# Northwest Michigan Antler Restriction Proposal



## EMPIRE

The Dec 8th, NRC meeting gave the final approval needed for a current APR proposal that has been in the works for several years now. Northwest Michigan QDMA, has a pending proposal for the expansion of the DMU 045 (Leelanau) 3pt. restriction, under the current combo tag. Further informational meetings and press releases will be coming out over the next several months. The 12 counties included in the pending proposal are Antrim, Charlevoix, Benzie, Emmet, Grand Traverse, Kalkaska, Lake, Mason, Manistee, Missaukee, Osceola, and Wexford. NWQDMA in conjunction with the DNR is working on a timeline for the survey to go out, and it will requrie 66% hunter approval within the 12 county area to pass. If this propsoal can pass it will likely be a tipping point for the entire state in the future(my opinion). So if you support this proposal, get on board and help spread the word. A facebook group page has been started at, NW MI Antler Restriction Proposal 

http://http://www.facebook.com/#!/gr...group_activity 

This is our chance to improve hunting in the Northwestern Lower, get on board and help support the change...:help: Better age class(mature bucks), better ratio, better deer hunting....


----------



## Falk

Huge step forward if this passes.


----------



## on_point

Really hope this passes. Being a lifelong resident and hunter in 045 I can vouch on a personal note that it works. 

I can't back my claim up with scientific data nor am I a biologist. I'm just a private/public land hunter that goes out to get away from the rat race of life but doesn't consider my season a success based on whether or not I put meat in the freezer. It takes a few years for the system to really start to show the benefits of the restriction. 

On a personal note it gives me a piece of mind knowing that letting that small buck pass and is protected due to the APR will give me something to look forward to next season and I don't think I have ever heard someone gripe about a lack of "shooter" bucks in the area. 

Over the course of the last firearm season I had seen 4 different protected bucks, 3 of which were on public land and was unsuccessful in getting a shooter. Still I would much rather see bucks and not be able to shoot them than sit all season and harvest the only small buck I saw. 

I have a hard time with the I hunt for meat argument. If that is the case, It would seem that a combo tag while hunting with a crossbow over a bait pile would give you a high % of success and getting meat in your freezer than banking on the firearm season on getting a buck when deer are almost impossible to pattern.

I am not member of QDMA but I practice it and am a supporter of it because for me it has made my time more enjoyable in the woods.


----------



## GVDocHoliday

You're link doesn't work. This one should:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/133648579982082/


----------



## Biggbear

QDM should be a personal decision for the landowner if they choose to impose APR's on their property. Sorry, but I'll be voting no. There are enough rules on how to hunt already, we don't need more.


----------



## DEDGOOSE

Hope I get a survey:evil:


----------



## Critter

DEDGOOSE said:


> Hope I get a survey:evil:


You won't, you're on "The List" :lol::evilsmile


----------



## boone nc

This would be a great thing. I hunt in Emmet county and on properties that practice this or even more strict APR's they see way more deer than anyone else and they get at least 2 nice bucks a year plus as many does as they want. 

I can almost guarantee that if this passes that in 3-4 seasons after the rule is applied all involved and even the Nay sayers will be thankful for the restrictions. Though it may seem the man is "taking away" it will actually do nothing but help the deer heard, age structure and with the bonus of seeing bigger horns.

Say what you want about not caring about antler size but I have never heard anyone complain about seeing more deer and shooting a nice 6-8 over that spike!

Im all in, bring on the change. It cant get no worse than what it is now, at least for me.


----------



## swampbuck

boone nc said:


> This would be a great thing. I hunt in Emmet county and on properties that practice this or even more strict APR's they see way more deer than anyone else and they get at least 2 nice bucks a year plus as many does as they want.
> 
> I can almost guarantee that if this passes that in 3-4 seasons after the rule is applied all involved and even the Nay sayers will be thankful for the restrictions. Though it may seem the man is "taking away" it will actually do nothing but help the deer heard, age structure and with the bonus of seeing bigger horns.
> 
> Say what you want about not caring about antler size but I have never heard anyone complain about seeing more deer and shooting a nice 6-8 over that spike!
> 
> Im all in, bring on the change. It cant get no worse than what it is now, at least for me.


There hasnt been much of an increase in support in Leelanau or any other area for that matter. In fact their record for passing isnt very good either.


----------



## EMPIRE

The 6th year Leelanau resurvey had 72% support both landowner and hunter, not including a 6% don't care/no opinion The original survey was just shy of 66%, but they let it go through based on % return and % error factor(right or wrong). So the support increased by roughly 7%. I know many people in Leelenau that were not originally for the proposal, who now totally support it....funny how a couple best deer of their lives can change perspective. 

Bottom line if you don't figure the don't care/no opinion return(which will not be in future surveys), we have 80% support. I don't think you could find that in any other northern michigan DMU. The reason for 8 o
ut of 10 people support it, it simply works.ne_eye:


----------



## bucko12pt

swampbuck said:


> There hasnt been much of an increase in support in Leelanau or any other area for that matter. In fact their record for passing isnt very good either.


We have at least 72% of the hunters/landowners in favor of the APR in Leelanau and it's now in place permanently. How much more of an increase in support would you expect on an issue like this? 

I do'nt know how you can say with a straight face that there is not increasing support for restrictions of some sort statewide. You, me and 
everyone else know it's eventually going to happen, with more and more hunters getting on the bandwagon every day. Whether it 
happens with this proposal remains to be seen, but it is going to happen.:evil:


----------



## sbooy42

Even though I'd rather see OBR its a step in the right direction.. so it gets my yes


----------



## onenationhere

If larger bucks are the goal then shouldn't restrictions be put on the age or antler width of a deer rather than a points system.
I have seen plenty of 1.5 year old deer sporting 3 and even 4 points per side.Doesn't make much sense to pass on a 1.5 year old spike and then shoot a 1.5 year old 6 or 8 point.
I am skeptical of blanket APR restrictions like the one proposed here.it doesn't seem like it would accomplish much and may even be counterproductive as guys will now be targeting young bucks showing the most potential.


----------



## sbooy42

onenationhere said:


> If larger bucks are the goal then shouldn't restrictions be put on the age or antler width of a deer rather than a points system.
> I have seen plenty of 1.5 year old deer sporting 3 and even 4 points per side.Doesn't make much sense to pass on a 1.5 year old spike and then shoot a 1.5 year old 6 or 8 point.
> I am skeptical of blanket APR restrictions like the one proposed here.it doesn't seem like it would accomplish much and may even be counterproductive as guys will now be targeting young bucks showing the most potential.


One argument is that it is going to be hard enough to count 3 antler points... Lets not make it harder by learning how to judge age on the hoof or having to guess at width..


----------



## ekbelt3

Support it 100% and hunt Benzie county... this would be great if it passes. I've passed all the info on to the members in our deer camp.


----------



## bbutler

Biggbear said:


> QDM should be a personal decision for the landowner if they choose to impose APR's on their property. Sorry, but I'll be voting no. There are enough rules on how to hunt already, we don't need more.


Yea that ^



_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors._


----------



## GVDocHoliday

onenationhere said:


> If larger bucks are the goal then shouldn't restrictions be put on the age or antler width of a deer rather than a points system.
> I have seen plenty of 1.5 year old deer sporting 3 and even 4 points per side.Doesn't make much sense to pass on a 1.5 year old spike and then shoot a 1.5 year old 6 or 8 point.
> I am skeptical of blanket APR restrictions like the one proposed here.it doesn't seem like it would accomplish much and may even be counterproductive as guys will now be targeting young bucks showing the most potential.


Well if the 1.5yo spike is passed on...it's going to survive another year at least. The way it is now both of those 1.5yo are shot on site. Both of those deer have the same potential, the difference in antlersize in this region is mostly based on the time of birth.


----------



## maddiedog

I'm one of the very few hunters that still hunt for meat and not horns. I already know people are going to say well then shoot does...I do. People will say wouldn't it be nice to shoot big bucks??? I don't care if it is a big buck or a four point. If you want to shoot big bucks great. Manage your land so it will happen that is your choice. My uncle shot a seven point this year. It was almost a twin to the three point we shot. One is legal the other would not be even though they were the same age and possibly twins...


----------



## Munsterlndr

GVDocHoliday said:


> the difference in antlersize in this region is mostly based on the time of birth.


Um, ...no, that is simply not true.


----------



## TUCKER

Dear Santa,

All I want for Christmas is for the antler proposal to pass for next years hunting season. That's all!


----------



## Munsterlndr

coldskins said:


> *Apparently a majority disgree with your point of view, to the extent that they exercise harvest decisions that don't meet your standards*
> 
> The UP is roughly 1/3 of the state and they passed them, then you have dmu 045 and more oh and now 12 more counties feeling out the water. I live in wexford and I know alot of people and they all want a change and think that APR's are a good start, not to mention all those on MS. In all honesty you seem to be one of the only ones against it on this thread so far. From most of what I have read on this forum is most want a change, some are for obr's and some are for apr's, although most obr people support the apr's at least as a 2nd option. It wont or shouldnt take you long to find unhappy hunters on MS and they all want change!! I am by no means saying APR's are a one time fix but there a start and we need a change and have to start somewhere.


Apparently your researching skills fell a little short when you were researching for your paper. APR's were not passed in the UP, the NRC enacted them without going through the usual process. Those APR's have never gained the sufficient level of support that is needed in the initiative process. If they had been voted on they, they would have failed.

There have been 7 three point initiatives that were never enacted as they failed to get the required level of support. 4 have passed initially and 2 of those failed to gain enough support for renewal after being in place for 5 years. The 2 4 pt. initiatives also failed. If you add up the 3 & 4 pt. initiatives in Michigan that have occurred, 11 out of the 13 either failed or were discontinued. Still want to claim that *Everybody * supports APR's?


----------



## bucko12pt

traditional said:


> Just Talked to an avid deer hunter who spent the first two days of the fire arm deer season in the Sleeping Bear Lake Shore. He hunted one mile from the nearest road between Wheeler Road and School Lake.
> 
> In the two days he spent in Leelanau he heard 10 shots in those two days. He saw 4 deer. Three sub-legal bucks and one doe. Very few cars parked along the roads. In his words he said " It is sad to see what has happened to the deer hunting in this area".
> 
> When I last hunted this area I would hear 10 shots in the first hour of the firearm season.
> 
> My suggestion for those Public Land hunters in the counties that will be affected by MARs is spent 20 bucks and get a park pass for this area. Spend a weekend on this public land and see for yourself what years of MARs will do to public land. You may be surprised.


Maybe your avid deer hunting buddy should have stuck it out a little longer. There was a 168 inch 10 point killed very close to where your buddy hunted. Also, 7 other bucks over 130" taken off park land that I'm aware of and not that far from where he was hunting.

All you have to do is spend a few evenings shining in the Wheeler Rd./Point Oneida/Empire area of the county (mostly park land I might add) to know that there are a lot of deer there and some very mature bucks.

I've lived in and hunted the county all my life and today is the best hunting we have ever seen.


----------



## boomer_x7

Munsterlndr said:


> Now you are just being silly. Where did I suggest a free for all? Current regulations are in place based on the biological impact that seasons and bag limits have on the resource. The DNR has clearly stated that there is no biological reason to put APR's in place in Michigan and that it's a purely social decision.
> 
> It's one group of hunters imposing their will on another group, for the sole purpose of being able to shoot deer with larger antlers. Let's be very clear about that.


 
So all seasons and weapon restrictions are in place due to impact on the resource. So i guess we need youth/ dessabled hunts to properly manage the resource? We need crossbows to be legal? We need 3 months of archery season? We need baiting???? The use of tree stands? Rifles?? ect.Yes some are there to manage the resource but not all. But yet all these thing restrict my "choice" so going by your theory that APRs are going to kill a hunters choice on what to harvest, And APR supporters shouldnt impose on other hunter's choice, then i guess you would be against any law or rule that hinders my or other hunters choice...

Maybe there isnt any biological reasons for APRs, doesnt mean they are bad. Doesnt mean they wont improve hunting. There is alotta stuff in life we dont NEED yet we have them to make stuff better.


Also just because someone agreas with antler restrictions doesnt mean they are only after larger antlers. For some reason you just cant seem to get past that. But if we are going to play the label game.... i guess anyone that is against APR is just killing for blood or fun as they just shoot the first thing they see....

It's one group of hunters imposing there will on another group for the sole purpose that they can shoot the first thing they see. ITS VERY CLEAR!!!


----------



## musicman34

boomer_x7 said:


> So all seasons and weapon restrictions are in place due to impact on the resource. So i guess we need youth/ dessabled hunts to properly manage the resource? We need crossbows to be legal? We need 3 months of archery season? We need baiting???? The use of tree stands? Rifles?? ect.Yes some are there to manage the resource but not all. But yet all these thing restrict my "choice" so going by your theory that APRs are going to kill a hunters choice on what to harvest, And APR supporters shouldnt impose on other hunter's choice, then i guess you would be against any law or rule that hinders my or other hunters choice...
> 
> Maybe there isnt any biological reasons for APRs, doesnt mean they are bad. Doesnt mean they wont improve hunting. There is alotta stuff in life we dont NEED yet we have them to make stuff better.
> 
> 
> Also just because someone agreas with antler restrictions doesnt mean they are only after larger antlers. For some reason you just cant seem to get past that. But if we are going to play the label game.... i guess anyone that is against APR is just killing for blood or fun as they just shoot the first thing they see....
> 
> It's one group of hunters imposing there will on another group for the sole purpose that they can shoot the first thing they see. ITS VERY CLEAR!!!


How do all the things that you mention restrict your "choice"? Choice for what? You can choose however you want to hunt within the law. How can you state that "anyone that is against APR is just killing for blood or fun"? I don't support APR and that couldn't be further from the truth. The law allows me to harvest a LEGAL deer. If you have a problem with that, talk to your rep or make your complaint known at the next NRC meeting. Your opinions don't speak for anyone but yourself.


----------



## coldskins

Munsterlndr said:


> *Apparently your researching skills fell a little short when you were researching for your paper.* APR's were not passed in the UP, the NRC enacted them without going through the usual process. Those APR's have never gained the sufficient level of support that is needed in the initiative process. If they had been voted on they, they would have failed.
> 
> There have been 7 three point initiatives that were never enacted as they failed to get the required level of support. 4 have passed initially and 2 of those failed to gain enough support for renewal after being in place for 5 years. The 2 4 pt. initiatives also failed. If you add up the 3 & 4 pt. initiatives in Michigan that have occurred, 11 out of the 13 either failed or were discontinued.* Still want to claim that Everybody supports APR's*?


I never claimed to be great at research and I may be wrong but in these reports 
Frawley, Brian. Evaluation of Quality Deer Management (QDM) in Deer Management Unit 045 Leelanau County) _Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Report no.3483. _March 2008.
Frawley, Brian. Evaluation of Quality Deer Management (QDM) in Deer Management Unit 122 (Dickinson, Iron, and Menominee Counties) _Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Report no. 3451._ March 2006

It apears to have had approval ratings of 76.1% of landowners and 73.9% of hunters in the county Unit 122 pg 6 and 7 of the reporta 71.8% of land owners approval rating, and a 72.2% approval rating amongst hunters in that countyUnit 045

I dont beleive I ever stated that *everyone *supported APR's


----------



## coldskins

traditional said:


> Just Talked to an avid deer hunter who spent the first two days of the fire arm deer season in the Sleeping Bear Lake Shore. He hunted one mile from the nearest road between Wheeler Road and School Lake.
> 
> In the two days he spent in Leelanau he heard 10 shots in those two days. He saw 4 deer. Three sub-legal bucks and one doe. Very few cars parked along the roads. In his words he said " It is sad to see what has happened to the deer hunting in this area".
> 
> When I last hunted this area I would hear 10 shots in the first hour of the firearm season.
> 
> My suggestion for those Public Land hunters in the counties that will be affected by MARs is spent 20 bucks and get a park pass for this area. Spend a weekend on this public land and see for yourself what years of MARs will do to public land. You may be surprised.


I live in wexford and the entire gun season was the way you described. I dont think it has anything to do with the aprs sure maybe tiney bit but I think mostly it has to do with the opener being in the middle of the week and the economy fillowed with low deer numbers and weather.


----------



## boomer_x7

musicman34 said:


> How do all the things that you mention restrict your "choice"? Choice for what? You can choose however you want to hunt within the law. How can you state that "anyone that is against APR is just killing for blood or fun"? I don't support APR and that couldn't be further from the truth. The law allows me to harvest a LEGAL deer. If you have a problem with that, talk to your rep or make your complaint known at the next NRC meeting. Your opinions don't speak for anyone but yourself.


how do they limit my/anyones choice: opperateing within the laws is having a choice as to where/ when/and what you can harvest. ( if someones choice tohunt at night with a full-auto, the law would be restricting there choice)As far as my comment about non-APR hunters: i was being sartcastic in relavence to munster's statement about "ALL APR supporters just want bigger antlers".( i thought i made the sarcasm quite clear since i said "if you want to play then lable game") 

For your comment about you shooting a legal deer and the NRC meeting blah blah. Not shure where you are coming from or trying to get too as i was trying tomake a point to munster. This is a thread on APR and we are discussing APRs and it looks like enough people have already talked to a rep and sat in at NRC meeting and we are starting to see results. 

Also my opinions dont speak for anyone but my self because there my opinions. Just like yours only speak for yourself.


