Zone 3 APR

[james_walleye]

That says absolutey nothing about APRs not working and speaks nothing to gene grading. All that says is that instead of using 4 points in a side as a rule they are using inside spread and beam length because it will work better. It's just a different unit if control. And I spoke nothing in my last post about age structure. If you want to push inside spread go for it, but don't pretend as if what you just posted is somehow saying APRs didn't work and its because of gene grading because it just isn't. I'm not sure how your reading that and getting that conclusion.

You do know that gene grading is a term used in regards to genetic makeup right? Something we know nothing about when just looking at the physical characteristics of a deer? It has NOTHING to do with what's in the soil and a deers nutrition. That's a whole different discussion than Thats going on here.

[james_walleye]

Show me one instance where any state has implemented APRs and done research that shows gene grading occurred. It has not been documented anywhere.

[B. Amish]

high grading has occured in missouri.

[james_walleye]

Can u post where you got the info where it was documented? They have had APRs for less than 10 years. Hard to believe its been documented with the success that is associated with what has happened with APRs there.

[B. Amish]

Quote:

“The human tendency to seek large ‘trophies’ appears to drive evolution much faster than hunting by other predators, which pick off the small and the weak.

Researchers reported, ‘It’s an ideal recipe for rapid trait change.’ In virtually all cases, human-targeted species got smaller and smaller and started reproducing at younger ages — making populations more vulnerable.

Hunters are instructed not to take smaller animals or those with smaller horns. This is counter to patterns of natural predation, and now we’re seeing the consequences of this management.”

here's an article from reuters.

[B. Amish]

Quote:

Research conducted by the MDWFP and Mississippi State University indicates the 4-point law has reduced

the antler size of harvested 2.5 and 3.5 year old bucks across the state. Researchers and biologists believe the

4-point law allows the harvest of better quality yearling bucks, while protecting lesser quality spikes and 3-

point bucks. The result has been a decrease in antler size within age classes of older bucks. The combination

of the 4-point law, high hunting pressure, and lower reproduction has resulted in the over-harvest of bucks and

decreased antler size in deer herds across Mississippi.

http://www.mdwfp.com/xNet/Files/Wildlife/Deer/HSOforum/Antler_Criteria_04-2007.pdf

[B. Amish]

Quote:

"We have to be very careful with selective harvest regulations because we are hi-grading our deer population on our better quality soils," said Demarais.

http://www.mississippigameandfish.com/hunting/whitetail-deer-hunting/ms_aa122902a/

[B. Amish]

Quote:

Florida researchers Steve Shea and R.E. Vanderhoff observed a reduction in antler size among 2.5-year-old bucks five years after prohibiting the harvest of small-antlered deer.

Quote:

High-grading effects, for different reasons, were also reported in Missouri.

http://www.whitetailinstitute.com/info/news/nov07/12.html

[james_walleye]

comparing the genetic base in mississippi to the genetic base in minnesota is comparing apples and oranges. the same goes for florida. what were the other reasons it happened in missouri ? That is what I'm curious about because the genetic base in missouri is very good . I would like to see something from missouri department of natural resources that says APRs were the reason for gene grading.

[psepuncher]

apr's are not imlemented to create better genes.'

It's to promote mature bucks....not antlers, or big giant bodies..heck MN has

an abundant supply already of those.

like I said, and have peoven here, is that legally

harvested bucks will become smaller.

not only miss, but other states with quality habitat that sustain's

wildlife, have shown after years of the apr rules you loose quality

in the harvest data.

Biological Backlash?

Although Castle declares his support for antler restrictions,....

he is quick to note that studies carried out in cooperation with Dr. Stephen Demarais of Mississippi State University show a possible biological backlash. In one study, conducted at the Sunflower Wildlife Management Area, an average decline of 19 inches of antlers in the Boone & Crockett scores of 3-1/2-year-old bucks (shot since the 4-point rule was imposed in 1995) was evident. The reason, says Castle, is that smaller antlered yearling bucks were protected because of the 4-point rule but other yearlings with larger antlers and more points were legally killed. The bigger yearlings, said Castle, are the bucks that should have been spared.

[james_walleye]

enough with mississippi . the genetic basis so inferior that comparing them to minnesota's is pointless. You can draw no conclusion to what will happen in mn based on Mississippi. You are grasping at air using mississippi is an example because of the obvious differences which will have an effect. again it's not as easy as saying APRs Will cause gene grading, there are many more factors involved. I'm out on this one. I don't know-how many more ways I can say it.

[psepuncher]

Kip Adams, QDMA’s director of education and outreach, notes that, as far as yearling bucks go, point restrictions don’t always do the job. “Where you have really good habitat, such as in parts of the Midwest, yearling bucks can have six and even eight points,” says Adams. “As a result, antler-point restrictions of three or four points to one side wouldn’t keep these bucks out of the harvest. In such cases, antler-spread restrictions do a much better job at focusing the harvest onto older bucks.

[james_walleye]

Interesting that you quote Kip Adams. you should seriously call him and get his full take in APRs. He would be glad to give you all kinds of info.

