N AT U RA

OF L
T Printed by Authority of: P.A. 451 of 1994

RE
N
Total Number of Copies Printed: .......25
PA R T M E

S O U CES
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Cost per Copy: ..............…................$2.03
Total Cost: ...................…................. $50.75
DNR

R
Wildlife Division Report No. 3482
DE

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

MI
C HIG AN March 2008

2006 DEER HUNTER OPINION SURVEY

Brian J. Frawley and Brent A. Rudolph

ABSTRACT

A random sample of 9,000 deer hunting license buyers were contacted

after the 2006 deer hunting season to (1) estimate importance of deer
hunting and motives of deer hunters in Michigan, (2) quantify hunter
activity during the past three deer hunting seasons, and (3) determine
deer hunters’ opinions on various hunting regulations. Most licensees
(83%) indicated hunting deer was either one of their most important
recreational activities or the most important activity. The primary reasons
people enjoyed hunting deer were to spend time outdoors, spend time
with friends and family, and the excitement of seeing deer. Among
hunters who purchased a deer hunting license in 2006, 96% of these
licensees spent time in the field hunting deer during the past three years
(683,095 deer hunters). About 74% of these hunters took at least one
deer during the past three years. Nearly 60% of hunters took an antlered
deer and 46% took an antlerless deer during the past three years. Over
75% of deer hunters felt the number of deer, number of bucks, number of
mature bucks, and deer herd health were the most important issues to
consider when developing deer hunting regulations. Most deer hunters
(>62%) statewide believed there were moderate to extensive problems
with the number of deer, number of bucks, and number of mature bucks
in the region where they most often hunted. Statewide, most deer
hunters (84%) agreed the regular firearm season should begin on
November 15. Most deer hunters in the Upper Peninsula (58%) and
Northern Lower Peninsula (52%) supported additional restrictions on
buck harvest. Nearly equal proportions of deer hunters in the Southern
Lower Peninsula supported and opposed additional buck harvest

A contribution of Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration, Michigan Project W-147-R

Equal Rights for Natural Resource Users
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) provides equal opportunities for employment and access to Michigan’s natural resources. Both State and Federal laws prohibit
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, disability, age, sex, height, weight or marital status under the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended (MI PA 453 and MI PA 220,
Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended, and the Americans with Disabilities Act). If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility, or if you
desire additional information, please write the DNR, HUMAN RESOURCES, PO BOX 30028, LANSING MI 48909-7528, or the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL RIGHTS, STATE OF
MICHIGAN PLAZA BUILDING, 1200 6TH STREET, DETROIT MI 48226, or the OFFICE FOR DIVERSITY AND CIVIL RIGHTS, US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, 4040 NORTH FAIRFAX
DRIVE, ARLINGTON VA 22203.

For information or assistance on this publication, contact: DNR, WILDLIFE DIVISION, P.O. BOX 30444, LANSING, MI 48909-7944, -or- through the internet at “ http://www.michigan.gov/dnr “.
This publication is available in alternative formats upon request. TTY/TTD (teletype): 711 (Michigan Relay Center).

IC2578-113 (02/26/2008)
 restrictions. Although most Michigan deer hunters favored additional
buck harvest restrictions, none of the buck harvest restrictions evaluated
received higher support than the existing regulations (i.e., allow hunters
to take a total of two bucks in any combination of seasons if one of those
bucks has at least four antler points on one antler).

INTRODUCTION
The Michigan Natural Resources Commission (NRC) and the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) have the authority and responsibility to protect and manage the
wildlife resources of the state of Michigan. The NRC recognizes deer in Michigan as an
important natural resource that should be maintained at a level providing quality
recreation, yet does not result in unacceptable impacts on public safety, native plant
communities, agricultural, horticultural, and silvicultural crops (NRC Policy 2007).
Annually the DNR considers, among other factors, deer numbers and hunter attitudes
when developing deer hunting regulations. Estimating hunter participation, harvest, and
hunting effort through annual harvest surveys and information from deer harvest check
stations, deer pellet group surveys, reports of automobile accidents involving deer, and
population modeling are some of the methods used to monitor deer population trends.
Opinion surveys and other forms of public input are also used by the NRC and DNR to
accomplish its statutory responsibility.

The opinions of Michigan deer hunters are obtained through three primary means:
contacts with local biologists, NRC and DNR public meetings, and hunter opinion
surveys. DNR professionals frequently discuss regulations with hunters at local public
meetings and during informal contacts, including phone calls and letters. However,
opinions obtained through these processes may not reflect those held by most deer
hunters because these opinions often come from hunters with specific complaints or
focus on local issues. Scientifically-designed opinion surveys of deer hunters are useful
tools to supplement hunter opinions obtained locally and through public meetings.

Hunting white-tailed deer is an important recreational activity in Michigan. An estimated

691,000 hunters spent 10.1 million days afield deer hunting, and harvested
approximately 456,000 deer in Michigan during 2006 (Frawley 2007). Identifying factors
that influence the choices of deer hunters will assist managers in obtaining a more
thorough understanding of the impacts of hunting regulations. The major objectives of
this study were to (1) estimate importance of deer hunting and motives of deer hunters
in Michigan, (2) quantify hunter activity during the past three deer hunting seasons, and
(3) determine deer hunters’ opinions on various hunting regulations.

METHODS
Following the 2006 deer hunting seasons, a questionnaire (Appendix A) was sent to
9,000 randomly selected people who purchased a 2006 deer hunting license. The
people selected were grouped into one of three strata on the basis of their region of
residence (Figure 1). The strata consisted of people residing in (1) the Upper Peninsula

2
[UP], (2) northern Lower Peninsula [NLP], and (3) southern Lower Peninsula [SLP].
The sample consisted of 3,000 people from each stratum. Although nonresidents
typically comprise about 3% of the deer hunting license buyers (Frawley 2006),
nonresidents were not included in the sample.

Questionnaires were mailed initially in early January 2007. Up to two follow-up

questionnaires were sent to non-respondents. Questionnaires were undeliverable to
185 people, primarily because of changes in residence. Questionnaires were returned
by 5,598 of 8,815 people receiving the questionnaire (64% response rate).

Estimates were calculated using a stratified random sampling design (Cochran 1977).
Using stratification, hunters were placed into similar groups (strata) based on their
region of residence, and then estimates were derived for each group separately. The
statewide estimate was then derived by combining group estimates so the influence of
each group matched the frequency its members occurred in the statewide population of
hunters. The primary reason for using a stratified sampling design was to produce more
precise estimates. Improved precision means similar estimates should be obtained if
this survey were to be repeated.

