APR, QDM, Trophy Hunters, etc....

[kern]

I'm pretty sure having a license allows you to "pursue" game, the definition of pursuit includes making drives and other things to help others shoot deer. I don't have the regs in front of me, but I have no problem with any of that, I just want the guy with the tag to be the guy pulling the trigger. If the current law would prohibit you from aiding your party in the pursuit of their own deer after you have tagged yours, then I would be in favor of changing that law. I hope that made sense, but I think it's legal to help others shoot deer as long as you have a license, tag or not, and if it isn't, it should be.

Yes as it stands right now but tell me if i'm mistaken but once you tag out on a buck, you are not a legal hunter. So "pursuing" game would then be illegal if you took away party hunting (again in a lottery area).

[ERdeerhunter]

By doubling the price of a license you would reduce the number of people dramatically that would even buy a license. I saw a report that the DNR did with fishing licenses and it said if they increases the fishing license by more than $5 people would stop buying licenses. At $7 quite a few more would stop and at $10 a large number would stop. Now imagine doubling the deer license and see how many people wouldn't buy a license.

That is the point. Increasing the price to harvest a specific section of the population would discourage some from hunting that population, thereby protecting that section of the population. Doubling the price obviously was just thrown out there as an example, the DNR would need to study at what price they could offer such a tag without losing revenue.

[james_walleye]

2 words for all of this. HORN PORN! Show me the facts that APR or any of that hogwash makes a herd healthier. A 1.5 year old has the same genes as a 5.5 year old. Does it matter at what point in his life he breeds? If you do not want to shoot a small deer, then don't. Pretty simple. But to change the laws so "your style" of hunting is "the right way" is B!@#$%^IT. I already have to draw for a doe tag, why would I want less of a chance at harvesting a deer, by implementing APR?

Just curious if you can explain why you don't think APRs should have been implemented in zone 3 when the majority of hunters are for some form of young buck protection. Just wanted to make sure you and other people know that this is the case. I know a lot of people who want to pretend that pro Apr people down here are some small vocal minority and that is completely false.

[Jameson]

How to measure if this year's herd is healthier than last year's herd? weight, antler development, and productivity per age group.

Records should be kept of the date and sex of each deer harvested and biological data on age, weight, antler development and productivity. Data from the yearling (1½ year) age class provides the most reliable indicator of a deer herd’s health. Source: http://www.clemson.edu/extension/natural_resources/wildlife/publications/fs34_whitetailed_deer.html

[jay83196]

Kern, don't you think we spend enough on licenses, I spend well over $100 in hunting licenses each year not including fishing. To be honest it doesn't seem like we get from the dnr what we already pay..maybe charge out of state residents for hunting/fishing like their states charge us.

[nonteepical]

Your theory is interesting, but it neglects to address a critical issue. The fact that hunter participation numbers are declining while the actual land mass is not. Sure, habitat acreage may be on the decline due to land development, but the whitetail deer has been shown to be extremely adaptable to said development. Since actual land mass has stayed the same, but hunter numbers have declined, doesn't that negate (at least in part) your assertion that land is being overcrowded due to subdivision of larger tracts of land and that, therefore, deer are not being given a chance to grow mature?

[nonteepical]

What are you defining as a button buck? I've always referred to a button buck as buck with no visible horns - and the hunter didn't know it was a male until they went to recover their deer.

I highly doubt too many can't tell the difference between a buck and doe. If they can't see from the top of their head there's some pretty visible evidence when you flip the deer over to field dress it.

[Jameson]

How do APR's, buck lottery, or other management strategies aimed at producing a herd with a more balanced sex ratio, and a well proportioned age structure make the herd healthier?

How a more balanced sex ratio makes for a healthier herd:

Herds with a far greater number of does than bucks result in not all the does being bred on their first estrous cycle. Simply, there aren't enough bucks to service them all.

productivity- late born fawn that were conceived at a late date are less likely to survive their first winter.

weight- bucks will be in rut for more time causing them to use much more energy than those in a herd where all the does are bred on their first cycle.

