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

[muskE]

Farmers want numbers reduced to save their crops but APR's are letting numerous deer survive that otherwise would have been table fodder and are hurting the farmers' livelihood. Why not compromise and have APR's in areas of lesser agricultural significance (typically northen zones) so there are areas managed for larger deer to saitsfy the trophy hunters and the economic areas would be liberalized for shotgun predation?

While it may not be the best idea the core intention was to strike a compromise as most of the discussions to this point have been either for or against with little mention of potnetial solutions.

[muskiemanAD]

Muske, Don't have exact numbers but I believe that the overall harvest during APR has been about the same as pre APR years there are just more does shot vs 1.5 yr old bucks. So those areas should be intensive harvest if they are not already to take some more does out.

[lakevet]

First, this post was more about hunter recruitment and retention. 25% of us are over 65 years old and will be dropping out of the sport in the not so distant future. So take those kids hunting!

Now back to the APR topic which is driving this thread.

Here's another: " wether or not to continue APR's will not be science based decision, it will be based on politics".

MDHA dosen't believe in science or biological data unless it cita their agenda. So they would rather have politicians decide how our deer herd should be managed. What a great organization.

Here is another quote from a different article in the same Blufflands Whitetail newsletter:

"At this point in time, we do not have good data on the results of the first two years of APRs. Without good data, we only have hunters’ opinions to measure the effects of APRs in zone 3."

Remember this is from a pro APR group.

We all prefer to base decisions on our own opinions.

Solid facts are hard to come by.

One fact is neighboring Iowa and Wisconsin never have had APR's and always allowed hunters to cross tag bucks, as did Minnesota back in the day it dominated the "Books".

Second fact is most hunters forget that the main DNR justification of the apr/cross tag ban regulations was to modestly reduce the deer herd without having to go to earn a buck regulations. This is clearly stated on p.76 of the 2010 Regulations Handbook where apr's and cross tagging ban are described as follows:

"nontraditional regulations that are designed to primarily lower deer densities"

That would be a lower deer density that is accurately measurable in a way people agree on with the DNR. I think

lakevet

[muskiemanAD]

Couple other fact. WI and IA don't allow their orange army's to hunt the deer during the peak of the rut. If the buck harvest is at pre APR harvest or even better I would say that it is working quite well....

[Laska]

Where does it say seniors can take any deer?

Page 77

Antler Point Restriction

• A buck must have at least one 4-point antler in order to be legally harvested. Bucks with less than one 4-point antler are not legal to harvest. Refer to page 83 for examples of a legal buck.

• The regulation is in effect during the archery, 3A, 3B, and muzzleloader seasons.

• Adult hunters cannot tag a buck for a youth hunter.

• Youth hunters aged 10-17 are exempted from this regulation.

If seniors could take bucks under 4pts wouldnt they have exempted it like for the hunters? If someone finds it that seniors are exempted and tells me what page in the regs its on that would be great news for my grandfather, he's the one that taught me to hunt and Id hate to see his passion ended by frustration with restrictions. He dont have many years left and I would love to see him get a deer-any deer.

Whats happened to farmers crops is ridiculous down where I hunt, the numbers are way up there for small bucks. They have increased numbers of them and drastically reduced our doe population here the last 3 years... Its sad really I wish they could come up with a better solution and get the input from farmers on deer numbers and damage. Ive missed 12 of the archery season thru today. 4 of the days I checked cams, Im kinda religous about scouting,cams and hunting, personally I have seen so many ugly 3 pointed deer Im starting not to want to go antelope hunting. I believe in areas of 346 where I also have 2 different properties I can hunt, the deer numbers were on the decline and I can see where they added the tag restriction from 5 to 2. But here in 345 its nuts and the ratio is insanely messed up. Doesnt help we have CRP fields surrounding the 400 acres I can hunt and its not hunted due to a bonehead say no to everyone landowner. Whats happening there is twice as many deer are living over there crossing over in the middle of the night eating then going back before sunrise... My family type farmers have been counting 20 deer every other night in the bean field below the farmhouse.... Crazy thing is these deer know hunting season because they come out 1hr 1/2 after dark and leave 1hr 1/2 before sunrise- no chance to whack any.... Its been like that for years...But we had it managed because we used to be intensive- and with no apr's and a great doe to buck ratio, its really taken a landslide the past several years.

