# debate thread on OBR



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

fozzy109 said:


> All in favor of the OBR for state land in Zone 3. In fact I'd be in favor of reducing the number of antlerless tags in some of our Zone 3 areas as well. I have been hunting Gratiot / Saginaw SGA for 40 years, first with my father and now with my son. When I first started out hunting with my dad it was a bad day if we didn't see at least 30+ deer in a days hunt. The limit then was one antlered buck and getting a doe tag was about like hitting the lottery. We did however see LOTS of deer which always made for a great day in the woods even if you didn't harvest one. Then along came the 2 buck rule and nearly unlimited doe permits and within a 5 year period the deer population plummeted. I really can't put all the blame on the DNR for the low deer numbers they provided the tags but we as hunters had to pull the triggers.


Really fozzy. I hunt awesome hunting property in the SLP. I saw 4.7 deer per day in my 50 days of hunting this year, and 1.7 deer per hour. The highest number of deer I saw this year in one day was 26.

Do you want to revise your "at least" 30/day statement (and be taken seriously), or do you want to stick with your story?


----------



## Pez Gallo (Sep 20, 2008)

QDMAMAN said:


> Was everybody sustaining the herd through winter feeding prior to the ban?


 There is no doubt about this. I grew up and cut my teeth hunting the northern lower. In the late eighties and early to mid nineties you could expect to see 50-100 deer a day with maybe a couple scrub bucks thrown in that bunch. That is what I thought hunting was. 

You could be almost anywhere on the 12,000ac. I used to hunt and you could see forever, there was no under story. At the time I had no idea, what that meant and never really thought about it, until I took a greater interest in deer hunting and hunting other places.

The NL is huge club country and the amount of food and feeders brought in to sustain the deer heard through the winter and the year was simply astounding. When the first baiting ban occurred the deer were more wiped out by the lack of food and habitat to sustain them, much more so then the unlimited doe permits. The damage done by artificially sustaining a herd of that size will take decades to regenerate back to a natural state.

The heard will come back as the forest does. An OBR would be good for all zones as far as I am concerned, there is no where that it would not be effective. Hopefully the state will keep a closer eye on the heard in the future and learn from there mistakes. For those that have only ever hunted the NL, the hunting as you once knew it was unnatural and no where like what hunting is elsewhere and what it is/was supposed to be.

B&B You said Indiana showed good results after going to OBR. That is a huge understatement. Their hunting has transformed from very mediocre to astounding and what was once opposed by many has been embraced by most all hunters in Indiana.

With Rod leaving us and some other happenings that our going on, I will do my best Nostadumbass impersonation and predict that we may see OBR in place by 2012. Maybe wishful thinking on my part, but lets just say I have a feeling.

Have a good day,Pez


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

While what you say may be true for the general vicinity of the club country areas, I can assure you that wasn't the case in the areas of Presque Isle I used to hunt(Thompson's Harbor area). It was as natural as a deer herd could be with deer being seen on a semi regular basis but not nearly in the numbers you are stating. When the doe-a-day permits came about, it literally wiped out a HUGE portion of the deer all in the name of TB which had one case in the entire county.



> According to Dr. Stephen Schmitt, Veterinarian in Charge of the DNR Rose Lake Wildlife Disease Laboratory, there has been extensive monitoring of deer within the four-county area of Alpena, Montmorency, Oscoda and Alcona since 1994, when one TB-infected deer was found in Alpena county. "Since then," said Schmitt, "we've added additional testing programs on a statewide basis. Within the portion of the four-county area where we found TB, Deer Management Unit 452, the prevalence rate has stayed around 2.4 percent. One deer has been found outside the four-county area, and that was in Presque Isle County."


In fact, in the 5 county area the deer herd was reduced by over half in just a 10 yr period( see pg 22 here: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/emergingdiseases/btbactivities2007a_244926_7.pdf ) By looking at the chart and then at the regulations that came about, you can plainly see that the lack of baiting and/or feeding wasn't the sole or even the main reason http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/DEER_REGULATION_HISTORY_210705_7.pdf . The NELP was the first to establish a 10 day EAS, a 15 day LAS, an unlimited antlerless quota and a few other major regulatory changes aimed solely at reducing the herd. It worked!!


----------



## Blood Dog (Apr 4, 2007)

Does any one have the numbers from these magical one buck states. Of the age class of the harvested bucks. This is so I can compare the numbers, to what the MDNR has on an 7 year MARS program in MI. I've been waiting awhile for these. I'm trying to compare these numbers to show you all that under an MAR program you can increase your age structure and still be able to eat them to. 




The only reason I see any needed for OBR is possiblily in the SLP to increase doe harvest. Many areas of are state can't substain the doe harvest like the SLP can or needs. If you want I would agree to have the second buck have 5 on a side. At least one could still be out hunting. I think of OBR as One Buck Restriction:sad:


----------



## Pez Gallo (Sep 20, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> While what you say may be true for the general vicinity of the club country areas, I can assure you that wasn't the case in the areas of Presque Isle I used to hunt(Thompson's Harbor area). It was as natural as a deer herd could be with deer being seen on a semi regular basis but not nearly in the numbers you are stating. When the doe-a-day permits came about, it literally wiped out a HUGE portion of the deer all in the name of TB which had one case in the entire county.
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, in the 5 county area the deer herd was reduced by over half in just a 10 yr period( see pg 22 here: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/emergingdiseases/btbactivities2007a_244926_7.pdf ) By looking at the chart and then at the regulations that came about, you can plainly see that the lack of baiting and/or feeding wasn't the sole or even the main reason http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/DEER_REGULATION_HISTORY_210705_7.pdf . The NELP was the first to establish a 10 day EAS, a 15 day LAS, an unlimited antlerless quota and a few other major regulatory changes aimed solely at reducing the herd. It worked!!


 I looked and I really liked that 2nd link with all the changes in MI over the years. Thanks for sharing. Just look at the dramatic fall in that first year(1998) with no baiting. After that it is pretty consistent. There is no doubt that hunters took a toll, but I would guess that just as many if not more deer died that first year do to starvation then died by hunters. I know a lot of people aren't happy with what happened up there, but it was a huge lesson in mismanagement, one hopefully we learn from!

Have a good day, Pez


----------



## goodworkstractors (Aug 7, 2007)

bioactive said:


> Really fozzy. I hunt awesome hunting property in the SLP. I saw 4.7 deer per day in my 50 days of hunting this year, and 1.7 deer per hour. The highest number of deer I saw this year in one day was 26.
> 
> Do you want to revise your "at least" 30/day statement (and be taken seriously), or do you want to stick with your story?


Jim,

I'm going to have to chime in on this one. I hunt mainly in the Thumb as you may recall, and I can clearly remember counting over 200 deer seen on Nov. 15th openers for 3, maybe 4, years in a row back in the early 2000's. Now, I am positive that many of these deer were the same ones being pushed around, but I can give you email addresses of my dad and best hunting buddy who can back me up on this statement. We didn't do nearly as much hunting as we do now and were lucky to get up to the farm before gun opener, so the numbers seen per day would be much less in early bow I'm sure. However, we would also see over 100 deer on the 16th, again I'm sure many of them were repeats as they were pushed around.

The past few years, I've seen more like 15-20 per day I am almost positive that I didn't see a single repeat this opening day. I need to keep a journal to be sure, but I'm almost positive. I think I saw 4 on Nov. 16th this year. The numbers have changed so much over the last decade. It's amazing. I know I'm not out of my mind and you can call me crazy and not take me seriously, but I would bet your Scentbuster Dust that my dad and buddy would back me 100% on this statement.

I also remember being up at my Aunt and Uncle's lake in the NLP ( I can't remember where exactly), and counting over 200 deer out in one field in late August at the same time. I can remember that image as clear as day. It was surreal how many deer were out there in the evening sun, absolutely stunning. This was back in the 1990's at some point.

Also, if I only saw 4.7 deer per day (including early bow season which is when I spend a lot more time hunting now), then I would seriously think that our numbers are waaaayyyy down in the Thumb. In early bow season this year and last, I would guess I saw 8-10 deer per sit. Again, I really need to start keeping a journal, and to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the number I saw per sit was higher than that.


----------



## eddie5979 (Dec 4, 2009)

one buck for bow seasons and one buck for gun seasons sold seperatly.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

Why are we allowed/expected to shoot more than 1 deer TOTAL in areas that have notoriously low deer densitys? 

You cant catch fish where there are none. Yet we expect to shoot more than 1 deer in areas where there are very few


----------



## boone nc (Dec 10, 2005)

I hunt in NWLP. I started hunting here in 2004. It started out slow and the peaked last year (08) with deer seen per sit. I also saw more bucks that year than any year before. This past season 09 I didnt hunt as much but I also did not see as many deer or bucks, only 1.

I think that Michigan should sale one buck tag and make it 8 pts or bigger or at least 4 points on one side. Doe tags should be given out on estimated population densities ex: more in the SLP than in the north or more doe tags in counties with higher deer numbers. 

This would still allow someone to kill a nice buck if they saw one and it would allow smaller bucks to walk. The does would be harvested as much as needed.

This is a win win situation. Hunters would still buy liscenses as they do now and bucks would be allowed to grow bigger which IMO would bring more revenue due to the quality of animals we would house. If the buck to doe ratio ever got back into proper proportion then more liscenses could be sold to manage the population. 30 does to one buck seems to be norm for my area and that is not a healthy sustainable deer heard.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> Why are we allowed/expected to shoot more than 1 deer TOTAL in areas that have notoriously low deer densitys?
> 
> You cant catch fish where there are none. Yet we expect to shoot more than 1 deer in areas where there are very few



Someone here understands. I have been beating that drum for years now.


----------



## MarkSend (Mar 11, 2008)

More to the point why would anybody buy a combo and hunt in areas with very low deer numbers? That is the beauty of the system, the dnr gets more money, the number of extra bucks taken is few, and hunters can spend extra time in the field.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

cscott711 said:


> Also, if I only saw 4.7 deer per day (including early bow season which is when I spend a lot more time hunting now), then I would seriously think that our numbers are waaaayyyy down in the Thumb. In early bow season this year and last, I would guess I saw 8-10 deer per sit. Again, I really need to start keeping a journal, and to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if the number I saw per sit was higher than that.


I think seeing deer at a rate of 1.7/hour indicates an overpopulation of deer. Now, one way you can throw this off is by hunting the edge of an easily visible field and just counting doe families in the distance. I hunt mainly in areas where I can hardly see most deer for more than 30-50 yards throughout most of the season. But still, someone who sees "at least" 30 deer per day would have to have visibility for a half square mile in a 60 deer per square mile area. It just makes no rational sense to me. I keep careful records and counts of the sex, probable age, location, and movements of every deer I see. I record them at the end of each day and compare records from year to year. I hunt in great areas where deer numbers are too high for the most part. I see nothing like 30 deer per day, although it is possible to have a 30 deer day.

Human memory is an odd thing. We remember every flat tire we ever had, but we don't remember all the days when our tires didn't go flat. Similarly, we remember every day we saw 30 deer like it is etched in our brains, but we don't remember the days when we didn't see anything. I don't believe anyone who says they used to see "at least" 30 deer per day unless they were hunting in a pen or in Ella Sharp Park:lol:. I'm not calling anyone a liar, I just know how the human brain and human memory functions. Myself, I would have probably reported seeing a lot more deer this year if I didn't keep careful records:lol:.

This is why most gamblers coming back from Vegas say they "won" $200 because they did win once, but they have a net loss that they conveniently set aside. Just plain human nature.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> bioactive said:
> 
> 
> > Human memory is an odd thing. We remember every flat tire we ever had, but we don't remember all the days when our tires didn't go flat.


