Outdoor life article

[DHost21]

I was reading outdoor life and they have the whats on your mind section where readers can write in about a previous article. This month they were writing in about an article from last months issue. They are talking about deer management and the dnr taking control over certain deer management making point limits or antler limits on deer to help save the young bucks and get more mature bucks with bigger antlers. I would love to see the dnr step in somehow whether its earn a buck like wisconsin or if they put an 8 or 6 point limit or something on deer. I would like the first one better cause it adds the doe management in there so you have to take a doe first so the people that want to take a big buck also have to take a doe to help the herd out but also the people that are just out meat hunting will hopefully take a nice doe or a doe instead of a little buck that could grow big. It definitely has to do with antler growth too i would love to see more big deer on public land cause thats what i hunt. Thats just my opinion and preference but i was reading the responses to it in the article and a lot of people were against it and complained about it and that was to my surprise actually. I thought maybe more people would like to see less 1.5 and 2.5 year old deer taken and see more big bucks but i was wrong. I dont know if minnesota has ever thought about doing it but i was just wondering other peoples opinions on this subject just to see what some reasons are both ways?

[Getanet]

There's been lots of discussions on APR on this site. Personally I'm against it and have debated the issue with many people here. I don't have a specific percentage, but I would say of the posters on this site it's roughly a 50/50 split between those that are for it and those that are against it. Everyone is fairly opinionated on the subject too.

If you search this site for APR or Antler Point Restrictions I'm sure you can read people's opinions for days.

[DHost21]

Ok I will do that I am somewhat new to the sight and havent seen anyone talk about it yet so i thought i would try but ill look up older ones too and see what people had to say

[GatorBait]

Earn a buck ruined the wisconsin deer herd. Nuff said.

[DHost21]

Why did it ruin the herd? I dont know a lot about it so im just wondering it sounds good on paper to me but im hearing more and more that its bad?

[Coach1310]

Some things to consider being you sound a bit surprised to see so much opposition..

#1. People just don't like being told what they have to do. APR to them is just adding another "rule" to their hunt.

#2. A lot of folks don't want "change." It has been such and such a way for so long, why do we need to change it.

#3. There are plenty of folks who don't think the DNR has a clue to what it is doing, so why give them grounds for more control or "experiments."

I'm not saying this is what I think or feel, but some of the thoughts that come into it and may have nothing to do with the actually idea of APR.

[Musky Buck]

It would get ugly here, I haven't seen many does in the last 3-4 years and I don't want to fire long range at one in hopes I get it so I can buck hunt. Our herd currently doesn't need thinning down, we were and did just fine with having 5 doe tags for many years. I think many a buck fawn would go down with earn a buck unnecessarily. Our group has a 200 pound or mature buck rule,it gets sticky with those 2.5 year old farm country bucks, one uncle broke it and now he gets last choice of stands the following year only. Thought it was a doe, was a 6 pter. Our meat pole is does or mature bucks and when we get the big guys we can only think either us or someone else likely passed on that deer in previous years., that's the way we roll. There is so much go/grow in my area it is catching on, isn't zone 3 having an APR hunt this year or something ?

[Getanet]

I think Coach did a pretty good job of laying out some of the arguments. I would add a few others for each side:

Pro APR

They feel it would lead to larger bucks

They feel it would lead to a more balanced herd

Many of them already practice some form of Quality Deer Management and get frustrated if neighboring hunters don't.

Anti APR

Feel it would disproportionately benefit private land hunters who in many cases already have an advantage over public land hunters

Feel not everyone can hunt as often as they like and people should be able to make their own choice as to what to harvest

Feel that with enough effort and luck you can already harvest a nice buck in MN

Feel that people will never be satisfied with rack size and a 6-point minimum would eventually be increased - which circles back to being able to place your own value on "quality"

I'm sure there are others, but these should give you a decent sense of the debate.

[DHost21]

I understand the arguements that the people that own land or hunt private property have cause i was the same way when i hunted a farm with my family we passed on certain deer and had good success. It was a lot of fun and i wouldnt like getting told what i could shoot either even though we managed ourselves but the landowner passed away and we dont have hunting rights anymore and now its all public for me for now. It makes me realize what people are actually shooting and how many people dont understand what real management is like and what a real mature deer is like talking to a lot of people ive seen at these public lands. Has the dnr ever thought of setting it up where on public WMA and Refuges and State and National forests they put limits? Some have them but i think that would be an alternative too maybe?