Some individuals did not answer all survey questions. When a respondent did not
provide an answer, they were omitted from the analysis for that question. Generally,
1-3% of respondents failed to provide an answer for any single question.

In addition to statewide estimates, estimates were derived separately for the region
where hunters most often hunted (UP, NLP, and SLP). Estimates were calculated
along with their 95% confidence limit (CL). In theory, this CL can be added and
subtracted from the estimate to calculate the 95% confidence interval. The confidence
interval is a measure of the precision associated with the estimate and implies the true
value would be within this interval 95 times out of 100. Unfortunately, there are several
other possible sources of error in surveys that are probably more serious than
theoretical calculations of sampling error. They include failure of participants to provide
answers (nonresponse bias), question wording, and question order. It is difficult to
measure these biases. Thus, estimates were not adjusted for possible bias.

Statistical tests are used routinely to determine the likelihood the differences among
estimates are larger than expected by chance alone. We used the overlap of 95%
confidence intervals to determine whether estimates differed. Non-overlapping 95%
confidence intervals was equivalent to stating the difference between the means was
larger than would be expected 995 out of 1,000 times (P<0.005), if the study had been
repeated (Payton et al. 2003).

3
RESULTS

General deer hunting background

Deer hunting license buyers in 2006 had spent a mean of 25 ± 1 years hunting deer in
Michigan. Most people who purchased a deer hunting license (83 ± 1%) indicated
hunting deer was either one of their most important recreational activities or the most
important activity (Figure 2).

Most hunters identified multiple factors as being important to why they enjoyed deer
hunting (Table 1). The most important reasons were to spend time outdoors, spend
time with friends and family, and the excitement of seeing deer. Taking a trophy deer
was the lowest ranked factor contributing to hunters’ enjoyment.

Deer hunting activity during the past three years

Among hunters who purchased a deer hunting license in 2006, 96 ± 1% of these

licensees spent time in the field hunting deer during the past three years
(683,095 ± 4,906 deer hunters). About 74 ± 2% of these hunters took at least one deer
during the past three years (Figure 3). Nearly 60 ± 2% of hunters took an antlered deer
and 46 ± 2% took an antlerless deer during the past three years.

About 96 ± 1% of the 2006 deer hunters hunted during the firearm season in Michigan
during the past three years. An estimated 55 ± 2% had hunted deer during the archery
season and 45 ± 2% had hunted during the muzzleloader season during the past three
years. About 16 ± 1% had hunted in the special antlerless deer hunting seasons.

About 48 ± 2% of the deer hunters preferred to hunt during the firearm season, while
29 ± 2% preferred hunting during the archery season. Nearly 21 ± 2% of hunters did
not indicate a preferred season. The muzzleloader season was the preferred hunting
season for only 3 ± 1% of deer hunters.

Most people hunted deer in the Lower Peninsula. About 54 ± 2% of hunters pursued
deer in the NLP and 48 ± 2% hunted deer in the SLP. An estimated 19 ± 1% of the
deer hunters hunted deer in the UP. The preferred region to hunt deer was the NLP (44
± 2%) and SLP (40 ± 2%). Only 14 ± 2% of deer hunters preferred to hunt in the UP.

Deer hunters most frequently hunted on private land not owned by themselves or their
family (60 ± 2%) during the past three years. About 43 ± 2% of hunters hunted deer on
their own land or land owned by their family, while 41 ± 2% hunted deer on public lands.
About 8 ± 1% of the hunters hunted deer on private land open to public hunting (for
example, commercial forests) and 6 ± 1% hunted deer on leased private land. Nearly
11 ± 1% of the hunters hunted on public land only, 59 ± 2% hunted on private land only,
and 30 ± 2% hunted on both public and private lands.

4
An estimated 29 ± 2% of the Michigan deer hunters rated their hunting experiences
during the past three years as excellent or good, 56 ± 2% rated their experiences as
good or fair, while 16 ± 1% of deer hunters considered their experiences as poor
(Table 2). Hunters in the SLP rated their experiences significantly higher than hunters
in the other regions.

Most hunters were selective when choosing to harvest a buck during the archery
season (Table 3). About 33% of archers passed on small bucks early in the season but
were willing to take any buck late in the season. Nearly an equal percentage (32%) of
archers targeted only large bucks during the entire archery season. Only 25% of
archers reported they would take the first legal buck they had an opportunity to take in
the archery season.

Most hunters also indicated they were selective when choosing to harvest a buck during
the firearm season (Table 3). About 29% of firearm hunters passed on small bucks
early in the season but would take any buck late in the season, and 28% of hunters
sought only large bucks during the entire firearm season. About 37% of hunters
reported they would take the first legal buck they had an opportunity to take in the
firearm season.

Deer hunter opinions and preferences for hunting regulations

Statewide, most deer hunters felt it was acceptable to harvest some antlerless deer
(does and fawns), as well as bucks, in the region of Michigan where they most often
hunted (Table 4). Support was highest in the SLP (68%) and lowest in the UP (49%).

Deer hunters were presented seven management issues and asked to rate the
importance of the issues when setting deer hunting regulations in the region where they
most often hunted. The seven issues were: (1) hunter dissatisfaction with the number
of deer, (2) hunter dissatisfaction with the number of bucks, (3) hunter dissatisfaction
with the number of mature bucks, (4) number of auto-deer collisions, (5) problems with
deer herd health [e.g., disease, body condition], (6) over-browsing of natural forest
vegetation by deer, and (7) amount of agricultural and horticultural crops lost to deer.
Nearly all issues were rated as very important or important; however, over 75% of deer
hunters felt the number of deer, number of bucks, number of mature bucks, and deer
herd health were important issues to consider when developing deer hunting regulations
(Table 5).

Most deer hunters (>62%) statewide believed there were at least moderate problems
with the number of deer, number of bucks, and number of mature bucks in the region
where they most often hunted (Table 6). These problems were less frequently identified
by hunters in the SLP. Statewide, 46% of deer hunters felt the number of auto-deer
collisions was a problem; however, 57% of the hunters reported the number of auto-
deer collisions was an extensive problem in the SLP. Few hunters believed there were
problems associated with the remaining issues (that is, problems with deer herd health,

5
over-browsing of forest vegetation, and damage to agricultural crops) in the region
where they most often hunted deer.

Statewide, most deer hunters (84 ± 1%) supported maintaining the November 15
opening date for the regular firearm season. In contrast, only 12 ± 1% of deer hunters
opposed maintaining this date. About 39 ± 2% of deer hunters statewide supported
opening the regular firearm season on the Saturday nearest to November 15 each year;
while 54 ± 2% disagreed the season should begin on this Saturday.

