# whos against antler point restictions?



## coldskins (Sep 26, 2011)

not looking to start a fight just writing an english papper and need some help. so whos against them and why thanks


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

coldskins said:


> not looking to start a fight just writing an english papper and need some help. so whos against them and why thanks


You can find out how over 27,000 hunters responded in the MICHIGAN DEER HARVEST SURVEY REPORT 2010 SEASONS. http://mi.gov/documents/dnr/report3526_355512_7.pdf

They already did the polling for you with over 27,000 respondents. 

The UP hunters, who are working with new antler restrictions are 59% supporting and 30% opposing.

As for why?

Get behind a barrier of some kind or  and watch what happens.:lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

I'm all for voluntary antler restrictions but I'm generally opposed to mandatory antler restrictions, in the absence of some compelling biological reason, because they can limit hunter opportunity and would have a disproportionate impact on public land firearms hunters in zones 1 & 2.


----------



## hardcorehunter11 (Oct 6, 2010)

I have mixed feelings on this subject. I believe that if you are going to have antler restrictions you need to apply them across the board to have an impact. I hunt in a zone were if I have a combo tag I can't shoot a spike but a person that has a regular firearm tag can shoot one. Doesn't seem like a very good management practice. Why allow one hunter to shoot a buck and not another just because of the type of tag they purchase. Plus i've shoot bucks that are way past their prime that have barely any points. Ideal would be to shoot deer based more on age but that is unlikely due to the fact a lot of hunter are not educated on that to make those judgements.


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

Was there ever a time when Michigan didn't have antler point restrictions????


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

hardcorehunter11 said:


> I have mixed feelings on this subject. I believe that if you are going to have antler restrictions you need to apply them across the board to have an impact. I hunt in a zone were if I have a combo tag I can't shoot a spike but a person that has a regular firearm tag can shoot one. Doesn't seem like a very good management practice. Why allow one hunter to shoot a buck and not another just because of the type of tag they purchase. Plus i've shoot bucks that are way past their prime that have barely any points. Ideal would be to shoot deer based more on age but that is unlikely due to the fact a lot of hunter are not educated on that to make those judgements.


Let's repeat your statement but replace it with different licences:



> I hunt in a zone were if I *only have a doe tag* I can't shoot a *buck* but a person that has a regular firearm tag can shoot one. Doesn't seem like a very good management practice. Why allow one hunter to shoot a *buck* and not another just because of the type of tag they purchase.


Does this make sense to you? You could have bought the same tag he did in either case. You chose what tag to buy and you have exactly the same chance at the point you decided to purchase the tag to buy the same tag he did. What's unfair about you choosing, with full knowledge, to buy a tag you could not shoot a spike with?

That's like saying, I went to a restaurant. I ordered the fish, the other guy ordered the steak. Why allow him to eat steak when I can only eat fish?

I don't get it. Honestly.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Instead of going negative, why not ask who open to buck tag changes and why they may be open to evolving regulations to match the times.

Don't forget spell checking either.


----------



## FallDreamer (Dec 15, 2010)

The point restriction has made it made it a little harder for guys to shoot two bucks, but i am seeing a lot of young bucks on my trail camera, and i'm all for that!! Got to leave some for seed.


----------



## hardcorehunter11 (Oct 6, 2010)

Bioactive, still doesn't make sense guess I just don't understand it. I thought the point of antler restrictions was to get a more diverse deer herd. But how can that happen when not everyone is following those restrictions. The whole restaurant thing threw me off sorry..


----------



## craaaig (Jan 13, 2011)

I am curious about bucks that are past their prime with little to no points. For some reason it seems unlikely to me, a buck in his prime is roughly between 5-7 years old and usually has a fairly large rack depending on genes. A buck so old that he has less than 4 points on one side would be very interesting to see how much they decrease yearly after their prime. Man it seems like a buck so old that he is underneath the antler restrictions would have to be about 9-10 years old, which is very rare as far as I know with free range bucks. Could you imagine the effect the rut would have on a 10 yr old buck lol he would really struggle to make it I think! If anyone has experienced any very old bucks that were so old their antler development has decreased so much they would not make antler restrictions I would like to hear your stories!! I would like to hear stories about older bucks in general and what you guys have learned about how age effects them after their prime!!!


----------



## WHITE BEAR (Jan 12, 2005)

I once helped a buddy drag an OLD 11 point out of the woods. The rack was only about 8 or 10 inches wide and 6 or 8 inches high. His teeth were all but gone as well. He had plenty of points but his rack was tiny.


----------



## coldskins (Sep 26, 2011)

Pinefarm said:


> Instead of going negative, why not ask who open to buck tag changes and why they may be open to evolving regulations to match the times.
> 
> Don't forget spell checking either.


First off thank you all, second i will be the first to say i suck at spelling and puncuation thank god i am not majoring in english

My papper is on an argument for aprs and i am looking for reasons against so i can make counter arguments against the oposition

I always have felt that aprs were only a positive but since doing some research i have now find myself wondering if its the right thing for michigan or not. Though i am not educated enough to say what michigan needs to do i feel that something should be done but thats not why i put this on here. unfortunatly it is too late for me to change my subject for this papper now. I can find plenty of sources saying why they are good but none really saying they are bad or why so many are against them. so here i am asking the people of a web site that my wife claims is my girlfreind. i need to know what the oposition(people against aprs)have to say and why they are against them thank you guys for your responses keep them comming


----------



## btoeps74 (Oct 8, 2011)

I have kind of mixed feelings as well. Me personally only shoot 8's or better. This is the first year since 2000 that I shot an 8 (Only four of them in my 15 years of hunting) so that will tell you how committed to that I am. Where my mixed feelings come in is people have different opinions as to what a trophy is to them, and in my mind, who am I to tell someone not to shoot a lessor buck so that I may get a crack at him a few years later. Just seems selfish in a way. But on the other side of the coin, if it's just meat your after, why not just shoot a better tasting doe. One thing that does annoy me is the statement I always hear when someone shoots a spike or fork. "Well if I didn't shoot him, the neighbor would".


----------



## TreestandSparty (Nov 16, 2010)

Where I hunt in the thumb...There is a lot of fork horns running around.
I have seen the Granddaddy a few times. He is a very old deer with a huge fork horn rack. They look like clubs.He has been spreading his poor genitics for years. Even though I belive that you should let 1 1/2 year old bucks walk....what about misfits? We don't need more regulations...we just need to make good decisions when a deer crosses our path.


----------



## Snowlover 77 (Nov 17, 2009)

btoeps74 said:


> I have kind of mixed feelings as well. Me personally only shoot 8's or better. This is the first year since 2000 that I shot an 8 (Only four of them in my 15 years of hunting) so that will tell you how committed to that I am. Where my mixed feelings come in is people have different opinions as to what a trophy is to them, and in my mind, who am I to tell someone not to shoot a lessor buck so that I may get a crack at him a few years later. Just seems selfish in a way. But on the other side of the coin, if it's just meat your after, why not just shoot a better tasting doe. One thing that does annoy me is the statement I always hear when someone shoots a spike or fork. "Well if I didn't shoot him, the neighbor would".


I agree with you for the most part, as far as if you are just meat hunting and shoot a doe instead. Problem is, what about the areas where no doe tags are available, public or private? I hunt an area of the U.P. where there are no doe tags and then obviously the antler point restrictions are in effect. Therefore, locals who just need the meat can only legally harvest a buck (unless they did take a doe with a combo tag in bow season, but that's a very small percentage of people). Just something to think about.


----------



## btoeps74 (Oct 8, 2011)

Snowlover 77 said:


> I agree with you for the most part, as far as if you are just meat hunting and shoot a doe instead. Problem is, what about the areas where no doe tags are available, public or private? I hunt an area of the U.P. where there are no doe tags and then obviously the antler point restrictions are in effect. Therefore, locals who just need the meat can only legally harvest a buck (unless they did take a doe with a combo tag in bow season, but that's a very small percentage of people). Just something to think about.


I guess I didn't consider that point, but your right. I don't understand why they restrict using your tag to only archery. But it is what it is I guess.


----------



## huntingfool43 (Mar 16, 2002)

We already have mandatory APR's. Three inches or longer on the first buck, four points on one side on the second. We don't need any more than thst. Better off going to one buck tag and make the other tag good for antlerless.


----------



## swimnfish04 (Mar 19, 2009)

Im for any kind of management that lets young bucks walk. APR is a very simplified attempt at that. Im not against it, but here are the typical arguments I hear.
1. People should be able to make there own choice and shoot whatever they want.
2. It selects for bad genetics. Many people have the though that a small buck its first year is never going to be a nice buck. I read a study in one of the hunting magazines that showed that a bucks first antlers had no correlation with its next years horns and its overall potential. I'm not sure if I buy that completely, but i think there is definitely some truth to it.
3. Another issue is that there are alot of deer that are 8 points when they grow their first set of horns. These bucks are no different from the spikes or four points, so why should they get shot. Ideally we want to limit the age of deer but thats not a practical thing for many hunters.
4. Not all deer have brow tines. I usually just assume a deer has brow tines. I shoot a 2.5 year old deer that was missing brow tines. I was positive it was an 8 point when I shoot it, but it was actually a 6 point.
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk


----------



## MIpikeGuy (May 27, 2011)

Use your counter argument as OBR, should give some interesting results, and you can find out good info via a lot of other states.

Unless your counter argument is just purely against apr.

Craaaig, we don't have to worry about that kinda junk. No buck in Michigan lives to 7+ and when they do they make headline news, possible Michigan record whitetail hit by car or poached. :lol:

Any that live to that age most likely won't be killed by a hunter. (in Michigan)


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

MIpikeGuy said:


> Craaaig, we don't have to worry about that kinda junk. No buck in Michigan lives to 7+ and when they do they make headline news, possible Michigan record whitetail hit by car or poached. :lol:
> 
> Any that live to that age most likely won't be killed by a hunter. (in Michigan)


One hunting camp in the NELP has recorded (3) 7.5 yos and (1) 8.5 yo buck, all killed by hunters, all in good condition I might add.
These 4 bucks represented approx. 3-4% of their total deer harvest(bucks and does) at the time it was shared with me.

Big T


----------



## Mark L (Mar 18, 2009)

I'm for less restriction and more freedom. Give me the opportunity to harvest what I want without restrictions. If I'm a meat hunter I shoot any size deer and fill tags till the freezers filled. If I shoot too many deer one year then the next years hunt will be slow. If I'm an antler hunter I pass on small bucks and let them grow and harvest them years later. To each their own and I support freedom from restriction.


----------



## old professor (Oct 26, 2008)

I am against anthler restrictions because it is too difficult to count points, A. if the deer is moving, B. standing in thick cover C. in poor light conditions. Also I have seen more bucks without brow tines the last few years, both here and in Pennsylvania. In the area that I hunt in Penna., this year they changed the 4 point rule to 3 up (not counting brow tines) because there are so many many bucks without brow tines. Finally, I resent that those who worship anthlers are able to force their opinions of what constitutes a shooter buck on my hunting/shooting choices. I support a One Buck Rule and will never again buy a combo deer license.


----------



## coldskins (Sep 26, 2011)

ok guys thank you again for your thoughts, I think we are getting away from what i am actually looking forthis is more of what i am looking for, sorry dont mean to be picky but it would help me more

1) they limit your success, this is why i feel that way
2) it pushes the youth away from the sport, this is why i feel this way
3) The restrictions are to hard to enforce, this is why i feel this way
4) It promotes a poor gene pool, this is why i feel this way ect

I am trying to find three main reasons why people dont/wont support antler restictions. So that i can use the positive info i have found on the web (weather it be right or wrong) to argue for antler point against the reasons given why we shouldnt implement them. again this isnt nessarily how i feel but meerly a papper i am doing for my final english project. maybe when i am done with this papper we can have this as a subject and arue about if we should or shouldnt impliment them in mi but thats not what i am trying to do here now. once again thanks and i am sorry i cant spell or punc. well:lol:


----------



## coldskins (Sep 26, 2011)

old professor said:


> I am against anthler restrictions because it is too difficult to count points, A. if the deer is moving, B. standing in thick cover C. in poor light conditions.
> 
> Thank you that is more along the lines of what i am looking for thanks again


----------



## Robert Holmes (Oct 13, 2008)

Go back to the single buck tag and allow the purchase of a single doe tag. If a person wants to harvest another buck 4 points on one side issue a primative weapons tag. The primative weapons tag would include long bows, recurve bows, and muzzleloaders only. Now more big and more small bucks will survive, problem solved.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

coldskins said:


> ok guys thank you again for your thoughts, I think we are getting away from what i am actually looking forthis is more of what i am looking for, sorry dont mean to be picky but it would help me more
> 
> 1) they limit your success, this is why i feel that way
> 2) it pushes the youth away from the sport, this is why i feel this way
> ...


