APR's good for hunter recruitment but not for retention?

[tfran123]

That's what I thought you meant, thanks.

I don't agree re: regulating private land, IMO this needs to be done regardless of concentration densities. I know you feel it's not there right but it's working in zone 3 and it'll work in other areas. We can agree to disagree, no issue there. I archery hunt south central and I'm personally tired of the huge groups driving land and putting the crush on the little bucks, I know it happens every year will likely continue. It's my opinion again and also it's hard to paint these things with a broad brush, reality is there is no perfect solution.

"Yes" herd health isn't he major issue, it's the fact that many groups have a mindset that really crushes the young bucks and while we don't agree I don't believe this should continue year after year.

[Jameson]

...If you are using the harvest differential of .1 deer per acre between bucks and does as a case for a herd being out of balance I would enjoy knowing the metrics you use.

nope, .3.

If x = 1.5 then y = 1. In an ok balanced deer herd if x = does and y = bucks. Without pulling out the calculator I guesstimated that if x = .5 then y should be about .3 . The number .6 was giving as what y equals. .6/.3 = 2. Thus why I said that twice the number of bucks are being harvested as should be.

This has been your pointless Sunday morning post of the day.

[Jameson]

...The whole notion of APR to me is fine in private situations where the owner has the ultimate say as to who hunts on his property and I also feel if the state wants to regulate how game is taken on state land as they do with fish it is also something that is in their power but for them to tell private citizens how they can act on their own private land just to satisfy the personal standards of other hunters is wrong....

They don't own the wild deer. Those deer aren't theirs. They didn't pay for them. They don't have a signed title for them.

Everybody has to follow rules on their private land when it involves a public commodity. I can't go around polluting the water or the air that travels off of my land. If I want polluted water or air I need to have it in a container. You want to have private deer, put up a fence.

And do you have proof that it is only for personal standards and not for the best of the deer? Show us how not getting most of our 1.5 year old bucks shot every year would be bad.

(BTW, I'm against mandatory APR's and for a buck lottery.)

[PurpleFloyd]

Most the land is farmed fenceline to fenceline, so when the hay is chopped during fawning season lots of them are chopped, too.

[tfran123]

Some interesting thoughts and thanks for sharing.

So why should we keep shooting young bucks?

[PurpleFloyd]

They don't own the wild deer. Those deer aren't theirs. They didn't pay for them. They don't have a signed title for them.

[PurpleFloyd]

Some interesting thoughts and thanks for sharing.

So why should we keep shooting young bucks?

Why should we stop?

[Big Dave2]

So why should we keep shooting young bucks?

Same reason we eat young animals of any species, they are tasty!

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Right on, PurpleFloyd! Sing it!

[tfran123]

Big Dave,

You wouldn't have happen to be the guy that wrote the anti APR letter to Outdoor News were you? Just curious as he was from Belle Plaine.

[Big Dave2]

You wouldn't have happen to be the guy that wrote the anti APR letter to Outdoor News were you? Just curious as he was from Belle Plaine.

[nonteepical]

Big Dave,

You wouldn't have happen to be the guy that wrote the anti APR letter to Outdoor News were you? Just curious as he was from Belle Plaine.

that guy needs some medication

[Wanderer]

I think I've seen the light - I'm converted!

I do think we should avoid managing our herd to prevent it from fullfilling it's potential. That we can enjoy stunning mediocrity and get all the thoughtless, supeficial hunters out of our back yards.

I don't know why I couldn't see that before.

Now I have to leave to go out of state again and hunt some new place that has a bunch of deer and maybe not get one anyway. At least if I get one that I'm hoping for I'll keep it on the down low so as not to make people think there's only one reason I hunt. What a waste of time...

Oh, by the way, see ya!

[Big Dave2]

Any way

you could post the letter here?

[PurpleFloyd]

nope, .3.

If x = 1.5 then y = 1. In an ok balanced deer herd if x = does and y = bucks. Without pulling out the calculator I guesstimated that if x = .5 then y should be about .3 . The number .6 was giving as what y equals. .6/.3 = 2. Thus why I said that twice the number of bucks are being harvested as should be.

This has been your pointless Sunday morning post of the day.

