# Michigan needs to take a look



## MI Duck Hunter (Aug 28, 2001)

I moved to Northern Indiana over the summer and started scouting the state land as soon as the unpacking was done. I read all the Indiana Deer Regs to get all caught up and was disapointed to see... Indiana has a one (1) buck limit. Since the season started I am no longer disapointed. WOW, what huge bucks I have seen. Most hunters take a doe early and wait on the bug bucks to fill their tag. I have seen at least 10, 140 class 10points come out of this area and a boat load of 120 class 8pointers. People here are telling me that these aren't even the big ones. One guy I was talking to the other day had a 140 class 10point in the back of his truck. He told me that this was the smallest buck he has shot in about 8 years and showed me pics of the others. WOW. There is also a maditory deer check in here which I totally agree with for accurate deer kill numbers (or at least very close).

MIDH


----------



## One Eye (Sep 10, 2000)

Good stuff. Too bad that is a pipe dream in Michigan.

I have friends that live and hunt in Indiana, and their experiences parallel your reports. All that deer hunting & dove hunting too. What a deal, eh?

Dan


----------



## jstfish48162 (Mar 8, 2003)

do you have a web-site to access Indiana's regulations for non-residents? 

thanks for the report


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

It isn't all roses in Indiana. I've hunted there a few times and will be again this year. The deer season opens on the same date as Michigan's and lasts for two weeks, so they hammer the bucks very hard. If you compare Indiana to neighboring Illinios and Ohio, the trophy buck take in IN is way lower. As the the one buck rule there: Most avid deer hunters in that state have lifetime licenses. With lifetime licenses, you don't even need a tag. You just write down some info on a peice of paper and attach it to the deer. What most of the guys I talked to do when they kill a deer is to tag the deer with a note and then head for home, process the buck in their garage, and then keep hunting for more bucks. I'd guess that the higher percentage of hunters in IN kill more than one buck per season than do hunters in MI with the current como-license with the 4-point restriction on the second buck.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

Trophy Specialist said:


> What most of the guys I talked to do when they kill a deer is to tag the deer with a note and then head for home, process the buck in their garage, and then keep hunting for more bucks. I'd guess that the higher percentage of hunters in IN kill more than one buck per season than do hunters in MI with the current como-license with the 4-point restriction on the second buck.


I highly doubt that MOST hunters in Indiana are game violators and poachers, as you suggest is the case.

My taxidermist is in Union MI, which is just a few miles north of the Indiana border. He's seen an explosion in the number of large bucks coming through his shop since Indiana's adoption of the 1 buck rule. My son killed his first buck last year in Indiana. It was a 115 inch 10 point, and it was one of the smallest racks in my taxidermist's studio, out of over 50. Almost all of those racks were from Indiana. 

There isn't any credible source that would deny the impact the one buck limit has had on the number of large bucks killed in Indiana.


----------



## bigmike (Oct 21, 2004)

I wish our regs. was like that. 1 buck, must check in, take a doe first


----------



## Pigpen69 (Feb 20, 2001)

bigmike said:


> I wish our regs. was like that. 1 buck, must check in, take a doe first


I would vote for that, provided their was more doe permits for the areas that needed thinning.


----------



## bearguy (Oct 7, 2005)

Just a couple of questions.

How many hunters do you think actually harvest two legal bucks?
What would you hope to accomplish with a mandatory registration?


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

bearguy said:


> Just a couple of questions.
> How many hunters do you think actually harvest two legal bucks?


It's a fairly low percentage that kill a second buck - the DNR does publish the percentage in their reports. But, in terms of the influence that a one buck limit has on the number of bucks that survive the season, it goes much deeper than the question you're asking. With one tag the eagerness of shooting the first available buck and then waiting for a big one is eliminated. Hunters often end up passing on the the first one or two available bucks, which in some cases ends up with them not getting another opportunity and not taking any buck. Whether or not this is a good thing is a matter of perspective.

