# 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].


----------