Talk about pointless posts. You have no idea what an "OK balanced herd" would be because a definition of an "OK balanced herd" does not exist. And if you think your guesstimations equal reality then carry on.

[hockeybc69]

Speaking of Outdoor News... From the Nov 29th issue:

Zone 3 a bright spot in 2012 deer hunt

http://www.outdoornews.com/November-2012/Zone-3-a-bright-spot-in-2012-deer-hunt/

Darn APR's!!!!

And let the spins begin.

[nonteepical]

I do think we should avoid managing our herd to prevent it from fullfilling it's potential.

I don't know why I couldn't see that before.

It's minnesota's way of life, you couldn't see it because your just use to it: Vikings, Twins, Wild, Timberwolves, Gophers....our natural recources we have more lakes than everyone and dont have a better fisheries than anyone or better duck hunting, used to be part of the big 5 of pheasant hunting and now need game farms to a shoot bird ect. ect. the only thing minnesota is the best at is bending over taking it and then complain their back is sore. Minnesota mediocrity it's the way of life.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

you couldn't see it because your just use to it: Vikings, Twins, Wild, Timberwolves, Gophers

HEY, We have the Lynx!!!

[PurpleFloyd]

One particularly good article that I have read in the past.

Bryan Kinkel

"I am a professional wildlife manager and research scientist. On occasion, I also do the seminar circuit and I write deer research related articles for several publications. I write regularly for "Deer & Deer Hunting" magazine, and "Quality Whitetails", the journal of the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA). My business partner and I are also in the midst of writing a book on deer herd dynamics, socio-biology, and the different forms of deer management.

It is not my intent to say this person or that person is right or wrong. It is simply my intent to try to clear up some of the misconceptions about what the different forms of deer management are intended to produce and why. There is also some factual information that needs to be presented.

With any form of management, there must be a compromise between what is best for the deer herd and the wants/needs of the hunters. This is just a fact of deer management, not matter what form is practiced. Secondly, it is virtually impossible to set guidelines that are a best fit for all geographic regions. Deer management is always site specific. That is why state agencies are between a rock and a hard place. No matter which form of management the decide to practice, there are no standardized rules that will work state-wide, region-wide or even county-wide. Habitat conditions can vary dramatically across very short distances, even across a single property. There is no one set of harvest guidelines that will produce a quality deer herd across a broad region. But that is also true of Traditional Deer Management (or better termed, Maximum Deer Harvest Management - MDHM). Restoration of the deer herds through MDHM has been phenomenally successful across statewide regions, but there are "pockets" in every state where deer are either over-populated or below what is desirable for an MDHM program. There is no one practice that works the same everywhere.

The same is true with QDM. There are no standardized rules that will work across broad regions. But in an attempt to keep this as short as possible, allow me to give some background on what QDM is and is not, as well as what QDM is intended to produce in a deer herd. QDM is NOT trophy deer management. But I can see why those opposed to QDM think it is. And in fact, we wildlife managers are heavily to blame for this misconception. In the earlier years of QDM implementation and research, instead of trying to explain to hunters the complexities of deer social dynamics and how QDM works within this framework, QDM was "sold" to hunters as a way of producing bigger bucks. Unfortunately, we over-emphasized this aspect of QDM, and now many hunters (and managers) think QDM is all about "trophy" deer. We obviously under-estimated the intelligence of the average hunter, and over-emphasized one of the "hunter satisfaction" aspects of a complete biological system.

QDM is an attempt to return a deer herd to a more "natural" dynamics, while still producing hunter satisfaction. This requires some compromises to the "natural" condition. What a "natural" deer herd looks like is well known to the research community and has been for many years. There are two primary sources for information on natural deer herds. The first is the bioarcheological studies of American Indian "middens" – or trash heaps. The American Indians were large consumers of whitetailed deer, for food, clothing and tool making. Unused parts of their harvested deer were thrown in these trash heaps. The largest and hardest part of a deer that will survive time is the pelvic girdle bone structure. The sex and age of a deer can be fairly accurately determined from the pelvic girdle. Examination of these left-over pelvic girdles provides an accurate picture of the sex and age distribution of the deer the Indians were harvesting. After collecting and categorizing over 10,000 pelvic girdles, it was found that the deer herds were very sexually balanced, with an adult sex ratio of approximately 1 male for every female. It was also found that there was a pyramid age structure for both sexes (when graphed on a vertical age/sex scale). In essence, the largest age class were fawns, the second largest age class were immature adults, the third largest mature adults, and the smallest group old-aged deer.