[muskiemanAD]

Laska, I will see if i can find it. I believe that we had seen or heard it and one time. However don't take me for my word just hearsay and I would assume it would be in regulations, so hopefully someone can chime in that knows for sure....

The farmers complaining is something that I chuckle at. We have a handful of farmers in our immediate area, 2 that but up to our property and will not let anyone hunt their property due to the 2 or 3 relatives that hunt the 400 and then complain that there are to many deer.... Not saying this is every case but there are plenty of farmers with big chunks of land that would rather complain then dare let someone they have been neighbors with for 30 years hunt a hillside and take a few does.....

[Laska]

Ha, that last paragraph sounds familiar, see the crp land Im talking about, my guys used to drive it, up until a cpl years ago when the old man died on the crp property-kids took it over and there went 300 acres. Now this year their kids started hunting it, with no such luck from what Ive seen, 3 people total all season and they cant hit the broad side of a barn.... Their lies another population problem. On some 400 acres I have access to Im dont hunting this Friday. 3b season, the orange army(farmers family) comes in and drives out everything... Not much left over after that, plus completely spooks the deer to the crp. Normally its not an issue because I tag out in September but NOT this year.... One more week to bag something or it'll get bagged for me... Just the way it goes... Its fun tho, pretty much get the run of the place til 3b so Im still a very happy camper! To bad we cant get the deer in closer tho...

[Archerysniper]

Laska I hear what your saying but my is the deer will move towards the area with less traffic. Find a good spot and sit tight.

[lakevet]

Couple other fact. WI and IA don't allow their orange army's to hunt the deer during the peak of the rut. If the buck harvest is at pre APR harvest or even better I would say that it is working quite well....

Just pulled out my great uncles Minnesota deer license from 1972. 40 years ago you had to choose one of the following:

Three consecutive days between Nov 1 and Nov 15 (such as Nov 1-3 or Nov 8-10)

or

Five consecutive days between Nov 16 and Nov 30. (such as Nov 20-24)

The days chosen were punched out on the license.

Interesting way to go.

lakevet

[96trigger]

Laska, I'm trying to understand your situation, but in one post, you say all the deer are in a crp sanctuary that you can't hunt and then in the next you say that the crp land has 3 hunters on it that can't hit the broad side of a barn. One post says you only see small bucks, then the next says their are 20 deer in the bean field at night. I think sniper is right, if they are pressuring the deer, they will spread out, 400 acres is a lot of acreage to ONLY hold small bucks. I don't want to start an argument, just trying to figure out what the deal is.

I was talking to members of my hunting group last night. We saw plenty of deer. My dad is 65, never pulled the trigger, but saw plenty of deer. We all agreed that we like the direction semn is going. We shot 5 nice bucks this year and scrub 8 pointer. We saw deer, not an over abundance by any means, and not enough for me to say we have an over population. In an 80 acre corn field, we would maybe see 5 to 6 deer a night feeding, generally it was a couple family units of a doe and her fawns with the occasional buck mixed in. I sat all day Friday and saw 4 deer. It is not uncommon around here for the outside row or two of corn to be hit pretty hard by the deer, but for 10-20% to be lost by deer the outer 5-10 rows would need to picked clean, that just isn't happening on any of the farms I hunt.

[Wanderer]

In 1972 I think they were happy to have any days to hunt. I believe the season was closed completely in 1971. Hardly any deer around during those times.

