APR 2013?

[tfran123]

PEATMOSS, believe it or not, a deer's home territory often encompasses over a square mile, so yes, the majority of the bucks that use Tfran's land also go onto his neighbor's. And there lies the problem that alot of us face every year - we pass on the young bucks in hopes of them growing up a bit, but then the neighbor kills them with a slug. This has happened to me more times than I count unless I take my socks off. It's very frustrating!

Go ahead and bash my post, but killing a nice buck is ALOT more exciting than killing a young stupid yearling. And I'm out there for the excitement. Oh, and venison is pretty good too, but it doesn't take a yearling to make good venison steaks.

Be careful as if you say something too far fetched Peatmoss may spit up pop again on his keyboard.

To add clarity my section has most of the tillable in the middle of the parcel with small woodlots ranging from 50 - 75 acres (about 4 main wooded pieces) that adjoin other neighboring properties. If you think once the crops are down that deer don't venture off this farm and get shot then you are crazy. They do.

I set up mock scrapes both on my central and southern parcels, biggest buck last year on my southern property was a 14" 8 pt 2.5 YO and a number of 1.5's. Up north I had 14 different bucks that were at least 3.5 - big difference is we have enough land in conjunction with neighbors that also practice QDM, if not for this our land would be like the majority of land MN hunters face, and that's the orange army shooting every young buck they see.

Anyone who has spent time in the woods in November know the little spikes/forks are on their feet all day and are very easy to shoot - isn't till they get to 3.5 or so that they start getting a bit wiser . . .

And unrelated, never have I shot a mature deer that didn't taste just as good as 1.5 or 2.5 year old, to me if they are cared for properly they all are excellent table fare!

[monstermoose78]

So tfran we dont need APR in the northern part of the state then. Your post proves this. Just wait for the wolves to make it to the South East part.

Everyone makes a choice of the kind of deer they want to kill. If you are a horn porn person great if you are spike killer great. We as hunters need to stick together and stop fighting over such dumb things.

[tfran123]

So tfran we dont need APR in the northern part of the state then. Your post proves this. Just wait for the wolves to make it to the South East part.

Everyone makes a choice of the kind of deer they want to kill. If you are a horn porn person great if you are spike killer great. We as hunters need to stick together and stop fighting over such dumb things.

Why does it prove this? Because of a rare situation where a bunch of landowners choose to not shoot spikes and forks? Give me a break.

What's with the horn porn comment - so there is something wrong with wanting to shoot something bigger than a year and a half buck? Am I a horn porn guy?

Wow . . .

[Scott K]

I think what he is saying is, if a mojority of people in an area wants to practice QDM, then it works. If the majority doesnt, then the majority rules, and they shoot whatever deer they want to shoot. It then is each hunters choice. Not what a few hunters want, and want all hunters to do what they want to do.

[monstermoose78]

Thanks Scott K.

I am for hunter's choice, because I believe the tide is changing in the hunting world of not shooting the first little buck you see. I got my dad and uncles to start letting little ones walk and wait for big one. It has been paying off for them now, but it is their choice. In our group if you shoot a buck you are done buck hunting period.

[nonteepical]

Curious if any of you anti APR guys are involved in conservation of some type or any organizations, if so wich ones?

[nonteepical]

The non response speaks for itself.

Some are givers and some are takers.

[B. Amish]

Curious if any of you anti APR guys are involved in conservation of some type or any organizations, if so wich ones?

1. are you serious?

2. what does it matter?

3. involved with more than you could imagine.

[SmellEsox]

I am generally a supporter of APR. I love venison and I love hunting when I know there is a big deer around. I've quit shooting yearling bucks. That is my general background. With that all said, I don't think it would be smart to institute APR in some areas. I think deer herds need to be at a level where there are enough antlerless deer to allow all hunters a reasonable chance at procuring some venison. If you institute APR when populations are too low, too many people will be denied the opportunity to take a deer. Do I think everyone should be entitled to shoot a deer? No, but I think we should try to maintain reasonable success rates statewide. Where populations are adequate to maintain success rates, APR is a good compromise to provide more 2.5+ year old bucks while still allowing most hunters the opportunity to get some venny without crashing the population. I think a lot of the frustration APR guys like myself have is when they are hunting areas that have good deer numbers and there are no big deer around.