I'd have to say #1.
APR's would put restrictions on property management goals.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

coldskins said:


> old professor said:
> 
> 
> > I am against anthler restrictions because it is too difficult to count points, A. if the deer is moving, B. standing in thick cover C. in poor light conditions.
> ...


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

coldskins said:


> ok guys thank you again for your thoughts, I think we are getting away from what i am actually looking forthis is more of what i am looking for, sorry dont mean to be picky but it would help me more
> 
> 1) they limit your success, this is why i feel that way
> 2) it pushes the youth away from the sport, this is why i feel this way
> ...


It does not. Just the opposite. It allows bucks to grow to an older age class that actually allows them to get to the state where they have to compete with other deer to breed. This promotes Darwins 'survival of the fitest' theory where only the best genes are passed on. 

Many will say, "well, 1.5yo 8's will still be killed". That is true, yet they were going to be killed anyways even without APR because it's a stupid 1.5yo deer.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Lugian said:


> I'm not sure what you mean here. What impact?


In many DMU's in the NLP & UP there are no public land anterless permits available. 

For example, I'll use Antrim Co., DMU 005. This year, there were zero public land antlerless permits available but there were 5,000 private land antlerless permits available in that DMU. Using a hypothetical 1:2.5 B/D ratio, that means that prior to antler restrictions, public land firearms hunters have roughly 30% of the total number of deer available to legally harvest, the other 70% being antlerless deer, which are off limits. If you impose a 3 pt. APR, then a further a further 16% of the total number of deer available become illegal to harvest. The end result is that for the public land firearms hunter, only about 14% of the deer that they see will be legal to harvest, roughly 86% are off limits. Contrast that with the private land owner on the adjacent parcel. For him 86% of the herd is a legal target and only 14% are off limits to harvest. In addition, the private land owner gets to participate in the EAS and LAS, which further increases the disparity in hunter opportunity.

The result is that for the public land firearms hunters in many DMU's in the NLP & UP, APR's have a significantly disproportionate impact, in terms of hunter opportunity to hunt and harvest a publicly held resource.


----------



## musicman34 (Oct 7, 2011)

Pinefarm said:


> "For those against APR's, are you also against the current combo tag APR's? Do you think it would be better for ZERO point restrictions on both tags instead of the 3 inch and 4 on a side?"
> 
> 
> I'm against the current combo tag setup.
> ...


 
I absolutely agree with this post. But Bob, you I and everyone reading this knows that the combo license is more than likely here to stay. Michigan would never generate the revenue it does now with only a single archery or single firearm tag. They would have to double the price of a license and we all know how far that would go.


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

sbooy42 said:


> coldskins said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't put that in a paper...Paints a picture of hunters shooting running deer.. shots in thick cover and shots in low light conditions... most ethical hunters identify their target and make sure its a clear good shot..
> ...


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

GVDocHoliday said:


> sbooy42 said:
> 
> 
> > Fixed it for you.
> ...


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Just 3......

1- They limit hunter opportunity without biological justification
2- They can and often do cause high grading of the deer herd
3- The harvest/check station data clearly shows that Michigans age structure is already comparable to the "big buck states" without further restrictions

Alternate...I oppose them just to piss off the antlerphiles.

You have already told us that you are predisposed to antler restrictions.....So I wouldnt expect you to consider the facts anymore than the other guys.:lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

GVDocHoliday said:


> It does not. Just the opposite. It allows bucks to grow to an older age class that actually allows them to get to the state where they have to compete with other deer to breed. This promotes Darwins 'survival of the fitest' theory where only the best genes are passed on.


Cods-wallop! You are assuming that antler development is the only factor determining a bucks dominance or position in the breeding hierarchy, which is simply not true. In fact studies have shown that some bucks that have the most superior antler development don't participate at all in breeding. The idea that natural selection is playing a significant role in a deer herd where hunters and automobiles kill bucks indiscriminately, is a joke, there is no genetic benefit resulting from antler restrictions in a free ranging herd.


----------



## musicman34 (Oct 7, 2011)

Munsterlndr said:


> In many DMU's in the NLP & UP there are no public land anterless permits available.
> 
> For example, I'll use Antrim Co., DMU 005. This year, there were zero public land antlerless permits available but there were 5,000 private land antlerless permits available in that DMU. Using a hypothetical 1:2.5 B/D ratio, that means that prior to antler restrictions, public land firearms hunters have roughly 30% of the total number of deer available to legally harvest, the other 70% being antlerless deer, which are off limits. If you impose a 3 pt. APR, then a further a further 16% of the total number of deer available become illegal to harvest. The end result is that for the public land firearms hunter, only about 14% of the deer that they see will be legal to harvest, roughly 86% are off limits. Contrast that with the private land owner on the adjacent parcel. For him 86% of the herd is a legal target and only 14% are off limits to harvest. In addition, the private land owner gets to participate in the EAS and LAS, which further increases the disparity in hunter opportunity.
> 
> The result is that for the public land firearms hunters in many DMU's in the NLP & UP, APR's have a significantly disproportionate impact, in terms of hunter opportunity to hunt and harvest a publicly held resource.


Most private land hunters don't give a rat's butt about the public land hunter. The state knows this. So consequently, the public land hunter is left sucking hind tit. In other words, money talks and @#$% walks. The DMU's with the most public land antlerless permits available are in the TB zone. And there are far more permits available than there are deer. What is wrong with this picture?


----------



## ellsworth24 (Mar 1, 2007)

i think we should implement a 1 buck per season limit but i think we should have to shoot a doe before your eligible to kill a buck


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

sbooy42 said:


> GVDocHoliday said:
> 
> 
> > :lol: I actually had that in there and then deleted it...Didnt want to be accused of pushing my ethics of a good clear shot on someone else
> ...


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

sbooy42 said:


> coldskins said:
> 
> 
> > I wouldn't put that in a paper...Paints a picture of hunters shooting running deer.. shots in thick cover and shots in low light conditions... most hunters identify their target and make sure its a clear good shot..
> ...


----------



## coldskins (Sep 26, 2011)

swampbuck said:


> Just 3......
> 
> 1- They limit hunter opportunity without biological justification
> 2- They can and often do cause high grading of the deer herd
> ...


Thank you, I am going to school to become a wildlife biologest/ wildlife managment, and before this papper yes i was all for aprs, and after some research i have taken a step back and I am not sure what is best anymore i personally dont think any one thing is going to fix michigans herd but i do feel something needs to change and i think we need to start somewhere. thats a difrent story but I have already started this papper so I have to go with it as its too late to change its topic now thank you again for your post

that list i put up is just an example thats not what i am saying i dont intend to put any of that in my papper thats just an example of the types of replies i am looking for i need to get an idea of how those who are against aprs think and the reasons why you dont support the aprs thanks and keep them comming


----------



## determinedArcher (Jan 15, 2011)

Here's my 2 cents. All for APR! Why? MI has huge potential for growing huge bucks, and what do majority of MI hunters want to harvest? Bucks (if you say no you're probably lieing) I know from seeing 1 1/2yr old spike/fork horn bucks in the back of trucks and on top of SUV's all the time in my area. When you strike up a conversation with the people who harvested them they have usually been hunting for many of years and it's always the same thing coming out of their mouths "SHOT A BUCK! WOO HIGH FIVE" Also I do Process a good amount of deer for local friends of friends and its the same thing there too! "Could have shot 10 does but Shot this buck! IE: 1 1/2yr old" If we or most hunters in MI are so obsessed with harvesting bucks (which makes them just as selfish as hunters who want APR so they can harvest mature heavy horned bucks!!) why not implement stiffer APR's???? only makes since to me! I guarantee MI would only need 2yrs of APR to have enough deer with 4pt on one side for it to be exactly the way it is now( spikes and fork horns) and then tom , dick , and harry could be shooting bigger bucks and saying "Woo Got me A buck" just like they did before but these deer would be larger/older and "put more meat in the freezer". Also letting smaller deer walk would allow for kids and new hunters to see more deer in the woods "isn't that why we're out there anyways?" It's a win win in my eyes and for anyone wondering NO I DONT SHOOT 1 1/2yr old Bucks Don't see the point when i can harvest a mature doe and let that deer walk and harvest him 2yrs down the line. Also i hunt small properties and state land and cant stand the "if i didn't shoot it someone else would" with stiffer APRs they couldn't use that statement anymore. and the picture below is the potential MI has (road kill buck in non hunting city SE MI) I see deer like this all the time in the cities around me that do not allow hunting.That's all.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Lugian said:


> I get that, but you're statement that only "14% of the deer are legal too shoot" for the state land hunter only holds true for one year. It would go back to 30% during year 2 of an APR.


No, because the next year there will be another yearling age class, that will make up roughly 50% of the antlered buck population, most of whom will be off limits, so the percentage of the total number of deer that are off limits remains the same. Like I said, APR's do not stockpile deer, they just have a slight impact on what age bucks are harvested at.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> ... The other thing that changes is that more APR legal yearlings get killed, while the sub-legal yearlings are protected.


I agree with this, and believe that most people would as well. Although the impact may be minimal, in this scenario one can argue that there will be genetic impact on the herd. Selection wether natural or man imposed, can and will have a genetic impact *if the selection criteria is based on a genetic heritable trait*..... genetics 101. Most would predict that over time you will see a reduction in the gene frequency that is "selectively" being culled. 
<----<<<


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Joe Archer said:


> Selection wether natural or man imposed, can and will have a genetic impact *if the selection criteria is based on a genetic heritable trait*..... genetics 101. Most would predict that over time you will see a reduction in the gene frequency that is "selectively" being culled.
> <----<<<


What is the time frame that would have to elaps for a noticable change to take place? The reason I ask is that over the last 100 years in Michigan we have experienced numerous regulation changes and no doubt will in the next 100 years. There's no reason to believe that any APR that MIGHT be implimented would be adopted for any substantive evelutionary period of time.
Would a 5 year, 10 year, or 20 year test period change the genetic make up of a deer herd negatively, or at all for that matter?

Big T


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Pinefarm said:


> So at least we finally established that APR's increase antlerless kill because if a few more guys can't kill a buck, they still want a deer for the freezer and may shoot a doe.


Not really - there are many more like me who go deerless because they won't take a doe out of the low population density. We are forced to pass bucks that age and lead to the spread of disease. 
<----<<<


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

QDMAMAN said:


> What is the time frame that would have to elaps for a noticable change to take place? The reason I ask is that over the last 100 years in Michigan we have experienced numerous regulation changes and no doubt will in the next 100 years. There's no reason to believe that any APR that MIGHT be implimented would be adopted for any substantive evelutionary period of time.
> Would a 5 year, 10 year, or 20 year test period change the genetic make up of a deer herd negatively, or at all for that matter?
> 
> Big T


The best evidence can probably be obtained by looking at TDM data. I have seen managers of isolated areas significantly effect antler size in as little as 5 years based on cull criteria. 
There are so many variables involved here that it would be near impossible to predict how soon we would have a genetic impact. However, we know that imposing selection criteria and culling on that criteria WILL have an impact if the trait is heritble. I you are hunting a high population area that has a good mix of protected and legal age-matched deer and cull a good proportion of the unprotected - the gene frequencies can be altered more quickly. 
<----<<<


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

coldskins said:


> and before this papper yes i was all for aprs, and after some research i have taken a step back and I am not sure what is best anymore i personally dont think any one thing is going to fix michigans herd but i do feel something needs to change and i think we need to start somewhere.


coldskins--I'm not sure what research has been swaying you but it might be helpful for you to look at this report about one of the longer running Michigan efforts in this arena. The report is from 2008 but the APRs in DMU 045 have been in place since 2003.

Here are the results of a survey from the report:



















Now, this DMU is Leelanau county, and there are some very frustrated hunters from there that post a lot on this forum. You know the type, they have a hard time finding or killing deer, or do not spend much time hunting, and find fault with these rules that are supported by over 70% of hunters and landowners from that DMU:lol:.

However, I know a number of guys from Leelanau county who hate when these things come up. They are experiencing some of the most outstanding hunting in the state, there is plenty of state land in the DMU, and they don't like the word getting out that it is a Mecca for big bucks, in spite of what other very vocal people might lead you to believe.

