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

[Big Dave2]

You wouldn't have happen to be the guy that wrote the anti APR letter to Outdoor News were you? Just curious as he was from Belle Plaine.

[nonteepical]

Big Dave,

You wouldn't have happen to be the guy that wrote the anti APR letter to Outdoor News were you? Just curious as he was from Belle Plaine.

that guy needs some medication

[Wanderer]

I think I've seen the light - I'm converted!

I do think we should avoid managing our herd to prevent it from fullfilling it's potential. That we can enjoy stunning mediocrity and get all the thoughtless, supeficial hunters out of our back yards.

I don't know why I couldn't see that before.

Now I have to leave to go out of state again and hunt some new place that has a bunch of deer and maybe not get one anyway. At least if I get one that I'm hoping for I'll keep it on the down low so as not to make people think there's only one reason I hunt. What a waste of time...

Oh, by the way, see ya!

[Big Dave2]

Any way

you could post the letter here?

[PurpleFloyd]

nope, .3.

If x = 1.5 then y = 1. In an ok balanced deer herd if x = does and y = bucks. Without pulling out the calculator I guesstimated that if x = .5 then y should be about .3 . The number .6 was giving as what y equals. .6/.3 = 2. Thus why I said that twice the number of bucks are being harvested as should be.

This has been your pointless Sunday morning post of the day.

Talk about pointless posts. You have no idea what an "OK balanced herd" would be because a definition of an "OK balanced herd" does not exist. And if you think your guesstimations equal reality then carry on.

[hockeybc69]

Speaking of Outdoor News... From the Nov 29th issue:

Zone 3 a bright spot in 2012 deer hunt

http://www.outdoornews.com/November-2012/Zone-3-a-bright-spot-in-2012-deer-hunt/

Darn APR's!!!!

And let the spins begin.

[nonteepical]

I do think we should avoid managing our herd to prevent it from fullfilling it's potential.

I don't know why I couldn't see that before.

It's minnesota's way of life, you couldn't see it because your just use to it: Vikings, Twins, Wild, Timberwolves, Gophers....our natural recources we have more lakes than everyone and dont have a better fisheries than anyone or better duck hunting, used to be part of the big 5 of pheasant hunting and now need game farms to a shoot bird ect. ect. the only thing minnesota is the best at is bending over taking it and then complain their back is sore. Minnesota mediocrity it's the way of life.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

you couldn't see it because your just use to it: Vikings, Twins, Wild, Timberwolves, Gophers

HEY, We have the Lynx!!!

[PurpleFloyd]

One particularly good article that I have read in the past.

Bryan Kinkel

"I am a professional wildlife manager and research scientist. On occasion, I also do the seminar circuit and I write deer research related articles for several publications. I write regularly for "Deer & Deer Hunting" magazine, and "Quality Whitetails", the journal of the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA). My business partner and I are also in the midst of writing a book on deer herd dynamics, socio-biology, and the different forms of deer management.

It is not my intent to say this person or that person is right or wrong. It is simply my intent to try to clear up some of the misconceptions about what the different forms of deer management are intended to produce and why. There is also some factual information that needs to be presented.

With any form of management, there must be a compromise between what is best for the deer herd and the wants/needs of the hunters. This is just a fact of deer management, not matter what form is practiced. Secondly, it is virtually impossible to set guidelines that are a best fit for all geographic regions. Deer management is always site specific. That is why state agencies are between a rock and a hard place. No matter which form of management the decide to practice, there are no standardized rules that will work state-wide, region-wide or even county-wide. Habitat conditions can vary dramatically across very short distances, even across a single property. There is no one set of harvest guidelines that will produce a quality deer herd across a broad region. But that is also true of Traditional Deer Management (or better termed, Maximum Deer Harvest Management - MDHM). Restoration of the deer herds through MDHM has been phenomenally successful across statewide regions, but there are "pockets" in every state where deer are either over-populated or below what is desirable for an MDHM program. There is no one practice that works the same everywhere.

