Zone 3 APR

[Getanet]

I’m in the category that doesn’t think hunting regulations should be designed to grow big bucks. As long as we have a high deer population in MN I believe hunting regulations should be designed for opportunity – not limit opportunity. I’m in the category an individual can decided if a deer meets their standards or not. I don’t believe I should be able impart my standards for an acceptable deer on anyone else.

Considering in 2010 only around 1/3 of hunters were successful, and the total deer population is high in most parts of the state, it stands to reason there are plenty of bucks in MN that make it past the magical 1.5 year old stage. MN is currently in the “good old days” of deer hunting and there is plenty of opportunity for people to practice whatever form of hunting suits them best.

[helpme]

I’m in the category that doesn’t think hunting regulations should be designed to grow big bucks. As long as we have a high deer population in MN I believe hunting regulations should be designed for opportunity – not limit opportunity. I’m in the category an individual can decided if a deer meets their standards or not. I don’t believe I should be able impart my standards for an acceptable deer on anyone else.

I agree 100%!!!!!EDUCATE NOT REGULATE!

[PostFrontal]

I’m in the category that doesn’t think hunting regulations should be designed to grow big bucks.

[heat checker]

I think that is what gets my goat the worst, is the people that want(and have had), the greatest opportunity, seem to be the ones that take the hardest stance against change. Understandably, they don't want to lose a morsel of that opportunity to others with different ideals. I guess until the majority of hunters are satisfied with their deer hunting experiance, and population goals are met at the same time, different things need to be tried. "Don't fix it unless it's broken". Well obviously if roughly half the people want change, IT'S BROKEN. Not saying APR's are the way to go, but they are sure worth a try, along with buck lotto,out-of rut ect. Maybe every other year of one of the above would work?

[goblueM]

I think that is what gets my goat the worst, is the people that want(and have had), the greatest opportunity, seem to be the ones that take the hardest stance against change. Understandably, they don't want to lose a morsel of that opportunity to others with different ideals. I guess until the majority of hunters are satisfied with their deer hunting experiance, and population goals are met at the same time, different things need to be tried. "Don't fix it unless it's broken". Well obviously if roughly half the people want change, IT'S BROKEN. Not saying APR's are the way to go, but they are sure worth a try, along with buck lotto,out-of rut ect. Maybe every other year of one of the above would work?

i'd change that to people THINK its broken. Ask any sportsmen and they'll say "we want bigger bucks" and "we want more deer" and we want "more walleyes"

many times it is just simply impossible to really improve things in a meaningful way. for instance a lot of times fishermen want to catch more fish, but the lake is already at carrying capacity and there is just no biological way to increase the number of fish.

IMO the APR is much ado about nothing because in the end it is impossible to satisfy all the different values of deer hunters and you have to manage in a way that inevitably upsets some folks on both sides

deer hunting in SE minnesota is absolutely fantastic. most places would kill to have the numbers and the quality of deer in the region, and here folks are taking entrenched positions about how bad the system is and how it needs to be changed. so forgive me if i see everybody acting like spoiled 6 year olds squabbling over how best to "fix" a resource that is of immense quality to begin with

[heat checker]

I'd have to agree with that last statement. I'm bucks only the last 2 yrs, I should be the one belly achin!

[bottom-bouncer]

You no what I cant figure out many of you that are against the apr as it currently stands. claim to be in favor of something differnt than 4 points on a side. some of you say using spread or main beam lenght would be better that way there wont be any high grading. But it seems to me not that long ago oh lets see oh yea back towards the end of november there were plenty of people on here complaining that they couldnt get a shot because they just werent sure if it had 4 on one side or not.And that it wasnt fair because for generations your party has done deer drives and now thats about impossible because if a deer is running it to hard to tell if its a legal deer or not. And then there was the concern that what if you thought it was a doe but turned out to be a small spike and in the low light conditions you couldnt tell. My point is if you cant tell if a buck has 4 on a side when its running through the woods you sure as hell are not going to be able to tell if it wide enough to shoot. and if you cant see the small spikes on top of the head then your probably past legal shooting time. Also when you speak of high grading due to removing a specific type of deer from the heard you speak as though next season hunters are going to kill every single buck that has the (trophy) genetics. Oh yeah and as far as minnesota being fine in its current state as far as having qaulity bucks and plenty of them for hunters to harvest that you should be able to kill any buck you choose a quick reminder when 75% of your yearly buck harvest consist of 1.5 year old bucks there is need for change.