I have mixed emotions on the one buck limit. I'd really like to see more mature deer in the MI herd, but at the same time this may not be the only way to accomplish that. WI is similar to MI in many ways, and they permit two bucks to be killed, but it's structured so that it's only one per season (i.e. one archery & one firearms/muzzleloader). This may be a good alternative to what we have now.

Interestingly enough, in WI they even permit party hunting where buck tags can be shared within a hunting party during firearms season, and yet WI is a much more consistent producer of big bucks than MI is. Of course, their firearms season is 7 days shorter than ours and it opens anywhere from several days to almost a week later than MI. Their season timing is also a major factor leading to higher buck survival.


----------



## MI Duck Hunter (Aug 28, 2001)

Even if some hunters take more than one buck a year, the bucks here by far are consistantly bigger than what I saw in Michigan. Granted, there are people that break the law, but is it worth the cost of getting busted? Here poachers are turned in on a reguar basis, but these people are ruining the future of the sport.

http://www.in.gov/dnr/

MIDH


----------



## bearguy (Oct 7, 2005)

We certainly have a very long overall deer season. I hunt archery and firearm season. It would not hurt my feelings to see things shortened up a little. 
Start archery season Nov.1, close on the 10th. Leave firearm/muzzle loader season alone and shorten the late archery season. I know this will someones blood pressure but, it just my oppinion.


----------



## 2-BIG (Oct 17, 2002)

A one buck limit would be great for a while till we get the herd balanced out a little better, :rant:


----------



## bearguy (Oct 7, 2005)

I wouldn't be opposed to a one buck limit. I always shoot a doe or three so I certainlydon't need two bucks.


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

Michigan has alot of factors to figure in. Going to one buck is a step in the right direction. Sure the second buck kill is small but its still a carry over to next year.

I know this might stir things up but we kill a lot of deer during archery season. I love my archery hunting and enjoy it more then rifle now. All considered we have many more acrhery hunters then other states and we take a great deal of bucks before gun season even starts. Myself and others get so many chances to tag a buck before archery season I kind of feel sorry for those who don't archery hunt. Opening day of gun season will never be the same as long as we are so efficent during archery season. I know quite a few who have taken two bucks with bows all ready. I have taken a 7 point and will most likely have a few more chances to be done by rifle season. I am going to be very picky.

I hunt ILL, KS, SK and MT and MI does not even come close to those states large antlered bucks. I once read a post where somewhere was concerned about hunters losing quality time in the woods if they were not allowed to harvest any buck. I say thats a bunch of bull. For me spending time in the woods and seeing trophy bucks once in a while is well worth the price of admission. We have the potential here, just don't want to go that direction.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

bearguy said:


> We certainly have a very long overall deer season. I hunt archery and firearm season. It would not hurt my feelings to see things shortened up a little.
> Start archery season Nov.1, close on the 10th. Leave firearm/muzzle loader season alone and shorten the late archery season. I know this will someones blood pressure but, it just my oppinion.


The key in the "big buck states" (Illinois, Iowa, Ohio, etc.) seems to the length and timing of the firearms season. The length of archery season doesn't appear to be nearly as much of an issue, compared to firearms. For example, Illinois & Ohio both have archery seasons that run almost a month longer than MI. But their firearms seasons are brief - Ohio is seven days beginning the week after Thanksgiving, and Illinois is 3 days in November and 3 in early December. I don't picture the length of our firearms season changing at any point in the foreseeable future, which brings us back to the thought of the one buck limit OR restructuring what's required in order to have an opportunity at a second buck.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

kingfisher 11 said:


> I hunt ILL, KS, SK and MT and MI does not even come close to those states large antlered bucks.


As an experienced out of state hunter, do you think that if we got the recipe right that MI could compare to some of the other big buck states? Might be difficult to compare to Kansas or Sasketchewan, but could we at least be as good as Indiana, Ohio, etc? 

I've always assumed it's very possible, but I'm interested in your take.


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

absolutely...