In fact, according to the 2010 check station report, 71% of the 045 bucks brought in had 8 points or more. The next closest is a tie between Calhoun and Cass (both SLP) counties at 54%. 

Now, you will hear all kinds of hand waving from the poor hunters in that county that can't ever seem to get a buck (so they claim they are not interested in bucks:lol. 

But let's take a look at the two adjoining counties, and it might explain why most hunters and landowners in Leelanau County are so happy. We are looking at the numbers of bucks greater than 8 points, number of hunters, antlerless (ants) harvested, and bucks harvested, and in parentheses, the percentage of does and bucks harvested per hunter (this does not take into account those who killed two bucks, but that is a low percentage so this gives us a pretty good estimate). Data are taken from the 2010 check station report (% 8 pts.) and the 2010 Harvest report (everything else). 










Now the UP hunters are happy with their regulations, but as was pointed out earlier, we only have short term data. With DMU 045 we have 5 year high satisfaction rates and 8 year harvest data. Leelanau county ranks number one by far in the number of 8 pt bucks harvested, way above adjacent counties and above all other DMUs. But they also kill more does and bucks per hunter than nearby counties. And they kill more bucks than the average for the entire NELP (28% vs. 17.4%) The entire NLP (28 vs. 20.2%) equal to the UP (28 vs. 28%) and nearly as well as the SLP (28 VS. 30.4%).

No wonder most hunters are happy in that DMU, eh?


----------



## coldskins (Sep 26, 2011)

bioactive said:


> coldskins I am going to be brutally honest with you.
> 
> I have hired a good many biologists, engineers, and scientists in my life. If you don't learn to compose sentences and spell (it is not that hard, there is a spell checker on this forum) you will have a really hard time getting a job. And they probably won't tell you why.
> 
> ...


didnt know I was applying for a job, I am on a forum typing fast yeah I cant spell well but when I take my time I can, and I must be ok when I take my time cause or should I say because I am currently getting 4.0 in both math and english thank you for cutting me down on something i admitted i was bad at in the begining I am not going to take my time on a forum I have read alot of things that you have posted on this sight and i had alot of respect for for your opinions till today i have never been bashed for my spelling or punctuation as much as on this sight everyone here is just so perfect in everything they do it sickens me that people cant ever ask for an opinion or in my case help on something with out getting bashed every thing i read on here turns to an argument and insults and most cant even answer what some one asks for, in one of these threads. I guess this will be all i have to say on this sight dont want to bother you with my bad gramer and spelling thanks again take care


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> With DMU 045 we have 5 year high satisfaction rates and 8 year harvest data. Leelanau county ranks number one by far in the number of 8 pt bucks harvested, way above adjacent counties and above all other DMUs. But they also kill more does and bucks per hunter than nearby counties. And they kill more bucks than the average for the entire NELP (28% vs. 17.4%) The entire NLP (28 vs. 20.2%) equal to the UP (28 vs. 28%) and nearly as well as the SLP (28 VS. 30.4%).


Since we have 8 years of data with APR's, why did you choose to only compare one year's data to the adjacent DMU's? 

As you well know, one year of data can be something of an anomaly, by comparing multiple year averages, you get a better overall picture. 

When you compare the Pre-APR baseline harvest average in DMU 045 to the 8 year running average under APR's, the overall harvest is down 2%.

During the same time periods in Benzie Co., the overall harvest has increased by 10%.

In Grand Traverse Co. during this same time period, the overall harvest has decreased 5%.

That would indicate that something other then just APR's is impacting harvest rates, as both Benzie and GT did not have APR's and there was a 15% spread in the rate of change between the two.

Now let's look at antlered buck harvest during that time period.

Leelanau Co. saw the average antlered buck harvest increase during the APR period, when compared to the pre-APR baseline period, by 5%.

During the same time period, Benzie saw antlered buck harvest increase by 39% and GT Co. saw it increase by 11%.

Now lets look at antlered buck success rates by hunter during the same period. In Leelanau Co. during the pre-APR baseline period, the average antlered buck success rate was 22%. The average antlered buck success rate during the 8 years of APR's is 24%, a mild increase.

In Benzie Co., the antlered buck success rate during the same years as the Pre-APR baseline in DMU 045 was 13%, which indicates that even prior to APR's, Leelanau Co. had a significantly higher success rate on antlered bucks. During the next 8 years, while Leelanau had APR's and Benzie did not, the antlered success rate in Benzie Co. averaged 23%, just slightly lower then what occurred in Leelanau Co., with no APR's driving it.

During the pre-APR baseline period in GT. County, antlered buck success rate was 16%, again lower then Leelanau Co. without APR's. During the ensuing 8 year period, that antlered buck success rate increased to an average of 20%, again without the impact of APR's being a driving force. 

Looking at those numbers, it would appear that something other then APR's is driving the increases in antlered buck success rates in those three counties, regardless of what the impression might be from looking at one single year of numbers with no context. 

As far as increasing the number of bucks with 8 points or greater in the harvest being a result of APR's......well duh! When you take 50% of the bucks off the table, then it's pretty much a given that more of the bucks harvested will have larger antlers. If you are captivated by the pursuit of large antlered bucks, I can see how that might be relevant. If not, then not so much. :lol:


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

coldskins said:


> didnt know I was applying for a job, I am on a forum typing fast yeah I cant spell well but when I take my time I can, and I must be ok when I take my time cause or should I say because I am currently getting 4.0 in both math and english thank you for cutting me down on something i admitted i was bad at in the begining I am not going to take my time on a forum I have read alot of things that you have posted on this sight and i had alot of respect for for your opinions till today i have never been bashed for my spelling or punctuation as much as on this sight everyone here is just so perfect in everything they do it sickens me that people cant ever ask for an opinion or in my case help on something with out getting bashed every thing i read on here turns to an argument and insults and most cant even answer what some one asks for, in one of these threads. I guess this will be all i have to say on this sight dont want to bother you with my bad gramer and spelling thanks again take care


Just grammar nazi's being grammar nazi's.
I would not let it bother ya coldskin. Your grammar does not bother my online identity or me in real life. 
If your looking for info might i suggest you start a poll. Ask a question and give a few answers like you did earlier in this thread. If you want to know why they chose something than ask them to post a reason. You can let it go for a few days and then weed thru all the usual b.s. and hopefully you can get a bit of statistical data you are looking for.
Hope this helps ya.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

We all know Munster does not like APR's and especially so the APR in Leelanau Co. He would never admit that there is anything good about what has happened here if his life depended on it.

The facts are, there are many more happy hunters and farmers in the county than there were 10 years ago. Our herd is smaller now which benefits the farmers, yet we do not hear a lot of complaints from the hunting community. Hunters know that there are many more mature bucks in the county now than in the past. The deer react to hunting tactics like rattling , calls, etc. because of more intense breeding competition. With a little bit of perseverance hunters have an excellent chance of harvesting a mature buck, which was not the case 10 years ago.

Banter the numbers all you want, they mean nothing. The only thing that the DNR wants to see is happy hunters and happy landowners and we have a significant number of both in Leelanau Co.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

coldskins said:


> didnt know I was applying for a job, I am on a forum typing fast yeah I cant spell well but when I take my time I can, and I must be ok when I take my time cause or should I say because I am currently getting 4.0 in both math and english thank you for cutting me down on something i admitted i was bad at in the begining I am not going to take my time on a forum I have read alot of things that you have posted on this sight and i had alot of respect for for your opinions till today i have never been bashed for my spelling or punctuation as much as on this sight everyone here is just so perfect in everything they do it sickens me that people cant ever ask for an opinion or in my case help on something with out getting bashed every thing i read on here turns to an argument and insults and most cant even answer what some one asks for, in one of these threads. I guess this will be all i have to say on this sight dont want to bother you with my bad gramer and spelling thanks again take care


I probably should have sent you a PM. I apologize for embarrassing you.


----------



## MarkSend (Mar 11, 2008)

Don't know many farmers do you Buck.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucko12pt said:


> Banter the numbers all you want, they mean nothing.


Certainly a scientific approach to Deer management if I ever heard one. :lol:


Allow me to prevent you from speaking for me, as many seem to like to do. I've been very open in acknowledging that the APR's in Leelanau Co. have protected some yearling bucks and has advanced the buck age structure in Leelanau Co., nothing miraculous about that, it's generally what happens when APR's are put in place. 

We just disagree that such changes should be mandated and I'm also cognizant of some of the downsides that have occurred as a result of APR's, while you tend to dismiss anything negative because "some hunters are happy". You guys sold the APR's under false pretenses, using biology and "herd health" as the basis for the regulation change. You got away with it because nobody realized that you were blowing smoke and selling a false premise. Good for you. My guess is that the same degree of naiveté will not occur on the next attempt to sell APR's to the unsuspecting public.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

bucko12pt said:


> Banter the numbers all you want, they mean nothing. *The only thing that the DNR wants to see is happy hunters and happy landowners and we have a significant number of both in Leelanau Co.*


That is clear from the survey. It is also clear from the data that if you are unhappy in that county, there is no place in the NLP where you are going to be happy. Unless of course, hunting lessons were on the agenda...NOT.:lol:


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

MarkSend said:


> Don't know many farmers do you Buck.


Matter of fact I do Mark, l've lived her all my life. If deer damage was such an issue we would have more DMAP's issued than 50-75 per year, which was the five year number I got from Rich Earle a couple years back.

Tell us how many DMAPS you get per year?


----------



## Pez Gallo (Sep 20, 2008)

Coldskins,

I don't think it was Bio's intention to embarrass you, all though it seems to have turned out that way. If you respected his opinion in the past, then my advice would be to respect it now. 

What he gave you was sound advice and like it or not how you articulate on a pubic forum reflects on you as an individual. There are no facial expressions, hand gestures, or voice inflections all there is, is the written word.

This is coming from someone who is by no means a word smith, in fact one of my college professors told me I flat out sucked!lol 

So take the criticism and learn from it. Another word of advice is to get a little thicker skin, especially if your going to post on a public forum, believe me your going to need it.

As for the APR's I think all the arguments against have been made. I will admit that I am/was not a huge proponent of them, but after reading this thread I am leaning more for than against now.

Good luck to you and hope your paper turns out an A.

Have a good day, Pez

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> We just disagree that such changes should be mandated and I'm also cognizant of some of the downsides that have occurred as a result of APR's, while you tend to dismiss anything negative because "some hunters are happy". You guys sold the APR's under false pretenses, using biology and "herd health" as the basis for the regulation change. You got away with it because nobody realized that you were blowing smoke and selling a false premise. Good for you. My guess is that the same degree of naiveté will not occur on the next attempt to sell APR's to the unsuspecting public.


Geez Munster, curious that when it came up for renewal it was overwhelmingly passed again by a higher percentage than the first time
and in fact, put in place permanently. Someone must have thought it was working well and a good idea.......................oh yeah, the NRC.

I remember Keith Charter telling us after the meeting when the vote took place the second time, that we would be held up as the "Poster Child" for APR's in the state. I guess he was right. Everyone Co. wants to be like Leelanau Co. 

You will most likely have the opportunity to point out the fallacies of APR's in the NWLP when the 13 county APR comes to a vote some time in the near future. Get your ducks in a row.


----------



## Big Jon St.Croix (Feb 9, 2010)

My brother posted this last year.
With APRs both would have been off limits and probably would have died of old age.








*Would you have killed these two bucks?* 
They are both only fourpoints



















Read more at Michigan-Sportsman.com: Would you have killed these two bucks? - The Michigan Sportsman Forums http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=357877#ixzz1fnw5X61Q

*My vote is NO APRs.*
I oppose mandatory APRs because they could limit some hunters opportunities to be able to harvest a deer for the sole purpose of enhancing the opportunity for another hunter who only want to take big-racked bucks.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucko12pt said:


> You will most likely have the opportunity to point out the fallacies of APR's in the NWLP when the 13 county APR comes to a vote some time in the near future. Get your ducks in a row.


I've been getting my ducks in a row for some time. At least the "margin of error" that allowed them to be passed the first time around in DMU 045, despite not gaining enough support, is off the table this time around and I played a small role in accomplishing that change. You can count that as duck number one. :lol:


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Good genetics. Probably just 1 1/2 year old!!


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> I've been getting my ducks in a row for some time. At least the "margin of error" that allowed them to be passed the first time around in DMU 045, despite not gaining enough support, is off the table this time around and I played a small role in accomplishing that change. You can count that as duck number one. :lol:


Why did I know you would bring that up. :lol:

You understand that even if this effort fails there will be others. It's going to happen, only a question of when........................we both know that!!