----------



## Munsterlndr

coldskins said:


> I never claimed to be great at research and I may be wrong but in these reports
> Frawley, Brian. Evaluation of Quality Deer Management (QDM) in Deer Management Unit 045 Leelanau County) _Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Report no.3483. _March 2008.
> Frawley, Brian. Evaluation of Quality Deer Management (QDM) in Deer Management Unit 122 (Dickinson, Iron, and Menominee Counties) _Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife Division Report no. 3451._ March 2006
> 
> It apears to have had approval ratings of 76.1% of landowners and 73.9% of hunters in the county Unit 122 pg 6 and 7 of the reporta 71.8% of land owners approval rating, and a 72.2% approval rating amongst hunters in that countyUnit 045
> 
> I dont beleive I ever stated that *everyone *supported APR's


Yes, you managed to find the two of the 13 inititiatives that passed renewal. Did you just ignore the other 11 that failed or did your research not uncover them? You keep claiming that most people want APR's, when that is clearly not the case based on the results of the APR initiatives that have occurred, ....that is unless you just ignore all of them except the couple that passed. :lol:


----------



## Headacres

Munsterlndr said:


> Now you are just being silly. Where did I suggest a free for all? Current regulations are in place based on the biological impact that seasons and bag limits have on the resource. The DNR has clearly stated that there is no biological reason to put APR's in place in Michigan and that it's a purely social decision.
> 
> It's one group of hunters imposing their will on another group, for the sole purpose of being able to shoot deer with larger antlers. Let's be very clear about that.


Passing up button bucks is purely a social decision yet the majority of hunter's seem okay with that? Why does the dnr restrict me from killing button bucks?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Munsterlndr

Headacres said:


> Passing up button bucks is purely a social decision yet the majority of hunter's seem okay with that? Why does the dnr restrict me from killing button bucks?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Um, you might want to check the harvest records but around 20% of the antlerless harvest every year is made up of button bucks and they are legally killed, so I'm not sure why you might think that the DNR is restricting you from killing a button buck. For the record, John Ozoga has advocated killing button bucks as a responsible harvest decision, in some areas where populations are low and winter mortality is significant. Try again. :lol:


----------



## boomer_x7

Munsterlndr said:


> Um, you might want to check the harvest records but around 20% of the antlerless harvest every year is made up of button bucks and they are legally killed, so I'm not sure why you might think that the DNR is restricting you from killing a button buck. For the record, John Ozoga has advocated killing button bucks as a responsible harvest decision, in some areas where populations are low and winter mortality is significant. Try again. :lol:


 
If wanted to make the choice to take an antlerless/buttonbuck with a firearm, the DNR would therefore be restricting me. The fact is there is all kinds of restrictions.


----------



## Midalake

Duncesterlndr.....REALLY. Shoot button bucks!!! You know everyone has a brain fart..there is John O's But to sit there and recite it to some and some how justify it, is just plain STUPID!!!! You would better served by thinking for youself more, than falling off the cliff with others printed words.....you have ZERO credibility!!!

Cheers Dave 



Munsterlndr said:


> Um, you might want to check the harvest records but around 20% of the antlerless harvest every year is made up of button bucks and they are legally killed, so I'm not sure why you might think that the DNR is restricting you from killing a button buck. For the record, John Ozoga has advocated killing button bucks as a responsible harvest decision, in some areas where populations are low and winter mortality is significant. Try again. :lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr

boomer_x7 said:


> If wanted to make the choice to take an antlerless/buttonbuck with a firearm, the DNR would therefore be restricting me. The fact is there is all kinds of restrictions.


:lol: The only time you would be restricted is if there was not an antlerless permit available. Antlerless permits are made available based on biological criteria, (herd density). 

Try again, the DNR restricting your opportunity to harvest a button buck for biological purposes is substantially different than your wanting to restrict other hunters from harvesting bucks based on the purely arbitrary and socially motivated distinction of the number of antler points they are wearing on their head. :lol:


----------



## boomer_x7

Munsterlndr said:


> :lol: The only time you would be restricted is if there was not an antlerless permit available.
> 
> :lol:


So he finally admits there are already restrictions. In fact the second tag on a combo license is called a restricted tag. Maybe i want to make the choice to shoot 2 spikes.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Midalake said:


> Duncesterlndr.....REALLY. Shoot button bucks!!! You know everyone has a brain fart..there is John O's But to sit there and recite it to some and some how justify it, is just plain STUPID!!!! You would better served by thinking for youself more, than falling off the cliff with others printed words.....you have ZERO credibility!!!
> 
> Cheers Dave


Ooohhh! Name calling,....I'm impressed,.......that usually adds to the credibility of your arguments. 

I'm sure you know better than John Ozoga, one of the most respected deer biologists in Michigan. :lol::lol::lol:

Button bucks are simply a male deer, harvesting one has no more of a biological impact on the herd than if the same deer was harvested at 1.5, 2.5 or 6.5 years of age. In areas where population is at a nadir, it's a more responsible harvest decision than shooting a doe. 

The idea that it some kind of a crime to shoot a fawn of either sex is based purely on emotion, not on any biological underpinning. I prefer not to make my harvest decisions based on the Bambi/Disney school of deer management. :lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr

boomer_x7 said:


> So he finally admits there are already restrictions. In fact the second tag on a combo license is called a restricted tag. Maybe i want to make the choice to shoot 2 spikes.


 You are clearly incapable of differentiating between biological impacts and social impacts to the resource. Try again when you can come up with a cogent argument.


----------



## coldskins

Munsterlndr said:


> Yes, you managed to find the two of the 13 inititiatives that passed renewal. Did you just ignore the other 11 that failed or did your research not uncover them? You keep claiming that most people want APR's, when that is clearly not the case based on the results of the APR initiatives that have occurred, ....that is unless you just ignore all of them except the couple that passed. :lol:


First off I didnt ignore anything, that is what I found, to answer your question, my research did not uncover them. No matter how many times they failed, it is evident by the percentages that most people support them now in those dmu's. unless your blind to the 70 plus percent that obveously are in support in these Government documents. once agin I hope some day I can be half as smart as you, oh wise one who knows all. Its amazing how unless everyone is on board with you and what you say, we are all wrong.


----------



## Munsterlndr

coldskins said:


> First off I didnt ignore anything, that is what I found, to answer your question, my research did not uncover them. No matter how many times they failed, it is evident by the percentages that most people support them now in those dmu's. unless your blind to the 70 plus percent that obveously are in support in these Government documents.


So despite the fact that you now know that 11 out of 13 APR initiatives failed to either be enacted initially or pass renewal, you are still claiming that the fact that two out of 13 were renewed is compelling evidence that there is overwhelming support for APR's??? 

Just curious, are you in high school or college?


----------



## boomer_x7

Munsterlndr said:


> You are clearly incapable of differentiating between biological impacts and social impacts to the resource. Try again when you can come up with a cogent argument.


In what way have i demontrated the lack of capasity to to differentiate between the two? Just because a rule or regulation doesnt directly benefit the biological standpoint dioesnt mean it would hurt it. Also just because the DNR says APRs wouldnt help doesnt mean they know what they are talking about. You yourself have said that the check station numbers reflect a small % of the actuall harvest yet what does the DNR use to conclude APRs wouldnt help????You just cant see the irony through all your own contradicting statments.


----------



## boomer_x7

Munsterlndr said:


> Ooohhh! Name calling,....I'm impressed,.......that usually adds to the credibility of your arguments.
> 
> :lol:





Munsterlndr said:


> Just curious, are you in high school or college?


 
Your right its better to hide face and inderectly call names....


----------



## Munsterlndr

boomer_x7 said:


> Your right its better to hide face and inderectly call names....


He posted in another thread that he was doing a report on APR's for a class, I was just asking whether he is high school or college, how exactly is that indirectly calling him a name? 

Assume much? :lol:


----------



## tommygunn

sbooy42 said:


> One argument is that it is going to be hard enough to count 3 antler points... Lets not make it harder by learning how to judge age on the hoof or having to guess at width..


 

I agree, but It souldnt be that hard to get a good look at their teeth while they are eating 15 yards in front of you.


----------



## Munsterlndr

boomer_x7 said:


> In what way have i demontrated the lack of capasity to to differentiate between the two? Just because a rule or regulation doesnt directly benefit the biological standpoint dioesnt mean it would hurt it. Also just because the DNR says APRs wouldnt help doesnt mean they know what they are talking about. You yourself have said that the check station numbers reflect a small % of the actuall harvest yet what does the DNR use to conclude APRs wouldnt help????You just cant see the irony through all your own contradicting statments.


You are arguing that there is a moral equivalency between rules that are enacted for biological purposes and those that would be enacted purely to satisfy the social desires of one group of hunters. Apparently you don't understand the difference between the two because you keep holding up examples that are apples to oranges. 

Now you want to suggest that the DNR is wrong in their assertion that there is no biological benefit to APR's?? :lol:

And the hits just keep on coming!


----------



## bucko12pt

Munsterlndr said:


> So despite the fact that you now know that 11 out of 13 APR initiatives failed to either be enacted initially or pass renewal, you are still claiming that the fact that two out of 13 were renewed is compelling evidence that there is overwhelming support for APR's???
> 
> Just curious, are you in high school or college?


 

How many of those 11 proposals were voted on over 5 years ago? A lot has changed in the past 5 -10 year since those proposals were voted 
down. Many more hunters are dissatified today, with the hunting in Michigan, than there ever was in the past. 

This 12 county proposal may not pass this time either, as it is a huge undertaking for a grass roots movement, but make no mistake, a lot of people are dissatisfied and the movement is never going to die. 

Amazes me that guys bitch and complain about the way things are, but fight tooth and nail about making a change.


----------



## Midalake

Bucko.....don't try to confuse Munst. Right now He is trying to dig some type of quotation from some "pro" 3 years ago just to prove how wrong you are.........

Cheers Dave 




bucko12pt said:


> How many of those 11 proposals were voted on over 5 years ago? A lot has changed in the past 5 -10 year since those proposals were voted
> down. Many more hunters are dissatified today, with the hunting in Michigan, than there ever was in the past.
> 
> This 12 county proposal may not pass this time either, as it is a huge undertaking for a grass roots movement, but make no mistake, a lot of people are dissatisfied and the movement is never going to die.
> 
> Amazes me that guys bitch and complain about the way things are, but fight tooth and nail about making a change.


----------



## Headacres

Munsterlndr said:


> Um, you might want to check the harvest records but around 20% of the antlerless harvest every year is made up of button bucks and they are legally killed, so I'm not sure why you might think that the DNR is restricting you from killing a button buck. For the record, John Ozoga has advocated killing button bucks as a responsible harvest decision, in some areas where populations are low and winter mortality is significant. Try again. :lol:


I'm restricted because I either need to be a bow hunter with a combo tag or hunting in an area with antlerless tags available. Ozaga says it's a good harvest decision in areas with low population levels and high winter mortality but how many antlerless tags are available in those area's?

Yes button bucks do get killed, but how many were targeted compared to "Crap! It has buttons!" misidentification's? One can only assume...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## boomer_x7

Munsterlndr said:


> You are arguing that there is a moral equivalency between rules that are enacted for biological purposes and those that would be enacted purely to satisfy the social desires of one group of hunters. Apparently you don't understand the difference between the two because you keep holding up examples that are apples to oranges.
> 
> Now you want to suggest that the DNR is wrong in their assertion that there is no biological benefit to APR's?? :lol:
> 
> And the hits just keep on coming!


Actually i was comparing laws such as the use of crossbows,youth hunts, baiting laws ect. These restrict us and are NOt based on biological stand points. Yet you stand fast and dissmiss ALL hunters that support APRs as only wanting big antlers b/c its social desire only.

And yes i will suggest the DNR is wrong as they are on alot. Funny how you like to throw out numbers and % the dnr gives out, yet when someone proves you wrong you run to the "well these number really dont relfect the whole deer pop. just a small %"

Yet you base your anti-APR support by a statment from the dnr that uses these "small % numbers" to make there conclusions.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Headacres said:


> I'm restricted because I either need to be a bow hunter with a combo tag or hunting in an area with antlerless tags available. Ozaga says it's a good harvest decision in areas with low population levels and high winter mortality but how many antlerless tags are available in those area's?
> 
> Yes button bucks do get killed, but how many were targeted compared to "Crap! It has buttons!" misidentification's? One can only assume...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


And if you are restricted it's due to a biological reason, which is not the underlying basis for an APR restriction, thus the apples to oranges nature of your comparison.


----------



## Munsterlndr

boomer_x7 said:


> Actually i was comparing laws such as the use of crossbows,youth hunts, baiting laws ect. These restrict us and are NOt based on biological stand points. Yet you stand fast and dissmiss ALL hunters that support APRs as only wanting big antlers b/c its social desire only.
> 
> And yes i will suggest the DNR is wrong as they are on alot. Funny how you like to throw out numbers and % the dnr gives out, yet when someone proves you wrong you run to the "well these number really dont relfect the whole deer pop. just a small %"
> 
> Yet you base your anti-APR support by a statment from the dnr that uses these "small % numbers" to make there conclusions.


How exactly does legalizing crossbows, allowing youths to have a separate season and allowing hunters to use bait "restrict" you? Those regulation allow for an expansion of opportunity and do not force anyone to change the way they hunt. 

Allowing bow hunters to use either a long bow or a compound is not a restrictive law, it allows individual freedom of choice. Forcing everyone to hunt with a long bow only because a compound offends your sense of what archery should be all about, would be an example of a socially motivated regulation that would be restrictive. 

Making flintlocks the only legal weapon during muzzleloading because you think in-lines are not in the spirit of what the season was intended for would be an example of a restrictive rule change based on the social agenda of a subset of the hunting population. 

Those examples are on par with the type of changes that are being advocated by those supporting an APR, they are restrictive changes that take away choices which are currently enjoyed by hunters, for reasons that are purely social and have no biological impact on the resource. 

You want to prove me a hypocrite, come up with an example of a regulation change that I've supported that is a restrictive change that has a purely social basis. Good luck!


----------



## Drisc13

The DNR doesn't use a whole lotta science in much of what they do. It's about money.

APR is about money.
Regs in lower NE is about money.
Allowing baiting back is about money.
The screwed license system that allows you to purchase unlimited licenses is about money.
The normally horrible response time for RAP complaints is because of money.

Don't try to cloud the issue with "facts" and crazy anecodotal evidence followed by extreme generalizations and manipulation of a small percentage of data to support ones opinion....just sounds like Cliff Clavin.

One buck in MI per year...period. Smaller Management Units. More biologists. Less economists. More data collection.

Until then, see ya' in Wisconsin at the peak of the rut at the cost of around $2,000 a year (and yes, that's on state land).


----------



## Munsterlndr

Drisc13 said:


> One buck in MI per year...period. Smaller Management Units. More biologists. Less economists. More data collection.
> 
> Until then, see ya' in Wisconsin at the peak of the rut at the cost of around $2,000 a year (and yes, that's on state land).


Wisconsin? Where they allow hunters to harvest two bucks a year? Where they don't have APR's? Where the annual harvests are falling like they were dropped off of a ten story building? Where the DNR is so screwed up that the Legislature recently stepped in and banned them from using certain regulations? That Wisconsin? :lol:


----------



## boomer_x7

Munsterlndr said:


> How exactly does legalizing crossbows, allowing youths to have a separate season and allowing hunters to use bait "restrict" you? Those regulation allow for an expansion of opportunity and do not force anyone to change the way they hunt.
> 
> Allowing bow hunters to use either a long bow or a compound is not a restrictive law, it allows individual freedom of choice. Forcing everyone to hunt with a long bow only because a compound offends your sense of what archery should be all about, would be an example of a socially motivated regulation that would be restrictive.
> 
> Making flintlocks the only legal weapon during muzzleloading because you think in-lines are not in the spirit of what the season was intended for would be an example of a restrictive rule change based on the social agenda of a subset of the hunting population.
> 
> Those examples are on par with the type of changes that are being advocated by those supporting an APR, they are restrictive changes that take away choices which are currently enjoyed by hunters, for reasons that are purely social and have no biological impact on the resource.
> 
> You want to prove me a hypocrite, come up with an example of a regulation change that I've supported that is a restrictive change that has a purely social basis. Good luck!


I was in a hurry(dinner time)when typeing, and was actually thinking of when crossbows where illegal..... Youth hunts = restricts me b/c im too old. Bait laws: there has been bans..., But restricts you to 2 gallons over 10 feet. 


As far as "proving you a hypocrite", that was never my intention. Your main arguement against APR ,is that there is no biological benefit. My point is why does biological benefit have to be included? If it doesnt hurt, then why not. Now look at where the "it would give no benefit" statement comes from. You yourself have dissmissed the number %'s the DNR has given b/c they only reflected a small % of actuall harvested deer. 

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=400183&highlight=leelanau+qdma&page=2

post #26

Yet these are same numbers witch are used to provide the statement "it would give no benefit" So are these numbers too small for you admit that the DNR making such statements could be wrong. Or are these numbers solid enough to conclude that the APR has worked in benzie/leelanau county?


