APR's good for hunter recruitment but not for retention?

[96trigger]

Let me sum this up for some of you.

#1. People who support APR want to see more bucks reach at least 2.5 years of age. This simply means that the forks and baskets get a pass for one year. For personal gain or herd health, all we are asking is for the little guys to get a one year pass, they are the easiest deer to kill during the season.

#2, Most of us want kids to be exempt and stay exempt from apr until a certain age.

#3. APR regs should only ever be implemented in areas where multiple deer can be taken. (Managed/Intensive)

#4. We know there are big bucks in MN, always have been. We are not trying to make it so a big buck is behind every tree, it won't happen and is absurd to think it would. We would like to see more quality.

#5. Many APR guys shoot does, we are not out for horns only. We are not all about horn porn, we are not selfish or lazy.

#6. We don't see APR as an infringement on your rights, just another regulation like we have for fishing, duck hunting, or pheasant hunting etc...

#7. We still get together with our families and do many of the same things and have many of the same traditions that those without APR have. Labeling us as elitists who don't know the meaning of hunting is just plain wrong.

#8. Qualitative data was collected by the DNR, it will be collected again. My personal belief is that APR will continue and probably spread.

If you think any of these are infringements on your rights we are never going to agree.

[B. Amish]

if the majority want apr's, then why don't the majority just do it. why does it need to be made a law?

[96trigger]

It doesn't work in Minnesota, thats why.

[B. Amish]

#3. APR regs should only ever be implemented in areas where multiple deer can be taken. (Managed/Intensive)

how many folks have posted in this thread that they want apr's statewide?

[96trigger]

Quote:

how many folks have posted in this thread that they want apr's statewide?

I don't see it ever happening. Its unfortunate that some want that, many that are for APR don't. We still want people to be able to harvest deer, in those areas seeing deer really isn't that difficult for most. You might just have to wait a little longer for the doe to come around. In lottery or HC areas, I would definitely not support APR, and every discussion I have had with the DNR has led me to believe that they will manage for population first, then for herd. They could go back on that, but I doubt they ever will.

[B. Amish]

It doesn't work in Minnesota, thats why.

it's working pretty good in my area. people pass on young bucks by choice. no apr's.

[tfran123]

if the majority want apr's, then why don't the majority just do it. why does it need to be made a law?

The "if it's brown it's down" mentality will continue to persist. It needs to be a rule in order to work.

[96trigger]

Quote:

it's working pretty good in my area. people pass on young bucks by choice. no apr's.

Thats great, you absolutely should have no problem then if it gets adopted in your area.

Unfortunately, there are lots of people that don't have that in their area or on their farm, and they are frustrated.

[B. Amish]

I don't see it ever happening.

a short time ago, lots of people never dreamed apr's (who wanted them) would happen anywhere. period.

[B. Amish]

Thats great, you absolutely should have no problem then if it gets adopted in your area.

Unfortunately, there are lots of people that don't have that in their area or on their farm, and they are frustrated.

i hate apr's for reasons other than most. high grading, and the perception it gives to the non-hunting public.

[22lex]

if the majority want apr's, then why don't the majority just do it. why does it need to be made a law?

My theory is that the majority outside of zone 3 don't want it.

Another guess is that a majority of people (all minnesotans) believe they are owed something laying on the ground with minimal effort/less regulations because they bought a 27 dollar tag, ie; being able to shoot at whatever they please. This is where I believe the rift lies, and something I have a hard time accepting that this would work statewide.

I do however understand that hunting in areas other than mine (Z3) is alot different, and if the only deer I would see in a season was a fork horn I would probably shoot it too, or find other areas to hunt.

[surewood]

I think we can all agree getting kids involved is important. Seems apr would leave an ample population of young deer for the kids. With the young/easier deer to shoot their success rate would go up. Instead of us who have already been there done that shooting them before they have a chance. I still hear people say I shot it cause if I don't the next guy will. I say you are the next guy then. I tell them I hope the next guy is a kid. Such a poor excuse to shoot a deer.

