APR 2013?

[nonteepical]

Thats one of the more stupid comments said on this thread "talked to a regristration station" LOL.

The DNR gave QDMA data from Itasca state park hunts, wich at the time, the park was expeiramenting with APR's on Itasca state park and earn a buck was being studied in St.Croix state park, they were conducting these studies because of hunters surveys, wanting an older age class of bucks. Thats where 40% yearling buck harvest came from, Itasca state park data. The year before any experimentation, there was a regristration option of yearling buck when you registered your deer, thats where 69% yearling buck harvest came from.

Minnesota and the majority of every other state at the time, practiced traditional deer management, wich is for population control, nothing more nothing less, buck age data is not needed to be tabulated through traditional deer management, so it dosen't exist.

[PurpleFloyd]

I'm pretty sure the deer would say it would like to live much longer than 2.5 years, since you seem to care so much about the deer's opinion.

[B. Amish]

Amish, He along with me and all supporters of anti brown its down would like all 18 to be 200 inch bucks. We would actually prefer the bucks to be born at 3.5 too.....

my point is APR guys always refer to a 'well balanced age structure' but have nothing to back that up. so, here's your chance or anyone else's for that matter.

of 18 deer, how many bucks should there be over 3?

please back it up with something besides bar room biology.

[Wanderer]

Just putting it out there in crayon.

I can't tell if you're The Bod or The Thinker. I do know you have a great big spoon you like to keep moving though.

[nonteepical]

every thread with bigdave is a "conspiracy theory"

[SmellEsox]

There is no data unfortunately B. Amish. What do you think the number of 3.5+ bucks is per sq. mi.? There are about 1,000,000 deer in MN going into season. There are about 87,000 sq. mi. in the state. So of those 11.5 deer per sq. mi., how many on average are 3.5+ y.o. bucks?

My guess is there has to be way less than one in my area. Mainly based on the fact that the majority are does and fawns and the doe:buck ratio is higher than 1:1. What is your guess? Seriously, I'm curious what people out there think? I suspect everyone's answer will be different based on where they hunt.

[tfran123]

bingo

[B. Amish]

but, a well balanced buck age structure should be well defined if it's the reason we need apr, right?

[Jameson]

18 deer

10 does, 8 bucks

4 bucks are fawns

2 bucks are yearlings

1 buck is 2.5

1 buck is 3.5 or more

Looks like a well balanced herd to me. Seem reasonable to you B. Amish? Tfran what is your breakdown?

What I am used to seeing in some spots would be more like:

18 deer

12 does, 6 bucks

3 buck fawns

3 buck yearlings.

And yes, that does show poor recruitment. Something partially caused by not having enough bucks in the herd.

[Scott K]

If you want older bucks in the woods, stop shooting the older bucks!

[Jameson]

I want more bucks in the woods, what do I need to do?

[Big Dave2]

I want more bucks in the woods, what do I need to do?

Don't kill any. Abolish hunting.

[flipper]

Just hunt with your camera. You APR guys are falling right into PETA's trap anyway.

[Big Dave2]

Just hunt with your camera. You APR guys are falling right into PETA's trap anyway.

Exactly!

[PurpleFloyd]

18 deer

10 does, 8 bucks

4 bucks are fawns

2 bucks are yearlings

1 buck is 2.5

1 buck is 3.5 or more

Looks like a well balanced herd to me. Seem reasonable to you B. Amish? Tfran what is your breakdown?

What I am used to seeing in some spots would be more like:

18 deer

12 does, 6 bucks

3 buck fawns

3 buck yearlings.

And yes, that does show poor recruitment. Something partially caused by not having enough bucks in the herd.

You probably aren't seeing the big ones because they are a bit more elusive and harder to locate. You may not have the right habitat, there might be too much human pressure or other factors. The big deer are there and they always will be as long as there is a population.

Answer me this one- Lets just say for fun and games that we buy into this and decide to do it right and leave everything live until it's say 5.5 like the one guy who had his article linked the other day. Now, we have lots and lots of big bucks running around the area.

How do you think the hunting pressure is going to change? Do you think it will still be the same as it is? Do you think the outfitters will stay away when there is money to be made by leasing and posting the land and bringing in the pay per hunt crowd?

Do you think the public land will still have any spots without a hunter sitting on it?

[PEATMOSS]

I want more bucks in the woods, what do I need to do?