The perfect situation is where all hunting types are happy w/o regulation. I think everyone would agree and there are parts of MN like that. Iowa is like that. I've hunted public land down there and it is amazing. But there are other areas in MN where hunting pressure is so high that the young bucks get combined every year. Very few make it to 2.5 and fewer yet make it to 3.5. A 4, 5 or 6 year old is unheard of or gets shot once in a great while. It is these areas that would benefit from APR. At least it would balance opportunities for all types of hunters.

[InTheNorthwoods]

Like I've said before, we all get one buck tag. That is your ballot. Use it as you see fit and extend the same courtesy to others.

I've always believed that your side has every right to attempt to PERSUADE the rest of us to go along.Seems pretty clear that your numbers are growing, but not nearly as high as some believe. IF even half of the hunters in any area chose to pass on yearling bucks and fawns, you'd see a change. Your post as well as several others indicates that you've got a ways to go.

See, this is part of my fundamental problem. We don't all get just one ballot. Some folk allow others to "vote" for them by shooting multiple bucks.

My first choice isn't to see APR's go into place for a number of reasons - because I want to respect each hunters choice, but if both sides are to have equal footing, some changes need to be made (party hunting #1, then issues such as lottery tags, the number of deer allowed to be taken out of a unit, etc.).

Just my opinion.

[PurpleFloyd]

I am generally a supporter of APR. I love venison and I love hunting when I know there is a big deer around. I've quit shooting yearling bucks. That is my general background. With that all said, I don't think it would be smart to institute APR in some areas. I think deer herds need to be at a level where there are enough antlerless deer to allow all hunters a reasonable chance at procuring some venison. If you institute APR when populations are too low, too many people will be denied the opportunity to take a deer. Do I think everyone should be entitled to shoot a deer? No, but I think we should try to maintain reasonable success rates statewide. Where populations are adequate to maintain success rates, APR is a good compromise to provide more 2.5+ year old bucks while still allowing most hunters the opportunity to get some venny without crashing the population. I think a lot of the frustration APR guys like myself have is when they are hunting areas that have good deer numbers and there are no big deer around.

The perfect situation is where all hunting types are happy w/o regulation. I think everyone would agree and there are parts of MN like that. Iowa is like that. I've hunted public land down there and it is amazing. But there are other areas in MN where hunting pressure is so high that the young bucks get combined every year. Very few make it to 2.5 and fewer yet make it to 3.5. A 4, 5 or 6 year old is unheard of or gets shot once in a great while. It is these areas that would benefit from APR. At least it would balance opportunities for all types of hunters.

One of the most sensible posts I have seen

[Getanet]

1. are you serious?

2. what does it matter?

3. involved with more than you could imagine.

Agreed. Nobody responded to Nonteepical's post because they could see right through it. Obvious ploy to get into a peeing match over who thinks they do more to support conservation efforts. But since nobody took the bait in his mind we're all "takers."

Tell you what, since the revenue from deer hunting license sales fund all sorts of DNR efforts, anyone who buys a deer hunting license does more to support wildlife than the average Joe.

[nonteepical]

You would only be offended by the question if you were a "taker". I think anyone getting involved beyond buying a liscence is a giver, wether a person is an NRA contributer or enters a deer in B&C or P&Y. Just buying a liscence only pays the bills for the DNR nothing more.

[PurpleFloyd]

So now to be a giver you have to score a deer in the B and C or P and Y?

I suppose taking young kids out hunting and teaching them about the habitats, diet and patterns of deer certainly are no match for submitting a big pair of antlers to be scored. Then again we probably have it all wrong because we teach the kids that every deer is a gift, a blessing and a trophy in the eyes of the lord and that he may not always provide us with the one we want but he always provides us with what we need.

[psepuncher]

aside from instituting tools such as APR that allows for a healthy deer population, research is also being done for preventative future population damage as well.

These are the warranted goals from health research experts that we sometimes neglect as being ones who did the leg work.

After many places that have been affected by deer disease and heavy heavy population decline {look up milk river too}

here we go. Keep in mind that poulation decline not only comes from the DNR allowing such liberal tag sales, but also from diseases.. This one is two fold, where disease begat drought. EHD could easily get a large foothold in MN. So having a low population of deer shouldn't hinder what we take? I don't know about that entirely.

anyway click this one for giggles

http://www.lccmr.leg.mn/proposals/2014/original/_robinson_stacie-combined_0613-2-110.pdf

[tfran123]

Yes it is very sensible, especially this part . . .

"But there are other areas in MN where hunting pressure is so high that the young bucks get combined every year. Very few make it to 2.5 and fewer yet make it to 3.5. A 4, 5 or 6 year old is unheard of or gets shot once in a great while. It is these areas that would benefit from APR."

