and there is a schedule of meetings already laid out . The group should conclude it's work by next spring sometime. It seems ridiculous to start a new initiative that would cover a good portion of the state prior to this work group having the opportunity to come up with a recommendation for what procedure should be used.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> They have not been formulating the work group for 2 or 3 years. The deadline for applicants to be on the work group is Aug. 12th, Commissioner Richardson is chairing the group and there is a schedule of meetings already laid out . The group should conclude it's work by next spring sometime. It seems ridiculous to start a new initiative that would cover a good portion of the state prior to this work group having the opportunity to come up with a recommendation for what procedure should be used.


So you are surprised that they are allowing this, what with their decision making over the past couple of years.:lol:

They've had this process set up for a number of years now and have violated it twice in the past few years, first with the UP change and more recently the NELP change. 

If they continue that trend, new rules are meaningless.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Almost makes a person wonder how long it will be before their jobs start taking a hard hit from the lack of license sales. Like they say give some people enough rope and they'll hang themselves.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Here's the complete process on how to implement a QDM Proposal http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/reports/QDMDRAFTIII11-29-05.pdf


----------



## SNAREMAN (Dec 10, 2006)

bucko12pt said:


> Emmet, Charlevoix, Antrim, Kalkaska, Benzie, Wexford, Missaukee, Osceola and Clare.
> 
> Plus Mason, Manistee and Lake already mentioned and
> Leelanau which is already under the restriction. 13
> ...


Just went to the dnr site and checked the NRC agenda for next weeks meeting.I did not see anything about expanding AR countys.Where did you see this at?


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

Michihunter said:


> Here's the complete process on how to implement a QDM Proposal http://www.michigandnr.com/publications/pdfs/huntingwildlifehabitat/reports/QDMDRAFTIII11-29-05.pdf


During the period that the NRC put a moratorium in place regarding MAR proposals, there was an attempt to modify the guidelines. The modified guidelines were never approved by the NRC. Bottom line is, there currently are no guidelines in effect. 

Constructing new guidelines will be the mission of the soon to begin workgroup.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

November Sunrise said:


> During the period that the NRC put a moratorium in place regarding MAR proposals, there was an attempt to modify the guidelines. The modified guidelines were never approved by the NRC. Bottom line is, there currently are no guidelines in effect.
> 
> Constructing new guidelines will be the mission of the soon to begin workgroup.


I was not aware that the old guidelines weren't still in place during this process although that really hasn't meant much considering the last two passings of these types of proposals. Thanks for the heads up.


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

Michihunter said:


> I was not aware that the old guidelines weren't still in place during this process although that really hasn't meant much considering the last two passings of these types of proposals. Thanks for the heads up.


I wasn't aware either until February 2009. At that time I had inquired about the guidelines and what I posted above is the almost verbatim response that I received from Rod Clute.

He also indicated that when the Lindquist structure was put into place in '08 that the head of the NRC had requested at that time that the issue of new MAR tests then be put aside until 5 years of UP results existed. What has changed meaningfully since that time is the arrival of Russ Mason as the new DNR head, and I consider Russ to be much more proactive in moving these types of things along as compared to his predecessors.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> In looking at the stats in DMU 045, Antlered buck harvest peaked two years ago and has since declined to lower then pre-MAR's baseline levels. We will have to see if that is a trend or an anomaly. Hunter participation also dropped 12% last year to under pre-MAR's baseline levels, so that may be the cause of the reduction in antlered buck harvest. Anterless harvest is down 21% under MAR's in DMU 045.


Those are very important stats........Not as rosey as some would lead us to believe.




bucko12pt said:


> Not so.
> 
> Part of the process is a random selection of property owners and hunters that filled out the hunter survey.
> They are surveyed and the results of that vote decides
> ...


Hardly a random survey.......How about those owning less than 5 acres or renting, And it was weighted to property owners(over 5 acres only)


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> Those are very important stats........Not as rosey as some would lead us to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So what would you suggest we do Swampbuck? It's the way the DNR set up the proposal to be completed.
Lobby for change if you do'nt think it's fair. 

It's post's like your's that start these threads going downhill.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Hopefully the survey will reflect the higher percentage of public land in those countys.......The random hunters surveyed should far outnumber the 5 acre landowners this time.

The guidlines indicate that would be the case........Of course those guidelines havnt been followed the last 3 times.


----------



## Lugian (Aug 19, 2007)

swampbuck said:


> Hopefully the survey will reflect the higher percentage of public land in those countys.......The random hunters surveyed should far outnumber the 5 acre landowners this time.
> 
> The guidlines indicate that would be the case........Of course those guidelines havnt been followed the last 3 times.


It sounds like you are assuming that public land hunters will be dissatisfied with the proposed AR. Is this true?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I think that the average public land hunter who only gets a short time to hunt will be disapointed, As well as those who are seeking meat.

In many areas the herd is already low, There are little to no antlerless permits. Now you want to take the majority of the bucks off the table also........

In areas having mars harvest numbers have consistently fallen. 40-60% in some places. The numbers have started to fall in leelanau.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> I think that the average public land hunter who only gets a short time to hunt will be disapointed, As well as those who are seeking meat.
> 
> In many areas the herd is already low, There are little to no antlerless permits. Now you want to take the majority of the bucks off the table also........
> 
> In areas having mars harvest numbers have consistently fallen. 40-60% in some places. The numbers have started to fall in leelanau.


Can you post a link to the MARS areas that have had a 
40 - 60% decline in harvest? 

The numbers in Leelanau have fallen for various reasons, not just because a MAR is in place. 

The fact remains, we have happy hunters and landowners in Leelanau. Being an outsider and guessing at what is going on here, is just that.......................a guess.


----------



## Lugian (Aug 19, 2007)

swampbuck said:


> I think that the average public land hunter who only gets a short time to hunt will be disapointed, As well as those who are seeking meat.
> 
> In many areas the herd is already low, There are little to no antlerless permits. Now you want to take the majority of the bucks off the table also........
> 
> In areas having mars harvest numbers have consistently fallen. 40-60% in some places. The numbers have started to fall in leelanau.


 
IMO the average public land hunter will be very pleased the first time he/she see's the first two year old buck. It may not happen the first or second year but by year 3 and on, the average public land hunter will be seeing older bucks. The "majority of the bucks will be off the table" for 2 years maximum. The same amount of bucks can be taken but will be older in age class.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Lugian said:


> The same amount of bucks can be taken but will be older in age class.


That may or may not be true, it depends on the circumstances where the MAR's are enacted. In PA, the annual antlered harvest is no where close to what it was prior to MAR's. That's because the size of the herd has been reduced by 30 - 40%. If MAR's are enacted as part of a herd reduction process, then you are going to see a diminished number of antlered bucks harvested overall. They may be larger, older bucks but there are going to be a lot fewer of them. 

I don't think that would be the case in the NWLP, because the population would remain pretty static but it could certainly be the case in the SLP. You would also not see the dramatic uptick in antlerless harvest that has been seen in high density areas that incorporate herd reduction with MAR's, in the NWLP.


----------



## Lugian (Aug 19, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> That may or may not be true, it depends on the circumstances where the MAR's are enacted. In PA, the annual antlered harvest is no where close to what it was prior to MAR's. That's because the size of the herd has been reduced by 30 - 40%. If MAR's are enacted as part of a herd reduction process, then you are going to see a diminished number of antlered bucks harvested overall. They may be larger, older bucks but there are going to be a lot fewer of them.
> 
> I don't think that would be the case in the NWLP, because the population would remain pretty static but it could certainly be the case in the SLP. You would also not see the dramatic uptick in antlerless harvest that has been seen in high density areas that incorporate herd reduction with MAR's, in the NWLP.


 
Two separate issues. If the decision of the DNR is to reduce the size of the herd by 30-40%, then of course buck harvest will be down.

Once the "optimal" herd density is achieved, from that point on, the same amount of bucks can be harvested with or without MAR's, after 2-3 years.


----------



## moebedda (Nov 8, 2007)

I wish they would make MARS statewide. It would be better hunting for all. We did this same MARS at our camp a couple of years ago. Last year everyone saw at least one buck. We only harvested one 8 point buck, but everyone was excited because everyone was seeing deer and bucks. I myself saw 6 bucks during gun season, but no shooters. That may not sound like a lot to some here, but the area in the UP that we hunt has a pretty low deer density. It's been a very long time since EVERYONE in our camp saw a buck and as many deer as we did last season. 

MARS has my vote for the whole state.


----------



## muliefever (Jul 2, 2007)

swampbuck said:


> I think that the average public land hunter who only gets a short time to hunt will be disapointed, As well as those who are seeking meat.
> 
> In many areas the herd is already low, There are little to no antlerless permits. Now you want to take the majority of the bucks off the table also........
> 
> In areas having mars harvest numbers have consistently fallen. 40-60% in some places. The numbers have started to fall in leelanau.


 
I disagree Swampbuck.. My first couple of years I hunted strickly public land North of Ludington. During bow season, if I saw a deer or two each sit it was a good night. In two years time I seen one 8pt.. all the rest were small scrub bucks, 1x2's, 2x2's etc. Not even a 6pt. I let all those deer walk, I saw probably 12-15 bucks in two years of hunting. I believe that all of the bucks I saw should be protected, with the exception of that 8 pt ofcoarse. During rifle season I saw two bucks, both small, I let them walk. And I must have seen 10-20 does. What made me sick was the lasy ass rifel hunters sitting near a tree not 10 yds off every single road... amazing.. But that's a whole other can of worms. I believe that most public land hunters would much rather have the opportunity to kill a nice 2.5 year old plus 8 pt. mind you this is not for the person who soley wants to go out and kill. and that's okay.. They should go out and shoot coyotes or something. and to argue that they just want the meat is silly. How much meat does one really get with a 4pt? Not very much... In my area I wish they would go to a one buck rule, 3 pts on one side, manage the quota for private land doe tags, AND ESTABLISH A DRAW HUNT FOR PUBLIC LAND DOES....


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

muliefever said:


> mind you this is not for the person who soley wants to go out and kill. and that's okay.. They should go out and shoot coyotes or something. and to argue that they just want the meat is silly. How much meat does one really get with a 4pt?


 Quite a bit more than you would if you shot a coyote instead.:lol:


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

swampbuck said:


> I think that the average public land hunter who only gets a short time to hunt will be disapointed, As well as those who are seeking meat.
> 
> .