I have seen 170 class bucks in Saginaw county. I know all of southern MI has the potential. The UP has also shown they can grow big bucks. SK has tough winters, big bucks still survive up there. Problem is we shoot too many bucks and too many guys are not willing to eat a tag and go deerless. I am always willing to come home from any of those states empty handed. Many hunters feel they have to kill any buck to be a good hunter.


----------



## bowhunter1313 (Oct 17, 2005)

There are alot of theories about this and there is certainly no easy answer. A combination of the ideas would probably work. I think MI made a move in the right direction with going to combo tags with the 2nd tag to be 4 or better on one side. I would like to see something where a combo would still exist but both tags would be good for bucks with 4 or better on one side. - EXCEPT - For youth Hunters, AND have a special drawing for an ANY BUCK tag that would have to be used with your combo license. The special draw tag could be regulated by DMU's. Your any buck tag would have to be used in that DMU and count as 1 of your 2 bucks.

I also think MI MUST make deer check a mandatory even before enough data could be collected for the expets to come up with a good plan. How nice would it be to know with accuracy how many deer and how big are taken in each county!! Then you could make a regionalized plan to work. Just my 2 cents


----------



## mal (Feb 18, 2002)

too much money generated in licenses and hunting related commerce (which creates sales tax revenue)...mark my words you will never see Michigan take a step backwards in restricting deer bag limits...the State and our economy needs the dough too badly.

i would be in favor of a one buck, one doe limit for all methods/seasons combined, and i believe mandatory check-in is a far bigger poaching deterrent than people give it credit for. i hunt in southern ohio, where they have mandatory check-in, and a three deer (one buck) limit. 

the locals speak of very little poaching...the penalties are far too steep. what poaching they do mention is usually some poor hilljack shooting a doe for food.

last year three people shot three bucks out of the same stand within 18 hours in our southern ohio gun camp. two nice ones and a smaller one. i've been going down there for about five years now and the quality of the bucks down there is impressive.

i'd like for Michigan to disregard the economic effects of reducing buck limits and maybe even consider, especially in Zone 3. 

my proposal is to make the deer seasons antlerless-only every third year with a two deer limit in those years. this goes for bow, firearms, and muzzleloader. in the two out of three years where killing bucks is allowed, make the seasons' limit one buck, no antler restriction, and one doe.


----------



## TheApprentice (Oct 17, 2005)

I don't think that many of you are hunting the right spots if you are saying that there are not some giant bucks in Michigan. My uncle has shot some of the biggest bucks that I have seen. He does not want the publicity or people trespassing on his property, so he does not have them in the books. It is all about QDM a subject that comes up many times every season. Sure it takes owning a lot of land to be truly successful in doing so which my uncle has. I am not one to judge anyone on the size of the deer they harvest, but it really burns my arse to hear someone bringing up the fact that bucks are a lot smaller here than lots of other places, but the previous day they shot a basket rack or a spike. I truly don't see many things changing for MI deer hunting unless you own a large parcel of land and are practicing QDM or the laws change, so buck up and accept it for what it is. I am sure people are going to come down on me for this post, but I am actually wondering how many of you will agree with my opinion on this issue. 

Let me just make myself clear so everyone knows that I am not coming down on anyone here, but rather voicing my opinion on a subject just like the rest of you. I agree with a lot of people that MI should change the limit to the 1 buck limit that IN has. I know many people that shoot more than one buck every season, and that does not even count the ones that they shoot and never find. The 1 buck rule could eliminate the number of wounded bucks that die each year as well. Ex. (if someone shoots one buck, then unless they blatently break the law they will not even take a shot on another buck.) This would no doubt lead to bigger bucks in the Southwestern MI herd. I only speak of this part of the state, as I don't know or pretend to know how other areas of the state fair in buck numbers and sizes.
Good luck hunting to all!