----------



## Standsniper (Feb 7, 2011)

swampbuck said:


> Alternate...I oppose them just to piss off the antlerphiles.


 
After reading your post on this site over the last few months,,,,,I think you cant kill a good buck so you feel the need to trash anyone that does


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> We just disagree that such changes should be mandated and I'm also cognizant of some of the downsides that have occurred as a result of APR's, while you tend to dismiss anything negative because "some hunters are happy". You guys sold the APR's under false pretenses, using biology and "herd health" as the basis for the regulation change. You got away with it because nobody realized that you were blowing smoke and selling a false premise. Good for you. My guess is that the same degree of naiveté will not occur on the next attempt to sell APR's to the unsuspecting public.


Is the herd healthier? If not how does no restrictions make them healthier?
Besides the social aspect of restricting hunters what are the other negatives to APRs?
I am also trying to figure out why hunters are happy with something they were sold under false pretenses...I'd be pissed...


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

bucko12pt said:


> Geez Munster, curious that when it came up for renewal it was overwhelmingly passed again by a higher percentage than the first time
> and in fact, put in place permanently. Someone must have thought it was working well and a good idea.......................oh yeah, the NRC.
> 
> I remember Keith Charter telling us after the meeting when the vote took place the second time, that we would be held up as the "Poster Child" for APR's in the state. I guess he was right. Everyone Co. wants to be like Leelanau Co.
> ...


Over 70% favorable, hunters and land owners. Hard to beat. Did Obama get 70%? Bush? Clinton? Bush? Anybody.

God that must be a great county to hunt in as compared to others in the NLP. Same harvest rate, the highest percentage of 8 pt. plus bucks in the state.

Who would argue with that:lol::yikes::chillin::evilsmile?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

sbooy42 said:


> Is the herd healthier? If not how does no restrictions make them healthier?
> Besides the social aspect of restricting hunters what are the other negatives to APRs?
> I am also trying to figure out why hunters are happy with something they were sold under false pretenses...I'd be pissed...


Nope the herd is not any healthier, the claims that were made that APR's would improve the health of the herd were specious. I didn't claim the herd was healthier prior to APR's, no way to prove that because APR's don't impact the health of the herd in any way. 

Restricting hunters is a pretty significant social aspect in my opinion. I don't like the fact that when I take a youth hunter out to my property, we have to count antler points and worry about whether or not it's a legal buck. In fact it's to the point that I don't take them there anymore, I take them to the Antrim Co. property that I hunt so that we don't have to worry about it. 

Another example, I recently hosted my 79 year old father-in-law and his 85 year old buddy at my Leelanau Co. property, they don't tolerate the cold too well and at my place we could put them in a heated blind. They did not have antlerless permits because there were only 200 available, county wide. So I had to coach them to be careful not to shoot a sub-legal buck. I have four bucks that regularly visit my property this season, two of them are legal and two are not, so I was a little concerned about a mistake happening. I did not like the fact that I had to worry about whether I was going to get an "oh-oh" phone call. Neither of them would have shot a sub-legal buck on purpose but stuff happens and the fact that we even have to worry about it is an irritation to me. As it happens, they did not see anything. They still had a good time but either would have been tickled pink to bag a deer, even if it had been a spike. Don't know how many more seasons they will have between them. 

As far as hunters being happy, some are but I also know a bunch who are not. I'd say that archery hunters, particularly those that are primarily interested in trophy deer are probably pretty happy. The more casual firearms only hunters, maybe not as much.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> the highest number of 8 pt. plus bucks in the state.


Not sure where you get your data from but I can assure you that Leelanau Co. does not have the highest number of 8 pt. plus bucks in the State. My guess is that would be Montcalm, Sanilac or Ionia Counties.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

bucko12pt said:


> I remember Keith Charter telling us after the meeting when the vote took place the second time, that we would be held up as the "Poster Child" for APR's in the state. I guess he was right. Everyone Co. wants to be like Leelanau Co.


I have hunted Leelenau Co a few times. It was not what i expected.
Even with the APR's the shootable bucks that i did encounter are what i would pass on my hobby farm in Benzie. 
I don't think every county wants to be like Leelenau. just an overly bloated personal opinion on your behalf.
Benzie County going to APR's?
Theres a pipedream.:lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

sbooy42 said:


> Is the herd healthier? If not how does no restrictions make them healthier?
> Besides the social aspect of restricting hunters what are the other negatives to APRs?
> I am also trying to figure out why hunters are happy with something they were sold under false pretenses...I'd be pissed...


He does'nt have any proof that they were sold anything under false pretenses or he would show it. Something he dreamed up to support his argument.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> Nope the herd is not any healthier, the claims that were made that APR's would improve the health of the herd were specious. I didn't claim the herd was healthier prior to APR's, no way to prove that because APR's don't impact the health of the herd in any way.
> 
> Restricting hunters is a pretty significant social aspect in my opinion. I don't like the fact that when I take a youth hunter out to my property, we have to count antler points and worry about whether or not it's a legal buck. In fact it's to the point that I don't take them there anymore, I take them to the Antrim Co. property that I hunt so that we don't have to worry about it.
> 
> ...


I guess thats a fair answer.. I might question the real reasons why you took a youth hunter to antrim, but oh well.. Were they successful?

So pretty much your just against APRs for social reasons? counting mishaps and presently low opportunities in N MI

The charts bio posted show the first line of your last paragraph should read "As far as hunters being happy, a bunch are but I also know some who are not."


----------



## tjray (Nov 22, 2010)

coldskins said:


> not looking to start a fight just writing an english papper and need some help. so whos against them and why thanks


stop shooting all the doe, in time its killing the heard wake up people that what they want. go back to the old rule one gun tag one bow tag, 4pt on one side is not helping they are mostly year half anyways , better buck next next year., not saying i didnt ever shoot them, i hunt state land in the thumb you know how it is.. i will shoot a poor rack buck 1.5 any day over a doe.,
i really dont know like i said go back to the old ways, points are not going to work. & about the doe i"M not saying its wrong just let the deer come back for year or two , i like to see deer when i'm hunting..


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> Nope the herd is not any healthier, the claims that were made that APR's would improve the health of the herd were specious. I didn't claim the herd was healthier prior to APR's, no way to prove that because APR's don't impact the health of the herd in any way.
> 
> Restricting hunters is a pretty significant social aspect in my opinion. I don't like the fact that when I take a youth hunter out to my property, we have to count antler points and worry about whether or not it's a legal buck. In fact it's to the point that I don't take them there anymore, I take them to the Antrim Co. property that I hunt so that we don't have to worry about it.
> 
> ...


You seem to imply that the fact that there are only 200 doe permits for the county that is a bad thing and somehow the APR is at fault. I'd say it's a very good thing and means our population is where it should be and we do'nt have the problems they have in Zone 3. One thing is for sure......................at least 70% of the hunters are happy.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucko12pt said:


> He does'nt have any proof that they were sold anything under false pretenses or he would show it. Something he dreamed up to support his argument.


:lol: Read the original letter that was sent out where is describes the regulation as a "QDM" initiative and relates how QDM is a movement designed to improve the health of the herd. No mention from the DNR in that letter that APR's are a purely social regulatory change and that the health of the herd is not impacted by APR's. It's been posted before, use the search function.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucko12pt said:


> You seem to imply that the fact that there are only 200 doe permits for the county that is a bad thing and somehow the APR is at fault. I'd say it's a very good thing and means our population is where it should be and we do'nt have the problems they have in Zone 3. One thing is for sure......................at least 70% of the hunters are happy.


I'm not "implying" anything, I said that my guests could not get antlerless permits because there were only 200 of them available and 5 times that many people entered the lottery to get one. You can draw any implications that you want from that, it's just explaining that they did not have the option of shooting an antlerless deer.

At least 70% of the small number of hunters polled in a non-random survey are happy.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

wintrrun said:


> I have hunted Leelenau Co a few times. It was not what i expected.
> Even with the APR's the shootable bucks that i did encounter are what i would pass on my hobby farm in Benzie.
> I don't think every county wants to be like Leelenau. just an overly bloated personal opinion on your behalf.
> Benzie County going to APR's?
> Theres a pipedream.:lol::lol::lol::lol:


Perhaps you should stick with your hobby farm in Benzie in that case.
It's my "bloated opinion" that it takes a special hunter to kill a mature buck and some have it and some do'nt. 

How many bucks has Benzie put in the CBM record book in the past 8 years compared to Leelanau? 

How many bucks over 140" and how many over 165" have been entered from Benzie in the past 8 years?

If you do'nt want it I hope you do'nt get it.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> At least 70% of the small number of hunters polled in a non-random survey are happy.


  non random.... are there survey results that say non-random.. Unfortunately the only thing I see on those charts say random...

And I was under assumption from some of the other threads about DNR stats that surveying a small number was accurate


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

sbooy42 said:


> non random.... are there survey results that say non-random.. Unfortunately the only thing I see on those charts say random...


It's been discussed many times before. Take a look at how the potential survey recipients are selected. A large number of the hunters who may have hunted in a given DMU are automatically excluded from getting a survey. If they have never previously completed and returned the annual harvest survey that the DNR sends out, then they are excluded from the sample pool. There are minimum land size requirements limiting which landowners are potentially included in the landowner portion of the survey. The APR surveys are not random surveys. It has nothing to do with the size of the sample, it's how the sample is collected.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> At least 70% of the small number of hunters polled in a non-random survey are happy.


Another item that I'm surprised you have'nt dragged up earlier.

While you are getting your ducks in a row, why do'nt you figure out a way to get a "Munster approved" survey and a proper way to fund it, 
instead of the "DNR approved" survey that was done when the APR in Leelanau was approved. 

Oh, and will you have them change the "No Opinion" votes from being counted as a "No" vote to a "non counted" vote? If you can do that 
the 70% would be even higher.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> It's been discussed many times before. Take a look at how the potential survey recipients are selected. A large number of the hunters who may have hunted in a given DMU are automatically excluded from getting a survey. If they have never previously completed and returned the annual harvest survey that the DNR sends out, then they are excluded from the sample pool. There are minimum land size requirements limiting which landowners are potentially included in the landowner portion of the survey. The APR surveys are not random surveys. It has nothing to do with the size of the sample, it's how the sample is collected.


Notice he does'nt bring up the fact that the "no opinion" votes are counted as "no" votes, which would have made the 70% passing % even higher.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucko12pt said:


> Another item that I'm surprised you have'nt dragged up earlier.
> 
> While you are getting your ducks in a row, why do'nt you figure out a way to get a "Munster approved" survey and a proper way to fund it,
> instead of the "DNR approved" survey that was done when the APR in Leelanau was approved.
> ...


Munster has already made his suggestions to the NRC about how the APR initiatives should be handled and believe me, you would not like the funding part of it. :lol: 

We will have to see how many of the APR workgroup get enacted by the NRC and how many they ignore. And for the record, our recommendation was a straight up and down, yes or no survey, the "no opinion" option would be eliminated. You can label that one duck number two. :lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucko12pt said:


> Notice he does'nt bring up the fact that the "no opinion" votes are counted as "no" votes, which would have made the 70% passing % even higher.


Because they were not counted as "no" votes. The rule was that you had to attain 66% support, if someone checked "no opinion", it was not counted as no, it just did not accrue towards the 66% needed, because it was not a clear indication of support.

As an example, here are the results from the survey question asked in last years annual harvest survey, pertaining to the APR's in the NELP that were enacted.










As you can see, as many survey recipients had no opinion, as supported them. If you eliminated the no opinion option, there is no guarantee that all of the "no opinions"would fall into the support column.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

jimmyo17 said:


> I think you under estimate the amount of people there are that are fine with things just the way they are.


Maybe jimminy, but we know for a fact it's under 28% in DMU045 because 72% voted for a change.

I think you are in denial like many others.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> Munster, simple question....Why does there need to be a landowner portion of the survey ?


There doesn't have to be, that's just the way the original APR workgroup in the 1990's set things up. 

The landowner portion may or may not continue, it's my understanding that the wildlife division made or was going to make the recommendation to the NRC that the landowner portion of future surveys be eliminated, due to time and cost constraints within the DNR.

I don't know if the NRC will support that idea or not, I know that some of the more prominent groups..cough,...cough......cough, want to see the landowner portion continue, so we will see who has the most pull with the NRC. 

