# Petition for different rule's on buck's



## flyrod4steelhead (Mar 14, 2002)

I don't think (I have CRS ) that I have posted on this forum. Anyway's, was thinking if we could get a petition going on here, maybe send it to the DNR for say 1 Bucker per hunter per year, nothing less than say 4pts. Then maybe a 2 Doe permit's for each hunter?? I am not implying that I don't like 'em now, I DO. Just would like to hear some other opinion's on this.

Maybe it is a long shot, but hey, who know's, crazier thing's have happened. This could be dumb suggestion as well!!

Input please


----------



## huntingfool43 (Mar 16, 2002)

flyrod4steelhead 


The 1 buck limit would be great. i don't care for the antler restrictions though. And 2 doe permits would be a good idea also.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

One buck limit..........YES!!!

Two doe permits in areas where deer populations have grown to the level where the animals become akin to an infestation and/or have reached a level where the available habitat, food being a key element, can no longer support such inflated numbers.


----------



## 4x4_Hunter (Jan 2, 2002)

I opt for antler restrictions of 3 points on one side for the first buck... 4 for the second buck. I have hunted now for 13 years and have yet to take a buck. I have passed on many 3's, 4's, and 5's... shot at a few bruisers but missed. I would never go for a one buck limit since I would never pass on a monster after already getting a "nice buck". I would be in favor of a splitting the bow season and having the first half of it be a doe-only season (say till the 15th of October).


----------



## p.s.e man (Sep 30, 2003)

i often wonderd about this.......get a doe tag and have a buck lottery,maybe just for a year or 2,then we could reduce the deer herd a little and increase the buck population,and get our herd s buck to doe ratio where it should be.i dont know maybe thats to radical,but i would go for it.the one tag system would be ok to,


----------



## rabbit whacker (Jan 22, 2003)

I would be against any one buck limit. I hunt them because they are pests, yes I enjoy it. But when I inventory my trees and I have 150 deer rubs, I want some revenge. I would start a petition to return the crop damage permits for bucks.


----------



## p.s.e man (Sep 30, 2003)

the only proublem with crop dammage permits is that the land owners get them,than dont allow no one to hunt,nothing worse than a farmer(not all of them).gets a bunch of crop dammage permits becust the deer is destroying his crops,then denies accass to his farm to hunters


----------



## 4x4_Hunter (Jan 2, 2002)

Well I know one thing, when it comes to corn, the farmers really complain about the damage the deer are doing and yet we can prove by our fields that the raccoons do 100 times the amount of damage. And you don't hear that much about farmers going out and getting night vision goggles to shoot off some of the ***** that much, do ya! In our neck of the woods (Monroe County), we have plenty of deer and yet more than 75% of all crop damage is caused by ***** with the corn and woodchucks with the beans. The deer don't hurt hardly anything. And the farmers that complain about it around here are just trying to find an excuse as why their crops don't look as good as someone else's. I am strongly against the permits for hunters. Let some responsible hunters hunt your farm if you are that concerned about it! There are a lot of hunting seasons for deer now-a-days. One could really reduce a herd in a hurry if that was his intentions.

Now, farmers raising other stuff might have issues. I can only speak for corn/beans/wheat farmers, since that is mostly what my family does.


----------



## multibeard (Mar 3, 2002)

Wait until the bear get into the corn fields. While hunting in the UP I saw big areas in the corn fields that were just flattend by bears. Some areas were the size of a 2 car garage. They looked like the bears had rolled in them as there was nothing standing. It will really have a farmer wondering when they first see the damage when they are harvesting their crop.

The corn in the bear scat sure makes it easy when looking for sign with the bright yellow color.


----------



## flyrod4steelhead (Mar 14, 2002)

Hmmm. 

Ok, me, I like;

1) 1 buck per hunter per year (for a couple of year's, how many hunters actually take 2 buck's anyway's?)

2) 4pts on one side (make people look at a deer longer & harder)

3) 2 Doe permit's per hunter per year ( for a couple of years)


I like these because 1) The smaller buck's will actually have a chance to grow 2) It will make sportsmen and sportswomen look over a deer a little closer, as to not take a button buck 3) 2 Doe permit's per hunter per year would greatly reduce the Doe numbers. I am sure they do now, but there should be a limit. NOT NO 1 DOE PERMIT PER HUNTER UNTIL QUOTA IS MET


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

I don't like the first rule. Make both the tags for 4 pt or better and I'd go for that in a heart beat. I don't want to have to pass on a 2nd mature buck if it comes by. There's only been 2 years since '68 that I've been able to take 2 mature buck in a single season. 

