# No Buck Hunting



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

As has been chronicled here, there are a number of areas in Michigan that have had persistent excess deer populations, along with poor doe:buck ratios. Many, but not all, of these areas are in the southern lower.

We've seen encouragement by authorities to take antlerless deer. We've seen essentially unlimited (one per day) antlerless tags, thousands of which go unsubscribed annually in counties that need greater doe harvests the most. Still, the problem remains, and there is even some anecdotal evidence that hunters in these areas are, paradoxically, less likely to harvest does than are hunters in parts of the state in which deer are substantially less abundant.

I'd like to see a single DMU demonstration area, selected by field biologists as the DMU with the most obvious and severe overabundance of deer, and mandate an antlerless only harvest in that DMU for an entire season. And, if one season was found insufficient to get deer numbers down to the population density objective, do it again next year, or for as long as it takes to get the job done.

I understand that, given the current state of affairs and the understaffing of field biologists, it may be impossible to evaluate the progress of such a tactic, as measured by changing population densities. Doesn't mean I still wouldn't like to see such an experiment take place. 

Oh, and I'm going to be out of town for the next four days, so my ability to defend myself will be a bit delayed!


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

> I'd like to see a single DMU demonstration area


Me too! The entire state!


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

I am all for it. But you guys know it will never get past Bob Garner. It will some how interfere with his rabbit hunting.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Not for it. (but not totally against it, so I didn't vote)
IMO, (and has been said before), I think the DMU's are too large and it needs to be more "micro managed" based on my experience and observations.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I might be in the minority, but I don't think it's needed.

It would have only short-term benifits, and in the overall long-term management picture would be not be of significant benifit.

I think going to a 1 buck license, with antler restrictions would have a significant impact, but could at the same time be maintained for a lont-term management plan and future, steady improvement, without drastic measures.

In my area, ALL doe harvest needs to be stopped! We are greatly under our carrying capacity. Other areas are certainly the same, so it wouldn't even apply to a good percentage of the state.

Also, what gets me out in the morning is the opportunity at a nice buck. Take that away, and the thrill and enjoyment of the hunt goes right with it. In the past, I've taken does at conveniant opportunities to help the herd, but I was out there to shoot a mature buck, and an unlucky doe got in my way.

If it happened in my area, of which I would have certainly done my part in the past to have adequate carrying capacity numbers, I may even shoot less does, as my days in the field in MI, would be severly numbered. I would then spend all of my weekends in WI, PA, AL, and would probably throw in a KA or IA hunt.

I've always thought in the past that a doe only season, even in high density areas, would only offer short-term benifits, and I still think this is true..

We need to make major long-term permanent changes instead:

1.One buck harvest
2.Protection of yearling bucks
3.Habitat improvement
4.Education
5.Hunter/landowner stewardship awareness

Adequate doe harvest will come with the above changes, and have lasting, longterm, benifits and changes, not just a "quick-fix".


----------



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

I think that every area is differant.
At the very least every region.

I think they need to be micro managed.

I hunt alot of ground while rabbit hunting.
I get to see whats going on with the deer around the whole state.

There is a huge differance between the deer herd in the Northeast and the deer herd in the southwest and central parts of the state.

You can't even compare them.


----------



## Airoh (Jan 19, 2000)

Mr. Hunter can hunt bucks and does to the north east south and west of the doe only zone.
Just a guess but I think a lot of the hunters will go elsewhere to hunt. 
It's a good idea, I just think it might backfire.


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

I would be ALL for a DOE ONLY hunt for about 3 years. Everyone will get thier meat, and yes some buttons may die, but hopefully not many. 

Then after three years, ONLY ONE BUCK a year. NOW you are talking about some great bucks in the state of Michigan FOR ALL hunters to enjoy. I think the UP guys would be all for better bucks!! And the Southern guys will just get better hunting!!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

There would be immediate short-term benifits.....

In 20 years would it matter though? 10 years, etc.

What would the long term effects be?

You can patch the roof easy enough, but what about the 30 year old shingles?


----------



## Airoh (Jan 19, 2000)

NorthJeff
Yes the benefits would be short term if it worked.


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

North Jeff, 

With our seasons being SO long compared to some other states, like Illinois Gun Season, we will NEVER have their deer herd with the way we do things now. Yes, we have more deer, but they have more quality deer. 

I think we need to shoot more does, less bucks, and hunters need to take some responsibility for not shooting does in low number areas. If you happen to live in those low areas, you would think that guys would want to NOT shoot all the deer. 

