Anyone paying attention to Michigan?

[craigrh13]

And screw this 'quiet time'! My favorite days in the woods are the week or so before gun season.

Well yeah. Hunters are a selfish bunch. I'm right there with you.

I wouldn't worry about any of this though based on talks earlier this morning.

 

[Rich M]

Talk to anyone who knows anything. less is more. More does doesn't equate to better herd health, bucks, etc.

Michigan is the worst in the midwest when it comes to hunters being obsessed with shooting bucks and not does. The data doesn't lie.

Where do you get your information? Got a 4 yr degree in game management?

I'm running with what I've seen since the 70's. In the mid 80s they shot all the does where I was hunting did a doe slaughter - shot my first deer during that, yes - a doe. Took 10 years to get first buck there. Had 16 day season, bucks only and I saw a buck in 1985, next one in 1996. Am not a fan of mass doe shooting.

Okay with doing it lil at a time to reach objectives but as we keep saying - they don't have the numbers - so no-one knows what the objectives are. They just say "shoot does!" Pretty lame.

This is happening in many states across the country. I hope this quiet time thing doesn't catch on. Absolutely no science other than less bucks getting killed.

 

[realunlucky]

Where do you get your information? Got a 4 yr degree in game management?

I'm running with what I've seen since the 70's. In the mid 80s they shot all the does where I was hunting did a doe slaughter - shot my first deer during that, yes - a doe. Took 10 years to get first buck there. Had 16 day season, bucks only and I saw a buck in 1985, next one in 1996. Am not a fan of mass doe shooting.

Okay with doing it lil at a time to reach objectives but as we keep saying - they don't have the numbers - so no-one knows what the objectives are. They just say "shoot does!" Pretty lame.

This is happening in many states across the country. I hope this quiet time thing doesn't catch on. Absolutely no science other than less bucks getting killed.

Did harvest across the board drop to dismal numbers matching your personal observations?

I don't trust any hunter who thinks thier 10 days in the field a year gives them more knowledge than the across the board collective data. Now if the data has been manipulated to fit the narrative that's a far different concern.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[craigrh13]

Did harvest across the board drop to dismal numbers matching your personal observations?

I don't trust any hunter who thinks thier 10 days in the field a year gives them more knowledge than the across the board collective data. Now if the data has been manipulated to fit the narrative that's a far different concern.



Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

THIS!!!! Every michigan hunter think their little piece of land is evidence of the bigger picture.

 

[craigrh13]

Where do you get your information? Got a 4 yr degree in game management?

I'm running with what I've seen since the 70's. In the mid 80s they shot all the does where I was hunting did a doe slaughter - shot my first deer during that, yes - a doe. Took 10 years to get first buck there. Had 16 day season, bucks only and I saw a buck in 1985, next one in 1996. Am not a fan of mass doe shooting.

Okay with doing it lil at a time to reach objectives but as we keep saying - they don't have the numbers - so no-one knows what the objectives are. They just say "shoot does!" Pretty lame.

This is happening in many states across the country. I hope this quiet time thing doesn't catch on. Absolutely no science other than less bucks getting killed.

Slaughter? No. Shoot 1 a year. Yes!

 

[skeeterboudrock]

my grandfather was from central mi., 15 mi west of Alma. My brother and I bow hunted there for 20 years. We hunted his 45 ac, his boss' 100 ac, and some other relatives land outside of Cadillac. We met some yanks at a bow shop 30 yrs ago, and are still friends. Anyway, our MI friends(2 brothers from Alma) took us 'shining' during bow season. Here in Texas we call it spotlighting. After that night, my brother refused to ever hunt in MI again! We saw hundreds and hundreds of deer across Gratiot county, about 1 buck for every 100 does. Not a single buck over 115", and he refuses to go back. A lot of folks up there, like some s. tx 'natives', would rather shoot a yearling spike, or 1 1/2 yr old 4 pt than a mature doe, just to say they 'got a buck'

 

