A win for APR!!

[Mayfly]

APR's will continue in Zone 3.

Next battle... statewide and/or select areas.

 

[The General]

 Please keep your antler porn down there.   

[FireRanger]

Please keep your antler porn down there.   

X2

[mathews4ever]

Please keep your antler porn down there.   

X2

I'm with these guys.

[wildlifeminnesota]

Not up here, If you want bigger antler  deer then stop shooting the bigger one 

[Cody Gruchow]

agreed with everyone else, you guys can have it, and ill continue to do it on my own free will and not force my views on everyone else 

[Mayfly]

Its coming guys and you are in the minority 

I suggest educating yourself thoroughly on the topic and then you will see its not about trophy hunting and to think that is just plain ignorance. That's a closed minded statement.

[Cody Gruchow]

The obvious prescription of choice for the current deer and elk management "Sickness" is antler point regulations. But it is not quite so obvious what the "sickness" is. Antler point regulations have been hailed as the cure for increasing numbers of bucks and bulls for breeding, increasing numbers of branch-antlered bucks and bulls for a hunt of higher "trophy value", and/or decreasing the density of hunters to increase the "quality" of the hunt. With such diversity of "diseases" it would be surprising if the prescription cured all without undesirable side effects.

The increasing popularity of antler point regulation among organized segments of hunting public and among some wildlife professionals suggests to us that it is time to call for a second diagnostic opinion.

The Good

Antler point regulations are a popular management initiative. There seems to be a significant and vocal segment of the hunting public who want more trophy class bucks and less hunter crowding. The evidence from Colorado’s experience suggests that if antler point regulations are in effect, deer and elk hunter densities are reduced.

The Bad

In order to work, antler point regulations assume the hunting mortality is totally addictive. That is, a reduction in hunting mortality does not result in an increase in natural mortality. Although the data base for any of these "iffy" assumptions is meager, that data is worth reviewing to see if antler point regulations are a viable management strategy to increase males and /or to increase recruitment

The Ugly

No one knows the real costs associated with antler point regulations because there are no reliable quantified estimates of those costs. But those costs are likely to be expressed as increased unretrieved harvests, either as true wounding losses or as illegal kill; increased law enforcement costs; decreased interest in and support for hunting as regulations become more complex and hunter success goes down; (and resurging belief in the efficacy of conservative hunting prescriptions as a general cure for all population dynamics ills.)

Evidence suggests that one cost that goes up when antler point regulations are imposed is the cost of unretrieved harvests.

[Cody Gruchow]

i stronly beleive in letting younger deer walk, BUT that isnt everyones beleif..its all about money and getting deer numbers down.. SOOOO just because it works in a certain area dont mean it will work in a different part of the state...and i beleive that the sport would suffer, because some people would flat out stop deer hunting.. not everyone is on great hunting ground or big hunting acres..so say a guy that only has access to 10 acres see's ONE deer and its not a legal buck he has to let it walk...sooner or later that person would just quit all together..cost to much to deer hunt to not be allowed to harvest a deer because of someone elses desires to harvest a "trophy" on the opposite side of the state....

[Cody Gruchow]

We were seeing a decrease in antler quality because the poor-quality yearling bucks were doing most of the breeding. By increasing the overall antler quality, we expect to see a long-term increase in antler size as well as a shorter breeding season,” he explains. “When we had the four-point rule in place, the breeding season was lasting as long as 50 days and we saw some fawns born as late as October. That’s not a sign of a healthy deer herd.”

The bottom line is that antler restrictions can work to a degree. Younger bucks are surviving at higher rates, putting more 2-1/2-year-old deer in the woods. But what happens after they reach that age can only be determined by those who make the ultimate decision to shoot or to wait.

[mathews4ever]

Those are some great points Cody. Too bad that they have fallen on deaf ears.

The other side(Pro APR) is under the belief that APRs will lead to many more and younger hunters, giant 450lb bucks with 300" racks, a deer herd that's health can only be compared to Jack LaLanne and the crowning jewel, giant super healthy 300lb she hulk does that will have 5-13 fawns every spring.  These points may have been exaggerated for effect, but are still very true.

[Cody Gruchow]

like i said im not against it, but im not FOR forcing it on everyone

[DDSBYDAY]

Its coming guys and you are in the minority 

I suggest educating yourself thoroughly on the topic and then you will see its not about trophy hunting and to think that is just plain ignorance. That's a closed minded statement.

    No, I think having a real poll of real hunters and sportsmen and women puts the Pro APR folks in the minority.  This one won't be written up in the literature.  This is a true unbiased poll. 

      http://mnoutdoorsman.com/forums/index.php?topic=27711.0

[beeker]

won't happen in the rest of the state. once enough hunters are affected by this virus they'll remind the state who they work for.

[The General]

I think Cody hit the nail on the head.........especially the part about having land to hunt.  I'd like to know from those who are in favor of this what type of land they hunt and how many acres they have permission to hunt.  I'd also be willing to bet a majority of the people living outside this area who want APR is because they have some great hunting property and practice APR but their neighbor doesn't and their tired of the neighbor shooting their deer.