If they do continue the landowner portion, there are going to be some problems with the 13 county multi-DMU initiative. The rules that the NRC put together indicate that if taxpayer data is available electronically, then the DNR staff will randomly select taxpayers from that electronic database. If the township and counties do not have the records stored in a searchable electronic format, however, the rules state that the selection of the Landowner sample will be left up to the sponsoring organization to do, with the DNR giving them some procedural guidelines to follow when putting together the sample. It's my understanding that many of the more rural counties in that 13 Co area, lack the electronic option. 

Can you say RED FLAG? :lol:


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

PineIsland said:


> I probably shouldn't wade into this, but for the sake of the poor guys research paper...another view.
> 
> I think that APR's are socially based laws, not good or bad in and of themselves. Seldom is the interest in the more restrictive laws starting at the wildlife managers level, but rather at the constituents level.
> 
> ...


Thanks for sharing this.
I'd have to say i agree with alot of your views.
I wish we could all find some common ground but it has become more apparent that the wants of a few seem to overshadow the needs of many.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> There doesn't have to be, that's just the way the original APR workgroup in the 1990's set things up.
> 
> The landowner portion may or may not continue, it's my understanding that the wildlife division made or was going to make the recommendation to the NRC that the landowner portion of future surveys be eliminated, due to time and cost constraints within the DNR.
> 
> ...


So it could end up with the sponsor selecting who they are going to poll on the issue they are sponsoring.....You cant be serious.


----------



## Masterplumber5000 (Dec 26, 2010)

Why don't we go to one buck tag? If you want to shoot a little buck, go ahead. If you want to shoot a big buck, pass on the small ones. I think some guys just have to shoot any buck they get a chance at just so they don't get skunked, and they have something to brag about, and that's fine. But there are alot of guys with more time and opportunities to hunt that would hold off shooting a smaller buck if they didn't have the extra tag.


----------



## ai1340 (Dec 7, 2011)

i'm not against it, but at the same time if you see a deer moving quickly and see it has a really nice spread, shoot it and then find out it's only a 6 point, then what.​


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

wintrrun said:


> Thanks for sharing this.
> I'd have to say i agree with alot of your views.
> I wish we could all find some common ground but it has become more apparent that the wants of a few seem to overshadow the needs of many.


Over 70% of both land owners and hunters in DMU 045 are favorable towards APRs after 5 years experience with it.

So you agree, the "many" have spoken, correct?


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Bio, 

leelanau county is not the only DMU to try APR's.....Last I knew far more got rid of them, than kept them......What were those numbers again Munster, I believe it was 2 out of 8 kept them. Maybe we should look at those poll results.

I think habitat and environment may have a little to do with it...Leelanau county is not your typical Michigan environment


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

for example...

The UP survey proir to lindquist failed

The Chippewa/Mackinac survey failed

Drummond kept the no spike rule but rejected further APR's

Iosco county failed

Mason county failed

Clare county renewal failed

Huron Sanilac and Tuscola counties failed

Montcalm county failed

Get the picture?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Masterplumber5000 said:


> Why don't we go to one buck tag? If you want to shoot a little buck, go ahead. If you want to shoot a big buck, pass on the small ones. I think some guys just have to shoot any buck they get a chance at just so they don't get skunked, and they have something to brag about, and that's fine. But there are alot of guys with more time and opportunities to hunt that would hold off shooting a smaller buck if they didn't have the extra tag.


If you use the search function and search under OBR, you will find literally thousands of threads where your suggestion has been discussed.

The short answer is because the Combo license is mandated by law and the NRC/DNR does not have the power to change that, as well as the fact that the Combo license is the economic engine driving the DNR train and they could not afford the accompanying loss in revenue that would occur if the Combo was dropped. 

There are some possible changes that could occur within the confines of the existing combo tag, they are currently being discussed in the Lindquist rules statewide thread in the Management forum.


----------



## stinky reinke (Dec 13, 2007)

I don't remember Sanilac having APRs. It was voted on in the mid 90's but never passed.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

swampbuck said:


> for example...
> 
> The UP survey proir to lindquist failed
> 
> ...


And at one time there were counties that we were not allowed to shoot a buck in:yikes:...Things change


Dang and I thought this thread was going to die


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> So it could end up with the sponsor selecting who they are going to poll on the issue they are sponsoring.....You cant be serious.


From page 5, paragraph 2 of "MDNR Procedure for initiation, evaluation, and review of Mandatory Quality Deer Management Proposals"

_"The Landowner sample will be obtained from county tax records. In counties with electronic databases, the Wildlife Bureau will obtain the necessary sample. In counties that cannot provide electronic files of landowners for sampling, the sponsoring organization will be required to obtain the landowner sample from county tax records for the Wildlife Bureau. The Wildlife Bureau survey staff will provide survey sampling methods, which will ensure acreage ownership patterns are reflected in the sample. Only landowners with acreage greater than or equal to the minimum acreage requirement for private land antlerless hunting licenses in the prior year will be included in the sample."_

What was that thing about foxes guarding the henhouse??............


----------



## on_point (Sep 30, 2011)

I believe when the survey went out for DMU 045 the reason landowners were included was that there had to be full support from landowners as well as hunters for the APR to continue on as planned.

Reason being Leelanau county is one of the largest county's in fruit production. A very real concern was that farmers were going to have more tree damage to young fruit trees. A buck can run down an orchard and rub/girdle a bunch of trees in the course of a year and a farmer may lose years after having to replace a tree before it is productive to his/her establishment. 

As for being a hunter and a lifelong resident of DMU 045 I can fully attest that there is huge support amongst it. Even someone as I where an direct consequence was lost hunting opportunities to private land I still fully support it. Even though the public land has received significant increased pressure it still manages to produce many respectable bucks on a yearly basis. 

On a personal note my success rate has not diminished on harvesting a buck any more than before the restriction. The only difference is that now I see more bucks and the one's I have been lucky enough to harvest have been bigger in size in weight as well as antler size. 

I try to look at it the same way as a size limit for fishing. Let's say we took the minimal size limit off walleye for instance how long would it be before we would all be complaining that we can't catch an eye any larger than a perch and a 15 inch fish would be considered a monster.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

on_point said:


> I believe when the survey went out for DMU 045 the reason landowners were included was that there had to be full support from landowners as well as hunters for the APR to continue on as planned.


The landowner component was not unique to DMU 045, there have been separate hunter/landowner samples in all of the dozen or so QDM initiatives that have been conducted in Michigan.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Will this be decided on a county by county basis or as a 13 county unit?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> What were those numbers again Munster,


:lol: Ask and ye shall recieve......

This spreadsheet shows the results of all of the Mandatory QDM initiatives that have taken place in Michigan, both the initial ones and the renewals that occurred in ones that passed initially. The ones that don't show initial tallys were originally implemented by the NRC prior to the survey method being developed, so they only had renewal surveys.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Justin said:


> Will this be decided on a county by county basis or as a 13 county unit?


Has yet to be decided but my guess is on a county by county basis.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

huntingfool43 said:


> We already have mandatory APR's. Three inches or longer on the first buck, four points on one side on the second. We don't need any more than thst. Better off going to one buck tag and make the other tag good for antlerless.


Why dont we need any more. What is the reason for the 3 inch rule? To identify if its a buck or not? I dont get that restriction. Like a half inch is going to make a difference. It just makes more sense if a restriction restricts the taking of a small percentage of yearling bucks.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> :lol: Ask and ye shall recieve......
> 
> This spreadsheet shows the results of all of the Mandatory QDM initiatives that have taken place in Michigan, both the initial ones and the renewals that occurred in ones that passed initially. The ones that don't show initial tallys were originally implemented by the NRC prior to the survey method being developed, so they only had renewal surveys.


What year was this done?


----------



## Lugian (Aug 19, 2007)

bucko12pt said:


> Just a little history lesson for those that are interested in how the
> Leelanau APR came about. When the Leelanau Whitetails group was formed there were discussions about what type of restriction the member would like to see put in place. One of the suggestions was 4 on a side. Oddly enough, that was pushed fairly hard by the CO at the time as a suggestion. The goup as a whole resisted the 4 on a side rule, thinking that there would be too few deer eligible for harvest and
> it would be too hard to pass a 4 on a side rule initially.
> 
> ...


I'd like to add to this if I may from a hunters perspective. I grew up hunting in the SW part of the state where its mostly farm ground: fence rows, pot holes, swales, small swamps, small woodlots, most of thses not much more than a couple hundred yards wide. There wasn't a bunch of cover so the bucks didn't have to work that hard for the does because of it, i.e. You didn't see them that often, couple that with the hunting pressure and over abundance of does you've got a lot of nocturnal bucks. 

Fast forward to APR's in 045. There's a lot of rolling hills, hardwoods, orchards, and swamp. There's A LOT of ground that I wouldn't say is ideal mature buck habitat(not very thick) yet they get killed in these open woodlots. There aren't an over abundance of does so the bucks HAVE to work hard to find them and cover A LOT of ground doing so. I've never hunted a place where the older bucks(2.5 yo and older) were so visible during daylight hours. The rut is more intense. If this same APR were implemented in the surrounding counties(where I think is better habitat), I think the hunting/buck activity could be better/more intense than 045. If this isn't something you might be interested in, so be it but this is my observation as a VERY average hunter.

I had nothing to do with getting APR's put in place, I'm just enjoying the benefits. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

Lugian said:


> And Wintrrun:
> 
> Should the DNR/NRC decide that APR's are the new regs, will the "sparky" shooters feel the same way or will they feel their right has been taken away?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 
Most likely some will and some will not if the NRC mandates APR's as the saving grace for Michigans Mangement issues.

I'd like to see some rock solid harvest/age data from Leelenau since APR's have been rolling for 8 years to see what kind of effect the APR's have had on age diversity. I have searched but still have not anything published.

Maybe Munster can chime in. If it exists then he would have it.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

Lugian said:


> Fast forward to APR's in 045. There's a lot of rolling hills, hardwoods, orchards, and swamp. There's A LOT of ground that I wouldn't say is ideal mature buck habitat(not very thick) yet they get killed in these open woodlots. *There aren't an over abundance of does so the bucks HAVE to work hard to find them and cover A LOT of ground doing so.* I've never hunted a place where the older bucks(2.5 yo and older) were so visible during daylight hours. The rut is more intense. If this same APR were implemented in the surrounding counties(where I think is better habitat), I think the hunting/buck activity could be better/more intense than 045. If this isn't something you might be interested in, so be it but this is my observation as a VERY average hunter.


My question to you is:
Why implement an APR when doe management seems to be the key factor in the paragraph?
Too me its just putting the cart before the horse.
From a management aspect getting the doe population in check would have been my first goal and then assessing what the age diversity was in the buck pool while maintaining doe populations would have been second. It would have gone along way in showing if diversity was indeed a deer management issue or just a social issue. The results of these would have been a sound management decision that i would have had to agree with.
The other thing i'll point out in reference to the lack of mature buck habitat is if you don't have what a mature whitetail needs in order to survive or border a property that does then no amount of APR's, MAR's or OBR's are going to change that. There might be a very lucky hunter here and there but you can't shoot what ya don't have.
Not an argument but food for thought.


----------



## Lugian (Aug 19, 2007)

wintrrun said:


> My question to you is:
> Why implement an APR when doe management seems to be the key factor in the paragraph?
> Too me its just putting the cart before the horse.
> From a management aspect getting the doe population in check would have been my first goal and then assessing what the age diversity was in the buck pool while maintaining doe populations would have been second. It would have gone along way in showing if diversity was indeed a deer management issue or just a social issue. The results of these would have been a sound management decision that i would have had to agree with.
> ...


Valid points and to make a long story short, I don't know. 

In the NW where I hunt, doe management isn't an issue, I'd say the population is probably about right(I don't have any figures to back it up just personal observation). So the only thing lacking is age to the buck structure. 

In the SLP, you're probably right, at least where I hunt, we've killed 10 does for every buck we've killed and its probably not enough. I'll try and make more of a response later.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Lugian said:


> I'd like to add to this if I may from a hunters perspective. I grew up hunting in the SW part of the state where its mostly farm ground: fence rows, pot holes, swales, small swamps, small woodlots, most of thses not much more than a couple hundred yards wide. There wasn't a bunch of cover so the bucks didn't have to work that hard for the does because of it, i.e. You didn't see them that often, couple that with the hunting pressure and over abundance of does you've got a lot of nocturnal bucks.
> 
> Fast forward to APR's in 045. There's a lot of rolling hills, hardwoods, orchards, and swamp. There's A LOT of ground that I wouldn't say is ideal mature buck habitat(not very thick) yet they get killed in these open woodlots. There aren't an over abundance of does so the bucks HAVE to work hard to find them and cover A LOT of ground doing so. I've never hunted a place where the older bucks(2.5 yo and older) were so visible during daylight hours. The rut is more intense. If this same APR were implemented in the surrounding counties(where I think is better habitat), I think the hunting/buck activity could be better/more intense than 045. If this isn't something you might be interested in, so be it but this is my observation as a VERY average hunter.
> 
> ...


