# Going back to one-buck limit wouldn't do any good-Gwizdz



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Column: Going back to one-buck limit wouldn't do any good
Sunday, February 13, 2005

State wildlife officials say they're hearing a mantra about deer hunting across the state: one buck, one buck, one buck.

It would be a major change in policy.

Michigan deer hunters have been able to take two bucks a year -- one with a bow, another with a firearm -- since 1977. Then in 1986, the Department of Natural Resources created a second-buck license that allowed hunters to take four deer -- two with a bow and two with a firearm.

In the early 1990s, the DNR set a two-buck limit, but it was totally on the honor system as hunters could still buy four tags (two archery, two firearms). It wasn't until the creation of the combination license in 1998, when second-buck licenses were eliminated, that hunters were limited to two buck tags. And, because the current combo license is mandated by legislation, a change in limits from two bucks to one would have to be on the honor system, too.

"For us to go to a one-buck rule, it would have to be voluntary compliance," said DNR deer specialist Rod Clute.

The two-buck rule is big with hunters. In 2004, 52 percent of Michigan deer hunters bought two buck tags (370,433 bought the combo license, 27,783 bought both archery and firearms tags).

The first big hurdle the DNR would face if second bucks were eliminated is a devastating loss of income. At an average of $14 apiece ($15 next year) for buck tags, the DNR figures it would cost $5.6 million to go to one buck. So they'd either have to gut the staff and eliminate 56 positions (figure $100,000 per employee for wages, benefits, vehicles, etc.) or add more than 50 percent to the cost of a deer license to remain revenue neutral. (And remember, the DNR is facing a budget shortfall in 2007 and will seek an increased fee, not a revenue-neutral one.)

What would sportsmen gain? Only 4.3 percent of deer hunters kill two bucks. The change would save only an estimated 33,500 second bucks -- provided, of course, a whole bunch of hunters' wives and mothers didn't suddenly become successful deer hunters, if you know what I mean (and I think you do). How many of those would be available to other hunters, given that most deer in Michigan inhabit private property?

But just as importantly, I suspect a one-buck limit would have another negative impact: reducing the chances of success for the remaining hunters.

How? Well, let's say on opening day I see a worthy buck and kill it. I'm done.

I can still hunt antlerless deer, of course, but why would I? I can always hunt antlerless deer during the antlerless-only season. And in all honesty, I don't want to be out there without a valid buck tag during open deer season. Sure as taxes, the buck of my lifetime would walk by on one of those days. I don't want to face that moral challenge.

So I leave the woods. I am no longer moving deer for other hunters. And just as importantly, my (private property) hunting area becomes a sanctuary where the deer can hang out and not be disturbed. Both of those would result in fewer opportunities for other hunters.

"A one-buck rule in southern Michigan will have a negative impact on our antlerless harvest," said DNR deer specialist Rod Clute. "Plus (the loss of) a tremendous amount of recreational opportunity from those who have that second-buck option but never fill it."

The long-and-short of it? It's not going to happen without considerable pain to hunters, who will either pay significantly higher fees or will receive substantially less service (in terms of fewer biologists and/or game wardens) from the DNR.

Going back to a one-buck limit just isn't going to do much good.

"I understand the argument for one buck, but there's no biology to support it," Clute said. "And I'm not sure there's enough social argument to support it."

I'm with Clute. It might sound good, but in terms of fall-out, we'd be better off not going there.

Contact Bob Gwizdz at (517) 487-8888, ext. 237, or e-mail him at [email protected].


----------



## Erik (Jan 17, 2000)

I don't buy that 4.3% for one minute! Either I know the entire 4.3% of the population that does harvest two bucks every season, or there are a whole lot of hunters out there who aren't telling anyone they shot two bucks. 
Going to a one buck per season rule wouldn't be hard to enforce. Thats a bunch a bull! There wouldn't need to be any "honer" system as MR Clute says. As it is now there is an honer system. With a one buck rule it would eliminate the "honer" system that is now in effect. Think about it. You get one license thats good for a buck. Fill it however you like, but you only get one. Whats so hard to understand about that? I see no "honer" system to have to overcome in that. It's simple, and it would work. And if there really truely is no evidence we need to reduce our buck harvest as MR clute suggests, then lets get rid of all this QDM antler restriction garbage and get on with other things! This wasting time, money, and creating ill will between hunters so we can see if 60% of those polled support it is way out of line. 
Sometimes I think our DNR only manages the money thats made from our resources, and the actual resources are left to manage themselves.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

To accept Gwizdz's reasoning, we would be just as well off to go to a three buck limit. Heck, more revenue, more does shot, more recreation. And why stop at three?

