# One Buck Limit - Another Look



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Get together lobby the DNR and have them changed. It doesn't make any difference to me.


----------



## Belbriette (Aug 12, 2000)

Two, or three years ago, a WI DNR biologist wrote me something like this : 
" When our proposals trigger almost as much annoyance from foresters as from hunters, we know we are close to what is best for the herd."
A deer herd is not an indefinitively and for free, naturally renewable ressource, except during the relatively short term of a given human life...
" We are not the owners of the Earth, we borrowed it from our children" (Saint-Exupery in "Le petit Prince").
Thought to think about.
Friendly your's,
Jack.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

> _Originally posted by FREEPOP _
> * In fact, I think I'll arrow that spike, fork horn or any 1 1/2 year old tonite, that I've been letting walk, *


 It`s your hunting future you are effecting, not ours. If you don`t care, I sure as heck don`t.

Welcome back to the site Jack. It`s been a while.


----------



## Freeputz (Jul 8, 2003)

1. I fill my doe tags after my buck tags so as to keep the ladies in the area for the rut.

It's been documented that the lower the buck to doe ratio, the more active bucks have to be in order to find the ladies. It's also been documented that the best time to remove excess doe's is early, in order to maximize this effect.

2. Not every single one of us has does tags in their pockets, but the majority do. 

Every single bow hunter has 2.

3. I read the hunting regulations this year, as I'm sure that many others did too. It looks as though everyone abided by the rules. 

Nobody said they broke any, just wondering about the rationale behind the "" I got my buck, now I have to wait for something 4 points to a side or better" because I'm a meat hunter mentality. 

4. Everyone has the right to do as they wish, within the law. The have their own expectations and levels of achivement. They don't need to live up to anyone elses.

Nobody said they did, but they need to come up with a better arguement than, "it's not about the horns"


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

> _Originally posted by Freeputz _
> *1. I fill my doe tags after my buck tags so as to keep the ladies in the area for the rut.
> 
> It's been documented that the lower the buck to doe ratio, the more active bucks have to be in order to find the ladies. It's also been documented that the best time to remove excess doe's is early, in order to maximize this effect.
> ...


 It also doesn`t make much sense to have the bucks wear themselves out breeding does that are going to be shot after the rut. It would be easier on the bucks to remove those does before the rut.

Four good points Freeputz.


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

I shot a great 7 point this year. It was an 8. Problem is it was only 1 1/2 years old. So if antler restrictions were in place I would have shot the very buck you wanted to save. So now a buck who will take a couple more years to reach the mark you want will breed untill he is shot. It just doesn't make sence. I took a buck and that is fine. I'll be happy to take another but if I don't it is ok. I have no problem shooting does. I've taken one of those too. Oh yea a hen turkey also. Did you ever think that we should only shoot spikes and 4 points and let anything bigger walk. That way you would be saving the best antlered bucks for breeding.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

FixedBlade, here is my response to an earlier post in another thread about shooting 4 points rather than 8 points. 

"It is not obvious that the 8 pointer has better genetics over the 4 pointer. It is more likely that the 8 pointer was born on time and spent it`s first 6 months of life in an area with good nutritional browse. The 4 point on the other hand may have been born late and could come from an area with poor quality browse. Since most bucks disperse, it is most likely that neither of those bucks were born and raised in the area where you see them at 1 1/2 years of age. That 8 pointer could also have been a single fawn and the 4 point could have been a twin or triplet. It would then get less nutrition it`s first year as it had to share resources with siblings. By age 4 1/2 that little 4 pointer could catch up to and surpass the 8 pointer. You will never know that if you shoot 1 1/2 year old deer."


At 1 1/2 years of age you can`t tell which has better genetics.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

Your "7" would have fallen under the the most restrictive of antler restrictions, ie., 4 points to a side. 

All restrictions have their exceptions, but a 4 point to a side restriction would save the "gold standard" of 90% of the yearling bucks in MI.

