APR 2013?

[PurpleFloyd]

There's so much more to it than that but its a convenient way to put a negative spin on APR.

Expand on that.

[tfran123]

What he said below!

When APR was first announced for SE MN, I had mixed feelings. Yes, I wanted to see the bucks get chance to mature instead of having to run the gauntlet every year and hardly ever see mid sized 8 pointers like I've been seeing lately but I also knew the money would likely follow. The money reason was the only reason I've said, "If we're going to have APR, make it statewide" to spread out the competition. APR doesn't have to mean 4 or more points on a side EVERYWHERE. It could be 3, or whatever was appropriate for each area.

Happy other don't need a deer "headress", more want it than those that don't. I not know anyone that hunts and has years under his or her belt not wanting a nice buck once an awhile. But the anti APR guys will continue with the horn porn line of defense which is a joke.

[tfran123]

Open your mind and read all 20+ pages of this. It ain't hard.

[PurpleFloyd]

Open your mind and read all 20+ pages of this. It ain't hard.

Oh my mind is open. You just haven't done a very good job of making your case.

[tfran123]

Thanks for laugh.

[Big Dave2]

Open your mind and read all 20+ pages of this. It ain't hard.

Someone's mind needs to open for sure.

[duckster]

QDM Get rid of party hunting, shot a deer and you are done, Might limit the harvest of the smaller bucks and be an incentive to let smaller ones walk if you want a big one knowing your hunt is over if you harvest one?

[Jameson]

I guess I can be happy, and satisfied, and consider my hunt good, even without a headress to hang on the wall.

Are you trying to imply that I can't be?

What would make you sad, unsatisfied, and to consider your hunt bad?

I tried and tried to write what makes me sad, unsatisfied, and to consider my hunt bad, and the best I can come up with is that I've now had enough happy, satisfying, and what I consider great hunts to know that what we typically have here is very boring hunting. I don't expect it to be great, just better then it is.

[PurpleFloyd]

Thanks for laugh.

Case in point.

[nonteepical]

you guys ask for facts, and say prove this, prove that, and when they are given to you can't disspute anything about what APR's accomplish and try to understand one FACT on all this, is that your sucess rate for shooting a buck DOSEN'T CHANGE. It's the same with APR or the 3" rule, although i'm thinking you guys are kinda partial to 3".

[tfran123]

Great, king pot stirrer has also made sure that he got the final word. Ironic you never make a point just attempting to dispute anything that infringes your rights.

As a non-big government guy I get that, however in this case I can't stand the fact that a percentage of hunters ruin it for the rest of us by over harvesting yearlings. No worries I'm prepared for canned response "show us the evidence", "you need a big buck behind every tree". So predictable it's boring but we'll keep playing with you.

[TruthWalleyes]

I tried and tried to write what makes me sad, unsatisfied, and to consider my hunt bad, and the best I can come up with is that I've now had enough happy, satisfying, and what I consider great hunts to know that what we typically have here is very boring hunting. I don't expect it to be great, just better then it is.

Very sorry to hear that.

My old man used to tell me, and i think of this statement all the time:

"It is what you make it"

I try to apply that statement to my daily life.

[B. Amish]

i almost feel like switching to the pro apr side just to help you guys out with your argument.

[mntatonka]

I can't stand the fact that a percentage of hunters ruin it for the rest of us by over harvesting yearlings. No worries I'm prepared for canned response "show us the evidence", "you need a big buck behind every tree". So predictable it's boring but we'll keep playing with you.

Are you prepared? Because you still haven't shown any proof of high yearling harvest in Minnesota, simply because it doesn't exist. The numbers the pro-APR guys continually spout off like "75% of yearlings are killed each year" simply isn't statistically possible. It's not even statistically possible for 75% of the buck harvest to be yearlings.

[tfran123]

That's right it doesn't exist, so who is right?

Not possible that 75% of buck harvest is yearlings? Why not? Is it somewhere between 50% and 70%. NO DOUBT. It's that rate in every on APR state that tracks it, don't believe me just look it up. I've posted MI numbers and they are right there.

I know MN hunters are way more selective, right?

Wow, MN numbers aren't available so you want to just deny, pretty funny the ignorance displayed.

Just tell me why it's not statistically possible to have a 75% buck harvest made up of yearlings? Not saying its that high but it's over half.

[B. Amish]

because the majority of bucks harvested are fawns.

[tfran123]

Most states categorize "bucks" as those with legal antlers, fawns don't make this bucket.

[tfran123]

Furthermore, and it's very standard, you categorize the buck harvest by those animals that you can put your buck tag on. Of those I'm sure MN is between 50-70 percent harvest, those line up with the old data and other non-APR states.

[TruthWalleyes]

i almost feel like switching to the pro apr side just to help you guys out with your argument.

Be sure to sign up for qdma

[Getanet]

Just tell me why it's not statistically possible to have a 75% buck harvest made up of yearlings? Not saying its that high but it's over half.

Let’s say it’s 100%. All you’re talking about is harvest, not how many remain in the population. Across all zones and weapon types, only 17.2% of hunters shot a legal buck in 2011, 19.3% in 2009 (I couldn’t find reports for 2012 or 2010). To put that another way, more than 8 out of 10 hunters in the state don’t shoot a legal buck in MN in a typical year. Any way you want to crunch the numbers, the majority of bucks don’t get shot in MN. And if the percentage of yearlings are as high as folks claim, once a buck makes it through the first 1.5 years his chances of dying at the hands of a hunter are very low.

[surewood]

Nope, no proven data on the harvest of yearlings every year. I don't need it. I can just go to a gas station on Sunday/ Monday opening weekend and the two following Sundays and open my eyes. A huge majority of bucks in trailers and trucks are yearlings. Don't need to waste hunters money it's obvious.

[tfran123]

Exactly, I've made that same point. This stuff isn't that hard.

We crush young bucks in many areas, a mature animal is a rare animal in many parts of the state. Those that can't figure that out have their head in the sand.

[Getanet]

Nope, no proven data on the harvest of yearlings every year. I don't need it. I can just go to a gas station on Sunday/ Monday opening weekend and the two following Sundays and open my eyes. A huge majority of bucks in trailers and trucks are yearlings. Don't need to waste hunters money it's obvious.

Again, that's only focusing on what was removed, not what remains. 2011 we shot 85,549 bucks. The DNR claims we have roughly 1 million deer. Let's assume a 60/40 doe-to-buck ratio. Nearly 80% of our bucks didn't get shot. And plenty of them are older than 1.5.

[surewood]

DNR claims one million. Sounds like guesstimating to me. I physically see small buck after small buck heading south or north in the back of trucks. I've always trusted my eyes more then what I've been told by someone else.

[Getanet]

Sorry Surewood, but we've been told photos of mature bucks in Outdoor News, posted in gas stations and online sites such as this and others can't be used to prove plenty of mature bucks get shot in MN each year. So I guess you're anecdotal accounts don't count either.

What's not guesstimating is the success rate of hunters shooting a buck in MN. Those are hard figures. When 8 out of 10 hunters in MN don't shoot a buck, would you concede that perhaps there are sizeable number of bucks still roaming our woods and fields? If so, logic would dictate that many of them aren't yearlings.