APR, QDM, Trophy Hunters, etc....

[psepuncher]

I left out antler productivity as it seems to be a controversial mis-understood measurement.

....

The bad news is that the antler size of nondispersing yearlings appears to be smaller in the post-QDM population.

In the pre-QDM population, dispersers had fewer antler points than nondispersers. In the post-QDM population, the opposite was observed. Dispersers had more antler points than nondispersers (Fig. 2&3).

This difference in the number of antler points indicates QDM properties may lose larger antlered yearlings that are not replaced from surrounding non-QDM properties.

-----------------

And whalla the Texas term "cull buck" was born. Or now known as a managment buck.

And thusly so, this is where actual genetics will start degrading in future buck development. Believe it or not it has been proven this is an unsatisfactory consiquense for the majority of big buck states with whom landowners with large tracts of land, and will charge a reasonable price for taking a decent buck.

[kern]

Kern, don't you think we spend enough on licenses, I spend well over $100 in hunting licenses each year not including fishing. To be honest it doesn't seem like we get from the dnr what we already pay..maybe charge out of state residents for hunting/fishing like their states charge us.

Not sure if this for me but i don't remember saying raise the cost of licenses

[Jameson]

psepuncher, what makes a QDM property?

[MTstringer]

I live in Northern MN an travel extensively for work so my time in the woods is limited to short stints during bow and rifle season. I do not muzzle loader hunt.

I think that the term "trophy" is very subjective, and thus, very difficult to generally define. The same thing can be said for patient, determined, ethical, etc.

My intention every year is to hunt as hard and long as my limited time will allow. I enjoy the woods and intend to fill my tag while dutifully following the regulations. If I kill a big buck, great (I have two 130-145 class heads on the wall); if I kill a basket six, great. If I have a doe tag I will fill that as well. All are legal and meet my definition of fair chase, being patient and enjoying the woods in this great state.

[jay83196]

Kern,

My mistake you quoted somebody else suggesting adding cost to shoot a buck, I misread it.

And commented on we don't need more costs...

[psepuncher]

psepuncher, what makes a QDM property?

Coming from Texas I sure can tell you MN does not cut the mustard on the issue.

But from the Southeastern part of MN...

When BWA was founded,.....

it had already become clear that QDM was more than a creative deer management tool to grow bigger bucks; that along with it came—whether intended or not—lease-fee hunting.

While some landowners do apply "QDM-like" harvest restrictions on their property without charging hunters a fee, the vast majority of official QDM projects involve a landowner and a select group of hunters agreeing on a defined set of harvest rules by which all must abide and compensation to the landowner for exclusive hunting privileges.

One could argue that QDM is as much a "business plan" designed to produce an alternative income source for landowners as it is a deer management plan to produce better deer hunting. In fact, the QDM organization has promoted its concept as a means for landowners to maximize income on "their" deer herd and for hunters to harvest more "trophy bucks."

Now to me the question should be, what is not an important aspect of QDM.

see below for a prime example...makes as much sense as eating a burrito before church.

[96trigger]

Per my comment on spending more to shoot whatever size buck you want.

It could satisfy a certain population, again in managed or intensive harvest areas, that want to be able to shoot whatever they want. Many people say that a trophy is in the eye of the one that shot it. If someone really wants to shoot that fork or button buck, let them do it. it would help alleviate many of the problems with apr like those that can't identify small bucks from does, or those that have little time to hunt and want to be able shoot whatever they want. Now, I know that there will also be a certain group that says they can't afford the extra money, and for them, I have no answer. But again, it is thinking outside the box to try and come up with a solution that doesn't pit hunters against each other.

For example, a person could buy the extra trophy tag to shoot whatever at any local ELS place, pay an extra $25. This could even be effective immediately. Make them over the counter and bright green so they are visible to any DNR agent that might see it. It could help alleviate the stress of accidental shootings, and pacify those that want to shoot anything, while still offering some protection to those young bucks.

Maybe not the best solution, but it could be a step in the right direction.

[Jameson]

...The bad news is that the antler size of nondispersing yearlings appears to be smaller in the post-QDM population.

In the pre-QDM population, dispersers had fewer antler points than nondispersers. In the post-QDM population, the opposite was observed. Dispersers had more antler points than nondispersers (Fig. 2&3).

This difference in the number of antler points indicates QDM properties may lose larger antlered yearlings that are not replaced from surrounding non-QDM properties...

