# New Guidelines for Proposing Mandatory QDM in Selected DMUs



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

Follow the link below to download the draft proposal (.pdf). It appears as if the 66% approval requirement will remain, pending comment. 


QDM Proposal


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

The new guidelines will still count undecided votes as a no.

Also, they only refer to antler point restrictions. Three points on a side in the UP and NLP and four points on a side in the SLP. Again, the DNR will not allow anything other than antler point restrictions to go for a vote.

For all of you out there that continue to ask, why doesn`t QDMA try something other than antler restrictions. This is why. It will not happen in Michigan as long as Rod Clute is the big game expert.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Bob S. is on the right track. QDMA should get out of the antler point business in Michigan and shift all focus onto a one buck per year limit. That's one buck only for all seasons. You get one buck, period. If you want to shoot the first spike you see, have at it. But then you are done buck hunting. You'll find that 90%, if not all of the MDNR's biologists would agree that a one buck limit is what this state needs. Just ask them. And I bet you find hunters far more willing to go with this than a point restriction. And the argument that not that many hunters shoot 2 bucks is completely irrelevant. It isn't too many hunters shooting 2 bucks that's the problem, it's too many hunters shooting one buck that's the problem. 
The mentality in most of Michigan has always been to dump the first buck you see. Get it "over with", essentially. That way, you got your buck, all prowess concerns are settled, the monkey is off your back and you can say "you got your buck". All of us were that guy at one time. Then, after you got the first buck down and "out of the way", you could then begin looking for a mature animal. But does anyone see the problem here? In most area's, there aren't any mature animals because everyone just did the practice that I mentioned before hand. The pressure on the "first buck" killed is crippling to the buck herd. 
With only one buck tag, many hunters won't continue the practice of shooting the first buck that they see. Say it's October 15 and a decent fork horn presents itself. Currently, most guys will kill it because they can put their regular combo tag on it and keep hunting with the restricted tag for a buck with 4pts on a side. (And a buck that may barely exist in the area). 
So you have one dead fork horn. But what do you think most guys will do if there's only one buck tag per year? Remember, it's only October. Do they want to gun hunt for bucks? Or how about the masses that only gun hunt the first few days of gun season and then a couple days around Thanksgiving? What does that guy do when a spike shows up at 8:00am on Nov. 15? Right now with the combo tag, he kills it for sure. But what about with only one buck tag? I say it's 50/50 he passes on that spike. And 50/50 is way better than the near certain outcome we have with 2 bucks allowed. In both cases I mentioned, you'd have hunters killing one buck each. And the MDNR survey would only show one buck killed each. That's why hunters killing two bucks is irrelevant. With one buck tag, there's a good chance there'd be none of those bucks killed. My bet is, the vast majority of guys will pass on bucks for the first times in their lives. I also bet that many guys will go from seeing only one buck and killing that one buck to seeing several bucks and ultimately shooting none. 
There's 2 big concerns with one buck tag. First, how do you make up MDNR revenue from not selling 2 tags to hunters? Will hunters and the Legislature bitch about having to pay $30 for only one buck tag? 
And then, how do you stiffen the penalty for people who hunt with another's tag? If we go to one buck only, if guys then buy a tag for their wife or mother, we have to take away all their hunting and fishing privileges for 2-3 years when caught. It can't be just a couple hundred dollar fine. The penalty would have to be a real attention getter and notice that this will not be tolerated. This would stop all but your hardened poachers. 
Just my .02. But while I personally favor antler regs, we have to be realistic about what we can actually accomplish. Sticking with a cause that you believe in, but that's dead in the water is a mistake. Antler regs are a lost cause. We'll spend 20 years charging the castle with a straight on frontal assault of antler regs. And still lose. Instead, we should re-group and look for another way over the castle walls. I think a one buck limit may even be better than antler regs, on all aspects, and still accomplish the very same thing that we're all hoping for, yet without pissing everyone off. This allows the die hard spike hunter to still shoot his one deer, yet still cut way down on the buck kill at the same time. I say this approach should get much more consideration.


----------



## GrizzlyBear (Apr 27, 2003)

Good post Bob, my sentiments exactly.