The same is true with QDM. There are no standardized rules that will work across broad regions. But in an attempt to keep this as short as possible, allow me to give some background on what QDM is and is not, as well as what QDM is intended to produce in a deer herd. QDM is NOT trophy deer management. But I can see why those opposed to QDM think it is. And in fact, we wildlife managers are heavily to blame for this misconception. In the earlier years of QDM implementation and research, instead of trying to explain to hunters the complexities of deer social dynamics and how QDM works within this framework, QDM was "sold" to hunters as a way of producing bigger bucks. Unfortunately, we over-emphasized this aspect of QDM, and now many hunters (and managers) think QDM is all about "trophy" deer. We obviously under-estimated the intelligence of the average hunter, and over-emphasized one of the "hunter satisfaction" aspects of a complete biological system.

QDM is an attempt to return a deer herd to a more "natural" dynamics, while still producing hunter satisfaction. This requires some compromises to the "natural" condition. What a "natural" deer herd looks like is well known to the research community and has been for many years. There are two primary sources for information on natural deer herds. The first is the bioarcheological studies of American Indian "middens" – or trash heaps. The American Indians were large consumers of whitetailed deer, for food, clothing and tool making. Unused parts of their harvested deer were thrown in these trash heaps. The largest and hardest part of a deer that will survive time is the pelvic girdle bone structure. The sex and age of a deer can be fairly accurately determined from the pelvic girdle. Examination of these left-over pelvic girdles provides an accurate picture of the sex and age distribution of the deer the Indians were harvesting. After collecting and categorizing over 10,000 pelvic girdles, it was found that the deer herds were very sexually balanced, with an adult sex ratio of approximately 1 male for every female. It was also found that there was a pyramid age structure for both sexes (when graphed on a vertical age/sex scale). In essence, the largest age class were fawns, the second largest age class were immature adults, the third largest mature adults, and the smallest group old-aged deer.

The second source for information on "natural" deer herds are the large, unhunted deer herds that currently exist. There ARE large geographic areas that have no hunting but do have natural predation. Most of these are in private hands, although some large National Parks also fit into this category. Study of these unhunted herds (and I work with one of these areas on a long term research basis) has shown that the actual adult sex ratio is closer to 1.2 adult females to 1 adult male. The slightly higher number of females is probably due to the higher natural mortality of bucks from rut-related stresses and injuries. The age structure of these herds is somewhat older than indicated by the midden research, probably because American Indian hunting had a significant impact on herd structure. In current unhunted herds, 50-70% of the herd is 3 ½ or older.

With QDM, an attempt is made to produce the most natural herd structure possible while still providing "hunter satisfaction". This requires some compromises. In most cases, an adult sex ratio of 1 adult male for every 2 adult females is good enough to qualify as a "quality" herd. It is extremely difficult (although not impossible) to bring a free-ranging herd to the "magic" 1:1 sex ratio. Most hunters are not willing to harvest enough does and pass up enough bucks to accomplish this. In most QDM programs, a buck age structure with 30% of the buck population 3 ½ or older is the goal. Again, this is not completely natural, but is a compromise to fit in with hunter wants/needs. A sex ratio of 1 buck to 2 does, and a buck age structure of 30% 3 ½ or older are also good enough for social dynamics of a herd to work as Nature intended. The important role of sex ratios, age structures, and the role they play in herd dynamics, herd health and reproductive success is extremely complex and would require a long discussion. Suffice to say, they are critical in over-all herd performance. In addition, the processes of Natural Selection work best when the herd dynamics are as close to natural as possible.

In a QDM program, the herd density is kept at 60-70% of carrying capacity. This is also not exactly "natural" as most unhunted deer herds will waiver right around habitat capacity. At 60-70% of capacity, herd health, individual animal performance, and reproductive success are greatly improved. This allows more deer to be harvested per year (the increased reproductive success of the lower density herd replaces the harvested deer with a large annual fawn crop) and the average size of deer in each age class is larger (the deer are healthier – larger bodies, larger antlers). Again, this is a compromise to meet hunter satisfaction, although increased herd health is a benefit unto itself.