Anyhow I am still for, NOT shooting bucks or have one buck a year with limits.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Farmlegend, is the Five Rivers Branch considering a proposal?


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

> _Originally posted by farmlegend _
> *
> I'd like to see a single DMU demonstration area, selected by field biologists as the DMU with the most obvious and severe overabundance of deer, and mandate an antlerless only harvest in that DMU for an entire season. And, if one season was found insufficient to get deer numbers down to the population density objective, do it again next year, or for as long as it takes to get the job done.*



I voted "Yes"! As a demonstration project, but the choosing of the DMU would be rife with controversy.


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

Whit, I agree, it would be very hard to do it by DMU, but I am willing to give it a try. 

I still hope we can find some way to do it stated wide with hunters having to change their ways: Traditions, Brown its Down, or man I HAVE to shoot a buck, etc.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

I did not vote because I feel that the chance of this happening is about equal to DMU 452 not having bovine TB by next year.

Sure, we all want bigger older bucks running all over but it will never happen until the sportsmen of this state get educated in deer management and land stewardship practices.

Plus this state has to begin manageing the public land like private lands in regards to habitat improvement.


----------



## Ed Spin (Mar 20, 2003)

All one needs to do is look at the data from DMU 118 in Clare County for the last four years.

The buck limit is still two per year, but three on one side minimum for one tag while the second is the statewide rule of four on one side minimum. 

Compare the doe to buck harvest ratio during these four years (1:1.3 average), which is perfect for the area and buck to doe ratio goal of 1:2 to the base of 1:1.9. This tells us that the hunters accepted their responsibility in havesting does along with passing up on the button bucks which plummeted to only 11% (half of the state average).

Maybe all that is needed is a sensible mandatory buck harvest restraint rule in place and the hunters get a mindset change and become deer managers.

Look real closely at the DMU 118 data and it boggles the mind. Where else in Michigan is this happenning? How is it it possible to harvest more total deer, including more bucks than before the demonstration was put into place. Why are the hunters taking an adequate number of does? Why are the farmers complaining much less about their crop damage? Why are the hunters for the first time in their hunting career passing up bucks even late into the season and enjoying it?

I think it is called QDM.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Amen Ed!

Education, a sense of responsibility, direction, goals, all based on research and evidence....I'm all for it.

I'd still go for a 1 buck limit, but regardless, the DMU data proves that with education and responsibility comes plentiful quality.

It's time to go to the root of the problem, instead of trimming a couple of branches.


----------



## Dawg (Jan 17, 2003)

If this plan were implemented in a single DMU you would effectively only displace the hunters who aren't already following the policies you are seeking to have embraced. Either spreading or moving the 'problem'.

Implemented statewide it would drastically impact license sales and the related economy. The economic ripple effect of this "1 year experiment" would make "permanent" cost increases with huge detriment to the outdoor community. 

IMO, as with most things...the answer is in education NOT in legislation. You may not be happy with the rate at which change happens but the ends need to justify the means.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

"If this plan were implemented in a single DMU you would effectively only displace the hunters who aren't already following the policies you are seeking to have embraced."

Dawg, I'm not sure if this would necessarily be true, but could be an interesting side-benefit.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by farmlegend _
> *"If this plan were implemented in a single DMU you would effectively only displace the hunters who aren't already following the policies you are seeking to have embraced."
> 
> Dawg, I'm not sure if this would necessarily be true, but could be an interesting side-benefit.  *


Why, because it would just drive hunters from your area because they couldn't shoot any bucks? 

What about the over abundant does that you want to reduce? 

what would happen to them if there are not as many hunters around to take the peverbial bird in the hand?

FL, I don't exactly understand the motivation behind your last statement, as applied to QDM principles. Not that there is any need or reason to justify it to me.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

You are indeed correct, freepop, that there is no need to justify my remarks to you. You may note that I displayed the "grin" icon, and my comment was tongue-in-cheek.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

I understand that you may've been poking some fun there.

May I state for the record, IMO that this would be an extreme detrement to the deer heard according to QDM management concerns: A herd that is at or below the carrying capacity of the land. A severe winter proceeding an incredably low harvest, we could be back to deer herd of yester year  

I'm still on the fence about this QDM stuff. Seems the more I read and learn about it the less I know. I might have a better chance of figuring out what makes women tick


----------



## dfd189 (Jan 15, 2003)

A herd of deer below carrying capacity would be in a much better postion to make it through a severe winter, than one that is at or above it. More food, more cover, and less competition.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

To be sure, there are counties or selected townships in some counties that have too many deer. The Legend's idea of a 'test area' is a good idea....though he readily admits that manpower resources to evaluate it may be the practical hurdle in implementiation. But assuming that's not an issue I'd offer these tweaks to his idea:

A. Narrow down the area to several townships in size rather than a whole county-sized DMU. In fact you could give a seperate DMU number to, say, four contiguous townships in XX county.

