Anyone paying attention to Michigan?

[Todd10]

Do you think hunters in IN or OH come here after they shoot their buck because they just have to shoot 2 bucks or do you think they are so happy with their 1 buck because they are choosy that they don't care? I've noticed the average Michigan mentality in regards to bucks and the need to just shoot a buck is embarassing and nothing short of insanity. This isn't a knock on you but more so the mentality our regulations have forced on so many.

What’s embarrassing about not being picky and shooting any buck that makes their hunting experience enjoyable and satisfying to them. Not trying to be confrontational, just genuinely curious. A lot of hunters don’t have the time and/or resources to spend the entire season in the woods like some of us do. I fell into the let em go and let them grow trap when it first started getting popular. That ended for me when I told a friend who shot a basket 8 he should have passed and let the deer grow. I can still remember the look of disappointment on his face after I made the comment. He had limited time to hunt and was extremely excited about his buck until I opened my big mouth. I have yet to discover sound data that supports APR’s improve herd health or larger antlers long term. In fact, most of the studies I’ve looked at indicate a decrease in large bucks over time. I agree some areas in Michigan have an overpopulation of does though which I believe is the larger problem. Netherman is correct when he says we need to make it easier. Wisconsin is another state that offers free doe tags that are county specific to the number of tags available. Wisconsin doesn’t have APR’s and holds some of the biggest bucks in the country. Another problem Michigan has is access to areas with large doe populations. There’s a little more than 36 million acres in Michigan with almost 26 million acres in the lower peninsula where the majority of the high doe population exists. The HAP (Hunter Access Program) has approximately 25 thousand of Michigan’s 36 million acres enrolled in the program. Maybe there’s a way to work with the DNR/NRC and private landowners to allow hunters access to their lands for a set doe only season or even just allow access to their property during regular seasons for only antlerless deer. Ultimately, I think we need a solution that’s best for the overall deer herd and I’m not sure APR’s are going to accomplish that objective, however, I do believe sound doe management (region specific) would probably help.

 

[mi650]

He loses me with the "hearts and minds" argument as it is speculative rather than factual. If you want more does killed, you should make it easy and make it cheap.

Speaking for myself I'll likely shoot less MI does in an OBR world since I'll be headed to OH or IN after my MI buck tag gets filled. Potential for a buck is a motivator that gets me into the woods. I'd probably still get out with only a doe tag, but it's an appreciable step down in motivation.

In regards to "make it easy and make it cheap"

Make it easy
We're already in a good spot on the make it easy front due to extended gun seasons.
Hunter access on private would go a long was as well, but I don't have a good answer on how.

Make it cheap
I think MI DNR should give a free antlerless tag when you purchase a single or combo antlered tag (KS does this). This would help as every hunter would have a dedicated tag that they couldn't "save" for a buck.

They have no interest in making it cheap. Their plan will result in fewer licenses being sold, so they'll raise prices again.

Remember, not too long ago, doe tags were $5 and now they're $20. And let's not forget about them forcing everyone to buy a small game license now in order to buy deer tags. It's all a money grab, to line their pockets even more. You can't expect them to deal with inflation like us plebs, can you? They'll just take more of our $$$ to make up for it.

Many of us remember when doe permits were a lottery system. Before I bought my land in 2000, I hunted on my grandparents farm in Shiawassee county a fair amount. I'd use their tax ID to get a landowners tag. The herd numbers went up to about 2 million, if you believe the DNR. Supposedly, we were neck & neck with TX for the largest herd in the country for several years. Then, they declared war on does, starting with the CWD zone 452. A couple years later, they opened the floodgates by selling doe permits OTC in the rest of the state. Anyone could get just about all the tags they wanted.

Now, the herd balance has shifted, with there being higher numbers in the SLP. I'm in the southern part of the NLP, 25ish miles above the rifle line. Anecdotal I know, but 10 years ago, I'd go out for an afternoon hunt and expect to see 15-20 deer, up to 40ish occasionally. These last 3 or 4 years, I'm averaging about 5 +/-. Last year, the highest was 7. I haven't killed a doe for 3 years, and probably won't again this year. Even if I don't shoot anything, I still want to be able to sit and watch them.

I've killed at least 2 deer per year ever since I bought my land. 1 year, when my son was younger and still hunted, we got 6 between us. We butchered them ourselves, and had a running joke that we'd spend Sunday afternoons butchering deer and listening to the Lions lose on the radio. Those days are long gone, and the DNR doesn't seem to have any interest in them returning.

I'm not interested in a OBR. I could maybe be convinced to go along with APRs, I've never seen anything bigger than 8 points here. As I've said before, I live in an area of relatively smaller parcels, with some neighbors who will shoot damn near anything. 1 guy has 5 acres, and will shoot anything that crosses his yard.

 

[SirChooCH]

Here is my idea to fix Michigan access. When I buy my Colorado elk tag it included insurance for search and rescue. Why cant Farm Bureau, instead of paying out crop damage to farmers instead pay them for hunter access? Hunters may have to increase their tag cost and money goes into basically like a private lease insurance coverage pool is, but for farms to be open to hunting and have legal coverage from injuries/issues they fear. If the farms are holding the doe numbers and having that much of an issue, FB needs to push back on farmers to open the land for hunting during legal seasons verse just paying them out and complaining or shooting deer during summer outside of legal seasons for hunters.