Much better than the "coal standard" protection of 10% of the yearling bucks we have in place now.

from the Bowsite:

Right now the QDM controversy is raging in parts of Michigan. Most QDM proponents claim a 4 point on one side point restriction will increase the amount of big bucks to do the breeding and therefore be healthy for the herd. If breeding by the healthiest, strongest, smartest deer is what we want wouldn't it be better to limit our kills to LESS than 8 points? I mean a dog breeder doesn't allow the runt to be their stud for breeding do they? Why should our deer herd be different? Keep in mind we have a fair number of 8 point + 1 1/2 old bucks in the area under consideration for this QDM proposal. ~The Mutt

I'm not sure I understand. QDM says, in this instance, don't shoot any buck that has less than 4 points on one side. This means that, in general, you protect the younger bucks and allow the buck pool to age. In much of Michigan, especially the southern portions, most bucks harvested are 1 1/2 years old. Protecting those bucks, elevates the harvest to 2 1/2 year olds +. There is another major factor in QDM strategy.........one that many miss........and that is that the goal is to get the sex ratio equalized, i. e. kill a bunch more does. In many parts of the north, we have 5-10 adult does for every antlered buck. From a habitat standpoint, those excess does take the place of a buck. So, getting the sex ratio closer to 1:1 allows you to have more and bigger bucks, and it also improves breeding ecology (a long story...but it does improve breeding ecology). 
Now to the point about there being a lot of 8 point 1 1/2-year-old bucks. I'd have to see the data to believe that the majority of 1 1/2 year olds are 8 points or bigger. That would be extremely unusual. But to protect any 8 point bucks, including those that are 1 1/2-years-old, you could set the antler limit higher than 4 points on one side, but if you did, few hunters would kill bucks. Harvest would plummet, and hunter satisfaction would disappear. Let me add that Pennsylvania is presenting a proposal to their Game Commission (it has to be voted on by the Game Commission...in January, then public comments, then a final vote in April) to have a 3 point on one side antler restriction in the forested northern 2/3 of the state and a 4 point on one side restriction in the southern agricultural areas. Interesting. Thanks for the question. ~Dr. Dave Samuel


----------



## FixedBlade (Oct 14, 2002)

Bob. Those are valid reasons for the differance in points. It just seems that by taking the big ones we are leaving the little ones to breed. Maybe QDM'rs need to be more effective at geting those points accross. Education is the key.


----------



## Huntmaster143 (Aug 28, 2003)

IMHO the following is what Michigan should be doing:


From SG's Post:

"Pennsylvania is presenting a proposal to their Game Commission (it has to be voted on by the Game Commission...in January, then public comments, then a final vote in April) to have a 3 point on one side antler restriction in the forested northern 2/3 of the state and a 4 point on one side restriction in the southern agricultural areas."


If this is true, then I really think that this would be one of the best ways to accomplish the management of the different herds spread across the state.

We could utilize the Zones (1, 2 & 3) already established and could have antler restrictions attached to them. These zones are divided pretty close to the deer herd and would simplify the areas that the restrictions are in.

What you could do is in Zone 1 have a 3 pt on one side min., Zone 2 - 4 pt on one side min. and Zone 3 - 4pt on both sides min. From my experience, it seams like this would probably protect the vast majority of the 1 1/2 year old bucks.

I wonder if the MDNR has any good data that would support the above paragraph? It seams like it would be pretty close based on my observations and talking with people from across the state.

HM


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

http://members.tripod.com/~mmbqdm/Miscellaneous/areco.html


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

FixedBlade, we are not leaving the little bucks to breed. We are protecting a percentage of immature bucks. This will put more bucks into the older age classes. With bucks in the older age classes, the rut is earlier and shorter. The rutting behavior of the mature bucks will suppress the rut activity of the young bucks. Therefore in a deer herd with enough mature bucks, the best mature bucks will do most if not all of the breeding. Those 1 1/2 year old bucks will do very little if any breeding.