Not exactly! I remember NOT having a flat tire both today, yesterday, and the day before that. I just can't remember what I had for breakfast!:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## old professor (Oct 26, 2008)

I attended a UP citizens Advisory Council meeting earlier this month and much of the discussion concerned deer populations in the UP. Almost every speaker recounted the drastic reduction in deer sightings. Many had seen NO deer in a weeks hunting. The comment that was repeatedly made was that they and their family/friends would not be buying deer licenses next year but would go out of state to hunt deer. If they follow through on that threat, the DNRE will take a big hit in loss of licernse revenue!
Many speakers blamed high wolf populations but in truth a combination of two very harsh winters and loss of winter habitat are more to blame. The wildlife biologist stated that the DNRE recognized the winter habitat loss and planed to concentrate in rehabilitating winter habitat.
I support the OBR with the restriction of either three or four points on one side. I also hunt in Penna. in a management zone with a four point on one side rule and a OBR. We are seeing many more bucks and some really nice racks. I saw more deer in one day than I did here in Michigan in all the deer seasons combined! I will probably purchase a single buck license in Mich this year as I pay senior hunter prices but I plan to spend a week hunting in Pa. rifle season and probably a day in early muzzleloader season.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

QDMAMAN said:


> Was everybody sustaining the herd through winter feeding prior to the ban?


 
Yeah some were in fact now their properties have taken a sever hit because of the winter die off. I am sick and tired of all this QDM stuff call it what it is and change your name to Antlerman instead of QDMAMAN. Thats what you are concerned with. 

Ganzer


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

I'm in favor of a one buck rule. Seems to me that one is enough. On the other hand, with the technology available today, it would seem like the DNR(E) could break the State into managment units similiar to how they manage turkeys. Maybe some areas can handle or need multiple buck licenses per hunter, other areas, maybe not. 

I would not be in favor of MARS. 

My 2 cents


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

old professor said:


> I attended a UP citizens Advisory Council meeting earlier this month and much of the discussion concerned deer populations in the UP. Almost every speaker recounted the drastic reduction in deer sightings. Many had seen NO deer in a weeks hunting. The comment that was repeatedly made was that they and their family/friends would not be buying deer licenses next year but would go out of state to hunt deer. If they follow through on that threat, the DNRE will take a big hit in loss of licernse revenue!
> Many speakers blamed high wolf populations but in truth a combination of two very harsh winters and loss of winter habitat are more to blame. The wildlife biologist stated that the DNRE recognized the winter habitat loss and planed to concentrate in rehabilitating winter habitat.
> I support the OBR with the restriction of either three or four points on one side. I also hunt in Penna. in a management zone with a four point on one side rule and a OBR. We are seeing many more bucks and some really nice racks. I saw more deer in one day than I did here in Michigan in all the deer seasons combined! I will probably purchase a single buck license in Mich this year as I pay senior hunter prices but I plan to spend a week hunting in Pa. rifle season and probably a day in early muzzleloader season.


The problem is, there should not be very many deer per square mile in most of the UP. It just can't support very many deer. People should learn to live with the fact that in it's current condition, the UP cannot sustain high herd densities in a balanced manner. 

I cannot hunt Elk in Hillsdale county. That is just a fact. If I want to hunt elk, I have to go somewhere else. Similarly, in today's world, the herd in the UP is getting into better balance with the habitat, and the facts are, people are just going to have to go somewhere else to see high numbers of deer per sit. 

My home lake has a few walleyes, and lots of bass. I tend to fish for bass on that lake, and not walleyes. If I want to fish for walleyes, well, I go to a lake that can support a breeding population of walleyes. I don't scream and complain about my lake not having enough walleyes, because I know that walleyes cannot breed in the lake and it cannot sustain high densities of them.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

skipper34 said:


> ridgewalker said:
> 
> 
> > Since the baiting and feeding ban has been in force our deer herd has taken a terrific hit through winter loss.
> ...


----------



## Pez Gallo (Sep 20, 2008)

bioactive said:


> Human memory is an odd thing. We remember every flat tire we ever had, but we don't remember all the days when our tires didn't go flat. Similarly, we remember every day we saw 30 deer like it is etched in our brains, but we don't remember the days when we didn't see anything. I don't believe anyone who says they used to see "at least" 30 deer per day unless they were hunting in a pen or in Ella Sharp Park:lol:. I'm not calling anyone a liar, I just know how the human brain and human memory functions. Myself, I would have probably reported seeing a lot more deer this year if I didn't keep careful records:lol:.


 I agree human memory is an odd thing, and mine may be one of the oddest in history, but I assure you back in the late 80's early 90's it was absolutely nothing to see these numbers in the NL where I hunted. On opening day of gun 100 deer days were very common. Having not experienced it I can see you having your doubts, but it was the case. This is why I think in part, MI has a skewed idea of what hunting is or should be. Many experienced this unnatural state and think that is what good hunting is.

Everybody loves to see deer when they go on stand, but at what cost?

Uncle BooPoo that is a great point. A OBR would be great in low or high density areas. It is the allotment of the doe permits that grow or shrink the heard. OBR with no doe permits will grow the heard where it needs to be grown and work the same with ample doe permits handed out where they need to be shrunk. The key is keeping on top of what is happening and issuing or pulling permits as needed.

P.S. Bio, I bought some of your scent dust, but if you call me a liar again I'm going to return it to you in a place that I can guarantee you will find more then uncomfortable.:lol::lol:

Have a good day, Pez


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

MERGANZER said:


> Yeah some were in fact now their properties have taken a sever hit because of the winter die off. I am sick and tired of all this QDM stuff call it what it is and change your name to Antlerman instead of QDMAMAN. Thats what you are concerned with.
> 
> Ganzer


Fascinating.

I think the people focused on antlers are those who go out into the woods and are praying for any deer with antlers to walk by so they can shoot them. It is really hard for me to understand how QDMers get tagged as being focused on antlers, when in fact, most of them regularly pass on shooting antlered deer.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

bioactive said:


> Fascinating.
> 
> I think the people focused on antlers are those who go out into the woods and are praying for any deer with antlers to walk by so they can shoot them. It is really hard for me to understand how QDMers get tagged as being focused on antlers, when in fact, most of them regularly pass on shooting antlered deer.


 
Yeah what is it that they do shoot????? It is large racked bucks. Is that whats best for the herd? Take out the strong. Take out the large healthy bucks. Hypocrisy!

Ganzer


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

bioactive said:


> Fascinating.
> 
> I think the people focused on antlers are those who go out into the woods and are praying for any deer with antlers to walk by so they can shoot them. It is really hard for me to understand how QDMers get tagged as being focused on antlers, when in fact, most of them regularly pass on shooting antlered deer.


C'mon Bio, that argument only makes sense IF they plan on continuing to pass them up after they grow larger antlers. Perhaps a better description would be "obsessed with _big_ antlers"?


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

MERGANZER said:


> skipper34 said:
> 
> 
> > WRONG!!!!! You are in Swatz Creek! Go north and ask the question on how the feedingban affected the deer. There was a massive winter kill and many camps saw nothing this year.
> ...


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

skipper34 said:


> MERGANZER said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but the winterkill was due to the fact that the deer have very little to eat up there in the winter in the first place. You put out carrots, beets, corn, etc. and they will still starve because these foods do not provide the proper nutrients for survival. The heavy snow is what prevents the deer from traveling for their food. The deer yards are overbrowsed to the point where they provide shelter but little if any food. Ask any biologist and they will tell you the same thing. My being in Swartz Creek is not of any importance. The fact that I can read does. Perhaps you should try it sometime.
> ...


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

MERGANZER said:


> Yeah what is it that they do shoot????? It is large racked bucks. Is that whats best for the herd? Take out the strong. Take out the large healthy bucks. Hypocrisy!
> 
> Ganzer


The large bucks killed in Michigan are for the most part not even fully grown adults. They are not healthier, they are simply older. Studies of both penned and wild deer show that a buck does not become mature until the age of 4.5-5.5 years. In MI, 98.4% of the deer brought into check stations were younger than that last year.

The approach of targeting larger deer produces more larger deer. It is easy to kill a young deer and very hard to kill an older deer. So by targeting an older deer you reduce your chances of harvest, and that lets more deer live to be older.

The following picture was painted by artist Michael Sieve. It depicts the same buck in stages during each year of its life. My goal as a QDM land manager is to provide a program in which antler fanaticism does not result in killing off bucks before they reach full adulthood. Properly managed QDM programs produce more adult bucks, not fewer. Over time, they produce more hunter opportunities, because by reducing harvest rates for a while you grow the buck herd, both in numbers and age structure. After about 3-5 years of a program, buck harvest numbers can go back to what they were originally, but we all get to see more bucks, and see them as full adults. 

It is antler fanatics that kill these deer when they are babies. Adoption of QDM principles means you become less of an antler fanatic. You have to, or you would not be able to let those antlered deer walk by you.


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

MERGANZER said:


> skipper34 said:
> 
> 
> > Okay mr obvious, There is no correlation between the feeding ban and the winter kill???? The winter was not nearly as severe as it has been in the past but the die off was. You explain it, and BTW you have no idea what we put out in the past to help the deer make through the harsh months. Glad you are able to read we are all proud of you.
> ...


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

The feeding ban went into effect last year. We have no deer around us anymore and found numerous dead ones inthe spring. We haven't changed a thing in 15 years but its changed, as soon as the ban started.

Ganzer


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

MERGANZER said:


> Yeah what is it that they do shoot????? It is large racked bucks. Is that whats best for the herd? Take out the strong. Take out the large healthy bucks. Hypocrisy!
> 
> Ganzer


So let me ask you. After reviewing the above post, do you think it "best for the herd" that we kill almost every buck before it is an adult?

A 1.5 year old buck is like a human 14 year old.

A 2.5 yo is like a human college student.

A 3.5 yo is like like a late 20s human.

Imagine what our world would be like if only 2% of people lived past the age of 30. That is a totally abnormal situation for an animal population. These animals are supposed to live to be 8-11 years old in the wild. QDM programs try to produce more, not fewer older deer, and more, not fewer younger bucks. 

If what you said was true, that QDM results in reducing the number of older bucks, then I would not participate in it. In fact, the goal is to produce more older bucks.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say we are targeting older deer because we are antler fanatics, and at the same time say the program reduces the amount of older deer.

If it did, I certainly would not participate.

Each year, every single serious practitioner of QDM that I know (and I know a lot of them) see more and better bucks. What on earth is wrong with that?


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

MERGANZER said:


> The feeding ban went into effect last year. We have no deer around us anymore and found numerous dead ones inthe spring. We haven't changed a thing in 15 years but its changed, as soon as the ban started.
> 
> Ganzer


It is merely my understanding that those deer could have still died with a full stomach if it were the wrong food. I may be wrong, and probably am. I am only relating to what I have read about deer and winter survival. My source of information is what John Ozaga has written.


----------



## hunterrep (Aug 10, 2005)

Merganzer equating winter kill to the baiting ban is just an outrageous assumption. There have been several years in the past of winter kill when baiting was legal, what was the cause then? Not enough bait on the piles? Too few bait piles? Price of bait too high? Makes no sense and there is no correlation.


----------



## goodworkstractors (Aug 7, 2007)

bioactive said:


> I think seeing deer at a rate of 1.7/hour indicates an overpopulation of deer. Now, one way you can throw this off is by hunting the edge of an easily visible field and just counting doe families in the distance. I hunt mainly in areas where I can hardly see most deer for more than 30-50 yards throughout most of the season. But still, someone who sees "at least" 30 deer per day would have to have visibility for a half square mile in a 60 deer per square mile area. It just makes no rational sense to me. I keep careful records and counts of the sex, probable age, location, and movements of every deer I see. I record them at the end of each day and compare records from year to year. I hunt in great areas where deer numbers are too high for the most part. I see nothing like 30 deer per day, although it is possible to have a 30 deer day.
> 
> Human memory is an odd thing. We remember every flat tire we ever had, but we don't remember all the days when our tires didn't go flat. Similarly, we remember every day we saw 30 deer like it is etched in our brains, but we don't remember the days when we didn't see anything. I don't believe anyone who says they used to see "at least" 30 deer per day unless they were hunting in a pen or in Ella Sharp Park:lol:. I'm not calling anyone a liar, I just know how the human brain and human memory functions. Myself, I would have probably reported seeing a lot more deer this year if I didn't keep careful records:lol:.
> 
> This is why most gamblers coming back from Vegas say they "won" $200 because they did win once, but they have a net loss that they conveniently set aside. Just plain human nature.