I know a lot of hunters, when presented with the facts, begin wondering, "if QDM is so great, why don't state wildlife agencies practice it?" There are so many different answers to that question that I hesitate to try and list them all. In addition, it is impossible to know agency motivation without "walking in their shoes". From personal experience working with different state agencies, the reasons have run the gambit from: lack of scientific knowledge, to fear of change, to over-reliance on out-dated and inaccurate population models, to the difficulty of establishing QDM-type harvest guidelines across highly variable range conditions, to severe political pressure from the hunting public. QDM proponents should never underestimate that last reason. There are still many hunters that want to see a deer behind every tree. With many states, the wildlife agencies derive their funding directly from hunting/fishing license sales and outdoor activity tax revenues (Pittman-Robertson, etc.). Many agencies, rightly or wrongly, feel it is their primary agenda to satisfy hunters and to provide maximum hunter satisfaction – a satisfaction they believe is driven by high deer sightings and harvest opportunities (although numerous hunter satisfaction surveys find this isn't the case).

One more point I think is critical before I jump off my soapbox; NONE of the current so-called QDM programs implemented by state agencies are actually QDM. NONE. NOT A SINGLE ONE. They are only slightly modified versions of MDHM. None of them will produce the full range of herd dynamics necessary to create a natural herd. They are only attempts to increase the buck age structure without addressing the other equally important herd issues. My greatest fears are realized in some of these programs. In fact, some of the "buck limiting" harvest guidelines will actually be detrimental to the herd in the long run. Since these programs are being touted as "QDM" (when they are not), their eventual failure will give true QDM a huge black eye."

[tfran123]

Fairly comprehensive letter, much covered there.

It boils down to this, firearms hunters in many parts of the state over harvest a disproportionate slug of 1.5 year old bucks. A growing majority want a better crack at a mature animal and another school of thought believes we're entitled to shoot what we want (a legal buck). Hard to paint anything with a simple set of rules that covers everyone's needs/wants.

APR is working in zone 3, not a doubt in my mind and fully believe it'll expand into other areas of the state as well as there is a growing trend toward supporting a more balanced age structure in our buck herd.

I get the part about big brother telling us what to do, I hate that more than you realize but they tell us what we can shoot w/other animals and similar things happen in the world of fisheries. And in the end we need to manage our resources and sometimes rules are necessary to reach the end goal.

[deerminator]

I liked this quote out of the ON article. Makes me happy. Perhaps someday, our permit area will be Managed again. My land and the land I hunt should be at least. : )

“Wildlife biologists are conservative by nature,” he said. “Coming out of the 1990s, we were conservative by a couple years too many. My inclination is that we won’t be as conservative next year. … I don’t think we’ll be getting into a lot more intensive areas, but you might see more managed areas and more hunter choice areas.”

[nonteepical]

One particularly good article that I have read in the past.

Bryan Kinkel

"I am a professional wildlife manager and research scientist. On occasion, I also do the seminar circuit and I write deer research related articles for several publications. I write regularly for "Deer & Deer Hunting" magazine, and "Quality Whitetails", the journal of the Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA). My business partner and I are also in the midst of writing a book on deer herd dynamics, socio-biology, and the different forms of deer management.

It is not my intent to say this person or that person is right or wrong. It is simply my intent to try to clear up some of the misconceptions about what the different forms of deer management are intended to produce and why. There is also some factual information that needs to be presented.

