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

[Spike76]

James, I've let eight pointers walk by. I don't get mad because I chose to let it go. APRs should be voluntary only. If you're not a good enough hunter to get a big deer without the APRs, than go without. Don't deprive someone shooting any size buck he wants, so a few can shoot bigger ones, because of APRs. The D.N.R. has no business limiting deer, only to have more larger ones.

[james_walleye]

Well spike the majority of zone 3 hunters were in favor of implementing APRs and the support for APRs has only grown since people have seen the results. So you can have your opinion....that's fine....but the majority of zone 3 hunters don't have a problem being told they can't shoot a forkhorn. So let's quit pretending that its just a "few" people who like the idea of seeing more mature bucks in the woods because that is a complete fallacy.

[BIGRED07]

I am sure APR's help, but people forget that hunting for a lot is spending time with friends and family. The group my dad hunts with has 9 people, and they have lost almost all of their access over the last5 years. this year they shoot a 6pt, a doe and a fawn. they were all happy with them as they hunt for deer to eat. For all of those who say just shoot a doe, they didn't get a chance and without the 6pt would have had hardly any deer meat. Also what do you do if you do not have a doe tag? easy to say shoot a doe if you are in a two deer zone or hunter's choice area. Part of the problem is society is in the everybody has to win, you see in in schools all the time in sports for kids, everybody gets a trophy. They call big bucks trophy deer because not everyone gets one. It is what part of the allure of deer hunting is about. Leave it up to the person to decide what their idea of a trophy is. last time i checked you can't eat the antlers anyways!!

[psepuncher]

There's some flawed math, or thinking

it wer'nt me who said they shoot big mature bucks, or does only.

I guess to bring the discusion into reality we'd have to forgo what APR's really was intended for and not worry none about harvesting mature bucks.

In most cases even 4-1/2 year old mature bucks will be hard to find.

If we take a step back even further we're lookin at immature 3-1/2 year olds.

And then with social structure in the herd, there's not much a chance that the

2-1/2 year olds will be hanging around in just one spot during rut.

still waiting on the muzzie reports.....

[Big Dave2]

Well spike the majority of zone 3 hunters were in favor of implementing APRs and the support for APRs has only grown since people have seen the results. So you can have your opinion....that's fine....but the majority of zone 3 hunters don't have a problem being told they can't shoot a forkhorn. So let's quit pretending that its just a "few" people who like the idea of seeing more mature bucks in the woods because that is a complete fallacy.

I wouldn't be so sure. All we know for sure is that the majority of those who chose to participate in a survey were in favor. My guess is that people in favor of APRs would have been more likely to participate.

[james_walleye]

I'm talking about the survey sent out to 3,000 random zone 3 hunters. You are talking something totally different.

[james_walleye]

......there is actually a couple other surveys that can be referenced as well.....

[Jameson]

I'm talking about the survey sent out to 3,000 random zone 3 hunters. You are talking something totally different.

I have family who have quit hunting due to too many regulations. It's just too much for them to fret over just to go shoot a deer. Shouldn't they be surveyed too? They would hunt again if there weren't so many regs. So, surveying current hunters isn't really surveying all hunters. In this case it was just the people they wanted to survey.

[pike79]

I did a survey in my house and the final tally was 5 people against apr and 0 for apr.

[Big Dave2]

I'm talking about the survey sent out to 3,000 random zone 3 hunters. You are talking something totally different.

The survey was sent to 3000 zone 3 hunters or 3000 zone 3 hunters participated in the survey? Either way I'm still guessing that the those who are in favor of APRs were more apt to participate.

[hockeybc69]

Yeah, but Pike, you cant ask your 4 kids that are under 8 years old either.

My home survey just came back with 4 "for" APR, and zero against.

My 10 year old daughter and wife have no clue though. LOLLLL.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

Either way I'm still guessing that the those who are in favor of APRs were more apt to participate.

Now why would that be the case?? People strongly against it surely would take the time to voice their opinions.

Thats like saying people that are against a local issue that is being voted on, means the naysayers just stay away from the polls because they are against it??? I hardly think so.

[Big Dave2]

Now why would that be the case?? People strongly against it surely would take the time to voice their opinions.

Thats like saying people that are against a local issue that is being voted on, means the naysayers just stay away from the polls because they are against it??? I hardly think so.