[PEATMOSS]

B.Amish and psepuncher,

You guys can cite all the studies in the world, but there is a segment of our hunting community that simply refuses to grasp what any 10th grade biology student should know. WHEN ONE HARVESTS ANY POPULATION BASED ON A SPECIFIC TRAIT, THAT TRAIT WILL DIMMINISH OVER TIME.

There is a growing segment of hunters that have chosen to target deer specifically for antler size. Those of us that are content to shoot what presents itself are the only balance to the depletion of the gene pool. By forcing the rest of us into your little game of antler quest, you are cutting your own throats.

CERTAINLY, APR's will result in a SHORT TERM gain in the number of big antlered bucks around. My fear is that this short term gain will be seen as a success and this silliness will spread to the area that I hunt with my family.

[james_walleye]

Completely and utterly laughable to call this simple 10th grade biology. You should possibly contact a wildlife biologist and maybe you will then get a sense if how really "simple" this is. I've done my 10th grade homework on this subject. I've made calls and sent emails to make sure I don't have it wrong. I'll keep listening to the people I've contacted in this. But I think you finally said Ur. Gene grading is a simple front to the real issue you have. You have a problem with being told you can't shoot a 6 pointer. Why don't you just stick with that? I have news for you, if it does spread to your area its because it worked and people liked. I said it earlier, but I'm out in this. I found out what u needed to know, from people who know, in the calls I made last night.

[Getanet]

You have a problem with being told you can't shoot a 6 pointer. Why don't you just stick with that?

I've followed enough of these APR threads to know this argument essentially boils down to guys who don't want to be told what they can/can't shoot vs. guys that want to make it easier to shoot trophy bucks.

Age structure, herd health, etc. are simply thought to be more acceptable talking points than the true goal of big racks.

If that wasn't the case and the population was truly in such bad shape than it would make more sense put a moratorium on hunting for a few years or put restrictions in place to protect - not target - mature bucks.

[Bear55]

WHEN ONE HARVESTS ANY POPULATION BASED ON A SPECIFIC TRAIT, THAT TRAIT WILL DIMMINISH OVER TIME.

This isn't entirely true, MN in general has been targeting young bucks with very little antler growth for many decades. The end result has been less mature bucks and a high number of young bucks with very little antler growth.

I don't really care about APR one way or the other but I was hoping to see the 3 year trial period come to a conclusion before the DNR made any final decisions or people got the legislature involved. I really think 3 years of APR would have opened some eyes about what is possible, but it's probably not a long term solution.

[psepuncher]

Interesting that you quote Kip Adams. you should seriously call him and get his full take in APRs. He would be glad to give you all kinds of info.

yeah, he doesn't agree with apr's.....

but socially they work in short term conditions.

the whitetails range of proper deer habitat management can compensate for some regional shortcomings. (Kips Corner, Antler Basics-Quality Deer Management Association).

Did I mention nutritional value based on region of soil makeup?

And mature deer being the goal {said many times here}

[PEATMOSS]

Completely and utterly laughable to call this simple 10th grade biology.

Very few deer actually have the genetics to become a "Booner", less than 10% of the population (Group A).

Very few deer are genitically predisposed to having a nasty little "inferior" set of antlers for life, less than 10% of the population (Group

If we target Group A and criminalize the killing of Group B, OVER TIME WE WILL ALTER THE GENETICS OF THE HERD.

I believe everyone has the right to express their opinion, and I don't like to make personall attacks,but anyone that fails to acknowledge this simple fact is flat out ignorant.

[PEATMOSS]

This isn't entirely true, MN in general has been targeting young bucks with very little antler growth for many decades. The end result has been less mature bucks and a high number of young bucks with very little antler growth.

I don't really care about APR one way or the other but I was hoping to see the 3 year trial period come to a conclusion before the DNR made any final decisions or people got the legislature involved. I really think 3 years of APR would have opened some eyes about what is possible, but it's probably not a long term solution.

FYI We kill about 10 times more trophy deer now than back when "we were #1" in the nation.

What really scares me is the notion that after 3 years, folks are going to consider the results as a long range success. The downside of APR's will take decades to manifest themselves.

[james_walleye]

the people I talk to last night are pretty darn ignorant then .....

[hockeybc69]

[Getanet]

Hey, that horse kicks every now and then.

[Bear55]

FYI We kill about 10 times more trophy deer now than back when "we were #1" in the nation.

Ummmmmm no we don't, if one thing the historic data (B&C) tells us is MN has been consistent over a long long time while other stats around us started slow and then flew by us in the past 20 years. I won't say APR is helping those other states but clearly the other states have taken to a more selectively harvest of their deer while MN likes to shoot anything that moves, it's a mentality thing.

You might even argue we are doing a lot worse because the current deer population is much larger then it was when we were #1.

Unless you have some numbers to back up the "10 times more trophy deer" statement that I am unaware of.

[PEATMOSS]

Statistics are directly from B&C, the states that "flew right by us" are states like Iowa that literally had no negligable deer population.