No problem with the 2nd rule, my minimum is a 3.5 year old anyhow which is "almost" always an 8pt.

Don't like number 3, due to only two tags. If that was minimum I would go for that. I feel that I need to take at least 3 this year off my land. I will have to see how many more as the season goes by.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

The 2nd buck tag accounts for around 3.7% of the harvest....not that big of a deal. Also, there are indeed areas in the state that are underpopulated, as well as areas where it is quite possible that adult doe harvest is rarely needed, with fawn and yearling doe harvest partially needed.

I'm up in the air about the 2nd buck tag. On one hand, I feel it would help promote an increased age structure due to the fact some would pass on small bucks because they did not want to end their season. On the other hand, I hunt strictly mature bucks, and my standards are so high with my second tag that I haven't harvested 2 bucks in a year, in MI, since 1997. But, at the same time, I've been able to hunt consistantly throughout the entire season, all the way to January, for a mature buck, every year I've hunted. Although I've only used that 2nd buck tag twice in 16 years, it's given me many, many, additional hours a field that I would have otherwise not had. 

Given the fact that the 2nd tag contributes minimally to the overall buck kill, most don't pass on small bucks anyways, and the many extra hours in the field, hunting a mature animal it gives me, I'd lean to keeping it, with greater restrictions.

This is not to say I wouldn't shoot a doe if appropriate, I've shot many, but for my personal enjoyment of the hunt, shooting a doe is just a management activity I can do at just about anytime I want. Matching wits with a mature buck, scouting them, putting my time in, learning their secrets, etc.. is what keeps me coming back for more and keeps me motivated.


----------



## hangoo (Oct 3, 2001)

One archery tag

One firearm tag

unlimited doe tags.


for the archers, they wont "waste" their tag on a small buck early in the season...so they will wait and end up passing many bucks and holding out for a decent buck.....letting the bucks have more chance to grow....same with gun....


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

> _Originally posted by NorthJeff _
> *The 2nd buck tag accounts for around 3.7% of the harvest....not that big of a deal. *


NJ,
On face value the 3.7% of the harvest doesn't sound like much. I'm not sure of that stat, however.

From the DNR's estimate of the 2001 season it mentions that 14% of hunters take two bucks per season. If you reduce the buck harvest by 14% by allowing only one buck per hunter, that, to me is a significant savings.

Someplace in the forums, I posted the data.

I would urge the DNR to reduce the buck harvest to one per hunter and increase the doe permits where needed, reducing doe permits where the population has been already decimated............NE Michigan, areas of Newaygo Lake, and Benzie counties to name a few. I'm sure there are others.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

It isn`t the small number of hunters who take a second buck. It is the large number of hunters who take the first small buck they see because they have the second tag to keep hunting for a big one. I know a woman through work who did just that last night. She shot a spike to put meat in the freezer and now she will hunt for a big buck. Many of those small bucks would be passed if the hunter didn`t have that second tag to continue buck hunting. And they will be forced to take a doe to put meat in the freezer. 

I have lost count of all of the hunters I have talked to in the last two days who refuse to shoot does but will take the first spike that is within range. And yet those of us who don`t shoot a deer just because it has antlers on it`s head are called trophy hunters.

I don`t like the idea of a limit of 2 doe permits. There are just too many hunters who won`t shoot does. If you limit those of us who will shoot them to 2 permits, we will never control herd numbers.


----------



## GrizzlyBear (Apr 27, 2003)

Lots of good points mentioned so far. For my area in the thumb, 2 doe permits per hunter is just not enough. I actually had a guy tell me the other day (who only shoots 2.5 yr old or better bucks) that he thinks their are too many does. When I asked why he didn't start shooting them he had absolutely no reason. It was like he supported the Q and D but not the M. Like what Bob S said, with guys like that around, the 2 tag limit just wouldn't be enough.

Definitely would support a one buck limit if only for a few years til the ratio got better. NJ, if everyone were like you, the two buck tags would not be a problem, but you are the exception rather than the rule. And regardless of whether or not a one or two buck system were used, make all buttons and spikes, even under three inches, be tagged using one of your buck tags. 

Bottom line, their are a lot of different ways to at least start Michigan's herd in the right direction, but is anyone even listening?


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

The only way to get your second tag - was if it was issued when you checked in your first buck of x size - say 2.5 year 6 pt - 

 

ferg...