Of course it is just my opinion but I believe it is human nature. At the time the survey was conducted APR's were not the law of the land so a lot of people either didn't understand fully what they were or just didn't care enough to get involved. Those who were in favor of APRs were trying to change an existing law so they are naturally going to be more vocal.

Those who are for APRs would probably be considered a bit more progressive and a bit more apt to complete a survey like this than those who are against which could also skew the numbers.

I had this experience a couple of years ago when I went to city hall to fight a proposed street improvement assessment in my neighborhood. Every effected property owner was notified and most I spoke to before the meeting were against the proposal. Much to my dismay when I attended the meeting there was about 4 or 5 property owners who were in favor of the project and they were all in attendance. I was in the minority at the meeting but when everyone in the neighborhood got their notification that the project had been approved all I heard was grumbling from the neighbors. If all of those that opposed the project would have been at the meeting we would have been the vast majority.

[Wanderer]

O.K., I'm back home and just want to post my recap of my last day in zone 3 today. And God help me this will be my last comment on this thread.

Last night the 3 deer I finally did see didn't get up until the end of legal light. I could see them pretty easily through my scope at almost 100 yards through the woods but it was too late to take the shot.

This morning back in the same stand the wind was bad so I moved. I decided to take a walk down the hill on a tote road that skirts a great bedding area. I knew the wind would be shifting but planned to keep moving and hopefully get within sight of something before I got busted. Not long into the decent I see a scrape with fresh tracks and a wet spot between them. YES. I make sure I have my grunt tube handy and then hear a grunt from on the hillside just out of view. I grunt back and doe bleat a couple times while assuming the sitting position. A doe suddenly materializes but I don't have my gun shouldered. My ears let me down on that one. She picks me off but I stay frozen until she gets behind the tree. I shoulder and wait for her to reapper. Too long - the wind shifts and she bolts. I never saw the buck.

I get up and keep moving and find another deer. I shoulder and see through the scope that its a small buck (4 points total) below me. I sit down and watch him as he browses out of sight for a moment. Suddenly alot of commotion is going on near him and I see two other bucks sparring. I look closely and see one MAY be legal but don't have a clear enough view. Meanwhile the first buck comes back toward me and beds down no more than 50 yards away. After about 15 minutes of the other two pushing each other around, they break. The bigger one, a 6 point including brown tines comes over to the bedded buck and starts sparring him while he's laying there. He gets up and messes with the bigger guy for a little bit then starts walking away but the bigger one paces him. By this time the other buck, another 4 pointer joins them. Well the first 4 pointer suddenly looks right at me while I'm watching him through my scope. The 6 comes up to him and starts licking the 4s face all over! The 4 is trying to look at me and shake off the licking 6 pointer. Finally the 4 head butts him and gets a good enough view of me to make him take off with the others in tow.

Those were the last deer I saw for my trip on likely my second and last day of deer hunting in MN and possibly this year. We have no deer in the freezer but that little incident made the weekend for me. Who do I blame for me not having deer in my freezer? No one. Not the BWA, the DNR or the Legislature. Would this seemingly staunch APR supporter have shot one of those bucks if there were no APRs in effect? This year I would have. This year with limited time in the field I was again looking for any legal adult deer. BUT I'm confident my family will make it through the winter without the venison in the freezer. I can use all the gas money I've saved on hunting trips and buy beef, pork and chicken I guess. I'd like to meet that scrappy 6 pointer again some day though. I'm sure he'll grow another 2.

My conclusion about this debate and why I'm done with it is that BOTH sides are centered on greed. Neither side is better than the other in that regard. Think about it. And because greed is the driver, It won't be settled in this thread. Time will settle it someday but that's a ways out.

Good luck.

[psepuncher]

......there is actually a couple other surveys that can be referenced as well.....

I also read the report that said the total number of days hunted was 4 from Z3 hunters. Now that'd actually be about 12 to 16 hours stand time on average for the year.

...wow.