Hope you realize this is an area that is much bigger than SE MN, probably could throw all of central MN, perhaps part of SW MN in the mix as well.

[PurpleFloyd]

Sounds like a good case for leaving the mature, healthy deer over say 10 points in the population since they are stronger and healthier as well as the big mature does that they should be breeding with and taking some of the smaller eater bucks and does for the freezer since they are more likely to succumb to disease.

Not only that but not shooting the big bucks means you will have more of them to look at while waiting for that eater to walk by.

[SmellEsox]

There are absolutely no signs of unhealthiness in MN's deer herd. The only negative I see in it is that it is very young in many places. The only honest and true reason to put on APRs is to increase the age of bucks. APR guys, lets be honest. That is why I want them. All the deer I've been shooting have been perfectly healthy and because the herd is way under carrying capacity, the habitat is great also. To argue we need APR for herd health is preposterous.

Anti-APR guys need to lighten up too. We don't want a trophy behind every tree. But when you hunt excellent deer habitat for many years and never see one, its not because we suck as hunters. And I still don't understand how it would screw up our genetics by killing the big 10 pointers. Didn't they breed for 2 or 3 years already? How much breeding would they have done if they were shot as yearlings? And does contribute genetics too right?

There is a ton of emotion on this issue on both sides and it seems both sides use exaggeration and outright fibs to try to defend their position. IMVHO, there are great arguments on both sides of the issue. We just need to respect each other as we debate. APR can be a great tool I believe, but if you apply it to an area where it doesn't belong, you may ruin the chance of ever using it where it actually will work because people will rally against it. If you apply it where it produces results and people are still getting their venison, many get on the bandwagon and support it. But if you put it on in an area with low deer numbers, you will drastically impact harvest and that is not a good thing for the deer hunting tradition in MN.

[PurpleFloyd]

There are absolutely no signs of unhealthiness in MN's deer herd. The only negative I see in it is that it is very young in many places. The only honest and true reason to put on APRs is to increase the age of bucks. APR guys, lets be honest. That is why I want them. All the deer I've been shooting have been perfectly healthy and because the herd is way under carrying capacity, the habitat is great also. To argue we need APR for herd health is preposterous.

Anti-APR guys need to lighten up too. We don't want a trophy behind every tree. But when you hunt excellent deer habitat for many years and never see one, its not because we suck as hunters. And I still don't understand how it would screw up our genetics by killing the big 10 pointers. Didn't they breed for 2 or 3 years already? How much breeding would they have done if they were shot as yearlings? And does contribute genetics too right?

There is a ton of emotion on this issue on both sides and it seems both sides use exaggeration and outright fibs to try to defend their position. IMVHO, there are great arguments on both sides of the issue. We just need to respect each other as we debate. APR can be a great tool I believe, but if you apply it to an area where it doesn't belong, you may ruin the chance of ever using it where it actually will work because people will rally against it. If you apply it where it produces results and people are still getting their venison, many get on the bandwagon and support it. But if you put it on in an area with low deer numbers, you will drastically impact harvest and that is not a good thing for the deer hunting tradition in MN.

That is finally a decent post for APR. And like i said, I have no problem with heading that way if that is done by education and hunters choice. I jut don't like the mandate being forced on people from above.

It is refreshing to not hear someone claim that every 1.5 year old deer is being shot because that is so much bologna tht it just makes me automatically against anything positive that could happen as a result of it.

If the herd is 1 Million or so as has been estimated and if we are taking something like 90,000 antlered deer during the hunting seasons, that would mean that every antlered deer over 1.5 years old was passed on for the younger bucks and we would have big, old deer walking around all over the place. I am not sure what the population ratio is from does to bucks but if it is 70/30 does (and I don't think it is that high) that would mean we had 300,000 antlered deer and we took about 27 percent out of the population. So there is no way that one can make the case that we are shooting ALL or even a majority of young bucks unless we have a huge surplus of older bucks left after the season.

BTW- The above numbers are by no means provided as an accurate representation of what the population is. I used to have the population estimates somewhere but was not able to find them. They are only inserted to show what would have to happen if indeed as many young deer are shot as is stated. I suspect the doe ratio is closer to 50 percent but if anyone has those numbers I would certainly like to see them.

[MUSKY18]

I couldn't find anything on the buck/doe ratio in the state, but here is a breakdown of last years numbers.