We complain a lot any time the regs change away from our favor but in the big picture we still get to hunt and our MN herd is pretty healthy. Couple that with more active management from landowners, hunters, and the DNR I think we're doing a pretty good job these days overall considerin all the competing interests.

A couple bumps here and there but we're improving on the whole management front year after year IMO. There's always things to learn along the way and changes to make.

I guess I roll with changes in the regs easier than most though. I've hunted most parts of this state and a few others with the idea to hit a couple more in the future. Regs and condition of the herd vary greatly from region to region and year to year. If you choose to hunt a place, you just play by the rules. If I were stuck to hunting just one place all the time I'd probably want more consistency too but the reality is deer populations aren't a shelf product.

[archerystud]

Not really relating this to APR's.....

But deer hunting for youth is not nearly as easy as it used to be. I played football and hockey growing up. I still had time available to bow and gun hunt the weekends when I was a kid and did so regularly.

My son only plays hockey. The hockey season starts so early for him that he doesn't have a chance to bow hunt. His weekends are booked. I've taken him out of hockey the last two weekends to gun hunt (as did a couple of other parents). I know kids who play football and they have games almost every weekend.

My point is that if kids now a days are into any sort of activity they don't have any TIME to hunt.

On APR's ... one of my properties borders zone 3 and we have seen an improvement in the age class of our bucks there. The other property in the middle of zone 2 is not showing any improvement.

[MJ1657]

Great post Wanderer

[mntatonka]

Muske, Don't have exact numbers but I believe that the overall harvest during APR has been about the same as pre APR years there are just more does shot vs 1.5 yr old bucks. So those areas should be intensive harvest if they are not already to take some more does out.

here's the numbers for you:

2008 - 9539 antlerless

2009 - 9547 antlerless

2010 - 9528 antlerless

2011 - 8349 antlerless

Where do you see an increase in doe harvest during APR's? I see one heck of a decrease during the 2nd year of APR's, and I expect an even more drastic decrease during the 3rd and final year of APR's. Given the fact that APR's were pushed as an experiment to increase doe harvest, I see that as a total failure of an experiment.

[nonteepical]

The deer don't magically die you have to shoot them. Alot of factors for the decrease, concecutive years of record doe harvests, at some point It's going to have an affect on harvest numbers, hurricane winds could have an affect ect.

[96trigger]

APR's were introduced to balance age structure. An increase in doe harvest was supposed to be a side effect. We have also seen a decrease in deer numbers in SOME areas, which could also be a factor. There are a lot factors that could play a role in doe harvest, not just APR. Will have to wait and see how this year plays out. There will always be ups and downs to the doe harvest, whether or not they are statistically significant is for the DNR to decide.

[muskiemanAD]

mntatonka, not sure if you were out last year opening weekend but it was gale force winds pretty much all weekend when most hunters are hunting. People hunt less and deer move less hence the dramatic drop in harvest numbers.

I would be hard pressed to find people that actually hunt zone 3 that are not in favor of APR. If you weren't when it started 3 years ago you probably are now. I hunt with a big group that hunts Whitewater and half didn't like the rules 3 years ago and now are completely convinced....

[mntatonka]

mntatonka, not sure if you were out last year opening weekend but it was gale force winds pretty much all weekend when most hunters are hunting. People hunt less and deer move less hence the dramatic drop in harvest numbers.

I would be hard pressed to find people that actually hunt zone 3 that are not in favor of APR. If you weren't when it started 3 years ago you probably are now. I hunt with a big group that hunts Whitewater and half didn't like the rules 3 years ago and now are completely convinced....

We've got a party of 10-15 hunters in 346 who have never been in favor of them. Our neighbors, who are mostly buck hunters, aren't in favor of them because they don't want to be told they can't shoot the 6-pointers that run around in our area and never grow brow tines. The only people I've talked to that are in favor of regulations like this are the ones who are concerned about someone shooting "their buck".