----------



## MI Duck Hunter (Aug 28, 2001)

My personal feeling is that every buck should be tagged as a buck, whether it is a button or a 50point. Indiana has the 3 inch rule on antler size and far too many buttons are taken as a doe. Also, I think Indiana and Michigan would do just fine having a single buck tag that can be used in any of the seasons to simplify hunting. Indiana also has a program that is based county by county offering extra doe tags depending on the deer population. I am in Starke County and I am allowed to purchase 2 extra doe tags if I hunt this county and as many as 4 tags if I hunt Parke County. All resident licenses whether buck or doe are $24 each, and I think it is well worth the price.

MIDH


----------



## Jx38 (Oct 17, 2004)

that is all the Majority of Mi. hunters will do is TAKE A LOOK. no one is willing to pass up bucks. only a select few. Mi. has 1.7 million deer spread throughout 18.25 million acres of forested land. you would think that the dnr and/or the Mi. whitetail hunter could figure it out. but as a whole, for some reason it seems to be brain surgery. i am very frustrated w/ the common joe who is just out to fill a buck tag w/ a spike etc. 

i am all for the one buck----but getting the rest on board will not happen until the dnr set the law.


----------



## MI Duck Hunter (Aug 28, 2001)

Ah, so this is where my thread went. I agree with QDM, the only problem is that it is up to the hunter whether he participates in it or not. Quite a few hunters that I know go to deer camp and shoot a buck as soon as they can to have it done and party the rest of the time. That isn't my idea of fun, but I don't have a restrictive wife at home like they do.

MIDH


----------



## MI Duck Hunter (Aug 28, 2001)

Maybe as hunters, we need to take matters into our own hands and write up a survey, post it in sporting goods stores prior to the next season and by the end of the season see where we stand with other hunters. If most want the rules to change, forward it to the DNR.

MIDH


----------



## Jx38 (Oct 17, 2004)

i can hardly sit around my deer camp as the younger bucks are being strung up as a show case. i love my beer camp, and most are into the beer rather than the deer, dont get me wrong, cold beers are good, but not as good as a big rack .


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

Check me if I am wrong...but didn't MI have a one buck limit until the late 70's or early 80's. Any reputable data comparing antlers from pre and post limits?

Hunted in IN for a few years while living there. Seems to be a trend continuing down from Calhoun and VAn Buren counties in MI of genetics, soil, food supply, and normally mild winters as contributors too.

Swamper


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Before you start thinking that Indiana is superior to Michigan, consider these data:

Total Pope and Young and Boone and Crockett Entries

Indiana 587
Michigan 636
Ohio 1077 
Illinios 2641
Wisconsin 3398

As you can see Indaina actaully ranks lower than Michigan. The main point you should be gleaning from these data though is that the timming and duration of the firearm deer season is the main reason why you see Indiana and Michgian lagging behind our neighboring states so much in total trophy deer in the books. In my opinion, going to a one buck per sonson limit would not significantly affect the number of trophy deer taken in Michigan. Hunters that lobby for such a change would be better serve their goals if they would push for other deer managment changes that would actaully make a difference.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Though Indiana has similar number of total record buck entries as Michigan, keep in mind, they have a deer herd which is only about one-third the size of ours. And *way* fewer hunters than we have. Your chances of tagging a mature buck are much better in the Hoosier state than they are here.

There are pocket areas in Indiana that are superb, and beyond anything we see in this state.

Indiana is held back by the timing of their general firearms season. It begins way too early, beginning during the peak breeding period, and runs too long. In fact, it is 16 days long, running from November 15 through November 30. Can you imagine any other state scheduling its firearms season in such a stupid manner? :tdo12:


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Before you start thinking that Indiana is superior to Michigan, consider these data:
> 
> Total Pope and Young and Boone and Crockett Entries
> 
> ...


These historical numbers are irrelevant and misleading as a comparison. 

Firstly, Indiana just moved to a one buck limit within recent years. 

Secondly, the number of bucks harvested in Indiana is only currently 1/5 the number harvested in MI. In 2004, the Indiana buck harvest was 54,768, while the MI harvest was in the neighborhood (I don't remember the exact number) of 250,000. Only 50% of their 2004 antlered deer were 1.5 year olds.