Good to hear that someone else on these forums can testify to what many of have been observing for the past 5-6 years since we've really been seeing the effects of the APR. Suddenly we started seeing a more intense rut, more and bigger mature deer visible during the peak of the rut, things like rattling work here where they do'nt in most other areas of the state. 

I'm glad that you have been able to experience some of the positive things about the APR and can tell you have become a convert, like many from our own area, that were doubters in the beginning and have since changed their minds. 

I'll disagree with you to a degree about the mature buck habitat in the county. True, there are a lot of open area, orchards, rolling hills, and open but wooded forest. Around that though you have a few major lowland areas in the county where many deer yard in the winter and 
on a smaller scale, plenty of small swamps, swales and creek bottom areas that are thick and nasty for big bucks to hide. If you think of the population of mature bucks, it's really not that many, not sure how many but I'd venture a guess of 10-15% at the most. I believe our current population is around 5000 plus so that translates to maybe 500 or more mature animals spread out over the entire county. Anyone that knows mature bucks knows that they hide in some stange places and it does'nt take a very big area for him to hide. 

An APR might not be the answer for every DMU, but in our case I think it has worked well.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

wintrrun said:


> I'd like to see some rock solid harvest/age data from Leelenau since APR's have been rolling for 8 years to see what kind of effect the APR's have had on age diversity. I have searched but still have not anything published.
> 
> Maybe Munster can chime in. If it exists then he would have it.


:lol: I have it but I'm not sure why I'm tasked with doing the oppositions homework for them. 

I've been tracking both the annual harvest data and check station data for Leelanau and the surrounding 4 counties, for a three year pre-APR baseline period and the 8 years under APR's. There are both some differences and some similarities in some of the changes that have occurred, in Leelanau Co. and in the surrounding 4 counties. I'm a little reluctant to post the data because some individuals will pick one number and attribute it to the APR's, while ignoring the fact that similar changes have also occurred during the same time period in the DMU's that are not subjected to APR's. APR proponents are going to latch onto any positive change and attribute it to APR's and vice versa for Anti_APR proponents. 

Suffice it to say that there is no question that APR's have had an impact on the percentage of bucks harvested in each age class and have advanced the overall age structure of the herd.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

That's Munster speak for "there are too many good things that are a result of the APR, but it might affect my ability to win an argument in the future, so I'm not going to show you". :lol::lol:

I do'nt have the data, or I'd be happy to post it for you.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> :lol: I have it but I'm not sure why I'm tasked with doing the oppositions homework for them.
> 
> I've been tracking both the annual harvest data and check station data for Leelanau and the surrounding 4 counties, for a three year pre-APR baseline period and the 8 years under APR's. There are both some differences and some similarities in some of the changes that have occurred, in Leelanau Co. and in the surrounding 4 counties. I'm a little reluctant to post the data because some individuals will pick one number and attribute it to the APR's, while ignoring the fact that similar changes have also occurred during the same time period in the DMU's that are not subjected to APR's. APR proponents are going to latch onto any positive change and attribute it to APR's and vice versa for Anti_APR proponents.
> 
> Suffice it to say that there is no question that APR's have had an impact on the percentage of bucks harvested in each age class and have advanced the overall age structure of the herd.


 
Thank you Munster. 
I understand and respect your wish for not posting it to a public forum.
Figured you might have done the leg work and look forward to a time when you can share that information.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

bucko12pt said:


> That's Munster speak for "there are too many good things that are a result of the APR, but it might affect my ability to win an argument in the future, so I'm not going to show you". :lol::lol:
> 
> I do'nt have the data, or I'd be happy to post it for you.


I know you can probably quote me some scores and probably post me some pictures of bone but do you have any data on what the effect of apr's have had on diversity of age structure within DMU 045 for the past 8 years?


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Instead of continuing to hear the great "success" of Leelanau, I would like to hear about the counties where it failed, particularly Clare.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

wintrrun said:


> I know you can probably quote me some scores and probably post me some pictures of bone but do you have any data on what the effect of apr's have had on diversity of age structure within DMU 045 for the past 8 years?


PM me with you email address and I will send you what I have.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Justin said:


> Instead of continuing to hear the great "success" of Leelanau, I would like to hear about the counties where it failed, particularly Clare.


I think it was a success also, just failed to pass on the re-vote. 

Best bet for info on that DMU would be an email or PM to Ed Spinazzola. Do'nt think he posts here anymore, but he would be a
good source of info.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

bucko12pt said:


> PM me with you email address and I will send you what I have.


 
pm sent


----------



## rmw (Feb 21, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> Not sure where you hunt, your location says SE Michigan and if that is where you hunt, it's an understandable point of view. You might want to consider, though, that for many NLP & UP hunters, they may only see one or two legal deer during the course of their hunting season, so the decision to pass on one and wait for another to come along may have a slightly different impact on them than it would on an SLP hunters who may see 20 deer per sit. Just something to consider...walk a mile in their shoes and all that......


I hunt in the NELP which is arguably the worst area of MI to hunt and have seen 20 deer is a sit this yr. But we also don't kill everything we see, I've even been seeing the same immature bucks over and over again. It's amazing what happens if you let some of them live. I think the NLP/UP hunters shoes would be much more comfortable with a little trigger control 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## MarkSend (Mar 11, 2008)

Lug, where we do all the hunting is fields overlooking a swamp. The rest of the land is small woodlots,orchards, and being close to west bay subdivisions. As for size who knows, basically the food supply really hasn`t changed that much an neither has the weather. Do know that there were a couple of bucks that were shot that when over 200 lbs live weight (212 and 223 if one remembers the numbers) in the sixties. One of which was a six point and the meat was tougher than the proverbal shoe leather. This year we took a 1.5 year 6 point and a 2.5 8 point and there was basically no difference in weight. But one should not draw anything really from that seeing that it was only two deer. Usually there is about 10#lbs difference between 1.5 and 2.5 at what one thinks is called butcher weight ie no hide and ready to cut with the saw. As for the number of deer, well when one remembers what the late sixes was like anything would look better. Do recall one year that the three of us took six bucks. Gotta like those combo tags. Usually though it is shoot the first legal buck you see if want to fill a tag because it will likey be the only buck you see.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Kind of apropos for this thread

http://outdoornews.com/michigan/news/article_b7e4d508-2082-11e1-b9cf-0019bb2963f4.html

Let's see, 12 counties would have to be surveyed for this proposed NWLP 13 county area, at roughly $7k per county, I hope the sponsors have some deep pockets. :chillin:

Bucko, you can call that duck number 3. :yikes:


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> Kind of apropos for this thread
> 
> http://outdoornews.com/michigan/news/article_b7e4d508-2082-11e1-b9cf-0019bb2963f4.html
> 
> ...


Munster, I and a lot of others from Leelanau Co could care less if the APR is extended to the other 12 counties. We have what we wanted and the only reason for the Leelanau group being involved is because the Benzie and Grand Traverse groups wanted the APR extended to those counties and they asked the Leelanau group to be involved to help extend it. The original plan was to extend it to those two counties, but when the group met with Russ Mason he wanted it to be a much larger area and that's how the 12 county idea came into being. Everyone involved would be much happier if it was just those two additional counties.

If the cost truly is $ 7K per county, obviously it wo'nt happen. The new rule apparently has not been approved by the NRC, so lets see how it all shakes out. If it's accepted as a 12 county proposal as Russ Mason wants, then why would it be $ 7K per county? Sure you got your ducks in a row? 

If you think this will end the clamor statewide for better quality hunting
in Michigan, I would say guess again. Lots of the "opposition" to better quality hunting is getting older and the kids want a better quality hunting experience. 

We have the Lindquist Proposal in the UP, a modified Lindquist Proposal in the NELP and an APR in Leelanau Co. Do you honestly believe it will end there? 

I'd say you better not get too smug and I would keep lining up those ducks!! :evil:


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

wintrrun said:


> I know you can probably quote me some scores and probably post me some pictures of bone but do you have any data on what the effect of apr's have had on diversity of age structure within DMU 045 for the past 8 years?


The annual deer check station reports include data on antler points and dimensions, and report information for each DMU. You can e-mail Sarah Mayhew, DNR Research Biologist and she will provide you with the reports [email protected]

You would have to go back over the years to get comparative data. But the difference in harvest of 8 pt or larger bucks is shockingly high compared to other counties at 71% in 2010. The next nearest is Wayne cty at 57% and two SLP counties at 54% (sorry, I missed the Wayne cty numbers before). Surrounding counties are much lower, with the two adjacent counties being 26% and 29%

This would not be such a great thing if the harvest rates were low, but they are actually equivalent to or higher than other comparative counties in the region. Bucks killed per hunter in Leelanau in 2010 was 28% compared to 17% and 21% in the two adjacent counties.

Munster does not show you the data because it is so overwhelmingly supportive of the APRs in his county.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> I'm a little reluctant to post the data because some individuals will pick one number and attribute it to the APR's, while ignoring the fact that similar changes have also occurred during the same time period in the DMU's that are not subjected to APR's.


:lol:

Right. People are not smart enough to compare to the other DMUs, right?


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

bioactive said:


> This would not be such a great thing if the harvest rates were low, but they are actually equivalent to or higher than other comparative counties in the region..


Bio, I dont know exactly what you would consider comparative countys in the region. If you are talking about habitat or weather, There are no other comparative countys, Except for a small part of Grand traverse up along the bay and the old mission penninsula.


----------



## DEDGOOSE (Jan 19, 2007)

I thought we always had APR.. 1 tine of 3" or greater length


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

bioactive said:


> The annual deer check station reports include data on antler points and dimensions, and report information for each DMU. You can e-mail Sarah Mayhew, DNR Research Biologist and she will provide you with the reports [email protected]
> 
> You would have to go back over the years to get comparative data. But the difference in harvest of 8 pt or larger bucks is shockingly high compared to other counties at 71% in 2010. The next nearest is Wayne cty at 57% and two SLP counties at 54% (sorry, I missed the Wayne cty numbers before). Surrounding counties are much lower, with the two adjacent counties being 26% and 29%
> 
> ...


Thanks for passing along the info.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> Bio, I dont know exactly what you would consider comparative countys in the region. If you are talking about habitat or weather, There are no other comparative countys, Except for a small part of Grand traverse up along the bay and the old mission penninsula.


You're joking right. They compared prior to the APR, the APR was instuted and changed things, now the're no longer comparative?

The soils are the same, the terrain is the same, east of Lake Leelanau is largerly argricultural, but west of LL is mostly forested and has Sleeping 
Bear. Leelanau is surrounded on three sides by water, both Benzie and GT have significant shorelines. A county is such a large mass that that fact should be insignificant anyway. Deer populations are similar, hunter populations are similar. Where are these three counties not 
similar? 

You could also add Antrim and Charlevoix in as similar counties.

You're grabbing at straws Swampbuck.


----------



## Titan34 (Dec 7, 2009)

Personally I would like the opportunity to shoot larger racked bucks. If that means installing an antler point restriction I am all for it.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> This would not be such a great thing if the harvest rates were low, but they are actually equivalent to or higher than other comparative counties in the region. Bucks killed per hunter in Leelanau in 2010 was 28% compared to 17% and 21% in the two adjacent counties.


For someone who claims to be impartial and to be a scientist, you sure like to selectively quote isolated statistics. 

Why don't you quote the same figures for 2009?

In 2009 Leelanau had a 19% antlered buck success rate, compared to 18% for Benzie and 16% for Grand Traverse, not exactly a huge difference, despite Leelanau having APR's. 

In 2008, Leelanau had a 23% success rate on antlered bucks, Benzie had a 22% success rate and Grand Traverse had a 28% success rate. Were the APR's in Leelanau the reason that the success rate was lower in Leelanau that year than in Grand Traverse?

That's what I mean about people selectively quoting isolated statistics and attributing them to APR's. If you want to look for any meaningful trends, an isolated year of data is essentially meaningless, you need to look at the totality of the data for it to have any context.