The second source for information on "natural" deer herds are the large, unhunted deer herds that currently exist. There ARE large geographic areas that have no hunting but do have natural predation. Most of these are in private hands, although some large National Parks also fit into this category. Study of these unhunted herds (and I work with one of these areas on a long term research basis) has shown that the actual adult sex ratio is closer to 1.2 adult females to 1 adult male. The slightly higher number of females is probably due to the higher natural mortality of bucks from rut-related stresses and injuries. The age structure of these herds is somewhat older than indicated by the midden research, probably because American Indian hunting had a significant impact on herd structure. In current unhunted herds, 50-70% of the herd is 3 ½ or older.

With QDM, an attempt is made to produce the most natural herd structure possible while still providing "hunter satisfaction". This requires some compromises. In most cases, an adult sex ratio of 1 adult male for every 2 adult females is good enough to qualify as a "quality" herd. It is extremely difficult (although not impossible) to bring a free-ranging herd to the "magic" 1:1 sex ratio. Most hunters are not willing to harvest enough does and pass up enough bucks to accomplish this. In most QDM programs, a buck age structure with 30% of the buck population 3 ½ or older is the goal. Again, this is not completely natural, but is a compromise to fit in with hunter wants/needs. A sex ratio of 1 buck to 2 does, and a buck age structure of 30% 3 ½ or older are also good enough for social dynamics of a herd to work as Nature intended. The important role of sex ratios, age structures, and the role they play in herd dynamics, herd health and reproductive success is extremely complex and would require a long discussion. Suffice to say, they are critical in over-all herd performance. In addition, the processes of Natural Selection work best when the herd dynamics are as close to natural as possible.

In a QDM program, the herd density is kept at 60-70% of carrying capacity. This is also not exactly "natural" as most unhunted deer herds will waiver right around habitat capacity. At 60-70% of capacity, herd health, individual animal performance, and reproductive success are greatly improved. This allows more deer to be harvested per year (the increased reproductive success of the lower density herd replaces the harvested deer with a large annual fawn crop) and the average size of deer in each age class is larger (the deer are healthier – larger bodies, larger antlers). Again, this is a compromise to meet hunter satisfaction, although increased herd health is a benefit unto itself.

I know a lot of hunters, when presented with the facts, begin wondering, "if QDM is so great, why don't state wildlife agencies practice it?" There are so many different answers to that question that I hesitate to try and list them all. In addition, it is impossible to know agency motivation without "walking in their shoes". From personal experience working with different state agencies, the reasons have run the gambit from: lack of scientific knowledge, to fear of change, to over-reliance on out-dated and inaccurate population models, to the difficulty of establishing QDM-type harvest guidelines across highly variable range conditions, to severe political pressure from the hunting public. QDM proponents should never underestimate that last reason. There are still many hunters that want to see a deer behind every tree. With many states, the wildlife agencies derive their funding directly from hunting/fishing license sales and outdoor activity tax revenues (Pittman-Robertson, etc.). Many agencies, rightly or wrongly, feel it is their primary agenda to satisfy hunters and to provide maximum hunter satisfaction – a satisfaction they believe is driven by high deer sightings and harvest opportunities (although numerous hunter satisfaction surveys find this isn't the case).

One more point I think is critical before I jump off my soapbox; NONE of the current so-called QDM programs implemented by state agencies are actually QDM. NONE. NOT A SINGLE ONE. They are only slightly modified versions of MDHM. None of them will produce the full range of herd dynamics necessary to create a natural herd. They are only attempts to increase the buck age structure without addressing the other equally important herd issues. My greatest fears are realized in some of these programs. In fact, some of the "buck limiting" harvest guidelines will actually be detrimental to the herd in the long run. Since these programs are being touted as "QDM" (when they are not), their eventual failure will give true QDM a huge black eye."

[tfran123]

Fairly comprehensive letter, much covered there.