The old saw about more wives getting tags is becoming more specious by the day. Anyone born after 1960 must get a hunter safety certification. As the population ages, fewer and fewer wives will be available to buy these tags. And not many spouses are going to be willing to sit through hunter education courses simply to get a card which will enable their husbands to poach.

Hey, and his math is off - 4.3% of the buck harvest saved, for a total of 33,500 bucks? Since when did we harvest 779,000 antlered bucks in a season?

Unless we made adjustments to permit pricing, a one buck limit would certainly cost some revenue.

I'd just as soon see something like the Ray Lyons rule; allow hunters to buy one unrestricted antlered buck tag, for, say, $30, or two "restricted" (differing antler restrictions depending on zone) antlered buck tags, for the same $30. No revenue loss, and hunters could choose whether they want to be subject to antler restrictions or not. Choice! Empowerment! Ownership Society!


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

Unbelieveable!!! And this is who we have managing our deer? I just lost all respect for this man. I feel like he is selling the idea of the two bucks just to keep the combination tag dollars coming in.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

As I've said before, I personally know and really like Bob G. He is a hunters hunter, so I wouldn't jump on him too much for his thoughts. However, I still think the point of the one buck limit is being missed. It isn't that too many people are shooting 2 bucks a year. Say it is only 5%. People killing 2 bucks a year is irrelevant, other than having possibly an extra 5% of bucks around to live another year, which isn't shabby either. The problem with having 2 buck tags is that too many hunters are shooting the first buck, THEN getting more serious on a second buck. How is it that the other states with a 1 buck survive? Why do most of those states, on average, have higher buck ratios and far more mature bucks? It's because many of their hunters don't shoot the first buck to "say they got their buck" and then look for something more mature. They often PASS that first buck, instead of killing it and still look for something more mature. And as always, if they don't care what they shoot, they're always welcome to shoot the first 3" spike they see and be done with it. 
IMHO, from what I've seen in hunter attitude by hunting in other states, part of our social problem in Michigan is that we still have the mindset that killing takes priority over passing as a reflection of skill level. If the mindset is developed that, on average, the more experienced hunter passes vs kills any buck, we're all better off IMHO. Passing the basket 6pt should get a bigger toast of drinks back at camp than killing the basket 6pt. Again, my opinion.
And the revenue part shouldn't be an issue. Have the NRC recommend a $35 tag and if you are caught using anothers tag, you lose all hunting and fishing rights for 3 years and $3000 fine. That will clamp down on guys buying wives and mothers tags. 
However, I do realize that there are many factors in Lansing that will stop this from happening. And I don't think it's because of MDNR. If king, I think the MDNR whitetail people would love to make changes that are simply not possible. So, if we probably won't have a 1 buck limit, then I'd settle for the compromise of keeping the combo tag, but raising the restricted tag from 4pt's on at least one side to a total of 8pt's or better. The reasoning is that 4pt's on a side really doesn't protect that many bucks. Lots of 6pt's and nearly all 7pt's have 4pt's on one side. Making the restricted tag a total or 8pt's or better will protect a far larger segment of the buck population, while still keeping the revenue the same.


----------



## David G Duncan (Mar 26, 2000)

Very interesting debate.

Like FL, I also have a hard time buying into the 4.3% figure.

However, based on the arguments put forth in this article, I imagine we will not be seeing a change to a "one buck" limit anytime soon. Therefore, it seems that the best thing we all should be doing is to keep talking to our neighbors regarding this issue, in hopes of having some impact on the buck to doe ratio in our own neighborhood.

Quote: "How many of those would be available to other hunters, given that most deer in Michigan inhabit private property?" Are there any data to support this quote, regarding the split between "private" and "public" deer?


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

Bob may not be a bad guy at all, heck I have some good friends that I think are not too bright, but good guys.


----------



## Itch (Feb 10, 2005)

I have mixed feelings about most of Gwizdz's work but he really missed the mark and an opportunity here. To boil the debate down to money and the missed opportunity to have more hunters out pushing deer shows very clearly where our DNR and some of those speaking for the hunting public on the evolutionary curve of hunting: They're still stuck in 1965.