The biggest reason I'm against it because in West Central MN we shoot at running deer that come from making drives with a slug.  Not much time to judge....... now does it have 7 points or 8points

[glenn57]

this hurts a bit............but I agree with what the generals been posting here.

[wildlifeminnesota]

Its coming guys and you are in the minority  

I suggest educating yourself thoroughly on the topic and then you will see its not about trophy hunting and to think that is just plain ignorance. That's a closed minded statement.

I would have to disagree, It is about trophy hunting   Tim let me ask you this would you let a trophy Buck walk? to better your deer in your hunting land,  

[bweyer]

I'm for it. I hunt public land in a few different areas. I'm not worried about anybody shooting "my deer". I won't shoot at running deer, and won't teach my son to. I try my best to make a clean kill. We're all different, with different opinions. I'll worry when I'm asked to vote.

[Boar]

No thanks, Don't make me or my children miss out on an opportunity to take a deer. Last year my oldest daughter to her first deer, a spike buck 325 yard shot. Long for a first timer? yes, but we knew where the gun was hitting. dropped in its traks. The raw emotion that was exuding from her was priceless an I will never forget it. She couldn't even zip up here coat when we came outa the blind. It was awesome to experience that with her. It was the only deer we seen that day, an the only day she had to hunt.

[Jerkbiat]

I am in the no thanks catagory too. There is no need to mandate it statewide. Educate not legislate. With all the TV horn porn shows out there the oyunger generations will change on ther own. Up here in northern MN winters can put a big dent in a deer population and when I only see 1 deer a year I would like to put some veny in my freezer.

[Boar]

Hey JB what brings you over here from evil Nazi darkside forum. Welcom aboard bud!

[Jerkbiat]

Well I had to follow this infamous Boar of course.

[FireRanger]

I know for a fact that I will stop deer hunting all together if they introduce that crap through out the state. I hunt on almost 500 acres of private land and I have the ability to let what I see walk but I'm not in it for the same reasons the APR guys are. I know the deer herd in the area is healthy. They are breeding well, dealing with the seasons well and working through the predation and forced movement of the wolf population. I see a deer I think I would like on my table (as long as I have the tag), I shoot it. And as soon as the government tells me I can't make that simple decision on my own......I'm out. I can always keep my money in my pocket, pursue my passion of waterfowl hunting for a few more weeks or spend the money on half a of a nice young tasty calf.....before the government tells me I can't eat cows that are of a certain age.

[wile e coyote]

WOOOO HOOOO!!! APR is great. If you're pro APR, better not be shooting anything less than a record book buck! Only fair if you tell everyone else what they can and can not shoot, that we get to do the same to all you antler addicts!

[ray634]

I am all for voluntary APR. Keep it down south where you guys each see more 8-10 bucks before breakfast than my party see's bucks of any caliber all season. I will not endorse a restriction that would remove the chance of a hunter in a low density area for shooting the only buck they saw even if it was a spike.

[stevejedlenski]

APR has nothing to do with bettering the herd. if you want to better the heard then the #1 best thing to do is habbitat improvement. a healthy herd IS NOT having mature bucks around. in fact too many mature bucks is unhealthy and will lead to more dead bucks during the rut. the more bucks competing to breed the more energy they exert and if they dont die during the rut the winter can kill them. this is why buck to doe ratios are important.

APR= more 2.5 year old bucks and more regulation

Habitat improvement= greater carrying capacity, healthier deer, higher winter survival, bigger antlers through nutrition, greater hunting oportunity etc.

APR has evolved from people trying to shoot a big buck and seeing the neighbors shooting deer they wanted to live. rather than trying to either work harder, get neighbors on board etc they lobby the DNR to regulate them as the "quick, easy way to success that this world is so used to"

The only way APR would have a leg to stand on with regards to herd health is if it was an APR protecting larger bucks to continue "better breeding" as with a slot limit for fish.



heres the thing, down in southern MN most of the land is private and in so people are more apt to want APR as it protects the deer that they already are trying to protect. most have the option to improve thier land to hold more deer and draw them from the neighbors.

the northern half of minnesota is a lot of public land where people are not allowed to change anything and have to hunt WITH the 'neighbors'. the state owns and operates the land and manages is for timber harvest as #1 priority although they will "make TSI's for habitat". here again its about money and timber is worth more than the deer running through it. so to take something that "is working" (according to who?) in the south and implement it across the state is just as smart as making a state wide bag limit.

so like mentioned earlier, if your going to make someone else pass up a yearling in the name of deer health, you better pass on that booner in the name of deer health. or its all about antlers




now this is all coming from a guy that just recently spent hundreds of thousands on land last year and a couple thousand on foodplots etc, only to pass on decent bucks and watch them get shot the last few years by neighbors. i have taken big bucks and havent shot a deer for the last 6 seasons because i passed on deer i thought could grow. I would love to tell the neighbors they cant shoot these bucks, but im not that mean. we are all hunters enjoying the hunt no matter the size of the game.

[kenhuntin]