[96trigger]

If you are fundamentally against APR, there is no amount of data or enough surveys that will satisfy you and get you to change your mind. Arguing about it will get nowhere. I've argued plenty on here, entertaining at first, but just plain old after awhile. There will be more meetings and surveys before the 2013 season. For or against APR, you will have a chance to voice your opinion and I suggest you do. I am going to, and I hope APRs stay. Most of the people I have talked to in this area hope they stay. My belief is that they will. If they do not, I will not quit hunting, neither will my party. In fact, I will not change a thing. I will still, like I have for 10 years, pass on forks and baskets. As will my party. The land owners we hunt with do not want to see immature bucks get shot anymore. As do most of the land owners around us. I will shoot a doe for meat. I will continue to work just as hard for those more mature bucks and does, hunting all 3 seasons if need be, eating tag after tag. If APR goes away, I think enough people have seen a benefit from it to continue the practice.

[Jameson]

...If APR goes away, I think enough people have seen a benefit from it to continue the practice.

I think you are onto something here.

If enough folks voluntarily pass on young bucks then there will be no need for the APR rule. The tough part is going to be where the APR's have helped the most, the public lands.

[22lex]

As another SEMN hunter, thumbs up to APR!

just happy to see a few forkhorns make it to 2.5 years old.

[InTheNorthwoods]

I think you are onto something here.

If enough folks voluntarily pass on young bucks then there will be no need for the APR rule. The tough part is going to be where the APR's have helped the most, the public lands.

Maybe APR's could go away on private lands, and the DNR, State, County (whoever owns a certain parcel of public land) could impose APR's on certain properties? This would allow individuals to "shoot what they want" on their own lands, but keep in place the APR's which the majority of the public appears to have liked.

I know people will talk about the inability to enforce such a rule; but I find that to be a minor speed bump. Most people are honest and lawabiding; and if one individual isn't, the chances are another person on the public land is. Also, there are a ton of laws in place that are difficult to enforce (think speeding), but we have those restrictions anyway.

[Getanet]

I don't think we want to be establishing different regulations for hunting private and public land, especially as private land hunters already have many advantages over public land hunters.

[Bear55]

I wouldn't mind seeing a little APR on a rotating basis, maybe every other year in some areas or every 3rd or 5th year in others when the population can support it. Over time I think it could be an effective education tool. It would also be fun to watch the riple effect on one class of bucks in areas that might never see it otherwise.

[InTheNorthwoods]

I don't think we want to be establishing different regulations for hunting private and public land, especially as private land hunters already have many advantages over public land hunters.

Just throwing out ideas...

It isn't really a different regulation per se, it is the landowner (here, a government entity) that is controlling how its land is used for hunting. Private landowners are instituting such "regulations" all the time (who comes in, what can be shot, etc.). I just see it as a way of making public land hunting a little better for everyone.

I am in favor of changes with our deer hunting regulations statewide, but I am not really an APR fan. If I was in charge there would be no APR's, but there would be other changes that APR detractors do not like (no cross tagging, lottery for all gun tags, gun tags only good for area they are drawn, possibly move the gun season back a few weeks, a lot like North Dakota employs).

[Jameson]

I too wouldn't hate having a short rotation of APR's. I do not like mandatory APR's, but if only the general hunting public here in MN could see what would happen if we passed on most 1.5 year old bucks. My arguments against APR concentrate on the degrading of the antler gene over a long period of time, and having too many spikes get accidentally killed as does and turning the hunters off of hunting due to a difficult rule to follow (for some.) A year of APR's somewhere isn't going to cause the long term effects I worry about.

I don't think we want to be establishing different regulations for hunting private and public land, especially as private land hunters already have many advantages over public land hunters.

I'm a strong supporter of a buck lottery. Why? Because that is how nearly all of the private land owners manage their land, so it must be a good thing that I'd like to see expanded. Show me a private landowner that limits the bucks taken on their property, but is against buck lottery and I'll show you a hypocrite.

[hockeybc69]

I am against a buck lottery. Not against the crew shooting 5 legimate mature bucks, given the chance. I dont personally know anyone that says, "only 3 bucks can be shot this year on our land". or whatever the number is.

Will it ever happen that we all tag out on mature bucks during one hunting season? Highly doubtful. But sure would stink to be on stand doe hunting and seeing that once in a lifetime buck and have to pass on it.... And you think people will bich about APR cuz they have to pass a forkhorn? Think of the guys having to pass a 4.5 year old deer cuz they didnt get drawn to shoot a buck.

[psepuncher]

I would be for a draw, winners to be able to hunt on specific WMA's during the rut, and also close some WMA's 2 weeks during the rut.