The historical differences are even more distinct. According to the Indiana F&W there have been a TOTAL of 2.1 million deer killed in Indiana in the past 53 years. We kill that many deer in MI in just 4-5 years. Look on the Indiana F&W website under 2004 harvest report for this information. 

Reality is, Indiana has almost as many historical book entries as MI, while killing a tiny fraction of the amount of deer. In the here and now, hunters in Indiana now kill many more book bucks on an annual basis than those in MI. This is despite the fact that the number of hunters in IN is a fraction of the MI number. The average hunter in Indiana is MANY multiple times more likely to take a book buck than the average MI hunter. Indiana also has over 20,000,000 less square miles of land than MI, and significant portions of central and northern IN are also very open farmland that provide very little habitat and cover.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

jk hillsdale said:


> Indiana also has over 20,000,000 less square miles of land than MI, and significant portions of central and northern IN are also very open farmland that provide very little habitat and cover.


One could also agrue that Michigan also has a significant portion of poor deer habitat. We also have more public lands than any state east of the Mississippi and deer hunting on the vast majority of those lands leaves something to be disired. From my experieces hunting in Indiana though, QDM seems to be catching on there faster than it is in Michigan, probably due to the predominance of private lands. From what I've seen, leasing of hunting land is also much more popular down there, which typically fosters more QDM practices resulting in more adult bucks in the deer populaton. I won't argue with the fact that because Michigan has more deer hunters, your odds of getting a trophy buck here are worse than in Indiana. However to chaulk it up to Indiana's one buck rule is not the reason. 

I'm hearing more and more of a clammor amung Michigan's deer hunters to go to one buck per season. It always leaves me scratching my head though because Michigan's deer hunting rules do not force anybody to buy the combo license. If you feel that one buck is all you need, then just buy one tag. I wonder how many people out there that want Michigan to go to one buck per season still go out and buy a combo license?


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

I clamour about going to a one buck per season rule all the time, and I always buy a combo license. Why? Because I always use one for a doe during archery season or late archery season and they're good for public land.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

It is interesting to see how the distribution of trophy buck entries into B&C has changed over the years. Here's an illustration and please note the relativly even distribution of Indian's recent entries in comparison to Michigan's vast dead zones. Compar the trophy production of southern Michgian to Indiana.


----------



## MI Duck Hunter (Aug 28, 2001)

From what I have been hearing here in Indiana since I moved here is that since hunters can only take one buck, they would sooner shoot a doe and wait in hope to see a monster buck or not take a buck at all. This leads to me to believe that hunters are using QDM without really promoting QDM. They won't just shoot the first buck they see. I also don't think that hunters here try as hard to enter their bucks with Pope & Young or Boon & Crocket as they do in Michigan. Of all the big bucks I have seen taken so far this year not one hunter said they were going to enter their bucks into the books when I asked. One hunter took a clearly 160+ class buck and he told me that he has taken bigger and has yet to enter one.

MIDH


----------



## jml2 (Dec 10, 2004)

I grew up hunting in IN and recently moved to Michigan a couple of years ago. I now hunt both states every year. I hunt in northern, central, and southern Indiana. 

When I first moved here, I was amazed at how many people deer hunt. As a few people have noted, IN has a much lower deer harvest each year than MI does. I am pretty sure that MI kills more deer during archery than IN does all year (IN is usually around 100,000 total). 

More people shooting more deer = less big bucks. Just makes sense that if you kill more deer, and everyone wants to shoot a buck that there will be less big ones around. 

As far as QDM goes in IN, it seems to be a bigger deal here in MI. I know many people that hunt in IN and my brother is a conservation officer in indiana and they/he say they here very little about it--I am not bashing QDM, just giving my opinion. If you look in the quality whitetails magazine (qdm's publication) and the activities going on in the different state's chapters, MI has far more going on when it comes to QDM.

Good topic.


