# spike study



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Happy Hunter said:


> There is no need to close the buck season when there is the option of limiting hunters to one buck/year. If that didn't protect enough buck,then they could shorten the season and as a last resort they could limit the number of buck hunters.


HH,
If the hunters are limited to just one buck tag don't you believe that they would rather shoot an 8 pt. yearling over a spike? Even if the buck tags are limited this could, and very well would, be the case allowing the "geneticly inferior" spikes to live and breed. 
The DNR claims that only about 5% of all hunters take more than 1 buck per season and this stat is in keeping with the conversations I have with friends and the hunting public in general. Not a significant number wouldn't you agree?
What are your thoughts?

Big T


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> HH,
> If the hunters are limited to just one buck tag don't you believe that they would rather shoot an 8 pt. yearling over a spike? Even if the buck tags are limited this could, and very well would, be the case allowing the "geneticly inferior" spikes to live and breed.
> The DNR claims that only about 5% of all hunters take more than 1 buck per season and this stat is in keeping with the conversations I have with friends and the hunting public in general. Not a significant number wouldn't you agree?
> What are your thoughts?
> ...



Did they wait for the 8 pt. when they had two tags to fill. I don't think so or they woudn't have harvested 80% of the 1.5 buck.

If Mi has 750K hunters and 5% harvested an additional buck, that means they harvested 37.5 K more buck than if they limited to 1 buck. In PA in the first year of AR, the buck harvest decreased by 38K. Therefore limiting MI hunters to one buck/yr. would produce about the same results as implementing AR did in PA.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

I didn't think we would ever agree on anything - then you go and post that!

I agree, a one buck limit would be good for Michigan, infact, when I started hunting that was the rule - and, as much as it pains me, your right again, hunters DID NOT wait for an 8, a 6, or a 10, they shot sparky the wonder spike or what ever the first antlered target - just as they do now.

Going back to the one buck tag - or, i would even suggest, an 'earn a buck' tag would be great for Michigan, and I would support that as a first measure prior to AR's.

ferg....


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

Sorry to disappoint you, but I actually do try to base my positions on the facts rather than emotions or opinions.

Furthermore, I agree that the earn a buck program might be a very effective tool to combine the goals of saving more buck while doing a better job of balancing the B/D ratio. Many of the WMU's in PA that are double or triple their goals are areas with high human populations. In these areas many archers and rifle hunters only hunt buck and therefore don't participate in controling the herd. The earn a buck plan would force all hunters to participate in controling the herd ,instead of just being buck hunters.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Happy Hunter said:


> Sorry to disappoint you, but I actually do try to base my positions on the facts rather than emotions or opinions.


Disappointed? Not at all,  Glad that we have common ground, very cool.

Have a good weekend.


Ferg.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Ferg said:


> I agree, a one buck limit would be good for Michigan, infact, when I started hunting that was the rule - and, as much as it pains me, your right again, hunters DID NOT wait for an 8, a 6, or a 10, they shot sparky the wonder spike or what ever the first antlered target - just as they do now.
> 
> Going back to the one buck tag - or, i would even suggest, an 'earn a buck' tag would be great for Michigan, and I would support that as a first measure prior to AR's. ferg....


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Happy Hunter said:


> Did they wait for the 8 pt. when they had two tags to fill. I don't think so or they woudn't have harvested 80% of the 1.5 buck.
> 
> If Mi has 750K hunters and 5% harvested an additional buck, that means they harvested 37.5 K more buck than if they limited to 1 buck. In PA in the first year of AR, the buck harvest decreased by 38K. Therefore limiting MI hunters to one buck/yr. would produce about the same results as implementing AR did in PA.


HH,
The way I understood the statistic, it wasn't that 5% of all hunters took an additional buck, it was that of the hunters who took a buck only 5% of them took a second buck example: if 280k bucks were harvested in Mich. only about 13.3k were second bucks. A big difference wouldn't you agree?
Because there is some confusion on this I will verify this with my source and get back with you with more specifics.

I think that "earn-a-buck" has a lot of merit but this is the road block that we face with that, not that it can't be overcome. In my conversations with Rod Clute he stated that in the MDNRs hunter surveys that there were 2 things that Michigan deer hunters overwhelmingly would not stand for the first was changing the opening date of the general firearm season and the second, which deals with what we are talking about, is that they demand the right to buy a buck tag. Rod went on to tell me that this would never change and we would waste alot of time and energy trying.:sad: 

What do you think of this idea? Allow the purchase of 2 buck tags, much the same as it is done know, but when they are purchased the hunter has to be specific as to the zones that they want (1,2, or 3) and he can't have both tags in the same zone. Or have the second buck tag as an "earn-a-buck". This, I believe, is feasible because the DNR doesn't seem to have a problem arbitrarily making changes on the second buck tag ie: point restrictions. They could also raise the standards on the second tag to reflect spread. What do you think?