An estimated 50 ± 4% of deer hunters statewide did not feel outdoor activity of people
prior to the firearm season impacted deer movements or reduced the number of deer
seen. In contrast, 44 ± 4% felt deer movement and visibility was affected by human
activity before the firearm hunting season. About 62 ± 4% of deer hunters did not feel
archers took an unfair portion of the bucks before the firearm hunting season started,
while 31 ± 3% of hunters felt archers took an unfair portion. Deer hunters were
presented six management options designed to reduce disturbance of deer during a
quiet period before the firearm hunting season and asked whether they supported these
options in the region where they most often hunted (Table 7). All of the options were
opposed by most deer hunters; at least 72% of deer hunters statewide opposed each
option.

Most deer hunters in the UP (58%) and NLP (52%) supported additional restrictions on
buck harvest (Table 8). Nearly equal proportions of deer hunters in the SLP supported
(48%) and opposed (42%) additional buck harvest restrictions. Deer hunters were
presented five management options designed to reduce harvest of antlered deer and
asked whether they supported these options in the region where they most often hunted
(Table 9). Statewide, most deer hunters (70 ± 2%) supported continuation of the
existing regulation allowing hunters to take two bucks in any combination of seasons if
one of those bucks has at least four antler points on one antler. In addition, most
hunters statewide (53 ± 2%) also supported requiring all male deer to be tagged with a
buck tag. Most hunters (>55%) opposed the remaining three restrictions (Table 9).

The NRC recently considered, but did not adopt, additional buck harvest restrictions for
the UP. These restrictions included: (1) allowing only one antlered buck (no antler
restrictions) per hunter per year to be harvested in the UP [one buck rule], and (2)
allowing UP hunters to take two bucks if one of those bucks had at least four antler
points on one antler, but allow only one to be taken in the firearm season and one in the
archery season. About 50 ± 4% of UP deer hunters supported the one buck rule in the
UP, but 46 ± 4% opposed this restriction. Similarly, 45 ± 4% of UP deer hunters
supported allowing UP hunters to take one buck during the firearm and one buck during
the archery seasons if one of those bucks has at least four antler points on one antler,
but 52 ± 4% opposed this restriction.

Most hunters indicated they would continue to be selective when harvesting a buck
during the archery season if the one buck rule applied (Table 10). About 27% of
archers would pass on small bucks early in the season but would take any buck late in

6
the season. An estimated 32% of archers would target only large bucks during the
entire archery season. Only 15% of archers reported they would take the first legal
buck they had an opportunity to take in the archery season. About 17% of hunters
indicated they would be more likely to harvest an antlerless deer in the archery season
if the one buck rule was adopted.

Most hunters also indicated they would be selective when harvesting a buck during the
firearm season if a one buck rule was enacted (Table 10). About 29% of firearm
hunters would pass on small bucks early in the season but would take any buck late in
the season, and 23% of hunters would target only large bucks during the entire firearm
season. About 31% of hunters reported they would take the first legal buck they had an
opportunity to take in the firearm season. About 8% of hunters indicated they would be
more likely to harvest an antlerless deer in the firearm season if the one buck rule
applied.

DISCUSSION
The most commonly hunted game species in Michigan during recent years has been
deer (Frawley 2006). In addition, deer hunters generally were more devoted to their
pastime than hunters pursuing other types of game. Currently, about 78% of deer
hunting license buyers purchased hunting licenses during consecutive years (Frawley
2006). Furthermore, more deer hunters consider deer hunting as one of their more
important recreational activities than hunters pursuing other game species (Figure 4).

This survey indicated most Michigan deer hunters in 2006 were satisfied with their
recent hunting experiences. The high level of satisfaction partly reflects the high
hunting success rates reported during recent years. However, deer hunters attending
public meetings and corresponding with the DNR and the NRC have generally been
dissatisfied with their recent hunting experiences and have sought new regulations to
address their dissatisfaction (Peyton and Bull 2006). Opinions obtained through these
processes may not reflect those held by most deer hunters because these hunters may
not represent most hunters. Indeed, Peyton and Bull (2006) reported that attendees at
public meeting held to discuss deer population goals in Michigan were more committed
to deer hunting than deer hunters in general.

Several studies have shown harvesting a deer is less important as a motive for hunting
than spending time outdoors and with friends and family (Duda et al. 1995, Hubert et al.
2005, Fulton et al. 2006), and our survey results support this finding among Michigan
deer hunters as well. Factors related to successfully harvesting a deer (getting meat,
taking a trophy) were much less important in describing why respondents enjoyed deer
hunting than factors related to the experience of hunting (spending time outdoors, and
time spent with friends and family).

Seeing deer is an important determinant of hunters’ level of enjoyment. Deer sighting

rates can decrease rapidly with reductions in deer densities (Van Deelen and Etter
2003). The decline of deer densities in the UP and NLP from the high densities of the

7
1990s has resulted in reduced deer sighting rates, which may explain why hunter
satisfaction was lowest in those regions (Table 2).

We estimated support for a variety of regulations intended to increase deer hunter

satisfaction, deer sighting rates, and the number of bucks or mature bucks. The only
new regulation favored by most deer hunters was the requirement to tag all male deer
(including antlered bucks, buck fawns, bucks with antlers shorter than three inches, and
bucks with shed antlers) with a buck tag. This option is currently allowed, although
existing regulations also allow hunters taking sub-legal bucks to tag them as antlerless
deer.

Since 1925, the firearm deer hunting season in Michigan has usually begun on
November 15. The only exceptions were during 1962-1967 when the seasons were
altered so they began on a Saturday in mid-November (Ryel 1983). There have been
periodic suggestions for making a Saturday opening day, although assessments have
shown the traditional November 15 opening date has consistently been the preferred
choice (Frawley 1999), including results of this survey.

Michigan deer hunters have periodically indicated that bow hunting activity and other
outdoor recreational pursuits prior to the firearm season impact deer movements and
reduce sightings of deer (Langenau et al. 1994). Our survey results indicate deer
hunters are divided on this opinion, and regardless, very little support existed for
establishing any type of quiet period to address this potential problem.

Deer hunters also have been asked periodically whether harvesting antlerless deer in
Michigan was acceptable (Ryel 1983). Most deer hunters (>59%) have supported
harvesting antlerless deer in Michigan (Table 11), although the current level of support
appeared lower than reported in the 1982 (Ryel 1983) and 1993 (unpublished data
collected by DNR).