I know over time, our minds tend to shape our memories the way we want them to be shaped, but the days I saw those high numbers of deer weren't that long ago. I haven't hunted enough to be able to forget all those experiences. But for arguments sake, say I doubled the actual numbers and I really saw 100 opening day and 50 the following day. That is still way more than 30 per day. This happened for several years in a row, not a one time occurance. I can remember coming in the house after the morning or afternoon hunt and telling my grandmother about what we saw. It was amazing that there were that many running all over. It was what we expected to see. It isn't like that anymore, not even close. 

Also, at that time, I usually sat on the corner of a wood lot with two large AG fields adjacent to it. Yeah, you could see a ways, but it was all within a few hundred yards either way you looked.

I also know that the human mind is always skeptical of things they can't see with their own eyes or justify in those big ole brains we have. I know I'm that way for sure. Always skeptical until I see further proof. :lol:


----------



## Pez Gallo (Sep 20, 2008)

Just to be clear, I am referring to the first baiting ban in 1998 and then the following baiting stipulations that occurred in 99 state wide is what played a huge roll in reducing the herd in the NL. No one could put out the amount of food needed to sustain the herd at the numbers that it was at. The most recent ban state wide has no affect on the herd dynamics.

Have a good day, Pez


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

hunterrep said:


> Merganzer equating winter kill to the baiting ban is just an outrageous assumption. There have been several years in the past of winter kill when baiting was legal, what was the cause then? Not enough bait on the piles? Too few bait piles? Price of bait too high? Makes no sense and there is no correlation.


Here is a quote from John Ozaga's book, "Whitetail Winter" :

"Many well-meaning people insist upon feeding deer foods of questionable nutritive value, assuming that "every little bit helps". As a sole diet, however, sugar beets, apples, potatoes, lettuce, rutabagas, corn, bread, or chocolate cake fail to meet the whitetail's basic nutritional requirements. Likewise, hay provides little nourishment for deer. A balanced diet might occasionally be achieved if these individual poor-quality foods are provided throughout winter in great variety and quantity, along with a mixed supply of natural browse."

In other words, foods such as found on bait piles simply don't cut it for winter survival unless there is natural browse to go along with it. Winter mortality is directly related to the amount of snow, the depth, and the duration, and above all else, the lack of natural food to sustain the herd.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

bioactive said:


> Each year, every single serious practitioner of QDM that I know (and I know a lot of them) see more and better bucks. ?


Perhaps the reason they are seeing better bucks is they have become better hunters knowing when, where, and why.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

bucksnbows said:


> The rules
> Tell where you hunt (zone)
> Why or why not you support OBR
> Keep it civil.
> ...


I primarily hunt Chippewa, Kalkaska & Calhoun 
I support OBR with no antler restrictions..

What is the fear of OBR?


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

riverman said:


> Perhaps the reason they are seeing better bucks is they have become better hunters knowing when, where, and why.


I feel that this contributes to at least half, and probably much more, of the reason.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

bioactive said:


> Imagine what our world would be like if only 2% of people lived past the age of 30. That is a totally abnormal situation for an animal population.


Those kind of lifespans (life expectancy at birth) were normal for humans throughout evolutionary history right up into the middle ages. It has only became significantly better than that since the industrial revolution.

I'd say those kind of life spans are completely normal for a wildlife population that has yet to reach the stone age. 

-na


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> riverman said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the reason they are seeing better bucks is they have become better hunters knowing when, where, and why.


Seeing more/older bucks each and every year is directly attributable to having more of them in the herd. I know this is difficult for some to understand but my experience has been that before I had more/older bucks in my neighborhood I didn't see as many.
Now....it wasn't until I brushed up on my hunting skills that I was able to capitalize on them. There was really no need to be "skilled" in order to kill bucks in my area prior to older bucks becoming part of the mix in any significant numbers.

Big T


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

bioactive said:


> Now, one way you can throw this off is by hunting the edge of an easily visible field and just counting doe families in the distance. I hunt mainly in areas where I can hardly see most deer for more than 30-50 yards throughout most of the season. But still, someone who sees "at least" 30 deer per day would have to have visibility for a half square mile in a 60 deer per square mile area. It just makes no rational sense to me. I keep careful records and counts of the sex, probable age, location, and movements of every deer I see. I record them at the end of each day and compare records from year to year. I hunt in great areas where deer numbers are too high for the most part. I see nothing like 30 deer per day, although it is possible to have a 30 deer day.


I've been keeping records myself for the last few years though not as detailed as yours but I can assure you that, in parts of the NLP, numbers like this aren't uncommon.

I keep my log book at my property so I don't have all my data handy but a few years ago someone on here asked about hunting logs and the numbers they kept. These numbers are for 2007, hunting an 80 acre parcel - 18 days hunting, 406 confirmed deer sightings, most individual deer sighted at one time 45.

Now it should be noted that I do hunt an old fence row that looks over a 3 acre food plot and the neighbors ~40 acre hay field but once gun season came around I could count on seeing 21 - 27 deer in our 3 acre food plot every day and pushing another 8 -12 out of our front field when I came in at night.

I just wish I could get those 5 antlerless permits that you southern guys get though the neighbors would probably be up in arms.


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

QDMAMAN said:


> Seeing more/older bucks each and every year is directly attributable to having more of them in the herd. I know this is difficult for some to understand but my experience has been that before I had more/older bucks in my neighborhood I didn't see as many.
> Now....it wasn't until I brushed up on my hunting skills that I was able to capitalize on them. There was really no need to be "skilled" in order to kill bucks in my area prior to older bucks becoming part of the mix in any significant numbers.
> 
> Big T


Give someone a high quality bedding area/afternoon staging area, no pressure until Nov, and a good funnel, who needs skill? The bulk of qdm success stories is the results of having quality property that HOLDS deer and then hunting them at the right time.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

bucksnbows said:


> Yes you are right buck kills do have little to do with decreasing the population. As for advancing it I think it is more of a kill the males not the females. IMO though there should be no females killed and a very strict limit on how many males are killed until populations become high enough to where the limits can be more open on both sexes.
> But are hunters and the state willing to make those needed sacrafices to achieve this? No.


Point restrictions are already limiting the number of 2nd buck kills in the NLP to 8,153 in 2008(btw- the number of total buck kills was 85k).


----------



## Pez Gallo (Sep 20, 2008)

Radar420 said:


> My biologist is Larry Smith


I have never spoken with him or know him, but I am guessing by your emoticon that you are not a fan.:lol: 

What does he say to your request?


----------



## Pez Gallo (Sep 20, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> Well the consensus seems to be that buck kills do little to advance or decrease population numbers. If indeed that is the case,(especially considering point restrictions that are already bestowed upon the combo), it won't make a difference to keep the current regs in areas that don't have antlerless permits available.


The difference would be at least 8,153 older bucks, and I would be willing to bet that number would be more then double with the OBR.

Have a good day, Pez


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Pez Gallo said:


> The difference would be at least 8,153 older bucks, and I would be willing to bet that number would be more then double with the OBR.
> 
> Have a good day, Pez


To serve what purpose?


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> Point restrictions are already limiting the number of 2nd buck kills in the NLP to 8,153 in 2008(btw- the number of total buck kills was 85k).


 Ok so no OBR in zone 2. Again for the cazillion time another reason why the state needs to be split into at least 3 different management zones with their own management regulations. If you hunt in different zones one would needs to be aware of the different rule changes or learn the hardway.
Why doesn't the state do this?


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> To serve what purpose?


People like to see bucks. They like to hunt them. Why not encourage more of them? Why does there have to be a purpose besides the fact that people like to see and hunt for bucks?


----------



## Pez Gallo (Sep 20, 2008)

So me and antlerman have monster bucks to hunt.:lol::lol: Come on Michi, baiting has been illegal for two years now.:lol: You have been around here long enough to answer your own question, unless you don't read others post that you debate so frequently.

Have a good day, Pez


----------



## Hulk (Dec 18, 2009)

Radar420 said:


> My biologist is Larry Smith


 
Larry Smith is an excellent biologist. Easy to talk to and very much in touch with his district. A down to earth fellow hunter/outdoors man, not just a pencil pusher.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

bucksnbows said:


> Ok so no OBR in zone 2. Again for the cazillion time another reason why the state needs to be split into at least 3 different management zones with their own management regulations. If you hunt in different zones one would needs to be aware of the different rule changes or learn the hardway.
> Why doesn't the state do this?


Well if the crossbow regs are any indication, it appears as though they may begin leaning that way.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> Well if the crossbow regs are any indication, it appears as though they may begin leaning that way.


Good it is about time. If they do start doing this I believe in time hunters will see a change for the better and might start having more faith in the DNR.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Hulk said:


> Larry Smith is an excellent biologist. Easy to talk to and very much in touch with his district. A down to earth fellow hunter/outdoors man, not just a pencil pusher.


That's basically what I've always heard about the guy.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

Pez Gallo said:


> The difference would be at least 8,153 older bucks, and I would be willing to bet that number would be more then double with the OBR.
> 
> Have a good day, Pez


I agree.

NLP is much different than SLP. NLP may never hold as many deer as it once did. However, that doesnt mean the quality of the herd has to be different. (currently its alot different) If better sex ratios are a goal, then why not let more bucks AND does live when the population is low? That way as the population grows, older age class bucks will be equally represented. Instead of our current practices of letting the population boom and the buck herd never has a chance to catch up untill total numbers fall again.

IMO this would improve the quailty of hunting in NLP. I know not evereybody is crazy about antlers, but just seeing buck sign/activity alone that is left by older aged bucks is enough to get ANY hunters blood racing. I think this alone would make more hunters happy in the longrun and it would probably cost the state LESS money to do so. IMO the experience is not the same with a bunch of 1.5 y/o bucks running around. Some hunters have never even had the privilage to know the difference 

just my .02


----------



## OJT (Nov 28, 2007)

I just wonder what the reason's are from those opposed to the OBR are? 
Is it a right? 
Recreational opportunity? 
Meat? 
Man thing?
More time in the woods?
All the above? 
I have a hard time understanding why anyone would need to shoot more than one antlered deer per season. 
The OBR still allows every hunter the opportunity to harvest an antlered deer.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

OJT said:


> I just wonder what the reason's are from those opposed to the OBR are?
> Is it a right?
> Recreational opportunity?
> Meat?
> ...


Because for some it's not just one antlered deer they would be limited to but one deer period. If you were to tell a any huge segment of hunters they would only be allowed one deer per year you'd get a huge uproar. Telling one of the largest traditional hunting areas in the state they are now limited to one deer is political suicide. Especially if it was done to alleviate an issue that's basically isolated to a region other than there own. Some of you may even recall the political clout exhibited in that region when the number of antlerless permits were reduced to 5. To think this isn't a reality would be to forget history.


----------



## OJT (Nov 28, 2007)

But in the NLP and UP most do not see a buck that meets the restricted tag as it is now right? So they only get the one anyway in most cases. 
Plenty of farms in the SLP that would allow a doe or 2-3 to be taken if hunters are willing to be escorted by the land owner but most are not willing to do that. 
I can speak from experience on that one once you tell them you will be going with them they seem to not want the doe afterall. 
So if I read what you just said it's better to allow hunters in those areas to harvest two bucks where populations have fallen to record low numbers for recreational opportunity? Or did I read that wrong?


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

OJT said:


> But in the NLP and UP most do not see a buck that meets the restricted tag as it is now right? So they only get the one anyway in most cases.
> Plenty of farms in the SLP that would allow a doe or 2-3 to be taken if hunters are willing to be escorted by the land owner but most are not willing to do that.
> I can speak from experience on that one once you tell them you will be going with them they seem to not want the doe afterall.
> So if I read what you just said it's better to allow hunters in those areas to harvest two bucks where populations have fallen to record low numbers for recreational opportunity? Or did I read that wrong?