[craigrh13]

my grandfather was from central mi., 15 mi west of Alma. My brother and I bow hunted there for 20 years. We hunted his 45 ac, his boss' 100 ac, and some other relatives land outside of Cadillac. We met some yanks at a bow shop 30 yrs ago, and are still friends. Anyway, our MI friends(2 brothers from Alma) took us 'shining' during bow season. Here in Texas we call it spotlighting. After that night, my brother refused to ever hunt in MI again! We saw hundreds and hundreds of deer across Gratiot county, about 1 buck for every 100 does. Not a single buck over 115", and he refuses to go back. A lot of folks up there, like some s. tx 'natives', would rather shoot a yearling spike, or 1 1/2 yr old 4 pt than a mature doe, just to say they 'got a buck'

You sum up the average Michigan buyer very well. Yet many will swear they see more bucks than does or there's more bucks than does in the population. There's so much ignorance up here it's embarrassing.

 

[Netherman]

Here's the email I sent to the MI NRC ([email protected]) if anyone here would like to copy, share, or add thoughts to.

I wanted to provide my feedback on the latest proposed changes to deer hunting regulations. I do not support any statewide reduction in hunting opportunity, including Antler Point Restrictions (APR), an One‑Buck Rule (OBR), or the implementation of “quiet periods.” I have not seen biological data demonstrating a need for these changes based on the current health of the deer herd. I would be open to supporting these types of regulations in clearly defined areas where localized herd health data shows they are necessary. However, applying them broadly across the state does not appear to be biologically justified. One of the primary arguments I’ve heard in favor of these changes is that they will encourage increased doe harvest. This strikes me as a false or unsupported justification. I see no clear mechanism by which reducing firearm seasons or introducing quiet periods would result in more does being harvested. Instead, I am concerned that the real motivation behind these proposals is to increase the number of large‑antlered bucks on the landscape, rather than to address herd health.

From a purely selfish perspective, restrictive changes could improve my personal hunting experience. I would benefit from removing crossbows from archery season, shortening or even eliminating gun season, APRs, even OBR as I have the means to hunt other states once I fill the single MI tag. I’m at a stage where the challenge of pursuing a more mature buck is part of what I’m looking for. Even so, I would not advocate for or support any of these changes unless there were a demonstrated biological need to limit harvest in order to protect the herd. My family situation is a big part of this perspective. My sons are 3 and 5 years old, and are many years away from being capable of hunting with vertical bows. I don’t want APRs or weapon restrictions to make their early hunting experiences more difficult or discouraging. I also have a coworker who recently asked me to introduce him to hunting. We’re turkey hunting this spring, and he is already looking at crossbows for the fall season. If he gets the opportunity to shoot a deer this year, I expect he’d be thrilled with any brown deer. Adding APRs could introduce unnecessary stress, confusion, or even the risk of an unintentional illegal harvest. Under the current rules I would advise him to get the single tag to remove this added complexity.

These regulation changes seem to focus more on the preferences of a specific group of hunters than on the overall health of the resource. These changes do not align with the type of experience I value or want to preserve. Michigan offers an incredible amount of diverse hunting opportunities and I want to keep that opportunity. I can hunt in southeast Michigan close to home, or I can travel north across the bridge to experience traditional deer camp—hunting large tracts of land without hearing traffic or seeing another hunter. The current structure with a single and combo license allows hunters to truly “hunt their own hunt.” Personally, it allows me to dedicate one tag to my goals and another to shared experiences like UP deer camp, hunting with my sons, or group hunts with friends. Reducing opportunity through OBRs, APRs, or shorter seasons removes this flexibility. While I’ve heard people say they would quit hunting in Michigan if these changes pass, that likely won’t be me—I’ll hunt Michigan as long as I’m a resident. That said, as a southeast Michigan hunter, an OBR would almost certainly push me to hunt more in Ohio or Indiana, reducing my participation here.

If the real goal is to increase doe harvest in areas where it’s needed, I believe there are more effective and less disruptive alternatives. Some ideas include:

• Including a free antlerless tag with a single or combo license. I suspect many hunters are reluctant to use combo tags on does in hopes of taking a second buck.
• Continued research into baiting and CWD. If data cannot demonstrate a meaningful impact on CWD spread (very important piece), I would support reinstating baiting on private land. This would increase harvest efficiency and success rates, and potentially help distribute hunting pressure more evenly across the landscape. Anecdotally, many hunters on small private parcels (2–10 acres) who previously baited have moved to public land following the ban, likely due to reduced deer movement on their own properties.
• DMU‑specific doe limits, set through quota or lottery systems, with a “universal” antlerless tag that could be used in any unit where the hunter has remaining allocation. The "statewide" doe tags have led to skepticism (rightfully so) from hunters who may think their local populations can't sustain such a significant reduction in deer. Adding DMU specific quotas will help hunters solve this and help with hunter "buy in".