[muskiemanAD]

Wow, no one around us owns bucks so we don't have to worry about people shooting "their" buck! We enjoy shooting a few does every year and giving a small buck a pass as in our area their are plenty of shooter 8's and does to fill the freeze!

[lakevet]

APR's were introduced to balance age structure. An increase in doe harvest was supposed to be a side effect. We have also seen a decrease in deer numbers in SOME areas, which could also be a factor. There are a lot factors that could play a role in doe harvest, not just APR. Will have to wait and see how this year plays out. There will always be ups and downs to the doe harvest, whether or not they are statistically significant is for the DNR to decide.

from page 76 of the 2010 Mn hunting Regulations Handbook describing the APR and buck cross tagging ban regulations:

"non- traditional regulations that are designed to primarily lower deer densities but also, perhaps increase the proportion of mature bucks in the population. "

Primary reason for APR's and ban on buck cross tagging ( i.e. the reason they were justified by the DNR whose first goal is deer population control) is to lower deer density not balance age structure or bigger bucks. That is secondary. If population is not controlled modestly by APR's and ban on buck cross tagging making meat hunters pass on bucks and shoot more does, then "earn a buck" or other less popular means of getting deer populations down to "goal" may be implemented instead.

Of course that may have been stated in print, but may just be "forgotten" in the review of keeping the regs, just as most hunters never knew or forgot why APR's and buck cross tagging were initially justified.

If the regs don't achieve the increased doe harvest, then they have failed and some other reg structure will need to be considered. Remember, 40% of us refuse to shoot does. Society and the DNR depends on us to help manage the deer population. It is not all about us.

lakevet

[Laska]

trigger- Sorry I didnt clarify, the 20 deer in the field, atleast 15 of them have been counted crossing the road to the farm land from the crp fields where theres only 3 hunters, I was out on opener of 3a and they shot 8 times before 10am, and all 3 were still hunting on thursday when I went out- you can see them all from the road... So either they missed or its not good because 345 is one tag limit.... I know that the buck I call "Crabby" a 4 1/2yo lives on the CRP land and is one that crosses over after dark to feed... Hope this helps... As for does, again I see very few...even on cams, like I said I we got a high buckling spawn this year- must have.... doesnt help anything

[countyline]

This APR is a stunt by the MN DNR to increase non resident tag purchases and outside exposure from the white tail world. Nice and close to Iowa, APR's in place. Guides will soon be leasing all the land. Think about it how many hunting shows are filmed in MN on contentious basis? Even Lee and Tiffany had to leave to do it. Some one at the MN DNR spends to much time on channel 605.

[nonteepical]

sounds like chumley

[hockeybc69]

Now that there is funny nonteep... I dont care who ya are.

DNR secret agenda... now I have heard it all.... LOLLL

I suppose the next thing we will hear is that Lou Cornicelli is taking bribes from out of staters to push this APR thing too.

[lakevet]

Now that there is funny nonteep... I dont care who ya are.

DNR secret agenda... now I have heard it all.... LOLLL

I suppose the next thing we will hear is that Lou Cornicelli is taking bribes from out of staters to push this APR thing too.

Not likely, but there is substantial economic pressure to change the seasons/regs. Some quotes from "THE ECONOMICS OF MINNESOTA’S DEER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM" on the Blufflands Whitetail website:

"THAT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGES THIS RESOURCE, EVERY YEAR THE STATE OF MINNESOTA LOSES MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AND THE BUSINESSES OF THIS STATE ARE LOSING MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MORE."

and

"A good way to see how well a state is doing in managing it's resources is to look at the ratio of resident to non-resident hunters in a state and compare that number to other states. In other words, to see how many hunters are willing to travel to Minnesota from other states to hunt, and compare that to the number of hunters who are willing to travel to other states to hunt. In that comparison, Minnesota is performing very badly!"

"The next question then is how well is Minnesota doing in its resident/non-resident sales ratio in comparison to our four neighboring states. They are North and South Dakota, Iowa and Wisconsin. The answer to that question again, is very badly."