If you're addressing me, it's not better or worse but a reality of hunters in the area. You just will not be able to sell them on a one deer limit without also showing a legitimate need to do so. The fact that most only get one isn't the controlling factor as much as the perception of the limitation.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> Because for some it's not just one antlered deer they would be limited to but one deer period. If you were to tell a any huge segment of hunters they would only be allowed one deer per year you'd get a huge uproar. Telling one of the largest traditional hunting areas in the state they are now limited to one deer is political suicide. Especially if it was done to alleviate an issue that's basically isolated to a region other than there own.


I'm a firearms only hunter in an area where antleress permits are few to none. I'd being willing to accept 1 deer per year (plus whatever antlerless tags I was willing to travel for). I think a solid majority of UP residents would also support that. Your biggest objections are going to come from LP residents who travel here to hunt and want the option of hunting both the LP and the UP.

-na


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Nick Adams said:


> I'm a firearms only hunter in an area where antleress permits are few to none. I'd being willing to accept 1 deer per year (plus whatever antlerless tags I was willing to travel for). I think a solid majority of UP residents would also support that. Your biggest objections are going to come from LP residents who travel here to hunt and want the option of hunting both the LP and the UP.
> 
> -na


Nick- Would you think that's the attitude of the average hunter in your area? I know my family and friends in the NLP would without a doubt be strongly opposed to an OBR. Heck, they're against most any regulation to begin with though.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> Nick- Would you think that's the attitude of the average hunter in your area?


The locals I know tend to be firearms only hunters rather than multi-season hunters at a ratio of roughly 10-1. The majority of them are buying the stand alone firearms tag rather than the combo tags and are restricted by choice to one deer already. 

-na


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Nick Adams said:


> The locals I know tend to be firearms only hunters rather than multi-season hunters at a ratio of roughly 10-1. The majority of them are buying the stand alone firearms tag rather than the combo tags and are restricted by choice to one deer already.
> 
> -na


Can you explain why you think that might be? Is it due to the perceived unrealistic expectations placed on the combo? Or just simply a desire to take only one?
BTW- It's not quite the same ratio in my area but it's definitely heavily weighted towards firearms only.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

There has been some interesting info on this thread ,but some of it is kind of speculating on both sides. The fact is though we realy dont know for sure how many bucks are actualy being taken on the second tag. It is all just another guess from the dnr.It could be 8000,or 18000 its just 8000 that has been reported. But what if it was actually more. I dont always report my kills and i know several others who never report their kills. no body knows for sure if the second tag is being used for does during archery. Everything is just all speculative. we assume that hunters will complain that they can only kill one deer we assume that hunters will envision that if only given one chance at a buck then they might be more apt to pass the little ones up and wait on the bigger bucks.Nobody will ever really know for sure either way. some will say that we cant compare michigan with other states. But i guess that those states are really the only ones that know for sure if the obr works for them or not. One thing is for sure if we dont change and give new things a try we will never know if anything will ever work. lets just keep going about business as usual then. If its brown its going down. Im sorrry i hate accepting that .


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> Can you explain why you think that might be? Is it due to the perceived unrealistic expectations placed on the combo? Or just simply a desire to take only one?


Don't plan to shoot more than one. This was the case prior to the double restricted combo rule. Very few of these same guys would bother to shoot anything with less than three on a side despite only having a single unrestricted tag. Expectations are a good buck every couple of years rather than 1 (or 2) bucks every year. 

The best reason to buy a combo has always been participation in bow season. We have significantly fewer archery hunters over all (25% of all hunters in the UP vs 37% for the NLP) and I have to think those are heavily weighted to down-staters with a camp up here. Archery season in my area isn't seen as a way to extend the buck hunting season (at least among the locals). The reason people archery hunt up here is to get antlerless tags that are unavailable during firearms season. Unlike in the LP, UP archery hunters consistently post higher antlerless harvests than buck harvests.

-na


----------



## Blood Dog (Apr 4, 2007)

I don't see the need for OBRestriction in MI for the fact of saving bucks to increase the age structure. Look at this the OBRestriction only would save roughly 12% (30,000) of the bucks in the state plus the "mulligan" bucks. If we would have a MARs rule of 3pt/4pt and took the SLP percentages of spikes and 4pts in the harvest of 36% we would save (90,000) bucks. Now we all can agree that the 36% would be much higher in the UP and NLP thus saving more bucks, but for this lets be conservative on the MAR number.


With MAR these sublegal bucks are off limits the entire season plus with MARs there is a mulligan factor of the bucks that go by to fast to count points, or come in to dark to count points. We don't know the actual number of bucks saved be the MARs "mulligan".

THe OBR mulligan buck is all theroritcal thinking people will pass bucks up just to see, if a bigger one comes by, which I understand. THe deal with the OBRestriction mulligan buck is that buck is not off limits some other hunter may see him and harvest him because simply he doesn't have time to hunt much that year, etc.... Also the same hunter that "passed" him up earlier in the season might later in the season harvest him simply because "I hunted hard all year and passed up #$ bucks I feel I desearve a buck" mentality. With OBR there is no reason that buck is for sure saved. 

The numbers don't jive with 60,000 plus bucks moved into the 2.5 class with MARs. Plus the days of extra hunting effort given with MARs and 2 bucks been able to be harvested. I wonder if there is a idea that unless we are tagged out we aren't happy and that is why so many want OBRestriction so it would be easier to tag out


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

I strongly support the obr for a few reasons. first i strongly believe that hunters will pass up the smaller bucks in knowing full well that there is a good oppurtunity that last years fork or spike will still be around and be bigger. second I have freinds and know several young hunters that have never killed a buck who deserve a chance at killing any size buck they want. There is a possibility that a small buck hiding its head gear( head down feeding in the ferns or ears covering antlers) will get shot thinking its a doe, with an mar that buck might lay dead in the woods because it couldnt be tagged legaly.And lastly i just want to see more bucks which will encourage those that will start to see more bucks to realize that the herd is getting healthier because of a more even buck to doe ratio. I dont suppport the obr because i want to tag out if i do tag out i can always travel to new areas that have over the counter doe tags and shoot does.I dont think that obr stands alone to solve some of our problems in the state though. A better wildlife plan, stronger land management and a rethinking of the zoning of the state would be excellent compliments to the obr. One more thing Just because we are the only ones that speak out on line here doesnt mean that we are the minority with the way things are being handled here in the state. From all the law enforcements agents , hunters and hunting supply vendors that i meet and talk with they all are disgruntled with the way things are.


----------



## Hulk (Dec 18, 2009)

I like OBR but I don't think it will change anything. Simply put it's hunter mindset, after all a spike is a "Michigan 11 point". Most hunters with the mindset of targeting mature bucks are already passing younger bucks and would do that OBR or not.

To the vast majority in Michigan, a buck is a buck, spike or 10 point. How do you convince a whole generation of hunters used to harvesting young bucks and enjoying it to start passing on them? The short answer is _You can't_!


----------



## Pez Gallo (Sep 20, 2008)

Hulk said:


> To the vast majority in Michigan, a buck is a buck, spike or 10 point. How do you convince a whole generation of hunters used to harvesting young bucks and enjoying it to start passing on them? The short answer is _You can't_!


I understand your frustration, but I disagree with your statement. There are many great ambassadors of our sport(many that frequent this site) that give up their time to get out there help educate so instead of throwing your arms up and saying "you can't", get out there and help spread the word. 

Do you think 20 years ago we would even be having these discussions. I talk to a lot of people through out the year and the mind set is truly changing, slowly but surely. So stay positive, I say "you can" and I have been apart of seeing that preverbal light bulb go on in others heads and it's a wonderful thing.

Have a good day, Pez


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Pez Gallo said:


> I understand your frustration, but I disagree with your statement. There are many great ambassadors of our sport(many that frequent this site) that give up their time to get out there help educate so instead of throwing your arms up and saying "you can't", get out there and help spread the word.
> 
> Do you think 20 years ago we would even be having these discussions. I talk to a lot of people through out the year and the mind set is truly changing, slowly but surely. So stay positive, I say "you can" and I have been apart of seeing that preverbal light bulb go on in others heads and it's a wonderful thing.
> 
> Have a good day, Pez


And there lies another piece of the puzzle. IF the word and practice is becoming more rampant is a rule change truly necessary?


----------



## Hulk (Dec 18, 2009)

Pez Gallo said:


> I understand your frustration, but I disagree with your statement. There are many great ambassadors of our sport(many that frequent this site) that give up their time to get out there help educate so instead of throwing your arms up and saying "you can't", get out there and help spread the word.
> 
> Do you think 20 years ago we would even be having these discussions. I talk to a lot of people through out the year and the mind set is truly changing, slowly but surely. So stay positive, I say "you can" and I have been apart of seeing that preverbal light bulb go on in others heads and it's a wonderful thing.
> 
> Have a good day, Pez


I'm not frustrated. I'm simply stating that many hunters are content with harvesting any legal buck (to each his own). OBR will not change that. I'm convinced the only reason I have mature bucks roaming my property is because I'm in a very high deer density area. (which most consider unhealthy)

Simply put, the more yearling bucks available, the better the chances for advanced age class.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Sep 20, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> And there lies another piece of the puzzle. IF the word and practice is becoming more rampant is a rule change truly necessary?


You seem to have no faith in the human race, which I can sympathize with you on. Maybe I am just overly optimistic and am a big fat dummy for believing the so called lies. I will tell you that I and many others have put these lies to use and the results have been nothing short of phenomenal. I guess until you experience what many of us have experienced you will never have that light bulb go off. I understand people hate change, and the grass is not always greener, but I can promise you (kind of like Mikey) if you try it you'll like it. For some reason everybody thinks MI is an alien state and we are different from the rest of the Midwest and somehow live on a different geological plain.

Do you think that we that support OBR, QDM, etc.. are from p.e.t.a and are trying to ruin our sport? The reason we are out there, is because we are trying to show and teach people how much better hunting can be. The things you see with more mature deer and better ratios is really, really, cool! You are right that there are those that do abuse QDM principals, but there are going to be people that abuse any system or practice in all walks of life, it's sad, but it is just a fact of life. 

It's kind of like left and right, I believe low taxes and free market will bring prosperity and better jobs and high taxes will bring government jobs, dependancy, and socialism. I think we are both firmly entrenched across the Isle on this issue and will have to just agree to disagree. We will be having a co-op meeting soon and would love for you to come or anyone else that may want to see what it's all about, I will be willing to bet that I can get antlerman to come as well, so you can here the lies for yourself.

I promise you that we are out there to better our sport, there is no money involved for any of the time we give. I enjoy and spend way to much time year round on hunting the whitetail deer to jeopardize what I love so much.

Have a good day,Pez


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

A few have mentioned in this thread that maybe Michigan should try OBR or experiment with OBR. Let me remind anyone who may not know or have forgotten that Michigan was an OBR state for 62 years. We have been a multiple buck state the past 33 years. 
During the 62 years that Mich. was an OBR state, camp permits were available as well as special Island hunts so some guys did legally harvest 2 or more bucks during those years. What was more common then was the tagging of a second buck with someone elses tag or not tagging a second buck at all. Who knows what percent took second bucks illegally during yjose years ? 2-3 % of all hunters is a guess that I've heard kicked out there a number of times. I was hunting during those years and it seemed a lot higher than 2-3%, but if only 5% of all hunters take a second buck now legally, probably only half as many taking second bucks back in those years is a pretty good guess.
I like the idea of the Hunter's Choice license that the UP has with some changes for the LP, but that doesn't seem to be a very popular idea so I'm happy to have the combo license. 

L & O


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Pez Gallo said:


> You seem to have no faith in the human race, which I can sympathize with you on. Maybe I am just overly optimistic and am a big fat dummy for believing the so called lies. I will tell you that I and many others have put these lies to use and the results have been nothing short of phenomenal. I guess until you experience what many of us have experienced you will never have that light bulb go off. I understand people hate change, and the grass is not always greener, but I can promise you (kind of like Mikey) if you try it you'll like it. For some reason everybody thinks MI is an alien state and we are different from the rest of the Midwest and somehow live on a different geological plain.
> 
> Do you think that we that support OBR, QDM, etc.. are from p.e.t.a and are trying to ruin our sport? The reason we are out there, is because we are trying to show and teach people how much better hunting can be. The things you see with more mature deer and better ratios is really, really, cool! You are right that there are those that do abuse QDM principals, but there are going to be people that abuse any system or practice in all walks of life, it's sad, but it is just a fact of life.
> 
> ...