[Bear55]

Ahhh the great debate. You know I have kind of softened my stance on APR but I still think QDM & a balanced herd is the way to go. Clearly extreme trophy hunters and the just as greedy shoot everything they see meat hunters aren't doing any of us any good. There has to be some kind of balance. I certainly would be in favor of some changes to help protect some of the younger bucks but the meat hunters often seem opposed to every and any changes.

I think we have had a bucks only mentality for far too long, things are changing but probably not at a pace some of us would like to see. When you company that with less land and tons of pressure on the deer herd you don't get too many bucks that weren't either wounded by a hunter or passed on by a hunter to reach that older age class.

One thing that can work is education, let those young hunters get some deer and hunting experience under their belts and then teach them to be a little more selective. The only problem with education is it is a very slow process and could take decades to have any affect state wide. I do however believe education/conservation can lead us to a place where we have both quality hunting/fishing of many species state wide.

[96trigger]

Quote:

I understand the arguements that the people that own land or hunt private property have cause i was the same way when i hunted a farm with my family we passed on certain deer and had good success. It was a lot of fun and i wouldnt like getting told what i could shoot either even though we managed ourselves but the landowner passed away and we dont have hunting rights anymore and now its all public for me for now. It makes me realize what people are actually shooting and how many people dont understand what real management is like and what a real mature deer is like talking to a lot of people ive seen at these public lands. Has the dnr ever thought of setting it up where on public WMA and Refuges and State and National forests they put limits? Some have them but i think that would be an alternative too maybe?

Funny you mention that. Many of the people that are anti restrictions say that public hunting will get worse. That sometimes the only deer they see on public land might be a small buck, and that alone should give them the right to shoot it. I agree with what you ar saying. Some hunters don't have private land, and would like to be able to hunt public and actually see a mature buck. There is only one way that is going to happen, which is how I think we got the newer restrictions in the southeast. For the most part, people have calmed down about the new restrictions down here. We will have to see how it goes in the next month or so and see if people really had to go without deer because they had to pass on smaller bucks. Time will tell, hopefully the public and the DNR will keep an open mind. If it works, great, if not, then hopefully we can go back to the way things were.

[PurpleFloyd]

I love eating venison but to this point I have never taken a bite out of an antler so I guess I know where I fall in this debate.

[Jameson]

...Has the dnr ever thought of setting it up where on public WMA and Refuges and State and National forests they put limits?...

Check out the Special Hunts section of the deer regs. The first thing to take note is that they are lottery hunts, or it could be said that they have a limited number of buck tags issued. That is one change I am in favor of, a buck lottery statewide where needed, just like we have a doe lottery where needed. The doe lottery seems to be accepted and effective, just as a buck lottery could be.

Another ANTI-APR arguement:

High-grading. Keep shooting all the bucks with big antlers, and leave the bucks that develop small antlers to reproduce more than their fair share, and soon we will have more bucks un-able to grow big antlers even with age and nutrition.

[InTheNorthwoods]

I love eating venison but to this point I have never taken a bite out of an antler so I guess I know where I fall in this debate.

So if you don't eat the antlers, why do so many people who fall back on this statement as an excuse still shoot the small buck over the doe that it is standing with? This excuse is lame IMO.

I can atleast understand the "no one should tell me what to shoot as long as its legal" argument, or the "I just want to shoot a deer and I'll shoot the first one I see argument". But the "can't eat the antlers" claim is cop out for 95% of the people who use it.

Neither APR's nor EAB is the right answer in my book. I think the state would be best served with going to a drawing for antlered deer tags and eliminating party hunting. Make the buck tag coveted and more people who just can't lay off the trigger will have to be more selective as they can't legally stack up every buck they see, and those that don't care what buck they shoot will still be able to shoot what they want to or will just put in for a doe tag.

Thats my stir of the pot. Same old argument that will eventually lead to 15 pages of posts where no one agrees. Probably should have just kept my mouth shut.

[Getanet]

Northwoods, I'm assuming you mean no party hunting for bucks. I don't like that concept either, but find it less objectionable that completely doing away with party hunting.

[GatorBait]

If everyone shared the same views as Ted Nugent when it came to harvesting these wonderful animals that God has blessed us with, the world of deer hunting would be a much more happier place.

[96trigger]

Quote:

Make the buck tag coveted and more people who just can't lay off the trigger will have to be more selective as they can't legally stack up every buck they see, and those that don't care what buck they shoot will still be able to shoot what they want to or will just put in for a doe tag.