----------



## deputy (Feb 2, 2002)

how about tagging buttons as bucks too? would this help


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

deputy said:


> how about tagging buttons as bucks too? would this help


I think it would help, But (why is there always a but?) - with a single tag - how many would let the BB rot :yikes: when they found out it was a BB? At least with the ability to tag a BB with an antlerless tag - it doesn't waste a way on the ground.

ferg....
Single buck tag - yea that.


----------



## huntingfool43 (Mar 16, 2002)

[email protected]

I think you have a good idea. 1 buck period like it use to be. I would never go for AR's but the 1 buck tag is a winner.


----------



## Benelli (Nov 8, 2001)

> QDMA should get out of the antler point business in Michigan and shift all focus onto a one buck per year limit.



With all due respect, QDMA is not in the antler point business.

The proposal cited has nothing to do with QDMA, it is only Michigans version of the process required to implement antler point restrictions in certain DMUs. 

DNR published the acronym, not QDMA.

I can organize a hunting group tomorrow called MSOB (Michigan Sportsmen for One Buck).

Wonder if I / we would need to get 66% approval to push an MSOB proposal through the NRC?


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Benelli, you are correct. I meant the movement as a whole, not that specific organization. I thought QDMA was behind the getting us to a vote in the first place. My bad if I'm wrong. It wasn't meant to be a slam in any way, it was more an observation that we once felt like antler regs was gaining momentum as a way to decrease yearling buck harvest, but that window is now closed. It's over, we antler reg guys lost and it's time to move in another direction to improve our buck tags situation. And I was not trying to claim that QDMA was pro-antler regs either. Just some members, as myself.
Basically, for of those of us who feel voluntary measures are a waste of time in most of the NLP and that only mandated regulations of some sort will bring about a reduction in yearling buck harvest, then we need to give up on antler regs to do that and look towards another measure. And I know QDMA wants to explore ways to decrease the yearling buck harvest. That's all I meant. 

Huntingfool, I think you reflect a lot of hunters. Antler regs=No! One buck=Yes!

Also, as far as button bucks, let's take one bite of the elephant at a time. IMHO


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

I am all for a limit of one buck tag. The big question though, is how do we get past Rod Clute and the loss of revenue the combination tag generates?

Since buck fawns was brought, up I`ll give my opinion. A buck fawn should be tagged as an antlerless deer. I`ll use Missaukee County as an example. This past season there were no antlerless permits for public land in DMU 057. All buck fawns were safe on public land during firearm season. If buck fawns were considered bucks. They could then legally be shot on a buck tag. When Thanksgiving rolls around. Those hunters who have not shot a buck and don`t have an antlerless tag will start looking for buck fawns. Do we want to remove buck fawns from areas with already low buck numbers? Education, not regulation. Where have I heard that before?


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

One buck and buttons stay antlerless.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

If history tells us anything, going back to 1 buck tag will result in a lot of license sales to people who will never step into the field.
We all know that we are not going to have a one buck limit next year. We also know that we are not going to increase our current antler restrictions in the LP.
My opinion........if you only want to buy 1 buck license, you can kill any buck. If you want to buy a combo license, both bucks 4pts on one side. I am assuming that our computer system could handle this.

Intersting point Bob made about BB. I don't think it would happen a lot, but it would no doubt happen. I've posted my opinion before about BB and here it is again:
1. You can tag it with a buck tag. Cost $14
2. You can tag it with 2 antlerless tags. Cost $14
3. You only have 1 antlerless tag and no more are available, ok you tag it with one antlerless tag and another special "BB tag" available at the usual outlets. This would cost $7 making the total cost again $14. Processor can't accept a BB without one of the three.

L & O


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

I believe a one buck limit to be a "baby step" in the right direction. Unfortunately, I really don't believe it will protect very many bucks, certainly it would protect fewer yearling bucks than antler point restrictions would.

I believe the DNR is leaning on the results of the 2001 Peyton-Bull study, which indicated that antler point restrictions would be the most popular of the methods surveyed for protecting yearling bucks.

