APR 2013?

[PurpleFloyd]

That is a failed logic. There are more deer in the state herd than licenses sold and we only take around 20% of the total herd including does and the bucks harvested are bucks of all ages, nit just one year class. There are always small ones left over to grow up for the next year.

[PurpleFloyd]

That is a failed logic. There are more deer in the state herd than licenses sold and we only take around 20% of the total herd including does and the bucks harvested are bucks of all ages, nit just one year class. There are always small ones left over to grow up for the next year.

[PurpleFloyd]

Purple Floyd, take my zone 221 for example. Pre-fawn population is usually in the 10-12 per sq mi range. There are 7.8 firearm hunters per sq mi. That doesn't include muzzy and archers. So maybe total it is around 10 hunters per sq mi. Each hunter can buy 5 tags, so there are potentially 50 tags per sq mi. That is probably at least 2-3 tags per deer per sq mi. The odds ain't good for a deer to make it much past 2.5 years old. I don't care what sex it is.

I would think maybe a good start is to limit the hunt to one tag per hunter rather than make every hunter in the state pass on a 6 pointer because the guys in your area take too many.

[tfran123]

Correct and if they get to 2.5 there've got a shot at maturing. It's really not that complicated but apparently it's hard for some to grasp.

[mntatonka]

Where did you get 1.8 from? Lcornice broke it down for us a few years back. I'm sure I'm remembering it not quite right, but I thought is was something like .6 deer per hunter in Intensive, .5 managed, .3 lottery = 200,00 dead deer with 500,000 hunters in the state. Please correct me if I'm wrong, just pulling those numbers from memory.

I was pulling it from memory as well, something Lou had mentioned a few years back. It might have been the number of deer taken on average by successful hunters, not number taken by all hunters. I know it was somewhere between 1.5 and 2.0 deer taken by successful hunters in the intensive areas.

[nonteepical]

APR and doe harvest have nothing to do with each other. Doe harvest is for population control and buck doe ratio. APR will work in any terrain in the world as long as a whitetail(or any other antlered game)calls it home. APR's only function is to let the majority of yearlings reach their second birthday and has nothing to do with does.

QDMA’s Position on Mandatory Antler Restrictions

QDMA’s Position on Mandatory Antler Restrictions

Some hunters love them, others hate them, but you can rest assured all have an opinion of them – we’re talking about mandatory antler restrictions.

Antler restrictions do not equal “Quality Deer Management.” Rather, antler restrictions are a strategy to protect a specific age class (generally 1½-year-old bucks) or classes of bucks, and protecting young bucks is only one of several important features of Quality Deer Management. Many antler restrictions have been employed including point, spread, and beam-length requirements as well as Boone & Crockett score. All restrictions have advantages and disadvantages.

In general, QDMA prefers the voluntary passing of yearling bucks to mandatory antler regulations. However, we recognize that antler restrictions may be justified in some situations to achieve specific deer management objectives. Regarding our position on specific antler restriction proposals, QDMA examines each on a case-by-case basis and applies a three-part test.

First, is the restriction biologically sound? This means the proposed restriction will protect the majority of yearling bucks while allowing the majority of bucks 2½ years old and older to be eligible for harvest. This is always the goal of state-mandated restrictions, though voluntary antler restrictions on private lands may seek to protect some older age classes as well. In either case, the antler restriction criteria must be based on data collected from the affected deer population to ensure the right bucks are protected.

Second, is it supported by the majority of affected hunters and landowners? Agencies considering an antler restriction should conduct surveys to determine support levels before enacting the restriction.

Finally, will it be objectively monitored to determine success or failure? Without monitoring, there is no way to know if the restriction should be altered to improve success or possibly removed altogether if it doesn’t work or is no longer needed.

Many restrictions fail one or more of these criteria. The QDMA has supported some antler restrictions, opposed others, and taken a neutral stance on still others. In the long term, QDMA is optimistic that enough hunters will voluntarily pass young bucks that antler restrictions will become unnecessary and even cumbersome to more sophisticated management.

Antler Restrictions Around North America

How common are mandatory antler restrictions? To find out, we surveyed all state and provincial wildlife agencies that manage white-tailed deer in 2011 and learned that 22 states and zero Canadian provinces implemented antler restrictions. Click on the image in the Gallery below to see the full-size map of the states. To see more details about the types of restrictions in each state, see page 13 of the 2012 Whitetail Report. The restrictions were statewide for at least one buck in the bag limit for eight of these states, and the type varied among number of antler points, antler spread, length of main beam, or a combination of these. Point restrictions were the most commonly used technique (15 of 22 states), followed by combination restrictions using antler spread and main beam length or antler spread and antler points (four states), and antler spread restrictions (three states).