With any form of management, there must be a compromise between what is best for the deer herd and the wants/needs of the hunters. This is just a fact of deer management, not matter what form is practiced. Secondly, it is virtually impossible to set guidelines that are a best fit for all geographic regions. Deer management is always site specific. That is why state agencies are between a rock and a hard place. No matter which form of management the decide to practice, there are no standardized rules that will work state-wide, region-wide or even county-wide. Habitat conditions can vary dramatically across very short distances, even across a single property. There is no one set of harvest guidelines that will produce a quality deer herd across a broad region. But that is also true of Traditional Deer Management (or better termed, Maximum Deer Harvest Management - MDHM). Restoration of the deer herds through MDHM has been phenomenally successful across statewide regions, but there are "pockets" in every state where deer are either over-populated or below what is desirable for an MDHM program. There is no one practice that works the same everywhere.

The same is true with QDM. There are no standardized rules that will work across broad regions. But in an attempt to keep this as short as possible, allow me to give some background on what QDM is and is not, as well as what QDM is intended to produce in a deer herd. QDM is NOT trophy deer management. But I can see why those opposed to QDM think it is. And in fact, we wildlife managers are heavily to blame for this misconception. In the earlier years of QDM implementation and research, instead of trying to explain to hunters the complexities of deer social dynamics and how QDM works within this framework, QDM was "sold" to hunters as a way of producing bigger bucks. Unfortunately, we over-emphasized this aspect of QDM, and now many hunters (and managers) think QDM is all about "trophy" deer. We obviously under-estimated the intelligence of the average hunter, and over-emphasized one of the "hunter satisfaction" aspects of a complete biological system.

QDM is an attempt to return a deer herd to a more "natural" dynamics, while still producing hunter satisfaction. This requires some compromises to the "natural" condition. What a "natural" deer herd looks like is well known to the research community and has been for many years. There are two primary sources for information on natural deer herds. The first is the bioarcheological studies of American Indian "middens" – or trash heaps. The American Indians were large consumers of whitetailed deer, for food, clothing and tool making. Unused parts of their harvested deer were thrown in these trash heaps. The largest and hardest part of a deer that will survive time is the pelvic girdle bone structure. The sex and age of a deer can be fairly accurately determined from the pelvic girdle. Examination of these left-over pelvic girdles provides an accurate picture of the sex and age distribution of the deer the Indians were harvesting. After collecting and categorizing over 10,000 pelvic girdles, it was found that the deer herds were very sexually balanced, with an adult sex ratio of approximately 1 male for every female. It was also found that there was a pyramid age structure for both sexes (when graphed on a vertical age/sex scale). In essence, the largest age class were fawns, the second largest age class were immature adults, the third largest mature adults, and the smallest group old-aged deer.

The second source for information on "natural" deer herds are the large, unhunted deer herds that currently exist. There ARE large geographic areas that have no hunting but do have natural predation. Most of these are in private hands, although some large National Parks also fit into this category. Study of these unhunted herds (and I work with one of these areas on a long term research basis) has shown that the actual adult sex ratio is closer to 1.2 adult females to 1 adult male. The slightly higher number of females is probably due to the higher natural mortality of bucks from rut-related stresses and injuries. The age structure of these herds is somewhat older than indicated by the midden research, probably because American Indian hunting had a significant impact on herd structure. In current unhunted herds, 50-70% of the herd is 3 ½ or older.

With QDM, an attempt is made to produce the most natural herd structure possible while still providing "hunter satisfaction". This requires some compromises. In most cases, an adult sex ratio of 1 adult male for every 2 adult females is good enough to qualify as a "quality" herd. It is extremely difficult (although not impossible) to bring a free-ranging herd to the "magic" 1:1 sex ratio. Most hunters are not willing to harvest enough does and pass up enough bucks to accomplish this. In most QDM programs, a buck age structure with 30% of the buck population 3 ½ or older is the goal. Again, this is not completely natural, but is a compromise to fit in with hunter wants/needs. A sex ratio of 1 buck to 2 does, and a buck age structure of 30% 3 ½ or older are also good enough for social dynamics of a herd to work as Nature intended. The important role of sex ratios, age structures, and the role they play in herd dynamics, herd health and reproductive success is extremely complex and would require a long discussion. Suffice to say, they are critical in over-all herd performance. In addition, the processes of Natural Selection work best when the herd dynamics are as close to natural as possible.