[surewood]

22lex, I agree that outside of Z3 the majority is probably against it. For now. I disagree with shooting that fork if it's all I have on my property. How would you even know that. Some bucks move miles during the rut. If that's what a person wants then fine as it's legal right now.

[Jameson]

...#3. APR regs should only ever be implemented in areas where multiple deer can be taken. (Managed/Intensive)...

During the 2011 and 2012 deer season it was implemented in one deer areas. Did you still support it?

[96trigger]

Are you talking about the whitewater area, that is a whole different story. I'm not a fan of that, no.

[Getanet]

I would add my own list:

1. Most people who don’t support APR realize this is more of a social issue than biological one. The DNR has said as much. MN’s deer herd is not unhealthy.

2. While hunting has deep personal meaning for hunters, on a state-level its purpose should be to keep the deer population in check, not grow larger deer.

3. Most of us who don’t support APR are skeptical of where the data comes from, and how it’s applied by the average supporter. If we’re going to change regulations, some unbiased data isn’t too much to ask for.

4. Most of us who don’t support APR already willingly pass on deer for various reasons every year. We understand hunting is a unique experience to each hunter and we’re not willing to enforce our beliefs/desires on others without a sound biological reason for it.

5. All the justifications for APR are reasonable – IF we had an unhealthy deer herd. We don’t believe we do.

6. Most of us who don’t support APR do think too many guys have been corrupted by hunting shows. And too many factors come into play to compare states to states.

7. We also believe if support were as strong as others claim, APR would voluntarily spread.

8. Labeling us a “brown is down” meat hogs who whack-and-stack ever deer we can is just plain wrong.

[TruthWalleyes]

and Zone 347 the last 2 years (was intensive when i first startd hunting there)...i hunt the east side of 347 (Next to franks ) But mostly in 348 Preston/lanesboro area.

Not sure that 347 should have been changed to lottery. Plenty of deer there. At least it's back to managed this year.

[TruthWalleyes]

I would add my own list:

1. Most people who don’t support APR realize this is more of a social issue than biological one. The DNR has said as much. MN’s deer herd is not unhealthy.

2. While hunting has deep personal meaning for hunters, on a state-level its purpose should be to keep the deer population in check, not grow larger deer.

3. Most of us who don’t support APR are skeptical of where the data comes from, and how it’s applied by the average supporter. If we’re going to change regulations, some unbiased data isn’t too much to ask for.

4. Most of us who don’t support APR already willingly pass on deer for various reasons every year. We understand hunting is a unique experience to each hunter and we’re not willing to enforce our beliefs/desires on others without a sound biological reason for it.

5. All the justifications for APR are reasonable – IF we had an unhealthy deer herd. We don’t believe we do.

6. Most of us who don’t support APR do think too many guys have been corrupted by hunting shows. And too many factors come into play to compare states to states.

7. We also believe if support were as strong as others claim, APR would voluntarily spread.

8. Labeling us a “brown is down” meat hogs who whack-and-stack ever deer we can is just plain wrong.

Nice post. I agree with: 1,2,3,Especially 4 for me, 5, 6, Definitely #7, 8 for same reason as 4.

[tfran123]

My counters:

1. Is a 6:1 doe to buck ratio healthy? I don't think so and that's what you've got when the gun hunters disproportionatly take more little bucks. This is true in most non-apr areas.

2. Disagree, a well diversified age structure is part of the goal in my opinion. Is the DNR trying to do this on lakes with slots/minimum sizes, etc?? I think they are.