Michigan has a long tradition of allowing anyone who wishes to hunt bucks to purchase
a deer hunting license (unlimited buck hunting participation). Legal bucks have been
defined as a deer with one antler three or more inches in length since 1921. Until 1986,
hunters were limited to one antlered deer. Beginning that year a hunter could take two
bucks during the firearm seasons and during the archery season, one buck in the UP or
two bucks in the LP. Outside of a limited number of deer management units with
special restrictions, hunters since 1998 could harvest two bucks in any combination of
seasons if one buck had at least four antler points on one antler. Some hunters have
requested additional restrictions on the harvest of bucks with the intent to increase the
overall number of bucks and/or mature bucks in Michigan. Although most Michigan
deer hunters favor additional buck harvest restrictions, no buck harvest restrictions
evaluated in our study received higher support than the existing regulations (i.e., allow
hunters to take a total of two bucks in any combination of seasons if one of those bucks
has at least four antler points on one antler). Similarly, Minnesota deer hunters desired
increased buck numbers in Minnesota, but most hunters did not support regulations to
meet this goal including: (1) reducing the number of buck licenses, (2) protecting bucks

8
with less than three or four antler points on one antler from harvest, (3) altering the
hunting season to miss the main period of the deer breeding season, (4) requiring
hunters to take an antlerless deer before they could harvest a buck, and (5) shortening
the deer hunting season (Fulton et al. 2004, Fulton et al. 2006).

In 1993, a random sample of Michigan deer hunters was contacted by the DNR
(unpublished data) and asked whether they agreed hunters should be allowed only one
buck license each year, valid in any deer hunting season (one buck rule). In 1993, 44%
of deer hunters statewide agreed with a one buck rule, 49% disagreed, and 8% were
undecided. Thus, a plurality of Michigan deer hunters statewide in both 1993 and 2006
did not support a one buck rule.

Although adopting a one-buck limit may decrease total buck kill, increase the rate at
which hunters defer opportunities to harvest younger or smaller bucks, or increase
antlerless harvest as hunters attempt to offset the reduced bag limit, it does not appear
that substantial changes would result. Five percent or less of Michigan deer hunters
currently harvest two bucks (Frawley 2007). Furthermore, most hunters indicated they
were selective when choosing to harvest a buck under current regulations (Table 3).
Minnesota deer hunters were similarly selective, as only 35% indicated they would take
the first legal deer (antlerless or antlered) during hunting seasons (Fulton et al. 2006).
Michigan hunters did not indicate they would be substantially more selective if they were
limited to one buck (Table 10), and the proportion of firearm hunters that indicated they
would take only a large antlered buck was less under a one buck limit (23%, compared
to 28% under current regulations). Finally, less than 10% of firearm hunters indicated
they would be more likely to take an antlerless deer under a one buck limit, though 17%
of archery season hunters anticipated this tendency.

Overall, most Michigan deer hunters enjoyed their deer hunting experiences. Michigan
deer hunters did desire changes in hunting outcomes, but appeared unwilling to accept
limitations on recreational opportunities to produce those outcomes. Furthermore,
results suggest even more restrictive regulations (for example, limiting the number of
buck tags or requiring an antlerless deer to be harvested before an antlered buck can
be taken) would potentially be required to substantially alter the impact of harvest on
deer populations. We did not assess support for such regulations, but it would
presumably be less than for the more moderate restrictions we evaluated. Our results
suggest additional discussion with Michigan deer hunters and other stakeholders may
be required in order to determine what tradeoffs are acceptable in order to address
perceived problems with numbers of deer, bucks, and mature bucks while also
addressing NRC and DNR goals to provide quality recreation and consider impacts of
deer on other resources in Michigan.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank all the hunters who provided information. Ben Peyton and Peter Bull provided
advice on survey design. Marshall Strong prepared Figure 1. Theresa Riebow and
Becky Walker completed data entry. Michael Bailey, Rod Clute, Valerie Frawley,

9
Jennifer Kleitch, Pat Lederle, Cheryl Nelson, and Doug Reeves reviewed a previous
version of this report.

LITERATURE CITED
Bull, P., S. Knoche, F. Lupi, and B. Peyton. 2006. 2003 Michigan deer hunter opinion
survey: methods and results. Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA.

Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling techniques. John Wiley & Sons, New York, USA.

Duda, M. D., S. J. Bissell, and K. C. Young. 1995. Factors related to hunting and
fishing participation in the United States. Responsive Management, Harrisonburg,
Virginia, USA.

Frawley, B. J. 1999. Michigan deer season opening date preference survey. Wildlife
Division Report 3302. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, USA.

Frawley, B. J. 2006. Demographics, recruitment, and retention of Michigan hunters:

2005 update. Wildlife Division Report 3462. Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Lansing, USA.

Fawley, B. J. 2007. Michigan deer harvest survey report, 2006 seasons. Wildlife
Division Report 3467. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, USA.

Fawley, B. J. 2007. 2005 small game harvest survey. Wildlife Division Report 3476.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, USA.

Frawley, B. J. and G. J. Soulliere. 2005. Michigan waterfowl hunter activity and

opinions on regulations, management, and satisfaction following the 2002-03 hunting
season. Wildlife Division Report 3443. Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Lansing, USA.

Fulton, D. C., J. Bruskotter, and L. Cornicelli. 2004. Assessing level of support for
alternative deer management strategies in northwest Minnesota. Project report.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, USA.

Fulton, D. C., L. Cornicelli, and M. D. Grund. 2006. 2005 survey of deer hunter
satisfaction and preferences for regulation changes in Minnesota. Project report.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, USA.

Hubert, P. D., W. L. Anderson, and L. K. Campbell. 2005. Results of the 2004-2005

Illinois deer hunter survey. Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Springfield, USA.

Langenau, E., S. R. Winterstein, and W. E. Moritz. 1994. Allocating deer hunting

opportunities to Michigan hunters. Wildlife Division Report 3208. Michigan Department
of Natural Resources, Lansing, USA.

10
Payton, M. E., M. H. Greenstone, and N. Schenker. 2003. Overlapping confidence
intervals or standard error intervals: what do they mean in terms of statistical
significance? Journal of Insect Science 3:34.

Peyton, R. B., and P. Bull. 2006. Assessment of Michigan Department of Natural

Resources Wildlife Division public input processes and opportunities for improvement.
Project report. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, USA.

Ryel, L. A. 1983. Deer hunters’ opinion survey, 1982. Wildlife Division Report 2958,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, USA.

Van Deelen, T. R., and D. R. Etter. 2003. Effort and the functional response of deer
hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:97–108.