How a well proportioned buck age structure makes for a healthier herd:

The older, more mature and stronger bucks will win most of the battles and do the majority of the breeding. Inferior, younger bucks will be excluded from breeding except in a few lucky (for the wimp bucks anyway) instances.

weight- If the yearling bucks are excluded from breeding they will gain more weight.

....

I left out antler productivity as it seems to be a controversial mis-understood measurement.

....

To the people who want some form of buck management: I tried. Answering the question "How does APR's or other buck management result in a healthier deer?" is difficult. Give it a try. I know that I have seen the differences in herds with balanced/unbalanced sex ratios and good age structure with my own eyes, but explaining it to doubters who haven't is difficult.

[Jameson]

...Since actual land mass has stayed the same, but hunter numbers have declined, doesn't that negate (at least in part) your assertion that land is being overcrowded due to subdivision of larger tracts of land and that, therefore, deer are not being given a chance to grow mature?

Hunter's numbers are not declining. The spots for deer to hide and get old are. Here is an old thread with some interesting facts: http://www.hotspotoutdoors.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/2078214/Historic_1918_2008_deer_inform

The one labeled 1918 - 2008 Deer Harvest Tables tells the tale.

[bottom-bouncer]

Kern, don't you think we spend enough on licenses, I spend well over $100 in hunting licenses each year not including fishing. To be honest it doesn't seem like we get from the dnr what we already pay..maybe charge out of state residents for hunting/fishing like their states charge us.

+1

[psepuncher]

I left out antler productivity as it seems to be a controversial mis-understood measurement.

....

The bad news is that the antler size of nondispersing yearlings appears to be smaller in the post-QDM population.

In the pre-QDM population, dispersers had fewer antler points than nondispersers. In the post-QDM population, the opposite was observed. Dispersers had more antler points than nondispersers (Fig. 2&3).

This difference in the number of antler points indicates QDM properties may lose larger antlered yearlings that are not replaced from surrounding non-QDM properties.

-----------------

And whalla the Texas term "cull buck" was born. Or now known as a managment buck.

And thusly so, this is where actual genetics will start degrading in future buck development. Believe it or not it has been proven this is an unsatisfactory consiquense for the majority of big buck states with whom landowners with large tracts of land, and will charge a reasonable price for taking a decent buck.

[kern]

Kern, don't you think we spend enough on licenses, I spend well over $100 in hunting licenses each year not including fishing. To be honest it doesn't seem like we get from the dnr what we already pay..maybe charge out of state residents for hunting/fishing like their states charge us.

Not sure if this for me but i don't remember saying raise the cost of licenses

[Jameson]

psepuncher, what makes a QDM property?

[MTstringer]

I live in Northern MN an travel extensively for work so my time in the woods is limited to short stints during bow and rifle season. I do not muzzle loader hunt.

I think that the term "trophy" is very subjective, and thus, very difficult to generally define. The same thing can be said for patient, determined, ethical, etc.

My intention every year is to hunt as hard and long as my limited time will allow. I enjoy the woods and intend to fill my tag while dutifully following the regulations. If I kill a big buck, great (I have two 130-145 class heads on the wall); if I kill a basket six, great. If I have a doe tag I will fill that as well. All are legal and meet my definition of fair chase, being patient and enjoying the woods in this great state.

[jay83196]

Kern,

My mistake you quoted somebody else suggesting adding cost to shoot a buck, I misread it.

And commented on we don't need more costs...

[psepuncher]

psepuncher, what makes a QDM property?

Coming from Texas I sure can tell you MN does not cut the mustard on the issue.

But from the Southeastern part of MN...

When BWA was founded,.....

it had already become clear that QDM was more than a creative deer management tool to grow bigger bucks; that along with it came—whether intended or not—lease-fee hunting.