----------



## musicman34

Drisc13 said:


> The DNR doesn't use a whole lotta science in much of what they do. It's about money.
> 
> APR is about money. How?
> Regs in lower NE is about money. How?
> Allowing baiting back is about money. How?
> The screwed license system that allows you to purchase unlimited licenses is about money.
> The normally horrible response time for RAP complaints is because of money.
> 
> Don't try to cloud the issue with "facts" and crazy anecodotal evidence followed by extreme generalizations and manipulation of a small percentage of data to support ones opinion....just sounds like Cliff Clavin.
> 
> One buck in MI per year...period. Smaller Management Units. More biologists. Less economists. More data collection. Yes, this is about money. Money that the state doesn't have. The state could use about double the CO's that it has. How would more biologists help?
> 
> Until then, see ya' in Wisconsin at the peak of the rut at the cost of around $2,000 a year (and yes, that's on state land).


 You won't see me in Wisconsin. They're more screwed up than Michigan by far!


----------



## Munsterlndr

boomer_x7 said:


> I was in a hurry(dinner time)when typeing, and was actually thinking of when crossbows where illegal..... Youth hunts = restricts me b/c im too old. Bait laws: there has been bans..., But restricts you to 2 gallons over 10 feet.
> 
> 
> As far as "proving you a hypocrite", that was never my intention. Your main arguement against APR ,is that there is no biological benefit. My point is why does biological benefit have to be included? If it doesnt hurt, then why not. Now look at where the "it would give no benefit" statement comes from. You yourself have dissmissed the number %'s the DNR has given b/c they only reflected a small % of actuall harvested deer.
> 
> http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=400183&highlight=leelanau+qdma&page=2
> 
> post #26
> 
> Yet these are same numbers witch are used to provide the statement "it would give no benefit" So are these numbers too small for you admit that the DNR making such statements could be wrong. Or are these numbers solid enough to conclude that the APR has worked in benzie/leelanau county?


I'm having a hard time agreeing that allowing crossbows, allowing youth their own season and allowing baiting is restricting you in any manner and I'd guess that anyone with any objectivity would probably agree but maybe you can convince somebody of it. :lol:

As far as your belief that I "dismissed" the DNR data in that other thread, you might want to read it again. We are talking about the data for one age class from the check station data in a DMU that has low numbers of both deer and hunters. The typical sample size for that category is about 100 deer. I didn't dismiss anything in the post you are using as an example, I simply cautioned readers that we are dealing with a small sample size in that particular instance and not to jump to too many conclusions based on such a small sample size. 

You are also missing the point of my objection to APR's, I'm opposed to regulatory change that takes decisions away from the individual and mandates their decisions for them, unless there is a compelling biological reason for doing so. One of the reasons that I'm opposed to such regulations is that they set a precedent that makes it much harder to defend against threats to the hunting community in the future, if science and biology are no longer a necessary part of the equation. One set of stakeholders deciding that they want to take away opportunities and options currently enjoyed by hunters, for purely social reasons, is opening the door to a slippery slope that could come back to haunt us in the future.


----------



## shephard1993

onenationhere said:


> If larger bucks are the goal then shouldn't restrictions be put on the age or antler width of a deer rather than a points system.
> I have seen plenty of 1.5 year old deer sporting 3 and even 4 points per side.Doesn't make much sense to pass on a 1.5 year old spike and then shoot a 1.5 year old 6 or 8 point.
> I am skeptical of blanket APR restrictions like the one proposed here.it doesn't seem like it would accomplish much and may even be counterproductive as guys will now be targeting young bucks showing the most potential.


You have made a very educated statement here, and I agree with you, but they have to start somewhere. Most guys cant tell the difference between a 1.5 and a 3.5 year old deer. This is mostly due to the fact that they are not willing to try. The point system is a little easier way to save some young deer, unfortunitly to due this some of the nicer 1.5 old deer will still be fair game. This problem will be more complicated in certain areas. Most Northern Michigan bucks will fall under the minimum weres alot of first year southern bucks would be fair game. I dont think most relize how quick a little patience would pay off in this state. We have alot of hunters that have to be able to say yep got my buck. I always get a laugh out of the guys who say got a spiker but he has real nice spikes. Some seem to feel a spike has no potential. A buck being a spike usually has more to due with his birth date, or his first winter then his genetics. 1.5 year old deer no matter how big there horns are, are to young to predict there future potential. You let 99 out of 100 spike horns get 5 years old and I promise they would make most hunters very happy.


----------



## Threefish

I would have to vote no to APR's. We already practice APR's on are own, on property we have in Mason county. We have a four on a side rule, that has been 7 years now. We also have property in Manistee county that we don't have restrictions. The Mason county property hasn't really changed much. Every year we still see quite a few bucks but mostly spikes three points and four points, every 2 to 3 years one of us will shoot a decent buck, but that's the same as its always been the biggest one was shot in 1968, Plus we have added food plots and cover areas. So I can't see the benefits of a APR. We are still practicing it but next year might be different. It has divided us as a hunting family. My brother and my youngest son and his wife hunt on the Manistee property because of the rule. We all hunted together at one time. Ive have noticed that we see more spikes and four points and no small six's or eights like we use to. One thing, we made the rule are self so we can change it. To us it was a personal choice and that's the way it should be.


----------



## musicman34

shephard1993 said:


> You have made a very educated statement here, and I agree with you, but they have to start somewhere. Most guys cant tell the difference between a 1.5 and a 3.5 year old deer. This is mostly due to the fact that they are not willing to try. The point system is a little easier way to save some young deer, unfortunitly to due this some of the nicer 1.5 old deer will still be fair game. This problem will be more complicated in certain areas. Most Northern Michigan bucks will fall under the minimum weres alot of first year southern bucks would be fair game. I dont think most relize how quick a little patience would pay off in this state. We have alot of hunters that have to be able to say yep got my buck. I always get a laugh out of the guys who say got a spiker but he has real nice spikes. Some seem to feel a spike has no potential. A buck being a spike usually has more to due with his birth date, or his first winter then his genetics. 1.5 year old deer no matter how big there horns are, are to young to predict there future potential. You let 99 out of 100 spike horns get 5 years old and I promise they would make most hunters very happy.


It has nothing to do with not willing to try. It has everything to do with they don't care. And who can blame them? The majority of hunters just want to shoot a deer. For many hunters, antler size has little if anything to do with it as long as it is legal. I still can't understand why a legal buck should be scorned. To many hunters it is still a quality deer.


----------



## Munsterlndr

shephard1993 said:


> You let 99 out of 100 spike horns get 5 years old and I promise they would make most hunters very happy.


Which is ignoring the fact that 99 out of the 100 hunters who shoot spikes are already happy with their decision or they would not be pulling the trigger. Do you think they are basing their harvest decisions on what will make them unhappy? 

My guess is that most other hunters happiness is not the driving force behind why some guys are pushing for antler restrictions, it's more about the happiness of the guy doing the pushing. :coolgleam


----------



## Midalake

OMG!!! I love people that speak the truth, and can speak on their own without reciting someone elses work!!!! I don't want to hijack the thread BUT... AMEN brother on SMALLER MANAGEMENT units!!!!!!!!! :evil:


Cheers Dave




Drisc13 said:


> The DNR doesn't use a whole lotta science in much of what they do. It's about money.
> 
> APR is about money.
> Regs in lower NE is about money.
> Allowing baiting back is about money.
> The screwed license system that allows you to purchase unlimited licenses is about money.
> The normally horrible response time for RAP complaints is because of money.
> 
> Don't try to cloud the issue with "facts" and crazy anecodotal evidence followed by extreme generalizations and manipulation of a small percentage of data to support ones opinion....just sounds like Cliff Clavin.
> 
> One buck in MI per year...period. Smaller Management Units. More biologists. Less economists. More data collection.
> 
> Until then, see ya' in Wisconsin at the peak of the rut at the cost of around $2,000 a year (and yes, that's on state land).


----------



## Headacres

Munsterlndr said:


> And if you are restricted it's due to a biological reason, which is not the underlying basis for an APR restriction, thus the apples to oranges nature of your comparison.


I don't see any biological reasoning though. It's purely social. And I'm sure the majority of hunter's are okay with that because they don't want the button bucks killed. Yet taking a percentage of yearling bucks off the table is an apples to oranges comparison? I don't see it. 

Being restricted to pass up a percentage of button bucks is not really any different than being restricted to pass up a percentage of yearlings. The only difference is that passing button's is more socially acceptable than the latter. Yet both have much in common in that antler's are the primary concern.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## shephard1993

Munsterlndr said:


> Which is ignoring the fact that 99 out of the 100 hunters who shoot spikes are already happy with their decision or they would not be pulling the trigger. Do you think they are basing their harvest decisions on what will make them unhappy?
> 
> My guess is that most other hunters happiness is not the driving force behind why some guys are pushing for antler restrictions, it's more about the happiness of the guy doing the pushing. :coolgleam


They very well could be happy with a small buck, but Ive never heard anyone say the night before the season sure hope I get a young little buck in the morning. The bootom line is the more young bucks that live to maturity the more balanced and healthy the over all herd will become. And yes it will be easier to harvest bigger racks for those who want to. The only reason Michigan dont compare to the Mid West is because we keep thinking we have to fill our buck TAGS no matter the size.


----------



## traditional

bucko12pt said:


> Maybe your avid deer hunting buddy should have stuck it out a little longer. There was a 168 inch 10 point killed very close to where your buddy hunted. Also, 7 other bucks over 130" taken off park land that I'm aware of and not that far from where he was hunting.
> 
> All you have to do is spend a few evenings shining in the Wheeler Rd./Point Oneida/Empire area of the county (mostly park land I might add) to know that there are a lot of deer there and some very mature bucks.
> 
> I've lived in and hunted the county all my life and today is the best hunting we have ever seen.


 
When was that 168 inch ten point taken? 

Your telling me that the Park is better hunting now then it was Pre- MARs? Is that based on inches of antlers or number of deer. Remember I hunted this area alot in the 70's, 80's and 90's. 

I'll say it again, Neighbors to the south and east of DMU 045 that will be included in the MARs. I think you should go up in the National Lake Shore and see for yourself. You don't live that far away. Do you buy a truck without taking it for a spin? The promoters are telling you there are 130 inches of antlers around every tree. Go and see for yourself what years of MARs will do. You may even get one of those booners.


----------



## GVDocHoliday

traditional said:


> When was that 168 inch ten point taken?
> 
> Your telling me that the Park is better hunting now then it was Pre- MARs? Is that based on inches of antlers or number of deer. Remember I hunted this area alot in the 70's, 80's and 90's.


Probably both. Deer numbers are at a lower level that the habitat can support, some young bucks are protected their first year which allows them to get older. Lower deer numbers allow the habitat to recover providing all the browse the deer need without the habitat regressing. Age, enough browse, larger healthier deer....buck and doe.


----------



## Pinefarm

Many Michigan deer hunters don't necessarily "happily" shoot any small buck. They often do so by default in some area's, since there's little option for much else older than 2.5 years old. If you notice, many guys often say "it's JUST a spike", with "just" being the operative word revealing they really wish it was more.

Many of those Michigan deer hunters who quickly shoot the first spike/yearling they see do so because they believe, sometimes rightfully so, that their chances of seeing anything much larger/older are so remote that they take the spike buck in the hand because they know there is no 3 or 4 year old buck in the bush, with less than 50-100 to 1 odds. That's especially true after Nov.15, when the odds of a 4 year old buck still alive in some area's could be 500 to 1, or more, since 5 year old bucks the following year are essentially non-existent.
Thus the vicious cycle continues year after year.


----------



## bucko12pt

traditional said:


> When was that 168 inch ten point taken?
> 
> Your telling me that the Park is better hunting now then it was Pre- MARs? Is that based on inches of antlers or number of deer. Remember I hunted this area alot in the 70's, 80's and 90's.
> 
> I'll say it again, Neighbors to the south and east of DMU 045 that will be included in the MARs. I think you should go up in the National Lake Shore and see for yourself. You don't live that far away. Do you buy a truck without taking it for a spin? The promoters are telling you there are 130 inches of antlers around every tree. Go and see for yourself what years of MARs will do. You may even get one of those booners.


It was killed the first week and on public land and 168" is not a booner.

Of course it does'nt compare to 20 years ago, but no where else in the NLP compares to 20 years ago either, as far as deer herd size. All areas 
are down now and well they should be. But we have a much older buck 
population which makes hunters happy as they are now hunting for more mature bucks, with larger antlers and bucks that weigh 170 - 200
#, instead of 125# like 20 years ago. 

I never said there was a 130" buck behind every tree, your exaggeration, not mine. The population is high/low enough though, to keep the hunters and landowners happy. If they were'nt you think they would'nt be bitching about it. I have'nt seen a letter in the paper complaining about deer numbers, hunting quality in Leelanau in 5 years, or more
with many more praising the hunting quality than not.

As you are inviting people to Leelanau, tell them to come in the evening and stay until after dark and shine the Park areas that I mentioned in
my earlier post. You may be shocked at what you see.

Also, when you come to hunt, be prepared to hunt an older, more mature buck than 20 years ago. Hunting them is not the same as hunting Sparky's like you're used to.


----------



## Munsterlndr

shephard1993 said:


> They very well could be happy with a small buck, but Ive never heard anyone say the night before the season sure hope I get a young little buck in the morning. The bootom line is the more young bucks that live to maturity the more balanced and healthy the over all herd will become. And yes it will be easier to harvest bigger racks for those who want to. The only reason Michigan dont compare to the Mid West is because we keep thinking we have to fill our buck TAGS no matter the size.


Mostly the hunters that I know are happy to get a deer. They don't care much whether it's a buck or doe or whether it's big or little, they just want to put some venison in the freezer and add another memory of a successful hunt to the vault. Sure some guys are hung up on antlers and are disappointed if they fail to bag a booner but they are a minority, albeit a very vocal one. 

The bottom line is that improving the buck age structure of the herd has nothing to do with "herd health" a commonly used and and totally specious argument. See the recent herd health thread for more info. 

There are a variety of reasons that Michigan "don't" compare to other midwestern states and filling the tags has little to do with it. Try hunter numbers, soils, amount of commodities produced, winter severity and length of season, season dates and weapon types allowed if you are truly seeking an answer. 

Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin all manage to produce greater numbers of larger bucks without having an APR and three of those states also allow hunters to harvest multiple bucks. Regulations are not the primary reason for the difference, keep trying.


----------



## Munsterlndr

GVDocHoliday said:


> Probably both. Deer numbers are at a lower level that the habitat can support, some young bucks are protected their first year which allows them to get older. Lower deer numbers allow the habitat to recover providing all the browse the deer need without the habitat regressing. Age, enough browse, larger healthier deer....buck and doe.


Deer numbers prior to APR's in Leelanau Co. were already managed around 15% below carrying capacity, to keep the local cherry farmers happy. There may have been some damage to vegetation long in the mid to late 90's when the population was significantly higher but that was corrected long before APR's were put in place, so any claim that the deer in Leelanau Co. are "healthier" as a result of APR's is simply untrue.


----------



## poz

bucko12pt said:


> It was killed the first week and on public land and 168" is not a booner.
> 
> Of course it does'nt compare to 20 years ago, but no where else in the NLP compares to 20 years ago either, as far as deer herd size. All areas
> are down now and well they should be. But we have a much older buck
> population which makes hunters happy as they are now hunting for more mature bucks, with larger antlers and bucks that weigh 170 - 200
> #, instead of 125# like 20 years ago.
> 
> I never said there was a 130" buck behind every tree, your exaggeration, not mine. The population is high/low enough though, to keep the hunters and landowners happy. If they were'nt you think they would'nt be bitching about it. I have'nt seen a letter in the paper complaining about deer numbers, hunting quality in Leelanau in 5 years, or more
> with many more praising the hunting quality than not.
> 
> As you are inviting people to Leelanau, tell them to come in the evening and stay until after dark and shine the Park areas that I mentioned in
> my earlier post. You may be shocked at what you see.
> 
> Also, when you come to hunt, be prepared to hunt an older, more mature buck than 20 years ago. Hunting them is not the same as hunting Sparky's like you're used to.


so let me get this straight here is a guy that hunts this area and says deer numbers are down and most importantly hunter numbers are down in this area. you seem to agree with both of his observations but say there are bigger bucks in the area. if this is true why aren't the hunters flocking to the area. many on here are using the argument that if we have MARS and they work like you claim they are in this area than hunter numbers should be up in the area not down.


----------



## traditional

The one thing I do want to mention is you will be visiting a National Park. There are special rules and fines. Enjoy your Leelanau visit. Bring your nitro pills and double up on your BP meds.


----------



## Enigma

No I don't want it to pass.:gaga:


----------



## bucko12pt

poz said:


> so let me get this straight here is a guy that hunts this area and says deer numbers are down and most importantly hunter numbers are down in this area. you seem to agree with both of his observations but say there are bigger bucks in the area. if this is true why aren't the hunters flocking to the area. many on here are using the argument that if we have MARS and they work like you claim they are in this area than hunter numbers should be up in the area not down.


Personally, I do'nt have a lot of faith in second hand stories, especially coming from someone that is obviously biased against the APR in Leelanau Co. I live and hunt in Leelanau and have lived and hunted here all my life. I and a small group of others shine various parts of the county starting in late summer through the fall and have a fairly good idea of what is out there. There are plenty of deer to hunt, not as many as 20 years ago, but definitely a huntable population with some very nice mature bucks. 

As to whether people are "flocking" to the area, no they probably are'nt 
"flocking" here, but there definitely are non residents coming to Leelanau to hunt. 

We had a 168" buck killed this year and 167" killed last year.................................guess what???............both killed by non-residents. One on park land and one on 10 acres adjoining park land.