In the southern lower, as long as we're talking about a world without antler point restrictions, I'd rather see an earn-a-buck system. An earn-a-buck system along with a brief (3-4 day) September antlerless only firearms season would be better yet. 

Combined with earn-a-buck, a 10 day long general firearms season, beginning the Saturday after Thanksgiving, would also be a good move, though I would recommend such a season for the lower peninsula only.


----------



## hartman886 (Aug 29, 2004)

I am in favor of one buck per year.


----------



## huntingfool43 (Mar 16, 2002)

deputy said:


> how about tagging buttons as bucks too? would this help


 Trouble is what happens when someone shoots a button thinking he shot a doe. At 50, 60 even a 100 yards buttons are about impossible to see, mistakes will be made. IMO you will find a lot of Button bucks left to rot because someone made a mistake and either won't or already filled their buck tag and can't tag it. The system we have isn't perfect but at least they are not going to waste because someone made a mistake. .


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

My DMU already has mandatory antler restrictions so it's moot to me. 

I agree with [email protected] on the one buck limit. I would also go along with a one year moratorium on taking ANY bucks in the UP or NLP but I realize that it would have a snowballs chance of passing. Just think what it would do to the herd, though.  

I'd also like to see mandatory submission of data, either by check-in, phone-in or e-mail. This would go a long way towards providing the DNR with better numbers for managing the herd. Makes a lot more sense to me than counting poop or looking off an overpass. 

As far as loss of revenue from the one buck license, I'd go along with raising buck licenses to $20 to help offset the cost. Heck, if I was assured that the money would actually be spent on hunting issues I'd donate some extra $ to offset the fee's. Set up a state controlled wildlife habitat endowment. Just make sure the money stays in the DNR.

I'd also like to see the DNR concentrate more on habitat improvement. Don't tell me there is no money for this, it would not necessarily cost much since there are large numbers of sportsman who would probably do most of the work (like the volunteer groups that have done a great job rehabilitating some of the best trout streams in Michigan) the DNR would just have to oversee the projects. Just give us the green light.

The problem remains, however, that no one wants to give on anything. The State wants to maximize revenue (even though they are shooting themselves in the foot over the long run by wrecking the herd) and the average hunter wants to shoot the maximum number of deer. If it keeps going the way it's been going it's going to get worse before it gets better, at least in the NLP and parts of the UP.

Just my .02
_____________________________
Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

We need to keep in mind that we share the public lands with a host of other constituencies...cross country skiers, bird watchers, hikers. This is considered by the DNR as well as whitetail hunters and other hunting groups.

Swamper


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Munsterlndr said:


> I agree with [email protected] on the one buck limit.
> 
> I'd also like to see mandatory submission of data, either by check-in
> 
> ...


I'll also include what Swamper says below, reminding that deer hunters share the public lands with others.


----------



## deepwoods (Nov 18, 2002)

I would be all for one buck assuming that an antler restriction could be passed.

I would think more revenue could be generated by raising the cost of anterless tag from the current $7 to maybe $10 or so. Either way it's a bargain IMO.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Raise the price of licenses. One tag is an OK idea, just do not like the idea of bow hunters tagging a buck and missing the opportunity to get out and hunt at Nov. 15th deer camp, sure there are doe permits(maybe in your area) but its not about tagging another buck but getting out with friends and family and hunting the gun season-I think alot might lose that opportunity. Just another way to look at. 

Just to throw it out, I think we need to shorten the bow season and have a "quiet" time between bow and gun, say maybe five days.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

beer and nuts said:


> just do not like the idea of bow hunters tagging a buck and missing the opportunity to get out and hunt at Nov. 15th deer camp


That is the whole point of a one buck rule. To get hunters, bowhunters included, to think a little longer and a little harder before flinging that arrow at Sparky, knowing that they'll be done buck hunting for the year. Just having that little factoid in their heads is probably the greatest benefit of a one buck rule.