While some landowners do apply "QDM-like" harvest restrictions on their property without charging hunters a fee, the vast majority of official QDM projects involve a landowner and a select group of hunters agreeing on a defined set of harvest rules by which all must abide and compensation to the landowner for exclusive hunting privileges.

One could argue that QDM is as much a "business plan" designed to produce an alternative income source for landowners as it is a deer management plan to produce better deer hunting. In fact, the QDM organization has promoted its concept as a means for landowners to maximize income on "their" deer herd and for hunters to harvest more "trophy bucks."

Now to me the question should be, what is not an important aspect of QDM.

see below for a prime example...makes as much sense as eating a burrito before church.

[96trigger]

Per my comment on spending more to shoot whatever size buck you want.

It could satisfy a certain population, again in managed or intensive harvest areas, that want to be able to shoot whatever they want. Many people say that a trophy is in the eye of the one that shot it. If someone really wants to shoot that fork or button buck, let them do it. it would help alleviate many of the problems with apr like those that can't identify small bucks from does, or those that have little time to hunt and want to be able shoot whatever they want. Now, I know that there will also be a certain group that says they can't afford the extra money, and for them, I have no answer. But again, it is thinking outside the box to try and come up with a solution that doesn't pit hunters against each other.

For example, a person could buy the extra trophy tag to shoot whatever at any local ELS place, pay an extra $25. This could even be effective immediately. Make them over the counter and bright green so they are visible to any DNR agent that might see it. It could help alleviate the stress of accidental shootings, and pacify those that want to shoot anything, while still offering some protection to those young bucks.

Maybe not the best solution, but it could be a step in the right direction.

[Jameson]

...The bad news is that the antler size of nondispersing yearlings appears to be smaller in the post-QDM population.

In the pre-QDM population, dispersers had fewer antler points than nondispersers. In the post-QDM population, the opposite was observed. Dispersers had more antler points than nondispersers (Fig. 2&3).

This difference in the number of antler points indicates QDM properties may lose larger antlered yearlings that are not replaced from surrounding non-QDM properties...

So in other words: Pre-management for sex-ratio's and age structure all properties are producing 75" yearlings. When one property starts managing for those things, that property starts dispersing 100" yearlings while the same 75" yearlings are still being produced on neighboring properties.

Got it.

[psepuncher]

I don't get it.

I see,

Like what is stated by the QDM data,

dispersal of yearling bucks before QDM were more contensious of showing a necessary heirachy. Since the implemntation of QDM on those studied locations aging bucks within the herd kept that in check with natural selection.

It makes sense now right? fingers crossed.

[Big Dave2]

Per my comment on spending more to shoot whatever size buck you want.

It could satisfy a certain population, again in managed or intensive harvest areas, that want to be able to shoot whatever they want. Many people say that a trophy is in the eye of the one that shot it. If someone really wants to shoot that fork or button buck, let them do it. it would help alleviate many of the problems with apr like those that can't identify small bucks from does, or those that have little time to hunt and want to be able shoot whatever they want. Now, I know that there will also be a certain group that says they can't afford the extra money, and for them, I have no answer. But again, it is thinking outside the box to try and come up with a solution that doesn't pit hunters against each other.

For example, a person could buy the extra trophy tag to shoot whatever at any local ELS place, pay an extra $25. This could even be effective immediately. Make them over the counter and bright green so they are visible to any DNR agent that might see it. It could help alleviate the stress of accidental shootings, and pacify those that want to shoot anything, while still offering some protection to those young bucks.

Maybe not the best solution, but it could be a step in the right direction.

What would be the purpose of charging the extra money? Where would it go? What good would it do? If you were talking about a species of fish at least the added revenue could go into stocking more of the species of fish but I'm not sure what good charging more money would do. If everyone bought the extra license you would still have the same deer population that you don't think is good enough and the DNR would just have more money to throw into other projects that may have nothing to do with deer hunting.

The only thing I can think of that it could go into is more enforcement for all of the new regulations some here want.