----------



## jk hillsdale (Dec 7, 2002)

Indiana moved to a one buck per season (archery, firearms, and muzzleloader combined) limit in 2002. Previous to 2002 it was a limit of one antlered buck in archery season, and one during firearms/muzzleloader season.

Here's their past six years of results:

1999 - 46,371 antlered bucks harvested
63.5% 1.5 year old bucks

2000 - 44,621 antlered bucks harvested
61.8% 1.5 year old bucks

2001 - 48,357 antlered bucks harvested
55.5% 1.5 year old bucks

2002 - 47,177 antlered bucks harvested
53% 1.5 year old bucks

2003 - 49,533 antlered bucks harvested
54% 1.5 year old bucks

2004 - 54,768 antlered bucks harvested
50% 1.5 year old bucks

In six seasons the number of total bucks being killed has increased by less than 20%. 

During that time they've moved from killing approximately 17,000 bucks that are OLDER than 1.5 years, to killing over 27,000 bucks that are older than 1.5 years. This is approximately a 60% increase. 

There was an 8 point decrease in the percentage of 1.5 year old bucks taken from '99 to '01, and a 5.5 point decrease from '01 to '04. On a percentage basis, these are two major jumps. The data seems to reflect that something was changing significantly before the one buck limit came into play, and that the one buck limit could be a major factor in the additional improvements that have occurred since the rule change.

To sum it all up, Indiana is currently a very good place to hunt if you're after a big buck  .


----------



## kaler9969 (Feb 25, 2005)

Michigan certainly has a lot of deer, but there is something definetly not right. I hunted in the hill country of Texas for a few years before moving to Michigan. In both states I would consider my hunting opportunities exceptional. I think deer densities are actually higher here in Michigan. The biggest difference is in the attitude regarding bucks. I passed on a beautiful 8 point opening day 1995. I had already shot a buck and I had seen maybe four others. I was sure there would be other opportunities. Talking with one of the neighbors later, he called me a fool. Told me never to pass on anything with antlers because I would never see it again. I would seem that most of the hunters in my area feel the same way, because the bucks, mostly young bucks, get slaughtered every year in the first couple days. Hunting Texas was a whole world different. Somedays all I saw was bucks, somedays only does. But never did I feel like I might have seen my last buck of the season if I did not shoot the first thing with antlers I saw.


Next week will mark seven years since I have harvested a Michigan buck. Every year has provided multiple opportunities, but if just one of the deer I have passed on made it another year, I can be certain he will be bigger now. Maybe my eight point will be back this year ...


----------



## pacer88220 (Dec 4, 2004)

kaler9969 said:


> Michigan certainly has a lot of deer, but there is something definetly not right. I hunted in the hill country of Texas for a few years before moving to Michigan. In both states I would consider my hunting opportunities exceptional. I think deer densities are actually higher here in Michigan. The biggest difference is in the attitude regarding bucks. I passed on a beautiful 8 point opening day 1995. I had already shot a buck and I had seen maybe four others. I was sure there would be other opportunities. Talking with one of the neighbors later, he called me a fool. Told me never to pass on anything with antlers because I would never see it again. I would seem that most of the hunters in my area feel the same way, because the bucks, mostly young bucks, get slaughtered every year in the first couple days. Hunting Texas was a whole world different. Somedays all I saw was bucks, somedays only does. But never did I feel like I might have seen my last buck of the season if I did not shoot the first thing with antlers I saw.
> 
> 
> Next week will mark seven years since I have harvested a Michigan buck. Every year has provided multiple opportunities, but if just one of the deer I have passed on made it another year, I can be certain he will be bigger now. Maybe my eight point will be back this year ...


Not that it matters but if you seen an 8 point opening day and passed...... How could you have already taken a buck?


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

It's called Archery season.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Good thread - 

I may curse it here and I don't mean to but I have to make an observation.

This was addressed in an earlier post....but it is about 'attitude'.....Like was posted before about IN - here in TN - there is no QDM 'issue' - there are no battle lines drawn over QDM why? I don't have a clue.