When I start seeing folks on your side saying things like "shoot your best, leave the rest", I might actually start taking some of what you say about wanting more big bucks in the woods seriously. The fact of the matter is you just want to SHOOT MORE BIG BUCKS.

Those of us that don't share this philosophy are being asked to alter our hunting practices so that your ilk can punch your man card a little more often. Just exactly are you willing to forgo to achieve this?

[lakevet]

The year before any experimentation, there was a regristration option of yearling buck when you registered your deer, thats where 69% yearling buck harvest came from.

Minnesota and the majority of every other state at the time, practiced traditional deer management, wich is for population control, nothing more nothing less, buck age data is not needed to be tabulated through traditional deer management, so it dosen't exist.

Checking my old licenses I don't see "yearling buck" on any registration tags. Legal antlered buck or antler less, adult or fawn. So are we really talking about buck fawns without legal antlers?

lakevet

[Jameson]

When I start seeing folks on your side saying things like "shoot your best, leave the rest", I might actually start taking some of what you say about wanting more big bucks in the woods seriously. The fact of the matter is you just want to SHOOT MORE BIG BUCKS.

Those of us that don't share this philosophy are being asked to alter our hunting practices so that your ilk can punch your man card a little more often. Just exactly are you willing to forgo to achieve this?

If you go back to the first page or so of the thread you can see that I am against APR's. So, when you say the folks on my side who are you talking about? The pro-buck lottery folks n anti-APR folks side? And how is it that my side is asking you to alter your hunting practices? Other than ask you to do what we would all have to do, not get to hunt with our own tags every year. If you had a party of four and had two tags there could still be four hunters going out on opening day, we have party tagging in most of the state still. In low deer density areas, where a buck lottery would be used, most land owners would not mind not being able to kill a deer for each hunter. It doesn't happen now the way it is. What do we have something like a 35% or 50% success rate?

[Jameson]

Now, we have lots and lots of big bucks running around the area.

1)How do you think the hunting pressure is going to change? 2)Do you think it will still be the same as it is? 3)Do you think the outfitters will stay away when there is money to be made by leasing and posting the land and bringing in the pay per hunt crowd?

4)Do you think the public land will still have any spots without a hunter sitting on it?

1.)less. Limit the hunter pressure by limiting the tags. Initially in year one of your scenario there may be no buck/doe lottery areas, but there would also be plenty of deer = lower hunting pressure then we have now, and then in future years control the hunting pressure with buck/doe lottery as needed.

2)No, no point in wanting change if that was the case. Besides, the only constant is change.

3) Have the outfitters ruined bear hunting? I am answering your questions answer mine. The outfitters will be limited by not being able to get all the tags they want. Will they stay away? No. Will they overrun everything, no. We will have a couple of harsh winters and the tags will get very limited. Most outfitters will go out of business.

4)More spots. Again first year, sure there would be people everywhere, but there would be deer everywhere, too. So more good hunting spots to be had. When the deer numbers decline limit the hunters so that there is still plenty of good hunting spots.

[Jameson]

...The fact of the matter is you just want to SHOOT MORE BIG BUCKS...

I just want to SHOOT MORE DEER, and by I, I really mean the state of MN. If we can make changes that up recruitment it will allow all of us to shoot more deer. I'd like to see our state's overall harvest numbers increase. It wouldn't happen the first few years while our herd was balancing out, but after a few years we would be killing more deer annually. For instance, we might still have the SW part of the state lottery after a few years, but with two or three times as many tags as will be punched this year.

[Jameson]

...You probably aren't seeing the big ones because they are a bit more elusive and harder to locate...

After switching hunters areas I am seeing them, still can't close the deal. Thing is, I am a lazier hunter now then before. The big ones just weren't there where I was before - for whatever reason(s).

[Jameson]

Don't kill any. Abolish hunting.

That will result in none. Try again.

[TruthWalleyes]

edit gonna get this to page 21

[PurpleFloyd]

1.)less. Limit the hunter pressure by limiting the tags. Initially in year one of your scenario there may be no buck/doe lottery areas, but there would also be plenty of deer = lower hunting pressure then we have now, and then in future years control the hunting pressure with buck/doe lottery as needed.

[PurpleFloyd]

...You probably aren't seeing the big ones because they are a bit more elusive and harder to locate...