In a QDM program, the herd density is kept at 60-70% of carrying capacity. This is also not exactly "natural" as most unhunted deer herds will waiver right around habitat capacity. At 60-70% of capacity, herd health, individual animal performance, and reproductive success are greatly improved. This allows more deer to be harvested per year (the increased reproductive success of the lower density herd replaces the harvested deer with a large annual fawn crop) and the average size of deer in each age class is larger (the deer are healthier – larger bodies, larger antlers). Again, this is a compromise to meet hunter satisfaction, although increased herd health is a benefit unto itself.

I know a lot of hunters, when presented with the facts, begin wondering, "if QDM is so great, why don't state wildlife agencies practice it?" There are so many different answers to that question that I hesitate to try and list them all. In addition, it is impossible to know agency motivation without "walking in their shoes". From personal experience working with different state agencies, the reasons have run the gambit from: lack of scientific knowledge, to fear of change, to over-reliance on out-dated and inaccurate population models, to the difficulty of establishing QDM-type harvest guidelines across highly variable range conditions, to severe political pressure from the hunting public. QDM proponents should never underestimate that last reason. There are still many hunters that want to see a deer behind every tree. With many states, the wildlife agencies derive their funding directly from hunting/fishing license sales and outdoor activity tax revenues (Pittman-Robertson, etc.). Many agencies, rightly or wrongly, feel it is their primary agenda to satisfy hunters and to provide maximum hunter satisfaction – a satisfaction they believe is driven by high deer sightings and harvest opportunities (although numerous hunter satisfaction surveys find this isn't the case).

One more point I think is critical before I jump off my soapbox; NONE of the current so-called QDM programs implemented by state agencies are actually QDM. NONE. NOT A SINGLE ONE. They are only slightly modified versions of MDHM. None of them will produce the full range of herd dynamics necessary to create a natural herd. They are only attempts to increase the buck age structure without addressing the other equally important herd issues. My greatest fears are realized in some of these programs. In fact, some of the "buck limiting" harvest guidelines will actually be detrimental to the herd in the long run. Since these programs are being touted as "QDM" (when they are not), their eventual failure will give true QDM a huge black eye."

Every single thing in this article has been said on here at one time or another in the APR threads in the past 3 years i've said at least 3/4 of whats in the artical myself. like judge judy always says "you don't have your listening ears on purplefloyd!"

[PurpleFloyd]

To me it boils to this:

I hear so many of the APR guys throwing out health and quality as the buzz words to support their desire for APR's yet the only thing they are using as a tool to accomplish that goal is demonizing anyone who shoots a 1.5 year old deer. The problem with that is that APR,especially as it applies statewide and nationwide for that matter is that it is only a small part of the equation.

If you look at the farms that are producing the monster bucks year over year and if you read the QDM movement as it was originally designed before the commercial market took it over you will find that habitat and nutrition are every bit (and I would argue more) important than restricting the harvest of small bucks.

Interestingly the majority of those who are asking for APR's are the same people that in other topics are calling for less government restrictions and interference. Yet if it suddenly serves them then they are all in favor of big brother dictating what they do and how they do it.

Yet I see essentially zero talk about establishing statewide nutrition and habitat improvements that would need to occur for an honest approach to building and maintaining a healthy herd. It would be very expensive to do on a statewide scale and it would require a reduction in habitat loss in the ag zone as well as a look at the development taking place in many habitats like building homes on every ravine and tiling and planting the wetlands.