Any deer in the park, nope, I guess not. Joe Blow said he hunted there two days and did'nt see any!!


----------



## Munsterlndr

bucko12pt said:


> Personally, I do'nt have a lot of faith in second hand stories, especially coming from someone that is obviously biased against the APR in Leelanau Co.


:lol: But you seem to accept second hand stories coming from those who are in favor of APR's as proof positive. :lol:

Funny how that works. :yikes:


----------



## poz

bucko12pt said:


> Personally, I do'nt have a lot of faith in second hand stories, especially coming from someone that is obviously biased against the APR in Leelanau Co. I live and hunt in Leelanau and have lived and hunted here all my life. I and a small group of others shine various parts of the county starting in late summer through the fall and have a fairly good idea of what is out there. There are plenty of deer to hunt, not as many as 20 years ago, but definitely a huntable population with some very nice mature bucks.
> 
> As to whether people are "flocking" to the area, no they probably are'nt
> "flocking" here, but there definitely are non residents coming to Leelanau to hunt.
> 
> We had a 168" buck killed this year and 167" killed last year.................................guess what???............both killed by non-residents. One on park land and one on 10 acres adjoining park land.
> 
> Any deer in the park, nope, I guess not. Joe Blow said he hunted there two days and did'nt see any!!


are hunter number's up or down in the area. are you the resident Joe Blow in your area? you want everyone to believe what you say but you won't listen to everyone else. . in my area I use to count shots. everytime I hunted. they are down over 90%. every 2 track had a car or camp on it opening day now most are empty. all the businesses talk about all the money hunting brought to the community, now most are closed. yet you want us to believe that with the MARS hunting is better and more people are enjoying it and it's better for business


----------



## bucko12pt

Munsterlndr said:


> :lol: But you seem to accept second hand stories coming from those who are in favor of APR's as proof positive. :lol:
> 
> Funny how that works. :yikes:


Wow Munster, best reply you can come up with? :lol:

What stories anyway, post em up?


----------



## bucko12pt

poz said:


> are hunter number's up or down in the area. are you the resident Joe Blow in your area? you want everyone to believe what you say but you won't listen to everyone else. . in my area I use to count shots. everytime I hunted. they are down over 90%. every 2 track had a car or camp on it opening day now most are empty. all the businesses talk about all the money hunting brought to the community, now most are closed. yet you want us to believe that with the MARS hunting is better and more people are enjoying it and it's better for business


I really could care less what you believe. Get in your vehicle and go investigate if you choose not to believe me.

If you are satisfied with what you have in your DMU, then do'nt believe anything I say and continue with what you have. Sounds like you have a real hotspot!! :lol:

Good luck.


----------



## poz

bucko12pt said:


> I really could care less what you believe. Get in your vehicle and go investigate if you choose not to believe me.
> 
> If you are satisfied with what you have in your DMU, then do'nt believe anything I say and continue with what you have. Sounds like you have a real hotspot!! :lol:
> 
> Good luck.


of course you don't care what other hunters believe it's all about you. I've always been satisfied with my DMU. but I come from a line of hunters that if we want to shoot big bucks we hunt for them. we don't ask our neighbors to limit what they shoot. or critique their hunting methods as long as they are legal. when they shoot a small buck or even a button buck am happy for them. I don't cry that they took an opportunity away from me. I don't want an easy hunt like you.


----------



## bucko12pt

poz said:


> are hunter number's up or down in the area. are you the resident Joe Blow in your area? you want everyone to believe what you say but you won't listen to everyone else. . in my area I use to count shots. everytime I hunted. they are down over 90%. every 2 track had a car or camp on it opening day now most are empty. all the businesses talk about all the money hunting brought to the community, now most are closed. yet you want us to believe that with the MARS hunting is better and more people are enjoying it and it's better for business


I guess I misunderstood the part of this post where you are complaining about the number of shots being down 90% and most hunting related businesses being closed. Sounds like you guys have it figured out in your DMU. You should continue on with what you have.

That's not the case here, lots of happy hunters, landowners and business owners.

Like I said, I'm happy for your situation and what you have going in your DMU, sounds like a great place to live and hunt.


----------



## poz

bucko12pt said:


> I guess I misunderstood the part of this post where you are complaining about the number of shots being down 90% and most hunting related businesses being closed. Sounds like you guys have it figured out in your DMU. You should continue on with what you have.
> 
> That's not the case here, lots of happy hunters, landowners and business owners.
> 
> Like I said, I'm happy for your situation and what you have going in your DMU, sounds like a great place to live and hunt.


I was talking about most of the DMUs in the NLP but I guess because all you care about is that there was a big buck shot in the park area.


----------



## Justin

After reading pages and pages on this, I've come to this conclusion...
1. Keep the information honest.
2. keep the survey limited to the hunters of each dmu in question.
3. Get someone impartial to do the survey and tally the results.
4. Stick to the rules needed to pass
5. Limit how often the survey can be done.

If passed, I hope the northern towns near public land are prepared for a huge loss of business for a few years, if not more. In areas with no antlerless permits there will be very few legal targets.


----------



## poz

bucko12pt said:


> I guess I misunderstood the part of this post where you are complaining about the number of shots being down 90% and most hunting related businesses being closed. Sounds like you guys have it figured out in your DMU. You should continue on with what you have.
> 
> That's not the case here, lots of happy hunters, landowners and business owners.
> 
> Like I said, I'm happy for your situation and what you have going in your DMU, sounds like a great place to live and hunt.


 Again are hunter numbers up in your area. You keep saying lots of happy hunters, businesses in your area. Are there more hunters hunting up there than 5,10 ,15, years ago.


----------



## QDMAMAN

> traditional said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just Talked to an avid deer hunter who spent the first two days of the fire arm deer season in the Sleeping Bear Lake Shore. He hunted one mile from the nearest road between Wheeler Road and School Lake.
> 
> In the two days he spent in Leelanau he heard 10 shots in those two days. He saw 4 deer. Three sub-legal bucks and one doe. Very few cars parked along the roads. In his words he said " It is sad to see what has happened to the deer hunting in this area".
> 
> When I last hunted this area I would hear 10 shots in the first hour of the firearm season.
> 
> My suggestion for those Public Land hunters in the counties that will be affected by MARs is spent 20 bucks and get a park pass for this area. Spend a weekend on this public land and see for yourself what years of MARs will do to public land. You may be surprised.
Click to expand...

Lots of people are "avid" about the things they pursue, but not all of them are "proficient" at them. 
For years I was an avid mushroom hunter but it has only been in recent years that i have become proficient at it.
If someone thinks that strolling on to public land in Mesick or Boyn City will yield bushels of shrooms because they have shroom festivals or walking on to hunting land in Leelanau Co. and shooting a big buck will be easier because of MARs...they may be surprised.

Big T


----------



## MarkSend

They will be surprised alright, when after a couple of years there isn`t a 3.5 year old buck behind every bush. Some have claimed that 045 is full of happy hunters. With a success rate of less than 25% one has to wonder just how many happy people are there. After all if you took your truck to get it repaired and the guy did it right only 25% of the time would you be happy? For the record i have hunted 045 since the late sixies and seen the bad times and the happy times of deer hunting. Aprs haven`t been the happy times.


----------



## QDMAMAN

MarkSend said:


> They will be surprised alright, when after a couple of years there isn`t a 3.5 year old buck behind every bush. Some have claimed that 045 is full of happy hunters. With a success rate of less than 25% one has to wonder just how many happy people are there. After all if you took your truck to get it repaired and the guy did it right only 25% of the time would you be happy? For the record i have hunted 045 since the late sixies and seen the bad times and the happy times of deer hunting. Aprs haven`t been the happy times.


I believe the aprs were designed to protect 1.5 yo bucks, no?
I get the impression that you are part of the minority (28%) that are not satisfied with the regs that are now permanent.
It's clear to me that you place success deer hunting soully on killing a buck every year. Maybe killing one with at least 3 points on one side every other year should be your new goal.


----------



## MarkSend

well Q, why buy license if one doesn`t expect to use it? After all one can sit in the blind without having a bow or gun and watch the world go by. But one really doesn`t think many people do that. As for waiting every other year to shoot a buck why? Happen to hunt in an area that has enough 5&6 point 1.5 year olds to fill the tag. But why should some have to pass on a buck just so some wannbe trophy hunter has it easy to fill their tag?












































































































































9


----------



## QDMAMAN

MarkSend said:


> Some have claimed that 045 is full of happy hunters. *With a success rate of less than 25%* one has to wonder just how many happy people are there.


Interesting lil tidbit from the MDNR 2010 harverst report on page 37.
NLP success rate on bucks was 20.2%. Maybe that's why hunters in 045 are happy with +-25% with the new regs.?
http://michigan.gov/documents/dnr/report3526_355512_7.pdf


----------



## Lugian

Mark that's a fair question and I'll play devils advocate a bit. Hunting in a DMU without MAR's, why would a hunter hoping to kill an older buck even buy a tag if he doesn't expect to use it?



MarkSend said:


> well Q, why buy license if one doesn`t expect to use it? After all one can sit in the blind without having a bow or gun and watch the world go by. But one really doesn`t think many people do that. As for waiting every other year to shoot a buck why? Happen to hunt in an area that has enough 5&6 point 1.5 year olds to fill the tag. But why should some have to pass on a buck just so some wannbe trophy hunter has it easy to fill their tag?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Munsterlndr

QDMAMAN said:


> Interesting lil tidbit from the MDNR 2010 harverst report on page 37.
> NLP success rate on bucks was 20.2%. Maybe that's why hunters in 045 are happy with +-25% with the new regs.?


So are you suggesting that the success rate in 045 is due to the new regs?


----------



## QDMAMAN

> Munsterlndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are you suggesting that the success rate in 045 is due to the new regs?
Click to expand...

 You seem to spend an inordinate amount of time searching out my posts.

I'm suggesting that the NLP had a 20.2% success rate by hunters on bucks (2010 report)...AND I backed it with documentation, so what's the beef?


----------



## Munsterlndr

QDMAMAN said:


> I'm suggesting that the NLP had a 20.2% success rate by hunters on bucks (2010 report)...AND I backed it with documentation, so what's the beef?


I asked you a simple question, are you attributing the success rate in 045 to the APR's? It's kind of implied in your statement that you do but I didn't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth, hence the simple question. So was that the point you were trying to make? Just want to be clear so you don't claim that's not what you meant.


----------



## 19rabbit52

I think of the deer I've seen in the past and how it relates to point restrictions. I shot a nice 8 point last week. He was quickly moving and stopping. I could see he was a nice buck. If I would have tried to count points he would still be running. 44 years of deer hunting and I can't remember a buck that stood around waiting for me to count antlers. Maybe they do for all of you. Just like the UP, when I have to count points-I'm done hunting that area.


----------



## QDMAMAN

QDMAMAN said:


> Interesting lil tidbit from the MDNR 2010 harverst report on page 37.
> NLP success rate on bucks was 20.2%. Maybe that's why hunters in 045 are happy with +-25% with the new regs.?
> http://michigan.gov/documents/dnr/report3526_355512_7.pdf





Munsterlndr said:


> I asked you a simple question, are you attributing the success rate in 045 to the APR's? It's kind of implied in your statement that you do but I didn't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth, hence the simple question. So was that the point you were trying to make? Just want to be clear so you don't claim that's not what you meant.


I never attributed anything to anything. My statement was as a question to Marksend, not you, so stop putting words in my mouth.


----------



## bucko12pt

MarkSend said:


> well Q, why buy license if one doesn`t expect to use it? After all one can sit in the blind without having a bow or gun and watch the world go by. But one really doesn`t think many people do that. As for waiting every other year to shoot a buck why? Happen to hunt in an area that has enough 5&6 point 1.5 year olds to fill the tag. But why should some have to pass on a buck just so some wannbe trophy hunter has it easy to fill their tag? (QUOTE)
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> I'm confused by your statement. Both 5 & 6 point 1 1/2 year olds are a legal target in Leelanau, so if you are passing them it's not because you are restricted, but thank you for doing so. They also will be legal targets in the new 12 county proposal.
> 
> Also, if it's that "easy" for a "wannbe trophy hunter" to fill his tag, exactly what is the problem filling a tag for a hunter as proficient as you?


----------



## bucko12pt

QDMAMAN said:


> I never attributed anything to anything. My statement was as a question to Marksend, not you, so stop putting words in my mouth.


Come on Tony, take the bait, Munster's got to get his "fix" today.:lol:


----------



## QDMAMAN

bucko12pt said:


> Come on Tony, take the bait, Munster's got to get his "fix" today.:lol:


And risk depriving you of my company? NADA!


----------



## bucko12pt

QDMAMAN said:


> And risk depriving you of my company? NADA!


Really!!

It's interesting being the guy with the stick in front of the rattlesnake, poking him just to hear him rattle!! :evil:

I have a dear friend we like doing that to.:lol:


----------



## legal limit

Maybe I don't understand a few things. I have shot 1 1.5 old buck (because someone blew its leg off and it was dying in front of me) in the past 6 years. It weight 115 lbs. I have shot 1 2.5 year old that weighed 145, and 2 3.5 or older that wieghed around 185. I have shot around 20 does that were all over 115 and many of them over 125. So if one was to ask me would you rather shoot a 4 pt that is going to weigh 115 lbs or a doe that is over 125, I will shoot the doe every time. I have bought 12 bck tags in the last 6 years and have only filled 4 of them. I am damn proud of the 2 big bucks I killed and they are in my living room on the wall. I would rather kill 2 big ones than 12 small ones that I could have over the 6 year period. I Love venision and so does my family and I pile up the does so we have it year round. But the thing I don't understand is why would one not want to let them grow up so they will weigh that much and have a potential of a really nice rack? If you had a cattle farm would you butcher a cow that was only 1/2 grown up? Sorry if someone gets offended, I just don't understand it.


----------



## musicman34

legal limit said:


> Maybe I don't understand a few things. I have shot 1 1.5 old buck (because someone blew its leg off and it was dying in front of me) in the past 6 years. It weight 115 lbs. I have shot 1 2.5 year old that weighed 145, and 2 3.5 or older that wieghed around 185. I have shot around 20 does that were all over 115 and many of them over 125. So if one was to ask me would you rather shoot a 4 pt that is going to weigh 115 lbs or a doe that is over 125, I will shoot the doe every time. I have bought 12 bck tags in the last 6 years and have only filled 4 of them. I am damn proud of the 2 big bucks I killed and they are in my living room on the wall. I would rather kill 2 big ones than 12 small ones that I could have over the 6 year period. I Love venision and so does my family and I pile up the does so we have it year round. But the thing I don't understand is why would one not want to let them grow up so they will weigh that much and have a potential of a really nice rack? If you had a cattle farm would you butcher a cow that was only 1/2 grown up? Sorry if someone gets offended, I just don't understand it.


Would it be any easier to understand if a hunter was hunting in a DMU without antlerless permits and the 1.5 y.o. buck was the only deer he saw? Should he or she go without just so someone else can harvest the same deer a year or 2 later which would weigh more and have larger antlers?


----------



## Rasputin

legal limit said:


> Maybe I don't understand a few things. I have shot 1 1.5 old buck (because someone blew its leg off and it was dying in front of me) in the past 6 years. It weight 115 lbs. I have shot 1 2.5 year old that weighed 145, and 2 3.5 or older that wieghed around 185. I have shot around 20 does that were all over 115 and many of them over 125. So if one was to ask me would you rather shoot a 4 pt that is going to weigh 115 lbs or a doe that is over 125, I will shoot the doe every time. I have bought 12 bck tags in the last 6 years and have only filled 4 of them. I am damn proud of the 2 big bucks I killed and they are in my living room on the wall. I would rather kill 2 big ones than 12 small ones that I could have over the 6 year period. I Love venision and so does my family and I pile up the does so we have it year round. But the thing I don't understand is why would one not want to let them grow up so they will weigh that much and have a potential of a really nice rack? If you had a cattle farm would you butcher a cow that was only 1/2 grown up? Sorry if someone gets offended, I just don't understand it.


 
I would rather kill 12 small ones than 2 big ones. FWIW.


----------



## Munsterlndr

As to the question of whether APR's are a driving force related to antlered buck success rates in DMU 045, when compared to the NLP as a whole, it's a hard case to make. 

Prior to APR's, the baseline annual success rate in Leelanau Co. on antlered bucks was 22%. The baseline success rate for the NLP as a whole during that period was 21%, so Leelanau was slightly higher than the NLP average prior to APR's being put in place. Under the 8 years of APR's in DMU 045, that average has risen to 24%. During the same period, the average for the NLP as a whole has also risen to 24%, without having APR's as a driving force.

When compared to the three adjacent counties that have not had APR's, the increase in antlered buck success rate has been substantially lower in DMU 045, than in the non-APR counties.


----------



## bucko12pt

Munsterlndr said:


> As to the question of whether APR's are a driving force related to antlered buck success rates in DMU 045, when compared to the NLP as a whole, it's a hard case to make.
> 
> Prior to APR's, the baseline annual success rate in Leelanau Co. on antlered bucks was 22%. The baseline success rate for the NLP as a whole during that period was 21%, so Leelanau was slightly higher than the NLP average prior to APR's being put in place. Under the 8 years of APR's in DMU 045, that average has risen to 24%. During the same period, the average for the NLP as a whole has also risen to 24%, without having APR's as a driving force.
> 
> When compared to the three adjacent counties that have not had APR's, the increase in antlered buck success rate has been substantially lower in DMU 045, than in the non-APR counties.