So in other words: Pre-management for sex-ratio's and age structure all properties are producing 75" yearlings. When one property starts managing for those things, that property starts dispersing 100" yearlings while the same 75" yearlings are still being produced on neighboring properties.

Got it.

[psepuncher]

I don't get it.

I see,

Like what is stated by the QDM data,

dispersal of yearling bucks before QDM were more contensious of showing a necessary heirachy. Since the implemntation of QDM on those studied locations aging bucks within the herd kept that in check with natural selection.

It makes sense now right? fingers crossed.

[Big Dave2]

Per my comment on spending more to shoot whatever size buck you want.

It could satisfy a certain population, again in managed or intensive harvest areas, that want to be able to shoot whatever they want. Many people say that a trophy is in the eye of the one that shot it. If someone really wants to shoot that fork or button buck, let them do it. it would help alleviate many of the problems with apr like those that can't identify small bucks from does, or those that have little time to hunt and want to be able shoot whatever they want. Now, I know that there will also be a certain group that says they can't afford the extra money, and for them, I have no answer. But again, it is thinking outside the box to try and come up with a solution that doesn't pit hunters against each other.

For example, a person could buy the extra trophy tag to shoot whatever at any local ELS place, pay an extra $25. This could even be effective immediately. Make them over the counter and bright green so they are visible to any DNR agent that might see it. It could help alleviate the stress of accidental shootings, and pacify those that want to shoot anything, while still offering some protection to those young bucks.

Maybe not the best solution, but it could be a step in the right direction.

What would be the purpose of charging the extra money? Where would it go? What good would it do? If you were talking about a species of fish at least the added revenue could go into stocking more of the species of fish but I'm not sure what good charging more money would do. If everyone bought the extra license you would still have the same deer population that you don't think is good enough and the DNR would just have more money to throw into other projects that may have nothing to do with deer hunting.

The only thing I can think of that it could go into is more enforcement for all of the new regulations some here want.

[PurpleFloyd]

Coming from Texas I sure can tell you MN does not cut the mustard on the issue.

But from the Southeastern part of MN...

When BWA was founded,.....

it had already become clear that QDM was more than a creative deer management tool to grow bigger bucks; that along with it came—whether intended or not—lease-fee hunting.

While some landowners do apply "QDM-like" harvest restrictions on their property without charging hunters a fee, the vast majority of official QDM projects involve a landowner and a select group of hunters agreeing on a defined set of harvest rules by which all must abide and compensation to the landowner for exclusive hunting privileges.

One could argue that QDM is as much a "business plan" designed to produce an alternative income source for landowners as it is a deer management plan to produce better deer hunting. In fact, the QDM organization has promoted its concept as a means for landowners to maximize income on "their" deer herd and for hunters to harvest more "trophy bucks."

Now to me the question should be, what is not an important aspect of QDM.

see below for a prime example...makes as much sense as eating a burrito before church.

Well said.

[kern]

The way i see it all these rules changes that people want to implement is for the sole purpose of growing more and bigger antlers. Sure some can hide behind the healthier herd argument but if everybody that wants to implement these rules is honest, its about a rack. Thus giving "trophy" hunters more opportunities for what they want while taking away opportunities from the rest of people who hunt and differ from their opinion. I'm not against trying something different but if the sole purpose is for rack and rack only count me out. I'm curious where some people would stand if the buck to doe ratio would be where it should be but the majority of deer are young and there still wasn't a fair amount of mature deer. Again I'm not singling anybody out.

[Big Dave2]

That is the point. Increasing the price to harvest a specific section of the population would discourage some from hunting that population, thereby protecting that section of the population. Doubling the price obviously was just thrown out there as an example, the DNR would need to study at what price they could offer such a tag without losing revenue.

I'm not sure if using money as a deterrant is really in the spirit of sharing our natural resources.

[Surface Tension]

I briefly looked at some of the last pages of this thread as I'm pretty much done with the topic.

It is pretty clear that there are opinions that won't change. I stated mine because I see it as a voice or vote to any DNR personal that might be looking in. I have some concerns about some of the thinking here but in the end it comes down to the following.

What is most important to me and should be for all of you is, ensuring we have wildlife to hunt in the future.

Secondly that hunting stays open and accessible to everyone.

That means licenses should stay affordable and special preferences should not gained my at any cost.