In summary, I strongly support maintaining Michigan’s current abundance of hunting opportunities. Any proposed changes should be clearly tied to biological necessity, not social preference, and should preserve the ability for hunters of all ages, skill levels, and goals to participate fully with the abundant opportunity our state can provide. If there is any additional information I can provide to help inform a decision for any of you I’ve included my phone number and email below.

 

[craigrh13]

Having spoke with commissioners the last couple days I am very confident in OBR passing. Just not sure if it will be 2026 or pushed to 2027. OBR I would say is fairly close to 100% happening. The quiet period stuff is dead, moving gun season this year is dead, new doe management units should pass and removing limited rifle zone will pass too. Same with 3 day late season gun hunt.

OBR has consistently polled more favorable than not in deer hunting surveys. This has been getting worked on for many many years. It has just taken the right NRC board to implement it. Which we have now.

I can guarantee that status quo will not be maintained. The DNR does not want it. Michigan hunters have proven over and over they focus too heavily on bucks and not enough on does. This goes for the whole state. The buck centric mentality that has been a part of michigan deer culture has affectively screwed themselves out of a second buck tag.

 

[NoMiBowhunter]

You boys that think the herd is fine and dandy must have some nice private land to hunt in the southern lower. I’d guess you are under the age of 45 as well.

I bowhunt lots of public in the NW13 (Zone 2) and see plenty of deer and I'm just a 54 and a half year old kid. I have no idea how the herd is outside of my area though. That's the issue with all these changes because each of the 3 zones have totally different management needs. It's going to be interesting to see what changes are passed for the upcoming season.

 

[craigrh13]

You boys that think the herd is fine and dandy must have some nice private land to hunt in the southern lower. I’d guess you are under the age of 45 as well.

I am under the age of 45. I'm 42 and have been hunting since I was 8(had to start in ohio back then due to age requirements here). Just because you're not seeing the number of deer you used to doesn't mean the herd is in trouble. The herd is always higher than what people think it is.

 

[Netherman]

Michigan hunters have proven over and over they focus too heavily on bucks and not enough on does. This goes for the whole state. The buck centric mentality that has been a part of michigan deer culture has affectively screwed themselves out of a second buck tag.

"If you don't act right, I'll make a law". Did you help Whitmer pull all the boat launches out during COVID to prevent walleye fisherman from breaking quarantine?

I hunt Waterloo, Pinckney, and Brighton recreation areas in addition to a yearly UP trip. I'd want some hard data to support it, but anecdotally I would support OBR along the superior shoreline. Locally to me I do not see a need to reduce hunter opportunity. This past season I passed a few does on public I would have otherwise shot due to the number of EHD killed deer in that area. Are there piles of 120+ bucks running around out there? Absolutely not, but giving up opportunity to create that is not something that I would support.

If you're sick of your neighbors shooting "your" bucks; buy more land, build a high fence, move to a less populated state with larger parcels, or dedicate more time to hunting the class of buck you desire. If there are too many deer in your area get your friends, family, HAP, or use whatever method you want to reduce them locally. Since the late antlerless firearm season was added on public I no longer see an overpopulation of deer in the local areas I hunt.

 

[craigrh13]

"If you don't act right, I'll make a law". Did you help Whitmer pull all the boat launches out during COVID to prevent walleye fisherman from breaking quarantine?

I hunt Waterloo, Pinckney, and Brighton recreation areas in addition to a yearly UP trip. I'd want some hard data to support it, but anecdotally I would support OBR along the superior shoreline. Locally to me I do not see a need to reduce hunter opportunity. This past season I passed a few does on public I would have otherwise shot due to the number of EHD killed deer in that area. Are there piles of 120+ bucks running around out there? Absolutely not, but giving up opportunity to create that is not something that I would support.