Makes sense to me. 

The hunters in Leelanau are primarily hunting and killing 2 1/2 and older deer while the other three counties are primarily hunting and killing Sparky's. Actually, I would have expected a lower success rate in Leelanau because of that fact. Must mean there are some very good and persistent hunters hunting the county that are'nt willing to shoot the first thing that comes along.

Everyone should know that mature bucks are much more difficult to hunt than Sparky's. 

No mystery there. 

Is that what you were baiting QDMAMAN for.................I guess he must be at least 3 1/2, or older?:lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr

Lugian said:


> Can you take a few minutes and explain how the presence of state land will cut the shot opprtunities in half?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Not to speak for Swamp but increased hunter densities, even lower availability of antlerless permits and the inability to make habitat improvements to attract and hold deer would likely reduce the potential opportunities compared to private land. There is a reason that 85% of the deer harvested in Michigan are harvested on private land and it's not that there is nobody hunting on public land.


----------



## Justin

Wow... nice to know I'm not alone on this. Good posts on this page.


----------



## Lumberman

Got it Munster. The question is what would year 2 look like?


----------



## Munsterlndr

Lumberman said:


> Got it Munster. The question is what would year 2 look like?


For the casual hunter, not much different than year one. Another crop of yearlings that would be protected from being harvested. For the more advanced or maybe I should say for the more dedicated hunter, there would be some additional older deer to harvest. My guess and this is just an opinion, would be that many if not most of the additional older bucks would be concentrated on private land, particularly private land where habitat improvements had been made.


----------



## anon12192013aazz

sbooy42 said:


> Even though I'd rather see OBR its a step in the right direction.. so it gets my yes




I would rather see a one-buck rule because it still allows people like young hunters, new hunters, OLD hunters and casual hunters to shoot A (one) buck. The APR will force all of those folks to wait for THE buck. I'd rather have a choice of what buck I shoot, not have to pass one that meets my goals. I have this picture of a disabled hunter who can only get out 2 or 3 times a year having to pass on several small bucks and not seeing one that meets the restrictions.

With all of that being said, it's better than what is in place right now, so I'd vote for it.


----------



## swampbuck

Munsterlndr said:


> Not to speak for Swamp but increased hunter densities, even lower availability of antlerless permits and the inability to make habitat improvements to attract and hold deer would likely reduce the potential opportunities compared to private land. There is a reason that 85% of the deer harvested in Michigan are harvested on private land and it's not that there is nobody hunting on public land.


Well said munster.....If you need more.

2010 Deer harvest N.W. L.P. (change from 09)

Private 23,930 anterless (-11.2%) 24,351 antlered (-7.7%)

Public 1,722 antlerless (-16.1%) 4,980 antlered (-15.4%)

And the disparity has been increasing every year.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How about this......Hunter numbers and bucks harvested 2010

DMU 045 Leelanau 4,412 hunters......1,240 bucks

DMU 040 Kalkaska (aprox. 70%public land) 7,546 hunters...... 634 bucks

So are those 12 countys the same as dmu045 and would APR's have the same effect in those twelve county's


----------



## Headacres

Munsterlndr said:


> There is a reason that 85% of the deer harvested in Michigan are harvested on private land and it's not that there is nobody hunting on public land.


Roughly 80% of the land in Michigan is private which would explain the 85% of deer harvested being on private land.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bucko12pt

MarkSend said:


> Bucko, to clear up any confusion you may have and so you can sleep better at night i will try to make it clear. Some poster thought that i would have to wait and only take a buck every other year. Hence the statement that there was enough 1.5 year old 5 &6 points around to file a tag. So if it has 3 points on one side it is taken. Makes no difference of the age of the deer.
> 
> As for the hunter who buys an tag and expects to take a 3.5 year old every year they either are very good or had better expect to be disappointed most years. It is like going perch fishing on an inland lake and expect to bring home a pail full of 16 " perch every outing. Munster your game camera was like ours(wife is into cameras big time) A small 2.5 8 point and two 1.5s, a 3 and 4 point. I didn`t hunt long enough to see many deer. My season lasted about ninety minutes. My son got the small 8 point and that was the only legal buck he saw the entire rifle season.


Most guys that hunt 3 1/2 year old deer expect that they are not going to tag a deer every year and that really is'nt a dissapointment to them, like it is to the guy that must kill his sparky every year. There is nothing like the satisfaction I get when I let one of those little bucks walk and I've been doing it since 1985, long before the APR in Leelanau. I have'nt felt the need to fill a tag in a long, long time.

Congrats to you and your son, 100%, sounds like the APR is working for you.


----------



## swampbuck

Headacres said:


> Roughly 80% of the land in Michigan is private which would explain the 85% of deer harvested being on private land.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


What percentage of the 12 county area is private ? And what percentage of that is actually huntable land?


----------



## Munsterlndr

Headacres said:


> Roughly 80% of the land in Michigan is private which would explain the 85% of deer harvested being on private land.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Not really because a significant portion of that private land is not open to hunting. 

50% of the UP is public land, yet 70% of the deer harvest there occurs on private land. I don't think there is any real question that private land owners, who can control hunter density, pressure and can enhance their property for deer, have a huge advantage over public land hunters. APR's simply compound that advantage. 

Now that's not to say that it's "unfair" that private land owners enjoy an inherent advantage, nothing in life is fair but the existing disparity should certainly be taken into account when determining regulations governing a public resource and the potentially disproportional impact that increased restrictions might have on the public land hunter.


----------



## Headacres

swampbuck said:


> Unfortunately I forsee that many of the hunters unlike you and I would chose to take that doe, if not with a permit then with the archery option. Lowering the already decimated herd even further.


Looks like it's already happening under the current regs on private land based on the number's you posted. Almost 50% of the overall harvest on private land was antlerless in the nwlp. Quite high considering the area is already supposedly decimated. The impact would also carry over to public land as well and probably greater than antlerless kills during archery season with the combo tag.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Headacres

swampbuck said:


> What percentage of the 12 county area is private ? And what percentage of that is actually huntable land?


Looking at this map I would say over 70%. Huntable? I'm not sure.









_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bucko12pt

swampbuck said:


> Well said munster.....If you need more.
> 
> 2010 Deer harvest N.W. L.P. (change from 09)
> 
> Private 23,930 anterless (-11.2%) 24,351 antlered (-7.7%)
> 
> Public 1,722 antlerless (-16.1%) 4,980 antlered (-15.4%)
> 
> And the disparity has been increasing every year.


 

So, based on the above, you and Munster are in agreement, and are pleased with the way things are now and we should maintain the status quo? 

Or perhaps, we try something else that could possibly work a little better?

What could be worse? We maintain the status quo and things keep getting worse, or we try something else, that's for a 5 year trial period
and maybe things will get better?


----------



## Munsterlndr

bucko12pt said:


> So, based on the above, you and Munster are in agreement, and are pleased with the way things are now and we should maintain the status quo?
> 
> Or perhaps, we try something else that could possibly work a little better?
> 
> What could be worse? We maintain the status quo and things keep getting worse, or we try something else, that's for a 5 year trial period
> and maybe things will get better?


No evidence that APR's would improve the factors that are areas of concern in the NWLP, if anything they would exacerbate things. 

Your last paragraph sounds alarmingly like something out of the Obama playbook, look how well that's worked out. :yikes::sad:


----------



## swampbuck

bucko12pt said:


> So, based on the above, you and Munster are in agreement, and are pleased with the way things are now and we should maintain the status quo?
> 
> Or perhaps, we try something else that could possibly work a little better?
> 
> What could be worse? We maintain the status quo and things keep getting worse, or we try something else, that's for a 5 year trial period
> and maybe things will get better?


Care to explain how APR's will decrease that disparity ?......It might help if it was APR's on private land only.


----------



## Headacres

Munsterlndr said:


> Not really because a significant portion of that private land is not open to hunting.
> 
> 50% of the UP is public land, yet 70% of the deer harvest there occurs on private land. I don't think there is any real question that private land owners, who can control hunter density, pressure and can enhance their property for deer, have a huge advantage over public land hunters. APR's simply compound that advantage.
> 
> Now that's not to say that it's "unfair" that private land owners enjoy an inherent advantage, nothing in life is fair but the existing disparity should certainly be taken into account when determining regulations governing a public resource and the potentially disproportional impact that increased restrictions might have on the public land hunter.


Overall I agree.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bucko12pt

swampbuck said:


> Care to explain how APR's will decrease that disparity ?......It might help if it was APR's on private land only.


I do'nt have a clue and either do you, but I'm not one to keep running my head into a concrete wall after the first time and I've figured out I'm not going to bust through. Deer hunting in many parts of the NWLP suck and as you posted, it's getting worse. So do we still keep beating our heads in the wall, or try something different? The DNR is giving us 
that opportunity. I'm not convinced that APR's are the absolute best thing for management in the NWLP either, but it does work and it's better than the poor excuse we have for hunting in most of the NWLP now. I've lived in this county all my life and deer hunting now is better than it has ever been, considering all the constraints we have to deal with.

If APR's are not the answer, then what is? You guys are fond of tossing all kinds of info out, as to why we should'nt do it, why do'nt you come up with a practical solution that will work and can be sold to the DNR and voted for by the NRC.

Or do we simply take your path and continue beating our head's against the wall while hunting continues to get worse and worse? :banghead3


----------



## wintrrun

I'll be honest in all the research i have done on the Apr's I have come to this conclusion.
Leelanau County is the worst candidate for poster child that could have been chosen.
Its mainly private as stated previously.
The state offers a whopping 7 sq miles of broken up hunting parcels.
Has a little over 2.5 sq miles enrolled in CFL.
The only saving grace for a public land hunter would be that NP that allows you to hunt. Although its an opportunity to hunt i would not put it high on my list of places i just have to go.
If you take the NP property out of the equation Leelanau is just one great big mandated APR co-op.:lol:

My Gosh! 8 years of pretty much private land only statistics and you wanna pass em off to public land hunters like there gonna see your results. ***!
"Nevermind that i hunt a privately managed whitetail heaven and you just drive out into the stateland deer woods and sit on a stump. You keep passing them lil ones johnny and in no time at all you'll be shooting big ones just like i do".
Excuse me while i go slam my head in the bathroom door.
Ok i feel better.
There is and always will be a monumental difference between Wints Happy Deer Farm and the Stateland down the road. Will not sugar coat it any other way.
As i have stated b4 this APR movement is really just "here's what i want and not what i need.
On a side note: Kalkaska woulda been my poster child. Almost a 50/50 split public to private land and 8 years of those numbers woulda brought everything into perspective.


----------



## Headacres

Overall I don't think the disparity will change. But I don't see much changing at all on public land. No increased dpsm, deer sighting's, antlerless tags, buck kills, hunter's, hunter's satisfaction etc.... I'll take that back, bait will help with some of the mentioned. The DNR is managing it this way (Which they should) and this is what you can expect from here on out... Or worse if the habitat can't support the current deer population in the future.

Besides improving the habitat, what else can improve the hunting on state land under the current regs and management plan? Nothing really other than less hunter's creating less hunting pressure... which is already happening. Bait... which is now legal. What else? 

Based on who -'ve talked to hunting this area (Mainly Lake and Wexford county public land), there are two things that would improve their hunting... More deer sighting's and bigger buck's. Well with an apr in place one of them will improve.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bucko12pt

wintrrun said:


> I'll be honest in all the research i have done on the Apr's I have come to this conclusion.
> Leelanau County is the worst candidate for poster child that could have been chosen.
> Its mainly private as stated previously.
> The state offers a whopping 7 sq miles of broken up hunting parcels.
> Has a little over 2.5 sq miles enrolled in CFL.
> The only saving grace for a public land hunter would be that NP that allows you to hunt. Although its an opportunity to hunt i would not put it high on my list of places i just have to go.
> If you take the NP property out of the equation Leelanau is just one great big mandated APR co-op.:lol:
> 
> My Gosh! 8 years of pretty much private land only statistics and you wanna pass em off to public land hunters like there gonna see your results. ***!
> "Nevermind that i hunt a privately managed whitetail heaven and you just drive out into the stateland deer woods and sit on a stump. You keep passing them lil ones johnny and in no time at all you'll be shooting big ones just like i do".
> Excuse me while i go slam my head in the bathroom door.
> Ok i feel better.
> There is and always will be a monumental difference between Wints Happy Deer Farm and the Stateland down the road. Will not sugar coat it any other way.
> As i have stated b4 this APR movement is really just "here's what i want and not what i need.
> On a side note: Kalkaska woulda been my poster child. Almost a 50/50 split public to private land and 8 years of those numbers woulda brought everything into perspective.


I guess I do'nt understand why you would exclude a very large portion of the county (Sleeping Bear) that holds some of the best bucks and in fact has produced the two largest bucks in the past two years.........................but that's just me.  

You should continue to ignore the park!! 

Since you brought up a DMU with a 50/50 split public/private (Kalkaska)and are concerned whether it will work on public land, as is Swampbuck.

Lets compare another DMU that has had an APR since 2001, DMU 122, in Iron County. It has a better than 50/50 split in public/private land and in 2010 had 1031 (3 on a side or better) bucks taken by 3085 hunters for a wopping 33% success rate. That success rate is better than Jackson, Hilsdale and the entire state of Michigan as far as I know.

Sounds like it's working on public land there!!

Sounds like you guys have it going on in Benzie Wintrrun. More hunters 
than Leelanau 4452 with less sparkys killed than Leelanau had 3 on a side 984 for a success rate of 22%. Yeah, you have it figured out!!


----------



## swampbuck

bucko12pt said:


> I do'nt have a clue and either do you, but I'm not one to keep running my head into a concrete wall after the first time and I've figured out I'm not going to bust through. Deer hunting in many parts of the NWLP suck and as you posted, it's getting worse. So do we still keep beating our heads in the wall, or try something different? The DNR is giving us
> that opportunity. I'm not convinced that APR's are the absolute best thing for management in the NWLP either, but it does work and it's better than the poor excuse we have for hunting in most of the NWLP now. I've lived in this county all my life and deer hunting now is better than it has ever been, considering all the constraints we have to deal with.
> 
> If APR's are not the answer, then what is? You guys are fond of tossing all kinds of info out, as to why we should'nt do it, why do'nt you come up with a practical solution that will work and can be sold to the DNR and voted for by the NRC.
> 
> Or do we simply take your path and continue beating our head's against the wall while hunting continues to get worse and worse? :banghead3


The only issue I have is the deer density being considerably lower than MDNR set goals. And the only change I would make would be to improve their ability to maintain the herd within the desired level for the DMU's.

Sex and age structure are fine around here.


----------



## Ranger Ray

My 16 to 24 year old self would say, no APR's. My 24 to 38 year old self would say, not sure. My 50 year old self says, why not.


----------



## fishinDon

Ranger Ray said:


> My 16 to 24 year old self would say, no APR's. My 24 to 38 year old self would say, not sure. My 50 year old self says, why not.


This might be the most interesting reply I've read in this thread yet. 

I read the progression of a trout fisherman described somewhere once. It basically goes like this:
When you start out you just want to catch a trout, any trout.
Then you get a little better. You want to catch LOTS of trout, as many as possible.
Then you get a little better. You want to catch a BIG trout, don't care if it's the only fish you catch, so long as it's big.
Finally, you get older and wiser, and it's no longer about the fish. It's just about being outdoors and enjoying everything that goes with it, like the company of friends and family and seeing a younger fisherman enjoying themselves, etc.

I fall in the middle tier of Ray's ages - maybe that's why I can't make up my mind. 

And maybe it's no wonder that most of the people that I talk to that are in favor of these rules are older, more experienced hunters. 

And many of the ones I talk to that are concerned about the rules, put themselves back in their 16 year old hand me down hunting suit or are thinking about their aged grandfather when they make their call...

This is certainly a tough one but Ray's perspective helps me put a little clarity to the situation. 
Don


----------



## swampbuck

fishinDon said:


> This might be the most interesting reply I've read in this thread yet. I fall in the middle tier of Ray's ages - maybe that's why I can't make up my mind.
> 
> And maybe it's no wonder that most of the people that I talk to that are in favor of these rules are older, more experienced hunters.
> 
> And many of the ones I talk to that are concerned about the rules, put themselves back in their 16 year old hand me down hunting suit when they make their call...
> 
> This is certainly a tough one.
> Don


Its great that you are putting a lot of thought and consideration into it. For a lot of guys now days the thought of big bucks behind every tree, blinds them from considering the big picture.


----------



## bucko12pt

Ranger Ray said:


> My 16 to 24 year old self would say, no APR's. My 24 to 38 year old self would say, not sure. My 50 year old self says, why not.


We've had the APR in Leelanau since 2002 and my experience has been that there are many young kids that are in favor of it. Many more than I expected. It seems the older guys are the one's that are stuck on maintaining the status quo. Not to say it's the opposite of what you are saying, just that there are a lot more young people in favor of it than you might think there is.


----------



## Munsterlndr

bucko12pt said:


> Lets compare another DMU that has had an APR since 2001, DMU 122, in Iron County. It has a better than 50/50 split in public/private land and in 2010 had 1031 (3 on a side or better) bucks taken by 3085 hunters for a wopping 33% success rate. That success rate is better than Jackson, Hilsdale and the entire state of Michigan as far as I know.
> 
> Sounds like it's working on public land there!!