Look, Michigan pays FAR AND AWAY the lowest prices for deer tags in the midwest. I'd pay $30 for a buck tag and $10 per doe tag. There. You've just solved the money issue. If, like most of the guys love to see, don't eat the horns then, hey, don't pay for them. Buy the doe tags and forget the $30 buck tag altogether. Simple?

And Bob hit the nail dead square on the head. It's all about perception of opportunity. If you have two buck tags, you're less selective (not everyone of course). That's EXACTLY why the one-buck tag is so effective in states like Ohio. If you see a decent buck on Oct. 1 you think you long and hard about shooting him because if you do, you're done for the ENTIRE YEAR. Period.

Very, very disappointed in Gwidz's take and the archaic position of Rod Clute.


----------



## huntingfool43 (Mar 16, 2002)

It all boils down to $$$$$$. So increase a buck tag to 25 bucks and go back to 1 tag. As FL said, more and more wifes will no longer be able to buy a tag because of the hunter safety cert. If only 4.3% shoot 2 bucks now how many are doing it without tags or using someone else's.


----------



## marty (Jan 17, 2000)

Money talks and hunting walks..m


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

farmlegend said:


> ..........
> Hey, and his math is off - 4.3% of the buck harvest saved, for a total of 33,500 bucks? Since when did we harvest 779,000 antlered bucks in a season?...............


fl, 
Reread the paragraph that you took the 4.3% from. There is nothing wrong with their math, you are not understanding what is being stated. However, I thought that the total number of hunters buying at least 1 license was closer to 740,000.
I do disagree with representing it that fashion. Using the numbers from the article, I believe that Bob G. should've stated that about 8.4% of the hunters who buy 2 buck licenses get two bucks.
The bottom line remains the same.....eliminate the 2nd tag & layoffs must occur from a department that was already gutted by John Engler.. Many of the guys who want to take 2 bucks will get a second tag fill from somewhere. Like it or not, that's reality.
It sure is easy being a Monday morning quarterback.

L & O


----------



## Gobblerman (Dec 19, 2004)

I would have to agree that the liscense fee is too low. For example in Iowa the resident firearm liscense is $25 for one deer either sex. Non-resident is $310, I spend the money every year to purchase a non-resident liscense. I do this to spend time with family and friends. In 2003 we took 8 deer, 4 nice bucks and 4 nice does. This past year we only took 3 Bucks all nice ones. I passed up probably 30 deer as well and I did not fill my tag. This was my choice. When we first started hunting the property 10 years ago we would take maybe 1 or 2 small bucks and 6 to 8 does. Over the years we have seen many more bucks and passed them up for better ones. Still taking 4 or 5 nice does a year. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 1 buck permit does work. 

The 2 buck system can work as well, just increase the pricing a little to help the DNR with funding more dollars for habitat improvements. I was furtunate enough to take 2 nice 8 pointers this year bow hunting. I did not firearm hunt, 2003 I did not take a deer in Michigan. Passed up on several deer, that was my choice. Bottom line it's up to the hunter to manage the heard. We must manage the land we hunt to fit our needs. If you like shooting small deer, then that's your choice. If you want to improve the herd around you then be more selective. It does work.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

I think Gwizdz accurately summarized the reality on this topic - it's clear there isn't anyone in state government or the DNR who's currently looking to pioneer the cause of creating a one buck limit. Just the fact that this decision would force the DNR to double the price of one tag to make the decision revenue neutral means this isn't going to happen. 


The impact of doubling the price of the tag also does create some very legitimate questions about the impact on hunter numbers, etc.


----------



## TAZ (Dec 10, 2002)

UNBELIEVABLE!! is all I can think after reading this article. These are some points that came to mind after reading it.

1. The DNR has NO WAY to know how many people took a second buck without having mandatory check in. They don't even know the "actual" deer harvest state wide. Second buck success rate could have been 74.3%. How would they know?

2. Quote! "State wildlife officials say they're hearing a mantra about deer hunting across the state: one buck, one buck, one buck." HELLO! Guess it doesn't matter what the sportspeople of this state have to say.

3. The $ is more important to the DNR than our resources. Seems to me that is all Clute is worried about. IMHO he is just a pocket puppet. He's told by the brass what is going to be and it's his job is to break it to us with his best rhetoric and unsubstantiated numbers.