11
 KEWEENAW

HOUGHTON

ONTONAGON BARAGA

GOGEBIC LUCE
MARQUETTE
CHIPPEWA
ALGER
IRON SCHOOL-
DICKIN- CRAFT MACKINAC
SON DELTA

MENOM- EMMET
INEE CHEBOY-
GAN
PRESQUE ISLE
CHARLEVOIX
MONTMOR-
ANTRIM ENCY
Stratum 1 LEELANAU
KALKASKA
OTSEGO
OSCODA
ALPENA

GRAND ALCONA
BENZIE TRAVERSE CRAWFORD

ROSCOM-
WEXFORD MON IOSCO
MANISTEE MISSAUKEE OGEMAW
ARENAC
Stratum 2 MASON
LAKE
OSCEOLA
CLARE
GLADWIN
HURON
MECOSTA MIDLAND
OCEANA BAY
NEWAYGO ISABELLA TUSCOLA
SANILAC
MONTCALM SAGINAW

Stratum 3 MUSKEGON

KENT
GRATIOT

IONIA SHIAWAS-
LAPEER
GENESEE
ST. CLAIR
SEE
OTTAWA CLINTON
MACOMB
ALLEGAN BARRY EATON LIVING- OAKLAND
STON
INGHAM
0 25 50 Miles
VAN BUREN CALHOUN WASHTENAW
N WAYNE
0 25 50 Kilometers KALAMAZOO JACKSON
ST. HILLSDALE MONROE
BERRIEN JOSEPH
CASS BRANCH LENAWEE
(Rev. 2008 Feb. -MLS)

Figure 1. Stratum boundaries used for the selection of the sample for the Michigan deer
hunter opinion survey, 2006. Nonresidents were not included in the sample.

12
 No more
One of the most important than
important other recreation
58% 14%

Less important
1%
Not important
2%

Most important
25%

Figure 2. Importance of deer hunting as a recreational activity among deer

hunting license buyers (% of license buyers) in Michigan, 2006.

Antlered deer Antlerless deer Any deer

100%

80%
Hunting success

60%

40%

20%

0%
UP NLP SLP Statewide
Region
Figure 3. Proportion of active hunters taking a deer in Michigan during the
past three years, summarized by region and type of deer harvested (antlered
and antlerless). The sum of hunter success for antlered deer and antlerless
deer does not equal overall success for any deer because some hunters took
multiple deer.

13
 2006 deer 2003 deer 2003 waterfowl 2005 small game

70%
Proportion of license buyers
60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
Most important One of the most No more Less important Not important
important important than
other recreation

Level of recreational importance

Figure 4. Importance of deer, waterfowl, and small game hunting as a

recreational activity among hunting license buyers (% of license buyers) in
Michigan. Sources of previous estimates: 2003 deer (Bull et al. 2006), 2003
waterfowl (Frawley and Soulliere 2005), and 2005 small game (Frawley 2007).

14
Table 1. The importance of the following factors in describing why hunters enjoy deer hunting in Michigan, 2006.
Very Slightly
important Important important Not important Not sure
95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
Factor influencing enjoyment % CL % CL % CL % CL % CL
Time outdoors 68 2 28 2 4 1 0 0 0 0
Time with friends and family 61 2 30 2 7 1 3 1 0 0
Excitement of seeing deer 56 2 34 2 8 1 2 <1 0 0
Time alone 39 2 38 2 15 1 6 1 1 <1
Physical exercise 23 1 36 2 26 2 14 1 1 <1
Getting meat 29 2 28 2 26 2 16 1 1 <1
Demonstrating hunting skills 21 1 33 2 23 1 22 1 1 <1
Taking trophy 20 1 24 2 31 2 24 2 1 <1

Table 2. Rating of deer hunting in Michigan during the past three years, summarized by region hunters most often deer
hunted.
Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor
95% 95% 95% 95% 95%
Region % CL % CL % CL % CL % CL
UP 5 2 15 3 32 4 28 3 19 2
NLP 7 1 16 2 29 2 27 2 21 2
SLP 12 2 26 3 35 3 19 2 8 2
Statewide 8 1 20 1 32 2 24 1 16 1

15
Table 3. Buck hunting strategy of Michigan deer hunters during the archery and firearm
deer hunting seasons in Michigan during past three years.
Archery season Firearm season
Buck hunting strategya % 95% CL % 95% CL
Will not take a buck (take only
antlerless deer) 2 1 2 <1

Take first legal buck 25 2 37 2

Pass small bucks in early season, but
take any buck in late season 33 2 29 2

Take only a large buck 32 2 28 2

Unsure 8 1 4 1
a
Hunters that did not hunt in applicable season during the last three years and hunters failing to
provide an answer were excluded from analyses.

Table 4. Proportion of deer hunters agreeing it was necessary to shoot some antlerless
deer (does and fawns), as well as bucks, in the region of Michigan where they most
often hunted.
Region Agree Disagree Unsure
most often
hunted % 95% CL % 95% CL % 95% CL
UP 49 4 41 4 10 2
NLP 57 3 34 2 9 2
SLP 68 3 22 3 10 2
Statewide 60 2 30 2 10 1

16
Table 5. Proportion of deer hunters indicating various issues were important issues to
consider when setting deer hunting regulations in the region where they hunted most
often in Michigan, 2006.
Management importance
Very important or Slightly important or
Issue and important not important Not sure
region % 95% CL % 95% CL % 95% CL
Hunter dissatisfaction with the number of deer
UP 81 3 16 3 3 2
NLP 85 2 14 2 2 1
SLP 78 3 19 3 3 1
Statewide 81 1 16 1 2 1
Hunter dissatisfaction with the number of bucks
UP 83 3 14 3 3 2
NLP 85 2 13 2 2 1
SLP 79 3 19 2 2 1
Statewide 82 1 16 1 2 1
Hunter dissatisfaction with the number of mature bucks
UP 75 3 21 3 3 2
NLP 77 2 21 2 2 1
SLP 74 3 23 3 3 1
Statewide 75 2 22 1 3 1
Number of auto-deer collisions
UP 40 4 51 4 10 2
NLP 47 3 47 3 6 1
SLP 58 3 35 3 7 2
Statewide 50 2 43 2 7 1
Problems with deer herd health (e.g., disease, body condition)
UP 70 3 24 3 7 2
NLP 78 2 18 2 5 1
SLP 79 3 16 2 5 1
Statewide 77 1 18 1 5 1
Over-browsing of natural forest vegetation by deer
UP 46 4 47 4 7 2
NLP 48 3 46 3 6 1
SLP 53 3 41 3 5 1
Statewide 49 2 44 2 6 1
Amount of agricultural and horticultural crops lost to deer
UP 40 4 50 4 10 2
NLP 46 3 46 3 7 1
SLP 54 3 41 3 5 1
Statewide 48 2 45 2 7 1

