APRs in Lottery Areas?

[deerminator]

Thanks lcornice for the historic harvest information!!! Interesting stuff. So would an area being a lottery area impact whether or not it would be subject to APRs? I'm just wondering if a guy has to take at least an 8 point and he can't take a doe unless he got one of the few permits in his area if that wouldn't lead to some unhappy hunters in many parts of the state. I'm all for holding out for a bigger buck since I only archery hunt but many guys, especially those who gun hunt opening weekend, look forward to taking "A" deer versus "THEE" buck.

I didn't want to start a debate in your thread and have it locked quickly, so I posted here. And I'm truly not trying to start a debate, I'm just wondering what the likelihood is of imposting APRs if that became more common practice in a lottery area.

[picksbigwagon]

as long as forum policy is followed it won't be locked, that being said, if you want to hold out for THEE buck, that is your choice. Each person chooses to take the deer that they want, it is their choice. If you don't like their choice, you need to accept that you have no control over it.

I have locked a number of threads when it turns to "My way of hunting is the only way that should be allowed because it is the best way and everyone else is (insert derogatory statement about people who only: hunt firearm season, only hunt opening weekend, only hunt public land, hunt as a party, or hunt another legal way that some feel is not the "TRUE" way to hunt deer.)

This is a family site and that is what makes Fishing Minnesota what it is. No other HSOforum that I know of has a director of a state DNR posting on it or answering questions like we do. I have been on other sites that belittle people who ask questions and I usually leave them or stop going back to them.

Now that all being said, I could be in favor of APR, but it would need to be for everyone, bow, firearm, and muzzle loader. Anything other than that I would not be in favor of, what is good for the goose is good for the gander....

[Arctic]

I would love to see APRs, but really don't see it as politically feasible in Minnesota at this time. The thing is, if everyone passed on small bucks for the first two or three years, we could have some amazing buck hunting in this state. There would be huge increases in big racks in areas of the state where few bucks currently live to maturity. After the initial couple of years of restraint, decent buck hunting could continue indefinately, at least in theory.

This might be one of those things that becomes more acceptable as hunters get older. When I was a new hunter I would not have liked it. Today, I tend to pass up a lot of deer in search of big bucks. Not a good way to always fill the freezer though!

[deerminator]

"As long as forum policy is followed it won't be locked, that being said, if you want to hold out for THEE buck, that is your choice. Each person chooses to take the deer that they want, it is their choice. If you don't like their choice, you need to accept that you have no control over it."

Agreed, which is why I personally don't support APRs, because they limit peoples' choices. I'm just wondering if an area being a lottery area would impact the DNR's decisions to start imposing APRs if they ever did on a more widespread basis.

[96trigger]

I think any area that is in a lottery is focused more on deer population than antler size. Doe restrictions will be a better method. When the population gets higher, then one could start talking about APR.

I am not in favor of APR, but could see where they might be effective in managed or intensive harvest areas.

[lcornice]

Thanks lcornice for the historic harvest information!!! Interesting stuff. So would an area being a lottery area impact whether or not it would be subject to APRs? I'm just wondering if a guy has to take at least an 8 point and he can't take a doe unless he got one of the few permits in his area if that wouldn't lead to some unhappy hunters in many parts of the state. I'm all for holding out for a bigger buck since I only archery hunt but many guys, especially those who gun hunt opening weekend, look forward to taking "A" deer versus "THEE" buck.

I didn't want to start a debate in your thread and have it locked quickly, so I posted here. And I'm truly not trying to start a debate, I'm just wondering what the likelihood is of imposting APRs if that became more common practice in a lottery area.

I'm happy to answer this question. Like I've said before I got invited several years ago to monitor the board and answer questions. I've been doing it because I've found this board (unlike others) focuses on good information exchange and not speculation or berating other members. To answer the question ... we've seen generally increasing support for antler point restrictions across much of the state. In fact, it's been hovering very close to 50% in random surveys, which is higher than I would expect given the restrictiveness of the regulation. At Itasca State Park, where APR's have been tested for 5 years, we've seen increasing hunt satisfaction and participatory intent as the regulation progresses through time. In other words, it becomes normalized and people come to expect the regulation and learn it's not as bad as they orginally thought. In Missouri, APR's have been used for I think 4 years and they've also seen increasing satisfaction.

With respect to APR's in lottery areas, it would not be my preference. Our survey work shows people would be okay with some sort of restriction so long as they have other options. In lottery areas, you may not have an either-sex permit and with APR, you've now taken at least 50% of the buck population off the table. So, you're out there hunting for a specific type of buck with no antlerless option. States that have used APR's for deer management purposes have not restricted antlerless harvest and it's been our intent (DNR) to follow that pattern. So, in managed/intensive areas, an APR regulation would still take some bucks off the table but people could still shoot does. So, deerminator hit the nail on the head in that regulations can be so restrictive that they constrain participation. Given all the agency is doing with recruitment/retention we'd be ill-advised to introduce a regulation that leads people to go bowling instead. In lottery areas, I think there are other options that can save a few bucks (cross-tagging) and deer in general (stop adults from shooting antlerless deer for youth).