In a really natural population you would see a much greater abundance of 3.5 to 5.5 year old deer and they would be one of the biggest age groups if not the biggest yet we have that age group as the smallest by far and a big reason is nobody will pass a really large deer to let it be the apex deer in the area and let it be the dominant breeder in it's territory. To have a true balance in the herd and to encourage seeing and having more bigger deer we need to look past shooting every buck we see that gets to maturity and learn from what the fisheries people have learned and start to take the smaller racked deer for meat and leave the big deer to breed and establish the hierarchy of th herd. Whether that means passing on the big deer and taking photo's and having replicas made like the Muskie and Walleye guys are doing or something different but to say you want a quality herd and then remove the apex deer in the herd while the younger deer are left to breed and rule the herd goes against biology where the young and weak are always culled from the herd first and the alpha's are left to breed and pass on their genetics.

And the Nutritional portion should include working with the state to make sure that state land and any private landowners who are willing should be encouraging the planting and growth of cover, foods with the proper nutritional content and trees like Oaks that will give the deer the best chance possible to be healthy and grow to their potential.

But I wonder how many who are talking herd health and quality would really be willing to do what is really needed to really have a balanced herd statewide and to have a more balanced herd which would require not taking every large deer that gets to 3 or 4 years old and leaving them to be the alphas and pass on their genetics.

because what I am reading from many has nothing to do with herd health or balanced age but rather just getting the deer to a size that they wish to have when they harvest them.

And before the phrase slaughter every 1.5 year old deer is thrown out there, there are a million deer and we shot 164,000 total deer in 2011 with 76,000 being bucks and 88,000 being does. If there are 2 does for every buck as stats indicate then there were 333,000 total bucks in 2011 and we took 76,000 or a bit over 20% of them. Now, if all of those deer were 1.5 years old then there sure as heck would be a great number of 2.5-5.5 YO bucks roaming around and we would have a pretty good selection of mature bucks to harvest.

I contend we are not getting more big bucks not because we are shooting all of the small ones but because we are shooting all of the big ones and that we would improve the antler structure if we passed on the true big deer and took the smaller basketed bucks that try to sneak in and breed with the does or are left to breed the does when the large deer are pulled from the herd.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

76,000 being bucks and 88,000 being does.

Correction... 88,000 antlerless.... 17,000 of those were fawn bucks.

Just to make sure no numbers are skewed...

[PurpleFloyd]

Every single thing in this article has been said on here at one time or another in the APR threads in the past 3 years i've said at least 3/4 of whats in the artical myself. like judge judy always says "you don't have your listening ears on purplefloyd!"

Actually I don't think you have yours on. First off your math is wrong. You stated we took 130000 bucks last year and it was actually 76000 according to the DNR or less than 8 percent of the total population. You cannot make the case that the majority of 1.5 year old bucks are shot but there are no mature 3-5 year old bucks because the math doesn't work. The reason we don't have many old bucks is because they also shoot every 2.5-5 year old buck and at a much higher ration than we are shooting young ones.

if you really read that and say you agree with it then you would not believe what the APR things has become is really right.

[Stratosman]

I think that too many people watch too much outdoor channel... We as deer hunters are out own worst enemy. My fear is that MN becomes more like Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, ect... More big money buying up more and more land diplacing hunters to already overcrowded public land, all in the name of big antlers. Driving up the cost of land pushing it way past the point of the average Joe being able to afford. Out of state people leasing land driving more hunters out of private lands. Talk to hunters from big buck states and bick buck counties and you will hear of lots of hunting opportunities lost. It makes me fearful and somewhat sad to watch what deer hunting is becoming. My fear is that I will not be able to introduce my children to the joys of the sport simply because I will no longer have access to private land. I hunt some awesome land in zone three and would APR's improve the number and quality of mature deer? Probably, but at what cost? Maybe I am blind to what APR benifits are, but I think looking at the big picture it might cost us more than we are willing to wager.

I love chasing and killing mature deer and will continue to do so, I guess you could call me a "horn hunter", almost a swear word on theses threads by some people, lol...and I am here to tell ya all, I don't fully support APR's simply for the fact that they could damage the tradition that is deer hunting for the sake of hunting deer, and not just for the pursuit of large antlers.