----------



## walleye magnet (Mar 4, 2001)

One buck per year without antler restrictions would be fine with me. 
Walleye Magnet


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

I get the idea farmlegend, but thats not my point. ie...I'm lucky to havest a nice big 6 point here in Roscommon during mid-Oct., there is a pretty good chance I wil not feel like going up to Drummond Island for the gun opener and just sit around while everybody else is out hunting all day. This isn't about killing another buck but about traditon, family and friends. For those of you that never experienced traditional deer camps, ya just might not get it!!?! I think Michigan has the resources to allow two buck tags-maybe bow tag and gun tag!?!?

Funny thing that is becoming clear is some on here look at the one buck tag to produce more bigger bucks running around where others look at for better herd ratios, some both but usually its one or the other...maybe a good question to ask is why do you want the one buck tag? Do some area need a two buck tag?


----------



## Tom (mich) (Jan 17, 2003)

I found it curious that you have to pay $2,000 to have your proposal considered. One would assume that the foundation of that contained within the "proposal" is sound game management, an item one might argue is the very job of the NRC. 

Is that kind of like me telling the guys at Jiffy Lube that they need to pay me for doing the oil change??


----------



## foersterhunter (Jan 21, 2002)

I really don t have a problem with ar.But heres were we must think things out alittle.You only have one tag.Say you have a son and you score out the second weekend of bow season.Does you son suffer because you don t feel like hunting because you don t want to hunt anymore.Another question (this maybe a sore one)with only one tag how many small town places will lose out on income.
Now we all want hunting in a childrens future.But when you cut down on the time you can spend you going to lose someplace else.When junior doesn t have a second tag to go with the old man his interest will be somewhere else.When dad tags a eight point he won t set outdoors and wait with his son in a tree for him to get his either.
When the youth hunting season is ended in september you have to tell them your done for the season will the 400 dollars you spent on his bow be worth the investment you put in it cause hes done hunting.When your buddy ask you to go hunting and you have tagged your deer how will you feel when you say you can t.


----------



## OTIS (Feb 15, 2001)

I do not think the One buck system will do much. I would bet the percentages of 2nd tags filled is very small. I do not buy the argument that it would dissuade hunters from shooting the first buck they see. My bet is that 80% of the 700,000 Plus hunters in the state do not deer hunt more than 5 days a year. That is not a scientific estimate just an observation during the 2nd week of Gun season. Antler restriction would work better than a one buck tag, but I hate the addition of more regulations. 

Education is the key. IMHO.


----------



## walleye magnet (Mar 4, 2001)

Beer and nuts,
I should clarify my first post. Im not necessarily in favor of one-buck tag only; Im just not in favor of antler restriction of any kind and if one-buck tag allows that may be thats the way to go. I dont know all the facts about QDMA but when I hear about growing larger trophy bucks it drives me craze. Deer hunting is more then trophies, and with proper habitat management better deer will follow. 
Walleye Magnet


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Beer & Nuts -

I have a number of reasons for endorsing the one buck rule:

Balance the herd.

Increase genetic diversity

Increase herd numbers

Increase the potential for seeing a shootable buck

I don't think that a one buck rule is needed in the SLP since that is where the majority of the deer are now. I think it would help the NLP and the UP however. 

I am not a trophy hunter by any means. Let me explain what I mean by a "shootable" buck Part of my motivation is purely selfish. I no longer bow hunt but the properties surrounding mine are heavily bow hunted. Prior to rifle season my neighbors took a ten point, two eight points and four sixes. This was between 5 hunters. My DMU has a 3 point antler restriction and I did not see any shootable bucks during rifle season. If there was a one buck limit I think that there is a good chance that at least three of the six points would have still been around during rifle season. That does not of course mean I would have seen one since there are a lot of other factors involved but it sure would have increased the odds. 

I'd be just as happy shooting a doe as I would a six point but there were a very limited number of antlerless permits available in my DMU and they sell out in the first half hour. You have to stand in line for about an hour and a half before they start selling them. I did harvest my one doe but it sure would be nice to get a shootable buck, as well.

I would also be in favor of a shorter bow season and a quiet period but I realize that will not be popular. 