Overall, these findings were very similar to what states used in 2008, when we previously surveyed agencies on this topic. New Hampshire was the only state with antler restrictions in 2008 that did not use them in 2011. The New Hampshire Fish and Game Department employed an antler point restriction in one of 18 wildlife management units from 2007 to 2009 and discontinued its use in 2010. Michigan was the only state to discontinue statewide restrictions from 2008 to 2011. Michigan still employs antler point restrictions, they are just not used statewide. California is the only new state to list antler point restrictions in 2011.

Regarding type, the number of states using point, spread and combination restrictions in 2011 were identical to 2008.

Regionally, antler restrictions were most common in the Southeast (eight of 11 states), followed by the Northeast (seven of 13 states), Midwest (five of 13 states), and Canada (zero of eight provinces). It’s important to note that most Western states did not provide the requested information so they were omitted from this analysis. Antler restrictions have a longer history in the Southeast than other regions. This partly explains their increased use in this region and the type of restrictions employed. Combination restrictions are more intensive and provide managers more flexibility to meet management objectives but are a little more challenging for hunters first exposed to them. All four states using combination restrictions were in the Southeast.

Regardless of strategy used to protect yearling bucks, QDMA recommends that state and provincial wildlife agencies conduct extensive education and outreach programs to inform hunters about the benefits of protecting yearling bucks and to garner their support for sound deer management programs. The key to implementing an effective strategy is to devise it from local data and then educate local sportsmen and women on the benefits.

[B. Amish]

QDMA’s Position on Mandatory Antler Restrictions

...

Antler restrictions do not equal “Quality Deer Management.”

LOL!

[PurpleFloyd]

QDMA’s Position on Mandatory Antler Restrictions

...

Antler restrictions do not equal “Quality Deer Management.”

[MUSKY18]

Here's an interesting question I thought of and was wondering how it would sit with people. What would you have to say if the DNR said as long as you hunt your own private land, you can shoot whatever you want, however, if you are hunting state/public land you have to abide by whatever special regulations, i.e. APR, no antlerless season, no bucks, etc. that the DNR deems necessary? After all, you would be hunting land owned and controlled by the state, right? Would there still be an outrage against said special regulations?

[Getanet]

Yes, probably even more. A person owns the land, they don't own the deer on it.

[nonteepical]

[quote=B. Amish

LOL!

[tfran123]

It'll happen in time.

[B. Amish]

We'll see how hard you will be laughing when something you can't seem to "understand" expands accross the state!

see, that's where you're confused. i understand it more than almost everyone that is advocating for it. and that's why i'm so confident that it's all make believe and the ones that continually argue for it give up because they finally realize they really have nothing of substance to back their arguments except for a dnr survey of hunter opinion which had loaded questions.

when you quote an article from the glorified QDMA (which is nothing more than a front for the food plot industry) that says apr's are not quality deer management, and you expect that to somehow further your argument for apr's. well, then i think you lose the arguement...

[Jameson]

...

The whole idea of APR/QDM is to INCREASE the doe harvest and restrict the buck harvest....

This is incorrect. QDM is the proper amount of doe harvest and the proper amount of buck harvest. This might mean not shooting any does or bucks. It means shooting the necessary number of does to get the deer in line with the habitat. Often QDM programs will enhance the habitat to increase the carrying capacity in order to have more does and bucks to shoot.

APR's were originally designed to increase doe harvest and restrict buck harvest. APR's are one aspect of one form of QDM. APR's are not a necessary aspect of a QDM program. In fact, scientifically speaking, a QDM program that utilized a buck lottery as opposed to APR's to restrict buck harvest, is a better program (again scientifically speaking, not trophy hunter speak.)

I can't think of one QDMA member with private land that doesn't utilize a buck lottery a.k.a. they only let so many hunters on their property. However, many QDMA members do not enforce APR's on their property.

[SmellEsox]

Actually Purple, it would be the perfect time to implement APR. The DNR thinks the population is high, so even with APR, everyone should get their venny regardless. You'd put more pressure on antlerless deer, which the DNR wants to keep populations in check. In a year or two everything would be back to normal, just guys would be shooting 2.5 year old bucks instead of 1.5. No one would be out right? With your suggestion, the population would grow out of control because not enough antlerless deer would be shot. Farmers would be very angry, very angry indeed!

[Jameson]

...Actually it is an antlerless permit and many buck fawns get taken before they even get a button on their heads. Think about that one for a second.

[Bear55]

We'll see how hard you will be laughing when something you can't seem to "understand" expands accross the state!

I can't tell if you are trolling or this is serious? How exactly do you propose state wide APR when about half the state is setup as a doe lottery. Many of those areas holding only 3-10 adult deer per square mile. I haven't shot a spike, fork, or young 7-8-9-10 pointers in a decade but their needs to be some common sense. There is no one size fits all management, especially when you look at the deer numbers and habitat diversity in the 4 corners of the state.