17
Table 6. Proportion of deer hunters indicating various issues were a problem in the
region where they hunted most often in Michigan, 2006.
Extent of problem
Very extensive or Low or does
Issue and moderate not exist Not sure
region % 95% CL % 95% CL % 95% CL
Hunter dissatisfaction with the number of deer
UP 74 3 21 3 5 2
NLP 71 2 25 2 4 2
SLP 47 3 47 3 5 2
Statewide 62 2 33 2 5 2
Hunter dissatisfaction with the number of bucks
UP 79 3 16 3 5 2
NLP 75 2 22 2 3 1
SLP 56 3 40 3 5 1
Statewide 67 2 28 2 4 1
Hunter dissatisfaction with the number of mature bucks
UP 79 3 15 3 5 2
NLP 75 2 21 2 4 1
SLP 67 3 28 3 6 1
Statewide 72 2 23 2 5 1
Number of auto-deer collisions
UP 35 3 47 4 18 3
NLP 40 3 43 3 17 2
SLP 57 3 30 3 12 2
Statewide 46 2 38 2 15 1
Problems with deer herd health (e.g., disease, body condition)
UP 11 2 72 3 17 3
NLP 21 2 63 3 16 2
SLP 12 2 70 3 18 2
Statewide 16 1 66 2 17 1
Over-browsing of natural forest vegetation by deer
UP 14 2 71 3 15 3
NLP 15 2 69 2 16 2
SLP 15 2 68 3 18 2
Statewide 15 1 69 2 17 1
Amount of agricultural and horticultural crops lost to deer
UP 14 2 65 4 21 3
NLP 20 2 57 3 22 2
SLP 34 3 47 3 18 2
Statewide 25 2 54 2 20 1

18
Table 7. Proportion of deer hunters supporting various restrictions during a quiet period
established before the regular firearm hunting season in Michigan, 2006.
Level of support
Strongly support or Oppose or strongly
Restriction support oppose Not sure
and region % 95% CL % 95% CL % 95% CL
No deer hunting on public land during quiet period
UP 21 3 74 3 5 1
NLP 24 2 70 2 6 1
SLP 18 2 74 3 8 2
Statewide 21 1 72 2 7 1
No deer hunting on private land during quiet period
UP 15 3 81 3 4 1
NLP 18 2 77 2 5 1
SLP 12 2 83 2 5 1
Statewide 15 1 80 1 5 1
No deer hunting activity on public land during quiet period
UP 19 3 77 3 4 1
NLP 21 2 74 2 6 1
SLP 18 2 75 3 7 2
Statewide 20 1 74 2 6 1
No deer hunting activity on private land during quiet period
UP 11 2 85 3 4 1
NLP 13 2 82 2 5 1
SLP 10 2 85 2 5 1
Statewide 12 1 83 1 5 1
No hunting (all forms) or trapping on public land during quiet period
UP 15 3 79 3 5 2
NLP 16 2 78 2 5 1
SLP 13 2 80 3 6 2
Statewide 15 1 79 1 6 1
No hunting (all forms) or trapping on private land during quiet period
UP 12 3 83 3 5 2
NLP 13 2 83 2 5 1
SLP 9 2 86 2 5 1
Statewide 11 1 84 1 5 1

19
Table 8. Proportion of deer hunters supporting additional restrictions on buck harvest in
Michigan, 2006.
Level of support
Region Strongly support or Oppose or strongly
most often support oppose Unsure
hunted % 95% CL % 95% CL % 95% CL
UP 58 4 36 4 6 2
NLP 52 3 39 3 9 2
SLP 48 3 42 3 10 2

20
Table 9. Proportion of deer hunters supporting various buck harvest restrictions in
Michigan, 2006.
Level of support
Strongly support or Oppose or strongly
Restriction support oppose Not sure
and region % 95% CL % 95% CL % 95% CL
Allow hunters to take a total of two bucks in any combination of seasons if one of those
bucks has at least 4 antler points on one antler (existing rule).
UP 63 3 35 3 2 1
NLP 70 2 27 2 3 1
SLP 71 3 25 3 4 1
Statewide 70 2 27 2 3 1
Allow hunters to take two bucks if one of those bucks has at least four antler points
on a side, but allow only one to be taken with a firearm and one in the archery
season.
UP 40 4 56 4 4 1
NLP 40 3 54 3 6 1
SLP 37 3 57 3 6 1
Statewide 38 2 55 2 6 1
Allow hunters to take a total of two bucks in any combination of seasons, but require
both bucks to have at least 4 antler points on a side.
UP 30 3 66 4 4 1
NLP 32 2 63 3 5 1
SLP 35 3 60 3 5 1
Statewide 33 2 61 2 5 1
Allow only one antlered buck (no antler restrictions) per hunter per year [one buck
rule].
UP 41 4 54 4 6 2
NLP 37 3 57 3 6 1
SLP 32 3 61 3 7 2
Statewide 35 2 58 2 6 1
Require all male deer (including antlered bucks, buck fawns, bucks with antlers
shorter than three inches, and bucks with shed antlers) to be tagged with a buck
tag.
UP 51 4 40 4 9 2
NLP 53 3 38 3 9 1
SLP 54 3 37 3 8 2
Statewide 53 2 38 2 9 1

21
Table 10. Buck hunting strategy of Michigan deer hunters during the archery and
firearm deer hunting seasons if regulations limited hunters to harvesting only one buck
per year in all seasons combined.
Archery season Firearm season
Buck hunting strategya % 95% CL % 95% CL
Will not take a buck in archery season
(take only antlerless deer) 3 1 NAb
Likely take a buck in the archery
season; thus, would not hunt
antlered deer in firearm season NA 4 1

Take first legal buck 15 2 31 2

Pass small bucks in early season, but
take any buck in late season 27 2 29 2

Take only a large antlered buck 32 2 23 2

More likely to take an antlerless deer 17 2 8 1

Unsure 7 1 5 1
a
Hunters that did not hunt in applicable season during the last three years and hunters failing to
provide an answer were excluded from analyses.
b
Not applicable.

Table 11. Proportion of deer hunters agreeing it was necessary to shoot some
antlerless deer (does and fawns), as well as bucks, in Michigan, 1977-2006.
Yeara Agree Disagree Unsure No answer
b
1977 61 38 NA 1
1978 65 34 NA 1
1979 66 34 NA 1
1980 61 39 NA 0
1981 72 27 NA 1
1982 72 27 NA 1
1993 80 18 NA 3
2006 59 30 10 1
a
Estimates from 1977-1982 (Ryel 1983); estimate for 1993 from unpublished data
collected by DNR.
b
The Unsure option was only available for the 2006 estimate; thus, the 2006 estimate is
not directly comparable to estimates from previous years.