John Ozoga`s research shows that when there are mature bucks to control the breeding, then the best bucks breed. But when there are not enough mature bucks, and the 1 1/2 year olds participate in the breeding, then all bucks will breed, not just the best bucks. That is why there should be bucks in every age class. That is from John Ozoga`s research. That is what QDM strives for. 

An antler restriction is just a tool to help protect a greater percentage of young bucks. Ideally every hunter would spend the time to learn how to field age the deer in the area where he or she hunts. Unfortunately that is not likely to happen.


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

FREEPOP,
Save your breath buddy. I was in the same boat months ago with the QDM site. God knows I tried to keep an open mind, and I honestly learned a few things about deer from the posts. But when I tried to play the devils advocate and take exception to their theories, I was shot out of the water, just like you. I check in now once every month or so just to verify that nothing has changed. I orginally thought that this was an open-minded discussion about QDM, where both sides of the discussion could be voiced. My mistake, just as you have found out. They should rename this "Quality Deer Management Supporters", because that's what they truly are. Bottom line, I'm still on the fence on the issue, but getting beaten up on this forum by one-sided individuals will certainly not convince me that it's the way of the future. Goodbye again!


----------



## Jimbos (Nov 21, 2000)

J.D.....Just try to learn, don't try to debate too hard, you'll be out-statistic to death, and do what you feel is right when the time comes to shoot, and you'll be okay here. There's very good people on both sides of the discussion.


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

> There's very good people on both sides of the discussion


I 100% agree with this statement.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

> _Originally posted by Jimbos _
> *Just try to learn, don't try to debate too hard *


 I 100% agree with this statement.


----------



## Jimbos (Nov 21, 2000)

LOL---This is scary, i'm being agreed with  

I give all the credit in the world to you pro-QDM'ers for your studies on the subject. Sometimes it comes across as a tad over bearing when someone is tryng to get a grip on the subject, and I don't in the least mean this as a knock against you all. We all can get that way,(I know I sure can) on subjects that are close our hearts. You all have caused a lot of us to at least think about the pro and cons of QDM.


----------



## Neal (Mar 20, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Jimbos _
> *We all can get that way,(I know I sure can) *[/QUOTE
> 
> I Agree with you too Jimbo!!!


----------



## just ducky (Aug 23, 2002)

Jimbos,
I acknowledge that once or twice I've lost control in the past when discussing this subject. I think we all agree it's one of the more emotional topics out there.....kind of like discussing religion or politics. I was sincere when I said that I have learned a lot from some of the discussions. I can truly see both sides of this.

I'll try this again, and try to maintain composure. This comment by Bob S. brings me full circle to something I discussed many months ago right here.



> _Originally posted by Bob S _
> *Ideally every hunter would spend the time to learn how to field age the deer in the area where he or she hunts. *


I don't disagree at all with this statement. I think our group of hunters can do this IF GIVEN THE TIME TO DO IT. However, as I have said before, we rarely have the time to study the deer before deciding on a shot. I can recall twice over the last 35 years when one of us had the time to study a buck that closely before taking the shot. The deer we typically see during gun season are not relaxed. We are in a high deer concentration/high hunter pressure area. We have never believed in baiting. Our property is a mix of 40% open farmland, 40% lowland brush, and 20% high hardwoods. When hunt natural runways, openings, and field edges. The majority of the deer we take are already spooked and moving, even when we're in the brush hunting a runway. And don't get the idea we just shoot anything that moves. Obviously we don't just start shooting, but we identify bucks. However, having the time to count points clearly is rarely possible, and if we took the time to do that, we would likely pass up many bucks. Now in the past, many of you slammed me by saying "then you shouldn't be shooting that buck". I've said before that I am not ashamed to say we are meat hunters. We love venison. I'm also not ashamed to say that I'd much rather shoot a buck than a doe, although we do shoot a fair amount of does, as do the hunters on the neighboring properties. It's just the way I was brought up, probably from the days when there weren't any doe permits or they were very limited....like no doe permits in the UP. But we have changed our thinking a lot in the past 20 years or so, and have taken many does. We feel we have done an excellent job with the herd in our area as evidenced by a pretty good balance of bucks to does in our area. I usually have at least one quality shot at a buck in the first two or three days of gun season if I'm patient.