If you're sick of your neighbors shooting "your" bucks; buy more land, build a high fence, move to a less populated state with larger parcels, or dedicate more time to hunting the class of buck you desire. If there are too many deer in your area get your friends, family, HAP, or use whatever method you want to reduce them locally. Since the late antlerless firearm season was added on public I no longer see an overpopulation of deer in the local areas I hunt.

This has nothing to do with me....OBR has been wanted by several biologists here for a long time. Things are finally aligning to make it happen.

I'm also a big supporter of a statewide doe limit of 2 on public land. Just like Ohio does. We should be treating public and private differently.

 

[SirChooCH]

In my mind the changes have always been APR and keep both buck tags OR one buck tag. Never both. So I have written in saying no to the APR on the buck tag. I am also a hard no on shortening gun seasons "to protect the bucks" if we already have our buck tags cut in half. And hard no on the quiet period rule changes that would take away bow season dates during November.

Its funny you say biologists want this as they have never officially proposed this before. Almost every point the DNR put forward the NRC made their own amendments to, who are not the biologists. And I lease with a state biologist that doesn't think the data is there and he doesn't want the changes.

You bring up Ohio when the Ohio lead deer biologist said they are starting to get overpopulated with deer and have the issues MI has of overcrowding so bucks are smaller then they used to be for their age. He suggested a possible earn a second buck tag to incentivize more deer harvest. New York also just proposed the same thing. If this were an option on the table I would rather support that than OBT.

 

[craigrh13]

I'm not a fan of APR's personally but I don't care one way or the other.

I'm a strong proponent of moving gun season to Saturday before thanksgiving. How long it lasts I don't care but 75% of the total gun kill happens in the first 3 days and the average gun hunter only hunts 6 days.

I need to be careful what I say here but what they can publicly say and support is very different then what they will say on the side. The politics in the DNR is crazy.

Dr. Tonk from Ohio who recently retired is one of the biologists who presented to the DAT and DNR about the benefits of OBR.

I could get into a lot more but being a public forum only so much can be said.

 

[SirChooCH]

That's all great this is what the DNR wants behind closed doors. It will probably help grow bigger bucks. But the talking points of "better age structure" when they don't measure and report age means they are a bit full of it politics aside. One of the commissioners in the last meeting called them out a bit on that saying if DNR can't even give us data on the total herd numbers newer than 2016 why are we pushing these changes now we can't track or measure?

 

[Netherman]

This has nothing to do with me....OBR has been wanted by several biologists here for a long time. Things are finally aligning to make it happen.

I'm also a big supporter of a statewide doe limit of 2 on public land. Just like Ohio does. We should be treating public and private differently.

Why do they want it? The only argument I have heard so far is "to get hunters to shoot more does" which I don't believe to be a statewide problem and from my perspective a land access problem.

Is there some other data or reasoning that supports these biologists desire for OBR? I could be sold on OBR or APR, but not with the goal of bigger bucks on the landscape. Where I hunt in the UP I think "doe with a bow" plus OBR would help that herd. Additionally addressing predators and habitat improvements could make a huge impact on that herd. I just don't see that need in SE MI public land.

 

[craigrh13]

We are the only midwest/great lakes state that can never kill 1:1 or more of antlered to antlerless. That's been the biggest reason for change. Like Sara said at the last meeting. We just need more hunters shooting 1 doe.

 

[Rat]

Why do they want it? The only argument I have heard so far is "to get hunters to shoot more does" which I don't believe to be a statewide problem and from my perspective a land access problem.

Is there some other data or reasoning that supports these biologists desire for OBR? I could be sold on OBR or APR, but not with the goal of bigger bucks on the landscape. Where I hunt in the UP I think "doe with a bow" plus OBR would help that herd. Additionally addressing predators and habitat improvements could make a huge impact on that herd. I just don't see that need in SE MI public land.

Michigan has been in my opinion over protecting predators for the last decade or more. The number of bears in the southern UP is insane and there are more bobcats than at any point in my lifetime and now throw the wolves into the picture. Most of the historic winter deer yards in Menominee county have been logged off. The problems facing the UP deer herd are bigger than whatever hunting regulations the DNR ends up implementing.