[surewood]

I agree with bottom bouncer, and will add to people seeing if it has four pts or if it's a spike vs doe. If that is anyones arguement then you don't know exactly what you're shooting at. Don't shoot! That's falls under a safety issue also. I'd be all for not rifle/shotgun over the rut, but thats a seperate issue and just my opinion. I know there are arguements against it, but you can't please everyone.

[honker23]

I have hunted 3B for a long time. I think if the goal is to harvest more does, EAB would help. If they want bigger bucks, move the 3A season out of the rut. This may sound odd, but I think taking AWAY days would increase hunter success and doe harvest. Maybe I'm wrong, but if the deer got a little break, they wouldn't become so nocturnal and hold up in sanctuaries.

If they want to lower the number of young bucks shot APR will help.

What was the age break down in regards to the buck harvest this year?

[Getanet]

Finally, you said it. This is what I have been waiting for. The actual reason for your arguments. Agree to disagree.

I've been pretty consistent on my stance across all APR threads that our hunting regs should be for opportunity. And that's not just my philosophy, it's been the DNRs, which I happen to agree with. Believe it not, I take that stance because I believe it gives you as much protection as me.

If this discussion was turned on its head and laws were proposed that would make it illegal for hunters to shoot larger bucks can you imagine the outrage? I would be against that as well.

Right now if you're lucky enough to have a big buck walk by your stand you have the opportunity to shoot it. Right now if you have an antlerless deer walk past your stand you have the opportunity to shoot it. Right now if you're luck enough to have a fork walk past your stand, you don't have the opportunity to shoot it. You don't have to shoot any of them, but only one is illegal and would make you a criminal if you did.

If you want to start taking others guy's opportunity away don't be surprised when at some point someone wants to take yours away.

[96trigger]

Quote:

I agree 100%!!!!!EDUCATE NOT REGULATE!

How can someone educate a group that fundamentally disagrees with not being able to shoot the first thing that comes along? This is what has many people banging their heads against the wall. Different people have taken up the stance for doing something to help get more age structure, but its the same people that keep coming back saying that we don't need any more regulations and that nobody should tell them what to shoot. Their are people on this site that are trying to EDUCATE, and people still don't seem to get it, or buy in, therefor, this leads to the push to REGULATE. Get it yet?

It will be much easier to join a group of like minded individuals and work with them, than to try an educate people that fundamentally disagree with everything you are trying to accoomplish. There will be no amount of convincing or arguing that will get them to change their mind.

However, the discussions still need to happen as some people maybe read these and not post, and still be swayed by the discussion one way or the other. But the people that are posting, are not going to be changed no matter what happens. I have participated in these discussions in the past, I have respect for both sides. I enjoy reading them. Keep it up.

[PEATMOSS]

Their are people on this site that are trying to EDUCATE, and people still don't seem to get it, or buy in, therefor, this leads to the push to REGULATE. Get it yet?

The fact of the matter is that your side has not produced a compelling argument for some of us to buy into. We see this as simply a case of being forced to alter our hunting traditions to facilitate this ego driven pursuit of big antlers. We have not seen a compelling biological agrument that this type of management is needed and in some cases actually find it harmful.

Further, what really grinds our gears is that you guys want to have your cake and eat it too. No sacrifice on behalf of the trophy hunters is ever offered in any of your proposals.

Here's your chance to prove me wrong. How about we simply add one little caveat to the APR regs. I propose that in any area that the DNR imposes APR's, that bowhunters be regulated to antlerless deer only until the start of the firearms season

Biologically, this would assure that the biggest and best bucks in the herd make it to breeding season to pass along their genes. Protecting these big bucks and assuring them the opportunity would certainly lead to the "healthier herd" you guys seem to think is so important . Also, by adopting this regulation, your side could show your sence of fairness. Afterall, if I am infringing on you by taking a yearling buck, you're infringing on my rights by taking a trophy before I even get a chance at him, right?

OF COURSE I WOULD MUCH RATHER WE JUST STOP ALL THIS SILLINESS, HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER AND LEARN TO ENJOY OUR PURSUITS WITHOUT FEELING THE NEED TO FORCE OUR CHOICES ON EACH OTHER

[Getanet]

How can someone educate a group that fundamentally disagrees with not being able to shoot the first thing that comes along?

Trigger, I believe we've gone a few rounds on APRs in the past, welcome back! Felt I needed to clarify something here. There's a big difference between disagreeing with not being able to shoot the first thing that comes along and actually shooting the first thing that comes along.

I disagree with APR, but that doesn't mean I haven't or wouldn't voluntarily pass on smaller bucks. There is plenty of room for education and discussion without regulation.

[lakevet]

I see two groups against APR's.