4. How can the DNR in other Midwest states afford to run their departments by only having one buck tag? Including mandatory check in, and more importantly,, a SMALLER hunter base? hmmmm.
On a positive note, there were some very good points brought up by my fellow members.
My favorite was raising the license fee to $30. ( Heck, I spend that much taking the kids to Mickey D's for lunch.) No lost revenue. No harm no foul.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

I stand corrected. I misunderstood how the 4.3% was applied.

Now, 33,500 bucks saved _is_ a significant number of bucks. Yeah, some would get killed by other hunters, but others would get saved when guys would pass on a buck, hoping for a better one later, that never shows up.


----------



## BDL (Dec 17, 2004)

This article again reminds me of the number of people who wish high grading racks was a scientific principal to deer management. The 4.3% mentioned is a low number of second bucks when you consider the big picture of deer killed. The number of car/deer crashes far outnumber this percent. Also, Bob had it right when he noted the number of does that would be passed if someone takes a buck early and is done for the year. Our current deer populations are just too heavy in too many areas for the land to support. Limiting tags would result in hunters opting out of hunting....thus lessoning the number of does being harvested.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Let's see if I get this correct............We base deer management on:
Money issues
Poachers' activities (mention of wives all of a sudden becoming deer hunters)
Why would anyone want to hunt if they could only shoot a doe?
Lack of hutners in the woods pushing deer to other hunters?

That article boggles my mind!!!

The figures given would mean about 403 bucks per county saved!!!!! That sounds significant to me.

I'm really biting my tongue on this one!

I've hunted deer since 1962, back in the days of one buck per year...period! How did we EVER manage to survive taking only ONE buck?? Why, that was cruel, insidious, depraved, manical, despicable, and an unnecessary interference with the basic right of every hunter to...............well, that's enough.


----------



## trailsend (Feb 12, 2005)

I have bought two buck tags since we we able to. Have i ever shot two?no. Now could i have shot two?yes. I buy the extra liscense so i can keep huntin. I take the entire gun season off from work and buy the liscense so i can still hunt the season if i get a deer early. The thought of one buck per person is a idea with merit.


----------



## mechanical head (Jan 18, 2000)

Like Bob (BBT) said Gwiz is a good guy, he's a friend of mine and definitely a major ally for sportsman in Michigan. He may not have the same believes as most on this forum, but I'm sure theres a great deal of people whom think he's correct. He's article is very debatable, just like darn near every post in this forum, the only deference I see is that Gwiz gets paid for his articles where as the sportsmen and women who post here more often than not, don't..
With that being said, I wouldn't mind seeing a 1 buck rule either. I personal don't need any other excuse in the world other than the fact that I have a valid hunting permit in my possession to be out in the woods, whether it be a buck tag or doe, I'm hunting..


----------



## Itch (Feb 10, 2005)

Sometimes I just have to shake my head at some of the statements made.

Liver and Onions: "It sure is easy being a Monday morning quarterback."

No, here's what's easy: Acceptance. Accepting what you're told as face value. Accepting that the way it always has been is the best way. That's the easy way.

No one is doubting that the loss of revenue would be problematic. It has been since Engler raped us all. But no one is suggesting that we accept that shortage. We're talking about admitting the fact that the current management system is flawed if not outright fatal to the future and fixing it. Raise license fees. Hire COs. Make check-in mandatory. Whatever. But DO SOMETHING. That's not Monday Morning Quarterbacking. It's called demanding change for the better. And there is a difference I think.


----------



## TAZ (Dec 10, 2002)

mechanical head said:


> I wouldn't mind seeing a 1 buck rule either. I personal don't need any other excuse in the world other than the fact that I have a valid hunting permit in my possession to be out in the woods, whether it be a buck tag or doe, I'm hunting..


My thoughts exactly. If I am lucky enough to limit out early on deer it just provides more time to hunt ducks, small game, scout, go fishing ect.

Whit1- Agreed. Remember hunters choice permits? :lol:


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Wow! Sure don't buy into the articles ideology. Kind of like being told our deer management system sucks, we don't know how to fix it, so hey lets do nothing.


----------



## Itch (Feb 10, 2005)

That's what I'm saying Ray.

No one truly knows the perfect solution. But just keeping the way things are isn't going to help much.


----------



## Bwana (Sep 28, 2004)

Ranger Ray said:


> Kind of like being told our deer management system sucks, we don't know how to fix it, so hey lets do nothing.


I really can't find anything constructive to say about DNR Management or the author (no matter how good of a guy). So I will just leave it with Rays comment. Because hey, whats an additional 33,500 bucks per year making it through thair first season.