I hope that answers the question.

[deerminator]

Thanks lcornice. That's the kind of insight I was looking for and sincerely appreciate the time you took to offer it. Thanks again.

[96trigger]

Quote:

With respect to APR's in lottery areas, it would not be my preference. Our survey work shows people would be okay with some sort of restriction so long as they have other options. In lottery areas, you may not have an either-sex permit and with APR, you've now taken at least 50% of the buck population off the table. So, you're out there hunting for a specific type of buck with no antlerless option. States that have used APR's for deer management purposes have not restricted antlerless harvest and it's been our intent (DNR) to follow that pattern. So, in managed/intensive areas, an APR regulation would still take some bucks off the table but people could still shoot does. So, deerminator hit the nail on the head in that regulations can be so restrictive that they constrain participation. Given all the agency is doing with recruitment/retention we'd be ill-advised to introduce a regulation that leads people to go bowling instead. In lottery areas, I think there are other options that can save a few bucks (cross-tagging) and deer in general (stop adults from shooting antlerless deer for youth).

Thank you for the common sense aproach. I think if more people new this information, they might not get so riled up over APR. Too many people in lotto areas hear this and immediatly jump to the condlucsiton that its going to affet them. In zone 3, we have already went through this process, and it is working. Lots of nice bucks taken down here this year. APR, would simply be the next step.

[candiru]

The next step..............And then the no-party hunting for bucks, then a 3 pt to 4 pt antler restriction, then move the gun season later, then APR in lottery areas, then EAB in some areas, then a buck lottery.....................

I don't like the end game. The guys that are now begging to shoot a 140-150" deer will want a 160-170" deer. I don't like the end game.

[Bear55]

Come on candiru, our DNR is pretty level headed. I don't ever see them going from one extreme to the other but some middle ground would be nice. I know I would like to see party hunting for bucks eliminated and have APR in intensive and managed areas.

[96trigger]

Candiru, where do you hunt?

I for one, do not believe that the DNR has an alterior motive. I think the DNR's ultimate endgame, is to have a healthy population and to prevent people from shooting the baskets and fork horns, and taking more than one buck, I have absolutely no problem with that.

[Bear55]

It also interesting to hear that close of 50% of random surveys are in favor of APR. For a while now the meat hunters have called us the vocal minority while I suspected the QDM'ers had a larger following.

[deerminator]

It would be interesting if the DNR were able to do a brief but more complete statewide survey related to management issues - making everyone who purchases a deer hunting license answer them. Pick three basic questions with yes or no answers like "Would you support APRs in the main permit area(s) you plan to hunt? Yes or no." And two others tied to hot topics. Make it so the licensing agent could run through the survey with the prospective hunter in 30 seconds or so and that it could be recorded electonically to make for easy data collection. It might provide a definintive answer to how hunters statewide and by specific regions truly feel on certain issues.

I could see many retailers/agents balking at this idea, however, given the 30 seconds times hundreds of thousands of hunters, and how it might be difficult for the DNR already strapped for time and resources. Still, doing a survey like this once every so many years might really provide some valuable input. I know I would spend the 30 seconds to give a couple of yes and no answers.

[candiru]

I hunt in West Central MN. The DNR does not scare me as bad as the Legislature. It only took a few years of that all-season license (put in place by the legislature) to knock the deer population down alot in my area. I have now had a doe permit one year out of the last 4 or 5. With 25 days of firearms hunting I doubt that we will have a doe permit in our pocket every year again. I would of loved to have a doe permit the last two years and passed on the 2 or 3 and a half year olds I shot. One of them was a 9. I don't know if I could have shot it with APR. because I would not have been able to tell how many points it had. It was 20 minutes after shooting time on a cloudy morning and it turned out to be the only buck we saw that weekend.

People's attitudes are changing. Give it time. I have seen numerous posts on here for QDM talking about getting a foot in the door and the next step. I don't believe that they will stop with just a regulation or 2 in a certain area. I have some neighbors where I hunt that are now letting small bucks walk. If you would have seen this crew hunt a few years ago you would not believe that they are doing this now. Land access is a huge issue as far as hunter recruitment and retention. Having more large deer will make that even more difficult. On a voluntary basis passing on small bucks is great and depending on the situation I may also pass on some. I don't want to see a one size fits all approach forced on us by government. Not everyone has alot of time to hunt and access to good land.

[candiru]

I guess you can say I saw my deer hunting go from the good old days and into the toilet pretty fast.