You can do this just by eliminating party hunting for bucks. Make it very clear, one buck, per person, statewide, no exceptions. I think this could do alot in many areas. I know that its really hard to enforce, but it might just save a few of those small bucks for people that want to abide by the law. It would be a small step in the right direction. I'm not going to get into the whole debate on this, but I am interested to see what the state of deer hunting in the southeast looks like in 4 or 5 years.

[motley man]

100,000 hunters with 2 to 5 tags is alot of venison. Bad part is that alot of these hunters throw it away in garbage bins and along roads, trails, etc. I find deer every year that someone has shot, gutted and left, either because they don't want it , or don't have a tag. This is what we have to stop, and we all know it happens. Don't shoot it if you are not going to eat it or give to somebody.

[Jameson]

...I'm not going to get into the whole debate on this, but I am interested to see what the state of deer hunting in the southeast looks like in 4 or 5 years.

That's the sad part about the implementation of the APR's in zone 3. They will be reviewed in 3-6 years to determine if they are a success. They likely will be considered a success at that time. Give it 20, 30, 50 years and they likely will be considered a failure. Too bad for our kids and grandchildren, but oh well, I'll be dead and gone by than.

[DHost21]

Why will it be bad that far down the road? What will be bad about it? I see it as a good thing for growing bigger more mature deer and letting them get to full potential. And it will make people take more does too because if they dont see the big one by the end of either gun season or bow season they will want meat and take a doe? The only arguement i can understand with this is that people dont want to be told what they can shoot. It seems more people being selfish and wanting a deer than helping the deer herd. Let the little bucks make it into maturity and they will breed better deer and also taking out more does is needed in a lot of places and i think it would promote people to shoot more does instead of little bucks.

[Bear55]

Many people think all the bucks with better genetics will get shot first and the genetics of the area will suffer over time. This just isn't true and more of a scare tactic. The first thing we have to remember is genes don't just come from bucks and the does have plenty of say in what will happen in the future. If you look at Texas those guys have been trying manage their genetics for years, guess what all those big ranches are still shooting plenty of "management" deer. You know those mature 8 pointers you see on every tv show, I don't see those ranch managers running out of those deer. Finally the same people shooting every legal buck they see and the same people passing basket 8's with potential are going to do their thing. I think its a little silly to think we can drive all the good or bad genes out of a deer herd, its just not possible outside of some lab. I tend to believe we have to live what what our local herds can provide, we really only decide what age or sex of the deer we want to shoot and don't have much control over the rest of it. Just to be fair I am talking about wild herds, there are plenty of high fence operations running going all mad science on some deer.

Example:

[96trigger]

Quote:

That's the sad part about the implementation of the APR's in zone 3. They will be reviewed in 3-6 years to determine if they are a success. They likely will be considered a success at that time. Give it 20, 30, 50 years and they likely will be considered a failure. Too bad for our kids and grandchildren, but oh well, I'll be dead and gone by than.

I guess thats where we will have to agree to disagree. I think it will be better for my 3 year old son and even my grandchildren. I'm hoping they don't see having to apply for doe tags. The genetics, nutrients, and food supply are good enough down here that I don't see high grading ever being an issue. Yes, there are some nice 6 pointers running around, but eventually, given enough time they will get some junk, and when that happens, they will be legal. You also have to remember that half the genetics come from the doe, they would both have to be carrying low grade genes, that will be about as common as albino deer. Will it happen to some deer? Sure. Will it be common in 60 years? I highly doubt it.

[Getanet]

Let the little bucks make it into maturity and they will breed better deer and also taking out more does is needed in a lot of places and i think it would promote people to shoot more does instead of little bucks.

Here's another debatable point. Some feel mature buck pass along better genes. Others feel maturity has nothing to do with genetics. A deer with good genes would pass them along regardless of what age it breeds.

Selfishness gets brought up a lot too by both sides. The APR guys claim others are being selfish for not letting smaller bucks pass. The anti-APR guys claim the other side is selfish for restricting other people's options so they can get the larger bucks/racks they desire.

[DHost21]

I totally understand that and thats totally valid cause a lot of people are selfish in wanting the big racks me included most of the time i try and tell myself tho that passing up the little immature deer will let them live a more full life and reach there potential and by having to take a doe for a year or two to help that is just as much of a benefit as the big rack. It is killing two birds with one stone in my eyes but thats just my opinion and like i said my opinion has its selfishness to it too

[PurpleFloyd]