I'm not following your transition from my statement to yours. They have very little, if anything, to do with each other. What I'm saying is that if it's already being done(OBR) and is growing by the minute, is there reallly a need to change regulations. What you are inferring is that my beliefs about pseudo QDMers somehow applies to my last statement. I don't see any correlation. 

As far as faith in the human race? You might ask yourself who is showing more faith, the one that is in support of voluntary measures or the one pushing for regulatory changes.

BTW- Tony(antlerman) and I have met and spoke many many times. If you think him and I are at odds you might be surprised to find out that we aren't.


Looking at your statement I believe I now understand where the miscommunication "lies". Hopefully you aren't one to take things out of context but just in case you are here is the definition of the word "lies" as it is used in my reply-

*lies*:_to consist or be grounded: The real remedy lies in education. _


----------



## Pez Gallo (Sep 20, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> I'm not following your transition from my statement to yours. They have very little, if anything, to do with each other. What I'm saying is that if it's already being done(OBR) and is growing by the minute, is there reallly a need to change regulations. What you are inferring is that my beliefs about pseudo QDMers somehow applies to my last statement. I don't see any correlation.
> 
> BTW- Tony(antlerman) and I have met and spoke many many times. If you think him and I are at odds you might be surprised to find out that we aren't.


I got their and there messed up. Oops, guess I am that dummy.:lol: I thought you were saying their lies, as in they are lying scum bags. Reading comprehension has never been my strong suit.:lol:

I know you and Tony aren't at odds and hope you don't think I'm at odds with you either, we just have different view points. I just saw where Tony suggested you go to a co-op meeting and I was just extending the invitation. Sorry for the confusion.

To answer your question it is being done on minute scale, if we can get everyone on board I firmly believe the results will be astounding. Indiana once had strong opposition, and from what I have read and people that I have spoken with it now has strong support. I guess the question to you is why do you think that is?

Have a good day, Pez


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Pez Gallo said:


> I got their and there messed up. Oops, guess I am that dummy.:lol: I thought you were saying their lies, as in they are lying scum bags. Reading comprehension has never been my strong suit.:lol:
> 
> I know you and Tony aren't at odds and hope you don't think I'm at odds with you either, we just have different view points. I just saw where Tony suggested you go to a co-op meeting and I was just extending the invitation. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> ...


Are you using a website/forum to come to that conclusion? The reason I ask is because I know quite a few people in IN that aren't as thrilled as you are indicating. In fact, they were "for" it originally and are now "against" it due to a lot of reasons I've mentioned in the past (increased leasing of properties as well as the amount of that cost, commercialism, back biting and fighting amongst friends and family, etc). It seems that those that are most vocal in their praise of other states 'management techniques" are usually those that are non residents of those states.


----------



## Pez Gallo (Sep 20, 2008)

Michihunter said:


> Are you using a website/forum to come to that conclusion? The reason I ask is because I know quite a few people in IN that aren't as thrilled as you are indicating. In fact, they were "for" it originally and are now "against" it due to a lot of reasons I've mentioned in the past (increased leasing of properties as well as the amount of that cost, commercialism, back biting and fighting amongst friends and family, etc). It seems that those that are most vocal in their praise of other states 'management techniques" are usually those that are non residents of those states.


http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/files/OneBuckRuleSurveyFinalReport.pdf

Here is a link. I also ran into a group of 15 hunters last August, that were on there way up to Bear hunt Ontario. They stated that they used to hunt up by Rodgers City every year, now they don't bother.

If I had to take a guess, Michigan hunters are probably the biggest to blame. We used to have a million plus hunters now we are down to, what 800,000? Where do you think some of those 200,000 went? Maybe Ohio, Indiana, or other places in the midwest? I think you are proving my point, that OBR brings better hunting. If it wasn't better they wouldn't have the influx of people coming to their state to hunt. Maybe if we went that route it would be a win-win. We'd get better hunting here and we could leave the other states alone.

have a good day,Pez


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

From your survey 54% would support returning to 2 bucks while 66% would still support 1 buck. Not much of a difference there in my opinion but still somewhat significant. 

The "problems" listed as well as the "pay to play" results seem to reflect the same opinions I've received from IN residents. The one striking thing I noticed is the lack of year to year hunting indicating to me(although I could be wrong) that there might be some appeal to IN hunting until it's actually done. Then they don't return to it. 

Thanks for supplying that link. Most appreciated.


BTW- Rogers City is the area where I primarily hunt. What you were told is very indicative of a lot of folks that hunt in that area. Its a region that shows a VERY good example of mismanagement techniques employed by the State.


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Pez Gallo said:


> IWhat does he say to your request?





Hulk said:


> Larry Smith is an excellent biologist. Easy to talk to and very much in touch with his district. A down to earth fellow hunter/outdoors man, not just a pencil pusher.





Whit1 said:


> That's basically what I've always heard about the guy.


Now to be fair, I haven't personally talked to him but my dad did a few years ago. His experienced mirrored that of these posters:

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=251087&highlight=Larry

Now maybe things have changed since they spoke (though I doubt it). 

Though after finishing reading the above thread it looks like I may have to try and go above his head.


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

brushbuster said:


> Its more than just sad the whole thing just pisses me off. We have a lack of land management wildlife management and hunter management. Its just greed greed greed whether it be mangement mindset or hunter mindset. Our state doesnt have land that is managed for wildlife just profit. our hunters just want to kill every thing that moves because they can. Right now we have land that isnst manged for wildlife and nobody seems to give a rip they just want to see all they can and kill all the bucks they can and call themselves hunters .


 :sad: It isn't only the greed in Michigan Hunters it is in the Goverment's greed also. The federal and state lands are managed for forestry only and not wildlife. The wildlife is a by product of forestry not a managed resource here in Michigan. The forestry dept contracts out logging usually with no plans to replace the timber taken. They depend on regrowth to replinish the forest. Many areas do not take to this kind of today's modern forestry methods and should be replanted ,but are left for many years without good forest growth and a sustainable habitat for wildlife such as deer.The mindset attitudes and the me first attiudes of our hunters have to change also for this state to flourish as a great hunting state. How many times have you heard someone brag of taking their buck or bucks and say "yeh and I still have a doe permit to fill".
In my opinion their are less deer and far fewer bucks in U.P. and N.L.P. areas which have had liberal doe permits over the years. On these permits there are alot of button bucks killed decreasing your next years buck count. Button bucks are usually the less educated and much easier to kill of the whitetail sex's. Personally I have not shot a doe in the U.P. for over three years now. I have had a permit and oportunities to havest, but because of the decline I chose not to take the oportuinity. This is my choice though. Brushbuster I think you are on the right tract.


----------



## Hulk (Dec 18, 2009)

Radar420 said:


> Now to be fair, I haven't personally talked to him but my dad did a few years ago. His experienced mirrored that of these posters:
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=251087&highlight=Larry
> 
> ...


 
He hasn't changed. He's still consistent and fair. Problem is he gets bombarded with requests for dmaps and bombarded with complaints of not seeing enough deer from other hunters. I don't think going over his head will do any good, being that he is the one in touch with the immediate are.

You could always open your property to the public for early doe.


----------



## OJT (Nov 28, 2007)

ENCORE said:


> Because I can and I can do it legally. I took two (2) (1+1=2) legal mature bucks this year and did it in the "core area". To get those two mature bucks, I let twelve (12) smaller bucks go! I didn't hunt deer, I hunted bucks. There's a big difference.
> I hunted hard, very hard to harvest both. Now, if you'd be so kind as to tell me, how did I hurt my buck hunting future? There's still twelve bucks running here and if they don't get hit by a car or die of natural causes, they'll be around next year. The does this spring will replace the two that I took easily.
> 
> I can't understand for the life of me, why everyone assumes that just because a hunter takes two bucks, that EVERY hunter is taking at least one imature buck?


Yep got it it's legal and I wasn't asking you or anyone else about legality what I was asking was do YOU NEED to take 2 1+1 =2 bucks a year? Could you not be happy taking one or do you feel somehow your season is a bust if you don't fill your tags? I'm not bashing you for what you shoot or how many just a simple question as to why the need to shoot 2 and please I got the it's legal part already. 
Did it hurt your buck hunting well only you know the answer to that question but did it hurt someone else's chances of buck hunting maybe is the answer. 
You sir sound like the kinda of hunter that will shoot whatever the state allows because it's legal and I don't think that's what this thread was about.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

OJT said:


> You sir sound like the kinda of hunter that will shoot whatever the state allows because it's legal and I don't think that's what this thread was about.


Did you not notice that he also passed on 12 bucks?


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Hulk said:


> You could always open your property to the public for early doe.


No early doe season for the area 

And I would be more than happy to allow hunters on my property to take out some antlerless deer. Unfortunately the locals up there don't ask for permission until Oct when all the antlerless permits are sold out and everyone else I know who hunts would rather stay down here and hunt on a 10 acre parcel where there is at least an outside chance of seeing a buck. My property, there is almost no chance of seeing any antlered deer.

And just for the record, I've taken one buck off the property and my dad has never taken one (except 1 BB) and a couple handfuls of does in 40 yrs.


----------



## OJT (Nov 28, 2007)

Yep I did and that's great but he started off with cause I can cause it's legal. If that was the intent of this thread cause I can then I misread the whole thing.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Michihunter said:


> And there lies another piece of the puzzle. IF the word and practice is becoming more rampant is a rule change truly necessary?[/QUOTE
> 
> Several rule changes are neccessary. Nothing is constant. As conditions change with the herd so must the rules in order to properly manage. What worked yesterday doesnt nessecarily work today. We as hunters should be concerned about the herd and not so much ourselves. 12 years ago the dnr stated the herd was infected with T.B so they changed the rules and issued doe permits where doe permits were never issued and decreased the population. as a result the herd has been decreased in certain areas. That realy is a good thing , not so much for the hunter but the herd. We still have an unbalanced herd as far as doe to buck ratios are concerned.How long are we going to let that go on? what effects will it have on the herd if any? I practice obr and have practiced obr for several years now but it does verry little good when no one else does. 35 years ago no one shot does then the rules changed. Now we know that shooting does is a good thing. Its time for a change. Lets look past ourselves think of the herd, implement and support whatever rule changes that are neccesary.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

brushbuster said:


> Michihunter said:
> 
> 
> > And there lies another piece of the puzzle. IF the word and practice is becoming more rampant is a rule change truly necessary?[/QUOTE
> ...


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Im stating it from someone who lives in the nelp and has seen the condition of the deer herd before the neccesary change. seeing 40 - 50 deer in less than a square mile. whatching the deer get hit by cars was an everyday occurance. seeing the puney deer withering in the deer yards year after year. Now finaly the deer are ranging in the areas that will support them. Before they were ranging whereever they could. I am sorry that the change took away your veiwing pleasure. It has been a long time since i have seen a starving deer in the yards up here. Last year was a tough winter and i was visiting the yards daily and the herd was in great shape. I just got back from visiting the yards today and the deer were healthy looking. Definately the change was necesary and effective.


----------



## Hulk (Dec 18, 2009)

Radar420 said:


> No early doe season for the area
> 
> And I would be more than happy to allow hunters on my property to take out some antlerless deer. Unfortunately the locals up there don't ask for permission until Oct when all the antlerless permits are sold out and everyone else I know who hunts would rather stay down here and hunt on a 10 acre parcel where there is at least an outside chance of seeing a buck. My property, there is almost no chance of seeing any antlered deer.
> 
> And just for the record, I've taken one buck off the property and my dad has never taken one (except 1 BB) and a couple handfuls of does in 40 yrs.