It boils down to this, firearms hunters in many parts of the state over harvest a disproportionate slug of 1.5 year old bucks. A growing majority want a better crack at a mature animal and another school of thought believes we're entitled to shoot what we want (a legal buck). Hard to paint anything with a simple set of rules that covers everyone's needs/wants.

APR is working in zone 3, not a doubt in my mind and fully believe it'll expand into other areas of the state as well as there is a growing trend toward supporting a more balanced age structure in our buck herd.

I get the part about big brother telling us what to do, I hate that more than you realize but they tell us what we can shoot w/other animals and similar things happen in the world of fisheries. And in the end we need to manage our resources and sometimes rules are necessary to reach the end goal.

[deerminator]

I liked this quote out of the ON article. Makes me happy. Perhaps someday, our permit area will be Managed again. My land and the land I hunt should be at least. : )

“Wildlife biologists are conservative by nature,” he said. “Coming out of the 1990s, we were conservative by a couple years too many. My inclination is that we won’t be as conservative next year. … I don’t think we’ll be getting into a lot more intensive areas, but you might see more managed areas and more hunter choice areas.”

[nonteepical]

One particularly good article that I have read in the past.

Bryan Kinkel

"I am a professional wildlife manager and research scientist. On occasion, I also do the seminar circuit and I write deer research related articles for several publications. I write regularly for "Deer & Deer Hunting" magazine, and "Quality Whitetails", the journal of the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA). My business partner and I are also in the midst of writing a book on deer herd dynamics, socio-biology, and the different forms of deer management.

It is not my intent to say this person or that person is right or wrong. It is simply my intent to try to clear up some of the misconceptions about what the different forms of deer management are intended to produce and why. There is also some factual information that needs to be presented.

With any form of management, there must be a compromise between what is best for the deer herd and the wants/needs of the hunters. This is just a fact of deer management, not matter what form is practiced. Secondly, it is virtually impossible to set guidelines that are a best fit for all geographic regions. Deer management is always site specific. That is why state agencies are between a rock and a hard place. No matter which form of management the decide to practice, there are no standardized rules that will work state-wide, region-wide or even county-wide. Habitat conditions can vary dramatically across very short distances, even across a single property. There is no one set of harvest guidelines that will produce a quality deer herd across a broad region. But that is also true of Traditional Deer Management (or better termed, Maximum Deer Harvest Management - MDHM). Restoration of the deer herds through MDHM has been phenomenally successful across statewide regions, but there are "pockets" in every state where deer are either over-populated or below what is desirable for an MDHM program. There is no one practice that works the same everywhere.

The same is true with QDM. There are no standardized rules that will work across broad regions. But in an attempt to keep this as short as possible, allow me to give some background on what QDM is and is not, as well as what QDM is intended to produce in a deer herd. QDM is NOT trophy deer management. But I can see why those opposed to QDM think it is. And in fact, we wildlife managers are heavily to blame for this misconception. In the earlier years of QDM implementation and research, instead of trying to explain to hunters the complexities of deer social dynamics and how QDM works within this framework, QDM was "sold" to hunters as a way of producing bigger bucks. Unfortunately, we over-emphasized this aspect of QDM, and now many hunters (and managers) think QDM is all about "trophy" deer. We obviously under-estimated the intelligence of the average hunter, and over-emphasized one of the "hunter satisfaction" aspects of a complete biological system.

QDM is an attempt to return a deer herd to a more "natural" dynamics, while still producing hunter satisfaction. This requires some compromises to the "natural" condition. What a "natural" deer herd looks like is well known to the research community and has been for many years. There are two primary sources for information on natural deer herds. The first is the bioarcheological studies of American Indian "middens" – or trash heaps. The American Indians were large consumers of whitetailed deer, for food, clothing and tool making. Unused parts of their harvested deer were thrown in these trash heaps. The largest and hardest part of a deer that will survive time is the pelvic girdle bone structure. The sex and age of a deer can be fairly accurately determined from the pelvic girdle. Examination of these left-over pelvic girdles provides an accurate picture of the sex and age distribution of the deer the Indians were harvesting. After collecting and categorizing over 10,000 pelvic girdles, it was found that the deer herds were very sexually balanced, with an adult sex ratio of approximately 1 male for every female. It was also found that there was a pyramid age structure for both sexes (when graphed on a vertical age/sex scale). In essence, the largest age class were fawns, the second largest age class were immature adults, the third largest mature adults, and the smallest group old-aged deer.