----------



## flyrod4steelhead (Mar 14, 2002)

ferg,

That's a good one, but even then, I really don't think people will still check their deer in....even if it was mandatory. 



> Bottom line, their are a lot of different ways to at least start Michigan's herd in the right direction, but is anyone even listening?


Nope.  

Ok, here's one question for now, then I wil ask another later on. 

Who would be up for a 1 Buck tag for a couple of year's? 

(will worry about the pts later, let's get this question answered FIRST)


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

Ya know, it's like this. I told some friends that I was successful and took a deer opening morning. They were happy for me. then they asked how big was he. I told them I took a doe. Now they are unhappy. What does it matter if it is a buck or doe I am successful and thats what matters. Too much stigmatizim attached to shooting does. We need more acceptence and support for those who take does. Oh yea, I nearly had another yesterday.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Yes - I remember when that WAS the way it was - one buck only - period - 

and for those that didn't check in their first buck - no second buck tag - would solve the shooting of a 'lessor' buck 

ferg....
waiting for question two .....


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Dale,
That question has been asked in these forums many times over the past two years. I started a thread last year that asked the same thing. My answer is the same now as then.

I'd be in favor of one buck a year, and that includes with a bow or firearm. One buck..period!

If the management goal is to improve the buck to doe ratio then we need to shoot fewer bucks. 

If the mangement goal is to bring the herd in line with the areas carrying capacity, then we need to shoot more does.

Simple!


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

> _Originally posted by flyrod4steelhead _
> *Who would be up for a 1 Buck tag for a couple of year's?
> *


 Count me in.

Congratulations on the doe, FixedBlade.


----------



## p.s.e man (Sep 30, 2003)

like i said general doe tags for everybody,and a buck lottery for a year,might make some people angry,but it would reduce the doe pop.and increase the buck to doe ratio.at least in the high doe to buck areas.than after that inforce the 4 point or 3 point rule.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Well, I only buy one buck license now and have never bought two anyway so........

Good example though, so few posts and still can't come close to even having agreement between a few hunters. That creates more of a problem than anything.


----------



## GrizzlyBear (Apr 27, 2003)

Boehr,
We do all agree that any of the options listed above would be a step in the right direction.

Does anyone have Dr. Alt's phone number?


----------



## Huntmaster143 (Aug 28, 2003)

I'll go along with any system that maintains or lowers the deer numbers and brings the buck to doe ratio in check.

I think that is what everybody here wants anyways.

I don't know if the one buck license would do any good, because I don't know anybody that gets two bucks every year.

HM


----------



## TurkeyMan (May 30, 2003)

Just an idea!

Personally I let anything less than a 6 point walk, but I understand that there are hunters that are in the woods for a chance at killing any buck. As a kid a spike or fork was a BIG DEAL. I just choose not to take them anymore in the hope of getting some "real bucks". There are alot of hunters who have hunted for years and never shot a buck. Now granted they are not really good hunters but thats another story.

So to put a 6 or 7 pt minimum on everyone would be great for guys like me but would probably not sit well with many others. So here is "my 2 cents worth of compromise:"

1. A no spike limit statewide- Personally I don't think it is good enough, but it would allow us to begin to introduce QDM as a whole statewide effort that probably most hunters could live with. Eventually this could be raised to 4, 6, etc...

2. Combination Buck/Antlerless tags- (Must purchase atleast 1 antlerless license to purchase a buck tag) Many of the "old school" non doe hunters may not like this but it would promote antlerless harvest statewide. No you can't make someone shoot a doe, but the DNR should promote the importance of harvesting does to maintain the herd.

3. 1 buck & 2 doe tags per Hunter per year.- This would allow a hunter to hunt Bow, Gun, & Muzzleloader seasons and harvest a deer in each. Also it would force hunters to be more selective in the buck that they shoot making the smaller bucks more likely to be passed on.

4. Mandatory deer check in- Hunters must tag deer in the field and take it to a check station were they are given a perminent tag and the deer and kill data are recorded. This would allow the DNR to track the harvest more accurately and reduce the temptations to not tag or tag deer with someone else's tag. No you can't stop poaching completely but we can take steps to curb it. (I have hunted in Ohio and they use a system like this and it seems to work.) Granted, they would have to set up a better check station system here or it wouldn't work.

Just ideas and a few compromises.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

TM,
To your list I'd add the tagging of a button buck as a buck, using the buck tag.