[flipper]

I would say he is trolling, he must want the thread moved to Sillytown.

[Bear55]

I would say he is trolling, he must want the thread moved to Sillytown.

You never know in a deer hunting thread, some people really want state wide apr. They often hunt in target rich environments outside or on the fringe of the wolf range.

[PurpleFloyd]

We'll see how hard you will be laughing when something you can't seem to "understand" expands accross the state!

[PurpleFloyd]

...Actually it is an antlerless permit and many buck fawns get taken before they even get a button on their heads. Think about that one for a second.

[PurpleFloyd]

...

The whole idea of APR/QDM is to INCREASE the doe harvest and restrict the buck harvest....

[mntatonka]

QDM/APR has just become code for a certain group of hunters that use pseudo Science to try to form whatever opinion they need to arrive at to force their ideology on someone else.

You mean the DNR?

[nonteepical]

[quote name='B. Amish

see' date=' that's where you're confused. i understand it more than almost everyone that is advocating for it. and that's why i'm so confident that it's all make believe and the ones that continually argue for it give up because they finally realize they really have nothing of substance to back their arguments except for a dnr survey of hunter opinion which had loaded questions.

when you quote an article from the glorified QDMA (which is nothing more than a front for the food plot industry) that says apr's are not quality deer management, and you expect that to somehow further your argument for apr's. well, then i think you lose the arguement... [/quote']

If this is what you believe then you don't understaand QDMA or QDM one bit.

[SmellEsox]

B. Amish, read the whole thing, not just one sentence. It basically says antler restrictions alone don't equate to QDM, but it is an important part of it.

"Antler restrictions do not equal “Quality Deer Management.” Rather, antler restrictions are a strategy to protect a specific age class (generally 1½-year-old bucks) or classes of bucks, and protecting young bucks is only one of several important features of Quality Deer Management."

And while I'm sure MNDNR wants nothing to do with QDMA, it must think that APR will make the population of a higher quality than the current management scheme (which allows for very little quality).

[B. Amish]

Quote:

Finally, will it be objectively monitored to determine success or failure? Without monitoring, there is no way to know if the restriction should be altered to improve success or possibly removed altogether if it doesn’t work or is no longer needed.

Many restrictions fail one or more of these criteria. The QDMA has supported some antler restrictions, opposed others, and taken a neutral stance on still others. In the long term, QDMA is optimistic that enough hunters will voluntarily pass young bucks that antler restrictions will become unnecessary and even cumbersome to more sophisticated management.

thanks, i re-read the whole thing and found these nuggets.

are the apr's in mn being objectively monitored? other than hunter opinion, they aren't monitoring anything are they?

so, in truth, qdma isn't supportive of mandatory apr's.

[tfran123]

Sorry it's hard for you.

[B. Amish]

ditto.

[nonteepical]

[quote name='Bear55

I can't tell if you are trolling or this is serious? How exactly do you propose state wide APR when about half the state is setup as a doe lottery. Many of those areas holding only 3-10 adult deer per square mile. I haven't shot a spike' date=' fork, or young 7-8-9-10 pointers in a decade but their needs to be some common sense. There is no one size fits all management, especially when you look at the deer numbers and habitat diversity in the 4 corners of the state.[/quote']

Absolutly serious.

Whats doe lottery have to do with it, APR targets yearling bucks not does, there's very few yearling does with antlers on their head(at least once a year someone in the country seems to shoot a doe with antlers i personally never seen one).

Low deer densities still takes 2-4 years to build the herd back up, you just as well build the herd for a balanced age structure and population during that time, it's low deer numbers anyway, and your trying to build the population so why should it be a free for all on bucks because theres "no deer"?

As far as the wolf zone I've hunted zone 1 for over 30years. Wolves target the weakest and easiest deer to kill, thats the young and the old, alot more yearling bucks are being eaten by wolves than a prime healthy 5.5 year old buck that can defend himself better than a yearling. I would like to see a 3 point side rule in zone 1. your not going to stop wolves from preying on young deer but we can help the bucks in that region by not having hunters and wolves targeting yearling bucks., IMO it would improve deer huntng in northern minnesota, i've sat dark to dark a week straight in zone 1 many years without seeing a buck and going home with tag soup. I'd rather eat my tag and see a buck, even if i can't shoot it, than see no bucks at all.

[Bear55]

Absolutly serious.

Whats doe lottery have to do with it, APR targets yearling bucks not does, there's very few yearling does with antlers on their head(at least once a year someone in the country seems to shoot a doe with antlers i personally never seen one).

So you take a lottery zone with a limited doe harvest and limit the buck harvest in an area with very few deer per square mile, why not just close the season for a couple of years or is that not enough? You have to realize that hunting isn't just about YOU and your goals. Lots of people are just out there to have a good time and if you limit what they can shoot to extremely low numbers they might just stop hunting. Then again that also might be what you want.