Keeping public land and creating more public lands.

If we don't do that then you can look at Europe as an example of things to come.

Hunting is no longer assessable to everyone and only open to a privileged few.

It is already happening. Pay to hunt private property. State, County, and Federal land being sold.

Over and Out.

[96trigger]

Quote:

What would be the purpose of charging the extra money? Where would it go? What good would it do?

The purpose would be to eliminate the criminilization of shooting small bucks that some people think is happening. It would be a deterrent and not a new law. Hunters would again have a choice. As for where the xtra money went, maybe to more DNR enforcement, more land, who knows, where does all the license money go now. As for what good would it do, I spelled that out in the post.

I offered a solution or middle ground to what some people truly have a problem with. If anyone has a better one, I am all ears. People can feel free to rip it to shreds, it is more than likely never going to happen. Certainly not anytime soon. People would rather bicker about who is right and who is wrong instead of finding some common ground to work with. There is 15 pages of back and forth where nobody has come up with any kind of solution, only the pros and cons of both sides, which have been hashed and bashed the last 3 years. Finally, some one comes up with an idea, and a couple see it as having merit, yet still BigDave2, feel the need to try and rip it. I am pretty much done responding to the negativity. I told myself a year ago I was done posting on this topic and would go about my own business. I had this idea in the treestand this year because I care about other hunters and the future of hunting. So in my treestand, while hunting, I was trying to think of ways that could pacify as many people as possible yet still have some integrity to balance age structure and let people shoot what they want. What have you some of you done besides complain and argue?

[nonteepical]

The way i see it all these rules changes that people want to implement is for the sole purpose of growing more and bigger antlers. Sure some can hide behind the healthier herd argument but if everybody that wants to implement these rules is honest, its about a rack. Thus giving "trophy" hunters more opportunities for what they want while taking away opportunities from the rest of people who hunt and differ from their opinion. I'm not against trying something different but if the sole purpose is for rack and rack only count me out. I'm curious where some people would stand if the buck to doe ratio would be where it should be but the majority of deer are young and there still wasn't a fair amount of mature deer. Again I'm not singling anybody out.

Shooting everything that walks is taking away from hunters, that kind of hunting takes away from other hunters who want to take an older animal, buck management takes away from no one plays no favorites.

Buck success rates are the same, they don't change except for the first couple years after they are implemented. In every state that implements some sort of buck management (apr's, wide as it's ears) hunter sucess rates returns to what it was previous to a buck management plan, the only difference is everyone is shooting larger bucks. Zone 3 just(almost) finished it's 2nd year of APR's, when the data comes back on hunters sucess rates i guarantee the buck sucess went up from last year and after next years season is over, it will return to the same as it was 3 years previous.

[NoWiser]

I'm only going to make one post in this thread, but here is my simple solution.

Eliminate APRs, keep the season where it is, and eliminate all party hunting for bucks, regardless of zone type. Simple as that.

Every single person in the entire state can shoot whatever deer tickles their fancy (unless in a lottery area w/ no doe permit). How can anyone possibly complain about this? No more complaining about having to count tines, see spikes, etc. But, once you pull the trigger on an antlered deer, you are done shooting antlered deer. Perfect for those that want to save some small bucks, and for those that "can't eat horns".

I don't like APRs because many people look forward to eating deer all year, have a limited amount of time to hunt, and do want to shoot the first thing they see. Who am I to say that is wrong? I don't like the later season because (and I know this is selfish) I use a canoe to access my hunting area, and the way it was this year, we were already breaking significant ice by the second weekend to get out of camp.

Third weekend I hunted with my old hunting party up by Leech Lake. We got 3 deer, 2 were 1 1/2 year old bucks and one was a doe. Both guys who shot the young bucks also shot young bucks opening weekend. Funny thing was...both had their buck tags left for muzzleloader season when the weekend ended. They went out and found other people to tag their deer so that they could shoot another buck. So their it is. Those two guys will probably end up shooting either 5 or 6 yearling bucks by the time all seasons are over, when it could have been 2 or less if they wanted to keep their tags for a chance at a big boy. How is that fair for anybody?

The no buck party hunting solution just seems so obvious to me, I don't understand what people have against it? If you shoot a monster buck the first day, continue party hunting for does. If you can't shoot does in your area, then become camp cook, grab a shotgun and go grouse hunting, or just sleep in and enjoy the rest of your time off work. Or, better yet, find a kid and take them out hunting....your season has already been a success.