The second source for information on "natural" deer herds are the large, unhunted deer herds that currently exist. There ARE large geographic areas that have no hunting but do have natural predation. Most of these are in private hands, although some large National Parks also fit into this category. Study of these unhunted herds (and I work with one of these areas on a long term research basis) has shown that the actual adult sex ratio is closer to 1.2 adult females to 1 adult male. The slightly higher number of females is probably due to the higher natural mortality of bucks from rut-related stresses and injuries. The age structure of these herds is somewhat older than indicated by the midden research, probably because American Indian hunting had a significant impact on herd structure. In current unhunted herds, 50-70% of the herd is 3 ½ or older.

With QDM, an attempt is made to produce the most natural herd structure possible while still providing "hunter satisfaction". This requires some compromises. In most cases, an adult sex ratio of 1 adult male for every 2 adult females is good enough to qualify as a "quality" herd. It is extremely difficult (although not impossible) to bring a free-ranging herd to the "magic" 1:1 sex ratio. Most hunters are not willing to harvest enough does and pass up enough bucks to accomplish this. In most QDM programs, a buck age structure with 30% of the buck population 3 ½ or older is the goal. Again, this is not completely natural, but is a compromise to fit in with hunter wants/needs. A sex ratio of 1 buck to 2 does, and a buck age structure of 30% 3 ½ or older are also good enough for social dynamics of a herd to work as Nature intended. The important role of sex ratios, age structures, and the role they play in herd dynamics, herd health and reproductive success is extremely complex and would require a long discussion. Suffice to say, they are critical in over-all herd performance. In addition, the processes of Natural Selection work best when the herd dynamics are as close to natural as possible.

In a QDM program, the herd density is kept at 60-70% of carrying capacity. This is also not exactly "natural" as most unhunted deer herds will waiver right around habitat capacity. At 60-70% of capacity, herd health, individual animal performance, and reproductive success are greatly improved. This allows more deer to be harvested per year (the increased reproductive success of the lower density herd replaces the harvested deer with a large annual fawn crop) and the average size of deer in each age class is larger (the deer are healthier – larger bodies, larger antlers). Again, this is a compromise to meet hunter satisfaction, although increased herd health is a benefit unto itself.

I know a lot of hunters, when presented with the facts, begin wondering, "if QDM is so great, why don't state wildlife agencies practice it?" There are so many different answers to that question that I hesitate to try and list them all. In addition, it is impossible to know agency motivation without "walking in their shoes". From personal experience working with different state agencies, the reasons have run the gambit from: lack of scientific knowledge, to fear of change, to over-reliance on out-dated and inaccurate population models, to the difficulty of establishing QDM-type harvest guidelines across highly variable range conditions, to severe political pressure from the hunting public. QDM proponents should never underestimate that last reason. There are still many hunters that want to see a deer behind every tree. With many states, the wildlife agencies derive their funding directly from hunting/fishing license sales and outdoor activity tax revenues (Pittman-Robertson, etc.). Many agencies, rightly or wrongly, feel it is their primary agenda to satisfy hunters and to provide maximum hunter satisfaction – a satisfaction they believe is driven by high deer sightings and harvest opportunities (although numerous hunter satisfaction surveys find this isn't the case).

One more point I think is critical before I jump off my soapbox; NONE of the current so-called QDM programs implemented by state agencies are actually QDM. NONE. NOT A SINGLE ONE. They are only slightly modified versions of MDHM. None of them will produce the full range of herd dynamics necessary to create a natural herd. They are only attempts to increase the buck age structure without addressing the other equally important herd issues. My greatest fears are realized in some of these programs. In fact, some of the "buck limiting" harvest guidelines will actually be detrimental to the herd in the long run. Since these programs are being touted as "QDM" (when they are not), their eventual failure will give true QDM a huge black eye."

Every single thing in this article has been said on here at one time or another in the APR threads in the past 3 years i've said at least 3/4 of whats in the artical myself. like judge judy always says "you don't have your listening ears on purplefloyd!"