B. Institute a 'buck permit' application process wherein the successful recipient would receive one of the limited permits available. Antlerless lisences are available over the counter to any and all....perhaps at a reduced price.

C. Of course, target an area with high crop or property damage incidents and which the DNR bioligist have determined is 'over-deered'...so that the idea can be spun in a manner that has some 'economic' justification.


----------



## bowhunter4life (Aug 23, 2003)

i believe we need to just issue another tag for antlerless deer only. i believe that it wouldn't hurt to take a few more does out of some areas but I don't know about doe only areas.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Here's why:

I think the idea has merit. Our DNR should run test areas to try different techniques. Theory can be the guiding light, but practical experience is needed. 

Perhaps a specially created DMU that is comprised of several contiguous townships (36 sqmi each) rather than the common county-wide DMU's of southern and western Michigan.

Also, another townships based DMU could be established for an idea of the type NorthJeff advocates...a "1-buck" only area, with antler restrictions.

To be sure, either technique will create controversey that can often turn to political solutions....but.....you gotta try. I am sympathetic to the DNR's vulnerability to that kind of pressure. Nonetheless, if there is some sort of successful precendent for either techniques in other states then the argument can be put forth that we have to experiment in order to advance knowledge.


----------



## Handlining Rules (Jan 17, 2002)

Being that i hunt from area 055 (menominee county), there is an early DMU season going on right now, it started saturday. I went out saturday with ym bow and watch from across the field some guy shoot 60 times in 15 minutes....they ended up with a lot of deer....some spikes and button bucks...this season goes all the way through bow hunting season...im affraid it's going to screw up bow and most of rifle.....i agree with the idea, just not the time that it is going on


----------



## walleyechaser (Jan 12, 2001)

Unfortunately many "hunters"? in a particular area adjacent to property I've hunted for years feel that they have ownership to any and all deer which happen to cross their property.
Its disgusting to have spikes, forkhorns and even button bucks pass by only to watch them get mowed down right after crossing the property lines. This isn't an isolated case; we watch it happen a number of times each season.
In the case of these hunters, education can't be successful because they're beyond that stage. I highly doubt that legislation would do a whole lot of good as well unless we went to a does only season for a few years and limit the harvest to one per hunter.
In some ways we can thank our DNR for this mentality since their deer kill numbers cannot be truly substantiated and the crop damage permit system is flawed beyond hope.
In a number of cases which I'm aware of crop damage permits are issued in the same number as the prior year because "All the permits were filled last year so there must still be too many".
The fact is that one particular family group uses the permits on a number of properties--not just the one for which the permits were issued.
If I were not trying to sit still in hopes of seeing a harvestable buck (7 points or better) I'd videotape this crew. To see their family drives with non-hunting women and children dressed in every imaginable color reminds me of scenes from an African push by a village of beaters.
Similarly, another property owner refers to hunting as a bunch of friends helping to cut down on the deer problems. They don't mention out loud that outsiders are charged a fee for their help.

Until the DNR does something about these kinds of abuses education will fall on many sceptical or deaf ears.

Just my 2 cents worth!


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

> _Originally posted by walleyechaser _
> *Unfortunately many "hunters"? in a particular area adjacent to property I've hunted for years feel that they have ownership to any and all deer which happen to cross their property.
> Its disgusting to have spikes, forkhorns and even button bucks pass by only to watch them get mowed down right after crossing the property lines. This isn't an isolated case; we watch it happen a number of times each season.
> *


No malice intended but I believe that these "hunters" have every right those deer as you had, once they enter their property. Just because you passed them doesn't mean that you then own them. 

I'm not trying to slam, and I know your intent was good, but I just wanted to put it straight.


----------



## KEN C (Oct 28, 2002)

hmmm the 118 Clare is good for deer? Try telling my buddys that hunt up there that. They say it is the worst it has ever been. Maybe they are in the wrong area, but he said the last 5 years has been terrible. I'll tell him 118 data supports better deer hunting, but I do not think he will buy it.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Just like all the deer are gone in Calhoun Co. 