So here is my label... horn porn hunter but not fully supportive of APR. Am I a hypocrite or an i.diot? You tell me..

[Big Dave2]

I get the part about big brother telling us what to do, I hate that more than you realize but they tell us what we can shoot w/other animals and similar things happen in the world of fisheries. And in the end we need to manage our resources and sometimes rules are necessary to reach the end goal.

It seems to me that every other managed game animal I can think of are managed for quantity not quality.

[hockeybc69]

Quote:

It seems to me that every other managed game animal I can think of are managed for quantity not quality.

Well I am guessing bigger pheasants arent really impressive to most.

But bigger grouse,,,,, now we are talking!!

They do get bigger, dont they??

[22lex]

Speaking of Outdoor News... From the Nov 29th issue:

Zone 3 a bright spot in 2012 deer hunt

http://www.outdoornews.com/November-2012/Zone-3-a-bright-spot-in-2012-deer-hunt/

Darn APR's!!!!

And let the spins begin.

What spins, there isn't any. A bunch of people that don't hunt here state APR doesn't work and it's against Minnesota tradition. Many hunters down here know it does work towards what we would consider a more equitable hunt in our own opinions (what seems to be the majority) and it has seemed to be gaining alot of support. I won't fluff it up, zone 3 hunters got sick of seeing forkhorns stacked in the back of trucks like cord-wood because of cross-tagging, those same slob hunters (you know those guys whose wives and uncles always bought tags but didn't own a gun) always complained about not seeing any "big bucks".

APR in zone 3 point blank is about mature bucks, and sparing the dumbest critter in the woods during rut for one more year. If anyone hasn't figured out what critter that is it's the 1.5 year old buck.

If you don't like APR, don't hunt in Zone 3, or just plan on tagging two does like the rest of the zone 3 meat hunters do. It's a pretty simple decision.

[nonteepical]

page 25 grand total bucks harvested 2011 is 105,931. so if you agree on estimated 333,000 buck population and the population stays stable we kill them (bucks) off/turn over every 3 years. if you do that year after year(like we do) it's inevitable that you will have a young deer population and the majority of bucks being killed are yearlings.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2011_harvestreport.pdf

[tfran123]

Wrong answer unless you want to keep us on bunnies, pheasants and ducks. Go out west my friend and you'll find many areas within States having minimum 4 or 5 pt rules for elk.

[96trigger]

Purplefloyd, you must be a politician. I've read the article a couple times, what your saying about age structure is a stretch. It should not take a rocket scientist to understand that for a buck to get to be the apex or alpha buck, it needs to live survive its 1st year and half in the woods. I have never seen one reach maturity and become the alpha cut up in someones freezer.

You are correct on habitat and nutrition, but the state doesn't have to do this. In many areas of the state, not all, but many, we already have more than enough nutrition and habitat for the given population. I concede that some areas probably lack both, but there is a much larger portion of the state that has both.

[PurpleFloyd]

page 25 grand total bucks harvested 2011 is 105,931. so if you agree on estimated 333,000 buck population and the population stays stable we kill them (bucks) off/turn over every 3 years. if you do that year after year(like we do) it's inevitable that you will have a young deer population and the majority of bucks being killed are yearlings.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/recreation/hunting/deer/2011_harvestreport.pdf

If you include the male fawns with the mature bucks then I would put the population higher than 1/3 of the total population. If you are including male fawns in the numbers then I would put the male deer population at closer to 450,000 since studies show there are more male fawns born than female fawns. However, I am interested in population data and if you have any good hard reports about the gender and age makeup of the total population of deer in the state I would love to read it.

[PurpleFloyd]

Purplefloyd, you must be a politician. I've read the article a couple times, what your saying about age structure is a stretch. It should not take a rocket scientist to understand that for a buck to get to be the apex or alpha buck, it needs to live survive its 1st year and half in the woods. I have never seen one reach maturity and become the alpha cut up in someones freezer.