"Last year Minnesota issued about 16,000 non- resident deer licenses and in doing so brought a little over $2 million dollars into the state treasury. If we were able to charge as much for a license as Iowa does, Minnesota would have made over $9 million."

and

"But for a state with budget deficits like we currently have, it is a substantial amount of money to say the least! When one considers our past history, the genetics and the size of our deer herd, the quality and amount of habitat in this state, and the amount of lands that are available for anyone to hunt on without even asking permission, the losses that this state suffers on account of its deer management practices are simply staggering."

There is no doubt business interests and the potential for profit are in play in the situation, as well as potential for significantly increased revenue via license sales by the DNR.

lakevet

[Wanderer]

Again I say: I'm in favor of statewide APR's if only to avoid overcrowding and overpricing of hunting opportunities in one part of our state.

And I have to ask: Are these "lost" revenues actually measured by declining revenues or are they conveniently labled as "lost" vs being more acurately estimated as "potential" or "unrealized" to benefit one side of the debate?

I believe we are in a deficit ratio of res to non-res hunters in MN but I'll also argue that because we have MN residents that hunt other states, that doesn't mean they're hunting other states INSTEAD of hunting MN. We're just doing it in ADDITION to hunting MN.

I would agree money has something (not everything) to do with it. It always does...

[LightningBG]

Quote:

"Last year Minnesota issued about 16,000 non- resident deer licenses and in doing so brought a little over $2 million dollars into the state treasury. If we were able to charge as much for a license as Iowa does, Minnesota would have made over $9 million."

This has to be one of the dumbest rationals ever published.

Hey everyone, if we charge 4.5 times as much. We'll bring in 4.5 times as much money.

Maybe someone should fill Chevy in on this theory. They could sell a Silvarado for $150K and make a ton more money!.... or make no money.

I'll be in WI tomorrow for gun opener. Paid my $160+ and all. But, if they even doubled the price, let alone 4.5X, I wouldn't be there at all.

Plain and simple, when you raise the price, numbers go down. Doesn't matter how good the hunting gets (within realistic realms). Some people just cant afford it.

[TRZ II]

APR would be a terrible idea in the NE. Many deer don't even get 8pts till 3.5 yrs or older! All areas of the state are very different and need to be managed accordingly. My party shot a 2.5 or 3.5 yr. old 5 point (basically a fork) this year that weighed 175lbs.! Would you want him running around breeding his genes till he dies of old age????

[deerminator]

If you're going to do APRs statewide, you pretty much need to customize them to each permit area like you do bag limits. From every deer hunting magazine I've read in the past, most "experts" agree that any state arrives at its seasons, bag limits and any other specific rules based much more so on societal preference than science to the extent you are not pushing a species to extinction.

So Wisconsin likes their gun season next week and we like our's earlier. That's why the respective DNRs have set their seasons that way. The DNR says hunters across the state told them they want to see more deer so they made most areas Lottery or Hunter's Choice. People in one part of the state here say they wanted APRs and so the DNR made it so.

So, wouldn't it be great if the DNR asked you what you'd prefer directly when you purchase your license? Ask everyone versus just listening to organizations or those that know of and/or can show up at an input meeting? I'd like it. Ask the hunters in each zone when they buy a license when they'd like to have gun season every 2-3 years and then stick with it for that timeframe. Then ask each year, by permit area, do you want APRs, and how many deer do you want to shoot, and then within reason, respond with bag limits/APR rules that corresponded.

I'm kind of a "permit areas' rights" (ala state's rights) guy here in this respect, I guess. No statewide APRs. Leave it to the people, literally, to decide in each permit area.

[Getanet]

Good grief, have you seen how well we come to an agreement here on how our herd should be managed? Can you imagine trying to consider 500,000 people's opinion who all think we're experts?

I think you just opened up an Pandora's Box, full of headaches!