[PurpleFloyd]

Coming from Texas I sure can tell you MN does not cut the mustard on the issue.

But from the Southeastern part of MN...

When BWA was founded,.....

it had already become clear that QDM was more than a creative deer management tool to grow bigger bucks; that along with it came—whether intended or not—lease-fee hunting.

While some landowners do apply "QDM-like" harvest restrictions on their property without charging hunters a fee, the vast majority of official QDM projects involve a landowner and a select group of hunters agreeing on a defined set of harvest rules by which all must abide and compensation to the landowner for exclusive hunting privileges.

One could argue that QDM is as much a "business plan" designed to produce an alternative income source for landowners as it is a deer management plan to produce better deer hunting. In fact, the QDM organization has promoted its concept as a means for landowners to maximize income on "their" deer herd and for hunters to harvest more "trophy bucks."

Now to me the question should be, what is not an important aspect of QDM.

see below for a prime example...makes as much sense as eating a burrito before church.

Well said.

[kern]

The way i see it all these rules changes that people want to implement is for the sole purpose of growing more and bigger antlers. Sure some can hide behind the healthier herd argument but if everybody that wants to implement these rules is honest, its about a rack. Thus giving "trophy" hunters more opportunities for what they want while taking away opportunities from the rest of people who hunt and differ from their opinion. I'm not against trying something different but if the sole purpose is for rack and rack only count me out. I'm curious where some people would stand if the buck to doe ratio would be where it should be but the majority of deer are young and there still wasn't a fair amount of mature deer. Again I'm not singling anybody out.

[Big Dave2]

That is the point. Increasing the price to harvest a specific section of the population would discourage some from hunting that population, thereby protecting that section of the population. Doubling the price obviously was just thrown out there as an example, the DNR would need to study at what price they could offer such a tag without losing revenue.

I'm not sure if using money as a deterrant is really in the spirit of sharing our natural resources.

[Surface Tension]

I briefly looked at some of the last pages of this thread as I'm pretty much done with the topic.

It is pretty clear that there are opinions that won't change. I stated mine because I see it as a voice or vote to any DNR personal that might be looking in. I have some concerns about some of the thinking here but in the end it comes down to the following.

What is most important to me and should be for all of you is, ensuring we have wildlife to hunt in the future.

Secondly that hunting stays open and accessible to everyone.

That means licenses should stay affordable and special preferences should not gained my at any cost.

Keeping public land and creating more public lands.

If we don't do that then you can look at Europe as an example of things to come.

Hunting is no longer assessable to everyone and only open to a privileged few.

It is already happening. Pay to hunt private property. State, County, and Federal land being sold.

Over and Out.

[96trigger]

Quote:

What would be the purpose of charging the extra money? Where would it go? What good would it do?

The purpose would be to eliminate the criminilization of shooting small bucks that some people think is happening. It would be a deterrent and not a new law. Hunters would again have a choice. As for where the xtra money went, maybe to more DNR enforcement, more land, who knows, where does all the license money go now. As for what good would it do, I spelled that out in the post.

I offered a solution or middle ground to what some people truly have a problem with. If anyone has a better one, I am all ears. People can feel free to rip it to shreds, it is more than likely never going to happen. Certainly not anytime soon. People would rather bicker about who is right and who is wrong instead of finding some common ground to work with. There is 15 pages of back and forth where nobody has come up with any kind of solution, only the pros and cons of both sides, which have been hashed and bashed the last 3 years. Finally, some one comes up with an idea, and a couple see it as having merit, yet still BigDave2, feel the need to try and rip it. I am pretty much done responding to the negativity. I told myself a year ago I was done posting on this topic and would go about my own business. I had this idea in the treestand this year because I care about other hunters and the future of hunting. So in my treestand, while hunting, I was trying to think of ways that could pacify as many people as possible yet still have some integrity to balance age structure and let people shoot what they want. What have you some of you done besides complain and argue?