[deerminator]

I hunt in West Central MN. The DNR does not scare me as bad as the Legislature. It only took a few years of that all-season license (put in place by the legislature) to knock the deer population down alot in my area. I have now had a doe permit one year out of the last 4 or 5...

The good news is, I do believe the elimination of the all-season license and the limited number of doe tags is making a difference. I hunt in West Central too. Six years ago I was seeing dozens of does come by my stand, groups of six to eight at a time. After a few years of myself taking a doe by archery and the neighbors each taking two and so on, the sightings decreased dramatically. Still, everyone around was teed off when the all-season loophole around the one deer lottery limit was closed. Thankfully, most were honest and waited for a buck and a few years later, I have been seeing does, does and more does. One evening this year, I had a hard time getting down from my stand because there were about 14 does milling around me in the woods. Finally, I had to start throwing rocks I had brought in my pack for this very reason at them so they would spook and leave. It was a tremendous evening to see those kind of numbers again.

Bottom line, a few years of this sort of restraint on the does and we might even go from lottery to managed in a couple of years - and stay that way without the all-season anymore.

[96trigger]

Candiru, I understand your (for lack of better word) bitterness. It would be very frustrating to see great times fall to hard times because of over harvest. It is also pretty understandable if you are a little resentful. Your part of the state is just trying to get some deer, where others are thriving and trying to control the population growth and even improve the age structure.

Hopefully for that part of the state it will improve.

[fivebucks]

My view is the sqeaky wheel will get the grease. The more vocal that people get for QDM or APR, whether majority or minority, the more that rules and laws are going to go in their favor. I personally like party hunting for bucks because when you take the last 5 years out of the equation, it was not uncommon to only get 1 play on 1 deer the whole season up in the north woods. Most seasons it was 1 person, maybe 2 that would be able to tag more than 1 buck. That would allow our party of 10 people to split up 4 or 5 deer instead of maybe 2 or 3. This is based on 30 years hunting in the same area. As much as I would not want more regionally rules I think that may be the way to deal with QDM and APR. I hunt that way anyhow if deer are abundant but I want my deer each year because I love to eat venison. Last year I passed on 4 bucks as I was seeing deer and holding out for a nice one since I took a doe already. This year we were not seeing deer and I took a spike. That spike turned out to be one of my few chances at a deer and I am glad I could choose myself whether to shoot it or not and not have the rules dictated to me and maybe not have a deer for the freezer.

[zzammon]

The farmers in my hunting area, managed, want everyone to shoot as many as possible. The crops are experiencing excesive damage. Wouldn't APR raise deer populations in some already bloated areas?

I like the current law, it simplifies it to "one legal buck per year, without exception". Lets not mud it up with 8pt here, no restriction there, 10pt here but not there and so on. Just my opion.

[PEATMOSS]

Lou,

I am so pleased to see you posting on this subject. We've beat this horse dead and then beat it again a couple of times on here, but I've always been curious about your perspective on this whole QDM issue.We all have our opinions here, but none of us are profesional wildlife biologists. Hopefully you can add some educated insight However,if you choose not to comment further, I think we can all respect that. I'm hoping the mods will simply delete posts that are not thoughtful and respectful rather than locking down the thread.

Specifically Lou, I'd be interested in your profesional opinion on the following:

1-Many of us believe that QDM is simply managing for antlers with a pretty bow attatched. I'm wondering if there is really any biological basis for a "balanced deer herd" or "improved" buck to doe ratios.

2-Is there any concern that APR's might actually prove detrimental to the overall genetics of the herd over a long period of time?

3-Would APR's improve the hunting experience for hunters of all skill levels equally or would the rewards of this practice be skewed disproportionately to the more avid and skilled hunters?

4-To what extent are management practices that are implemented specifically to improve antler size morally defensable to the non-hunting and anti-hunting community?

5-Spike bucks often have antlers that grow almost straight back and are very difficult to see except at close range.Hunters would face heavy fines and confiscation of their firearms if they accidently shot a spike. Would this not be a source of extreme frustration especially for younger and less experienced hunters? Would it have an effect on the number of does harvested?

6-Is having more trophy bucks in the woods an even trade off with the joy seen in a young hunter that just took a forkhorn or 6-pointer?

7-Lastly, all hunters now have an option when they encounter a smaller buck when hunting. There are so many factors that go into whether or not to shoot. If it is 6am on opening day and you have 2 weeks off from work, you may choose to let it pass. For others this may be the first deer they have seen in the last 3 seasons. Shouldn't every hunter be allowed to weigh this decision for themselves? My hypothesis on this whole issue remains IF THERE REALLY, TRULY IS SUCH WIDESPREAD SUPPORT FOR LETTING "LESSER" BUCKS WALK, THEN THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN. THERE IS SIMPLY NO NEED FOR A NEW LAW.