Zone 1: 181,143 Hunters 33,124 bucks, 25,823 Doe TOTAL: 58,947

Zone 2: 238,964 Hunters 44,345 Bucks, 35,611 Doe TOTAL: 79,956

Zone 3A: 25,210 Hunters 4,578 Bucks, 4,235 Doe TOTAL: 8,813

Zone 3B: 13,099 Hunters 1,256 Bucks, 3,566 Doe TOTAL: 4,822

CWD: 1,911 498 Bucks, 731 DOe TOTAL: 1,299

Landowner: 4,773 Hunters 0 Bucks, 1,499 Doe TOTAL: 1,499

Muzzle: 59,384 Hunters 3,251 Bucks, 4,528 Doe TOTAL: 7,779

Archery: 102,276 Hunters 8,663 Bucks, 12,942 DOE TOTAL: 21,605

TOTAL HUNTERS: 514,020

TOTAL BUCKS: 97,136

TOTAL DOE: 89,498

TOTAL HARVEST: 186,634

Equates to a 33.7% success rate.

They even have it broken down by section and show you how many fawns of each sex were harvested. Although the number of hunters who purchased license should be right on the money, the harvest numbers are skewed a bit. How many of us know people who NEVER register their deer. Tag it, take it home and cut it up. I'm sure there is more than we think. With those practices going on, the DNR will never be able to get a clear and true assessment of what the deer harvest is.

[96trigger]

Quote:

That is finally a decent post for APR. And like i said, I have no problem with heading that way if that is done by education and hunters choice. I jut don't like the mandate being forced on people from above.

APR was forced on hunters by other hunters. All the state did was listen to a number of people from both sides and make a decision. Isn't that how it's supposed to work? Or should it only work that way if they side with your ideology?

Education and hunters choice, for whatever reason, was not working, at the very least it was not working fast enough for some.

[flipper]

Why do you say it was not working. Was the deer heard not healthy or was it just that the horns were not big enough for a segment of the population.

The biggest problem with these regulations (but not the only one)is that the APR restrictions are turning deer hunting into another elitist sport with access and affordability not there for the masses.

[nonteepical]

Entering a deer in a record book is a donation to nonprofit organizations that promote conservation, education, hunters rights along with adding to the pot of grant money for education or habitat projects. Teaching your kids is great, but give back and volunteer to teach other kids through DNR gun safety or hunter education, you could also join a sportsmans group. Find it also funny that APR was decided 3months ago, but anti APR guys on here cared so much about it they didn't go voice their opinion or even knew is was passed.

[Jameson]

I couldn't find anything on the buck/doe ratio in the state, but here is a breakdown of last years numbers.

Zone 1: 181,143 Hunters 33,124 bucks, 25,823 Doe TOTAL: 58,947

Zone 2: 238,964 Hunters 44,345 Bucks, 35,611 Doe TOTAL: 79,956

Zone 3A: 25,210 Hunters 4,578 Bucks, 4,235 Doe TOTAL: 8,813

Zone 3B: 13,099 Hunters 1,256 Bucks, 3,566 Doe TOTAL: 4,822

CWD: 1,911 498 Bucks, 731 DOe TOTAL: 1,299

Landowner: 4,773 Hunters 0 Bucks, 1,499 Doe TOTAL: 1,499

Muzzle: 59,384 Hunters 3,251 Bucks, 4,528 Doe TOTAL: 7,779

Archery: 102,276 Hunters 8,663 Bucks, 12,942 DOE TOTAL: 21,605

TOTAL HUNTERS: 514,020

TOTAL BUCKS: 97,136

TOTAL DOE: 89,498

TOTAL HARVEST: 186,634

Equates to a 33.7% success rate.

They even have it broken down by section and show you how many fawns of each sex were harvested. Although the number of hunters who purchased license should be right on the money, the harvest numbers are skewed a bit. How many of us know people who NEVER register their deer. Tag it, take it home and cut it up. I'm sure there is more than we think. With those practices going on, the DNR will never be able to get a clear and true assessment of what the deer harvest is.

Some numbers to find; buck:doe ratio killed in zone 3 vs state vs prior to APR. Buck:doe ratio killed in zone 3 lottery vs statewide lottery, zone 3 managed vs statewide managed, intensive. DPSM prior and post APR. Hunter's per square mile zone 3 vs state. etc.

The non-APR crowd might not like the data....

[Scott K]

If APR was the popular thing amongst hunters, there would be no need to make it a law, because then the majority, that support it, would already be doing it. The problem is, since the mojority isnt doing it on their own, that tells me, the majority doesnt support it.