First, the traditional "brown its down" group which includes my Dad who is 80 years old. Big buck, spike, doe, fawn, as long as it's a legal deer it will be eaten. I think this group is not the big threat that pro APR's think it is as they punch a tag with the first DEER they see and are done. Over 50% of the time it is antlerless. I think this group is compatible with big bucks, and for those into buck doe ratios, the traditional "brown its down " group do the heavy lifting in this state to keep does in check. Their biggest concern is making sure the deer they are looking at doesn't have one little 3" polished spike behind an ear that would get them in trouble. Especially with 80 year old eyes.

Second is the "any buck its down" group. They shoot the first "BUCK" they see. This group was created by the buck only doe permit regs started in the 1970's. This group is the one, I believe , that pro APR hunters hold up as the problem.......but always mislabel them as" brown its down". They pass on antlerless cause they can't handle the teasing for shooting a fawn or doe and wait for "any buck". Their concern is having to pass on an obviously racked buck chasing several does around, because they can't tell if it has enough points.

The second group is the one specifically targeting the little bucks.

lakevet

[DHost21]

No body is forcing you not to pick up a bow peatmoss. Grab a bow and then you can get to the deer as quick as anyone else.

[96trigger]

Lakevet, thats twice this year I am going to agree with you. Satan better buy a winter coat.

[Bear55]

Here's your chance to prove me wrong.

PEAT

We have been through this before, you can probably list all the reasons why a herd with a balanced age structures of does and bucks is going to be healthier then a man altered age structure where the great majority of bucks are of a younger age class. I would bet your APR hating biologists would also agree with that as well.

[B. Amish]

third group against apr's...

those that are genuinely concerned about high grading who aren't apart of the other two groups.

apr's are a blinding light. it's never not gained public support after being implemented (not that i know of anyways). after the three years here in mn, the majority will want it to stay and it will probably continue.

i just hope that in 20 years, some of us aren't sitting around the shack at deer camp, looking at past racks on the wall, and looking through past trail cam and hunting photos, and say, "hmm, it sure seems like we don't see as many 10 pointers as we used to.... or, hmmm, we seem to have been getting a lot more bucks with smaller brow tines, i wonder why."

[james_walleye]

Who said you couldn't pick up a bow? No one is forcing you to wait until gun season to have an opportunity.....

[james_walleye]

Wonder how giving those couple thousand bucks with superior genes a 1 year free pass with more breeding might affect genetics. After all, with minnesotas gene base we know that pretty much all of them have that great gene base behind them. Unlike a state like Mississippi for instance which has a genepool run over with 4 year old forkhorns.

[B. Amish]

like i said, it's a blinding light.

[PEATMOSS]

PEAT

We have been through this before, you can probably list all the reasons why a herd with a balanced age structures of does and bucks is going to be healthier then a man altered age structure where the great majority of bucks are of a younger age class. I would bet your APR hating biologists would also agree with that as well.

huh? I really can't figure out what you are getting at here.

[lakevet]

Lakevet, thats twice this year I am going to agree with you. Satan better buy a winter coat.

Maybe we can go for three times and he'll have to get a snowblower too.

lakevet

[RuttenBuck]

Amish -

I understand where you are going with your concerns. However, like I mentioned with the cull buck articles, altering the genetics in free ranging deer is almost impossible. The studies have shown in well-managed situations, culling smaller bucks has not resulted in larger deer in the wild. This is on large ranches where they will get people in to shoot the bucks they want out if possible. The variables are endless and too many unknowns to control and even worry about it.

You mentioned hoping someday we don't look back and say there aren't as many 10 pointers around anymore. Is points the only sign of "good" genetics? Does a smaller racked 8 point yearling have better genetics than a larger racked fork or 6 point yearling? Does a 120 inch 3 year old 10 pointer have better genetics than a 130 inch 3 year old 9 pointer? And since when does the first rack really indicate what potential the deer has? APR's will mostly protect yearlings as very few bucks won't be "legal" by 2 years of age. There are so many variables that play into a bucks rack that genetics should be the last thing we are worried about. So few bucks reach their full genetic potential in MN anyways, why are we worried about them?

I do agree there are better ways manage but we needed change and we got some. Now we can let the traditional hunters get their way at everything again or we can try to protect the little improvement we made. I'm all for letting the 3 year trial play out and look at alternatives in the future.

[Bear55]

huh? I really can't figure out what you are getting at here.

That probably was a little confusing, instead of explained I will just let it die. However I do invite you to read the last couple of posts by RuttenBuck, he seems to have a pretty good handle on the situation and doesn't let emotion get in the way.