22
Appendix A. The questionnaire sent to people included in the 2006 deer hunter opinion
survey in Michigan.

23
 N AT U RA
OF L
T MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, WILDLIFE DIVISION

RE
N
PA RT M E

S O U CES
PO BOX 30030 LANSING MI 48909-7530
DNR

R
DEER HUNTER OPINION SURVEY
DE

MI
C HIG AN
This information is requested under authority of Part 435, 1994 PA 451, M.C.L. 324.43539.

It is important that you complete and return this questionnaire even if you did not hunt or
harvest a deer during the most recent deer hunting season.

General Deer Hunting Questions

1. About how many years have you hunted deer in Michigan? _________ Years
2. As a recreational activity, how important is deer hunting for you compared to your other
recreational activities? (Select one choice.)
1 My most important recreational activity. 4 Not at all important as a recreational activity.
2 One of my more important recreational activities. 5 Less important than most of my recreational
3 No more important than other recreational activities. activities.
Very Important

3. How important are each of the following factors in describing why Not Important
Important

Important

you enjoy deer hunting? (Select one choice per item.)

Not Sure
Slightly

a. Spending time outdoors (enjoying nature, viewing wildlife, etc.). 1 2 3 4 5

b. Enjoying time spent with friends and family. 1 2 3 4 5

c. The feeling of excitement when seeing deer. 1 2 3 4 5

d. Bringing home meat for food. 1 2 3 4 5

e. Bringing home a nice trophy. 1 2 3 4 5

f. Demonstrating my hunting skill. 1 2 3 4 5

g. The physical exercise that hunting provides. 1 2 3 4 5

h. Enjoying time spent alone in the field. 1 2 3 4 5

646 Continued on next page PR-2057-33 (12/13/2006)

 Questions Regarding Recent Deer Hunting Activities

4. Have you hunted deer in Michigan during the past 3 years? (Select one.)
1 2 No (Please skip to Question 14)
Yes

5. How many total deer did you harvest in Michigan during the past 3 years? (If none, write in “0”.)
1 antlered deer: ____ 2 antlerless deer: ____

6. How would you rate your deer hunting experiences in Michigan over the past 3 years?
(Select one.)
1 Excellent 2 Very good 3 Good 4 Fair 5 Poor

7. On what lands did you hunt deer in Michigan in any of the past 3 years? (Select all that apply.)
1 2 3
My property Private land, with permission Leased private land
4 5
Private land open to public hunting (Commercial Forests, Public land (State Game Area, State or
Hunter Access Program) National Forest, etc.)

8. In what season(s) did you hunt deer in Michigan in any of the past 3 years? (Select all that apply.)
1 Archery 2 Firearm 3 Muzzleloader 4 Special Antlerless Seasons
9. In what season have you generally preferred hunting deer in Michigan in the past 3 years?
(Select one.)
1 No 2 Archery 3 Firearm 4 Muzzleloader 5 Special Antlerless
preference Seasons

10. In what region(s) did you hunt deer in Michigan in any of the past 3 years? (Select all that apply.)
1 Upper Peninsula 2 Northern Lower Peninsula 3 Southern Lower Peninsula

11. In what region have you most often hunted deer in Michigan in the past 3 years? (Select one.)
1 Upper Peninsula 2 Northern Lower Peninsula 3 Southern Lower Peninsula

12. Which statement best describes your usual strategy for harvesting BUCKS during
ARCHERY SEASON in Michigan in the past 3 years? (Select one.)
1 I did not hunt during the archery season.
2 I intended to harvest only antlerless deer and did not shoot bucks.
3 I intended to shoot the first legal antlered buck I could.
4 I intended to pass smaller antlered bucks early in the season, but take any legal
antlered buck later in the season.
5 I intended to only shoot large antlered bucks during archery season and passed all
small legal bucks.
6 Unsure.

646 Page 2 of 6 PR-2057-33 (12/13/2006)

 13. Which statement best describes your usual strategy for harvesting BUCKS during
FIREARM SEASON in Michigan in the past 3 years? (Select one.)
1 I did not hunt during the firearm season.
2 I intended to harvest only antlerless deer and did not shoot bucks.
3 I intended to shoot the first legal antlered buck I could.
4 I intended to pass smaller antlered bucks early in the season, but would take any legal
antlered buck later in the season.
5 I intended to only shoot large antlered bucks during firearm season and passed all small
legal bucks.
6 Unsure.

Questions Regarding Deer Hunter Opinions and Preferences for Regulations

14. Do you think it is necessary to shoot some does and fawns, as well as bucks in the region
of Michigan where you most often hunt deer? (Select one.)
1 Yes. 2 No. 3 Unsure

Low Level
Extensive
15. How extensive are problems with each of the situations below

Moderate

Does Not

Not Sure
in the Deer Management Unit where you most often hunt deer?

Level

Exist
(Select one choice per item.)

a. Hunter dissatisfaction with the number of deer. Very

1 2 3 4 5

b. Hunter dissatisfaction with the number of bucks. 1 2 3 4 5

c. Hunter dissatisfaction with the number of mature bucks. 1 2 3 4 5

d. The number of auto-deer collisions. 1 2 3 4 5

e. Problems with deer herd health (disease, body condition, etc.). 1 2 3 4 5

f. Over-browsing of natural forest vegetation by deer. 1 2 3 4 5

g. Amount of agricultural and horticultural crops lost to deer. 1 2 3 4 5

16. How much importance should the Michigan DNR assign to

Important
Important

Important

Important

Not Sure
each of these considerations when they set deer hunting
Slightly

regulations? (Select one choice per item.)

Very

Not

a. Hunter satisfaction with the number of deer. 1 2 3 4 5

b. Hunter satisfaction with the number of bucks. 1 2 3 4 5

c. Hunter satisfaction with the number of mature bucks. 1 2 3 4 5

d. The number of auto-deer collisions. 1 2 3 4 5

e. Risks to deer herd health (disease, body condition, etc.). 1 2 3 4 5

f. Amount of damage to natural forest vegetation by deer. 1 2 3 4 5

g. Amount of agricultural and horticultural crops lost to deer. 1 2 3 4 5

646 Page 3 of 6 PR-2057-33 (12/13/2006)

 Disagree

Disagree

Not Sure
Strongly

Strongly
17. Please indicate how strongly you would support or oppose the

Agree
Agree
following dates or day of the week for opening day of the firearm
season. (Select one choice per item.)
1 2 3 4 5
a. Maintain the November 15 opening date.
1 2 3 4 5
b. Open on the Saturday nearest November 15 each year.
1 2 3 4 5
c. Open on another day of the week (please specify):
_____________________

Questions Regarding a Potential Deer Hunting Quiet Period

Some hunters think there should be a quiet period immediately before the firearm hunting season
when deer hunting and possibly other activities are not allowed. The following questions are
intended to assess your opinions of and support for such a quiet period.