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

The current system is the purest form of democracy. If the hunters who believe taking 2 bucks are in the best interest of the herd, they are welcome to do so. Those who prefer to take only one or none, again are welcome to do so. While democracy may not be the best way to manage a deer herd, then it may be the second best choice to nothing to (1) provide revenue to run the DNR (2) help to keep the hunting bloc united (3) gives hunters some flexibility to manage the deer herds in their area in combination with doe permits. The second buck tag is a big money raiser with a small impact on the deer herd (based on unscientific polling methods I admit). 

In the end, it does take money to run the place. We as hunters have to help pay our share. It is a small price for the enjoyment it returns to us.

Swamper-


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Democracy? This is a military operation.  :lol:


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Wanna raise more money?? Raise the license fees(double it plus), keep the two bucks license option. Gives the sportsman of Michigan the opportunity to buy one buck license at $30(bow/gun) or two buck option at $60. Everybody is happy. You'll get a certain % that will not pay $60, the guys that only hunt 5 days a year but the option will be there for the more serious sportsman that puts in 30 days plus and still has the opportunity to hunt if he gets his buck the 1st day.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

I think the author raised some valid points and that too many people on these forums seem to wear blinders. I am one for example that will look at both sides of a discussion, and listen to reason. I am not dead set against QDM, but I think that certain areas in Michigan are better off managed for high yeild, than for age structure and ratio of bucks. If you could poll the vast majority of hunters in this state I think you would find more meat hunters than you do trophy buck hunters. If you want to sell QDM to these hunters you have to show them that you do not plan on reducing their chance of harvest, OR jeopardizing the future of the deer herd. 
I agree that a state-wide one buck limit would not be a good law. And I agree with this for a number of reasons as stated in the article. I think a good compromise would be doing away with the combo license and allowing one buck in each season. <----<<<


----------



## plugger (Aug 8, 2001)

People on this forum dont seem to realize that most hunters are much more casual than they are. Many many people throughout the north buy a liscense and never hunt or hunt 1 day if you raise the price of liscenes significantly it could snowball. The more you raise prices the less you sell creating a need to raise prices more.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

Just something to think about...

The average guy around me here on public land is from "out of the area". They come up here and stay in a cabin, motel, camp, etc., and hunt for the first few days of the season. Almost all hunt with some amount of bait and some have the luxuary of putting some bait out a week or two ahead of time. Most sit in the woods and are lucky to see a buck or even a deer, and if they happen to get a chance at a young buck, or old, they shoot and their hunting is done. Some stay and have a good time, some go home, but that's basically what happens. 

Why would those guys really even care if there was 1 tag, or 2? What would 1 tag do over 2?

I'm actually all for just 1 tag, because I think it will make a slight differance, but I'd rather have an AR on the first buck, and a stricter AR on the 2nd....that will definatly save many more yearling bucks. Especially on public land, I just don't think it will make a differance because of the short amount of time spent by the average hunter anyways.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

I think that most people on this thread missed the fact that the combo tag was mandated by legislation. That means that the DNR can't just change the combo tag rules to a one-buck-tag; To change it, a bill must be introduced in the legislature, passed through the house and senate and then signed by the gov to become law. The DNR could recomend that hunters limit themselves to one buck, which is where the "honor system," that Gwidz spoke of comes in. Simply, if you want a one buck limit, don't complain to the DNR, organize and than write and call your representitivs in Lansing; a long shot for sure. The DNR is free to put antler restrictions on both buck tags under the combo license though, which would save far more bucks than going to one buck-tag per hunter.


----------



## Hipskindt (Jul 18, 2003)

It is good to see so many different opinions. I am glad we are all able to think criticle about this. I think you all have valid points. I agree with Bob that we can't gut the DNRs licence sales but I am sure we can all meet in the middle on this. I only make it home to hunt every few years and I have only killed more then two bucks a season a few times. I think the key to sucess here is to raise the price on the 2nd tag to the point where people will think before they pull the trigger. I think 75$ for the 2nd tag would be acceptable. In the last few years I have let a lot of small bucks walk and I have taken more Does. I think voluntary restrant will work if the people involved have ethics but it is very hard to legislate morality.
0.2 cents from my foxhole.

Tom


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Hipskindt said:


> I think the key to sucess here is to raise the price on the 2nd tag to the point where people will think before they pull the trigger. I think 75$ for the 2nd tag would be acceptable.