 
I think that the average hunter public or private hunter, who hunts in an area with low deer numbers will be dissapointed if they don't do any scouting. By scouting I don't mean walking into the woods a few days before they hunt find a deer run and set up. 
IMO if you want to be successful you have to apply yourself, and that goes with all deer , no matter the sex or age or antler size.
MARS take away opportunity at one deer but down the road will provide more opportunity at another.
Alot of the problem is alot of hunters expect opportunity and forget the opportunity has always been there, just is sometimes things aren't as easy as they would like them to be. 
I wish the state was full of big antlered bucks, it would sure make it easier to kill one if it was. Simple fact that it isn't and that is what I would like to kill, I have to work harder to get that.
So if MAR's were implimented and if a hunter wants to kill a legal buck, he/she may need to work a little harder to find one.
Remember I once read somewhere that "it isn't supposed to be easy thats why it is called hunting" If the rules change, then hunters need to change their tactics if their current ones fail to work. If one does not have the time to apply a little effort, then don't expect too much.
The state provides us hunters with seasons to hunt, they try to maintain the game to safe population levels via hunting, and at times try to improve certain aspects of the herd, usually due to socialogical reasons and not biological reasons. (hunter wants)
Basically here you go hunters follow these rules and it is up to you to make the best of it.


Note: I am not advocating MAR's.


----------



## moebedda (Nov 8, 2007)

Scouting? That takes work and time. The "I got my buck" guy has no time for that.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

moebedda said:


> Scouting? That takes work and time. The "I got my buck" guy has no time for that.


Like I said at the end of my post. When it boils right down to it this is all hunters options across the country.

*Basically here you go hunters follow these rules and it is up to you to make the best of it.

*


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

moebedda said:


> I wish they would make MARS statewide. It would be better hunting for all. We did this same MARS at our camp a couple of years ago. Last year everyone saw at least one buck. We only harvested one 8 point buck, but everyone was excited because everyone was seeing deer and bucks. I myself saw 6 bucks during gun season, but no shooters. That may not sound like a lot to some here, but the area in the UP that we hunt has a pretty low deer density. It's been a very long time since EVERYONE in our camp saw a buck and as many deer as we did last season.
> 
> MARS has my vote for the whole state.


Congats on getting things the way you like at your camp. That being said...why do you think the entire state should have the same standards? Why do you care? Who are you to decide what is "better hunting for all"? By the way I am not totally against a mar in the right situations.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Those guys who dont have time for scouting or hunting mature bucks, Can we afford to lose those HUNTERS.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

moebedda said:


> Scouting? That takes work and time. The "I got my buck" guy has no time for that.


Amazingly shortsighted comments such as this is what causes divisiveness. How about 'the guy that has two jobs, 4 kids with extracurricular activities, and a ton of other more important priorities' is the one that has no time for that? A single guy with nothing better to do certainly may have the time to do these things. But it doesn't make him anything more than a single guy with more time on his hands. And it certainly doesn't place his 'wants' above another's.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

For those that are in favor of implementing MAR's and are promoting the idea that hunting is supposed to be hard, why stop with a 3 pt. MAR that does not protect all of the yearling bucks? Why not insist on a 5 pt. MAR? It would protect almost all of the yearling and 2.5 year old bucks and would create an advanced buck age structure all that much faster. If antler restrictions are such a good thing, then it stands to reason that a bigger pt. restriction would be even better. Why only a 3 and not a 5?


----------



## traditional (Mar 14, 2007)

First I am sick and tired of this MAR debate. Those who want it are dedicated hunters and will push their agenda regardless.

That being said:

I hunted Leelanau from the late 60's to the third year of MAR's.

It will take the majority of deer you see off the table. I was told shoot a doe if you want meat. My reply was DMU 045 has not had doe permits for public land hunters for many years. I was told go bow hunting. I am left eye dominant and am not comfortable shooting at deer with a weapon I am not good at.

If you are a gun only meat hunter you will be disappointed period.
If your goal is big antlers and you can hunt private land as most of Leelanau is you will be happy as Buck-o states.

I really don't care anymore. Shove MAR"S down everyones gut. 

As you can see, the next thing you will see is a bnb post that says I am just a lousy hunter and don't put enough effort in it. 

So be it.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

Im for the new proposal.

I've hunted nice private land in Lake Co. for 20+ years and could count the number of 8+ pt bucks we've seen/shot on 2 HANDS! Its easy to cover 10-15 miles glassing in the eveing (in july/aug) and MAYBE see 1 buck that would go 8pts or better out of 100+ deer! Every year I pass on 5-10 different 1.5 year old bucks while hunting and Im lucky to even see a 2.5+ year old buck.

It also seems that rub areas are often MUCH more intense in SLP (or Ohio) than in my area of NLP. To me that means alot of hunters in NWLP get a shorter end of the stick in overall deer behavior and hunting experience.

Sitting on a log watching blue jays and wood peckers does have its moments, but deer hunting is why we are there in the first place.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

traditional said:


> As you can see, the next thing you will see is a bnb post that says I am just a lousy hunter and don't put enough effort in it.
> 
> So be it.


 
Nope I don't think you are a lousy hunter. My point is and it goes with most everything in life. The more time you put into it the more you will get out of it. Pretty simple.
I also love hockey, I play and practice as much as I can. Due to having a family it is not as much as I want, so therefore I am only so good. I still have fun I still get out on the ice, I just get burned a bit more and don't score as much and don't have the ability to read plays like the player who spends alot more time on the ice as I do.
I am not pushing any management techniques any where in the state. All I am saying is if these proposals get passed and they become a reality when that time comes you can............
1. piss and moan
2. lower expectations
3. look forward to hopefully the proposed outcome of the restritions
4. Put a little more effort into your hunts if able too.
5. Get into the politics of state game regs and reverse them back to what you want. (as hypocritical as that is)
6. Hunt somewhere else where the regs and opportunities fit your style
7. Give up all together.

So please explain to me where any of my posts in this thread state that if you don't give as much effort into your hunts as lets say me for example that I have called you or anyone else a lousy hunter.
I will give you one thing you are good at........taking things the wrong way.:evil:

FWIW I put alot of time into hunting and only have killed 3 bucks over 100" maybe I'm a lousy hunter.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

bucksnbows said:


> *I think that the average hunter public or private hunter, who hunts in an area with low deer numbers will be dissapointed if they don't do any scouting.*
> 
> *IMO if you want to be successful you have to apply yourself, and that goes with all deer , no matter the sex or age or antler size.*
> 
> ...


Here I dumbed down my original posts for some of you.

For those of you who can remove the blinders read the first post.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Here is a little piece I just happen to run across. 
*Based on data, it does not appear antler point restrictions significantly changed timing of breeding in Pennsylvania. However, antler restrictions do have other benefits. Some of which we can measure, some of which we can&#8217;t. Antler restrictions have increased buck survival, have no negative impact on genetics, increased the number of adult bucks in the harvest, and are supported by hunters.



Deer, like people, benefit from a more stable social organization. Imagine if males were removed from the human world by the age of 20. How would that alter society as we know it? Prior to antler restrictions a major social component &#8211; specifically, older males &#8211; was missing from the Pennsylvania deer herd. Antler restrictions are giving us the opportunity to return adult age classes to the herd. While we cannot measure the social and behavioral benefit this type of change will have, it is difficult to argue against one existing given what is known about social structure of deer.





Jeannine Tardiff Fleegle

Wildlife Biologist, Deer & Elk Management Section

PA Game Commission*

I thought this was interisting thats all. I was looking to see if there was any biological reason for AR's since this year they seem to be quite popular with the state.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

I found a Pennsylvania hunting site and they too argue over AR's. What I did find though is some interisting arguements. 
Here is a quote from one of the posters


*"Seriously though, think about it for a second. Why are so many states going the AR route??? Is it because hunters are putting pressure on these wildlife agencies to manage herds for trophies??? Hardly. My belief is that after way too many years of hunters putting emphasis on BUCK hunting and "protecting" does in one way or another, these states have realized how skewed the buck/doe ratios are and are doing something about it. Yes, these same hunters that cry trophy hunter at anyone that supports ARs are the very ones that put SO much emphasis on BUCK hunting over the years while the doe populations skyrocketed out of control. They bash guys who pass up bucks and many seasons go home with an unfilled tag ans claim that they are "ruining" the sport. Something had to be done to balance the b/d ratio and protecting bucks and drastically reducing the doe population were the solution. "

The poster does make some points.*
This one isn't too bad either,

*"all comes back to jim's ARgument that the 1.5 old bucks "got the job done". Sure the young bucks "got the job done" in the past and plenty of does were bred but at what cost to the health of the herd??? How many does came into estrus 3 or 4 times without getting bred because of a lack of bucks??? How many young bucks perished after a long, drawn out rut and then a harsh winter??? Even though biologists can monitor deer in captivity and research their biology, the social aspects of herd life cannot be measured. Now, when we are talking about a wild deer herd, it is nearly impossible to measure either the biological or social benefits/drawbacks.

There are many things in life that are "good enough" but is that really what we are striving for??? Do we care enough about the animals that we hunt to want to insure that they are as healthy, both biologically and socially, as they can be??? 

But, alas, there lies the problem. Some hunters see benefits to the herd with the program even if it means that they don't fill their buck tag every year. Other hunters don't see any benefit to THEM ans so they bash the program and claim that things were "good enough" in the past and that the young bucks "got the job done". They are more concerned with the social drawbacks to THEM and could care less about the health of the herd. Then they turn around and try to claim the it's the pro AR/QDM guys who are worried about the "social benefits" to trophy hunters.

Has anyone ever done a study that PROVES that there is a social or biological benefit to having older humans in the population??? If not, then there must be NO benefit right??? Teenagers are capable of "getting the job done" so having older humans is not needed right??? "*


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucksnbows said:


> *Deer, like people, benefit from a more stable social organization. Imagine if males were removed from the human world by the age of 20. How would that alter society as we know it? Prior to antler restrictions a major social component  specifically, older males  was missing from the Pennsylvania deer herd. Antler restrictions are giving us the opportunity to return adult age classes to the herd. While we cannot measure the social and behavioral benefit this type of change will have, it is difficult to argue against one existing given what is known about social structure of deer.*
> 
> *Jeannine Tardiff Fleegle*
> 
> ...