Geesh!


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

> _Originally posted by KEN C _
> * but he said the last 5 years has been terrible. *


 This is the 5th season of antler restrictions. So if the terrible deer numbers have been going on for the last 5 years it sounds like the probem in his area started before the restrictions started.


----------



## Blackeagle (Jun 8, 2002)

Well just look at the numbers on this poll. 52.6% in favor & 47.4% aginst it.

Now with numbers like that, on a forum that's just for QDM, this has no chance in hell of ever happening. Real world stats would no doubt be more like 80-20 aginst, perhaps even worse.


Just the restrictions of the second buck tag will help some. And this sort of thing is going to have to make it on a local case by case approach. 

To much dictating to the general hunting population is going to cause a steeper drop in hunter numbers than we are already seeing. Some think that would be a good thing, until the anti hunt people get all hunting barred.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

"Would you like to see a "does only" season experiment in highest density DMU?"

Since the poll asked about an experiment in one high density DMU. Most likely one of the DMUs in the southern 1/3 of the state, since they have the highest density. I wonder why so many voted no, maybe they are afraid that it just might work.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Yes, Bob S you figured us out. We don't want herd management to be successful in Miichigan. Nothing would please us more than the complete eradication of the deer herd. 


or


Maybe, we are concerned that hunters will disperse to other DMUs, not take any does in there area and intensify the problem. Since the harvesting of bucks would be outlawed, then only outlaws would be harvesting them.


----------



## JOE_RFISHER (Mar 8, 2003)

i think maybe the greater northern kent co area should really think about a doe only season and i mean like newago kent muskegon co's bc it seems as if its almost over run with deer


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Like many other sportsman on this site, I want to be able to shoot a mature whitetail buck. I do strongly believe in QDM.

Some hunters take whatever deer comes along no matter what size or sex.

Some hunters take the first antlered buck that comes along but given a choice would take the largest of 2 given the opportunity.

Some hunters will try to take the best deer for the local situtation based primarily on what's best for the local herd.

Some hunters will take everything that comes their way based on tags.

There's lots of reasons to deer hunt but I feel if you take away the opportunity to take a buck, hunter numbers will decrease including the ones who will take a doe or whatever animal is best for herd dynamics if they can't take a mature buck. Less hunters mean less harvest and the whole thing will be self defeating.

BTW the highest density is the UP's banana belt deer herd where there is special early seasons to curb the anterless numbers.

Button bucks are the largest age class of bucks and should not be harvested under no buck guidelines including anterless only harvest rules.

Just my $0.02


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Okay if we really want to talk about "antlerless only", are we willing to include bow season as well? How many of you bowhunters are willing to shoot antlerless only?

Here's what I'm getting at....I don't currently bow hunt. I put the bow down quite a few years ago because I'm chasing waterfowl and upland birds most of October and November, and I found I just never had the time to practice/scout/hunt that I feel you need to be successful at bowhunting. But I have two friends who bowhunt my farm regularly. They self-impose a 6 pt. or better rule...not something I put on them....just their own preference. As I've said before, I'm fortunate enough to have a real good buck/doe ratio where my farm is. Since I've known these guys many years, we've had the conversation lots of times about shooting does. Although they take does in gun season quite often, they don't when bowhunting. They tell me that does are a dime a dozen in bow season, and they'd likely be done hunting quickly. They have lots of chances at bucks during bow season, and they like the challenge of outsmarting a buck. They often wait until a day or two before gun season to take a buck, waiting as long as possible for a chance at the biggest one that they know is around. 

Since this thread is about "bucks only" hunting, my question is how many of you would take this same "antlerless only" stance when bowhunting? To me, your attitude shouldn't be different from one method to the other, but I suspect it is for many.

And let's go a step further. We have kicked around the idea, and actually suggested to the DNR, that we rotate when the various deer seasons fall in Michigan...i.e. gun season coming before bow season some years.......some states out west do this.
This would give gun hunters first crack at some of those monster bucks before the bow hunters do. Afterall, if we propose some "antlerless only" hunting, then it shouldn't really matter who gets first crack at 'em, should it?


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

And mess with tradition! LOL!

Ducky, antlerless only is antlerless only, in my eyes, regardless of weapon used.

If you want a crack at those "monster" bucks before anyone else, pick up a bow this summer and start praticing.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Does only should be does only. I would like to see some rules to actually manage the deer herd. Not to give everyone a special season for their favorite weapon.


----------