The success rate prior to APR's in Iron county was 32%, looks like there has been very little impact that is attributable to APR's. There are a number of other DMU's in the state without APR's that have higher success rates, Gratiot, Calhoun and Montcalm are all in the 35 - 38% antlered buck hunter success range. 

60% of those bucks harvested last year in Iron county were 6 pt.or smaller. While the buck age structure has certainly increased, the antler size is still limited by a number of factors other than age.

There were 200 public land antlerless permits issued last year in Iron Co. vs. 2,500 private land permits, so much for parity between public land and private land hunters. Unless you have the breakdown as to how many deer were harvested on public vs. private and what the breakdown of hunters hunting on public vs. private land, there is no way to know whether _"it's working on public land there!"_

Another potential indicator of disparity is that the approval rate for APR's among private land owners increased during the initial 5 years of APR's, while the approval rate for the hunter sample _decreased_ during that time period.


----------



## Munsterlndr

bucko12pt said:


> We've had the APR in Leelanau since 2002


Not to be argumentative but we have had the APR in Leelanau since 2003.


----------



## wintrrun

bucko12pt said:


> I guess I do'nt understand why you would exclude a very large portion of the county (Sleeping Bear) that holds some of the best bucks and in fact has produced the two largest bucks in the past two years.........................but that's just me.
> 
> You should continue to ignore the park!!
> 
> Since you brought up a DMU with a 50/50 split public/private (Kalkaska)and are concerned whether it will work on public land, as is Swampbuck.
> 
> Lets compare another DMU that has had an APR since 2001, DMU 122, in Iron County. It has a better than 50/50 split in public/private land and in 2010 had 1031 (3 on a side or better) bucks taken by 3085 hunters for a wopping 33% success rate. That success rate is better than Jackson, Hilsdale and the entire state of Michigan as far as I know.
> 
> Sounds like it's working on public land there!!
> 
> Sounds like you guys have it going on in Benzie Wintrrun. More hunters
> than Leelanau 4452 with less sparkys killed than Leelanau had 3 on a side 984 for a success rate of 22%. Yeah, you have it figured out!!


To date the only places i have found those big mature deer are north of Empire. Problem i found was you had to hang a treestand next to the No Trespassing signs in order to get a shot. If your local then i am sure you know of the area i speak of. 

So we add the NP property back in. What percentage of public land is now huntable within Leelanau. 16 -18%? Your still not offering up a fair comparison to any of the surrounding counties that offer much more in the way of stateland. Leelanau is still IMO without the park just a big private co-op.
Iron County in the Upper (not the nlp) saw a banner year hunter success wise with 3085 hunters taking 1031 3+ on one side. Since a UP Dmu does not have a dog in the fight i'd ask wheres the rest of the harvest info since the Apr's were implemented?
33% is impressive but prior years tell the story. Also what is also neglected is i do not see you stating a % private and a % state. Seeing how your point was to use Iron County as a comparison to Kalkaska i'm sure you would feel that info to be just as important as 33%. 
Another important factor i would consider is pressure. 3085 hunters in an area of 1197 sqmi versus ? hunters in 566 sqmi.
I am not trying to ruin your "Look what APR's can do for ya party" but alot of factors are neglected and i am still not ready to belly up to the bar and drink your koolaid.


Bucko there is no doubt that your drive behind deer hunting is mature deer with bone. You score deer for CBM. Its overly apparent that you hold a higher regard for those that chose to embrace APR's than those that question it. 
I don't knock my neighbor for shooting sparky, he's entitled to it under the current regs. The world of my management program stops at my property lines and thats where i see the difference.
My passion too is big mature whitetails but i don't need Mandated APR's to achieve that.


----------



## fishinDon

Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a break down of Age vs. Average Antler Points for the NLP? 

I'm just curious as to what percentage of the antlered bucks does a 3 points per side restriction protect in the NLP? My guess would be a pretty high number of 1.5's and even a decent number of 2.5's...

Thx,
Don


----------



## Pinefarm

DEER HUNTERS UNITE!

Against Changes=Proforkariat

For Changes=Bucksrgeoisie

:lol:


----------



## bucko12pt

Munsterlndr said:


> The success rate prior to APR's in Iron county was 32%, looks like there has been very little impact that is attributable to APR's. There are a number of other DMU's in the state without APR's that have higher success rates, Gratiot, Calhoun and Montcalm are all in the 35 - 38% antlered buck hunter success range.
> 
> 60% of those bucks harvested last year in Iron county were 6 pt.or smaller. While the buck age structure has certainly increased, the antler size is still limited by a number of factors other than age.
> 
> There were 200 public land antlerless permits issued last year in Iron Co. vs. 2,500 private land permits, so much for parity between public land and private land hunters. Unless you have the breakdown as to how many deer were harvested on public vs. private and what the breakdown of hunters hunting on public vs. private land, there is no way to know whether _"it's working on public land there!"_
> 
> Another potential indicator of disparity is that the approval rate for APR's among private land owners increased during the initial 5 years of APR's, while the approval rate for the hunter sample _decreased_ during that time period.


Yes but they both passed by what 76% and 74%, even a higher approval rate than Leelanau passed by, when it was approved for the second time. And I may be wrong because I have'nt checked but, I believe it was the opposite of what you are saying, landowners went down and hunters went up. DMU 122 was actually DMU 414 when it was passed the first time and the landowner approval was 80% and dropped, while the hunter approval rate was 71% and went up. Doing that from memory and it really does'nt mean a lot anyway.

All I am saying is Swampbuck is ranting about the sky falling if it is approved in a county that is heavy to public land and I do'nt see it.

While Leelanau is not as heavy to public land as some counties, there is a sizeable piece of contiguous public land that has some of the best hunting in the county.

I'm still waitiing for Swampbuck and you to come up with an alternative to an APR that has a chance of being approved by the DNR and the NRC. 

Lots of hunters are not happy with the status quo and want a change, so what is your proposal that is better than an APR and has a chance 
of approval?

Until something else is put forward as a proposal, I see more of the same for the future.


----------



## bucko12pt

wintrrun said:


> To date the only places i have found those big mature deer are north of Empire. Problem i found was you had to hang a treestand next to the No Trespassing signs in order to get a shot. If your local then i am sure you know of the area i speak of.
> 
> So we add the NP property back in. What percentage of public land is now huntable within Leelanau. 16 -18%? Your still not offering up a fair comparison to any of the surrounding counties that offer much more in the way of stateland. Leelanau is still IMO without the park just a big private co-op.
> Iron County in the Upper (not the nlp) saw a banner year hunter success wise with 3085 hunters taking 1031 3+ on one side. Since a UP Dmu does not have a dog in the fight i'd ask wheres the rest of the harvest info since the Apr's were implemented?
> 33% is impressive but prior years tell the story. Also what is also neglected is i do not see you stating a % private and a % state. Seeing how your point was to use Iron County as a comparison to Kalkaska i'm sure you would feel that info to be just as important as 33%.
> Another important factor i would consider is pressure. 3085 hunters in an area of 1197 sqmi versus ? hunters in 566 sqmi.
> I am not trying to ruin your "Look what APR's can do for ya party" but alot of factors are neglected and i am still not ready to belly up to the bar and drink your koolaid.
> 
> 
> Bucko there is no doubt that your drive behind deer hunting is mature deer with bone. You score deer for CBM. Its overly apparent that you hold a higher regard for those that chose to embrace APR's than those that question it.
> I don't knock my neighbor for shooting sparky, he's entitled to it under the current regs. The world of my management program stops at my property lines and thats where i see the difference.
> My passion too is big mature whitetails but i don't need Mandated APR's to achieve that.


So we agree to disagree and continue the process. 

I can tell you that the largest buck killed in the county this year (168")
was killed in Sleeping Bear and was a very long way from the closest private land. 

You're looking in the wrong places.


----------



## Munsterlndr

bucko12pt said:


> And I may be wrong because I have'nt checked but, I believe it was the opposite of what you are saying, landowners went down and hunters went up.


Incorrect.

When the regs were originally passed on 2001, The Landowner support was 71%, and the hunter support was 80%.

In 2006 the Landowner support was 76%, the hunter support had fallen to 74%.

As far as suggestions about what to do, I don't see hunting in the NLP as being seriously "broken". I think some steps could be taken to slightly increase densities in some areas where people have been overly enthusiastic with killing does. Other than that I don't see a compelling need for the DNR to do anything different related to managing the NLP herd. 

Private land owners who are interested in managing for and hunting mature deer have a variety of options available to them to pursue, I don't see any reason for a regulatory change that would have a negative impact on a sector of the hunter population, just to give those private land owners an additional boost in making it easier for them to hunt and kill a mature buck.


----------



## Munsterlndr

fishinDon said:


> Just out of curiosity, does anyone have a break down of Age vs. Average Antler Points for the NLP?
> 
> I'm just curious as to what percentage of the antlered bucks does a 3 points per side restriction protect in the NLP? My guess would be a pretty high number of 1.5's and even a decent number of 2.5's...
> 
> Thx,
> Don


A 3 pt. restriction protects 73% of yearling bucks and 54% of all antlered bucks in the NLP.

Comparatively, a 4 pt. APR would protect 69% of yearling bucks and 53% of all antlered bucks in the SLP.

If there is any region in the state where we should be experimenting with APR's, it's the SLP. The impact in terms of reducing hunter opportunity would be mitigated there because of the ready availability of antlerless permits and because of the high densities that exist in most of the SLP. The potential that an APR might have on increasing antlerless harvests there might actually help in reducing the densities in many DMU's that are viewed as over-populated by the DNR. One wonders why many of the SLP hunters who seem to be supporting APR's in the NWLP are not lobbying more aggressively for APR's in their own backyards.


----------



## Liver and Onions

bucko12pt said:


> ................
> I'm still waitiing for Swampbuck and you to come up with an alternative to an APR that has a chance of being approved by the DNR and the NRC.
> .........


Something similar to the current UP Lindquist method, but only if the current computer system gets a complete update. Currently, I believe, a hunter in the UP can buy both an archery any buck tag and a gun any buck tag. An honor system of only shooting 1 small buck just isn't going to work well.

L & O


----------



## sbooy42

Munsterlndr said:


> For the hard core hunter, I don't think there is any question that APR's will result in greater numbers of older deer being around as targets. For the casual hunter, the ones that make up the vast majority of the 650,000 deer hunters that we have in Michigan, I think it will be very unlikely that they will have as many harvest opportunities as they would without APR's.
> 
> I've had deer cams on my property for the last 6 years, we have had APR's for the last 8, so the buck's photographed during that time period should be representative of what the APR's will produce. During that time period, the overwhelming majority of bucks photographed have been yearlings, a few 2.5 year olds and one 3.5 year old. That's just what has been caught on cam, not what have offered a shot during legal hunting hours. Just using this season as an example, I've gotten pictures of 3 different spikes, 1 yearling fork horn, one yearling 5 point and one 2.5 year old 8 point, as well as a couple of button bucks. The 2.5 year old was only photographed at night during the rut. In addition to the bucks, there is one resident family group of does comprised of an older doe that had twin fawns and a yearling doe that does not have a fawn. Given that the population is only about 12 DPSM and has been falling the last couple of years, I made the decision not to shoot a doe this year on my Leelanau property. During the course of around 100+ hours hunting this fall on that property, I had shot opportunities on two spikes, two button bucks, the forkhorn and the yearling doe, all of which I passed, only the buttons and the doe being legal under the APR's. Had they been legal, I would rather have taken one of the spikes instead of a doe but due to the APR's, that was not an option.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining, I still have venison in the freezer from last year and I'll be hunting the late antlerless season in Antrim Co. next week so there is still the chance to put a deer in the freezer, I'm just using my experience as an illustration of what hunting under APR's in Leelanau Co. has been like for me. Normally, I'm fine with just harvesting a doe and I usually have that opportunity but this year, despite getting one of only 200 antlerless tags, I decided that the population did not warrant it. My guess is that for many of the casual hunters in the area under consideration, particularly those that only firearms hunt, their harvest opportunities under an APR would be similar.
> 
> Again, under a 3 pt. APR in the NLP, without an antlerless permit, something like 85 to 90% of the deer are off limits before you even step in the woods. For some casual hunters, like my BIL for example, those odds make it unlikely enough that he gave up hunting a couple of years ago, despite owning 60 wooded acres of prime habitat in Leelanau Co. For some, the prospect of bagging a big buck is just not an important motivating factor, while the prospect of harvesting a deer, is.
> 
> It's not infrequent to hear some of the people on this forum say that we would be better off without those casual hunters anyway and that people should just learn to hunt harder and smarter if they want to bag a deer. While everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion, that's not one that I share, I don't see anything positive in making changes that increase the loss of hunters in the future, despite the fact that the hunting may be "better" for some.
> 
> Just the opinion of someone who has actually experienced APR's.


You noted a few times that the population didnt warrant taking an antler less and that it has been decreasing over the last few years..

How does removing the APRs and increasing hunter opportunity increase the population?

Below you talked up private land and how opportunities would increase for private land owners ad even mention that your brother has prime habitat on his 60 yet gave up hunting because no opportunity... How can that be?

Oh and 100+ hours this fall.... you must have really put er to the grind stone considering the amount of time you spend on here and when I talked to you the end of Oct. you hadn't even been deer hunting.


swampbuck said:


> munster,
> 
> Your post is exactly what I would expect in the 12 county area.... Except unlike Leelanau, many of those countys have a great deal of public land, which would probably cut the shot opportunitys that you expierienced in half. Unfortunately I forsee that many of the hunters unlike you and I would chose to take that doe, if not with a permit then with the archery option. Lowering the already decimated herd even further.
> 
> Why is it that almost every proposal is for the north country, instead of some southern DMU that might benefit from change.....Or at least not have as large of a negative impact on the Joe Lunchbucket hunter.


I wonder this too and would like to see what APRs would do in SLP.... Only thing I can think of is that by limiting opportunities they are hoping to increase the population... which goes against the plan in the TB area so again



Munsterlndr said:


> Not to speak for Swamp but increased hunter densities, even lower availability of antlerless permits and the inability to make habitat improvements to attract and hold deer would likely reduce the potential opportunities compared to private land. There is a reason that 85% of the deer harvested in Michigan are harvested on private land and it's not that there is nobody hunting on public land.


Advantage private land hunter?




Munsterlndr said:


> For the casual hunter, not much different than year one. Another crop of yearlings that would be protected from being harvested. For the more advanced or maybe I should say for the more dedicated hunter, there would be some additional older deer to harvest. My guess and this is just an opinion, would be that many if not most of the additional older bucks would be concentrated on private land, particularly private land where habitat improvements had been made.


Advantage private land hunter again



swampbuck said:


> Well said munster.....If you need more.
> 
> 2010 Deer harvest N.W. L.P. (change from 09)
> 
> Private 23,930 anterless (-11.2%) 24,351 antlered (-7.7%)
> 
> Public 1,722 antlerless (-16.1%) 4,980 antlered (-15.4%)
> 
> And the disparity has been increasing every year.
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> How about this......Hunter numbers and bucks harvested 2010
> 
> DMU 045 Leelanau 4,412 hunters......1,240 bucks
> 
> DMU 040 Kalkaska (aprox. 70%public land) 7,546 hunters...... 634 bucks
> 
> So are those 12 countys the same as dmu045 and would APR's have the same effect in those twelve county's


Continuing disparity under the current regs...under the current regs how are things going to improve????



Munsterlndr said:


> Not really because a significant portion of that private land is not open to hunting.
> 
> 50% of the UP is public land, yet 70% of the deer harvest there occurs on private land. I don't think there is any real question that private land owners, who can control hunter density, pressure and can enhance their property for deer, have a huge advantage over public land hunters. APR's simply compound that advantage.
> 
> Now that's not to say that it's "unfair" that private land owners enjoy an inherent advantage, nothing in life is fair but the existing disparity should certainly be taken into account when determining regulations governing a public resource and the potentially disproportional impact that increased restrictions might have on the public land hunter.





Munsterlndr said:


> No evidence that APR's would improve the factors that are areas of concern in the NWLP, if anything they would exacerbate things.
> 
> Your last paragraph sounds alarmingly like something out of the Obama playbook, look how well that's worked out. :yikes::sad:


 Is there evidence that shows the current regs are helping with the concerns??



swampbuck said:


> Care to explain how APR's will decrease that disparity ?......It might help if it was APR's on private land only.





swampbuck said:


> The only issue I have is the deer density being considerably lower than MDNR set goals. And the only change I would make would be to improve their ability to maintain the herd within the desired level for the DMU's.
> 
> Sex and age structure are fine around here.


Sex and age is good, just low numbers??? How do the current regs help the numbers? 


Ranger Ray said:


> My 16 to 24 year old self would say, no APR's. My 24 to 38 year old self would say, not sure. My 50 year old self says, why not.


Not 50 yet but I can relate Ray

I am just trying to understand how we are going to improve under the current regs. I hear about how great the hunting use it be here in the north, and believe this was before antler mania. And I really hope my kids can enjoy deer hunting here. 
Leaves me wondering what happened between then and now. The only answer I have is they were killed. Meaning opportunities were high. Which is the same thing I'm seeing happen in the area I hunt in Calhoun. I just dont see how lifting the APRs in 045 will help the resource... Yes it will help hunters kill a deer but is that a good thing?

I have had hard time swallowing this private vs public thing too. I dont understand how APRs with improve private properties yet not help public properties.