Two points, first, it's a specious argument that there are no older bucks existing in the Michigan deer herd. There are lot's of older bucks killed every year and more advance every year to take their place. Harvest records document that fact. In order for there to be a tangible biological impact on the herd, there would have to be evidence that mature bucks are non-existent in Michigan and that is simply not the case. 

Secondly, there have been numerous examples in human civilization where a substantial percentage of of the male population has been removed due to war. After the Civil war in the United States and Europe after World War II are just two examples. Neither situation caused any sort of a permanent imbalance that negatively impacted civilization. 

With all due respect to Ms. Fleegle, her statement sounds more like sociological anthropomorphism then any sort of a realistic biological assessment of the herd.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Just a heads up before anyone decides to put on their idiot hat and attack me. Those last couple of posts were only quotes I found interisting from another site. I could go and find some good arguements against them too, but those two just happen to jump out at me and sounded reasonable, I am sure they can be twisted to not sounding so reasonable too. 
If you happen to want to put me into the regulation pushing pro QDM department please don't. Read my signature it pretty much shows you the only state wide regulation change I would support. I would support AR's in the slp but I would never go as far as to try to make it happen. To put it simple I would accept it for a number of years to see how well it works or didn't and then make my judgement.


----------



## Lugian (Aug 19, 2007)

traditional said:


> First I am sick and tired of this MAR debate. Those who want it are dedicated hunters and will push their agenda regardless.
> 
> That being said:
> 
> ...


If that were true then the total buck kill year after year would be half of what it was pre MAR's. Is that the case? 

I've seen maybe 12-15 different bucks since I started hunting in 045(2004). 2 of the bucks I saw were "off limits" under the law.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> Two points, first, it's a specious argument that there are no older bucks existing in the Michigan deer herd. There are lot's of older bucks killed every year and more advance every year to take their place. Harvest records document that fact. In order for there to be a tangible biological impact on the herd, there would have to be evidence that mature bucks are non-existent in Michigan and that is simply not the case.
> 
> Secondly, there have been numerous examples in human civilization where a substantial percentage of of the male population has been removed due to war. After the Civil war in the United States and Europe after World War II are just two examples. Neither situation caused any sort of a permanent imbalance that negatively impacted civilization.
> 
> With all due respect to Ms. Fleegle, her statement sounds more like sociological anthropomorphism then any sort of a realistic biological assessment of the herd.


From what I gather from Ms. Fleegle's statement is this.............
Ar's have no impact on the health of the herd negative nor postive in a way that they are needed or should never be used. 
I also feel what she is trying to say is that doesn't mean we can't use them. 
You refer to a substantial part of the male population being removed during some wars. But what I see is that most of them were young men not old men. Kind of like our buck harvest, with no upset to society.
What I think could be argued using that comparison is that the women didn't greatly out number the men before ____% of the younger male population was removed, unlike our deer herd. 

Again AR's are more of a social thing amongst hunters than a biological reason. What seems to be happening is that there is enough hunters that want bigger older bucks enough that they are getting their voices heard by those that have control of these things.
AR's , may not be needed but looks like in the NLP at least, they are wanted. I know alot of you can tell me the majority of hunters up that way are against it and I believe you, but I also believe the number of hunters in the NLP that want them are much larger than you say or think.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

All of this makes me think. How would I feel if this was all taking place in my hunting area. Well personally for me the current proposals wouldn't bother me one bit, I use a spread width to determine if I shoot a buck or not if I can't age him to be 3.5 +. Of course a 5.5 y/o 20" wide 4 point would be off the table and there is one of the down falls to AR's to a hunter like me, but I have yet to see that. 
That doesn't mean I welcome AR's to my area it just means I would give the regulation change a chance before I start complaining about it.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

bucksnbows. I only quoted this part of your post 

"Again AR's are more of a social thing amongst hunters than a biological reason. What seems to be happening is that there is enough hunters that want bigger older bucks enough that they are getting their voices heard by those that have control of these things"

I'm not so sure about there being enough hunters wanting bigger bucks being heard. Maybe they are just the ones speaking the loudest:lol::lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucksnbows said:


> From what I gather from Ms. Fleegle's statement is this.............
> Ar's have no impact on the health of the herd negative nor postive in a way that they are needed or should never be used.
> I also feel what she is trying to say is that doesn't mean we can't use them.
> You refer to a substantial part of the male population being removed during some wars. But what I see is that most of them were young men not old men. Kind of like our buck harvest, with no upset to society.
> ...


Here is where I think we agree, that in most situations and specifically in the NLP, there is no biological reason to enact MAR's. The DNR has previously stated that fact. 

As far as whether a super-majority of hunters, the level needed in the past, favor MAR's based on purely social reasons, remains to be seen. In Leelanau Co., the MAR's were sold heavily as having a positive biological impact on the resource and promoted under the auspices of sound scientific management. How many of those who supported them did so based on that representation? I have no problem with AR's being enacted if 2/3rds of the hunters decide to do so, as long as they are in an informed capacity, having been told that there is no actual biological benefit to the resource and that the primary benefit is a purely social one designed to increase the number of older (large antlered) bucks available for hunters to harvest.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

tommy-n said:


> I'm not so sure about there being enough hunters wanting bigger bucks being heard.* Maybe they are just the ones speaking the loudest:lol::lol:*


 I agree they are speaking the loudest.



bucksnbows said:


> 5. Get into the politics of state game regs and reverse them back to what you want. (as hypocritical as that is)
> .


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> *I have no problem with AR's being enacted if 2/3rds of the hunters decide to do so, as long as they are in an informed capacity, having been told that there is no actual biological benefit to the resource and that the primary benefit is a purely social one designed to increase the number of older (large antlered) bucks available for hunters to harvest. *


And here is another area I think we agree.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucksnbows said:


> All of this makes me think. How would I feel if this was all taking place in my hunting area. Well personally for me the current proposals wouldn't bother me one bit.


In order to be equivilent in terms of impact on hunters, a restriction in the area you hunt in would have to be 4 pt. per side. Would you be enthusiastic about having to pass on something like this because of an arbitrary regulation being imposed?


----------



## moebedda (Nov 8, 2007)

Justin said:


> Congats on getting things the way you like at your camp. That being said...why do you think the entire state should have the same standards? Why do you care? Who are you to decide what is "better hunting for all"? By the way I am not totally against a mar in the right situations.


Michigan needs to get on on par with some of these other mid-west states for deer quality, especially since some of us can't really afford to do a hunt in say Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, etc. We need to change with the times. Why can't we have this in our home state instead of having to go to the next state over? We can. I don't understand how ANYONE can be against a better quality deer herd if they really enjoy hunting. 

Better hunting is better hunting. I don't have to decide that. It's just a fact. If people are seeing more deer, they will have a better hunt. During the rut, more year and a half year old bucks in the woods, means the bigger bucks will be trying to keep them off of the does, which means more deer are moving through the woods. What can be wrong with that? I mean do people really have to kill something to have a good hunt? The real fact here is that people don't like change. But if we ever get there, it will be better for most people. 

Why do I care? Equal playing field. Because the guys that hunt down the road in two directions shoot anything. Because most of my hunting buddies run into this same situation. They want to let the 4 point go, just for it to run onto the neighbors property and get shot. I keep hearing this about the people who want to keep shooting bambi, but it's not fair to those of us that want to see a better quality animal. We can't get the better quality while this is going on.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> In order to be equivilent in terms of impact on hunters, a restriction in the area you hunt in would have to be 4 pt. per side. Would you be enthusiastic about having to pass on something like this because of an arbitrary regulation being imposed?


 Nope I wouldn't be too happy to let that one go. But still I would give them a chance before I gave my opinion on them.
FWIW on me lease we actually use AR's. We have a 6 point rule.
Now there are 5 lease members total, one guy usually brings his wife, and another guys brings his son sometimes.
So now I will break it down to how we hunt
1. Me. 3.5 y/o + or 15" spread if I can't determine age (usually the case)
2. Hunter in his 60's He will usually hold out for a good 2.5 y/o he has shot one buck in the past 3 years since he dropped the 6 point rule.
3. hunter in his late 50's and not the most savvy. Will shoot a 6 point. has been hunting with me for 3 years and shot a 7 point last year, I would say it was 1.5 y/o
4. hunter in late 40's. Very good hunter, smart, scent awareness, etc.
If he isn't going to mount it he won't shoot it (bucks that is) doesn't like the 6 point rule because he says it doesn't protect 1.5 old bucks in our area because alot of them are 6 points. I agree with him. He brings his wife she would probably shoot a 6 point. I have no problem with that. 
5. Kind of an inexperienced hunter good guy, never has killed a buck, he brings his son who has never killed a buck, I have told them if it has horns and you want to kill it go ahead. I believe you got to get some experience first before you up the stakes, I know I did.

We keep it that way because it works for us. Now if we were stacking up 1.5 old 6 points every year I would change the rule. Because we hardly have killed any bucks at 1.5 in the past 5 years it isn't a big deal to me when one does get killed. Most of the neighbors are quite selective too so that helps.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

moebedda said:


> Michigan needs to get on on par with some of these other mid-west states for deer quality, especially since some of us can't really afford to do a hunt in say Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, etc. We need to change with the times. Why can't we have this in our home state instead of having to go to the next state over? We can. I don't understand how ANYONE can be against a better quality deer herd if they really enjoy hunting.
> 
> Better hunting is better hunting. I don't have to decide that. It's just a fact. If people are seeing more deer, they will have a better hunt. During the rut, more year and a half year old bucks in the woods, means the bigger bucks will be trying to keep them off of the does, which means more deer are moving through the woods. What can be wrong with that? I mean do people really have to kill something to have a good hunt? The real fact here is that people don't like change. But if we ever get there, it will be better for most people.
> 
> Why do I care? Equal playing field. Because the guys that hunt down the road in two directions shoot anything. Because most of my hunting buddies run into this same situation. They want to let the 4 point go, just for it to run onto the neighbors property and get shot. I keep hearing this about the people who want to keep shooting bambi, but it's not fair to those of us that want to see a better quality animal. We can't get the better quality while this is going on.


I understand your frustration, but you can't handle these things by telling everyone how and what to hunt. That has never worked.
I used to think just like you, well let me tell you your best option is, just keep following the cornerstones of QDM as stated by the QDMA. Let everyone else get on board at their own speed. QDM is voluntary.
If you hunt in an area that has a proposal for AR's and you like it then support it, but never berate another hunter for their choice of harvest. As long as they did it legally is what matters. When you try to push others into these kinds of things is the reason why QDMers have such a bad reputation. There were many before us that have ruined the road ahead for the rest of us. Be patient.