_____________________________

Munsterlndr
Curmudgeon in Training


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

To go to a 1 buck a year I think will hurt hunter numbers as well as the businesses who rely on hunters for there revenue. If you are a gun hunter fine, if you are a bow hunter fine, etc etc but if you are a bow, gun and muzzleloader hunter the one buck tag sucks. Why not a statewide "no spike rule" and a bow tag and a gun tag both good for 1 buck. When I was first into hunting, You could get 4 bucks a year with your regular tags and there seemed to be a lot of deer and a lot of good deer now you can only get 2 if you are lucky enough to find one with 4 points on a side (depending on where you hunt) which isn't the easiest thing to do so in a lot of areas it is 1 buck a year. I would support no spike which protects over 40 percent statwide I beleive but it is a lot more than that in the NLP and the UP because that is 80 percent of what we see "spikes" so essentially we won't get a but anyway by us for a few years but lets see if it works or gets support because it sure doesn't look like the support is there for any of the other regs.

AW


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Adam Waszak said:


> if you are a bow, gun and muzzleloader hunter the one buck tag sucks.


This kind of thinking absolutely blows my mind, yet it is near the core of our deer management problems.

One buck tag sucks? 
Why?
Why?
Why?
Why?

Myself, I haven't killed a buck since '97. One buck per season is plenty.

It is maddening. 
Antler restrictions? Too complicated, too restricting.
One Buck Rule? It sucks.
Earn-a-buck? Why should I shoot a doe first?

Meanwhile, we Michiganders will continue to flounder around with poor doe:buck ratios and the worst buck age structure in the USA, all in the name of preserving our fetish of desiring the ability to kill two yearling bucks each season.


----------



## SR-Mechead (Jan 25, 2004)

I would like to see the 1 buck system where it is needed. Now the DNR would have to do some home work and pick the spots where it will be 1 buck only.
The bad thing about this is many years ago,after gun season you could walk in the woods and find a lot of dead deer You remember the words shoot and then check. A lot of BB where found.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

What's the matter with doing what's best for the resource?

One buck tag, Ar's, drawing permits based on DMU, etc. 

No one will be happy for a year, maybe two but once the steps are taken to protect the most overharvested segment of the deer population the hunting will never regress to the point we have in many areas of the state.

Let me ask this, what has the status quo done for MI hunting, other than hurt business, hunter numbers and participation?

I have said this before the DNR will be content with a state wide deer herd of 1.6-1.8 million deer if the herd is compromised of many more bucks than we have know.

You guys want to stop "unlimited antlerless permits" or "doe slaughter" as some like to call it, stop shooting 1.5 year old bucks.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

foersterhunter said:


> I really don t have a problem with ar.But heres were we must think things out alittle.You only have one tag.Say you have a son and you score out the second weekend of bow season.Does you son suffer because you don t feel like hunting because you don t want to hunt anymore.Another question (this maybe a sore one)with only one tag how many small town places will lose out on income.
> Now we all want hunting in a childrens future.But when you cut down on the time you can spend you going to lose someplace else.When junior doesn t have a second tag to go with the old man his interest will be somewhere else.When dad tags a eight point he won t set outdoors and wait with his son in a tree for him to get his either.
> When the youth hunting season is ended in september you have to tell them your done for the season will the 400 dollars you spent on his bow be worth the investment you put in it cause hes done hunting.When your buddy ask you to go hunting and you have tagged your deer how will you feel when you say you can t.


foeresterhunter,
Wow! 
Would you really quit hunting with your child if you tagged out?
Is your investment in their equipment all for just 1 deer?
Do you have to have a tag left to enjoy an outing with a friend or family member?
What motivates me to hunt, I find, may not be what motivates another.

Just my observations. 

