DNR seeks input on antler point restrictions

[lichen fox]

For those that want to fill the freezer, they can shoot does or put in the time and still get their buck in Zone 3. For those after antlers, they stand a better chance to get a big buck. You have to look at the management of deer as trying to keep everyone happy and offering some diversity...we are pretty lucky to have a section of the state that has this sort of potential.

So, I was right in thinking, that "deer" management has now become...political management..."keeping the hunters happy"...with no relation to what is precisely best for the deer herd in general!

[PurpleFloyd]

You nailed it LF with the exception that they are keeping the loudest hunters happy.

[tfran123]

You nailed it LF with the exception that they are keeping the loudest hunters happy.

Perhaps, but please note it's the Majority as well. Sorry.

[PurpleFloyd]

The majority of the loudest? Yes.

By using your polling methodology the majority of the country wants us to turn in our guns. I suppose you are supporting that too then?

[Scott M]

Sorry lichen fox, but that's the reality of natural resource management. It's not just looking at biology, the social aspect of hunting is a huge part of it. What point is there in managing for maximum harvestable yield of white-tailed deer if no one is interested in that and doesn't buy a license? Extreme example I will admit but white-tailed deer license revenue is paying the freight for overall wildlife management - half a million hunters plus at $30+ bucks a crack.

I'm also not convinced that the loudest are driving this type of management. You guys that don't think the majority favor APRs will be disappointed to hear how the past few random surveys of Zone 3 hunters have turned out.

[tfran123]

The majority of the loudest? Yes.

By using your polling methodology the majority of the country wants us to turn in our guns. I suppose you are supporting that too then?

I can't argue with this kind of logic (or lack thereof), when I say majority more will be for APR than against and that is fact. If you've got something other than sour grapes than lets hear it but linking this to gun control is a pathetic excuse for an arguement.

[B. Amish]

if the majority are for it, why does it need to be made a law?

[Scott M]

Just as with slot limits in fisheries management, if compliance isn't at a high enough rate, intended regulations will not have an effect.

We're talking about an animal with a home range of 1/2-2 square miles. Throw a dart at the map. You'll hit a mix of public and private properties. The Joneses let the 1.5's walk, the Smiths next door don't. Very soon the mindset becomes I gotta get mine before someone else does. In some areas, the neighborhood has consensus in letting small bucks walk; in others it's brown and down.

It would seem that people that want deer for the freezer and for the wall can each get that opportunity still.

[B. Amish]

so, apr's are just a way to keep up with the jones's. right on.

[lichen fox]

APR's in SE MN have no effect on me presently...What I am really dissapointed in, is that our "wildlife" biologists are baseing their management practices on what the hunters "want, or think is best"...It's kinda like your doctor asking you what will best manage your pain..."oh, doc...I think a good daily dose of oxycodone will do the trick"..."and maybe a little valium on the side"...If I take enough, I'll see big bucks even if they're not really there!

[fr0sty]

I don't believe this is true. They certainly take hunter satisfaction into account, but not to the detriment of a sustainable deer population.

What I am really dissapointed in, is that our "wildlife" biologists are baseing their management practices on what the hunters "want, or think is best".

[johnsd16]

I don't post much here but have a few thoughts on the APRs.

I am a recent transplant to zone 3, and have hunted extensively in Zone 2 in several areas, as well as some of zone 1. I also registered deer in WI for many years and would say I have conservatively talked with tens of thousands of hunters and placed my hands on thousands and thousands of deer during WI registration.

I will say right off I am a fan of APRs, but I cannot disagree with those that say we should not impose our desires on others. It is a difficult situation. I will also say, in my two years down here thus far, I have seen more, and better bucks than in my whole life combined (I'm 30); I grew up in 236 and 225.

#1 There is a culture in some areas or groups, that killing a "buck" regardless of fork, basket, or 150" plus, defines you as a hunter. They are out for a buck, period. They have no interest in a doe. This was very prominent in WI, as the success of the hunt was measure by how quickly and consistently you could put down any antlered deer. I for one think that is silly.

#2 If you want meat, shoot a doe, or even a fawn. I do not but they guys that whine that all they want is meat and they couldn't get any because all they saw all season was small bucks. If you are a good enough hunter to be only seeing 1.5 and 2.5 yr old bucks, you are good enough to find does. Most of all, during our gun season, bucks are where the does are.

#3 Some say we are favoring killing of the big robust deer that need to be left in herd for the winter. After registering deer in the WI gun and MZL season, and spending lots of time in the woods as a lifelong hunter and trapper, big mature, dominant deer are arguably in the worst shape going into the winter. And arguably are only surpassed for winter mortality potential by late fawns, injured animals, and very old does. Many mature bucks that spent the fall rutting, breeding, fighting and putting on the miles have lost 20% or more of their body weight and are very very run down. They are lost to winter kill, and predators.