I've said it before.....I'm truly not against the concept of QDM. I've heard some of you say that the root principles of QDM has no relationship with antler points, and if that's the case, then keep talking because I'm listening. But I am against MANDATORY antler restrictions. On our property, the way the deer movement is in gun season, and the way we hunt, I believe it would effectively eliminate the taking of many bucks. That's just 35 years of deer hunting history speaking. If we were baiting, or if we were avid bowhunters when the deer are much more relaxed and moving naturally, I think antler restrictions would be more reasonable. 

We would fully support a one-buck limit. I agree with some of the other comments that have been posted that no matter whether hunting with bow or gun, if you have a two buck rule, people have a tendency to shoot the first buck they get a chance at, and then get selective on the second one. I've done it myself. 

Okay guys, there it is again. Sorry for the lengthy post, but I was on a roll. Much of the same philosophy that I've posted before. Yes, many of you can "out statistic" me all day. But this is reality speaking. This is what a lot of the opposition to QDM is thinking. My wish is not to encite anger. I wish to encourage open, engaging, rational discussions, and ALLOW the other's opinions to have validity. But if the intent of this QDM page is simply to promote QDM, then tell me that because I truly don't belong.


----------



## Swamp Ghost (Feb 5, 2003)

If you can see antler points over 3" in height to determine a legal buck, surely you can count 3-4 points on one side of a rack.

I'll go one better


> _Originally posted by farmlegend _
> *I would comfortably venture that it is easier to distinguish between a 1.5 year old buck vs. one 2.5 years old or older, than it is to count antler points. Particularly if those points reside on a 1.5 year old basket rack. In fact, I'd go as far to say that it's much easier.
> 
> And the average hunter? I have no doubt that most Michigan hunters have never even seen a TRULY mature (5.5 - 6.5 years old) buck. And probably 80%+ of their buck sightings have been limited to 1.5 year old bucks. Decades of traditional deer management have cheated Michigan hunters out of the experience of hunting a balanced deer herd, with bona fide age structure to the buck population.
> ...


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

just ducky said:


> They should rename this "Quality Deer Management Supporters", because that's what they truly are.


You members that keep thinking and voicing this opinion are dead wrong. This is the Deer Management Forum. All sides of the issue are welcome IF (that's a size 5 font) the discussion stays civil between members and remains "on topic". Neither Ferg nor I have ever edited or deleted a post in this forum because we disagreed on the thoughts that were posted.

Few, if any regular contributors to this forum know my stance on these issues. I rarely post in here, just moderate. I've deleted and edited posts on all sides of these issues, including those of friends of mine when they were either out of line, off topic, or their post were no longer needed.

Yup! This post is off topic, but now and then I find the need to set the record straight.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

Whit1 said:


> You members that keep thinking and voicing this opinion are dead wrong. This is the Deer Management Forum. All sides of the issue are welcome IF (that's a size 5 font) the discussion stays civil between members and remains "on topic". Neither Ferg nor I have ever edited or deleted a post in this forum because we disagreed on the thoughts that were posted.
> 
> Few, if any regular contributors to this forum know my stance on these issues. I rarely post in here, just moderate. I've deleted and edited posts on all sides of these issues, including those of friends of mine when they were either out of line, off topic, or their post were no longer needed.
> 
> Yup! This post is off topic, but now and then I find the need to set the record straight.



Did anyone notice this thread is 2 years old ??? :yikes: :lol: :lol: :lol: 


ferg....


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Ya! I did notice that AFTER I read through two full pages of posts! Yesterday wasn't my best day in several areas!!....:sad:


----------

