Michigan to consider “one buck rule” limiting hunters to one antlered deer

Summary

Michigan is weighing a proposed “one buck rule” aimed at shifting how many antlered deer hunters take and, in turn, improving the overall deer harvest balance in the Lower Peninsula, according to state regulators. The Michigan Natural Resources Commission is expected to vote on a version of the rule recommended by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources on May 13, with the proposal set to take effect in 2027 if approved.

Under the concept being considered, no hunter in the state would be allowed to kill more than one antlered deer. In the Lower Peninsula, hunters would need a special license to kill any bucks, a change regulators say is meant to address the state’s buck-to-doe ratio and increase antlerless harvest.

The debate is also reflecting a culture among hunters that prioritizes bucks, while regulators and some hunters argue that the current mix is not producing the desired sex balance in the herd. At a Natural Resources Commission meeting Wednesday, hunters packed the room—many without seats—during nearly four hours of public comment on whether hunters should be limited to killing one buck per season.

The proposal would alter the current structure of Michigan deer hunting limits. Under existing rules, hunters in Michigan can kill two antlered deer per season, with Drummond Island already operating under a one-antlered-deer limit. The state’s Department of Natural Resources defines an “antlered deer” as any deer with an antler of 3 inches or more in length.

In the Lower Peninsula, the license approach would also change how hunters buy access to take bucks. The DNR says that if hunters purchase a single deer license, it would default to being for an antlerless deer. If hunters want to kill an antlered deer, they would need to buy a combination license, which would raise the price for residents from $20 to $40, and then only one of those deer could be antlered.

A key part of the commission’s consideration is whether the “one buck” limitation can meaningfully affect deer numbers. The DNR said it does not know the buck-to-doe ratio directly, but it has “a sense of the ratio from the deer hunters kill.” In a given year, around 20% of hunters harvest an antlerless deer, the state said, and over the past decade, 4% to 7% of killed deer—or about 32,000 per year—were a second antlered deer killed by one hunter.

Brent Rudolph, the DNR deer specialist, said the data show the restriction would not protect a whole lot of additional deer, even if it could change behavior. “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,” Rudolph said. He added that limiting the options could still reinforce antlerless harvest: “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.”

The DNR said the proposal came out of deer advisory teams and also from a request by Natural Resources Commissioner John Walters, who asked the department to write a recommendation to address the buck-to-doe ratio. The DNR has not asked hunters about their support for the specific recommendation, but it previously surveyed hunters. In 2020, the 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.

Hunters at the meeting split on whether the rule would help manage the herd. Supporters argued it could improve the balance by pushing hunters to take more antlerless deer. Dan Ulfig said, “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,” adding, “It’s obvious that the one buck rule will improve antlerless harvest.”

Derek Rauch, however, agreed that the DNR needs a way to get hunters to kill more antlerless deer and increase satisfaction, but he said the one buck rule was not clearly the right method. “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,” Rauch said.

The public comment period also underscored that the rule is as much about hunting choices as it is about herd management. Josh Arbogast, a supporter of the one buck rule, said the turnout reflected genuine interest in trying to change outcomes. “You don’t get a turnout like this when things are working,” Arbogast said. “Young hunters who have been absent are here today because they still believe that this can change.”