Big T


----------



## walleye magnet (Mar 4, 2001)

Question. 
What would antler restriction do for the deer herd? What is the purpose of the restrictions?
Walleye Magnet


----------



## foersterhunter (Jan 21, 2002)

qdmaman personally no i wouldn t.But others might this is were the problem.Others just don t think others in life.Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Speak of the devil...I just picked up the Feb. issue of Whitetail Journal. On page 35, David Hale has a formula for finding big bucks. The first thing to look for is "...states that offer a one-buck limit, no matter how that buck is taken." He goes on to say "this severely limits the overall buck harvest." He also has two other big suggestions. He says "another key harvest restriction is found in states that offer no rifle season, but muzzleloader or shotgun only for firearms hunting...the real key is no rut hunting with firearms." 
I agree 100%. Again, the mindset that not too many people kill 2 bucks when 2 buck tags is offered is off the mark. The correct way to look at it is that too many people kill even one buck, when 2 buck tags are offered. The reason is, when 2 buck tags are offered, the first buck seen usually dies. If only one buck tag is offered, the first buck seen is usually passed. You have to remember, we're not talking about us M-S members who are out hunting all the time. It's the casual "first 3 days" of gun season folks that are our 800lb gorilla that we must deal with. This group makes up over 50% of hunters and currently creams the yearling buck class in much of the state. If we can get even 30% of these guys not to pull the trigger on probably the only spike they'll see, because they saw it on opening morning and decide to pass for several reasons, then we've won. Those reasons can be, wanted to hunt more, too small, etc. If we can knock 30% off our annual gun season yearling buck harvest, the spike in mature animals that would follow would be significant. (no pun intended)


----------



## rfwood (Jan 8, 2004)

I've read in several post where the second buck tag
is probably never filled or they would be in favor of
1 buck per year in areas where needed, or 2 bucks
per year in areas that need that. 
From what source would these regs be deamed
the right regs to really help are deer herd, IMO
mandatory kill registration is about the only way to 
get a firm number by county to be sure the best regs
are put into place.

dick


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

BTW, the small towns have already felt the bust in deer hunter traffic because there's no mature bucks. Deer season business up north is now just another weekend. Actually, the bust started about 3 years ago. In the 21st century, 95% of hunters deer hunt for recreation and desire to see a few deer and hopefully a larger buck while hunting. Much of "up north" no longer offers that combination. The deer hunter traffic will only increase up north if numbers of larger bucks increase up north. So if you want to help up north economies, work for something that restricts yearling buck harvest. Otherwise, look for the exodus to southern Michigan and out of state to only pick up pace.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

""BTW, the small towns have already felt the bust in deer hunter traffic because there's no mature bucks.""BBT I know your in the business but I also know your belief in managment but that statement is just not true. Never has been. The real reason traffic is is down is plain and simple-LACK of deer, not mature bucks. Sure some might say that, but when you talk about the 3-5 day hunters its all about seeing deer, and that has been the real reason hunters have lost interest in NLP/UP. Doe permits have gone unchecked for way too many years, populations have been decimated in lost of areas and its the same complaint all over NLP-lack of deer sightings. 

Also if one offers a one tag for bow and one tag for gun, as BBT said it might eliminate the 3-day gun hunter in taking yearling bucks, which by the way I don't care if they do, but it would compromise the situation for people that want one tag and bow/gun hunters.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

In an attempt to get this thread back to where it started - the draft proposal that is before the decision makers requires 'public comment' - 

We have commented pleanty in this thread - where can we be heard? Where can we email, call, write and let our feelings be heard?

There a lots of very well thought out ideas contained within, lets get these thoughts out to the decision makers!!!!!

Heck! Get an email address and lets email them a copy of these thread!!!!

ferg....


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

walleye magnet,

The purpose of antler restrictions is to protect yearling bucks, being based on the premise that older bucks have more antler points than yearling bucks.

The problem is, that is only _generally_ true. Antler development by age-class is heavily influenced by geographic location, habitat, soils, and just about every other factor imaginable.

Another _potential_ problem is the possibility of genetic high-grading of the buck population. But I say this is a "potential problem" because this "effect" has not been proven in a free-ranging deer herd.

Personally, I'm a big fan of low buck bag limits. It has proven effective in the Midsouth and Deep South. The question is, how effective it would be in the northern states, where hunter densities are astronomical. Even if the buck limit is 1, how many bucks would be "saved" in MI for the next year?