[PurpleFloyd]

To me it boils to this:

I hear so many of the APR guys throwing out health and quality as the buzz words to support their desire for APR's yet the only thing they are using as a tool to accomplish that goal is demonizing anyone who shoots a 1.5 year old deer. The problem with that is that APR,especially as it applies statewide and nationwide for that matter is that it is only a small part of the equation.

If you look at the farms that are producing the monster bucks year over year and if you read the QDM movement as it was originally designed before the commercial market took it over you will find that habitat and nutrition are every bit (and I would argue more) important than restricting the harvest of small bucks.

Interestingly the majority of those who are asking for APR's are the same people that in other topics are calling for less government restrictions and interference. Yet if it suddenly serves them then they are all in favor of big brother dictating what they do and how they do it.

Yet I see essentially zero talk about establishing statewide nutrition and habitat improvements that would need to occur for an honest approach to building and maintaining a healthy herd. It would be very expensive to do on a statewide scale and it would require a reduction in habitat loss in the ag zone as well as a look at the development taking place in many habitats like building homes on every ravine and tiling and planting the wetlands.

In a really natural population you would see a much greater abundance of 3.5 to 5.5 year old deer and they would be one of the biggest age groups if not the biggest yet we have that age group as the smallest by far and a big reason is nobody will pass a really large deer to let it be the apex deer in the area and let it be the dominant breeder in it's territory. To have a true balance in the herd and to encourage seeing and having more bigger deer we need to look past shooting every buck we see that gets to maturity and learn from what the fisheries people have learned and start to take the smaller racked deer for meat and leave the big deer to breed and establish the hierarchy of th herd. Whether that means passing on the big deer and taking photo's and having replicas made like the Muskie and Walleye guys are doing or something different but to say you want a quality herd and then remove the apex deer in the herd while the younger deer are left to breed and rule the herd goes against biology where the young and weak are always culled from the herd first and the alpha's are left to breed and pass on their genetics.

And the Nutritional portion should include working with the state to make sure that state land and any private landowners who are willing should be encouraging the planting and growth of cover, foods with the proper nutritional content and trees like Oaks that will give the deer the best chance possible to be healthy and grow to their potential.

But I wonder how many who are talking herd health and quality would really be willing to do what is really needed to really have a balanced herd statewide and to have a more balanced herd which would require not taking every large deer that gets to 3 or 4 years old and leaving them to be the alphas and pass on their genetics.

because what I am reading from many has nothing to do with herd health or balanced age but rather just getting the deer to a size that they wish to have when they harvest them.

And before the phrase slaughter every 1.5 year old deer is thrown out there, there are a million deer and we shot 164,000 total deer in 2011 with 76,000 being bucks and 88,000 being does. If there are 2 does for every buck as stats indicate then there were 333,000 total bucks in 2011 and we took 76,000 or a bit over 20% of them. Now, if all of those deer were 1.5 years old then there sure as heck would be a great number of 2.5-5.5 YO bucks roaming around and we would have a pretty good selection of mature bucks to harvest.

I contend we are not getting more big bucks not because we are shooting all of the small ones but because we are shooting all of the big ones and that we would improve the antler structure if we passed on the true big deer and took the smaller basketed bucks that try to sneak in and breed with the does or are left to breed the does when the large deer are pulled from the herd.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

76,000 being bucks and 88,000 being does.

Correction... 88,000 antlerless.... 17,000 of those were fawn bucks.

Just to make sure no numbers are skewed...

[PurpleFloyd]

Every single thing in this article has been said on here at one time or another in the APR threads in the past 3 years i've said at least 3/4 of whats in the artical myself. like judge judy always says "you don't have your listening ears on purplefloyd!"

Actually I don't think you have yours on. First off your math is wrong. You stated we took 130000 bucks last year and it was actually 76000 according to the DNR or less than 8 percent of the total population. You cannot make the case that the majority of 1.5 year old bucks are shot but there are no mature 3-5 year old bucks because the math doesn't work. The reason we don't have many old bucks is because they also shoot every 2.5-5 year old buck and at a much higher ration than we are shooting young ones.

if you really read that and say you agree with it then you would not believe what the APR things has become is really right.