I kind-of agree with you, however raising the price of the unrestricted tag would be the more sound way to go from a deer managment standpoint. That would make people think real hard about shooting small bucks and would take some of the preasure off that overharvested segment of the herd.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2005)

We just went through the answer to this debate. This is inDMU 118 Clare County, where for five years there was an antler restriction demonstration of three points on one side minimum. The bio harvest data collecttecd by the DNR showed an increase of 24% in the harvest of adult bucks, while the antlerless harvesy increased 84%. These numbers stayed steady throughout the five years. The fifth and last year showed exactly these numbers and more. The more is that there were as many 3-1/2 year old bucks and older taken as there were in the 2-1/2 year oild class. The yearling harvest dropped from 78% of the total buck harvest to 46% of the total buck harvest. 

So. you can easily see that the answer is protecting a sufficient number of yearling bucks and you need not be concerned about taking one, two or even three bucks as FL indicated. 


All that is needed is protection of a sufficient number of yearling bucks and it takes care of itself no matter how many buck tags can be purchased.

In fact, I have suggested to the NRC that an incentive of purchasing prior to the bow opening day, four buck tags for the price of three. Bio harvest data shows that this will do no biological harm but increase much revenue providing there is a sufficient protection of yearling bucks. 

The odd twist to this is that it is reasonable to expect at least the same number of total deer harvested and perhaps as DMU 118 showed many more bucks and does than previous. It is called sound and scientific deer management and it works.


----------



## vandermi (Jun 6, 2003)

I will pay $30 for one buck tag!

But that is me. 
Don't get to angry!

They loose no $.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

I see a bill introduced to limit the hunting to one tag as a step backwards and a step side by side with the anti's. Call me crazy if you like but when you change something it is hard to ever go back. I think it better to educate people and try to get them to pass on em or limit their harvest. Regardless of the laws, if you beleive in one buck, you will limit yourself to one buck most likely right? I don't know when all of this happened anyway, I remember when it was 2 bucks with bow and 2 bucks with gun and people were seeing deer and seeing and taking large bucks so why all of the sudden do we need to go all the way to government to mandate one buck only?

AW


----------



## bioman (Jan 25, 2005)

I agree with AW on this one. Why limit hunter opportunity? The 8pt second tag does enough to protect bucks. And like AW said, we could have taken four spikes back in the late 80s. Now we can only take one and most hunters are more selective than they were back then. That is a reductuion of 75% in small bucks huinters can harvest. I see the two tag system doing no harm to the deer herd.


----------



## vandermi (Jun 6, 2003)

bioman said:


> I agree with AW on this one. Why limit hunter opportunity? The 8pt second tag does enough to protect bucks. And like AW said, we could have taken four spikes back in the late 80s. Now we can only take one and most hunters are more selective than they were back then. That is a reductuion of 75% in small bucks huinters can harvest. I see the two tag system doing no harm to the deer herd.


I remember the 80's or atleast thought I did. But I do not remember being able to kill 4 bucks. Of course beer, girls and etc was pretty important to me then.  

It may have been my mutton hair style and the fumes from the Camaro!


----------



## bioman (Jan 25, 2005)

I believe it was four years when you could purchase two archery and two firearm tags that could all be used for bucks with at least three inch antlers. Don't quote me on that but I think it was four years. During that time Fred Abbas was the only Michigan hunter to ever enter four record book bucks in one year. A feat that will never happen again.

The dropping of two buck tags and the addition of a trophy second tags took great steps to protect yearling bucks. I see no reason to limit the countless outdoor opportunity hours to save so few bucks. Keep it at two tags. In the past ten years I've only chosen to fill two buck tags once. But I always bought two tags and spent an extreme amount of time in the woods. I believe that is what most hunters do.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

bioman said:


> During that time Fred Abbas was the only Michigan hunter to ever enter four record book bucks in one year. A feat that will never happen again.


Actually, if a person was really motivated, he or she could legally take four bucks in one year in MI. There is an island hunt on N. Manitou where you could take a buck that doesn't count against your 2 buck, mainland limit. You could shoot a buck on Jan. 1. and then take two more bucks later that year, then go to N. Manitou. You could also shoot a buck that is diseased or otherwise unfit for human consumption, take it to the DNR, and they will issue you another tag allowing you another buck. Also, if you are licensed by an Indian tribe, you could take more than four bucks, although the legality of that is still being decided by the courts. I'm part Indian so Fred's record may not be safe. :lol:


----------

