That is not true, LOL What MI did was give out 4 tags, two for gun and two for bow. It worked on the honor system. MI still was a two buck state. Before that it was a 1 buck state up until the early 80's.
Maybe your experience is unique because my observations from people I have talked to in Michigan and other states has mirrored that of the more widely known people of QDM like Charles J. Alsheime (see quote below). http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/sept04/2.html Charles J. Alsheimer “The majority of QDM practitioners practice some form of antler restrictions.” What... do you think those yearling buck's magically die if we don't shoot them? Also, last I knew hunters were a game management tool (& when the public believes other wise we are in trouble). The DNR are "wildlife managers" (your right that politicians should to stay out of it). That's what the DNR are there for and with out hunter money's that have been used to hire them the deer would not have been brought back (by wildlife managers) from being virtually wiped out. Besides it only takes a year or two for the number of legal bucks to meet or exceed the number of bucks that are legal now. I believe hunlee only referred to the SLP.
Your almost right Germ, but there was one year you could legally shoot 4 bucks. I think it was Jack Eddy that shot four Michigan book bucks in one year. The only person to ever do it (legally). I think this and the whole honor system thing only lasted about five years or so, but I'm not real sure. It didn't seem like long though.
Getting the kill down to 50% of 1.5 bucks will result in high grading. AR's are not a QDMA policy, but they are a very common QDM tool. I'm not sure what OBR means? It is not the Michigan bowhunter who have failed the DNR it is politics that has failed the DNR (& hunters that do not stay in contact with their state reps!). Gun hunters shoot far more anyway. If the DNR had it their way they would have changed thing's a long time ago. Also, AR's can be easily customized to the area. For example there could be a combination of 15” spread or 5 points on a side in the farm rich area of southern Michigan and a 13” spread in the sandy, low quality habitats found in much of the north or something similar. The DNR has the data to make that decision. Soo... you would not welcome a 15" minimum antler spread in your area?
If crops always left in winter then hunlee right about deer numbers, if not barren wasteland for deer in winter. If former true hunlee need help farmers and eat more venison! hunlee need someone to slay some of those pesky big bucks in your spots?:D DEERSLAYER like big steaks and much meat for tag. Big antlers not bad to look at too.
Deerslayer make 4 post in a row!!!!!!!!!!!!WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!an about QDM aswell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hunlee
It's not about me or what I want. When can you come down? I have a prime rib dinner with your name on it!!!
Sorry Deerslayer, I was thinking point restrictions as that is what most hunters seem to refer to when mentioning antler restrictions. Even then, most successful QDM co-ops in MI avoid using "restrictions". You don't want to tell someone what they can't do on their property when its legal...ie shooting a 4 point. We have "suggestions" or "objectives". For those that are new to or struggle judging the age of bucks on the hoof, we suggest shooting bucks with a spread "outside the ears". Now hunt clubs are different. Many of them have rules or restrictions. Co-ops are just property owners and hunters working together towards a common goal. If done right, they will not have rules or restrictions.
I agree with you about the DNR being necessary to regulate the seasons and population density but thats where it should stop. Maybe I was misunderstood in my original post. My point is that the DNR should not be sticking their nose in the trophy business, that is better in the hands of land owners and hunters. Some hunt for sport, others hunt to eat. When your number one goal is to put meat on the table you take the 1st thing to walk by and you have every right to. When your goal is the highest quality deer meat you shoot the yearlings. With all due respect, when a hunter openly argues against the harvesting of yearlings, it IMO is quite hypocritical, not to mention selfish. I compare it to trying to ban the raising/eating of veal simply because you disagree with the practice yet have no problem eating a burger, steak, or Skittles. I try not to question peoples motives for hunting as long as its legal and safe. The import thing is that they are out there.