Younger bucks that did less breeding and rutting are often times in much better shape to make it through the winter and be a robust animal and benefit to the gene pool the next year. In essence I'd rather have more 1.5 and 2.5 yr old bucks going into winter than 4.5 and up bucks.

#4 Some are poo pooing the DNR for letting the money talk. If the people that buy the licenses want something, why not let money drive it. As long as it is biologically sustainable, which it likely is. We have to accept that in this day and age, money will talk.

#5 There is some concern with the timing of the MN firearms hunt, as there always have been. I have never understood this agrument, other than we do perhaps, kill more bucks before they have bred as many does as they wold have if the hunt were later, like WI or IA. However, I would argue that we would probably kill more and bigger bucks if the hunt were later. To me, MN has always had the gun season during beak "breeding" which to me is different than "rutting". We seem to always be in "lockdown" at some point during the gun season. I have always observed more and bigger bucks being killed from October 25-November 2 or so, and again from November 15 to 25. Now in terms of total numbers of mature bucks harvested, the opening weekend of gun season is certainly when the most are killed, but that is when the most hunters are afield as well. I would wager that the other times I noted have higher mature buck to "hunter day" ratio than gun season. Working in WI, I can tell you there is sitll plenty of rutting activity when they have their gun season. I would much much prefer MN have ours then. I liken it to turkey seaons. A and B can be good as the hens aren't ready and the gobblers are on the move looking for action. Often times C and D, as well as E can suck as they are all busy with nature. To me the C, D, E period are like MN gun season. I have great luck in seasons F, G and H most years and to me that mirrors WI gun season. Bucks are back on their feet looking for remaining unbred does. I do realize that lockdown lasts a couple of days and then that buck moves on, but you have a higher percentage of your mature bucks in a less visible and vulnerable behavior pattern in the Nov 2-15 timefram than basically any other time of year. So, I don't buy the "we kill too many big ones" because of when our hunt is. I would argue that timing disproportionately exposes the sub-dominant bucks during MN gun season.

Nonetheless, having the gun season later, to me, would expose more trophy bucks after they have bred does, and thus protect by buck sighting volume, some of the less mature antlered deer.

Right now, there are obviously a fair number of well antlered 1.5 and 2.5 year old bucks that survive the gun season in areas that do not have APRs. Less of these deer are killed in APR areas because more mature bucks are filling those tags. This would only be helped if we moved the season back as well IMO.

[Scott M]

Some of you are missing the part about SE Minnesota having the right tangible habitat types to produce these big deer...Thick cover via abundant wooded forest, edge habitat, abundant agricultural crop to fuel the body and antler growth but not too much row crop that all the cover habitat is ripped down like it is in the flatter parts of southern MN...In terms of habitat requirements for whitetails, southeast Minnesota has the best, hence the regulation. It's not entirely a social regulation. I recall a SE MN Wildlife manager telling me that the woodlots and rolling country of SE MN is basically what Wisconsin has across the entire state, hence WI's population being about 2X as big as MNs.

[TruthWalleyes]

You gotta love the beauty of gods country.

[PurpleFloyd]

The majority of the loudest? Yes.

By using your polling methodology the majority of the country wants us to turn in our guns. I suppose you are supporting that too then?

[PurpleFloyd]

Some of you are missing the part about SE Minnesota having the right tangible habitat types to produce these big deer...Thick cover via abundant wooded forest, edge habitat, abundant agricultural crop to fuel the body and antler growth but not too much row crop that all the cover habitat is ripped down like it is in the flatter parts of southern MN...In terms of habitat requirements for whitetails, southeast Minnesota has the best, hence the regulation. It's not entirely a social regulation. I recall a SE MN Wildlife manager telling me that the woodlots and rolling country of SE MN is basically what Wisconsin has across the entire state, hence WI's population being about 2X as big as MNs.

Correctomundo.

As I said in post 1, If APR works in Z3 great. I have no problem with them doing what they want over there. My problem is with the mission creep that sets in where they all of a sudden think what might work in one habitat is a universal truth and that everyone should buy into it everywhere. And that it is the job of the government to dictate what our morality is.

[TruthWalleyes]

LOL,

My brother took that survey and he answered YES to the first question "Do you want bigger deer".

He's never even been to SE MN.

He's from FARM COUNTRY where we hunt groves and Grassland.

[lichen fox]

Some of you are missing the part about SE Minnesota having the right tangible habitat types to produce these big deer...Thick cover via abundant wooded forest, edge habitat, abundant agricultural crop to fuel the body and antler growth but not too much row crop that all the cover habitat is ripped down like it is in the flatter parts of southern MN...In terms of habitat requirements for whitetails, southeast Minnesota has the best, hence the regulation. It's not entirely a social regulation...

.