Oh OK, I think that's kind of odd about the lack of bucks though. Do you see any on camera? I couldn't handle 40 yrs buck-less.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

brushbuster said:


> Im stating it from someone who lives in the nelp and has seen the condition of the deer herd before the neccesary change. seeing 40 - 50 deer in less than a square mile. whatching the deer get hit by cars was an everyday occurance. seeing the puney deer withering in the deer yards year after year. Now finaly the deer are ranging in the areas that will support them. Before they were ranging whereever they could. I am sorry that the change took away your veiwing pleasure. It has been a long time since i have seen a starving deer in the yards up here. Last year was a tough winter and i was visiting the yards daily and the herd was in great shape. I just got back from visiting the yards today and the deer were healthy looking. Definately the change was necesary and effective.


What you have observed in a small area of an entire region just doesn't hold true for every area. I'm guilty of doing pretty much the same thing though. Without knowing your specific location I can only offer my own- Presque Isle County with a primary focus on the Thompson Harbor area. And if you're relating your own experiences to there you'd be one of the few people I know that would state such things. It just isn't true for that specific region. So without attempting cast your statements as a reflection of an entire 5 county region, I'll just state that my own statements come from 4 decades of experience in the region I'll triangulate with points beginning just north Alpena to Rogers City and South to the Posen area.That should better pin point where I am specifically discussing.


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Hulk said:


> Oh OK, I think that's kind of odd about the lack of bucks though. Do you see any on camera? I couldn't handle 40 yrs buck-less.


The biggest buck I've seen on camera or person on or around our property was a 6 pt two years ago. Only saw it once. And IMO it would have to be one incredible 6 pt for me to think about shooting it (or injured)

Going off the top of my head since I don't have the numbers in front of me I want to say I saw 120 deer this season and 8 of them had antlers - all spikes or slightly larger. All buck sightings were prior to gun season as well. Some of those sightings were probably of the same bucks - it's kind of hard to distinguish spikes from other spikes. And I don't doubt that a single one of them didn't make it through the season.


----------



## Hulk (Dec 18, 2009)

Radar420 said:


> The biggest buck I've seen on camera or person on or around our property was a 6 pt two years ago. Only saw it once. And IMO it would have to be one incredible 6 pt for me to think about shooting it (or injured)
> 
> Going off the top of my head since I don't have the numbers in front of me I want to say I saw 120 deer this season and 8 of them had antlers - all spikes or slightly larger. All buck sightings were prior to gun season as well. Some of those sightings were probably of the same bucks - it's kind of hard to distinguish spikes from other spikes. And I don't doubt that a single one of them didn't make it through the season.


I hear you! I have property in Lake County, in the good ole days we would pass numerous bucks in a season for many years in a row and never saw good results due to hunting pressure. We used to see 20+ deer per hunt as well, and when the herd was drastically reduced some years back it did not increase the buck sightings at all. It ruined it!

In fact it got so bad we don't even bother hunting in hopes of letting the herd rebound. I guess what I'm saying is be careful what you wish for, contrary to what some might say, thinning the herd does not make for more and bigger bucks..


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Hulk said:


> when the herd was drastically reduced some years back it did not increase the buck sightings at all. It ruined it!


At this point, on the property I hunt, antlered deer sightings are almost nonexistent so it is already "ruined." Therefore, I am for any change in the license structure because IMO it can't get any worse.



Hulk said:


> I guess what I'm saying is be careful what you wish for, contrary to what some might say, thinning the herd does not make for more and bigger bucks..


My only hope is that the local herd is thinned to a point that I can actually "hunt" deer. Seeing dozens of antlerless deer a year and seeing very few antlered deer, let alone one that would live up to my personal standards, isn't very rewarding. I can fill my antlerless permits from my bathroom window and that ain't hunting. 

Plus all those deer on my property at one time puts a tremendous amount of selection pressure on the rest of the flora and fauna I manage for.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Hulk said:


> did not[/U] increase the buck sightings at all. It ruined it! I guess what I'm saying is be careful what you wish for, contrary to what some might say, thinning the herd does not make for more and bigger bucks..


This is exactly what happened in our area. We took a number of nontypical scraggly looking spikes, four - six pts and the number of larger bucks increased. We believe the gene pool became better. . .until the does were slaughtered in mass numbers. So much for OBR theory in our area.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Michihunter said:


> What you have observed in a small area of an entire region just doesn't hold true for every area. I'm guilty of doing pretty much the same thing though. Without knowing your specific location I can only offer my own- Presque Isle County with a primary focus on the Thompson Harbor area. And if you're relating your own experiences to there you'd be one of the few people I know that would state such things. It just isn't true for that specific region. So without attempting cast your statements as a reflection of an entire 5 county region, I'll just state that my own statements come from 4 decades of experience in the region I'll triangulate with points beginning just north Alpena to Rogers City and South to the Posen area.That should better pin point where I am specifically discussing.


That area that i was talking about consists of three counties,Otsego, Crawford and montmorency


----------



## Hulk (Dec 18, 2009)

Radar420 said:


> At this point, on the property I hunt, antlered deer sightings are almost nonexistent so it is already "ruined." Therefore, I am for any change in the license structure because IMO it can't get any worse.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Something is definitely wrong, just doesn't make sense to me. If you see dozens of antlerless at least 1/3 must be mature does. Where are the bb's going? There should be at minimum of at least 12-15 new bucks each and every year. Maybe your neighbors are getting them before you?


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Hulk said:


> Where are the bb's going? There should be at minimum of at least 12-15 new bucks each and every year. Maybe your neighbors are getting them before you?


Just a guess on my part but I would venture that many of the young bucks are kicked out of the does core area (my property) to prevent inbreeding.

But the neighbors hunting practices also play a large role in local herd dynamics: Brown it's down to the N and E, bucks only to the S, and a trespassing slob POS to the W


----------



## Hulk (Dec 18, 2009)

Radar420 said:


> Just a guess on my part but I would venture that many of the young bucks are kicked out of the does core area (my property) to prevent inbreeding.
> 
> But the neighbors hunting practices also play a large role in local herd dynamics: Brown it's down to the N and E, bucks only to the S, and a trespassing slob POS to the W


Kinda what I figured.. So in essence getting rid of a bunch of does will not make your buck hunting any better. Even with dispersal you should still see the resident bucks in the summer and early fall. 

You have nightmare neighbors. When we first bought our property in Lake Co. there was a local free loader who used to hunt it before we owned it. Needless to say he was pretty disgruntled and would try to sabotage our hunting. Since we were primarily weekend hunters (probably like you) he could get away with his antics during the week. Luckily for us he moved on after we caught on to him with the help of the DNR.


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Hulk said:


> Kinda what I figured.. So in essence getting rid of a bunch of does will not make your buck hunting any better.


I would be satisfied if I could "hunt" deer in general instead of the point and shoot that goes on now. Whether or not deer have significant headgear, at this point, is irrelevant. (though it would be nice)

But, theoretically, if I have the ability to sustain that many deer on my property at one time, I should be able to allow some bucks to stay on my property and make it to an older age class. There are just too many antlerless deer that there is no longer room for any antlered deer.



Hulk said:


> Since we were primarily weekend hunters (probably like you) he could get away with his antics during the week. Luckily for us he moved on after we caught on to him with the help of the DNR.


I was only a weekend hunter when I was in HS and college. Now I have free time and use vacation days to hunt. I know the neighbors don't like when I park behind the cabin and leave the gate up to catch them. :lol:


----------



## Hulk (Dec 18, 2009)

Radar420 said:


> I would be satisfied if I could "hunt" deer in general instead of the point and shoot that goes on now. Whether or not deer have significant headgear, at this point, is irrelevant. (though it would be nice)
> 
> Well your in luck! You can try state land up there:lol:
> I'm being sarcastic, I don't know about not being any room for bucks, in fact since you seem harbor so many does you should see some bucks during the rut. I still think your neighbors play an enormous role in why you don't see/have bucks.


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

OJT said:


> Yep got it it's legal and I wasn't asking you or anyone else about legality what I was asking was do YOU NEED to take 2 1+1 =2 bucks a year? Could you not be happy taking one or do you feel somehow your season is a bust if you don't fill your tags? I'm not bashing you for what you shoot or how many just a simple question as to why the need to shoot 2 and please I got the it's legal part already.
> Did it hurt your buck hunting well only you know the answer to that question but did it hurt someone else's chances of buck hunting maybe is the answer.
> You sir sound like the kinda of hunter that will shoot whatever the state allows because it's legal and I don't think that's what this thread was about.


Just then exactly what is it about? A question was asked and I answered it. Unlike some of the other very legitimate questions that were asked by numerous posters and never answered. Isn't this a "debate"?

I've taken so many deer I lost count many years ago. EVERY ONE of them legal and legally. I quit hunting "deer" amost 20 years ago. I changed to hunting bucks. If you don't realize that there's a difference, hunters should really check in to it. When the buck season is over, muzzleloader for me, then I harvest does. Not until. Want to screw up your chances for just one mature buck? Start out shooting does in the same area you're wishing for a mature buck. One of the biggest mistakes hunters make unknowingly.

There have been years in the past 20 that I didn't take a buck at all. It certainly wasn't because I didn't see bucks, I seen alot of them and very well could have taken them. Of the bucks that I did see, they were small and 1.5 year olds and I "chose" not to take them.

_*"You sir sound like the kinda of hunter that will shoot whatever the state allows because it's legal and I don't think that's what this thread was about"*_

You sir, sound like the kind of hunter that's reading the tabloids. Had your read the other couple posts that I made in this "debate", you may not have rushed so quick to "judgement" of another hunter. Too often done during these types of topics by hunters/sportsmen that are opinionated and "can't see the forest for the trees." Had you taken an interest, there may have been a few things that you could have learned from an older hunter, that's been practicing deer management for 20 years. On the other hand, just because someone shoots a second buck, he/she is assumed to be,"..hunter that will shoot whatever the state allows because it's legal...".

I'm sorry Sir, but you couldn't be more wrong. :sad:


----------



## Blood Dog (Apr 4, 2007)

I feel like now is reading what I type.. If there are "no" bucks in your area or just small ones how is OBR goning to help. There has to be 1.5 bucks every year in a herd. People must be harvesting them all. The only way to protect a spike is thur MAR. Its some thing like 12% of the harvest of bucks is due to the 2nd buck. Over 36% of the bucks harvested in MI would by protected by MAR. It only takes about 3 years and then the buck harvest goes up to the same as post MARs. If OBRestriction is just for making more older age class bucks in the herd MAR does a much better job. Look at the numbers.


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Hulk said:


> in fact since you seem harbor so many does you should see some bucks during the rut. I still think your neighbors play an enormous role in why you don't see/have bucks.


The "rut" in my area lasts approx *1* day during archery.:lol: If I'm lucky and get to be in my blind that *1* day when the first does come in heat, I can see multiple bucks (though small). But each year that day is different and unpredictable.

I'm thinking the does bed on my property and the bucks bed on marginal cover on the surrounding properties. At night they then get together for a giant deer orgy in the surrounding fields and come daylight go back into hiding mode:lol:



Blood Dog said:


> If there are "no" bucks in your area or just small ones how is OBR goning to help. There has to be 1.5 bucks every year in a herd. People must be harvesting them all. The only way to protect a spike is thur MAR.


From my standpoint, OBR would influence our bucks only hunters to the S. Some years, some of their hunters in fact do take multiple bucks. Now, I have no idea how they can see 4 pts a side on these deer as the tines are so small and IMO not of a legal size. At the same token, I'm not going to call the CO out to come measure and see if a tine is 1/4 -1/2 " under size just to "stick it to my neighbor" so to speak.

Secondly, there is the psychological impact that everyone else mentions when it comes to OBR. If you don't have that mulligan tag in your pocket, you might be a little more discriminate in your harvest practices. It's not that you would protect all the bucks, it's that you would be protecting some - more than what occurs at the present rate.