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

*No matter where you stand on these issues to merely stand there and do nothing other than post in forums such as this is to do nothing. The NRC is a one of the powers that be here in Michigan. We need to deluge them stating our concerns in simple, logical, and (dare I say it....:lol:   ) civil terms. Whether your position involves "one buck per season and/or year"........"mandatory antler restrictions"......."baiting yes or no"......"habitat improvement for whitetails"........."smaller or larger DMUs"......."Date of Opening Day"........."weapons allowed".........or whatever. Each of us needs to do more than type replies in here. We need to contact the members of the NRC voicing our concerns.*

*Natural Resources Commission Members*
*Names, Phone Numbers and Addresses*

*Mary C. Brown*
1624 Grand Avenue

Kalamazoo, MI 49006

269-344-3738 (Office)

Appointed: 1/6/04

Term Expires: 12/31/07

Democrat


*Keith J. Charters (Chair)*

126 Spring Hill Road.

Traverse City, MI 49686

231-947-3845 (Home)

231-947-7566 (Office)

Appointed: 12/29/94

Re-Appointed: 12/20/01

Term Expires: 12/31/05

Republican


*Bob Garner*

7020 E. 48 Road

Cadillac, MI 49601-0984

231-779-9866 (Office)

Appointed: 8/5/99

Re-Appointed: 1/1/03

Term Expires: 12/31/06

Democrat


*Gerald R. Hall, Jr.*

13122 Bird Road

Gaines, MI 48436-9740

989-271-9001

Appointed 1/6/04

Term Expires: 12/31/07

Democrat



*John Madigan*

831 W. Munising Avenue

Munising, MI 49862

906-387-4468 (Office)

Appointed: 1/1/03

Term Expires: 12/31/06

Republican




*Frank C. Wheatlake*

Reed City Power Line Supply,

420 N. Roth Street,

P.O. Box 147

Reed City, MI 49677

231-796-5491 (Home)

231-832-2258 (Office)

Appointed: 2/6/01

Term Expires: 12/31/04

Independent





Department of Natural Resources
Executive Division
Attention: Teresa Gloden
P.O. BOX 30028
Lansing, MI 48909
517-373-2352


----------



## huntingfool43 (Mar 16, 2002)

I think some of you fellas need to do some research. How long due you think that second buck tag has been around, how long have you been able to take a buck with both gun and bow? Not sure of the year ( late 80's) before that if you took a buck with a bow you were done. In the early 90's the DNR had a brain fart and allowed 2 with a gun and 2 with a bow, big mistake. Before the mid 80's if you shot an antlerless during gun you also had to punch your buck tag and tag the doe with it and your antlerless permit and you were done hunting. With one buck tag it will be up to you to decide if that buck you see during bow season is the one to make you happy or wait till gun and hope for a bigger one. I never had trouble doing that befor and have no trouble doing it today, it's called hunting not killing.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

I understand the point of AR but i think a no spike rule is the easiest way to protect young deer in the NLP and UP without having to try count points. This QDM has some very good points and valid info to back a lot of it up but I am afraid with declining hunter numbers that we will get to the point where we are losing interests because of complicated rules and everything else. I am trying to become more educated on this but 1 buck a year will hurt i truly beleive this and I am not a 2 buck a year guy usually anyway but I do hunt all three seasons.

AW


----------



## Den (Dec 14, 2004)

Personally, I would like to see LESS antlerless permits in the NLP, and in other areas where the density is below carrying capacity. Lets not forget that for every doe we kill, we are also eliminating the possibility of 1, 2, or in extreme cases even three more deer (the fawns that would have been produced). I support a 1 buck bow/1 buck firearm change. As is, it is 2 bucks regardless of how taken, with one being antler restricted. Make it 1 per bow, one per firearm with one any point and one antler restricted. Continue antlerless hunting in overpopulated areas. How about making the DNR improve habitiat on state land? In my area, farmers used to plant fields with corn or hay. Not for several years now has this been the case. Any one know why? Maybe they need to do some more clear-cutting. A big reason farmers have so many deer is simple, food. Improve the state owned property to compete with private and a lotof people (and deer) will be happy, as they will undoubtably see more deer. I know that many hunters just like to see a lot of deer, regardless if any of them have "horns". It's the fun of the hunt, not the kill.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

I see a lot of talk about improving the habitat on state-owned land. Has anyone checked the legality of large-scale habitat alterations on these lands? In some states, timber/habitat manipulations on WMAs are very strictly controlled.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Simply put, "large scale timber operations" on public land would be the holder of the trust/property, the state, federal government, or local governmental unit.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Den said:


> I know that many hunters just like to see a lot of deer, regardless if any of them have "horns". It's the fun of the hunt, not the kill.


