Michigan considers ‘1 buck rule’ to balance herd, better control population

Hunters are divided over a proposed “one buck rule” that some hope would help balance the buck-to-doe ratio, curb overpopulation in the Lower Peninsula and make deer hunting better for future generations by leaving more prize bucks on the table.

The Michigan Natural Resources Commission, the state’s hunting and fishing regulator, is considering a policy that would mean no hunter in the state could kill more than one antlered deer. In the Lower Peninsula, hunters would need a special license to kill any bucks.

Currently, hunters in Michigan can kill two antlered deer per season, except on Drummond Island, where they are already limited to one.

The commission is expected to vote on a version of the one buck rule recommended by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources — and other proposed deer regulations — on May 13. If passed as currently written, the one buck rule would go into effect in 2027.

It’s an idea that some think could be a game-changer for deer hunting in the state. Others think it will have little impact except limiting hunters’ options.

“We have a buck-centric culture in Michigan. Everybody wants their buck. And we have an aversion, a flat-out refusal, to shoot does by many people. That needs to change,” said hunter Dan Ulfig. “It’s obvious that the one buck rule will improve antlerless harvest.”

Derek Rauch, however, said he agreed the DNR needs to find a way to get hunters to kill more antlerless deer, balance the herd’s sex ratio and increase hunter satisfaction, but he didn’t think it was clear the one buck rule would do the trick.

“A lot of hunters are going to see this as paying more for less flexibility, and all for a rule the state itself says will only have modest immediate effects,” he said.

The DNR refers to bucks as an antlered deer, which is any deer with an antler of 3 inches or more in length.

In the Lower Peninsula, if hunters buy a single deer license, it would default to being for an antlerless deer. If a hunter wanted to kill an antlered deer, they’d need to buy a combination license — raising the price from $20 to $40 for residents — and then only one of those deer could be antlered.

According to the DNR’s deer specialist, Brent Rudolph, a version of the one buck rule came out of the department’s deer advisory teams, as well as a request from Natural Resources Commissioner John Walters, who asked the department to write a recommendation to address the state’s buck-to-doe ratio.

The DNR does not know the buck-to-doe ratio in the state, but has a sense of the ratio from the deer hunters kill. In a given year, around 20% of hunters harvest an antlerless deer.

Over the past decade, 4% to 7% of killed deer — or 32,000 per year — were a second antlered deer killed by one hunter, the DNR said.

“Restricting hunters to a single buck doesn’t, according to our statistics, protect a whole lot of additional deer. There’s not a lot of hunters that take two bucks,” said Rudolph. “But it limits the options that folks have, and hopefully creates more of a reinforcement for antlerless harvest as an important part of the take.”

Hunters are divided on the issue. The DNR has never asked them about its specific recommendation, but, in 2020, a DNR survey found slightly less than half of hunters — 48% — would have supported limiting the combination license to allow for only one buck to be killed.

At the Natural Resources Commission meeting on Wednesday, hunters spanning generations packed the room — many without seats — to have their voices heard on whether to limit hunters to killing one buck per season.

During a public comment period that lasted nearly four hours and included some who drove eight hours from the Upper Peninsula to get there, applause was louder for comments in support of the one buck rule.

“You don’t get a turnout like this when things are working,” said Josh Arbogast, a supporter of the one buck rule. “Young hunters who have been absent are here today because they still believe that this can change.”

___

This story was originally published by Bridge Michigan and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.