My thoughts just go in circles about this. I consider myself one of the casual hunters Munter speaks of. I do not belong to any organizations, I hunt private and public lands. After time change, I hunt mostly weekends. Besides the 2 acres I live on I do not own property. I do not perform any haitat improvements. I do more homework than some but far less than others. I have a couple on the walls but dont expect one every year or even every 5 years..But do like to see deer and mature bucks. But along with hunter and deer numbers decreasing so is my enjoyment. I do not want to restrict anyone's kill but unfortunately I think there is a entitlement problem that MI hunters thinking they deserve to kill a deer, not just a wall hanger but a deer... I am guilty of this, I love killing deer and the hardest pill for me to swallow would be OBR which is the one restriction i completely support...

I guess..How do we increase the deer population by killing more deer or by contiuning with the same regs that got us here?

WOW i quoted a lot more crap then planned...lol


----------



## wintrrun

bucko12pt said:


> You're looking in the wrong places.


 
Your probably right. 
Two quick questions for you and i'll let ya get back to all things PRO-APR.
Before Apr's were implemented and yours and everyone elses hunting was getting worse, what were your hunting goals that you set for yourself inside a season?

Outside of mandating an APR what other management practices were put into place that helped make yours and everyone else you knows hunting experience what it is today?


----------



## bucko12pt

sbooy42 said:


> You noted a few times that the population didnt warrant taking an antler less and that it has been decreasing over the last few years..
> 
> How does removing the APRs and increasing hunter opportunity increase the population?
> 
> Below you talked up private land and how opportunities would increase for private land owners ad even mention that your brother has prime habitat on his 60 yet gave up hunting because no opportunity... How can that be?
> 
> Oh and 100+ hours this fall.... you must have really put er to the grind stone considering the amount of time you spend on here and when I talked to you the end of Oct. you hadn't even been deer hunting.
> 
> 
> I wonder this too and would like to see what APRs would do in SLP.... Only thing I can think of is that by limiting opportunities they are hoping to increase the population... which goes against the plan in the TB area so again
> 
> 
> 
> Advantage private land hunter?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Advantage private land hunter again
> 
> 
> 
> Continuing disparity under the current regs...under the current regs how are things going to improve????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there evidence that shows the current regs are helping with the concerns??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sex and age is good, just low numbers??? How do the current regs help the numbers?
> 
> Not 50 yet but I can relate Ray
> 
> I am just trying to understand how we are going to improve under the current regs. I hear about how great the hunting use it be here in the north, and believe this was before antler mania. And I really hope my kids can enjoy deer hunting here.
> Leaves me wondering what happened between then and now. The only answer I have is they were killed. Meaning opportunities were high. Which is the same thing I'm seeing happen in the area I hunt in Calhoun. I just dont see how lifting the APRs in 045 will help the resource... Yes it will help hunters kill a deer but is that a good thing?
> 
> I have had hard time swallowing this private vs public thing too. I dont understand how APRs with improve private properties yet not help public properties.
> 
> My thoughts just go in circles about this. I consider myself one of the casual hunters Munter speaks of. I do not belong to any organizations, I hunt private and public lands. After time change, I hunt mostly weekends. Besides the 2 acres I live on I do not own property. I do not perform any haitat improvements. I do more homework than some but far less than others. I have a couple on the walls but dont expect one every year or even every 5 years..But do like to see deer and mature bucks. But along with hunter and deer numbers decreasing so is my enjoyment. I do not want to restrict anyone's kill but unfortunately I think there is a entitlement problem that MI hunters thinking they deserve to kill a deer, not just a wall hanger but a deer... I am guilty of this, I love killing deer and the hardest pill for me to swallow would be OBR which is the one restriction i completely support...
> 
> I guess..How do we increase the deer population by killing more deer or by contiuning with the same regs that got us here?
> 
> WOW i quoted a lot more crap then planned...lol


I questioned the 100 hour thing when I saw it also, for the same reasons. I was going to ask him for the days he hunted and compare it to his time on line, but too much work. Must have had a bunch of 8-10 hour days in the blind after Nov 15th.:lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr

sbooy42 said:


> You noted a few times that the population didnt warrant taking an antler less and that it has been decreasing over the last few years..
> 
> How does removing the APRs and increasing hunter opportunity increase the population?
> 
> Below you talked up private land and how opportunities would increase for private land owners ad even mention that your brother has prime habitat on his 60 yet gave up hunting because no opportunity... How can that be?


When you protect greater numbers of bucks, while not allowing any growth in the size of the herd, the resulting narrowing of sex ratios will reduce the number of breeding does, contributing to an overall decline in population. The increased hunter opportunity that would result from removing APR's would increase pressure on the male component of the herd, which has little direct impact on population levels. By protecting greater numbers of bucks, pressure is increased on the antlerless component, thus further decreasing population. 

If you go back and read what I wrote again, you will see that I said APR's increase opportunity for more dedicated hunters. My BIL, despite having 60 wooded acres with a creek bottom in Leelanau Co., is not a hard core deer hunter. He's an engineer who works 50+ hours a week, has horses and also produces wine from the grapes that he grows. He is a pretty typical Michigan hunter,uses a .243 that he borrows from his dad and also uses the handloads that his dad provides. Other than the cost of a license, he spends zero money on deer hunting. He and his family like to eat venison, he butchers his own, could care less about whether it's a buck or a doe, shoots the first thing that walks by. With increasingly fewer antlerless permits available in the last 5 - 6 years, that usually means a yearling, although occasionally an older deer that rides the short bus steps into the open. With the advent of APR's, after 2 or 3 seasons of sitting out on a stump freezing his butt off and having every deer that walked by be off limits, he simply gave up the game. As far as he's concerned, the chances of success don't warrant the time that he puts in. If he wanted to put in the time and the effort to improve his 60 acres, add the expense of planting some food plots, take up bow hunting, then he would probably have a much greater chance of bagging a mature buck but he has other interests that he would rather do. You would not know it from reading these forums but there are tons of casual deer hunters out there like him, who would very likely abandon hunting altogether if the chances of putting a deer in the freezer every year are substantially diminished.



sbooy42 said:


> Oh and 100+ hours this fall.... you must have really put er to the grind stone considering the amount of time you spend on here and when I talked to you the end of Oct. you hadn't even been deer hunting.


Not really. I hunted around 11 days during firearms season, averaging 4 -5 hours a day, 6 days of muzzle loading, again usually 4 -5 hours per day except for one all day sit and 4 days of late archery in the last week. I'd have to look at the tally in my hunting journal for the exact number but that's pretty close and is around 100 hours +/- 10 or so. Pretty typical year for me, although I usually do get out in early archery for 3 - 4 days. I'll put in another 5 - 10 hours next week up in Antrim for the late antlerless season. But thanks for your concern that I'm getting enough time afield. :lol:



sbooy42 said:


> I have had hard time swallowing this private vs public thing too. I dont understand how APRs with improve private properties yet not help public properties.


Not sure what there is to "swallow" regarding the difference between private land and public land. The private land owner can strictly control both the density of hunters on his property and what gets harvested. The public land hunter has no control over how many other hunters hunt public land or what they shoot. The private land owner can also enhance his property to increase the number of deer it will hold and which utilize it, something beyond the control of the public land hunter. With or without APR's, private landowners have a huge advantage over public land hunters, the APR's just make the advantage even greater.


----------



## Justin

Munsterlndr said:


> Not sure what there is to "swallow" regarding the difference between private land and public land. The private land owner can strictly control both the density of hunters on his property and what gets harvested. The public land hunter has no control over how many other hunters hunt public land or what they shoot. The private land owner can also enhance his property to increase the number of deer it will hold and which utilize it, something beyond the control of the public land hunter. With or without APR's, private landowners have a huge advantage over public land hunters, the APR's just make the advantage even greater.


This is very easy to understand if you hunt both.


----------



## musicman34

Justin said:


> Exactly. Someone can't keep on topic. This has nothing to do with the NELP and little to do with the existing APR counties. As for listening to the experts...I'm all ears. Did the MDNRE biologists initiate this addition to the NWLP APR counties? Do they believe it is necessary for the health of the herd? Why did they pick the counties they did? The SLP seems to be a better choice.


Oh, sorry, I didn't know this was a private discussion. Please recite anything in my post about the NELP proposal. Hell, I don't even know what that is. I was referring to the need for "science" to justify the laws that we all are supposed to hunt by. According to a regular forum member who contributes to this thread, "science" seems to be the driving factor.


----------



## sbooy42

musicman34 said:


> Oh, sorry, I didn't know this was a private discussion. Please recite anything in my post about the NELP proposal. Hell, I don't even know what that is. I was referring to the need for "science" to justify the laws that we all are supposed to hunt by. According to a regular forum member who contributes to this thread, "science" seems to be the driving factor.


 Science..... Social.... both start with an S so there isn't really a difference


----------



## Justin

Musicman, my post was not directed at you. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## bucko12pt

Justin said:


> Exactly. Someone can't keep on topic. This has nothing to do with the NELP and little to do with the existing APR counties. As for listening to the experts...I'm all ears. Did the MDNRE biologists initiate this addition to the NWLP APR counties? Do they believe it is necessary for the health of the herd? Why did they pick the counties they did? The SLP seems to be a better choice.


Re-read post # 1 in this thread and then continue reading the rest of this thread. The answers to your questions are all there.


----------



## swampbuck

Munsterlndr said:


> Hunters and property owners who pay taxes and spend money on wildlife conservation efforts need a return on their investments. Larger bucks are partial payment."
> 
> After this suggestion was made, several of the biologists from the DNR endorsed then endorsed it, despite there being virtually no science to support it. In a public meeting held to explain the reasoning behind their support,
> 
> The MDNR deer program leader stated that_"We must target the deer with the highest chance of having TB."_ making reference to the fact that older deer, particularly older bucks have a much, much higher prevalence rate of bTB than younger bucks and does. The problem with this is that all of the science regarding APR's shows that they have the opposite result, they don't reduce the number of older bucks, they increase the component of the herd that is most likely to have and spread the disease. The DNR's own research proves this point, yet it was seemingly ignored.
> 
> Then Russ Mason stated, when bluntly asked about the science behind the suggested APR's ......"We don't know it will work. We don't know what to do. We just want to try this. If you have any suggestions, we'd like to know." Then he also said, "There is no scientific data available. Michigan is the only place in the world that has this problem."


The fact that these are the type of guys running the show should concern everyone.


----------



## sbooy42

swampbuck said:


> The fact that these are the type of guys running the show should concern everyone.


Why?
Because they are wanting to try something different without scientific proof that it will work... Interesting...

Yet when hunters were concerned about bait and crossbows without scientific proof they were scorned...too :lol:...or maybe I just missed the scientific part of those issues..


----------



## Munsterlndr

sbooy42 said:


> Why?
> Because they are wanting to try something different without scientific proof that it will work... Interesting...
> 
> Yet when hunters were concerned about bait and crossbows without scientific proof they were scorned...too :lol:...or maybe I just missed the scientific part of those issues..


I guess you must have missed it because there was a great deal of discussion regarding science and biological impact that took place regarding both of those issues. 

But you are also comparing apples to oranges with that comparison. The DNR claimed that the basis for APR's in the NELP was not social, that it was strictly based on biological concerns, yet they failed to provide any science to support their recommendation and they ignored the fact that it was contradicted by their own published scientific data. Pretty hard to justify a regulation change that is supposedly justified on a biological basis, when their own data tells another story. That's why there was criticism of that policy proposal.


----------



## sbooy42

Munsterlndr said:


> I guess you must have missed it because there was a great deal of discussion regarding science and biological impact that took place regarding both of those issues.
> 
> But you are also comparing apples to oranges with that comparison. The DNR claimed that the basis for APR's in the NELP was not social, that it was strictly based on biological concerns, yet they failed to provide any science to support their recommendation and they ignored the fact that it was contradicted by their own published scientific data. Pretty hard to justify a regulation change that is supposedly justified on a biological basis, when their own data tells another story. That's why there was criticism of that policy proposal.


 Was going to ask what the scientific benefits were of baiting and crossbows...

But my posted wasn't directed at comparing APRs, crossbows and bait but more of trying to figure out why I as a hunter should be concerned with guys running the show who make statements like _"We don't know it will work. We don't know what to do. We just want to try this. If you have any suggestions, we'd like to know."_ on one subject like APRs but shouldn't be concerned and get called selfish if concerned about these same guys regarding other issues like baiting, crossbows...

Or maybe we should just be concerned, and they are idiots when it goes against ones agenda....

But whats it matter? Like IT or not things change, sometimes without justification.. And we as hunters have to adapt, even if that means counting to 3...

Keep in mind that I would much rather support OBR but then I just read a post by you using antlers and the small opportunity percentage at more antlers as the justification for the combo...


----------



## swampbuck

_"We don't know it will work. We don't know what to do. We just want to try this. If you have any suggestions, we'd like to know."_ 

Read that statement.....That is an exact quote from the Chief of the MDNR Wildlife Division, In regards to controlling an existing disease in a free range deer herd that threatens the cattle industry in Michigan. A disease that has cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, And an idea that goes against established scientic fact...And if it fail's could wipe out all off the progress that has been made the last twelve years.

Does that qoute inspire much confidence ? 

Do you think Masons line of intelectual reasoning justifies the added risk ?

Is that the type of statement you want to hear from the Chief of the Wildlife Division that our license dollars is paying for ?

Do you believe that APR's are going to result in LESS mature bucks in the NELP ?


----------



## bucko12pt

swampbuck said:


> The fact that these are the type of guys running the show should concern everyone.


Another example of quoting the DNR when it helps your argument. 
Next week it will be quoting them as Gods because they support your argument when you need it to support another situation.

My perception of what led to this in the NELP is the fact that hunters started rejecting the DNR's attempts at lowering the herd numbers strictly through doe permits, so they are trying something different.

Will there be 20%, 30%, 50%, or more TB prevelance rates as a result of what they are doing? We both know that will not happen. If it goes up and it's determined that it is not working, then stop and try something different, or go back to what isn't working now. They don't know and either do you or Munster know what will happen, you might have your suspicions, but you don't know

My belief, is that you guys despise APR's so much and it is the only straw you had to grasp at in an attempt to downplay the implementation of another APR (modified Lindquist) in the NELP.


----------



## sbooy42

bucko12pt said:


> Another example of quoting the DNR when it helps your argument.
> .


Ding Ding!!!!!


----------



## Munsterlndr

bucko12pt said:


> Another example of quoting the DNR when it helps your argument.
> Next week it will be quoting them as Gods because they support your argument when you need it to support another situation.
> 
> My perception of what led to this in the NELP is the fact that hunters started rejecting the DNR's attempts at lowering the herd numbers strictly through doe permits, so they are trying something different.


Um, no that would be you who likes to use DNR data to support your argument when it's concerning APR's but then turns around and says that it's inconclusive because of the small sample size when the same data is being used to demonstrate the impact that APR's may have on increasing herd prevelance rates. 

I'm fully supportive of the DNR when they are using sound science. When they abandon science and start to wing it, or else when they ignore science and support changes that are purely social in nature, then I start to question the wisdom of their actions. 

The DNR recommended making the combo license hunters choice in the NELP, as a means of increasing the number of antlerless deer taken, that was a legitimate change and I supported it. It was not until after the independent committee that included the Turtle Lake Club member, who suggested APR's were a payback to large private landowners who wanted big antlers, suggested APR's, that a few individuals in the DNR embraced the idea, despite there being no science to support it.


----------



## QDMAMAN

Munsterlndr said:


> The DNR recommended making the combo license hunters choice in the NELP, as a means of increasing the number of antlerless deer taken, that was a legitimate change and I supported it. *It was not until after the independent committee that included the Turtle Lake Club member, who suggested APR's were a payback to large private landowners who wanted big antlers, suggested APR's*, that a few individuals in the DNR embraced the idea, despite there being no science to support it.


Amazing how one (1) person on a large commitee can wield so much power.

Can you post the transcript where he said the members wanted bigger antlers, or are you using hyperbole...again? 
BTW, he's not a member.


----------



## Munsterlndr

:lol: No, hyperbole would be referring to a seven member committee as being "large". :lol:

You are correct, he is not a TLC member, he's the TLC manager. I guess that makes some kind of substantial difference. 

His statement has been posted many times before, use the search function.


----------



## bucko12pt

Munsterlndr said:


> Um, no that would be you who likes to use DNR data to support your argument when it's concerning APR's but then turns around and says that it's inconclusive because of the small sample size when the same data is being used to demonstrate the impact that APR's may have on increasing herd prevelance rates.
> 
> I'm fully supportive of the DNR when they are using sound science. When they abandon science and start to wing it, or else when they ignore science and support changes that are purely social in nature, then I start to question the wisdom of their actions.
> 
> The DNR recommended making the combo license hunters choice in the NELP, as a means of increasing the number of antlerless deer taken, that was a legitimate change and I supported it. It was not until after the independent committee that included the Turtle Lake Club member, who suggested APR's were a payback to large private landowners who wanted big antlers, suggested APR's, that a few individuals in the DNR embraced the idea, despite there being no science to support it.