 

[Netherman]

Do you think hunters in IN or OH come here after they shoot their buck because they just have to shoot 2 bucks or do you think they are so happy with their 1 buck because they are choosy that they don't care?

I would guess they have better options than MI, but I would bet a guy in OH or IN who shoots a buck on October first is likely headed to another state rather than sitting on his couch the rest of the season. I sure would.

I've noticed the average Michigan mentality in regards to bucks and the need to just shoot a buck is embarassing and nothing short of insanity.

You're defining and pushing your personal goals onto others with this outlook. I'm willing to bet you and the majority of those pushing for OBR and APRs have shot their fair share of spike and basket racks (and probably were excited and proud when they did). I think every hunter should be making their own choice in terms of what they want to shoot on two tags as long as it is not detrimental to the resource (I don't not think two buck tags in SLP is detrimental to the resource).

I'm at a place where I'm looking for the "right buck right time" "for me". If I'm hunting by myself I'm looking for what I'll call a 10% buck (something well above average for that area). If I'm hunting with a group I might loosen that threshold to "get one hanging". If I'm hunting with my young kids, we're probably shooting the first brown one we get a crack at.

 

[Netherman]

Here is my idea to fix Michigan access. When I buy my Colorado elk tag it included insurance for search and rescue. Why cant Farm Bureau, instead of paying out crop damage to farmers instead pay them for hunter access? Hunters may have to increase their tag cost and money goes into basically like a private lease insurance coverage pool is, but for farms to be open to hunting and have legal coverage from injuries/issues they fear. If the farms are holding the doe numbers and having that much of an issue, FB needs to push back on farmers to open the land for hunting during legal seasons verse just paying them out and complaining or shooting deer during summer outside of legal seasons for hunters.

The private land thing is tough due to the size of most parcels in MI. If you look at the WIHA program in KS they are getting $2-6 per acre. which is $1280-3840 per section (640 acres). When you look at most properties being under 60 you're talking $360 or less. Would you open your land to season long access for $360? What would it take?
I'd love to see HAP become something meaningful, I'm just not optimistic when the MI DNR seems to have an oversized focus on budget.

 

[SirChooCH]

The private land thing is tough due to the size of most parcels in MI. If you look at the WIHA program in KS they are getting $2-6 per acre. which is $1280-3840 per section (640 acres). When you look at most properties being under 60 you're talking $360 or less. Would you open your land to season long access for $360? What would it take?
I'd love to see HAP become something meaningful, I'm just not optimistic when the MI DNR seems to have an oversized focus on budget.

Yeah that's why I was thinking it needed to be a separate fund set up because DNR wouldn't have the money for it as is. I am not sure what it would take financially, but I know guys with 2-3K acre farms that only a few family members hunt and they don't want to open access because of liability. I think insurance company like FB should be able to take care of that and back hunters if it saves them a bit on crop damage payouts.

And I think what others are saying is true. It has become a big deal to say you shot X amount of bucks in X amount of states. It used to be a big deal to shoot a big buck. Now its become how many and where all did you travel to? So the mentality being pushed by podcasts/youtube is fill your tag and move on which will happen here more especially with only one tag so the second tag isn't holding you, your time, and your money to be spent in MI the entire season.

 

[Todd10]

Yeah that's why I was thinking it needed to be a separate fund set up because DNR wouldn't have the money for it as is. I am not sure what it would take financially, but I know guys with 2-3K acre farms that only a few family members hunt and they don't want to open access because of liability. I think insurance company like FB should be able to take care of that and back hunters if it saves them a bit on crop damage payouts.

And I think what others are saying is true. It has become a big deal to say you shot X amount of bucks in X amount of states. It used to be a big deal to shoot a big buck. Now its become how many and where all did you travel to? So the mentality being pushed by podcasts/youtube is fill your tag and move on which will happen here more especially with only one tag so the second tag isn't holding you, your time, and your money to be spent in MI the entire season.

Here’s the link to Michigan’s HAP program currently in place. Liability is addressed for the landowners.

 

[Wiscgunner]

I think it is either APR...or...OBR but I feel APR is the better of the 2.

Listening to some many different perspectives has been very interesting because it is obvious to everyone dee hunting as an experience has changed drastically over the decades and it doesn't seem to be for the better.

I think the common denominator in everyone's timeline is baiting removal. We baiting was prevalent, large groups of deer were easy to see and hunting was more grocery shopping for something this more than nubs on top. Watching young bucks try to mount mature does and do nothing more than hump the back of her knee was sad. Not enough mature buck around to breed, not enough young bucks surviving to become trophies or breeders. APR has worked exception where I hunt. Deer visibility is definitely way down but quality is way up. Truck loads of artificial feed kept numbers artificially high.

Without baiting, I no longer see starved deer dead in the snow. Growth on shrubs and trees has come back down under the 6ft mark, a clear indicator of appropriate numbers for the natural landscape to support.

Now, without woodland Krogers in front of the stands, hunting need to have a little more thought and skill involved. Hunting now needs be along natural cover, game trails, etc instead of just wherever you could back up a truck to dump sugar beets.

APR has my vote.


Increased land access is also high on my list. It works great in Wisconsin. Hunters engaging more positively with the non-hunter community would help but politics has got hunting victimized in the middle of the fake Right vs Left divide.