And I would just like to add this - it was mentioned that I have nightmare neighbors. The only nightmare neighbor is the one who doesn't follow property boundaries. The rest are in their legal right to harvest game the way that they've been doing for oh so many years. In fact, the one to the S who probably most influences my hunting, is a real stand-up guy - lets me use his property, pick from his garden, store my tractor, etc... Basically give you the shirt off his back type fellow. The laws are set up to allow him to continue the way he's been hunting for decades - if you change the laws, I'm sure he would change his hunting practices.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

old professor said:


> I do use top quality binoculars - Swarovski 8X42's and I will no longer be purchasing the combo tag. I have never taken two bucks in one season anyway! A regular gun license will let me shoot any buck in the UP, IF there are any deer left up here!! Between the wolves and two back to back hard winters, deer are pretty scarse around here.


What would be better in his situation, MARs or OBR?

I dont know why any individual hunter would be allowed to kill more than 1 deer TOTAL in a situation like this! Even if you CHOSE to buy the 2 MARS tags in this area, that doesnt mean its right for the resource! Chances of filling both those tags might be very slim, but it can happen. Does that mean it should?

What about guys hunting areas overpoulated with deer? Should they be allowed to focus thier efforts on killing 2 bucks? Its been said before, buck hunting is different than deer hunting. So if a guy has 2 unused MARs tags is there a better chance he will try to fill those tags or shoot does? You'd be kidding yourself if you said shoot does. It also been said that you shoot does in different places than you shoot bucks. If you still have 2 buck tags, which area is a hunter more likely to hunt? How many hunters would shoot a doe out of a good buck stand?

Ill say it again, Im not against MAR, I just think its a tougher sell than OBR. Too much grey area around MAR for the average hunter. OBR is pretty much black and white.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> Ill say it again, Im not against MAR, I just think its a tougher sell than OBR. Too much grey area around MAR for the average hunter. OBR is pretty much black and white.


I'm afraid your missing a very important piece of the puzzle- the Combo license and the need to get legislative approval to overturn it. A MAR's can be employed through the NRC. An OBR needs to be done legislatively.


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> What would be better in his situation, MARs or OBR?
> 
> I dont know why any individual hunter would be allowed to kill more than 1 deer TOTAL in a situation like this! Even if you CHOSE to buy the 2 MARS tags in this area, that doesnt mean its right for the resource! Chances of filling both those tags might be very slim, but it can happen. Does that mean it should?
> 
> ...


 So let's say you buy your combo license so you can hunt with your bow and kill your buck of choice and then in rifle you do not fill your 2nd buck tag, but since you are a bowhunter you go bow hunting in December. The second tag converts to a doe or restricted buck permit. Let's say you shoot a doe.There is little or no noise from a bow if you shoot a doe or buck and by the next year the deer in the area will not remember anything! This still provides alot of recreation time with a MAR and much less with a OBR license structure. With a single tag it shortens many sportsmens rec time and most tags will be filled with a young buck not a doe as the scenario above which happens more than a hunter taking two bucks on a combo license.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> An OBR needs to be done legislatively.


It doesn't require any legislative action if the NRC/DNR were to change the stand alone Archery license to antlerless only, which they have the authority to do already.

-na


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Nick Adams said:


> It doesn't require any legislative action if the NRC/DNR were to change the stand alone Archery license to antlerless only, which they have the authority to do already.
> 
> -na


Why would that make a difference? You could still take a buck (or 2) during archery with the combo. Adding to that is the fact that only 45K 'archery only' tags are sold.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

UNCLE TUB said:


> So let's say you buy your combo license so you can hunt with your bow and kill your buck of choice and then in rifle you do not fill your 2nd buck tag, but since you are a bowhunter you go bow hunting in December. The second tag converts to a doe or restricted buck permit. Let's say you shoot a doe.There is little or no noise from a bow if you shoot a doe or buck and by the next year the deer in the area will not remember anything! This still provides alot of recreation time with a MAR and much less with a OBR license structure. With a single tag it shortens many sportsmens rec time and most tags will be filled with a young buck not a doe as the scenario above which happens more than a hunter taking two bucks on a combo license.


I understand MAR would allow more opportunity to kill more bucks, but how do you kill a deer in places where there are none? Let alone 2.

If you were limited to 1 deer total in such an area (OBR), it would be a buck only. No doe tags would be availible in such areas until the population rebounded. If you want to keep hunting, you would need to do so in areas that have more tags availible. Fishermen travel to the resource, why should hunting be different?


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> Why would that make a difference? You could still take a buck (or 2) during archery with the combo. Adding to that is the fact that only 45K 'archery only' tags are sold.


Under the current legislative restrictions, it would allow you to set the bag limit on the combo at one buck and one antlerless. OBR without any changes in legislation.

-na


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> I understand MAR would allow more opportunity to kill more bucks, but how do you kill a deer in places where there are none? Let alone 2.
> 
> If you were limited to 1 deer total in such an area (OBR), it would be a buck only. No doe tags would be availible in such areas until the population rebounded. If you want to keep hunting, you would need to do so in areas that have more tags availible. Fishermen travel to the resource, why should hunting be different?


 Some areas with few deer could be specified as a one buck limit with either bow or firearm. I personally do not usually take two bucks from the same area and in winter if I do not fill my buck tags then I do hunt doe. The bucks on state land that are in the 3 year old class start becoming scarce. If we went to Mar myself and others would probably up our standards of what we shoot, thus having more larger antlered deer for the people who are not as picky. I agree with you that there has been too much doe hunting in alot of areas especially on public ground in the areas that I and you hunt and the deer populations are low. Which area do you hunt and is it state or private?


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Nick Adams said:


> Under the current legislative restrictions, it would allow you to set the bag limit on the combo at one buck and one antlerless. OBR without any changes in legislation.
> 
> -na


How do you think that's going to set with bowhunters in general and MBH specifically? I can assure you that you'd be opening up a can of worms much larger than the crossbow issue ever created. Especially if you proposed it in the area with the greatest amount of hunters- the SLP. And worse yet, areas that can't sustain an increase in antlerless harvest. Sorry, but although i now see your point, I'd say that has the least chance of getting done out of all the proposals I've seen. Let's for a moment change things slightly to show what I mean and make the firearms only tag the one with no bucks. How would you think that would be received?

I must say though, that is clearly some creative thinking. Kudo's.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> How do you think that's going to set with bowhunters in general and MBH specifically? I can assure you that you'd be opening up a can of worms much larger than the crossbow issue ever created. Especially if you proposed it in the area with the greatest amount of hunters- the SLP. And worse yet, areas that can't sustain an increase in antlerless harvest. Sorry, but although i now see your point, I'd say that has the least chance of getting done out of all the proposals I've seen. Let's for a moment change things slightly to show what I mean and make the firearms only tag the one with no bucks. How would you think that would be received?
> 
> I must say though, that is clearly some creative thinking. Kudo's.


The single archery tag buyers are only ~ 10-12% of all archery hunters and ~5% of all hunters. The majority of them are hunting in the SLP where extra antleress tags in a hunter's pocket is a good thing. The worst thing to happen to them (over and above what would happen to everyone under OBR) would be that they would have to pay an extra $15 for a tag that they can use anywhere in the state. You can keep the current restrictions on antlerless harvest by DMU.

I personally would not have any problem with making the single firearms tag antlerless only instead, provided it was good anywhere in the state like it is for archery hunters. I'm not going to buy a tag I can't legally use where I chose to hunt. I can't speak for the other quarter million single firearms tag buyers. This would create the problem you brought up of excess antlerless harvest in DMU's that don't need it. 

-na


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

Blood Dog said:


> I think many people on this site see MAR as that can't shoot the little ones. THe ones that they don't shoot the first year are mostly avialble the next year. So the total harvest of bucks rebounds to pre MARs, numbers after 2-3 years. So the new guys or young guy idea is not correct because if the hunter puts as much effort as pre MAR the hunters success rate for bucks is the same as after MAR there just older bigger. Yeah they with have to let the spikes and 4 pts go, but that is the same thing these young hunters have to do if they see a doe. One great thing is the DNR lets these young hunters have one doe permit I beleive in any DMU. Which is training them that it is ok to harvest a doe. It is us old guys that want them to be able to shoot spikes and 4 pts. In my experince the new guy or young guy gets the same thing outta harvesting a doe as a buck. Pulling that trigger is a rush.



With MAR the younger guy you speak of after a couple of hunting seasons would see more bucks and more quality of bucks. No one would be able to shoot a buck without judging it first thus alot of younger bucks would not be killed for different reasons.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> I understand MAR would allow more opportunity to kill more bucks, but how do you kill a deer in places where there are none? Let alone 2.
> 
> If you were limited to 1 deer total in such an area (OBR), it would be a buck only. No doe tags would be availible in such areas until the population rebounded. If you want to keep hunting, you would need to do so in areas that have more tags availible. Fishermen travel to the resource, why should hunting be different?


Hunting is different for those that have made investments in land, camps, tradition, etc. Hunters do not usually walk away from that. Also much of the land is the slp is private land. Access would be difficult if not impossible. Do you really want to put more hunters on the public land around the big cities? There is little comparison to fishing as there is far more access.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

UNCLE TUB said:


> Some areas with few deer could be specified as a one buck limit with either bow or firearm. I personally do not usually take two bucks from the same area and in winter if I do not fill my buck tags then I do hunt doe. The bucks on state land that are in the 3 year old class start becoming scarce. If we went to Mar myself and others would probably up our standards of what we shoot, thus having more larger antlered deer for the people who are not as picky. I agree with you that there has been too much doe hunting in alot of areas especially on public ground in the areas that I and you hunt and the deer populations are low. Which area do you hunt and is it state or private?


 
Last season I hunted 3 SLP counties (public) and 2 NLP counties (private more than public). Most areas I hunted had a good number of deer running around, but I can sympathize with guys that dont see alot of deer, because Ive been one.

The thing that is common through MOST(not all) of this state, is the lack of older bucks running around. Im all for changing that, and already resrtict myself to the U.P. MARs even though I hunt LP only. Id be willing to give up 1 of those 2 bucks I can already shoot, if it could make hunting a better experience for the average hunter in this state. Of course, Id still be happy if they enforced the U.P. system state wide. It would still be change and thats obviously something we could use!


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

ridgewalker said:


> Hunting is different for those that have made investments in land, camps, tradition, etc. Hunters do not usually walk away from that. Also much of the land is the slp is private land. Access would be difficult if not impossible. Do you really want to put more hunters on the public land around the big cities? There is little comparison to fishing as there is far more access.


I dont disagree with you, but try telling that to the deer. They could care less about our traditions and investments. They're still gonna live where they want to live, no matter how bad it ticks us off.

We can do 2 things to help with that problem. Habitat improvements in areas with poor habitat. And create more hunter access.

Under current practices, hunter access to land in overpopulated areas is poor. This just feeds to the overpopulation. Something needs to be changed. I dont know what the answer is, but I do know that was a topic covered under the MOU that was just signed.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

I do agree with the habitat improvement and that is being done with some neighbors participating and some not.

I have no answer as to opening up more public access in the slp.


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

Well I guess we proved it again. Twenty-three pages, 335 posts and nobody can agree. Lots of different ideas but they never fit in everyone's adnenda. Original poster is no where in sight  I think it just goes to show the division between hunters here in Michigan. Maybe the DNR isn't doing such a bad job, especially with what they have to work with....


----------



## flinch (Aug 10, 2003)

ENCORE said:


> Well I guess we proved it again. Twenty-three pages, 335 posts and nobody can agree. Lots of different ideas but they never fit in everyone's adnenda. Original poster is no where in sight  I think it just goes to show the division between hunters here in Michigan. Maybe the DNR isn't doing such a bad job, especially with what they have to work with....


Yup, anyone that wants to hunt bucks can hunt bucks. Want does for the freezer? Plenty of opportunity. Multiple seasons, overlapping seasons, early, late, take your pick of season, weapon, and target. Permits are even cheap. And yet still nothing but complaints. No one will ever be happy.


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> Last season I hunted 3 SLP counties (public) and 2 NLP counties (private more than public). Most areas I hunted had a good number of deer running around, but I can sympathize with guys that dont see alot of deer, because Ive been one.
> 
> The thing that is common through MOST(not all) of this state, is the lack of older bucks running around. Im all for changing that, and already resrtict myself to the U.P. MARs even though I hunt LP only. Id be willing to give up 1 of those 2 bucks I can already shoot, if it could make hunting a better experience for the average hunter in this state. Of course, Id still be happy if they enforced the U.P. system state wide. It would still be change and thats obviously something we could use!