Thanks again Lou for all that you contribute here.

[Musky Buck]

The battle will continue as long as the wife or whoever the non-hunter is can tag the buck. Like this weekend, I know the neighbors took a bunch of deer rifle hunting yet all of them were muzzleloading so someone else had to of tagged their rifle deer or they didn't tag them. Frustrating.

[lakevet]

Or as long as we stick with the new rules allowing people to rifle AND muzzy hunt. Frustrating! Old rules didn't allow that. Also if the wife or non hunter was not in the field at the same time when the deer was shot, they are breaking existing laws and are NOT party hunting/ legally tagging a party members deer but hunting illegally. Would want to have people have to select one firearms season in lottery areas and have less restriction on what they harvest instead of having the existing multiple seasons available but more restriction on what you can harvest. Better recruitment/retention of first time hunters if they can harvest what they want. I doubt APR's in lottery areas will fly socially with the majority of hunters. More hunters are voluntarily imposing APR's on themselves. This is the best way to go. While I am a meat hunter first, I also will target antlers and let small bucks walk. This is mainly because I hope that they will grow so my kids some day will say "My buck is bigger than yours dad!". Then I'll know I did something right as a parent.

lakevet

[MUSKY18]

The battle will continue as long as the wife or whoever the non-hunter is can tag the buck. Like this weekend, I know the neighbors took a bunch of deer rifle hunting yet all of them were muzzleloading so someone else had to of tagged their rifle deer or they didn't tag them. Frustrating.

Great point MuskyBuck! That really sucks. While technically within the law because a license holder tagged the deer, I believe that it is ethically wrong. Tag what you shoot and when your tag is filled, you are done. If mom, sister, brother and uncle aren't hunting, then why would they even need to buy a license other than to help fulfill the greed of other people. I don't see anything wrong with party hunting if you are filling the tags of actual hunters.

I, for one, am all in favor of APR. I don't have the chance to hunt "great" deer country where every buck is a 10 pointer, and on top of that, too many folks around us use the "brown is down" theory of hunting. With APR in place, my chances of shooting that big, mature buck with a nice rack would increase alot. In response to the person who posted about lil Joey not knowing if he should shoot a certain buck or not, (1) when in doubt, don't and (2) the education process will have be ramped up that much more during firearms training. Most of the youngsters out there hunting (that I know) are just as happy shooting a baldy as a buck. It isn't about a trophy for them, it is about the experience of hunting, being in the woods, attending their first deer camp........everything that makes up the whole process of hunting.

Also, I think Minnesota is very lucky with the DNR we have. They have got to be one of the tops in the nation. Whether it is for fishing or hunting, they listen and do what is right by the people for the majority of the decisions. Take a look at the Musky program that has been developed....think that many out of staters come here to fish for "average" musky? They could fish Wisconsin for that! I think they will do what is in the best interest of deer herd and hunter alike!

Just my .02!

[deerminator]

I whole-heartedly agree. The DNR does an awesome job in giving us lots of opportunities to hunt! There will always be the variables that determine "good" and "bad" seasons for whatever species you hunt. I have no idea how we compare to other states and I'm too lazy/don't have the time to look, but a quick search on the DNR site shows we have:

- 1,380 public wildlife areas with 1.2 million acres of habitat

- 56 state forests with more than 3 million acres of habitat

- 8 national wildlife refuges and 2 national forests.

All of which we can hunt for the most part! I get a kick out of when people gripe about having to hunt public land or marvel a buck was taken on public land. Many other hunters in other states would be happy to have that public land problem. They have no options if they don't own or can't get permission on someone else's land. Where I live, I can't drive more than a mile or two without going by a WMA I could deer, pheasant or duck hunt in. Some are better than others and have varying amounts of pressure but I can hunt them if I choose to. I am thankful to the DNR and this state for giving me the opportunity to hunt, period.

[Musky Buck]

I should add that the muzzy guys could've had 1 tag left that they were party hunting on. My belief is you should tag your own buck. If you are party hunting, if you shot one already, let him walk because if you are truly party hunting you are close enough to your party and the buck may walk by one of them. Give up the killer stand if you bagged one already, let a party member hunt it. Be a driver if you shot one already. APR's I do it anyway but it can't blanket the whole state. I'm just going to voice that I wish more hunters would let the 1 1/2 year olds walk because the purpose would be to get our age structure of bucks to get a little older. Some have shot dozens of little guys and in many areas that'll be 90% of the bucks harvested. Just catch in scope and release em and like me don't worry about what the neighbors are doing because we can't control that anyway, it just stinks when you feel trapped meaning I let them go, but the other landowners in the section will put him down ASAP. The next bad part is that buck is down and the hunter remains to do it again and again and maybe again. That's why tag your own buck, then if truly party hunting you can, if the party heads back for the cities you are done.