Yours in stewaedship,
Big T


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"I think that "earn-a-buck" has a lot of merit but this is the road block that we face with that, not that it can't be overcome. In my conversations with Rod Clute he stated that in the MDNRs hunter surveys that there were 2 things that Michigan deer hunters overwhelmingly would not stand for the first was changing the opening date of the general firearm season and the second, which deals with what we are talking about, is that they demand the right to buy a buck tag. Rod went on to tell me that this would never change and we would waste alot of time and energy trying. "



The PGC used the same excuse for implementing AR in PA, and said AR was the only method of reducing the buck harvest that would be accepted by the hunters. So they didn't do what was best for the herd , they settled for a method that has as yet failed to produce the desired results anywhere in the nation ,when it was implemented statewide.


If only 13.3 K hunters harvest a second buck , than any regulation placed on harvesting a second buck will have little effect as would limiting hunters to just one buck. So , it looks like we are back to square one with the choice of shortenting the season , limiting buck tags , AR or leaving things as they are.

Do you have an opinion as to why AR in WMU 118 didn't gain more support after 4 years of the trial period?


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Happy Hunter said:


> Do you have an opinion as to why AR in WMU 118 didn't gain more support after 4 years of the trial period?


I believe the majority (59%+) wanted to maintain the regulations. There was a concerted effort by a group in that area to compare the deer herd to a herd of domestic cattle. This I believe is something that most people can relate to, although incorrect and off base. It was easier for this group to sway a small percentage to defeat the proposal than it was for the pro side to sway 67% with the facts. 

We in Michigan have taken a major kick in the teeth because our decision makers took the easy way out and chose to ignore the data and the facts. I believe that everything the DNR talks about wanting to change, concerning herd dynamics, were addressed in this experiment with very possitive results.
AND the buck harvest increased.   

I've always believed that managing by DMUs was a better way of doing things. The DNR says it would be a logistical nightmare. If they believe it it will be but if they don't it won't.JMHO.

Yours in stewardship,
Big T


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

"I believe the majority (59%+) wanted to maintain the regulations. There was a concerted effort by a group in that area to compare the deer herd to a herd of domestic cattle. This I believe is something that most people can relate to, although incorrect and off base. It was easier for this group to sway a small percentage to defeat the proposal than it was for the pro side to sway 67% with the facts. "

What surprised me was that 57% of the hunters approved of AR before it was implemented and the vote was still 57% after 4 years. Furthermore, the way I view the data provided by Ed Spn, is that it failed to show that there was a significant increase in bucks in the older age classes, which is waht many hunters expected. Also,what is starnge about the data is it shows that the number of 1.5 harvested in the first year of AR compared to the baseline data. As yet , no one has explained why this would happen. The decreased 1.5 harvst only occurred in the second anf following years and number of 1.5 buck saved never came close to 50%. Maybe ,that is why the hunters didn't increase their vote for continuing AR's in WMU 118.


----------



## glen sible (Dec 11, 2004)

QDMAman,

You lost me with your last post. According to your numbers, QDMers would only have had to convince 7% more participants for the measure to continue. I'll not comment on your assesment of 'most people's' ability to relate.

Why would you believe the decision makers took the easy way out. Out of what? Weren't they following the established and published procedural methodology?

Thanks for reading and carry on.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

HH,

I believe that Ed's data came from the DNR. I'll review the data before I comment further. Either way why isn't a 57% majority a decisive majority?

glen,
The procedural method allowed for the NRC to override the vote if they thought the data had merit and progress was being made. 
The trend was favorable and with another 2-5 years would have offered valuable data as to long term effects that now I'm affraid has been lost.

Big T


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

I agree that 57% is a definite majority, but I didn't make the rules .

Whike reviewing the data note that the number of 1.5 buck harvested increased by 36 buck over the baselineaverage of 102. Therefore, the first 2.5 buck that could be attributed to AR were harvested in 2002 when 41 ,2.5 buck were harvested ,which was less than the 53 that were harvested back in 2000.


----------