Whats worse? The hunter who legaly killed the 4 point you let go or the poacher who shot the 10 point you have been after using a spotlight at 3 am.

I would be much happier giving the poacher a piece of my mind.


----------



## moebedda (Nov 8, 2007)

Michihunter said:


> Amazingly shortsighted comments such as this is what causes divisiveness. How about 'the guy that has two jobs, 4 kids with extracurricular activities, and a ton of other more important priorities' is the one that has no time for that? A single guy with nothing better to do certainly may have the time to do these things. But it doesn't make him anything more than a single guy with more time on his hands. And it certainly doesn't place his 'wants' above another's.


I'm not trying to be devisive here. Part of hunting is scouting. If you don't have time to scout, you cut down your chances considerably. Compensation for lack of preperation should not be to shoot an imature niave deer.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

bucko12pt said:


> Can you post a link to the MARS areas that have had a
> 40 - 60% decline in harvest?
> 
> The numbers in Leelanau have fallen for various reasons, not just because a MAR is in place.
> ...





> Pa. harvest data
> 
> The 2001-2002 antlered (buck) deer harvest was 203,247, compared to 203,221 during the 2000-2001 deer hunting seasons. The 2001-2002 antlerless (doe) deer harvest was 282,767, compared to the 2000-2001 deer harvest of 301,379.
> 
> ...


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

moebedda said:


> I'm not trying to be devisive here. Part of hunting is scouting. If you don't have time to scout, you cut down your chances considerably.* Compensation for lack of preperation should not be to shoot an imature niave deer.*


 You started out well with the first part, then you ruined it with the last sentence. These are the types of things that are not helping you or me.

You should of ended it without the bolded part. There really is no arguement to your first statement. Like I said if it was done legally there is not much you can do or say.


----------



## moebedda (Nov 8, 2007)

bucksnbows said:


> I understand your frustration, but you can't handle these things by telling everyone how and what to hunt. That has never worked.
> I used to think just like you, well let me tell you your best option is, just keep following the cornerstones of QDM as stated by the QDMA. Let everyone else get on board at their own speed. QDM is voluntary.
> If you hunt in an area that has a proposal for AR's and you like it then support it, but never berate another hunter for their choice of harvest. As long as they did it legally is what matters. When you try to push others into these kinds of things is the reason why QDMers have such a bad reputation. There were many before us that have ruined the road ahead for the rest of us. Be patient.
> 
> ...


I see your point. I may have to read some QDMA stuff. I just can't for the life of me see how anyone can't see a value in MARS for better hunting? 

As far as berating another hunter? A veteran hunter who brags about shooting a niave imature spike deserves a little rubbing(I got my buck). A little embarasment never hurt anyone. Maybe they will think twice before pulling the trigger on bambi next time. That being said. I can't think of anyone that I have ever berated here on these forums.


----------



## moebedda (Nov 8, 2007)

bucksnbows said:


> You started out well with the first part, then you ruined it with the last sentence. These are the types of things that are not helping you or me.
> 
> You should of ended it without the bolded part. There really is no arguement to your first statement. Like I said if it was done legally there is not much you can do or say.


 
It's because I'm frustrated. I'll walk away for a bit.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

moebedda said:


> A veteran hunter who brags about shooting a niave imature spike deserves a little rubbing(I got my buck). A little embarasment never hurt anyone. Maybe they will think twice before pulling the trigger on bambi next time. That being said. I can't think of anyone that I have ever berated here on these forums.


Let his hunting buddies do that. Not the guys with the QDMA stickers on the windows of their trucks.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

moebedda said:


> As far as berating another hunter? A veteran hunter who brags about shooting a niave imature spike deserves a little rubbing(I got my buck). A little embarasment never hurt anyone. Maybe they will think twice before pulling the trigger on bambi next time. That being said. I can't think of anyone that I have ever berated here on these forums.


 
If putting venison on the grill is the reason that they hunt, why should they think twice, just so that you might have a better chance of harvesting a larger buck the next year? Why should your desire for antlers take precedence over their desire to enjoy some venison?


----------



## Lugian (Aug 19, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> In order to be equivilent in terms of impact on hunters, a restriction in the area you hunt in would have to be 4 pt. per side. Would you be enthusiastic about having to pass on something like this because of an arbitrary regulation being imposed?


Yes.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

moebedda said:


> Michigan needs to get on on par with some of these other mid-west states for deer quality, especially since some of us can't really afford to do a hunt in say Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, etc. We need to change with the times. Why can't we have this in our home state instead of having to go to the next state over? We can. I don't understand how ANYONE can be against a better quality deer herd if they really enjoy hunting.
> 
> Better hunting is better hunting. I don't have to decide that. It's just a fact. If people are seeing more deer, they will have a better hunt. During the rut, more year and a half year old bucks in the woods, means the bigger bucks will be trying to keep them off of the does, which means more deer are moving through the woods. What can be wrong with that? I mean do people really have to kill something to have a good hunt? The real fact here is that people don't like change. But if we ever get there, it will be better for most people.
> 
> Why do I care? Equal playing field. Because the guys that hunt down the road in two directions shoot anything. Because most of my hunting buddies run into this same situation. They want to let the 4 point go, just for it to run onto the neighbors property and get shot. I keep hearing this about the people who want to keep shooting bambi, but it's not fair to those of us that want to see a better quality animal. We can't get the better quality while this is going on.





moebedda said:


> I'm not trying to be devisive here. Part of hunting is scouting. If you don't have time to scout, you cut down your chances considerably. Compensation for lack of preperation should not be to shoot an imature niave deer.





moebedda said:


> I see your point. I may have to read some QDMA stuff. I just can't for the life of me see how anyone can't see a value in MARS for better hunting?
> 
> As far as berating another hunter? A veteran hunter who brags about shooting a niave imature spike deserves a little rubbing(I got my buck). A little embarasment never hurt anyone. Maybe they will think twice before pulling the trigger on bambi next time. That being said. I can't think of anyone that I have ever berated here on these forums.


Hate to tell you this but you're only hurting any chance you might have at convincing anyone that YOUR way is the RIGHT way. In fact, you might want to thank BnB for beiing the cool head here because I'm quite sure your opinions would be tossed back at you with a bit of crow to swallow. Because you seem to be relatively new at this, I'lll give you the benefit of the doubt but rest assured, there's a lot of folks out there that are more than happy with what this State has to offer regarding their hunting desires. Just because you apparently don't know any only means you are either young, new to the state, or just plain blind to the realities of MI hunting.


----------



## dooman (Dec 18, 2009)

You can lead a horse to water moebedda.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

dooman said:


> You can lead a horse to water moebedda.


 .................but you will drown him if you force them to drink:lol:
Always wondered why that saying never ended with that.

I think I am spending too much time on MS today. Well I guess there is nothing else to do, I am not feeling too good today. I need to get my rest for work on Monday. Yeah!!!


----------



## Lugian (Aug 19, 2007)

Moebedda:

Michi's right. If you want somebody to even look at your point of view, belittling is the absolute worst way to go about it. 

Condescending attitudes do more to harm MAR's than anything else. Its ok to have a differing opinion than somebody but to "embarrass" them for shooting a spike(that was done legally) is just stupid and there's no room for that on the pro-MAR's side.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kwcharne (Jan 8, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> If putting venison on the grill is the reason that they hunt, why should they think twice, just so that you might have a better chance of harvesting a larger buck the next year? Why should your desire for antlers take precedence over their desire to enjoy some venison?


 

Well said! People hunt differently, and all hunters should be able to enjoy hunting for their desired reasons.


----------



## moebedda (Nov 8, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> If putting venison on the grill is the reason that they hunt, why should they think twice, just so that you might have a better chance of harvesting a larger buck the next year? Why should your desire for antlers take precedence over their desire to enjoy some venison?


Bigger bucks yield more meat :lol:

I love to have venison in the freezer. I passed up 6 spikes/forks last year and shot a doe. No I didn't get my buck last year and I'm ok with it because I put some meat in the freezer. Last year I had a great season. I saw a lot of deer. We had good bucks on the cameras. I'm hoping our QDM efforts pay off this year. By judging what we have on the cameras already, it looks like it may.



bucksnbows said:


> Let his hunting buddies do that. Not the guys with the QDMA stickers on the windows of their trucks.


I don't have any QDMA stickers on my truck. I'm not even a member. maybe I should join. Nah. They can probably do better without me.

Would I honestly take a shot at someone I don't know for shooting a small buck? Hell no. I was just saying that out of frustration. I've had a cocktail to calm things down a bit since.



Michihunter said:


> Hate to tell you this but you're only hurting any chance you might have at convincing anyone that YOUR way is the RIGHT way. In fact, you might want to thank BnB for beiing the cool head here because I'm quite sure your opinions would be tossed back at you with a bit of crow to swallow. Because you seem to be relatively new at this, I'lll give you the benefit of the doubt but rest assured, there's a lot of folks out there that are more than happy with what this State has to offer regarding their hunting desires. Just because you apparently don't know any only means you are either young, new to the state, or just plain blind to the realities of MI hunting.


I really wasn't trying to convince anyone. I honestly just started out doing some reading this afternoon and voiced my opinion on the subject and someone asked why. I explained my reasoning and now I find myself being attacked verbally. I'm not good at debating things in these forums, which is why I usually don't post. But here we are. 

I have been hunting in Michigan for 21 years. I have harveted 22 bucks and probably 40 does with the biggest being a 10 point that green gross scored 137.5 that I shot down south of Fenton. I took me five hard days of seeing no deer before I got him. A definite trophy by Michigan standards. I started out hunting within the hunting regs shooting small bucks and does. At first I was meat hunting and then it turned into a passion. I now spend 9 months out of the year thinking about, preparing for or actually hunting. I bow, gun and muzzle load hunt. I build whitetail habitat, food plots, scout with cameras or with boots, build stands and try to educate myself by reading about whitetail hunting. habitat and QDM. I also watch hunting shows focused on QDM and habitat improvement. 

Am I young? I suppose if 40 is young to you. Am I new to the state? Nope.. born a raised in MI. blind to the realities of MI hunting? Nope. That is a different subject for a different day, but let's just say that I am not a big fan of the MDNR's deer policies.