I don't disagree with you but I would say if you accuse me of stretching the truth, if you are asserting that every 1.5 YO male deer is shot then I would say you are stretching much much farther.

And if it does survive it's first 1.5 years but then comes by you at 2.5 and you shoot it then it still doesn't reach maturity and to me that is where the solution lies. If you honestly want to have the biggest bucks breeding the does and if you really want the herd 'balanced" then look at how things go in nature when we are not involved and you will see the youngest and the sick are the first things taken out of the herd and then they start at the next smallest while the most fit are generally the last to be taken. If we use that model to get to a balanced herd then we should be harvesting the younger deer and leaving the older mature bucks and does to breed and pass down the genetics.

If your only beef is you want your neighbor to resist shooting a 1.5 year old buck so you can shoot it at 2.5 next year I can understand and respect what you want and why you want it, but then biology and herd health are not justifications for asking for the right to do it. It is then a personal choice issue and if that is what it is, be honest and present it that way.( not you specifically but APR proponents in general)

[tfran123]

22 lex - read that one also.

Let me define my experience in Southern MN:

One particular farm which has great potential has a group of 12 firearms hunters that come in every year to drive (they do this for two days on about 700 acres). For the last 5 years they've got all their deer and shooting a doe is beneath them. First couple years they would get some dandy bucks, now it's almost exclusively forks and spikes. And now they complain that there aren't any nice deer to shoot as they have fond memories of some of the big 8's and 10's they used to shoot.

What's wrong with this you say? It's happening all over folks and in many areas these groups could take a few does. Don't tell me there are plenty buck fawns, what good will that do when they get culled the following year?

[Big Dave2]

Wrong answer unless you want to keep us on bunnies, pheasants and ducks. Go out west my friend and you'll find many areas within States having minimum 4 or 5 pt rules for elk.

When it is said that other states manage to grow these large antlered animals that you seek without implementing APRs we are told that we should not compare Minnesota to other states?

BTW, whats wrong with bunnies, pheasants and ducks?

[Big Dave2]

Well I am guessing bigger pheasants arent really impressive to most.

But bigger grouse,,,,, now we are talking!!

They do get bigger, dont they??

That's the difference between you and me. ANY game animal taken is impressive to me, not just the big ones that I can brag about.

[22lex]

Yeah, that was a common sight in zone 3 for many years, with the exception that when they did the deer drives, (witnessed many) hordes of does would come out with a couple forkies trailing them (of course the mature bucks bail out before getting to the posters) and instead of taking the mature does for meat the small bucks were targeted.

No-one down here believes they are owed a trophy buck every year without a lot of effort, time in the woods, and alot of luck, but we do know the law of averages and that if X amount of 1.5 year old bucks are not shot, then Y amount of these will make it to age 2.5 by dumb luck thus making the hunt in zone 3 for mature der alot more equitable.

Easy decision, stay out of zone 3 if you don't like it. If you want meat there are plenty of does.

[tfran123]

Now other States are off limits? Good grief, go ahead and change the rules on the fly.

Tell me which MN big game animal I should compare deer to? Elk/Moose? Hardly a large enough population to make the the case.

You asked for an example and I gave you a perfect one. Fish, while not animals are very similar if you think about it (how they are managed).

[tfran123]

Yeah, that was a common sight in zone 3 for many years, with the exception that when they did the deer drives, (witnessed many) hordes of does would come out with a couple forkies trailing them (of course the mature bucks bail out before getting to the posters) and instead of taking the mature does for meat the small bucks were targeted.

No-one down here believes they are owed a trophy buck every year without a lot of effort, time in the woods, and alot of luck, but we do know the law of averages and that if X amount of 1.5 year old bucks are not shot, then Y amount of these will make it to age 2.5 by dumb luck thus making the hunt in zone 3 for mature der alot more equitable.

Easy decision, stay out of zone 3 if you don't like it. If you want meat there are plenty of does.

Exactly.