----------



## 4x4_Hunter (Jan 2, 2002)

I really don't like the one buck tag suggestion. However, I love the one tag to start and then have to check in your deer to get the second tag. And that is with a minimum size put on the first deer to start. This would do a number of things... first, this would reduce the amount of bucks that are being taken because face it, some people are so lazy they would rather not take another buck than have to take in their deer and check it. Secondly, this would give the DNR a much better chance on "guessing" on the herd size in Michigan. There would be less of an error in the estimation of buck kill. We personally take EVERY deer we get in to Cabela's or somewhere to have it checked. We even cut the heads off of dead ones on the sides of the highway and check those in as deer that were killed. It can only help. I think almost any of the suggestions on this sight would benefit the herd (some more than others) but as of now, the buck-to-doe ratio is not going to improve. 

- I vote for 2 buck tags (second one obtained after proof of the first kill) with a minimum of 3pts on one side for the first one, 4 on one side for the second one.
- I also vote for a minimum of 2 doe permits per hunter. I understand what others are saying (Bob S. btw, thanks for the sign), but if the restrictions above for the bucks is put into place, I believe you would see a lot more hunters using at least one doe permit, if not both. 

The BIGGEST thing is... DON'T SHOOT BUTTON BUCKS and SMALL YOUNG BUCKS!!! Let's practice this now and not wait for the DNR. We do and I know many others do! Let's get everyone on board. Sorry for the lengthly reply.


----------



## flyrod4steelhead (Mar 14, 2002)

Hmm, some agree and some disagree to one buck rule. That's ok, we will get this sorted out sooner or later. I guess if we can't get it started here, then write to your DNR office, and let them know your ideas, what could it hurt???

(ferg, you ready??  Ok here is.....)

Question #2
"IF" we were to have a ONE buck tag per hunter, per year; How many pts would you suggest for the minimum??

(IMO) I say at least 4pts on one side. If their isn't a minimum set, then people who don't will shoot the first buck that crosses their path. If that happern's, then how are the little fella's going to grow up and be a "monster" so to speak?? 

So far this year, I have taken 1 Doe, and have passed on a spike, 3pt, 4pt and a 6pt. I just hope that they make it through the year.


----------



## 4x4_Hunter (Jan 2, 2002)

If you are only going to allow one buck tag per hunter, you can't put a restriction on the number of points. It would never fly! However, if I knew I only had one tag, I wouldn't be shooting a small 6 point or for that matter, a real small 8 point. So, if someone does shoot the small buck, well they just used their tag and the 8 or 10 point that they could have gotten has a much better chance of making it through and supporting maybe 12 or even 14 the next year. If you stick with a 2 buck tag rule, then restrictions on antler size are a must!!! Also, ALL BUCKS get a BUCK TAG!!! With all of the doe tags they give out, can you imagine how many button bucks and tiny spikes are taken with a doe tag? These could support nice racks if let go. It will force a hunter to take a second and third look before shooting. It can only help! Who is going to draft up a petition with the info from this post and forward it to the DNR? We need to get one circulating now for new rules next year!!! I could definitely assist in the process.


----------



## flyrod4steelhead (Mar 14, 2002)

4x4

I am not arguing your statement here...BUT..."IF" (big word here) we were to be limited to ONE buck tag, their would HAVE to be a limit on points. If not, then we would be doing the same thing that we (well not all of us) are now...and that is shooting the first buck that come's into view  

The main reason that ""I"" like the ONE buck tag rule with a limited number of pts on one side, is it will alow those button bucks, spikes, fork's get a chance to reach their POTENTIAL ANTLER GROWTH and BODY MASS. 

Their is alot of good points here. Please keep 'em coming everyone.


----------



## 4x4_Hunter (Jan 2, 2002)

Hmmmm..... I see it just the opposite. I see it as if we were limited to one tag, a hunter would be pretty hesitant at shooting a small spike or 4 point or something when it comes by. He knows that if he shoots this one, he can't shoot a big one that comes in. I personally would have no problem with the restriction but it will be difficult enough trying to get something passed with either the conditions on getting two buck tags or limiting it to one tag. I feel there is no way on this earth that you will get the DNR at this point, to limit a hunter to one buck tag AND put restrictions on the size. 

Anyway, if you did do this, what would one do if he misestimated the size of a buck and shot a small 4 point on accident? What do they tag it with? A doe tag? Okay, then that practically means that they can shoot as many small bucks as they want since the doe tags are pretty much unlimited. I don't think there is anyway around allowing a hunter two tags or one tag with no limitations. Yer thoughts...