I am passionate about deer hunting and have seen QDM work. I see it in a co-op in the U.P. where they used to shoot any legal buck, and now they shoot only 4 on a side or bigger. 62 guys in this co-op(not sure how much land) and they shot 18 bucks with 4 or more on a side last year. They do this on a yearly basis now. That is almost a 1/3 harvest rate, which is on par with what the rest of the state does. The border states all have better quality whitetails because of restrictions. There are tons of benefits to MARS besides producing big bucks. Seeing more deer is one of them, which was my original point. bnb has a great informative post at http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=344223 I was simply posting my opinion and this turned into hours of fun.

At this point I think the real debate is quality vs quantity. Will less bucks be shot if there was a MARS? YES. I think this will only force the meat hunters to shoot more does though, which is not a bad thing to balance out the buck to doe ratio. Do the meat hunters care it the deer has antlers? If not, then I still don't see the problem with MARS. Does are easy to shoot. I could have filled yours and my freezer last year. To many doe tags and a couple of bad winters have really hurt the herd though, so we are letting the does walk for a couple of years where I hunt most of the time. The doe I did shoot was on that co-op during muzzle loader and I got to say, what a great time I had hunting that property.

:rant::rant::rant::rant:


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

What you keep referring to as "quality" seems to be the sticking point and what the debate usually centers on. You seem to equate quality with antlers and for you that's perfectly alright. For me and a very large number of other hunters, as long as the meat is free of disease it is a quality deer no matter if it's a doe, a spike or a B&C bruiser. And that is where the debate will always be and why so many people become divisive on this issue. If you refrain from telling everyone else what quality is to them, or what a quality hunt means to them, you'll be just fine. But if you insist on telling everyone that your way is the "quality" way, then expect to clash with a great many people.


----------



## moebedda (Nov 8, 2007)

Ummm rotest_e


Talking about QDM here folks. The term "quality" used in this context does not refer to good quality meat. 

If we are going to mince the definition of a word, then I'll just agree to disagree. 

Have a great evening and I wish you the best of luck on this and many more hunting seasons.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

moebedda said:


> Ummm rotest_e
> 
> 
> Talking about QDM here folks. The term "quality" used in this context does not refer to good quality meat.
> ...


What we're talking about is MARs. And the QUALITY in QDM refers to HEALTH and the MANAGEMENT philosophy that promotes it. And as any good QDMA member will tell you, it's not about antlers( ie: "Do the meat hunters care it the deer has antlers?"). Now if you'd like to truly get around to how MARs does or does not promote a healthier herd, then I'm sure we can get into that debate. But you might want to do a search through these boards before doing so because it's been discussed ad nauseum in the past. If/when you find a deer in MI that is not 'healthy', then perhaps you can show how MI doesn't stack up to all the other states you seem to be so fond of because just like MI, they too have issues of 'health' in their herds.

The bottom line here is I truly believe you are blurring the line between Trophy management and Quality management which is one of the things QDMA is constantly striving to correct. Here's somne reading for you to se what the differences are: http://www.qdma.com/who-we-are/what...s/herd-monitoring/deer-management-strategies/ 



moebedda said:


> Why do I care? Equal playing field. Because the guys that hunt down the road in two directions shoot anything. Because most of my hunting buddies run into this same situation. They want to let the 4 point go, just for it to run onto the neighbors property and get shot. I keep hearing this about the people who want to keep shooting bambi, but it's not fair to those of us that want to see a better quality animal. We can't get the better quality while this is going on.


Read this statement above again and ask yourself what makes you so special that you want EVERYONE to do what makes YOU happy when those people are already enjoying their hunt. Ask yourself what it is that makes your hunting so miserable. Ask yourself why you are unable to tag mature deer regularly when they are in fact out there. Ask yourself why people should make your hunting easier. Which in the end is in fact what you are mad about- mature deer are too difficult for you to find and tag even thought they exist in this state. Go scout more if you want to tag these type of deer . Why would anyone want to make it easier to gain a trophy. Are you too lazy to work at getting your deer? Do you need everyone to be regulated so it becomes easier for you?

Now before you go thinking I'm ripping on you, the paragraph I just wrote is the EXACT same thing that you are tossing out there but only from the other side of the fence. In a lot of ways I harbor many of those feelings you do but unlike you I understand the opposite nature of people. You can't in one breath talk about "scouting more and working harder" and then ask everyone to adhere to your philosophy just to make it 'easier' for you to accomplish your goals.


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

Michihunter said:


> Read this statement above again and ask yourself what makes you so special that you want EVERYONE to do what makes YOU happy when those people are already enjoying their hunt.
> 
> Ask yourself why you are unable to tag mature deer regularly when they are in fact out there. Ask yourself why people should make your hunting easier. Which in the end is in fact what you are mad about- mature deer are too difficult for you to find and tag even thought they exist in this state. Go scout more if you want to tag these type of deer . Why would anyone want to make it easier to gain a trophy. Are you too lazy to work at getting your deer? Do you need everyone to be regulated so it becomes easier for you?


I can't help but imagine what side of the argument different posters would be on if finding/hunting a mature buck was substituted with finding/getting a good job here in Michigan.

Financial Reform, Unemployment Extensions, Auto Company Bailouts, Wall Street Bailouts, Comprehensive Immigration Reform,Free Trade ETC. As long as there is a good job or is a good mortgage...no worries?

Either we fend for for ourselves or we pick and choose for our self. It's always about ourselves. What is good for me is is good for my neighbor, he just doesn't know it yet no matter how much I tell him. He's funny that way.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

standsetter said:


> I can't help but imagine what side of the argument different posters would be on if finding/hunting a mature buck was substituted with finding/getting a good job here in Michigan.
> 
> Financial Reform, Unemployment Extensions, Auto Company Bailouts, Wall Street Bailouts, Comprehensive Immigration Reform,Free Trade ETC. As long as there is a good job or is a good mortgage...no worries?
> 
> Either we fend for for ourselves or we pick and choose for our self. It's always about ourselves. What is good for me is is good for my neighbor, he just doesn't know it yet no matter how much I tell him. He's funny that way.


Although I do agree and fully undertsand your statement, I doubt it would be any different really. Try to define a "quality" job. Is it one where you work with your hands? With your mind? In front of a computer screen? Outdoors? Does it have a baseline of pay? And if so what is that baseline? How hard do you have to work to obtain it? etc etc. 

As I'm sure you can plainly see there is no right or wrong answer. Just like with deer management, there's only a myriad of different opinions.


----------



## moebedda (Nov 8, 2007)

Michihunter said:


> The bottom line here is I truly believe you are blurring the line between Trophy management and Quality management which is one of the things QDMA is constantly striving to correct. Here's somne reading for you to se what the differences are: http://www.qdma.com/who-we-are/what...s/herd-monitoring/deer-management-strategies/


I'm not blurring any lines. Never once did I mention anything about trophy hunting. It isn't my objective to trophy hunt. If I wanted to trophy hunt, I would save my nickels and go to Iowa or Buffalo County Wisconsin. I said it before and I'll say it again. MARS would allow more year and a half year old bucks to get to 2 and a half. My whole point was about seeing more deer and more bucks in the woods and having a good hunt. By having more two and a half your old bucks running around along with the one and a half your olds, your going to see more bucks and more deer. Mostly because you'll have a more active rut. This is exciting when your hunting a property with more bucks on it and deer are running all over the place. If you do not understand this or have never experienced it, then I can only suggest more seasons in the woods or try bow hunting. One learns a lot about deer while bow hunting. Some book, website or study doesn't account for your heart beating in overdrive on a cold november morning while deer are running all over the place. 



> Read this statement above again and ask yourself what makes you so special that you want EVERYONE to do what makes YOU happy when those people are already enjoying their hunt. Ask yourself what it is that makes your hunting so miserable. Ask yourself why you are unable to tag mature deer regularly when they are in fact out there. Ask yourself why people should make your hunting easier. Which in the end is in fact what you are mad about- mature deer are too difficult for you to find and tag even thought they exist in this state. Go scout more if you want to tag these type of deer . Why would anyone want to make it easier to gain a trophy. Are you too lazy to work at getting your deer? Do you need everyone to be regulated so it becomes easier for you?


There are many people that want this. This isn't about me. 95% of the hunters that I know, and I know quite a few, would like to see a rule change to allow the year and a half year old bucks get to be a year older. It seems that MARS is the best way to accomplish since it is difficult to age on the hoof. I'm never mad about hunting as long as I'm seeing deer, which again, was my original point. I was also trying to point out that since we have started to manage the land that we hunt, our "quality" of hunting has greatly improved. Not the quality of the meat. Not the quality of the antler size. The quality of the enjoyment factor. The people in our camp are seeing more deer and more bucks than ever before and they are starting to see the value in QDM.

Are there any polls on how many people want a change?


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

moebedda said:


> I'm not blurring any lines. Never once did I mention anything about trophy hunting. It isn't my objective to trophy hunt. If I wanted to trophy hunt, I would save my nickels and go to Iowa or Buffalo County Wisconsin. I said it before and I'll say it again. MARS would allow more year and a half year old bucks to get to 2 and a half. My whole point was about seeing more deer and more bucks in the woods and having a good hunt. By having more two and a half your old bucks running around along with the one and a half your olds, your going to see more bucks and more deer. Mostly because you'll have a more active rut. This is exciting when your hunting a property with more bucks on it and deer are running all over the place. If you do not understand this or have never experienced it, then I can only suggest more seasons in the woods or try bow hunting. One learns a lot about deer while bow hunting. Some book, website or study doesn't account for your heart beating in overdrive on a cold november morning while deer are running all over the place.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually in the annual Deer Harvest Survey, only 49% of those surveyed support Antler Restrictions in the UP and those numbers are on the decline. I would imagine that a similar number would play out in all regions of the state. Every DMU with the possible exception of 045 have lost their MARs regulation after the sunset clause due to lack of support which also shows that in reality, what begins as an enthusiastic crowd, declines in just a few short years. All these facts can be found quite easily with a search through the MDNR database.


----------



## moebedda (Nov 8, 2007)

Michihunter said:


> Actually in the annual Deer Harvest Survey, only 49% of those surveyed support Antler Restrictions in the UP and those numbers are on the decline. I would imagine that a similar number would play out in all regions of the state. Every DMU with the possible exception of 045 have lost their MARs regulation after the sunset clause due to lack of support which also shows that in reality, what begins as an enthusiastic crowd, declines in just a few short years. All these facts can be found quite easily with a search through the MDNR database.