Thats about all I have to say about that. I used to be more passionate about this topic. Now that I found a very large area of public land to hunt with zero pressure, it's become less important. I've implemented my own rules, and in the last 3 years, I've shot the 3 biggest bucks of my life. I have no doubt this success will continue because I know for a fact no young bucks will be shot in this area as long as I'm there.

[creepworm]

I am not a fan of changing the regulations in order to increase the number of larger bucks, but, no cross tagging of antlered and only antlered deer is something I could get behind. It would be a small concession in order to make many hunters happy. Also, there is a large problem with people buying tags for others that do not even hunt so they can save their tag for muzzle loader. I think this would help to curb that problem a bit.

[Harmonica Bear]

Not the biggest fan of party hunting, but I guess on some level I "get it". The question I have is: how possibly could you enforce it?

[BLACKJACK]

Been following this thread and thought it time to chime in.

I've been deer hunting for 31 years, and hope to deer hunt for anther 30 years, I've bought lifetime licences for both gun and archery. First deer I shot was a 10 point buck, got lucky, hit it the neck with the fifth shot, and I've been hooked ever since. I love to bowhunt, love to spend time out in the woods, love to be sitting in a deer stand when its first getting light out.

I've spent enought time deer hunting, and seeing nothing, or seeing deer at 50 yards, beyond bow range, to where I consider any deer I shoot a trophy, be it a doe, fork horn, or small 8 point. It doens't have to have a big rack to satisfy me. It also doesn't hurt that I like venison.

I think what most people on this forum don't realize is that the majority of deer hunters are satisified just getting a deer. Success rate for gun hunters in MN is roughly 40%, that means that roughly 300,000 of them were not able to shoot a deer. Success rate for archery hunters is roughly 20%, so there are alot of them don't shoot a deer. Yes, there are some hunters that choose to eat tag soup, nitpick if you want, but to the average Joe Blow hunter, shooting a deer is a big deal, and if they shoot it with a bow, its a really big deal, they've accomplished something.

When the time comes that I don't consider any deer I shoot as a trophy, that I need a big rack to be satisfied, then I'll go hunt one down, because I know that they are out there, I see pictures of lots very nice bucks shot in MN - I won't expect the DNR to pass more regulations that infringe on the average Joe Blow deer hunter, just so I can shoot a big racked buck.

[DaveT]

I really don't think enforcement would be an issue. Most people are law abiding, the ones that aren't are already poaching to some degree or another, anyway. Most of the time when a CO busts somebody for poaching it's because they got a tip from someone. When these guys go to work and brag about shooting multiple bucks, somebody will turn them in. Maybe that group gets a ticket or two, maybe they all have a good story and they don't get ticketed. Next year they think a little harder about breaking the law and maybe decide it isn't worth the risk.

Can you imagine a CO interrogating some guys wife who has never hunted but tagged a buck for her husband? I bet it would be hilarious to watch. I'll guarantee you whether she got ticketed or not, she'd never buy another tag for her husband again.

[Harmonica Bear]

Exactly - excuse me mam, can you draw back this bow for me?

[john skarie]

Nonteepcial;

"Shooting everything that walks" is not taking away from anyone.

In your mind it's up to the rest of use to make sure you have better chances at getting what you consider a trophy.

Nobody is taking anything away from you or anybody else. The deer herd is a public resource, not private. It belongs to all of us and we all have an equal right to shoot whatever deer we please when we purchase a liscence.

I suppose someone who wants to catch 30" walleyes could say that others keeping them before they get to 30" is "taking away from me".

Niether the deer or walleyes belong to you until you catch or kill them yourself.

JS

[Getanet]

There is 15 pages of back and forth where nobody has come up with any kind of solution, only the pros and cons of both sides, which have been hashed and bashed the last 3 years.

For quite a few of us the solution, if you can call it that, is to simply be thankful for the time you're able to spend in the woods and appreciate whatever deer you choose to shoot. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.

[Hoyt4]

Well said BlackJack and Nowiser. You need to make up your own choices if you want to let one walk or harvest a deer. Once I start caring more about status and the horns on the deer I will stop hunting. I have shot few big bucks and that does not change my mind the next year. If I get that chance at a deer and feel good about shooting it I will no matter how big or small.