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

4x4 and F4S,

I see both your points, but both of these concerns could be addressed by allowing hunters the option of purchasing 1 unrestricted buck tag for $28.00 or allowing them to purchase 2 restricted tags (4 points on a side restriction) for $28.00.

Let the hunter decide which is more important to them as individuals. Meat on the table, horns on the wall or time spent afield? How about all of the above with additional doe permits


----------



## flyrod4steelhead (Mar 14, 2002)

> Anyway, if you did do this, what would one do if he misestimated the size of a buck and shot a small 4 point on accident?


Hmm. That is why there are so many manufacturer's out their that make Binoc's!! I carry one with me all the time, be it bow or rifle.


----------



## 4x4_Hunter (Jan 2, 2002)

Yes, I carry a set whenever I do any hunting also. However, there is still the case that a point is mistakened. I guess it would work though because if we try to expect a hunter to examine a nice rack to see if its brow tines are 1 1/4" instead of 3/4", then the buck ought to be out of sight by the time the hunter decides. You can't expect even the most experienced hunter with the highest powered binocs to destiguish between a quarter of an inch. That is what you are suggesting. Like I said, I personally would be totally certain of a nice rack before I shoot, but tell me what a hunter tags a button buck, four point, or spike with. Answer that one question... that will determine what should be done. You can't allow them to tag it with a doe permit. That would destroy the whole QDM thing. You want to restrict the buck license, so now they can't tag it with that. If they don't tag it at all, hmmm... don't think the DNR will go for that one. 

Now, if you wanted to restrict the one and only buck license but allow a hunter to purchase a high-dollar separate license for a smaller buck (like what was suggested by Sw. Gh.), then that might work so that one has the opportunity to go purchase this license immediately if he made a mistake in his estimation of the size of the rack. ????


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

> _Originally posted by 4x4_Hunter _
> *(Bob S. btw, thanks for the sign)*


You`re welcome.


----------



## Robert W. McCoy Jr (Jan 18, 2002)

We talk about getting a more balanced deer population.

We discuse the best way to accomplish this.

One thing that is seldom brought up is the area in which this would affect the most.

Southern michigan has a far better buck to doe ratio than the N.E.
side of the state does.

I think the points that were made are valid, but I think if there is ever going to be a State wide improvement in the quality of the deer. The tags are going to have to be bought by the zone you are hunting in.

You cannot use the same rules for a place like Hillsdale that you would for Alpena..


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

You are right Robert! 

There are numerous needs and deficiancies that vary greatly across the entire state, but it still boils down to the same requirements for a healthy herd in each area:

1. Adequate buck age structure(easily achieved with fewer buck tags and or adequate yearling buck protection)

2. Populations maintained at or below the carrying capacity of the land, (achieved through APPROPRIATE doe harvest..Currently, some areas need doe harvest, and some don't)

3. Adequate sex ratios(not 1:1, like "Trophy Management", but maybe 2:1) This is usually achieved with adequate yearling buck protection and appropriate doe harvest.

Some areas need more or than others, some areas are probably doing just fine, but the bottom line is, all need the above 3 necessaties to produce a healthy herd that is in tune with their habitat. I guess to me, it doesn't really matter how we get there, just that we are taking steps to achieve the 3 necessaties of a healthy herd that is consistant with proven management strategies that have been used by successful game departments across the country.


----------



## Dawg (Jan 17, 2003)

I'm not discounting the discussion as there have been some good points. I guess I would question the goal of a petition or similar objective.

As a state we vote for natural resource management based on science, then we would wish to influence natural resource management with popular opinion?

That said - I still firmly support implementing mandatory check stations and I believe that, as part of mandatory, registration should be required for using commercial meat processors and taxidermists.


----------



## 4x4_Hunter (Jan 2, 2002)

I agree.... Dawg!!!

However, the DNR will argue that they don't have adequate funds to do it, since this would require much more participation. Well, I say... increase the licenses a bit. Heck, I think the hunting licenses are extremely reasonable and would still think so if they raised them $4 or so each. Heck, you can buy a Combo license and with that license, you can hunt for 3 full months and take 2 deer. That is all for $28. A lot cheaper for youths and seniors then too. Heck, I spend that much on one bag of 30:06 mineral mix. I doubt many hunters would complain if there was an immediate favorable change (such as the mandatory check stations). Now, I don't agree with raising the price just to make more money or do things that are not directly noticeable by hunters!