Taken from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/report3513_327318_7.pdf

_Statewide, about 49% of hunters supported the antler point restrictions on buck harvest_
_implemented for the UP, and about 53% of the hunters that preferred to hunt in the __UP supported the antler point restrictions. Statewide and regional levels of support for the __antler point restrictions did not change significantly between 2008 and 2009._​ 
Interesting how you leave out the 53% support for ARP that prefer hunting in the U.P.

Also an interesting statistic worthy of notation. 

_Deer hunters were asked to report how satisfied they were with (1) number of deer seen, (2) __number of antlered deer [bucks] seen, (3) number of deer taken, and (4) their overall hunting __experience. Statewide, less than 40% of hunters were satisfied with numbers of deer seen, __bucks seen, deer taken, and their overall hunting experience in 2009. __Furthermore, satisfaction declined for all areas between 2008 and 2009. Highest levels of __satisfaction were reported among hunters in the southern LP._

So if less than 40% of hunters were satisfied with the number of deer seen, and the DNR is giving out more doe permits than ever, do you think that maybe a change on the buck side is in order? or do we keep going down the same road of sub-par hunting that you seem to think everyone besides me is enjoying. Hell. I'm in that 40% that were satisfied with the amount of deer and bucks seen, but... Oh Wait. We are practicing QDM. :evil:​


----------



## moebedda (Nov 8, 2007)

Oh.. and one of the answers in the ARP survey was No Opinion.

49% is still a majority.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Ironically you skirted right past QDM/MARs regs that have expired as a result of non support. And of course you didn't see the reduction of support and the increase in opposition for MARs in the UP by the Yoopers themselves(with the only increase in support coming from Metro Detroiters). But that's alright, we all have a way of stepping over or around the facts sometimes even when the trends are more than apparent.


----------



## moebedda (Nov 8, 2007)

I didn't know that they had expired. Where is this information at?

I don't understand how anyone can make a decision based on 1 year of MARs. It takes like 3 or 4 years to see the full effect.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

moebedda said:


> I didn't know that they had expired. Where is this information at?


Take your pick http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_10856_10905-187057--,00.html

Each one of these QDM proposals failed after the sunset(5 yrs) due to a reduction in support. You can also find the "history" here- http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/DEER_REGULATION_HISTORY_210705_7.pdf



> 2001-&#9830; DMUs 118, 122, 152, 155, and 252: antlered deer harvest restricted to deer with at least three or more points on one side (Quality Deer Management [QDM]). QDM regulations to be revisited after five years.
> 
> 2006-&#9830; QDM antler point restrictions removed from DMUs 152, 155, and 252 after survey of landowners and hunters did not meet 66% approval to retain the restrictions.


DMU 118 was rescinded in 2004 I believe and again for lack of support.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

moebedda said:


> This is the area that I hunt. This doesn't look like it failed to me. But I do see the others.
> 
> _About 76% of landowners owning land in DMU 122 and 74% of_
> _people hunting deer in DMU 122 supported continuation of antler point_
> _restrictions. Support from both landowners and hunters was sufficient to_​_recommend continuation of antler point restrictions in DMU 122._


I stand corrected and one actually passed the sunset.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

brushbuster said:


> And how many hunter s are concerned about the sociological concerns? Sorry i dont have percentages for you but every single hunter that purchased a firearm tag. After all that tag restricts them to bucks only. So if there are more bucks running around for the majority of hunters to harvest dont you think the majority of the hunters would love to see more bucks? Remove the blinders there is more to Mars than just big bone.


Sorry but I'm afraid what you just said makes extremely little sense. If they are buying a tag to take bucks they want to take a buck. Restricting them doesn't make it easier to do and therefore by default it wouldn't be something they'd want by YOUR contention. Now if those deer get by and are available in a year or two hunters would then balance that population out the same as it was PRIOR to MARs. This is basic mathematics here BB. The only thing you have done is create an older(and more bone heavy) population. You have only increased that population for the number of years it takes to provide the SAME amount of opportunity that was available pre MARS. And in the process you have increased the population durimng that small period in time that the DNR wishes to be reduced. And for what purpose? Antlers.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Michihunter said:


> But then it wouldn't be venison. That type of mindset would have fishermen buying tuna instead of catching Walleye and Perch, or pheasant and duck hunters buying chicken. And who the heck would need to turkey hunt? Sorry but the venison may not be needed but it is certainly desired by a great many people who enjoy the lean taste of a great cut of meat that isn't readily available at your nearest Kroger.



Wait a minute michi, I am not saying we need to get something back on our investment. The time we spent doing what we like in the woods was already well worth it. But it's nice to get something back just the same, just make the experience that much more rewarding. I enjoy the whole process of taking care of the game and having friends over and drinking a few cold ones and exchanging stories.


----------



## Skibum (Oct 3, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> *Again, without there being any kind of a compelling biological reason, why should other hunters make sacrifices and adjust their tactics and maybe go without putting venison on the table and be disappointed, just so that you can have the opportunity to harvest a bigger buck? Why does your social desire for bigger antlers trump their desire for venison on the table? *
> There are older bucks already existing in the population, a lot of them get harvested every year. You just want there to be more of them, so that it's easier for you to consistently bag one. Instead of forcing your desires on everyone else, why don't you just make the required sacrifice and do what it takes to become a successful trophy buck hunter? Tens of thousands of hunters manage to do it every year, why can't you?
> 
> As mentioned, in some areas antlerless permits are unavailable, yet there are plenty of deer available for harvest. We are going into our 8th season of mandatory antler restrictions in my DMU so I am well aware of what the impact of them is. If you think that MAR's provide some magical result where you are going to see four or five mature bucks wandering around 20 feet in front of your stand just waiting to be put out of their misery, you are delusional. In low density DMU's, you may be lucky to see a couple of mature bucks the entire season. I hate to break it to you but Menominee is not going to be like Pike or Buffalo Co. even if you put a 10 point restriction in place, just not gonna happen.
> ...


You can just as easily reverse the two. The desire for bigger antlers or for meat are both equally valid points of view and neither is really a biological issue in terms of the health of the deer herd. They are both social considerations the same as the hunter that wants to shoot a 4 point to be able to say he got "his buck". I'm not saying your opinion of how you would like the regulations set is wrong but that opinion is based on your preference, not some magic natural formula.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

tommy-n said:


> Wait a minute michi, I am not saying we need to get something back on our investment. The time we spent doing what we like in the woods was already well worth it. But it's nice to get something back just the same, just make the experience that much more rewarding. I enjoy the whole process of taking care of the game and having friends over and drinking a few cold ones and exchanging stories.


I'm much the same way Tommy. I feel the entire "package" is what's most important. The difference between me and some others though is that the coup de grace is the tenderloin sitting on my plate that culminates that entire package instead of that mount on the wall that does it for others. Neither is right or wrong but merely a matter of ones own personal tastes and desires.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

I like the horns too, but it's not always the deciding factor in what I shoot or pass up


----------



## triplelunger (Dec 21, 2009)

> The difference between me and some others though is that the coup de grace is the tenderloin sitting on my plate that culminates that entire package instead of that mount on the wall that does it for others.


Be honest! Eating the tenderloins out of a 200" buck would be better than seeing that thing on your wall? 
BE HONEST!
Honestly, I would get more satisfaction from the mount, and I do consider myself more of a meat hunter than trophy hunter.
BE HONEST!


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

triplelunger said:


> Be honest! Eating the tenderloins out of a 200" buck would be better than seeing that thing on your wall?
> BE HONEST!
> Honestly, I would get more satisfaction from the mount, and I do consider myself more of a meat hunter than trophy hunter.
> BE HONEST!


I have one mount that I had done in 33 years of hunting and that was because it was the first deer I shot with my son present and he thought it would be cool. I've had the opportunity to do others and chose not to because it would end up the same way as my baseball trophies, my bowling trophies and my chess trophies- dust collectors. Would I have a 200" one done? Perhaps because of the relative rarity of something that large but I sincerely doubt I would if I had to pay to get it done(I'm quite sure I'd get offers to have it done free). Honest enough for you?


----------



## Skibum (Oct 3, 2000)

Michihunter said:


> I have one mount that I had done in 33 years of hunting and that was because it was the first deer I shot with my son present and he thought it would be cool. I've had the opportunity to do others and chose not to because it would end up the same way as my baseball trophies, my bowling trophies and my chess trophies- dust collectors. Would I have a 200" one done? Perhaps because of the relative rarity of something that large but I sincerely doubt I would if I had to pay to get it done(I'm quite sure I'd get offers to have it done free). Honest enough for you?


Nothing wrong with that. Tommy hit the right note for me in that the hunt is the thing that does it for me. The reward, be it in meat or a trophy, is merely a result to be savored and appreciated but never entitled or taken for granted.


----------



## TJD (Jan 29, 2006)

Michihunter said:


> I have one mount that I had done in 33 years of hunting and that was because it was the first deer I shot with my son present and he thought it would be cool.


The reason you mounted it didn't have anything to do with the fact that it is your largest antlered bow kill? That's what it says underneath the picture in your gallery. When you gave that picture the subtitle, "my biggest bow kill" Were you talking about it having the biggest tenderloins of any bowkilled buck or were you placing a value on the size of its antlers? Nice buck, btw.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Lugian said:


> I'm pretty sure the same can be said about crossbows. There's really no "biologic" reason for that or any bow season for that matter. Hunting season by it's nature is mostly social.


Allowing someone to use a crossbow does not prevent someone else from using the weapon of their choice. If Crossbow proponents were insisting that everybody had to use crossbows and that you could no longer use vertical bows or firearms, it would be an accurate analogy. Those who are pushing MAR's are essentially telling other hunters, "You have to stop hunting the way you always have because we want more trophy bucks".


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

TJD said:


> The reason you mounted it didn't have anything to do with the fact that it is your largest antlered bow kill? That's what it says underneath the picture in your gallery. When you gave that picture the subtitle, "my biggest bow kill" Were you talking about it having the biggest tenderloins of any bowkilled buck or were you placing a value on the size of its antlers? Nice buck, btw.