If you look at the success rate trend for all three counties, it's improving in all three, despite only one having APR's. Comparing the data from all three counties gives you some context.

Leelanau baseline avg. 22% APR period avg. 24% net increase 2%
Benzie baseline avg. 13% APR period avg. 23% net increase 10%
Grand Tr. baseline avg. 16% APR period avg. 20% net increase 4%

So both of the non-APR counties have shown a greater increase in the average antlered success rate during the time period that APR's have been in place, I'm not sure how anyone can look at those three sets of figures and honestly infer that APR's are the principle driving factor in increasing hunter success rates on antlered deer in Leelanau Co., unless they are looking at just the Leelanau data in a vacuum....or have an agenda that they are trying to push.

On edit: Bucko wants to compare to Antrim and Charlevoix, too. I don't have Charlevoix's data compiled but I do have Antrim, here are the antlered success percentages for Antrim for the same period as shown for the other three counties above.

Antrim baseline 13% APR period 23% net increase 10%


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> For someone who claims to be impartial and to be a scientist, you sure like to selectively quote isolated statistics.
> 
> Why don't you quote the same figures for 2009?
> 
> ...


Can you tell us the success rates on 2 1/2 year olds and older in all three counties? A more mature herd is the point of starting an APR, so those numbers should be meaningful.


----------



## B1g daddy of 3 (Jul 1, 2011)

so far this season I have not shot a deer this season because all ive seen are small bucks and small does. Ive gotten tired of passing 6 points bucks and smaller I havnt shot a buck in 2yrs. Im still waiting for a big buck to pass by. But I dont want to be told what I can shoot and what I cant.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucko12pt said:


> Can you tell us the success rates on 2 1/2 year olds and older in all three counties? A more mature herd is the point of starting an APR, so those numbers should be meaningful.


I don't have those percentages readily available. I could probably figure them out from the data that I have but it would take some spreadsheet tweaking to come up with them.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> For someone who claims to be impartial and to be a scientist, you sure like to selectively quote isolated statistics.
> 
> Why don't you quote the same figures for 2009?
> 
> ...


 
Regarding Antrim and Charlevoix, I was speaking more towards Swampbucks post about Benzie and Grand Traverse being disimilar
to Leelanau in weather and habitat. Antrim and Charlevoix are similar to Leelanau in a lot of ways and Antrim is probably more similar to Leelanau than Benzie or GT, in that the west side of the county is shoreline and agricutural and the east side being largely forested, state land etc. Also, Antrim, like Leelanau, gets a larger than normal snowfall than most of the other counties in the area.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> I don't have those percentages readily available. I could probably figure them out from the data that I have but it would take some spreadsheet tweaking to come up with them.


No problem, do'nt bother.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

bucko12pt said:


> You're joking right. They compared prior to the APR, the APR was instuted and changed things, now the're no longer comparative?
> 
> The soils are the same, the terrain is the same, east of Lake Leelanau is largerly argricultural, but west of LL is mostly forested and has Sleeping
> Bear. Leelanau is surrounded on three sides by water, both Benzie and GT have significant shorelines. A county is such a large mass that that fact should be insignificant anyway. Deer populations are similar, hunter populations are similar. Where are these three counties not
> ...


How many orchards and vinyards/winerys in those countys ?


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> How many orchards and vinyards/winerys in those countys ?


Probably more orchards and vineyards in Leelanau than the surrounding 
counties although all of the others have significant numbers of orchards also. As far as agricultural land, no doubt there is more in at least Antrim and Charlevoix because they have significantly more land mass than Leelanau. I believe Leelanau is the second smallest county in the state in landmass. Also, most Leelanau agriculture is confined to the east side of the county between Lake Leelanau and West Bay. There is some ag land west of LL, but most land in that part of the county is forested and Sleeping Bear.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Sweet cherries in particular and cherries/wine grapes in general require a pretty specific soil and environment, that obviously those other countys dont have. And as far as the twelve county area....not so much there either......Does Kalkaska sand soil qualify as a dune :lol:, Not many of those countys have the temp moderation from the great lakes that the leelanau peninsula has. What you do have is a micro climate.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> For someone who claims to be impartial and to be a scientist, you sure like to selectively quote isolated statistics.
> 
> Why don't you quote the same figures for 2009?
> 
> ...


:lol: Thanks for making my point...

You are pointing out that that during the APR period the average harvest was slightly greater (not significant I am sure but certainly equivalent) for Leelanau than the bordering counties.

So, let's say the harvest rates are identical, and I will agree that they grew in all three counties during that period, (an irrelevant issue, but one that you seem to want to focus attention on--so I agree completely with you). Now lets look at the relevant reason for the APRs--growing older bucks:

% Bucks with 8 pts or more:

'08 '09 '10 

Benzie 23 31 29
GT 21 31 26
Leelanau 62 61 71


If harvest rates are the same in these three counties, and the harvest rates for bucks with 8 points or more are 30-40 points higher in Leelanau county, which county would you prefer to hunt in?

Also ask yourself this. Why would Munster accuse me of being selective, pull out data that makes the precise point I was trying to make (harvest rates did not go lower in Leelanau because of APRs), then shift the attention to a totally irrelevant topic (rates went up in the the 3 DMUs) and fail to mention the central issue of APRs, which is advancing the age class?


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

swampbuck said:


> Sweet cherries in particular and cherries/wine grapes in general require a pretty specific soil and environment, that obviously those other countys dont have. And as far as the twelve county area....not so much there either......Does Kalkaska sand soil qualify as a dune :lol:, Not many of those countys have the temp moderation from the great lakes that the leelanau peninsula has. What you do have is a micro climate.


So you are saying the climate has changed dramatically between 2001 and today?

Wow, that global warming sure is a problem!

How do you explain the dramatic increase in the rate of harvest of 8 point and larger bucks between 2001 and 2011? And please, don't say it is climate change.:lol:

Grapes...really?

Sour grapes.:lol:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> :lol: Thanks for making my point...
> 
> You are pointing out that that during the APR period the average harvest was slightly greater (not significant I am sure but certainly equivalent) for Leelanau than the bordering counties.
> 
> ...


Um,.....in case you didn't notice, the antlered buck success rate was higher in Leelanau then the other counties BEFORE APR's were instituted, something I'm sure you will attribute to APR's. 

You were the one who was highlighting the hunter success rate compared to other counties, maybe you can explain why the success rate increased more in the three counties that did not have APR's, during the period that Leelanau had them? 

Now you want to focus on antler's? How many of those 8 points that you are getting all hot and bothered about were yearlings? Antler restrictions increased the number of 6+ point yearlings that were harvested, as the smaller yearlings were off limits, is there some kind of intrinsic advantage to harvesting 8 point yearlings instead of fork horn yearlings? I thought age was the important factor, now according to you it's antler points. :lol:

It's totally irrelevant that the hunter success rate in adjacent counties increased more then in Leelanau, yet you want to attribute the increase in Leelanau harvest success rates to APR's? :lol::lol:


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

bioactive said:


> So you are saying the climate has changed dramatically between 2001 and today?
> 
> Wow, that global warming sure is a problem!
> 
> ...


My comment had nothing to do with APR's they were in relation to whether the habitat/climate was comparable to surrounding countys and the 12 county proposed area. It probably goes back a few thousand years before 2001.......or 20,000 years maybe

As far as the percentage of 8 points I would say APR's are part of it, but there could be other factors also...Recently the age structure has increased in most of the NLP as well as the percentage of 8 points I believe.

I have the DMU 045 data also if you want to get into cherry picking numbers.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

swampbuck said:


> My comment had nothing to do with APR's they were in relation to whether the habitat/climate was comparable to surrounding countys and the 12 county proposed area. It probably goes back a few thousand years before 2001.......or 20,000 years maybe
> 
> As far as the percentage of 8 points I would say APR's are part of it, but there could be other factors also...Recently the age structure has increased in most of the NLP as well as the percentage of 8 points I believe.
> 
> I have the DMU 045 data also if you want to get into cherry picking numbers.


Right. That explains why every year Leelanau county, the only county in the state with long-term heightened APRs, has a much higher percentage of 8 point or greater bucks than any DMU in the state by far, including all of the SLP.

You are really not going to bunk up with Munster on this, defy credulity, and not recognize the tremendous impact APRs have had in Leelanau county, are you?

I honestly give you more common sense than that. You both have intelligence, but you have some common sense. Please.

As far as cherry picking, you say that the age structure of bucks has been going up throughout the NLP. Please cherry pick me the highest % 8 point or higher DMU in the NLP and tell me how it compares to 045. I will be waiting.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> Right. That explains why every year Leelanau county, the only county in the state with long-term heightened APRs, has a much higher percentage of 8 point or greater bucks than any DMU in the state by far, including all of the SLP.


I'll ask you again since you seem to be so taken with this statistic, how many of those 8 points were yearlings and is there an advantage to decreasing the number of spikes and fork horns harvested, while increasing the number of yearling 8 points harvested?


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

bioactive said:


> As far as cherry picking, you say that the age structure of bucks has been going up throughout the NLP. Please cherry pick me the highest % 8 point or higher DMU in the NLP and tell me how it compares to 045. I will be waiting.


This is going to be good. It would take about an hour by my guess, so I am not going to do it. I know for a fact that swampy won't do it because the numbers would be so outrageously low that it would be embarrassing how far into the realm of the spin he would have to go to consider changes in geology, climate change, the number of newspaper carriers, the humidity, how the Lions season is going, whatever is needed to divert attention from the data on buck harvest in Leelanau county.

Here are some number to consider from the 2010 check station reports:

% of bucks with more than 8 points:

Leelanau county DMU 045: 71%
Western UP: 41% 
Eastern UP: 34%
Northwestern LP 27% (that is averaging in the 71% of Leelanau:lol
Northeastern LP 31%
Saginaw Bay 32%
Southwestern LP 40%
South Central LP 45%
Southeastern LP 38%
UP 40%
NLP 29%
SLP 40%

The good tactic on this one would be to quiet down and change the subject. Protesting too much gets the real numbers repeatedly posted in more and more detail. If you want to make it seem like great results are not happening in Leelanau county the best thing to do would be to not discuss the numbers. 

Leelanau county is so far ahead of every other DMU in rate of harvest of 8 point or larger bucks they have lapped the field including every big buck county in the SLP.


----------



## unclecbass (Sep 29, 2005)

Sorry but Leelanau County is not unique. Large portions of Antrim County are exactly the same. Check out where the cherries are coming from. Tons of Cherry orchards near torch and elk lake, Which is an enormous area of Antrim County. I know for a fact that apr works, I have seen it operate on LARGE chunks of private land, thousands of acres. It works and the proof is in the pudding. No matter what county you are in it will improve your deer hunting. And FYI an 8 point tastes much better than a spike horn, MUCH BETTER


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

unclecbass said:


> And FYI an 8 point tastes much better than a spike horn, MUCH BETTER


 
What kinda bait do you fatten those 8 pts up with?


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

unclecbass said:


> Sorry but Leelanau County is not unique. Large portions of Antrim County are exactly the same. Check out where the cherries are coming from. Tons of Cherry orchards near torch and elk lake, Which is an enormous area of Antrim County. I know for a fact that apr works, I have seen it operate on LARGE chunks of private land, thousands of acres. It works and the proof is in the pudding. No matter what county you are in it will improve your deer hunting. And FYI an 8 point tastes much better than a spike horn, MUCH BETTER


 Agree


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

unclecbass said:


> Sorry but Leelanau County is not unique. Large portions of Antrim County are exactly the same. Check out where the cherries are coming from. Tons of Cherry orchards near torch and elk lake, Which is an enormous area of Antrim County. I know for a fact that apr works, I have seen it operate on LARGE chunks of private land, thousands of acres. It works and the proof is in the pudding. No matter what county you are in it will improve your deer hunting. And FYI an 8 point tastes much better than a spike horn, MUCH BETTER


How do they compare to Osceola or Clare counties? I spend a lot of time there and I haven't seen a cherry orchard yet. There are thousands of acres of Public land, not private. Actually I have seen nothing in common between those counties.


----------



## MarkSend (Mar 11, 2008)

If there is a way to compare the number of bucks killed in the last year of anything goes as far as points to the first year of aprs in leelanau? The difference between the two years should give one a rough idea of small antlered bucks saved.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Justin said:


> How do they compare to Osceola or Clare counties? I spend a lot of time there and I haven't seen a cherry orchard yet. There are thousands of acres of Public land, not private. Actually I have seen nothing in common between those counties.