3. Hunt on public land and witness the buck to doe ratios and lack of mature animals . . .

4. That may work for you but 80% of the people will shoot the first young buck they see.

5. We do and refer to #1

6. I to hate the "shooter" language and all that stuff, but this is larger than that.

7. Always a few that ruin it for others, refer to pt #4.

[B. Amish]

1. Is a 6:1 doe to buck ratio healthy? I don't think so and that's what you've got when the gun hunters disproportionatly take more little bucks. This is true in most non-apr areas.

let's say you have a 10:1 doe to buck ratio. say those 10 does all get bred and each have fawns. fawns are born at a ratio of 1:1 doe to buck - in fact the ratio actually favors male fawns slightly in the wild.

so, after fawning, you have 10 does + 5 new ones = 15

you have 1 buck plus 5 new ones = 6

your 10:1 is now a 2.5:1 doe to buck ratio. anything higher than 3:1 is almost impossible to sustain.

now lets assume those 10 does each had twins instead. again the fawns are 1:1.

10 does + 10 new does = 20

10 new bucks + 1 original = 11

now you're at a 1.8:1 ratio.

i guess my point is the ratio of does to bucks is often way overestimated by hunters.

[tfran123]

Buck fawns are not breeding bucks, hence your logic is flawed. Furthermore you completely disregard that even at 6:1 or 10:1 for that matter you are putting huge stress on your bucks just to keep up on the breeding front. Failed argument . . .

[TruthWalleyes]

I say we just keep tossing out Percentages...Makes ya look smart.

Yeah but only (INSERT MADE UP %) do this, and (INSERT MADE UP %) do that...so your logic is flawed..Cuz i feel passionately about those made up %'s, so they must be true.

[TruthWalleyes]

80% of 3 1/2 year olds make it to 4 1/2

[B. Amish]

Buck fawns are not breeding bucks, hence your logic is flawed. Furthermore you completely disregard that even at 6:1 or 10:1 for that matter you are putting huge stress on your bucks just to keep up on the breeding front. Failed argument . . .

lol.

i was using 10:1 as an extreme example. when fawns enter the 2nd year, they are entering at close to 1:1 doe to buck ratio. i used the fawn example to explain it easier.

nowhere is the ratio 6:1 for any extended period of time.

[22lex]

Not sure that 347 should have been changed to lottery. Plenty of deer there. At least it's back to managed this year.

Please reference hard data and not just anecdotal feelings to support your claim for 347, I would like to see some hard data so we can actually believe that this theory is true, otherwise it's just opinion.

I have friends that hunt there as well (Preston) they said the same thing.

[james_walleye]

James, you have to realize there are groups popping up all over who want APRs statewide and point to Zone 3 as the reason. You're right, they don't know how different Zone 3 is than the rest of the state, but they point to every picture of a Zone 3 buck they can find as the reason to implement APR's everywhere.

Just to clarify......I'm for APRs and tired of arguing with anti Apr folks who haven't a clue about zone 3 hunting.......

[tfran123]

"Nowhere is that ratio 6:1", it is if you don't include buck fawns as bucks. By most definitions they are anterless even though they are male.

[TruthWalleyes]

Please reference hard data and not just anecdotal feelings to support your claim for 347, I would like to see some hard data so we can actually believe that this theory is true, otherwise it's just opinion.

I have friends that hunt there as well (Preston) they said the same thing.

Man did i deserve that!! Lol

Beautiful country over there! I just love getting opportunities to walk into new woods - ya never know what you'll see...But you can almost guarantee you'll have to cross a few darn fences lol

P.S. If your buddies in preston don't know already...They should be at the bowling alley gun season opener morning for Buffet Bacon covered in meat gravy!! (You don't want to order the special for the next few days though )

I think part of me just goes down there for the opening morning buffet after a hard 2 hours of sleep

[B. Amish]

"Nowhere is that ratio 6:1", it is if you don't include buck fawns as bucks. By most definitions they are anterless even though they are male.

you don't get it.

carry on with your 6:1 nonsense backed by absolutely nothing.

[tfran123]

It's not nonsense, you are over counting based on fawn counts - pretty simple really and I'm sorry you struggle to grasp it.

Read a little bit on this and you'll understand where I'm coming from or just ignore it, doesn't matter to me . . .