What is selfish is not letting the DNR do their job because you don’t like it. You can’t hire someone and then only let them do the part of their job you personally like. 750,000 hunters telling the DNR to what level they can manage the herd does not and has not worked well so far in regards to herd health. As frustrating as it is to me I can see why you equate antler restrictions with Trophy hunting. I blame 90% of the QDM crowd for that (I probably just ruffled a few feathers with that statement). QDM at it’s roots is NOT about antlers, but that is what almost everybody gets into it for (“trophy“ bucks are a by product). They stand on a foundation of good herd health and good age structure for bucks (this is not normally a problem with does), but then they refer to a buck with less than desirable antler traits as “inferior”. Biologically speaking that is not true! IMO most QDM’rs are trophy hunters and I have no problem with that (I‘m guilty of this myself), but a few genuinely (strictly) want what’s best for the herd. That is essence what QDM is about. The DNR does not care about trophy management and have no intentions of adopting traditional QDM principles. They are more interested in the basis of QMD. Good herd health, buck to doe ratio, age and breading structure. Something they have never come close to being able to do in the past due to politics. Maybe they think by riding the QDM wave they can get there. I’m not sure, but if they do it right (I know that is asking a lot) they will also create the genetic diversity for the long term health of the species (a biologists primary goal when politics are left out of it). “Putting meat on the table” and “the highest quality deer meat” is nothing but a BS excuse that people use to fight changing regulations. Proper deer management results in more meat on the table and if you give me venison from a properly taken care of mature buck I will show you mouth watering good venison. With all due respect, when a hunter openly argues against sound biological game management because they want to harvest yearling bucks, it IMO is quite hypocritical, not to mention selfish.
It's an easy mistake to make because like you said, most people assume and talk about AR's as only encompassing point restrictions. I'm not suggesting anybody be told to do something more restrictive than the law. That should be a choice. What I'm saying is to let the DNR change the law because they believe it is better for the herd. Then everybody would be on a level playing field like we are now. Properly applied antler restrictions will not only avoid “High Grading” (trophy hunters will like this), but it will also make for a healthier and more productive herd that produces FAR more meat per acre (& per tag) as well as greater opportunity for all. Meat hunter and trophy hunter alike. This is not about people imposing there views on others as some would like to believe. It is about good herd management. Spread limits have proven to be very effective and are easier for most to judge than a 3” antler. Everybody has AR’s right now, they just don’t want to see it. This is not imposing something new. It is adjusting what is already there. It would be nice if people would educate themselves and pass animals voluntarily, but the fact is it has NEVER worked on public land, often doesn’t happen on private land and is not going to change any time soon. Just for the record I do not want Trophy management, but if being good stewards equals management that appears that way then so be it as far as I‘m concerned. I do not want to see the day when a 130” buck is looked upon as a spike is today as far as trophy status or a 150” like a 4-5pt is today. I am also not a big fan of earn a buck (this has also been brought up). At least not in the majority of Michigan (if at all). Not killing enough does in most of Michigan usually comes down to access. There are A LOT of people that are more than happy to kill does in overpopulated area’s if someone would just allow them to hunt. Everyone would win if AR’s were properly implemented. Something no one has done on a statewide basis yet and don’t fool yourselves into believing biologists would not like to do this. It is politics (us hunters) that keep them from saying so publicly for fear of putting their job in jeopardy. The deer, the hunters, and the state (more license sales and tourist dollars) would all be better of IMO. My $.02 If I know hunlee there DEERSLAYER be there to meet him. Also, hunlee not answer if need help killing big bucks!
Whut booth was that????????If it was QDM booth than the answer is no as hunlee will not listen to the QDM crap!!!!!!!!!!!!If it was another booth than maybee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You tell hunlee whut booth you were at!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Lansing deer an turkey show was the poorest show yet,,,,evin smaller than lass year show!!!!!!!!!!Few year back the hole room was full with 80% outfitters in there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!This show was about 60% whut it was a few year back and out of all that were there 80% were selling trinkets and otherr assorted nothingness and verry few outfitters!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Hunlee had free tickets to enter and hunlee park in a lot one block away for free!!!!!!!!!!If hunlee had to pay admission price and pay for parking they could keep the show!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hunlee
I have read about many people complaining about the hunting state of affairs in Michigan. I wish you guys the best of luck, I really do.
Where Hunlee and Germ hunt is good, it's the Northern LP and UP with all the issues. The number one main issues is there are simple not any deer anymore. The model MI has had works with over population of deer numbers. We have brought the numbers down in those areas, but our management has not changed. Being we promote shooting bucks, there are simple not enough anymore in the eyes of some hunters. This is why the state wants to protect more 1.5 bucks. In the end it will be better hunting, but that's like trying to explain the Theory Of Relativity to Paris Hilton