At the expense of the resource?
In the words of Toby Keith " I wanna talk about me wanna talk about I wanna talk about number 1 oh my me my." 
I'll say it again. Put the deer first and everyone wins.

Big T


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> Combined with earn-a-buck, a 10 day long general firearms season, beginning the Saturday after Thanksgiving, would also be a good move, though I would recommend such a season for the lower peninsula only.


I understand why you would want to move the opener to after Thanksgiving (avoid the rut). But why a weekend opener? I have seen several post on other threads that we need a weekend opener. Was there a study completed that show deer are less apt to die from bullets fired on Saturdays?  All joking aside, did I miss something? Why a weekend opener? Anyone can answer.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Good question, bwana. I just thought that a weekend opener would be sort of a bone to throw to those who might be annoyed at delaying the gun season, and losing the sacredness of 11/15 as well.

First Monday after Thanksgiving would be OK with me too. Ohio's gun season this year ran from Monday, November 29 through Sunday, December 5 - 7 days long. They also have a true one buck limit (regardless of weapon).


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Den said:


> I know that many hunters just like to see a lot of deer, regardless if any of them have "horns". It's the fun of the hunt, not the kill.


Den, I don't believe QDMAMAN was directing his comments at you personally. Rather, he was directing them at those "many hunters" which you referred to in your post. In that vein, his remarks were entirely appropriate, and not in any way personal. 

Hunters that value seeing deer, over doing what is best for both the deer and healthy ecosystems, are indeed putting their own interests (ie., me-I-number one) first. I think it is entirely "in-bounds" to refer to that sort of attitude as selfish. 

What is interesting is the fact that, by wide majorities, Michigan deer hunters support managing our deer for an improved buck age structure. But many don't want to change what they're now doing one iota. They say "no" to antler restrictions, to earn-a-buck, even to a one buck limit. When the same guys who oppose these measures simultaneously opine that the DNR ought to manage for more deer, and then go on to post, right here on this forum, nasty personal attacks on dedicated civil servants who are involved in deer management, the word "selfish" does indeed quite naturally leap to the forefront of one's mind.


----------



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

I am annoyed that the DNR can issue so many doe permits in areas that do not need them, but then somebody turns right around and tells me the habitat can't support the deer. How can someone here tell me what the right deer carrying capacity is on the state land in the NLP if they do not even know what it looks like, how do we know the right dpsm on any area if there are no management plans for particular areas, do we just guess so we can just hand out more unwarrented doe permits. I agree that in some areas of the NLP, especially where I hunt, I would guess that the deer herd is well below the carrying capacity of the habitat and yes that is very dissapointing when it takes day's just to see a deer.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

QDMAMAN said:


> At the expense of the resource?
> In the words of Toby Keith " I wanna talk about me wanna talk about I wanna talk about number 1 oh my me my."
> 
> 
> Big T


Please refrain from personel attacks - this post is not called for - I will be deleting these in the future - I'm leaving this as an example of how we are going to keep this forum open into the future. In the past these 'kind' of posts were let go - and they escalate into a name calling, 5 year old school yard type of thread. 

Not going not going to happen again.

Respectfully,

ferg....


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Den said:


> QDMAMAN, and you come off with pure BS, as usual. Not hard to see why this forum is closed more than it is open.



First and last warning - 


ferg....


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

with the ground rules - this thread has departed from the orignal topic - Whit passed on a great list that we can all go voice our opinions and recommendations to the people that need them. Let me say that again, we need to let the NRC/DNR know how we feel about the new QDM proposel.

If someone would like to open a new thread about AR's, habitat, One buck, earn a buck - that's fine - 

But for know - the original topic seems to have become lost.

ferg....


----------