Disagree

Disagree

Not Sure
Strongly

Strongly
18. How strongly do you agree or disagree that the following

Agree
Agree
conditions exist in the region of Michigan where you most often
hunt deer? (Select one choice per item.)
a. Disturbance by the outdoor activity of people prior to the firearm
season impacts deer movements and reduces the number of deer I 1 2 3 4 5

see at the start of the firearm season.

b. Archers take an unfair portion of the bucks prior to the firearm 1 2 3 4 5
season.

Not Sure
Strongly

Strongly
19. How strongly do you support or oppose the following restrictions
Support
Support

Oppose

Oppose
as part of a possible quiet period prior to the firearm season?
(Select one choice per item.)
1 2 3 4 5
a. Prohibit deer hunting on PUBLIC LAND.
1 2 3 4 5
b. Prohibit deer hunting on PRIVATE LAND.
c. Prohibit all activities associated with deer hunting (placing bait, tree 1 2 3 4 5
stands or blinds, shining, etc.) on PUBLIC LAND.
d. Prohibit all activities associated with deer hunting (placing bait, tree 1 2 3 4 5
stands or blinds, shining, etc.) on PRIVATE LAND.
e. Prohibit all hunting (deer, small game, fall turkey, waterfowl, 1 2 3 4 5
predators) and trapping on PUBLIC LAND.
f. Prohibit all hunting (deer, small game, fall turkey, waterfowl,
1 2 3 4 5
predators) and trapping on PRIVATE LAND.

20. If a quiet period was implemented, how many days should be included? (Select one.)
1 1 day 2 1 week 3 2 weeks 4 Unsure
21. If a quiet period was implemented, during what deer hunting season should it apply?
(Select one.)
1 Archery Season 2 Firearm Season 3 Both Seasons 4 Unsure

646 Page 4 of 6 PR-2057-33 (12/13/2006)

 Not Sure
Strongly

Strongly
Support

Support

Oppose

Oppose
22. Please indicate how strongly you support or oppose a quiet
period in each region of Michigan. (Select one choice per item.)

a. Upper Peninsula 1 2 3 4 5

b. Northern Lower Peninsula 1 2 3 4 5

c. Southern Lower Peninsula 1 2 3 4 5

Questions Regarding Preferences for Buck Harvest Regulations

Michigan has a long tradition of allowing anyone who wishes to hunt bucks to purchase a deer
hunting license (unlimited buck hunting participation). Legal bucks have been defined as a deer
with at least one antler three or more inches in length. In recent years, hunters could harvest two
bucks in any combination of seasons if one buck had at least 4 antler points on one side. Each
year, 5% or less of Michigan deer hunters take 2 bucks. Some hunters have requested changes to
restrictions on the harvest of bucks in Michigan. The following questions ask for your opinions on
a range of possible buck harvest regulations.

Not Sure
23. Please indicate how strongly you support or oppose each

Strongly

Strongly
Support

Support

Oppose

Oppose
potential future buck harvest regulation for Michigan.
(Select one choice per item.)
a. Continue to allow hunters to take a total of two bucks in any
combination of seasons if one of those bucks has at least 4 1 2 3 4 5
antler points on one side (existing rule).
b. Allow hunters to take two bucks if one of those bucks has at
least 4 antler points on a side, but allow only one to be taken 1 2 3 4 5
with a firearm and one in the archery season.
c. Allow hunters to take a total of two bucks in any combination of
seasons, but require both bucks to have at least 4 antler points 1 2 3 4 5
on a side.
d. Allow only one antlered buck (no antler restrictions) per hunter 1 2 3 4 5
per year.
e. Require all male deer (including antlered bucks, buck fawns,
bucks with antlers shorter than three inches, and bucks with 1 2 3 4 5
shed antlers) to be tagged with a buck tag.

24. Please indicate how strongly you would support additional

Not Sure
Strongly

Strongly
Support

Support

Oppose

Oppose

restrictions on buck harvest in each region of Michigan.

(Select one choice per item.)

a. Upper Peninsula 1 2 3 4 5

b. Northern Lower Peninsula 1 2 3 4 5

c. Southern Lower Peninsula 1 2 3 4 5

646 Page 5 of 6 PR-2057-33 (12/13/2006)

 25. The Natural Resources Commission recently considered
additional buck harvest restrictions that would have applied only
in the Upper Peninsula. The proposals are indicated below.

Not Sure
Strongly

Strongly
Support

Support

Oppose

Oppose
Please indicate how strongly you support or oppose each
potential buck harvest regulation in the Upper Peninsula.
(Select one choice per item.)
a. Allow only one antlered buck (no antler restrictions) per hunter 1 2 3 4 5
per year to be harvested in the Upper Peninsula.
b. Allow Upper Peninsula hunters to take two bucks if one of those
bucks has at least 4 antler points on a side, but allow only one to 1 2 3 4 5
be taken with a firearm and one in the archery season.

26. If regulations limited hunters to harvesting only one buck per year in all seasons combined,
which statement would best describe your hunting strategy during the Michigan ARCHERY
season? (Select one.)
1 I do not hunt during the archery season.
2 I would not hunt antlered bucks during the archery season.
3 I would shoot the first legal antlered buck I could.
4 I would pass smaller bucks early in the season, but would take any legal antlered buck
later in the season.
5 I would only shoot a large buck.
6 I would be more likely to shoot an antlerless deer during archery season.
7 Unsure.

27. If regulations limited hunters to harvesting only one buck per year in all seasons combined,
which statement would best describe your hunting strategy during the Michigan FIREARM
season? (Select one.)
1 I do not hunt during the firearm season.
2 I would likely harvest a buck during the archery season and would not hunt antlered
bucks during the firearm season.
3 I would shoot the first legal antlered buck I could.
4 I would pass smaller bucks early in the season, but would take any legal antlered buck
later in the season.
5 I would only shoot a large antlered buck.
6 I would be more likely to attempt to purchase and fill an antlerless permit.
7 Unsure.

Please return questionnaire in the enclosed postage-paid envelope.

Thank you for your help!

GREAT LAKES, GREAT TIMES, GREAT OUTDOORS

www.michigan.gov/dnr

646 Page 6 of 6 PR-2057-33 (12/13/2006)