  You have to realize Michigan has around 800,00 deer license sales compared to Ohio with around 400,00 and Illinois 250,00. I agree with you that our public land needs better habitat. Michigans forests are managed for timber thus creating dollars for the general fund and not for deer management. At one time I believe in the late sixties or early seventies that for every license sold that one dollar was to go for deer yard improvements, but some how this has disappeared or used to pay a salary from another DNR dept. Much of the land that is harvested for timber is left to regrowth of what ever dominate spcies of tree,bush or plant that can survive. At first this is fine ,but after afew years the regrowth is not what sustains a heathy herd. The states I mentioned earlier have very good habitat and plentiful food year after year.


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

ENCORE said:


> Well I guess we proved it again. Twenty-three pages, 335 posts and nobody can agree. Lots of different ideas but they never fit in everyone's adnenda. Original poster is no where in sight  I think it just goes to show the division between hunters here in Michigan. Maybe the DNR isn't doing such a bad job, especially with what they have to work with....


 :lol: How is your head ache? One thing this dicussion has got us all thinking and we all might differ on what to do ,but one thing for sure is almost all of us agree change is needed!


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

ENCORE said:


> Well I guess we proved it again. Twenty-three pages, 335 posts and nobody can agree. Lots of different ideas but they never fit in everyone's adnenda. Original poster is no where in sight  I think it just goes to show the division between hunters here in Michigan. Maybe the DNR isn't doing such a bad job, especially with what they have to work with....


Im pretty impressed that we got this far without someone getting this thread closed! :coolgleam

We all have different opinons but our passion for deer hunting is what we share in common.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Some discussion here about OBR and the combo license. If anyone is interested in what Rod Clute had to say on the subject in '05 it was discussed on this forum then. The article was written by Bob Gwizdz and was posted here by Tom Morang in Feb. of '05.
I am not sure how to post the connection to that thread. I also have another article that quotes Clute on the subject. About the same message and about 1-2 years more recent. I'll try to find that. 

L & O


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

UNCLE TUB said:


> :lol: How is your head ache? One thing this dicussion has got us all thinking and we all might differ on what to do ,but one thing for sure is almost all of us agree change is needed!


Well as you can tell, I haven't been posting much lately.

I think what it does prove, is that there are some people that want it changed but they can't come to an agreement on how to change it. There are many that don't think that a change is necessary at all and are happy with the way it is. Then there are the people that have some of the best hunting in the entire State and STILL can not be happy with it.

One thing that I'm thinking.... we should quite trying to compare Michigan with any other State. Its nothing more than a waste of time and the results would end up showing it. Numbers of hunters, public land, habitat, leasing of land, etc all have a direct impact on how any State's hunting is managed. For an example, how could you compare Michigan to Montana? MI has almost as many hunters as Mt. has population!

I also think that any changes (if any) should be made in small changes over a period of time. Doing so, will still keep the fewest number of hunters from being totally disgruntled.


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> Im pretty impressed that we got this far without someone getting this thread closed! :coolgleam
> 
> We all have different opinons but our passion for deer hunting is what we share in common.


I'm impressed also. As long as the moderaters see people in a discussion and not a brawl, they'll let it continue.


----------



## BuckRubnMI (Sep 5, 2008)

Liver and Onions said:


> Some discussion here about OBR and the combo license. If anyone is interested in what Rod Clute had to say on the subject in '05 it was discussed on this forum then. The article was written by Bob Gwizdz and was posted here by Tom Morang in Feb. of '05.
> I am not sure how to post the connection to that thread. I also have another article that quotes Clute on the subject. About the same message and about 1-2 years more recent. I'll try to find that.
> 
> L & O


I believe this is what your referring to:
http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89463

Interesting read...


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

ENCORE said:


> Well as you can tell, I haven't been posting much lately.
> 
> I think what it does prove, is that there are some people that want it changed but they can't come to an agreement on how to change it. There are many that don't think that a change is necessary at all and are happy with the way it is. Then there are the people that have some of the best hunting in the entire State and STILL can not be happy with it.
> 
> ...


  You are right You can not compare Michigan to other states. Our habitat is not like theirs and like you said we have hunter numbers as high as many states population.
The small changes is a good idea and a start also.


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

ENCORE said:


> Well as you can tell, I haven't been posting much lately.
> 
> I think what it does prove, is that there are some people that want it changed but they can't come to an agreement on how to change it. There are many that don't think that a change is necessary at all and are happy with the way it is. Then there are the people that have some of the best hunting in the entire State and STILL can not be happy with it.
> 
> ...


There will also be a disagreement on change and how best to do it. Sometimes decisions are never easy and though out history, there have been many a decision that wasn't popular and opinions were divided. Sometimes one needs to be made. And some states are very comparable to us...WI, PA, maybe even NY. We're not that different that some things that have worked for them won't work for us. 

And if you're referring to me to having some of the best hunting in the state and still not happy, that's not true at all. I'm not even close to the best hunting. I am fortunate to have some very good hunting property but that does vary year to year, but overall very happy there. We would just like to see better age structure. But what we have now is a far cry from what we had as recently as 10-15 years ago when there were too many does, few buck sightings and any we did see, were shot:










We now have a VAR on our place of 8 pt or bigger. Our place is one of three properties that is the main natural draw to deer in the area. We tried to get neighbors to join us in a sort of co op because we were starting to seeing good potential. Some were interested, others not, but I can tell you they all benefited from our practices because we have the most hunters and someone hunts there from archery to MZ, the others don't, they're guests, lease or don't live there so aren't able to hunt as frequently as my family can. We see results, but we can't do it alone, our place isn't big enough. If we all shot two per year and everything with antlers, none of us (including neighbors) would see or experience the sightings we do simply because A) the deer like our property and B) we have 5 hunters who could take two and drastically reduce the bucks in our area. I've not shot at bucks just because sometimes I get more enjoyment out of watching them. This is one of them I passed on two years ago and the neighbor kid took a shot about 20 minutes later:










I helped him look for a while but never found him. Last spring I found a half an 8-pt near an apple tree by my blind so circled to see if I could find the other and found him. My brother also passed on him several times during archery. I called the kid up, had him come over and gave it to him. So we make sacrifices, pass on bucks and we went from seeing and shooting what you see in the first pic to the one above and:




























We have good sightings it is an ongoing process. None of these deer are older than 2.5 and the middle one is possibly 1.5, he was fairly small bodied. We should've had him aged. None is huge either, but the potential and what they could be at 4.5-5.5 shows some good potential. We sacrificed some and it made a better hunting experience for us. OBR or MAR would not really effect us but either would help getting the nice 2.5 year olds we're seeing to the older ages. I just prefer OBR because it doesn't force others to pass up bucks just because we choose to. And I still choose to spend the first week of firearm here :lol::


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

BuckRubnMI said:


> I believe this is what your referring to:
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=89463
> Interesting read...


Yep, that's the one. Thanks.
For anyone who didn't see that link, it goes to the comments with Rod Clute from '05 regarding the combo license and OBR. Article written by Bob Gwizdz.

L & O


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

M1Garand said:


> And if you're referring to me to having some of the best hunting in the state and still not happy, that's not true at all.


No and stop feeling guilty :lol:

There are many hunters, most have private land or lease private land and have hunting as good as it gets. Especially in the SL.

However, with all due respect...... had you and the others just let those deer go just one more year............... You could have but, you chose to take them. NOTHING wrong with that. *But just think back, just before you dropped the hammer or touched the release......what were you thinking at the moment????* Didn't matter did it?


----------



## Blood Dog (Apr 4, 2007)

Mi Grand the first photo looks like a good reason to have MAR 3pt/4pt combo tag. I see 4 bucks that look to be sublegal maybe 5. If MAR was there you would have around 33% increase in 2.5 in the harvest. Are all these deer from the SLP? I hope not because they look just like the 1.5 bucks shot in the NLP and UP. I like the photos breaks up the same old same old.


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

ENCORE said:


> No and stop feeling guilty :lol:
> 
> There are many hunters, most have private land or lease private land and have hunting as good as it gets. Especially in the SL.
> 
> However, with all due respect...... had you and the others just let those deer go just one more year............... You could have but, you chose to take them. NOTHING wrong with that. *But just think back, just before you dropped the hammer or touched the release......what were you thinking at the moment????* Didn't matter did it?


 I agree. 

I wish I could claim those, but I can't. Two are first archery kills for brothers, the third a firearm when one took out my godson. I told them one more year....:lol:. Great deer for firsts and with my GS. Though he almost puked when they gutted it.....unfortunately can't get out as much as I used to and spend the first week of firearm in the NLP. Brothers have been getting the pick of the litter in recent years since they live much closer, but I still have fun getting out that's really what it's supposed to be about IMO, enjoying yourself.


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

Blood Dog said:


> Mi Grand the first photo looks like a good reason to have MAR 3pt/4pt combo tag. I see 4 bucks that look to be sublegal maybe 5. If MAR was there you would have around 33% increase in 2.5 in the harvest. Are all these deer from the SLP? I hope not because they look just like the 1.5 bucks shot in the NLP and UP. I like the photos breaks up the same old same old.


BD, the first photo I believe are bucks mostly taken in the 90's (some maybe before that even). Our place is in northern Isabella Co. When I started hunting there in the 80's we did not see anything close to what we do now, most then were baskets and we had an overpopulation problem. Still do but not near as bad. Things there are only getting better:


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

M1Garand said:


> we had an overpopulation problem. Still do but not near as bad. Things there are only getting better.


M1- Based on the statement I quoted, Ihave a few questions if you don't mind.
1) Are you referring to just your property alone or a larger region(ie: Northern Isabella, Isabella as a whole, etc)
2) Would you attribute the "improvements" you have witnessed as a regional attitude change, a regulation change, or something else entirely different?
3) At what rate have you seen this improvement grow? In other words has it been just a recent trend or a slow and steady progression over many years?


Your answers are most appreciated.


----------



## UNCLE TUB (Dec 1, 2009)

Well fellas we made it through 351 and it has still been civil. Hoorah!


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

UNCLE TUB said:


> Well fellas we made it through 351 and it has still been civil. Hoorah!


 For the most part it has been. Thanks.


----------



## M1Garand (Apr 12, 2006)

Michihunter said:


> M1- Based on the statement I quoted, Ihave a few questions if you don't mind.
> 1) Are you referring to just your property alone or a larger region(ie: Northern Isabella, Isabella as a whole, etc)
> 2) Would you attribute the "improvements" you have witnessed as a regional attitude change, a regulation change, or something else entirely different?
> 3) At what rate have you seen this improvement grow? In other words has it been just a recent trend or a slow and steady progression over many years?
> ...


 Sorry I didnt respond sooner, Ive been really busy the last few days. Im just referring to our immediate area, I cant speak much for other areas. I'll try and answer the other stuff the best l can. I think it was a variety of things that contributed. When I started hunting in the 80s, our tillable fields were hay as were the properties to our north and west. The property to our east was traditionally corn. There were not as many hunters on ours or surrounding properties. The deer population wasnt what it later became but even then, we occasionally saw a larger buck, but nothing like we did later. In probably the mid 90s after the population peaked, a lot of does in the area were taken, land use was changing and we started passing bucks. 

I dont think I could pinpoint exactly the years we started doing some of these things but it was gradual over probably several. Now, our tillable land is leased and soybeans are planted as they are to our north and east. To our west the last few years has been corn. When we contemplated a VAR, dad spoke with some of the neighbors and some were interested in 6 pt and bigger. On our place we upped it to 8 pt. Some neighbors did not care and wanted to take whatever they saw, which was fine. The irony to that was one of them, who wasn't even a property owner and had permission from the farmer shot one of the largest bucks around there, a nice 14 pt typical, which now sits on his wall.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Thanks for the explanations. Most appreciated.


----------