You did it now. Here's comes "how to say no in over 1 hundred words but less than 2". :help:


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

TJD said:


> The reason you mounted it didn't have anything to do with the fact that it is your largest antlered bow kill? That's what it says underneath the picture in your gallery. When you gave that picture the subtitle, "my biggest bow kill" Were you talking about it having the biggest tenderloins of any bowkilled buck or were you placing a value on the size of its antlers? Nice buck, btw.


Nope, it was indeed my biggest BOW kill. I have had bigger firearms kills but the deciding factor once agaiin was that was the first time my son sat in the stand with me during a hunt where I connected on ANY deer. If it would have been a spike and he wanted it mounted I more than likely would have had that done as well.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Skibum said:


> You can just as easily reverse the two. The desire for bigger antlers or for meat are both equally valid points of view and neither is really a biological issue in terms of the health of the deer herd. They are both social considerations the same as the hunter that wants to shoot a 4 point to be able to say he got "his buck". I'm not saying your opinion of how you would like the regulations set is wrong but that opinion is based on your preference, not some magic natural formula.


Put those two motivations in front of the non-hunting public and see how many are supportive of hunting for the purpose of obtaining healthy, chemical free meat vs. the desire to put an ego stroking set of large antlers on your wall and then see which they are most likely to support. Whether you agree or not, the privilege that we enjoy that allows us to hunt is dependent upon the continued support of the non-hunting public. Generally, meat hunting is pretty well accepted by the public, trophy hunting.....not so much. It's one of the reasons that some trophy hunters like to cloak their true motivations with a blanket labeled "health of the herd". :yikes:


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Ok if Mars isnt the Answer for increasing the buck numbers in any given population in the lp than what would increase the number of bucks in the herd? OBR Maybee, but that isnt being propsed by the DNR. Most of the state is undergoing unlimited doe tags. So what would increase the numbers of bucks Oh great whitetail authorities of the net.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

brushbuster said:


> Ok if Mars isnt the Answer for increasing the buck numbers in any given population in the lp than what would increase the number of bucks in the herd? OBR Maybee, but that isnt being propsed by the DNR. Most of the state is undergoing unlimited doe tags. So what would increase the numbers of bucks Oh great whitetail authorities of the net.


Take a look at how many are killed each year( more than 1/4 of a million on average) and ask yourself do we really need more of them.


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> Put those two motivations in front of the non-hunting public and see how many are supportive of hunting for the purpose of obtaining healthy, chemical free meat vs. the desire to put an ego stroking set of large antlers on your wall and then see which they are most likely to support.


True enough. Particularly when you phrase the question the way an anti would. I know that is the farthest thing from your intention, but you would probably agree ? Phraseology can get most people to agree to most things.



Munsterlndr said:


> Whether you agree or not, the privilege that we enjoy that allows us to hunt is dependent upon the continued support of the non-hunting public. Generally, meat hunting is pretty well accepted by the public, trophy hunting.....not so much.


Again...phraseology at it's best.



Munsterlndr said:


> It's one of the reasons that some trophy hunters like to cloak their true motivations with a blanket labeled "health of the herd". :yikes:


While your handing out blankets save a few for the "Freedom of Choice" crowd.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Evidently some authorities feel that some DMU"s do. I dont think that someone got up out of bed and said i think we should have mars implemented. Hmm let see I ll pick 10-12 DMU"s out of the hat . sounds good.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

brushbuster said:


> Evidently some authorities feel that some DMU"s do. I dont think that someone got up out of bed and said i think we should have mars implemented. Hmm let see I ll pick 10-12 DMU"s out of the hat . sounds good.


I'm not sure you understand the process of how they get done. I've yet to see the DNR initiate a MARs proposal here in MI. Have you? I've seen them back a few and rewrite someone elses proposal but never have I seen them originate one.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

standsetter said:


> True enough. Particularly when you phrase the question the way an anti would. I know that is the farthest thing from your intention, but you would probably agree ? Phraseology can get most people to agree to most things.


If the shoe fit's.............

I'm not ashamed of being a meat hunter why are you of being a trophy hunter? :coolgleam

Kind of reminds me of people who want to label themselves as progressive or moderate because they are ashamed of the term Liberal. :lol:


----------



## duckhunter382 (Feb 13, 2005)

why dont the qdm guys just go ahead and put up restrictions for the whole state. The rest of us can just quit hunting and leave them there to fight off peta alone. I am so sick of losing county after county lets all of the non trophy chasers quit buying tags and see how long the trophy guys really would have to actually hunt.


----------



## triplelunger (Dec 21, 2009)

> I'm not ashamed of being a meat hunter why are you of being a trophy hunter? :coolgleam


I would be happy to label myself a meat hunter who loves big antlers (still waiting on a set of my own on the wall). I would bet many fall into that category as well.


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> If the shoe fit's.............
> 
> I'm not ashamed of being a meat hunter why are you of being a trophy hunter? :coolgleam
> 
> Kind of reminds me of people who want to label themselves as progressive or moderate because they are ashamed of the term Liberal. :lol:



_________________________
Munsterlndr
Resident Curmudgeon/Strawman


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

triplelunger said:


> I would be happy to label myself a meat hunter who loves big antlers



You must choose. No one can love both, so Ive heard anyway.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

I love both. I have passed up little bucks to shoot does and i have passed up does to shoot bigger bucks.

Whoever has the proposal laying on the desks that matter i am damn glad they did, i can only wait and hope that it becomes a reality. Which in seeing the trends of the past i dont think it's too far out.


----------



## Lugian (Aug 19, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> Allowing someone to use a crossbow does not prevent someone else from using the weapon of their choice. If Crossbow proponents were insisting that everybody had to use crossbows and that you could no longer use vertical bows or firearms, it would be an accurate analogy. Those who are pushing MAR's are essentially telling other hunters, "You have to stop hunting the way you always have because we want more trophy bucks".


 
Correct, but that still has no biological bearing on changing whats "already on the books".

Hunters are already told what they can and can not shoot. There are way more social aspects to deer hunting than there are biological, thats a fact.


----------



## swoosh (Sep 29, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> Put those two motivations in front of the non-hunting public and see how many are supportive of hunting for the purpose of obtaining healthy, chemical free meat vs. the desire to put an ego stroking set of large antlers on your wall and then see which they are most likely to support. Whether you agree or not, the privilege that we enjoy that allows us to hunt is dependent upon the continued support of the non-hunting public. Generally, meat hunting is pretty well accepted by the public, trophy hunting.....not so much. It's one of the reasons that some trophy hunters like to cloak their true motivations with a blanket labeled "health of the herd". :yikes:


Let's pharase it like this

Trophy Hunter
I like to shoot older deer who have matured, I like to give them time to grow and enjoy life for a few years.

Meat Hunter
I like to shoot the young ones becasue they test better, fawns are really tender. Kill it and Grill it

:lol: Give me a break


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

swoosh said:


> Let's pharase it like this
> 
> Trophy Hunter
> I like to shoot older deer who have matured, I like to give them time to grow and enjoy life for a few years.
> ...


Do you think there can be something in between those two statements? I would venture to guess most michigan hunters fall somewhere in the middle. Thats why MOST michigan hunters favor choice


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

tommy-n said:


> Do you think there can be something in between those two statements? I would venture to guess most michigan hunters fall somewhere in the middle. Thats why MOST michigan hunters favor choice


You mean like which do you favor as the reason for deer hunting?

A) a food source for human consumption
B) a trophy for hunters


----------



## swoosh (Sep 29, 2006)

tommy-n said:


> Do you think there can be something in between those two statements? I would venture to guess most michigan hunters fall somewhere in the middle. Thats why MOST michigan hunters favor choice


 
yes for sure, I was just responding to the absurd post by Munster, each side can "word it" to make them feel better.

This is were the real issue comes in play is it Tommy. We have the big buck fringe on one side, the choice fringe on they other.

A large group in the middle who wants best of both worlds


----------



## Skibum (Oct 3, 2000)

tommy-n said:


> Do you think there can be something in between those two statements? I would venture to guess most michigan hunters fall somewhere in the middle. Thats why MOST michigan hunters favor choice


The real issue is can we find a way that improves hunting for both meat and mature bucks?


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Michihunter said:


> You mean like which do you favor as the reason for deer hunting?
> 
> A) a food source for human consumption
> B) a trophy for hunters


Not really. More like a 6 pointer comes in broadside at 18yds and has no clue I'm there. It's a nice cool day and I don't have to work for two days. I decide to shoot the buck because it gave me the perfect oppotunity. I would rather shoot a 8 or 10 pointer but I'll get the first one out of the way then try for a larger one later. Now I put one in the freezer and feel no pressure for the next hunts. I enjoy the privilege of choice, every day is different, every season is different for that matter.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

swoosh said:


> each side can "word it" to make them feel better.


I bet both sides dream about the same thing on the 14th


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

swoosh said:


> Let's pharase it like this
> 
> Trophy Hunter
> I like to shoot older deer who have matured, I like to give them time to grow and enjoy life for a few years.
> ...


I kind of like Whack em & Stack em better. 

Either that or "Got Veal?" :lol:


----------



## triplelunger (Dec 21, 2009)

> I bet both sides dream about the same thing on the 14th


I dream about sleeping in through the craziness of Michigan's public land rifle season!:tdo12:


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

Skibum said:


> The real issue is can we find a way that improves hunting for both meat and mature bucks?


That ones easy. OBR!


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Skibum said:


> The real issue is can we find a way that improves hunting for both meat and mature bucks?


It's being done already and through a much stronger foundation than any mandatory regulation- awareness of ones own personal desires and the voluntary practice of reaching the goals that will satisfy them.

Regardless of what the regulatory change might be, it will ALWAYS be met with opposition. That's just human nature. It's much easier to accomplish goals through education and awareness and the strength that is built off of voluntary measures.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

NoWake said:


> That ones easy. OBR!


 DING DING... nail on head

But what about my mulligan choice


----------



## swoosh (Sep 29, 2006)

NoWake said:


> That ones easy. OBR!