[TylerS]

I'm only going to make one post in this thread, but here is my simple solution.

Eliminate APRs, keep the season where it is, and eliminate all party hunting for bucks, regardless of zone type. Simple as that.

Every single person in the entire state can shoot whatever deer tickles their fancy (unless in a lottery area w/ no doe permit). How can anyone possibly complain about this? No more complaining about having to count tines, see spikes, etc. But, once you pull the trigger on an antlered deer, you are done shooting antlered deer. Perfect for those that want to save some small bucks, and for those that "can't eat horns".

I don't like APRs because many people look forward to eating deer all year, have a limited amount of time to hunt, and do want to shoot the first thing they see. Who am I to say that is wrong? I don't like the later season because (and I know this is selfish) I use a canoe to access my hunting area, and the way it was this year, we were already breaking significant ice by the second weekend to get out of camp.

Third weekend I hunted with my old hunting party up by Leech Lake. We got 3 deer, 2 were 1 1/2 year old bucks and one was a doe. Both guys who shot the young bucks also shot young bucks opening weekend. Funny thing was...both had their buck tags left for muzzleloader season when the weekend ended. They went out and found other people to tag their deer so that they could shoot another buck. So their it is. Those two guys will probably end up shooting either 5 or 6 yearling bucks by the time all seasons are over, when it could have been 2 or less if they wanted to keep their tags for a chance at a big boy. How is that fair for anybody?

The no buck party hunting solution just seems so obvious to me, I don't understand what people have against it? If you shoot a monster buck the first day, continue party hunting for does. If you can't shoot does in your area, then become camp cook, grab a shotgun and go grouse hunting, or just sleep in and enjoy the rest of your time off work. Or, better yet, find a kid and take them out hunting....your season has already been a success.

Thats about all I have to say about that. I used to be more passionate about this topic. Now that I found a very large area of public land to hunt with zero pressure, it's become less important. I've implemented my own rules, and in the last 3 years, I've shot the 3 biggest bucks of my life. I have no doubt this success will continue because I know for a fact no young bucks will be shot in this area as long as I'm there.

+1 to NoWiser. I wish they'd implement a program like this in Nodak, too. One buck tag for all seasons. Once you fill it, you're done.

[DaveT]

I'm all for people doing what makes them happy, if a tender young buck makes you happy, shoot it, good for you. I guess the fundamental difference for me is that I don't feel entitled to shoot multiple bucks every year. It's a limited resource that we all pay to participate in and we all should have opportunity to enjoy it. I think guys who shoot more than one buck a year are taking away opportunity from other hunters.

[kern]

Trigger

What is your primary goal? Obviously you can't implement a new management stategy without weighing the pros and cons. Here is a short term solution. Pick one weapon a year. Most of us on here hunt all three seasons so that would limited the chance of shooting to many deer. I think nooteepical put licience numbers up on the last page and I went and look at them as well. Those are the licenses sold and not the actual number of hunters. I bet those figures would drop by a third if you had to choose a season. It also includes management tags so actual hunter probably are around 40000-45000. Its not ideal but that would be a point to look at. We differ a little bit cause I believe you are in a managed zone? and I'm in a lottery so if somehow we get the entire state to at least managed zone it will be next to impossible to implement apr. I'm all for new ideas but at what cost?

[COMMISH]

Blackjack,

vary well put and i totally agree, the problem is that it's to simple for a goverment agency (DNR) to comprehend. I'm not a supporter of APR. a couple of years ago when the DNR did there survey of deer hunters in zone 3 and followed that up with some public meetings to get the publics in put on deer management in zone 3. having hunted zone 3 for almost 40 years at the time i took a great interest in this. i printed out the survey results and carried tham with me for months, i studied every page of it. I went to 2 differant meetings when the time came.(the first meeting and the last)first off there numbers were marginal at best in favor of APR. (46% in favor 43% against + - 2% error) ok it's the "MAJORITY" i can except that.

here's the number that really got me thinking. according to the DNR's survey 92% yes 92% of those surveyed hunted "PRIVATE LAND". heres my question, the DNR will tell how much support there is for APR. if there's all this support and most hunters hunt private land why do we need this to be law? I never got an answer from the DNR or anybody else i asked this question. does anybody have a GOOD answer?

[sticknstring]

I vote to eliminate the cross-tagging of bucks statewide. Who's with me?