----------



## Dawg (Jan 17, 2003)

If a license increase was established for the fixed purpose of instituting check stations I would be all for it. If the money was "earmarked" or tagged with any other politically charged rhetoric then I say no. 4X4, as you state $4 (or similar) is pocket change to most hunters recreation budgets. However, the hunting and fishing licenses purchased by the sportsmen and women of this state provide for all forms of outdoor recreation activities that are not licensed or generate non-contributing revenue. I have no problem with not licensing mountain bikes, etc. but our contribution to the non-hunting/fishing public ought to get the recognition of general fund dollars. Until it does hunting and fishing licenses should exclusively fund hunting and fishing programs. If so we would have plenty of check stations, less poaching, more money, etc.

I like the idea of only getting subsequent tags upon checking harvested deer but this would eliminate a large amount of license sales (overage) and would soon result in higher fees. Currently it's more like a deer lottery, where people buy multiple tickets and a certain percentage become satisfied with winning once (and the unfilled tickets get resold the next year).


----------



## OctoberJR (Oct 3, 2003)

I think a major point that crosses many hunters mind is "If I don't shoot that spike, someone else in the area will and I will miss out on my opportunity (again) to shoot a buck". As everyone knows, there are numerous areas across the state that just don't have high buck populations. Hunters in these areas are highly tempted to shoot a young buck because they simply don't see bucks very often.
The hunters that would object to placing a limit on antler size are probably the one's that don't get an opportunity to shoot bucks each year. I would support the DNR placing a restriction on antler size to give the smaller bucks a chance to grow up, however, that would really cause some heart ache for some hunters for a couple of years. However it all works out, I'm just glad to hear some people actually care.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

> _Originally posted by OctoberJR _
> *The hunters that would object to placing a limit on antler size are probably the one's that don't get an opportunity to shoot bucks each year.*


Not necessarily. This is the 4th season on my property and we have never filled a buck tag. I don`t hunt to kill a deer with antlers. I make my harvest decisions based on the deer herd and habitat conditions of the area. 

On the latest roll of pictures from my DeerCam, there is what appears to be a 2 1/2 year old 6pt. I would like to believe that is one of the spikes I passed on last year. Seeing a picture of that buck means more to me than shooting a spike ever will.


----------



## 4x4_Hunter (Jan 2, 2002)

Amen, Bob...

I totally agree! As you know, our properties are very close and we said the same thing when we got some nice pictures on our trail cam this year. I didn't see any bucks last year to even pass up but my brother passed on a few spikes and some 3 and 4 points also. Sure, the one 4 point that he passed on in the morning got taken by a neighbor that evening but that is why you try and get more and more hunters to see that QDM is the way to go. Don't just shoot them and say, "Well if I pass them up, then they will just run over to the neighbor's and get shot." 

That might happen, but not always. You just hope that every buck you pass up makes it through all of the seasons!


----------



## anon02032020 (Oct 2, 2003)

1 buck tag with 8 points or better, the only way to go. Also the possiblity of going to receiving one buck tag every third year of hunting is next on the agenda. It is time for Michigan to raise the bar. Shooting small bucks is ok for 12 year olds.


----------



## JOE_RFISHER (Mar 8, 2003)

1 buck is good 4 pt could even be changed to a 6 but there shouldnt be any restrictions on doe permits


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Joe,
My son and his wife life in Kent City. GR is my hometown.


----------



## JOE_RFISHER (Mar 8, 2003)

whats there names do they have any kids my age or in high school?


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

They just moved to Kent City last summer after buying a house on Washington St. a block south of the downtown area. A baby is due to arrive in early December, their first.


----------



## Guest (Nov 13, 2003)

I havn't posted on this topic yet, so I thought I better chime in. My opinion would be that every hunter would buy 1 deer-hunting license (bow or gun; doesn't matter). The license would come with 1 buck tag and 1 doe tag. I'm not sure you have to make restrictions on the buck if there is only 1 tag because I hear a lot of hunters say "I shot my little buck, now I can seriously hunt for a big one". If hunters only had 1 buck tag then I think a lot would wait and make sure it was a good one. Several states have regs similar to this and it seems to work quite well.


----------



## safetreehunt (Oct 1, 2003)

I'm with Hangoo. Sorta.

1 buck for archers
1 buck for firearms

I do however think doe licenses need some limits, just not sure how that needs to happen. I do know that if I shoot a nice buck, I'd like to be able to stay in the woods with at least a doe license.


----------