There are very liberal doe permits here, in fact in my area, if you hunt all seasons you 'could' put 36 deer in your freezer. 

Back to the issue - attitude - I have 'surfed' some of the QDM threads on Tennessee equivalent to MS.com - not a closed thread, not a harsh word, that forum is even titled 'Quality Deer Management' and you know what they talk about in there? Mostly habitate improvment - NOT whither or not a young buck should be passed on, that, for whatever reason here, is a 'given'. If you read our (ms-com's), Habitat forum, it would be the same as reading the their QDM forum.

Is it the way ever young man was taught how to hunt here, I think so.

Bait, while I hesitate to address this, I think it's an issue here, you can bait/feed here all year, EXCEPT, starting 10 days prior to the hunting season, Bow opens here on the last Saturday in Sept. and no baiting during the rest of the seasons.

Anyway - Tn is only know 'starting' QDM 'as such' they have only within the last year or two established QDMA chapters. There are, I think, 4 in the entire state. But the transition seems to seemless. Why? Because it, QDM, was here and is here WAY before there was someone adding the 'A' to QDM.

There are VAST amounts of timber land here with 1000's of acres in hunting leases, some leased to clubs and other leased to groups of individuals. 

The larger problem is where to hunt....if your not in one of the leases then you are 'stuck' with WMU's. (Wildlife Management Units). There is not much 'state' land - or you can hunt private land.

The attitude of private land owners, including those engaged in large Ag coops, is largely in favor of 'letting' others hunt, some don't charge, some do, some are part of the 'good old boy' network etc.

Short story is - letting little bucks walk is 'just the way it is' here - there simply is NO debate about it and this was years prior to the 'A' part of QDM here in Tn.

Granted, Tn DOES NOT have the pressure that we have in Mi nor does it have the raw numbers, either in hunters or deer or harvest - 

For anyone interested here is some reading about early 2000-2003 numbers in Tennessee - 

http://www.tennesseesportsmanmag.com/hunting/whitetail-deer-hunting/tn_aa104904a/

Here is the summary from the link:

"

ONE MILLION STRONG AND GROWING

In 2003, the number of estimated Tennessee deer hunters fell to 214,000. That's several thousand off the 242,000 the TWRA estimated participated in the sport in 1997. The number of successful hunters has been steady since 1998 with over 40 percent taking deer. Of the 214,000 hunters last season, 93,000 (43 percent) tagged deer. Interestingly enough, only 9.37 percent harvested two deer, 3.79 percent took three deer, and a slim 1.69 percent harvested four deer.

With a deer herd now in the neighborhood of one million animals, the TWRA is pursuing new management methods to help control population growth in Region I and Region II, while still hoping to boost the herd in Region III and Region IV. It's a tricky process, but something has to be going right with a statewide harvest of 161,072 whitetails. "


You'll note that Tn has a 3 buck limit, however, it must be noted that they are restricted tags and this is DOWN from the 'unlimited' buck harvest of years gone by - for Tn going to 3 restricted bucks/year would be a kin to Mi going from two bucks to one buck restricted.

ferg....


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Ferg said:


> Good thread -
> 
> I may curse it here and I don't mean to but I have to make an observation.
> 
> ...


At the risk of steering this thread off topic I have to make one comment on what you said. TN has not implemented any AR's as a means to integrate QDM into it's official management policy.

Mandatory AR's are what has caused alll of the controversy in Michigan, not QDM as a concept. If the QDM movement had not forced the issue by pushing the NRC to adopt AR's, I think there would be an entirely different climate regarding this issue in Michigan. 

The QDM message needs to be spread through education. When hunters buy into the program voluntarily, they will practice it. The mistake in Michigan has been to try and force a policy change, one that only addresses one goal of the QDM triad, which has the result of taking away a hunting priviledge that previously existed. Is anyone surprised that this type of tactic has created a major rift among hunters?

Michigan would have been far better served to promote the voluntary practice of QDM and support education about it's benefits. It looks like TN has taken this route. 

Sorry for taking this slightly off topic.


----------