Answer the rest of my post. What is your amature prediction of what the prevelance rate will go to................what % and what is it going to mean when it gets there? Will the prevalance rate be higher in older bucks or older does? Your'e guessing that it's going to dramatically increase and the DNR obviously does not think it will, so who's right? It makes sense it would be higher in older deer, but how much is passed on from the older bucks? Mature bucks are typically loners, so are they passing it to every deer in the herd, or is it more likely that the old does are passing it on, who have much more social contact with the other members of the herd? You do'nt know the answer to that either.

Like I said, you guys are hanging your hat on the increase of the prevalance rate and that being a threat to the herd, because you don't have anything else to hang it on.


----------



## bucko12pt

Munsterlndr said:


> Um, no that would be you who likes to use DNR data to support your argument when it's concerning APR's but then turns around and says that it's inconclusive because of the small sample size when the same data is being used to demonstrate the impact that APR's may have on increasing herd prevelance rates.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny Munster........................spin it some more!!:lol:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm fully supportive of the DNR when they are using sound science. When they abandon science and start to wing it, or else when they ignore science and support changes that are purely social in nature, then I start to question the wisdom of their actions.
> 
> 
> Does that include baiting, we all know Ole Muster was leading the charge to have baiting returned? How much more of a social issue is there than baiting ? Sure did'nt see you questioning the "wisdom of their actions" when baiting was returned.:lol:
> 
> 
> 
> The DNR recommended making the combo license hunters choice in the NELP, as a means of increasing the number of antlerless deer taken, that was a legitimate change and I supported it. It was not until after the independent committee that included the Turtle Lake Club member, who suggested APR's were a payback to large private landowners who wanted big antlers, suggested APR's, that a few individuals in the DNR embraced the idea, despite there being no science to support it.


 
Again, give us your estimate of what the prevelance rate will be in males and females in 3, 5, 10 years?


----------



## Munsterlndr

bucko12pt said:


> Answer the rest of my post. What is your amature prediction of what the prevelance rate will go to................what % and what is it going to mean when it gets there? Will the prevalance rate be higher in older bucks or older does? Your'e guessing that it's going to dramatically increase and the DNR obviously does not think it will, so who's right? It makes sense it would be higher in older deer, but how much is passed on from the older bucks? Mature bucks are typically loners, so are they passing it to every deer in the herd, or is it more likely that the old does are passing it on, who have much more social contact with the other members of the herd? You do'nt know the answer to that either.
> 
> Like I said, you guys are hanging your hat on the increase of the prevalance rate and that being a threat to the herd, because you don't have anything else to hang it on.


There is data available from Wisconsin and from Michigan that shows that older bucks have a much higher prevalence rate than older does and significantly higher than younger deer of either sex. There is also data that suggests that activity such as scraping, that is amplified by having greater numbers of older bucks in the herd, could increase the spread of disease. That is not really open to much debate. Now certain Michigan biologists may choose to ignore those facts and say that they are not worried about the potential impact that greater numbers of older bucks may have on the spread of disease but until they provide some actual science that shows that there will not be any increased threat as a result, it's just talk. 

Mature bucks are loners during part of the year, but for much of it they are members of bachelor groups that have a great deal of interaction. Their scraping and licking behavior, which is much more pronounced among older bucks is also a potential vector that raises some serious concerns. 

Why should we even consider taking the risk that is posed by an advanced age structure, when there is no other risk mitigation benefit that would result from those regulatory changes? Simply because a few guys want to harvest some bigger antlers? Sorry, not good enough in my opinion.


----------



## QDMAMAN

> Munsterlndr said:
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: No, hyperbole would be referring to a seven member committee as being "large". :lol:
Click to expand...

So you would have us believe that one guy, that works for a hunting club, could persuade 6 other volunteers that represent ag and the cattle industry, to spend a year and a half figuring out a way for a private club, that is already enjoying the benefits of sound management btw, to grow big antlers.
C'mon man!:lol:
I remember well the thread you referenced so no need to do a search.
Have I shared with you Munster that there's a very large private club up north that has killed in excess of 100 deer and "0" have tested positive for btb? Oh, and that tally includes at least (3) 7.5 yo bucks and an 8.5 yo buck. Antecdotal I know, but just sayin.

Big T


----------



## bucko12pt

Munsterlndr said:


> There is data available from Wisconsin and from Michigan that shows that older bucks have a much higher prevalence rate than older does and significantly higher than younger deer of either sex. There is also data that suggests that activity such as scraping, that is amplified by having greater numbers of older bucks in the herd, could increase the spread of disease. That is not really open to much debate. Now certain Michigan biologists may choose to ignore those facts and say that they are not worried about the potential impact that greater numbers of older bucks may have on the spread of disease but until they provide some actual science that shows that there will not be any increased threat as a result, it's just talk.
> 
> Mature bucks are loners during part of the year, but for much of it they are members of bachelor groups that have a great deal of interaction. Their scraping and licking behavior, which is much more pronounced among older bucks is also a potential vector that raises some serious concerns.
> 
> Why should we even consider taking the risk that is posed by an advanced age structure, when there is no other risk mitigation benefit that would result from those regulatory changes? Simply because a few guys want to harvest some bigger antlers? Sorry, not good enough in my opinion.


"Could increase the spread of disease". Baiting "could increase the spread of disease" also, but you have no problem with that.

The DNR obviously wanted to further lower the prevelance rate and they didn't think the existing rules was going to do it, so they are trying something else. I do'nt want to implement something that will increase the prevelance rate either, but what if they are right and you are wrong, God forbid?

Will you admit it?


----------



## bassdisaster

Munsterlndr said:


> Why should we even consider taking the risk that is posed by an advanced age structure, when there is no other risk mitigation benefit that would result from those regulatory changes? Simply because a few guys want to harvest some bigger antlers? Sorry, not good enough in my opinion.


I would say because that is the nature of things, young bucks simply are not naturally supposed to be breeding, if larger bucks do the bulk of the breeding then its survival of the fittest as nature intended, we don't need a deer heard thats akin to the human race where even the weakest have all the same chances as I or anyone has! 
In nature the weak, also meaning the "young" are the most likely to not survive,if the age structure is too young then unproven genes breeding, a buck thats 4 1/2+/- apparently is tuff enough to survive, thats the genes we need breeding, not the genes that are weak and creating the bulk of winter kill and or disease.
Again its the nature of things!
You have made alot of good points, but I'm saying to the other side on this one!

BD


----------



## wintrrun

bassdisaster said:


> I would say because that is the nature of things, young bucks simply are not naturally supposed to be breeding, if larger bucks do the bulk of the breeding then its survival of the fittest as nature intended, we don't need a deer heard thats akin to the human race where even the weakest have all the same chances as I or anyone has!
> In nature the weak, also meaning the "young" are the most likely to not survive,if the age structure is too young then unproven genes breeding, a buck thats 4 1/2+/- apparently is tuff enough to survive, thats the genes we need breeding, not the genes that are weak and creating the bulk of winter kill and or disease.
> Again its the nature of things!
> You have made alot of good points, but I'm saying to the other side on this one!
> 
> BD


.........................


----------



## anonymous7242016

Let me see, APR's will help lower tb because now hunters target older bucks which are more prevalent to disease. Says the DNR.
Munster says BS.....we all know APR's are used to increase bucks age structure.

Baiting may cause the spread of disease. Says biologists.

Munster says BS......


Munster doesn't support APR's because it isn't fair and there is no biological reason to increase age structure. It takes away from the common hunter who doesn't care about big bucks....if one of those truly exist.

Munster supports baiting because again he is the voice of the common hunter. The rest of us are just trophy hunting elitist trying to make it easier to kill big bucks.........god knows only us rich QDMers...oh I'm sorry Trophy hunters only care about shooting big bucks, no other hunters really care, none of them ever dream of shooting a big buck.
Hell a few reg changes and we might actually put a big buck into the lap of the common "I don't really care about antlers" hunter. But they won't be impressed they are only there to enjoy the outdoors.

Munster does make you think I will give him that, but unless you are in the same mindset as he is, he will never lean towards the direction that some of us would like to see our regulations head towards.

IMO there are changes that could be made without changing regulations at all.........Season dates, lengths, etc. Oh but trust me the same who fight to keep the state from producing that pesky "socialogical" big buck are the same who fight to keep everything the same as it has been for nearly a century. There is a bright side though, those same folks are getting old and soon won't be able to see a computer screen nor remember how to use one.


----------



## MarkSend

Wint, sorry for the delay. To quickly sum it up, too many anterless deer.Let some friends muzzle hunt and one saw 23 anterless deer in one night. Far too many in a fruit growing area. The first year of aprs the dnr issued 400 antless permits, now it is down to 200. These are for private land only. Of course how many block or damage permits or whatever name they now use are issued can also affect the number of deer seen too. As for great hunting, it all depends on the hunter and his or her idea of great hunting is for it will be different with every hunter.


----------



## Justin

There seems to be a lot of support for APRs coming from hunters that do not hunt in the affected areas. Do you have the ball rolling to get them in your area? It is strange that we don't have the same proposal in the SLP where it would work better.


----------



## Pinefarm

Justin,

We're trying. I'd already contacted the NRC and MDNR that I want DMU 262 (Northern Newaygo) included in this proposal.

For simplicity, the whole NW part of zone 2 should be in the plan. What's presented now leaves out a small area in the southern part of the NWLP/zone 2.

Any and all of the NW side of zone 2 needs to be included. That's the KISS way to do it. Otherwise the rules would be unnecessarily complicated.


----------



## Justin

Hey Bob, why not include the whole LP? Shouldn't be any resistance in the SLP where antlerless permits are easy to get.


----------



## Pinefarm

I would be all for the whole LP having antler regs.

It's actually the UP that I don't think will really benefit as much from their rules and I stated so when they were put in place a few years ago.

In the UP, there aren't many places where antlerless deer need to be taken in decent numbers and one or two bad winters can negate any progress in having more 1.5 year old bucks survive the hunting season.

In the LP, winter rarely takes otherwise healthy 1.5 year old bucks and most places have enough antlerless tags or you can shoot a doe with a bow with little concern for very low herd density.

I've read where Yoopers like the rules up there and see progress. I can't argue with that. But I still think the UP will see the least change from APR's.

It's area's like mine that would shine with APR's protecting more yearling bucks. We have lots of deer, decent food, winters aren't usually that bad (except on fawns every few years) etc, but what we have is heavy hunting pressure on yearling bucks.

APR's in my immediate area would result in lots of nice 15" wide basket 8pt 2.5 year olds in the area. And given the generic "nice buck" is around a 100" 8pt, I think guys would be tickled pink to see more orf those and get an extra 20-30 lbs of meat.


----------



## plugger

I think the slp should be the natural choice for aprs. The area has the doe numbers, and in some areas, the need to support an alternative to buck harvest. Newaygo county should be left under current regulations as a ten year control study group. The slp has the climate and topography that most closely resembles the big buck states.


----------



## Justin

Pinefarm said:


> most places have enough antlerless tags or you can shoot a doe with a bow with little concern for very low herd density.


I agree with everything but this.

It just puzzles me why the area with the strongest qdm following wouldn't be leading the charge with APRs.


----------



## bucko12pt

It makes a lot more sense to me to simply extend the Lindquist rules to all of Zone 2. All of Zone 2 be the same as the UP, except for taking does during firearm season on your regular tag(s).

Would allow for the Sparky hunters to shoot whatever buck they wanted
and the two tag guys hold out for better bucks.

As it is, we will have one rule for the UP, different rules for 487, possibly different rules for 13 counties in Zone 2 and different rules for the rest of Zone 2 and all of Zone 3.

Not exactly sure why the DNR is doing that to themselves.


----------



## Munsterlndr

bucksnbows said:


> Let me see, APR's will help lower tb because now hunters target older bucks which are more prevalent to disease. Says the DNR.
> Munster says BS.....we all know APR's are used to increase bucks age structure.
> 
> Baiting may cause the spread of disease. Says biologists.
> 
> Munster says BS......


If you are going to try and speak for me, at least do me the favor of getting it right. 

Contrary to your depiction, I agree that baiting, along with anything else that increases concentrations of deer, like food plots and any other easily accessible food, will potentially increase the spread of disease....where disease it known to be present. So don't claim that I say BS. What is BS is the idea that eliminating one potential vector out of dozens that are present, when disease is not been shown to be present, provides any sort of risk mitigation. 

The idea that APR's will lower prevalence by targeting the component of the herd that has the highest prevalence is ridiculous and anybody that supports the idea of APR's to increase the buck age structure, should be laughing at the idea.


----------



## Munsterlndr

bassdisaster said:


> I would say because that is the nature of things, young bucks simply are not naturally supposed to be breeding, if larger bucks do the bulk of the breeding then its survival of the fittest as nature intended, we don't need a deer heard thats akin to the human race where even the weakest have all the same chances as I or anyone has!
> In nature the weak, also meaning the "young" are the most likely to not survive,if the age structure is too young then unproven genes breeding, a buck thats 4 1/2+/- apparently is tuff enough to survive, thats the genes we need breeding, not the genes that are weak and creating the bulk of winter kill and or disease.
> Again its the nature of things!
> You have made alot of good points, but I'm saying to the other side on this one!
> 
> BD


Baloney. I suggest you read Ozoga's Cusino research where he documented that yearling bucks can efficiently breed does without any dire consequences resulting. Not to mention that there is no place in Michigan where yearlings are doing the majority of the breeding. As far as genetics, the idea that natural selection is at work ignores the impact of hunters, automobiles and a variety of other factors that play a role in our modern world.


----------



## bucko12pt

Justin said:


> I agree with everything but this.
> 
> It just puzzles me why the area with the strongest qdm following wouldn't be leading the charge with APRs.


. 



All it takes is one person to file a proposal, go for it!!!

Sounds like Plugger is in. 

Then you guys can start your own APR thread for Zone 3 and leave the NWLP guys alone. :lol:


----------



## Justin

bucko12pt said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> All it takes is one person to file a proposal, go for it!!!
> 
> Sounds like Plugger is in.
> 
> Then you guys can start your own APR thread for Zone 3 and leave the NWLP guys alone. :lol:


 I AM the NWLP guys.:lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr

QDMAMAN said:


> So you would have us believe that one guy, that works for a hunting club, could persuade 6 other volunteers that represent ag and the cattle industry, to spend a year and a half figuring out a way for a private club, that is already enjoying the benefits of sound management btw, to grow big antlers.
> C'mon man!:lol:
> 
> Big T


Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a list published that actually documented who was on that committee other than Wayne and what their business affiliations were. Maybe you can provide the list. I did see the mention that one of the individuals was a grad student doing some research, was he one of the students doing research at TLC during that time period? Anyway, thanks in advance for posting that list, since you apparently know who was on the committee.


----------



## Munsterlndr

bucko12pt said:


> It makes a lot more sense to me to simply extend the Lindquist rules to all of Zone 2. All of Zone 2 be the same as the UP, except for taking does during firearm season on your regular tag(s).
> 
> Would allow for the Sparky hunters to shoot whatever buck they wanted
> and the two tag guys hold out for better bucks.


So are you suggesting that the APR's in Leelanau should be rescinded and replaced with Lindquist? :chillin:


----------



## wintrrun

Munsterlndr said:


> So are you suggesting that the APR's in Leelanau should be rescinded and replaced with Lindquist? :chillin:


 
I'd have no problem with the current Lindquist rules in Benzie.
Seems like they would let the hunter choose what he wished to do.
Throw in 5 dmaps a year til my harvest goals are reached and i'll be the poster child.


----------



## bucko12pt

Munsterlndr said:


> So are you suggesting that the APR's in Leelanau should be rescinded and replaced with Lindquist? :chillin:


I really do'nt have a problem with the Lindquist rule, so if it was implemented in all of Zone 2, yeah I would be OK with that. At this point, I would'nt be in favor of changing if it was just a change for Leelanau. I think it's ridiculous for us to have several different rules that are all attempting to accomplish the same thing, but are all a little different from each other. 

It would solve a lot by doing it that way. It basically gives everyone what they want, with a few compromises and standardizes the rules for at least Zone's 1 and 2. Add Zone 3 and allow them to tag does on their tags during firearm and it would be better yet.

Not sure how others in Leelanau would feel, but would guess many wouldn't have a problem with it either.

Sure would simplify things!!

With that, I'm out of here............................heading for FL tomorrow until April!!:coolgleam:lol:

Hope all you guys have a great winter!!


----------



## swampbuck

Munsterlndr said:


> Actually, I don't think I've ever seen a list published that actually documented who was on that committee other than Wayne and what their business affiliations were. Maybe you can provide the list. I did see the mention that one of the individuals was a grad student doing some research, was he one of the students doing research at TLC during that time period? Anyway, thanks in advance for posting that list, since you apparently know who was on the committee.


 Here you go....I had a hard time finding it also. Filed under Department of Ag. I had to ask a friend where it was filed.

http://michigan.gov/documents/mda/NLPANR_Stew_Coop_Pilot_Project_Manag_TB__325355_7.pdf

Notice the importance of having the check stations collect Boone&Crocket score.:lol:


----------



## bucko12pt

swampbuck said:


> Here you go....I had a hard time finding it also. Filed under Department of Ag. I had to ask a friend where it was filed.
> 
> http://michigan.gov/documents/mda/NLPANR_Stew_Coop_Pilot_Project_Manag_TB__325355_7.pdf
> 
> Notice the importance of having the check stations collect Boone&Crocket score.:lol:


Did you read the reason why they wanted the B&C score? 

Certainly a good way of doing it. I would think that every sportsman in Michigan would be in in favor of implementing that state-wide, would'nt you??


----------