The only way to make everyone happy is to have a HoloDeck deer hunting. This way each hunter can program what they want to hunt:lol:

The first time someone whacks a buck, walks up to it and it loses 20'' by the time it hit the ground, the hunter who shot it, will not be happy with an OBR


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

Actually the obr won't make the meat hunters happy. We're happy now shooting two bucks of our choice. We are currently enjoying the privilege of choice I talked about. I follow the laws and rules and will when and if they change. But until then I will shoot whatever deer I CHOOSE to and continue to enjoy freedom of choice as long as I have the proper tags to do so


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

swoosh said:


> The only way to make everyone happy is to have a HoloDeck deer hunting. This way each hunter can program what they want to hunt:lol:
> 
> The first time someone whacks a buck, walks up to it and it loses 20'' by the time it hit the ground, the hunter who shot it, will not be happy with an OBR


I bet they dont program spikes:evilsmile

Hey it was their choice ...atleast the freezer has meat..


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

tommy-n said:


> There is a fine line where enough is enough. Most people in michigan will simply do something else when it's no longer worth the effort. There certainly is alot to do in michigan with the four seasons. I contribute alot of the restrictions to less new hunter recruitment. As alot of folks including myself have all ready pointed out we want the freedom of choice. You can't simply cater to the minority of deer hunters to make the majority happy, there needs to be a happy medium drawn somewhere or the out come will not be good. You can say my observation is solely based on social facts rather than biological facts if you want. But this is a fact of life that will determine the out come of hunting in michigan


good post ..could be read different ways, but Good post.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Kalamazooxj said:


> Could you imagine if they put a rule on fishing that you could only keep fish if they were a certain size?! I think this state would go bankrupt because no one would want to fish anymore!


I have to ask you if you know WHY they have size limits on fish. Might want to check that out and then see how that applies to deer hunting. Because it don't,


----------



## kwcharne (Jan 8, 2008)

Kalamazooxj said:


> Could you imagine if they put a rule on fishing that you could only keep fish if they were a certain size?! I think this state would go bankrupt because no one would want to fish anymore!





sbooy42 said:


> Or reg when we can fish or hunt or how many fish we keep or how many deer we can kill.
> 
> That would just be crazy


 
I believe you missed the point. But you seem to only want to see your way, so you mock, its understandable.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

kwcharne said:


> I believe you missed the point. But you seem to only want to see your way, so you mock, its understandable.


On no I get the point amigo... but if you want to explain it feel free..pretty sure your point is different than others...

And my way would be????


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

tommy-n said:


> There is a fine line where enough is enough. Most people in michigan will simply do something else when it's no longer worth the effort. There certainly is alot to do in michigan with the four seasons. I contribute alot of the restrictions to less new hunter recruitment. As alot of folks including myself have all ready pointed out we want the freedom of choice. You can't simply cater to the minority of deer hunters to make the majority happy, there needs to be a happy medium drawn somewhere or the out come will not be good. You can say my observation is solely based on social facts rather than biological facts if you want. But this is a fact of life that will determine the out come of hunting in michigan


 I never thought i would be asking for this ... but could you provide me with the stats on where the majority of michigans hunters wants the free choice.and where are these stats coming from. seems like most on here dont trust the dnr or the state so im not sure if that data would be logical. Just curious if this is a broad statement or factual.

Jeeze after reading this i think im becoming like Michi.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> brushbuster said:
> 
> 
> > I never thought i would be asking for this ... but could you provide me with the stats on where the majority of michigans hunters wants the free choice.and where are these stats coming from. seems like most on here dont trust the dnr or the state so im not sure if that data would be logical. Just curious if this is a broad statement or factual.
> ...


Actually, the results of a MDNR survey showed that the overwhelming majority of hunters (75%+) want to see more and older bucks while deer hunting.
However...a much smaller % would be receptive to different regulations.
In other words, we want our cake and want to eat it too!
Don't ask me for the link because I don't have it. I believe November Sunrise has it though.

As far as becoming like Michi...




Big T


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

brushbuster said:


> I never thought i would be asking for this ... but could you provide me with the stats on where the majority of michigans hunters wants the free choice.and where are these stats coming from. seems like most on here dont trust the dnr or the state so im not sure if that data would be logical. Just curious if this is a broad statement or factual.
> 
> Jeeze after reading this i think im becoming like Michi.


Are you serious, free choice is being able to shoot what bucks "YOU" want to as long as you have the proper tags to do so. I would venture to guess the ones that don't trust the dnr would certainly want this choice.


----------



## kwcharne (Jan 8, 2008)

sbooy42 said:


> On no I get the point amigo... but if you want to explain it feel free..pretty sure your point is different than others...
> 
> And my way would be????


 
How about this...If you do get the point, and from your response I dont think you do, then why dont you explain it to me and tell me what I mean and where I went wrong. If not, then oK, you win...


----------



## moebedda (Nov 8, 2007)

tommy-n said:


> There is a fine line where enough is enough. Most people in michigan will simply do something else when it's no longer worth the effort. There certainly is alot to do in michigan with the four seasons. I contribute alot of the restrictions to less new hunter recruitment. As alot of folks including myself have all ready pointed out we want the freedom of choice. You can't simply cater to the minority of deer hunters to make the majority happy, there needs to be a happy medium drawn somewhere or the out come will not be good. You can say my observation is solely based on social facts rather than biological facts if you want. But this is a fact of life that will determine the out come of hunting in michigan


So by the minortiy, you mean the ones who want to keep it the way it is. Go check your poll. 

And using "freedom of choice" is such a bad term. Rules and regs limit the freedom of choice that we all have in hunting and fishing, but there are some choices we can make in accordance with those rules. If I want to shoot 4 bucks... I don't have that freedom of choice due to the rules. If I don't want to wear orange during rifle season, I don't have the freedom of choice unless i want to break the rules. If I want to remain bound by the regs, I can't shoot a deer from my truck at night under a light. If they put on a 3 point or better rule, you still have freedom of choice to shoot a 5 pointer if you would like or you have the freedom of choice to hold out for a bigger bugger buck. You have the freedom of choice to purchase a doe tag, and you even have the freedom of choice to go fishing if you want. 

Pick a different term please. Your trying to make it sound like if they impose antler restrictions, then you'll lose some patriotic constitutional right or something.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

One thing that I think gets over looked is that one of the jobs of the DNR is to manage the deer herd. For what ever their goals are in the management program of our state or DMU or zone there will be regulatory changes. 
Over population results in anterless seasons and tag changes.
Under population will too.
Disease will warrent changes in the regs.
There are things that can be managed too. Like age structure. Sure they may be no sound scientific reason to actually manage for age structure, but there is also no sound scientific reason not too either (except in areas of disease).
Both have benifits for the hunter and both can have set backs to the hunter.
If the DNR thinks that having more of an older age class of bucks in the herd is going to improve the hunting and insure long lasting good health for the herd then they will make the neccessary changes to do so. 
Being able to have a choice in what we the hunter wants to kill is not always the best solution. 

As much as we would like to have our choice in what buck or deer we kill, we have to remember hunting is not a right. We are privileged to even be able to hunt. There are many ways to control a deer herd without hunters. This is why hunters choice is not ever going to be a sure thing. Right now the choices we have are pretty darn good, it could be worse. Fortunaly for us those other ways cost money and don't pay back to the state like license sales do.
Just remember all management programs are subject to change for what ever reason the land manager (DNR) sees fit. Lots of voluntary QDM programs do not set out with one set of rules that will be held up forever, eventually there is a need for change.
Alot of people state that the NLP is at or under goal, so there is your reason for the cut backs on the amounts of anterless permits. Next step in the program.............advance the age structure, by means of AR's. Not my program, not yours, but the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. We may not like it or understand it but they are the rule makers and we do hunt under their management program.


Seems to me maybe the DNR is straying away from managing for maximum hunter opportunity.


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

tommy-n said:


> Are you serious, free choice is being able to shoot what bucks "YOU" want to as long as you have the proper tags to do so. I would venture to guess the ones that don't trust the dnr would certainly want this choice.


What if your tags said you could only shoot a buck of certain size? I would guess you have freedom to shoot what you want as long as you have the tag to do it.


----------



## tommy-n (Jan 9, 2004)

moebedda said:


> So by the minortiy, you mean the ones who want to keep it the way it is. Go check your poll.
> 
> And using "freedom of choice" is such a bad term. Rules and regs limit the freedom of choice that we all have in hunting and fishing, but there are some choices we can make in accordance with those rules. If I want to shoot 4 bucks... I don't have that freedom of choice due to the rules. If I don't want to wear orange during rifle season, I don't have the freedom of choice unless i want to break the rules. If I want to remain bound by the regs, I can't shoot a deer from my truck at night under a light. If they put on a 3 point or better rule, you still have freedom of choice to shoot a 5 pointer if you would like or you have the freedom of choice to hold out for a bigger bugger buck. You have the freedom of choice to purchase a doe tag, and you even have the freedom of choice to go fishing if you want.
> 
> Pick a different term please. Your trying to make it sound like if they impose antler restrictions, then you'll lose some patriotic constitutional right or something.


Thanks for pointing that out, I'm sure I will never hear the end of it. If you read all the posts you would also see where I said I messed it up. The choices should have been the current regulations in slp or more restrictions. So yes I messed it up and it means absolutely nothing. I am however enjoying some of the posts there

Feel free to start your own poll, either on the MI forums or the WI forums so we can sit back and criticize your posts.


----------



## Theguy (Sep 7, 2021)

People still practice qdm?


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Theguy said:


> People still practice qdm?


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

Theguy said:


> People still practice qdm?



Only since 1994 on this property. We didnt own it prior to that date. Actually started passing on young bucks in 1981, so…yes we still practice QDM.


----------



## stickman1978 (Sep 15, 2011)

Can sure tell the difference around here over the last 5 or 6 years.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Wouldn’t have my property done up any other way. I have a couple qdm signs on my street front. Funny to see how many cars slow down to take a look into my property. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## retired dundo (Jul 21, 2015)

Kalamazooxj said:


> Could you imagine if they put a rule on fishing that you could only keep fish if they were a certain size?! I think this state would go bankrupt because no one would want to fish anymore!


Guess you don’t fish.Most fish have to be certain size to keep


----------



## fishpig (Mar 19, 2009)

The neighbor on one side of our farm is a big qdm guy, has signs everywhere. Which works out great for us because the deer come out of his woods to feed in our fields and we kill them. He used to run over every time he heard us shoot but after a couple years he finally gave up on that.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

fishpig said:


> The neighbor on one side of our farm is a big qdm guy, has signs everywhere. Which works out great for us because the deer come out of his woods to feed in our fields and we kill them. He used to run over every time he heard us shoot but after a couple years he finally gave up on that.


You should be sending him thank you cards and xmas gifts. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------