[B. Amish]

However, like I mentioned with the cull buck articles, altering the genetics in free ranging deer is almost impossible. The studies have shown in well-managed situations, culling smaller bucks has not resulted in larger deer in the wild. This is on large ranches where they will get people in to shoot the bucks they want out if possible. The variables are endless and too many unknowns to control and even worry about it.

the big difference in culling out spikes and whatever else is it's one hunter making one decision. even on a big ranch, they aren't anywhere near the size of the entire zone 3. and unless the ranch has a fence (which wouldn't be free ranging deer), you'd have the oustide influence that makes the culling arguements invalid.

this is everyone doing the same thing.

read some of the research about culling and you'll see that while you can't predict the future size based on thier first rack, and there is always the possibility of getting a booner from a spike, you will see that percentage wise, a first rack can be used to say that it won't probably be a booner if it's a spike.

i realize that there are lots of variable to the first rack of a buck. like, when it was born, summer nutrition, etc.

but, let's say we have an early spring, excellent growing conditions throughout the summer, and all bucks are born right on time. then we look at all the racks. the racks will be of different sizes obviously. percentage wise, research has shown that smaller racks will probably be smaller at maturity. bigger racks at 1.5 have a better chance to be larger at maturity. these aren't hard and fast rules and there will be exceptions. but they are percentage arguements.

believe me, the arguement to be for apr's if you like big bucks is so so so easy to make. at one time, i thought they were a good idea myself. some will always dismiss the thought of high grading no matter what, but what if it does happen, then what? and like i said, once people fall in love with it because they end up shooting their first trophy, it will be hard to say wait a minute, we did something bad, let's not do apr's anymore.

[RuttenBuck]

Amish -

You are trying to tell the hunters in zone 3 will have a larger impact on genetics even when there are so many different management practices than a well managed ranch that will have a lot more control on a particular chunk of land? I would have to think if anyone had any chance of altering the genetics it would have to be the ranch as it would be controlled and managed. I will stick to my stance of the research I've done. It is almost impossible to alter genetics of free ranging deer even if you manage for it.

Your comments on if everything were the same (birth dates, nutrition, etc.) we could look at the racks then. That is exactly my point - nothing is the same from deer to deer and very hard to control. APR's protect deer with less points and points is a subjective way to judge genetics. I've seen lots of larger racked yearlings with less points than other yearlings over the years and I'm not going to even guess which one has the better genetics.

My hopes after 3 years of APR, the hunting community will realize the benefits of having a better structured age-class of deer. People will enjoy hunting more, and not by just shooting a deer with larger antlers. There will be more chasing and buck activity. I'm sure there are plenty of hunters who haven't seen this activity and it is almost as exciting as pulling the trigger. I'm hoping we do change to something else after 3 years though - but again, I want to see the trial complete as designed so people get a taste of how things could be.

[B. Amish]

Amish -

You are trying to tell the hunters in zone 3 will have a larger impact on genetics even when there are so many different management practices than a well managed ranch that will have a lot more control on a particular chunk of land?

[RuttenBuck]

I'm well aware of the outside influence factor. I'm not talking about a 240 acre ranch, but thousands of acres where outside influence still plays a role, but not as much. Yes, I understand zone 3 is larger than this ranch in question, but the other difference is at the ranch they were "trying" to eliminate certain genetic traits and had no luck.

Interesting you can find quotes and research saying spikes are inferior and I can find other research indicating the complete opposite. We could be here all day quoting articles on what spikes will end up as mature deer and they will contradict each other. Do you think that all of the contradictions can be from all of the unknowns and hard to control variables that determine what a deer's rack will end up as? Sure seems logical to me and hard to argue with.

The bottom line is there are too many unknowns to worry about altering the genetics in 3 years. Until we have a greater number of deer actually making it to maturity to see their full genetic potential, all this worrying is for nothing.

I know you are pro-QDM, but I do kind of find it funny though how some of the traditionalists are now also concerned about antler size. I thought you couldn't eat the antlers, are "inferior" antlers worse eating all of a sudden?

My hunting management philosophies have come full circle in my years of hunting. Started out as a first buck I saw hunter, to a trophy hunter (wouldn't shoot a doe,

and buck had to go on the wall), to a QDM hunter (manage for appropriate numbers and older age class of bucks, habitat improvements, shed hunting, etc.). I think

the QDM approach is the most fulfilling, rewarding and enjoyable one and is also what I think will keep our youth interested in the outdoors and hunting deer specifically.

[B. Amish]

not a chance anything i've described about high-grading will happen in 3 years. i'm concerned about 20 years down the road. because, like i said, i think people will fall in love with this and it will stay. once the public loves something, it gets harder to change it.