Why do any of the counties have to be comparable to each other? The
idea of the APR is to protect a larger percentage of yearling bucks and 
push them into a older age class and let them reach their maximum potential. For all anyone knows there may be several counties that 
reach a higher potential than Leelanau has. 

I for one, think that will be the case.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> In many DMU's in the NLP & UP there are no public land anterless permits available.
> 
> For example, I'll use Antrim Co., DMU 005. This year, there were zero public land antlerless permits available but there were 5,000 private land antlerless permits available in that DMU. Using a hypothetical 1:2.5 B/D ratio, that means that prior to antler restrictions, public land firearms hunters have roughly 30% of the total number of deer available to legally harvest, the other 70% being antlerless deer, which are off limits. If you impose a 3 pt. APR, then a further a further 16% of the total number of deer available become illegal to harvest. The end result is that for the public land firearms hunter, only about 14% of the deer that they see will be legal to harvest, roughly 86% are off limits. Contrast that with the private land owner on the adjacent parcel. For him 86% of the herd is a legal target and only 14% are off limits to harvest. In addition, the private land owner gets to participate in the EAS and LAS, which further increases the disparity in hunter opportunity.
> 
> The result is that for the public land firearms hunters in many DMU's in the NLP & UP, APR's have a significantly disproportionate impact, in terms of hunter opportunity to hunt and harvest a publicly held resource.


This post needs to be read again.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Justin said:


> This post needs to be read again.


So we are holding Antrim Co as the way things are now and should remain? Good thinking!!

Antrim obviously has a population problem that may be corrected with an APR. Could it be worse under an APR than it is now?

Explain why the best hunting in Leelanau Co is west of Lake Leelanau which is mostly forested and state and Federal land? Many of the best
mature bucks are coming out of the park which last I knew 
was open for everyone to hunt. Explain that?

Things will balance out in the DMU after a few years just like they have here.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

MarkSend said:


> If there is a way to compare the number of bucks killed in the last year of anything goes as far as points to the first year of aprs in leelanau? The difference between the two years should give one a rough idea of small antlered bucks saved.


Munster has it but because he thinks this is a contest and not a discussion aimed at finding out the truth, he won't post it:



> *I have it but I'm not sure why I'm tasked with doing the oppositions homework for them. *
> 
> I've been tracking both the annual harvest data and check station data for Leelanau and the surrounding 4 counties, for a three year pre-APR baseline period and the 8 years under APR's. There are both some differences and some similarities in some of the changes that have occurred, in Leelanau Co. and in the surrounding 4 counties. *I'm a little reluctant to post the data because some individuals will pick one number and attribute it to the APR's, while ignoring the fact that similar changes have also occurred during the same time period in the DMU's that are not subjected to APR's. *APR proponents are going to latch onto any positive change and attribute it to APR's and vice versa for Anti_APR proponents.
> 
> Read more at Michigan-Sportsman.com: whos against antler point restictions? - Page 17 - The Michigan Sportsman Forums http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=402376&page=17#ixzz1gLSSmEQS


Anybody who does not agree with Munster is the "opposition" :lol::lol::lol::lol:. 

Yeah...changes have occurred in the DMUs that don't have the APRs, but I doubt that they could be called "similar" in extent, maybe just in trend? But nonetheless, the other counties in the sector harvest about 20-30% (at the highest) 8 pt. bucks, whereas it is 71% for Leelanau in 2010.

He does not show you because he wants to hide behind the concept that they have all grown incrementally, when in fact the growth in Leelanau county is closer to exponential. 

I have written to the DNR and requested the data. I will post it as soon as I get the older reports.

So you might as well post it Munster because the "opposition" can get it anyway.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

MarkSend said:


> If there is a way to compare the number of bucks killed in the last year of anything goes as far as points to the first year of aprs in leelanau? The difference between the two years should give one a rough idea of small antlered bucks saved.


Sure you can compare the two but comparing just two years of data gives you a somewhat distorted picture, because there can be so much variance in a given year. If you want to make meaningful comparisons, you need to compare a multi-year baseline average to all of the years of data that have occurred under the changed regulations.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

My true feelings on it are this...if the public is given honest reasons for APRs and the survey is conducted in an honest way among the hunters of each dmu, I will be happy to go along with it. That means that I don't want somebody that hunts in Leelanau county voting on APRs for Osceola county. If the vast majority of hunters in my dmu want them, I can accept that.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Bio, I've asked this two or three times now and you have not answered the question, how many of those bucks harvested in Leelanau Co. that are 8 points or better are yearlings? 

You claim I'm asking the questions because the answer is not in the report, the reason that I'm asking the question is because the significance of the 71% figure that you keep throwing around depends to some extent on the age composition of those bucks, not the number of points that they have. 

I'll ask again, is there some intrinsic benefit in shifting much of the harvest pressure from spike and fork horn yearlings to 6 point and 8 point yearlings? While doing so would certainly increase the statistical percentage of 8 pt or larger bucks harvested, I'm still looking for any kind of a tangible biological benefit from killing off more of the more developed yearlings in a given population? 

And just to be clear, that is not to say that APR's are unsuccessful in increasing the buck age structure within a herd, they do, which is something I've been very clear about.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Justin said:


> My true feelings on it are this...if the public is given honest reasons for APRs and the survey is conducted in an honest way among the hunters of each dmu, I will be happy to go along with it. That means that I don't want somebody that hunts in Leelanau county voting on APRs for Osceola county. If the vast majority of hunters in my dmu want them, I can accept that.


I agree, as long as it is a random poll.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Justin said:


> My true feelings on it are this...if the public is given honest reasons for APRs and the survey is conducted in an honest way among the hunters of each dmu, I will be happy to go along with it. That means that I don't want somebody that hunts in Leelanau county voting on APRs for Osceola county. If the vast majority of hunters in my dmu want them, I can accept that.


Re-read my post # 257. I'm not aware of anyone from Leelanau Co that wants to be involved in the implementation of the APR in these 12 counties. Leelanau was dragged into it by the other two counties, GT and Benzie by Rcih Earl's suggestion, using them as tag alongs to the Leelanau APR already in place. Russ Mason was the one that said, "do'nt make an application with only three counties, it has to be a much larger area", thus the 12 county proposal. 

The proposal would be funded by the proposing group, but the DNR 
conducts the survey. 

It will be interesting to see, if it proceeds, how they will conduct the survey.. Will it be county by county, or the entire 12 county area as a whole? Makes sense to do the entire area as a whole like the UP a number of years ago, as opposed to having a patchwork of counties with and without an APR.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> Bio, I've asked this two or three times now and you have not answered the question, how many of those bucks harvested in Leelanau Co. that are 8 points or better are yearlings?
> 
> You claim I'm asking the questions because the answer is not in the report, the reason that I'm asking the question is because the significance of the 71% figure that you keep throwing around depends to some extent on the age composition of those bucks, not the number of points that they have.
> 
> ...


You know I don't have the data. Why keep asking for it?

Do you have it?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bucko12pt said:


> It will be interesting to see, if it proceeds, how they will conduct the survey.. Will it be county by county, or the entire 12 county area as a whole? Makes sense to do the entire area as a whole like the UP a number of years ago, as opposed to having a patchwork of counties with and without an APR.


That was discussed in the APR workgroup and the consensus was that it had to be on a county by county basis if the sample chosen is to be at all representative of the hunters which the regulation change would apply to, which I believe is in the guidelines for APR initiatives. Otherwise you could have counties with smaller numbers of hunters, where a sufficient level of support was not attained, be over-ruled by counties with larger numbers of hunters. 

They will probably allow a multi-county initiative for the purpose of getting around the 1 per year initiative restriction in the NLP but my guess is that each county will have to do an individual survey and the results will stand independently.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

bucko12pt said:


> Re-read my post # 257. I'm not aware of anyone from Leelanau Co that wants to be involved in the implementation of the APR in these 12 counties. Leelanau was dragged into it by the other two counties, GT and Benzie by Rcih Earl's suggestion, using them as tag alongs to the Leelanau APR already in place. Russ Mason was the one that said, "do'nt make an application with only three counties, it has to be a much larger area", thus the 12 county proposal.
> 
> The proposal would be funded by the proposing group, but the DNR
> conducts the survey.
> ...


 I just threw Leenlanau out there as an example. What I meant was any county other than those that are involved. I agree with Munster...county by county.


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> That was discussed in the APR workgroup and the consensus was that it had to be on a county by county basis if the sample chosen is to be at all representative of the hunters which the regulation change would apply to, which I believe is in the guidelines for APR initiatives. Otherwise you could have counties with smaller numbers of hunters, where a sufficient level of support was not attained, be over-ruled by counties with larger numbers of hunters.
> 
> They will probably allow a multi-county initiative for the purpose of getting around the 1 per year initiative restriction in the NLP but my guess is that each county will have to do an individual survey and the results will stand independently.


 
That seems like a poor decision to do it county by county if that is indeed what the work group came up with. 

Lets say six of the twelve counties passed; Mason, Osceola, Benzie, Kalkaska, Charlevoix and Wexford. Now you have a whole patchwork of counties that have and do not have, an APR. Seems like a problem with law enforcement, hunter distribution and a host of other issues.

I understand the problem of arriving at fair representation among the counties, but that should be easy enough to solve by having a minimum number of voters from each county. I

I guess any number of counties that added an APR would be a good thing and let the DNR and work group worry about any resulting issues.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

bucko12pt said:


> That seems like a poor decision to do it county by county if that is indeed what the work group came up with.
> 
> Lets say six of the twelve counties passed; Mason, Osceola, Benzie, Kalkaska, Charlevoix and Wexford. Now you have a whole patchwork of counties that have and do not have, an APR. Seems like a problem with law enforcement, hunter distribution and a host of other issues.
> 
> ...


 
I don't see it as a poor decision at all.

If a particular county/dmu chooses not to impose a mandated apr than so be it.
Mason's suggestion of packing a bunch of individual dmu's into one proposal in my opinion was not the wisest of all suggestions.

As to the bolded part of your post. Why limit the number of voters?
I'd think you'd want every man, woman and child who hunts voting towards the magical 66% mark.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

wintrrun said:


> I don't see it as a poor decision at all.
> 
> If a particular county/dmu chooses not to impose a mandated apr than so be it.
> Mason's suggestion of packing a bunch of individual dmu's into one proposal in my opinion was not the wisest of all suggestions.
> ...


In Mason's defense, the reason that the DNR wants more counties included is that the statistical sample within a given DMU is so small, that it's difficult to discern any meaningful trends. 

As far as limiting the number of voters, primarily it's because of the cost involved. I'd make one further point although I'm sure the verbiage you used was not intentional, this is not a vote. A vote implies that all of the individuals who are qualified to do so, have the opportunity to cast a ballot. In the case of an APR, that would mean all of the hunters who hunted in that particular county the previous year. The methodology for the APR surveys does not provide for all of the hunters who hunted the previous year the opportunity to cast a vote, nor does it even provide the opportunity for all of the hunters who hunted the previous year in that county to be included in the sample pool of survey recipients. That's one of the reasons for requiring a 2/3rds majority in order to enact the regulation changes. At least that offers the individual who is impacted by the change, yet never had the opportunity to be included in the group that is making the decision, the assurance that a high percentage of those responding to the survey support the change.


----------



## fightem (Sep 21, 2008)

Shouldn`t it be called ..tine restrictions?? But never call them horns please.:yikes::yikes::yikes::yikes:


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

Munsterlndr,
Very interesting. It seems counterintuitive, but data doesn't lie, and I believe there are enough data points that you could in-fact draw the conclusion that fewer hunters result in more bucks harvested.

Given that I (rifle) hunt on state land, my observations would be about the same. Over the last several years (7-8), there has been a pretty drastic drop in hunters, and I have seen more bucks being taken than ever. (Fortunately, even a few of those were me....)

I wouldn't think that it is due to them not being pressured, as there is still plenty of pressure. 

Thoughts as to why this might be, anyone?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

motdean said:


> Munsterlndr,
> Very interesting. It seems counterintuitive, but data doesn't lie, and I believe there are enough data points that you could in-fact draw the conclusion that fewer hunters result in more bucks harvested.
> 
> Given that I (rifle) hunt on state land, my observations would be about the same. Over the last several years (7-8), there has been a pretty drastic drop in hunters, and I have seen more bucks being taken than ever. (Fortunately, even a few of those were me....)
> ...


While that is certainly possible, there are many other factors that can have an impact, too, so I would be hesitant to draw any definite conclusions based on just two factors.


----------