As I read this, I looked out the window, and thought...other than rolling hills, you just described perfectly, NW Minnesota! And as for it not being an entirely "socialy" motivated issue, I would agree to a point...The Hunter Surveys done in SE MN were also done in all other areas of the state, with the same questions...the difference being that only in SE MN was there an "acceptable' majority of hunters that liked the idea of APR's more than the other options...if you read the results from each area of the state, you will see the difference in "hunter preference." Thus, the SE has been chosen as the "test" area to see if it is a tool that works, and if so, then the DNR can add it to their management "tool box"...if something unexpected happens to the age / sex structure of the herd in SE MN as a result of this methodology that is either biologicly or socialy unacceptable...then they'll have to try something else...so, the jury is still out as for sustainablity of APR's. It will be interesting to read the new reports from ALL areas of the state...and, I would think, if they are really looking for an indication of "larger antlers" they would somehow use P&Y and B&C annual entry's from all parts of the state.

[lichen fox]

I found this interesting....click on the image and you can enlarge it...I found this at this link.

www.boone-crockett.org/bgrecords/records_whitetail.asp?...bgrecord...

The entry info is from 1980 to 2001

[Jaybird]

As a zone 1 "meat hunter", the thought of APR spreading to other parts of the state scares me. But as I understand it, this regulation would probably only be implemented in conjunction with liberal doe opportunities. Otherwise, you're putting 75% or more of the deer off limits, which seems ridiculous. So in the areas like where I hunt, which as often as not are lottery areas, APR wouldn't even be considered. Does this seem like an accurate assessment?

[johnsd16]

As a zone 1 "meat hunter", the thought of APR spreading to other parts of the state scares me. But as I understand it, this regulation would probably only be implemented in conjunction with liberal doe opportunities. Otherwise, you're putting 75% or more of the deer off limits, which seems ridiculous. So in the areas like where I hunt, which as often as not are lottery areas, APR wouldn't even be considered. Does this seem like an accurate assessment?

I would hope so. I think APRs are only reasonable if you still allow everyone to take "a" deer (in areas that allow for intensive, managed or choice). To have APRs in place and anlterless lottery would certainly keep some people out of the woods, and the DNR would not allow for that potential drop in license sales.

[nonteepical]

If someone decides not to hunt because of APR, then they aren't an avid deer hunter IMO. Alot of people cried quitting hunting pre-apr's and it never happened, maybe a couple snivelers quit but liscence sales didn't show it.

[lakevet]

Zone 1 license sales would very likely be impacted if had buck only plus apr with limited doe permits. How much is the question. I don't know if the dnr would risk it.

I do remember going to college in the 1980's. friends from SE MN farms talked of shooting a buck after passing on 20+ does and half a dozen bucks traveling down the same wide cowpath of a deer trail. All before noon on opening day. They had never heard of a "spike buck". Hunted private land, same stand year after year.

Meanwhile our entire group would between us all see that many deer in total hunting 16 days, with timber wolves for company, and us having access roaming over 2000 acres of private land and 36 square miles of county tax forfeit. Could easily go through 4 or 5 drives of 120 acres each of good cover with no deer sign in the week old snow cover. Different habitat, different experiences, different deer herd.

lakevet

[Scott M]

Zone 1 license sales would very likely be impacted if had buck only plus apr with limited doe permits. How much is the question. I don't know if the dnr would risk it.

I do remember going to college in the 1980's. friends from SE MN farms talked of shooting a buck after passing on 20+ does and half a dozen bucks traveling down the same wide cowpath of a deer trail. All before noon on opening day. They had never heard of a "spike buck". Hunted private land, same stand year after year.

Meanwhile our entire group would between us all see that many deer in total hunting 16 days, with timber wolves for company, and us having access roaming over 2000 acres of private land and 36 square miles of county tax forfeit. Could easily go through 4 or 5 drives of 120 acres each of good cover with no deer sign in the week old snow cover. Different habitat, different experiences, different deer herd.

lakevet

Thanks for sharing lakevet...you described my deer camp in Z169. When people talk about passing on deer, I just say "you saw enough to pass on?" Apples and oranges to Z3, I know. I love my meat hunting up north and I'm looking forward to fooling around in Zone 3 this fall. I've turkey hunted the area and seen some nice deer, now I want to do it with the intention of scoring a nice buck.

[Jaybird]

This comment by Nonteepical is a pretty good representation of the position of the APR crowd. If you're not a hard core deer hunter, your opinion is of lesser importance. We should cater our regulations to those who are truly serious about the sport (the antler guys).

I spent about 35 hours in a deer stand last fall, and saw 4 deer. I'm not complaining. But passing deer is not an option if venison is desired. I ended up shooting a 1.5 year old 5 point buck (grab the pitchforks, light the torches).

Right now the antler guys are very vocal, and may appear to be the majority. But if the DNR proposes rolling APR out beyond Zone 3, we're going to hear from the guys that are sitting on the sidelines watching this, and it's going to be a different story.