# Antlerless Deer Hunting



## romayer (Nov 13, 2002)

Boehr,

The antlerless deer hunting guide states "to purchase a private land antlerless deer license *for any DMU*, the telephone number of the private landowner is required."

How could I have that number if I am planning on hunting HAP land? That is still private land, just open to public hunting, right?  

Also, how many of these private land permits could I purchase for Oakland Co., let's say (brown on the map)?

Thanks.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

I'm a little out of the loop these days but these are what I believe the answers are;

Locate the HAP Land you are planning to hunt and get that farmers (land owner's) number. Yes HAP land is private land.

As to the number of permits, a total of 3 per person in Oakland County. Only 1 permit in Zone 1 and some of Zone 2.


----------



## magnumhntr (Aug 18, 2003)

So is the antlerless permit good for only the land to which the phone number coinsides with? I mean I hunt 3 different parcels owned by 3 different people all within 5 miles of each other? Do I need to buy an antlerless permit for each parcel? And if the answer is no to these questions, then what's the reason behind requiring the phone number in the first place?


----------



## jcurtis (Oct 11, 2004)

magnumhntr said:


> So is the antlerless permit good for only the land to which the phone number coinsides with? I mean I hunt 3 different parcels owned by 3 different people all within 5 miles of each other? Do I need to buy an antlerless permit for each parcel? And if the answer is no to these questions, then what's the reason behind requiring the phone number in the first place?



the permit can be used for any private land within the DMU it was purchased for.

The prupose of the rule is to prevent people who have less then 40 acres from going out and buying tons of antlerless tags when their property isnt large enough to harvest that many deer from. All they have to do is get permission from a local farmer or neighbor with 40+ acres and they can get their tags though.

It should be a good rule and help to rebuild the herd in some of those areas that need it.


----------



## romayer (Nov 13, 2002)

magnumhntr said:


> So is the antlerless permit good for only the land to which the phone number coinsides with? I mean I hunt 3 different parcels owned by 3 different people all within 5 miles of each other? Do I need to buy an antlerless permit for each parcel? And if the answer is no to these questions, then what's the reason behind requiring the phone number in the first place?


 

I am in the exact same situation...


----------



## ctetaylor (Sep 16, 2004)

I think this is absurd. I own 34 acres in cheboygan county. The way I see it the 40 acre min law just lowered the value of my land!


----------



## Due51 (Oct 26, 2005)

The HAP landowners names, address, and phone numbers are listed on the michigan.gov/dnr website under hunting/"where can I hunt" link


----------



## romayer (Nov 13, 2002)

Thanks, Due! I knew about the name and address, didn't remember about the number being listed.

This rule still makes 0 sense. I read the FAQ's on the DNR site and it says that the phone number will be printed on the license, but you can hunt on any qualifying land (acreage, DMU etc.)  

Then, what's the point?!


----------



## romayer (Nov 13, 2002)

Due51 said:


> The HAP landowners names, address, and phone numbers are listed on the michigan.gov/dnr website under hunting/"where can I hunt" link


I take that back, there is NO phone number on the DNR website - just name and address. Also, the address is for the owner's residence, which doesn't always coincide with the property address...


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

romayer said:


> Thanks, Due! I knew about the name and address, didn't remember about the number being listed.
> 
> This rule still makes 0 sense. I read the FAQ's on the DNR site and it says that the phone number will be printed on the license, but you can hunt on any qualifying land (acreage, DMU etc.)
> 
> Then, what's the point?!


The point is to ensure that you have permission/owner of private property to hunt to begin with in order to get a anterless permit.


----------



## romayer (Nov 13, 2002)

boehr said:


> The point is to ensure that you have permission/owner of private property to hunt to begin with in order to get a anterless permit.


Once again, how come the HAP program got overlooked? If the DNR wanted some type of permission confirmation, maybe the name of the owner would have been better than the phone number, to accomodate the HAP land users... It would have eliminated the detective work needed to get a phone number for these owners.


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

It was done differently, with property tax number before, that wasn't liked, then it was done basically on the honor system, that wasn't liked, now done with a phone number, that isn't liked....not always going to make everyone happy, that is the bottom line.


----------



## romayer (Nov 13, 2002)

You're right, not everybody will be happy, no matter what. IMHO, the name of the owner would have been a better choice. 

It just bothers me that the DNR wouldn't consider all circumstances, including HAP. It's not a matter of making people happy, it's being practical about their own programs that help people without private land ownership. But who knows, maybe they are ahead of me and the new HAP brochure for 2006-2007 will also include the phone numbers of the owners participating :idea:


----------



## john warren (Jan 25, 2005)

no matter what number they choose, 40 30, 50, the people with just a few less acres would feel cheated. its a bummer but you just have to play the hand your dealt.


ctetaylor said:


> I think this is absurd. I own 34 acres in cheboygan county. The way I see it the 40 acre min law just lowered the value of my land!


----------



## ctetaylor (Sep 16, 2004)

I am not that upset just because I was just a few acres short. The Acreage should never have been a consideration. I believe the point was to decrease the amount of Doe that could be taken off a smaller section of land. My problem is if anyone can just go get a phone number from a local farmer to put on there tag nothing was really acomplished. I think we should have just lowered the amount of tags issued and been done with it. Everyone should have an equal chance of getting a tag if they want one.


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

They did cut the antlerless permits this year.


----------



## eddiejohn4 (Dec 23, 2005)

I have to say that we have been blessed so far ,for years we have enjoyed liberal amounts of doe tags, so Ill suck this up and hunt harder.


----------

